Debating rules draft discussion. (Was "How to bring more people here")

[Praeothmin 532]

Tyralak's been asking us to invite people to ASVS, and I'd love to see more people posting, but a lot of people posting in the VS forums like SB.com and SDN don't like it when they try to have a "serious" debate and then people derail the thread and it devolves into mayhem and chaos.

 

I know Tyralak wants ASVS to be a "free" forum, but I think that if we did encourage more serious discussions in the vs and the "pure" forums, while keeping the rest of the site "free", it would be easier to bring people here.

 

People at SFJ hesitate to come because they don't like the "Jason Bashing" that was becoming common here, and I can't really blame them.

 

While I like to throw an occasional barb at Jason, devoting entire threads to him is a bit much...

 

I'm sure a lot of debaters on the ST vs SW side would like the fact that this vs forum doesn't have biased (or shall I say "heavily biased") moderators in one way or the other, and that dissent of opinion is always accepted.

 

You could probably get a lot of people from SB.com (by "a lot", I mean 10-20) to come here and debate if that were done.

 

 

 

Anyway, this is just my two cents on the subject...

[Tyralak 12,068]

I was having a similar discussion with Questor the other day. I tend to agree. We should hammer out some kind of rules of debate for the vs forums while leaving the rest of the site as is. I'm completely open to suggestions, so I'm moving this thread to Main Engineering. We'll go from there.

[Airlocke 12,014]

I'm okay with this, as long as we don't go too far with it. The versus forums are limited to serious debate, and those who pointlessly disrupt said debate are warned, then punished.(brig) Debaters would be forced to show evidence for their claims, and penalized if they failed to respond to evidence provided by their opponent. Hell we could have a point system for this(it could even tie into the debater awards). It could really help the site...as long as we don't put too much of a limit on filtering out flames and language in the debate and whatnot. Don't put too much of a sensor on, that would kinda ruin the vision you originally had for this site. But, yeah, I'm all for it. Hell, I might even start debating again.

[Tyralak 12,068]

You make some good points, and a point system isn't hard at all to do. I have no problem at all doing this, but if we go this route we need to exercise extreme caution that we don't become the thing we hate. It needs to be set up to enhance debate, not stifle or slant it. We'll discuss all proposals then hold a vote.

[Airlocke 12,014]

That is mainly what I am worried about. Everybody would need to be held accountable for not obeying the rules, but there should not be so many rules that this is a constant issue. Just enough to ensure a fair and lively debate.

[Questor 501]

Here are the things I think should be rules:

 

 

 

1. Your claim, your evidence - It is the responsibility of the party making a claim to provide evidence of said claim on request.

 

 

 

2. Universal Applicability - For the purposes of the vs debate, it is assumed that all technologies that work in one universe work in the other.

 

 

 

3. Superbeings 'R' NOT Us - Keep the superbeings out of this.

 

 

 

4. Don't be a douchebag - know when you're beaten.

 

 

 

5. Lying and misrepresentation will be severely punished.

 

 

 

6. see rule 5.

 

 

 

7. This is an english language debate - please attempt to use some decent approximation thereof, aim for at least a high school level of grammar and spelling.

 

 

 

8. Questor is bitchy and grouchy - For this reason he is only moderating until his life becomes less hectic, piss him off at your own risk.

 

 

 

9. TGODs and Vendettas have their own forums, keep them there.

 

 

 

10. Answer you opponents points - while this seems obvious, it bears stating.

 

 

 

11. DO NOT ABUSE THE EDIT BUTTON, or moderators will use theirs.

 

 

 

12. Distracting admins with pictures of Summer Glau may be funny, but that's not debate.

 

 

 

Proposed sanctions:

 

 

 

The big pen. - If a moderator gives you instructions, listen up! Questor always gives instructions in red, like this:

 

Follow staff instructions so that you do not have your posts dumped into Ten Forward or the Speakeasy.

[Praeothmin 532]

Nice list, Questor.

 

I believe these rules should suffice to start with, and then you adapt them as things progress.

 

The rules need to be seen more as a strict "guideline", while maintaining a loose enough structure as to not control every damn thing people say.

 

I say flames may be permitted if, and ONLY IF, there's an argument accompanying the flame.

 

 

 

One thing though:

 

If someone comes back over and over again with what seems like "the same argument", please make sure it is not simply because his opponent keeps misunderstanding what is said, or is ignoring it before letting the hammer fall.

 

Just saying "I disagree!" IS NOT responding to an argument...

[Tyralak 12,068]

I'm fine with these. I would, however like the input of as many people as we can. We need to here from RayCav, Skooj, Legendm, Kor, Prophet, etc.

[Khas 12,158]

"Because (source) said so!" isn't a good arguement either.

[Khas 12,158]

[Questor 501]

Nice list, Questor.

 

I believe these rules should suffice to start with, and then you adapt them as things progress.

 

The rules need to be seen more as a strict "guideline", while maintaining a loose enough structure as to not control every damn thing people say.

 

I say flames may be permitted if, and ONLY IF, there's an argument accompanying the flame.

 

 

 

One thing though:

 

If someone comes back over and over again with what seems like "the same argument", please make sure it is not simply because his opponent keeps misunderstanding what is said, or is ignoring it before letting the hammer fall.

 

Just saying "I disagree!" IS NOT responding to an argument...

 

 

 

I agree with everything you've said here.

[WalksInDarkness 4]

All great ideas, but I have better one: NAKED CHICKS!

[Airlocke 12,014]

5. Lying and misrepresentation will be severely punished.

 

 

 

6. see rule 5.

 

 

 

I don't like this rule, it has the potential to be severely abused, due to there being hundreds of different ways to interpret this. This rule can easily be bent one way or another by a mod with an agenda(not saying any of our current mods would do this). It needs some rewording.

[paul 11,988]

My thoughts on this is this -

 

 

 

As GUIDELINES that's fine and dandy. However, enforcing rules is not a good thing. If you want a "mod happy" site, then there are heavy modded forums out there. And by guidelines i mean just that. GUIDELINES. No mod enforcement, no shoving them down peoples throats, no throwing people into the brig over it (besides that's an admin function anyways and I'm sure as hell not doing it and no, mod's arent going to have that ability ever).

 

 

 

Allowing the "red pen" edits is fine, but anything like we have elsewhere (no deleting posts that don't violate the rules, no completely removing a persons posts etc) shouldn't be tolerated.

 

 

 

Like Raycav said, everything has been debated done and over with. Lets have fun with it now.

[Praeothmin 532]

I don't like this rule, it has the potential to be severely abused, due to there being hundreds of different ways to interpret this. This rule can easily be bent one way or another by a mod with an agenda(not saying any of our current mods would do this). It needs some rewording.

 

 

 

There's not much possibility of abuse, IMO.

 

If you say, for example "Praeo said X", and nowhere in my posts is it mentioned the way you presented it, then you're lying.

 

If you say "Praeo, by saying x is bigger then Y, clearly means X is bigger then anything", it is clear you are misrepresenting, because I would clearly have said only that "X is bigger then Y"...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And Paul, I don't believe the red pen edit should change anything writtent down.

 

If it is only used to add comments or point to the "guidelines", then I think it's fine.

 

And even if they are only "guidelines", there should be some moderation, if not enforcement, because not acting at all means our guidelines are worth shit, and people can do the very thing we ask them not too.

 

If someone keeps lying about his opponent's posts, even after we've warned him, then that person should me moved to the Brig for a while, so he understands his recent behavior is unacceptable...

[Questor 501]

Actually Praeothmin, the lying I was referring to was Jason-style Video shows X, but person says it shows Y.

 

 

 

As for Paul's criticisms, he has fallen into the logic trap of thinking that freedom is only for people who agree with him. Freedom is also the freedom to have a serious debate if you want to. To that end, I propose a system of prefixes that allow that to happen. These could be enforced with the splitting of offending posts after a warning.

 

 

 

[FD] - Formal Debate Rules (Think debate class)

 

 

 

[CD] - Casual Debate Rules ( what we are working on here)

 

 

 

No Prefix - free for all.

[Questor 501]

Actually Praeothmin, the lying I was referring to was Jason-style Video shows X, but person says it shows Y. But your examples are a good expansion.

 

 

 

As for Paul's criticisms, he has fallen into the logic trap of thinking that freedom is only for people who agree with him. Freedom is also the freedom to have a serious debate if you want to. To that end, I propose a system of prefixes that allow that to happen. These could be enforced with the splitting of offending posts after a warning.

 

 

 

[FD] - Formal Debate Rules (Think debate class)

 

 

 

[CD] - Casual Debate Rules ( what we are working on here)

 

 

 

No Prefix - free for all.

[Tyralak 12,068]

Actually Praeothmin, the lying I was referring to was Jason-style Video shows X, but person says it shows Y. But your examples are a good expansion.

 

 

 

As for Paul's criticisms, he has fallen into the logic trap of thinking that freedom is only for people who agree with him. Freedom is also the freedom to have a serious debate if you want to. To that end, I propose a system of prefixes that allow that to happen. These could be enforced with the splitting of offending posts after a warning.

 

 

 

[FD] - Formal Debate Rules (Think debate class)

 

 

 

[CD] - Casual Debate Rules ( what we are working on here)

 

 

 

No Prefix - free for all.

 

 

 

Now this is an interesting idea. The prefix system would let people know exactly what they're getting into when they enter a thread. Then they could make the choice on the type of debate they want to participate in. Personally, I don't have a lot of interest in Formal Debate, because my days of taking fiction as serious business are long behind me. I think you're on to something here, Questor.

 

 

 

I will be quite plain about something though. I have no interest in this place becoming like SB or SDN. If I wanted that kind of atmosphere, I wouldn't have sunk hundreds of dollars and tons of my time into this place. I would have just posted there. I'm fine with us creating a more structured debate environment, but I started this place as a refuge from the obnoxious crap that permeated the other debating sites. You want structure, fine. We can do that, but I'm not going to allow this place to turn out like SDN or SB. Look back at when Ali was banned at SDN, and the reason. (the Emperor vs. Galacticus debate) I won't allow that kind of thing to happen here. Look at the myriad of threads at SFJ complaining about biased moderation at SB. Do we really want threads to start popping up there such as "Another example of biased moderation at ASVS"? What I'm saying is we need to proceed with caution. It's hard to put the genie back in the bottle when a certain atmosphere has become established.

[Airlocke 12,014]

There's not much possibility of abuse, IMO.

 

If you say, for example "Praeo said X", and nowhere in my posts is it mentioned the way you presented it, then you're lying.

 

If you say "Praeo, by saying x is bigger then Y, clearly means X is bigger then anything", it is clear you are misrepresenting, because I would clearly have said only that "X is bigger then Y"...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And Paul, I don't believe the red pen edit should change anything writtent down.

 

If it is only used to add comments or point to the "guidelines", then I think it's fine.

 

And even if they are only "guidelines", there should be some moderation, if not enforcement, because not acting at all means our guidelines are worth shit, and people can do the very thing we ask them not too.

 

If someone keeps lying about his opponent's posts, even after we've warned him, then that person should me moved to the Brig for a while, so he understands his recent behavior is unacceptable...

 

 

 

*Points to Questor's post*

 

 

 

Thank you for proving my point.....

[Questor 501]

I will be quite plain about something though. I have no interest in this place becoming like SB or SDN. If I wanted that kind of atmosphere, I wouldn't have sunk hundreds of dollars and tons of my time into this place. I would have just posted there. I'm fine with us creating a more structured debate environment, but I started this place as a refuge from the obnoxious crap that permeated the other debating sites. You want structure, fine. We can do that, but I'm not going to allow this place to turn out like SDN or SB. Look back at when Ali was banned at SDN, and the reason. (the Emperor vs. Galacticus debate) I won't allow that kind of thing to happen here. Look at the myriad of threads at SFJ complaining about biased moderation at SB. Do we really want threads to start popping up there such as "Another example of biased moderation at ASVS"? What I'm saying is we need to proceed with caution. It's hard to put the genie back in the bottle when a certain atmosphere has become established.

 

 

 

I agree with you, furthermore, if we clone those sites, you might as well shut this one down, because it will be the same as they are, and there will be no incentive for anyone to come to a newer site. As you know I've been wrestling with my own frustrations with those sites, and trying to think up something that would feel like the old days to me, which is what I've been looking for. While rereqding the R&Rs I saw the prefixes and why they were there and thought that migh be a good way to separate the "Serious Discussions about Ion Cannons" from "George Lucas vs. Gene Roddenberry's corpse reanimated by the Resident Evil Virus - Discuss".

[Praeothmin 532]

*Points to Questor's post*

 

 

 

Thank you for proving my point.....

 

 

 

I don't think I understood your "possibility for abuse" then, because, to me, Questor shows us a good example of "lying/Misrepresenting", i.e., what Jason did.

 

I thought you meant there was a possibility of abuse by the mods.

 

 

 

Tyralak, that's the whole point:

 

What most of these people who are fed up with SDN or SB want, is a forum where there will be NO MOD ABUSE, no Mod closing threads because "his" side is losing, or "his" friend is getting the fillings kicked out of him in the debate and the Mod wants to help...

 

 

 

It's easy not to become SDN:

 

-Allow diverging oppinions...

 

-Make very few "rigid" rules that apply ONLY in the ST, SW and vs forums, and all the rest are to be "guidelines"...

 

-Make sure these rules ARE SO CLEAR EVEN JASON CAN UNDERSTAND THEM, so no one can say the rule was unclear and the person "didn't know he was crossing a rule"...

 

-Ensure that your Mods, even if they are biased, can do a very unbiased job in moderating, and make sure they understand that action can only be taken if AN ACTUAL RULE IS TRANSGRESSED...

 

 

 

A good example of debates actually progressing:

 

-All of Questor's debates NOT INVOLVING JASON...

 

-My recent debate with InvaderSkooj, where both sides faced a thick-headed, unyielding opponent...

 

 

 

In most of these debates, very little insults were used, and even when there were, an actual argument always accompanied them...

 

And since this site is so small, and you know your moderators so well, you can still keep an eye on things and act if necessary...

[paul 11,988]

Lemme put it this way and yes, i'm going to be blunt so if you don't like it, don't read further.

 

 

 

No one is being moved into the brig that doesn't do a serious debate. It'd rely on me or ty doing it and quite frankly, while I cant speak for ty, I can say for myself I won't do it. The brig wasn't created for that purpose. For your prefix idea, i'll go with that and the only thing I could agree with is splitting offending posts off to another thread (not named retarded, named something sensible). Sorry but mod's aren't getting the power to delete posts as that can turn into a bad thing and as for editing the full posts that goes against what we setup in the first place.

 

 

 

You have to understand WHY this site was created. It's for fun, it's for stupidity it's to be dumb So on that note i'll summarize for those that didn't wanna read the whole thing -

 

 

 

Prefixes - Sure sounds good

 

Splitting Posts from said Formal Debate "Guidelines" (not rules), sure makes sense

 

Mod actions? Nope

 

Brig? not gonna happen.

 

 

 

There ya go ^^ That's my 500 cents.

[Praeothmin 532]

I never mentioned deleting or changing posts.

 

The edit I mentioned said adding information to a "guilty" post, such as "that's a no-no, go read the guidelines again".

 

 

 

And my first post was only a suggestion coming from the fact Ty seemed to want to have more members.

 

Leaving the forum as is will not bring in more debaters, IMO.

 

And I'm simply explaining further because I do not see how this would automatically turn us into another SDN or SB.

 

 

 

But it's just a suggestion, so you do what you want, and that's it...

[Tyralak 12,068]

These aren't bad ideas, however at this point we don't have enough members to be too strict on things. I can see moderating more heavily when we have a lot more users and things start getting out of control. Right now, though the suggestions you guys gave about prefixes for topics, Questor's red pen edit and splitting out topics which don't conform to the agreed upon rules for debate are what I will implement now. When our numbers increase, and things get more difficult to mange, we can take the next steps. Right now, this is a good starting point to balance our principles with good debate.

[Questor 501]

Lemme put it this way and yes, i'm going to be blunt so if you don't like it, don't read further.

 

 

 

No one is being moved into the brig that doesn't do a serious debate.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, did a mod at some site that actually has a playpen yell at you and give you PTSD? Did you have a bad experience with a webboard as a child? This can't even be an SDN specific bitch because SDN doesn't even use that system - they just ban your ass. Which, just in case the thread isn't clear enough - NO ONE IS ADVOCATING. From looking at it, it doesn't look like SB or SFJ have that system either, so please, tell me where in that head of yours the obsession with playpens comes from?

 

 

 

Jesus christ, nobody is talking about the fricking Brig, whatever the fuck that is (Seriously, at first I thought it was like HoS on SDN, but then I realized that's what Sto'vo'kor is for.). We're were talking about splitting and moving topics to appropriate forums - JUST LIKE HAS BEEN DONE ALREADY WITH THE JASON ATTACK THREADS.

 

 

 

I really don't know what your damage is, but try reading the fucking thread before assuming that people are talking about a goddamn daycare system. I know you're smarter than that, you do manage to type letters in the correct order.