The most diciplined site I've seen was politicalforums.org. Each subforum has its own rules and moderation team. Worst of all they instituted all these regulations on length of post, sourcing, ect.
You also were banned from discussing "extremely" radical viewpoints, such as white supremacy. Overall it is a pretty good site, but only for those with tolerance for their form of discipline.
Edeb8's moderation should also know the line between being a nanny and being preventive.
By
Wylted |
Jan 20 2015 8:31 AM:
What Stag is requesting is being able to start a debate outside of a debate setting and when being faced with rebuttals or counter arguments, being able to immediately demand all conversation be dropped and have the mod back him up by enforcing his demand.
So I don't think you understood my response or the context at all. Had you read the post immediately prior to mine the context should have been clear. If the context wasn't clear you might want to practice reading things slower and completely digesting them before moving on.
Wylted:
That is a fair misinterpretation of what I am proposing. I actually stated any non-intellectual arguments that regard someones character should be dropped, the moment one side requests it. Although I do believe it to be just and respectful to stop arguing with someone who clearly does not want to argue. Under those circumstances though, I tell them they are free to quit first.
Blackflag:
I think that is a fair request.
If someone accuses you of lying, its probably best to stop and sort it out. Few people intentionally lie. Usually, all it requires is a clarification. Sometimes its just a malicious charge. Best to get that sorted out.
Fair enough. IMHO.
