Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

DDO Manners

Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 7:04:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I have several questions about voting in regards to manners.

1. If one side consistently says "vote for me" or "pro/con his side, does that warrant a loss of the conduct point on his part?

2. If one side posts reasons as to why voters should vote for him, does that warrant a loss of the conduct point on his part?

3. If one side is nice to his opponent, but his opponent is not (i.e. I thank my opponent for posting his argument, and other things like that), does that warrant the conduct point being given to him?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 7:12:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2012 7:04:27 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
I have several questions about voting in regards to manners.

1. If one side consistently says "vote for me" or "pro/con his side, does that warrant a loss of the conduct point on his part?

2. If one side posts reasons as to why voters should vote for him, does that warrant a loss of the conduct point on his part?

No. In formal debate contests, debaters are actually expected to give voting issues. When I first started high school debate, my coach insisted that I deliver voting issues. Why would that not be permitted here?
3. If one side is nice to his opponent, but his opponent is not (i.e. I thank my opponent for posting his argument, and other things like that), does that warrant the conduct point being given to him?

No. Why should debaters have to waste space doing that?
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 7:29:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2012 7:04:27 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
I have several questions about voting in regards to manners.

1. If one side consistently says "vote for me" or "pro/con his side, does that warrant a loss of the conduct point on his part?

It depends on what the other side does.

2. If one side posts reasons as to why voters should vote for him, does that warrant a loss of the conduct point on his part?

Those are called voting issues/"voters." They should be in an argument.

3. If one side is nice to his opponent, but his opponent is not (i.e. I thank my opponent for posting his argument, and other things like that), does that warrant the conduct point being given to him?

No. If his opponent was actually actively abusive/mean-spirited, then yes. But neutral? Hell no.

I still run into people in RL debate that thanks everyone for their time: "I wanna thank my partner, my opponents, judge..." SHUT UP!
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 7:40:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2012 7:29:45 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/5/2012 7:04:27 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
I have several questions about voting in regards to manners.

1. If one side consistently says "vote for me" or "pro/con his side, does that warrant a loss of the conduct point on his part?

It depends on what the other side does.

2. If one side posts reasons as to why voters should vote for him, does that warrant a loss of the conduct point on his part?

Those are called voting issues/"voters." They should be in an argument.

3. If one side is nice to his opponent, but his opponent is not (i.e. I thank my opponent for posting his argument, and other things like that), does that warrant the conduct point being given to him?

No. If his opponent was actually actively abusive/mean-spirited, then yes. But neutral? Hell no.

I still run into people in RL debate that thanks everyone for their time: "I wanna thank my partner, my opponents, judge..." SHUT UP!

It's annoying, isn't it? Common courtesy demands that we thank the judges because they are usually parents who are not being paid and who are taking time out of their weekend to support the activity. Thanking partners and opponents is just nonsense.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 11:34:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2012 7:04:27 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
I have several questions about voting in regards to manners.

1. If one side consistently says "vote for me" or "pro/con his side, does that warrant a loss of the conduct point on his part?

no

2. If one side posts reasons as to why voters should vote for him, does that warrant a loss of the conduct point on his part?

Definately not

3. If one side is nice to his opponent, but his opponent is not (i.e. I thank my opponent for posting his argument, and other things like that), does that warrant the conduct point being given to him?

No
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 2:04:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2012 11:34:39 AM, phantom wrote:
At 6/5/2012 7:04:27 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
I have several questions about voting in regards to manners.

1. If one side consistently says "vote for me" or "pro/con his side, does that warrant a loss of the conduct point on his part?

no

2. If one side posts reasons as to why voters should vote for him, does that warrant a loss of the conduct point on his part?

Definately not

3. If one side is nice to his opponent, but his opponent is not (i.e. I thank my opponent for posting his argument, and other things like that), does that warrant the conduct point being given to him?

No

this.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
vmpire321
Posts: 4,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 2:18:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2012 7:04:27 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
I have several questions about voting in regards to manners.

1. If one side consistently says "vote for me" or "pro/con his side, does that warrant a loss of the conduct point on his part?
No.

2. If one side posts reasons as to why voters should vote for him, does that warrant a loss of the conduct point on his part?
No

3. If one side is nice to his opponent, but his opponent is not (i.e. I thank my opponent for posting his argument, and other things like that), does that warrant the conduct point being given to him?
Maybe.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 2:25:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You should probably only take off conduct when a debater is rude or swears.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 36,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 5:43:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2012 7:04:27 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
I have several questions about voting in regards to manners.

1. If one side consistently says "vote for me" or "pro/con his side, does that warrant a loss of the conduct point on his part?

Generally no. I think it's stupid to waste character space to solicit votes in rounds, but many people do it anyway.

2. If one side posts reasons as to why voters should vote for him, does that warrant a loss of the conduct point on his part?

Again, I think it's stupid to do because at the expense of further refutation you only try to persuade voters to vote for you, but no, it's quite common, actually.

3. If one side is nice to his opponent, but his opponent is not (i.e. I thank my opponent for posting his argument, and other things like that), does that warrant the conduct point being given to him?

That's up to you. There are people on the site who will give people outright losses for not being nice, but wether you want to penalize a debater for his/her behavior at all is entirely your prerogative. Now, in extreme cases, like if a user posted something like "You, the voter, are abrogated from voting from my stupid fvcking dipshit opponent, Lord Assdouche, for all the reasons I have listed above!" I might give the conduct point to the other side, but for mere pettiness, I don't personally care.
Tsar of DDO
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 6:34:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
All that matters is content and it's viability to work in reality succesfuly.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 6:46:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If they aren't nice, give all seven points to the other guy. Chivarly SHALL be enforced in this establishment!
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 6:48:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2012 6:34:44 PM, sadolite wrote:
All that matters is content and it's viability to work in reality succesfuly.

How would that apply in the context of a philosophical debate?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
YYW
Posts: 36,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 9:40:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2012 6:48:32 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 6/5/2012 6:34:44 PM, sadolite wrote:
All that matters is content and it's viability to work in reality succesfuly.

How would that apply in the context of a philosophical debate?

lol
Tsar of DDO
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2012 3:31:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2012 7:04:27 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
I have several questions about voting in regards to manners.

1. If one side consistently says "vote for me" or "pro/con his side, does that warrant a loss of the conduct point on his part?

No, it's harmless, like a politician asking for votes.

2. If one side posts reasons as to why voters should vote for him, does that warrant a loss of the conduct point on his part?

No, the debater is expected to argue why he won each contention. Usually that just done point-by-point without wasting space on declaring they are reasons for voting.

3. If one side is nice to his opponent, but his opponent is not (i.e. I thank my opponent for posting his argument, and other things like that), does that warrant the conduct point being given to him?

No. It may help win conduct if the opponent is nasty enough to nearly lose conduct anyway.

The conduct point is lost if a debater insults his opponent, fails to debate the resolution (by going off topic), or forfeits a round (saying "pass" or the like avoids the conduct penalty). There is some latitude in insulting an argument rather than insulting the opponent. "That argument is ridiculous" is acceptable, while "my opponent is ridiculous" is bad conduct.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2012 3:37:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2012 7:04:27 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
I have several questions about voting in regards to manners.

1. If one side consistently says "vote for me" or "pro/con his side, does that warrant a loss of the conduct point on his part?
No.
2. If one side posts reasons as to why voters should vote for him, does that warrant a loss of the conduct point on his part?
No, unless he's one of those people who posts a "voting rubric" and tries to tell the voters how to vote. That's obnoxious.
3. If one side is nice to his opponent, but his opponent is not (i.e. I thank my opponent for posting his argument, and other things like that), does that warrant the conduct point being given to him?
That by itself would not warrant the conduct point.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
YYW
Posts: 36,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2012 5:34:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2012 5:58:40 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
Why would you thank someone for their argument if it is complete BS?

To be polite.
Tsar of DDO
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2012 5:50:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2012 6:48:32 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 6/5/2012 6:34:44 PM, sadolite wrote:
All that matters is content and it's viability to work in reality succesfuly.

How would that apply in the context of a philosophical debate?

Oh you mean like how we should treat convicted pedophiles? Should we let them back out on the streets and hope they don't re offend or eviscerate them like pigs in the public square to send a message to all would be pediphiles that this is what will happen to you if convicted.

Right now we use the fist "philosophy". This is known as "compassion" A slap on the wrist for first offenders and then back on the streets to re offend. Does this reduce the instances of pedophiles molesting children in reality? No it does not. Would the other philosophy work to reduce the instances of child molestation, Yes it would in realty. We would have "no compassion" what so ever for a pedophile but rather extend the "compassion to the children" by reducing the risk of molestation by pedophiles by eviscerating them in the public square.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%