1. It has come to the attention of forum staff that Dollshe Craft has ceased communications with dealers and customers, has failed to provide promised refunds for the excessive waits, and now has wait times surpassing 5 years in some cases. Forum staff are also concerned as there are claims being put forth that Dollshe plans to close down their doll making company. Due to the instability of the company, the lack of communication, the lack of promised refunds, and the wait times now surpassing 5 years, we strongly urge members to research the current state of this company very carefully and thoroughly before deciding to place an order. For more information please see the Dollshe waiting room. Do not assume this cannot happen to you or that your order will be different.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Dollshe Craft and all dolls created by Dollshe, including any dolls created under his new or future companies, including Club Coco BJD are now banned from Den of Angels. Dollshe and the sculptor may not advertise his products on this forum. Sales may not be discussed, no news threads may be posted regarding new releases. This ban does not impact any dolls by Dollshe ordered by November 8, 2023. Any dolls ordered after November 8, 2023, regardless of the date the sculpt was released, are banned from this forum as are any dolls released under his new or future companies including but not limited to Club Coco BJD. This ban does not apply to other company dolls cast by Dollshe as part of a casting agreement between him and the actual sculpt or company and those dolls may still be discussed on the forum. Please come to Ask the Moderators if you have any questions.
    Dismiss Notice

A Debate about Debate

Sep 19, 2008

?
  1. Threads should never be locked permanently

  2. Threads should be locked after 2 months inactivity (with option to restart).

  3. Threads should be locked when they are stuck in a loop (with option to restart).

  4. People who can't control themselves should be temporarily suspended from the Debate subforum.

  5. People should never be barred from discussion for any reason.

  6. The edit post feature should be removed.

  7. The edit post feature is too valuable to remove.

  8. A "Debate" Archive would be a good idea for old, inactive or locked debate threads.

  9. Threads in the Debate subforum should be approved by the moderators.

  10. Anyone should be able to start a Debate thread, any time.

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.

    1. I completely agree. I spent quite a long time typing my response only to click submit and find it had been locked. Then, the thread starter had deleted their own initial comments. I do not thing that is fair that it was locked just because the majority disagreed with the original poster. If they had not wanted any disagreement or discussion, why start a debate about it? I do not think this thread should have been locked as many of us could have added new dimension to a potentially very interesting topic.

      Perhaps it should be reopened or a new one started? Is that possible?
       
    2. If the option was made very clear to everyone -- that it was OK to start a new thread on the same topic -- then I think it would be fine, because then new batches of collectors could have the pleasure of discussing it despite being late to the party.

      However, I do wonder how easily that option would work, since almost everywhere else on the forum we actively discourage the creation of repeat topics or rehashes of locked ones. It may be hard to break through the "training" to get people feeling comfortable with starting anew in Debate.
       
    3. Hi, I decided to restart the thread and tried to be as diplomatic as possible. Either the thread will completely die because of what happened the other day, or it could work really well. Hopefully it will because I think it could definately be interesting xxx
       
    4. Whoops. It seems we both restarted the debate at the same time. I started composing before yours was submitted.

      Zag or another mod, can you merge/delete as needed?
       
    5. may I just come in here....scream a bit and pull my hair out???!!!

      ARRRRRRRRRRRRGH! Sorry, but I needed to do that. Debate about debates? They get locked because people really can be ever so selfish in them. I tried to ressurect a good and interesting debate for the willy bit and its getting ruined...

      I think maybe particular people should be banned from certain threads rather than the whole thread being locked.
       
    6. :) Maybe people shouldn't get so emotional over debates, it's a debate, not a personal attack, and when it turns into a personal attack, that's when it should be closed. So if that doesn't happen it would keep them from getting locked.
       
    7. I'd like to suggest a "three-strikes" policy be implemented for people who constantly cross the line or behave unacceptably in Debate. They would not be banned from DoA, just from the Debate forum. Most of the people I've seen in Debate go about their business just fine and it's just a tiny handful, unfortunately, who ruin it for everyone else.
       
    8. I think this would be a superb idea to implement.
       
    9. I agree with this as well. In these threads, sometimes some people just need a break from them. Even a 48 hour ban from the debate forum could help.
       
    10. I would also like to see a "Three-strikes" policy in debate forums. When personal comments are made that have nothing to do with the debate in question, such as:

      "That is just a silly idea." Or "Why don't you do some research?"

      These are not part of a debate and shouldn't be allowed. If all of the threads stayed on topic, instead of a lot of people making one-line comments with their feelings on the topic at hand, or their personal feelings about someone in the debate, then the thread could stay going rather steadily. But it seems that a lot of people put personal feelings into the debate threads and that's when it gets more of an argument and less of a debate.

      I think that singular posts, made with only personal comment and no debate, should be striken and after three of those on the same thread, they should get a warning that they need to stay on topic. Having an unpopular opinion is not the same as making personal comments only to try and upset another person on the board. If you don't like what one of the debatees is saying, then you should debate with them and prove your point, instead of making jabs or stopping the debate all together to make a comment about the person who's opinion you don't like.

      That's what a debate is. People who have different opinions.

      What would a debate be if everyone agreed? It'd be.. An Agree.
       
    11. Yes. Debates should be debates. I tend to respond to specific parts of posts through 'quoting', but that's how I was 'forum-raised' I don't see this as steering the debate in a personal direction unless I constantly seek out and attack just one or two people, or only respond to their comments/posts. There are going to be opposing opinions, and I don't feel it is wrong to respond to some of them, but it is wrong to continuously attack/argue with a person about those things.
       
    12. Well, at least I got to put something up this time...even if it got utterly buried in all the bickering.
      :: sighs ::
      This might be silly, but what about putting a timer on debate posts, like the 'flood control' on searches? I think a lot of foolishness might be eliminated if argumentative types were made to wait five minutes before posting again; that also would give other people a chance to kick in with their perspectives, and possibly keep the dialogue on a reasonable course.

      It is perfectly possible for people who agree to have a debate, btw. The point of a debate is not to 'win' or bash opposing opinions into mush, but an entertaining way to provide everyone involved a multi-faceted view of the issue discussed.

      I'd also kind of like to see -when debate threads must be closed- a comments-locked poll put up with answers representing each point of view...sort of a 'survey says?' I'm curious to know sometimes if an opinion is really popular, or just over-represented in debate.
       
    13. I wonder if a system that somehow restricted individuals from having too many posts in one thread? Because I know when I post too much in a debate thread I get way too emotionally involved, risk winding people up and end up just getting grumpy. When I try really hard to leave gaps between posts I'm able to post much calmer, more reasonable replies. (I'm cringing at my contributions in some of the older copying allegation threads right now...I was unreasonable.)

      I guess something like this can only be advised, not enforced though.
       
    14. I think moderators should reserve the right to ban people from certain threads if that person hijacks a thread over and over again, without bringing anything new into the discussion.
       
    15. It would probably work better to have to wait for X amount of time between posts--some topics naturally end being lengthy and restricting the amounts of posts per thread could cut someone out of the debate before they're ready.

      I have a feeling most of us have some cringe worthy posts hiding back in various threads (I know I do), it happens to us all.

      The more I think about it, the more I really do like the idea of moderated start-up, and having some kind of three strikes rule as others have suggested might not be a bad thing. It probably wouldn't be necessary for the vast majority of people, but it might help keep the few and virulent from completely derailing otherwise good debates.
       
    16. a "flood filter" or a timer is a good idea or what about making it so you can only make so many posts in a certain amount of time? im not sure if that counts as a flood filter if ive got it right a flood filter is to many posts from everyone in a certain time but im mean a limit of posts in a thread per person?? (scratch that someone already said it)


      (im not trying to be hiparictical (sp?) i know i posted to much in that thread, and i shouldnt have posted for another person, and if i felt it neccessary i should have put quotation marks around it i guess, i did apologise for that though.)


      i dont want to suggest that each post must be ok'd by a mod because i know mods already have alot to do , but maybe there is a something like that we can do? any ideas?
       
    17. Back when I first joined, debate threads had to be approved by a moderator before they could be posted. I think that, at least for the time being, the forum should go back to that. I notice that there were a good portion of threads that have been posted that aren't really debates at all, or were poorly worded and caused unnecessary drama. If we went back to pre-approved threads for the time being, perhaps things could settle down.

      I also support the flood-control idea, where a certain amount of time must have passed before someone can make another post. I'm one of those people who can get very angry, very fast, and if I get into a more heated discussion with someone I'm much more likely to flip my lid and post something I'll regret before I can full read or comprehend the post that I'm responding to, and thereby degenerate the thread and ruin the debate.

      I also agree with being able to ban users that are causing too much derailment or drama from the Debate subforum - mods can ban people from the Marketplace, so temp-banning people from Debate doesn't seem like too much of a stretch. It would certainly be more productive than patrolling a thread and deleting multiple posts.
       
    18. Re the fears of an "Agree-Fest"... I reeeally don't think that's a risk. So far, there has never been a Debate where 100% of the people agreed on anything. Most of the time, people can disagree pretty civilly. When I hear accusations of "but we can't all agree! stop picking on me because my view's unpopular!" it usually indicates a crusade and/or persecution-complex afoot.

      Re Moderated Start-up: Was a good idea in the beginning, and is a good idea now. I like when a topic has been clearly considered to have both a Pro side and a Con side, and when it's been presented in a neutral tone, with introductory main points to get discussion started. That makes elaboration/rebuttal easier and stimulates the right mood of critical thought.

      Particularly, I don't think a topic should be permitted if its tone is too combative. Tone matters, more than you think. If the tone of a question is strident and aggressive, and demands an answer rather than asks for one, if it attacks rather than considers-- then people feel defensive & hotblooded right away, and there's no chance that debate will stay civil. A simple neutral rephrasing is all that's needed.

      Re Flood-Timer: Sure. Yes, it's irritating to see "you must wait X more seconds" when you're ready to be brilliant.... But really, it might save some of us from ourselves (I think we know who we are and what kind of bizarre overwrought crap we've said in the heat of battle :blush).


      Re Three Strikes: Make it so. Some folks just can't play nice.
       
    19. I'd support a three-strike policy and then suspension from the debate subforum, to be honest. I also support the moderators removing access when people are proving themselves unable to handle themselves like adults.

      I think that people need to also let others answer for themselves - quoting someone else's response is fine, but when it's one person simply parroting one specific other person's opinion repeatedly through a thread, that is not okay. It contributes nothing and is really, really irritating. People should also not quote themselves to try to get people to read their post if they didn't reply to it the first time.

      I think quoting other people in order to respond to them directly is fine, though... and it actually really helpful in a fast-paced debate.
       


    20. i think they already do have to approve any thread before its posted? but what about approving each post? it would be better for a nice clean debate but it would also give the mods a ton more to do, and they already have alot on their hands, so i think that is out of the question but is there anything like this anyone can think of??


      and i too can get angry to fast and if i had time to settle down i think it would be better, unless of course as soon as the person is allowed back they just continue arguing?




      idrisfynn: your right, but then where to i apologise? everyone knows its me they are talking about and i do feel bad for irratating so many people..