Debate Etiquette!

Yeah you did, and I mean some are here because they think owning dolls are a positive hobby, ya know? Like collecting stamps or something like that.

And your right about the offsite harassment but they can ban them from the DoA? (And what good would that do in the long run right?) But if people are being harassed in LJ they can make their journal friends only and now you can block e-mails...

But I don't know, there are a few members here who I think would just rag on someone if the mods didn't say that they couldn't. Let's be honest, other forums were created for a reason, so those members could just rip other's apart. (which I now look back and wonder why I did that as well...) Even though the internet isn't for the sensitive some basic rules should be followed. We are all humans, right? Plus we're supposed to be supportive of one another, not vicious pre-madonna's who's trying to get the most popular doll.

 

I like what people have said so far, be polite, use the best grammer and spelling that you can, dont get personal, etc.
But one thing I would like to see is an end to debates. Often time they get very heated between a few individuals, the arguements go around and around, and then a moderator locks them. I wish we had a final comments time, people could say if their minds had been changed. If the debate was worthwhile. Sometimes it doesnt feel like a debate but more like 50 people in a room shouting out their opinion, and you wonder if anyone is listening to anyone else.
Also in debates like the 60/40 situation, it would be nice to know if rules had been changed due to it- and I have to say I dont know if the rules where changed because I gave up because it got to long.

 

I like what fitz said personally. While I can dream that we will all be polite we can't fully be, but making it a rule in general I think will make some actually think, "okay I have to be somewhat nice..." The attempt will be nice, even if it does falter here and there.

Seeing an end to a debate would be good to see as well. I know I could go on and on if I knew I had to end it sometime so maybe it would be good for the mods to finally say wrap it up. That way we have a closure and some new information to digest. Though I would like to see some of the older debates reopened after a year or so to see what everyone is thinking then.

I honestly can't wait to see how this flows...

 

That's truth being told...that's brutal with class.
I think that's actually, really, an awsome idea.

 

Cruel comments or harrassment on PMs should be handled by the mods. Anything outside DoA should remain outside of DoA. As Kokoryta said, even with the same usernames, you can't always be certain its the same person on DoA. Plus, it sounds almost like you want behaviour outside of DoA to still follow the rules of DoA. I dislike harrassment as much as the next person but that's a lot to ask for an online forum.

Another thing is where do you draw the line of 'someone's being cruel'? I know people who would cry at the drop of a hat. I also know people who could be insulted from hell to heaven and not feel anything. It's impossible to start a collective list of people that might be 'mean' because their attitudes don't match what someone deems as acceptable. Who would provide the guideline of what's good, friendly behaviour and what's not? A mistaken comment could very well land anyone in the To Avoid list.

I just don't think the basic rules on the internet is that you must be nice to everyone on this forum and when you're outside this forum as well. I respect the rules of this forum, but to start monitoring how someone behaves outside of it and to make a list of people who should be avoided because they seem offensive to some, that sounds like a road paved to somewhere very ugly to me.

 

Also, it would allow members who weren't around to be able to post if they have new ideas, etc. It would also be interesting to see development of the people. I know in past debates that I was involved in on other forums, I re-read a month later and complete disagreed with myself.

 

Heh... The ugly road is already there, it's a matter of finding it. But I know I'm to optimistic in my thinking that people will actually get along, because I tend to try to see the good in things. Though, I can also realize that it is the mods job to take care of messes and such. To bad the ideal world will never exist. (Even though it is a nice thought.)

Yes I did agree with the entire s/n thing, we can never be sure but it would be nice.. Still, now that I think about it, the ignore button does exist on this new version of the forums. So perhaps we should just tell people to use that instead? (To be honestly I completely forgot about it until this post and now that I think about it harassment shouldn't be reoccurring since you can simply ignore them now or report it.) So never mind my list idea as that lovely little tool came to my mind along with all the other things you could do to ignore that person. (It really does sound stupid now I look back and reread it...)

Where to draw the line though... I think that should be the next thing discussed to be honest. Where is cruel and brutal and what isn't? Let's be honest to a little kid calling someone a "poo head" is ungodly yet as we grow quiet a few curse words can sprout from our mouths as we merely ignore it. So perhaps we should start at name calling? I mean bluntly calling someone stupid is mean, but not really cruel. But then again telling someone their beliefs are pure crud and that they should go and die for even thinking them to me a bit cruel. Especially when the person pulls quotes and twists the words around to make them look even worse. Now honestly I think that's taking it a bit far. (Like they could simply say that they disagree then dismember the idea politely.)

 

debate style?

Well in person, face to face...pretty wimpy....I am not fast on my feet.

But on line where I have time to get my facts straight and can reread my post a billion times before I send it...matter of fact and straight forward. I adore research.

I am really very good at walking away from something that is getting me steamed and getting a fresh perspective...I have a really great debater here in the house and I usually run things by him before posting them.

I think it's always a good idea to write...wait...reread...edit...wait...reread...maybe edit some more...THEN post....oh and SPELL CHECK!

 

Name calling, as most people will agree, is not appropriate in a debate. As that is attacking the person and not their ideas. Saying someone should go die is also attacking the person and not their ideas.

Taking quotes and debating what that person said is pretty much exactly what a debate is. If someone can't handing having their ideas challenged, they should not be here.

I have pretty much completely disagreed with everything you have said, but I don't think I've twisted your words, or insulted you in any way. Of course I've edited my posts quite a bit before posting to make them appropriate this enviroment.

PamSD, I'm pretty much the same way. I'm an opinioned little monster online, but pretty quiet in the real world.

michaelmichael, that isn't brutal, it's honest. I think you might have a vastly different idea of what brutal is in debating then I do.

 

Changing the meaning of someone's words is twisting their words around and putting words in someone's mouth. That isn't debate, that's trying to get your way through deceit. Someone may say something with one meaning, but it would mean something totally different to another person. If that person sees it as only their meaning then they take the libertiy of altering it a little bit to make it appear as what they meant then that to me is lying about what the person said.

Though taking examples from other sources of what they've said out side of the debate, well that's just silly. I mean some people pick a side just to pick it and argue on that point, so therefore outside sources are rather pointless to add in. Using direct quotes within the debate is okay, but anything out side of it (especially in pms) shouldn't be allowed. That's something between you and that person. (Yes this contradicts some of what I have said earlier but in later posts I have corrected myself to show my change of view.)

Also, if you have an issue with my idea of having an actual clean debate I'm sorry. (But if you really got that worked up over one paragraph then I wish you luck the rest of this sub-forum.) I'm used to following rules that only let us "kill with kindness" it's the best way to actually flex your muscles and see what you can and cannot do. I've noticed that when people are allowed to debate and show their temper they tend to get into silly little arguments in the end, but if forced to hold their tempers in check, well, you get quiet a nice topic that's actually constructive. Not just opinions going back and fourth over and over. I will admit some of what you have said has made since and made me rethink something, the entire point of debate is to do that!

Also debate isn't attacking a person it's attacking the idea that person stands up for. It's almost a catch the flag with words. Each "team" is protecting their "flag" while the other is "attacking" them and trying to "steal and destroy" it. So our main goal isn't to make people look foolish but their ideas to be over turned and pointed out to be pure rubbish.

Here's the definition in the dictionary:
debate noun
a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.
• an argument about a particular subject, esp. one in which many people are involved : the national debate on abortion | there has been much debate about prices. verb [ trans. ] argue about (a subject), esp. in a formal manner : the board debated his proposal | the date when people first entered America is hotly debated.
• [with clause ] consider a possible course of action in one's mind before reaching a decision : he debated whether he should leave the matter alone or speak to her.

See? It's an origionized, civil, sit down talk. Sure we will not agree on everything, that's a fact of life. Though I don't think it's right to twist someone's words around to make them have a completely different meaning from what they meant (especially if you knew what they meant) and shoving that into their mouth.

Unlike you guys though I debate in the real world through Model UN Practices so I have been given the chance to of been told what is and is not acceptable. My teacher would warn us if we got to hostile with one another and by hostile I mean we could simply say, "Well we the nation of South Korea would enjoy if China stopped shoving words into our mouths." Say that with just a bit of hostilely and you have problems. I believe that most of here are big boys and girls (or else they wouldn't be here.) so we can take having to be nice. Even though I just so hard when everyone thinks that their opinion is right.

So I'm going to pull out now since this is going in circles and say that I agree to disagree on how you think this debate should be handled.

 

I do have one question in regards to this. Thus far, the topics have been discussion/interview questions, with forum users then weighing in with their opinions ("I think such and such is fine, because I like blah blah blah") but very little happening in the sense of a "debate" - there are no point/counter point issues being presented, so everyone is then stuck trying to refute someone else's personal opinion, which is impossible. You cannot say that someone doesn't feel a certain way, when they have very clearly just stated that they DO feel that way.

There's no evidence brought in to support an opinion, etc, nothing to even being to resemble a debate. This is, so far, simply another discussion forum, albeit one where people are not restricted to the discussion of a specific doll.

In the future, will actual debate topics be presented? IE: A clearly defined topic with two diverging viewpoints, where upon evidence is presented to support either side, depending on which side you've taken.

"Online communities are important to the enjoyment of a user's relationship with their hobby" - this would then be broken down into two arguments:

"Online comunities are necessary" and "Online comunities are not necessary."

So far, no actual debate topics have been presented, and discussion is largely unmoderated in any attempt to keep it ON what questions are presented - will this be changing any time in the future?

 

What is your debate style?

Usually I make my point, doing my best to word things carefully to avoid me coming off as mean or cruel or rude. I post my view point and wait to see other responses and if I think I was taken wrong or a new view needs to be stated to help open eyes a little more I will make it as careful as I can.

What do you think is acceptable in a "clean" debate? What behaviors do you think are unacceptable?

A "clean" debate to me is where everyone can make an argument without needing to worry about getting flamed or attacked for a point they made. It's public forum there fore there are different views and opinions and that is something often forgotten in some debates. Behaviors that are unacceptable is one line responses of "that's stupid" or "you don't know what you're talking about" or any other response without a further explaination. If one if going to argue they should be able to back up their point with a few thoughts so others can see where that said person is coming from.

 

Very well said. I've noticed this.

People appear to be overly cautious. Personal opinions are fine but too many people are offering only personal opinions. There is no debate, not even a discussion. It's like a tag board where everyone puts in their $0.02 worth and then walks away. Few people actually reply to a point which has been raised, or raise a point that invites discussion.

How are the threads in this Debate forum significantly different from the ones already in the General Discussion forum? Given the climate on DoA, I don't see the point of having a Debate forum. Actually, even if this was not a doll forum but an anime forum or a manga forum or even a photography forum, I don't see how a debate section is necessary. A well-maintained General Discussion forum should suffice. (I'm off-topic now, I'm pretty sure. XD)

 

And as la contessa said, re-read what you've written: you may think that something sounds fine, when actually it sounds really pissed off (because you were when you wrote it). I think that a lot of misunderstandings on the board (and heck, any board) have happened because of this. One person screwed up a little in their post, then someone else got a little snarky about it, and then it gets blown up >>way<< out of proportion.

It's not the foreigners I worry about its the people who 'should' know better! It's easy to typo without realising it, but it's also easy enough to string together a sentence that is mostly correct if you learned English as a kid. When I see posts that look as if the author doesn't care enough about what they want to say to type it out correctly... I don't care either.

That said: I hate feeling like that

(edit: 'realising' is a legit spelling... I'm Australian!!!)

 

Atsuhiko and Shimmeringcat make good points. I was a little hesitant about the debate board, because honestly, I thought that it would degenerate into a flame war. There were some pretty toasty sections in the violence thread that seemed to be unnecessary, and that made me uncomfortable. I did notice that there were thoughtful and insightful posts, and people responding passionately but objectively to each others' ideas... I think that was the best and most interesting part for me.

 

As long as there's no cursing or death threats, everything else should be fair game. I think the kinds of debates Sniffles mentions below can be hilarious to read. If it offends, don't read or participate. But there's nothing more annoying than getting into a heated debate and being barred from speaking your mind because someone has overly-sensitive feelings. There should be room for intelligent debates and the kinds that are just dumb, like "my doll is better than yours, because yours is ugly and sucks".

 

I think passive-aggressive is one of the most witheringly irritating things anywhere, ever, and it's a major reason I rarely to never post on DoA.

I see a line there, in that it isn't always that easy. An extreme example of this would be the fact that I have difficulty respecting someone with bigoted views, nor can I easily respect someone whose views I consider to be ignorant. Ultimately, I would say it isn't a matter of whether or not you respect them: you better damn well act like you do, because that's society, or at the very least the basis of organized debate.

I would argue that, as dolls are an art form, Den of Angels is then an art forum. Politics, religion, and other such things are a major influence on art, and excluding them does not immediately seem to me to be the wisest way to function.

However: this view is idealistic and ultimately becomes extraneous. On DOA, any controversial topics bring about a vicious and massive argument. What particularly comes to mind for me in this instance is the schwastika "debate" that took place a while back, or the still-ongoing issue of little dolls with bigger dolls. These are essentially political issues, and the forum on the whole has repeatedly proven itself incapable of bearing this burden. I see no need to allow for discussion of this, as the bad drastically outweighs the good.

It wouldn't be fair, because not only is it responding to a personal attack with a personal attack (and thusly essentially bringing yourself down to their level), when more than one person does this, any debate present rapidly degenerates into argument. The DOA mods are the best moderating organization I've seen, and they're more than competent enough to handle these situations without anyone essentially sinking to the level of someone who would do such a thing.

I find this question strange, because I do not consider that a debate 'style' should necessarily exist. A debate takes place in a standardized, orthodox manner that doesn't allow for style, and this is to protect the fact that it is a debate.

 

Debating style -state my opinion and the reason I believe it to be so.I would hope that people will not get defensive and upset if it differs from their opposing argument. That people will be polite to each other. I am always interested in what others have to say. To learn why they feel the way they do.I will always listen with an open mind. I may not always agree with them.But I do respect their right to their own opinion.

 

My debating style is to make my point and then walk away.

Firstly I have a problem when I see poor spelling or poor grammar. It (perhaps wrongly) gives me the impression that I am dealing with people who are poorly educated, and therefore probably incapable of proper debate. For me, life's too short for that.

Secondly, I can't be doing with netspeak or txt-speak. If someone can't be bothered to type proper sentences, then they are dissing me. I don't deal with people who can't be bothered.

Finally, a BIG problem is language. I'm from the UK, and language that is perfectly acceptable to us is considered harsh and even rude by other nationalities. Also, a characteristic of British conversation is irony - we often use sarcasm as a debating tactic, to counterpoint a foolish statement for example, but this seems to completely pass over many non-UK posters. So, in the end, I don't bother. I've seen too many flame-wars and personal vent-fests start off over (what to me seems to be) an innocuous statement.

Now, I say one thing and then shut up. If I can even be bothered to say one thing.

 

My debate style is blunt and honest, but I do get to my point. I also think a clean debate style consists of being clear and legible while stating your ideas and points. Also, I don't like when people refer to others with name calling and other childish acts that has nothing to do with what they're debating about.