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

[Airlocke 12,014]

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.

 

 

 

Yes, there is, because there a very many possible interpretations of lying and misrepresentation. A mod could, theoretically, give someone a hit for misrepresentation, when they simply came away with a different interpretation of a material than the guy who posted the source. I highly doubt any of our mods would do that, but the possibility is there.

 

 

 

Anyway, I think a point system is the best way to enforce these guidelines. You lose a point, or more depending on the infraction, for going against the rules. You gain points for making valid arguments, presenting source materials and analyzing data provided by a source material, aka following the rules.

[Airlocke 12,014]

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.

 

 

 

I believe I suggested that in my very first post. But that would only have been for someone who is a repeated offender and refuses to follow the rules. Also, it was partly out of a desire to actually see the damn thing get some use. (watch, Paul or Ty will put me there, just for laughs.) No one seemed to agree with that possibility, so I let it go.

[Questor 501]

Yes, there is, because there a very many possible interpretations of lying and misrepresentation. A mod could, theoretically, give someone a hit for misrepresentation, when they simply came away with a different interpretation of a material than the guy who posted the source. I highly doubt any of our mods would do that, but the possibility is there.

 

 

 

Yeah, but you're talking about stuff that's actually debatebale and we're talking about "This clip shows the NX-01 kicking the ass of a galaxy class starshop" and the source being a picture of cats falling off a table.

 

 

 

Anything that is debatable cannot be misrepresented in a debate, only facts can.

[Questor 501]

I believe I suggested that in my very first post. But that would only have been for someone who is a repeated offender and refuses to follow the rules. Also, it was partly out of a desire to actually see the damn thing get some use. (watch, Paul or Ty will put me there, just for laughs.) No one seemed to agree with that possibility, so I let it go.

 

 

 

Oh, yeah, there's that one word there. I must have missed that. Doesn't change the main force of my point though.

[Tyralak 12,068]

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.).

 

 

 

The Brig is supposed to be like what DayCare is at TK. Basically, it's a way to deal with people who break the rules without having to resort to banning them. They are restricted to that one forum for a period of time. For example, at SDN Graeme Dice was banned for following Shep around and harassing him. Polluting numerous threads, and the like. (We all know how obsessive Dice is) Here, he would have been confined to The Brig for a while until he cooled down.

[Questor 501]

The Brig is supposed to be like what DayCare is at TK. Basically, it's a way to deal with people who break the rules without having to resort to banning them. They are restricted to that one forum for a period of time. For example, at SDN Graeme Dice was banned for following Shep around and harassing him. Polluting numerous threads, and the like. (We all know how obsessive Dice is) Here, he would have been confined to The Brig for a while until he cooled down.

 

 

 

Well that does sound like an admin function. But I really don't think thats an appropriate sanction for bad debating. Better to mock people.

[Praeothmin 532]

Anyway, I think a point system is the best way to enforce these guidelines. You lose a point, or more depending on the infraction, for going against the rules. You gain points for making valid arguments, presenting source materials and analyzing data provided by a source material, aka following the rules.

 

 

 

Yes, but who gives out the points?

 

The same Mods who can abuse the "Lying/Misrepresenting" issue?

 

You see, any way you dice it or slice it, Mods can abuse their power, but ensuring clear guidelines and rules, this ensures that Ty, who is quite reasonable and very unbiased when calling a sheep a sheep (yes, fishing for brownie points here ), will automatically take the appropriate steps to rectify the situation...

[Tyralak 12,068]

Yes, but who gives out the points?

 

The same Mods who can abuse the "Lying/Misrepresenting" issue?

 

You see, any way you dice it or slice it, Mods can abuse their power, but ensuring clear guidelines and rules, this ensures that Ty, who is quite reasonable and very unbiased when calling a sheep a sheep (yes, fishing for brownie points here ), will automatically take the appropriate steps to rectify the situation...

 

 

 

[Khas 12,158]

Trying to get The Baron back here, I see.

[paul 11,988]

Oh, yeah, there's that one word there. I must have missed that. Doesn't change the main force of my point though.

 

 

 

Actually, I did read this thread. I read every thread and every post in main engineering

 

 

 

So perhaps instead of insulting me try reading the thread itself as you apparently missed someone saying things about the brig which was the focus of my comment. As for me having PTSD - Try again.

[Questor 501]

Screw it. I can't make that post come out right.

 

 

 

Suffice it to say:

 

 

 

I am not suggesting brigs or anything like it.

 

 

 

I have not and never will consider the deletion of posts an appropriate form of moderation outside of blatant violation of U.S. federal laws - and at that point, admins should be dealing with it anyway.

 

 

 

I think groundrules are necessary for a debate to be productive. I also think that rules need to apply to everyone, and I think some kind of enforcement is necessary. Not enforcement against the person - which seems to be what you are worried about - but enforcement against the post. In my opinion, if a thread starts talking about a Star Destroyers and all of a sudden someone brings up "Yesterday's Enterprise" and it isn't part of the flow of the thread, then splitting that out is productive for both tangents.

 

 

 

There's only two people on this board who've done a full post edit on somebody else. I'm not one of them.

[Tyralak 12,068]

Screw it. I can't make that post come out right.

 

 

 

Suffice it to say:

 

 

 

I am not suggesting brigs or anything like it.

 

 

 

I have not and never will consider the deletion of posts an appropriate form of moderation outside of blatant violation of U.S. federal laws - and at that point, admins should be dealing with it anyway.

 

 

 

I think groundrules are necessary for a debate to be productive. I also think that rules need to apply to everyone, and I think some kind of enforcement is necessary. Not enforcement against the person - which seems to be what you are worried about - but enforcement against the post. In my opinion, if a thread starts talking about a Star Destroyers and all of a sudden someone brings up "Yesterday's Enterprise" and it isn't part of the flow of the thread, then splitting that out is productive for both tangents.

 

 

 

There's only two people on this board who've done a full post edit on somebody else. I'm not one of them.

 

 

 

More or less what I said in post 25. Those are the rules I'll be implementing for now.

[Praeothmin 532]

More or less what I said in post 25. Those are the rules I'll be implementing for now.

 

 

 

Pretty much what I've been trying to say (perhaps incorrectly) from the start...

[Tyralak 12,068]

Excellent. So we're agreed. Questor, please wite up some rules of debate for each prefix and sticky it in the VS forums.

[Airlocke 12,014]

Maybe. But I do anything with STO.

[Tyralak 12,068]

Oh, one thing about these rules that WILL land someone in The Brig, is if they have had their posts split and they keep going back into the same thread doing the same thing. When a mod splits a discussion to a thread with the appropriate prefix, the discussion needs to stay there. For example, if there is a discussion marked with a Formal Debate prefix, and someone refuses to abide by the Formal debate rules, a mod will split the discussion and add the appropriate prefix to the new thread. If the poster keeps returning to the Formal Debate thread trying to derail it after having his thread split, an admin may decide to throw him in The Brig for a few days.

[Airlocke 12,014]

Oh, one thing about these rules that WILL land someone in The Brig, is if they have had their posts split and they keep going back into the same thread doing the same thing. When a mod splits a discussion to a thread with the appropriate prefix, the discussion needs to stay there. For example, if there is a discussion marked with a Formal Debate prefix, and someone refuses to abide by the Formal debate rules, a mod will split the discussion and add the appropriate prefix to the new thread. If the poster keeps returning to the Formal Debate thread trying to derail it after having his thread split, an admin may decide to throw him in The Brig for a few days.

 

 

 

You mean you might decide to throw him in the brig. Paul won't. Anyway, I support this.

[Questor 501]

I will start working up some rules.

 

 

 

I'd like to discuss some of them with other debators on the board, though. Should we do that in this thread?

[Tyralak 12,068]

Sure. I'll rename the thread and we'll keep it here.

[Questor 501]

Sure. I'll rename the thread and we'll keep it here.

 

 

 

OK, here's the big thing I want to discuss.

 

 

 

For the formal and casual debates, I would like to establish reality groundrules and burden of proof rules, but since Praeothmin and I have argued about those in the past and I would not like to do something seen as arbitrary.

 

 

 

Burden of Proof: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You must be able to prove any claims that you make.

 

 

 

Foundation of Reality: It is assumed that the physics of our universe are the default. In order to argue different physical laws, you need to provide evidence of the new physical laws.

 

 

 

Commonallity: In head-to-head (or combat) vs debates, it is assumed that all of the technology from both universes operates, even if the technology is fundamentally incompatable. In sociological debates, the above foundation of reality rule applies to both universes seperatly.

 

 

 

Admissability of evidence (cannon policy): - this is so controversial that I think this should either be subject to board wide vote, or pre-established by the debators. In the preestablishment case, formal debates would require agreement between both parties in the establishement of the debate, but for casual debates the rules would be declared in the first post.

 

 

 

For formal debate, I am going to suggest that they be pre-arranged and only between two people at a time, I am going to use traditional debate flow - Resolution, Pro Opening, Con Opening, Pro Statement, Con Questions, Con Statement, Pro Questions, ... , Con Closing, Pro Closing. The exact makeup and rules of the debate would be up to the participants. Statements must be argued or they are considered conceeded.

 

 

 

The rules for casual debate are actually much harder to write, as they need to be able to handle many on many debates.

[Airlocke 12,014]

OK, here's the big thing I want to discuss.

 

 

 

For the formal and casual debates, I would like to establish reality groundrules and burden of proof rules, but since Praeothmin and I have argued about those in the past and I would not like to do something seen as arbitrary.

 

 

 

Burden of Proof: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You must be able to prove any claims that you make.

 

 

 

Foundation of Reality: It is assumed that the physics of our universe are the default. In order to argue different physical laws, you need to provide evidence of the new physical laws.

 

 

 

Commonallity: In head-to-head (or combat) vs debates, it is assumed that all of the technology from both universes operates, even if the technology is fundamentally incompatable. In sociological debates, the above foundation of reality rule applies to both universes seperatly.

 

 

 

Admissability of evidence (cannon policy): - this is so controversial that I think this should either be subject to board wide vote, or pre-established by the debators. In the preestablishment case, formal debates would require agreement between both parties in the establishement of the debate, but for casual debates the rules would be declared in the first post.

 

 

 

For formal debate, I am going to suggest that they be pre-arranged and only between two people at a time, I am going to use traditional debate flow - Resolution, Pro Opening, Con Opening, Pro Statement, Con Questions, Con Statement, Pro Questions, ... , Con Closing, Pro Closing. The exact makeup and rules of the debate would be up to the participants. Statements must be argued or they are considered conceeded.

 

 

 

The rules for casual debate are actually much harder to write, as they need to be able to handle many on many debates.

 

 

 

Seems reasonable enough.

[Praeothmin 532]

I would use these "Formal Debate" rules as the strong "guidelines" for the "Casual Debate".

 

After all, you should need to prove your claims in any form of debate.

 

 

 

For example, saying (going back to our latest debate ):

 

"Well, since things fall down in universe X exactly the same way as in universe Y, then this shows clear inclinations as the two universes having similar physics!"

 

 

 

 

 

Also, about this:

 

Commonallity: In head-to-head (or combat) vs debates, it is assumed that all of the technology from both universes operates, even if the technology is fundamentally incompatable. In sociological debates, the above foundation of reality rule applies to both universes seperatly.

 

 

I think we should include "special abilities", such as the Force, Vulcan Mind Melds, etc...

 

Unless extraordinary circumstances dictate otherwise:

 

"but this race has the same characteristics as the Yuuzan Vong, thus why they are more then likely immune to the Force as well".

 

 

 

And about this one:

 

Admissability of evidence (cannon policy): - this is so controversial that I think this should either be subject to board wide vote, or pre-established by the debators. In the preestablishment case, formal debates would require agreement between both parties in the establishement of the debate, but for casual debates the rules would be declared in the first post.

 

 

 

I say the creator of the debate, in the "Casual Debates", states what is admissible or not.

 

But, I also believe that any evidence presented must follow LucasFilms' Canon policy:

 

The highest Canon, G-Canon (or film Canon), always supercedes the lower Canon, and newer, "revised" material supercedes the older material.

 

For example, while in TOS we see them using Lasers in "The Cage" (later remade in "The Menagerie"), it is clear that Phasers, in their earlier incarnations, were used 100 years prior, as seen in ENT.

 

In the case of "Formal Debates", both debaters must agree on what is admissible for their debate.

[Questor 501]

I would use these "Formal Debate" rules as the strong "guidelines" for the "Casual Debate".

 

After all, you should need to prove your claims in any form of debate.

 

 

 

Most of that was for both actually, kinda "General Guidelines"

 

 

 

 

For example, saying (going back to our latest debate ):

 

"Well, since things fall down in universe X exactly the same way as in universe Y, then this shows clear inclinations as the two universes having similar physics!"

 

 

 

 

It depends on what the baseline is. I think that the baseline should be ours, and must be stated different. I.E. even though the exact speed of sound in air isn't stated, we can assume its ours. See below for further expansion. Another area where this could be important is language. Words are assumed to mean the same thing in all shows. Ship type functions for example. A cruiser is a cruiser, unless proven otherwise (I'm looking at you EVE).

 

 

 

 

Also, about this:

 

 

 

I think we should include "special abilities", such as the Force, Vulcan Mind Melds, etc...

 

Unless extraordinary circumstances dictate otherwise:

 

"but this race has the same characteristics as the Yuuzan Vong, thus why they are more then likely immune to the Force as well".

 

 

 

 

I think we're thinking along the same lines. In versus, those would be assumed, but in more esoteric debates, they might not be. For example, for something along the lines of the debate we had, my general inclination - and really only an inclination - is that the universes should be defined separately. A good example might be (and I'm trying to come up with a non-controversial one here, and have probably failed): Food production rates - Federation vs Empire; it would be inappropriate to assume that the same physics and crop engineering developments would have occured, or even been possible in both universe. [NOTE: I HAVE NO INTEREST IN DEBATING THAT, I WAS JUST LOOKING FOR AS UNCONTROVERSIAL AN EXAMPLE AS I CAN FIND.}

 

 

 

So, basically when you are comparing the technology or people of the universes, commonality is assumed, but when you are comparing the universes themselves, commonality must be proven.

 

 

 

Did I make any sense there?

 

 

 

 

And about this one:

 

 

 

 

 

I say the creator of the debate, in the "Casual Debates", states what is admissible or not.

 

But, I also believe that any evidence presented must follow LucasFilms' Canon policy:

 

The highest Canon, G-Canon (or film Canon), always supercedes the lower Canon, and newer, "revised" material supercedes the older material.

 

For example, while in TOS we see them using Lasers in "The Cage" (later remade in "The Menagerie"), it is clear that Phasers, in their earlier incarnations, were used 100 years prior, as seen in ENT.

 

In the case of "Formal Debates", both debaters must agree on what is admissible for their debate.

 

 

 

 

Sounds good to me, that's actually my preferred method, although I think a default should also be difined, just so that we don't have fights if somebody forgets.

 

 

 

I had two other thoughts:

 

 

 

Superbeings are disallowed. - They mess everything up, and the ones we know of are so puckish as to make any prediction of actions little better than betting everything on a single number in roulette.

 

 

 

Preponderance of Evidence - Absent a specific canon policy determining heirearchy, the preponderance of evidence shall be used. I.E.. In ST, all episodes have equal weight, so, if a phaser blast from a ship at full power does nothing in one episode, but in every other episode it causes a big explosion, then the outlier is discarded. A counterexample is the Halo universe, where I believe tha canon policy is that newer statements overide older ones.

[Praeothmin 532]

Complete agreement...

[Tyralak 12,068]

For example, while in TOS we see them using Lasers in "The Cage" (later remade in "The Menagerie"), it is clear that Phasers, in their earlier incarnations, were used 100 years prior, as seen in ENT.

 

In the case of "Formal Debates", both debaters must agree on what is admissible for their debate.

 

 

 

I'll have to check, but I think they even issued an explanation for that, in order to make the canon consistent.