Announcement Debates forum

[Second Summer]

Moderating the debates forum is taking up a lot of moderator resources (time, effort, focus, ...), and even then it's tricky to do it right. So this is what I'd like to try:

• We'll have no special rules. Only the general VV rules will apply. The old special rules will be converted into guidelines / etiquette.
• Moderators won't usually patrol the forum. Therefore members need to report rule violations before a moderator considers taking action.
• If you don't want to participate in the forum, you can opt-out by using the Ignore Node feature.
• A banner will remind you of the guidelines, and that people who are wrong on the Internet are nevertheless people, and also that we (VV) need to work on our reputation, so therefore please think before you type. (Well, something along those lines.)

 

[beancounter]

This sounds good! But I would go a step further and have no rules whatsoever. A complete "wild west" ennvironment where everything goes.

 

[KLS52]

we (VV) need to work on our reputation, so therefore please think before you type. (Well, something along those lines.)
[/LIST]

Work on our reputation as in, we don't really have one yet so let's work on building, hopefully, a good one, or work on making it better because it's bad? I can't imagine we'd have a bad rep.

 

[Second Summer]

This sounds good! But I would go a step further and have no rules whatsoever. A complete "wild west" ennvironment where everything goes.

I think I'm responsible as the owner that it doesn't contain illegal content. Maybe we could do away with the rule about name-calling & ad hominem attacks. That would certainly make it very easy to moderate. Not sure how everyone feels about that, though .... The other rules we just need to keep, and they're not really hard to enforce anyway.

Work on our reputation as in, we don't really have one yet so let's work on building, hopefully, a good one, or work on making it better because it's bad? I can't imagine we'd have a bad rep.

Heh, I'm not really sure. A bit of both, maybe. A few members have rage quit in the past (well, left on less than great terms), so in those people's minds we don't have a good rep. But mostly, people don't know about us at all.

 

[Spang]

The Debate forum is looking very echo chamber-y, lately.

 

[ledboots]

Free Spang.

 

[Clueless Git]

Free Spang.

Yes!

It's about the only price anyone's gonna take him at ...

 

[Clueless Git]

I say sack BC as debate forum moderator.

Any mod who knows what a decent debate should look like is no use to anyone at all?

 

[KLS52]

I have some questions about the specieist thread but I don't know where to ask them, here or that thread. I'm confused with how it all went down. I've been reading/re-reading and I honestly don't understand where the rules were broken. I don't get what was off topic. To say it went off topic seems to mean that you have to pick one of the three options in the OP...why is it wrong for someone to think all three are bad/equal/whatever? For this reason, as someone who is a non-debater, I think the changes in the rules are a good idea. Hope it's ok to bring up this question.

 

[Second Summer]

I got interrupted yesterday as I was starting to implement the proposed changes, so it's about half-done now.

Free Spang.

The debate forum is now opt-out (as in, you don't have to be a member of a group to post there) which means Spang and the Gang are free to post there yet again. You can no longer be banned from just the Debates forum. If you get banned, you're banned from the whole of VV, but that is an admin decision.

I say sack BC as debate forum moderator.

Any mod who knows what a decent debate should look like is no use to anyone at all?

BC, if he still wants to after the changes, is still the forum moderator for that forum.

Less rules should make it easier to follow the few that we do have. It's really just personal attacks (i.e. the ad hominem variety) that have been really bad, all things considered, I think. As long as we can avoid that, I think everyone should be happy.

 

[Clueless Git]

BC, if he still wants to after the changes, is still the forum moderator for that forum.

Less rules should make it easier to follow the few that we do have. It's really just personal attacks (i.e. the ad hominem variety) that have been really bad, all things considered, I think. As long as we can avoid that, I think everyone should be happy.

Errrrr ...

I hope it wasn't missed that I was paying BC a 'back handed compliment' there?

For the sake of 100% clarity; BC is the single best moderator of any debates section of any forum I have ever been on.

 

[beancounter]

Errrrr ...

I hope it wasn't missed that I was paying BC a 'back handed compliment' there?

No problem CG, I for one, understood the intent of your post.

 

[Clueless Git]

No problem CG, I for one, understood the intent of your post.

TY, BC

Anyways, a serious point for consideration ...

Following a total re-invention of the definition of 'Racism' (Spang; speciesm, sexism, racism thread) one of the primary rules of debate sprang to mind:

That's the 'agree definitions' thingy.

Is there any way of introducing a rule/guideline that definitions must be agreed and if they can't be agreed that dictionary definitions of key words must be adhered to?

 

[beancounter]

TY, BC

Is there any way of introducing a rule/guideline that definitions must be agreed and if they can't be agreed that dictionary definitions of key words must be adhered to?

It's not my place to decide, but IMO, there shouldn't be an agreed definition on terms that could mean different things to different people.

 

[Clueless Git]

It's not my place to decide, but IMO, there shouldn't be an agreed definition on terms that could mean different things to different people.

Shouldn't??

 

[beancounter]

Shouldn't??

On things that are subject to interpretation, that's probably not a good idea, but you can certainly suggest it to IS.

 

[Second Summer]

About definitions of terms: I would like to have a few for terms used in our rules, such as "ad hominem attack" (or perhaps we should call it "personal attack"), "vegetarian" etc. Beyond that, I think we would struggle to reach/approach a consensus, especially for terms like racism, and I don't see too much value in defining terms that aren't used in the rules ... Though "the definition of the terms racist (noun) and racism" might make a great and useful discussion