The Rules of the Game
Read this first, and carefully, before posting, posting a comment, or reading anything else.
This blog is for people who enjoy, for one sick reason or another, arguing with other people who completely and utterly disagree. As it is pretty normal for people to be offended by others who disagree with them, it's necessary to lay down a few ground rules.
1) Making fun of people is completely and utterly acceptable, and encouraged, so long as it is within the bounds of good taste (makes me laugh) and is relevant. Stereotypes are encouraged, so long as the accuser can back up the stereotype with a grain of truth.
2) Poor scholarship is not permitted, and will be tastelessly ridiculed until the culprit recants, repents, or leaves. "Poor Scholarship" is hereby to be defined by the following parameters:
a) it contains a blanket statement that is hardly verifiable (all Texans are loud and obnoxious);
b) it is based on a misreading or misunderstanding of an accessible text (if the "accessible text" is a blog, this is a three-time unpardonable offense);
c) it is backed up by a challenge to prove someone otherwise.
On that note,
3) Challenges are unacceptable unless they can conceivably be met, and specific parameters must be given for the challenge to be met. If, for example, I challenge someone to prove to me that God exists, and deny anything he gives me as acceptable evidence because I myself am unwilling to accept anything byut a physical sign, I've given a pretty bad challenge. If I challenge someone to give me physical evidence of God's existence and specify just wat kind of physical evidence I'm looking for, then we're getting somewhere. In short, specify how the challenge might be met.
4) Anyone who misrepresents a people group, idea, political movement, or any other entity that comprises more than a few people, and who does so out of no other reason than ignorance, must be corrected by someone that knows better (though in some situations "who knows better" can be debated). If the mistake is made several times, the culprit will be branded a bad scholar.
5) As regards the lampooning of a well-known proponent of an opponent's position, the only acceptable targets are those whom the opponent in question has deemed acceptable (i.e., do not lampoon Michelle Malkin for twenty minutes only to hear your opponent say that he does not, in fact, believe a word she says, though he may find her hot). If your opponent hasn't mentioned the name, do not assume he is in agreement or part of the same circle of friends. Anyone who violates this rule will automatically be branded a bad scholar.
6) Anyone who has been branded a bad scholar three times will be put on the official "Dumbass" list, and ridiculed anytime we don't have anything else to debate about.
7) No blanket statements. Always, always, always specify who you are specifically referring to (not "all Republicans," but "those who are trying to elect DeLay").
8) There's no shame in admitting that you don't know something. That also doesn't mean your opponent has automatically won.
9) The Moderator is never to be challenged except in matters of fact. I am the Moderator, and I am fair. If you don´t like it, kiss my ass.
10) No assertions allowed without a subsequent citation.
11) Try not to bullshit.
Enjoy.
This blog is for people who enjoy, for one sick reason or another, arguing with other people who completely and utterly disagree. As it is pretty normal for people to be offended by others who disagree with them, it's necessary to lay down a few ground rules.
1) Making fun of people is completely and utterly acceptable, and encouraged, so long as it is within the bounds of good taste (makes me laugh) and is relevant. Stereotypes are encouraged, so long as the accuser can back up the stereotype with a grain of truth.
2) Poor scholarship is not permitted, and will be tastelessly ridiculed until the culprit recants, repents, or leaves. "Poor Scholarship" is hereby to be defined by the following parameters:
a) it contains a blanket statement that is hardly verifiable (all Texans are loud and obnoxious);
b) it is based on a misreading or misunderstanding of an accessible text (if the "accessible text" is a blog, this is a three-time unpardonable offense);
c) it is backed up by a challenge to prove someone otherwise.
On that note,
3) Challenges are unacceptable unless they can conceivably be met, and specific parameters must be given for the challenge to be met. If, for example, I challenge someone to prove to me that God exists, and deny anything he gives me as acceptable evidence because I myself am unwilling to accept anything byut a physical sign, I've given a pretty bad challenge. If I challenge someone to give me physical evidence of God's existence and specify just wat kind of physical evidence I'm looking for, then we're getting somewhere. In short, specify how the challenge might be met.
4) Anyone who misrepresents a people group, idea, political movement, or any other entity that comprises more than a few people, and who does so out of no other reason than ignorance, must be corrected by someone that knows better (though in some situations "who knows better" can be debated). If the mistake is made several times, the culprit will be branded a bad scholar.
5) As regards the lampooning of a well-known proponent of an opponent's position, the only acceptable targets are those whom the opponent in question has deemed acceptable (i.e., do not lampoon Michelle Malkin for twenty minutes only to hear your opponent say that he does not, in fact, believe a word she says, though he may find her hot). If your opponent hasn't mentioned the name, do not assume he is in agreement or part of the same circle of friends. Anyone who violates this rule will automatically be branded a bad scholar.
6) Anyone who has been branded a bad scholar three times will be put on the official "Dumbass" list, and ridiculed anytime we don't have anything else to debate about.
7) No blanket statements. Always, always, always specify who you are specifically referring to (not "all Republicans," but "those who are trying to elect DeLay").
8) There's no shame in admitting that you don't know something. That also doesn't mean your opponent has automatically won.
9) The Moderator is never to be challenged except in matters of fact. I am the Moderator, and I am fair. If you don´t like it, kiss my ass.
10) No assertions allowed without a subsequent citation.
11) Try not to bullshit.
Enjoy.
posted by NateWazoo at 12:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home