Well actually, I want to ask a question first.... I know we have a number of believers here... we also have quite a number of skeptics... so...

If I proposed some kind of thread which would involve our discussion on UFO's, could both sides keep it civil? In British Parliment, there is something called ''Parliment Language'' and basically it means there is a non-standard course of language which can be stricken from the records. Keep this in mind.

I want to gather an equal amount of believers vs skeptics to present their conjectures for or against the UFO phenomenon. The thread will be judged by a Panel of four members who otherwise will judge the thread but who do not have any ''thoughts outside of what they hear''. This is the closest thing to a non-biased panel I can think of.

We will have our own, Parliment Language - words like troll, word salad ect cannot be used. Derogatory remarks will be stricken or hopefully removed by a compliant mod. The only words we can use, which is viable in the sense of not causing to derail a thread is ''straw man''.

Is anyone interested in taking part?

Why is straw man permissible, but not word salad? This seems an arbitrary exclusion.

The problem with this exercise is that many arguments presented by Believers are nonsense. They're illogical and unscientific, yet presented as both. For example, you have said that you witnessed a UFO act in a way that was "quantum mechanically impossible." This is hokum, yet you're suggesting I'm supposed to pretend it has merit?

These rules only hinder the skeptic, not the Believer.

If you want to have a civil discourse, toughen your skin to being told you're wrong, and that your ideas are ill-conceived and poorly presented. Be prepared to be told you don't know what you're talking about. Do not retaliate to the dismantling of your position by calling someone an idiot, and do not cry foul when someone points out that you're using words you don't seem to understand.

Instead of trying to prevent skeptics from calling you out on your inane theories, how about we simply make an agreement to refrain from hostilities? No name-calling, no insinuations of low intellect, (which does not include inferences of someone not understanding a concept or appeals for better grammar/presentation), no snide dismissals of points, no ducking questions.

I'm for it, but I don't see it happening. Why don't you simply propose a formal debate in the Formal Debate section?

This is why there must be sanctions on certain information so that those who do speak unintelligent about the subject can be stricken off the panel. That of course would be left to the ''judges'' to put into motion.

You may as far as I am aware by my own rules, say the ''arguers for'' do not know what they are talking about or attack scientific proposals, but equally you must show evidence for such an accusation - if personal attacks is all the other side has to offer, then there can be an addmission to adjourn the discussions until the evidence has been properly evaluated. If it turns out that the other side is using ''side-tracking'' methods of personal attacking nature to acheive their goals, then the accused side can call for a motion to dismiss the claims based on a one-sided arguement based on personal attacks --- You may of course, state that the other side does not know what they are talking about, but it must be left at that and the other side if the judges agree with those contentions, can either make the accused party present more evidence or they can stricken that off the records. Any more than one attempt at personal attacks on any one debate may be deemed as derailing the debate and can be strickened off the record, or worse, the accuser may face been stricken off the panel all together.

In other words, one may point out errors but they are not allowed to repeat those accusations unless the accused party has not moved on in knowing they fully recognize their mistake or error.

The rules apply to the believer as well as the skeptic. The nature of the evidence also can not be confused with stating proof. No one has proof essentially unless someone has indeed, something extraordinary to announce, which is unlikely anyway.

You can not indulge in personal theories in the extent that it has no justification, which would be last sanction on the discussion. Neither side can willfully keep up a debate if their theories are not within atleast a scientific core of reasoning or with documented evidence to support their claim - no frivolous statements can be made therego of personal theories without any substantial evidence to go with it - claims may require therefore, proof. As always, extraordinary claims require an extraordinary amount of evidence..

Does this seem clear enough?

This sounds like a great idea.

Perhaps, if you could find a willing moderator to carry out your commands, you could be the actual moderator of this thread.
You could set up a sciforum society to discuss the thread, and talk about it with like minded people, but you would make the decisions.
Then we could see how a person who has trouble with moderators manages to moderate a thread him/her self.

The moderator could write things in red like "removed by Reiku" etc.

Even you opening post includes discrepancies in fact. The people that you call sceptics are the people who aren't actual sceptics, they are people who have pulled you up on your Youtube proof. The people that you call UFO sceptics are in fact Youtube sceptics. The proof that you present is nearly always fallible almost immediately.

This sounds like a great idea.

Perhaps, if you could find a willing moderator to carry out your commands, you could be the actual moderator of this thread.
Then we could see how a person who has trouble with moderators manages to moderate a thread him/her self.

The moderator could write things in red like "removed by Reiku" etc.

Thank you.

Exactly, about the moderator writing, the proposal thread debate is here:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2911407#post2911407

Please join and enter and mark either ''believer/for'' or ''skeptic/against''.

Thanks again. I think it will be interesting.

Even you opening post includes discrepancies in fact. The people that you call sceptics are the people who aren't actual sceptics, they are people who have pulled you up on your Youtube proof. The people that you call UFO sceptics are in fact Youtube sceptics. The proof that you present is nearly always fallible almost immediately.

Youtube may be regarded as evidence so long as they provide evidence that the video can be trusted.

There should be no problems there pincho.

Join?

This is real test to all, to see if a real debate on the UFO phenomenon can be conducted in sciforums.

I think we should make some history :P

Youtube may be regarded as proof so long as they provide evidence that the video can be trusted.

There should be no problems there pincho.

Join?

OK I'm in, but using a small 'p' on Pincho also shows certain signs of lowering the opposition.

Remember to state whether you are for or against. Important.

Remember to state whether you are for or against. Important.

I 'for' real 'evidence' of 'ALIEN UFO's'.

I 'for' real 'evidence' of 'ALIEN UFO's'.

I will enter you in.

From now on, refer to the debates thread in the Gov.

These rules only hinder the skeptic, not the Believer.

I need to ask why.

If you are unable to discuss the subject without conforming to the exact rules and without resorting to attacking methods constantly, then perhaps your tactics of discussion will require a nip and tuck?

:shrug:

I need to ask why.

If you are unable to discuss the subject without conforming to the exact rules and without resorting to attacking methods constantly, then perhaps your tactics of discussion will require a nip and tuck?

:shrug:

Define "attacking methods." If you mean name-calling, then I already agreed that this is a worthwhile exercise, but probably better-suited for a formal debate, where you're not going to have outside influence mucking things up. Something with structure.

But I don't think you're merely talking about that. You've already disqualified "word salad," which tells me that you just don't want people being able to call out others for junk science or illogical posts. Calling a post "word salad" is not an insult, it's an observation. It implies nothing about the poster, only the point being presented. So what you really want is to be about to spout of nonsense without having someone say "Hey, that's nonsense."

If that's what you want, I refer you back to my original post: toughen up. No one here is obligated to take your feelings into account, nor do any of your wacko theories deserve respect. You have to earn that respect. You're just trying to circumvent that by instituting word bans. That's ridiculous.

And if one of us need to give a "nip and tuck" to our "tactics of discussion" (seriously? Tactics of discussion?), I'd wager it's the one of us who has been banned multiple times.

Define "attacking methods." If you mean name-calling, then I already agreed that this is a worthwhile exercise, but probably better-suited for a formal debate, where you're not going to have outside influence mucking things up. Something with structure.

But I don't think you're merely talking about that. You've already disqualified "word salad," which tells me that you just don't want people being able to call out others for junk science or illogical posts. Calling a post "word salad" is not an insult, it's an observation. It implies nothing about the poster, only the point being presented. So what you really want is to be about to spout of nonsense without having someone say "Hey, that's nonsense."

If that's what you want, I refer you back to my original post: toughen up. No one here is obligated to take your feelings into account, nor do any of your wacko theories deserve respect. You have to earn that respect. You're just trying to circumvent that by instituting word bans. That's ridiculous.

And if one of us need to give a "nip and tuck" to our "tactics of discussion" (seriously? Tactics of discussion?), I'd wager it's the one of us who has been banned multiple times.

''Word salad'' can not be used because it is a statement on the integrity of the post concerning the quality of the post. A straw man is not so much interested on the quality of the post, only the methodologies presented.

''You've already disqualified "word salad," which tells me that you just don't want people being able to call out others for junk science or illogical posts.''

No. you must explain the reasons, ''word salad'' is a statement without reasons applied. That is invalid to the proper investigations.

Have you considered the format for such a debate? Are we discussing the rules, or are you sticking to this whole "Nobody can say bad things about my argument" piffle? If the answer to that last one is yes, count me out.

I already have considered every rule. Even the format of the discussions and how each of us will have a fair ''hearing''.

''Word salad'' can not be used because it is a statement on the integrity of the post concerning the quality of the post. A straw man is not so much interested on the quality of the post, only the methodologies presented.

Wrong again. Word salad and straw man are both comments on the integrity of a post, as well as the integrity of the point being presented. If "straw man" is a comment on method, then so is word salad; after all, it implies that the poster is simply throwing words together without any care for how they fit.

And why is it wrong to comment on the integrity of a post?


No. you must explain the reasons, ''word salad'' is a statement without reasons applied. That is invalid to the proper investigations.

"Invalid to the proper investigations" is a perfect example of word salad. It means absolutely nothing. Neither does your explanation for why that particular term is disqualified. WTF does "it's a statement without reasons applied" mean? What are you trying to say? Take a minute, speak plainly.

I already have considered every rule. Even the format of the discussions and how each of us will have a fair ''hearing''.

It's not up to you to consider every rule, it's something all parties have to agree upon. And "we'll all have a fair hearing" doesn't add any more clarity to the matter. What do you mean by "hearing"?

Come on, man. Use your words!

It's not up to you to consider every rule, it's something all parties have to agree upon.

Agreed. I will present these rules as ''equally'' as possible. My rules should be fair enough for a universal agreement.

Agreed. I will present these rules as ''equally'' as possible. My rules should be fair enough for a universal agreement.

Probably not, but we'll see.

Wrong again. Word salad and straw man are both comments on the integrity of a post, as well as the integrity of the point being presented. If "straw man" is a comment on method, then so is word salad; after all, it implies that the poster is simply throwing words together without any care for how they fit.

And why is it wrong to comment on the integrity of a post?



"Invalid to the proper investigations" is a perfect example of word salad. It means absolutely nothing. Neither does your explanation for why that particular term is disqualified. WTF does "it's a statement without reasons applied" mean? What are you trying to say? Take a minute, speak plainly.

Except word salad is more derogatory than straw man. That is not making a personal statement. Straw man is a reflection on how the other is performing their remarks.

I think we both could realize that ''word salad'' is neither derogatory or a phrase that will be used often. If it is used out of context, the panal will recommend to delete or otherwise sanction the comments.

I will not get into a "discussion" about something that will only be a biased thread about something as foolish as UFO's for as yet there isn't one piece of FACTUAL evidence that ever has been found that would suggest that "aliens" ever were on Earth but only people who enjoy creating controversy over such nonsense in order to make money on their books and "actual videos" that they present. So you all go at it and in the end all you will have are the same people either "believing" or "skeptical" about the subject that has no FACTS to ever prove it exists except in the minds of those who make up such silliness.:rolleyes:

I will not get into a "discussion" about something that will only be a biased thread about something as foolish as UFO's for as yet there isn't one piece of FACTUAL evidence that ever has been found that would suggest that "aliens" ever were on Earth but only people who enjoy creating controversy over such nonsense in order to make money on their books and "actual videos" that they present. So you all go at it and in the end all you will have are the same people either "believing" or "skeptical" about the subject that has no FACTS to ever prove it exists except in the minds of those who make up such silliness.:rolleyes:

No one will be allowed to enter a biased judging panel. Either sides are biased but this is about a fair trial.

Please enter, I hope you'll be surprised at how ''levelled'' the arguements will be.

When I say the judging panel will not be biased, I mean against individual people. There own beliefs is something you cannot help, hence why I want a judging panel of equal members for and against, but are not allowed to have any conduct in the debates. Only to moderate it, like a senate sub-committee.

But the judges are already biased either for or against UFO"s before they even start. How can you determine that they aren't? I can say I'm not when in actuality I am so I can easily fool you to pick me as a judge and you'd not be the wiser. So you have a very big honesty problem with this biased problem.

Except word salad is more derogatory than straw man. That is not making a personal statement. Straw man is a reflection on how the other is performing their remarks.

Word salad is no more or less derogatory than straw man. This is the problem: you don't seem to understand the meaning of some words, so if you're going to put a ban on some of them, you had better list them, because your definition of what is derogatory isn't going to be anyone else's definition.

I'll say again: Just keep it simple. Don't call someone else an idiot, a troll, a jerk, a douche, or any other personal insults. What the person presents as an argument is fair game.


I think we both could realize that ''word salad'' is neither derogatory or a phrase that will be used often. If it is used out of context, the panal will recommend to delete or otherwise sanction the comments.

So, wait, just a paragraph ago you said it was derogatory. Now it isn't?

Word salad is no more or less derogatory than straw man.

There is one difference you keep overlooking.

''word salad'' can be used frequently.

''Straw man'' will be a relatively rare usage.

I have written those rules up. Stop being stuck on this quibble. Either enjoy the debate or tender your resignation from the debates.

Your choice.

But the judges are already biased either for or against UFO"s before they even start. How can you determine that they aren't? I can say I'm not when in actuality I am so I can easily fool you to pick me as a judge and you'd not be the wiser. So you have a very big honesty problem with this biased problem.

Not true. They are NOT allowed to be involved in the discussions per se. They may only censor when each side of the judging panels agree. That is as unbiased as you can get.

If neither Judges can agree, then no action can be taken. It will considered as a situation which cannot be ''judged on'' because it cannot be anonymously decided.

Not true. They are NOT allowed to be involved in the discussions per se. They may only censor when each side of the judging panels agree. That is as unbiased as you can get.

So if they are biased one way or another they can "censor" those who they don't like. It is just very difficult to not inject your own feelings about a subject when monitoring the subject being debated is all I'm trying to point out.

So if they are biased one way or another they can "censor" those who they don't like. It is just very difficult to not inject your own feelings about a subject when monitoring the subject being debated is all I'm trying to point out.

Cosmic, you seem to be missing the point.

The panel judges are made of four members. No ruling can be made unless the ruling panel agree.

So there is no biased attitudes in the ruling since both sides are of equal party.

If they don't like the person, that person can call on the High Judge who has ultimate power over the judges.

This was originally about a thread where we can argue about UFO proof, I somehow ended up in a debate on the side for UFO's. I am not on any side.

This was originally about a thread where we can argue about UFO proof, I somehow ended up in a debate on the side for UFO's. I am not on any side.

You can tender your resignation.

I was aware when you said ''for'' I thought you meant you where for the UFO phenomenon to be real and said of alien technology. I would advise you then to reconsider your application, or make a choice now.

Or I will make the choice for you.

You can tender your resignation.

I was aware when you said ''for'' I thought you meant you where for the UFO phenomenon to be real and said of alien technology. I would advise you then to reconsider your application, or make a choice now.

Or I will make the choice for you.

I resign.

Fine.

Good. lol

Instead of a debate, why don't you do what you originally said...


If I proposed some kind of thread which would involve our discussion on UFO's, could both sides keep it civil? In British Parliment, there is something called ''Parliment Language'' and basically it means there is a non-standard course of language which can be stricken from the records. Keep this in mind.

I want to gather an equal amount of believers vs skeptics to present their conjectures for or against the UFO phenomenon.

A thread to discuss both sides of the argument... ie, not with such strict rules.

Cosmic, you seem to be missing the point.

The panel judges are made of four members. No ruling can be made unless the ruling panel agree.

So there is no biased attitudes in the ruling since both sides are of equal party.

What if all 4 were biased for UFO's , then they could easily censor anything that shows their point of view is wrong.:(

What if all 4 were biased for UFO's , then they could easily censor anything that shows their point of view is wrong.:(

The High Judge can hold them in contempt. Think of it like a senate sub-comittee where the High Judge is the Chairman of the Commitee. The top leader of the Committee in general is the Vice Chairman.

OK? :shrug:

The High Judge can hold them in contempt. Think of it like a senate sub-comittee where the High Judge is the Chairman of the Commitee. The top leader of the Committee in general is the Vice Chairman.

OK? :shrug:

Are you the "high" judge and if so what are you "high" on? :shrug:

Do you want to be the judge, Cosmic?

Do you want to be the judge, Cosmic?

Agreed. I am up for that.

Are you the "high" judge and if so what are you "high" on? :shrug:

You can be High Jugde --- so long as you confirm to be equal and just when need be.

Do you want to be the judge, Cosmic?

High yes, judge, no, for that would bring me down from my highness.

Has it started yet?
Where is it?

Has it started yet?
Where is it?

It never started. It wouldn't have worked with all of those absurd rules anyway.

And Reiku was (finally) permabanned yesterday, so unless you want to start one of your own, it ain't gonna happen.

Pity.
I was looking forward to see Reiku moderating a thread.
I can't see him getting back on here again until he is 50 at least.

When he gets back it will be the Third Reiku.

Pity.
I was looking forward to see Reiku moderating a thread.
I can't see him getting back on here again until he is 50 at least.

When he gets back it will be the Third Reiku.

Well, I doubt we'll be waiting that long to see him. Last time he was banned, he created various sock puppets until an administrator reneged and allowed him back into the fold--with a clean slate, no less. The fact that he was rewarded for this behavior means he's likely to try again.