I agree on much of this, I'll briefly go through where I would adjust:
Here are my thoughts:
1. Minimum length post and maximum length posts: This limits responses from people that would normally just come back with a snark retort to something. This also includes just posting tweets or news articles without any thought from the person posting them. If you can't write a few good sentences about the tweet or article you are posting then it's not worth posting.
Do we really want
maximum post lengths? I mean... c'mon man, you're killing me..
But seriously, I've never seen an
informative post that was too long.. Sometimes someone will ask what seems to be a simple question, or will make a simple observation and state it as evidence to a case; and the retort can be exceptionally complex. Just think of the socioeconomic arguments for and against "basic economics" like supply-side economic theory. One argument (supply/demand, trickle-down) is exceptionally simplistic and easy to convey; however the retort is nuanced, complex and requires both detail and often evidence if it's to be believed.
So I think limiting post-lengths to an arbitrary maximum might curtail more nuanced and detailed reasoning, as to favor of brevity over precision and detail.
With that said, the forum already imposes a maximum post-length of 20,000 characters; so, there's already a hard-limit to a single-post.
Totally agree about minimum post length though.. Minimum post lengths however, are a great idea.
Posts that are too long can stymie discussions because it's hard to break them all down and things can get lost.
I'm not what the proper lengths for a min or max post would be, but it's a thought.
Indeed.
3. No limits on where you can post articles from. Something from CNN isn't necessarily more true than something from Breitbart. If it's a crappy article or a good article it can stand on its own merits.
I want to be clear; I'm not suggesting posting from Breitbart be bannable; I think that'd be ridiculous.
However, I also don't think it's a reasonable expectation for us to turn the political forum into our own mini-version of Snopes. So when people post from Breitbart, and someone responds by point out "that's not a credible source," I don't think that should be seen with astonishment.
If someone wants to use Breitbart as their primary source of information; that's on them. But everyone else should also have the ability to point out that certain outlets have no credibility.
And if, conversely, someone were to say "CNN is anti-Trump, do you have another source;" I don't think that would be at all outlandish.
So it goes both ways.
4. Nearly no limit on topics discussed: if we are serious about this we have to be open to any topics. But obviously a topic can be shutdown if it is made with an agenda in mind (example topic "Why do Republicans hate minorities?")
There are certain topics that I don't think can make a comeback here on RCF; for reasons we've already discussed. I can't envision having a productive conversation on this forum about "race," or if Muslims are
inherently dangerous, etc. There's just zero evidence such a conversation can work, let alone is worthwhile having.
5. No personal insults. Things get heated but we have to keep discussions sane. I can't call you dumb or vice versa. It get harder to determine with implications so we'll let the mod figure out if someone is being hostile without directly stating an insult.
Agreed.
6. No Running to Ben. Don't be a whiny snowflake.
Agreed...
7. This isn't really a rule, but I'd like for people to acknowledge this isn't a game. This is not debate club, no one is keeping score at home. You are not trying to win an argument, you are just trying to present the ideas you have. We are all flawed so our ideas therefore cannot be perfect, so if we approach this as a way to exchange ideas as opposed to a competition I think we'll be better off.
I somewhat agree with this, but in some other ways I don't. I discuss topics in the form of debate because the point is to
test ideas and the veracity of both the counterpoint as well as my own opinions.
Debates, discussions, whatever on RCF have influenced my opinions.. For example, I'm more pro-immigration than I used to be, I'm now pro-legalization of marijuana, and I've openly questioned my views on gun rights here quite recently and really hope to hear from others about their opinions.
So, while some may wish to just post their ideas; personally, I'd prefer to discuss and test those ideas to see if there is any merit to them.
So, I'd like people to understand that attacking an idea isn't attacking the person who put it forward. It's just one way of critically assessing a point of view or an opinion; and it's not meant to be construed as devaluing the person who holds that opinion.