Honestly, these type of arguments over where a topic belongs should probably be done via pm. Also, this topic is going to be pretty much ruined in terms of what Centreri wanted it to be now. Perhaps lock this one and let him make another topic in SD, with a more SD-type first post?

This belongs in null.

There is no real stance presented here. You're just asking people for ideas on what 'could' happen rather than what is currently happening, as well as not giving an argument in the original post (rather, you're just posting a potential outcome without anything to back you up). If you want to continue to whine about how you weren't convinced, then please read through Doodan's posts again before you continue to do so.

EDIT: Might as well lock this, it's been derailed ;p

EDIT2: Wow, fast posters.
Yes, because you're presenting a stance on an issue.

Doodan, I don't understand why this is in Null. Centreri, and others, like myself, want to discuss this topic seriously. It's like philosophy. It's educated speculations of what might happen or might could have happened.

Edit: I do agree this topic should be locked, and then Centreri should make a new one worded differently in SD.

There is no problem with having speculation about serious subjects. I'm not arguing against such think tanks at all. The reason I believe I was justified in moving this topic is because it did meet the rules of serious discussion. Read them. If this topic were about the defense of such think tanks, and it followed the rules, I would not interfere. But that's not the purpose of this topic. I liken it more to fanfiction.

Greo, if you look over the SD forum, you'll notice many topics (such as Time) which do not really present a stance, but rather ask a question. So, you just got owned. As for me presenting evidence, that isn't a stance, so I just did it again! And as long as it's in Null, I see no problem with me being rather unserious about such things.
You didn't answer my last question, O Doodan. And what is religion, but fanfiction? What, now religion isn't serious?

I was rather hoping for a simple removal of all posts relating to this discussion. As for the PM's, they, sadly, disallow 3rd party posts which can easily make arguments we miss, etc. It'll be less a discussion.

Nice try. Give me a thread that only poses a question, but doesn't present a decent stance, one way or the other.

http://www.staredit.net/topic/3634/
Technically, you might want to reword your question, but I think I did pretty well there. First on the list...

The original poster explains his view right here. He's on Obama's side (READ: Slightly). Oh, and he presented some evidence that deals with the topic at hand.

By a little bit. Sadly, you said 'decent', and his first sentence stated quite clearly that 'I really don't know'. Try again. Stance has nothing to do with a topic being accepted into Serious Discussion. Open-ended questions are plenty, or just people who say 'Guys, let's discuss this... '.

I suppose so, if you have evidence that gives a good case for those things. But you didn't do that in this topic.

I don't expect people who don't know the approximate strengths and weaknesses of member countries to comment on it. However, I'll repost it tomorrow if you wish to lock this, better.

Hmm, then tell why he would go ahead and say he was leaning toward Obama then, if he really didn't know? Really Centreri, if you're going to try and use petty excuses against me to try to sway me, it won't work.

Whether the first post of Obama vs Mccain met SD standards is a bit moot right now. The topic is 47 pages deep. Besides, just because some topics have slipped past SD standards (months ago, mind you) does not mean that others should. So your argument fails. I think the off-topic discussion of what constitutes a serious discussion topic has just about run its course at this point, but if it continues, this topic will probably just be locked. In which case you can try to make another functional topic at your own discretion.

The Obama vs. McCain topic also had modern context to back it up. Although the first post might have a bit of trouble standing up to a very strict interpretation of the rules, that doesn't change the fact that the election was weighing heavily on most of our minds at the time of the topic's creation, and it was simply the first to take the stage on that issue. A topic that said "Who's better? Andrew Jackson or Henry Clay?" would not have the modern context to give it strength. It may present enough info to pass for an SD topic, but you can bet that most others won't know or care to discuss it. Also, history showed that Jackson won that race, thus hurting the case for the debate's existence at all.

False. Presidents like Bush have shown that the better candidate doesn't always win, so your logic fails there. As for the modern context, that sounds like 'We often always enforce it'. Rules are rules, eh? That theoretical topic is completely sound. As moderator, please tell me why a serious topic requires a stance by the original poster, and how that positively affects the discussion as to decide whether the topic stays or goes.

Often always comes to mind. As for my argument, that obviously doesn't fail, since you still let the discussions that started off negatively continue, effectively giving them the opportunity to be active and good enough to be considered fit even with their bad beginnings. Inconsistent. You're not giving my topic that chance (though, honestly I don't think people here know enough on the matter to really make it to 40+ pages, I could always hope ).

I'm not trying to completely piss you guys off - only to an extent. And I'd already told you to lock it. If you'd do that, then I'll restart the topic tomorrow. Otherwise, we could continue arguing, and really, I don't think you're going to convince me of anything here.

The purpose of the Jackson vs. Clay example was to show that it had no relevance that most here would care to discuss, and the fact that Jackson won further hurts the need for the topic to exist, since Clay will not be winning. The example was not about which person was actually better, it was to examine context. Moderators are human too, and in elaborating on context, I was attempting to explain the unconscious factors that likely went into allowing the Obama vs. McCain topic to remain in SD. My statement was not a judgment on which candidate was actually better.

I heard a terrific example that explained why the context in which something is said is just as important as what was actually said. I can't think of the book's name at the moment, but the author explained how a friend of his suffered a concussion, and when he was visiting the hospital, this friend's 3 year old daughter said "Daddy bump head. Needs doctor." About a month later, he was visiting that same friend's home, and the little girl walked up to him and repeated the same words. It was clear that her dad had recovered, and that she was well aware of the fact that he was no longer in need of a doctor. Her intention behind stating that had more to do with proving to the author that she remembered who he was, and that phrase made reference to an experience they had shared together. Taken strictly by the letter, with no mind to context, her repeating the line about her father's injury might seem weird, since it was not technically true or relevant anymore.

The likely reasons behind why nobody saw MA's topic as violating any rules are: 1) At the time, the outcome of the election was unknown, but was soon to be determined. Nearly everyone had some personal stake in the issue, and the topic was merely the first one to open the floor on an issue that most wanted to discuss. 2) Most people that participated in the discussion already knew who MillenniumArmy is. If an unknown member had made the same topic with the exact same wording, it might be possible that the topic would have been moved. But I have some doubts about that, mainly because of point #1. At this point in time, I see no need to move MA's topic.

I suppose the context of a discussion taking place in SD is that it gives the discussion some merit. Responses that fail to meet certain intellectual standards are justified in being deleted, edited, and possibly punished. But for a topic to have such protection, it also must meet the guidelines that are expressed in the rules. Most topics there do. But given the context in which some of them were made (context that cannot be replicated), some questionable examples may have slipped by. There's no perfect science to this, but as I said, we humans do the best we can.

My reason for going into all that is to say that, given the context, no red flags were tripped when examining MA's topic. But your topic did trigger examination, and that examination brought about the conclusion that it should be moved. Further examination has yet to change any of the minds that have the power to reverse the decision. If you want, you might make a detailed case explaining why the Obama vs. McCain topic, or the others that you have an issue with, should be in Null. You might even succeed. But then what? It wouldn't save this topic. It would be a lengthy expenditure of time that ultimately did more to bring other topics to the same level as this one, rather than elevating this topic. If you want the discussion of War Games to take place in SD, then you will have to come at it from another direction, as this one was not successful.

I feel like I'm starting to repeat myself, so I'm pretty much done discussing this. I'm sorry if you're bothered about your topic not being in SD, but hopefully this will shed some light on why that is, and what you can do to make sure your future SD topics are successful.

... As I said, you won't be changing my mind anytime soon. I really don't see why you bothered. You make the rules sound like something to be manipulated - when it feels right, don't follow them, otherwise do. I understand that, but it annoys me because it's working against me, and as such, I will argue vehemently against it.

No matter. As I have stated, lock this topic and I'll make a new one tomorrow, better written. Then, if moved, I'll be really pissed, because of 'I suppose so, if you have evidence that gives a good case for those things. But you didn't do that in this topic.'.

Please note that I didn't ask you to continue this discussion, but that you wrote that for... I can't really see a reason.

You asked a question, and I suppose I got carried away with the answer.

This place has rules, and it's my job to enforce them. But my point in going on was to show that a robotic examination of everything is not humanly possible. I wanted to address the concerns you had that your topic was unfairly treated. I don't think it was, but I wanted to acknowledge that there could be some grounds for your argument (Those grounds being that we're all human and make mistakes, and that a mistake may have been made about past topics. Although, again, I don't think that's the case and I explained at length why I thought so.), and if you wish to go further, you certainly may.

I'll leave this open a little longer in case there are any final remarks. I will close it soon though, as you requested. I hope there's no hard feelings.

No, it's fine. And I don't really have personal feelings except if it's actually personal, which I don't think it is .

All right then. Good luck with tomorrow's topic.

>>Locked