Debate Forum

[BeachBoy]

Sorry, you misunderstood me. I know creating a separate sub-forum won't stop people from reacting badly, but it makes it a clear place to debate.

What he was trying to say, and what you don't see where he's trying to get at, is... We HAVE a clear place to debate, why do we have to spell it out or make a sub-forum with the actual word debate? "THIS IS WHERE YOU CAN DEBATE! :D" anyone can understand that without the actual wording just by going over there and participating in the threads, there are indeed some active threads that a debate can easily occur. Sure, there are some other topics that aren't OMGGUN-like debate threads all the time, but they're there. And extra threads only help keep Other Chat active and alive. :D

The debate forum would be a place for controversial big questions... discussion over a specific person's death, that is a hard one because some places would stick that in their debate forum, but in my opinion it would still belong in other chat here because it is something that is smaller in comparison even if people disagree, it isn't always going to be a worldly issue.

But, wait, I thought you said it'd be easy to tell the difference between such earlier. o0; Seems a bit of a contradiction with "a hard one." And it wouldn't belong in debates? Huh? But formal discussion with disagrees equals a debate. D: So keep small ones out of the spotlight of a new sub-forum and only huge ones that will more than likely explode go there? There's no point when both can fit in Other Chat JUST FINE. A title "debate" doesn't have to be there.

For example, err I don't know..
Prisoner insert name was killed in a fight against another prisoner, do you think the prison guards could have prevented such a thing? Its very specific...
where as...
How much protection do prisoners need against each other? Are prisoners doing enough to prevent fights in prison? would belong in a debate because its broad, about the whole thing. People may bring up examples but you're debating the whole thing.

And yet both can lead to the same debate or disagreement, regardless of an extra or different wording. Which is why we're trying to say... *points to OC*

I wouldn't even chance it, why bother risking some catastrophe. ಠ_ಠ If it happened before, more than likely it'll happen again.

Look, I said it before, I'll say again, because apparently no-one can counter the specific point. If you want to debate, fine, post in Other Chat, it's there for a reason. Go ahead with your prison example and what not.

Lets look at debates that thrived in Other Chat; Gun Control, Money & Happiness, Politics, etc. Why do we need some other forum then, what? A simple "DEBATE IS IN THE TITLE, SEE SEE SEE :D"? :| Other Chat has some success and it's a great forum, help it out. Other Chat doesn't need organization either, unless, I don't know, someone's lazying and can't make a topic they want to talk about or look beyond page one. :/

I think threads being approved by a moderator is a much better idea.

The problem to that is... it's the member that comes in and gets EVERYONE'S gears a-goin' and the fire begins.

Haha, now looking at the debate in this thread, I'm starting to overlook the "PC not really debate forum." The real issue for me now is the members that post in a debate forum. Just throwing this on the table, but don't you think a form would be a good solution to the maturity problem?" A set of questions could be answered or something of the sort, and staff or someone could approve or disapprove for the forum. While this idea would probably crash and burn due to the sheer mass numbers of members, it's worth a shot. Possibly. :33

Don't let it fool you, that some threads can succeed. Prop 8 OR a new sub-forum : touchy issue OR not personal at all. Mmmhmmmm.

30 word limit, and a 60 letters limit, no direct insults at people, no name calling and never go off topic and and never judge someones debate, and your either with the topic or against it and you can only debate for 1 side.

Holy hell, thirty words, no chance. @_@ I agree with Rekhyt.

And I completely disagree with that last point the "you can only debate for 1 side." Lemme tell you a story, one time Chibi-chan and I disagreed adamantly. Earlier in the thread, she posted a point I was using for my argument, later on in the "debate" she changed her stance to the opposite of my argument. (It had more than 2 sides, about, eh, 11) And she said how Loki's post changed her opinion. And that's what can happen in debates, people can change sides due to another insightful post. So I find your last point, Angela, completely pointless and going against the backbone. Just my opinion there. What are moderators gonna do, anyway? "Please don't change sides in a debate, thank you, you may continue now" or gee, since you all think we need more moderators or stricter rules for it. Do you think a person that changes their opinion deserves an infraction? Talk about way too strict.

I really can't see this thread going anywhere other than back and forth, and I still don't see one point as to why we need this carbon-copy OC.

 

[Renneh]

This is very disappointing. Most of you make it seem as if the hiring process for moderators is so easy. It's like you guys think the higher staff just wiggle their noses and poof! A new mod!

...I'm afraid it doesn't work like that.

To put it bluntly, PC does not need a debate forum. Why do we have to have something that we already have? Other Chat is for offtopic discussion, and debates would fit perfectly there. And to fit something else, what about those "Guess what race Brock is!" thread(s) that I saw. Seeing as that counts as a debate too, might as well move it to that forum and make it completely redundant to the pokemon section, even though it's pokemon related anyway?

But be serious here guys. Why make something that Other Chat already has? Just make use of Other Chat and make a debate right there, otherwise making a seperate forum would be completely just wrong. Most of you who agree with the topic, chances are, will barely even post in said forum section, and they'll probably be like one or two threads that will be active.

"DO YOU SUPPORT OBAMA? Y/N"(This would be in OC anyhow)
"WHAT COULD YOU DO TO FIX AMERICA'S ECONOMY"(would also be in OC)

The topics that would be in that forum would be, chances are no different than the topics in OVP(probably) and in OC. So actually give a valid reason why a separate forum section would need to be created. I honestly doubt it'll even stay alive anyhow, even given the people that are supporting the idea. Most of you are supporting it just for the sake of arguing and debating about an issue, most likely blowing another member's nerve and then causing a problem, which in turn gives reports for Chibi to handle. Thus proving her point.

So yeah. All in all, It's pretty redundant. I consider this a duplicate forum of OC, and I don't see why a duplicate forum is needed for.

I have no idea where the bold part was said anywhere in this topic. Choosing moderators is a difficult task, I agree with you there.

Second bold part, you like the phrase 'most of you' don't you? I really don't like generalizing. Why else would we support it, I mean I'm guessing the people in favour do like debating but this isn't a "oooh what way can we think of to tick off other members" =) That would be really immature. I explained somewhere in this topic why I thought of the idea. Chibi isn't the only moderator, it will most likely give them all more work which is why someone casually suggested that IF the forum actually is ever created they will probably add a forum leader.


I'm not sure why some of you are having a hard time understanding what would go in the Debate forum and what wouldn't. You had a debate forum before and I'm sure that wasn't a difficulty. =) I saw the only difficulty as determining the sure to be flaming topics like religion.


It wouldn't be for debates about Brock etc. Debate forum=controversial non-pokemon related debates.

 

[Angela]

Holy hell, thirty words, no chance. @_@ I agree with Rekhyt.

And I completely disagree with that last point the "you can only debate for 1 side." Lemme tell you a story, one time Chibi-chan and I disagreed adamantly. Earlier in the thread, she posted a point I was using for my argument, later on in the "debate" she changed her stance to the opposite of my argument. (It had more than 2 sides, about, eh, 11) And she said how Loki's post changed her opinion. And that's what can happen in debates, people can change sides due to another insightful post. So I find your last point, Angela, completely pointless and going against the backbone. Just my opinion there. What are moderators gonna do, anyway? "Please don't change sides in a debate, thank you, you may continue now" or gee, since you all think we need more moderators or stricter rules for it. Do you think a person that changes their opinion deserves an infraction? Talk about way too strict.

I really can't see this thread going anywhere other than back and forth, and I still don't see one point as to why we need this carbon-copy OC.

When I was talking about picking one side and stick to it, it was mostly aimed at the tourney idea, I mean people need to have some good debating skills to enter a tourney like that, and even more to debate for a random side,


I mean there is a contest like that were I live between schools, it's called "Morfís", each school sends in 4 students, that debate with another school, and a week before the contest there is a subject picked "By the judges", like last subject was "Is life meaning less" and my school got picked to be with it while the other school was against it, so the students had a week to research and get some convincing argument to throw at the opponent, and at the debate day they go down there with all there notes and study material and debate.


I suggested a contest like that, but only to be an event and held like ones every 2 months, and that there would be a big fuss around it and the planing of it.


For the regular debate threads I could not care less if they had to pick sides or have it completely random,,


I only suggested that because I based my suggestion on what I consider debating;),


"0" Maybe thirty words are a little extreme, I did not realise when I made that suggestion just how many words thirty words are maybe we could have change it to twenty "30 words" words or even ten,,,,,

Come on people it's not that hard to type in 30 words I did it right there it's not even two lines, to be honest it's not that much, some people are just to lazy to make it up too 30 words, and if your going to enter a debating contest and make it juicy, then it must contain some fun long post not just "I am against that, just because"<<< or at least I would not count that as a resonable argument.;)

 

[Percy Thrillington]

IYou had a debate forum before and I'm sure that wasn't a difficulty. =) I saw the only difficulty as determining the sure to be flaming topics like religion.

Eh... What? I'll admit I wasn't around for the Thunder-Dome, but just about anyone could tell you that it was certainly difficult to maintain order in it. Notice the way it's no longer around? That's because the amount of flaming and (probable) remedial debating was degrading the entire board.

The board that we're talking about here is for debates or mature discussion. If you're not going to let every sort of topic come into play, I see no reason as to why the debating board couldn't be viewed as a secondary Other Chat. You've implied in the quoted that certain topics should be banned because they get out of hand. If you know they're going to get out of hand, I see no point in making the board as it's meant for debates and mature discussion.

And yes, before anyone asks, I am the sort of person who manages to work his way round to the other side of the argument.

 

[Renneh]

Eh... What? I'll admit I wasn't around for the Thunder-Dome, but just about anyone could tell you that it was certainly difficult to maintain order in it. Notice the way it's no longer around? That's because the amount of flaming and (probable) remedial debating was degrading the entire board.

The board that we're talking about here is for debates or mature discussion. If you're not going to let every sort of topic come into play, I see no reason as to why the debating board couldn't be viewed as a secondary Other Chat. You've implied in the quoted that certain topics should be banned because they get out of hand. If you know they're going to get out of hand, I see no point in making the board as it's meant for debates and mature discussion.

And yes, before anyone asks, I am the sort of person who manages to work his way round to the other side of the argument.

My quoted meant...ermm I think I was talking about determining which topics go in the debate forum I didn't see as being difficult as they had already split it once before.

I'm keen to debate religion but I'm just saying that I know the other pokemon forum I'm thinking of with a debate forum, doesn't allow topics on religion, at least I don't think so, I don't go there much at the moment...so I thought the moderators might want to also take that into consideration if they want to reduce flaming in anyway.

 

[Percy Thrillington]

My quoted meant...ermm I think I was talking about determining which topics go in the debate forum I didn't see as being difficult as they had already split it once before.

I'm keen to debate religion but I'm just saying that I know the other pokemon forum I'm thinking of with a debate forum, doesn't allow topics on religion, at least I don't think so, I don't go there much at the moment...so I thought the moderators might want to also take that into consideration if they want to reduce flaming in anyway.

The board you're suggesting is for mature discussion. If certain topics can't be allowed due to a fear of a flame war breaking it, there's no point in making it. It'd just be a duplicate of Other Chat.

 

[Angela]

The board you're suggesting is for mature discussion. If certain topics can't be allowed due to a fear of a flame war breaking it, there's no point in making it. It'd just be a duplicate of Other Chat.

I agree, why make a debat section if we can't debate on some mature and realistic maters,


If they bann curtain kind of topics "aka, The juicy ones" then it will just be a copy of the other chat.

What we want is a real debating section were members can debate on anything, including religion, if you can't handle reading that mature of a content then I suggest you don't visit the dabate section, no one is gonna force you to go there.

 

[Almia-Ranger]

Some sort of rule must be implicated to make this work properly. I myself do not know what this rule is but to allow the mature topics to be discussed then some rule needs to be brought that would prove who is capable of mature discussion

 

[Angela]

Some sort of rule must be implicated to make this work properly. I myself do not know what this rule is but to allow the mature topics to be discussed then some rule needs to be brought that would prove who is capable of mature discussion

Or some of the old rules, just edited and made stricter, and the mods would make the members follow the rules, no exceptions.

 

[Nick]

Or some of the old rules, just edited and made stricter, and the mods would make the members follow the rules, no exceptions.

Moderators can't make anyone do anything. They can't control anyone's actions, they can only regulate their actions to suit the rules of the community which is what they're here to do anyway (as well as cleaning their designated boards, of course). But I think it's been stated and cleared that there isn't going to be a debate forum for various reasons of bashing other members and them turning into flame wars eventually.

 

[I Laugh at your Misfortune!]

Well, couldn't you have some sort of restriction on who goes in the debate forum? Like, you have to have been a member for 2 months and have at least 100 posts? it would at least keep out the n00bs.

 

[Renneh]

And going by that reply, you seem to know little about the T-dome, and exactly WHY it was closed. It got far out of hand. And besides, what you're asking for most likely isn't going to happen anyway. It'll be like a mini T-dome, which isn't going to happen under any circumstances.

I was just told the T-dome was your original debate forum and I got the impression it stopped due to the amount of flaming or something along those lines which I said from the beginning when someone said the T-dome had been here before so yes I have that knowledge. You keep taking what I say and saying I didn't say it then repeating it to me. You are a confusing person. XP No offence.
"we should choose a new mod for a the debate forum" in no way infers it is that easy, it is just a suggestion.

OC, then? Explain that :|

What went in the OC when the T-dome was around. *cough* Simple answer.


---



I'm starting to feel opposed to my idea.. just because there is so much opposition so yeh it probably "isn't going to happen under any circumstances" yeh we might as well use the OC.. But debate topics might just be drowned out by general chat like 'The Old Days' The post your picture thread.. those Christmas threads... hmm talking myself back again.

I've failed in making people see that it could work so I'm just going to leave it, I'm not saying I've been convinced that the forum wouldn't work just that its not worth it to keep reasoning and getting nowhere... I'll probably start a topic that I've started in another debate forum sometime soon, to see how well it goes in the other chat.


Thanks to the people who supported the idea.
Thanks to the people who opposed it and gave their opinions too.

 

[Sylphiel]

For everybody talking about an age limit and moderation for a debate forum: the Thunderdome had an age limit to it. It also required that people contact an admin to even be able to have access, so theoretically there was some form of moderation going on even then.

And yet, the forum's still gone...

A post count restriction wouldn't work, as post count means absolutely nothing except how often a person posts. An age limit is a bit too subjective - the limit for the Thunderdome was 14, I think? Since that obviously didn't work out too well, should we up the age limit to 16, maybe 18? Set the limit too low, you risk letting in too many immature people; set it too high, and you risk alienating too many members who might be mentally mature but can't get in just because of their physical age. Plus, even if a person seemed mature enough, and carried themselves with enough civility in most debates and managed to get access to the forum - who's to say that they won't suddenly start getting huffy and flamey when confronted with a topic that happens to push their buttons too much? Or hell, even if they just happen to be having a bad day?

Adding mods and rules: stricter rules only work if people are willing to follow them - and sadly, there are times when even some "mature" people around PC seem to have difficulties following the rules we already have. And even if there were mods dedicated to that section, there's no guarantee that flamefests wouldn't occur, since not all mods can be online every second of the day to make sure that everybody's playing fairly in the sandbox.

Plus...I dunno about anybody else, but if a forum couldn't be run without a mod (or mods) having to watch every single thing posted in it just to make sure they are playing fairly, then doesn't that seem kind of insulting? It insinuates that the members aren't able to conduct themselves properly enough to be able to do things on their own without the people in charge breathing down their neck, which...rather defeats the purpose of it being a forum for mature people in the first place.

But that might just be me.

I'm starting to feel opposed to my idea.. just because there is so much opposition so yeh it probably "isn't going to happen under any circumstances" yeh we might as well use the OC.. But debate topics might just be drowned out by general chat like 'The Old Days' The post your picture thread.. those Christmas threads... hmm talking myself back again.

I've failed in making people see that it could work so I'm just going to leave it, I'm not saying I've been convinced that the forum wouldn't work just that its not worth it to keep reasoning and getting nowhere... I'll probably start a topic that I've started in another debate forum sometime soon, to see how well it goes in the other chat.

It might be drowned out, it might not be. The only way to know for certain is to actually post it - and for all anybody knows, perhaps some more actual debates in there might get peoples' attention off things like pictures or idle chit-chat.

(And for the people it doesn't, then they might not have even been there for such topics in the first place, and would probably not even glance twice at a separate forum for them. No loss there.)

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.

 

[Careful With That Axe Pichu!]

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.

Guys, Cowrie just hit the nail on the head with this one. I urge you to consider her post before you continue this.

 

[Zebra Thunderhead]

I strongly agree with Cowrie's post. On another forum, we have an "older persons forum" where the "mature" people could come in and chat about "mature" things etc. It really just turned out to be a bunch of 16+ year olds running around making sex jokes in every thread and ruining it for everybody. It had to be taken down because members were getting out of hand and the moderators there couldn't handle it all because, like Cowrie said, people can't be on all the time to moderate and make sure the kids play nicely, because not everybody will. There will be jerks out there that have always been jerks since grade school and will take the opportunity away from everybody. Like Pichu said, read Cowrie's post then make the decision.

 

[Nick]

A post count restriction wouldn't work, as post count means absolutely nothing except how often a person posts. An age limit is a bit too subjective - the limit for the Thunderdome was 14, I think? Since that obviously didn't work out too well, should we up the age limit to 16, maybe 18? Set the limit too low, you risk letting in too many immature people; set it too high, and you risk alienating too many members who might be mentally mature but can't get in just because of their physical age. Plus, even if a person seemed mature enough, and carried themselves with enough civility in most debates and managed to get access to the forum - who's to say that they won't suddenly start getting huffy and flamey when confronted with a topic that happens to push their buttons too much? Or hell, even if they just happen to be having a bad day?

Age limit wouldn't work much with those facts you stated already and the fact that a member can claim to be any age they'd like since there isn't a locked date of birth and a member can just up and decide that they're going to pretend to be a thirty year old man one day just to gain access into the forum. However, an idea I came up with while reading your full reply was that the higher staff, though this could be a lot of work for them if this does happen, could conduct somewhat of a search for members they feel responsible to gain access into this if it were to be an outcome of this conversation. Though I do know how hard it is to find a moderator on a specific board since some of my friends are involved in that process and have told me that it takes a while to come to an agreement with the rest of the staff, but perhaps members who are current or past candidates in a moderator position along with members of staff gaining access into the forum? It could be something like a "Hey, we noticed you're an outstanding member with a log of maturity in your past and present behavior, so you gained access to the forum" kinda thing, you know? But even then that would require a lot of Admin Panel work for those who can do that anyway.

Regardless of what the outcome of this is, I'm neutral to the overall suggestion board and am only providing another idea on what could be done to choose members that could gain access to this if it were to have occurred.

 

[Renneh]

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.

Maybe instead of it just being age that determines whether you can debate controversial topics maturely...you could create a separate members group with the ability to post in that forum.

Then there is the question of how the moderators decide who will be in this debate group, maybe you have to ask for it or apply in some way shape of form. o.o Moderators are usually good at determining whether a person's attitude is going to be rubbish or not, there might be the few who blag their way in but then they'd just lose that privilege.

o.o Someone else can probably explain my idea properly.

Though I do know how hard it is to find a moderator on a specific board since some of my friends are involved in that process and have told me that it takes a while to come to an agreement with the rest of the staff, but perhaps members who are current or past candidates in a moderator position along with members of staff gaining access into the forum? It could be something like a "Hey, we noticed you're an outstanding member with a log of maturity in your past and present behavior, so you gained access to the forum" kinda thing, you know? But even then that would require a lot of Admin Panel work for those who can do that anyway.

We came up with a similar idea at the same time =)

I know from past experience how hard it is too choose moderators.. at Crater names would be put forward by moderators and then they'd be vigorously assessed by our Admin because she was thorough like that.

Choosing members to be allowed to post in a forum sounds even harder than choosing moderators XPP

 

[Zebra Thunderhead]

o.o Someone else can probably explain my idea properly.

Um, no. It's your idea, you should be the one to explain it "properly."

 

[Aegis]

Maybe instead of it just being age that determines whether you can debate controversial topics maturely...you could create a separate members group with the ability to post in that forum.

Then there is the question of how the moderators decide who will be in this debate group, maybe you have to ask for it or apply in some way shape of form. o.o Moderators are usually good at determining whether a person's attitude is going to be rubbish or not, there might be the few who blag their way in but then they'd just lose that privilege.

o.o Someone else can probably explain my idea properly.

I can see that working at the beginning, but then getting backed up as time goes on. It'd most likely turn out like most of the claims threads, where they're only updated every so often, since it's such a pain to do it. Because, let's face it, looking through all the posts of every member who applies would get extremely tedious and tiresome after a while. Then there's also the issue with new accounts, since they wouldn't have any posts and it wouldn't exactly be fair to do something like "You must be a member for x amount of time before you can apply for Debate forum access", or something.

So overall, I think I agree with Cowrie on this one, for the age limit. It's usually pretty easy to tell if somebody is the age they claim to be or not.

 

[Renneh]

Um, no. It's your idea, you should be the one to explain it "properly."

Fine let me try again although I kind of like Aurapostle's idea...

Firstly, a member group would be created for the purpose of giving members the permission to post in this forum.

Secondly comes how Moderators would decide who goes in this group, personally I think moderators already have an idea of who might be the bad eggs, and to create a sure fire away, they could just stalk some they aren't sure about for a few days to view the quality of their posts and the maturity they can deduce from it.

Thirdly is deciding whether secondly works.