So, the SBR makes a group-wide exception this time. What, does the SBR have a President who will punish all of them if they do?
They gotta agree, having been in multiple deliberative bodies before this takes TIME. A lot of time. And even then, for the reasons that I've stated before, I'd think that they'd want SELECTIVE information leaks, in other words preservation of legitimacy and prevention of pressure on SBR members.
As far as President, no, but from my knowledge of how deliberative bodies function the most likely method is that they vote to expel. The other possibility is an impeachment process that results in expulsion. Both would be on the basis of breaking rules.
So, if they want to "preserve the integrity of the debate process", make it so that we can't post. "[Preserving] the integrity of the debate process" is a sh*tty reason to keep 90% of SWF in the dark about the best arguments on the table.
"Preserving the integrity of the process" is the most important thing ANY deliberative body can do.
The best way to release arguments is through a concerted effort to do so, either through a "show debate", or through a specifically created "press release" compiled by the entire body.
Well, refuted is a strong word. I like your debate style as one of the best I've seen in the debate so far, but the last (closed) thread and this thread's OP only show that pro-ban's arguments stay solid, while anti-ban's arguments (and counter arguments) get flimsier by the day.
There is nothing to refute Reductio Ad Absurdum, nor is there any proof that the attendance numbers measure what you think they do.
The rest only matter if you consider that bad enough to be banworthy on it's face.
Again, you only think that because of your side in the debate.
Oh, and if OS is really doing such a bad thing, I'll forgive him for it for the simple fact that at least he's the one guy not forcing us into a blackout. You all brought this upon yourselves by thinking it was, in any way, a good idea to keep the entire community in the dark with regards to the best and brightest arguments.
The problem is that it undermines the debate, there are avenues to release this sort of information without undermining the debate.
No, he's not a bad guy, he's actually a good guy imo, but this was a PR move, and it undermines the actual debate.
lol @ people complaining that the good responses to OS isn't getting the same rep as the OP.
who cares? Play to win. Get better. Remember all that sh*t?
the game knows no rules of honor.
The thing is, this is a discussion.
Winning here isn't, "the side I support wins", winning here is, "everyone is convinced in the proper manner that the side that is in actuality correct is correct".
This is a PR move that at best convinces people of the right side for the wrong reasons, and at worst does that for the wrong side. In other words, playing to lose.