Yeah but it won't fly, what may work for one forum board may not work for another. So yeah it's pretty much dead, get over it.

it ain't over till the topic's closed. and i'm not saying it'll work perfectly, i'm just saying that we could incorporate some new ideas into this place.

the problem is that people here are so goddamn immature sometimes, and they're like little children who are so resistant to change. (not specifically saying YOU, but yeah...)

Yeah, I was just agreeing with what was said earlier to my proposition.

Instead of restricting it to OMs, how about just people with over 500 posts?

that's not a bad idea. i think it's a good compromise between my idea & what others want.

also, i think the debate forum needs to be more closely monitored than the other forums. we could copy+paste debate guidelines at the start of each thread to remind people who are participating in the forum what exactly they are expected to do while they are there.

that's a stupid idea considering that you said most of the stupid shit that goes on in debate occurs from our active members (us), and we clearly have 500 posts. so it won't change much if you ask me.

^x2 Not only is there a pinned topic in the Debate forum, clearly stating all the rules, but there is also information at the top of the forum itself which shows up above each topic. I don't think we need people to be copying and pasting the rules into the thread. If people are going to read the thread, then I don't see why they can't read the little attachment above it.

The problem with modding the Debate forum comes with the fact that there's a line between stating your opinion and bashing other people personally. To someone, making negative statements towards a religion is merely their opinion, but to another member with that religion it's a personal insult. If mods go around warning people for doing things like that, no only with mods get a bad rep, but people won't want to post in the Debate forum.

I think making it exclusive to people with certian posts is a good idea. I never really saw anything wrong with making it for OM members, seeing as the majority of Debate forum posters are already OMs. I would've just had a little agree thing that popped up when you clicked on the Debate forum, and in order to view/post you'd have to select that you accepted the rules. LOL.

That's exactly what I was thinkin

yeah i'm with tung and tama on this. i don't think having over 500 will matter. i don't think it should be only for official members either.

^ So... do you think it should just be the way it is now?

hmmmmmm, i don't know. i don't think it should be limited where new members can't post. debate is what got me involved/wanting to return the forums.

i think it should be more moderated maybe. it should be moderated by someone who is in debate though, not some people staffer who never goes there. you can't accurately mod a forum that you aren't involved in, imo.

^ exactly!

I mean, people staff seems to hardly ever go into debate.

^yeah and that's a problem. debate really isn't something that i think you can just go in and read the last few posts and mod. i think you have to pretty much have read the whole thread to have a feel for what's going on.

i know someone brought up having a debate mod like the vip lounge has a mod. i agree with dani? or tung, or whoever said technically we shouldn't need that, and people staff should be able to the job. but yeah, that's still a should.

Nothing was really said about my outline (sniff). I think it's, generally, a good plan, and, honestly, what I would want to see. Most important here, I think, is a dedicated member group for debaters (maybe OM have honorary posting rights, whatever), and a new (more detailed) list of guidelines and suggestions of argumentation.

I would support permission into this group my mere application (no screening process). I would promote and help conceive a new guideline on argumentation (with both rules and a summary of proper debate procedure).

^ No offense, but I think your proposal is a bit ridiculous. While I do agree that the debate forum seems to be slowly deteriorating due to spamming and it seems as if every topic that isn't revolved around religion or sex (which ultimately leads to religion) dies, to propose that posting rights in the debate forum is only a right after application is taking it too far.

Let me ask you, and answer truthfully, if Tama submitted an application, would you let him in on your little select group?

It also wouldn't work because new members in this site who might be interested in debating some of the topics in the forum are NOT going to want to fill out an application. This is cB, not your own personal debate club/team.

I do think the forum should be better/more moderated but if you're proposing your own elite group of debaters, you should try setting up your OWN thing that's separate from cB. It's really not fair to the other members that you deem not worthy through your "application."

You completely missed the point (or didn't really read what I posted).

I support a non-discriminant application process (ask and you shall receive). I am not suggesting that there be any sort of actual "application process" or interview (I abandoned such ideas like a year ago). I think that members who request should be permitted posting privileges in the debate forums and that they should maintain these privileges until their behavior demonstrates (in accordance with a newly formed guideline) that they are not appropriate contributors to the debate forums (spam, abuse, blatant disregard for principles of argumentation, etc.). All members (even Tamacracker) will be given a fair chance to be a part of the debate forums, and, since moderation will be more focused and more easily executed, the forums will benefit.

Ah. Okay. Funny things happen to my reading abilities when I'm still awake at 3:30am.

I still think that the forum should be open for the general public to post in (without having to ask permission first) because a lot of times, people do have something to say, but if they see that they have to request permission, then wait for a mod to give them posting rights, etc. before they can state their opinion, they'll say "forget it" and leave. I personally feel like you'll be losing a lot of potential participants that way.

Many times, people just want to jump in a topic, state their opinion, then leave instead of fully investing themselves in an online debate that really wont go anywhere good. I know that's not how a debate should be, but this is a forum, and you can't really expect more. This is why I suggested (a few pages back) a VIP section in debate (similar to the VIP lounge) where real debating can take place (according to your outline) and that the general debate forum be left open to the public, but with better modding.

But nobody liked the idea. =/

So this whole thread was a lot interesting logic and hypocrisy. Now, I won't point out who's being hyprocritical (if the shoe fits) because it should be obvious.

I would be as annoyed as the next guy/gal at people who do not read the thread, post ideas that have been refuted, and then just run off. I would also be annoyed at people who demean others on a personal level to make a their point; what an illogical way to prove anything, let a alone debate. These are, of course, just a few things that make the debate forum so horrendously boring and annoying. But limiting who gets to debate, or restricting people from posting and even the suggestion of censorship by having mods preview posts? That's down right wrong. Don't we all advocate freedom of speech?

Yes, that will mean seeing a lot of idiots and mean people posting, but even then, those people deserve to have an opinion. It is your job as a person who wants to debate (you're in the topic aren't you?) to shoot down those opinions, or simply to prove them wrong. I've been proven wrong many times (Michael, Kyro, and Minda...etc) and learned a lot (Justin, Nate... etc). Being wrong or right and learning something you didn't know before is all part of a debate. So, why limit these things?

The idiots and the mean might learn to be less idiotic and be more civil.

So, leave the debate forum alone.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." -George Washington

"Every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth, and every other man has a right to knock him down for it. Martyrdom is the test." - Samuel Johnson

I don't hang around CB much anymore, so my thoughts on this matter might not count for a whole lot...but I'm going to give them anyway.

I've long been opposed for an exclusive debate forum, for reasons similar to Spirited Away's. However, now that I've been away from CB for a while and gained some perspective, and thought more about communication via the Internet in general, I do believe that all too often, intelligent discussion does get squashed under uninformed bantering.

I hang around Reddit a lot. For those who aren't familiar with Reddit, it's a social news site like Newsvine or Digg.com: users post links to interesting articles, and other users get either "vote up" or "vote down" a news article. Articles with a bunch of "down votes" (4 or more, I think), get hidden. The front page of Reddit shows articles with the most votes, or articles with the most rapidly increasing vote count (not 100% sure how the algorithm works); i.e., popular, rather than new, articles make it to the front page.

Users can also comment on Reddit articles, and like articles, other users can vote comments up or down. So it's easy to see which comments are popular, and which aren't. Comments with 4 negative votes or more are hidden from view.

Users also gain karma points for posting popular articles or comments.

Compare to a forum like CB, where any new thread is automatically put at the top of the queue, and a user essentially gets 1 "vote" (by way of post count), regardless of whether a comment is "good" or not. So popularity is determined a) by how recently an article was posted, and b) how many posts a user has made.

Now, Reddit has some problems. "Popularity" doesn't necessarily mean "interesting" or "intelligent"; often on the front page, "popularity" is more akin to "sensationalist", and popular comments are more often than not anything that agrees with the status quo.

But here's where the tie-in to an "exclusive debate forum" comes in. Reddit contains "subreddits", which are basically topical Reddits. For example, there's a "Reddit: Programming" where people post articles about programming languages, and a "Reddit: Philosophy" where people post articles about philosophy. The great thing is that any user can start a subreddit. If I want to make a subreddit about Gumby where I just post articles about Gumby, I can navigate to that subreddit via a URL; if it doesn't already exist, I get asked to create it.

Obviously, if no one else wants to read Gumby articles, my subreddit won't become popular, and will probably die off.

The cool thing about subreddits is that they have three modes: public, where anyone can view and post articles and comments; restricted, where anyone can read articles and but only authorized users can post; and private, where only authorized users can view and post articles. The creator of the subreddit gets to set the mode.

So how does this tie into the Debate forum issue? Well, Reddit is highly flexible in its organization of content, and the way it ranks articles. Compare to CreateBlog, which has a highly static organization; I haven't been around CB much lately, but unless things have changed, it pretty much takes an act of Congress (or Jusun) to add a new subforum. And then the topics are still organized chronologically, and user "popularity" is still determined mostly by page count and joined date.

What if we had a forum in which anyone could add a subforum (like Reddit), and the "first page" topics were based on popularity, not time? Users could vote up/down threads and posts. Users would get karma based not on number of posts, but how popular their posts were with the general community. And any user could start a subforum that was either entirely open or entirely exclusive, or somewhere in between?

Okay, clearly there are some problems. Popularity is a nebulous thing, and is defined by the community. But believe it or not, on Reddit, it works pretty well. Yeah, the "General News" section is based mostly on sensationalist articles, but if you go to Reddit: Programming or Reddit: Philosophy, popularity is more akin to how intelligent the discussion is. So apply this to CB: popularity in The Lounge would probably be different from popularity in Debate.

Obviously this isn't really feasible with CB, though. Maybe I should start writing my own forum software...

=D let CB beta it.

Sorry I just read the last quote and it disturbs me as I have no effin clue how that makes sense...
I must say Samuel Johnson is a moron if he quotes, "Martyrdom is the test" It just makes no sense. Dying for what you believe in is the test... test of what?

I will use your way of responding in most debate topics to answer you: read the full context and find out =D

(Read) Moar XD.

Doesn't make sense. You're gonna be dead, there is no test.

Well if you're wondering about martyrdom specifically, Johnson had said that if a man is in doubt of being a martyr he shouldn't do it because one should be sure of such things ("delegation from heaven" and all). Thus, the test.

And, if you're wondering how it ties into his quote, like I said, (read) moar.

fae, i wish people could just leave those comments alone that could stir up drama or are completely irrelevant, but that is just not going to happpen here. and when you have alot of people doing this there is a problem that needs to be fixed somehow.

so..i dont think we need to just leave the debate forum alone it needs some kind of change, just to see how it works!