I would like to propose a new rule in OzPolitic. If a member fails to respond to a counter argument post within 48 hours (and they have logged on during that time), then that person shall be deemed to have lost the argument, and must change his/her point of view and agree with the person with whom he/she argued.

Reasons such as 'this is a stupid example' or 'I'm not going to dignify that question with an answer' or any other evasory reasons are not acceptable reasons to refuse debate or discussion. Either you continue debating or concede defeat;  stalemate is possible if both parties agree.

The foregoing rules shall not apply to any debate or discussion directly relating to a specific person or any details of that person (except with his/her explicit consent).

This is a forum: no idea should be undebatable. If you argue it's undebatable, then this is automatically a concession of defeat, subject to the foregoing paragraph.

Concession of defeat must be clearly stated in the following manner: "I (insert nickname) have lost the argument concerning this topic. I agree with (insert nickname) and have now changed my point of view to agree with (opponent's name)."

Failure to concede defeat openly on this forum shall result in a one-week suspension from the Forum, but no person shall be suspended for more than two weeks in any one month period.

Auggie wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 1:29pm:

then that person shall be deemed to have lost the argument, and must change his/her point of view and agree with the person with whom he/she argued.

how old are you?

Augie, far too many comments are made on here that are not worthy of debate.

I am ignoring this thread for 48 hours.

issuevoter wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 1:36pm:

I am ignoring this thread for 48 hours.

you lose  ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 1:32pm:

Auggie wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 1:29pm: then that person shall be deemed to have lost the argument, and must change his/her point of view and agree with the person with whom he/she argued. how old are you?

It's not a matter of age, John Smith, it's a matter of debating ethics: you can't simply ignore a person's counter argument and get away with it. You either win or lose, otherwise we're no better than politicians who squirm their way of debate. Do you want to be be as guilty as a politician, or are you better than them?

mothra wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 1:35pm:

Augie, far too many comments are made on here that are not worthy of debate.

No idea is above is scrutiny. Ultimately, if you feel that a person cannot be reasoned with, then just concede defeat and move on; at least you'll make that person feel better.

issuevoter wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 1:36pm:

I am ignoring this thread for 48 hours.

You can ignore this thread, but not any argument in which you engage with a fellow forum member unless you concede defeat.

Auggie wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 1:42pm:

mothra wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 1:35pm: Augie, far too many comments are made on here that are not worthy of debate. No idea is above is scrutiny. Ultimately, if you feel that a person cannot be reasoned with, then just concede defeat and move on; at least you'll make that person feel better.

Why would i concede defeat when they are clearly wrong?

I prefer to think of it as taking the higher ground.

I wrote this post because I presented an example to Ye Grappler yesterday. He was logged on but didn't respond, probably because he felt that the example was not worthy of debate. I refer to 'Sensible Welfare Reform.' I think the example I've provided is reasonable.

If Ye Grappler does not respond or continue to engage in meaningful debate, then he must concede defeat and accept my point of view. As someone who rails against the establishment, Ye Grappler is acting like a politician by avoiding the difficult questions, which is hypocritical.

mothra wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 1:44pm:

Auggie wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 1:42pm: mothra wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 1:35pm: Augie, far too many comments are made on here that are not worthy of debate. No idea is above is scrutiny. Ultimately, if you feel that a person cannot be reasoned with, then just concede defeat and move on; at least you'll make that person feel better. Why would i concede defeat when they are clearly wrong? I prefer to think of it as taking the higher ground.

You would be taking the higher ground by being noble. At the end of the day, you don't need to truly believe it; it's only for the purposes of this forum.

John Smith wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 1:32pm:

Auggie wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 1:29pm: then that person shall be deemed to have lost the argument, and must change his/her point of view and agree with the person with whom he/she argued. how old are you?

  ;D ;D ;D..

he believes   he can win an argument on here..by default..



ooooooooooooooooooo if only.. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Auggie wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 1:46pm:

I wrote this post because I presented an example to Ye Grappler yesterday. He was logged on but didn't respond, probably because he felt that the example was not worthy of debate. I refer to 'Sensible Welfare Reform.' I think the example I've provided is reasonable. If Ye Grappler does not respond or continue to engage in meaningful debate, then he must concede defeat and accept my point of view. As someone who rails against the establishment, Ye Grappler is acting like a politician by avoiding the difficult questions, which is hypocritical.

my dear sir..... has it occurred to your good self grap had lost complete interest  in your argument and couldnt be bothered...

if you are looking for knock out blows to win any argument   this is the wrong place for you..

Auggie wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 1:46pm:

I wrote this post because I presented an example to Ye Grappler yesterday. He was logged on but didn't respond, probably because he felt that the example was not worthy of debate. I refer to 'Sensible Welfare Reform.' I think the example I've provided is reasonable. If Ye Grappler does not respond or continue to engage in meaningful debate, then he must concede defeat and accept my point of view. As someone who rails against the establishment, Ye Grappler is acting like a politician by avoiding the difficult questions, which is hypocritical.

He doesn't have to do anything of the sort.

Sometimes you're in the mood for certain subjects, sometimes you aren't.

Sometimes you can clearly see there is no point rebutting because the person is intractable. It does not equate to a concession of defeat. It is just a recognition of what is bootless.

Sometimes, as i said, some posts are threads are not worthy of comment. That doesn't imply tacit agreement with the premise.

Auggie wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 1:41pm:

John Smith wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 1:32pm: Auggie wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 1:29pm: then that person shall be deemed to have lost the argument, and must change his/her point of view and agree with the person with whom he/she argued. how old are you? It's not a matter of age, John Smith, it's a matter of debating ethics: you can't simply ignore a person's counter argument and get away with it. You either win or lose, otherwise we're no better than politicians who squirm their way of debate. Do you want to be be as guilty as a politician, or are you better than them?

sorry but I disagree.
Firstly, only a teenager declares themselves a 'winner' on an online forum. If you come here to 'win' debates you're in the wrong place. Perhaps you need to find a debate forum? People come here to exchange ideas, discuss options, hear other peoples points of views etc. There are no winners or losers.

Secondly, I may not give enough of a sh1t about your counter argument to bother with a reply. If you need to tell yourself you won that debate, go ahead. I'm pretty sure no one will lose sleep over it.

Thirdly, that crap you wrote about politicians has no relevance here and is a pathetic and rather sad attempt to try and get me to agree with you.

I like the way he thinks every gives a fig about rules.. :) :)

You haven't responded to my post in politics regarding Welfare.   You have 24 hours left or i win (nah nah nah nah nah)

Vic wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 2:24pm:

You haven't responded to my post in politics regarding Welfare.   You have 24 hours left or i win (nah nah nah nah nah)

you forgot... the important bit


you loseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee......

I think it has a chance.. ;D ;D ;D ;D

I agree with your argument, Augie. Let's do it.

Starting from now.

Mattyfisk wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 2:28pm:

I agree with your argument, Augie. Let's do it. Starting from now.

I thoroughly disagree.

I think we should start after i knock off from work.

Make your case as to why would should start now and not when i knock off from work or concede defeat.

mothra wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 2:32pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 2:28pm: I agree with your argument, Augie. Let's do it. Starting from now. I thoroughly disagree. I think we should start after i knock off from work. Make your case as to why would should start now and not when i knock off from work or concede defeat.

that's not a valid argument, just give up and declare me the winner

John Smith wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 2:35pm:

mothra wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 2:32pm: Mattyfisk wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 2:28pm: I agree with your argument, Augie. Let's do it. Starting from now. I thoroughly disagree. I think we should start after i knock off from work. Make your case as to why would should start now and not when i knock off from work or concede defeat. that's not a valid argument, just give up and declare me the winner

I'll have you know, i'm electing to ignore your argument because i consider it unworthy of my attention, not because i'm conceding defeat.

I see Karnal has declared me the winner.

Right, we'll start after i knock off from work.

I'm choosing to ignore the fact that the conditions of my victory are dependent on the  fulfillment of the hypothesis that i am not accepting begins until after i knock off from work but unless someone can present me with a valid reason why i can't do that, i see no reason why my victory should be challenged.

mothra wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 2:47pm:

I see Karnal has declared me the winner.

Fck off, TROLL... Leftard IDIOT...

I propose a rule that Karnal change her sweaty burqa once every three days instead of the current one month. :P

Mr Hammer wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 3:20pm:

I propose a rule that Karnal change her sweaty burqa once every three days instead of the current one month. :P

In 48 hours, you'll be right, Homo. That'll make me wrong.

Mattyfisk wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 3:16pm:

mothra wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 2:47pm: I see Karnal has declared me the winner. Fck off, TROLL... Leftard IDIOT...

A compelling argument.

Alright, i concede defeat. We'll start now.

cods wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 1:48pm:

John Smith wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 1:32pm: Auggie wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 1:29pm: then that person shall be deemed to have lost the argument, and must change his/her point of view and agree with the person with whom he/she argued. how old are you?   ;D ;D ;D.. he believes   he can win an argument on here..by default.. ooooooooooooooooooo if only.. ;D ;D ;D ;D

If you're not willing to participate in the debate in question, then you shouldn't comment on these rules.

cods wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 1:51pm:

Auggie wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 1:46pm: I wrote this post because I presented an example to Ye Grappler yesterday. He was logged on but didn't respond, probably because he felt that the example was not worthy of debate. I refer to 'Sensible Welfare Reform.' I think the example I've provided is reasonable. If Ye Grappler does not respond or continue to engage in meaningful debate, then he must concede defeat and accept my point of view. As someone who rails against the establishment, Ye Grappler is acting like a politician by avoiding the difficult questions, which is hypocritical. my dear sir..... has it occurred to your good self grap had lost complete interest  in your argument and couldnt be bothered... if you are looking for knock out blows to win any argument   this is the wrong place for you..

If he cannot be bothered, then he shouldn't make counter-claims in the first place.

mothra wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 1:51pm:

Auggie wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 1:46pm: I wrote this post because I presented an example to Ye Grappler yesterday. He was logged on but didn't respond, probably because he felt that the example was not worthy of debate. I refer to 'Sensible Welfare Reform.' I think the example I've provided is reasonable. If Ye Grappler does not respond or continue to engage in meaningful debate, then he must concede defeat and accept my point of view. As someone who rails against the establishment, Ye Grappler is acting like a politician by avoiding the difficult questions, which is hypocritical. He doesn't have to do anything of the sort. Sometimes you're in the mood for certain subjects, sometimes you aren't. Sometimes you can clearly see there is no point rebutting because the person is intractable. It does not equate to a concession of defeat. It is just a recognition of what is bootless. Sometimes, as i said, some posts are threads are not worthy of comment. That doesn't imply tacit agreement with the premise.

I suggest that you read the final posts of the that thread 'Sensible Welfare Reform' and decide for yourself. I simply presented an individual situation, which I be to be plausible, and asked how Ye Grappler's policies would work for that person. I don't think that's unreasonable, do you?

Quote:

sorry but I disagree. Firstly, only a teenager declares themselves a 'winner' on an online forum. If you come here to 'win' debates you're in the wrong place. Perhaps you need to find a debate forum? People come here to exchange ideas, discuss options, hear other peoples points of views etc. There are no winners or losers. Secondly, I may not give enough of a sh1t about your counter argument to bother with a reply. If you need to tell yourself you won that debate, go ahead. I'm pretty sure no one will lose sleep over it. Thirdly, that crap you wrote about politicians has no relevance here and is a pathetic and rather sad attempt to try and get me to agree with you.

John, you managed to convince me about the benefits of on-shore processing, and I admitted that I had changed my point of view and agreed with you. Aussie and Brian Ross have also been successful in convincing me and changing my mind.

How many people on this Forum could ever really admit that?

Ye Grappler could've convinced me of his point of view, and I would've conceded and become more centrist.

I think what I asked, John Smith, was not an unreasonable point of view.

If no one can be convinced of anything or every change their mind, then what's the point?

Vic wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 2:24pm:

You haven't responded to my post in politics regarding Welfare.   You have 24 hours left or i win (nah nah nah nah nah)

So, if you and I were engaging in a debate over issues, and then all of sudden I gave up and no longer responded to that thread, what would you think?

mothra wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 2:32pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 2:28pm: I agree with your argument, Augie. Let's do it. Starting from now. I thoroughly disagree. I think we should start after i knock off from work. Make your case as to why would should start now and not when i knock off from work or concede defeat.

Mothra, I'm referring to the specific post I made to Ye Grappler. I'm happy for anyone to take it on. The problem is that no one has so far, and I think I know the reason why.

Because you and I weren't the ones debating, it doesn't apply to you. If you do or say nothing, then it doesn't apply.

mothra wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 2:39pm:

John Smith wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 2:35pm: mothra wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 2:32pm: Mattyfisk wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 2:28pm: I agree with your argument, Augie. Let's do it. Starting from now. I thoroughly disagree. I think we should start after i knock off from work. Make your case as to why would should start now and not when i knock off from work or concede defeat. that's not a valid argument, just give up and declare me the winner I'll have you know, i'm electing to ignore your argument because i consider it unworthy of my attention, not because i'm conceding defeat.

Then, you shouldn't responsibly comment on this thread at all. Either refute the point through careful argumentation and debate, or concede defeat.

Auggie wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 3:46pm:

John, you managed to convince me about the benefits of on-shore processing, and I admitted that I had changed my point of view and agreed with you.

that's because the arguments I gave you were sound. Whether you agreed or not, my arguments remain sound and your acceptance of it is neither here nor there.

that doesn't mean that I won or that you lost, it's just means you hadn't considered something that I was able to bring to light. Your acceptance of it is merely an indication that you were more open minded than most people on here.

mothra wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 3:23pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 3:16pm: mothra wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 2:47pm: I see Karnal has declared me the winner. Fck off, TROLL... Leftard IDIOT... A compelling argument. Alright, i concede defeat. We'll start now.

So, you agree that you're a TROLL and Leftard IDIOT?

Auggie wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 3:46pm:

Ye Grappler could've convinced me of his point of view, and I would've conceded and become more centrist.

only if he cared enough about it to want to convince you.

John Smith wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 3:51pm:

Auggie wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 3:46pm: John, you managed to convince me about the benefits of on-shore processing, and I admitted that I had changed my point of view and agreed with you. that's because the arguments I gave you were sound. Whether you agreed or not, my arguments remain sound and your acceptance of it is neither here nor there. that doesn't mean that I won or that you lost, it's just means you hadn't considered something that I was able to bring to light. Your acceptance of it is merely an indication that you were more open minded than most people on here.

I agree I am open-minded.

As far as I am concerned, you won the argument, and were successful in convincing.

Think of it like this: during the election campaign when each party proposes their policies, how do you determine who is right or not? Conversely, how do these parties convince voters to support their policies? Ultimately, it comes to 'winning the argument'. The problem is that debate and discussion has become based on emotion and intuition, rather than sound logic and argumentation. That's how most politicians win; they appeal to emotion, rather than logic.

I don't expect everyone on this Forum to be as intelligent as I am, but there needs to be some kind of standard. We're sharing ideas on this forum. Are we seriously saying that we don't want to be convinced of the facts, irrespective?

John Smith wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 3:54pm:

Auggie wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 3:46pm: Ye Grappler could've convinced me of his point of view, and I would've conceded and become more centrist. only if he cared enough about it to want to convince you.

So, if he doesn't care, then he shouldn't have responsibly even engaged with me in the first place.

Auggie wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 3:52pm:

mothra wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 3:23pm: Mattyfisk wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 3:16pm: mothra wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 2:47pm: I see Karnal has declared me the winner. Fck off, TROLL... Leftard IDIOT... A compelling argument. Alright, i concede defeat. We'll start now. So, you agree that you're a TROLL and Leftard IDIOT?

She has to. That's the new rule.

Under the old rules, Mother could call me an IDIOT and a TROLL back and we'd have a decent debate, but we're starting from now, okay?

Mattyfisk wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 4:00pm:

Auggie wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 3:52pm: mothra wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 3:23pm: Mattyfisk wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 3:16pm: mothra wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 2:47pm: I see Karnal has declared me the winner. Fck off, TROLL... Leftard IDIOT... A compelling argument. Alright, i concede defeat. We'll start now. So, you agree that you're a TROLL and Leftard IDIOT? She has to. That's the new rule. Under the old rules, Mother could call me an IDIOT and a TROLL back and we'd have a decent debate, but we're starting from now, okay?

Under the new rules, she is still allowed to refute your argument and debate it. If she chooses not to refute it, then she would have to. As far as I'm aware, she has made no attempt to refute your claim.

This could only work in a more formal setting. As you can see, you've been hounded by wayward wretches - such people would be ejected in a formal setting. This forum's potential ended about 2 years ago.

Caesaraugustus, OzPol is not a place where any weight is given to a declaration of a win.  In fact, you may have noticed how many times buffoons here declare themselves a winner....or 'mark their own home-work' as I often say.  Real validation is not going to happen with a Rule of the kind you propose.....'Whoopeeeeee. I won because he did not reply in time.'

Nah.

Best to demonstrate the quality of what you post by simply posting.....quality.  Over time, others will take a position of respect or total lack of interest or somewhere, anywhere in between.  To use Karnal as an example.  You have to have been here for a while to understand this bloke.  Yeas, its a bloke not a woman. More than half the time, he is taking the piss and it is obvious to those who know what he does.  On other occasions, it is always crystal clear when he is presenting a serious opinion which, in my experience, is always very cogently and credibly argued.  But......he gets no Winner's Crown for it.  He just gets on with being......Karnal.

OzPol does not award 'Winner' medals.  Quite the reverse, if anything.

Cheers.

Auggie wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 3:57pm:

John Smith wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 3:54pm: Auggie wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 3:46pm: Ye Grappler could've convinced me of his point of view, and I would've conceded and become more centrist. only if he cared enough about it to want to convince you. So, if he doesn't care, then he shouldn't have responsibly even engaged with me in the first place.

why not?  he made his point, and probably felt that repeating himself was pointless.

Karnal has no credibility. His positions change according to party lines.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 4:56pm:

Karnal has no credibility. His positions change according to party lines.

;D ;D ;D

this coming from you? the guy who blames all the words woes on lefties. :D :D :D

do you understand the words 'party lines'?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 5:05pm:

do you understand the words 'party lines'?

do you understand the word 'hypocrisy'?

yes.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 5:14pm:

yes.

great, now think about that word and how it might apply to your previous comment

Auggie wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 3:47pm:

Vic wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 2:24pm: You haven't responded to my post in politics regarding Welfare.   You have 24 hours left or i win (nah nah nah nah nah) So, if you and I were engaging in a debate over issues, and then all of sudden I gave up and no longer responded to that thread, what would you think?

like I have already said you are in the wrong place..

that happens on just about every thread sunshine..

some of us get exhausted from arguing and saying the same stoooopid things over and over..

if you think making a rule like this will change people..

you need help..

John Smith wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 5:17pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 5:14pm: yes. great, now think about that word and how it might apply to your previous comment

it's your story, goose. spit it out.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 5:22pm:

John Smith wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 5:17pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 5:14pm: yes. great, now think about that word and how it might apply to your previous comment it's your story, goose. spit it out.

to hard? Ok, I'll help you out.

You're not in any position to question others credibility. You're one of the least credible on here.

do you get it yet?

John Smith wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 5:24pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 5:22pm: John Smith wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 5:17pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 5:14pm: yes. great, now think about that word and how it might apply to your previous comment it's your story, goose. spit it out. to hard? Ok, I'll help you out. You're not in any position to question others credibility. You're one of the least credible on here. do you get it yet?

examples.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 5:33pm:

John Smith wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 5:24pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 5:22pm: John Smith wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 5:17pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 5:14pm: yes. great, now think about that word and how it might apply to your previous comment it's your story, goose. spit it out. to hard? Ok, I'll help you out. You're not in any position to question others credibility. You're one of the least credible on here. do you get it yet? examples.

I told you, for you everything is about blaming lefties. If you want an example how about this one from you earlier this arvo

Lefties don't care if people starve to death, as long as they 'save the environment'.

how is that hypocrisy?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 5:41pm:

how is that hypocrisy?

you don't think your questioning someones credibility because of how they comment along party lines is hypocrisy?  :D

your position is muddled. what specifically is hypocritical?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 6:01pm:

your position is muddled. what specifically is hypocritical?

my position is not at all muddled, even though you appear to be. I'll say it as plainly as I can

Your questioning someone elses credibility for the reasons you gave is hypocritical

but you've not established how I've been hypocritical.

Aussie wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 4:50pm:

Caesaraugustus, OzPol is not a place where any weight is given to a declaration of a win.  In fact, you may have noticed how many times buffoons here declare themselves a winner....or 'mark their own home-work' as I often say.  Real validation is not going to happen with a Rule of the kind you propose.....'Whoopeeeeee. I won because he did not reply in time.' Nah. Best to demonstrate the quality of what you post by simply posting.....quality.  Over time, others will take a position of respect or total lack of interest or somewhere, anywhere in between.  To use Karnal as an example.  You have to have been here for a while to understand this bloke.  Yeas, its a bloke not a woman. More than half the time, he is taking the piss and it is obvious to those who know what he does.  On other occasions, it is always crystal clear when he is presenting a serious opinion which, in my experience, is always very cogently and credibly argued.  But......he gets no Winner's Crown for it.  He just gets on with being......Karnal. OzPol does not award 'Winner' medals.  Quite the reverse, if anything. Cheers.

Indeed, Ich am just complaining because. I'm over it now. Cheers.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 6:04pm:

but you've not established how I've been hypocritical.

sure I did. It's all there in black and white.

nope.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 4:56pm:

Karnal has no credibility. His positions change according to party lines.

Wayward wretch.

Be careful about turning feedback into general chat. Never turn it into a shitfight.

I wonder if this rule has been proposed to deal with Light...

But in reality, well, perhaps not reality bet lets just go with Parliament, during question time it is almost expected that a response is given, but rarely does it actually answer the question.

I would suspect should such a silly rule be implemented here that it would only end up being much the same.

The racism and bigotry towards anyone who doesn't fit the conservative idea of normal (white heterosexuals) it a much bigger problem around here than having to force people to address scrutiny or criticism directed at them lest they be deemed to have "lost" the argument.