The state of the debate section
3 posters
Page 1 of 1
The state of the debate section
by JIGL0JAY 22/8/2013, 10:14 pm
I'm going to make this simple. As most of the ranks+ know, I'm one of the most prominent posters in the debate section. The last 6 months or so, I've dropped off the forums for the most part only to resurface from time to time in the debate section. That section is slow, and it is difficult to keep a conversation flowing.
However, I've recently noted that threads will get locked for being "gravedug" or even just straight up binned. The idea behind gravedigging is to take a thread that hasn't been posted on (and is usually NO LONGER RELEVANT) and bring it to the top. Gravedigging is a form of trolling, where people might have forgotten a certain topic or issue and drag it out longer than it needed. The debate section is rarely able to be "trolled" in this regard unless it's on the very back page with no posts in a year.
There are 6 topics in the debate section that have posts from this month. 14 from the past 3 months. This is not a lot. The farthest back it goes is March 2nd, nearly 6 months ago. Now, some may think that posting on the thread that's last dated March 2nd may be a gravedig. However I don't think that's the case, considering it is still on the front page.
So there's 2 options that I feel we can go with:
-Overhaul the debate section (either with cleaning all threads out and starting fresh)
-Delete the section entirely
Now, if the debate section is deleted, I'll be disappointed but not entirely surprised. However, I'm posting in relevance to my interests and feel like after many joking posts, I would like to appeal for a position of debate mod. At the very least, give someone who has a vested interest in debates to control the section. Some may say that I wouldn't make a good mod because I would be power hungry and lock threads or delete posts if I don't get my way. To address this, I feel as though it would be very easy to be transparent in this section as not many people post in it to begin with.
At the very least, please check with me on threads to get deleted? I'm tired of seeing threads get binned that I've just posted on recently.
However, I've recently noted that threads will get locked for being "gravedug" or even just straight up binned. The idea behind gravedigging is to take a thread that hasn't been posted on (and is usually NO LONGER RELEVANT) and bring it to the top. Gravedigging is a form of trolling, where people might have forgotten a certain topic or issue and drag it out longer than it needed. The debate section is rarely able to be "trolled" in this regard unless it's on the very back page with no posts in a year.
There are 6 topics in the debate section that have posts from this month. 14 from the past 3 months. This is not a lot. The farthest back it goes is March 2nd, nearly 6 months ago. Now, some may think that posting on the thread that's last dated March 2nd may be a gravedig. However I don't think that's the case, considering it is still on the front page.
So there's 2 options that I feel we can go with:
-Overhaul the debate section (either with cleaning all threads out and starting fresh)
-Delete the section entirely
Now, if the debate section is deleted, I'll be disappointed but not entirely surprised. However, I'm posting in relevance to my interests and feel like after many joking posts, I would like to appeal for a position of debate mod. At the very least, give someone who has a vested interest in debates to control the section. Some may say that I wouldn't make a good mod because I would be power hungry and lock threads or delete posts if I don't get my way. To address this, I feel as though it would be very easy to be transparent in this section as not many people post in it to begin with.
At the very least, please check with me on threads to get deleted? I'm tired of seeing threads get binned that I've just posted on recently.
JIGL0JAY- Grandmaster (2000 posts)
-
Re: The state of the debate section
by Divine 22/8/2013, 10:46 pm
Thanks for posting Jiglo.
You're by far the most dedicated person to the section and I agree that people often misinterpret what a gravedig is and what isn't.
In my eyes if a certain issue is dealt with and then still posted on later on, it's a gravedig, otherwise there can always be more relevant things added.
I think it's a good idea to have them check with you.
You're by far the most dedicated person to the section and I agree that people often misinterpret what a gravedig is and what isn't.
In my eyes if a certain issue is dealt with and then still posted on later on, it's a gravedig, otherwise there can always be more relevant things added.
I think it's a good idea to have them check with you.
Divine- Administrator
-
Re: The state of the debate section
by Broeder 22/8/2013, 10:50 pm
Biggest issue with the subforum is you over complicating things IMO, it might give a higher level of debate but far less discussion in general
Broeder- Grandmaster (2000 posts)
Re: The state of the debate section
by JIGL0JAY 23/8/2013, 4:35 am
What would you mean by over complicating? By being somewhat pedantic and over critical? I suppose that presents a third option: Political discussion (or something similar?) whereas the debate aspect could remain, but the idea could be much more broad.Broeder wrote:Biggest issue with the subforum is you over complicating things IMO, it might give a higher level of debate but far less discussion in general
JIGL0JAY- Grandmaster (2000 posts)
-
Re: The state of the debate section
by Broeder 23/8/2013, 8:16 pm
I mean all this:
A discussion doesnt have to be moderated by you, and if it must then you cant join in the discussion because people will feel judged in how they say it as well as in what they say and thus not post.
There was a lot more discussion when the topics just started with:
What do you think about the existence of god?
- Spoiler:
I'm going to try to spark some more debates in this section while I wait for the new forums (where I'll basically take days out of my schedule and write a crap load of debating materials and whatnot). I feel as though this might seem more ~discussion~ than debate, but let's do it anyway.
Let me begin with some ground rules for my argument about the existence of god:
Firstly, God's existence (or lack thereof) cannot be demonstrated objectively using empirical evidence or deductive/reductive arguments.
The idea of God concerns basic presuppositions about reality itself. Which is to say, it is pre-scientific, and pre-theoretic.
You can demonstrate that an apple exists by showing an apple to me or anyone else. You and I, and everyone else, share in language/practice as well as consciousness that the basic presuppositions of the world exist, that other people exist, and that we can all demonstrate to others that an apple exists by showing it to them.
However, you can't demonstrate basic presuppositions themselves in an objective manner. Why? Because we lack common ground, we have no criteria for the basic presuppositions. According to Ludwig Wittgenstein in his book "Culture and Value" talks about iron. Logic, science, reason are all "cold" like iron. You need the cold to set the molecular bonds and use the tool. But first, you need the heat. Iron is forged in heat; intuition and experience lead to understanding reality.
Which basic presupposition makes more sense of your experience of the universe? There is no objectively right or wrong answer because they are both presuppositions. Atheism and theism are alike in that regard. Does the possibility and actuality of a physical universe ordered by natural laws make more sense to you under the lights of atheistic or theistic presuppositions? Does the possibility and actuality of meaning or purpose in human experience line up better with one or the other? Paraphrasing Life of Pi, “given you can’t objectively determine which story is true and given the immediate result is the same, which is the better story: the one with the cannibalism or the one with the tiger?”
A discussion doesnt have to be moderated by you, and if it must then you cant join in the discussion because people will feel judged in how they say it as well as in what they say and thus not post.
There was a lot more discussion when the topics just started with:
What do you think about the existence of god?
Broeder- Grandmaster (2000 posts)
Re: The state of the debate section
by JIGL0JAY 24/8/2013, 7:30 am
So you would say that if I were to post in the thread, I should keep it purely on a discussion level as you said rather than structured? I would bend and say you're right.Broeder wrote:A discussion doesnt have to be moderated by you, and if it must then you cant join in the discussion because people will feel judged in how they say it as well as in what they say and thus not post.
There was a lot more discussion when the topics just started with:
What do you think about the existence of god?
I suppose I should change my topics to "opinions on x" rather than an open ended discussion, then. Or even just leave the open ended ones to other posters. And, if I do post, simply post an opinion and not post against anyone else?
If this is what you mean, I'll push for that. On the one condition that the "prove my existence" thread remains.
JIGL0JAY- Grandmaster (2000 posts)
-
Similar topics» Debate Topic: Is The Debate Section The New Spam Forum?
» GG Debate Section
» Should The Debate Section Be Closed?
» Section for programs (POLL: Is there any interest in a coding section?)
» A "Where did [name here] go" section.
» GG Debate Section
» Should The Debate Section Be Closed?
» Section for programs (POLL: Is there any interest in a coding section?)
» A "Where did [name here] go" section.
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum