Formal Debate Forum Poll

[FireGod]

Voted no.

Do you understand that chickens shit?

You are too new to know this has been discussed at length and the reason many of us think its a waste has been stated.

Feel free to dig up the old threads.

I am guessing that you are referencing:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/announcements-and-feedback/82393-formal-debate-discussion-area.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/77073-name-suggestions-for-the-highbrow-forum.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/announcements-and-feedback/77014-what-is-the-lame-zone-4.html

Took a while to find them too. I did not see any real reasons put out for it not to happen, then again every last one of them went convoluted and I might have missed a few posts.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Voted no.

Do you understand that chickens shit?

You are too new to know this has been discussed at length and the reason many of us think its a waste has been stated.

Feel free to dig up the old threads.

Further what right does he have to start a poll about being all high brow and then resort to name calling when someone admits they voted against it?

 

[asaratis]

(I would not allow any urls at all. Every word posted should be from the debater or from a cut and pasted quote of a cited source....all words counting toward the agreed upon limit.)

URLs to sources should be included in the 'sources' section at the bottom, IMO.

Yes....like a bibliography. That's essentially what I meant to imply with "cited source". Thanks for the clarification. The url would not appear in the text of the posted argument. They would be listed for reference by anyone wanting to verify the source and the correctness of the quoted text.

Its a bad idea.

Never mind the amount of moderation it would require.

A PITA for admin to setup the first time or two, in reality pretty easily doable as only the debaters would be allowed to post in the debated thread (mods/admin get that automatically (yes I do know what I am talking about)).

*Off to digup old threads

How so a PITA? Setting up new forums is not difficult. Members posting in any of the three sub-forums at any one time will not be posting in other forums at the same time, thus will have little impact on the need for board moderator's attention. The moderators of the debates do not have to be board moderators. Just has the combatants would agree on three judges, they can agree on a pseudo-moderator (arbitrator) to settle minor skirmishes concerning whatever agreed upon rules apply to that particular debate. It ain't rocket science.

Do you understand that chickens shit?

You are too new to know this has been discussed at length and the reason many of us think its a waste has been stated.

Feel free to dig up the old threads.

Further what right does he have to start a poll about being all high brow and then resort to name calling when someone admits they voted against it?

I called him no names. I merely asked a question. Have you ever seen chickens shitting? Do you understand that chickens actually do shit?

Now what name have I called you lately?

 

[goldcatt]

I just don't see it happening here. If you have multiple debates going on, the moderation alone would be a huge burden even if you're only using a participant-selected "arbitrator". Could you imagine the number of T challenges alone? And of course, there are the intellectual property issues with the format you suggest. You have to source your material even when you're carding in an oral argument, let alone posting online.

Timing is another problem, as it is in any online debate setting. Are we talking a sort of scheduled event with participants, arbitrators and judges setting aside hours to carry out a debate all at once? Or is this something that would stretch out over days, with all participants having to coordinate their schedules or else jump in and debate (and judge, and moderate) piecemeal?

I just don't see it happening. I like it here, but it really isn't built with "formality" in mind.

 

[code1211]

Considering the proposed guidelines following the question, do you favor the installation of a Formal Debate Forum on USMB?

Proposed Guidelines:

Three sub forums:

• Challenges and Notices
• Debates
• Comments

In the Challenges sub-forum, members will propose a topic and seek a challenger. Open to serious replies from all members. Eventually, two members will agree to debate. Within this sub-forum, the two debaters agree upon a moderator, judges (usually three), rules, exact statement of the question and a start date. When the debate is started, the related challenge thread is closed. (Alternatively, Admin may choose to appoint a moderator to handle all formal debates. Since the debate threads will likely not accumulate anywhere near the rate of regular threads, this may turn out to be feasible.)

In the Debates sub-forum, only the two debaters and the moderator of that particular debate may post. Their postings continue until the debate is ended. When the debate is over, the thread is closed. A debate ends when a) the agreed upon number of posts have been made and the judges have weighed in with their votes, or b) a debater defaults without forgiveness of the opponent and moderator, or c) other reasons considered sufficient by Admin to stop the debate.

In the Comments (or Kibitzers) sub-forum, anyone other than the debaters, their moderator and judges can post at anytime with comments concerning that particular debate (identical or similar thread titles). These threads remain open unless closed by Admin.

The main reason I like a "Message Board" set up is that I can jump in if the spirit moves or not and can still "debate a particular poster if it is interesting.

It seems like an unnecessary limitation in the format.

 

[asaratis]

I just don't see it happening here. If you have multiple debates going on, the moderation alone would be a huge burden even if you're only using a participant-selected "arbitrator". Could you imagine the number of T challenges alone? And of course, there are the intellectual property issues with the format you suggest. You have to source your material even when you're carding in an oral argument, let alone posting online.

The need of a board moderator would be limited to removing posts made by other than the two debaters. How hard can that be? The number of threads started will not be comparable to what happens in other forums. How can it be that huge a task to add to the board Moderators
duties? The debate threads will be no different from other threads here except that they are restricted to the two debaters and their hand-picked moderator. At the end, the judges comments would be added, then the thread closed.

The challenge threads and the kibitzers threads would be no different from all others here...wide open.

Timing is another problem, as it is in any online debate setting. Are we talking a sort of scheduled event with participants, arbitrators and judges setting aside hours to carry out a debate all at once? Or is this something that would stretch out over days, with all participants having to coordinate their schedules or else jump in and debate (and judge, and moderate) piecemeal?

I just don't see it happening. I like it here, but it really isn't built with "formality" in mind.

Then change the name of it to "Structured Fist Fights between Two Posters" There is no formality standard. The two agree to judges and are referee and their own rules. As long as the USMB rules are not violated, I see no problem.

The better debates of this type that I have seen had time limits between replies ranging from two to three weeks...and had extensions granted when holidays or hardships intervened. There's no rush in a written debate. My only goal here is to have a sub-forum where one-on-one debate is not impossible.

Back in the '60s, I played chess with a friend by postcard. One game lasted over a year.

Considering the proposed guidelines following the question, do you favor the installation of a Formal Debate Forum on USMB?

Proposed Guidelines:

Three sub forums:

• Challenges and Notices
• Debates
• Comments

In the Challenges sub-forum, members will propose a topic and seek a challenger. Open to serious replies from all members. Eventually, two members will agree to debate. Within this sub-forum, the two debaters agree upon a moderator, judges (usually three), rules, exact statement of the question and a start date. When the debate is started, the related challenge thread is closed. (Alternatively, Admin may choose to appoint a moderator to handle all formal debates. Since the debate threads will likely not accumulate anywhere near the rate of regular threads, this may turn out to be feasible.)

In the Debates sub-forum, only the two debaters and the moderator of that particular debate may post. Their postings continue until the debate is ended. When the debate is over, the thread is closed. A debate ends when a) the agreed upon number of posts have been made and the judges have weighed in with their votes, or b) a debater defaults without forgiveness of the opponent and moderator, or c) other reasons considered sufficient by Admin to stop the debate.

In the Comments (or Kibitzers) sub-forum, anyone other than the debaters, their moderator and judges can post at anytime with comments concerning that particular debate (identical or similar thread titles). These threads remain open unless closed by Admin.

The main reason I like a "Message Board" set up is that I can jump in if the spirit moves or not and can still "debate a particular poster if it is interesting.

It seems like an unnecessary limitation in the format.

It is limiting only in the new sub-forum. I'm not suggesting a revamping any existing forum. You could jump into the challenges until the debate starts. You could jump into the kibitzers threads 'til Admin chooses to close them for whatever reason...just as Admin does now to ANY thread.

The posts would still be the property of USMB. Quoted material would still have to be acknowledged with sources linked.

All would be as it currently is with the exception of restricted sub-forum...and you can post in it if you can find an opponent.

 

[Gunny]

Some interesting comments.


I disagree that it would never work. It could be made to work.

I DO agree that it would be a huge burden moderation-wise, and the staff here is set up to handle any real additional load. The staff here are also contributing members on this board, not merely referees, so no matter who is playing ref, the member on the other opposite side politically is going to call foul.

There is also the fact that by design, logical debate with actual topics are what the political forums already in place are for. Being jackasses is supposed to be done in the Flame Zone. That is what the Flame Zone was created for. I'm as guilty as anyone of taking stuff outside the Flame Zone because some people comprehend only 4 letter word responses.

The last time I actually created a structured debate forum the usual cast of trolls trashed it in a day and the inadequate number of mods to keep them out was glaringly obvious.

I am going to have to look into the logistics that would be required to support such a subforum, but I should point out, I'm guessing offhand I would need more moderators to police such a subforum than there are total votes (14) in this poll at this time.

 

[midcan5]

I vote Yes, but often a complex topic gets short shrift. Pose a hard question or point of view, and the debate immediately turns ad hominem, but good luck with this.


"Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others. This is at the very heart of liberalism. Liberals understand, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed, that "time has upset many fighting faiths." Liberals are skeptical of censorship and celebrate free and open debate." Geoffrey R. Stone

 

[Xenophon]

Well, I guess your appeal to authority here settles it.

For someone who wants a 'debate' forum you seem remarkably thin skinned, you would probaly be the first one banned from it.

Plus I do see you have that mark of authoritarianism that wants to structure and silence people who don't agree with you.

I'm not 'appealing to authority' its a poll for the members and I answered it, sorry you can't handle dissenting opinion.

Coming from you, that is laughable!

Such a comment simply shows you really don't have very sharp cognitive skills.

I thought you knew better.

So, you think you can 'win' on the internet, yeah right.

 

[MaggieMae]

Considering the proposed guidelines following the question, do you favor the installation of a Formal Debate Forum on USMB?

Proposed Guidelines:

Three sub forums:

• Challenges and Notices
• Debates
• Comments

In the Challenges sub-forum, members will propose a topic and seek a challenger. Open to serious replies from all members. Eventually, two members will agree to debate. Within this sub-forum, the two debaters agree upon a moderator, judges (usually three), rules, exact statement of the question and a start date. When the debate is started, the related challenge thread is closed. (Alternatively, Admin may choose to appoint a moderator to handle all formal debates. Since the debate threads will likely not accumulate anywhere near the rate of regular threads, this may turn out to be feasible.)

In the Debates sub-forum, only the two debaters and the moderator of that particular debate may post. Their postings continue until the debate is ended. When the debate is over, the thread is closed. A debate ends when a) the agreed upon number of posts have been made and the judges have weighed in with their votes, or b) a debater defaults without forgiveness of the opponent and moderator, or c) other reasons considered sufficient by Admin to stop the debate.

In the Comments (or Kibitzers) sub-forum, anyone other than the debaters, their moderator and judges can post at anytime with comments concerning that particular debate (identical or similar thread titles). These threads remain open unless closed by Admin.

You have waaaaaay too much time on your hands. Who supports you?

 

[asaratis]

Some interesting comments.


I disagree that it would never work. It could be made to work.

I DO agree that it would be a huge burden moderation-wise, and the staff here is set up to handle any real additional load. The staff here are also contributing members on this board, not merely referees, so no matter who is playing ref, the member on the other opposite side politically is going to call foul.

Did you mean to say "is not set up to handle"...?

There is also the fact that by design, logical debate with actual topics are what the political forums already in place are for. Being jackasses is supposed to be done in the Flame Zone. That is what the Flame Zone was created for. I'm as guilty as anyone of taking stuff outside the Flame Zone because some people comprehend only 4 letter word responses.

The last time I actually created a structured debate forum the usual cast of trolls trashed it in a day and the inadequate number of mods to keep them out was glaringly obvious.

I am going to have to look into the logistics that would be required to support such a subforum, but I should point out, I'm guessing offhand I would need more moderators to police such a subforum than there are total votes (14) in this poll at this time.

With the capabilities of today's computer system geeks, I have difficulty believing that programming cannot be devised to accomplish selective use of any sub-forum. Access based on screen name, member serial number or IP address comes to mind, as does the fact that I can put any member here on ignore.

 

[MaggieMae]

I like formal debate, but this is not the place for it. When I've got a hankerin' for gettin' all highbrow, I know where to go.

Me too. A couple of places where you're actually taken seriously.

 

[Xenophon]

I vote Yes, but often a complex topic gets short shrift. Pose a hard question or point of view, and the debate immediately turns ad hominem, but good luck with this.


"Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others. This is at the very heart of liberalism. Liberals understand, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed, that "time has upset many fighting faiths." Liberals are skeptical of censorship and celebrate free and open debate." Geoffrey R. Stone

Such a question is what is called 'loaded' as it implies an insult in that if you aern't a liberal you don't believe in such things.

You are trying to set the question up where anyone who isn't on your 'side' is automatically on the defensive.

The reason you don't get 'deep thought' to such a question is such tactics are infantile and most people recognize this straight away.

 

[goldcatt]

It's not about partisan sides, or shouldn't be. A skilled debater can argue either side of any question with equal skill. Haven't you ever played Devil's Advocate just for the hell of it? It's fun, honest. Of course I might just be a little lame and geeky that way, thinking debate just for the sake of debating is kinda fun. So sue me.

The problem IMO is the moderation and the time factor. Even if the participants are taking days between posts (I can't see many threads maintaining interest if it's weeks), the threads would still have to be policed constantly. And no "citizen arbitrator" will have the power to enforce the rules, it would have to be a mod. Depending on the size of the forum, probably several. Which is what I mean by the forum obviuosly isn't set up for that.

A lot of the people here are here because they like the freedom of the board, myself included I might add. Would placing a strict, structured debate forum alongside the freewheeling discussion forums in any way change the overall nature of the board? I wouldn't want that either. There are plenty of places to go if you like rules. Even if only once in a while.

 

[asaratis]

I vote Yes, but often a complex topic gets short shrift. Pose a hard question or point of view, and the debate immediately turns ad hominem, but good luck with this.

.....

So be it. Debates immediately turn to pissing contests already. If a limited debate turns sour it will the doing of one or both of the combatants, not the usual crowd of imbeciles that cannot seem to refrain from being assholes.

Well, I guess your appeal to authority here settles it.

For someone who wants a 'debate' forum you seem remarkably thin skinned, you would probaly be the first one banned from it.

Plus I do see you have that mark of authoritarianism that wants to structure and silence people who don't agree with you.

I'm not 'appealing to authority' its a poll for the members and I answered it, sorry you can't handle dissenting opinion.

Coming from you, that is laughable!

Such a comment simply shows you really don't have very sharp cognitive skills.

I thought you knew better.

So, you think you can 'win' on the internet, yeah right.

Had you said "I think it's a bad idea.", I'd have ask for reasons. Your "It's a bad idea." sounded as if the discussion is over based on your authority.

I am not thin skinned at all. Being banned for infractions in such a sub-forum would likely be for the same reason I would be banned in any other forum. Did I say anything about changing the board rules regarding banning?

There is no intent to silence anyone anywhere that exists on this board at this time. There is no intent to silence anyone in the Challenges and Kibitzers threads. The restrictions would apply only the the "One-on-One" threads wherein to posters could count on being able to speak their minds without sadistic dupes and children ******* up the threads.

I can handle dissenting opinions quite well. Your opening shot was perceived as an unsupported statement of what you consider factual.

Considering the proposed guidelines following the question, do you favor the installation of a Formal Debate Forum on USMB?

Proposed Guidelines:

Three sub forums:

• Challenges and Notices
• Debates
• Comments

In the Challenges sub-forum, members will propose a topic and seek a challenger. Open to serious replies from all members. Eventually, two members will agree to debate. Within this sub-forum, the two debaters agree upon a moderator, judges (usually three), rules, exact statement of the question and a start date. When the debate is started, the related challenge thread is closed. (Alternatively, Admin may choose to appoint a moderator to handle all formal debates. Since the debate threads will likely not accumulate anywhere near the rate of regular threads, this may turn out to be feasible.)

In the Debates sub-forum, only the two debaters and the moderator of that particular debate may post. Their postings continue until the debate is ended. When the debate is over, the thread is closed. A debate ends when a) the agreed upon number of posts have been made and the judges have weighed in with their votes, or b) a debater defaults without forgiveness of the opponent and moderator, or c) other reasons considered sufficient by Admin to stop the debate.

In the Comments (or Kibitzers) sub-forum, anyone other than the debaters, their moderator and judges can post at anytime with comments concerning that particular debate (identical or similar thread titles). These threads remain open unless closed by Admin.

You have waaaaaay too much time on your hands. Who supports you?

I have an athletic supporter.

 

[Xenophon]

Had you said "I think it's a bad idea.", I'd have ask for reasons. Your "It's a bad idea." sounded as if the discussion is over based on your authority.

Funny how nobody but you made such a rediculous leap, its actually borderline insane.

I am not thin skinned at all. Being banned for infractions in such a sub-forum would likely be for the same reason I would be banned in any other forum. Did I say anything about changing the board rules regarding banning?

Bannings?

What the hell are you babbling about.

And yes, you are very thin skinned, as the first quoted paragrapgh shows,

There is no intent to silence anyone anywhere that exists on this board at this time. There is no intent to silence anyone in the Challenges and Kibitzers threads. The restrictions would apply only the the "One-on-One" threads wherein to posters could count on being able to speak their minds without sadistic dupes and children ******* up the threads.

There it is again, that streak of authoritarianism, 'GET THOSE DAMN DISRUPTERS OUT!!! SEPERATE FORUM-SEPERATE FORUM!!!'

Free speech means with the warts on, a 'debate forum' is exactly contrary to it, you want structure and rules YOU approve of.

I can handle dissenting opinions quite well. Your opening shot was perceived as an unsupported statement of what you consider factual.

You just again proved you cannot.

Gunny, I didn't address you directly, but I will here:

Please do not give in to this forum Nazi nonsense of rules, regulations and keeping people out, it is dimetrically opposed to the concept of an open board where people can say exactly what they feel, be it smart, silly, pointless or spot on.

The members decide for themselves whom they enjoy reading and who they ignore, don't let the autoritarians ruin it for all.

 

[FireGod]

It's not about partisan sides, or shouldn't be. A skilled debater can argue either side of any question with equal skill. Haven't you ever played Devil's Advocate just for the hell of it? It's fun, honest. Of course I might just be a little lame and geeky that way, thinking debate just for the sake of debating is kinda fun. So sue me.

I always thought that the mark of a good debater was the ability to debate the other side as effectively, so we agree and it might be fun to see some people in that position

The problem IMO is the moderation and the time factor. Even if the participants are taking days between posts (I can't see many threads maintaining interest if it's weeks), the threads would still have to be policed constantly. And no "citizen arbitrator" will have the power to enforce the rules, it would have to be a mod. Depending on the size of the forum, probably several. Which is what I mean by the forum obviously isn't set up for that.

Actually the software is more flexible than you give it credit for

A lot of the people here are here because they like the freedom of the board, myself included I might add. Would placing a strict, structured debate forum alongside the freewheeling discussion forums in any way change the overall nature of the board? I wouldn't want that either. There are plenty of places to go if you like rules. Even if only once in a while.

I do not think it would have a negative impact on the board as a whole. Some members will get their panties in a wad because they can not post but view a particular sub board (chances are that they would have their panties in a wad anyway for something else).

 

[asaratis]

Had you said "I think it's a bad idea.", I'd have ask for reasons. Your "It's a bad idea." sounded as if the discussion is over based on your authority.

Funny how nobody but you made such a rediculous leap, its actually borderline insane.

I am not thin skinned at all. Being banned for infractions in such a sub-forum would likely be for the same reason I would be banned in any other forum. Did I say anything about changing the board rules regarding banning?

Bannings?

What the hell are you babbling about.

And yes, you are very thin skinned, as the first quoted paragrapgh shows,

There is no intent to silence anyone anywhere that exists on this board at this time. There is no intent to silence anyone in the Challenges and Kibitzers threads. The restrictions would apply only the the "One-on-One" threads wherein to posters could count on being able to speak their minds without sadistic dupes and children ******* up the threads.

There it is again, that streak of authoritarianism, 'GET THOSE DAMN DISRUPTERS OUT!!! SEPERATE FORUM-SEPERATE FORUM!!!'

Free speech means with the warts on, a 'debate forum' is exactly contrary to it, you want structure and rules YOU approve of.

I can handle dissenting opinions quite well. Your opening shot was perceived as an unsupported statement of what you consider factual.

You just again proved you cannot.

Gunny, I didn't address you directly, but I will here:

Please do not give in to this forum Nazi nonsense of rules, regulations and keeping people out, it is dimetrically opposed to the concept of an open board where people can say exactly what they feel, be it smart, silly, pointless or spot on.

The members decide for themselves whom they enjoy reading and who they ignore, don't let the autoritarians ruin it for all.

If it is ever implemented, you are not obligated to go there for, as you said, "The members decide for themselves whom they enjoy reading and who they ignore,...".

Nothing else about the site will have changed...including your ability to spell ridiculous....and to call people Nazis.

 

[Xenophon]

If it is ever implemented, you are not obligated to go there for, as you said, "The members decide for themselves whom they enjoy reading and who they ignore,...".

Nothing else about the site will have changed...including your ability to spell ridiculous....and to call people Nazis.

Authoritarian types are always anal about spelling.

Of course the board will have changed, as people like you with a broom up their ass as they can't handle free speech would now have a place to go and cry 'remove what I object too, it not in the RULES!!!!'

 

[FireGod]

Gunny, I didn't address you directly, but I will here:

Please do not give in to this forum Nazi nonsense of rules, regulations and keeping people out, it is dimetrically opposed to the concept of an open board where people can say exactly what they feel, be it smart, silly, pointless or spot on.

The members decide for themselves whom they enjoy reading and who they ignore, don't let the autoritarians ruin it for all.

From the quote above it is possible to infer that you like to have your discussions with your fellow members derailed constantly or better yet into petty name calling.

Now derailments happen, I get that, it is called conversation. What is a pain, is when almost every topic gets derailed. I have in the past and now again in various threads here in USMB have tried to have an exchange of information that more often than not gets blown away by trolls, stupidity and/or plain hostility.