Rules for Debates

[Maharg67]

Perhaps a way of giving one self a moment to think things through, to take a second look at one's post before posting it, would be to write the 'post' offline before copy pasting it into a post. Of course I am only speaking of certain debate subjects of the kind more likely to rouse tensions. Every step between one and that'submit' button might just save a whole lot of trouble later. Just a thought.

[twowolves80]

Sorry for the necro, bben just found this thread wildly apropo after the acrimonious and internecine arguing over on the new site feedback threads, so I hope you'll forgive me adding my two septims.

I found this while perusing another site over etiquette for debates:

Tips:
1. Avoid the use of the word, "Never."
2. Avoid the use of the word, "Always."
3. Refrain from saying you are wrong.
4. You can say your idea is mistaken [but be prepared to defend your reasoning courteously].
5. Don’t disagree with obvious truths.
6. Attack the idea not the person.
7. Avoid exaggeration[/generalization].
8. The use of often/generally allows for exceptions [in very limited circumstances].
9. If it is just an opinion, admit it.
10. Do not present opinion as facts.
11. Smile when disagreeing.
12. Stress the positive.
13. Avoid bickering, quarreling, and wrangling.
14. Watch your tone of voice. [obviously not very applicable here...but the tone of your post is :P ]
15. Keep your perspective – You’re just debating.

It seems most of these rules are to do the following:

Keep people from making broad, general statements in a way that is antagonistic and confrontational: "You all are wrong." "Anyone who believes that is full of crap." "This site sux balls, I'm not giving u any money."

Generalized statements are unfair as they bring in all the toxicity of emotion and make the point indefensible because while you may feel someone is wrong specifically, that doesn't mean everyone is wrong. Same thing for the site. Just because you don't like the new site layout doesn't mean others don't, and for you to sit there and try to be as vocal as possible in your vehement dislike of the new site (for instance), and then claim that your voice is the majority just because a few vocal minority on the site agree with you, doesn't mean you're right.

That's just one example, but it applies to misogynism and sexism, too. "Pff. All men are pigs." Yeah? There's that pesky "all" statement again, and that's terribly sexist. "All women have the xx chromosome." True. Still an "all" statement. Best avoid starting any statements with the word, "all."

So, generalized statements are bad. You can say to someone, "I think your belief is wrong, and here is why," and that will come across a bit more positively than, "I think your belief is wrong, you're an idiot, GTFO."

So maybe no general statements, no acting antagonistic, and no using confrontational wording should be added to my list. That's really the last part of the post: Confrontational language. No using "you" statements. "You're wrong." "You said this." "You did that." "You wrote this."

Instead, how about, "I think you're incorrect, here's why?" Or, "I heard you say this, can you clarify?." "I'd heard you'd done this, but wasn't sure." "Didn't I read that you'd wrote this?" See the difference? Those are statements where the context becomes less accusatory and more explaining what you, the person speaking, did, seen, heard, and experienced. You become more a seeker of explanation in that context, so the other person will feel more that you aren't attacking them so much as just arguing their point.

Again, just my two septims from the department of what-it's-worth after coming off the acrimonious new site threads. Thank you for stickying this thread, bben--perhaps the admins should start bouncing people here when they start acting like idiots over there... (See? A general statement that just made you go, wtf? He just accused everyone of being idiots! An example of what not to say...) lol Haven't even had coffee yet...

[jchasta1n]

Bben's debate rules

 

A good debate can be fun. Just remember that everyone is allowed their own opinion whether you agree or not. You do not have to agree. You do have to respect each others opinions.

 

Bben46, Moderator

 

With an abundance of respect and trying very hard not to poke the bear, is not the recent locking of threads specifically intended to silence opinions altogether? While I certainly appreciate that the debate of some topics tend to generate more heat than light, must that mean that for fear of the heat, we sacrifice all light that might have been possible?

[FokkeTale]

 

 

With an abundance of respect and trying very hard not to poke the bear, is not the recent locking of threads specifically intended to silence opinions altogether? While I certainly appreciate that the debate of some topics tend to generate more heat than light, must that mean that for fear of the heat, we sacrifice all light that might have been possible?

 

 

Of the two threads that I can see locked on the first page on the Debates subforum, both seem to have broken clearly marked rules for said subforum. One became a religious debate (a rule with its own sticky) and the other began with a poster accusing all those that disagreed with them of hypocrisy (accusations of hypocrisy/immaturity are covered in the Unacceptable Language sticky post). Are these two threads included in the ones you are referring to, or did I not dig deep enough?

Edited September 18, 2023 by FokkeTale

[jchasta1n]

Those are the two. They both relate (one more directly than the other) to a Starfield mod that was recently banned with the most directly related being locked right after saying that it was not up for debate. I understand that any discussion would need to be respectful but I do think the topic would benefit from a respectful dialog. I'm just afraid to start a new thread on the subject for fear that the topic is entirely off limits.

[binchickendreaming]

People's gender identities aren't up for debate.

[FokkeTale]

People's gender identities aren't up for debate.

This.

 

 

Those are the two. They both relate (one more directly than the other) to a Starfield mod that was recently banned with the most directly related being locked right after saying that it was not up for debate. I understand that any discussion would need to be respectful but I do think the topic would benefit from a respectful dialog. I'm just afraid to start a new thread on the subject for fear that the topic is entirely off limits.

 

To quote staff, from the last time they made a judgement on a very similar topic:

 

'...We are for inclusivity, we are for diversity. If we think someone is uploading a mod on our site with the intent to deliberately be against inclusivity and/or diversity then we will take action against it. The same goes for people attempting to troll other users with mods deliberately to cause a rise. For our part, we will endeavour to do a better job of moderating our website to this ethos ourselves.

 

We aren't the authority on what users can and cannot mod. Us removing a mod only means it cannot be found at Nexus Mods, nothing more, nothing less. We also note that we are not the only site that has removed this mod from their platform. As a private business, we have a right to choose what content we do and do not want to host on our platform. Respect this right the same way you want respect for your rights.

 

If you feel something goes against our policy then please report it. However, we will be the adjudicators on what we do or do not think is appropriate for Nexus Mods. And that goes for everyone no matter where they stand; left, right, up or down.

 

We don't want to and won't argue this with you. We've now explained our stance and we won't be providing a platform for you to distort our position in order to feed an irrational and paranoid narrative. You can do that elsewhere, where we won't care enough to read it.'

 

I really don't think they're looking for any continuation of conversations about providing bigots a platform to give excuses to let them host discriminatory/exclusionary mods here. But that could just be my read of the situation.

Edited September 18, 2023 by FokkeTale

[jchasta1n]

Thank you FokkeTale. I had not seen the post you referenced from Staff. That was helpful.

 

Allow me to make one additional comment about the potential for a slippery slope here, which I believe I can make without being bigoted. After this post, I will have made my point and will not respond again in this thread as I believe an ongoing debate on this topic is not welcomed.

 

First, let me say that I am not specifically defending the recently banned mod, which I view as fairly silly. All it does is remove one selection which is already defaulted to the "typical" selection. It doesn't actually change or accomplish anything for anyone and is therefore rather pointless.

 

That said, I do have some concerns about the difficulty of policing the content of mods. I suspect that many gamers are offended by nudity, yet nudity mods are popular and have never been banned despite the fact that they offend others. Those who are offended by nudity are simply told not to download them. That seems like a reasonable policy. Similarly, there are mods that include the historical nazi flag and swastika, symbols many find offensive and that are outlawed in some jurisdictions, yet those too are allowed. While I completely agree that this site has the right to remove mods that they find offensive and while I support their comment that they are not censoring the mod from existing but rather are simply choosing not to host it, I am curious as to why this line in particular is the one they have decided cannot be crossed and I do not feel that is an unreasonable question to ask.

 

If the issue is truly inclusivity, then there is a current request for a mod that removes balding people from the game. (Intentionally not linked.) If created, would that mod be banned? Might the balding be offended that some were choosing their exclusion? Are we even sure they don't already exist in other games? The nudity mods also often change all body sizes to certain preferred dimensions, yet they do not seem to be flagged as creating any diversity issues. If you want a universe of women who all look like Barbie, that's A-OK. How does one discern which "phobias" are permissible and which are not in a gamer's own private gaming universe? Is it all based on which group complains and makes the most noise? Is that really the best option? From a business perspective, maybe it is. But do we risk incenting the wrong behaviors if that is the case?

 

And as I indicated previously, I really don't care about the mod that raised the issue. Even if it were still available, I wouldn't download it. I just hit next and that works fine for me. But there are a lot of social issues out there. There are a lot of groups clamoring for attention. "If you don't like it, then don't download it" was a pretty clean standard. Is it possible that in this instance, the medicine might eventually be worse than the disease? By excluding even one mod, it almost certainly ensures that there will be calls to exclude others. I only hope that the leadership has thought this through sufficiently to ensure that it doesn't turn into a social tug-a-war.

 

Thank you.

[FokkeTale]

Thank you FokkeTale. I had not seen the post you referenced from Staff. That was helpful.

 

Allow me to make one additional comment about the potential for a slippery slope here, which I believe I can make without being bigoted. After this post, I will have made my point and will not respond again in this thread as I believe an ongoing debate on this topic is not welcomed.

 

First, let me say that I am not specifically defending the recently banned mod, which I view as fairly silly. All it does is remove one selection which is already defaulted to the "typical" selection. It doesn't actually change or accomplish anything for anyone and is therefore rather pointless.

 

That said, I do have some concerns about the difficulty of policing the content of mods. I suspect that many gamers are offended by nudity, yet nudity mods are popular and have never been banned despite the fact that they offend others. Those who are offended by nudity are simply told not to download them. That seems like a reasonable policy. Similarly, there are mods that include the historical nazi flag and swastika, symbols many find offensive and that are outlawed in some jurisdictions, yet those too are allowed. While I completely agree that this site has the right to remove mods that they find offensive and while I support their comment that they are not censoring the mod from existing but rather are simply choosing not to host it, I am curious as to why this line in particular is the one they have decided cannot be crossed and I do not feel that is an unreasonable question to ask.

 

If the issue is truly inclusivity, then there is a current request for a mod that removes balding people from the game. (Intentionally not linked.) If created, would that mod be banned? Might the balding be offended that some were choosing their exclusion? Are we even sure they don't already exist in other games? The nudity mods also often change all body sizes to certain preferred dimensions, yet they do not seem to be flagged as creating any diversity issues. If you want a universe of women who all look like Barbie, that's A-OK. How does one discern which "phobias" are permissible and which are not in a gamer's own private gaming universe? Is it all based on which group complains and makes the most noise? Is that really the best option? From a business perspective, maybe it is. But do we risk incenting the wrong behaviors if that is the case?

 

And as I indicated previously, I really don't care about the mod that raised the issue. Even if it were still available, I wouldn't download it. I just hit next and that works fine for me. But there are a lot of social issues out there. There are a lot of groups clamoring for attention. "If you don't like it, then don't download it" was a pretty clean standard. Is it possible that in this instance, the medicine might eventually be worse than the disease? By excluding even one mod, it almost certainly ensures that there will be calls to exclude others. I only hope that the leadership has thought this through sufficiently to ensure that it doesn't turn into a social tug-a-war.

 

Thank you.

 

To start with, the 'slippery slope' is a logical fallacy. It's rhetoric that makes a mountain of a molehill and is often used in conjunction with the 'appeal to fear' - as you do here, in talks of 'risk' behind keeping an inclusive environment and ejecting bigotted mods. There is no evidence that preventing the hosting of exclusionary mods will lead to the banning of cosmetic mods that don't erase ethnicity or gender identity. And you seem aware that mods such as hair replacers and cosmetic body options exist and haven't been touched, so you are already providing a counter to your concern (and to your 'slippery slope' arguement). Whether or not you are posting this arguement in good faith, the tactics that you are using - intentionally or not - are fallacious.

[showler]

The "long history of discrimination against them" requirement is rather important. If the balding had laws being passed preventing them from accessing life-saving health care or if bald people had a long-standing lack of representation/erasure problem in media then you would have some kernel of a point.