The debate.org site rules should be more strictly enforced.

"Civility, however, is required for reasoned debate, and since I like reasoned debate, I'd like to see civility expanded. It's the method appropriate to the practice of debate."You also need the freedom to debate without fear of being banned or censored simply for saying something that could be offensive, which is something in addition to civility that DDO already has that it would lose under such a radical enforcement of the rules in which you are proposing"Con says “The explosion of user mods already presents a crapload of other potential problems that are far worse than just harmless insults,” but he doesn't cite a single a single problem, nor does he provide any examples."I did though. Not only do you risk over censorship of possible things that could be misconstrued as offensive, but with user moderated threads you also could have the censorship of opinions simply because the threads author doesnt agree with them, which you did not dispute. "Searching “problem with trolls” on debate.org produces 10,100 hits, and there are many other ways to phrase the search."And the best way to cut down on trolling is to crack down on spamming and forfeited debates, things that trolls actually do. Using curse words and occasionally insults isnt something just trolls do, and you havent disputed that. "Exposing weak, unfounded, or illogical arguments is a valuable contribution to the site, so pointing to egregious examples is not a problem. Con's only reply was, “That is single handedly the stupidest and most asinine recommendation I have ever heard......”"Thats cause thats not what you recommended.... What you recommended was "rename it something like The Weekly Worst, and to avoid direct insults like “stupid” in the descriptions."........ And the reason that its asinine and stupid is because you recommend that the show be renamed and reformed to not sound insulting, yet still allow it to air the 10 worst/stupidest statements in a given 2 week period in front of the whole site. its an act of such hypocrisy and unreasonable censorship that it sounds like something out of Orwell's 1984. "Among the words for which I didn't search and have since appeared in the debate are stupid, moron, fuckwit, dumbo, retard, arse, cheat, dishonest, know-nothing, and delusional "And all of which also likely occurs at a rate of less than once a day, and I know this because if the most popular insults you already cited occurs at less than once per day, then the same is true for these other insults. "What percentage of baseball players can break the rules before it becomes a problem? It doesn't take many."It depends at what theyre cheating at. If its something major like taking steroids then that's a problem, but if its something minor like not having good sportsmanship, or in other words being insulting, then its manageable :)"Con argues that moderator judgment cannot be trusted."No, I said that its not infallible. "the rule is that borderline cases go to the defendant. "But that wouldnt be the case in the system youre proposing where having a web show that has the word 'stupid' in it is considered crossing the line..... "Con argues that because I have not left the site despite lax enforcement, that there is no reason to think that anyone else has left"You really like putting words in people's mouth dont you Roy? What I ACTUALLY said was that if someone as uptight as you could stick around a place like DDO for 4 YEARS, then DDO must have achieved a level of civility good enough for good debaters to stay and participate in for long periods of time, and that cutting down further against personal insults isnt necessary or badly needed as youve suggested. " Don't say it, just prove it."But you dont have to prove it if everyone else around you is rational enough to see that the statement is stupid without having to be explained as to why its stupid. I dont have to explain to someone why its wrong to say 'Hitler was a great man' rather then just call that statement stupid, because that person can likely on their own figure out why such a statement is wrong, and therefore, stupid. "The point is that a person may be a genius, but if he cannot say why an argument is stupid he is not a good debater, and he is not contributing positively to the site."Sure he is. Even if he's not a good debater, he can still be voting on debates or fostering a discussion, or making insightful polls and opinion topics, which contributes to the site. =========================================================================================Conclusion:DDO has come a long way from its origins. We have a lot of flashy new features to keep people from getting bored, we have stats and leaderboards to keep track of stats for amusement, but most importantly of all, we have mods to settle disputes between members...... We didnt have that before, in fact in the past there was almost no way to get banned from the site due to bad behavior. Today that is a possibility though...... People can be banned for bad behavior, for crossing the line, and for being overly aggressive when uncalled for, and the mods can do this on a case by case basis. And that, is the best policy for DDO. Looking at extreme cases of bad conduct and handling it adequately on a case by case basis is a far better policy for DDO then blanket censorship of minor insults that nobody gets offended by, since it is flat out censorship of people and their opinions for no good reason. DDO is many things other then just a debate site. Its a place to unwind, a place to have fun, a place to connect with other smart people when in real life youre only surrounded by complete idiots. DDO is more then just a debate site, and radically enforcing the rules to the level that Roy is proposing would not only make debating worse by getting rid of good debaters who dont mind cursing and being brutally honest off the site, but it also would take away from the general freedom that people have on this site which is ultimately what keeps bringing them back and logging on back day after day, week after week, for months to even years on end. And THAT is why the site rules should not be more strictly enforced. Arguments:- Pro has dropped that the site could better use updates to deal with spam and bad debates instead of enforce the ToS more strictly- Pro has dropped that all of the insults he claims needs to be censored happen at a rate of less than once per day- Pro has dropped that dramatically increasing the number of mods could lead to abuse of power- Pro has dropped that many great debaters on this site frequently curse, and could likely be banned under this policy- Pro has dropped that such a radical enforcement of the ToS would turn DDO into a police state- Pro has dropped that self-moderated threads could lead to opinions being censored just because the mod doesnt agree with them- Pro has dropped that not everyone who uses personal insults or curses are trolls- Pro has dropped that moderators arent perfect and could mistakenly censor material they see as offensive when its not- Pro concedes that enforcing the ToS to a more radical level would cause the Weekly Stupid as we know it to be banned- Pro has failed to prove that teachers do not recommend this site to students because of the insults that are waged here- Pro has failed to prove that heavy moderation would actually cause people to become better debaters rather then just drive them off the siteSource Points:I cannot give a source to prove that 150 is less than 365, or give a source that shows why teachers recommend this site to their students, if they even do at all.... The very nature of the position I am taking in this debate made it nearly impossible to cite sources that are even relevant to the argument, and im not going to resort to source-bombing in a desperate attempt to get points. Conduct + Spelling points:Im not going to tell voters why I should get them because again, im not desperate for points.