The issue here is one of degree, and your argument treats it as some sort of absolute.
What if I remove bad faith actors and simply add a rule of addressing the topic at hand?
At its core, this site is about conversation and debate. Interference in the natural flow of conversation and debate should be kept the barest minimum, and not present at all if possible. The barest minimum in this sense is to protect users from harm. Doxxing is a pretty substantial harm. You being annoyed that a flat earther is making some idiotic argument or tangential point is not a substantial harm.
You haven't defined harm I await for you to do so.
And, importantly, it's not my job as a moderator to pronounce certain views right or wrong--esp. on a debate site. Their are going to be genuine flat earthers out there, and they, like any other user, have the right to debate and discuss those opinions.
What if it leads to harm? What if I can demonstrate it under your definition of harm?
If they choose to stubbornly defend those positions in the face of superior counterarguments, then you face a choice: engage or walk away. That choice is yours, but the fact that you face that choice or that it annoys you that you do is not nearly sufficient justification for me to take away their right to engage on this site.
Not what I want. Said bad faith actors and allowed it to be defined by someone else. If they don't want to I will. I am okay with removing that if there is a rule that is added that makes sure conversations are specifically about the conversation at hand.
90% of the time, even on here, arguments don't change people's opinions, and probably 90% of the users on here, myself included, have made stupid arguments or back-peddled in order to salvage our views from argumentative salvos.
So we should ought to keep it like this as in allow people to go off topic in order for them to weasel out of a conversation they are losing?
Ultimately, then, my job as a moderator is to keep the peace, it's not to evaluate the merits of users beliefs. Anything else would cause me to encroach too much on the free speech here. I can intervene to prevent abusive speech, but I am not going to intervene to prevent dumb or stubborn or annoying speech.
Where did I say I will evaluate the merits of users beliefs? Bad faith actors is outside merits beliefs. It is about deliberately being dishonest and specifically addressing the topic at hand is not even in the same ball park. I find this a straw man. I don't want to police speech. I want rules added before speech occurs in order to make speech directed in being helpful.
Talk about a false equivalency and strawman...
I applied your argument to a different context. You said "they're something all people have to deal with in any social setting.". I simply changed the context of that and now you don't agree with it? That is not my problem you don't agree with the very same reason that can be used in other contexts. It isn't a straw man more so showing the failure of your reasoning behind what you value. Not my fault you didn't give a good enough reason.
This again comes down to issues of abuse vs. annoyance, and it's pretty clear that an interjection is nowhere near racism on anyone's scale of social acceptability.
A white supremacist? Are you going to curb their free speech? how about people who think race and IQ are linked?
If so why?
Organic conversation shifts and changes.
What do you mean by organic conversation? Isn't that subjective?
Spam is an artificial attempt to redirect that organic conversation, and it is so severe or frequent that it prevents the natural flow of the conversation from taking place, or prevents any conversation taking place.
What if the spammer doesn't feel the same way? Why are you infringing on their right to speech just because you don't like what is said?
Can you prove spam is an artificial attempt to redirect organic conversation?
We've debated the whole subjectivity thing before, and we did so quite thoroughly. I am not keen on rehashing it atm.
Either you are lying or it actually did happen. I will take the second position. I would like to respond to my subjectivity criticisms again because if your arguments were good enough I would have changed my mind but I did not. The way our conversations go is that I get tired of a brick wall offering little to no criticism of my position which can be summed up as no which is why I call the conversation off.
So if it wasn't clear what questions I would like you to address then I will post them here:
Where is the line of subjectivity?
asked again here:
I found annoying why you didn't provide a distinction between what you consider too subjective compared to a right amount of subjective.
A wild west forum and an ordered forum. I value helpful discourse but you value anything apart from doxxing. I am simply asking why is my ask more too much for you to handle?