[Discourse] Reforming the Debates Subsection

[Blake]

Recently, talk has taken place with the team about what we should do with Debates. Where to take it, rules to make or take away, if we need to redo the infrastructure completely, things like that. However, that info is still in discussion before we decide on a course of action, so please wait for that.

 

However, ideas about what to do with the section are always welcome to enrich discussion. It allows us a better chance to see what others are thinking and how they feel about it at present. Every person has a different viewpoint, so please, tell us yours.

 

That said, there is one bit of news for now, and it covers what will be coming to the section soon.

 

1. "Debates" will be renamed to "Debates and Political Discussion".

 

Tying in to the discussion of politics in the status bar or elsewhere, the team unanimously agreed to change the section's name. This is to make it more clear where such content belongs.

 

New warning policies will be put into place for when such content is posted outside of DaPD, but they are not in effect yet, so the name change won't be put into effect just yet. When it is, the new policies will be in place, as well, so be mindful.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Honestly, I feel the "debates" portion of the title should be removed. People disagreeing does not make it a debate, and people won't always disagree for that matter. The only time I truly felt it was something akin to a debate was when Jesse was literally refuting her own points out of boredom.

 

Unless there is some paradigm shift toward intentionally opinion-based topics, referring to the section as one for debates both feels to be a mislabeling and an insult to what the idea for the section was in the first place.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Why are people who don't even post in debates, lecturing people who post in debates, how to post in debates?

[Phantom Roxas]

I think "Debates" works fine as it is. Adding "and Political Discussion" seems redundant, when quite frankly that's all that Debates generally seems to be used for these days.
 
If anything, it could stand to be made into its own section, rather than a sub-section of General. Keep it in other, and update the description from "A place for debates and controversial topics" to "A place for debates and controversial topics, such as politics."

 

A common issue is that some threads are started in General, and are often (But not always) moved to Debates. In the cases with the status bar, there are basically too different dynamics. Either someone posts a status which would be better served as the topic for a thread in Debates, or someone makes a status referring to an ongoing thread in Debates. Given the past threads about controversial statuses, it's already been well established what content is more appropriate for Debates than the status bar.

 

If there are going to be new warning policies, it might be better to design them so that they build on those rules for the status bar, as well as reiterate the rules for Debates.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I think "Debates" works fine as it is. Adding "and Political Discussion" seems redundant, when quite frankly that's all that Debates generally seems to be used for these days.

 

If anything, it could stand to be made into its own section, rather than a sub-section of General. Keep it in other, and update the description from "A place for debates and controversial topics" to "A place for debates and controversial topics, such as politics."

 

A common issue is that some threads are started in General, and are often (But not always) moved to Debates. In the cases with the status bar, there are basically too different dynamics. Either someone posts a status which would be better served as the topic for a thread in Debates, or someone makes a status referring to an ongoing thread in Debates. Given the past threads about controversial statuses, it's already been well established what content is more appropriate for Debates than the status bar.

 

If there are going to be new warning policies, it might be better to design them so that they build on those rules for the status bar, as well as reiterate the rules for Debates.

God bless, someone who actually gets the section posting about it.

 

I honestly think the mods just need to butt out - the spillage. That's something that should be cracked down on. Like cowcow warned dad and me for a convo he felt that was aggressive, that NEITHER dad nor I felt was out of line, and we both even publicly stated we didn't feel the other was trying to be abusive. Look, the big brother attitude really doesn't help, especially when half y'all can't be assed to even post there. If Black or Cow was posting in debates daily (like Dad was) these reforms would seems a lot more genuine.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Why are people who don't even post in debates, lecturing people who post in debates, how to post in debates?

there is a reason I stopped. It's a shithole. I know you want to stand proudly atop said shithole, but honestly the small number of people who post there doesn't exempt them from authority, no matter how often you insist that should be the case.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I don't particularly like roxas, and I certainly don't like his views, but we've been able to keep a decent convo going without mod interference. How about just leaving our section to us. If it's "toxic" to you, I got a solution, don't visit it and post in it!

there is a reason I stopped. It's a shithole. I know you want to stand proudly atop said shithole, but honestly the small number of people who post there doesn't exempt them from authority, no matter how often you insist that should be the case.

You never really posted there, not frequently atleast. Roxas and Wharheit were the resident leftists in debates with Jesse and Speedroid occasionally coming in. If you're pissed that it's spilling out of debates, warn the sheet out of that. It shouldn't happen and I'm guilty. But I don't see why a bunch of people who can't be bothered to post in debates wanna tell us how to run it

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I don't post in TCG but if I see someone calling someone a "stupid bastard" I know it's wrong. Debates is part of the site. The site has had rules against aggressive behavior (and at points even simply foul language though now it's only in more extreme cases) for a long, long, time.

 

The fact that only 5 or so people regularly post there makes it even more in need of regulation given that clearly something is keeping people from discussing things civilly there if so often the people are engage in posting habits that are of the type not usually allowed.

 

Several people breaking the rules does not mean that the issue is the rules. It's not YOUR section, it's the ENTIRE SITE's section. If you want a personal place to talk about this stuff use Discord or Skype or PMs. If you want it to be in the forum, however, you have to abide by the rules.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I don't post in TCG but if I see someone calling someone a "stupid bastard" I know it's wrong. Debates is part of the site. The site has had rules against aggressive behavior (and at points even simply foul language though now it's only in more extreme cases) for a long, long, time.

 

The fact that only 5 or so people regularly post there makes it even more in need of regulation given that clearly something is keeping people from discussing things civilly there if so often the people are engage in posting habits that are of the type not usually allowed.

 

Several people breaking the rules does not mean that the issue is the rules. It's not YOUR section, it's the ENTIRE SITE's section. If you want a personal place to talk about this stuff use Discord or Skype or PMs. If you want it to be in the forum, however, you have to abide by the rules.

Clearly you don't have the same idea of what is civil as the the people you're lording over. It's the entire site's section, most of the site doesn't post there. 

 

This would be like a TCG player making a topic and lecturing RP how to run their section 

Can you really not see a problem when a third party tells two people in a convo, they're mutually ok with, that they're out of line to each other?

And it's not even that people are calling each other bastards and posting gas chambers cow. You warned people for using 2nd person....even when everyone involved said it wasn't intended to be personal.....

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Clearly you don't have the same idea of what is civil as the the people you're lording over. It's the entire site's section, most of the site doesn't post there. 

 

This would be like a TCG player making a topic and lecturing RP how to run their section 

Can you really not see a problem when a third party tells two people in a convo they're mutually ok with that they're out of line to each other?

No I don't see the problem. Because again. It. Isn't. Your. Section. It's a part of the site and the site's rules in general say certain things. I don't care if you disagree with what's civil that's my job to determine it. If enough people disagree that's one thing but given Debates is a section with only several main posters I'm not going to bend over backwards to accommodate what they feel is right. Not when it usually goes so against the rest of the site.

Hell I still feel I've been too lenient with several posters there.

 

Can YOU really not see a problem when a small group decides they want to follow different rules from everyone else?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

No because we're the people that post in that section and we're largely OK with it. If Dad, Vla1ne, and I have a convo, and we say "you" a couple times, I don't think it's right for a guy that never really posts there, to waltz in and slap around warning points because of some nonobjective standard.

 

Curious now, do I get to tell RP what to do? How about Giga and showcase?

Just leave us alone, if Proto or Roxas or anyone has a problem we can PM. We don't need strangers too tell us how to run the section we created. 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

No because we're the people that post in that section and we're largely OK with it. If Dad, Vla1ne, and I have a convo, and we say "you" a couple times, I don't think it's right for a guy that never really posts there, to waltz in and slap around warning points because of some nonobjective standard.

 

Curious now, do I get to tell RP what to do? How about Giga and showcase?

Just leave us alone, if Proto or Roxas or anyone has a problem we can PM. We don't need strangers too tell us how to run the section we created. 

You're not a mod. So no you can't. That being said if Sakura told me that there was an issue in RP I'd listen and see if there was an issue and discuss it.

You didn't create the section. It was, quite literally, made because people were bothered by the amount of politics in General. It also was made with harsher rules than most sections (Care to read the current rules that have been there for like a year?).

I'll say this one more time.If you want a place of your own where you don't have to worry about rules....take it off-site. On site you need to follow the rules. This isn't a chatroom, Winter, it's a forum. The rules extend to the entire forum unless stated otherwise. Like, you couldn't go into RP and call someone a "flaming baka" for a post you don't like, for instance. And if someone did and Tormented warned them for it I'd tell him good job because he held up the rules of the site.

 

And the thing is...if I DID listen just to the people who post there, given the reports, you'd be banned. You're not because I chose to be lenient. Legit I, by the current rules, could have given you many more points than I did by now. Why can't you understand this?

 

Yes we'll listen to suggestions but straight up saying we can't enforce site rules in a place that's part of the site is madness.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

What debates needs is a mod who can find hot topics, post both sides and start discussions. Dad used to do that. Not a politeness checker. You guys already killed the section once by jumping into it, please don't do it again

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

Also going to be dropping a reminder for all of you: Remain civil in this topic or else you will be punished. 
 

I think "Debates" works fine as it is. Adding "and Political Discussion" seems redundant, when quite frankly that's all that Debates generally seems to be used for these days.
 
If anything, it could stand to be made into its own section, rather than a sub-section of General. Keep it in other, and update the description from "A place for debates and controversial topics" to "A place for debates and controversial topics, such as politics."
 
A common issue is that some threads are started in General, and are often (But not always) moved to Debates. In the cases with the status bar, there are basically too different dynamics. Either someone posts a status which would be better served as the topic for a thread in Debates, or someone makes a status referring to an ongoing thread in Debates. Given the past threads about controversial statuses, it's already been well established what content is more appropriate for Debates than the status bar.
 
If there are going to be new warning policies, it might be better to design them so that they build on those rules for the status bar, as well as reiterate the rules for Debates.

 
1. Well, the controversial discussions that Debates was intended to hold are usually politically driven to a certain extent. However, let's see what the team as a whole can say about it. Changing the description is doable. Making it another section of its own will need to be looked at, but also workable.
 
2. The purpose of the rule barring Debates stuff on status bar was to keep the discussion pertaining to it in its own area and not on the front page where everyone is forced to see it without shutting off the sidebar. Politics don't sit well with everyone and we all have different opinions on certain issues. The team has been lax about it lately; that much has to change. 
 
3. We may need to rework the current rulebook that Yui wrote during his modship, or at least fix the punishments for Debates / if political stuff doesn't stay in its assigned area.
 
4. You didn't mention this above, but moreso addressing why enforcement in Debates is more lax than it should be. Some of us don't visit Debates often for personal reasons; mostly because of how the place runs and general nature of politics.
 
If you want MY reasoning for avoiding it most of the time, politics/controversial discussions add unneeded drama to my life, opinions are skewed due to the heavily blue state I live in and differences in environment compared to what happens on mainland.

 

---

 

If all of you debated civilly and not engaged in personal attacks with each other, you wouldn't be having the team (well, Cow for the most part anyway) punishing you for behavior.

[Yui]

No because we're the people that post in that section and we're largely OK with it. If Dad, Vla1ne, and I have a convo, and we say "you" a couple times, I don't think it's right for a guy that never really posts there, to waltz in and slap around warning points because of some nonobjective standard.

 

Curious now, do I get to tell RP what to do? How about Giga and showcase?

Just leave us alone, if Proto or Roxas or anyone has a problem we can PM. We don't need strangers too tell us how to run the section we created. 

The rules of the Debates section are very clearly written as being more strict than for other sections. In fact, were I still a mod, I'd wager Cow's been treating you lot more leniently than I would have. In my mind, he's giving y'all that strict babysitter talk because he knows you're gonna cry about it when Mama Gadj & Papa Yui come home if he gives you an actual slap on the wrist or a sufficient time-out, while by now I would have gotten the belt and started whippin' some asscheeks, if the situation in there is as bad as I think it is. Unfortunately, Mama Gadj is never coming home and Papa Yui lost his car keys so he can't until someone gives him a lift, so until that ride gets here or Little Kid Debates gets adopted, y'all are stuck with the babysitter. That's just the way it is. Your section isn't special or exempt from moderation just because there's nobody from that section willing and trustworthy to take up a mod position.

[Phantom Roxas]

1. Well, the controversial discussions that Debates was intended to hold are usually politically driven to a certain extent. However, let's see what the team as a whole can say about it. Changing the description is doable. Making it another section of its own will need to be looked at, but also workable.

 

2. The purpose of the rule barring Debates stuff on status bar was to keep the discussion pertaining to it in its own area and not on the front page where everyone is forced to see it without shutting off the sidebar. Politics don't sit well with everyone and we all have different opinions on certain issues. The team has been lax about it lately; that much has to change. 

 

3. We may need to rework the current rulebook that Yui wrote during his modship, or at least fix the punishments for Debates / if political stuff doesn't stay in its assigned area.

 

4. You didn't mention this above, but moreso addressing why enforcement in Debates is more lax than it should be. Some of us don't visit Debates often for personal reasons; mostly because of how the place runs and general nature of politics.

 

If you want MY reasoning for avoiding it most of the time, politics/controversial discussions add unneeded drama to my life, opinions are skewed due to the heavily blue state I live in and differences in environment compared to what happens on mainland.

 

1. Changing the description would be enough for me. If the team decides not to make Debates into its own section, I will accept that. While I disagree with the proposed name change, saying as much is hardly helpful without alternatives.

 

2. I've seen a few members basically state that they came here just to discuss a card name, not get bogged down with political discussions. My understanding is that, when only one or two members are especially guilty of violating the rule against debates on the status bar is that members of the team fear that it's actively seeking to punish those specific members anyway, rather than merely holding them accountable for their behavior. If the team is going to be more strict anyway, then I'm happy to hear that.

 

3. Rewriting the rules is fine. While I mentioned the status bar, I recognize that it was a separate issue, and those rules were created for different reasons than why Yui wrote rules for Debates. I believe it would be better to compare both the status rules and the Debates rules, to ensure that the rules are consistent across the site and leave little room for confusion.

 

4. Cow is usually the only mod I see in Debates, so while I understand that the mods don't visit it for personal reasons, this does remind me of why "mod sections" were dissolved a while ago. I won't reiterate that too much, but I do think that encouraging more of the team to keep an eye on Debates would fit in with how the general discussion from that discussion was that the entire team did need to be more active across the board.

[Proto]

I support making the containment board actually relegated and recognized as the containment board.

[Blake]

I will try to give more detailed replies tomorrow, though not 100% I’ll be able to with work and training, but I will say that I have already expressed intent to begin keeping s closer eye on debates, alongside Co.

 

I also have a mini-event or contest idea for debates that I had shelvd for a bit, which I’ll probably use as my means to start having some activity there.

[Dad]

The only thing that bothers me, personal reasons or not, is lack of effort.  Because outside of Cow cracking down on "political" activity being outside of the section, and the occasional pop in from Sakura, there has been no effort from anyone on the mod team.

 

I can't tell you how to do your jobs.  Nor do I have an issue with how you're doing it (though I do think Ryan needs to be more aggressive and assert himself into more topics from the bi-partisan aisle to generate discussion, etc), but this whole "we" charade is bullshit.  Debates doesn't care about contests or events.  It cares about hot-button issues.  The problem is that only two mods are willing to even step into the ring and recognize that these issues affect literally the world, while a small group of people in YCM is willing to be involved.

 

You don't care enough.  This sudden willingness to change the section now is way too late.  But better late than never I suppose.

[Sunshine Jesse]

Honestly, I feel the "debates" portion of the title should be removed. People disagreeing does not make it a debate, and people won't always disagree for that matter. The only time I truly felt it was something akin to a debate was when Jesse was literally refuting her own points out of boredom.

I could sustain the whole section on that alone if you wanted.