Making the Debate Forum Exclusive, What do you think? Options

[NoSex]

As I have spent a significant amount of time participating within these debate forums, I have come to a conviction that these boards would benifit greatly if this page were to become exclusive. Exclusive in the sense that direct permission would have to be given to allow one to participate, as in post, in these forums. Once permission has been granted that individual would have the right to normal posting within this forum.

I suggest this because I believe the quality of these debate forums is suffering and that such an action would greatly increase said quality. Memebers far too oftenly post arguments to never return to the debate threads. Many members do not respect the rules of debate, or make a mockery of such. Some members do not seem capable to be included in a reasonable and intellectual debate. A majority of the arguments posted are repeated arguments which have been served pages worth of rebuttles, yet continue to be posted. This all disrupts the point, and the enjoyement driven from these threads. Because of these reasons, and more, I wish that we could create a more close-knit, intellectual, and interested party for the debate section of Createblog.

(I wanted to have the debate in here, as it was a debate, and I don't think I have any kind of serious influence on policy making here. I just want to see what everyone else thinks. After some deliberation here, maybe some of us could bring this idea, or another, to the attention of those who do make policy here.)

Discuss?

[Ajmalhuuss]

I can see your point and I agree with you completely. I have not made too many posts in the debate forum only because I get tired of having to read through a 100 pages of nonsense in order to find one good post to refer to. Some members get tied up with their own worthless arguments and forget the importance of the topic, leading the whole thread down the drain.

What I do not understand is what credentials would you use to decide which members would be given access and which denied?

[NoSex]

What I do not understand is what credentials would you use to decide which members would be given access and which denied?

That, of course, would be the largest obstacle.
Designated moderators would be involved in allowing permission into the debate threads.
They could have personal interviews with applicants over PM's, IM, or E-mail. All of this contact information would be stickied and provided for interested parties. The moderator would be looking for the applicant's intentions, maturity, and capabilities. It may be asked of the applicant to provide a brief written work of expository writing or a list of positions on major issues with short justifications for each (in fact, a list of important issues could be suggested). The moderator would use his or her own discretion in accepting an applicant. This, of course, is one way that it could be done, among numerous others that exist.

I have seen this work very well on other community boards and was very impressed by the increased quality of their debate threads. I don't think for a second that this would be too difficult to impliment.

[AngryBaby]

im sorry but i dont think you should have to have an interview to see whether or not your capable to express your opinion. even if the opinion is basically a repeat of another. its still someone's view. now i can see if you were trying to make .....some kind of debate "team" or something of the sort, but for just a createblog centered thing. is it really unecessary? the idea of mods just simply rejecting somebody of the community becuase they dont think they're "capable of being mature" kinda urks me.

i think this idea will just create alot of distance in the community

[marzipan]

^ i kind of agree with evan.

a debate team would be nice. i would want to take part in that, but interviewing people seems a little unneccesary. it wouldn't be very difficult, but it could be handled easier. but i do agree with you; we should make the debate forum exclusive so that the discussions could have more depth.

[*Zatanna*]

im sorry but i dont think you should have to have an interview to see whether or not your capable to express your opinion. even if the opinion is basically a repeat of another. its still someone's view. now i can see if you were trying to make .....some kind of debate "team" or something of the sort, but for just a createblog centered thing. is it really unecessary? the idea of mods just simply rejecting somebody of the community becuase they dont think they're "capable of being proficient" kinda urks me. who are they to judge them?

i think this idea will just create alot of distance in the community

There is a big difference between simply expressing your opinion and debating about a topic.

And proficiency isn't being questioned, it's respect for the art of debate.

cB is actually the first forum I've participated in where there wasn't exclusivity in certain forums. I do not think that there should be a rigid application process. I do think that if Debate was a rights/permissions enabled group, that those who disrespect the debating process could be weeded out.

[NoSex]

im sorry but i dont think you should have to have an interview to see whether or not your capable to express your opinion. even if the opinion is basically a repeat of another.

The debate thread isn't about expressing your opinion. It's about justifying that opinion, supporting it, and intelligently challenging the opinions of other people. The problem is that alot of people who post in the debate thread feel that it is, somehow, exclusively about the simple expression of opinion, which it most certainly is not. These people disrupt the actual purpose of the debate, and as they have no intent to actually debate they have no use in the debate thread.

The lounge and other such forums are available for simple expression of an opinion.

the idea of mods just simply rejecting somebody of the community becuase they dont think they're "capable of being mature" kinda urks me.

i think this idea will just create alot of distance in the community

1. It would be a rejection from posting in the debate thread. Not the entire community.
2. It would not be a simple choice. I doubt many members would be rejected.
3. Those who would have the will to apply, I'm sure, would be worthy to post in the threads.
4. This would help weed out alot of problems we have with the debate threads, including but not limited to: "Drive-by posting" in the debate threads. Non-repeat visitors. Incompetent-Ill-Intentioned posters. Fewer spam.

In fact, I think this has the potentional to bring alot of people together. And, as I have said before, I have seen it work very well in other community boards.

cB is actually the first forum I've participated in where there wasn't exclusivity in certain forums. I do not think that there should be a rigid application process. I do think that if Debate was a rights/permissions enabled group, that those who disrespect the debating process could be weeded out.

I don't think I would really want a rigid application process myself, I was thinking a more laid back form. Although, what I described may have seemed a bit rigid. Either way, I would love to see Debate become "rights/permissions enabled." However we should weed out those members who disrupt the debating process is very much (should I say it?) up for debate.

[marzipan]

if you've seen this work before, and if most people and staff members agree with it, why not give it a try? i'm up to it.

[AngryBaby]

i didnt mean "REMOVED" from the community, i know, the debate thread. what i was hinting at was, that every member here is a part of a community. rejecting and accepting will give kids the impression, "what the hell? how is he/she any better than me?"


and every debate, when it begins, starts with an expression of opinion, THEN someone either agrees with it or debates it. in my personal opinion, the person who made "white history month" was pretty naive and ignorant to not understand why african americans were givin a month. but, turns out this topic brought up alot of views and debates and even fights. despite the original topic makers naiveity.

debating DOES root from people opinions. i mean what do you think when someone says "i disagree with homosexuality because of___" is? its still basically an opinion

and sure this would bring people together, the people who take the time to join that is. and if those folks become close nit, thats just a clique isnt it? and "cb's getting too cliquey"

and if not many members would be rejected then whats the point?

[NoSex]

rejecting and accepting will give kids the impression, "what the hell? how is he/she any better than me?"

I really don't think that it will be as large as an issue as you suspect. I would imagine that most of the people who honestly want to be able to post in the debate thread will be allowed to, most of the other members may not even bother applying.

and every debate, when it begins, starts with an expression of opinion, THEN someone either agrees with it or debates it.

The problem is that a large majority of the debate threads have become members simply expressing their opinions. Not intelligently, not constructively, and not in an objective manner. People are not adhering to the basic ideas of debate in that not many people are actually justifying their beliefs and or creating rebuttles to beliefs that they disagree with. Otherwise, we'll end up resorting to a long stream of ad nasueam arguments, and this greatly hinders the quality of the Debate Subforum.

and sure this would bring people together, the people who take the time to join that is. and if those folks become close nit, thats just a clique isnt it? and "cb's getting too cliquey"

Whether this is a legitimate problem or not is hard to tell. If the debate group, if one existed, began to harass non-debate group members, then maybe we can talk about it. In which case, I'm sure we could deal with it. Before then, it's just a slippery slope.

and if not many members would be rejected then whats the point?

I thought I explained that?
Anyways, those who take the time to register are probably good intentioned.
Those who are ill-intentioned or do not care to respect the ideals of debate would probably not care to bother, thus weeding that problem out. If they did apply, and were allowed in, only to start trouble, they could easily be denied further access yet still have the ability to continue posting elsewhere on Createblog.
Also, this would greatly reduce the level of "drive-by posting" here, as well as eliminate those posters who never have an intent to return and follow up on their arguments or answer other debators' questions.

[sadolakced acid]

i don't like it.

even if it were to work- which i don't think it will- i don't like it.

that's not the problem with the debate forum.

we've always handled the idiots well. there's just not enough people sticking around to handle the idiots.

[NoSex]

i don't like it.

even if it were to work- which i don't think it will- i don't like it.

that's not the problem with the debate forum.

we've always handled the idiots well. there's just not enough people sticking around to handle the idiots.

1. Why don't you like it?
2. Why don't you think it will work?
3. What is the problem with the debate forum?
4. Why do you figure that people don't stick around long enough?

[AngryBaby]

now dont get me wrong though. i know what your trying to do. and nothing's wrong with that.

but im just thinking whether it will actually help the debate forum, or hinder it. im never really on the debate forum that often, but i never thought it was that bad spam wise. i always thought people kinda respected it and stayed away from it. (at least in comparison to lets say "the lounge")


but what im basically thinking is, if you subtract all the people who posts twin opinions and "drive by posters". who's left? just a good few im thinking, the debate topic isnt really the most bustling of thread as it is, so im just imagining what it will be like with this update. i just....dont see it as being very successful paricipant wise. making it kinda a ghost town =/

because people like me, knowing i have to go through an "interview" just to reply to debate, would turn me off to it. and i think im not unique on this.


hmm, lets see. give me an example of what you want your "ideal debate forum" to be.
you gave us ways in which you think we can get to it, but maybe if you explain to me what your ideas or plans are for the forum. i can sympathize with you better? then we can see a way of getting to it as a whole. hell, give me a scenerio if you want lol. but maybe this will help me understand what it is you exactly want alittle better.

[sadolakced acid]

1. Why don't you like it?
2. Why don't you think it will work?
3. What is the problem with the debate forum?
4. Why do you figure that people don't stick around long enough?

1. i don't like it because i joined simply for the debate forum, and under your proposed rules would not have been aloud to post. we've had good newbies post and such- i'd rather put up with the idiots than keep out everyone.

2. i don't work because it would kill the debate forum. The debates that can be won are. The ones that can't become stale mates. The only reprieve is when a newbie comes in- idiot or not, and posts. If they're an idiot, the more likely case, then they provide adequete sport. driving away a spammer or newbie is often the only action in debate.

3. the problem is that there just aren't enough people interested.

4. name me 10 people active in debate, as in, they post in almost every thread regularly.

[marzipan]

4. name me 10 people active in debate, as in, they post in almost every thread regularly.

1. michael
2. you
3. Acid Bath Slayer
4. Uronacid
5. Spiritual Winged Aura
6. I Shot JFK
7. Paradox of Life

and i've seen more. but these are people i've seen post frequently. and maybe it's not how much you post, but the quality of your posting, and whether you contribute something thought-provoking to the thread.

[sadolakced acid]

quality posts are good. but when it comes to dealing with spammers and idiots- quantity is needed as well.

which is what we're lacking.

[AngryBaby]

1. michael
2. you
3. Acid Bath Slayer
4. Uronacid
5. Spiritual Winged Aura
6. I Shot JFK
7. Paradox of Life

that's 7...

but seriously thats it? you all just....debateing against eachother, again and again? sounds boring....

[sadolakced acid]

which is why we need the spammers and idiots.

we can't just keep debating each other. eventually we'll either agree or stalemate.

[marzipan]

that's 7...

i know..i just picked 7 people who contributed the most. i said that there were others too.

which is why we need the spammers and idiots.

we can't just keep debating each other. eventually we'll either agree or stalemate.

yes, spammers and idiots add to the forum, but they're not needed in the debate forum. that's what the sandbox is for.

[demolished]

1. michael
2. you
3. Acid Bath Slayer
4. Uronacid
5. Spiritual Winged Aura
6. I Shot JFK
7. Paradox of Life

and i've seen more. but these are people i've seen post frequently. and maybe it's not how much you post, but the quality of your posting, and whether you contribute something thought-provoking to the thread.

i feel special ;]



hahaaha. i'm an idiot.

[Paradox of Life]

4. name me 10 people active in debate, as in, they post in almost every thread regularly.

"Post in almost every thread regularly"? People post only in topics (hopefully) they have opinions about. Not everone is good at politics, religion, law, and social issues, so we obviously can't post in a lot of topics.

1. michael
2. you
3. Acid Bath Slayer
4. Uronacid
5. Spiritual Winged Aura
6. I Shot JFK
7. Paradox of Life

and i've seen more. but these are people i've seen post frequently. and maybe it's not how much you post, but the quality of your posting, and whether you contribute something thought-provoking to the thread.

Ooh, I'm honored.

Anyway ... I really don't think it's necessary to exclude people deemed "unworthy" from the debate forum. We should probably just implement a few rules like:

1. If you post an argument in a topic, go back and see the responses you've received.
2. Speak clearly, in complete sentences and try your best to spell correctly.
3. Do not repeat points that have already been made. Respond to other peoples' posts or describe new points to add to the discussion.
4. Skim through the posts before you post your own to get an idea of what's already happened and what would be appropriate for you to say.

And then give verbal warnings to those who don't follow the rules. And if they are exceedingly disruptive, we can exclude them personally from the debate forum. So instead of banning everyone except a few, we can accept everyone except a few.

[Paradox of Life]

I think Kyrogenix is pretty active too. And there are more people and potential awesome debators joining every day.

[*kryogenix*]

I don't count for much anymore since my activity here has dropped, but I don't think we should make it exclusive. Not letting new people in because they're not on an exclusive list means that people who might have a new point to make will not be able to post.

Maybe, a new usergroup can be created. People who routinely abuse the debate rules will be placed in this usergroup, and they will not be able to post in debate. But I'd prefer if people are innocent until proven guilty.

[sadolakced acid]

I think Kyrogenix is pretty active too. And there are more people and potential awesome debators joining every day.

and if the debate forum were exclusive, what would happen to these potentially awesome debators joining every day?

[*mipadi*]

I probably couldn't disagree with this position more.

Why? The Debate Forum is already primarily made up of a core group of elitists who think that their knowledge—and opinion—of certain topics gives them a special ranking above that of other members. The Debate Forum is, quite frankly, hostile to anyone new who comes in here, people who express another opinion. Sure, some idiots make their way into here, but who cares? Just deal with it.

I find issues with who would be qualified to pick who should be granted permission to post in the Debate forum. I'm going to publicly post, here and now, that if such a policy is implemented, I will never, ever sit on such a committee. I probably won't even come to the Debate forum anymore.

Everyone has a right to express their thoughts. We might think some people's thoughts are ridiculous and baseless, but people still have a right to express their opinions. And that is a principle I will stand for no matter what. No one—no one—here is qualified to judge who is good enough to post their thoughts in this forum.

[sadolakced acid]

it's fun being an elitist.

or, shall i say, it makes life more interesting.

sure, we shouldn't make it exclusive. but do we have to stop being elitist?

[marzipan]

I probably couldn't disagree with this position more.

Why? The Debate Forum is already primarily made up of a core group of elitists who think that their knowledge—and opinion—of certain topics gives them a special ranking above that of other members. The Debate Forum is, quite frankly, hostile to anyone new who comes in here, people who express another opinion. Sure, some idiots make their way into here, but who cares? Just deal with it.

I find issues with who would be qualified to pick who should be granted permission to post in the Debate forum. I'm going to publicly post, here and now, that if such a policy is implemented, I will never, ever sit on such a committee. I probably won't even come to the Debate forum anymore.

Everyone has a right to express their thoughts. We might think some people's thoughts are ridiculous and baseless, but people still have a right to express their opinions. And that is a principle I will stand for no matter what. No one—no one—here is qualified to judge who is good enough to post their thoughts in this forum.

i agree with you that everyone has a right to express their opinions, but in certain topics in the debate forum, people aren't really debating. this somewhat relates to the "createspam" topic because there's an increasing amount of spam in the debate topic. but now that i've read your post, i think that we shouldn't make it exclusive, but do something so that there's not as much spam.

[sadolakced acid]

well, first off, we could start by actually having good topics.

which is something we're lacking.

and i don't see a solution.

[marzipan]

i think the debate topic has very disputable topics. it's more about the people posting and the actual posts.

[sadolakced acid]

most debates i see have been beaten into the ground.

abortion? gay marriage? we've done them.

when we're not against idiots, we stalemate.

[marzipan]

but they're still disputed all the time..on the news, in the papers. so people have different views and opinions on it.

[NoSex]

Why? The Debate Forum is already primarily made up of a core group of elitists who think that their knowledge—and opinion—of certain topics gives them a special ranking above that of other members.

Uhhhhmm. I think you're trying to cut me down.
Uncool. If I'm wrong, please correct me. Otherwise, try not to make such self-righteous assumptions. Because, I don't feel inside myself what you have described here.

The Debate Forum is, quite frankly, hostile to anyone new who comes in here, people who express another opinion. Sure, some idiots make their way into here, but who cares? Just deal with it.

I don't think that the debate forum, as a whole (or even close to a third) is generally hostile towards new debators. In all honesty, I welcome new debators. If anyone is "hostile" to anything, it is thoughtless, rule-breaking, and disruptive posts in the debate threads.

I find issues with who would be qualified to pick who should be granted permission to post in the Debate forum. I'm going to publicly post, here and now, that if such a policy is implemented, I will never, ever sit on such a committee. I probably won't even come to the Debate forum anymore.

Wow? You would never come back? Because we're trying to do something different to increase the quality of the Debate Forums? I think you may have gotten the wrong idea.

Either way, the process in which people would be granted permission would not be strict, and things like general intelligence would not be of interest. What we would want to look for would be the intent to debate and show respect for the nature of debate. Meaning, members who will devote some time to actually think out their posts and take time to revisit threads and continue discussion.

Everyone has a right to express their thoughts. We might think some people's thoughts are ridiculous and baseless, but people still have a right to express their opinions. And that is a principle I will stand for no matter what. No one—no one—here is qualified to judge who is good enough to post their thoughts in this forum.

This forum isn't for just posting a thought. How clear isn't that?!
This is a debate thread. There should be something more expected among posters in these forums than the simple act of an expression of belief. If anyone should know that, it should be you. Not to mention, this talk about "rights" is just way off base. I think people are really missing my point. I don't want a nazi regime of debators (that's the last thing I want), and I think if we were to do this ( and do it right) that there wouldn't be any serious problems. In fact, I would imagine a great increase in the quality of debate here. I know many more communities with exclusive debate forums, and they don't seem to have any of these problems you are alluding to. I'm sure that anyone who truly wants to debate would have that oppurtunity, I don't see the big deal.

But, I think it seems rather obvious that this idea isn't supported by (pretty much) anyone other than me.

Soooo, I can pretty much drop it. But, I still think that our debate threads are, and have been for some time, rather boring. Whatever improvements could be made, I would hope would be made.

[sadolakced acid]

i would not post in such a debate forum either.

it woudlnt be fun.

[NoSex]

i would not post in such a debate forum either.

it woudlnt be fun.

So, are you saying you don't actually like serious debate or interesting discussion?
You prefer making fun of people for repeating arguments and antagonizing those who don't even try to justify their beliefs?

[Spirited Away]

The debate forum worked well when mods frequent this forum and were actively involved in the debates. Remember those days? So, I think so long as we have at least two mods to "patrol" and strictly enforce the rules here, everything would be dandy.

To compromise, I think we could suggest a re-write of the rules--clearly define them--to ensure that anything less than "semi-intelligent" would be closed/discarded/warned/kicked out on its behind. Interviews would be a little over-the-top, and the exclusive barriers wouldn't be very "welcoming", IMHO.

it's fun being an elitist.
or, shall i say, it makes life more interesting.
sure, we shouldn't make it exclusive. but do we have to stop being elitist?

The answer is obviously "NO", damn you! Don't ask such nonsensical questions!

Er...

Oh yea Justin, remember Princess and her friend IIOOOII (or something)? It wasn't fun for ANY of us to have to deal with them, so monsieur Acid Bath Slayer is right on the dot with that one.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Oh dear, princess123321 or whatever? Ughhh.
And um that one aznnewyork kid or whatsit?

That really wasn't pleasant at all.

It's just, it's hard to moderate ... stupid people. You know? I can't warn someone for being stupid. So, I don't know how mods can cure the situation...

[sadolakced acid]

yet, really, there's nothing for us to really debate and have a result other than a stalemate.

[Ajmalhuuss]

I don't think anyone was hostile towards me when I first started posting in the debate forum.

I think this has been mentioned a million times already but I will make it a million and one. The debate forum is not just about posting your opinion on a topic, its about trying to explain your opinion to others with reason. Just saying, "I am against" something does not qualify as a good post in a debate thread. Infact a post like that, to me, looks worse then dog . Posts like those and other meaningless arguments between few members, over things that have nothing to do with the original topic, do nothing but make threads run into counless pages of nonsense, thus killing the DEBATE.

One last time, the title of the forum is not the POST YOUR OPINIONS IN HERE forum, its the DEBATE forum.

[xXYouMeBedNowXx]

I would have to agree with sadolakced acid.

Understand this, we are trying to get rid of those that are uselessly stating their opinions without explanation, and by weeding out those that have insignificant or "incompetent" arguments. However, it is in the very essence of Debate that their presence is required. I would agree to some extent that there is a high calibur of thinkers and debaters on CB, and that it would be interesting to see the debates that flourish from such a group. However, it is still unquestionably wrong to deem whose opinions are worthy of argument or accountability due reputation.

I would suggest, instead, having a subforum instead of completely wiping out Debate. It can accomodate both solutions.

Correct me if you suppose I am wrong.

[*RockizLife*]

Woo, just what we need. A "cB debate" team ruling out who should and should not be able to post. Kind of defeats the purpose of debate, huh?

Don't shut out peoples opinions because you're too lazy to read the forums. And it does get on my nerves when people post something and someone else says "That's already been stated." Well good for them, they agree with me! It's still my opinion.

[NoSex]

Woo, just what we need. A "cB debate" team ruling out who should and should not be able to post. Kind of defeats the purpose of debate, huh?

Don't shut out peoples opinions because you're too lazy to read the forums. And it does get on my nerves when people post something and someone else says "That's already been stated." Well good for them, they agree with me! It's still my opinion.

*cough* Straw Man *cough*

[marzipan]

Woo, just what we need. A "cB debate" team ruling out who should and should not be able to post. Kind of defeats the purpose of debate, huh?

Don't shut out peoples opinions because you're too lazy to read the forums. And it does get on my nerves when people post something and someone else says "That's already been stated." Well good for them, they agree with me! It's still my opinion.

he doesn't want to shut out people's opinions. he wants people to stop spamming and make posts that contribute and mean something for the thread. because that's a growing problem here.

[*RockizLife*]

he doesn't want to shut out people's opinions. he wants people to stop spamming and make posts that contribute and mean something for the thread. because that's a growing problem here.

Yeah, I agree it is. Kind of like what Acid Bath Slayer did right above your last post. So warn them, ban them? Actually do what you're suppost to be doing as a modderator in the first place?

[sadolakced acid]

you sound intelligent enough.

but i think this idea won't happen.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Yeah, I agree it is. Kind of like what Acid Bath Slayer did right above your last post. So warn them, ban them? Actually do what you're suppost to be doing as a modderator in the first place?

Again, I cannot warn someone for being stupid.

[NoSex]

If the debate forum were to be made exclusive, would members who were not in the "group" still be able to read the threads?

Of course. That would be encouraged. No harm in it.

Again, I cannot warn someone for being stupid.

Are you saying I was being stupid?!

[*disco infiltrator*]

No...that it's hard to moderate the Debate forum because people don't blatantly break rules set in the Community Guidelines, they're just...really stupid, and their actions make it very unpleasant for the rest of us.

[*I Shot JFK*]

^ then perhaps an special set of rules which apply solely to the debate forum would be a good idea?

i generally oppose this plan, for reasons already expressed.

and alsom how on earth did i make marzipan's list of frequent posters in this forum? how odd.

[marzipan]

^ because i've seen you post....so i just added you.

[*disco infiltrator*]

^ then perhaps an special set of rules which apply solely to the debate forum would be a good idea?

i generally oppose this plan, for reasons already expressed.

and alsom how on earth did i make marzipan's list of frequent posters in this forum? how odd.

Yeah, and how did I not?

And, we already tried making a special set of rules for the forum, but it didn't work. People still come in all the time going, "Well, I'm not going to read all of this thread, I'll just post what I think", and get all huffypuffy when people tell them that the point has already been stated or refuted. Or, people still get in here and say, "But don't argue with me about it; it's just my opinion". Nate's just trying to think of things to eliminate these people who do not respect what the Debate forum is here for. It's not that hard for someone who is new to read a few of the most recent pages of a thread and get acquainted with what's being talked about now, rather than just the first post in a thread where there's 50 pages. I did it when I first came to Createblog, but, people are too lazy now, I guess...

But, you can't moderate that. I can't warn/suspend people for being too lazy, or not knowing something. That's not fair.

[uLoVeMikeRoch]

There should be an IQ test.
If you fail, you're banned from the Debate forum for a year or a couple months. Because if you fail, it shows how you have a lack of intelligence, and how you would post a completly idiotic statemen, a dumb arguement, or your stupid statement would only hinder the debate, has nothing to do with the debate itself, or would just show your stupidity.

Example, a debate about a certain genre of music.
This is the person who fails the test.
"I hate rap because it only talks about blah blah blah, (Insert stupid comment here.)" This is basically whats in that forum. Notice how the poster, completely ignores truth, and only focuses on the stereotypes that they believe is truth, in that retarted brain/ or brain look a like of theirs.

Then, after they take and fail the test, they can then take another one after the ban has been lifted, and see if their pass. Etc.

[Sumiaki]

I do admit in posting my 2 cents rather than trying to formulate a rebuttle or constructive. A debate in standard format would be nice.

We should preset a debate like how clubs get members. Sign up and it would work like a batting list in baseball. #1 member of affirmative team goes, #1 member of negative team goes, #2 member of affirmative team goes, #2 member of negative team goes, etc. Any points made not in that order will be disregarded. Perhaps a punishment from the mods if possible. =P

[Ajmalhuuss]

There should be an IQ test.
If you fail, you're banned from the Debate forum for a year or a couple months. Because if you fail, it shows how you have a lack of intelligence, and how you would post a completly idiotic statemen, a dumb arguement, or your stupid statement would only hinder the debate, has nothing to do with the debate itself, or would just show your stupidity.

Example, a debate about a certain genre of music.
This is the person who fails the test.
"I hate rap because it only talks about blah blah blah, (Insert stupid comment here.)" This is basically whats in that forum. Notice how the poster, completely ignores truth, and only focuses on the stereotypes that they believe is truth, in that retarted brain/ or brain look a like of theirs.

Then, after they take and fail the test, they can then take another one after the ban has been lifted, and see if their pass. Etc.

I think you would have most definitly failed that IQ test.

^ then perhaps an special set of rules which apply solely to the debate forum would be a good idea?

i generally oppose this plan, for reasons already expressed.

and alsom how on earth did i make marzipan's list of frequent posters in this forum? how odd.

I like the idea of having a new set of rules that would make the debate thread a little more ligit. The only problem with the rules would be on how to enforce them. Having to monitor all of the posts would require a lot of effort on the part of the authorities. Also depending on how the mondorator looks at it, even if everyone agrees that the post was disobeying the rules, they may think it was okay. I don't think it would actually be possible to come up with a set of exacting rules; most of the rules for a debate forum would end up being too general and leave too many loop holes.

[*disco infiltrator*]

ligit? mondorator?

I don't think you should be going around telling other people that they would fail IQ tests. It's kind of rude, and besides, I haven't seen an incredible amount of intelligence shown from yourself either.

[*I Shot JFK*]

Yeah, and how did I not?

And, we already tried making a special set of rules for the forum, but it didn't work. People still come in all the time going, "Well, I'm not going to read all of this thread, I'll just post what I think", and get all huffypuffy when people tell them that the point has already been stated or refuted. Or, people still get in here and say, "But don't argue with me about it; it's just my opinion". Nate's just trying to think of things to eliminate these people who do not respect what the Debate forum is here for. It's not that hard for someone who is new to read a few of the most recent pages of a thread and get acquainted with what's being talked about now, rather than just the first post in a thread where there's 50 pages. I did it when I first came to Createblog, but, people are too lazy now, I guess...

But, you can't moderate that. I can't warn/suspend people for being too lazy, or not knowing something. That's not fair.

but i think that it is appropriate to this forum to take action against people who ar eblatant time wasters, i.e those who do NOT read the threads, and cause confusion/inconvenience.

and yea, how DID you no tmake that list. wanna trade places?

[Ajmalhuuss]

ligit? mondorator?

I don't think you should be going around telling other people that they would fail IQ tests. It's kind of rude, and besides, I haven't seen an incredible amount of intelligence shown from yourself either.

Ok fine I cant spell.

[sexthybeans]

debate is about opinions, and an opinion is an opinion. if you dont like what someone is saying, ignore them. you dont have to go so far as to block them from the forum.

[Ajmalhuuss]

Once again, its not that we don't want to hear someone's opinion. We wanna hear your opinion but we also want you to tell us why you have the opinion that you have, what convinced you to have that opinion? Why is your opinion better then other's?

[sadolakced acid]

my opinion is better than yours, because i back mine up with facts. usually.

[marzipan]

ok, whoa. no one's opinion is better than someone elses. everyone has a right to have their own opinion. and just because it's not backed up with facts doesn't mean it's not "better." yours might be better explained, though.

[sadolakced acid]

no.

mine is simply better, because a debate can actually happen, rather than pages of "well thatz jus what i think so lol you dun haft 2 b so mean".

[marzipan]

yours is better explained. but an opinion is an opinion.

[sadolakced acid]

with facts or logic.

opinions backed up with facts or logic are worth more than plain opinions.

there's no getting around that.

because plain opinions just aren't debatable.

[Sumiaki]

Actually after looking around I see a lot of "what do you think/believe". I mean if someone saw that they would immediately pose an opinion that may not be based on facts. If anything just ignore it.

[*I Shot JFK*]

Justin is right.

unless it is useful, something is worthless. true of opinions as well as everything else

[Ajmalhuuss]

my opinion is better than yours, because i back mine up with facts. usually.

with facts or logic.

opinions backed up with facts or logic are worth more than plain opinions.

there's no getting around that.

because plain opinions just aren't debatable.

You previously said that your opinions were better then mine. How is that? Mine are backed by logic and facts too. They also leave enough room for debate and others to agree or object.

You sound like such an arrogent idiot.

[sadolakced acid]

well, logically it's because your opinions aren't properly backed up most of the time.

saying "this is an idiotic opinion" and quoting someone else does not constitute a good post.

quite frankly, i don't know of a single post you've made that's been a good contribution to the debate. i probably haven't read all the posts in the debate forum, and i usually don't look to see who posted.

so if you would like to quote some of your posts to me, you know, the good ones, then that would be great. because see, that would be backing up your opinion with facts.

otherwise, the only posts i really see are these jewels:

The truth is that most people do not understand abortion at all. This is why we get comments like these:

Once again, its not that we don't want to hear someone's opinion. We wanna hear your opinion but we also want you to tell us why you have the opinion that you have, what convinced you to have that opinion? Why is your opinion better then other's?

[*mipadi*]

The general idea seems to be that some Debate posters' ideas are better than those of others' because theirs are backed up by facts. I'm hesitant to subscribe to this view, mainly because very few people who post in Debate—even those who back their ideas up with "facts"—actually cite any of their sources. An opinion backed up with uncited facts is, in my mind, not significantly more valuable than one not backed up with any facts at all, yet most people in Debate simply do not cite their sources.

Another startling trend is what I would call the overuse of sources such as Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a great resource for general knowledge, but it is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias should never be a focus of research—one has to look deeper than that. So merely backing up a statement by citing Wikipedia isn't a very solid basis, either.

Furthermore, there's the fact that many opinions which seem to be supported are merely paraphrashed—or even taken verbatim—from Wikipedia, almost always without a citation. There are many, many times in Debate when someone posts an opinion and I think, "Hey, this kid's pretty sharp. I should do more research on this," and then I go to Wikipedia to get a quick run-down of the topic, and find that the opinion came almost directly from a Wikipedia article. How does paraphrasing an encyclopedia really add anything to Debate?

Finally, I think the goal of the Debate Forum needs to be clarified. Many people seem look at it as "Debate" in terms of a high school forensics competition, in which debators get scored and one is declared a "winner". I think that's a stupid idea for this forum. First of all, the discussion of knowledge shouldn't be about one "winner"—indeed, everyon can "win". Secondly, there's no one to judge who wins and who loses here, so it's hardly a competition—although many frequent posters seem to be more concerned with "pwning" other posters, rather than actually learning.

No, I think Debate is more a place for academic discourse. People post an idea or opinion and throw it up for discussion and critique. Maybe they're trying to convince others of their opinion, but I think that everyone who comes here needs to be ready to listen to others, too—not something that happens very often, because many people in this forum seem to have the idea that they are "too smart" to listen to others.

I think making the Debate forum exclusive just emphasizes the idea that certain cBers are smarter than others, and don't have to listen to the less privileged ones, which couldn't be further from the truth. The Debate forum should be about learning from everyone and discussing with everyone, rather than dismissing or mocking the views of others who aren't as accustomed to the traditions of the Debate forum.

Besides, get a grip: A lot of people who come in here are 12, 13, 14 years old, and aren't use to discussing anything on an academic or intellectual level. They need to learn the "rules of the game", so to speak. By kicking people out, you could be missing out on a very intelligent debator.

[sadolakced acid]

well, see, michael, your opinion is much better than someone who says simply "well i don't agree i think it's this way" because we can actually debate from your opinion.

people who just post opinions, you have to go and ask them why and hope they have some reasons, and such.

makes debate a bit harder.

and thus, those opinions are worth less than an opinion backed up by facts or logic.

i mean, come on. a post that just says "i think abortion is horrible and wrong don't get one!"

is worth a lot less than one that says

"i think abortion is horrible and wrong don't get one because ... (insert logical explanation here, not just 'jesus says so' or something. )"

[*kryogenix*]

I think we can compromise here.

How about we make debate closed, but the only requirement is that you have read and understand the rules? Close debate to only certain groups, but allow people to join the group when they pm a mod that they have read the rules? This way, everyone who feels that they need to post will be forced to read the rules before they can post in debate, but it still lets everyone in who wants to participate.

[NoSex]

I think we can compromise here.

How about we make debate closed, but the only requirement is that you have read and understand the rules? Close debate to only certain groups, but allow people to join the group when they pm a mod that they have read the rules? This way, everyone who feels that they need to post will be forced to read the rules before they can post in debate, but it still lets everyone in who wants to participate.

That sounds like a great idea, and actually, kind of close to what I would have wanted anyways.

[radhikaeatsraman]

the question is, how would we moderate those who just PM'ed mods without really reading the rules and are just being idiots? do we disable their posting in the debate forum? delete their posts?

we need a proper way to moderate the forum under those guidelines.

[*kryogenix*]

the question is, how would we moderate those who just PM'ed mods without really reading the rules and are just being idiots? do we disable their posting in the debate forum? delete their posts?

we need a proper way to moderate the forum under those guidelines.

How will they know who to pm without having read the rules? I suppose if they start spamming or some other kind of abuse, they can be removed from the usergroup.

I'm really in favor of keeping the status quo though. But if it's as much as a problem as some of you guys say it is, we should have some kind of backup plan.

[radhikaeatsraman]

i like your plan, kryo. i sincerely think it should be implemented, but everyone starts out as a potential applicant instead of having the 'debate elite' (if you will) get automatic preference. =/

[uLoVeMikeRoch]

the question is, how would we moderate those who just PM'ed mods without really reading the rules and are just being idiots? do we disable their posting in the debate forum? delete their posts?

we need a proper way to moderate the forum under those guidelines.

My Idea, THE IQ TEST!!

[magicfann]

but now i cant make useless comments :(

[*disco infiltrator*]

Well, we could just have one mod who has unwritten "charge" of the Debate forum; not necessarily a purely "Debate Mod", but, just someone who looks after the Debate forum and has the responsibilities of making sure that things are going according to the rules set. Also, people could not get all fussy for rules being a little different here, saying it is "unfair" or whatnot.

[radhikaeatsraman]

My Idea, THE IQ TEST!!

well, i hate to be a spoilsport, but in recent years, iq tests have been shown to not be an accurate measure of intelligence. this isn't just about someone's intelligence, it's about their ability to debate properly. someone could have an iq of 93 and be an extremely skilled debator.

but i digress. let's not turn this into a debate about iq tests.

[sadolakced acid]

IQ is pretty worthless.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Well, we could just have one mod who has unwritten "charge" of the Debate forum; not necessarily a purely "Debate Mod", but, just someone who looks after the Debate forum and has the responsibilities of making sure that things are going according to the rules set. Also, people could not get all fussy for rules being a little different here, saying it is "unfair" or whatnot.

?...

And then, as offenses build up, people could be removed from posting there...

[innovation]

Oh, I'm all for being exclusive.

[forza]

Just do what Abercrombie & Fitch does. Discriminate by jacking up the prices!

$5.95 / month for all the debate action you can handle.

[innovation]

^ That action would limit the socioeconomic diversity of this forum and thus reduce the diversity of perspectives that are presented. =(

[*I Shot JFK*]

^ Mindy!

<3s lots.

[NoSex]

Ahem. Ahem.

[*Steven*]

Human nature wouldn't let it work. I've not read through all the responses, but I assume people brought up behavior and intellect.

[NoSex]

Human nature wouldn't let it work. I've not read through all the responses, but I assume people brought up behavior and intellect.

I don't get it.
I thought these were all the reasons to make this forum exclusive: Human nature.

[*Steven*]

How are you going to dictate who can and can't come in? And how would one earn their way in?

[NoSex]

How are you going to dictate who can and can't come in? And how would one earn their way in?

Personal discretion.
Essentially, someone just needs to demonstrate a desire to actually debate.
If someone were to take the time to apply and actually make an attempt to get posting privileges here, I'm sure that alone is enough. I can't imagine many applicants, if any, being turned down. Essentially, you would have to make an intentional ass of yourself to be denied. But, the beauty is this: once posting is made a privilege here, that privilege can be taken away. If someone decides to abuse these forums, we could handle it in a far more efficient manner.

[*Steven*]

Know what else takes posting privileges away? Mod preview. IMO, if someone's that out of hand, they'll eventually get it, anyways.

[NoSex]

Know what else takes posting privileges away? Mod preview. IMO, if someone's that out of hand, they'll eventually get it, anyways.

It's not about being "that out of hand," it's about being productive and respectful to the ethic of debate. It's about a reevaluation of what these debate forums should be. If quality isn't a concern, then I don't think this point should be worth consideration, but... I would like to believe some of us still value quality debate.

Gay jokes are boring, eh?

[*Steven*]

Look at this forum demographic. What do you expect?

[NoSex]

Look at this forum demographic. What do you expect?

A man can dream (sometimes without even getting shot).

[*CowerPointyObjects*]

Mod preview always seemed terribly useless.

I fully agree with Nate (Nate, right?) that the people who put the effort into bothering to apply should be given the privileges, as they will more than likely be the ones who wouldn't simply drop in to go 'omg gayz r grosssssss!!!!11!' However, I also propose that one of the qualifications be a basic grasp on the English language, because I for one refuse to take someone's opinion seriously when they can neither form structurally sound sentences nor spell everyday words correctly (for god's sake, just download firefox if you're that bad at spelling; yay spell check!).


Edit: oh god, just noticed that I had several typos. Am not a hypocrite, I swear it was just 1:30am and I've barely slept in a week!

[*Steven*]

^Haha I hear you there. I always find it hard to take someone seriously when they cant differentiate when to use their, there, they're, here, hear, your, you're, and other words like those. Also when they type like "those apples is tasty" or use "a" instead of "an" when it comes before something that starts with a vowel. I used to pick on certain people, but I stopped ha ha.

[*CowerPointyObjects*]

I'm trying this thing where I don't act like a complete bitch to everyone, because I'm in college now and it tends not to be the best way to make friends (though actually, it seems to be working pretty well for my roommate). I've had to get myself out of the habit of correcting people's every error, and it's definitely harder than it should be. But oh god, being back here...certain people still haven't improved, and it's killing me.

[*Uronacid*]

I'm trying this thing where I don't act like a complete bitch to everyone, because I'm in college now and it tends not to be the best way to make friends (though actually, it seems to be working pretty well for my roommate). I've had to get myself out of the habit of correcting people's every error, and it's definitely harder than it should be. But oh god, being back here...certain people still haven't improved, and it's killing me.

Nobody is perfect. This is obvious, but it's something many people forget (even myself). Humble yourself. Although your not a complete failure in the area of grammar and spelling, you may be a doof when it comes down to other areas in your life. Personally, I think you don't seem like the type of person who can joke around. I think you need to loosen up. You take things way, way, way to seriously.

Also, you can still correct grammar mistakes and the like if you do it with a helpful attitude and not a critical one. When I see you correct mistakes on the forum, I get the impression you're only doing it because you're bothered by their "stupidity". If you do this in real life then you're probably pretty annoying, and I could understand why you would want to stop. No-one likes to feel stupid.

For example, Jeremy (Abominable C-Pillar) helps me out with grammar and spelling all the time. He doesn't critique my grammar and spelling it in a condescending tone. He does it in a way that says he's there to help. In the same way, I help him out with computer issues and anything similar (my area of strength). It's mutual respect.

Truth is, to many things that bother you, and like I said, "You need to loosen up." You're wasting your time being bothered by all these petty things that don't effect your real life in any way, shape, or form. All that time your wasting could be used to enjoy life rather than be bothered by it.

I may bust your chops a lot on this stupid website, but it's mostly because you jump on and bust mine by calling me ignorant. Now, don't get me wrong. I could care less as to whether you think I'm ignorant or not. You're some girl that I will probably never meet in real life, you live 1000 miles away, and you get annoyed at the smallest things. You are an easy target. I reply to your posts because I enjoy pissing people off and you are particularly easy to piss off.

Think of yourself as a form of entertainment. I enjoy the fact that you are on this site because you give me what I crave. On the other hand, as much as I enjoy the high feeling I get when I see one of your more passionate posts, I also realize you're a person. I want you to enjoy life just as much as I am.

:]

Also, in response to the topic at hand. Most people in this world are complete idiots. To make this forum exclusive would be a disaster. Yes, there are people that obviously participate and debate well, but everyone likes to be heard no matter how stupid or ignorant they are. I think it would be morally wrong to ban someone from the Debate forum because they weren't "intelligent" enough. You can't measure intelligence, and therefore the "intelligence" of an individual would be in the hands of a person. While it is obvious that some people are more "stupid" or less "intelligent" than others, everyone is opinionated, biased, manipulated, and different (including myself) there would be no way for someone to fairly judge the intelligence of someone else. Although it would be nice in a "perfect" world, I don't think this idea is possible.

[*CowerPointyObjects*]

No, you just fail to realize that 90% of the time I am joking. You just aren't the type of person who gets my irony.

I appreciate that you see me that way, because I really do mke yourself seem like an utter fool. Wonderful comment about how I need to humble myself, by the way. I mean really, you aren't that funny. Not at all. I'm not saying this because I'm offended or any shit like that that you want to make of this, but because if you have to present yourself as a dumbass to make a fool out of other people and enjoy yourself, than you're not much better off than the person you seem to think I am, are you?

[*Steven*]

Ignorance is bliss

[*Uronacid*]

No, you just fail to realize that 90% of the time I am joking. You just aren't the type of person who gets my irony.

I appreciate that you see me that way, because I really do mke yourself seem like an utter fool. Wonderful comment about how I need to humble myself, by the way. I mean really, you aren't that funny. Not at all. I'm not saying this because I'm offended or any shit like that that you want to make of this, but because if you have to present yourself as a dumbass to make a fool out of other people and enjoy yourself, than you're not much better off than the person you seem to think I am, are you?

Never said that I was. I didn't say that you specifically need to humble yourself. I said:

This is obvious, but it's something many people forget (even myself). Humble yourself.

I was referring to all people who correct others for petty mistakes, and I even included myself. If you're enjoying the site then "rock on".


*sigh*

One thing that does frustrate me:
When you try to help someone and they try to make you look like an ass for it.

Ignorance is bliss

I guess so...

*reaches out and touches CowerPointyObjects with his index finger*

Ouch!! I burned my finger!!