Proposal: UFO Panel Committee

Status
Not open for further replies.

Reiku

Banned
Banned
The rules for such a committee are linked here in this thread http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2911404#post2911404 - we have one believer (myself) and one skeptic (Jdawg) already. We require (atleast two more skeptics and 2 more believers). There can be more so long as both sides have equal count of members.

We will require a panel of judges, two possible believers of the phenomenon and two possible skeptics of the phenomenon. I have in mind perhaps some moderators might be good conduct here.

I would like to see whether spider goat, (alphanumeric should be present to manage the scientific side of things, or by another scientific sciforums poster), we require a judging panel with some various backgrounds so that there is a reasonale array of professionals in their own area. If not, so be it, but it would help the ruling on some cases.

If you are interested, just leave a message.

thank you! :)
 
Pincho Paxton, ''for'' is now included. We need atleast, 1 more ''for'' and 2 more ''against''.
 
Pincho Paxton, ''for'' is now included. We need atleast, 1 more ''for'' and 2 more ''against''.

I didn't totally say I was 'For'. I said I am 'for real evidence'. I have never seen any real evidence, so I am in the middle. I didn't know that I was going to be moved sideways. I'm likely to argue against, and for. Against certain Youtube videos, and for the possibility of Aliens.
 
This thread is already a mess. Three posts and no agreed upon rules listed. Where is the proposal thread? Are we counting the one in the UFO forum? And what, exactly, am I "against?" We haven't even agreed to what the sides are supposed to be arguing.
 
Don't worry Jdawg. The underlining rules have been presented. The rest really is a matter of ''proper'' conduct. It should be maintained by a group of individuals capable of having a discussion without resorting to the usual downfalls of most conversations approached here at sciforums.

Think of this discussion being under ''strict sciforums alpha rules.''
 
Don't worry Jdawg. The underlining rules have been presented. The rest really is a matter of ''proper'' conduct. It should be maintained by a group of individuals capable of having a discussion without resorting to the usual downfalls of most conversations approached here at sciforums.

Think of this discussion being under ''strict sciforums alpha rules.''

There rules have not been presented, let alone agreed upon, and "strict sciforums alpha rules" does nothing to clarify the matter. All you've said so far is "don't call my posts word salad." That says nothing on how this debate is supposed to proceed.

I'm not wasting my time with this nonsense. Do yourself a favor and read the help topics stickied at the top of this subforum. If you get your act together at some point, drop me a line and I'll consider joining you here. But until then, count me out.
 
I am still writing them, please be patient Jdawg. You may tender your position even after you have applied if you don't agree with the rules.
 
Last edited:
I have sat here very carefully to make these rules. Offer any suggestions against any rules if you don't agree with them, or if you want to add something.

Thank you.


The Rules

The Cause of these debates is to ensure a safe, clean and proper investigation into the UFO phenomenon to encover truth, evidence and possible proofs for or against the evidence of UFO being terrestrial or alien-related technology.

1) The committe Judges have ultimate control over the censor of a debate.

2) The committee Judges can be held in contempt if they ignore evidence which cannot be refuted, or if they display behaviour which does not serve justice to the ''cause''. One man will be awarded power to overthrow the judges and the entire thread/debate will be closed. That would be a real shame but necessery to stop biased attitudes.

3) Derogatory comments are not allowed.

4) Personal attacks are not allowed normally. The only kind of attack you can use which is personal is the integrity of the post and this can only be done once. It is then the other sides chance to prove those accusations wrong. If they can't, then they are awarded a point.

5) Unsubstantiated evidence is not tolerated.

6) Scientific evidence may be called upon at any time so long as it is within reasonable conduct.

7) Words or phrases like, ''word salad'', ''trolling'' ect cannot be used. It is a scape goat from otherwise a logical debate. If you believe someone's work is ''word salad'' express it in other means; in a logically consistent arguement, for instance.

8) The Judges have complete authority to censor someone so long as it does not comply to the rules. They may also censor if the other side call for a motion to dismiss.

9) Committee members are able to tender their influences when they wish.

10) The High Judge (who has the ability to render the Judge Panels as being in contempt of the committee) cannot have any other influence.
 
Last edited:
Is everyone in agreement with these rules, (this includes those who have already designated their positions in this debate)?
 
Oh by the way, anyone who is ''on the same team'' can obviously share notes. Anyone not in the commitee will have their comments strickened from the record.
 
It will be a real shame Jdawg if you don't comply in arguing against. I actually had high hopes for the opposition with you in it. You seem to have high hopes that the opposition have little to go on.

If you don't, I will assume it an act of weakness.
 
This is absolutely absurd. Your rules are a perfect example of a word salad.

The rules are either redundant, contradictory, or entirely meaningless. Examples:

1) The committe Judges have ultimate control over the censor of a debate.

is the same as

8) The Judges have complete authority to censor someone so long as it does not comply to the rules. They may also censor if the other side call for a motion to dismiss.

(Side note: You've just said that the judges have complete authority to censor someone so long as that censor ("it") does not comply to the rules. You've just given the judges permission to censor posts so long as they're doing so for no reason. What you meant to say was that judges have authority to censor posts so long as the post does not comply to the rules. Of course, this is also redundant, since the censors are also judging the debate, and therefore have no need to censor anything. Who are they trying to prevent from seeing the information? There's no need to censor anything; if a point has no merit, the judge will take that into consideration when rendering a decision.)

3) Derogatory comments are not allowed.

and

4) Personal attacks are not allowed normally. The only kind of attack you can use which is personal is the integrity of the post and this can only be done once. It is then the other sides chance to prove those accusations wrong. If they can't, then they are awarded a point.

mean the same thing.

6) Scientific evidence may be called upon at any time so long as it is within reasonable conduct.


What does "within reasonable conduct" mean?

This:

7) Words or phrases like, ''word salad'', ''trolling'' ect cannot be used. It is a scape goat from otherwise a logical debate. If you believe someone's work is ''word salad'' express it in other means; in a logically consistent arguement, for instance.

is word salad. A) You clearly don't know what "scapegoat" means, and B) you apparently don't know what word salad means, either. If someone posts a random collection of words without regard to their meaning (such as you've done here) then there is no point being made. That is why people call it a "word salad." It's meaningless, and thus there is no way to logically refute it.

If you don't want your posts called word salad, don't write word salads.

I'm sorry, this is ridiculous. You clearly aren't the one who should be running this show. I'm always up for a debate, but half of the rules don't even make sense. Maybe I'll write a proposal later.
 
It will be a real shame Jdawg if you don't comply in arguing against. I actually had high hopes for the opposition with you in it. You seem to have high hopes that the opposition have little to go on.

If you don't, I will assume it an act of weakness.

I'll debate you, but not under those absurd rules. I will consent to not calling you names, but I reserve the right to rip your arguments to pieces. That's what a debate is, Reiku.
 
4) Personal attacks are not allowed normally. The only kind of attack you can use which is personal is the integrity of the post and this can only be done once. It is then the other sides chance to prove those accusations wrong. If they can't, then they are awarded a point.

1) WHO is awarded a point?

2) POINTS?! There's a scoring system now? Why is that not outlined anywhere in the rules?

Seriously, you should not be running this. Wow.
 
I'll debate you, but not under those absurd rules. I will consent to not calling you names, but I reserve the right to rip your arguments to pieces. That's what a debate is, Reiku.

please let it all out now. Because when the proceedings occur, you will not be allowed to be so.... artistic in your expressions.

Are you in or out?


I won't consider my panel's rules in an antiquated or destructive methodologies. These rules have been placed for an equality in discussions. If you are not happy about these rules, state your reasons, reasonably atleast.


You are already showing skeptic hack signs. I will make sure the rules will not comply to this.
 
1) WHO is awarded a point?

2) POINTS?! There's a scoring system now? Why is that not outlined anywhere in the rules?

Seriously, you should not be running this. Wow.

Of course. This is a logical debate.

How else is any debate system awarded? :shrug:
 
Point systems cannot be implied in the rules. The reason why is because then the creator has ultimate control (me) over a point-system; I'd find that personally unfair. The point system (one point per logical arguement) is left awarded by the judges. That is left to them, not me.
 
Of course. This is a logical debate.

How else is any debate system awarded? :shrug:

I thought the point of the three judges was that they would weigh the arguments and reach an agreement. But that's not the problem. The problem is that you haven't explained the scoring system at all.
 
Point systems cannot be implied in the rules. The reason why is because then the creator has ultimate control (me) over a point-system; I'd find that personally unfair. The point system (one point per logical arguement) is left awarded by the judges. That is left to them, not me.

So you can't make up the point system...but you've decided it's one point per "logical argument?"

:confused:
 
Of course they weigh the arguements...


duh?


... if they couldn't, and no award system was in place, how else could they properly measure the debate ????


PS. Pincho resigns... Jdawg too?

It seems like the opposition (the believers are already winning this case...) I am interested in this psychology... is there something people are afraid of?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top