MOD ANNOUNCEMENT: Member Debates (Input needed)

See the problem?

 

No now,,it's a matter of taste....

Nope, I enjoy it, I am here for all to see and debate with..no difference. Am I hard to find or something? I have many long debates.

Exactly, I have rarely ever seen a serious debate interrupted...The Religious threads get it sometimes. When people complained they said,,Too bad, you want something different open a group.

In open debate you are going to get some, you just cant help it, but the Modes here do a good job. However like I said, form a group.

It is not a matter of participating, if they get to have their own thread without trolls then everybody does, no different, I'm sure you can understand it,,it's equality, especially since I probably donated more than they did...LOL

We are not looking to change our site, and that is what they want to do, nobody is stopping them, let them have their own group.

 

The religious folk around here are a source of trolling just as much as they are a victim of it.

They were trying to make a thread when what they wanted was a social group (If we are remembering the same issue, I believe it was a prayer thread?)

Still, I would be quite interested to read a 1 on 1 debate between many posters.

I think it would be interesting to Have a panel of judges try to examine the arguments put forth by opposing view points. Even if you didn't agree with the outcome, maybe you could debate one of the judges on their decision.

Trying to pull any amount of information out of one of these open debate threads is about like trying to take a drink from a fire hydrant. I think might work nicely as a control point for actually getting something out of the argument.

I think One Thunder, though I don't always agree with him, would make a good judge as well.

 

Viv, Flounder...you want us to set up a one on one debate about the merits of one on one debates for you two?

 

I love Viv,,,she's a honey.....

 

It's a matter of taste or otherwise how people comment on that topic for sure.

Yet happy to join those who aim to debate as a group, not posting their own genuine opinion. Assuming you are part of the Quorum (too lazy to check the membership).

And other people said no, we must stifle debate. Don't let those bad atheists post their opinion. Remember?

No one here wants to stifle debate though. I don't think the Mods even said they will close the threads

Form a group for what? Nothing to do with me.

Donation is voluntary, so don't know if that has a bearing.

I'm a bit confused. If who is to have their own thread? A Mod opened this thread and said the idea stems from an idea put forward in 2008. So what are you on about? If who gets their own thread?

I thought we were just giving opinion about the OP, but if we are trying to stop someone we have a personal grudge against from getting something he hasn't even asked for, pls let me in on it

Going back to the OP, the whole idea sounds fun and might improve the standard of debate, don't see any issue. That is my opinion. I made a post on the experience we had of it elsewhere, just to help orient.

Ah well, Republicans don't like change, they don't believe in it. But who are you talking about? The staff put this idea forward, who are the "them"?

The OP seemed to me to be requesting constructive suggestions on how to get a new idea off the ground. That's what I saw anyway. Did you see a poll on whether it's a good idea?

Btw is this the EU, is there a veto, even if members would quite like to take it forward?

 

No. That's why I asked you to explain it.

Best debates are always in the feedback forum. But you're all right. It's late night here, Flounder is safe for a few hours.

You're such an alpha.

I'm away, you can assert your opinion (authority) while I'm out but...



Well I might be. If I feel like it.

 

Viv,,,He is not they are. This is an open forum, that is what he is explaining to you, that is what it is. They are intruding on his and others rights, they want to change it. They do not have that right, that's not the format of the site.

Now the owner realizing when she made this site knew others would like to be treated ''special'' she knew others would want a format that might not fit what she provided and others are using, so she adopted the Group system, it will accommodate their special needs, they are not being held back. Now I have used it and others as well, that is what it is their for, if they are not even satisfied with a special accommodation, then they are not being reasonable...in my opinion.

 

You just said you should be treated special because you choose to donate. Your standards are quadruple, Flounda, not double. (runs off)

 

I said too many people here value debate for its own sake, and you asked what is wrong with valuing debate, as if the underlined phrase had purely ornamental value, thus asking me to defend a strawman.

 

I do not participate on those threads that much myself, however their threads were being over run, I saw it. However I will say this, everybody, every group has trollers to some degree. The point is this, we tried very hard to stop it, and NO it was not a prayer thread,,I was in on the negotiations with Shiva. I was told under no circumstances could this be done, that this was an OPEN FORUM, and would not make any exception, I understood. It was then suggested that that is what the groups are for.
End of debate,,,follow? He made sense, besides, what's their problem with that? They have to disturb the rest, change the rules, for them?
If this is done we will immediately expect the same thing done for us. I mean can I have the enjoyment of reading their threads like you?

Nope, it was for debate. I was in on it with Shiva and Hillbilly

So?, you and I have had one on ones, did somebody stop us? Were others allowed to read it? Whats the problem?

We have that now with post of the month, sooo have debate of the month.

I do not understand, I have no problem reading them.

Yes, Thunder is very good. I believe he had run post of the week,,,,or was it it quote of the week,,that's it quote of the week. All done by open forum. You do not come around too often huh?

 

I knew you would get a Kick out of that......

 

Thanks for the compliment , I hope they will be as understanding as others were in the past, they were disappointed as well. I know we were, but you try your best to compromise for the benefit of all.

 

That is easily solved, because it wouldn't be PF without that!! The first 2 topics. "Are left wingers anti-American socialists attempting to undermine America's capitalist economy in order to implement socialism?" The second, "Are all Republicans racists, and why are they so similar to Hitler?" What do you think? That way we wouldn't lose the defining characteristic of what makes this place what it is!!

 

"Is Obama more like a Fascist or a Communist? Is there a difference between the two?"

 

You know at first glance I wasn't sure about this, but after seeing your contributions to this thread where anyone is allowed to post, you have convinced me that a place where only 2 people can post, and therefore off-topic trolling is prohibited, would be a good idea. Was that your intention?

 

Except this would be a few threads on a forum filled with thousands of threads. It would not effect anything you say it would effect. I like the idea of debate at a more intellectual level, though I do question the potential legitimacy of any system of judging the debate.

 

I like it.

 

The reason I don't see it that way is because I've actually seen the kind of thing that they appear to be talking about in action. It's not a case of having a special forum where only certain people get to create topics and participate in them on a day-to-day basis. On the forum I used to inhabit, these special threads were called "The Great Debates". They were once a year, if memory serves. People still talked about those same topics in the regular forums, too.

The difference between there and here is that in my old forum the debate took place on a partisan level - Republicans vs. Democrats vs. Independents vs. Etc. - one from each headquarters, if they could muster someone to represent them.

The idea was to have one voice for each present a specific viewpoint on the topic, encompassing as many of the usual talking points as possible, but fleshed out in greater detail. One post for your essay, one for rebuttal of others'.

If they're going to do this, I suggest a similar format, to set it apart from the regular forum threads.

Go back and re-read it. I didn't single out conservatives.

It was frankly more civil than a lot of what passes for debate on these forums. Snarky, certainly. But an "attack"? Meh.

You said you weren't aware that the LEFT had settled it. Appeared to be a very sarcastic remark, attempting to paint me as part of some leftist cabal.

You're free to express your opinion, and others are free to offer their criticisms of it. That's how the forum (and free speech) work.

Not exactly high profile though, are they?

We're not talking here about any particular group or individual, unlike the situation with the Religion forum. Who are "they" and "them? What "other group"?

I think you've completely missed the point of what they're trying to do, and that you're interpreting it through the lens of hurt feelings over the Religion forum not excluding non-believers.

I couldn't disagree more. Like I said, I don't think it's going to be anything like you seem to be imagining it. The Great Debates had zero effect on the rest of the forum I used to inhabit.

^ A point I should emphasize. If they think this will raise the quality of debate elsewhere on the site, I think they're going to be disappointed.

It's pointless to engage in a game of semantics.

That's not my experience here. Quite the opposite, in fact. Many of the topics I've been interested in have been completely derailed by trolling. In fact, just about every topic in the Gay & Lesbian forum gets trolled by the same people with the same arguments, to the point that you can't really discuss much of anything there. It's just as bad if not worse than the Religion forum. I'd love a place where those topics could be discussed rather than debated, but that's not what this forum is about.

Still not hearing a reasonable objection. It still sounds like "I'm mad because I can't keep atheists out of the religion forum", and "I'm mad because I won't be able to comment".

"Private" is incompatible with "high profile".

 

EPV forgot one thing in the description of this new idea. Losers of the debate will be perma-banned immediately and their name will live in infamy in the "Political Forum Hall of Shame", which is a thread that will be created and stickyed to every single forum on this site.

We will also change their avatar so it is one of those little urinating men peeing on their avatar.

I will demonstrate on this random picture I found on google that I have never seen before:

 

I hereby officially challenge every member of the Quorom. One-on-One, let's take 'em out.

 

Like gladiators. I love it. Ban them from the rest of the site, too.

 

And Hungarian strippers will TP their house and get dogs to (*)(*)(*)(*) in their yards.

 

Not necessarily. The debate will be open to each and every member here once judging is complete, and if a better window is needed in order for more people to participate... that's okay too. We'll up it to 10 days if necessary. As stated in the OP... these are raw ideas, not concrete decisions.

I'll also add that nothing is stopping you or anyone else from quoting the material in the debate thread and starting your own sideline discussion on points you may or may not agree with.

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcAHxWBZXrY"]YouTube - ‪gay (not) midget jell-o wrestling‬‏[/ame]