Everyone gives out their points from their perspectives. They must cite those points so no one disagrees. All points must be true and valid. Problems start when there's truth to both sides that opposite members are on and they cannot simply agree to agree/disagree with each other. If Rules would permit that and members would do that then a lot more points would come out rather than flame wars. Anything other than that should be averted in any way possible. That's my opinion to what a proper Discussion should look like. P.S. People shouldn't treat it as a competition, as long as the best points come out from both sides from both people then why disagree with each other? Say the truths of your side, don't oppose the truths of the other side, do that and the other side shall do the same. Most truths don't oppose each other by nature anyway. This is why citing is required. Any uncited arguments should be labled as incorrect and ignored as such. A simple "Please cite your arguments if you want us to pay attention to it." never hurts though but no further replies should be made until the arguments in the original post is properly cited. Again this is my opinion from my perspective.
Last edited by Merc; Oct 6, 2015 at 12:58 AM.
| Leader of FC | Loans | ABD Enthusiast |
Well, first off, we shouldn't title our threads as arguments c ; I feel like we need to lighten the atmosphere of the board. Maybe make it so people don't feel the need to take a badly worded argument literally and use it to construct a strawman and stand behind it for eight pages? Despite Pig saying that it isn't about winning, he's acting like he needs to (why else would you take a discussion in such a direction?) and so is everyone else. Being argumentative furthers the conversation, but there's a difference between a healthy discussion and propagating a point-by-point slugfest, where everyone plays dirty.
Originally Posted by Gynx
I think here lies the crux of the issue. Whether or not you (using "you" in the general sense, not addressing Gorman specifically) care if someone disagrees with you, I think people see (lengthy) disagreements as a stalling of the discussion at hand rather than a furthering of it. As most discussions are subject to opinion (and rarely do people voice their controversial ones) you generally see people arguing over a situation where neither party is wrong.
It's very easy to write the Discussion board off as a whole when it encourages (read as: doesn't discourage) two people locking horns over a non-issue for pages and pages because neither participant can say "I guess we just disagree, clearly there's truth to both sides but I can't accept x over y because of z", where z is a perfectly acceptable reason. This (in my opinion) hangs the discussion out to dry on one particular disagreement, making it difficult to discuss other points related to the topic over the ramblings.
This is literally the whole point of the subforum mate.
People happily ignore pages and pages of posts and dive in with their 1 line opinions, so I don't think it's a big deal really. I too routinely ignore posts that I have no interest in answering.
Originally Posted by Gynx
Sadly I think the only solution is hard-line moderation and a very specific set of rules that detail how to discuss things over the more general "post a source etc.", "dont be nasty" ones we currently have. Only issue with this approach is that whilst your quality of discussion will go up you become less accessible to the average user and the mods will have to deal with a very, very upset Gorman.
Bad solution
If you start making rules about how people can discuss things then the whole sub is going to get really shit really fast. The whole point of the sub is to discuss things, so if people want to make 10 pages discussing an asinine point what's the problem? They are just doing it for their own enjoyment, and no one is forcing you to read it... If it's not really a problem, then I don't think there's any reason to make rules against it.
Originally Posted by KiTFoX
this is exactly why discussion should be repurposed and debate should be brought back, along with ejections replacing infractions. I don't understand why discussion has turned into this serious-as-shit board where the same ten people recycle moot issues like gay marriage.
Debate was shit. Sure, I enjoyed it, but it was shit (I really did enjoy that all religious people were systematically purged from the board for being 'illogical', but is it slowly kills the sub). Discussion is lightyears ahead. Besides, debate only worked /at all/ because junt. How are you going to replace him? I don't think it's possible.
Discussion isn't serious, which is why it's good, it could do with being even less serious IMO.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
I've always been about making this board more accessible and inviting (or at the very least, less repulsive) to the average user. The way I see it, the more people involved in Discussion and the more active the board, the better. More people means more discussions which means more fun (and at the end of the day, that's what it's all about).
Super-strict moderation = a barrier to posting. If someone's getting an infraction in Discussion nowadays, it's because they've either made a really rude/trolly post or because the shit they've posted is useless, and they've done it before. If someone's posted something that you think is stupid/illogical/irrelevant, then that's the job of you and the community to call them out on that and force them to defend their point - it's the community's job to further the discussion (not my job to end it). Unless it really is completely irrelevant, then I (and other mods) shouldn't take any action.
My job, as I see it, is to take a pseudo laissez-faire approach; get out of the way of discussions and let the board evolve naturally and unhindered. I trust that even if the board becomes full of idiots as it gets more active, the remaining 15%, the smart eggs, will hold them to account.
Originally Posted by meow
I really think moderation should be tighter than it is, it's the same people in every thread that have never read the rules and don't even read anything apart from them OP that post something that's not really related to the current discussion and is just dumb. Happens in every single thread.
I like Pig's post as he plays devil's advocate and makes sure it's not just a violent circle jerk, harsher moderation is really needed with harsher punishments for repeat offenders.
Super-strict moderation = a barrier to posting. If someone's getting an infraction in Discussion nowadays, it's because they've either made a really rude/trolly post or because the shit they've posted is useless, and they've done it before. If someone's posted something that you think is stupid/illogical/irrelevant, then that's the job of you and the community to call them out on that and force them to defend their point - it's the community's job to further the discussion (not my job to end it). Unless it really is completely irrelevant, then I (and other mods) shouldn't take any action.
My job, as I see it, is to take a pseudo laissez-faire approach; get out of the way of discussions and let the board evolve naturally and unhindered. I trust that even if the board becomes full of idiots as it gets more active, the remaining 15%, the smart eggs, will hold them to account.
Last edited by Ele; Oct 6, 2015 at 05:19 AM.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Debate was shit. Sure, I enjoyed it, but it was shit (I really did enjoy that all religious people were systematically purged from the board for being 'illogical', but is it slowly kills the sub). Discussion is lightyears ahead. Besides, debate only worked /at all/ because junt. How are you going to replace him? I don't think it's
I ran debate longer than junt you don't have to tell me it was shit I remember. My point is that I think the forum is ridiculous and you love it for the same reason you loved debate. It's a place for you to troll. The board sucks and needs to be merged and done away with.
