The Rules as posted by Nitrous, then edited by several staff are as follows: --------------------------------------- Rules 1. Attack the problem - not the person. E.g. Only idiots vote yes for gay marriage. 2. Debates should not be based upon opinions. E.g. Grunts or Elites? 3. Debates should not be centered on hate. E.g. Does God hate atheists? 4. Rule Two is to be disregarded if your debate strongly focuses on intellectual philosophy. E.g. Immortality or Death? 5. Do not give negative rep for variances in opinion. If this happens, at all, you will be banned for 3 days. We will find out. E.g. Obama sucks, -rep. 6. Forum wide rules apply here as well. No spam. Guidelines 1. Cite your sources. If you see someone doing this, +rep. 2. Use proper grammar, if not for us, but the credibility of your argument. 3. Check the box to remove your sig when posting in a debate. --------------------------------------- Though if you would all take the time to notice, it's not a requirement/rule to remove your sig in this section of the forums, but why do people neg rep/get upset about it? I understand it helps keep these forums clean, and these are serious debates going on Much like this one will be...I hope. So my question to everyone for this debate is how do you feel about this guideline? Disclaimer: I know some people feel strongly about this one, so please, be reasonable, don't flame me or anyone else...just post logical reasons behind your opinions...
I think its unnecessary, I ended up just removing my sig to make following the guide-lines less of a hassle. I would prefer to just remove this rule.
I also think it is kinda stupid and especially pissed me off when someone posted in the debate forum to turn off your signature which is fine however the put a screenshot of how to in there signature block that kinda makes me angry.
Don't look at me. It was edited by several staff members before release. I only did the rules, not the guidelines.
I like the idea of no sigs in debates. It makes it a little more serious. Because it kinda detracts when you see some people sigs. I just hate people who hand out neg rep if you forget to remove it, just say in your post to remove it, or PM or visitor msg the person. I saw like 3 people in a row who forgot to remove their sig, what I did was, I contributed to the debate then added a little bit at the end reminding people to remove their sigs.
That's pretty much what I do, handing out -rep is just something I feel needs to be addressed, because that's particularly lame... Anyways, if you didn't notice I forgot to remove my sig on that last one. ZOMG I REMEMBERED THIS TIME
You're too cool for sigs...and a visitor message board for the public...I mean for god sakes you have 2 green bars nao!!
I disagree with the no-sig rule because just like right now, its annoying when you forget to check the box Find some way to turn all sigs off automatically in this forum and its fine.
It occurs that whilst sigs detract from the topic to an extent, it's not like a sig will make your argument more or less valid, and nor will it cause the topic to no longer become interesting. So surely removing your sig (or forgetting to) is just unnecesary hassle? Not that I would complain if there was a way to automatically remove sigs in this one forum. EDIT: Also, if you untick the box, your post still takes up a certain amount of space, leaving big, daft-looking white spaces all over the place. (or at least, sometimes. Seems a bit erratic :S )