MOD ANNOUNCEMENT: Member Debates (Input needed)

I'll be perfectly honest, EPV, I don't want you or anyone else judging my posts. I didn't join Political Forum to participate in some form of forensicss contest. If that is what I wanted I would have joined a debating club.

 

Then you don't have to participate. It's that simple.

 

What you are describing is pretty close to the Fairness Doctrine the Democrats wanted for the radio. That was a bad idea and so is this. f there are more people on one side of an equation that's just the way it is. You shouldn't artificially limit the discussion to one on one and exclude all the rest.

 

It's not that simple, Agent Zero because what is being proposed is changing the format of what is one of the most successful discussion sites on the internet.

 

Which brings us to the beauty of this idea. Don't like it? Don't volunteer.

 

If you choose not to accept the challenge issued, you won't be permitted to participate in the exchange taking place in the debate thread itself (until judging is complete). However, if you'd like to quote portions of the exchange and discuss it elsewhere (sideline thread) then you're free to do that...which enables you to make your points with all who also didn't accept the issued challenge. Those who are debating are also free to participate in such a sideline thread.

 

An input for the judging pool would be similar to the Supreme Court where one has a two vote luxury to break a tie.

This was useful in the last ruling on walmart discrimination as the 4 liberal justices were outweighed in part of the ruling against the conservative justices

 

And just which posters are qualified to be judges and decide who has won the debate?

 

Won't rule this out, although we have some other ideas for tie breakers.

 

If we decide to utilize the current volunteer list of judges, the debate participants will decide if they're comfortable with the available judges before the debate begins (via pm discussion with me). If not, we'll see if any other judges, advisors, or mods are available. If they are, it begins.

 

Sorry, but any exclusionary practices just go against the grain as far as I am concerned and this is exclusionary.

 

This forum already has exclusionary practices in the form of private social groups, and a major reason it isn't held there has to do with the physical make up of said groups (where thread creation isn't possible, creating a navigational mess). However, your concern is noted.

 

...except that it's not. How does the overwhelming majority of the discussion on the site remaining open "change the format"? Do social groups change the format as well, since they aren't public?

I honestly think this characterization that it "changes the format" blows things far out of proportion.

 

So you want to ban the reputation system?


But honestly, I agree that judging this doesn't seem to make sense to me, not because I think judgment is bad, but because I think unbiased honest judgment is incredibly difficult if not impossible.

 

Wow, you are looking to change the sites format completely?,,,I'm shocked! This has always been a open posting site, now over this it wont be? Does the owner know this?

 

Are you kidding? Do you not understand what is happening? This doesn't effect the site in any way. It is one section of the forum, which doesn't effect any other section of the forum. So if you don't click on that section, then absolutely NOTHING has changed.

 

Then scrap it for all I care.

 

I agree. However, referrees would be helpful to keep the debate going and end it when it's time.

I'd also like to see an alternate thread for those not involved in the debate who would like to discuss the exact same question.

 

I feel like we are being Brown shirted.........Is Nancy Pelosi involved?

 

This proposal is one in which people who do not participate will not be effected in any meaningful way. If you think it is a bad idea, then do nothing.

 

This has always been an open posting site,,,now it's not. This should be in the group area not the regular format. It's way too exclusive. I doubt very much you will get many willing to debate. So far that is what I am seeing is people saying they will not participate.

 

Why cant two people debate in the group area?, is that what you are saying?

 

That's what we said about a separate Religious thread, we were told you cant this is a open opinion site. The Religious site would not effect you either if you did not do anything.
So,,,we can have it now?

 

I don't like the idea, though I admire anyone who tries to break from a mold.

We already have a problem, especially in the states, of the same old topics being discussed, while we have thousands of politicians over our heads, from local to federal governance, that effect 300 million people. The propaganda machine of the media already keeps people focused on these over-debated subjects, to which most are set in stone and no one is going to change. The ideologues will no doubt vote their side no matter who is more convincing, and those of us who would like to talk about topics outside of the status quo will have an even harder time getting folks to click on the thread. If you kept topics such as the FED or globalism out of the conspiracy section, then maybe it would be useful. But if not, since those are the most pressing issues to the state of the union, my suspicious mind will think this site has gone from embracing shills to being completely compromised.

 

With a separate religious thread, people were asking for one viewpoint being allowed... and that is only permitted in social groups. A debate will allow opposing views to discuss a topic, and to do so in a social group will be horrible navigationally. You're suggesting we hold a multitude of debates in a social group that doesn't have thread creation: Cluttered mess.