[Section Discussion] Quality of Life Suggestions and Improvements

[Dad]

The structure of the "Trump Administration Thread" is ideal for debates in that under most links and articles there is a brief summary of the article and what it entails.  Some things have been brought to my attention regarding keeping OP's neat so that the debate starts and stays with some kind of organization.  Here's what some users have in mind:

 

• A brief summary of the link/article posted in the OP.  (Most of you already do this.)
• Stating which part of the article you're arguing for or against.
• Detailing how the article favors your debate or refutes it.

 

These things are up for discussion so that the debate community can decide what if any of these changes they'd like to see made to Debates rules, before any sort of implementation.

 

This thread is Zero Tolerance.  Please discuss at your leisure and remain on topic.

[Aerion Brightflame]

I am fully in favour of this, and I would also suggest it apply to any and all links provided by any individual in a thread (This includes images).

 

It requires a low amount of time and effort, and it will serve to improve clarity in the section because it makes it near impossible to misinterperate what one means when they post or a link or what aspect it adds to an argument. In my eyes there is no excuse not to do these things anyway because it's like 30s of effort in a post that takes a long time to construct as it is.

[Wahrheit]

I'm kind of amazed that this forum didn't officially adopt a civility clause. I would recommend adopting the following:

 

 

Posts should be directed at arguments, not individuals. Participants are expected to maintain a high level of respect for others, and threads should not devolve into shouting matches. Discourse is about engaging, not running through a flowchart of bullet-point refutations. Address the substance of opposing parties in good faith, and take them seriously.

 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'm kind of amazed that this forum didn't officially adopt a civility clause. I would recommend adopting the following:

I'm not civility clauses are often graded subjectively by a vocal minority lynch mob. How well has the clause worked out for r/politics? Seems like it's done a great job at stomping out dissent under the guise of "civility" 

[Aerion Brightflame]

I don't r/politics failing to impliment anything should stand against it. I would also argue that downvotes shut down dissent far more quickly than a civility clause. Well downvotes and upvotes dictating what topics rise to the forefront of the section, and reddit being left leaning for the majority. I didn't even know r/politics had a civility clause.

 

I'd be in favour of a civility clause. If you are incapable of basic civility, you have no place in debates. It's a bugger to institute because there are posters who are s*** at it, but we should still aspire to it.

 

Even if the civility clause is as simple as 'don't be an arse' one should be able to manage it without much difficulty. Because it really doesn't take much to not be an arse.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Agreed with Barty on all accounts.

 

Often, people (one in particular) have said that there shouldn't be rules against ad hominem etc because they exist in the real world, and people need to be able to deal with it.

 

Frankly, I think that's bullshit. This is a controlled environment. We can enforce whatever we like, whether it is enforceable in the real world or not. People don't go on YCM to learn social interaction, if anything they come here to forget it.

 

Slander and needless aggression add absolutely nothing positive to the discussions, and even if they don't hurt it much (which, for the record, is a sentiment I sincerely disagree with) that isn't a real defense for them.

 

We should hold ourselves to a higher standard.

 

And, don't forget, this goes both ways. Not all of the petty insults come from winter. A lot of them are thrown at him too, and whether they are done so in retaliation or not, it doesn't justify it. Should this rule be implemented, I expect it to be enforced fairly.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The idea is that a civility clause is entirely dependent on the mods. r/politics mods didn't care about civility as long as it was to their benefit. And thus we have a total lack of decorum there. Given the amount of jabroniing in both public and to mods against a certain group of individuals by a certain other group in debates, I have little confidence that suddenly the mods are gonna be "fair" or suddenly the report happy group is going to not react to everything. This trigger happy group and it's members have been like this for years now, and as you love to say about me Tom, things aren't changing anytime soon.

 

Civility isn't an objective mesure. 

 

---

 

Yeah yeah, the same thing can be said about r/The_Donald, that's party the reason I left the mod team- because viking used the loyalty rule to turn the thing into a dissent free-zone, it's better now under snappy and velo, but the point still remains an overzealous judge or a blood thirsty mob ruins a civility clause. 

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Then hold the mods accountable. With Birdie in place as PR moderator, there should be greater transparency. If you feel you are being discriminated against by the rule, take it up with the staff, don't fight the presence of the rule in the first place.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Then hold the mods accountable. With Birdie in place as PR moderator, there should be greater transparency. If you feel you are being discriminated against by the rule, take it up with the staff, don't fight the presence of the rule in the first place.

[redacted]

 

I think our attempts to hold the mod team accountable...have been with mixed to poor results at best. I don't with to name names or turn this into a grievance hunt. But yeah.

[Aerion Brightflame]

And has Dad shown he's like to only enforce civility to his own benefit? I don't think so myself.

 

And I think that even if civility is subjective there are minimum standards we can agree upon that then would be objective. Warhiet lists a couple of things that can work, like no as homien.

 

Change won't happen in this place unless it's forced. I'm ready to see attempts to force it through attempts to build civility.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

And has Dad shown he's like to only enforce civility to his own benefit? I don't think so myself.

 

And I think that even if civility is subjective there are minimum standards we can agree upon that then would be objective. Warhiet lists a couple of things that can work, like no as homien.

 

Change won't happen in this place unless it's forced. I'm ready to see attempts to force it through attempts to build civility.

I'm not gonna get into a public naming match to exhume my laundry list Tom. Bait will not be taken. Dad is not the only mod in these parts. 

 

The place is fine. We made debates to be a rule free zone when it was first created. We wanted a more heated and tenuous general (don't take my word for it, go look at the thread where we asked for debates to be made). 

 

The definition of ad hom that you guys subscribe too is too stringent. Like my critique of the UK's loftiness is "ad hom" somehow in your all's books. Not to mention it's hypocritically and lopsidedly enforced.

 

But if wahrheit really wants change, tell him to lead by example. Mass reporting, begging mods to deal out warning points, and going behind people's back to raise witch hunts is hardly "good faith"

 

He cannot even follow his own advice, and you want me to blindly subscribe to it?

[Aerion Brightflame]

And so we ask that Dad is the only mod whom can enforce civility within debates then?

 

I wanted debates to be a place where we could have discourse not pissing matches. I feel debates borders too much on the latter as of late and that improvement is needed to reach a bettet standard. Whilst I don't expect much from YCM debates I expect more than we've been getting.

 

Shot can get heated without turning to pure ad hominem, which was my opinion around the issue back when we had the initial discussions. Minimimal rules shouldn't mean minimal standards and if people drop below those standards they should be punished if nessecary, be that you, warheit, roxas or me.

 

I don't care if it becomes hypocrasy, I'm tired of this place having sheet for standards and not seeking to improve. I want to see it improve; it's why I made the initial suggestion to Dad.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

And so we ask that Dad is the only mod whom can enforce civility within debates then?

 

I wanted debates to be a place where we could have discourse not pissing matches. I feel debates borders too much on the latter as of late and that improvement is needed to reach a bettet standard. Whilst I don't expect much from YCM debates I expect more than we've been getting.

 

Shot can get heated without turning to pure ad hominem, which was my opinion around the issue back when we had the initial discussions. Minimimal rules shouldn't mean minimal standards and if people drop below those standards they should be punished if nessecary, be that you, warheit, roxas or me.

 

I don't care if it becomes hypocrasy, I'm tired of this place having sheet for standards and not seeking to improve. I want to see it improve; it's why I made the initial suggestion to Dad.

Most heated Debate topic of recent was the Israel thread with Shard getting a bit upset at American's bellicose foreign policy

 

Other than that it's been fairly civil. I'd like you to point me to specific examples of recent debates topics that have been ugly and pure ad hom

[Wahrheit]

If anyone has objections to the enforcement of this clause, that seems like something that could be raised on a case-by-case basis. In fact, such an objection seems like an admission that the clause itself is a good idea in principle. Maybe it'll require some time to iron out the application, but I think that's okay.

[Dad]

Civility Clause is certainly something I'm willing to at least consider.  Again, before any implementation goes into effect, there will be a poll.  Thank you for your input.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Civility Clause is certainly something I'm willing to at least consider.  Again, before any implementation goes into effect, there will be a poll.  Thank you for your input.

Remember when the mods stayed the funk out of policing and putting regulations all over debates? If y'all are gonna stick your finger in everything, just dissolve debates and go back to the original full general section. There's no point keeping debates if y'all are gonna trash it in spirit all the time

If anyone has objections to the enforcement of this clause, that seems like something that could be raised on a case-by-case basis. In fact, such an objection seems like an admission that the clause itself is a good idea in principle. Maybe it'll require some time to iron out the application, but I think that's okay.

1) If X, then Y

 

2) Y is problematic

 

1) + 2) says nothing about X being problematic or not. 

Most heated Debate topic of recent was the Israel thread with Shard getting a bit upset at American's bellicose foreign policy

 

Other than that it's been fairly civil. I'd like you to point me to specific examples of recent debates topics that have been ugly and pure ad hom

Waiting on an answer

[Dad]

Remember when the mods stayed the funk out of policing and putting regulations all over debates? If y'all are gonna stick your finger in everything, just dissolve debates and go back to the original full general section. There's no point keeping debates if y'all are gonna trash it in spirit all the time

1) If X, then Y

 

2) Y is problematic

 

1) + 2) says nothing about X being problematic or not. 

Waiting on an answer

 

I realize something this is something "Winter doesn't like".  There's a reason that this will be a poll for all users of debates to express their concerns and voice their opinions.  I'm really trying to be patient, and unbiased, especially with some of the things going on for me right now.  But you're making that very difficult.

 

If I wanted to stick my finger in it, I could just go back and add all the rules I said I wasn't going to, and throw in this civility clause too.  It's simple enough for me to just act, hold up my personal member title, and ignore you, but I don't want to do that.  But I'm allowing everyone to talk it out first.  You're over exaggerating, being petty, and childish.  Calm down and go through the process.  This is what you wanted, isn't it?  And you're precisely the reason this is even happening.

[Tentacruel]

But how am I supposed to call people baka for disagreeing with me now?

 

 

OT:  We've been doing a pretty good job of being civil and Dad has stepped in when it starts to get personal, so I don't see anything wrong with putting something in writing.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

do as you will

 

There's been plenty of "things winter doesn't like" that have been codified to pander to newcomers. It's not new.

 

If life is being hard on you. YCM can wait IMO

 

But how am I supposed to call people baka for disagreeing with me now?

 

 

OT:  We've been doing a pretty good job of being civil and Dad has stepped in when it starts to get personal, so I don't see anything wrong with putting something in writing.

Has this ever happened in debates?

[Dad]

I shouldn't have lashed out like that.  I'm sorry.  I'm just trying to play the field evenly.  It's hard to find a perfect balance that suits everyone, and is healthy for the section.  I'm going to let the process take it's course and hopefully this is something everyone benefits from.

[Delibirb]

The civility clause is a bit off topic. I'm in favor of the OP's recommendation. I've seen a lot of threads recently that just post a link to the article a single sentence beneath it, that doesn't really explain what the article was about or even the OP's thoughts on the matter. It doesn't start discussions, and it's annoying to have to read 2-3 articles to understand what the OP actually wants to discuss.

 

But, on the topic of civility, I don't think we necessarily need a rule requiring us to be nice to one another; civility isn't the issue. People just need to learn how to actually debate. How to argue points effectively, and in a way that allows a back and forth discussion. And, most importantly, how to concede a point without necessarily agreeing with it.

 

A pinned thread that simply contains "welcome to debates, here's what a balanced debate looks like, and various debating skills you can use to effectively make your points and have a productive discussion." Not as a rule, more like... a workshop. If people are going off the rails and arguing poorly, we can point them there to try to teach them tactics so that not only will everyone be less on edge all the time, but so that they might actually be able to get people to understand and acknowledge their arguments.

[Wahrheit]

I was told to post the civility clause idea here - I apologize if it seems off-topic. Just trying to do what the mods say.

[Delibirb]

I was told to post the civility clause idea here - I apologize if it seems off-topic. Just trying to do what the mods say.

I don't really mind that it was here, it just seemed out of place given the OP made it seem like it was attempting to talk about one change in particular, which seemed to get ignored.

 

Regardless, as much as I would like more civility in debates, the lack of it is not the primary fault of the section, as I see it.

[Wahrheit]

I don't really mind that it was here, it just seemed out of place given the OP made it seem like it was attempting to talk about one change in particular, which seemed to get ignored.

 

Regardless, as much as I would like more civility in debates, the lack of it is not the primary fault of the section, as I see it.

Maybe not. But maybe this could help. I think it might - and it's nice to formally establish a floor.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I propose a rule whereby all utterances of "Wahrheit" after implementation result in an immediate ban. Firm but fair and totally precedented.