Should DDO members who do not complete profiles or accept comments be banned?

Asked by: GWL-CPA
  • Who's that hiding behind the screen?

    What is the point of allowing these members who do not complete their profiles, or answer “The BIG Issues” section of their profile, or allow you to post comments to their profile on what they have posted?
    There is no way to respond properly to the nonsense they sometimes present.
    They should be banned from this site.

  • We have been taught to keep our identities private on the Internet.

    People can enjoy a positive debating site without the need to fill in profiles. In fact, an anonymous debating site or forum has usually been found to be a more honest one. There are so many dangers with putting too much of our own personal information on the Internet these days.

  • Everyone deserves a place to start.

    Posting information about controversial topics can be intimidating and users deserve a chance to explore the site without being subject to a barrage of negative comments or be obligated to complete an entire profile.

    There are accounts who are simply looking to spam or stir the pot and post ridiculous opinions just to cause trouble. These are obvious and should just be flagged as fraud or spam. The few bad apples shouldn't spoil it for other users who want to explore the site and offer their opinions without being ridiculed or harassed. Give users the options to explore the site and proceed at their own level of comfort.

  • Should DDO members who do not complete profiles or accept comments be banned? ....

    Should DDO members who do not complete profiles or accept comments be banned? .... NO......Please Explain Your Stance..... OKAY ,,,,, Here we go......... The people who should be banned are the people who use pejorative and downright nasty language like MORON DIMWIT and other words used by the guy who posted this poll. Why is he still on this site?

  • Only for Misconduct

    What about people who like their privacy but are serious users of this site and not just trolling? That wouldn't be fair to them to ban them over a few bad eggs. Also we must fight this trend of people automatically being suspicious of people who value their privacy. Privacy is supposed to be valued. People aren't supposed to want every aspect of their lives to be public. The trend for people to make so much information public is a disturbing trend in society and if I was an employer I would actually check the Facebook profile and give greater weight to choosing candidates who are smart enough not to put every little detail about themselves on there and would probably jump at the chance to hire someone who doesn't even have such a profile.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
GWL-CPA says2013-03-07T17:23:55.910
It is about debating issues, but knowing your opponent is part of an honest debate - you should try debating in College.
MasturDbtor says2013-03-08T12:35:25.857
An honest debate doesn't have to be over your actual opinions. There's such a thing as playing devil's advocate and debating for sides you disagree with. You don't want people saying "that's not what you really believe" as a strawman argument that holds up the debate.
GWL-CPA says2013-03-08T15:05:48.553
That is great, but how does what you just said have anything to do with providing information on your profile. You can always state in the debate, I am playing the devil's advocate in this debate and taking the Con position, even though it is contrary to my personal beliefs.

Debate voters are problematic. For example, if I have a debate on Pro Drug Legalization and I take the Con Position, and all of the people vote on that debate were "Pro Drug Legalization" before the debate, and after the debate, their votes should not count. Without filling out the profile, that makes the voting results meaningless. If after the voting, I can see that the voters were already Pro or Con on the issue, then depending on how they vote, I will know that it is "Confirmation Bias."

And, someone saying "that not what you really believe" would not be a straw man argument if you made it clear you were playing the devil's advocate.

n common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, for the sake of debate. In taking this position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position. It can also refer to someone who takes a stance that is seen as unpopular or unconventional, but is actually another way of arguing a much more conventional stance.'s_advocate