Topic: Natural permitted flow of a thread - 2. precedents and prior behaviours (Read 220 times)

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50475221

Where did you get such "IDEAS", I am sure you are not "ORDINARY" like us!

You really "DESERVE" special category, you are really making it so helpful for people to understand such important aspects! KEEP GOING!!!

Local rules - No contributors to my fanzine thread here  https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-boycott-of-replies-to-the-recent-extensive-trolling-by-cryptohunter-5088527 can post here
so if you posted there already (not including myself) then you are not permitted to post here certainly no qwk either. Also no direct examples or making it personal or I will insist on deletion. I would have previously welcomed debate by any person but since my reasonable requests not to make it personal before were ignored then I have no choice.


So this is another example of where the permitted flow seems flawed if you want to stand a chance of reaching the optimal solution. Surely one must be permitted to bring all information that is relevant to the discussion. I mean how will you have  a chance at reaching the optimal outcome/solution if some pertinent information is held back?

Example  - Say we are discussing or debating what should be done about a persons actions in terms of punishment or reward depending on if it is negative or positive actions. Then precedents set in similar or identical situations should be used to determine a fair and consistent behaviour towards persons whom demonstrate these positive or negative actions?  but these are apparently off topic and not allowed? this seems counter productive?

Of course the precedents must be for very similar or identical scenarios to be relevant and on topic but why would they not be permitted as natural flow?