Mods should work to prevent and sanction personal attacks.

CounterargumentsR1. We have every reason to believe...harass and antagonize other people.C1. My opponent has not presented any reason to believe that "Juggle's intention is profit [regarding the website Debate-dot-org]." My opponents allegation that their "intention" with Debate-dot-org is to profit from it, although she has presented no reason to believe this assertion. This therefore makes it a blind assertion until quantified. Even if their intention was to profit from it, we have no idea how they would intend to profit from it.Let me give you an example. Say, they were selling content from this site to interested parties. Well, chances are, they would pick and choose what content they would use to sell, which would make commentary that could be considered "offensive" irrelevant.On the other hand, let's say that their intent were to make money based on viewership. Well, the occasional controversial comment would likely garner more attention than a completely vanilla, edited, censored, and whitewashed discussion forum and debate medium. Whether the occasional sensitive member decides to leave would be wholly irrelevant.R2. Nowhere did I ever imply that making money...hardly be considered a "harsh reaction."C2. There is an implication that members have some responsibility to bear the profitability of Debate-dot-org in mind, by stating that we should accept our commentary to be edited to meet standards that we're not entirely clear on, in support of a presumed profitability of the site. Moreover, as indicated in my previous arguments, the ToS is applied selectively as it is, and your reference to some sort of pedantically strict governance over the website doesn't exist. You're essentially referring to a contrivance. R3. Con's point is that DDO would be boring without personal attacks...proves that harassment is a liability and not an asset to DDO. C3. There is hate speech, offensive comments, obscenity, and personal attacks all over this website. There are entire threads committed to flaming and trolling, and named accordingly. Threads calling people out. Like so, in the Philosophy Forum:Existentialism disproves ChristianityI'm cool because I'm a Nihilistic SolipsistHey, SomeonesName10!Things just need to be kept under control, not regularly managed.A great deal of the site -- a large proportion! Including the likes of RoyLatham, supported the premise that "white" people are literally more intelligent on average than "black" people. I considered that offensive, but that doens't mean that it required any disciplinary action.So, where do we draw the line? Well, let's consider it in context. This is in response to WriterDave's thread, and his grievances are petty.R4. Con points out that that mods enforce rules selectively...or considered out of the ordinary rude.C4. See, this is what I'm talking about. What is this "out of the ordinary rude?"People are generally rude here.The point about mods applying rules selectively is that, simply citing the ToS is obviously not substantive enough by precedent to incite mod interference.R5. Con writes, "It is completely fallacious to have any sort of reactionary measures result from WriterDave's requests, which were made under the assumption that, at the very least, Juggle has a vested interest in what is ultimately the opinion of a single member, with a handful of supporters." First of all, you're misusing the word fallacious. C4. Lolol, oh, really now? I was saying that it isn't logically consistent.Let's see."It is completely logically inconsistent to have any sort of reactionary measures..."Yep. Makes complete sense.Let's check the defintion: fallacious [fuh-ley-shuhs]   Example Sentences Origin fal·la·cious   [fuh-ley-shuhs] Show IPA adjective 1.Containing a fallacy; logically unsound: fallacious arguments. Lol. Looks like I used the word perfectly.However, the title of this debate, as written by you, is "Mods shoudl work to prevent and sanction personal attacks."Out of respect (and personal affinity, I guess :3), I refrained hitheto to point out that it sounds funny, as the definition of sanction is as follows:sanc·tion   [sangk-shuhn] Show IPAnoun 1.authoritative permission or approval, as for an action. 2.something that serves to support an action, condition, etc.3. something that gives binding force, as to an oath, rule ofconduct, etc. 4.Law .a.a provision of a law enacting a penalty for disobedienceor a reward for obedience. b. the penalty or reward. 5.International Law . action by one or more states toward another state calculated to force it to comply with legalobligations. Which means that you completely misused the word.Even if you were to assume the legal definition (and, why would you, this isn't a litigative argument, nor does it regard local or federal law), then just look at the way it's worded -- that would mean that (a) the ToS can contain a sanction, or (b) Mods can provide a sanction. One cannot "sanction," as some sort of verb, unless they are approving of something.Shouldn'ta barked up that tree. ;)Anyway, as I said before, we need to keep things in context, and WriterDave is certainly relevant to the argument, as your stance extends to his demands and grievances, as you've made clear in the forums. This is by a large what I have contention with, as his grievances were petty, and if we're saying that mods should take action for the little that happened, then I am fervently against it, as it removes a great deal of power from the membership at large and gives it to mods, most of whom we don't know at all.RebuttalsR1. First, Con is poisoning the well in insinuating that the mods will penalize PETTY exchanges rather than potentially obscene ones.False. This is regarding petty exchanges. The entire context of this argument is regarding petty exchanges. Obscene is yet undefined.Second, members don't have the right to express themselves freelyYes, they do. As this is a public website, members here are free to express themselves as they please. The ToS only provides the rights Juggle has to respond to expression they consider "harmful," which, as I've previously indicated, is left undefined, and should not extend to petty exchanges.R2. Mods exist to protect the integrity of the communityYou pulled that definition from the air. Moderators are people who monitor "online chatroom and forums for bad language, inappropirate content, ect." http://dictionary.reference.com... other words, their purpose is to censor. The question, is to what degree. I am asserting that the degree to whcih you're proposing, which extends to an undefined, ubiquitous, and amorphous "personal attacks," which include petty exchanges, is outragous. Moreover, mods do not exist to uphold anyone's ideals, as you've indicated.R3. Con suggests, "The nature of debate is opposition." The nature of debate is to attack an IDEA - not a person.People define themselves through concepts. A discussion regarding said cocepts, as I've previously demonstrated regarding religion, can certainly result in conversations becoming personal, even if that wasn't initially intended.R4. Con says "This website has proven capable of moderating itself..." If that were the case, members wouldn't have begged for mods.I don't know anything about that, nor how it could possibly be substantiated, but extreme cases certainly need to be dealt with greater expediency that a soft, self-maintained approach, obviously. Izbo was subject to public outcry and Askbob broke the law. Both of them were extreme cases. Accordingly, they're irrelevant.