Topic closed
That would be a good topic. I know I ain't anti-American. I would be against my relatives. Sadly I can't agree with GWB government, but that doesn't make me anti-American. One of the persons of these times I admire the most is Bill Clinton. I'm glad for those who can understand that, and feel sorry for those who can't.Pug wrote:
Actually, here's a good topic already underway.
Serge v. Fancy
Topic:
Serge argues: Criticizing US policy doesn't make you anti-American
Fancy argues: the opposite
I originally intended and intentionally left the threads as separate matters, (So as to remain as a neutral moderator) I remain in the same position. It's my job. Your prior thread has been closed.sergeriver wrote:
When two politicians debate on tv, people can watch the debate, because it's considered interesting. Using Pm's there's no debate beyond the two persons involved.Kung Jew wrote:
I don't think it would be right to ban someone for posting in a thread in a public forum. If two people want to have a serious debate, my recommendation would be for them to duke it out in PM's and post the results in a thread. Just make sure that both parties understand what is going on (ie.. public posting of PM's upon completion of debate, uncensored) This way you keep the debate closed from outside interference, yet still get the public's attention with the subject matter, points, and counter arguments.
KJ
I think you just don't like the idea, as you didn't like the thread you closed an hour ago, which I must say it was not meant to be a trolling/flaming wars.
I only proposed a new kind of thread where one person challenges another, and in a context of respect the rest of the people would just read what these two guys are debating. After, the debate is ended, people could vote for a winner. Nothing else nothing less. I sent you a Pm regarding the other thread but you didn't answer it, so I posted here, my mistake?Kung Jew wrote:
I originally intended and intentionally left the threads as separate matters, (So as to remain as a neutral moderator) I remain in the same position. It's my job. Your prior thread has been closed.sergeriver wrote:
When two politicians debate on tv, people can watch the debate, because it's considered interesting. Using Pm's there's no debate beyond the two persons involved.Kung Jew wrote:
I don't think it would be right to ban someone for posting in a thread in a public forum. If two people want to have a serious debate, my recommendation would be for them to duke it out in PM's and post the results in a thread. Just make sure that both parties understand what is going on (ie.. public posting of PM's upon completion of debate, uncensored) This way you keep the debate closed from outside interference, yet still get the public's attention with the subject matter, points, and counter arguments.
KJ
I think you just don't like the idea, as you didn't like the thread you closed an hour ago, which I must say it was not meant to be a trolling/flaming wars.
This thread was a discussion about having an uninterrupted debate between two members. I gave you well thought out ideas and responses and suggested a course of action that could be accomplished. Your response was to tell me what I do or do not like. I suggest you refrain from further actions/assumptions of this kind.
To further, when two politicians debate, the crowd/people watching on TV/etc aren't allowed to throw in there two bits, discouraging remarks, personal opinions, attacks, spam, or any other interference between the debating members. Thus allowing "no debate beyond the two persons involved."
I believe that was the intent of the OP. To form a debate where "one person challenges another to Debate on one specific topic, and they are the only two allowed to post."
Please help me understand what you are trying to accomplish at this point.
KJ
The irony is overwhelming:JahManRed wrote:
I see many debates start off amicably only for someone to step in, add nothing to the debate, just winge about how someones opinion is not aligned with their own, then someone takes exception and the flaming begins. This idea might allow the more discerning poster to get a chance to explain their thoughts without them being labeled Anti something or other before the debate even gets going.
If this doesn't scream "anti-American", what does? These are the type of comments I'm talking about that ruin debates. People feel the need to interject their sly little "I hate America" comments in any way they can. I don't understand how you can still post here, JahManRed, and believe you have any sort of credibility whatsoever.JahManRed wrote:
The waiting is over!!! You may or may not have armed them, but you trained them.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
I can't wait for the influx of morons who say the US is intentionally arming the insurgency.ATG wrote:
He's off the scale.
Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-11-09 08:45:31)
I fully understand your proposal, and have responded to it.sergeriver wrote:
I only proposed a new kind of thread where one person challenges another, and in a context of respect the rest of the people would just read what these two guys are debating. After, the debate is ended, people could vote for a winner. Nothing else nothing less. I sent you a Pm regarding the other thread but you didn't answer it, so I posted here, my mistake?
I followed with an alternate solution, concerning the usage of PM's and then publicly posting the results. I have yet to come up with a better solution that satisfies the needs of your original requests. As I posted before, I would suggest that you ask a higher authority (site admin) to see if the possibility remains to make a thread isolated for two members, but allow "viewing only" by other members of the forum. At the end of it all, you would need the ability to add a poll onto the end, after the debate was closed.KJ wrote:
I give this idea about a 10% chance of success. If you could find two people that could sensibly debate a subject without personal attacks and flaming, you would still have to stem the tide/onslaught of the peanut gallery of members eager to chime in their sentiments about the current topics/flaming comments/personal attacks.
It might last for 1 hour before someone will spoil the thread and a mod will end up closing it. We have too many people who have no respect for another member telling them they cannot post in a thread. The self granted authority makes others react in a "haha I'm breaking your rules" kind of fashion.
The idea might be proposed to a higher authority to isolate a thread for this purpose. But when presented with the extra work that it would entail, my initial reaction was no.
Haha - controversial. The elitist BF2s forum!ATG wrote:
I like the idea. Sort of a single combat duel.
Too often dweebs who seldom post will chime in with a insult and little else.
I wonder the value of some sort of system of having dst be invite only or a merit system where a person can be voted off and have the subject locked to them.
Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-11-09 09:24:18)
You still didn't prove any of my posts being anti-American.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
The irony is overwhelming:JahManRed wrote:
I see many debates start off amicably only for someone to step in, add nothing to the debate, just winge about how someones opinion is not aligned with their own, then someone takes exception and the flaming begins. This idea might allow the more discerning poster to get a chance to explain their thoughts without them being labeled Anti something or other before the debate even gets going.If this doesn't scream "anti-American", what does? These are the type of comments I'm talking about that ruin debates. People feel the need to interject their sly little "I hate America" comments in any way they can. I don't understand how you can still post here, JahManRed, and believe you have any sort of credibility whatsoever.JahManRed wrote:
The waiting is over!!! You may or may not have armed them, but you trained them.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
I can't wait for the influx of morons who say the US is intentionally arming the insurgency.
Back on topic. The only interesting debate that comes to mind would be one between ATG and CameronPoe. Both are on opposite sides of the political scale. However, unlike many of you, they happen to be relatively well-informed and base their arguments on logical thought and rationalization.
Last edited by sergeriver (2006-11-09 09:26:39)
I have a question, slightly off topic, I'm just an occasional poster that only recently found D&ST, so I'm not aware of any postings in the past, though I did find rather a lot of flaming around in some threads.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
The irony is overwhelming:JahManRed wrote:
I see many debates start off amicably only for someone to step in, add nothing to the debate, just winge about how someones opinion is not aligned with their own, then someone takes exception and the flaming begins. This idea might allow the more discerning poster to get a chance to explain their thoughts without them being labeled Anti something or other before the debate even gets going.If this doesn't scream "anti-American", what does? These are the type of comments I'm talking about that ruin debates. People feel the need to interject their sly little "I hate America" comments in any way they can.JahManRed wrote:
The waiting is over!!! You may or may not have armed them, but you trained them.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
I can't wait for the influx of morons who say the US is intentionally arming the insurgency.
Last edited by Pierre (2006-11-09 09:25:52)
Does not the simple ability to Quote what you're responding to not actually just do most of that already? discussion would become quite sterile without the inflammatory sarcastic jibes and nonsense posts - most people can discern between the wheat and the chaff themselves. I say we take off and nuke it from space it's the only way we can be sure..IRONCHEF wrote:
Serge, a few things about this idea.
1) IF you keep others out of it (you'd have to pay mods to enforce it), there's too many criteria needed to have civil debate. Things like staying on topic, citing sources or other supportive data, etc.
2) Many threads actually have 2 people doing the quality debating while others just chime in and hack apart a word or two of someone's thoughtful thread (happens to me daily) and maybe throw in an insult.
3) Many on this forum lack maturity to understand basic debating conduct, some have no confidence and some have too much confidence.
There's lot's of reasons for this idea to fail, though it's a noble idea. My suggestion would be to start something new that is in addition to the current debate structure we have here. It will elevate the quality of debate for the serious and mature ones, and ignore the rabble that attempts to bring down the debate.
For example...let's imagine someone threw up a "Clinton vs. Bush" debate and it's purpose was to identify who did more for their country, and for the world (i know, i know..it's not really a debate..just humor me). And let's say the OP actually put in their opinion instead of just launching the debate hoping to see how it evolves. The OP is ATG and his obvious contention is that BUSH did more. Then Shipbuilder comes along after a few silly replies that don't contribute and puts in a serious rebuttle supporting Clinton. --- THE DEBATE IS ON. My idea is to "LOCK" those two in the debate and let it unfold.
The way this "LOCK" would work is, the OP could initiate a debate with one person by putting something like this in the bottom of his post "OPEN FOR 1 on 1 DEBATE" and when the OP sees a serious debate challenger, he can answer the rebuttle of his choice and declare "1 on 1 DEBATE LOCKED with [shipbuilder]" and then make his argument. Shipbuilder, should he accept, would start his next reply with "1 on 1 DEBATE LOCKED with [atg]" and make his argument. BOTH members of this locked debate will ONLY reply to one another and NOT reply to others in the thread. Likewise, as this process continues, others noticing that those two are in a locked debate should naturally not chime in. Others can have their own debates on the topic...but making 1 on 1's can easily occur this way.
It's alot easier to reply intelligently when you're not harrassed from 6 different angles....like I am when I start my religious rantings. I can easily contend with 1 person debating religion..but not 4 people.
So if anyone thinks this is a good idea...maybe we can sticky it as a D&ST debate note at the top or at least start it unannounced. That is, if people dig it.
I see it as the best way to accomodate your idea with the existing forum behavior. I know I'd dig it.
Last edited by IG-Calibre (2006-11-09 09:27:03)
Yes, but that is a non-secure way to guarantee a real 1 on 1 debate. LOCKING in a debate with someone as described above will also, eventually be a sign that others should not directly debate someone's replies, respecting that persons locked debate with their opponent.IG-Calibre wrote:
Does not the simple ability to Quote what you're responding to not actually just do most of that already? discussion would become quite sterile without the inflammatory sarcastic jibes and nonsense posts - most people can discern between the wheat and the chaff themselves. I say we take off and nuke it from space it's the only way we can be sure..
In context of my post quoting JahManRed, it is blatantly making up facts to criticize the US. In general, I am referring to the hordes of users who feel the need continuously criticize the US when their topic has been done to death, had its corpse exhumed and reanimated, then killed again.Pierre wrote:
My question is: what exactly is 'anti-American'
Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-11-09 09:44:09)
Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-11-09 09:44:27)
Well, it can just be a lock of our own..just a verbal agreement within the thread..and not an actual mod-enforced lock of the thread. read the post above this one.sergeriver wrote:
Ok, if you people think this is a good idea I'll ask chuy (if it takes a lot of his time to do it I won't bother him with this) to add some kind of new option where one person invites another to debate about a single topic, but allowing other people only to read the thread. As Ironchef said it should be locked, with granted access for the OP and the challenged person.
Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-11-09 09:42:56)
Fixed.IRONCHEF wrote:
fancy_pollux: [links his favorite quote of IRONCHEF denying evolution]
lol, or that!Fancy_Pollux wrote:
Fixed.IRONCHEF wrote:
fancy_pollux: [links his favorite quote of IRONCHEF denying evolution]
Topic closed