Incivility versus recognition of a person's obvious agenda?

[Divine Insight]

Where is the line between acknowledging someone's obvious agenda and being given a warning for personal incivility?

If a person starts a "Series of Threads" that they have even been numbering specifically for the purpose of arguing for, (or "preaching"), a very specific religious agenda, and another person acknowledges that agenda, should that amount to "Incivility"?

Especially when there was absolutely no negative or derogatory implications made at all.

Why should a person receive a warning for acknowledging the obvious religious agenda of another person, especially in a case where the agenda is blatantly obvious by the other person who announced and then starting a complete series of enumerated threads that have a very "Clear Religion Agenda"?

What should that be considered to be uncivil or deserve a warning?

[AdHoc]

Where is the line between acknowledging someone's obvious agenda and being given a warning for personal incivility?

If a person starts a "Series of Threads" that they have even been numbering specifically for the purpose of arguing for, (or "preaching"), a very specific religious agenda, and another person acknowledges that agenda, should that amount to "Incivility"?

Especially when there was absolutely no negative or derogatory implications made at all.

Why should a person receive a warning for acknowledging the obvious religious agenda of another person, especially in a case where the agenda is blatantly obvious by the other person who announced and then starting a complete series of enumerated threads that have a very "Clear Religion Agenda"?

What should that be considered to be uncivil or deserve a warning?

I can't see any reason for warning a person for that.

And at the same time I wonder why would a person want to highlight an agenda when it would only risk embarrassing the person with the agenda?

I see what you are describing regularly but I don't think I ever point it out because I don't see a reward.

[Divine Insight]

And at the same time I wonder why would a person want to highlight an agenda when it would only risk embarrassing the person with the agenda?

Having an agenda is not a bad thing. In fact, typically everyone who enters into a debate has a debate agenda.

An example:

Let's say that you enter into a debate with someone who is taking the position that Jesus is not required for forgiveness. Then arguing that point is their "agenda".

I have no problem openly stating what my agenda is in a debate. In fact, I actually like to make that quite clear. I don't understand why anyone would shy away from their own agenda in a debate, or even pretend that they don't have one. Where is there anything productive in that?

It seems like people are jumping to any excuse possible in an attempt to claim "personal insult and injury" anymore.

I feel like I need to walk on eggshells just to avoid being accused of making some sort of "personal attack" when none was even remotely intended.

[Paprika]

I feel like I need to walk on eggshells just to avoid being accused of making some sort of "personal attack" when none was even remotely intended.

You too?

[AdHoc]

And at the same time I wonder why would a person want to highlight an agenda when it would only risk embarrassing the person with the agenda?

Having an agenda is not a bad thing. In fact, typically everyone who enters into a debate has a debate agenda.

An example:

Let's say that you enter into a debate with someone who is taking the position that Jesus is not required for forgiveness. Then arguing that point is their "agenda".

I agree, I would probably use the word worldview to describe that, even though its probably insufficient to describe what you're talking about. Agenda tends to have a negative connotation. It suggests that I have a list of points written down that I am referring to and carrying from one debate to the next and I never modify or abandon any of those points. I don't do that. I approach each debate from my worldview of course but I try hard to see the question from my partner's point of view when I read their posts. And when I move on to a new thread I try to start fresh.

I have no problem openly stating what my agenda is in a debate. In fact, I actually like to make that quite clear. I don't understand why anyone would shy away from their own agenda in a debate, or even pretend that they don't have one. Where is there anything productive in that?

I agree, if they can't make their agenda/worldview clear, its either dishonest or a situation where the person is not adequately self-aware.

It seems like people are jumping to any excuse possible in an attempt to claim "personal insult and injury" anymore.

I feel like I need to walk on eggshells just to avoid being accused of making some sort of "personal attack" when none was even remotely intended.

One pattern I've noticed is that when some people get warned they tend to be more likely to want to report other posts spuriously. It could be that you've run into some of these people.

[otseng]

Where is the line between acknowledging someone's obvious agenda and being given a warning for personal incivility?

Bottom line, you are free to attack ideas. But, comments about another person, including their agenda is off-limits. The only exception is if someone explicitly states what their agenda is, you are free to repeat that.

If a person starts a "Series of Threads" that they have even been numbering specifically for the purpose of arguing for, (or "preaching"), a very specific religious agenda, and another person acknowledges that agenda, should that amount to "Incivility"?

Anyone can start whatever topics they want, including religious ones. Now, if someone just posts threads that is just preaching (or ranting), that is against the rules.

Especially when there was absolutely no negative or derogatory implications made at all.

It doesn't matter if you think there's no negative implications. The mod team judges on what was posted, not on your intentions.

Why should a person receive a warning for acknowledging the obvious religious agenda of another person, especially in a case where the agenda is blatantly obvious by the other person who announced and then starting a complete series of enumerated threads that have a very "Clear Religion Agenda"?

If you can point to a post where he explicitly says he has a religious agenda, I'll remove the warning.

[otseng]

One pattern I've noticed is that when some people get warned they tend to be more likely to want to report other posts spuriously. It could be that you've run into some of these people.

Another pattern is those on probation complain about getting more warnings.

Also note that we do not act on all reports. If it's a spurious report, we don't act on it. Only if the moderators feel that it's in violation of the rules do we act on it.

[Divine Insight]

Where is the line between acknowledging someone's obvious agenda and being given a warning for personal incivility?

Bottom line, you are free to attack ideas. But, comments about another person, including their agenda is off-limits. The only exception is if someone explicitly states what their agenda is, you are free to repeat that.

I felt that he did explicitly state what his agenda is in that debate.

His agenda was to argue that Jesus is not required for forgiveness.

I merely pointed out that when he posts verses to back up his position he totally ignores anything and everything within those verses that don't support his debate agenda.

And then I demonstrated what those other points in those verses are.

I thought that should be totally within the scope of civil debate.

I've seen many professional debaters making those sorts of points.

For example in a debate with William Lane Craig, Sean Carrol points out that on "Divine Demand Theory" Craig would necessarily need to condone the behavior of Muslim extremists as they bomb and kill innocent people in the name of Allah, because they only objection that Craig could have is that they are praying to the "wrong God".

Yet Craig himself never claimed to take that position. None the less it follows from his debate agenda.

And I feel the same way here. If someone posts a bible verse to support their debate agenda and totally ignores all other implications of that verse, then that should be fair material for their opponent to point out.

Slapping their opponent with an incivility warning in that case is uncalled for, IMHO.

There was no derogatory name calling or personal insinuations even implied.

[Danmark]

Where is the line between acknowledging someone's obvious agenda and being given a warning for personal incivility?

If a person starts a "Series of Threads" that they have even been numbering specifically for the purpose of arguing for, (or "preaching"), a very specific religious agenda, and another person acknowledges that agenda, should that amount to "Incivility"?

Especially when there was absolutely no negative or derogatory implications made at all.

Why should a person receive a warning for acknowledging the obvious religious agenda of another person, especially in a case where the agenda is blatantly obvious by the other person who announced and then starting a complete series of enumerated threads that have a very "Clear Religion Agenda"?

What should that be considered to be uncivil or deserve a warning?

This bothers me as well. My background is in law, so I see debate thru that perspective. You might even call that my bias, or say that I have an 'agenda' for fair and honest debating.

In the courtroom lawyers are required to be civil. In cross examining a witness I am allowed to ask questions about a witness's biases. If there is evidence to support it, I am allowed to argue that a witness's biases should be considered in determining his credibility. If one has an agenda that goes to bias. It is not uncivil to point that out. It is part of effective debate.

The question is whether or not a bias is relevant to the issue. In general, I don't see how someone's religious or nonreligious bias is relevant, but I also don't see it as a personal attack or as uncivil.

Debaters here who are also moderators have argued with me on many issues. Sometimes they throw in a phrase like, "As a lawyer you should know... [whatever].
Yes it's personal. Is it uncivil? It's not relevant to the argument, but if warnings were issued for irrelevant, weak, or 'make weight' arguments, everyone but me and thee would be banned.

Is it uncivil for me to write: "Naturally you think same sex relations is wrong because you are a fundamentalist?" Does it violate a rule to write, "Do you have a reason for taking position X other than because of your religious views?" If I substitute "agenda" for "views" have I made a civil question uncivil?

I can imagine a case where referring to one's agenda might be a personal attack or uncivil. At the very least this should be evaluated on a case by case basis with a 'comment' preceding a 'warning.'

[AdHoc]

One pattern I've noticed is that when some people get warned they tend to be more likely to want to report other posts spuriously. It could be that you've run into some of these people.

Another pattern is those on probation complain about getting more warnings.

I can imagine that being the case.

Also note that we do not act on all reports. If it's a spurious report, we don't act on it. Only if the moderators feel that it's in violation of the rules do we act on it.

I accept that and didn't mean to suggest that.

The moderators are not omniscient and so some violations fly under the radar. I know this because I've seen them and choose not to report them as I assume do others.

Just like not all speeding violations get caught. But if I saw someone speeding through a school zone i'd take down the license number and call it in.