[kickabuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unrelenting dissection of one's arguments may not be uncivil per se, however can be pretty damn annoying. If one is continuously attacking another's position based solely on political philosophy, all discussion would therefore necessarily be about the merits of that political philosophy. That discussion is of course vital, but it is the contention of many that the ACists insistence that the very premise of arguments must be dissected at all times has most probably resulted in being a major contributor to the current state of modding affairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I look forward to the day when I can argue for my murder-based policy initiatives without having to deal with pesky, annoying questions about the morality of murder. Let's focus on the ISSUES, people!

[/ QUOTE ]

I feared such a response, as my post unfortunately lends itself to it.

Let me try a specific example: On December 4th there was a thread about Greg Raymer's possible run for the Vice Presidency. I made the wholly unremarkable statement that I did not think he was qualified based on a lack of experience or some similar commonplace observation. You felt compelled to interject your thoughts as to the "arrogant elitism" of my wanting a candidate for high office to be qualified. You claimed in part that the winning of an election by an "unqualified" individual was illustrative of the crappiness of the system.

Although you feel it is imperative to debate what the meaning of 'is' is at all turns so as to demonstrate the folly of a non AC system, most folks feel it is way too much. This type of thread derailing, in which one cannot make the most banal of points without philosophical interjection on yours and a few others parts was probably integral to the change in modding standards. I felt it was a tolerable irritation, others found it an unbearable situation apparently.