sean
|
More formal debates idea?It's been suggested to the mods that people might like the idea of having a regular formal debate on the forums. The format would be something like this:
Proposals for debate submitted to the chairman.
Initial posting of statements for and against
One day of debate only between principals, with voting open for/against.
Several days of free-for-all debate, modded by chairman, then locked.
Final submissions by speakers for and against.
Vote at the end.
It would be interesting to see if anyone ever changes their mind, if nothing else.
If enough people express an interest we'll sort out the mechanics and see how it goes.
|
Brownbear
|
I think that would be a good idea. especially as a chairman would be able to steer people away from getting bogged down in details that may distract from the overall point at issue.
I've also often wondered whether online debates ever cause anyone other than me to change opinions. I certainly recall that my views in the human/animal embryo debate changed after reading it.
|
vegplot
|
I've never been involved in formal debating and it would be a new experience.
|
vegplot
|
| Brownbear wrote: | | I've also often wondered whether online debates ever cause anyone other than me to change opinions. I certainly recall that my views in the human/animal embryo debate changed after reading it. |
My views have changed or at least modified due to a number of debates. I've been influenced more when my previous position was neutral, due to lack of awareness or knowledge.
|
Chez
|
I think it would be a nice idea, even if only to prevent some of the bloodshed  .
|
cab
|
Ordinary rules for debating things on usenet and/or discussion fora have worked well everywhere else for years, and still do work well.
The idea of a formalised system for debate with voting, turning a discussion into a popularity or point scoring contest, does not work online. I've seen it elsewhere and it is divisive, dull, and messy; I've seen good fora ruined when those who hold minority views are slowly driven out by repeated back handed reference to debates in which they're believed to have 'lost' because their views are merely unpopular. Indeed I have never remained long on such a place because I'll simply not be part of a majority when some other 'members' feel it is good to act in such a way.
Bad idea. Don't do it.
|
Brownbear
|
Of course, any person not finding such debate to their tase could still raise/discuss any issue which pleased them, I would have thought. Respecting minority viewpoints is pretty central (even if they're wrong  ) to Downsizer, and Im quite happy to have been reminded more than once when my enjoyment of a debate could have been seen or felt by others to have been a little overbearing. I like the light-touch modding here, even when they disagree with me and are therefore... of different opinions. (I've been practicing not being right).
|
sean
|
I don't think that there's any suggestion that people will be stopped from raising issues outside the formal debate system.
|
Brownbear
|
It might be a good idea to start with one as a pilot, something ethical but not too inflammatory, and then afterwards see if people liked it and wanted to continue.
|
cab
|
| sean wrote: | | I don't think that there's any suggestion that people will be stopped from raising issues outside the formal debate system. |
So comments like 'if you think that, join in the formal debate' or implications of cowardice for not joining such debates will be rigorously removed? Those who argue a point parallel to the formal debate will not be asked to move to that discussion, and moderators will not allow others to imply that a lack of will to do so is in any way an indication of lacking conviction? Or those who have had the majority choose against them and who continue to put their point forward fairly outside of the debating room will not have that used in other discussions as if it proves something? And the presence of a 'formal debate' will never be used as an excuse to close down contentious discussions elsewhere?
You need a very, very rigorous view of moderation inside and outside of such a debating area, otherwise (at least this is my experience) you risk generating a rather toxic environment. Is that really what you want? Have you never seen how intolerably gloaty people get over such formalised 'voted on' discussions?
A friend of mine who frequents a roleplaying game forum put it quite nicely; popularity contests between geeks never end well.
|
Brownbear
|
I do think it is possible to see discussion of an issue as wholly unrelated to popularity of the individual; one can debate the idea vehemently without thinking the less of the individual advancing it.
However I think it would be more interesting to see what everyone else thinks of the idea than to continue giving everyone the benefit of my views.
|
cab
|
| Brownbear wrote: | | I do think it is possible to see discussion of an issue as wholly unrelated to popularity of the individual; one can debate the idea vehemently without thinking the less of the individual advancing it. |
I agree. But I believe that while this is an ideal to which many of us try to aspire, not everyone is thus skilled.
| Quote: |
However I think it would be more interesting to see what everyone else thinks of the idea than to continue giving everyone the benefit of my views. |
I'm all ears to hear what others have to say; especially what those proposing this have to say regarding the questions I've posted (which, again in my own experience, hilight why this isn't a great plan).
|
Stacey
|
No thanks. It's a forum ffs not a debating society 
|
Rob R
|
| Brownbear wrote: | | something ethical but not too inflammatory |
Well there appears to be a debate starting about the need for a debate...
|
JB
|
I think it's worth a try but from what I've seen formal debates in online forums don't seem to work very well. You'd need a very tightly moderated thread to kill interjections from people who are not the main protagonists in the initial phase or some way to make the thread only writable by some people initially.
|
Chez
|
| JB wrote: | | some way to make the thread only writable by some people initially. |
I think that's a very good idea - kind of like Mafia. Sign up if you're interested in a topic. And then the other threads can go on as they have been - it's easy enough to ignore them if you're not interested.
|
JB
|
| Chez wrote: | | JB wrote: | | some way to make the thread only writable by some people initially. |
I think that's a very good idea - kind of like Mafia. Sign up if you're interested in a topic. And then the other threads can go on as they have been - it's easy enough to ignore them if you're not interested. |
The mafia threads are not enforced though. Anyone can interject but they choose not to do so. With a contentious subject for debate we probably wouldn't see much self control.
|
Northern_Lad
|
I may be grabbing the wrong end of the woody thing, but I would see it more as a co-ordinated and organised thread. The chairperson would be there to keep the discussion on topic, not to control views. As I think we're all aware, and guilty, of threads wandering off topic for whatever reason, the chairperson would be there to bring things back in a more formal way rather than expressing a personal opinion.
The idea to vote before and after would be interesting, just to see how many people do change their minds, let alone how they change them.
|
Jonnyboy
|
It may be useful to only have the thread open when the 'chairperson' in question is online?
|
Brownbear
|
| Jonnyboy wrote: | | It may be useful to only have the thread open when the 'chairperson' in question is online? |
Bit of a bind for the poor devil chairing it.
|
Chez
|
| Brownbear wrote: | | Bit of a bind for the poor devil chairing it. |
Yes, but they could always spend the time pretending they were Humph.
|
bagpuss
|
| Jonnyboy wrote: | | It may be useful to only have the thread open when the 'chairperson' in question is online? |
not realisticly feasible surely
|
Sarah D
|
I'd think it quite unworkable really, and a possible recipe for disaster. Find myself agreeing with Cab. 
|
Jonnyboy
|
| bagpuss wrote: |
not realisticly feasible surely |
Then I'm not entirely sure what a chairperson could do of any substance.
|
bagpuss
|
| Jonnyboy wrote: | | bagpuss wrote: |
not realisticly feasible surely |
Then I'm not entirely sure what a chairperson could do of any substance. |
I have to say I am with the naysayers in that I am not sure making the contentious topics more formalized will actually change the nature of the debate for the better which is presumably the aim
That being said if someone wants to propose a topic and have a go that I don't think it should be tried
|
dpack
|
i see only trouble this way
|
tahir
|
| dpack wrote: | | i see only trouble this way |
Me too
|
cab
|
| Sarah D wrote: | | I'd think it quite unworkable really, and a possible recipe for disaster. Find myself agreeing with Cab. |
Dagnammit, do I have to change my mind now?
|
Cho-ku-ri
|
Couldn't we just lock at topic after it had gone on for ages, and finnish it with a poll?
|
cab
|
| Cho-ku-ri wrote: | | Couldn't we just lock at topic after it had gone on for ages, and finnish it with a poll? |
A poll for what purpose?
|
Sarah D
|
| cab wrote: | | Sarah D wrote: | | I'd think it quite unworkable really, and a possible recipe for disaster. Find myself agreeing with Cab. |
Dagnammit, do I have to change my mind now? |
Not at all - I was just a little surprised to find myself in agreement with you
|
Sarah D
|
| cab wrote: | | A poll for what purpose? |
To annoy me? 
|
Gervase
|
I think it's workable. Strict time limits - debate to run for 24/36 or whatever hours. First post by chairman sets out the issue and asks for a vote for or against (with no discussion - just a vote). Then the protagonists set out their cases. Debate will continue for the agreed time limit, then the vote will be taken again. Any posts after the agree limit will be deleted. Otherwise usual forum rules apply.
Anyone being too geeky (multiple quotes in particular) will have his/her posts deleted. First person to prove Godwin's Law is banned for life.
|
Jonnyboy
|
Nazi!
|
Chez
|
I think multiple quotes should be obligatory . And would talking about non-modal sexual preferences trigger Godwin's law?
|
Brownbear
|
| Chez wrote: | | I think multiple quotes should be obligatory . And would talking about non-modal sexual preferences trigger Godwin's law? |
I think the mods might administer discipline. I suppose there could be poll on which of them would most suit the leather-catsuit look.
|
Jonnyboy
|
| Brownbear wrote: | | I think the mods might administer discipline. I suppose there could be poll on which of them would most suit the leather-catsuit look. |
That way leads to increased expenditure, just use Sean's.
|
vegplot
|
I suppose they share the whip as well
|
Brownbear
|
| Jonnyboy wrote: | | Brownbear wrote: | | I think the mods might administer discipline. I suppose there could be poll on which of them would most suit the leather-catsuit look. |
That way leads to increased expenditure, just use Sean's. |
We could always have a forum whip-round.
|
