[TD] /\^The Debatists^/\ discussion thread

Roland_Deschain

Transcending what is, with what could be.
Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
613
Age
38
Location
Currently working in China, born in the U S of A (
Gil
0
>>>>>>>>>>>>> HELLO EVERYONE!!! WELCOME! <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<




>>> Read everything before posting.

The Debatists, TD’s


Brief summary of our goal and mission
Our goal is to create a contsructive and organized system of rotating "random", "standard", and "FF" debates. Debates that the whole public can participate and sign up for, with fair and even sides, and that do not fearture flaming or trolling. Supervised, improved, and regulated by the forum for the ultimate goal of quality, fun, and ever changing variety. Our goal is to include every single opinion reflected by the public of this forum offers in our actions. (pertaining to how the system is setup.)​


Banner will follow later. Compliments of “Six”

California Babe WV, Roland_Deschain, Draklor, Dragon mage, Exocraet, and Starstruck, you are the people who have shown vast interest and support of this idea, and have opted for involvement. Everyone else who is concerned with this system please direct your concerns to the public discussion thread, as they will be deleted here. Decisions made in this thread will be made by these people. These decisions are only subject to majority vote among each other, in order to ensure progress and growth. A 7th person will be involved if we require a tiebreaker. Decisions made in this thread should also reflect the general public’s opinion in the initial discussion thread. No one person here is more important than the other; this is for the forums, not for us. That means if one of us is not around (including me); a decision can still be made by majority vote if necessary. The public should feel free to view this and monitor it, state your opinions in the initial discussion. Remember we want the public’s opinion, so if your ego is too big to offer advice or ideas in the main discussion, we will proceed regardless.

Now as you all know from reading the initial discussion, everyone has some great ideas (that are still being offered). Most of these Ideas are in the rough draft area at the moment and require some tweaking and perfecting for the benefit of this whole operation, which is where your job comes in. We will discuss among ourselves how to employ a more unified involvement among the forums.

Now current ideas and discussion should begin with recognizing the following topics. I will post the topic and the ideas currently formulated based on what many have offered. It is your job to step up and be involved in critiquing these ideas for the better. Remember, the more the merrier. Please leave feedback, and discuss if you think the ideas being mentioned are good ideas. Remember, involvement is the key to this position, so stay involved, even if all you have to say is “I agree”.


#1 Voting: Currently there are many ideas regarding this. One popular one seems to advocate making two poles per debate. One of these poles would capture the viewer’s opinion before they read the thread, and the second would offer their choice of what team/persons did the best job debating their sides. Personally I find this idea simple and convenient, but what do you think. If you have an idea please present it.

#2 Debate cycle: This is a cornerstone of interest in my opinion. We will need to discuss a good cycle for debating that ensures continuation when some of us are busy, or when other people don’t have things to debate. So far, there has been well received opinions regarding having a standard debate which we could sign up for: 3-5 on each team. Also a Radom Debate worth signing up for, where people can sign up not knowing which side they will be debating. Also a Final Fantasy debate you can sign up for. Now as far as critiquing this idea, we need to discuss how long these debates should last. How much time should we allow for preparation of each debate? How many debates should be set up by the TD’s (us) at one time?

#3 Topical votes: This one I think needs the most work. I think a rotating system of each of us TD’s putting forward polls for the next upcoming debate topics could be successful. For example, we can switch positions evenly on standard, Random, and FF settings. Also, together we can come up with different topics every week for the public to vote which debate would be best, by simply signing up for them. Now one issue pointed out is how the public can be involved by suggesting debate topics, which does not interfere with continued progress. This is a tricky problem which we could figure out together. One thing I realize is the ability for people to make a debate team and set up a debate, might just be more than enough to ensure fairness in inclusion with their ideas for topics. Also please the simple style I put forward for voting placing in usernames to participate. Do you like this A1 A2 B1 B2, ect?

#4 MODERATION CYCLE: Similar to the topic cycle, we need to create a system where we do not moderate our own debates, yet insure we are always moderating the debates at hand. Simultaneously we want this system to allow us to be involved with debates, without and conflict of interest. A system like this could involve us switching the style of debate we are watching for the week, whether it be standard, random, or FF. This should also include a system of casting potential debates topics to vote upon in upcoming threads together. Please leave your feedback on this idea.

#5 DEBATE REQUIREMENTS: This is very important to discuss. I was thinking each debates, in each debate would be allowed a certain word count coupled with a post limit. These two factors would be set within the debates running timeframe, and I do not think that word count should be carried to others posts if not utilized. Do you agree with this? If you do, please explain what you guys think would be a good number as far as word count and post limit goes. Also about the idea of swapping sides in the standard setting, is this something everyone agrees with?

#6 DEBATE RULES AND REGULATIONS: The following is a simple rough draft setup of guidelines to be followed during debates. TD’s please discuss if anything should be added or taken away from this list.

OK EVERYONE. Here are some basic guildelines that will be enforced for the team debates.

- Each debatist will be allowed no more then 1400 Words per post.
- Each Debatist will be allowed no more then 15 overall posts during the debate's duration.
- All forms of insults are strictly forbiddon.
- Every "question" given by a person, must be addressed by the person it was asked to.
- All statistics using percents, ratio's, numbers, must be coupled with posted information.
- The duration of each debate will be five days in length in order to work smoothly.
- Every opponent must cross words with each other at least once, no 1v1 in a 3v3 debate.
- Use proper Grammar.
- Do NOT lie. Lying is strictly forbiddon. Only provide honest truths and stated opinions, do not present opinions as facts.
- No trolling.


Friendly advice for everyone.

Avoid the use of "Never".
Avoid the use of "Always".
Refrain from saying "You are wrong".
You can say, "Your idea is mistaken".
Don't disagree with obvious truths.
Attack the idea not the person.
Use the word "Many" or "Some" rather than "Most".
Avoid exaggeration.
The use of "Often" and "Generally" allows for exceptions.
Quote sources and numbers.
If it is just an opinion, admit it.
Do not present opinion as facts.
Stress the positive.
You do not need to win every battle to win the war.
Concede minor or trivial points.
Avoid bickering, quarreling, and wrangling.
Don't win a debate and lose a friend.
Be open minded about religion.
Keep your perspective - You're just debating

#7 DEBATE TEAMS: It’s a fairly simple idea involving the public being able to cast together their own teams and debate setups that can be subject to the same discretion and ethics as the debates the TD’s set up. We should adjust this system somewhat so it does not come out sloppy or impossible to run. Please leave your feedback.

#8 MARKETING AND PROMOTING THE IDEA: We have plenty of people interested debate and we have a ton of people interested in FF discussion. Let’s come up with some ideas that can spread the word and get the FF lovers more involved as well. If anyone has any promotion or marketing suggestions please place them forward. Word of mouth is powerful, so let’s start spreading the word.

#9 THE INITIAL POLLS AND DEBATES: Very important! As you all know I started two debates to get the ball rolling. The FF debate is filled, and the other topic debate is filled as well. We need to together construe a Random setting debate. Do we want them to run in intervals or in unison? Also I have considered scratching these votes in order to invite you all to offer a more broad stretch of topics. I do want it to reflect our (the forums) accomplishment, and not mine. However, it seems scratching a debate would be walking in the reverse direction of progress. So if anything let us discuss how to make the Random setting together. Also, should we allow for potential three way topics?

#10 FURTHER INVOLEMENT OF THE PUBLIC: Pull out all guns on this one. Right now we are six people who care, but others do as well. It is our responsibility to make this something for everyone who wants to participate. Any ideas regarding how to further involve the public in choosing debates, assisting directions, and promoting variety, are very much welcome from you guys.



Let’s rock and roll!
 
Last edited:
Personally, I'm quite okay with religion to be up for the first random debate. However, I feel a few ground rules are definitely in order. We're obviously going to have two sides to the debate (herp derp) and things can get heated from both sides. As I've said before, both trees have some rather large nuts. A few ground rules to state what is acceptable in these style of debates would be great.

For example, what I hate seeing the most in these debates is when one person uses another's personal belief as an Ad Hominem assault on another. Things like, "your vision is clouded because you're religious", or "you can't understand because you don't have faith" have got to go. People have to realize that you're not arguing so much against the individual as you are the concept.

Also, I hate to bring him up as a point, but please don't pull a sum1sgruj (or however the shit you spell it) and go around saying things like "I'm right, I've proved you wrong on the matter". When it comes to religious debate (or at least the debate on if there is a god or not), no one wins as it's impossible for either side to prove or disprove the existence of. You're not trying to prove the existence of or disprove the existence of as much as you are trying to get your point across better for a wider audience to understand.

So, in essence, the side that makes more people see their side/logic/overall point would be the "victor".

As for rules and regulations, I agree. However, allow me to stress that Wikipedia is not a valid resource. So please do not post a fact and then follow it up with a Wikipedia article. Now, if you use Wikipedia to find works cited in the article, that's fine. But simply posting a Wikipedia article as a source will not get you anywhere. Keep in mind that if you cite Wikipedia as a source in a college essay, you're going to get laughed out of the building.

I'll return with some more ideas... when it's not 5 in the morning.
 
Personally, I'm quite okay with religion to be up for the first random debate. However, I feel a few ground rules are definitely in order. We're obviously going to have two sides to the debate (herp derp) and things can get heated from both sides. As I've said before, both trees have some rather large nuts. A few ground rules to state what is acceptable in these style of debates would be great.

I am also for a religious debate to be the first random draw debate (/vote in favor). I think it would be a popular topic to begin the cycle. If you also agree with this TD's, please say yes or no.

If it is majority in favor for that, we need to think of a great topic to start off on. Perhaps even a three way topic discussing Jesus. For example, "Jesus exsisted and was our savior, "I think Jesus exsisted but was just a mortal man", "I don't think jesus exsisted." That is just an idea, we could discuss Agnostic Vs Athiest, or comparison of different faiths. What do you guys think would be a good random religious setting, IF we vote in fovor for it.


Also, I hate to bring him up as a point, but please don't pull a sum1sgruj (or however the shit you spell it) and go around saying things like "I'm right, I've proved you wrong on the matter". When it comes to religious debate (or at least the debate on if there is a god or not), no one wins as it's impossible for either side to prove or disprove the existence of. You're not trying to prove the existence of or disprove the existence of as much as you are trying to get your point across better for a wider audience to understand.

Agreed

As for rules and regulations, I agree. However, allow me to stress that Wikipedia is not a valid resource. So please do not post a fact and then follow it up with a Wikipedia article. Now, if you use Wikipedia to find works cited in the article, that's fine. But simply posting a Wikipedia article as a source will not get you anywhere. Keep in mind that if you cite Wikipedia as a source in a college essay, you're going to get laughed out of the building.

I think Wikipedia is a simple and easy thing to locate on many topics. I do not think we should stop people from using it. However, I think if more legitimate sources are located and linked, then they would nulify the Wiki links. Can everyone agree with this?
 
I think Wikipedia is a simple and easy thing to locate on many topics. I do not think we should stop people from using it. However, I think if more legitimate sources are located and linked, then they would nulify the Wiki links. Can everyone agree with this?

Things like this from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#References should be able to be used. Those are usually the works cited to make up the Wikipedia article. These are also usually written by people with college degrees on the matter we'll probably be debating. However, just copy and pasting Wikipedia resources shouldn't be allowed.

At least, that's how I'm used to doing things. If I ever used wikipedia alone as my resource, I would be laughed at. It's all just personal preference, though. So I'm not going to get my panties in a wad if it's allowed or not.
 
As for rules and regulations, I agree. However, allow me to stress that Wikipedia is not a valid resource. So please do not post a fact and then follow it up with a Wikipedia article. Now, if you use Wikipedia to find works cited in the article, that's fine. But simply posting a Wikipedia article as a source will not get you anywhere. Keep in mind that if you cite Wikipedia as a source in a college essay, you're going to get laughed out of the building.
While Wikipedia is not the most reliable resource in the world, it can be helpful in providing concise explanations/descriptions for things. Academic journals may be more credible, but I doubt many people can be bothered reading them for the sake of an internet debate.
 
Sashman, I appreciate the advice. I would also like to point out we have a public discussion thread for everyone who has an opinion on something in this thread, and at the current moment we really want to get it working well, so please encourage its use by copy/pasting this exact message there for the public to see that people do care, and do want a say in things.

I would have to agree with him on the matter a little. I think any wiki source would be better then "no source". So I think a wiki source's copy and paste to prove a certain point might be ok, but like I said it would be instantly nulified by a more reputable source.


TD's. Something I really want to ask regards limitations and rules within our debates. I mean we have two polls (both almost filled and set up) and intend to create another. I want to get down to brass tax with word count per post, and post count per thread. I know there are some numbers in the rules, but those were kind of just pulled out of my ass. I would like the "TD's" say on what they think decent limitations should be. We need to resolve this before we can put out the first team debates
 
I would have to agree with him on the matter a little. I think any wiki source would be better then "no source". So I think a wiki source's copy and paste to prove a certain point might be ok, but like I said it would be instantly nulified by a more reputable source.

I think I'd be fine with that. It makes sense. :grin:


TD's. Something I really want to ask regards limitations and rules within our debates. I mean we have two polls (both almost filled and set up) and intend to create another. I want to get down to brass tax with word count per post, and post count per thread. I know there are some numbers in the rules, but those were kind of just pulled out of my ass. I would like the "TD's" say on what they think decent limitations should be. We need to resolve this before we can put out the first team debates


I think that the 15 overall post limit is fine. However, 800 words for a post is hardly one page, and I think it needs to be heightened a little. Some people can get in some really long posts. Of course, this can be a bad thing so I see the need for a limit. However, at a measly 800 words, I feel as if that may be a tad too restrictive. Perhaps 1400 words instead of 800? :hmmm:

Other than that, as far as the current listed restrictions go, I don't have a problem.
 
I think that the 15 overall post limit is fine. However, 800 words for a post is hardly one page, and I think it needs to be heightened a little. Some people can get in some really long posts. Of course, this can be a bad thing so I see the need for a limit. However, at a measly 800 words, I feel as if that may be a tad too restrictive. Perhaps 1400 words instead of 800? :hmmm:

Other than that, as far as the current listed restrictions go, I don't have a problem.

Hmmm intresting, for some reason I had a sense feeling that it was a little too much. Now you have me second guessing. When the other TD's roll around they can put in their voice on this matter. Just for a reference... the OP of this thread is 1,200 words.
 
I think Wikipedia is a simple and easy thing to locate on many topics. I do not think we should stop people from using it. However, I think if more legitimate sources are located and linked, then they would nulify the Wiki links. Can everyone agree with this?
Definitely. Also considering some wiki pages do have many sources located on the page, like what Exocraet showed. Also, many more serious topics on Wikipedia tend to be for the most part true and based on facts since the writers have been educated on the topic, like once again what Exocraet said.


Religious debate you say...:confused:
*Hides from Ryan*

[QUOTE]1 Voting: Currently there are many ideas regarding this. One popular one seems to advocate making two poles per debate. One of these poles would capture the viewer’s opinion before they read the thread, and the second would offer their choice of what team/persons did the best job debating their sides. Personally I find this idea simple and convenient, but what do you think. If you have an idea please present it.][/QUOTE]

This is a good idea. I'd go with this :grin:

I will add more tomorrow, I am very tired and must wake up early in the morning. :ryan:

And not sure why the quoting isn't working :gasp:
 
Just to be clear where we stand as far as decisions are concerned.

So far its 2/6 who are ok with the two poll voting system. I think Execreat is fine with it two because she feels the same way regarding "winning" a debate. So lets call it 3/6. Lets have one more person comment on this to see if this is a solid idea.

So far we have 3/6 who say a random religious debate would be ok....starstruck did not really answer, but then again we need someone to mod it as well, so its looks like we will be heading in that direction.

We seem to have a slight confusion about what word count requirment should be. Can some more people address this concern here ,AND in the public thread.

I think we have resolved that Wiki links can be ok to use in some certain instances.

So far the rules look fine for everyone.

VERY IMPORTANT. We need three volunteers to put forward a good religious random debate topic. Once we have that, we will make the poll and sign up with those three ideas and see what the public likes. Who will volunteer an Idea?




A Drafted Idea for a system of cycling debates.

The Idea is to make it simple for us, yet to ensure continuance. So please take a look at the idea I am proposing.

An interval system, that offers 1 week to vote, 1 week to prepare, and 1 week for the debate itself.

One debate held every week, alternating between Final Fantasy debates, Random debates, and Standard sign up debates. Let me illustrate how I think that would work. We will begin with the Final fantasy Debate, second will be the standard, and last will be the random.

FIRST WEEK (Monday – Sunday) – On Monday we will begin the Final Fantasy team debate, and it will last through the week. During this week we will offer topics chosen by us and the public in the form of a vote for the next Final fantasy debate. During this week it will be preparation time for the standard debate that is hopefully filled.

SECOND WEEK (Monday – Sunday) – On Monday we will begin the Standard team debate, and it will last through the week. During this week we will offer topics chosen by us and the public in the form of a vote, for the next standard debate. During this week it will be preparation time for the next random debate which is hopefully filled.

THIRD WEEK (Monday – Sunday) – On Monday we will begin the Random debate, and it will last through the week. During this week we will offer topics chosen by us and the public in the form of a vote, for the next Random debate. During this week it will be preparation time for the next Final Fantasy debate which is hopefully filled.
And the cycle would continue.
ANY moderators would be able to keep an eye on ANY debates that they are not in. It will be our responsibility to make sure order is kept. I will also add that we need to organize a system of suggesting ideas for vote able debates.
Please leave your feedback, and suggestions and ideas regarding this theory.
 
Last edited:
#1 Voting: Currently there are many ideas regarding this. One popular one seems to advocate making two poles per debate. One of these poles would capture the viewer’s opinion before they read the thread, and the second would offer their choice of what team/persons did the best job debating their sides. Personally I find this idea simple and convenient, but what do you think. If you have an idea please present it.
I agree with the latter poll though I think it should be more or less limited to the "team" that debated the best rather than an individual because it places more emphasis on teamwork and solid research since it relies on the team as a whole to do well. I'm not going to agree or disagree with the former idea of a poll because I'm not too sure what "viewer's opinion" is particularly placing emphasis on if it's before reading the thread. It may be a perfectly viable poll just don't full understand what it means.

#2 Debate cycle: This is a cornerstone of interest in my opinion. We will need to discuss a good cycle for debating that ensures continuation when some of us are busy, or when other people don’t have things to debate. So far, there has been well received opinions regarding having a standard debate which we could sign up for: 3-5 on each team. Also a Radom Debate worth signing up for, where people can sign up not knowing which side they will be debating. Also a Final Fantasy debate you can sign up for. Now as far as critiquing this idea, we need to discuss how long these debates should last. How much time should we allow for preparation of each debate? How many debates should be set up by the TD’s (us) at one time?
I've seen the last post outlining this and I'm fine with it.

#3 Topical votes: This one I think needs the most work. I think a rotating system of each of us TD’s putting forward polls for the next upcoming debate topics could be successful. For example, we can switch positions evenly on standard, Random, and FF settings. Also, together we can come up with different topics every week for the public to vote which debate would be best, by simply signing up for them. Now one issue pointed out is how the public can be involved by suggesting debate topics, which does not interfere with continued progress. This is a tricky problem which we could figure out together. One thing I realize is the ability for people to make a debate team and set up a debate, might just be more than enough to ensure fairness in inclusion with their ideas for topics. Also please the simple style I put forward for voting placing in usernames to participate. Do you like this A1 A2 B1 B2, ect?
I like the A1 A2 B1 B2 idea, it's simple and easy to work with. In terms of getting the actual public involved I think the "mods" can just suggest debate topics and if the public or debaters think they need tweaking as to whether they're too "open" or the debate is too "narrow" then they can say. Alternatively, I'm not closed off to having the public or debaters suggesting debates either as long as you know it's not going to give them a serious advantage. Obviously some people will be able to debate better on certain topics over others but I think both sides should have an equal chance of "winning" come the beginning of a debate.

#4 MODERATION CYCLE: Similar to the topic cycle, we need to create a system where we do not moderate our own debates, yet insure we are always moderating the debates at hand. Simultaneously we want this system to allow us to be involved with debates, without and conflict of interest. A system like this could involve us switching the style of debate we are watching for the week, whether it be standard, random, or FF. This should also include a system of casting potential debates topics to vote upon in upcoming threads together. Please leave your feedback on this idea.
I think modding your own debates or more or less evened out by the fact there is more than one debate mod keeping an eye on the debate. Everything is in the open so it's easy to to identify if you're deliberately putting the other side at a disadvantage. It's an awkward one because the debates you are most interested in are probably also the best you'd be able to moderate too. On the other hand, I would be far from great at moderating a religious debate since I have very little interest in religion nor do I particularly understand what half the people are talking about when it comes to religious debates :wacky:

#5 DEBATE REQUIREMENTS: This is very important to discuss. I was thinking each debates, in each debate would be allowed a certain word count coupled with a post limit. These two factors would be set within the debates running timeframe, and I do not think that word count should be carried to others posts if not utilized. Do you agree with this? If you do, please explain what you guys think would be a good number as far as word count and post limit goes. Also about the idea of swapping sides in the standard setting, is this something everyone agrees with?
I agree with Ringo on the 1400/1500 word count and 15 posts max. 1500 may sound a lot but if it's a topic that you can be passionate about or a topic that could be sourced extremely well then you'd hit 800 words (which I saw earlier) too quickly and depending on how well you can debate you could be making a lot of good points within 800 words but never actually hit the main point you're trying to make.

- Each debatist will be allowed no more then 800 Words per post.
Like Ringo suggested, I think 1400/1500 would be better.
- Each Debatist will be allowed no more then 15 overall posts during the debate's duration.
Agreed.
- All forms of insults are strictly forbiddon.
Again, agreed. It's pretty much a forum rule anyway, as well as being a bad debate technique.
- Every "question" given by a person, must be addressed by the person it was asked to.
I think people will more or less do this anyway, the only problem I see is that sometimes not everything is always addressable, for example, I have seen questions directed at people in some debate threads in the past which seem really ambiguous (which I guess can be directed by a moderator) and on the odd occasion people will get questions they feel they simply cannot answer. So I think it really depends on the type of question.
- All statistics using percents, ratio's, numbers, must be coupled with posted information.
I think this is pretty standard too, statistics are more so used to back up a point rather than actually make one. Statistics are pretty much useless without making a point to go with them. But agreed.
- The duration of each debate will be five days in length in order to work smoothly.
This should be okay, but I think the first debate will be a trial and error to see whether 5 days is long enough.
- Every opponent must cross words with each other at least once, no 1v1 in a 3v3 debate.
Agreed, I think it makes it fairer. Those who are good at debating will be able to see who is the "weak link" even if all of the other side are good at debating.
- Use proper Grammar.
Agreed. Standard.
- Do NOT lie. Lying is strictly forbiddon. Only provide honest truths and stated opinions, do not present opinions as facts.
I think sources used should be put at the bottom of posts (though not included in the overall word count) because it helps both the mods to extract whether the information is from a reliable source. I also think there should be minor plagiarism rule, if you're quoting an article or journal etc it should be put in quotation marks so that you know it's someone else's work simply so that people don't spend most of the debate just copying large chunks of text from elsewhere.
- No trolling.
Agreed, again bad debate technique.

I'll probably have more to add, especially to the points I've missed or when other people have put in their two cents.
 
Haiyo roland. Do you mind if I join in on this debate group?

I May not be a spectacular debater. But I do wish to talk with a lot of you and debate.

On the subject of Wikipedia: i belive we should be able to use Wikipedia. While the fact that it can add anything making some satements false. I see no reason to ban it's usage from our discussions. However. I think that if anyone uses Wikipedia as a source for one of their facts. Must back the wikipedian fact up with At least two other non-wikipedia esque sites.

EX: Wikipedia says: (insert Item here) was made in 1987. yet (Insert other site here) says that (insert item here) was made in 1760. you go to a diffrent site. and that site agrees that (insert item here) WAS made in 1760. so theese two sights prove that it was made in 1760.

This way if Wiki lies to you. which it dose. You can be sure of your facts that two other reliable sources say that (insert item Here) was made then. It also helps discussions if you point out Wikipedia is wrong when you went and searched it. so other people don't make the same mistake.
 
Okay.

Erm, I suppose I will put up an idea for a religious debate. I shall think on it though.

On the Debate Cycle, I also read previous post and it sounds fine to me :ryan:

Also, what do you mean by "moderating our own debates"?

Also, I would add more but I cannot because I am not on a real computer. Tomorrow I shall. (I know I said that yesterday, but be patient with me here)

 
Haiyo roland. Do you mind if I join in on this debate group?

I May not be a spectacular debater. But I do wish to talk with a lot of you and debate.

Well even if I was ok with this, its no longer just my decision in this thread. However, everyone is more then welcome to put forward information, opinions, and thoughts... this is why we created a public discussion thread as well (which we encourage use of). All of our actions will reflect major opinions by the public, and the most popular changes/ideas will be voted upon here. I think we have enough people to mod and come up with ideas for the moment. However, once we get this idea started, EVERYONE will be allowed to participate in team debates, its not just us by any means. We are just trying to organize and improve a good idea.


On the subject of Wikipedia: i belive we should be able to use Wikipedia. While the fact that it can add anything making some satements false. I see no reason to ban it's usage from our discussions. However. I think that if anyone uses Wikipedia as a source for one of their facts. Must back the wikipedian fact up with At least two other non-wikipedia esque sites.

EX: Wikipedia says: (insert Item here) was made in 1987. yet (Insert other site here) says that (insert item here) was made in 1760. you go to a diffrent site. and that site agrees that (insert item here) WAS made in 1760. so theese two sights prove that it was made in 1760.

This way if Wiki lies to you. which it dose. You can be sure of your facts that two other reliable sources say that (insert item Here) was made then. It also helps discussions if you point out Wikipedia is wrong when you went and searched it. so other people don't make the same mistake.


It would actually help us if you copy/pasted this into the public descussion thread, to let people know the idea is being taken seriously.



Regarding word count, its pretty much unanimous it seems. I will change the rules to allow for 1,400 words.

Its seems the signup/voting system for which debates are held is ok. The A1 B2 ect ect. However, there is still room for the other TD's to throw forward their opinions on this if they agree or disagree.

As for polls, I guess I can see reason for having two of them. For example if its a pro/anti abortion debate, and the people mostly vote they are pro abortion, yet the secondary poll says that the anti abortion side did a better job debating... thats a good way to judge how well you did. Again we need some more feedback on this one, I will swing either way to quicken the decision.
 
Well, I'm pretty much okay with all proposals but I do have some questions. First, the thing we must recognize is the source of the popularity of the debate board, which can be summed up in this old quote:

"Opinions are like assholes; everyone has one."

That may seem a bit crude, but it's true. What makes this board so popular is that anyone and everyone can step in and interject an idea without having any obligations of continuing the debate or having background knowledge. If I wanted to post, let's say, in the FF3 board, I'd have to have played FF3 to contribute anything worthwhile. That's a fair bit of work. But if I want to add my measly two cents to a political debate, I can easily do that and not have to do much research or effort to participate.

I think we run a risk here in making this board too organized. It will take away the appeal of the board. There are some people who are truly hardcore debators; there are others that like to contribute but really won't stick with it if it's too much work. It's the latter folk that make up the majority, and we should be aware that they may not want to join a team. They may just want to provide a third point of view and leave it at that.

So instead of there just being a black/white 2-count poll, there must be a third option (other) and if this option is selected an explanation -- backed with resources -- must be given and if it isn't, that vote will be removed from the poll. Since we can see who votes what on polls, this would be easy to do, but mods would have to null the vote itself.

If all this explanation was unnecessary, please ignore me -- I just want to make sure we don't make things too restrictive.

Also, I think there should be a 2 week lifespan on debates. Five days is just cripplingly short, especially if there are students (like me) who cannot spend a good portion of the day just formulating and watching for posts. 5 days would make the threads move so fast that easily half the people that want to participate couldn't because by the time they post, they're quoting posts that went up 3 pages ago. I'm not a fast poster, I like to take my time and get my facts straight. We should allow some leeway time for research and the like. 2 weeks would be more than enough time for a very hot debate thread, I think, and removes the crushing pressure of time.

Also, 1,400 words is way too short. 2,000 at least. That's about 4 pages (roughly, if you estimate about 500 words/page) more than enough to address multiple posts and multiple quotes with sufficient explanations. We don't want to strangle the debaters, force them to make clipped, vague points because of a word count. Actually, I'd advocate NO word count at all, as it just adds a layer of complexity that a great deal of people wouldn't even bother with and not post at all, but that could just be me. I'm a writer, I hate word count limits.

A post count would also be a bad idea I think. What if you had the exact proof and reply to a person and be able to win over the whole debate for your team but.... you just used your last allotted post! That'd be agonizing and frustrating and I really am voting NO on to the limited post count for debaters.
 
Well, I'm pretty much okay with all proposals but I do have some questions. First, the thing we must recognize is the source of the popularity of the debate board, which can be summed up in this old quote:

Opinions are like assholes.

That may seem a bit crude, but it's true. What makes this board so popular is that anyone and everyone can step in and interject an idea without having any obligations of continuing the debate or having background knowledge. If I wanted to post, let's say, in the FF3 board, I'd have to have played FF3 to contribute anything worthwhile. That's a fair bit of work. But if I want to add my measly two cents to a political debate, I can easily do that and not have to do much research or effort to participate.

I think we run a risk here in making this board too organized. It will take away the appeal of the board. There are some people who are truly hardcore debators; there are others that like to contribute but really won't stick with it if it's too much work. It's the latter folk that make up the majority, and we should be aware that they may not want to join a team. They may just want to provide a third point of view and leave it at that.


Now this is something Kesha addessed in the puiblic discussion thread. I guess I will try and add my two cents here as well.

I agree that popularity comes from opinions, but also I think almost equally as much comes from serious debaters. This throws the fans of debates on two different sides.

What we are doing... is organizing the things we like. We are seperating the debates from each other according to their certain scenarios, to where they actually belong. I mean of course law debates are going to require hard evidence and facts. And of course FF debates and philosophy debates are going to require opinions and thinking outside of fact. This way everyone can almost pick and choose what kind of debates they like from the beginning, and have a fair sided debate.


So instead of there just being a black/white 2-count poll, there must be a third option (other) and if this option is selected an explanation -- backed with resources -- must be given and if it isn't, that vote will be removed from the poll. Since we can see who votes what on polls, this would be easy to do, but mods would have to null the vote itself.

You kind of lost me I guess on this one... what exactly would be on the third pole? Maybe rephrase it for me.

If all this explanation was unnecessary, please ignore me -- I just want to make sure we don't make things too restrictive.

hey at this point... if you care you care. So lets see whats up with everyone.


Also, I think there should be a 2 week lifespan on debates. Five days is just cripplingly short, especially if there are students (like me) who cannot spend a good portion of the day just formulating and watching for posts. 5 days would make the threads move so fast that easily half the people that want to participate couldn't because by the time they post, they're quoting posts that went up 3 pages ago. I'm not a fast poster, I like to take my time and get my facts straight. We should allow some leeway time for research and the like. 2 weeks would be more than enough time for a very hot debate thread, I think, and removes the crushing pressure of time.


Ok one thing is. Did you read the cycle propossed? How would you improve it. I feel that the longer these debates last, the longer the time between the new topics. If we make it long and strung out people will not watch this system as much and it won't be very different from the normal topics. I mean the only solution to this is if "everyone" wanted to put more time in extra to watch and create the polls so that variety ensures. You yourself said you did not have much time, I guess I could assist in this idea "if" everyone else agrees.

QUESTION, for EVERYONE. Should we double the lengths of debates and keep one going per week. double the lengths of debate and double the amount being held. Or keep the debates 7 days long and one per week.



Also, 1,400 words is way too short. 2,000 at least. That's about 4 pages (roughly, if you estimate about 500 words/page) more than enough to address multiple posts and multiple quotes with sufficient explanations. We don't want to strangle the debaters, force them to make clipped, vague points because of a word count. Actually, I'd advocate NO word count at all, as it just adds a layer of complexity that a great deal of people wouldn't even bother with and not post at all, but that could just be me. I'm a writer, I hate word count limits.

Almost everyone else said 1400 is a good number. I am ok with it as long as nobody else says that its too big of a number.

A post count would also be a bad idea I think. What if you had the exact proof and reply to a person and be able to win over the whole debate for your team but.... you just used your last allotted post! That'd be agonizing and frustrating and I really am voting NO on to the limited post count for debaters.

This is one of those things that I think most of us think needs to be there. The ecourages smart and well planned out articles. Even normal debates have different phases most of the time. I do not think we should allow for anyone to shutout the voices from others. I mean this encourages care and quality of your words in the debate. Without a count the words are worth nothing, so why put anything into them.

so Question. I am for a post count. Dragon mage is not. We need a ruling from the other four.
 
Last edited:
Now this is something Kesha addessed in the puiblic discussion thread. I guess I will try and add my two cents here as well.

I agree that popularity comes from opinions, but also I think almost equally as much comes from serious debaters. This throws the fans of debates on two different sides.

What we are doing... is organizing the things we like. We are seperating the debates from each other according to their certain scenarios, to where they actually belong. I mean of course law debates are going to require hard evidence and facts. And of course FF debates and philosophy debates are going to require opinions and thinking outside of fact. This way everyone can almost pick and choose what kind of debates they like from the beginning, and have a fair sided debate.

Well, I just want to make sure we keep it as accessible as possible, that's all. Everyone seems to be hitting the gas on these ideas, I think we should really step back and look at the long-term effects and how things interconnect, just to be 110% on the safe side.

In the way you are explaining, I agree with you. My vote is a yes.

You kind of lost me I guess on this one... what exactly would be on the third pole? Maybe rephrase it for me.

Um.... I think we may not be meaning the same thing. I meant a third option ON the poll itself.... were you talking two separate polls?

Okay, then I'm confused. xD I must've misread.

What I meant was, if you have two teams, your poll would look like this:

[Team 1's position]
[Team 2's position]

I just meant, we should add one more:
[Other -- must explain]

So that people that don't really side with either team can make a stand as well.

Ok one thing is. Did you read the cycle propossed? How would you improve it. I feel that the longer these debates last, the longer the time between the new topics. If we make it long and strung out people will not watch this system as much and it won't be very different from the normal topics. I mean the only solution to this is if "everyone" wanted to put more time in extra to watch and create the polls so that variety ensures. You yourself said you did not have much time, I guess I could assist in this idea "if" everyone else agrees.

Ah, I see what you mean. Even so, FFF doesn't move as fast as Gaia or 4chan. Over there, the average thread life is 7 minutes. Over here, average thread life is a week or two. I suggested longer time for the debates to conclude only because it seems more the pace of FFF itself. That's my reasoning. 10 Days, instead of two weeks, would be perfectly good as well.

This is one of those things that I think most of us think needs to be there. The ecourages smart and well planned out articles. Even normal debates have different phases most of the time. I do not think we should allow for anyone to shutout the voices from others. I mean this encourages care and quality of your words in the debate. Without a count the words are worth nothing, so why put anything into them.

I could see that reasoning with word counts, but NOT post counts. Limiting the amount of times a person can post effectively means they have to cover as many bases, explain, them, back them up, and provide sources, with only 1,400 words per post and only 5 times per thread (for example). That just looks like it's going to backfire. First you limit how many words they can use -- okay, not too much of a problem. But then you limit how many posts they can make? That's putting on a lot of pressure. I think you'll see a lot of dismissiveness going around because people cannot spend precious words and posts too long on any one debate point because they have to ration their replies for other points that haven't even been addressed yet. It'd be chaos.

Also, if a person is posed a question in a thread, the rules say they must reply to it. But what if they already used up their allotted posts?

This is why I don't think a post count is going to do much good. It'd cause more problems. I hope that makes sense and you can see why I'm dubious as to its success.
 
Okay, just finally got around to reading this (been a bit busy and feeling sick), and I agree with all of this.

For Wikipedia, I say do NOT use it as a resource unless what you yourself are citing was cited to another page like as Exocræt linked. If what you're saying wasn't cited in the Wikipedia article, there's really no actual proof. Wikipedia may usually have the truth, but many people may put things in there that aren't true or don't have enough evidence to back it up.

Word limit sounds about right. I have trouble using more than a couple hundred of words to try and get my point across because it eventually starts to get all jumbled up and sounds bad.

Moderating debates that you aren't a part of is also good. Regarding that, I would like to only oversee the FF debates and not take part of them. Why? 1, the topics being debated are extremely hard for me to give answers to (as I love X and XII and haven't fully finished VIII to put up a complete argument), and I am more into the real world/random debates like religion or legality of abortion and so on.

About the polls. vB only allows one poll per thread, so I'd assume you mean just putting up (for example) 4 options (making it multiple choice), 2 for each subject, but stating in the debate rules to only allow for one choice per subject. I also think that because of some people's viewpoints on many things like religion, they have mixed feelings. Like, say they believe in God, but are finding it hard to believe he exists with the evolution of science. I was part of (I didn't post much, just read over it), a religious debate over the existence of God and there were 7 options to coincide with each members feelings:

Beausiph said:
1. Strong theist. 100 percent possibility of God.
2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist.
3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism.
4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic.
5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism.
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist.
7. Strong atheist.

Don't need to use this exact format or wording, but this is what I mean by it.

Also personal opinions should be welcomed, as long as (like you said) they aren't being stated as facts. I like to hear how everyone feels about the topic in question.

That's pretty much how I feel about all of this so there :P Might think up other things, but in the mean time this works out fine for me.
 
First on the topic of wikipedia. It should be treated as any encyclopedia would be during any debate. It gives good brief accounts & explanations but primary sources with more depth are better. As in scientific research the Primary Source is ALWAYS better, so if possible cite that. If not then wiki can be used as a proxy with the caveat that you are sacrificing accuracy for expediency.

- All statistics using percents, ratio's, numbers, must be coupled with posted information
THIS is extremely important. Any figures or facts that are stated (whether statistical or other) should be supported by evidence. Obviously opinions and conclusions are not always supported directly.

Bottom line if an explicit number/statement of fact is given the source or sources from where the data were garnered must be revealed. Meaning like in real life the data must be replicable.

I love the idea of asking 2 questions per poll, it allows us to eliminate any prior bias.
1) I side with A, A won debate
2) I side with A, but B won debate
...
 
Back
Top