A Debate about Debate

Well, I believe everyone has a right to their opinion. And I believe that even though an opinion may be quite popular and said over and over again, that they still have a right to say it. But I also agree that it is annoying to come upon yet another person complaining about girly boy dolls, etc. It is nice to not have multiple threads on one topic. Though, I have never found that to be a real problem here.

But one thing I have always hated is a bunch of people disagreeing with one person. Even if that person has good points they are eventually overwhelmed by the large numbers of comments (and in some forums insults) that eventually arise. There isn't much that can ever be done about it. But sometimes I think people just need to word things better. EDIT: And perhaps give the person a bit of a break even if they are being less than agreeable. Several people don't need to be arguing the same things with one person all at once.

Though, I think when people say things that are particularly offensive, the three strikes rule people are suggesting might be a good idea.

 

Quoting and multi-quoting are "tools" that can help a debate or discussion but they can also create side discussions and unhelpful emphasis on the individuals involved rather than the overall theme of the thread. Quoting needs to be done with thoughtful intent and purpose, with the quote being addressed in a general rather than individual fashion so that others can continue to add to the dialogue. When quoting becomes a way for one member to continually hijack a discussion in order to repeat their viewpoint or opinion, the tool is not working the way it should. Debating and good argument can certainly take place with no quoting whatsoever and a well-worded response that takes into account much of what has been stated before is something that has been in effect in successful debate for aeons.

When quoting is being used as a means to individually interview and answer, then the thread no longer is a debate, it's a hijacked one-sided conversation.

 

EDIT: my comment didnt belong here so i delted it.

 

octobercrow, I never said that posts should be pre-approved, just threads. Flood-control on posting is, as was mentioned before, just like having to wait fifteen seconds between searches. It's an automatic script and doesn't require that the mods do a hideous amount of work.

Threads are currently not pre-approved, as per the announcement at the top of the Dolly Debate forum. It's open posting.

If the person keeps arguing when they are allowed back, then that's the time for a permanent ban.

I think that a good portion of users are unfamiliar with the concept of a 'true' debate (myself included; although I gather the gist I'm not entirely familiar with what is and isn't acceptable when it gets down to details); as such, I propose some sort of 'guidelines' for people who are new to debating but would like to participate without throwing a wrench into the works.

 

::giggles:: is it irony that I'm quoting you on this?

would it be possible to code in a reminder to that effect anytime someone uses the 'quote' function in debate? anything that gives people (including myself) time to reflect (and possibly check spelling ) before placing their headgear on their posteriors would be an added bonus.

As for thread- and post- screening by moderators...ah...wouldn't that be, like...a full-time job? and not one I'd want, that is for sure.

 

i know you didnt say you think every post should be approved, that part was actually me, but at the same time i wasnt suggesting it i was wondering if anyone had any other ideas similar to it

my bad i didnt make that more clear

 

It makes me feel awful too watching someone with an unpopular opinion field all the criticism, and I feel that even though I may have an interesting and relevant question to put to the OP or the participant, I will have to hold back my opinion because there are too many people trampling on this other person and my questions and views will just get lumped in with the criticisms and not taken seriously, or not seen because the thread has moved on very quickly into the realms of fandom wank, rather than debate.

However, this will always happen when someone is prepared to stick their neck out and be willing to defend their views. You win some, you lose some...and no one makes you stay in a thread where you are being bashed unfairly.

I agree with the three strikes idea.

 

They don't have to approve threads at the minute. And to be honest I think their having to approve each and every post would just pile a lot of unnesscary work on them.
As for getting too emotionally involved, I think a little self control can go a long way to calming things down without mods having to get involved, just sitting back for a few minutes then coming back and rereading a post before hitting submit can make a big difference if you're finding yourself getting too emotionally involved.


Just to echo a lot of people I do think the three strike idea is a good one, for the most part as a community we're very good at self moderating but there is a very small but very vocal minority that can't handle themselves in a mature way when it comes to discussions which just leads to perfectly valid and potentially interesting discussions getting locked.

 

again, i agree i was hoping by saying something like that i would spark an idea of some kind

 

I don't contribute in debates that often (most of the time I don't have the time to get really into something!), but I often read them. I think that a three strike policy is a great idea!

Some people are naturally defensive, argumentative, etc, and can't really seem to learn how to properly contribute to a debate. Unfortunately, it does seem to spoil it sometimes, and ruin a debate that could otherwise raise very interesting questions (This isn't directed at anyone in particular, just in case someone thinks it is).

On the other hand, some people seem to just get riled up by particular topics where they would usually be pretty calm and rational in a discussion. Perhaps instead of a "three strikes and you're out" policy, a better idea would be to give someone who has been repeatedly argumentative a cooling off period? Like a ban from debate for a day or two, until they cool down. Then, if they just keep doing it, they could receive a permanent ban from debate.

 

A Three strikes warning then temporary ban with a permanent ban for people who get three temp. bans is more than fair in my opinion. Stopping people posting repeatedly within a certain time frame sounds good too.

Points I would love to be borne in mind by more participants in debating threads:

1 - if something really riles you, write something offline and then sleep on it or go make a drink, go to the bathroom, just do something away from the keyboard and calm down before pressing the post button. (A Flood-timer would neatly remove the need for self discipline.)

2 - please put stuff through your 'am I overreacting/misinterpreting this?' filter before you post. Make sure you read what the poster has actually written and reply to that, not what you think they have written.

3 - please check your post and viewpoint for assumptions before posting, and remove all traces. E.g. Just because the poster expresses view A and then the poster expresses view B it does not automatically follow that they hold view C, even if your experience with others tells you this is often the case.

4 - please differentiate clearly between facts and opinions both online and in your own head.

5 - If someone does not agree with you it does not mean that you are wrong. It does not automatically mean that they think you are wrong. It does not necessarily mean that they are wrong either.

I really love the huge diversity of attitudes and opinions on DoA, even if I don't agree with all of them. Even if some of them make me cringe or scream at the monitor. I think the mods have a hugely tough job sometimes.

 

Maybe a good idea would be to have a sticky with a few links on how to actually debate/debate etiquette? A think a lot of people simply don't know how to behave in a debate.

 

I am a member of two other forums, and frankly DoA is the most lenient forum I have ever been to. For example, in other forums, I have seen members banned for simply talking rudely back to the moderator, disrespecting warnings and engaging in personal arguments. I honestly appreciate DoA for its super liberal policies and welcoming community environment.

I feel that a debate should not be personal at any times, and to actually quote someone, members should be even more careful and address that quote in a impersonal, polite way. Furthermore, innocently perhaps, I expect members to act in a polite, adult manner. Repetition of a view, just in order to attempt to win an argument, is IMO outward rude and childish.

I feel that DoA is represented by members from all types of religious beliefs, culture, ethnicity and so on. That wonderful mix can cause disagreements at times, and I trust the moderators to be able to maintain the peace among us members. ~Gus

 

I think the 'flood control' idea is brilliant, but the one itty-bitty little problem I see is that it's not always one person who's blowing the train off the tracks. But something is better than nothing, and I think it'd be great if this could be instituted.

I'm less in favor of a three-strikes ban for the simple reason that the Debate section is a place where people are going to butt heads from time to time, and people who might otherwise be the most pleasant DoA'ers on the planet can sometimes step on toes in defense of what they believe in. If someone needs to be banned for a few hours, a few days, a few weeks, or just from a particular thread, fine. But a permanent ban from the subforum or DoA? That just seems excessive.

Back to the idea of how to prevent these flare-ups though... is there any way to implement a "cancel or allow" feature for debate posts? I try to use the preview button as my stop-check, but maybe if there was a little window with something along the lines of, "Are you SURE you want to post this?" that popped up, maybe more people would think twice before they added to the thread.

 

Honestly, I like the debate forum.

I am so surprised with this site sometimes. I am so used to forums where the "Debate section" is basically you trying to reason with people that just put words in your mouth and refuse to even kinda see your point. Even if your ideas are well-founded, they don't even respond. Even if you are completely willing to see their point and even agree! They just keep saying their opinion over and over again.... (Not that I haven't done that myself. sweat: But I am willing to apologize if the person is understanding!)

I think the debate section is great the way it is really. I am really surprised on how much emphasis is put on actual debate in that section.

I just think that sometimes people could try to be less sensitive. Like when someone mentions one sculpt looks like another (in other words they usually accuse a company of "copying"). Sure, the main problem is the original "offender" tends to word things poorly. But to respond in an equally poor fashion... Especially when the person might not meant to insinuate the company STOLE another company's ideas... Well, it just makes everyone look silly in the end!

 

This existing Sticky has some pointers:
http://www.denofangels.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153024

 

I think the board feels stale because these old threads keep getting bumped to the top. Everytime you log in the same threads, with the same titles are at the top, and some of the threads are years old. I rarely go to General Discussion because of it.

 

Three strikes rule is a really great idea, I believe.

I do think debates need to be a lot less personal. There can be personal opinions and preferences, but one must be able to distinct between that and fact. It gets irritating to see people state opinions like they're facts.

I also don't think a lot of people know how to use personal stories/experiences in debates. It becomes a load of TMI sometimes or just too much personal story as opposed to facts. I've sadly succumbed before and told some personal stories too when I was a tad annoyed at someone in debate who was wielding their own story like it was a fact of life. Now, I wish I hadn't because it just doesn't build much of a case in a debate.