Pages: 1 2

 

Poll

Would you Like 1 on 1 threads?

Yes60%60% - 48
No39%39% - 31
Total: 79
2006-11-09 10:36:28
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7015|Argentina
Before voting let me tell you about this idea.  It's quite simple.  You open a thread where you challenge any member of the forum to debate on a certain topic.  If he accepts, then the thread it's locked for the OP and the Challenged person, being these 2 persons the only people allowed to post in there.
Both debaters have up to 10 posts to give their viewpoints or replies.  Then, a poll will appear to see what other members think or the thread can be opened to everyone, but this is optional, .  This should be included in a D&ST subsection.
Of course, we need some help from chuy with some new options, but meanwhile let's see what you think.

Last edited by sergeriver (2006-11-09 11:26:26)

2006-11-09 10:38:01
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6750|Connecticut
Good idea. It wont work because not all have the self restraint needed to pull it off. I like it though.
Malloy must go
2006-11-09 10:39:58
DUnlimited
got any popo lolo intersting?
+1,160|6721|cuntshitlake

I think FAIL. Everyone would be spamming + the better one would always be the one that is more popular...
main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg
2006-11-09 10:46:11
[RDH]Warlord
Quakecon Attendee
+17|6916|SLC, Utah, USA
I seriously hope that it does NOT turn into a popularity contest.  When I discuss in here, I don't usually know who I'm talking to, as I focus so much on the content of the post itself, rather than who said it.
2006-11-09 10:54:03
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7015|Argentina

[RDH]Warlord wrote:

I seriously hope that it does NOT turn into a popularity contest.  When I discuss in here, I don't usually know who I'm talking to, as I focus so much on the content of the post itself, rather than who said it.
It is meant to be the chance to debate with one person without all the flaming, and it'll be a cleaner way to see what both guys think about any issue.  You could take the poll out.
2006-11-09 10:57:08
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6787|Global Command
One on one verbal combat.

I'm getting my challenge list ready now...
2006-11-09 10:58:20
Jenspm
penis
+1,716|6990|St. Andrews / Oslo

IRC? would be fun with a lot of spectators
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/flickricon.png https://twitter.com/phoenix/favicon.ico
2006-11-09 10:59:45
[RDH]Warlord
Quakecon Attendee
+17|6916|SLC, Utah, USA
What I mean to say is that when I debate I never do it on a per person level.  I take each post, if I find things I agree with I post, if I find counter-points I counter-post.  Only after do I find out who I was arguing with.
2006-11-09 11:01:05
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6749|Northern California
I think the concept of "calling someone out" or making a debate challenge with someone is a bit contentious.  Rather, i think in an existing thread, if someone were to simply request a 1 on 1 debate with another poster in the thread (someone who tickles your fancy or otherwise intrigues you into debating), then that could work..it would also be less pressure.

Also, allowing others to judge how the debate went kinda creates competativeness in a way that takes from the purpose of the debate..to simply understand each other and represent your view in a way that would make it prevail..or just be understood.  I've seen some GOOD threads around here where those elements were done within a thread and it's easy enough to filter out the rabble..sometimes. 

Also, if others judge or comment on the 20 total posts between the debaters, then if it goes bad for someone, they may not ever accept another challenge.  Also, if someone denies a challenge, then the majority of members here will simply flame that person and call them afraid, etc.

I vote to adopt a simple tag at the beginning of a post.  Something like this:
** 1 on 1 debate request with [forum member] **
** 1 on 1 with [forum member] requested **

Something that will let others attacking you (or attempting to draw you away from topic) know that you are focused on one person at the moment.

HERE is an example of what a thread could look like using these tags to have 1 on 1 debate.

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-11-09 11:03:24)

2006-11-09 11:01:38
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7015|Argentina

ATG wrote:

One on one verbal combat.

I'm getting my challenge list ready now...
Am I there?
2006-11-09 11:04:14
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6858|132 and Bush

What needs to happen is the ability to not allow others to comment until the thread is complete.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-11-09 11:06:33
jord
Member
+2,382|6936|The North, beyond the wall.
I think it would be more suited to Pm's,then one person posts exactly the messages in a thread.

I couldn't just sit by on a public forum and watch some guy post a load of false facts and not be able to post in response to them.

Last edited by jord (2006-11-09 11:06:52)

2006-11-09 11:06:45
BigmacK
Back from the Dead.
+628|7008|Chicago.
Sure, why not?

I probably won't be challenged.
2006-11-09 11:07:10
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7015|Argentina

IRONCHEF wrote:

I think the concept of "calling someone out" or making a debate challenge with someone is a bit contentious.  Rather, i think in an existing thread, if someone were to simply request a 1 on 1 debate with another poster in the thread (someone who tickles your fancy or otherwise intrigues you into debating), then that could work..it would also be less pressure.

Also, allowing others to judge how the debate went kinda creates competativeness in a way that takes from the purpose of the debate..to simply understand each other and represent your view in a way that would make it prevail..or just be understood.  I've seen some GOOD threads around here where those elements were done within a thread and it's easy enough to filter out the rabble..sometimes. 

Also, if others judge or comment on the 20 total posts between the debaters, then if it goes bad for someone, they may not ever accept another challenge.  Also, if someone denies a challenge, then the majority of members here will simply flame that person and call them afraid, etc.

I vote to adopt a simple tag at the beginning of a post.  Something like this:
** 1 on 1 debate request with [forum member] **
** 1 on 1 with [forum member] requested **

Something that will let others attacking you (or attempting to draw you away from topic) know that you are focused on one person at the moment.

HERE is an example of what a thread could look like using these tags to have 1 on 1 debate.
Ironchef, you do know how much I respect you, but think about it.  Let's put the poll aside, you can take the poll out.  The locked debate will be just a modality, and you'll still have the regular threads.  It's a way to debate with other guy on a topic.  If you think that the loser could feel bad, we can't exclude the poll thing.

jord wrote:

I think it would be more suited to Pm's,then one person posts exactly the messages in a thread.

I couldn't just sit by on a public forum and watch some guy post a load of false facts and not be able to post in response to them.
You could challenge him in other post.

Kmarion wrote:

What needs to happen is the ability to not allow others to comment until the thread is complete.
That's why the thread is locked for two people.  Then we can make a poll, or we can open the thread for everyone to give their viewpoints.  It's just an idea, all suggestions will be appreciated.

Last edited by sergeriver (2006-11-09 11:12:32)

2006-11-09 11:16:41
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6749|Northern California
Serge, I apologize if my post came across as though i was disagreeing with your idea.  I probably could have worded that better.  Perhaps as a casual alternative to formal topic challenges as described in your OP, the "in-thread" 1 on 1 request could be used?  I'm sure plenty here (as shown in the above poll) would love open, publicly scrutinized debates.  I doubt I'd participate in many, but I'm sure they'd be embraced.

But again, just as an alternative to this, people could also freely engage in "in-thread" debating 1 on 1 (while other debates, comments, distractions are occuring).

I think we should just start doing it and evolving the procedure as we go.  And as long as we have moderator support in managing debate only threads, let's have at it!  If people start enjoying the debates, adding comments after each opponent has put in their 10 comments, that could be quite fun and it would catch on.
2006-11-09 11:23:34
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7015|Argentina

IRONCHEF wrote:

Serge, I apologize if my post came across as though i was disagreeing with your idea.  I probably could have worded that better.  Perhaps as a casual alternative to formal topic challenges as described in your OP, the "in-thread" 1 on 1 request could be used?  I'm sure plenty here (as shown in the above poll) would love open, publicly scrutinized debates.  I doubt I'd participate in many, but I'm sure they'd be embraced.

But again, just as an alternative to this, people could also freely engage in "in-thread" debating 1 on 1 (while other debates, comments, distractions are occuring).

I think we should just start doing it and evolving the procedure as we go.  And as long as we have moderator support in managing debate only threads, let's have at it!  If people start enjoying the debates, adding comments after each opponent has put in their 10 comments, that could be quite fun and it would catch on.
I don't get how you avoid other people to post while the two debaters are posting, that's the only doubt.
2006-11-09 11:49:39
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6703|The Land of Scott Walker

sergeriver wrote:

Before voting let me tell you about this idea.  It's quite simple.  You open a thread where you challenge any member of the forum to debate on a certain topic.  If he accepts, then the thread it's locked for the OP and the Challenged person, being these 2 persons the only people allowed to post in there.
Both debaters have up to 10 posts to give their viewpoints or replies.  Then, a poll will appear to see what other members think or the thread can be opened to everyone, but this is optional, .  This should be included in a D&ST subsection.
Of course, we need some help from chuy with some new options, but meanwhile let's see what you think.
Pretty much what happens now without the lock at the beginning.
2006-11-09 11:51:54
mafia996630
© 2009 Jeff Minard
+319|7021|d

BigmacK wrote:

Sure, why not?

I probably won't be challenged.
dnt wry, just challenge some random dude, like me.

I'll be waiting .
2006-11-09 12:10:28
jonsimon
Member
+224|6753
I say no just because no one on these forums knows how to concede a point.
2006-11-09 12:25:58
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6749|Northern California

sergeriver wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

Serge, I apologize if my post came across as though i was disagreeing with your idea.  I probably could have worded that better.  Perhaps as a casual alternative to formal topic challenges as described in your OP, the "in-thread" 1 on 1 request could be used?  I'm sure plenty here (as shown in the above poll) would love open, publicly scrutinized debates.  I doubt I'd participate in many, but I'm sure they'd be embraced.

But again, just as an alternative to this, people could also freely engage in "in-thread" debating 1 on 1 (while other debates, comments, distractions are occuring).

I think we should just start doing it and evolving the procedure as we go.  And as long as we have moderator support in managing debate only threads, let's have at it!  If people start enjoying the debates, adding comments after each opponent has put in their 10 comments, that could be quite fun and it would catch on.
I don't get how you avoid other people to post while the two debaters are posting, that's the only doubt.
Quote your opponent directly, and only respond to their rebuttles.  Ignoring others is easy.
2006-11-09 12:42:40
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7015|Argentina

IRONCHEF wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

Serge, I apologize if my post came across as though i was disagreeing with your idea.  I probably could have worded that better.  Perhaps as a casual alternative to formal topic challenges as described in your OP, the "in-thread" 1 on 1 request could be used?  I'm sure plenty here (as shown in the above poll) would love open, publicly scrutinized debates.  I doubt I'd participate in many, but I'm sure they'd be embraced.

But again, just as an alternative to this, people could also freely engage in "in-thread" debating 1 on 1 (while other debates, comments, distractions are occuring).

I think we should just start doing it and evolving the procedure as we go.  And as long as we have moderator support in managing debate only threads, let's have at it!  If people start enjoying the debates, adding comments after each opponent has put in their 10 comments, that could be quite fun and it would catch on.
I don't get how you avoid other people to post while the two debaters are posting, that's the only doubt.
Quote your opponent directly, and only respond to their rebuttles.  Ignoring others is easy.
Alrite, but if you want to keep all the debate in one piece your quotes will become larger everytime.
2006-11-09 13:09:10
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6800|Texas - Bigger than France
One on one action instead of an orgy?  Does this mean I have to be faithful?

It'll be interesting, of course it wouldn't be any different than we have now.  Most debates happen between two people anyway, and the way to support what they say is by karma.
2006-11-09 13:12:09
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6749|Northern California

sergeriver wrote:

I don't get how you avoid other people to post while the two debaters are posting, that's the only doubt.

IRONCHEF wrote:

Quote your opponent directly, and only respond to their rebuttles.  Ignoring others is easy.

sergeriver wrote:

Alrite, but if you want to keep all the debate in one piece your quotes will become larger everytime.
Not if i eliminate portions of previous posts like I've done above. 

Me and deeznuts1245 just had a small demo of a 1 on 1.  the walmart thread had a bunch of opinions in it, then i said at the opening of my post ** open to 1 on 1 debate ** and deeznutz, having a contrary opinion decided to take me up on it.  the format was ok, and we debated one topic, and amicably ended.

i like the ** open for 1 on 1 debate ** tag.  i'ma keep using it and see if i can start a trend.  maybe i'll just put it in my signature! lol
2006-11-09 13:14:02
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6749|Northern California
** 1 on 1 debate request for PUG **

Pug wrote:

One on one action instead of an orgy?  Does this mean I have to be faithful?

It'll be interesting, of course it wouldn't be any different than we have now.  Most debates happen between two people anyway, and the way to support what they say is by karma.
I think that the 1 on 1 debate option can coexist with the orgy-type debate we currently have.  So being faithful to both a 1 on 1 debate AND with an orgy-type debate can likewise be honored.  Do you dispute this?



[my corny example of calling you out for a 1 on 1!]
2006-11-09 13:22:06
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6907

Personally, I don't really like the idea of it. I don't know about other people, but I don't always have an opinion o something, and neither do I always have an answer to what the other guy wants.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard