Debate Section Needs To Be More Strict

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Okay so Debates. A section many avoid simply for the connotation. One would think it should be held at higher standard given the content. But it's not.

Often I see rule breaking such as spam or double posting (No not just one person) and it's kind of ridiculous and off-putting.

I personally think that if one leaves a link they need to have a decent amount, a couple sentences perhaps, of thoughts to go along with it. And I think mods need to be more strict about when rules are just straight up broken.
So I guess what I'm saying is we need better regulations for Debates. Not necessarily "stricter" I suppose, or more of them, just better quality.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

*cough cough* Ban Winter *wink wink*

 

Agreed though, some analysis needs to be done on links

[Aerion Brightflame]

Double posting is fine in theory if the contents of the second post merit it. 

 

Like if you have one post, and then like a day or two goes by, and then the new post has a very valid talking point, or article worthy of discussing, that should be fine. It is a new point of discussion that merits being added in. 

 

As for links - If the link is the main body of the post you are making, you should at least summarise it (Because that gives people an indication as to whether they actually want to read it. You can't really tell from just a URL), and include there own thoughts on said post. If you are using a article or link to suppliment your point, you should still probably do that. If you are just getting a quote, so long as you actually provide the quotation and then link it (Even if the link is at the bottom as say a reference) that should also be fine to just have the link. 

 

The rules should not be absolute, they should allow best judgment because the point of them should be to encourage higher quality discussion. Harsh rules enforced without thought won't do that. I'd rather see something that is willing to abide technical rule breaks if it serves to further conversation. 

 

Personally I would also not like to see incredibly open threads (Like the abortion one) to be locked for like necrobumping and the like. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Double posting is fine in theory if the contents of the second post merit it. 

 

Like if you have one post, and then like a day or two goes by, and then the new post has a very valid talking point, or article worthy of discussing, that should be fine. It is a new point of discussion that merits being added in. 

 

As for links - If the link is the main body of the post you are making, you should at least summarise it (Because that gives people an indication as to whether they actually want to read it. You can't really tell from just a URL), and include there own thoughts on said post. If you are using a article or link to suppliment your point, you should still probably do that. If you are just getting a quote, so long as you actually provide the quotation and then link it (Even if the link is at the bottom as say a reference) that should also be fine to just have the link. 

 

The rules should not be absolute, they should allow best judgment because the point of them should be to encourage higher quality discussion. Harsh rules enforced without thought won't do that. I'd rather see something that is willing to abide technical rule breaks if it serves to further conversation. 

 

Personally I would also not like to see incredibly open threads (Like the abortion one) to be locked for like necrobumping and the like. 

Flame and I talked about the abortion thread, idk if that status message I did so in is still there, but the idea was that no body else was interested in it. After y'all made the point about double posting, I did report my posts to have them merged, but it was still moot since nobody else had any interest in posting on it

[Aerion Brightflame]

Maybe people would have been willing to post if it was just 3 links in a row? Just links don't give much to talk about usually because there's no direction to be had. 

 

My argument is that conversations like this will ebb and flow. Sometimes there will be periods with nothing to talk about, and that's fine. But sometimes people will have new thoughts, or articles will be written ect ect that aren't substantial enough to warrant there own post but are still interesting to discuss.

 

On a tangent disagree with Flames point on 'Planned Parenthood' not being linked to abortion. The topic of 'abortion' covers a lot more than just the act, and a lot of the alternatives to abortion are generally provided by Planned Parenthood so reduction in services say would be relevant. 

 

If it a very specific topic, like discussion of a specific article, I am fine with the threads just dying and being treated as per Necro. But these very open and general thought topics are the sorts of things that you should be able to just drop into with a little new thought on it see what others may think of it. If the issue is 'Oh there's no more talking points here, so posting is redundant post a new one in a few months' the one in a few months will probably just be a rehash of the old one. Which makes the new one superfluous compared to people just jumping in with thoughts and opinions on an existing thread. 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Double posting is fine in theory if the contents of the second post merit it. 

 

Like if you have one post, and then like a day or two goes by, and then the new post has a very valid talking point, or article worthy of discussing, that should be fine. It is a new point of discussion that merits being added in. 

 

As for links - If the link is the main body of the post you are making, you should at least summarise it (Because that gives people an indication as to whether they actually want to read it. You can't really tell from just a URL), and include there own thoughts on said post. If you are using a article or link to suppliment your point, you should still probably do that. If you are just getting a quote, so long as you actually provide the quotation and then link it (Even if the link is at the bottom as say a reference) that should also be fine to just have the link. 

 

The rules should not be absolute, they should allow best judgment because the point of them should be to encourage higher quality discussion. Harsh rules enforced without thought won't do that. I'd rather see something that is willing to abide technical rule breaks if it serves to further conversation. 

 

Personally I would also not like to see incredibly open threads (Like the abortion one) to be locked for like necrobumping and the like. 

The issue with double posting is when it's not a day or two going by. That's not double-posting by the rules.

 

Also threads that don't have any discussion except a random link or thought a week or so tend to make people not want to post in them and it's a snowball effect.

[Darj]

Off-topic but this thread reminded me of this one I made like 2 years ago. In a way you are requesting the same thing as I did, a subsection stricter than General, except Debates subsection didn't exist at that time. Funny how things changed since then.

 

Anyway, to get into the topic, I don't participate in the Debates section so I can't say anything about it that has relevance or weight, but I do sometimes end up reading a thread or 2 in said section, and as a reader I support for the section to be properly moderated. Not to mention I requested something similar back then.

[vla1ne]

Also threads that don't have any discussion except a random link or thought a week or so tend to make people not want to post in them and it's a snowball effect.

then why not ask in the related thread(s) for as much? there's not need for stricter rules that we have currently, it's debates because you can straight up tell people to sharpen their points if you find their examples, links, or whatever else have you lacking. there's no need really for mods in the debates section outside of flame wars, massive topic derailing (which can in and of itself create a new thread),  and pure trolling. sure, if you think the overall thread might not be active enough for whatever you wish to discuss, then fine, but take the debating police action thread for example, there have been about 4-5 new topics created there, and they all have had more than enough life per topic to be worthy of their own topic, but merging them lets you link it all together, and go back a few pages instead of search for long dead threads, if you wish to back any claim you've made with a prior topic. i mean, sure if it hits 10-15-20 pages, make a new thread for neatness, but past that, there's no real need to put in any new rules.

 

regulating debates, is far too slippy. it's going to have strong opinions, it's gonna have the occasional short post or shitpost, it'll have all manner of things, but as long as it's able to generate healty discussion, it's already doing what it should. i don't want it to devolve into misc territory, but you can't expect it to cater more than it already is if you want healthy discussion. if you want link posters to add direction, don't be afraid to ask then in thread, and if they can't, or wont do so then, feel fee to call them on it, but beyond that, there's nothing really wrong with the section.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

then why not ask in the related thread(s) for as much? there's not need for stricter rules that we have currently, it's debates because you can straight up tell people to sharpen their points if you find their examples, links, or whatever else have you lacking.

 

regulating debates, is far too slippy. it's going to have strong opinions, it's gonna have the occasional short post or shitpost, it'll have all manner of things, but as long as it's able to generate healty discussion, it's already doing what it should. i don't want it to devolve into misc territory, but you can't expect it to cater more than it already is if you want healthy discussion. if you want link posters to add direction, don't be afraid to ask then in thread, and if they can't, or wont do so then, feel fee to call them on it, but beyond that, there's nothing really wrong with the section.

To the first. You could say that about every section where people spam and such. Not to mention let's be honest people aren't the brightest at times and just telling people doesn't really work a lot.

Hell several people have been straight up told "Don't do this" and they respond "Alright" only to do it the next day.

Plus you shouldn't have to constantly tell people "Say more than just leaving a link".

 

The second part. It's not slippy at all. I didn't say anything wrong about short posts as long as it actually says something. What's the point of having a subsection for more serious topics if it's going to be treated like General? It doesn't need to exist by that point, because what you described was basically General.

As for healthy discussion that's questionable due to the very small pool of people active in the section. Objectively speaking the majority of the discussion is pretty empty and/or overly heated/insulting.

 

And again. Why have rules against things if you're going to say "You can just tell them to stop or to say more" that's silly. Rules are there to set the precedent that should already be there. Which is to actually have something to say more than a link in a post.

[vla1ne]

To the first. You could say that about every section where people spam and such. Not to mention let's be honest people aren't the brightest at times and just telling people doesn't really work a lot.

Hell several people have been straight up told "Don't do this" and they respond "Alright" only to do it the next day.

Plus you shouldn't have to constantly tell people "Say more than just leaving a link".

 

The second part. It's not slippy at all. I didn't say anything wrong about short posts as long as it actually says something. What's the point of having a subsection for more serious topics if it's going to be treated like General? It doesn't need to exist by that point, because what you described was basically General.

As for healthy discussion that's questionable due to the very small pool of people active in the section. Objectively speaking the majority of the discussion is pretty empty and/or overly heated/insulting.

 

And again. Why have rules against things if you're going to say "You can just tell them to stop or to say more" that's silly. Rules are there to set the precedent that should already be there. Which is to actually have something to say more than a link in a post.

this is not telling people to stop spamming, this is telling them to elaborate on a point or article so that the discussion can have a focus. and you won't know if telling them to elaborate won't work until you ask them to elaborate.

maybe people do, but that's perfectly natural, it's debates, leaving just a link is a quick way to get torn apart if you're using it in an argument, and telling somebody to elaborate if they have little more than a link to start a discussion's not really that terrible, it's just not the best way of starting discussion. if it bothers you that much, then just reminding them wouldn't kill you.

 

no, it's not, short points can still be effective arguments, and the debates section wasn't created so that every topic can have the greatest arguments of all time, it was created so that topics that are more sensitive, and liable to blow up more often, can detonate outside of general, thus only having people who would be willing to partake in them present instead of just onlookers. it's not guaranteed that a topic in debates will blow up, it's just more likely, as those with stronger opinions will enter respective topics more often.

the sample size doesn't dictate health, if two or three people are all that are commenting, i don't see how that harms anybody. it's a minimally modded section in either case, so lower amounts of people means we all know each other well enough to not take too much to heart (yeah, the site's small regardless, but i know bright, dad, and winters post styles more than any other member at this point from how often i see them post, and how much i post in response.)

 

 

there are rules, i didn't mean make it lawless, i simply meant don't make it more restricted than it has to be. sure, single links are annoying, but i haven't seen anybody but flame call them out in the thread itself, so i wasn't even aware that anybody cared about single links. those of us who normally reside in the section are more relaxed on them for the sake of discussion, if it bugs you, it's perfectly fine to ask them "is there a direction you want to take this article?" or some other such question to prompt discussion.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

 

this is not telling people to stop spamming, this is telling them to elaborate on a point or article so that the discussion can have a focus. and you won't know if telling them to elaborate won't work until you ask them to elaborate.

maybe people do, but that's perfectly natural, it's debates, leaving just a link is a quick way to get torn apart if you're using it in an argument, and telling somebody to elaborate if they have little more than a link to start a discussion's not really that terrible, it's just not the best way of starting discussion. if it bothers you that much, then just reminding them wouldn't kill you.

 

no, it's not, short points can still be effective arguments, and the debates section wasn't created so that every topic can have the greatest arguments of all time, it was created so that topics that are more sensitive, and liable to blow up more often, can detonate outside of general, thus only having people who would be willing to partake in them present instead of just onlookers. it's not guaranteed that a topic in debates will blow up, it's just more likely, as those with stronger opinions will enter respective topics more often.

the sample size doesn't dictate health, if two or three people are all that are commenting, i don't see how that harms anybody. it's a minimally modded section in either case, so lower amounts of people means we all know each other well enough to not take too much to heart (yeah, the site's small regardless, but i know bright, dad, and winters post styles more than any other member at this point from how often i see them post, and how much i post in response.)

 

 

there are rules, i didn't mean make it lawless, i simply meant don't make it more restricted than it has to be. sure, single links are annoying, but i haven't seen anybody but flame call them out in the thread itself, so i wasn't even aware that anybody cared about single links. those of us who normally reside in the section are more relaxed on them for the sake of discussion, if it bugs you, it's perfectly fine to ask them "is there a direction you want to take this article?" or some other such question to prompt discussion.

 

I would argue that a link without anything else is pretty much spam.

It's not that it'd "kill" me it's that it's entirely pointless and should be the norm to elaborate in such a section.

 

It's harming people because it's a section some might want to get into but can't because of the way the 2 or 3 people are doing things without much regulation. It's a section that almost doesn't need to exist because it doesn't really do a good job at keeping those topics out from elsewhere since they tend to be talked about in statuses and General anyway in some way or another. Which is why I want it to be changed somewhat to give it an actual purpose.

"lower amounts of people means we all know each other well enough to not take too much to heart"

Except I've seen plenty of times this wasn't the case. Plus, again, that's super unhealthy. That's basically just a Skype chat at that point. Because it locks out other people from posting because they DON'T know the people well enough.

 

I do find it interesting the people who seem most sure that it's fine as is are those who regularly post there. It makes sense but you also have to look at it from outside. It's a section that is meant for discussion that sort of isolates itself FROM discussion. Because it's structure means only a few people feel comfortable posting there and, as I said earlier, this snowballs into something bigger.

Think about it. If one of the 3/4 regular posters vanished from YCM for some reason the section would suddenly die off. That's unhealthy for sure.

[vla1ne]

I would argue that a link without anything else is pretty much spam.

It's not that it'd "kill" me it's that it's entirely pointless and should be the norm to elaborate in such a section.

 

It's harming people because it's a section some might want to get into but can't because of the way the 2 or 3 people are doing things without much regulation. It's a section that almost doesn't need to exist because it doesn't really do a good job at keeping those topics out from elsewhere since they tend to be talked about in statuses and General anyway in some way or another. Which is why I want it to be changed somewhat to give it an actual purpose.

"lower amounts of people means we all know each other well enough to not take too much to heart"

Except I've seen plenty of times this wasn't the case. Plus, again, that's super unhealthy. That's basically just a Skype chat at that point. Because it locks out other people from posting because they DON'T know the people well enough.

 

I do find it interesting the people who seem most sure that it's fine as is are those who regularly post there. It makes sense but you also have to look at it from outside. It's a section that is meant for discussion that sort of isolates itself FROM discussion. Because it's structure means only a few people feel comfortable posting there and, as I said earlier, this snowballs into something bigger.

Think about it. If one of the 3/4 regular posters vanished from YCM for some reason the section would suddenly die off. That's unhealthy for sure.

 

if the link does indeed have relevancy to the topic at hand, then it's not so much spam as it is bad manners, 

if one or two people posting links and such without talking is enough to keep somebody out of debates, then the people staying out need to work on that. what are they doing that's so bad that it's actually keeping people out? it's opposing opinions, it's divisive from the start, so what is the flaw exactly? if it's lonely links, then that's not an issue. if it's behavior, specify, debates don't need everybody in it, but it always welcomes all who want to step in no less than those already in the section. if you wanna step in, just wear your thick skin. that fact was established from the start. i do agree that the overflow needs to be kept to a minimum, so statuses and other topics shouldn't be inundated with debates drama, but that's not so much a rule break as it is an annoyance.

 

where is it harming people? i mean, i didn't say things wouldn't get heated, i just mean that it doesn't build into censoring factions of warring warning babies. we might vehemently disagree with what you have to say, and say as much ourselves, but while you're in debates, we will defend your right to say it at all times. that's what i meant, i haven't seen any examples of people staying sore over topics in debates. can't say it doesn't happen, i'm not everywhere, but i rarely see it.

 

i get what you mean, but it's not that it isolates itself, it's just that it's meant for those who have either confidence in their arguments, or thick enough skins to take, if not give, a bit of verbal abuse. it's a section for discussion, and as such, placing unneeded limits on it, hampers potential. i'll grant that single link posts are occasionally an annoyance, but not so much that they deserve any real punishment on the moderators part, at least not in debates, where you are at the most liberty to give others a piece of your mind, whether they like it or not.

if 3/4 regular posters left, it may die off for a bit, but it's not like some topics don't draw from outside the normal few. the politics topic is a good example, there's only about 3-4 regular posters there, but it chugs along just fine, it stops sometimes, sometimes for long periods, but the new news comes out, and it picks right back up again. that's debates in a nutshell. the quiet periods cool your head, and the busy ones put some miles on your critical thinking facilities.

 

 

there is nothing telling people to not enter the discussion, there are times where i stay out of discussions simply because i don't feel like being involved with the subject at the time, that's not the fault or the problem of those holding the converstion, that's my choice.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

if one or two people posting links and such without talking is enough to keep somebody out of debates, then the people staying out need to work on that.

This is just harmful attitude to have on a forum. And really that's all it boils down to. It's a section in a public forum it needs to stay accessible and relevant to the public or else it has no purpose.

Which is one reason Literature is the joke section of this site

 

Also I'll be blunt. Some people in Debates have extremely thin skins when you look at it objectively. Don't try and say that those are the only types that go there because that's just impossible to prove and is just plain ignorant to claim.

[vla1ne]

This is just harmful attitude to have on a forum. And really that's all it boils down to. It's a section in a public forum it needs to stay accessible and relevant to the public or else it has no purpose.

Which is one reason Literature is the joke section of this site

 

Also I'll be blunt. Some people in Debates have extremely thin skins when you look at it objectively. Don't try and say that those are the only types that go there because that's just impossible to prove and is just plain ignorant to claim.

it is the mentality of only one area of the forum, and that particular section still allows you to tell them to fix their statement. there is no compulsion to enter it, there is not required object that you need in this particular forum, the rules and enforcement level of said rules suit the section, discussion continues as normal there and elsewhere. it is both accessible, and relevant to everybody, some people just don't like it the way it is.

 

sure, some people are easily affronted, but they still step into debates, that grants them at least a fast healing skin, if not a thick one. you want thin skinned, tell me where Laz is. thick skinned is more than not caring, it's also being able to jump into topics without assuming you shouldn't be insulted. some people are thin skinned in debates, but they clearly thicken fast enough to keep coming back. if you step into debates at this point in time, you enter (hopefully) with the understanding that it's not going to cater to you. look at winter for an example, he gets s*** by many people, even me, for some of his opinions, but he comes back more often than not and argues his point. that's what i'm saying to come with. being willing to take s*** and shoot s*** back.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I don't appreciate calling out specific people and I'd request you not do that.

And that's just ridiculous. You're more/less pandering to a very specific group who believe that they are thick-skinned and can debate calmly and rationally.
You're looking at the entire thing with rose-tinted glasses so I can't really Debate (hehe) this with you any longer.

The fact is that it's clear most people find it a toxic and difficult to express themselves environment and the majority of people okay with this are the people involved.
No, it's not being thick-skinned. No it's not people who don't want to be catered to. It's 100% catering to a specific group.

[vla1ne]

I don't appreciate calling out specific people and I'd request you not do that.

And that's just ridiculous. You're more/less pandering to a very specific group who believe that they are thick-skinned and can debate calmly and rationally.

You're looking at the entire thing with rose-tinted glasses so I can't really Debate (hehe) this with you any longer.

The fact is that it's clear most people find it a toxic and difficult to express themselves environment and the majority of people okay with this are the people involved.

No, it's not being thick-skinned. No it's not people who don't want to be catered to. It's 100% catering to a specific group.

i see no reason to hold back an objection or an example if it's able to be stated clearly.

no, ir's not pandering, i am literally saying that anybody is welcome, just don't expect everything to be rosy. that includes myself, i've been called out on a few things, and on others i've kept my mouth shut because i didn't want to try defending my position. i'm not asking or promoting anything that i wouldn't be willing to endure myself.

how are they rose tinted? debates is hands-down, the most divisive area on the site, it's very creation was because debates in general got to hot, and people in general wanted it to remain peaceful and orderly, now that it has it's own section, and is more or less self contained (outside of the occasional leak into status and references in general,) you are calling for it to be reformed to accommodate people who can very well participate already. no. those within debates fit well enough, and we aren't telling you to stay out, we're telling you to make sure you're prepared before jumping in. you need better points than you have currently given to convince me that debates is toxic in any serious manner.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

You're looking through rose-tinted glasses because you seem to be under the assumption that the people in Debates are able to handle it and debate rationally and effectively.

My suggestions do nothing to "accommodate" people it just makes it a better section.

Double posting is against the rules. Flat out.

Forcing people to have to ask others to expand on their links is foolish and a waste of time. Especially given that it could take an entire day to actually get the response. Making it a rule to do more than a link to actually express an opinion and give people more to go off of is logical and helps both sides.

I can see absolutely no real reason to not implement what I suggested and nothing you have said convinced me otherwise.

[vla1ne]

i don't assume everybody can debate rationally or effectively, i do assume though, that others can call out such flawed arguments without the need for such rule enforcements.

who does it improve the section for? those of us already there are doing well enough, and there's nothing actively harming people who enter, it's not harming people to deal with the section as it is, it was literally created to keep out of sight from those who didn't want to involve themselves in debate-style topics (or as close to it as we can get on this site).

 

ok, i agree that double posting is against the rules, aside from accidental double posts, and delayed bumps, the edit button is the better route, or just asking somebody else to present the point via PM if you feel it's that important and circumstances accommodate it.

 

punishing people for making short points/links is far more of a negative, and a far larger waste of time for the mods. you are attempting to establish a punishment for an unquestionably victimless crime (the attempt to start discussion) in a section where conversation over objections is the most encouraged means of discipline. now, repeated use of such short links is indeed where you can draw the line and contact mods, and i've seen it enough that you could make a case, but not even attempting to remedy the situation via conversation and instead calling for stricter rules is far and away against what debates was created for. i'm aware that that particular statement is indeed a call for special treatment towards the debates section, but debates is indeed fitting of this particular treatment by way of being made because such discussion is valued. make the effort to remedy the situation via discussion, i have yet to see you do that in this area, and we all know who the main subject of this particular thread is, so just put it out there instead of having this roundabout dance. 

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

If you want to start discussion, discuss it. Don't just press ctrl v. Why is this contested?

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

 

i don't assume everybody can debate rationally or effectively, i do assume though, that others can call out such flawed arguments without the need for such rule enforcements.

who does it improve the section for? those of us already there are doing well enough, and there's nothing actively harming people who enter, it's not harming people to deal with the section as it is, it was literally created to keep out of sight from those who didn't want to involve themselves in debate-style topics (or as close to it as we can get on this site).

 

ok, i agree that double posting is against the rules, aside from accidental double posts, and delayed bumps, the edit button is the better route, or just asking somebody else to present the point via PM if you feel it's that important and circumstances accommodate it.

 

punishing people for making short points/links is far more of a negative, and a far larger waste of time for the mods. you are attempting to establish a punishment for an unquestionably victimless crime (the attempt to start discussion) in a section where conversation over objections is the most encouraged means of discipline. now, repeated use of such short links is indeed where you can draw the line and contact mods, and i've seen it enough that you could make a case, but not even attempting to remedy the situation via conversation and instead calling for stricter rules is far and away against what debates was created for. i'm aware that that particular statement is indeed a call for special treatment towards the debates section, but debates is indeed fitting of this particular treatment by way of being made because such discussion is valued. make the effort to remedy the situation via discussion, i have yet to see you do that in this area, and we all know who the main subject of this particular thread is, so just put it out there instead of having this roundabout dance. 

 

Except no one calls out the link thing and there tends to be periods of just links with little discussion.

And it improves for everyone. Doing well enough =/= can't be improved.

If someone can't do more than a link and can't at least give some thought they should not be posting in Debate. It's in essence a sheet post with no meaning or real point, especially given a lot of them go unnoticed.

The subject of this thread is actually three different people mainly.

It's not roundabout. This is the most direct solution to the problem. Going around PMing people who are involved, when it effects the entire site realistically, is far more roundabout.

It's funny you say that you haven't seen me try and remedy the situation via discussion when I literally am doing that with this thread.

 

You've not really made a single point that I can agree with yet so I think I am not going to continue this right now.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Debate section was made so people getting triggered in general could talk about stuff they wanted without getting triggered (in general)

 

All those people have since come to Debates and mass abuse the report system

 

And now people want more mod presence when the main desire for debates was to make mods butt out of the discussion as power figures

 

needless to say, certain people in this thread wanna destroy everything debates stood for

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Debate section was made so people getting triggered in general could talk about stuff they wanted without getting triggered (in general)

 

All those people have since come to Debates and mass abuse the report system

 

And now people want more mod presence when the main desire for debates was to make mods butt out of the discussion as power figures

 

needless to say, certain people in this thread wanna destroy everything debates stood for

Debates wasn't made as "a forum where the rules don't matter"

 

Debates was supposed to be for intelligent, rational discussion (lol) with the additional upside of topics many would like to avoid funneling in there rather than clogging general or elsewhere on the forums. Of course, due to lack of activity, some members (not saying any names, but you know who you are, winter) feel the need to push this outside of the section (which is an issue all its own).

 

Expecting this to just be a place where there is no standard for post quality or human decency is preposterous. Rational discussion is not difficult, nor is adding 1 or 2 sentences onto a post with a link.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Oh no, that's fine. The description w/ links

 

It's the increase in triggering that's the problem. Wonder if mods can give us report statistic (like # per day) from debates

 

Debates has gotten a lot more sensitive recently, and these topics weren't even the controversial ones >_>

[vla1ne]

Except no one calls out the link thing and there tends to be periods of just links with little discussion.

And it improves for everyone. Doing well enough =/= can't be improved.

If someone can't do more than a link and can't at least give some thought they should not be posting in Debate. It's in essence a s*** post with no meaning or real point, especially given a lot of them go unnoticed.

The subject of this thread is actually three different people mainly.

It's not roundabout. This is the most direct solution to the problem. Going around PMing people who are involved, when it effects the entire site realistically, is far more roundabout.

It's funny you say that you haven't seen me try and remedy the situation via discussion when I literally am doing that with this thread.

 

You've not really made a single point that I can agree with yet so I think I am not going to continue this right now.

is that so much of an issue that you would ask to punish it before talking openly about it though? (yes, that is exactly how your OP reads to me) is it truly that much of an issue worth punishing? that's what i'm asking, and the base of this thread appears to be to petition for new rules before even discussing the subject with those believed to be the offenders.

where have you called it out, claiming that you're calling it out here is bull and you know it. you could have easily addressed it at the time of occurrence with those who you believed to be causing the problem. and i have no doubt that you've already taken other steps to have it punished and had them fail.

debates isn't suffering by any means, and there is nothing in it that's so detrimental that you could say it needs improvement via mod intervention. 

then tell them, all 3, to their face when they do so. that, is direct.

yeah, it's roundabout, don't act as if the rest of the site is the subject when you clearly outlined debates in the title and in the OP. were it another section you wouldn't see me here discussing it, because other sections would indeed benefit from tighter mod presence. if you want to make it direct, you would have placed it in debates section to be debated by those most affected (including the mod of debates), or brought it up directly to the people in question. and if it's not just debates, then it would have served you better to not name debates at all. i get your points, can't say that i don't, and what i'm telling you is that aside from double posting, (and even then, only within a fixed time frame) they aren't important enough to warrant mod intervention when you could just as easily discuss it person to person directly. especially in debates, where it is encouraged to be more direct (not rude, direct), as to leave as little up to misinterpretation or outside intervention as possible.

yeah, by asking for stricter rules, before even asking those targeted to fix the problem themselves.

 

then we can agree to disagree for now.

 

 

 

 

Debates wasn't made as "a forum where the rules don't matter"

 

Debates was supposed to be for intelligent, rational discussion (lol) with the additional upside of topics many would like to avoid funneling in there rather than clogging general or elsewhere on the forums. Of course, due to lack of activity, some members (not saying any names, but you know who you are, winter) feel the need to push this outside of the section (which is an issue all its own).

 

Expecting this to just be a place where there is no standard for post quality or human decency is preposterous. Rational discussion is not difficult, nor is adding 1 or 2 sentences onto a post with a link.

rules matter, but i've said it before, if you want the mods to hold hands in debates, then debates would be better off gone. be it disagreement or annoyance, is addressing the issue as it arises without calling in the mods so difficult? if something annoys you, bring it directly to the person in question and address it, on the spot if possible. who knows, you might make a new fiend.

 

taking topics outside of debates, is something i don't support either, and that does need to stop, but discussing politics on the status bar isn't one of those things, discussing something that happened in debates, outside of the debates section(at least on the public part of YCM), is what debates was created to avoid, a simple status of the political landscape shouldn't really be a violation of that, but past that, yeah, keep it in debates.

 

call it out on the spot then, by asking them to elaborate,or make a topic on it and discuss it in debates. is that not a rational solution?  a link to an article with no words accompanying isn't the end of the world, and it's not completely ignorant, it's just simple. if you want context before reading, or wish for an elaboration on the posters own views, ask. is that such a task these days?

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

 

is that so much of an issue that you would ask to punish it before talking openly about it though? (yes, that is exactly how your OP reads to me) is it truly that much of an issue worth punishing? that's what i'm asking, and the base of this thread appears to be to petition for new rules before even discussing the subject with those believed to be the offenders.

where have you called it out, claiming that you're calling it out here is bull and you know it. you could have easily addressed it at the time of occurrence with those who you believed to be causing the problem. and i have no doubt that you've already taken other steps to have it punished and had them fail.

debates isn't suffering by any means, and there is nothing in it that's so detrimental that you could say it needs improvement via mod intervention. 

then tell them, all 3, to their face when they do so. that, is direct.

yeah, it's roundabout, don't act as if the rest of the site is the subject when you clearly outlined debates in the title and in the OP. were it another section you wouldn't see me here discussing it, because other sections would indeed benefit from tighter mod presence. if you want to make it direct, you would have placed it in debates section to be debated by those most affected (including the mod of debates), or brought it up directly to the people in question. and if it's not just debates, then it would have served you better to not name debates at all. i get your points, can't say that i don't, and what i'm telling you is that aside from double posting, (and even then, only within a fixed time frame) they aren't important enough to warrant mod intervention when you could just as easily discuss it person to person directly. especially in debates, where it is encouraged to be more direct (not rude, direct), as to leave as little up to misinterpretation or outside intervention as possible.

yeah, by asking for stricter rules, before even asking those targeted to fix the problem themselves.

Okay now I have to respond because this is pure ignorance.

 

It's a rule that should be common sense. You post a link? Discuss it, don't just post and hope people talk about it, that's just a waste of a post. It's not as though people are going to be hounded to do something they can't do easily. And it makes discussion flow so much better than having to make people go "Hey what do you think about this?" every time. Especially, as said before, because it's a forum and you can't always have instant responses. It just makes everything cleaner, more engaging, and flow better. There is no real down side.

And I don't know it's bull because it's not. Don't assume I tried other things, that's where suddenly you're attacking with no proof. I've reported double posting and such and, guess what, when I report something in Debates, it's usually something that actually gets punishment/fixed. So no, I have not "tried other things to have them fail." Your assumption is childish and has no place here.

Again, going to people in specific is a roundabout way and, in a forum, about a section that is for the public, it makes much more sense to open up a discussion about it.

"don't act as if the rest of the site is the subject"

Debates is a section. In the site. The rest of the site isn't the subject. The subject effects the whole site. No where did I say this was a discussion about the whole site.

And did you not notice the times the mods stepped in when people were just posting links, or double-posting, to no avail? I don't see why going to each individual myself is a better solution than having an open discussion.

Plus again. This involves everyone, not just those few people in Debates. What sense does it make to suggest a change that would hopefully make more people interested in Debates?

This thread mostly came into being when I saw a couple people in statuses saying that the lack of regulation, and rule breaking, in Debates makes them not want to post there. This is more for that than to call anyone out.

 

Note: When I say ignorance I mean literal. "lack of knowledge or information"