MOD ANNOUNCEMENT: Member Debates (Input needed)

Good idea.

 

I just want the prima donnas who yip about that stuff to shut their pie holes and go someplace else.

This seems like a nice rubber room for people who soil themselves whenever their threads don't go the way they wanted them to fo.

 

Okay????????

Your shoulder, is that a chip?

 

No, I just want the people who think this is beneath them to get out and stay out when they threaten to leave.

 

Alrighty, your opinion has been registered and duly noted.

 

Catch: Want to debate the subject of the impact of Chinese nationalism on the political, economic, military and diplomatic stability of the South China Sea?

 

EPV, wouldn't this concept stretch mods even further?
With any luck, folks will have the decency to leave a debate thread alone, instead of trying to derail it. Not sure how you will, or can, enforce the rules.

 

The banhammer should take care of that problem. You're right that it will add to the duties of the mods, though.

Maybe they should make you a mod and let you handle it?

Let's take a vote.

Aye.

 

These debates won't be as frequent as you may think starting out. We plan on holding a couple (at separate times) in order to feel out how successful they'll be as well as how much we're needed. We don't plan on practicing any leniency with regard to members joining in early, as doing so will result in an immediate thread ban.

 

I would prefer dueling to debates.
Paintballs instead of bullets, of course.
To be clear, I'm not advocating actual violence...
however...point being.

Diplomacy and talk, only goes so far.

Historically, any real change has always come at the tip of a spear...

Our own Republic was as much transformed by muskets as it was by quill and ink.

I don't see a formalized debating process, even with Robert's Rules of order strictly enforced...
changing hearts and minds over a particular issue.

 

Good point.
It may be a great way to have a discussion on religion, without insults, just on merits.
A fellow poster mentioned that we requested something similar some time ago, but were told it wouldn't happen. Although a bit different in format, and fewer posters able to join in, it will be interesting to see how it will develop.

 

The same people who companin about "insults" will still complain that the moderation isn't tilting enough in their direction.

 

I don't know if it's possible here, but I've seen this done on another (now defunct) forum, where access was restricted to just the designated debaters and the judges.

 

Nothing is ever perfect, but its an idea. Why not try and see where it leads?
You don't have to join in. None of us do.
Its voluntary.

 

I prefer this format, where nobody can hide their weak ass arguments behind moderation and have their opponents labeled bigots.

That's the new Godwin's Law.

 

How? Log in password? Could work.
Would be great if folks were disciplined enough to stay out of where they don't belong.

 

Some us wish the people who prefer a no-holds-barred free-for-all would go somewhere else and let the rest of us engage in a thoughtful discussion of the issues.

Interesting that you would be against actual debate.

 

We did this on another forum and it worked and showcased reasoned debate, but there was some difficulty...

...surrounding the judging as the people who debated took it quite seriously and wanted to debate the judges findings.

To avoid bias in judging, you might consider setting some form of judging criteria beforehand if you think it would assist the judges to remove doubt about what they are expected to consider. We had members with experience of college debate team, we based it on those.

There were 2 people per team, issues arose over one participating more and the other not being online due to time constraints etc.

I locked the debate threads, excluding everyone except the people who were the named debate participants. This was done really because people who hadn't read the OP kept wandering in and making posts as if it were a normal thread.

The OP laid out the topic, rules of the thread and debate parameters and specified what the debaters were working to, i.e. what they would be judged on.

 

remember all the other threads will still availible , we want this to work , we all can learn from others if we respect the fact that someone may have different views

 

Not really sure how it was done. Those debates were a bit different because the site had forums with restricted membership for particular political parties. The participants in those political party forums selected someone to represent the party in the debate.

In other words, there was a lot of control available to the site admins that may or may not be similarly available here.

 

The usual suspects will still be pooping in their pants when the moderation isn't rigged sufficiently in their direction.

Just like here.

Bet on it.

 

Sounds like fun. The same half dozen or so beard strokers pulling each other's tafffy.

 

Which brings me to another observation:

Where I've seen this done in the past, the participants each laid out their primary arguments, and then made secondary posts dedicated to rebuttal of the opponents' primary arguments. I think there was also a summary post allowed for each participant. So the number of actual posts was pretty small, and the posts themselves were pretty long.

 

They like to read what they themselves post.

 

Wasn't a problem when participation was restricted to a few designees, who focused on the issues instead of each other.