Zone1 The need for a Formal Debate forum?

[iamwhatiseem]

No we can’t on a thread or even forum level . It is possible on an Admin level which we aren’t.

flacaltenn what are your thoughts on the idea in the OP?

I was afraid of that. VBulletin is known for more features and options than Xenforo.
But it is also more problematic. So I totally get why a company ran site would opt for stability over features.

 

[sparky]

Simply not true.

the real truth is, human nature is simply beyond anyone's control

~S~

 

[ClaireH]

the real truth is, human nature is simply beyond anyone's control

~S~

Yes and no Sparky, but certainly weighed on your position in all aspects of life.

A few years ago another message board had multiple topic categories containing only formal responses. As a new member, it was clear by checking out the format before making my first post that it was set up to be a formal discussion. All posts were respectful and many discussions resembled Science Daily writers or well-read historians exchanging ideas. Typical political chat land type comments would have been like an exposed tooth root and not acceptable. The drawback was that it could be days before participants would respond back and this was the norm. In order to participate I committed to learning more and keeping it formal but was more of a reader being out of my league in knowledge.

In contrast, USMB is a place where posters can be ourselves and just say what’s on our minds (within reason) but for some of us, that means rolling around in the mud a few times in between any potentially worthwhile thoughts! lol

 

[Damaged Eagle]

What type of attire would be required for a formal debate forum?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Gracie]

Posters MAY agree to abide, but once things get rolling, someone IS going to get pissed or annoyed and shit will start flying.
Agreement does not mean compliance once debating starts. We all know this. And you cannot, CANNOT get a liberal and conservative in a room and NOT have the spittle eventually fly.

But...your beach your waves. I just think its a huge mistake. The clean debate forum is rarely used because most want to bonk others over the head one person or group MUST deny deny deny and refuse to meet halfway. As sparky said...human nature.

 

[MisterBeale]

Posters MAY agree to abide, but once things get rolling, someone IS going to get pissed or annoyed and shit will start flying.
Agreement does not mean compliance once debating starts. We all know this. And you cannot, CANNOT get a liberal and conservative in a room and NOT have the spittle eventually fly.

But...your beach your waves. I just think its a huge mistake. The clean debate forum is rarely used because most want to bonk others over the head one person or group MUST deny deny deny and refuse to meet halfway. As sparky said...human nature.

Professional debating is work, and it is a skill one has to develop. It takes skill, intelligence, knowledge of logic and fallacies, and most of all, a certain amount of emotional distancing from ones topic that a person involved is debating.

From the way Winston has posted, I have no doubt, that he and I could go into the CDZ, and debate on any topic, switch sides on that same topic, and continue to debate the same issue.

The issue in question is not the point. Using calm, rational, and logical tactics, using logic, and methods of research and refutation, while not having your ego staked to the outcome of the "TOPIC," of debate is the key, but only in how well you follow the rules, and how logically you present the arguments for your position, and follow the rules. If you break the rules? You necessarily forfeit.


Most folks just can't do that.

Being familiar with this? Doesn't hurt. I did model UN and Student Congress as well.

Robert's Rules of Order - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[iamwhatiseem]

How did this get turned into "professional debating"?
Not what I am talking about at all.
Simply a place where the adults can talk without trolls and rock throwers galore.
It sounds as if the moderation team here isn't given enough access to make thread specific rules... and that is a shame.
The key to the whole idea is members have to sign up for the discussion in order to post in it. This is the only way you can stop the trolls from taking over any such forum area that I see. Otherwise it would be moderator hell.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

It would depend on if mods here have the ability to control who can, and who can't post to a thread specific level. That was available to mod access on VBulletin, but I don't know Xenforo software. So if you have a discussion of only 25 people say, and they all agreed to the rules prior to posting - you don't have that much to moderate.

Rules Superstores Are a Growth Industry, the Only One Left

Sounds like you're in the market for more rules and rules and rules. Well, I got a whole warehouse full of them. I can sell you a set for $99.99, customized and repeal-proof, satisfaction guaranteed.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

A Rules Superstore Is a Growth Industry, the Only One Left

Sounds like you're in the market for more rules and rules and rules. Well, I got a whole warehouse full of them. I can sell you a set for $99.99, customized and repeal-proof, satisfaction guaranteed.

Yeah... no.
I am talking about one forum area. Which has nothing to do with the rest of the forum.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

What is there about that comment to disagree with?
I am obviously talking about one sub forum only.

 

[flacaltenn]

We have Structured Debate, which has basically become just another area to post in.
We do not have a debate area anything like what I described.

Structured Debate had the ability to let the Oposter DEFINE 2 "topic dependent" rules in ADDITION to the USMB rule set. Was used for awhile. Was a pain for moderators because some of the rules specified were hard to enforce even if a moderator DID approve them.

Clean Debate Forum is basically similar to what you are describing.

The differences are --

1) We TRUST members to find a suitable topic for civil discussion with the caveat of NOT posting current hot political topics or current events. And often we HAVE to disallow a couple threads because the OPost is WAAAY too "lean" or too fiery to start a civil debate OR the topic is too current and politically hot - Just from the experience of knowing (at least on USMB) that "civil discussion" and hot political topics are not compatible.

2) Once a thread is approved for discussion, it is "opened" for members to be able to request the ability to post in it. When they make that request, they agree to the understanding the formal debate area is highly moderated with increased penalties for violation. At this point the the thread is basically a "poll" with no ability to post. You "vote" to be able to be included in the discussion.
3) A moderator opens the thread and the only people able to post are those who have agreed to the rules. Those who have not, will see the "you do not have sufficient rights to post in this forum"
4) At USPOL we also appointed volunteer moderators who have the power of a moderator, but only in the formal debate forum. (Again this was possible with VBulletin, unsure of Xenforo can do this, surely it can)
5) The thread is opened for discussion.

I dont get the point of #2 -- We have 3 "Zones" in USMB which allow choice of "level of moderation and the rules VARY accordingly. Zone 1 is civil discussion and DEFINES stringent rules for civil discussion. Members dont OPT IN AND OUT of those rules. Dont have to pinky swear that they will follow them in a PARTICULAR thread -- because that's already the expectation.

I guess I'm not understanding WHY -- if we have one set of Zone1 Civil Debate rules for the Clean Debate, Race and Religion forums -- that we have to VET every thread and ASK EVERYONE participating if they will obey those rules. WHAT is different about every "clean debate topic" that requires a "poll" about obeying the rules ?

I also didn't see it specified but ASSUME that folks that "pinky swore" to obey the rules under your scheme and DID NOT -- would be added to added to list of people "Banned from thread". Which is the same as "you do not have sufficient privileges to post in this thread (anymore)". USMB mod staff DOES issue thread bans to members who are damaging and disrupting and/or ignoring the Zone1 rules.

The point of that being is -- ANYONE could slip in an F-word or a DAMN and get ejected, but at USMB there's the mod option to EDIT that OUT with a notice to member to "be more careful of the Zone1 rules".


USMB runs at a rate lately of about 8000 posts a day and about 210 threads daily. I'm thinking the board that this idea came from was MUCH smaller and tighter controlled. Probably didn't OFFER zones with pre-defined and KNOWN rules for moderation.

The problem at USMB IS that over the years -- our member list is now up in the thousands. Only about (roughly) 500 or 800 members that POST more than once per year -- but STILL -- BANNING them from a thread requires that we LIST EACH NAME in thread ban. And if members want to check into a Zone 1 debate thread a couple days LATE or even a YEAR later - the thread is very likely STILL THERE AND OPEN. With maybe BRAND NEW members trying to access it.

So we would have to exclude maybe 300 or 500 people from participating in that thread. To my knowledge -- there's NOT an option to define ONLY the people who want to participate.

We actually TRIED THAT -- It's in the Structured Debate forum as "Invite ONLY Threads" where the OPoster GAVE A LIST of invitees and moderation ENFORCED the participation according to that list. We got HOWLS of resentment for that and people didn't want to brave the scorn about being IN "exclusive" threads on a forum like USMB. I thought it would be a GREAT WAY to offer a space for a folks to CHOOSE who participates, but it's not in use any more due to lack of interest and a LOT of very vocal resentment from the folks who want to brawl in EVERY thread in EVERY forum.

 

[flacaltenn]

I believe that strict moderation in our formal debate forum is perfectly appropriate. It serves the purpose of keeping a formal debate within those parameters. Cool.

Beyond that, I maintain that the use of “zones” at USMB is an obvious mistake. But we’re stuck with them.

Why do you want to deny THAT CHOICE to others? YOU dont have to participate in Zone1 forums.

The mistake would be NOT having zones and NOT offering different places like the Flame Zone and Civil Debate forum. There's only 3 "debate style" Zone 1 forums. Why do you want them gone?

 

[flacaltenn]

No more zones, sub-forums, etc...

Get rid of all of the zones we currently have. They are meaningless.

Ask you the SAME question. Why would we have 31 Flame Zones? Or ditch the option to have a separate low - moderated ecosystem of its own down in the Flame Zone to blow off steam? THe Taunting Zones was one of the BETTER innovations at USMB.

What do have against CHOICE? No one is restricting you to the Taunting Areas or FORCING you to hang out in Civil Debate.

Seems pretty intolerant to just DENY that choice to other members.

 

[Hossfly]

View attachment 709420

What type of attire would be required for a formal debate forum?

*****CHUCKLE*****

High heeled tennis shoes and a fur lined jockstrap ought to suffice.

 

[flacaltenn]

Whenever a debate starts in the sub-forum, with clearly indicated participants, when other folks start posting in the thread? I never understand why the mods don't thread ban those folks for violating the rules.



SO if they can't, or won't even do the bare minimum that is SUPPOSED to be done in the open debate sub-forum, I am not sure how or why this would ever work.

Not completely understanding this 1st paragraph. THere are no "clearly indicated participants" in our Zone1 forums. ANY active member COULD theoretically join in. And we DO regularly thread ban people from Zone 1 threads. The members are just not aware of WHEN we do it. And Zone 1 thread could get bumped over and over again with new members joining in. We dont have time limits like "real debates" do.

In addition, and members will see notice this pretty soon -- CHRONIC abusers of any particular Zone 1 forum CAN be permanently FORUM banned from that forum. We're developing a report/tracking scheme to do that FAIRLY and ACCURATELY.

 

[Leo123]

What would be the reason to have a formal debate forum? IMO most people don't come here to have a formal debate with rules having to be memorized and strict enforcement with penalties.

 

[MisterBeale]

Not completely understanding this 1st paragraph. THere are no "clearly indicated participants" in our Zone1 forums. ANY active member COULD theoretically join in. And we DO regularly thread ban people from Zone 1 threads. The members are just not aware of WHEN we do it. And Zone 1 thread could get bumped over and over again with new members joining in. We dont have time limits like "real debates" do.

In addition, and members will see notice this pretty soon -- CHRONIC abusers of any particular Zone 1 forum CAN be permanently FORUM banned from that forum. We're developing a report/tracking scheme to do that FAIRLY and ACCURATELY.

Sorry, I think I was thinking of the Structured Debate Forums.

My bad.


So confusing. Why have both?

Clean Debate Zone

The Clean Debate Zone is to be used for the clean debating of Government Policies, Candidates, Current News and Events. No personal attacks, name calling, flaming etc is allowed in this section.

www.usmessageboard.com

Debate Now - Structured Discussion Forum

The Debate Now forum is to be used for all structured discussions/debates. The structure shall consist of a set of 'rules' set forth by the OP. Members may not deviate from the structure and shall respect all guidelines set forth in the opening post.

www.usmessageboard.com

. . . and shouldn't they BOTH be Zone 1?

 

[candycorn]

Ask you the SAME question. Why would we have 31 Flame Zones? Or ditch the option to have a separate low - moderated ecosystem of its own down in the Flame Zone to blow off steam? THe Taunting Zones was one of the BETTER innovations at USMB.

What do have against CHOICE? No one is restricting you to the Taunting Areas or FORCING you to hang out in Civil Debate.

Seems pretty intolerant to just DENY that choice to other members.

Oh bullshit.

I'd rather have one forum to where it is heavily moderated. You closed one thread of mine because it was a "hot political topic" while leaving open another thread about abortion that actually mentions political parties in the fucking title. Somehow mine--that didn't--was deemed "hot political" but this other one wasn't? Yeah...you got called out on your bullshit and came up with the lamest excuse ever...you were running an "experiment". Sure. Whatever.

Anyway.

One forum where it's heavily moderated and you guys actually police the thread on your own, get rid of the flame throwers, etc...

The rest of the message board where you get rid of posts who go over the line.

And the basement where anything goes pretty much.

Not that hard.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

We actually TRIED THAT -- It's in the Structured Debate forum as "Invite ONLY Threads" where the OPoster GAVE A LIST of invitees and moderation ENFORCED the participation according to that list. We got HOWLS of resentment for that and people didn't want to brave the scorn about being IN "exclusive" threads on a forum like USMB. I thought it would be a GREAT WAY to offer a space for a folks to CHOOSE who participates, but it's not in use any more due to lack of interest and a LOT of very vocal resentment from the folks who want to brawl in EVERY thread in EVERY forum.

I was not aware of that area. But to the highlited point, I can well imagine that would be the response. People are really "brave" sitting behind their keyboards.
USPOL (uspoliticsonline) - in it's heyday we would top 3-4,000 post a day. We would come near the post count here on election years. I would say it was probably about half the size of USMB, but that is still a large forum. The formal forum was about quality, not quantity. It was for folks that wanted to actually discuss a topic, not flame/fight/troll about it. It was common for a formal thread to only have 10-12 participants.
The "poll" I was referring to, was actually a software trick we used to create a participant list. On VB you could create a poll thread and disallow comments. So the folks that "voted" were the people that wanted to be included. Also on VB you could create "exclusive" threads, and list the members who could post. And they were the only ones that did. Also these threads did not appear in the "New Post". So the only way people even knew the threads existed was they would have to click into the sub forum and see them.
It is just an idea.

 

[flacaltenn]

Sorry, I think I was thinking of the Structured Debate Forums.

My bad.


So confusing. Why have both?

Clean Debate Zone

The Clean Debate Zone is to be used for the clean debating of Government Policies, Candidates, Current News and Events. No personal attacks, name calling, flaming etc is allowed in this section.

www.usmessageboard.com

Debate Now - Structured Discussion Forum

The Debate Now forum is to be used for all structured discussions/debates. The structure shall consist of a set of 'rules' set forth by the OP. Members may not deviate from the structure and shall respect all guidelines set forth in the opening post.

www.usmessageboard.com

. . . and shouldn't they BOTH be Zone 1?

Structured debate is pretty much dead. Both the original concept of OPoster designed rules and the experiment with "Invite Only" threads. At some point, they'll probably disappear unless requests are seen to reactivate them..

The reason the original Structured Debate was created was to allow the thread starters to dictate the rules. The "floor" requirement was Zone2 discussion. If one of the two rules the Oposter wanted to add was "No personal flaming at all" -- moderation would honor and enforce that. But the choice of the 2 "Genie in a bottle" wishes was left to the thread starter - although moderation reserved the right to reject silly or unenforceable rules.

My favorite rule to add would ALWAYS be -- Members must substantially ANSWER the questions asked of them. Just Saying.