101 - 1 on 1 RULES - READ FIRST
- Fri 20 Apr, 2007 6:52 pm Post subject: 1 on 1 RULES - READ FIRST
1. Only the two participants and the mutually chosen judge may post in the 1 on 1 discussion thread, other users may post in a comment thread following that particular 1 on 1 discussion.
2. Insults, personal attacks and condescending language (as discerned by the discussion's chosen judge) are not allowed. Both participants must converse in a mature, respectful and adult manner.
3. Both participants must make an initial agreement on the common grounds/truths to which they will be discussing i.e. both participants may agree that they take the Qur'an to be divine and uncorrupted and the ultimate truth therefore it's statements being 100% true.
4. Both participants must agree on a set of points in which to discuss or the discussion must be in a manner where one participant puts forth an idea/theory/point of view and the other refutes it, in this manner, the idea/theory/point of view will be broken into points by the judge if necessary.
5. The points of the discussion must be strictly adhered to and divergence from the agreed points will result in the divergent comments being removed by the judge.
6. The judge is the only one who can allow the next point in the argument to be discussed if a previous point is settled or both parties are at a standstill over it.
7. Participants must argue in a rational and logical manner providing evidence/references/citations for any fact they put forward, failure to do so will prompt the judge to request this, otherwise the fact is retracted from the argument.
8. If any fact presented by one party is shown to be 100% true (due to initial agreements) or irrefutably true in some way the other participant must acknowledge this or else provide adequate reason (with counter-proofs) as to why they do not, the judge will accept a standstill on certain reasonable grounds, however if it's obvious one participant has out proven the other the judge will cede (via a statement if necessary) to their point.
9. The judge is mutually chosen by both participants as an unbiased third party, the judge has the final say in all discussions. The judge must state every action they are doing or decision they are taking and explain why.
10. The judge is there to make sure the conversation has not degraded into slandering match and that the participants are keeping to the discussion in a logical manner, with this guidance everyone involved (both the participants and readers) should benefit from the exchange of ideas. If any one of the rules is broken thrice after two warnings from the judge, the discussion is over on those broken grounds.