Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A Message To bladerunner060

Crescendo
Posts: 470
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2014 1:09:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Note: I'm not putting this in a PM because:
A. I want the whole DDO community to see this.
B. Half of all the PMs I send out are not replied to by the recipient of them, and if they are they're replied to 16 or 20 hours later.

Now that the final opposition (that orangemayhem guy) has dropped out, your victory is almost guaranteed.
I saw your platform, and part of it involves talking with Juggle to try to convince them to contribute more to the development of this Site.
However, I say that perhaps we should not rely upon Juggle to continue improving this Site. WE THE PEOPLE of Debate.org should be the ones to improve this Site. Juggle doesn't owe us anything, as this is (at the time that I'm writing this, anyway) a free service and nobody pays a penny to be a member of this Site. We are NOT entitled to membership and high quality service from Juggle on Debate.org as long as it's free.
So, if there is to be any positive change on this Site, we (referring to all the members of DDO) should be the ones to carry it out.

Recently TUF and "Larz" (that's his username, right?) created a DDOFans website. Juggle had nothing to do with that, as far as I know. That was created by the users for the users. That's how DDO's evolution should play out.
So what if the more tech-saavy users of this Site (such as "Larz" and "TUF," along with others) modified the Site's programming without waiting on Juggle to do it for them? Of course, they'd get Juggle's permission first.

That's how I think the Site's software should be upgraded. Meanwhile, as for things like Team Debates, what if two people on this Site created Team Debate Accounts? These two users who operated the Team Debate accounts, who would be committed users of this Site, would debate each other constantly, each time copying and pasting arguments given to them by the debate teams represented in the debates. As I recall, something like this used to be in effect, and it can be again.

As for Site Moderation, normal members can help out by being more vigilant in reporting users who abuse the TOS. And perhaps we could find a way to allow more than two Moderators. Of course, only users proven to be trustworthy and full of integrity would have this job.

My overall point is that we should be the ones to reform this Site without having to ask Juggle for everything. They probably won't give this Site much new stuff anyway, as Debate.org is probably quite low on their priority list. Everyone who loves this Site can help out in some way (though some members can a lot more than others).
Self-Reliance for DDO. That's my message here today.

-Crescendo-
My View of the World:
http://www.debate.org...

My Greatest Debate (As of so far):
http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2014 1:23:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
He won't run unopposed. It wouldn't be right. If nobody steps up in the next couple of weeks than I'll reluctantly do so myself.
Crescendo
Posts: 470
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2014 1:24:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/19/2014 1:23:38 PM, Wylted wrote:
He won't run unopposed. It wouldn't be right. If nobody steps up in the next couple of weeks than I'll reluctantly do so myself.

I have no problem with him winning. I'm just raising a slight objection to his platform.
My View of the World:
http://www.debate.org...

My Greatest Debate (As of so far):
http://www.debate.org...
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2014 1:40:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Debate.org is closed-source and belongs to a company called Juggle which manages proprietary software. It's impossible for DDO users to implement features that need to be coded and that would immensely improve the website. What we can do as users, and you're wrong, that is something BladeRunner did shed light upon, remains limited but it is effective in some way or another, and that's why one of BladeRunner's initiatives, and pardon my verbiage, is to exterminate unvoted debates, which is one of the many approaches where users have to work to make DDO better.
orangemayhem
Posts: 333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2014 1:53:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/19/2014 1:09:03 PM, Crescendo wrote:
Now that the final opposition (that orangemayhem guy) has dropped out, your victory is almost guaranteed.

First of all, that's an utterly charming way of referring to me.

The idea of DDO users modifying the code themselves has been mooted in the past, and I remember TUF publicly informing Juggle that he would be willing to code it himself and do so without being paid. Juggle are, however, understandably reticent about this. Ultimately Juggle know their employees and they are under contractual obligations - they can't just add whatever they like to the site. If Juggle were to permit randoms to edit the site (I use that word because, ultimately, this is the Internet and none of us really know each other) then they wouldn't be able to guarantee that the code which was added on to the site would be of good quality.

For this reason, the hinge of your plan - that Juggle grant their permission - doesn't seem especially likely at the moment. This is, ultimately, Juggle's website and they want to have a certain level of control over the development of its code - a right they are right to reserve. I do agree, though, that our relationship with Juggle needs to change and we need to acknowledge that it is a two-way street and we can't just make endless demands of Juggle and complain when they're not met. That was the crux of the discussions I had with Blade before ending my campaign, and I'm confident that this is a view he will be representing going forward.
I'm back (ish).
Crescendo
Posts: 470
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2014 2:12:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It annoys the *expletive* out of me when the Mods delete a thread that isn't spam and doesn't violate any of the TOS.
My View of the World:
http://www.debate.org...

My Greatest Debate (As of so far):
http://www.debate.org...
Crescendo
Posts: 470
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2014 2:13:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/19/2014 2:12:16 PM, Crescendo wrote:
It annoys the *expletive* out of me when the Mods delete a thread that isn't spam and doesn't violate any of the TOS.

Signature Change
My View of the World:
http://www.debate.org...

My Greatest Debate (As of so far):
http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2014 2:14:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/19/2014 1:09:03 PM, Crescendo wrote:
Note: I'm not putting this in a PM because:
A. I want the whole DDO community to see this.
B. Half of all the PMs I send out are not replied to by the recipient of them, and if they are they're replied to 16 or 20 hours later.

Now that the final opposition (that orangemayhem guy) has dropped out, your victory is almost guaranteed.
I saw your platform, and part of it involves talking with Juggle to try to convince them to contribute more to the development of this Site.
However, I say that perhaps we should not rely upon Juggle to continue improving this Site. WE THE PEOPLE of Debate.org should be the ones to improve this Site. Juggle doesn't owe us anything, as this is (at the time that I'm writing this, anyway) a free service and nobody pays a penny to be a member of this Site. We are NOT entitled to membership and high quality service from Juggle on Debate.org as long as it's free.

If you opened your home to friends to visit whenever they liked, and these friends started demanding that they be free to renovate your house as you like and that you, the homeowner, don't owe your friends anything, what would you, the homeowner make of such a statement?

Sure, Juggle isn't obligated to renovate their own home, but that doesn't mean that we are somehow conveyed the right to do so if Juggle doesn't.

So, if there is to be any positive change on this Site, we (referring to all the members of DDO) should be the ones to carry it out.

Recently TUF and "Larz" (that's his username, right?) created a DDOFans website. Juggle had nothing to do with that, as far as I know. That was created by the users for the users. That's how DDO's evolution should play out.
So what if the more tech-saavy users of this Site (such as "Larz" and "TUF," along with others) modified the Site's programming without waiting on Juggle to do it for them? Of course, they'd get Juggle's permission first.

That's how I think the Site's software should be upgraded. Meanwhile, as for things like Team Debates, what if two people on this Site created Team Debate Accounts? These two users who operated the Team Debate accounts, who would be committed users of this Site, would debate each other constantly, each time copying and pasting arguments given to them by the debate teams represented in the debates. As I recall, something like this used to be in effect, and it can be again.

This is funny, because two such accounts have existed for nearly a year now...my understanding is that there simply isn't the demand for team debates, at least in its current format.

I've been in both team debates, and after every one I remember hearing a bunch of commotion from people wanting to participate in more of them, setting up teams and etc, and simply not being able to get their act together to make it happen.

It's not easy...the larger the team, the more potential there is for scheduling conflicts and etc. The second one we did was around Thanksgiving, and various members of my team took a day off here and there during the weekend, and we postponed starting the debate in general for one week.

From my experience, it takes a LOT of communication to make something like that work, although IMHO the payoff is easily worth it.

http://www.debate.org...

As for Site Moderation, normal members can help out by being more vigilant in reporting users who abuse the TOS. And perhaps we could find a way to allow more than two Moderators. Of course, only users proven to be trustworthy and full of integrity would have this job.

This is something for individual users to do on their own initiative. This isn't a demand anyone should be making of Juggle or of the DDO prez.

I agree there should be more moderators, and that perhaps they should cycle through, i.e. no permanent moderators unless it's a Juggle-sponsored account...obviously they can do whatever they please with their website (as long as it's legal).

My overall point is that we should be the ones to reform this Site without having to ask Juggle for everything. They probably won't give this Site much new stuff anyway, as Debate.org is probably quite low on their priority list. Everyone who loves this Site can help out in some way (though some members can a lot more than others).

This isn't our website, it's Juggle's website.

Self-Reliance for DDO. That's my message here today.

-Crescendo-
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2014 2:16:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/19/2014 1:53:33 PM, orangemayhem wrote:
At 5/19/2014 1:09:03 PM, Crescendo wrote:
Now that the final opposition (that orangemayhem guy) has dropped out, your victory is almost guaranteed.

First of all, that's an utterly charming way of referring to me.

The idea of DDO users modifying the code themselves has been mooted in the past, and I remember TUF publicly informing Juggle that he would be willing to code it himself and do so without being paid. Juggle are, however, understandably reticent about this. Ultimately Juggle know their employees and they are under contractual obligations - they can't just add whatever they like to the site. If Juggle were to permit randoms to edit the site (I use that word because, ultimately, this is the Internet and none of us really know each other) then they wouldn't be able to guarantee that the code which was added on to the site would be of good quality.

For this reason, the hinge of your plan - that Juggle grant their permission - doesn't seem especially likely at the moment. This is, ultimately, Juggle's website and they want to have a certain level of control over the development of its code - a right they are right to reserve. I do agree, though, that our relationship with Juggle needs to change and we need to acknowledge that it is a two-way street and we can't just make endless demands of Juggle and complain when they're not met. That was the crux of the discussions I had with Blade before ending my campaign, and I'm confident that this is a view he will be representing going forward.

This last paragraph ominously sounds like an attempt to turn DDO into a pay-as-you-go website.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
orangemayhem
Posts: 333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2014 3:24:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/19/2014 2:16:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/19/2014 1:53:33 PM, orangemayhem wrote:
At 5/19/2014 1:09:03 PM, Crescendo wrote:
Now that the final opposition (that orangemayhem guy) has dropped out, your victory is almost guaranteed.

First of all, that's an utterly charming way of referring to me.

The idea of DDO users modifying the code themselves has been mooted in the past, and I remember TUF publicly informing Juggle that he would be willing to code it himself and do so without being paid. Juggle are, however, understandably reticent about this. Ultimately Juggle know their employees and they are under contractual obligations - they can't just add whatever they like to the site. If Juggle were to permit randoms to edit the site (I use that word because, ultimately, this is the Internet and none of us really know each other) then they wouldn't be able to guarantee that the code which was added on to the site would be of good quality.

For this reason, the hinge of your plan - that Juggle grant their permission - doesn't seem especially likely at the moment. This is, ultimately, Juggle's website and they want to have a certain level of control over the development of its code - a right they are right to reserve. I do agree, though, that our relationship with Juggle needs to change and we need to acknowledge that it is a two-way street and we can't just make endless demands of Juggle and complain when they're not met. That was the crux of the discussions I had with Blade before ending my campaign, and I'm confident that this is a view he will be representing going forward.

This last paragraph ominously sounds like an attempt to turn DDO into a pay-as-you-go website.

Absolutely not. I mean more that we have to understand why Juggle prioritises the updates that they do (i.e. site traffic) and then actively work to make the sections we want to improve (broadly speaking the Debates and Forums sections) more conducive to new and old membership traffic so that Juggle is incentivised to improve them; as opposed to demanding updates for sections of the site which attract fewer users and are, thus, less profitable.
I'm back (ish).
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2014 3:29:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I know this has already been responded to, but it was directed at me, so forgive me if I repeat some points already given--I'd feel weird just ignoring them.

At 5/19/2014 1:09:03 PM, Crescendo wrote:
Note: I'm not putting this in a PM because:
A. I want the whole DDO community to see this.
Understandable.

B. Half of all the PMs I send out are not replied to by the recipient of them, and if they are they're replied to 16 or 20 hours later.

Just so you know, you'll generally get a faster/better response from me in a PM, just because I get a notification about it. If we can implement an "@" system someday, that'll change...

When I'm at work (and I am today), sometimes I run non<x>stop...and when I'm riding back from the hospital, I can use my phone, but I don't go looking around extensively.

Now that the final opposition (that orangemayhem guy) has dropped out, your victory is almost guaranteed.

I don't assume that. Bsh1 and I will win only if people vote for us--until then, nothing is guaranteed. But I get your point.

However, I say that perhaps we should not rely upon Juggle to continue improving this Site. WE THE PEOPLE of Debate.org should be the ones to improve this Site. Juggle doesn't owe us anything, as this is (at the time that I'm writing this, anyway) a free service and nobody pays a penny to be a member of this Site. We are NOT entitled to membership and high quality service from Juggle on Debate.org as long as it's free.
So, if there is to be any positive change on this Site, we (referring to all the members of DDO) should be the ones to carry it out.

In terms of the actual mechanics of the site, that is an unlikely desire. What we CAN do is work within the mechanics that we have.

Recently TUF and "Larz" (that's his username, right?) created a DDOFans website. Juggle had nothing to do with that, as far as I know. That was created by the users for the users. That's how DDO's evolution should play out.

That site is not part of DDO--it's not on DDO servers, and doesn't use DDO code.

It's like a Star Trek Fan site...they don't control canon.

So what if the more tech-saavy users of this Site (such as "Larz" and "TUF," along with others) modified the Site's programming without waiting on Juggle to do it for them? Of course, they'd get Juggle's permission first.

They would be unlikely to. It has been proposed before, and has been rejected.

That's how I think the Site's software should be upgraded. Meanwhile, as for things like Team Debates, what if two people on this Site created Team Debate Accounts? These two users who operated the Team Debate accounts, who would be committed users of this Site, would debate each other constantly, each time copying and pasting arguments given to them by the debate teams represented in the debates. As I recall, something like this used to be in effect, and it can be again.

A workaround for Team Debates exist. All that it needs is participants. I was involved in the effort, which fizzled due to lack of participation. But the IDs still exist, and if you want to try to get that going, feel free! All we need are participants.

As for Site Moderation, normal members can help out by being more vigilant in reporting users who abuse the TOS. And perhaps we could find a way to allow more than two Moderators. Of course, only users proven to be trustworthy and full of integrity would have this job.

Juggle and the mods choose new mods. We don't get a say. That said, I am constantly confused by the feeling that what we need are MORE mods. Don't get me wrong, when the MODS say that I'll understand, they know the workload. But when users ask for it, I get confused--is there some specific objection? Do you think some decision would be overruled by these new mods?

My overall point is that we should be the ones to reform this Site without having to ask Juggle for everything. They probably won't give this Site much new stuff anyway, as Debate.org is probably quite low on their priority list. Everyone who loves this Site can help out in some way (though some members can a lot more than others).

I agree that we can all help make this site better, and that's what I hope to orchestrate if bsh1 and I are lucky enough to win!
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2014 3:30:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/19/2014 3:24:24 PM, orangemayhem wrote:
At 5/19/2014 2:16:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

This last paragraph ominously sounds like an attempt to turn DDO into a pay-as-you-go website.

Absolutely not. I mean more that we have to understand why Juggle prioritises the updates that they do (i.e. site traffic) and then actively work to make the sections we want to improve (broadly speaking the Debates and Forums sections) more conducive to new and old membership traffic so that Juggle is incentivised to improve them; as opposed to demanding updates for sections of the site which attract fewer users and are, thus, less profitable.

This. Also, they've said before, and airmax has said of them before, that that's not a direction they want to go in.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2014 4:56:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/19/2014 3:30:08 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/19/2014 3:24:24 PM, orangemayhem wrote:
At 5/19/2014 2:16:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

This last paragraph ominously sounds like an attempt to turn DDO into a pay-as-you-go website.

Absolutely not. I mean more that we have to understand why Juggle prioritises the updates that they do (i.e. site traffic) and then actively work to make the sections we want to improve (broadly speaking the Debates and Forums sections) more conducive to new and old membership traffic so that Juggle is incentivised to improve them; as opposed to demanding updates for sections of the site which attract fewer users and are, thus, less profitable.

This. Also, they've said before, and airmax has said of them before, that that's not a direction they want to go in.

Of course they wouldn't want to go in this direction. I mean, it's nice that y'all want to help Juggle with their baby, but you're essentially asking for Juggle to divulge how they make money off this website.

The fact that this is corporately owned is going to (probably) mean that they're going to be very secretive about how they go about doing things, lest a competitor smells profit off their business model and shanks it.

It's enough that we know that Juggle is a for-profit corporation. If we're to know more than that, we're going to have to be intimately involved in Juggle's corporate business, and we're simply not employees of Juggle.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2014 5:24:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/19/2014 4:56:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/19/2014 3:30:08 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/19/2014 3:24:24 PM, orangemayhem wrote:
At 5/19/2014 2:16:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

This last paragraph ominously sounds like an attempt to turn DDO into a pay-as-you-go website.

Absolutely not. I mean more that we have to understand why Juggle prioritises the updates that they do (i.e. site traffic) and then actively work to make the sections we want to improve (broadly speaking the Debates and Forums sections) more conducive to new and old membership traffic so that Juggle is incentivised to improve them; as opposed to demanding updates for sections of the site which attract fewer users and are, thus, less profitable.

This. Also, they've said before, and airmax has said of them before, that that's not a direction they want to go in.

Of course they wouldn't want to go in this direction. I mean, it's nice that y'all want to help Juggle with their baby, but you're essentially asking for Juggle to divulge how they make money off this website.

The fact that this is corporately owned is going to (probably) mean that they're going to be very secretive about how they go about doing things, lest a competitor smells profit off their business model and shanks it.

It's enough that we know that Juggle is a for-profit corporation. If we're to know more than that, we're going to have to be intimately involved in Juggle's corporate business, and we're simply not employees of Juggle.

Wait, what? You said there was a paragraph that sounded like an attempt to turn juggle into a pay-as-you-go site. I'm just agreeing with mayhem that I don't think that was the intent of the paragraph you were referencing, and that, further, Juggle has said, at least, that they don't want to do that anyway. What their internal goals don't seem really relevant to what we were talking about, which was that paragraph's implications...
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2014 5:44:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/19/2014 5:24:25 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/19/2014 4:56:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/19/2014 3:30:08 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/19/2014 3:24:24 PM, orangemayhem wrote:
At 5/19/2014 2:16:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

This last paragraph ominously sounds like an attempt to turn DDO into a pay-as-you-go website.

Absolutely not. I mean more that we have to understand why Juggle prioritises the updates that they do (i.e. site traffic) and then actively work to make the sections we want to improve (broadly speaking the Debates and Forums sections) more conducive to new and old membership traffic so that Juggle is incentivised to improve them; as opposed to demanding updates for sections of the site which attract fewer users and are, thus, less profitable.

This. Also, they've said before, and airmax has said of them before, that that's not a direction they want to go in.

Of course they wouldn't want to go in this direction. I mean, it's nice that y'all want to help Juggle with their baby, but you're essentially asking for Juggle to divulge how they make money off this website.

The fact that this is corporately owned is going to (probably) mean that they're going to be very secretive about how they go about doing things, lest a competitor smells profit off their business model and shanks it.

It's enough that we know that Juggle is a for-profit corporation. If we're to know more than that, we're going to have to be intimately involved in Juggle's corporate business, and we're simply not employees of Juggle.

Wait, what? You said there was a paragraph that sounded like an attempt to turn juggle into a pay-as-you-go site. I'm just agreeing with mayhem that I don't think that was the intent of the paragraph you were referencing, and that, further, Juggle has said, at least, that they don't want to do that anyway. What their internal goals don't seem really relevant to what we were talking about, which was that paragraph's implications...

You seemed to agree with mayhem that you expect the community to be more cognizant of Juggle's business model when they make recommendations to Juggle (underlined). Mayhem's entire comment implied getting to know intimately how Juggle makes a profit off DDO. You then said that Juggle didn't want to go in this direction.

Of course they wouldn't.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
joepbr
Posts: 128
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2014 6:19:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/19/2014 1:09:03 PM, Crescendo wrote:
Note: I'm not putting this in a PM because:
A. I want the whole DDO community to see this.
B. Half of all the PMs I send out are not replied to by the recipient of them, and if they are they're replied to 16 or 20 hours later.

Now that the final opposition (that orangemayhem guy) has dropped out, your victory is almost guaranteed.
I saw your platform, and part of it involves talking with Juggle to try to convince them to contribute more to the development of this Site.
However, I say that perhaps we should not rely upon Juggle to continue improving this Site. WE THE PEOPLE of Debate.org should be the ones to improve this Site. Juggle doesn't owe us anything, as this is (at the time that I'm writing this, anyway) a free service and nobody pays a penny to be a member of this Site. We are NOT entitled to membership and high quality service from Juggle on Debate.org as long as it's free.
So, if there is to be any positive change on this Site, we (referring to all the members of DDO) should be the ones to carry it out.

Recently TUF and "Larz" (that's his username, right?) created a DDOFans website. Juggle had nothing to do with that, as far as I know. That was created by the users for the users. That's how DDO's evolution should play out.
So what if the more tech-saavy users of this Site (such as "Larz" and "TUF," along with others) modified the Site's programming without waiting on Juggle to do it for them? Of course, they'd get Juggle's permission first.

That's how I think the Site's software should be upgraded. Meanwhile, as for things like Team Debates, what if two people on this Site created Team Debate Accounts? These two users who operated the Team Debate accounts, who would be committed users of this Site, would debate each other constantly, each time copying and pasting arguments given to them by the debate teams represented in the debates. As I recall, something like this used to be in effect, and it can be again.

As for Site Moderation, normal members can help out by being more vigilant in reporting users who abuse the TOS. And perhaps we could find a way to allow more than two Moderators. Of course, only users proven to be trustworthy and full of integrity would have this job.

My overall point is that we should be the ones to reform this Site without having to ask Juggle for everything. They probably won't give this Site much new stuff anyway, as Debate.org is probably quite low on their priority list. Everyone who loves this Site can help out in some way (though some members can a lot more than others).
Self-Reliance for DDO. That's my message here today.

-Crescendo-

So, advocating the seizing of private property to the benefit of the community. That's some hardcore Bolshevism right here. Well done.

But I don't think that this level of radicalism will do more good than evil. There are other ways to turn DDO into a great Socialist nation without having to resort to unlawful activity, at least for now.
My alternative to the Political Compass: http://www.debate.org...
Crescendo
Posts: 470
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2014 8:16:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/19/2014 6:19:15 PM, joepbr wrote:
At 5/19/2014 1:09:03 PM, Crescendo wrote:
Note: I'm not putting this in a PM because:
A. I want the whole DDO community to see this.
B. Half of all the PMs I send out are not replied to by the recipient of them, and if they are they're replied to 16 or 20 hours later.

Now that the final opposition (that orangemayhem guy) has dropped out, your victory is almost guaranteed.
I saw your platform, and part of it involves talking with Juggle to try to convince them to contribute more to the development of this Site.
However, I say that perhaps we should not rely upon Juggle to continue improving this Site. WE THE PEOPLE of Debate.org should be the ones to improve this Site. Juggle doesn't owe us anything, as this is (at the time that I'm writing this, anyway) a free service and nobody pays a penny to be a member of this Site. We are NOT entitled to membership and high quality service from Juggle on Debate.org as long as it's free.
So, if there is to be any positive change on this Site, we (referring to all the members of DDO) should be the ones to carry it out.

Recently TUF and "Larz" (that's his username, right?) created a DDOFans website. Juggle had nothing to do with that, as far as I know. That was created by the users for the users. That's how DDO's evolution should play out.
So what if the more tech-saavy users of this Site (such as "Larz" and "TUF," along with others) modified the Site's programming without waiting on Juggle to do it for them? Of course, they'd get Juggle's permission first.

That's how I think the Site's software should be upgraded. Meanwhile, as for things like Team Debates, what if two people on this Site created Team Debate Accounts? These two users who operated the Team Debate accounts, who would be committed users of this Site, would debate each other constantly, each time copying and pasting arguments given to them by the debate teams represented in the debates. As I recall, something like this used to be in effect, and it can be again.

As for Site Moderation, normal members can help out by being more vigilant in reporting users who abuse the TOS. And perhaps we could find a way to allow more than two Moderators. Of course, only users proven to be trustworthy and full of integrity would have this job.

My overall point is that we should be the ones to reform this Site without having to ask Juggle for everything. They probably won't give this Site much new stuff anyway, as Debate.org is probably quite low on their priority list. Everyone who loves this Site can help out in some way (though some members can a lot more than others).
Self-Reliance for DDO. That's my message here today.

-Crescendo-

So, advocating the seizing of private property to the benefit of the community. That's some hardcore Bolshevism right here. Well done.

But I don't think that this level of radicalism will do more good than evil. There are other ways to turn DDO into a great Socialist nation without having to resort to unlawful activity, at least for now.

I wasn't referring to doing this stuff without Juggle's permission. I was talking about getting Juggle's permission first and THEN doing all this stuff.
My View of the World:
http://www.debate.org...

My Greatest Debate (As of so far):
http://www.debate.org...
orangemayhem
Posts: 333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 1:48:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/19/2014 5:44:09 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/19/2014 5:24:25 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/19/2014 4:56:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/19/2014 3:30:08 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/19/2014 3:24:24 PM, orangemayhem wrote:
At 5/19/2014 2:16:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

This last paragraph ominously sounds like an attempt to turn DDO into a pay-as-you-go website.

Absolutely not. I mean more that we have to understand why Juggle prioritises the updates that they do (i.e. site traffic) and then actively work to make the sections we want to improve (broadly speaking the Debates and Forums sections) more conducive to new and old membership traffic so that Juggle is incentivised to improve them; as opposed to demanding updates for sections of the site which attract fewer users and are, thus, less profitable.

This. Also, they've said before, and airmax has said of them before, that that's not a direction they want to go in.

Of course they wouldn't want to go in this direction. I mean, it's nice that y'all want to help Juggle with their baby, but you're essentially asking for Juggle to divulge how they make money off this website.

The fact that this is corporately owned is going to (probably) mean that they're going to be very secretive about how they go about doing things, lest a competitor smells profit off their business model and shanks it.

It's enough that we know that Juggle is a for-profit corporation. If we're to know more than that, we're going to have to be intimately involved in Juggle's corporate business, and we're simply not employees of Juggle.

Wait, what? You said there was a paragraph that sounded like an attempt to turn juggle into a pay-as-you-go site. I'm just agreeing with mayhem that I don't think that was the intent of the paragraph you were referencing, and that, further, Juggle has said, at least, that they don't want to do that anyway. What their internal goals don't seem really relevant to what we were talking about, which was that paragraph's implications...

You seemed to agree with mayhem that you expect the community to be more cognizant of Juggle's business model when they make recommendations to Juggle (underlined). Mayhem's entire comment implied getting to know intimately how Juggle makes a profit off DDO. You then said that Juggle didn't want to go in this direction.

Of course they wouldn't.

Again, I think you've misunderstood me slightly. Juggle have already divulged that the Opinions and Polls sections currently get the most traffic - that's publicly available information that they, themselves, gave us. They've also openly said that they will focus on developing the areas of the site which get the most traffic, which is understandable, as those areas presumably have a higher ad click-through rate by virtue of having more visitors.

What I'm arguing is that we know these are the areas of the site that Juggle want to improve (and we can understand the reasons why), yet we want updates to a different section, but the community is not actively doing enough to bridge the link - i.e. make the Debates section more popular by ensuring debates are actually voted on and try and crack down on the forfeits; and make the Forums more open by trying to keep the flamewars out.
I'm back (ish).
orangemayhem
Posts: 333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 1:49:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/19/2014 8:16:42 PM, Crescendo wrote:
At 5/19/2014 6:19:15 PM, joepbr wrote:
At 5/19/2014 1:09:03 PM, Crescendo wrote:
Note: I'm not putting this in a PM because:
A. I want the whole DDO community to see this.
B. Half of all the PMs I send out are not replied to by the recipient of them, and if they are they're replied to 16 or 20 hours later.

Now that the final opposition (that orangemayhem guy) has dropped out, your victory is almost guaranteed.
I saw your platform, and part of it involves talking with Juggle to try to convince them to contribute more to the development of this Site.
However, I say that perhaps we should not rely upon Juggle to continue improving this Site. WE THE PEOPLE of Debate.org should be the ones to improve this Site. Juggle doesn't owe us anything, as this is (at the time that I'm writing this, anyway) a free service and nobody pays a penny to be a member of this Site. We are NOT entitled to membership and high quality service from Juggle on Debate.org as long as it's free.
So, if there is to be any positive change on this Site, we (referring to all the members of DDO) should be the ones to carry it out.

Recently TUF and "Larz" (that's his username, right?) created a DDOFans website. Juggle had nothing to do with that, as far as I know. That was created by the users for the users. That's how DDO's evolution should play out.
So what if the more tech-saavy users of this Site (such as "Larz" and "TUF," along with others) modified the Site's programming without waiting on Juggle to do it for them? Of course, they'd get Juggle's permission first.

That's how I think the Site's software should be upgraded. Meanwhile, as for things like Team Debates, what if two people on this Site created Team Debate Accounts? These two users who operated the Team Debate accounts, who would be committed users of this Site, would debate each other constantly, each time copying and pasting arguments given to them by the debate teams represented in the debates. As I recall, something like this used to be in effect, and it can be again.

As for Site Moderation, normal members can help out by being more vigilant in reporting users who abuse the TOS. And perhaps we could find a way to allow more than two Moderators. Of course, only users proven to be trustworthy and full of integrity would have this job.

My overall point is that we should be the ones to reform this Site without having to ask Juggle for everything. They probably won't give this Site much new stuff anyway, as Debate.org is probably quite low on their priority list. Everyone who loves this Site can help out in some way (though some members can a lot more than others).
Self-Reliance for DDO. That's my message here today.

-Crescendo-

So, advocating the seizing of private property to the benefit of the community. That's some hardcore Bolshevism right here. Well done.

But I don't think that this level of radicalism will do more good than evil. There are other ways to turn DDO into a great Socialist nation without having to resort to unlawful activity, at least for now.

I wasn't referring to doing this stuff without Juggle's permission. I was talking about getting Juggle's permission first and THEN doing all this stuff.

As we've explained, however, this hasn't happened in the past and I struggle to see it happening in the future, for reasons outlined in various posts above this one.
I'm back (ish).
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 5:00:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 1:48:16 AM, orangemayhem wrote:
At 5/19/2014 5:44:09 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/19/2014 5:24:25 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/19/2014 4:56:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/19/2014 3:30:08 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/19/2014 3:24:24 PM, orangemayhem wrote:
At 5/19/2014 2:16:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

This last paragraph ominously sounds like an attempt to turn DDO into a pay-as-you-go website.

Absolutely not. I mean more that we have to understand why Juggle prioritises the updates that they do (i.e. site traffic) and then actively work to make the sections we want to improve (broadly speaking the Debates and Forums sections) more conducive to new and old membership traffic so that Juggle is incentivised to improve them; as opposed to demanding updates for sections of the site which attract fewer users and are, thus, less profitable.

This. Also, they've said before, and airmax has said of them before, that that's not a direction they want to go in.

Of course they wouldn't want to go in this direction. I mean, it's nice that y'all want to help Juggle with their baby, but you're essentially asking for Juggle to divulge how they make money off this website.

The fact that this is corporately owned is going to (probably) mean that they're going to be very secretive about how they go about doing things, lest a competitor smells profit off their business model and shanks it.

It's enough that we know that Juggle is a for-profit corporation. If we're to know more than that, we're going to have to be intimately involved in Juggle's corporate business, and we're simply not employees of Juggle.

Wait, what? You said there was a paragraph that sounded like an attempt to turn juggle into a pay-as-you-go site. I'm just agreeing with mayhem that I don't think that was the intent of the paragraph you were referencing, and that, further, Juggle has said, at least, that they don't want to do that anyway. What their internal goals don't seem really relevant to what we were talking about, which was that paragraph's implications...

You seemed to agree with mayhem that you expect the community to be more cognizant of Juggle's business model when they make recommendations to Juggle (underlined). Mayhem's entire comment implied getting to know intimately how Juggle makes a profit off DDO. You then said that Juggle didn't want to go in this direction.

Of course they wouldn't.

Again, I think you've misunderstood me slightly. Juggle have already divulged that the Opinions and Polls sections currently get the most traffic - that's publicly available information that they, themselves, gave us. They've also openly said that they will focus on developing the areas of the site which get the most traffic, which is understandable, as those areas presumably have a higher ad click-through rate by virtue of having more visitors.

What I'm arguing is that we know these are the areas of the site that Juggle want to improve (and we can understand the reasons why), yet we want updates to a different section, but the community is not actively doing enough to bridge the link - i.e. make the Debates section more popular by ensuring debates are actually voted on and try and crack down on the forfeits; and make the Forums more open by trying to keep the flamewars out.

Thanks for explaining your position, it's much clearer now. I largely agree with most of this.

However, I'm not sure an emphasis on voting on debates would matter to Juggle...what would seem to matter more is if those debates got more eyeballs in general, a larger viewership even if the voting was minimal.

If a debate got 100,000 views and only 2 votes, I think from Juggle's perspective that would be much more desirable than a debate with 5,000 views and 50 votes.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
orangemayhem
Posts: 333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 7:57:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 5:00:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2014 1:48:16 AM, orangemayhem wrote:
At 5/19/2014 5:44:09 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/19/2014 5:24:25 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/19/2014 4:56:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/19/2014 3:30:08 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/19/2014 3:24:24 PM, orangemayhem wrote:
At 5/19/2014 2:16:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

This last paragraph ominously sounds like an attempt to turn DDO into a pay-as-you-go website.

Absolutely not. I mean more that we have to understand why Juggle prioritises the updates that they do (i.e. site traffic) and then actively work to make the sections we want to improve (broadly speaking the Debates and Forums sections) more conducive to new and old membership traffic so that Juggle is incentivised to improve them; as opposed to demanding updates for sections of the site which attract fewer users and are, thus, less profitable.

This. Also, they've said before, and airmax has said of them before, that that's not a direction they want to go in.

Of course they wouldn't want to go in this direction. I mean, it's nice that y'all want to help Juggle with their baby, but you're essentially asking for Juggle to divulge how they make money off this website.

The fact that this is corporately owned is going to (probably) mean that they're going to be very secretive about how they go about doing things, lest a competitor smells profit off their business model and shanks it.

It's enough that we know that Juggle is a for-profit corporation. If we're to know more than that, we're going to have to be intimately involved in Juggle's corporate business, and we're simply not employees of Juggle.

Wait, what? You said there was a paragraph that sounded like an attempt to turn juggle into a pay-as-you-go site. I'm just agreeing with mayhem that I don't think that was the intent of the paragraph you were referencing, and that, further, Juggle has said, at least, that they don't want to do that anyway. What their internal goals don't seem really relevant to what we were talking about, which was that paragraph's implications...

You seemed to agree with mayhem that you expect the community to be more cognizant of Juggle's business model when they make recommendations to Juggle (underlined). Mayhem's entire comment implied getting to know intimately how Juggle makes a profit off DDO. You then said that Juggle didn't want to go in this direction.

Of course they wouldn't.

Again, I think you've misunderstood me slightly. Juggle have already divulged that the Opinions and Polls sections currently get the most traffic - that's publicly available information that they, themselves, gave us. They've also openly said that they will focus on developing the areas of the site which get the most traffic, which is understandable, as those areas presumably have a higher ad click-through rate by virtue of having more visitors.

What I'm arguing is that we know these are the areas of the site that Juggle want to improve (and we can understand the reasons why), yet we want updates to a different section, but the community is not actively doing enough to bridge the link - i.e. make the Debates section more popular by ensuring debates are actually voted on and try and crack down on the forfeits; and make the Forums more open by trying to keep the flamewars out.

Thanks for explaining your position, it's much clearer now. I largely agree with most of this.

However, I'm not sure an emphasis on voting on debates would matter to Juggle...what would seem to matter more is if those debates got more eyeballs in general, a larger viewership even if the voting was minimal.

If a debate got 100,000 views and only 2 votes, I think from Juggle's perspective that would be much more desirable than a debate with 5,000 views and 50 votes.

Absolutely, but I think if we make sure there are more debates that get voted on then I think more people will use the Debates section of the site to create high-quality debates (which will garner more views). With the right actions it should be easy to improve the traffic that way by making the Debates section a bit less... dysfunctional.
I'm back (ish).
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 5:09:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 7:57:12 AM, orangemayhem wrote:
At 5/20/2014 5:00:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2014 1:48:16 AM, orangemayhem wrote:
At 5/19/2014 5:44:09 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/19/2014 5:24:25 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/19/2014 4:56:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/19/2014 3:30:08 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/19/2014 3:24:24 PM, orangemayhem wrote:
At 5/19/2014 2:16:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

This last paragraph ominously sounds like an attempt to turn DDO into a pay-as-you-go website.

Absolutely not. I mean more that we have to understand why Juggle prioritises the updates that they do (i.e. site traffic) and then actively work to make the sections we want to improve (broadly speaking the Debates and Forums sections) more conducive to new and old membership traffic so that Juggle is incentivised to improve them; as opposed to demanding updates for sections of the site which attract fewer users and are, thus, less profitable.

This. Also, they've said before, and airmax has said of them before, that that's not a direction they want to go in.

Of course they wouldn't want to go in this direction. I mean, it's nice that y'all want to help Juggle with their baby, but you're essentially asking for Juggle to divulge how they make money off this website.

The fact that this is corporately owned is going to (probably) mean that they're going to be very secretive about how they go about doing things, lest a competitor smells profit off their business model and shanks it.

It's enough that we know that Juggle is a for-profit corporation. If we're to know more than that, we're going to have to be intimately involved in Juggle's corporate business, and we're simply not employees of Juggle.

Wait, what? You said there was a paragraph that sounded like an attempt to turn juggle into a pay-as-you-go site. I'm just agreeing with mayhem that I don't think that was the intent of the paragraph you were referencing, and that, further, Juggle has said, at least, that they don't want to do that anyway. What their internal goals don't seem really relevant to what we were talking about, which was that paragraph's implications...

You seemed to agree with mayhem that you expect the community to be more cognizant of Juggle's business model when they make recommendations to Juggle (underlined). Mayhem's entire comment implied getting to know intimately how Juggle makes a profit off DDO. You then said that Juggle didn't want to go in this direction.

Of course they wouldn't.

Again, I think you've misunderstood me slightly. Juggle have already divulged that the Opinions and Polls sections currently get the most traffic - that's publicly available information that they, themselves, gave us. They've also openly said that they will focus on developing the areas of the site which get the most traffic, which is understandable, as those areas presumably have a higher ad click-through rate by virtue of having more visitors.

What I'm arguing is that we know these are the areas of the site that Juggle want to improve (and we can understand the reasons why), yet we want updates to a different section, but the community is not actively doing enough to bridge the link - i.e. make the Debates section more popular by ensuring debates are actually voted on and try and crack down on the forfeits; and make the Forums more open by trying to keep the flamewars out.

Thanks for explaining your position, it's much clearer now. I largely agree with most of this.

However, I'm not sure an emphasis on voting on debates would matter to Juggle...what would seem to matter more is if those debates got more eyeballs in general, a larger viewership even if the voting was minimal.

If a debate got 100,000 views and only 2 votes, I think from Juggle's perspective that would be much more desirable than a debate with 5,000 views and 50 votes.

Absolutely, but I think if we make sure there are more debates that get voted on then I think more people will use the Debates section of the site to create high-quality debates (which will garner more views). With the right actions it should be easy to improve the traffic that way by making the Debates section a bit less... dysfunctional.

IMHO this issue is complicated.

1) Assuming that more votes => more debate traffic is true, one huge impediment that has surfaced during my time here is the exponential growth in number of complaints dealing with alleged "votebombs". I think those allegations, and that many people who seek to actively debate here are prone to make such allegations, highly discourage voting on debates.

I've debated TUF on this subject, and IMHO the best way to solve this problem is to divorce the score from the RFD, thereby dramatically lowering the standard of what people perceive to be a "valid" score. The reasoning is that all scores are valid as long as they are not multi-accounts, and if you begin discouraging people from scoring out of fear of a protracted flame war over this point or that, you really begin to lose the essence of why people vote on debates in the first place...to leave their opinion. There's typically little to no justification for these "votebomb" allegations other than "low quality". Such a reason really shouldn't matter...what should matter far more is volume of votes, which as you say would lead to volume of clicks as well. Such volume would speak more about popular opinion about a subject than a few detailed RFDs...in fact, I would argue that a debate that didn't get a minimum number of votes should not have a winner or a loser.

This fear of votebombing is easily the best explanation for why the debates section is dysfunctional. Scoring has become such a ridiculously convoluted set of unwritten and unenforceable rules that all that typically gets noted is a bunch of pointless complaining over votes that don't go someone's way.

Don't get me wrong, I think discussions over RFDs are great...but people get really wrapped up over the score and how it's linked to these RFDs. People should just get over votes that don't go their way and just let it be, no matter how poor the perceived quality of the RFD, and just let the next 10, 20, or 50 people vote on the debate.

2) What people should be far more concerned with is whether or not people who held a contra position were swayed to the debater's side. This would encourage people to argue unpopular positions, which is currently highly discouraged because most people realize that bias prior to reading the debate is going to factor into their vote no matter what people do. Users like ragnar typically don't score debates out of fear of such bias, but IMHO such fears are unwarranted.

IMHO I think this could be another scoring criteria, i.e. # of people who actually changed their minds because of the debate. This really is the gold standard of a good debater, and the current scoring system doesn't factor this in at all.

3) I'd also recommend a separate scoring section on RFDs as well, to highlight good RFDs that reflect the opinions of the voters, kind of like how Amazon allows people to rate a product, and then also allows people to rate the ratings as well.

Maybe the ratings on RFDs would reflect the opinions of people who actually took the time to critically analyze the debate, whereas the score would more reflect a popular knee-jerk reaction to a topic. Both are important in their own way, IMHO.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 5:25:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/19/2014 3:30:08 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/19/2014 3:24:24 PM, orangemayhem wrote:
At 5/19/2014 2:16:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

This last paragraph ominously sounds like an attempt to turn DDO into a pay-as-you-go website.

Absolutely not. I mean more that we have to understand why Juggle prioritises the updates that they do (i.e. site traffic) and then actively work to make the sections we want to improve (broadly speaking the Debates and Forums sections) more conducive to new and old membership traffic so that Juggle is incentivised to improve them; as opposed to demanding updates for sections of the site which attract fewer users and are, thus, less profitable.

This. Also, they've said before, and airmax has said of them before, that that's not a direction they want to go in.

This is very true.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 3:25:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 5:25:20 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 5/19/2014 3:30:08 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/19/2014 3:24:24 PM, orangemayhem wrote:
At 5/19/2014 2:16:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

This last paragraph ominously sounds like an attempt to turn DDO into a pay-as-you-go website.

Absolutely not. I mean more that we have to understand why Juggle prioritises the updates that they do (i.e. site traffic) and then actively work to make the sections we want to improve (broadly speaking the Debates and Forums sections) more conducive to new and old membership traffic so that Juggle is incentivised to improve them; as opposed to demanding updates for sections of the site which attract fewer users and are, thus, less profitable.

This. Also, they've said before, and airmax has said of them before, that that's not a direction they want to go in.

This is very true.

What exactly do you agree with? It's been clear in the subsequent conversation that all three of us interpreted OM's comment in a different way.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 3:42:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/19/2014 8:16:42 PM, Crescendo wrote:
At 5/19/2014 6:19:15 PM, joepbr wrote:

So, advocating the seizing of private property to the benefit of the community. That's some hardcore Bolshevism right here. Well done.

But I don't think that this level of radicalism will do more good than evil. There are other ways to turn DDO into a great Socialist nation without having to resort to unlawful activity, at least for now.

I wasn't referring to doing this stuff without Juggle's permission. I was talking about getting Juggle's permission first and THEN doing all this stuff.

Juggle's been understandably slow in implementing user-recommended changes. Even something simple like the whole "prefer not to say" on gender took several weeks to implement, and IMHO for good reason. We have our own arguments, sure, but you have to consider whether or not even something like that was part of Juggle's strategy for this website, and/or whether or not it would positively/negatively impact Juggle's bottom line.

I mean, all of us had cute little guy/girl symbols next to our names whenever we posted a forum comment, and this website is a quasi-derivative of facebook, meaning that for a good number of people, networking and social-media-esque reasons constitute a strong reason as to why people use this website. Take away gender, and you take away what for many people might have been a strong motivating factor to participate here.

If a change that small can have long-term consequences, what about other changes that are more significant?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 8:38:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/19/2014 2:12:16 PM, Crescendo wrote:
It annoys the *expletive* out of me when the Mods delete a thread that isn't spam and doesn't violate any of the TOS.

are you talking about like the goodbye thread thing. I pointed it out to airmax just to throw that out there. He probably deleted it because no one, and i mean NO ONE, has the authority to tell other users where they have to post stuff other than a moderator. That's their call and no one else's. I pointed it out to him just to be sure that I didn't have to post there.
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
orangemayhem
Posts: 333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 8:44:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 8:38:24 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 5/19/2014 2:12:16 PM, Crescendo wrote:
It annoys the *expletive* out of me when the Mods delete a thread that isn't spam and doesn't violate any of the TOS.

are you talking about like the goodbye thread thing. I pointed it out to airmax just to throw that out there. He probably deleted it because no one, and i mean NO ONE, has the authority to tell other users where they have to post stuff other than a moderator. That's their call and no one else's. I pointed it out to him just to be sure that I didn't have to post there.

This.
I'm back (ish).
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 8:49:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 8:44:57 AM, orangemayhem wrote:
At 5/21/2014 8:38:24 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 5/19/2014 2:12:16 PM, Crescendo wrote:
It annoys the *expletive* out of me when the Mods delete a thread that isn't spam and doesn't violate any of the TOS.

are you talking about like the goodbye thread thing. I pointed it out to airmax just to throw that out there. He probably deleted it because no one, and i mean NO ONE, has the authority to tell other users where they have to post stuff other than a moderator. That's their call and no one else's. I pointed it out to him just to be sure that I didn't have to post there.

This.

did you pm him too about it?
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Crescendo
Posts: 470
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 1:45:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 8:38:24 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 5/19/2014 2:12:16 PM, Crescendo wrote:
It annoys the *expletive* out of me when the Mods delete a thread that isn't spam and doesn't violate any of the TOS.

are you talking about like the goodbye thread thing. I pointed it out to airmax just to throw that out there. He probably deleted it because no one, and i mean NO ONE, has the authority to tell other users where they have to post stuff other than a moderator. That's their call and no one else's. I pointed it out to him just to be sure that I didn't have to post there.

By no means did I force people to post their goodbyes there; even if I tried to do this I wouldn't be able to. Basically, I said that people REALLY SHOULD post their goodbyes there to prevent spam.
My View of the World:
http://www.debate.org...

My Greatest Debate (As of so far):
http://www.debate.org...