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

[Praeothmin 532]

B & B?

 

Thay probably said:

 

"TOS? What's that TOS people keep talking about?

 

The only Trek is OUR Trek, there is NO OTHER TREK!

 

THERE ARE FOUR TREKS!"

 

 

 

[Tyralak 12,068]

I wonder if we should consider the "lost tech" rule? Essentially a technology used once, and shown to be later lost/and or destroyed. Lost tech was disallowed in the old rule structure, but the debate has become so stale over the years, keeping it in might do more harm than good.

[Questor 501]

I wonder if we should consider the "lost tech" rule? Essentially a technology used once, and shown to be later lost/and or destroyed. Lost tech was disallowed in the old rule structure, but the debate has become so stale over the years, keeping it in might do more harm than good.

 

 

 

As long as you can come up with a plausable reason why it comes back (and why it was never used), I always thought that should have been fair game.

 

 

 

The problem is that a lot of lost tech isn't all that game changing. Almost everything had a fairly simple counter.

 

 

 

For example: My guess is that the events of Star Trek II - Star Trek IV are some of the most secret events in the history of the Federation, otherwise TNG, DS9, and VOY would have referenced them - there were plenty of appropriate places. Bringing Genesis back would require a scenario where that veil of secrecy is broken. And the simple, targeted time travel requires Spock, full stop.

[Tyralak 12,068]

Well, then let's just leave that rule out. It really narrows the debate too much anyway.

[enigma 521]

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.

 

 

 

I have no problems with this except for the "Admissability of evidence (canon policy)". We should not exclude anything that is canon for the purpose of debating. What we could do is include some sources or at least parts that we can agree upon as part of this board's own canon policy. I.E. TNG and DS9's tech manuals. While a lot is bunk, a few can be useful to fill in any gaps in a debate.

 

 

 

I also recommend "Visuals over Dialogue". If a character says one thing but the visuals shows otherwise then what is seen should trump over what has been said.

 

 

 

That is all I can think for now. I am sure I'll have more ideas later.

[Tyralak 12,068]

I have no problems with this except for the "Admissability of evidence (canon policy)". We should not exclude anything that is canon for the purpose of debating. What we could do is include some sources or at least parts that we can agree upon as part of this board's own canon policy. I.E. TNG and DS9's tech manuals. While a lot is bunk, a few can be useful to fill in any gaps in a debate.

 

 

 

 

 

I agree, but on the second part only to the extent that they provide a supporting role. The DS9 tech manual is decent, but most of the others are atrocious and have no business being considered.

 

 

 

I also recommend "Visuals over Dialogue". If a character says one thing but the visuals shows otherwise then what is seen should trump over what has been said.

 

 

 

This I have to completely disagree with. Visuals and dialogue are not two separate competing things. They're both part of the overall context of what's being shown. It would also lead to discussions being hampered by the limitations of SFX at the time. In certain instances, we have to consider the source. This is a given. For example, if we have a scene where a deckhand starts spouting facts and figures about Warp technology, and it's clear that he has no expertise in the subject, then we certainly can't take what he said as gospel. That being said, removing visuals from their proper context is dangerous from a debating standpoint. For one, it's lazy debating. It means the debater doesn't have to deal with the aspect of language, story and intent. Trying to separate hyperbole from factual information. Instead he can just get his slide rule out and calculate screen shots. Secondly it completely distorts what was trying to be conveyed.

 

 

 

There's also another thing we need to consider, and that's STO. Paul has the official word from CBS as to it's place in the Trek universe, and how it relates to us. I'll let him explain it, because he got the information firsthand.

[enigma 521]

I'm not saying that they are "separate competing things". When there a situation in which we get both dialogue and visual account of something that happens, they both must jive or else one is wrong. For the purpose of debating, the visuals would trump the dialogue in the case which what is being said does not match what is being shown. Let's take a light-hearted example. Let's say Darth Vader encounters Luke in Cloud City and whips out his lightsaber and says "Cower before my mighty lightsaber". But in reality it is no larger than a penknife. In this case DV is talking out of his synthetic ass.

 

 

 

In other words, they have to go hand in hand and if it doesn't then visuals go first.

[Tyralak 12,068]

I'm not saying that they are "separate competing things". When there a situation in which we get both dialogue and visual account of something that happens, they both must jive or else one is wrong. For the purpose of debating, the visuals would trump the dialogue in the case which what is being said does not match what is being shown. Let's take a light-hearted example. Let's say Darth Vader encounters Luke in Cloud City and whips out his lightsaber and says "Cower before my mighty lightsaber". But in reality it is no larger than a penknife. In this case DV is talking out of his synthetic ass.

 

 

 

In other words, they have to go hand in hand and if it doesn't then visuals go first.

 

 

 

The problem is, I don't recall any examples offhand of that being the case, so it's kind of a moot point. Unless you know of any that can't be rationalized.

[Questor 501]

The problem is, I don't recall any examples offhand of that being the case, so it's kind of a moot point. Unless you know of any that can't be rationalized.

 

 

 

The rationalizing for some has involved Olympic level mental gymnastics, or at least that's what I seem to recal.

 

 

 

I think this should best be dealt with using my "totality of evidence" rule. They are both separate pieces of evidence, that must be weighed as part of the whole.

[Tyralak 12,068]

The rationalizing for some has involved Olympic level mental gymnastics, or at least that's what I seem to recal.

 

 

 

I think this should best be dealt with using my "totality of evidence" rule. They are both separate pieces of evidence, that must be weighed as part of the whole.

 

 

 

That's reasonable. I just don't want us falling into the trap that so many have before of viewing them as competing types of evidence in a hierarchy. Thus leading to people watching the show with the sound off, measuring screen shots and completely missing the context.

[Questor 501]

That's reasonable. I just don't want us falling into the trap that so many have before of viewing them as competing types of evidence in a hierarchy. Thus leading to people watching the show with the sound off, measuring screen shots and completely missing the context.

 

 

 

Exactly!

[Tyralak 12,068]

Exactly!

 

 

 

Well, being that it doesn't look like we're going to get much participation from many of the other members on this, I think these rules can be agreed upon. I really wish Skooj would have chimed in, but he's probably busy like we all are. Or just doing more productive things like enjoying the summer. If you want to draft a debating rules page, go ahead. Otherwise, I'll try to work on it this weekend. I work Wed-Sat, and the days I work I barely have time to catch my breath.

[Praeothmin 532]

What type of participation were you looking for?

 

We already said what we thought of the rules Questor brought forth, so I guess you only need to copy and paste them in a "MOD TYPE" lettering and color and lock them up in the appropriate threads...

 

 

 

You're the ruler of this kingdom, we ain't gonna do your job for you...

[Tyralak 12,068]

What type of participation were you looking for?

 

 

 

I was interested in getting input from as many people as possible, to keep the bitching to a minimum. Say, Skooj, Mith or whoever else comes back and says "Woah! What are these? We didn't discuss any of this!" I suppose though, if there are any legitimate concerns, they can be revisited at a later time.

 

 

 

We already said what we thought of the rules Questor brought forth, so I guess you only need to copy and paste them in a "MOD TYPE" lettering and color and lock them up in the appropriate threads...

 

 

 

You're the ruler of this kingdom, we ain't gonna do your job for you...

 

 

 

I never suggested otherwise. I can put any rules in place I want, however if the rules are stupid and nobody agrees with them, I'm left with an empty board. There's also a difference between rules of conduct, which I alone decide, and rules of debate, which should be decided by consensus. In any event, the new rules page will be up in a couple of days. Possibly tonight, depending on how late I get back.

[Tyralak 12,068]

The new rules page is now posted.

[Kor_Dahar_Master 0]

Any successful debate requires rules and parameters for it's participants.

 

 

 

Okies.

 

 

 

However, we went to great lengths to avoid falling into the trap so many other debating sites have succumbed to. Namely heavy handed lopsided moderation.

 

 

 

Yea, we do not need you guys mutating into being like the dicks on SB and SDN.

 

 

 

( A ) Formal Debates [FD] - These will be pre-arranged and only between two people at a time. They will 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 will be up to the participants and outlined in the first post. Statements must be argued or they are considered conceded.

 

 

 

Ok im gonna need a instruction manual explaining some of that.

 

 

 

( B ) Casual Debates [CD] - These will be by far the most common. They can be any number of participants. The parameters will be laid out at the start, but they can be fluid and adjusted if the debate requires it. They will be subject to the debate guidelines outlined below.

 

 

 

Sounds more up my alley.

 

 

 

( C ) Free For All [FFA] This will be for contests with no set parameters, and for posts split off into their own threads.

 

 

 

So a normal thread then.

 

 

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

 

 

 

Cool.

 

 

2. 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.

 

 

 

Hmm ok but how does technobabble that defies our physics factor in, are we supporting the techs ability do such or the reality its in to allow it to do such?.

 

 

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

 

 

 

Cool.

 

 

 

4. Appeal To Authority - Simply saying "Rod Johnson, respected biologist said this, so we must take it as fact." or "Curtis Saxton is a respected astrophysicist, so his claims require no further proof than his say-so." does not work here. You MUST be able to prove your claim with FACTS.

 

 

 

Fine.

 

 

 

But by facts i hope you do not mean only perfect scientific explanations but rather hard evidence from the material we are discussing?.

 

 

 

EG:

 

 

 

So a ship can travel at warp 9 in ST, because this is commented on and seen i assume im not going to be forced to write a paper explaining in exact detail how it is done?.

 

 

 

The definition of what constitutes a "FACT" should be clearly defined.

 

 

 

5. Canon policy - This is a highly controversial subject, and it in itself a subject of debate. For these purposes, we will use the canon structure as laid out by the respective media companies.

 

 

 

If i wish to start a debate with a rule of canon that only allows movie and series material is that ok as long as i specify it from the start as part of the debate rules?.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Have you been peeking while im showering?..

 

 

 

7. Preponderance of Evidence - Absent a specific canon policy determining hierarchy, 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 the canon policy is that newer statements override older ones.

 

 

 

Fine.

 

 

 

8. "Visuals over Dialogue" We believe this to be a well meaning, but ultimately misguided approach to debating. Thus, it is not used here. We find this to be a dishonest and lazy form of "gotcha" debating, which often leads to people essentially watching the show with the sound off and measuring screen shots while ignoring the overall context. Instead, we use the above rule regarding Preponderance of Evidence. This preserves the context, and allows for a more complete picture.

 

 

 

Fine

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Ok so thats gonna limit membership....lol.

 

 

10. Lying and misrepresentation will be severely punished. To clarify this rule, this is in reference to blatantly lying and misrepresenting evidence. Such as providing a source or clip, claiming it says one thing when it clearly does not, under the hope that the other party won't check the source.

 

Repeated lying will get you Questor's

 

 

 

 

 

BIG RED PEN

 

 

 

to show everyone what a dishonest cunt you are. You are likely to get rep bombed and your posts ignored by the other members. NOTE: This does NOT cover sock puppetry. The creation and use of sock puppets is a protected activity here. Mods and admins are forbidden to reveal the identity of a member's sock puppets.

 

 

 

But i swear it WAS 12 inches when i measured it....

 

 

11. 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.

 

 

 

Houston we have a problem..........

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

WTF are TGODs?.

 

 

13. Answer your opponents points - while this seems obvious, it bears stating.

 

 

 

Fine, i assume you mean VALID points not strawmen ect ect.

 

 

 

14. DO NOT ABUSE THE EDIT BUTTON, or moderators will use theirs. Editing is provided as a courtesy for correcting spelling and grammar errors, along with embedding issues. Edit time is limited to 5 minutes. Please make use of the preview button. If you have a valid reason for needing a post edited after the edit time has expired, please contact a moderator. Remember: Measure twice, cut once.

 

 

 

Il do my best....

 

 

 

15: Follow the directions of the staff. If a debate strays off topic, or a member insists on debating outside of the agreed upon parameters of that thread, his posts will be split off to a separate thread. Threads which diverge into nothing more than vendettas and shouting matches will be split and moved to Sto'Vo'Kor. If that poster returns to the same thread with the same behavior, an administrator will likely throw him in The Brig for a period of time. If you believe a moderator has acted unjustly, PM me and I will review the matter.

 

 

 

Whats the food like in the brig?...

 

 

 

 

 

Ok it all seems pretty funky to me although i would not know the right way to formally debate from the hole in my ass.