I suppose I might've not been specific enough in choosing my examples. When I used Keilidh's thread, I was referring specifically to the STRUCTURE of the rant; NOT its content [Although, I must say that I have to agree with her on most of her points]. If one can overlook the discrepencies and use their better judgement to not confuse using logic to infer your opponent's motives with jumping to your own conlcusions, you'll find her thread has a lot of the points any good rant is supposed to encompass...
Keilidh wrote:
Yes, I know this rant has been made countless times before.
Yes, I know there are members on here sick of seeing it. (Some because they're against it, some because they're sick of seeing rants and want to see the rule taken down)
Yes, I know there are reasons for the rule in the first place.
And yes, I know that this is going to be locked if not handled calmly. Or maybe just immediately by a mod against the matter. (I've seen that happen.)
To be honest, I don't care. It's still an issue amongst many on the site so it still has to be dealt with. Locking this topic automatically won't help. So please mods, at least read it and consider my point, and even give us members a chance to disuss the rule before locking. I'd appreciate that.
First off, I liked the intro. We all know double-stating threads are agaisnt the rules and will probably be deleted or locked. Addressing the fact that this, indeed, is a double-stating thread gives the author credibility in her familiarity with the rules... this is greatly important. Had she just fired off on her rant, I'm sure someone would've pointed out that this is yet another cliche'd double-thread, and then a mod would've closed it with an offer to continue her discussion elsewhere that [somehow] managed to stay open. But I agree, she could've done without the "I don't care" part, which makes it seem that she's unsympathetic to all the prvious efforts to resolve this issue.
Keilidh wrote:
You've probably guessed by now that this is a rant against the both loved and hated rule #17. No debates on sexual matters. (Debates. I sometimes wonder how that turned into 'No saying you are gay! No having a gay character! Homo's are R-Rated! But whatever. Rules get bent or not worded correctly all the time)
Another strong point: guessing what your audience might be thinking and addressing your poitns accordingly before they have a chance to say them. Once again, a prime example of thinking outside one's box. Quotations of the rules should also be noted, as it reinforces more the author's credibility. [Also, I must add that I also agree with the second part to that statement. But we digress.] This snippet briefly and clearly states what the rant will be about, and the order of her arguements are made to further her reasoning behind why such a rant is needed.
Keilidh wrote:
Then there's the matter that it goes against Christian's religion. That may be true, and I'd be willing to grit my teeth and accept that. But last time I checked, we weren't allowed to discuss religion either. (Which brings me back to something that has me incredibly frustrated. The one member mentioned above recently reported Claire/The Lone Outsider for saying she supports homosexuality on her profile. Yet that member has stated in their profile, in quote, "I'm an extreme Christian". As well as another reference to Christianity that's a bit large to post here. He's not the only member either. I'd reckon about 20-30% of the sites members have said "I'm proud to be a Christian!" in their profile. So if you're going to ban Claire for saying she's a proud supporter of homosexuality, you'd better expand your banned box because you've got a lot more banning to do if you want to keep the site fair. Whoa, 'nother huge bracket) So why aren't you as strict with those discussing religion or spirituality as you are with homosexuals?
JC, here's the point you're looking for when you claim that Keilidh lacks consideration for the viewpoints of the opposing side. Of course, it's next to impossible to address EVERY possible scenario, but the biggest one, if anything. And we can all agree the aspect of religion is a BIG thing to consider when making such a rant. She simulates what one would say about the matter ["'I'm an extreme Christian.'"] without totally going over and exaggerating the other person ["OMG I'm diehard Christian!!11!!1"], appearing that she knows how to maintain her posture, and is capable of discussing this topic without allowing it to get out of hand, had some of the moderatos and steet not cut off the discussion and locked it.
Keilidh wrote:
I'd also like to bring to your attention this poll I made on deviantART. I have almost 200 watchers on there, so be sure to check back later tonight or tomorrow and see how many people vote that the rule has to go. So far 100% agree that it's unfair. I wonder what that means...
BIG, BIG, BIG,
BIG plus -- bringing in outside information. Note that this statistic was taken from someplace other than BaltoSource, ridding the option for this being biased in most ways considered. This is especially rare to find in most rants; this point here is not a matter of opinion, it's an actuall fact. That's a solid ground to support the argument of the author, and bringing it up near the end of the rant would more tend to leave a lasting impression on the reader.
Keilidh wrote:
Of course, this is a rant on a public board. I'm open to discussion. Not so much to 'flame'. There's a difference. If you can handle the matter calmly, expressing your opinions without trying to insult anyone, then I'll respect that. If you respond with a rude, unnecessary and unhelpful reply, I'll ignore it. Simple as that. And to those who agree with me on this I do have something to say that is a good point on the mods part - If we can't even disuss the thought of the rule being taken down without arguing like we have in the past, there's no chance they'll get rid of it. So please handle this calmly. Try not to give them /reason/ to lock this
We're nearing the end of the rant, and Keilidh raises her credibility yet again by stating that she's open for argument, and that she realizes that there is a chance she might be wrong. She encourages the readers to think and participate, form their own opinion, and most importantly, asks them not to react irrationally to such a controversial topic. The closing thoughts reinforce herself and her points to make them more sturdy and less open for counter.
