MOD ANNOUNCEMENT: Member Debates (Input needed)

LOL, liverpool.

 

It's been a hurdle frodly, and we're open to suggestions.

 

I do want to raise the question on what criteria would be used to decide who wins. It would seem to be straight-forward enough but the mods need to be specific on that.

 

Abortion
Taxes
Gay Marriage
Drug Legalization
Government spending
Current/Past Wars
Health Care
Torture
Job Creation & Economy
Gun Rights
Conspiracy Theory (9-11/Birth Certificate legitimacy)

If you look at the suggested topics you will notice that almost all of them are topics that can be debated only on opinion, not on quantifiable facts or factoids. It has been shown in debates on topics like gay marriage and especially abortion, that no matter how the debates start they wind up being opinion A vs opinion B. In cases like these there is no fair way of judging who has won since personal bias of the judges must enter into the equation.

The site has been extremely successful in its present format. It is one of the most diverse and active political discussion sites on the internet, attracting participants from all over the world and with social and political philosophies ranging from anarchism, through communism, socialism, centrism, conservatism all the way to reactionism.

It has always been my philosophy that if something isn't broken there is no need to fix it.

 

There are factual aspects that can be found in virtually all of the topics listed, if not all of them. And if we're "grading" all of this, the ability to be persuasive with your opinion should certainly factor in i.e. using statistics, shying away from logical fallacies, etc.

 

Sure.

Assuming we'd actually be utilizing the judging pool for these debates, we would choose a topic first, then ask for a proponent and an opponent... also indicating when the debate will begin (possibly 3 to 7 days later). We don't want to totally exclude members who may be on the fence, but we ask that he/she establish a lean if they'd like to participate. Once we have debate participants, I will ask for available judges in a social group I will create specifically for volunteer judges. Once I have enough, I will pm the participants the list of judges participating (in order to handle any potential disagreements in a private way). Once we're all in agreement, the debate will begin according to the established date.

Note: Participants will only get the topic's focus question once the debate begins (to avoid answers prepared well ahead of time).

As far as an actual "winner/loser" format, we'll be asking that judges observe not only the points & supporting content participants bring to the debate... but also the ability to serve as a strong representative to their given position, remain consistent throughout, and possibly express a degree of persuasion. Debate is a game of chess, and judges can award a participant if they notice strategy, wit, and a solid framework that seems to flow (as if he/she knows the opponent's responses before they're even posted) one example being the ability to corner an opponent into a singular point before they've made it (rendering a strong planned defense useless if already debunked) or strategic questioning that creates flip-flops (throwing him/her off the aforementioned consistency).

I know these topics are subjective, and it's why we're hoping that people still have the ability to dismiss their personal beliefs for a moments time in order to focus on what I've mentioned above.

I've seen point systems used before, and we wouldn't be closed to such a method.

 

frodly, what he means is that it is no longer a public site, it loses it's meaning. If this was funded by the Government at all it would not be allowed.

Anyway I can appreciate some wanting private debate, I never had a problem debating with others though [other than the religious threads], but whatever. They should form a group in the private group area, that's what it is there for. I do not understand the problem with this, it's what they make others do as well, so they should too. What excuse do you give others now when they want the same? They decide who's special? They wont get a dime from me again, I would assume others as well.

 

First off put it in the group area as others have been designated to, it does not belong with the other threads. This way anybody can have a private debate and it is not held to an elite few. This is a site open to all, unless of course we are all allowed to do this.

 

It's still open... anyone can volunteer to debate, from forum veterans to those fresh out of the member introductions area. There is no elite group this is exclusively for... in fact, if you want to add your opinion...nothing is stopping you from quoting the material posted in a debate thread and discussing it a commentary-styled thread elsewhere (and nothing is stopping the quoted debate participants from having the discussion with you in said commentary thread).

Creating a social group for debates would be a navigational mess without the ability to create threads in them, so I don't believe that to be the best of ideas.

 

How they comment?, you follow the rules this way it is fair to all.

Since when do I not post my opinion? What are you talking about? For-instance, You are for ObamaCare, I am not. Am I not allowed to voice that opinion as well as you have yours?
I believe I posted there three times, the Liberals have a group as well, are you saying they do not post their own genuine opinion? Why? Dont they like their own opinions? That's terrible,,you should free them..

As pointed out in this thread to nausea, some people debate, some troll. However the problem is solved by opening a group, this is what we were told and they would be correct. Now [from what I am hearing] others can have their own situation without listing it as a group, but you must pull some strings with the Mods,,,It's a corruption of the system.

Of course they want to stifle debate, that's why they are doing this. When you say ''Only one on Ones are allowed'' you are restricting debate, correct? There is no problem with this, as long as it is a group.

No,,not you specifically, I mean like minded people should take their idea and go to a private group. That's why the owner has private groups.

No, not as much as some people deciding not to donate anymore it doesn't.

Those that want private debate should use the Group system, that's all it's simple. As in....This is a open discussion site, and we are told if you do not want open discussion than open a group.

Grudge,,,what grudge? I'm losing you. We have rules as how the forum is run, it's a open discussion board. If that's what people want then do it privately. Why are you making this sound personal??

Fine,,nobody is stopping anybodies fun, the format at PF is open discussion, on that we agree. So, anything not being open discussion should be delegated to a group. THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TOLD...

Them are those that want private discussion. This is not a private discussion site.

We were asked for input, that's my input. It is a fine idea for those wanting private discussion and It should be in group. Now,,he may say...''Why yes I had not thought about that''
Viv,,,I am trying to understand, what do you have against it being in group? Why must this be handled differently than other situations?

Viv, I do not think you understand group,,do you? Nobody is trying to stop anything, what is it you do not understand that is giving you this opinion? If this is something you like, if it something you want to participate in [or just visit], then you would go to the button that says;;;

One On One private debate...and ........Press it*


WA LA!,,,just like that you would be there.

 

So then,,,what is the difference from any other one on one? I have never had one disturbed. You and I have debated, did we have a problem?

 

I've never debated only you, and that's why this will be different. There is no opportunity for comments to get lost in the volume of traffic this forum experiences. It's great that we have such a viewership, and this is an option for people who'd like the extra challenge of facing a member confident enough to accept the topic (without knowing the focus) while serving as a momentary representative... the spotlight is hot after all. Nothing says we can't have the same topic and focus numerous times if people really wanted to discuss it in the formal format. The informal is still yours to create and participate in. I'd even encourage participants to keep a record in their signature line to boost the competitive spirit. Should be fun...

 

I dont get that, one discussion you and I had was on Rap music I believe, I had no problem paying attention to what was discussed between us, nothing got ''lost'', same thing with other members. The discussion went on as long as we wanted it to. Now if you decided to answer another person in that thread then that would be your business, it did not take from our discussion.

I thought I read on the first page if a person did not want to take the challenge then they would not be allowed to participate on the thread. What does that mean exactly?

 

If it isn't the one I am thinking of, then I didn't read it and I'm not really qualified to speak on the subject.

I just think a true "one on one" format being available If we want to use it seems like a good idea. It would be a good way to showcase the argument from 2 different viewpoints, and it would certainly help in one of those 20 vs. 1 threads where 1 person tries to keep up with a ton of other posters.

Debate of the month would be fine, too. Maybe we could present a debate topic and have people apply then subsequently vote on who they would most like to see participate out of all the applicants.

This seems like additional functionality being added to the forum without changing existing features. Why would anyone be against that?

Have you ever made a post, then gone back the next day to see 15 pages of debate since your last (and now irrelevant) post?

Eh, i'm usually a once or twice a day kinda guy, but there are quite a few sections that I never post in.

 

This is what I think, I do not know if you are familiar with the group area. However...it works like this...

You can invite who you want, and only those people can post, but everybody else can see whats said,,,follow? You can read it but you cant post unless invited.
So,,,,,do pretty much what he is suggesting and have your debate [one on one] in there. You and others can read it and it wont be ''traffict'' at all. They can have their own Mod, own judges,,same as here. This way you get what you want, guaranteed no trolling, your own Mod [of your choice, does not have to be house Mod]. The judges can read it perfectly and score as they want.

At the end you could then post it in open forum, announce the winner and everybody can go at it,,,Watcha think?

YOU HAVE ALL THE ADVANTAGES, AND THIS PLACE IS STILL LEFT OPEN DISCUSSION AS ALWAYS.

And if anybody says..I want to do the same thing as you,,,,,fine,,,bust a Gut!

 

What the hell for?

 

And it would remain so even with the debates - with the exception of the debate thread. You've even been told you can quote from the debate thread for side discussions.

So what's the big deal? I see it as them adding something, not taking something away.

 

No, it will not remain the same,,it is either one or the other. Either the site is open debate or it is not open debate, and like I said if one thread is like that others have that right as well. Dont they? I do not want to be trolled on some threads either, why should we be if they are not? We HAVE to make it one on one? look how many are being excluded.

We were told,,NO, no way this is a open discussion site period. They then made the rule to be able to ban a person from any given thread,,sooo what's up with that?,,that's no good now?

So let me ask you, have they asked the owner to change it?, will she advertise it different now? I do not understand Perriquine, why cause a problem? I just explained how easy it would be. Why demand it to be in the wrong area,,,why? Do you see any problems doing it the way I explained?, it actually looks easier. Why are others told to open a group, and this not?,,,that's bullchit!
If they want no other people involved, then that's where it belongs. That's what it is for. GROUP is private debate, we have it already. Whats good for one is good for the other. Either way it's a owner decision, however they best let her know others will request the same. Get rid of the groups and all these groups can have their own thread.

 

Because it's a debate?

 

They did not like contests before, they said they were stupid popularity contests. Now, same people......errr not so much...LOL

 

You think that matters to me lol.

 

This idea is silly. If you have an unpopular opinion, be prepared to defend it against a group. This idea also screws posters like me over. There are times where I can post through a week and other times where I am gone for multiple weeks. If there is an interesting thread in the Warfare/Military section, I want to be able to join in. What about relying on people to be objective? Do you think posters are actually going to vote for who had the better or argument or who shares their views/who they like more?

 

I see no reason that it can't encompass both, with most debates open and a very few not.

This is the part I seriously don't get. You're acting like someone is being privileged with a closed debate. The debates are a competition being organized by the site. They aren't a granting of special privilege to anyone.

It's not a case of someone petitioning for a closed debate and being granted one. It's a matter of showcasing the site via a debate competition. What part of this are you seriously still not getting?

You're focused on the wrong thing. I don't think avoidance of trolling is the main purpose behind having this debate competition. As with any competition, participation isn't open to everyone under the sun - but it's been made pretty clear that everyone who is seriously interested will be able to vie for a spot.

You were asking to close of a complete forum - one of interest to people who your group wanted to exclude. Like I said when it came up the last time - if the religion forum were closed off, I would petition to have the gay & lesbian forum closed off as well.

What we're discussing in this thread bares scant relation to the situation you're complaining about.

I think a thread ban isn't a bad idea to deal with the worst trolls, but that's a separate topic. Again, this debate competition isn't really about limiting trolling. It's about having a serious, one-on-one debate - one that will be judged. Imagine trying to select a winner from the chaotic free-for-all of a completely open thread. It would be nearly impossible.

Why would you ask me that question? I have no knowledge about such a thing. I also don't get why this is a concern you're raising.

Probably so, if promoting the one-on-one debate has the potential to generate traffic that will grow the site and provide revenue.

Seems to me that you are the one who is turning it into a problem.

And I've already answered that question. The social groups, which a number of people probably don't know exist, aren't going to garner the desired attention for the debate. What's more, they aren't structured to support a debate competition. Just because you think it's the "wrong area" doesn't make it so.

No, the "bullchit" is coming from people who are whining about being excluded from something that doesn't interest them in the first place. The "bullchit" is coming from those who are trying to draw a comparison between a debate competition and being denied their request to close off a forum to avoid having to deal with people who don't share their opinions.

Nonsense. A debate competition isn't anything like a Social Group.

What "one"? What "other"? Again, you're trying to make it sound as if you're somehow being treated unfairly. I frankly don't see it.

Somehow I don't think the owner is going to take a lot of interest in whining.

Here's what I conclude: You are using this debate competition proposal as a not very subtle means to complain about being on the losing end of an effort to close off the Religion forum, even though the two things are completely unrelated.

You aren't providing anything new with each response you post - just a retread of the same complaints. You've more than made your point regarding how you feel about the proposal. If you don't have anything new to say about it, then I'm simply going to ignore any future replies you make to my posts about it.

 

People here dispute over issues every day. Are those somehow not debates because no "dispassionate observer" declares a winner?

 

Most definitely the latter.