Log in

View Full Version : A suggestion


SAVAGE
September 3rd, 2007, 02:50 AM
I suggest that we have a debate section where only two members can debate as part of a challange system.

It is to be havily moderated and only present facts and counter arguments, where all things must be backed up using google and logic.

As a sister branch we should have a peanut gallery where those not involved can have there say.

What do you reckon?

Fallen Hero
September 3rd, 2007, 02:53 AM
Sounds good to me. Hell, I'd call the other section the "Peanut Gallery". Debaters need to be blocked from the Peanut Gallery. No outside pointers needed.

SAVAGE
September 3rd, 2007, 02:55 AM
Sounds good to me. Hell, I'd call the other section the "Peanut Gallery". Debaters need to be blocked from the Peanut Gallery. No outside pointers needed.


Indeed, or just not allow anyone to give pointers that are not already listed by the debaters, but to comment on those points presented only.

Then after a specific number of posts (say three apiece) the mediator and the peanut gallery can decide who won.

Fallen Hero
September 3rd, 2007, 03:03 AM
Unfortunately, most of said peanut gallery has already made up their minde based on personal opinions of the posters.

Googler
September 3rd, 2007, 03:19 AM
We used to have a section like this but it wasn't used often. Now that we have more people interested in debate, I also agree that we should try again.

Alice Shade
September 3rd, 2007, 12:29 PM
Pff.

Googler, we had one, remember?

Aside from me and Erasmus debating once, noone ever bothered to.

Despite me posting challenges more then once.

Though, let me state for protocol, that I do not think Savage-style debating warrants separate forum. We have more then enough "dad wanking" of his everywhere else.

Frankly, why not start off by simply posting a thread in main discussion for specific person, and asking others not to post?

Rand
September 3rd, 2007, 05:20 PM
Just an idea... classify it in the title..

(Class) Debate: (Subject)

For class, you put open or closed... two on two, whatever the hell the parameters of who can debate you'd like. For an open debate, you might as well not put a class at all, just put Debate: (Subject).

For subject, you can put the subject of the debate.

At the beginning of your post, pick and show who you want to debate with, or PM them before hand. Anyone who makes posts that isn't in the debate can have their posts deleted by those who have the power. After a clear winner is named, it can turn into an open debate if there is any debate left, or people can comment.

I suggest setting up rules, though, to keep the debate at a certain level. Primarily, no personal attacks. We should be able to debate without insulting one another. We're Googlists, not Christians, let's act like it.

P.S.: You can dedicate a person to look after the debate threads to, keep them nice and controlled (no extra posts when it's a closed debate)

Digs
September 3rd, 2007, 07:03 PM
Supporting Rand on this one. If the rules are stipulated by the players, then a game can be done basically anywhere. Put it in your thread title and explain the parameters in the thread.

SAVAGE
September 3rd, 2007, 11:24 PM
Supporting Rand on this one. If the rules are stipulated by the players, then a game can be done basically anywhere. Put it in your thread title and explain the parameters in the thread.

That would work just as well.

AaronD
September 3rd, 2007, 11:25 PM
I'm with Rand, too.

Digs
September 4th, 2007, 04:45 AM
(Sound of a gavel banging against a wooden base.) It's decided, then. If a poster wishes to arbitrarily set nonbinding rules for a thread, then the administration will probably not do anything against it, unless they feel like it. Case closed.

Fallen Hero
September 4th, 2007, 06:49 PM
We could really care a lot less. I think I can speak for everyone there.

Alice Shade
September 5th, 2007, 08:35 PM
If the poster sets rules, which are not in violation of main forum rules, it`s OK.

If someone wants to break them - OK too. Everyone will just know them to be flamers, with all attached consequences.

Loki
September 6th, 2007, 12:09 AM
Well - I'd join in. A free for all often clears the air ;D

Lord_Jereth
September 6th, 2007, 12:23 PM
This is not a new idea. Several years ago when I was running a friend's atheist forum we came up with much the same thing. We called it "The Thunder Dome" with basically the same rules as stated above. Sadly, it just never took off as a feature but we didn't have anywhere near the active user base that this forum does. I certainly hope it will work here.

Count me in.

:icon_cool: LJ

Loki
September 6th, 2007, 10:32 PM
Why not just take it to the unmoderated threads?

Alice Shade
September 7th, 2007, 05:42 PM
Because, Loki, unmoderated threads are not moderated. Which means, that if someone decides to flame up the discussion completely, it won`t be a rulebreak, technically.

Better post in the main discussion section, and notify me, Googler, Fallen Hero, Method-X or Aaron to, per necessity, keep it stickied and dike the messages, which are in violation with set thread rules (Aka, ones flaming the thread up with copy&paste senselessly, for example).

Loki
September 7th, 2007, 10:31 PM
Hmm - OK Alice, I'll give you that (ish).
The thing is though - my main hangout isn't moderated - we have the odd spammer but they don't last long.

Why is that?

Alice Shade
September 8th, 2007, 02:35 AM
Because it`s not moderated.

I`m not hanging out there, so I`m not sure about the exact mechanics, but my educated guess would be that a group of closer-knit regulars simply flames the flamers off the place pretty quickly.

MeTHoD-X
September 9th, 2007, 12:58 AM
Alright. You guys can come up with a working idea, and me and Alice will implement it however you all decide it to be. I'd join in from time to time for sure. I used to frequent an ausie forum called "Public Debate" (where I originally came up with the CoG idea 2 years before putting the site up).

So just come up with a working format and we'll run with that. The peanut gallery is a great idea too.

Kudos,
Matt

Alice Shade
September 9th, 2007, 01:06 AM
Let`s try and see, if the debates we have now cut it out.

If not... well, we can always think up something to help along.

Loki
September 10th, 2007, 01:53 AM
"Because, Loki, unmoderated threads are not moderated. Which means, that if someone decides to flame up the discussion completely, it won`t be a rulebreak, technically."


Well Alice - yes we do! What's wrong with that? If someone wants to be a twat - rip them a new arsehole! That goes for the regular posters too!
.
You have a bit of a control fetish, don't you?

Alice Shade
September 10th, 2007, 10:58 PM
I don`t bar you from starting a debate in the unmoderated part, if you want to.

Most people would be quite loathe having the debate they are interested in enough to start being flamed to kingdom`s end.

If you don`t really care that much... Or, well, just like to flame, be my guest, and start the debate wherever you want.