Thread: MOD ANNOUNCEMENT: Member Debates (Input needed)

Originally Posted by Viv

There are no Con debaters or judges because they have probably ganged together to boycott the idea. That may be because if any of the Cons have to debate without having his/her back covered by the attack pack, they will lose the debate.

Get real. If any lefty here could increase his IQ by tenfold, and team up with ten just like him, I could mop up the floor with the lot of them AFTER my lobotomy.

Originally Posted by Viv

There are no Con debaters or judges because they have probably ganged together to boycott the idea. That may be because if any of the Cons have to debate without having his/her back covered by the attack pack, they will lose the debate.

Utter hypocrisy. Complaining this will exclude, while being a member of a group who gang together to exclude any differing opinion from a fair hearing.

mmm, this is just a guess but...did the left band together to be for it? Reading this page and others one might say that. I believe the left has their own group as well....
Come on Viv,,hypocritical?

Originally Posted by dreadpiratejaymo

I have to say, I don't see any harm in trying it.

I really still don't understand why people are against the idea of trying something new.

There is little to no interest in a closed thread, and no interest in a contest. So those that want it would be better off in group..You still get what you want and everybody is happy...follow? Nobody is stopping you.
Why is anybody told to go to group? Why?,,,can we all apply for closed threads as well since amount of interest does not matter?

It was suggested that they would work on site performance if they were going to work on something. I personally haven't had a problem with site performance since it went down last time the database was corrupted. That was several months ago, and I visit this site every day.

Then you are not on enough, we still have threads complaing about bad performance

That is another thing. It was suggested that when they donated it was to improve site stability and they wouldn't have donated if they knew it wasn't going for that. Donating money doesn't put you on the board of directors or make you a stock holder.

Course not, but I would not have donated either.

More than once, I have been told that this site is for open debate only. Then I am given an example of how you can actually have closed debate on this site. So which is it?

Closed debate is normally for groups, most sites have that. [Save the Whales etc], you could just as well debate.

If you already have closed debate on your site, then this is NOT a site for open debate. Even if it was a site for open debate, let say the owner wanted to change that, who are we to say "no"?

OK,,I explained what is closed. As far as the owner, sure they can do whatever they like,,,that does not mean this is what they would like. Secondly, why would an owner want something unpopular? Does that make sense to you? especially when space is a premium here?

Originally Posted by Smartmouthwoman

Conservatives form alliances; liberals form war parties... and long to be put up on pedestals where their voices are the only ones heard. Notice how many libs signed up to be judges? This kinda thing is right up their alley.

It appears some Cons form flocks (or bully gangs) and run about attacking anything they don't understand en masse. Now away in and ask the Commandant what you're to post next. Sorry, that should possibly read Commander, but mutton dressed as lamb in any case. And the laughable part is, you probably all believe you are anti-collectivist, but can't function as individuals in a debate on a forum?

Apart from that, the point was missed - Cons appeared to be fairly interested in this idea, it seems a fair possibility they have been directed to run in the other direction.

No concern at all for what is good for the forum, fear of allowing a differing opinion to be expressed and fear of taking a tanking in debate if it's one to one.

The only chance anyone has of genuine debate here is the one to one suggestion. Look at this thread, even highlighting the pack attack mentality, I'm pack attacked Let's hope the Commandant commands the pack to "not feed the troll".

Originally Posted by yguy

Get real. If any lefty here could increase his IQ by tenfold, and team up with ten just like him, I could mop up the floor with the lot of them AFTER my lobotomy.

Prove it. Put your name down for one to one debate.

Originally Posted by flounder

mmm, this is just a guess but...did the left band together to be for it? Reading this page and others one might say that. I believe the left has their own group as well....
Come on Viv,,hypocritical?

I am a member of one group here, Europeans, set up a month ago by Magnum. I rejoined it about 2 weeks ago. I think we have discussed cultural differences, where people come from and their ancestry, whether Ratko Mladic/Radovan Karadzic are war heroes or war criminals, whether giving Serbia a huge stretch of beach and Kosovo a tiny stretch was a smart move regarding income from tourism (I could have that the wrong way round) and the thread is about local cooking at the moment.

The thought of directing Euros to pack attack is a howler. Their main characteristic is independent thinking and even within the group there is no cohesion and we are prone to bashing each other. And that's the way we like it. It breeds critical analysis.

So I post my opinion. Try to direct me though, if you think that's a possibility.

Originally Posted by Viv

It appears some Cons form flocks (or bully gangs) and run about attacking anything they don't understand en masse. Now away in and ask the Commandant what you're to post next. Sorry, that should possibly read Commander, but mutton dressed as lamb in any case. And the laughable part is, you probably all believe you are anti-collectivist, but can't function as individuals in a debate on a forum?

Apart from that, the point was missed - Cons appeared to be fairly interested in this idea, it seems a fair possibility they have been directed to run in the other direction.

No concern at all for what is good for the forum, fear of allowing a differing opinion to be expressed and fear of taking a tanking in debate if it's one to one.

The only chance anyone has of genuine debate here is the one to one suggestion. Look at this thread, even highlighting the pack attack mentality, I'm pack attacked Let's hope the Commandant commands the pack to "not feed the troll".

Whoa. Is that you Viv?

Originally Posted by Viv

Prove it.

I do it all the time.

Put your name down for one to one debate.

One to one, nothing - I'll do one against ten, because ten wrongs lose to one right every time. What I will NOT do is agree to any rules more structured than the existing rules of the board, or agree to be judged by a select coterie of pinheads. Let those who are interested follow the debate and judge for themselves.

Originally Posted by Shangrila

Whoa. Is that you Viv?

Oh yes it is. I've been keeping out of here because I have the forum's best interests at heart.

What is it? Do people think we don't see what's in front of our faces? Bad enough the constant organised misuse of the rep board. Now there's a gang deciding who can be engaged in debate and who is to be ignored, who is to be treated as a troll and the Cons here, even the ones with a brain, are going right along with it? What kind of community is that?

Great fun to be part of a bully gang, attacking genuine posters, but it's not fun for those subjected to pack pile ons and it absolutely inhibits any chance of free and genuine debate. If Flounder is concerned about freedom of speech on the forum, why is he not concerned about this?

So yes, it's me. I haven't stood up for a while, but I'm standing up now.

Originally Posted by yguy

I do it all the time.One to one, nothing - I'll do one against ten, because ten wrongs lose to one right every time. What I will NOT do is agree to any rules more structured than the existing rules of the board, or agree to be judged by a select coterie of pinheads. Let those who are interested follow the debate and judge for themselves.

That sounds good, actually. I enjoy one to one debate, but am not competitive and don't like being conspicuous. It's just about finding the truth. I actually like thinking things through in cooperation with other posters, not as adversaries particularly. One to one debate moderated to preset standards would require someone to judge whether people are sticking to the rules of the debate style. Maybe it doesn't require judgement on the outcome, though, as you say.

Originally Posted by flounder

There is little to no interest in a closed thread, and no interest in a contest. So those that want it would be better off in group..You still get what you want and everybody is happy...follow? Nobody is stopping you.
Why is anybody told to go to group? Why?,,,can we all apply for closed threads as well since amount of interest does not matter?

There seems to be a fair amount of people interested in it. Several people have posted their interest in this thread. You are by far the loudest sane voice against it, and you don't really have a lot of support from people that I think could win a real debate if their life depended on it.

Then you are not on enough, we still have threads complaing about bad performance

We also still have people using Internet Explorer as well as people who would buy a Mac because looking at porn makes their computer run slower...

I'd say I browse this site an hour a day on average. I am on plenty.

Course not, but I would not have donated either.

Why did you donate in the first place?

Closed debate is normally for groups, most sites have that. [Save the Whales etc], you could just as well debate.

But since threads about the debate thread would be allowed, it isn't a closed debate, now is it?

I think it would be nice to let 2 people have an honest and open debate without being able to make a personal attack, flamebait or OT post without it being moderated for 4 days. I like the idea of 2 people being able to argue one on one without an ignorant peanut gallery cheering on their heroes from the sidelines when they don't really understand the argument that is coming from either side.

A debate is actually a very formal thing. As far as I am aware, never in the history of PF has there been a public debate, which is what this would be.

OK,,I explained what is closed. As far as the owner, sure they can do whatever they like,,,that does not mean this is what they would like. Secondly, why would an owner want something unpopular? Does that make sense to you? especially when space is a premium here?

I have decided that I disagree with what you are calling a debate.

Originally Posted by Viv

That sounds good, actually. I enjoy one to one debate, but am not competitive and don't like being conspicuous. It's just about finding the truth. I actually like thinking things through in cooperation with other posters, not as adversaries particularly. One to one debate moderated to preset standards would require someone to judge whether people are sticking to the rules of the debate style. Maybe it doesn't require judgement on the outcome, though, as you say.

Sheesh. One minute yer a fire-breathing feminazi, the next yer a beacon of enlightened reason. Make up yer mind, already.