Zone1 The need for a Formal Debate forum?

[iamwhatiseem]

In the forum I originally came from (USPOL) from the mid 90s till it was purchased and went to hell... and now it is gone.
Anyway - it had a Formal Debate Forum.
It worked like this: (This was possible in the old VBulletin software, I would assume Xenforo can do this as well.)
1) A topic is offered. A member opens a thread with the topic, and what they want to discuss. At this point the thread cannot be posted in except by moderators. A moderator will either A) Approve the thread for discussion or B) Close it and report why the thread is not "worthy" of a formal debate
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.

The increased rules are of such
1) No flaming of any kind. No name calling of any kind
2) Posts must be on topic, and also must be original text, except for copied text that is clearly marked as such, but the author of the post must also post original opinions etc.
3) All posts that do not fit those rules will be deleted, with the poster either being warned or banned from the thread.

 

[toobfreak]

We already have one.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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.

 

[Donald H]

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.

I applaud your effort of bringing it up!
And I think that you could be experiencing the same problems as I'm having with this forum now.

I'll start with a couple of comments only because I don't think there's much chance of success:

The moderator (s) of the new section are going to have to be of the highest quality.

A biased moderator can always resort to the trolling accusation in order to silence those who are political opponents.

If the moderator team has a solution for those two issues, we might be able to work with your ideas.

But if the moderator team has nothing of substance to offer, count me out.

 

[Votto]

In the forum I originally came from (USPOL) from the mid 90s till it was purchased and went to hell... and now it is gone.
Anyway - it had a Formal Debate Forum.
It worked like this: (This was possible in the old VBulletin software, I would assume Xenforo can do this as well.)
1) A topic is offered. A member opens a thread with the topic, and what they want to discuss. At this point the thread cannot be posted in except by moderators. A moderator will either A) Approve the thread for discussion or B) Close it and report why the thread is not "worthy" of a formal debate
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.

The increased rules are of such
1) No flaming of any kind. No name calling of any kind
2) Posts must be on topic, and also must be original text, except for copied text that is clearly marked as such, but the author of the post must also post original opinions etc.
3) All posts that do not fit those rules will be deleted, with the poster either being warned or banned from the thread.

Racist

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I applaud your effort of bringing it up!
And I think that you could be experiencing the same problems as I'm having with this forum now.

I'll start with a couple of comments only because I don't think there's much chance of success:

The moderator (s) of the new section are going to have to be of the highest quality.

A biased moderator can always resort to the trolling accusation in order to silence those who are political opponents.

If the moderator team has a solution for those two issues, we might be able to work with your ideas.

But if the moderator team has nothing of substance to offer, count me out.

The benefit of USMB is volume. But that is also it's greatest problem.
You can open a legitimate thread, serious in it's topic... and by post 5 it has turned into yet another rock throwing contest. We have a LOT of people whose only interest is trolling and rock throwing. That is absolutely going to be a given in online forums of any real size.
Which is why, for those not wanting to just troll and throw rocks, we need a place that heavily prohibits it.
The key factor is only people who signed up for the discussion can post in that discussion.

 

[candycorn]

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

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

 

[okfine]

In the forum I originally came from (USPOL) from the mid 90s till it was purchased and went to hell... and now it is gone.
Anyway - it had a Formal Debate Forum.
It worked like this: (This was possible in the old VBulletin software, I would assume Xenforo can do this as well.)
1) A topic is offered. A member opens a thread with the topic, and what they want to discuss. At this point the thread cannot be posted in except by moderators. A moderator will either A) Approve the thread for discussion or B) Close it and report why the thread is not "worthy" of a formal debate
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.

The increased rules are of such
1) No flaming of any kind. No name calling of any kind
2) Posts must be on topic, and also must be original text, except for copied text that is clearly marked as such, but the author of the post must also post original opinions etc.
3) All posts that do not fit those rules will be deleted, with the poster either being warned or banned from the thread.

Find a moderator to spend time solely for your wishes. Good luck.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Find a moderator to spend time solely for your wishes. Good luck.

Which is why we recruited Formal mods to moderate only this area.
I modded/supermodded and then Admin a large forum such as this one for 6 years.
A forum that was 10 times more moderated than here, right or wrong.
We had a staff of 12 and at least that many again to mod formal areas.

 

[MisterBeale]

In the forum I originally came from (USPOL) from the mid 90s till it was purchased and went to hell... and now it is gone.
Anyway - it had a Formal Debate Forum.
It worked like this: (This was possible in the old VBulletin software, I would assume Xenforo can do this as well.)
1) A topic is offered. A member opens a thread with the topic, and what they want to discuss. At this point the thread cannot be posted in except by moderators. A moderator will either A) Approve the thread for discussion or B) Close it and report why the thread is not "worthy" of a formal debate
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.

The increased rules are of such
1) No flaming of any kind. No name calling of any kind
2) Posts must be on topic, and also must be original text, except for copied text that is clearly marked as such, but the author of the post must also post original opinions etc.
3) All posts that do not fit those rules will be deleted, with the poster either being warned or banned from the thread.

I too, have been disappointed with the open debate sub-forum portion of this forum. I had debated for four years in High School, and had been a judge for a junior debate tournament, when I was a senior, and once I was in college, was on the college debate team for a year.

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.

 

[okfine]

Which is why we recruited Formal mods to moderate only this area.
I modded/supermodded and then Admin a large forum such as this one for 6 years.
A forum that was 10 times more moderated than here, right or wrong.
We had a staff of 12 and at least that many again to mod formal areas.

If you could staff the numbers needed I say Ok with it.

 

[Winston]

The benefit of USMB is volume. But that is also it's greatest problem.
You can open a legitimate thread, serious in it's topic... and by post 5 it has turned into yet another rock throwing contest. We have a LOT of people whose only interest is trolling and rock throwing. That is absolutely going to be a given in online forums of any real size.
Which is why, for those not wanting to just troll and throw rocks, we need a place that heavily prohibits it.
The key factor is only people who signed up for the discussion can post in that discussion.

I would amend your proposal to have the sub-forum conduct a more formal debate. First, someone proposes a resolution. Once the resolution is approved the person that proposed the resolution can either take the position of the first affirmative or the second affirmative. Members can advocate for the other position on the affirmative side, and other members can "audition" for the first and second negative positions. The thread would be limited in participation to the first and second affirmatives, who support the resolution, and the first and second negatives, that do not support the resolution.

This is a very formal process. The thread debate then begins with the first affirmative laying out why they support the resolution. They demonstrate that there is a problem, that the problem is significant, and that the problem is inherent. So much so that it necessitates action. That is laid out in the contentions. They require documentation. But having demonstrated the contentions is only half the issue. A "plan" has to be proposed to solve the problem. That is called a pl an meets need strategy. Alternatively, the first affirmative can accept the resolution and provide a plan that has "advantages". over the status quo. That is called a comparative advantage strategy. Finally, one can incorporate both strategies, provide contentions, propose a plan, show the advantages, that is called a modified comparative advantage strategy, or "case".

Next up would be the first negative. It would be their responsible to attack the contentions, primarily, to show that the resolution is faulty. That there is no problem, or that the problems is insignificant, or that the problem can be cured rather easily because it is not inherent.

The second affirmative steps in and counters the arguments of the first negative. Then the second negative comes in and attacks the plan. He reveals disadvantages, workability arguments, and harm--real harm that the plan would inflict. That is the core "first round".

Second round begins with the first negative, providing a rebuttal to the second affirmative. Then first affirmative, who finalizes the arguments concerning the contentions or the resolution. The second negative then goes and further addresses the plan, especially any rebuttals from the first negative. And finally, the second affirmative comes in and wraps it all up nicely, in a bow.

Add in cross-x after each of the first round speeches and you have a formal debate.

 

[toobfreak]

Find a moderator to spend time solely for your wishes. Good luck.

Then what is the point?

 

[Lastamender]

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

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

How are they meaningless?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I too, have been disappointed with the open debate sub-forum portion of this forum. I had debated for four years in High School, and had been a judge for a junior debate tournament, when I was a senior, and once I was in college, was on the college debate team for a year.

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.

To their defense, this board is corporate owned. I would be very surprised if a single mod here has any access whatsoever to the Xenforo controls area. At least with VBulletin you had to have some access to that in order to ban/control member posting abilities. In other words they may not be able to drill down to that kind of limited banning.
USPOL was privately owned. The Admins had 100% access to software controls, and super admins had limited access.. so we could make/enforce any rule sets we wanted. Speaking to a couple mods here, I do not believe anyone has that kind of access except people who actually work for the company that owns this site.

 

[Billo_Really]

In the forum I originally came from (USPOL) from the mid 90s till it was purchased and went to hell... and now it is gone.
Anyway - it had a Formal Debate Forum.
It worked like this: (This was possible in the old VBulletin software, I would assume Xenforo can do this as well.)
1) A topic is offered. A member opens a thread with the topic, and what they want to discuss. At this point the thread cannot be posted in except by moderators. A moderator will either A) Approve the thread for discussion or B) Close it and report why the thread is not "worthy" of a formal debate
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.

The increased rules are of such
1) No flaming of any kind. No name calling of any kind
2) Posts must be on topic, and also must be original text, except for copied text that is clearly marked as such, but the author of the post must also post original opinions etc.
3) All posts that do not fit those rules will be deleted, with the poster either being warned or banned from the thread.

May I offer some additional rules? In order to state your point, you must state your opponents point, back to them, to their satisfaction!

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I would amend your proposal to have the sub-forum conduct a more formal debate. First, someone proposes a resolution. Once the resolution is approved the person that proposed the resolution can either take the position of the first affirmative or the second affirmative. Members can advocate for the other position on the affirmative side, and other members can "audition" for the first and second negative positions. The thread would be limited in participation to the first and second affirmatives, who support the resolution, and the first and second negatives, that do not support the resolution.

This is a very formal process. The thread debate then begins with the first affirmative laying out why they support the resolution. They demonstrate that there is a problem, that the problem is significant, and that the problem is inherent. So much so that it necessitates action. That is laid out in the contentions. They require documentation. But having demonstrated the contentions is only half the issue. A "plan" has to be proposed to solve the problem. That is called a pl an meets need strategy. Alternatively, the first affirmative can accept the resolution and provide a plan that has "advantages". over the status quo. That is called a comparative advantage strategy. Finally, one can incorporate both strategies, provide contentions, propose a plan, show the advantages, that is called a modified comparative advantage strategy, or "case".

Next up would be the first negative. It would be their responsible to attack the contentions, primarily, to show that the resolution is faulty. That there is no problem, or that the problems is insignificant, or that the problem can be cured rather easily because it is not inherent.

The second affirmative steps in and counters the arguments of the first negative. Then the second negative comes in and attacks the plan. He reveals disadvantages, workability arguments, and harm--real harm that the plan would inflict. That is the core "first round".

Second round begins with the first negative, providing a rebuttal to the second affirmative. Then first affirmative, who finalizes the arguments concerning the contentions or the resolution. The second negative then goes and further addresses the plan, especially any rebuttals from the first negative. And finally, the second affirmative comes in and wraps it all up nicely, in a bow.

Add in cross-x after each of the first round speeches and you have a formal debate.

Not necessarily wanting a true Formal debate in the same rule sets as actual formal debates.
Rather - an area that is far more controlled and moderated to facilitate actual discussion without the myriad of trolls and rock throwers.
Again, the key is only people who signed up for the discussion once it opens can post.
We called it formal on the old forum, perhaps formal isn't the right word here...

 

[MarathonMike]

Nobody wants to debate anymore. We have the "Clean Debate Forum" already. We have "Zone 1" Ugh. It A "Formal Debate Forum" as you describe would be a lot of effort for very little if any benefit.

 

[candycorn]

May I offer some additional rules? In order to state your point, you must state your opponents point, back to them, to their satisfaction!

I've always thought that the "poll" feature could be used more effectively. I don't mean have more polls. But have some choices at the top of the page that force consideration instead of just freestyle rage posting--like a poll that offers you choices to vote on. The problem is now that you start a poll to try to get others to consider some choices and you get 2 respondents but 60 responses.

=====

For example,

If I were to start this thread:

You could comment on the thread without voting. So it encourages the "drive by" / "rock throwing" cheap commentary from people who want to comment on the poster but not the post. Now, if you force those that wish to comment to select one of the choices listed, you, at least, can see what they support.

It also works this way....

Now, a lot of right wing loons are not going to select any of those because they'd have to put their name next to praise for Biden. This will limit the rock throwing as well.

I think you'd get more meaty threads if the parties commenting had to lay down their marker and select one of the choices.

If you have not voted, you don't see anything except the OP. You can't comment unless you vote.

 

[BackAgain]

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.