Debate Section Needs To Be More Strict

[vla1ne]

you appear to be missing my point on that. it's not a problem worth mod intervention (in debates at least) especially when open ended topics in debates are generally immune to necrosis. it can be solved via just telling them, and really the only different thing a mod might do is add warning points, which is a pointless hassle when you can just as easily ask them to elaborate.

 

in which case you've tried other things, had them succeed, and just aren't satisfied. same thing. you shouldn't be asking mods to jump in when you easily can fix the problem yourself with far less effort. and enough mods jump in that it's not even lawless, it's just more casual than the average section at times.

 

telling the people who do it directly, when they do it, or shortly after, is now less direct/more roundabout than opening a thread they may or may not see? that's new logic. and did i not say that the location would have been better in debates instead? that way those most affected would actually be more likely to see it?

 

the only area actually affected would be debates, nothing else factors in as far as areas of the site. you think people in misc would be affected by this thread? no. people in TCG/OCG? no. people in CC? no. RP? no. it's one area of the site, it affects no other area. each area has it's own slight variations, where rules are lighter or tighter, as evidenced by the mods stepping in, even in debates, without need for such prodding as this topic calls for. there are already limits in debates, dad pulls the discussion back when it goes to far of, i already ask for elaboration, or elaborate posts myself, if a topic that has my interest gets any such single link posts, and many other small managements are done on the day to day, in topics where people have interest. there are rules in place, and we already police ourselves. debates is both the most casual, and the most strict section. we forgive weak posts if they carry substance, but tear apart bad arguments and those with no substance. your call for stricter, or new rules is unneeded, there's already boundaries in debates. and we already respect those as needed. 

 

debates is opposing opinions, the format of said opinions is irrelevant outside of blatant shitposting. it doesn't have to be comfy, and often it doesn't have to be that extensive (outside of the initial post), to start discussion. it's not an issue that people aren't interested, that's their choice, this isn't an advertisement, they're welcome if they want to be there, if not, there's no reason to change for them. lack of heavy regulation was the literal point that brought debates into existence. if it can't thrive with the basic regulation it has now (within reason and alongside minor improvements), then i promise you it'll die. because nobody currently asking for more regulation is likely to be a permanent resident there. the debaters there right now are the ones who are more about the discussion than the rules binding it. when it comes down to it, those are the kinds of people it needs to thrive.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

If they just post 1 or 2 sentences regarding their opinion, which I am sure they are fully capable of, there doesn't need to be any warning points, any intervention, any asking...

 

Like seriously why is this a problem.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

"telling the people who do it directly, when they do it, or shortly after, is now less direct/more roundabout than opening a thread they may or may not see?"

 

Yes it is. Because that's a temporary fix and only targets some of the problem.

Given people don't have to do it so they may not listen (or only listen once and forget the next time) and it's part of why some people avoid the place.

This is an issue for the community not the several people who are in Debates most of all.

 

"did i not say that the location would have been better in debates instead? that way those most affected would actually be more likely to see it?"

 

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?

I am saying, which you seem to not be getting, that it affects everyone. Not every section. YCM is full of people, not isolated sections.

And again, you're actively opposing a simple way to make Debates more easy to follow/more interesting for everyone, just because the few people who currently do anything there are okay with it as is. That's backwards logic.

 

[vla1ne]

If they just post 1 or 2 sentences regarding their opinion, which I am sure they are fully capable of, there doesn't need to be any warning points, any intervention, any asking...

 

Like seriously why is this a problem.

it's not that elaboration isn't a good thing, it's that making a stricter rule to enforce it, isn't needed.

 

 

"telling the people who do it directly, when they do it, or shortly after, is now less direct/more roundabout than opening a thread they may or may not see?"

 

Yes it is. Because that's a temporary fix and only targets some of the problem.

Given people don't have to do it so they may not listen (or only listen once and forget the next time) and it's part of why some people avoid the place.

This is an issue for the community not the several people who are in Debates most of all.

 

"did i not say that the location would have been better in debates instead? that way those most affected would actually be more likely to see it?"

 

I am saying, which you seem to not be getting, that it affects everyone. Not every section. YCM is full of people, not isolated sections.

And again, you're actively opposing a simple way to make Debates more easy to follow/more interesting for everyone, just because the few people who currently do anything there are okay with it as is. That's backwards logic.

it's temporary, but that's enough, such a minor annoyance does not warrant mod intervention. if you have a point to make in debates, something like that shouldn't be holding you back in the first place.

 

this topic is about what tightening rules in the dabates section, and that is uneeded, the system of debates works, because it's loose. the end result is debates between those who care more for discussion than format, and apart from the minor issues, the thread is doing as well as any other, making things stricter would cut half that appeal away, it's a section meant for those who care about discussion, for the most part, the members police it well enough, and i doubt any of the people who post single links don't also post extensive links as often, the problem is minor, but you know what, go ahead, petition the mods to make it more strict. let's see how well it ends up. debates will do as it has done, and maintain itself. you go ahead and put those rules in place.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Dude what are you so afraid of that a harmless rule is being so vehemently denied? This would actually help create meaningful activity in the section and you fighting for what, freedom to shitpost?

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I dunno it doesn't really feel like mod intervention if it's just a rule that is there. It's like. We don't spam (usually) without mods having to tell us not to, right?

 

Also seriously you have to stop talking like Debates is some kind of nation on its own. It's not a place for several members solely.

If people care about discussion than this rule should be absolutely no issue as it's simply to cause discussion to flow more easily without being halted by uncertainty and vagueness.

 

All together it won't do anything negative for the people who already go there and only add a little extra that could help get people more interested in what's being said.

 

And I would dispute that the system actually works given that you can't really use a system involving 4-5 of the member-base to be able to fully say it works.

 

Your attitude almost makes me think Debates was a mistake, if the mindset is "We are our own place who will do what we want and don't care if others want to make changes". Like it sounds more a Skype/Discord group than a forum section.

[vla1ne]

what meaningful activity? but at this point, it's gone a bit father than i'd like. i'm still against it, but i finally realize that until you get it, you won't realize how useless it'll be. it's not worth the time i've already wasted on it. debates will do as it has always done, and police itself. those interested will come and go, and others will complain. let's see how much those people complaining actually care about participating in debates and not just putting up a new set of rules to make themselves feel as if they're doing something. i'm starting to think i can have some fun with this new attempt.

 

go ahead, petition. it'll be something to watch.

[Maeriberii Haan]

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 >_>

 

Since it's not confidential I guess, then I guess I can say that we have 3 in a week. Rarely these reports are about the actual content of whatever happening there. I assume that Dad takes care of actual issues directly with his activity on the section.

 

Sensitive as it is, people barely bother to do reports there for some reasons. Either way tho, there really isn't any triggered silent majority boogeyman here.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I am extraordinarily confused at the anger I'm seeing here. Like, it almost seems like you're taking this as a personal attack. And as though Debates is some separate entity. But I guess go ahead and be proud of the current state of Debate, I guess, if that's what that is? This was a weird discussion.

[vla1ne]

I am extraordinarily confused at the anger I'm seeing here. Like, it almost seems like you're taking this as a personal attack. And as though Debates is some separate entity. But I guess go ahead and be proud of the current state of Debate, I guess, if that's what that is? This was a weird discussion.

there's no anger at all. although i guess tone's rather hard to grasp over the internet. it's as i've said, try putting your proposals through. not much will change past that, and not much needs changing at all. so i'm honestly disappointed in myself for actually going this long on this side of the discussion. it's not like it'll do anything serious, and it's not like i can't do as i always do while i'm in debates. it's cool,

 

the effort i've put forth here today was a lapse in my own judgement. i got drawn in a bit too much. my apologies for wasting this much time, so carry on with your attempt.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

there's no anger at all. although i guess tone's rather hard to grasp over the internet. it's as i've said, try putting your proposals through. not much will change past that, and not much needs changing at all. so i'm honestly disappointed in myself for actually going this long on this side of the discussion. it's not like it'll do anything serious, and it's not like i can't do as i always do while i'm in debates. it's cool,

 

the effort i've put forth here today was a lapse in my own judgement. i got drawn in a bit too much. my apologies for wasting this much time, so carry on with your attempt.

You seem painfully confident that the change won't happen, yet it is pretty clear you were the only one opposed. Mind explaining that? I am honestly curious what you see in the way of such a footnote being added to the section rules.

[vla1ne]

You seem painfully confident that the change won't happen, yet it is pretty clear you were the only one opposed. Mind explaining that? I am honestly curious what you see in the way of such a footnote being added to the section rules.

oh no, i'm quite sure that it'll go through, just that it won't matter to any extent in changing things in debates, such minor rules aren't what's keeping people out, so i'm wondering what the next excuse'll be, and how this one'll be glossed over.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

oh no, i'm quite sure that it'll go through, just that it won't matter to any extent in changing things in debates, such minor rules aren't what's keeping people out, so i'm wondering what the next excuse'll be, and how this one'll be glossed over.

You say that as if I pitched this as the saving grace of Debates.

Small steps are good.

[vla1ne]

you'll get what i mean when you try it.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

How very ominous.

I hope you realize how ridiculous you sound these last couple posts. I can't even see it as something a person would normally say. It reminds me of some anime villain looking down on some villagers.

 

...Anyway I suppose that's done with. Anyone else have some thoughts on the matter?

[mitchermitcher]

How very ominous.

I hope you realize how ridiculous you sound these last couple posts. I can't even see it as something a person would normally say. It reminds me of some anime villain looking down on some villagers.

 

...Anyway I suppose that's done with. Anyone else have some thoughts on the matter?

Now you're just throwing random ad hominem attempts.

 

My sentiment on this topic is pretty much what vlaine's already put down.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Now you're just throwing random ad hominem attempts.

 

My sentiment on this topic is pretty much what vlaine's already put down.

No I was making a joke and expressing confusion at what he was getting at. The true discussion part was done like four posts ago. Ironically your post is fairly ad hominem. (Also part of vlaine's stuff was that those who didn't go into Debate were thin skinned which is kinda ad hominem just like to mention that)

[vla1ne]

No I was making a joke and expressing confusion at what he was getting at. The true discussion part was done like four posts ago. Ironically your post is fairly ad hominem.

it's not a joke, i said i'd have fun with this, and watching the end result is gonna be my fun. doesn't matter what it sounds like, that's just how it's going to be.

[mitchermitcher]

I just dont understand what's so confusing about saying people should ask winter to give some context to the links he's dropping, rather than going straight to appending the rules.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I just dont understand what's so confusing about saying people should ask winter to give some context to the links he's dropping, rather than going straight to appending the rules.

It's not confusing. But it's basically an unneeded step that could be fixed easily. Especially as it would need to be asked every time evidently which, as I said before, on a forum could mean that it'd be an entire day or more before an explanation is given and in that time discussion could have either gone past that or lost interest.

 

More/less I'm saying it's logical to add the rule because it's kind of a simple thing that should be done anyway. Like we all know spamming is not something one should do but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be a rule.

 

Also not just Winter. In fact iirc there's a couple more guilty than him of it.

[mitchermitcher]

It's not confusing. But it's basically an unneeded step that could be fixed easily. Especially as it would need to be asked every time evidently which, as I said before, on a forum could mean that it'd be an entire day or more before an explanation is given and in that time discussion could have either gone past that or lost interest.

 

More/less I'm saying it's logical to add the rule because it's kind of a simple thing that should be done anyway. Like we all know spamming is not something one should do but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be a rule.

 

Also not just Winter. In fact iirc there's a couple more guilty than him of it.

It's a step that takes a lot less effort than petitioning to change the rules just to bypass it. And it wouldn't need to be asked everytime if Winter started doing this after being requested to once, which he probably will start doing from now on regardless because this thread exists to call him out. If I had to pick between an option that adds an additional rule and one that doesn't, I'll generally favor the latter.

 

And actually yes, I would rather a community tacitly understands not to spam instead of actually having a rule that explicitly says it. Until an outsider joins and ruins it, making something like that necessary at least.

[vla1ne]

most of the people who make such posts (blank aside from links) also post very detailed explanations just as often, if not more often, and that's why it's often let slide, because it's understood that upon request, every single one of them would be glad to elaborate greatly. 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

It's a step that takes a lot less effort than petitioning to change the rules just to bypass it. And it wouldn't need to be asked everytime if Winter started doing this after being requested to once, which he probably will start doing from now on regardless because this thread exists to call him out. If I had to pick between an option that adds an additional rule and one that doesn't, I'll generally favor the latter.

 

And actually yes, I would rather a community tacitly understands not to spam instead of actually having a rule that explicitly says it. Until an outsider joins and ruins it, making something like that necessary at least.

Not at all. This thread took me less than a minute to make. That'd span over multiple days seeing as it'd need to be done multiple times.

And two big things I need to point out

1.) It has been requested more than once to multiple people. And it still happens.

2.) This thread doesn't exist to call him out. Fairly sure Winter knows I can and have called him out without this.

 

There's really no reason for it not to be a thing that I can see and yet it could be helpful. I've yet to be given a reason to not implement it. I've only been given "I don't think it's needed".

My reasons for implementing it is simply that it's not something that's being done and seems to not be followed even when requested at times. It would serve to add more thought and discussion points, and make things overall flow better.

Give me an actual reason it would be bad to have this rule, please.

[mitchermitcher]

I feel it's unnecessary to implement. That's the only reason I have. I don't think it's a bad rule and I don't think any post in this thread has outright stated it would be bad to implement this. But I have no reason to want it implemented either. I'm not gonna just want to implement any random rule just because there's no reason not to.

 

I probably wouldn't even have posted here in the first place with just those reasons if not for the post I quoted earlier, granted.

[vla1ne]

I feel it's unnecessary to implement. That's the only reason I have. I don't think it's a bad rule and I don't think any post in this thread has outright stated it would be bad to implement this. But I have no reason to want it implemented either. I'm not gonna just want to implement any random rule just because there's no reason not to.

 

I probably wouldn't even have posted here in the first place with just those reasons if not for the post I quoted earlier, granted.

no worries mate, just leave it. it's not as big a deal as my lack of sleep lead me to think at first.

 

they'd rather it be automatic and punishable by mod than have to ask every once in a while.