Debate.org should maintain it's policy of deletion

Round 4-Last Rebuttal The rules aren’t fit for purpose 1Pro fails to see that fact that if you cannot define what you are trying to ban and where the boundaries lie then the rules become pointless as they will be open to interpretation and you will not be able to enforce rules that don’t know what they are supposed to be aiming at. Pro concedes that Airmax has to make judgement calls and sometimes makes ‘decisions that are questionable’ that’s is due to the current system we have which Pro only concedes that the system isn’t perfect and since Pro is defending the status quo pro must argue that the status quo doesn’t need changing. Pro has conceded that the rules don’t have a purpose as what they are aiming at can’t be defined so therefore the rules can’t enforce the idea they were originally intended so the rules become not fit for purpose. Once again Pro is unable to define what counts as an intelligent and safe atmosphere. Pro has once again failed to demonstrate why the current system passes the ‘Bright light test’. The bright line test is how you compare whether rules to be fit for purpose to which rules have to be clearly defined or else they cannot be enacted or enforced due to the endless debate on whether the rules apply in a case by case basis which is time consuming, takes a lot of effort and is costly. The rules are simply unworkable. “The bright-line rule (or bright-line test) is a clearly defined rule or standard, generally used in law, composed of objective factors which leaves little or no room for varying interpretation. The purpose of a bright-line rule is to produce predictable and consistent results in its application. ” . http://en.wikipedia.org... The question of pornography I will acknowledge that Pro made the right decision in realising that offensive material subject matter is subjective and is open to interpretation so therefore cannot be defined and therefore cannot be enforced in a rules system. Paedophilia should be reported and the law should take precedence over such a matter. Deleting the evidence would be an absolutely absurd idea and would only impede a court case that should be reported to the authorities and let them handle the situation which should take legal proceedings accordingly. The solution isn’t moderation but for the courts to take action where necessary. An action like that would be way above the authority of the site and enter the jurisdiction of the law. Moderation isn’t the answer reporting the act is. Pro has failed to define where the rules should apply to pornography. Quick response to Pro’s statement of me “I was going to create a series of debates personally attacking Con… To his credit, Con did not suggest that I be censored from creating such debates” Actions should speak louder than words and one should honestly practice what one preaches. One should not ask off others what one is not willing to do himself so therefore if pro still wishes to post a thread attacking me, the offer is still open. My simple original reply to this was, “if it does not break my bones or pick my pocket then I am unharmed”. Accept everyone’s differences through incorporation not censorship “DDO often presents to the world its most offensive and patently stupid debates. ” The ‘most offensive and patently stupid debates’ is subjective to the eye of the beholder. I have listed links to debates on this site that could be considered far more offensive to some individuals then the one that was debated by Wylted. Everyone has different opinions and so therefore would react in different ways, not everyone was offended, some ignored the debate, some were offended by the debate and some found the debate funny. This claim of yours is logically incorrect as each individual will see things differently from different perspectives and will not see what is and isn’t offensive with the same eye. The System needs changing If Pro cannot define what is “too offensive” or “devoid of merit”. Then everything Pro says is simply meaningless on the matter as Con’s point in Round 2 shows that what is offensive is open to interpretation by the eye of the beholder so therefore cannot be defined or rules be implemented accordingly on what can be construed as offensive. Pro has conceded that the status quo does not as what can be offensive can’t be defined and therefore the deletion power of DDO in this respect is undermined. Pro furthermore fails to understand the unsustainability of the current deletion policy model and why added members will put a strain on the moderator’s workload and take up time, effort and money which could be used improving and incorporating the system. The strawman argument “Con strawmans my position by suggesting I want debates banned” Pro seems to be confused with what Pro’s position is and what Pro is actually proposing and defending. Con will clarify the statement. Con was bringing up the point that once Pro starts demanding that a debate or discussion be banned that is censorship and likewise due to Pro defending the position that one should have the ability of deleting a debate due to an individual being offended that’s what I was attacking. Offensive debates CAN’T be defined Pro has made a very important step forward and you have to admire pro for shifting position on the idea that the there is no mechanism to determine what is or isn’t offensive. If Pro wished to define what is or isn’t offensive. Pro would first need to answer all of Con’s questions from Round 1 and then make what Pro’s position on the definition of what constitutes offensive should actually be. A summary of Pro’s position The main problem with Pro’s argument in defending the current system is that the current system is unsustainable in the long term with expanding membership a fewer moderators to deal with the expanding issue. Like probation in America during the 1920’s, the problem is too big and the solution to deal with the problem is too small. Pro’s proposal is basically to empty the sea with a tea spoon, deletion can’t be the solution to the vast problem. I predict within the next few years, the membership will grow beyond the moderators control and we will have a YouTube style system where there is far too much activity to monitor and control. Vote for change Vote for the system which best reflects your position and why you would like the system to evolve in the next couple of years. The proposals con has put forward are very moderate changes which is part of a gradual process towards the next step of where DDO should be in it’s never ending line of progression. The process is evolution not revolution and a vote for these proposals would be a small effort towards the natural progression of DDO and how it deals with future issues. To stand still is not the best option with the flaws of the system which have been discussed. Vote for whoever offers the best proposals to the current system.