IMPORTANT: Discussions & Debates Feedback

[curiousnathan]

If you say so. You're basically saying "let's dumb it down to make it more accessible," no matter how you spin it. It's not like anything I say is going to change the change in direction given that I'm the lone dissenter, so let's just see how this goes.

There's a difference between making the Round Table more accessible by outright banning certain topics, and making it more accessible by introducing more light-hearted, less knowledge intense discussions.

It's about trying to cater to as many people as possible. If we can attract members from outside the Round Table by making small adjustments like the one you're refuting, then it's worth it.

 

[Pokemon Game Fan]

I love the RT, and though I've been on this forum as a whole on-and-off for around 5 years, it's one of the things that's keeping me here now. I love having intelligent discussions with people that don't go into all-caps cursing but instead give actual ideas. As far as I've seen, it's been great so far. I just wish we had more people participating.

As for the idea that we need to water it down even a little bit, I am in complete contrast. I've always been of the mindset that we aren't children and as long as we don't act like them, we should be able to discuss and debate things in whatever manner. If it were just "You believe this, I believe this, let's leave it at that! Civility!" then debates would be pointless.

My only complaint is that I feel like we may have a bit too much moderation in that sense. I love the RT, and I am completely on board with not letting people blatantly flame each other, but I always feel like I'm walking on eggshells when I debate. I think we should draw the line a little bit more clearly.

Although, overall RT has been pleasant. I love that section and next to The Treehouse and possibly The Mall, it's my favorite part of the forum. :)

EDIT: Also, I love the idea of the "Change my view" thing. In fact, I'm about to go subscribe to that subreddit. I'd love to have something like that here.

 

[Her]

The 'watering down' buzzword makes no sense to me. 'Watering down' implies all the threads are going to be made 'lesser' for those unfamiliar with or repulsed by the section. I don't like buzzwords. It's just a matter of accessibility. Outsiders, called such for lack of a better word, want a more accessible section. Some people simply aren't able to, or interested in, debating on the level this place is known for. Whether or not the stigmas attached to this place are valid (I am more inclined to side-eye those people, but I digress) they exist and there's nothing wrong with trying to remedy that.

 

[Pokemon Game Fan]

But isn't that the point? Debates are hardly ever going to be 100% pleasant. You have to be the kind of person that likes debating, not everyone is going to be interested regardless of how "accessible" you want to make it. I think we should appeal to having more intelligent discussion. Like I said, there's never going to be a section for debates that is completely happy and pleasant and nice. Could we tone it down a little? Maybe. I personally would rather not. I think we're toned down enough as is. But that's just my view on it. Call my view one big buzzword.

 

[Kanzler]

You're going to have your not-100%-pleasant debate threads, and the people who want and deserve (in my opinion) nicer threads will be entitled to theirs. Can't everyone be happy?

 

[Her]

But isn't that the point? Debates are hardly ever going to be 100% pleasant. You have to be the kind of person that likes debating, not everyone is going to be interested regardless of how "accessible" you want to make it. I think we should appeal to having more intelligent discussion. Like I said, there's never going to be a section for debates that is completely happy and pleasant and nice. Could we tone it down a little? Maybe. I personally would rather not. I think we're toned down enough as is. But that's just my view on it. Call my view one big buzzword.

You're misrepresenting the idea in order to demean it. 'Completely happy and pleasant and nice' isn't the idea and I would be disappointed if that's what comes about, but it won't. There's simply going to be a few more threads with a lower threshold for posting. The majority of this forum isn't as scholarly as Kanzler/Ivysaur or as ideologically driven as myself or, say, BadSheep or gimmepie. Intensity of argument doesn't automatically make a better thread and accomodating for that should hopefully allow for forum growth.

 

[Arylett Charnoa]

Think of it this way - you're giving people a little bait before they can jump into the more intense stuff. Give them a chance to dip their feet in the waters, and then they can dive deeper if they feel more confident. This allows the section to become more active and healthy. It isn't watering it down - it's just providing entry level content for beginners. I mean, you do want more people in here, don't you? I was attracted to this place because I saw a few non-controversial topics (one related to your personal issues with your parents) and then I decided to jump into a controversial one that I felt strongly about.

 

[Pokemon Game Fan]

Yes, I agree with you Arylett. That's why I said I would be ok with the other ideas given.

 

[Her]

(up at 4:21 am so) I'm wondering if there's any chance a small advice guide could be written up by regulars of RT containing tips & tricks for making more valuable posts in the section or something to that effect

like... general debate tips, a handy list of trusted news sites/sources and ones people should stay clear of, stuff like that
maybe posted as an addendum to the rules thread or something

 

[gimmepie]

(up at 4:21 am so) I'm wondering if there's any chance a small advice guide could be written up by regulars of RT containing tips & tricks for making more valuable posts in the section or something to that effect

like... general debate tips, a handy list of trusted news sites/sources and ones people should stay clear of, stuff like that
maybe posted as an addendum to the rules thread or something

We actually do have something a bit like that under the rules! I'd be up for adding tips from regs though if Nah agrees.

 

[Fannie]

I really like the RT. I used to love debating in forums but before joining PC I had avoided it for years since in many other forums debates seem to turn into p*ssing contests and flame wars very easily. The times I've perused the RT there seems to be much less of that behaviour, if any.

I consider most of the posters here to have far better debating skills than I do and this might have made me feel apprehensive about posting if members weren't much more respectable than I've experienced elsewhere. So I pay no mind when I look over what I'm about to post and realise that I've made a dog's dinner of putting my thoughts on into words.

There are still certain threads I'm reluctant to post in - not because the subject matter is too controversial or the like, because a dabating subforum should be that way, but because I don't feel knowledgable enough. I don't think anything shpuld be changed. I can't see what changes could be made to promote more lighthearted topics and it's not what people come to debating subforums for anyway.

 

[Her]

We actually do have something a bit like that under the rules! I'd be up for adding tips from regs though if Nah agrees.

I mean, that is true, but it's more an explanation of 'how this forum is not Treehouse and we take things a bit (read: a lot) more seriously' than anything to do with advice on how to help your debating/general posting skills. If she turns out to be on board with it, then that's absolutely lovely.

 

[Kanzler]

I really like the RT. I used to love debating in forums but before joining PC I had avoided it for years since in many other forums debates seem to turn into p*ssing contests and flame wars very easily. The times I've perused the RT there seems to be much less of that behaviour, if any.

I consider most of the posters here to have far better debating skills than I do and this might have made me feel apprehensive about posting if members weren't much more respectable than I've experienced elsewhere. So I pay no mind when I look over what I'm about to post and realise that I've made a dog's dinner of putting my thoughts on into words.

There are still certain threads I'm reluctant to post in - not because the subject matter is too controversial or the like, because a dabating subforum should be that way, but because I don't feel knowledgable enough. I don't think anything shpuld be changed. I can't see what changes could be made to promote more lighthearted topics and it's not what people come to debating subforums for anyway.

I think the section should be mindful that people come in with different levels of debating skills and expected "intensity". It's definitely possible to have a discussion without turning it into a debate, which is something that I emphasized and had realized under my watch, but which might never have been emphasized enough. It's actually possible for discussions to be more, uh, discursive than debates. Especially when people care too much about winning in a debate, some people will start ignoring or brushing aside valid counterpoints in an effort to come out on top, at the cost of a more fleshed out discussion. That's just a fact of life, that's something that I've seen during my time here, and I'm sure many other people who frequent RT can agree to that as well. So debates are definitely not the be-all and end-all to this section, they're just one among the several important ingredients that makes a section like RT work.

This feedback thread will probably be up for a while, so we'll be able to give our reactions to new discussion topics when they come around. I do want science and news to stay here, that's how it has been for several years and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Depending on how Forum Foundry works out they might get a dedicated section of their own, and I fear that's going to just further pigeonhole RT as a forum exclusively about debate. There are plenty of good reasons for increasing, if not just drawing attention to, the diversity of topics we talk about here.

 

[Nah]

I do want science and news to stay here, that's how it has been for several years and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Depending on how Forum Foundry works out they might get a dedicated section of their own, and I fear that's going to just further pigeonhole RT as a forum exclusively about debate.

Don't worry, there's no way in hell I'll bar science and news topics from being a part of the Round Table. Forum Foundry would be something kind of beyond our control though, but we'll see how that plays out in the future.

I mean, that is true, but it's more an explanation of 'how this forum is not Treehouse and we take things a bit (read: a lot) more seriously' than anything to do with advice on how to help your debating/general posting skills. If she turns out to be on board with it, then that's absolutely lovely.

No that's actually a great idea and I'd love to have some general debating tips be included in the RT rules thread (should probably edit that thread's title to reflect that). I think it'd help people slightly to get into the section and hopefully create a slight improvement in the quality of discussions here. Let us know if y'all have anything you'd like to see added.

It also does already include a list of decent source sites, though it could probably be used to be updated and have a list of sites that are poor sources as well.

 

[Kanzler]

I have an idea for an RT "forum game". Call it "The 'Why'? Thread". Inspired by a joke in a Louis C.K. show, watch starting 0:52.

Spoiler:

For example:

People have different skin colours. Why?

Different people have different levels of melanin in their skin, and melanin is a chemical that absorbs light and makes people's skin darker. Why?

The amount of melanin that people make are determined by their genes. Why?

Because genes are able to control how much of a certain substance our bodies create. Why?

Because genes can be translated into proteins, and these proteins affect or create those substances. Why?

Because we have this thing called ribosomes that are able to translate genes into protein. Why?

Because we evolved from other creatures that also had ribosomes, basically we got it from our genetic ancestors. Why?

Because species can evolve over time, but they can also retain certain traits from previous forms. Why?

And so on and so forth. Maybe when the question stays unanswered for a certain amount of time someone can start a new question. Doesn't have to be scientific, it could be something about society, or something you noticed in the news. The point is that we create a cycle of intellectual questioning and that might be something fun and fresh while keeping with the vibe of RT being the place where you come to think about things, basically.

That's just the basic idea, and that's all I have at the moment. Is it appropriate for RT? Is it too casual? Is it too low-effort? Could we make sure there's a certain amount of depth in answers so it doesn't devolve to post-and-go? Should we fear when the line of questioning enters particle physics? I think those are some things we can think about.

 

[gimmepie]

Snip

You need to stop being so good at this or we're gonna lose our jobs mate.
Personally, I like the idea though. We'll look into it.

 

[Nah]

So it's been a while, and I thought that maybe it'd be time again to get some feedback, so I'ma bump this.

Whatcha all have to say?

 

[Nihilego]

Hate to be that guy, but could some controls be put on the number of US political threads? Yes, this is a huge and generally-thought-to-be tragic event, but there currently a lot of these threads (1, 2, 3, 4 (to an extent)) not to mention the number of other political threads which have sprung up as bi-products of this election. In hindsight perhaps a temporary politics subforum or something would have been a good idea during this time period, but that's not hugely helpful now - but in any case it's getting kinda overwhelming, especially when the first of those threads is already to some extent a megathread which can house all of these discussions.

 

[Nah]

Hate to be that guy, but could some controls be put on the number of US political threads? Yes, this is a huge and generally-thought-to-be tragic event, but there currently a lot of these threads (1, 2, 3, 4 (to an extent)) not to mention the number of other political threads which have sprung up as bi-products of this election. In hindsight perhaps a temporary politics subforum or something would have been a good idea during this time period, but that's not hugely helpful now - but in any case it's getting kinda overwhelming, especially when the first of those threads is already to some extent a megathread which can house all of these discussions.

I'll move the 3rd one into the first, it certainly could fit in there. The 4th one I think could be left as is, it's kind of a separate topic. The 2nd one I'm not sure what to do with right now.

But I take it you didn't mean that you only wanted these threads dealt with, but to not let masses of US election related threads swarm RT, right?

 

[Nihilego]

I'll move the 3rd one into the first, it certainly could fit in there. The 4th one I think could be left as is, it's kind of a separate topic. The 2nd one I'm not sure what to do with right now.

But I take it you didn't mean that you only wanted these threads dealt with, but to not let masses of US election related threads swarm RT, right?

Cool, thanks for looking into that. And yeah, not just those ones; they just happened to be sat there when I was on the index. In general it'd just be nice if topics on US politics which don't absolutely have to stand alone were moved into one kinda catch-all thread so we don't end up with loads of fragmented discussions on the same thing. Maybe I'm overanticipating how bad it'll be, though.