Debate Forum

[Percy Thrillington]

Personally, I'd love for there to be a place for serious debates, even about controversial topics, without fearing that someone's going to come in and cause trouble. However, past experience - and even more recent topics - have shown otherwise. As unfair as it is, in this situation it is a few rotten apples spoiling the bunch for everybody - and as long as those still exist then it's just going to cause too much trouble to allow such a forum to be opened, unless we can figure out a fool-proof way to actually make it work.

Well, it's already been established that people can't be restricted from the board because of their age, their post count or practically everything else that's been suggested. And you're right, there will always be a few people who are going to go over the top and lose the run of themselves. That's life and there's no real way around that, no matter how much anyone tries to resolve the issue. A couple of pages back, Michii suggested a form that people would have to fill out, and judging their answers, they would either be granted permission to post in the board or not. While I don't agree with this method of finding the right posters, I do agree that this is the right step to take if you want to get rid of every troublemaker you can.

Perhaps the staff should choose who they believe would be able to debate in a mature fashion. Yes, it might look bias at times, but hey, that's also life. If people aren't a fan of that, there are numerous options to take instead. Maybe the board should be open to everyone at the start and people will gradually be restricted from it as they are deemed unfit. Sounds tedious, I know, but it seems to be the only fair way of determining who gets access to the board. I'm opposed to that idea myself, to be honest. If you let the whole forum go loose on the board, it'd become a flaming, spammish pit in a number of days.

I'm sure if everybody puts their thinking caps on, a bright spark will be able to come up with a fair method that decides who gets to post and who doesn't.

And I'm neither in favour nor opposed to the board. I'm somewhere in between, just posting my views as they come and go. What I do think for certain (and it isn't going to change for quite a while) is that the people who are restricted from the board should only be restricted from posting, not viewing the board. 'Cause no one will be able to learn how to debate properly and win access back to the board if they aren't provided with a chance to learn how to debate properly, right? If people get rejected, there'll have to be some sort of appeal option where they can try and get the decision turned.

And that's all I have to say for now, I think. Good post, Cowrie. You summed up practically everything that needs to be dealed with.

 

[Renneh]

is that the people who are restricted from the board should only be restricted from posting, not viewing the board. 'Cause no one will be able to learn how to debate properly and win access back to the board if they aren't provided with a chance to learn how to debate properly, right? If people get rejected, there'll have to be some sort of appeal option where they can try and get the decision turned.

Agreed, they should definitely be able to view the board.

Maybe after you first get rejected, you have to wait a month maybe until you can appeal again? Then a mock debate for the person could be held, not every time because that would be very time consuming and the moderators do alot as it is, but when the moderator is unsure...if they held a mock debate, and perhaps included a few other members to help do the debate so different angles were displayed, it would then help the moderator make a conclusion on the person.

 

[Nick]

Agreed, they should definitely be able to view the board.

Maybe after you first get rejected, you have to wait a month maybe until you can appeal again? Then a mock debate for the person could be held, not every time because that would be very time consuming and the moderators do alot as it is, but when the moderator is unsure...if they held a mock debate, and perhaps included a few other members to help do the debate so different angles were displayed, it would then help the moderator make a conclusion on the person.

That's just overcomplicating the original concept of allowing certain members to gain privileges on the board. If you didn't gain access the first time, wait it out until higher staff decide that you are mature enough to gain the ability to post and engage in discussion. But I do like how that members of any type can gain access to the board for viewing and not engage in discussions.

 

[Renneh]

That's just overcomplicating the original concept of allowing certain members to gain privileges on the board. If you didn't gain access the first time, wait it out until higher staff decide that you are mature enough to gain the ability to post and engage in discussion. But I do like how that members of any type can gain access to the board for viewing and not engage in discussions.

I agree with you, if is what you were saying that the moderators sort of casually decide who is mature enough by their usual browsing of the forum. But then again, there are so many members, that some might need to put themselves to the attention of the moderators by maybe a personal message.

 

[Percy Thrillington]

I agree with you, if is what you were saying that the moderators sort of casually decide who is mature enough by their usual browsing of the forum. But then again, there are so many members, that some might need to put themselves to the attention of the moderators by maybe a personal message.

Which is where an appealing megathread comes into play. Instead of having moderators/administrators bombarded with requests from members for permission to post in the board, just have one thread where people can state who they are and it's down to the moderator/administrator if he/she is allowed to post. People could also appeal their decisions in it as well.

Am I getting too far ahead now?

 

[Virtual Chatot]

I strongly disagree, the debate forum is the only reason I left Serebiiforums three years ago. The reason I came to PC in the first place was because it DIDN'T have a debate forum.
If you want PC to become another Serebiiforums, fine.
But you won't see me around here anymore, not unless you want to impose some strict moderators and rules.

 

[Nick]

I agree with you, if is what you were saying that the moderators sort of casually decide who is mature enough by their usual browsing of the forum. But then again, there are so many members, that some might need to put themselves to the attention of the moderators by maybe a personal message.

Nono, you didn't read my full reply to Cowrie's post. I later stated that, since it was so hard to conduct searches for moderators, another idea would be to use members that have or are current candidates in a moderator position since they've already shown to the staff that they are responsible otherwise they wouldn't be considered in a staff position anyway. Though, that could just give away the whole surprise to the member being suggested to become a member of the staff, so scratch that idea.

Overall, I think my suggestion is also overcomplicating the original idea anyway, so.. I'll just stop contributing to this thread now. It's not getting anywhere anyway from any of the suggestions from what I can tell, so there's really no point.

 

[Angela]

​

Nono, you didn't read my full reply to Cowrie's post. I later stated that, since it was so hard to conduct searches for moderators, another idea would be to use members that have or are current candidates in a moderator position since they've already shown to the staff that they are responsible otherwise they wouldn't be considered in a staff position anyway. Though, that could just give away the whole surprise to the member being suggested to become a member of the staff, so scratch that idea.

Overall, I think my suggestion is also overcomplicate

​

the original idea anyway, so.. I'll just stop contributing to this thread now. It's not getting anywhere anyway from any of the suggestions from what I can tell, so there's really no point.

Actually why do we need new mods? why not just use the ones we have already? I feel like they are doing a fantastic job, we all know they have been keeping the forum running this long why not just let the other chat moderators moderate this debate section we are suggesting, it's similar to the other chat and those moderators have the experience,

Then again since this is suppose to be such a "Big Deal" section, you could always just get the S-Mods to moderate it:D.


If you look real closely at this thread made by Renneh it has turned into what a thread in the debate section would look like, kinda chaotic don't you think? Not what I imagined at first when I heard this idea.

~Angela~

 

[Aurafire]

If I could perhaps make a suggestion. Rekhyt suggested that we should open up the forum to everyone at first, and then weed out the members who aren't capable. This would obviously be a lot of work, but if there were stricter rules laid down, it might deter immature people from posting. And if they do end up causing trouble and not debating calmly, they can be throw out of the forum without re-entry.

That being said, there's no way to make people read the rules, and like Cowrie said, people are always going to ignore them. But if they've proven themselves too immature for calm debate, they can be thrown out and they won't have to be dealt with anymore, beside maybe a bit of complaining. After a while, only the members that are debating within the rules would be left.

Really, the only problem I see is topics getting out of control. Without proper moderation, it'll just go down the toilet. There would have to be a way to ensure that threads didn't start getting flamey.

Honestly, take a look at the election thread we had going. Sometimes it got downright hostile, but everyone seemed to be within the rules. If we can debate about politics, why not give it a go for other topics? Not to mention, other topics like religion and gay marriage creeped in every once in a while, and no real flame wars erupted. Anyway....that's what I think.

 

[Nick]

Actually why do we need new mods? why not just use the ones we have already? I feel like they are doing a fantastic job, we all know they have been keeping the forum running this long why not just let the other chat moderators moderate this debate section we are suggesting, it's similar to the other chat and those moderators have the experience,

Then again since this is suppose to be such a "Big Deal" section, you could always just get the S-Mods to moderate it:D.


If you look real closely at this thread made by Renneh it has turned into what a thread in the debate section would look like, kinda chaotic don't you think? Not what I imagined at first when I heard this idea.

~Angela~

Despite stating that I wasn't going to reply, I'm just going to clarify that, since that's a quote directed towards me, I never stated that a new moderator should be chosen for the section if it were to be created. But, asking why we need moderators is a strange question to ask seeing how the majority of the threads relating to debates are full of flame anyway.

Debates are chaotic anyway, so pointing that out isn't going to do anything. Debates are debates. This is a debate thread debating if we should have a board specifically for debate related subjects, so linking that this wouldn't be a debate is farfetched.

 

[Sublime]

Just thought I'd put my two cents into this hot topic.

I personally would love a Debate Thread. If we can keep the mature people in and the trolls out; then we have a nice addition to the community.

But that's the problem. Keeping the trolls out. I think I might have some possible solutions to that.

1. And infraction limit. If they have infractions then they've obviously broken the rules before. Of course, some of the more minor infractions, like character breakage, would be less of a factor to your entry than off-topic or spam infractions.

2. The age limit. Now this is a sketchy idea. There is always the people that will fake their ages just to gain access and ruin our fun. There are also the immature users ABOVE the age limit that would get a thrill out of flaming our opinions. I don't really see the age limit working out; UNLESS you couple it with an infraction limit.

And that is my two cents.

 

[Aurafire]

Just thought I'd put my two cents into this hot topic.

I personally would love a Debate Thread. If we can keep the mature people in and the trolls out; then we have a nice addition to the community.

But that's the problem. Keeping the trolls out. I think I might have some possible solutions to that.

1. And infraction limit. If they have infractions then they've obviously broken the rules before. Of course, some of the more minor infractions, like character breakage, would be less of a factor to your entry than off-topic or spam infractions.

2. The age limit. Now this is a sketchy idea. There is always the people that will fake their ages just to gain access and ruin our fun. Their are also the immature users ABOVE the age limit that would get a thrill out of flaming our opinions. I don't really see the age limit working out; UNLESS you couple it with an infraction limit.

And that is my two cents.

That is an excellent idea. Obviously, members with a certain number of infractions aren't liable to follow the rules, so not allowing them in in the first place would prevent a lot of spam. But then you'd have to figure out how many infraction points bar you from entering the forum, and possibly what types of infractions are more serious when it comes to the debate thread.

The age thing is a little more sketchy, because 1. People can lie about their age and 2. There are many older members here who aren't very mature, and likewise, a few younger members who can conduct themselves calmly. It would be harder to determine who's capable of debating or not. That idea about the infractions might work though...

 

[Sublime]

Well, when dealing with a forum that can lead to some flaming; I think an age limit would be needed. As long as it's couple with another form of restriction.

As for the older members that are immature though, I think a good list of restrictions would weed most of them out. The rest would have to be taken out when the problem arises.

But as for the younger members that can act like respectible members of this forum, then it would be to bad for them. Not to sound harsh or anything; but life isn't fair when it comes to things like that. They would just have to wait their turn

 

[Renneh]

I don't think younger members should be made to wait their turn. Age isn't accurate with determining maturity.

The infraction limit idea is good.

 

[Percy Thrillington]

But as for the younger members that can act like respectible members of this forum, then it would be to bad for them. Not to sound harsh or anything; but life isn't fair when it comes to things like that. They would just have to wait their turn

No. An age limit is unnecessary and will make more drama than it will avoid. Also, that's completely ridiculous. You admit that some younger members are mature and capable to handle a debate, but you say they shouldn't be granted access to the board because they were born a couple of years after you. I can't see any logic in that at all. I doubt you'd be saying that if you were down as one of the younger members of the forum.

 

[Sublime]

No. An age limit is unnecessary and will make more drama than it will avoid. Also, that's completely ridiculous. You admit that some younger members are mature and capable to handle a debate, but you say they shouldn't be granted access to the board because they were born a couple of years after you. I can't see any logic in that at all. I doubt you'd be saying that if you were down as one of the younger members of the forum.

Actually I would. I know how to be patient. Think about it this way; theatres won't sell R rated tickets to minors because they are classified as "not mature enough". While there are some minors who ARE mature enough to handle an R rated movie; they just have to wait.

But I do see how an age limit would create drama. But I still stick with my infraction limit idea.

 

[Angela]

Actually I would. I know how to be patient. Think about it this way; theatres won't sell R rated tickets to minors because they are classified as "not mature enough". While there are some minors who ARE mature enough to handle an R rated movie; they just have to wait.

But I do see how an age limit would create drama. But I still stick with my infraction limit idea.

About that idea, I like it but,

How about if people have infraction points then they can't post, but like two months after they expire they could post again??

Because I don't think it's fair for the members that have received infractions in the PAST, and have 0 infraction points today, that they can't post,, "And yes 1 weekend on pc I got some infraction's, it was a long time ago;, and I did not know the rules of PC that well, but I know them now, + the points expired in July or some)",,


So no one agrees with me that Chibi-Chan and Amachi should be suggested as the moderators of the debate section*If it get's made*?

 

[Sublime]

About that idea, I like it but,

How about if people have infraction points then they can't post, but like two months after they expire they could post again??

Because I don't think it's fair for the members that have received infractions in the PAST, and have 0 infraction points today, that they can't post,, "And yes 1 weekend on pc I got some infraction's, it was a long time ago;, and I did not know the rules of PC that well, but I know them now, + the points expired in July or some)",,


So no one agrees with me that Chibi-Chan and Amachi should be suggested as the moderators of the debate section*If it get's made*?

Well, I guess expired infractions shouldn't count. Unless it is like, 5 expired SPAM infractions.

I don't know about the moderators; since it is their choice, right? But we would need somebody who could keep an eye on the place frequently.

 

[Angela]

Well, I guess expired infractions shouldn't count. Unless it is like, 5 expired SPAM infractions.

I don't know about the moderators; since it is their choice, right? But we would need somebody who could keep an eye on the place frequently.

You mean somebody with no life?

I doubt well find anyone who is online 24/7 so just settle with what we have:D


After all I think the forum should just be made and we should see how things develop from there instead of just arguing about how things should be done, after all we *the normal members that are arguing* really have no say in this matters, so why look like fools arguing about it, it's all up to the staff and if this gets made I completely trust there decisions.

 

[Sublime]

You mean somebody with no life?

I doubt well find anyone who is online 24/7 so just settle with what we have:D


After all I think the forum should just be made and we should see how things develop from there instead of just arguing about how things should be done, after all we *the normal members that are arguing* really have no say in this matters, so why look like fools arguing about it, it's all up to the staff and if this gets made I completely trust there decisions.

Well, not no life. Just be able to check in every couple of days.

And yes, I agree. It is up to the mods and staff; not us.