[Vote]New Debate Rule for Consideration

[Mr Bean]

Per disscussions with the Moderator Forum the following rule created by SirNitram is for your consideration. This rule would be the eight debate rule if adopted.

And that rule is.

Rule Eight
Thou Shalt Not Hide Behind A Mental Condition You Self-Diagnosed, Under Pain Of Mockery and Banning.

In other words if you blaim your poor grammer on dyslexia but have never been diagnosed, you will be mocked. If you claim your constant swearing is due to Tourette syndrome but a medical doctor has never run the tests you will be dealt with. If you claim your bad memory is due to your Alzheimers and your 19, you may be banned.

[Sea Skimmer]

I don't see the need

[Edi]

I support this with a few caveats, see below. Acting like an asshat and then blaming it on something like Asperger's, autism, Tourette's syndrome or whatever else just doesn't fucking cut it. We've had people who tried that in the past and some of them are featured in Parting Shots, though none for this particular reason.

Obviously, there is no way we can actually demand verification of any diagnosis for a host of reasons, but when dealing with bona fide posers and assholes who try to use that kind of excuses, this rule would become handy.

For reference, dyslexia and such can be noticed, e.g. the author of this thread is IIRC a dyslexic and has made no secret of it, but he does a fairly good job of compensating for it and usually has worthwhile things to say. Some others who I've claim dyslexia (not necessarily here) have just been sloppy posters with not much meaningful or even coherent (not counting spelling errors here) to say and coupled with atrocious grammar, have been clear cases of laziness.

So this rule, if and when to be applied, needs case by case consideration and I also suggest that applying it require the consensus of two or three mods just to be on the safe side.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I see no reason for this rule, since all possible reasons to punish such people are already covered by the existing rules. The board already demands correct English grammar, the board already punishes for poor debating behaviours regardless of cause.

[The Yosemite Bear]

yeah, I mean as one of the more fucked up mentally people on this board, I rarely if ever turn to that excuse, my erratic behavoir is noticed and it's consistant, most of my family is bi-polar, most of my generation (within my sibs and cousins) have some form of autism spectrum disorders. I have been diagnosed high functional borderline autistic (before they had classified aspergers (sp)) but I haven't been treated for my bi-polar tendancies in over two decades (suprising given my anger problems during my manic periods.)

[LadyTevar]

Just because Warsie's a fuckin' idjit doesn't mean we need a new rule just for him.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Just because Warsie's a fuckin' idjit doesn't mean we need a new rule just for him.

yup, and me, nit and Haas prove that one can be misswired and still be quite functional around here...

if you will forgive me bringing your spouse up in this discussion....

[Surlethe]

I disagree with adopting the rule, for reasons much along the lines of those Her Grace laid out above. However, I would support incorporating this rule into a pre-existing rule as a caveat or adding it to the Board FAQ as a warning to people who may be tempted to hide behind self-diagnosed mental conditions.

[Mad]

I would support adding a warning along the lines of "having a mental condition is not an excuse for breaking the rules," perhaps incorporated into an existing rule as Surlethe suggested.

[Mr Bean]

Poll is running for the next two weeks FYI. If the Senate should decided against adopting this rule as is we can open discussion on it or table the idea for now.

[LadyTevar]

I move we table the idea.

[Knife]

I see no reason to adopt the rule as is, since there is little in it that isn't covered by other rules. This is more of a clarification rather than a new rule, as far as I'm concerned. If the Senate wants to add the text submitted into a preexisting rule as a clarification, I could understand that. As is, I don't see the usefulness of this new rule and shall vote accordingly.

[Edi]

Given the arguments from the other Senators, I find myself convinced of their position.

[Publius]

I move we table the idea.

Seconded. There is simply no need for this rule.

[Spyder]

Self diagnosis of a mental illness has no bearing on points presented in a debate unless the points themselves are said to result from said illness, in which case the claim would be treated as a concession anyway.

Bad spelling and grammar is already self punishable in the fact that everyone's going to think you're a moron and either ignore or flame you anyway.

Also, I feel such an ordinance is extremely anti-hypochondria. The hypochondriacs are one of my special interest lobbies.

[Zaia]

Voted.

[Frank Hipper]

P.R. 3 already covers this; nay.

[Simplicius]

Voted.

[Coyote]

I could see this as a subset of a rule, ie, a clarification or pointing out of details, but not a need for a whole separate rule. Self-diagnosis is a form of lying & misrepresentation, which is already addressed.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

P.R. 3 already covers this; nay.

I agree. At most, this would be useful as a point of clarification to PR 3. As such, voted.

[Gil Hamilton]

I don't think we need a formal rule, since we already pretty much do that anyway.

[LadyTevar]

How long was this poll lasting, anyway? It looks like we've decided to drop the subject, why don't we close the poll and get on with something else?

[Knife]

How long was this poll lasting, anyway? It looks like we've decided to drop the subject, why don't we close the poll and get on with something else?

Protocol. A vote was established, is a majority established? Do we have a quorum?

[The Yosemite Bear]

no six votes shy of the 2/3 mark, though I don't think it would matter much as this is the most lopsided nyet vote I've seen in a while...

[LadyTevar]

A motion has been made to Table the discussion, and seconded.
After 7 days, it's clear that this poll would need Clinton's luck to get enough support for a clear "YES".

I move we lock the thread and move on.