Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

DDO Constitution? Bill of Rights?

Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 10:36:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I was on another forum, and one of their members wrote up a well drafted "constitution" where it has "articles" and a "bill of rights" (not of their rights, but of others) where the people who signed up basically promised to follow the rules of the Constitution. Things like not using certain fallacies, and not denouncing the others arguments and opinions on bad premises, such as their lack of expertise (Courtiers Reply) or the apparent (to you) stupidity of some beliefs (some of the dumbest beliefs turned out to be right)

I believe we should have "Constitutional Convention" for a DDO Constitution who's constituents would essentially promise to respect certain rights that should be given to all serious debaters (yes even the ones you hate).
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 10:40:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I would like to point out that I'm not saying binding all people to it, simply those who agree (obviously it's faith based), more like a voluntary "Code of Honour", but with a more awesome name
Atheist-Independent
Posts: 776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 11:45:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 10:36:57 AM, Unitomic wrote:
I was on another forum, and one of their members wrote up a well drafted "constitution" where it has "articles" and a "bill of rights" (not of their rights, but of others) where the people who signed up basically promised to follow the rules of the Constitution. Things like not using certain fallacies, and not denouncing the others arguments and opinions on bad premises, such as their lack of expertise (Courtiers Reply) or the apparent (to you) stupidity of some beliefs (some of the dumbest beliefs turned out to be right)

I believe we should have "Constitutional Convention" for a DDO Constitution who's constituents would essentially promise to respect certain rights that should be given to all serious debaters (yes even the ones you hate).

I have no objections, but I doubt that it would accomplish too much.
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 7:56:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 11:45:59 AM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
At 11/25/2014 10:36:57 AM, Unitomic wrote:
I was on another forum, and one of their members wrote up a well drafted "constitution" where it has "articles" and a "bill of rights" (not of their rights, but of others) where the people who signed up basically promised to follow the rules of the Constitution. Things like not using certain fallacies, and not denouncing the others arguments and opinions on bad premises, such as their lack of expertise (Courtiers Reply) or the apparent (to you) stupidity of some beliefs (some of the dumbest beliefs turned out to be right)

I believe we should have "Constitutional Convention" for a DDO Constitution who's constituents would essentially promise to respect certain rights that should be given to all serious debaters (yes even the ones you hate).

I have no objections, but I doubt that it would accomplish too much.

well as I said, "Constitution" in this case is a misnomer. It would basically be a big "I promise not to (or to)..." code of honour, where people can sign on if they want (no one would be forced to sign up). Those who sign up will help keep each other in line. There's no police enforcing it or anything.

Basically it's a "DDO Chivalry Code" for people to actively sign up for.
Atheist-Independent
Posts: 776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 9:02:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 7:56:12 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/26/2014 11:45:59 AM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
At 11/25/2014 10:36:57 AM, Unitomic wrote:
I was on another forum, and one of their members wrote up a well drafted "constitution" where it has "articles" and a "bill of rights" (not of their rights, but of others) where the people who signed up basically promised to follow the rules of the Constitution. Things like not using certain fallacies, and not denouncing the others arguments and opinions on bad premises, such as their lack of expertise (Courtiers Reply) or the apparent (to you) stupidity of some beliefs (some of the dumbest beliefs turned out to be right)

I believe we should have "Constitutional Convention" for a DDO Constitution who's constituents would essentially promise to respect certain rights that should be given to all serious debaters (yes even the ones you hate).

I have no objections, but I doubt that it would accomplish too much.

well as I said, "Constitution" in this case is a misnomer. It would basically be a big "I promise not to (or to)..." code of honour, where people can sign on if they want (no one would be forced to sign up). Those who sign up will help keep each other in line. There's no police enforcing it or anything.

Basically it's a "DDO Chivalry Code" for people to actively sign up for.

Yet history shows us that no one truly follows the code of chivalry.
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 9:08:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 9:02:11 PM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
At 11/30/2014 7:56:12 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/26/2014 11:45:59 AM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
At 11/25/2014 10:36:57 AM, Unitomic wrote:
I was on another forum, and one of their members wrote up a well drafted "constitution" where it has "articles" and a "bill of rights" (not of their rights, but of others) where the people who signed up basically promised to follow the rules of the Constitution. Things like not using certain fallacies, and not denouncing the others arguments and opinions on bad premises, such as their lack of expertise (Courtiers Reply) or the apparent (to you) stupidity of some beliefs (some of the dumbest beliefs turned out to be right)

I believe we should have "Constitutional Convention" for a DDO Constitution who's constituents would essentially promise to respect certain rights that should be given to all serious debaters (yes even the ones you hate).

I have no objections, but I doubt that it would accomplish too much.

well as I said, "Constitution" in this case is a misnomer. It would basically be a big "I promise not to (or to)..." code of honour, where people can sign on if they want (no one would be forced to sign up). Those who sign up will help keep each other in line. There's no police enforcing it or anything.

Basically it's a "DDO Chivalry Code" for people to actively sign up for.

Yet history shows us that no one truly follows the code of chivalry.

Yes, but many try hard to, and many try to make amends for their breaches (especially when others call them out on it).
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 12:04:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
We already have one, it's called the Terms of Service (ToS).
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 4:06:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 12:04:59 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
We already have one, it's called the Terms of Service (ToS).

Yes that's done soooo well.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 4:11:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 4:06:39 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 12/1/2014 12:04:59 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
We already have one, it's called the Terms of Service (ToS).

Yes that's done soooo well.

Sure, there are flaws with it, but it still serves the purpose of the declaration you are advocating for.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 5:02:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 4:11:53 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 12/1/2014 4:06:39 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 12/1/2014 12:04:59 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
We already have one, it's called the Terms of Service (ToS).

Yes that's done soooo well.

Sure, there are flaws with it, but it still serves the purpose of the declaration you are advocating for.

no, it really doesn't
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 5:04:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 5:02:26 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 12/1/2014 4:11:53 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 12/1/2014 4:06:39 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 12/1/2014 12:04:59 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
We already have one, it's called the Terms of Service (ToS).

Yes that's done soooo well.

Sure, there are flaws with it, but it still serves the purpose of the declaration you are advocating for.

no, it really doesn't

Why not? What issues do you believe need to be taken care of?
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 5:05:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 4:11:53 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 12/1/2014 4:06:39 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 12/1/2014 12:04:59 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
We already have one, it's called the Terms of Service (ToS).

Yes that's done soooo well.

Sure, there are flaws with it, but it still serves the purpose of the declaration you are advocating for.

A ToS isn't a player-made code of honor. It's a rule book for legal rules and rules of necessity. What Unit's wanting are rules that we don't have to follow, but it'd make the place better if we did.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 5:15:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 5:05:45 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/1/2014 4:11:53 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 12/1/2014 4:06:39 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 12/1/2014 12:04:59 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
We already have one, it's called the Terms of Service (ToS).

Yes that's done soooo well.

Sure, there are flaws with it, but it still serves the purpose of the declaration you are advocating for.

A ToS isn't a player-made code of honor. It's a rule book for legal rules and rules of necessity. What Unit's wanting are rules that we don't have to follow, but it'd make the place better if we did.

Yes, I'm just thinking about the most recent changes the ToS saw (the whole reason Imabench left in the first place) and how that did make the terms more user-friendly. When I say user-friendly I mean more focused on protecting members from harassment and offensive speech.

It seems adequate enough, to me, as it is now. Clearly there are some issues though that have failed to be solved by this latest update. So, I'm just more curious, at this point, as to what sort of rules Unit would propose that haven't already been covered.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 5:29:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 5:15:14 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 12/1/2014 5:05:45 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/1/2014 4:11:53 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 12/1/2014 4:06:39 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 12/1/2014 12:04:59 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
We already have one, it's called the Terms of Service (ToS).

Yes that's done soooo well.

Sure, there are flaws with it, but it still serves the purpose of the declaration you are advocating for.

A ToS isn't a player-made code of honor. It's a rule book for legal rules and rules of necessity. What Unit's wanting are rules that we don't have to follow, but it'd make the place better if we did.

Yes, I'm just thinking about the most recent changes the ToS saw (the whole reason Imabench left in the first place) and how that did make the terms more user-friendly. When I say user-friendly I mean more focused on protecting members from harassment and offensive speech.

It seems adequate enough, to me, as it is now. Clearly there are some issues though that have failed to be solved by this latest update. So, I'm just more curious, at this point, as to what sort of rules Unit would propose that haven't already been covered.

Well.. Based off the rules at the forum he goes to, probably stuff like:
1- Can not quote parts of a user's speech. You have to quote the whole thing.
2- No hijacking and derailing a thread. It must stay on track, and if you want to start a new topic, make a new thread.
3- Explaining why somethings a fallacy or else the argument goes.

Things like that.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 5:38:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 5:29:24 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/1/2014 5:15:14 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 12/1/2014 5:05:45 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/1/2014 4:11:53 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 12/1/2014 4:06:39 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 12/1/2014 12:04:59 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
We already have one, it's called the Terms of Service (ToS).

Yes that's done soooo well.

Sure, there are flaws with it, but it still serves the purpose of the declaration you are advocating for.

A ToS isn't a player-made code of honor. It's a rule book for legal rules and rules of necessity. What Unit's wanting are rules that we don't have to follow, but it'd make the place better if we did.

Yes, I'm just thinking about the most recent changes the ToS saw (the whole reason Imabench left in the first place) and how that did make the terms more user-friendly. When I say user-friendly I mean more focused on protecting members from harassment and offensive speech.

It seems adequate enough, to me, as it is now. Clearly there are some issues though that have failed to be solved by this latest update. So, I'm just more curious, at this point, as to what sort of rules Unit would propose that haven't already been covered.

Well.. Based off the rules at the forum he goes to, probably stuff like:
1- Can not quote parts of a user's speech. You have to quote the whole thing.

That's not very feasible in our own forums where we have character limits.

2- No hijacking and derailing a thread. It must stay on track, and if you want to start a new topic, make a new thread.

I fully agree with this, but I don't think it likely that many members would sign-on for this since a majority of the time this is done out of fun here on DDO. Also, sometimes conversations lead to unusual places, where would the line be drawn and how would we justify the time moderators would have to spend cleaning that up when they are already so bogged down with more-pressing issues like ad spammers?

3- Explaining why somethings a fallacy or else the argument goes.

Like, if the opponent doesn't catch the fallacy then it's free-game and the voters can't hold it against them?
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 5:53:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 5:38:51 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 12/1/2014 5:29:24 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/1/2014 5:15:14 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 12/1/2014 5:05:45 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/1/2014 4:11:53 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 12/1/2014 4:06:39 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 12/1/2014 12:04:59 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
We already have one, it's called the Terms of Service (ToS).

Yes that's done soooo well.

Sure, there are flaws with it, but it still serves the purpose of the declaration you are advocating for.

A ToS isn't a player-made code of honor. It's a rule book for legal rules and rules of necessity. What Unit's wanting are rules that we don't have to follow, but it'd make the place better if we did.

Yes, I'm just thinking about the most recent changes the ToS saw (the whole reason Imabench left in the first place) and how that did make the terms more user-friendly. When I say user-friendly I mean more focused on protecting members from harassment and offensive speech.

It seems adequate enough, to me, as it is now. Clearly there are some issues though that have failed to be solved by this latest update. So, I'm just more curious, at this point, as to what sort of rules Unit would propose that haven't already been covered.

Well.. Based off the rules at the forum he goes to, probably stuff like:
1- Can not quote parts of a user's speech. You have to quote the whole thing.

That's not very feasible in our own forums where we have character limits.

I agree. But I think the rule is for sentence and context, not the whole paragraph. Like providing enough context to ensure what they said isn't getting cherry-picked. Historum doesn't do character limits. And I don't think we should either... It's pointless. If you have 20,000 characters to say, you will just make 20k worth in multiple posts, which is simply worse than a 20k single post

2- No hijacking and derailing a thread. It must stay on track, and if you want to start a new topic, make a new thread.

I fully agree with this, but I don't think it likely that many members would sign-on for this since a majority of the time this is done out of fun here on DDO. Also, sometimes conversations lead to unusual places, where would the line be drawn and how would we justify the time moderators would have to spend cleaning that up when they are already so bogged down with more-pressing issues like ad spammers?

User-led mods. DDO only lacks Mods because it's a business. But a Forum can't be ran with a business model. That's the biggest flaw here.

As for derailing for fun... It's great on a non-serious thread, but in a serious post, it shouldn't happen. Fun is a relative idea, and while you had fun, the op doesn't, and neither does the people who's side or opinion got the butt-end of the derailing.

3- Explaining why somethings a fallacy or else the argument goes.

Like, if the opponent doesn't catch the fallacy then it's free-game and the voters can't hold it against them?

No lol. If he doesn't explain why it's a fallacy, than yes, it goes. It's not the voters job to spend an hour trying to understand where the fallacy is because you didn't explain it, especially if we find there was none. It's too common for someone to say "nice Red Herring" and leave, leaving the person to question where the redherring is. It's not appropriate. If you call someone out, you should explain the crime in it's entirety. Not having to explain your accusation only does harm to the thread, and the debate.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 6:30:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 5:53:33 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/1/2014 5:38:51 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 12/1/2014 5:29:24 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/1/2014 5:15:14 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 12/1/2014 5:05:45 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/1/2014 4:11:53 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 12/1/2014 4:06:39 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 12/1/2014 12:04:59 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
We already have one, it's called the Terms of Service (ToS).

Yes that's done soooo well.

Sure, there are flaws with it, but it still serves the purpose of the declaration you are advocating for.

A ToS isn't a player-made code of honor. It's a rule book for legal rules and rules of necessity. What Unit's wanting are rules that we don't have to follow, but it'd make the place better if we did.

Yes, I'm just thinking about the most recent changes the ToS saw (the whole reason Imabench left in the first place) and how that did make the terms more user-friendly. When I say user-friendly I mean more focused on protecting members from harassment and offensive speech.

It seems adequate enough, to me, as it is now. Clearly there are some issues though that have failed to be solved by this latest update. So, I'm just more curious, at this point, as to what sort of rules Unit would propose that haven't already been covered.

Well.. Based off the rules at the forum he goes to, probably stuff like:
1- Can not quote parts of a user's speech. You have to quote the whole thing.

That's not very feasible in our own forums where we have character limits.

I agree. But I think the rule is for sentence and context, not the whole paragraph. Like providing enough context to ensure what they said isn't getting cherry-picked. Historum doesn't do character limits. And I don't think we should either... It's pointless. If you have 20,000 characters to say, you will just make 20k worth in multiple posts, which is simply worse than a 20k single post

I do agree that the limit isn't ideal in certain circumstances. I also agree that it's better if users give the best context possible when quoting others, but I just don't see how we could enforce such a thing without possibly teaching new members the new standards as they come in. Most older members are already set in their ways or just don't care enough, and the few that would oblige, like myself, don't really need a constitution to do so since it's just the standard we uphold in the first place.

2- No hijacking and derailing a thread. It must stay on track, and if you want to start a new topic, make a new thread.

I fully agree with this, but I don't think it likely that many members would sign-on for this since a majority of the time this is done out of fun here on DDO. Also, sometimes conversations lead to unusual places, where would the line be drawn and how would we justify the time moderators would have to spend cleaning that up when they are already so bogged down with more-pressing issues like ad spammers?

User-led mods. DDO only lacks Mods because it's a business. But a Forum can't be ran with a business model. That's the biggest flaw here.

True.

As for derailing for fun... It's great on a non-serious thread, but in a serious post, it shouldn't happen. Fun is a relative idea, and while you had fun, the op doesn't, and neither does the people who's side or opinion got the butt-end of the derailing.

Okay, I see your point. We have to keep in mind though that only a fraction of the users here actually do that - either fun or seriously - so I don't see the incentive for people to sign a declaration that isn't even going to be backed by Moderators. For this issue to truly be solved, it would need moderators who can actively surf the threads and remove such things when they occur, and for them to get involved it'd have to be a rule recognized by the ToS or Moderators themselves.

3- Explaining why somethings a fallacy or else the argument goes.

Like, if the opponent doesn't catch the fallacy then it's free-game and the voters can't hold it against them?

No lol. If he doesn't explain why it's a fallacy, than yes, it goes. It's not the voters job to spend an hour trying to understand where the fallacy is because you didn't explain it, especially if we find there was none. It's too common for someone to say "nice Red Herring" and leave, leaving the person to question where the redherring is. It's not appropriate. If you call someone out, you should explain the crime in it's entirety. Not having to explain your accusation only does harm to the thread, and the debate.

Oh I fully support this. THIS needs to be introduced into the beginners guide sticky or something.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 7:06:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well.. Based off the rules at the forum he goes to, probably stuff like:
1- Can not quote parts of a user's speech. You have to quote the whole thing.

That's not very feasible in our own forums where we have character limits.

I agree. But I think the rule is for sentence and context, not the whole paragraph. Like providing enough context to ensure what they said isn't getting cherry-picked. Historum doesn't do character limits. And I don't think we should either... It's pointless. If you have 20,000 characters to say, you will just make 20k worth in multiple posts, which is simply worse than a 20k single post

I do agree that the limit isn't ideal in certain circumstances. I also agree that it's better if users give the best context possible when quoting others, but I just don't see how we could enforce such a thing without possibly teaching new members the new standards as they come in. Most older members are already set in their ways or just don't care enough, and the few that would oblige, like myself, don't really need a constitution to do so since it's just the standard we uphold in the first place.

Well. It's not about being able to enforce on others. It's not a legal treaty. As long as the signers follow it, that's all you could ask. It's how many agreements work. As long as we listen to our rules, others will join in time. And if they don't, we've lost nothing.

I fully agree with this, but I don't think it likely that many members would sign-on for this since a majority of the time this is done out of fun here on DDO. Also, sometimes conversations lead to unusual places, where would the line be drawn and how would we justify the time moderators would have to spend cleaning that up when they are already so bogged down with more-pressing issues like ad spammers?

User-led mods. DDO only lacks Mods because it's a business. But a Forum can't be ran with a business model. That's the biggest flaw here.

True.

As for derailing for fun... It's great on a non-serious thread, but in a serious post, it shouldn't happen. Fun is a relative idea, and while you had fun, the op doesn't, and neither does the people who's side or opinion got the butt-end of the derailing.

Okay, I see your point. We have to keep in mind though that only a fraction of the users here actually do that - either fun or seriously - so I don't see the incentive for people to sign a declaration that isn't even going to be backed by Moderators. For this issue to truly be solved, it would need moderators who can actively surf the threads and remove such things when they occur, and for them to get involved it'd have to be a rule recognized by the ToS or Moderators themselves.

I see it happen all the time. Threads get derailed often on this site. As for needing the mods to enforce it, it's not about being able to make others follow. It's about us following it. And depending on who signs up, you can put a thread back on track easily with the right members going at it.

Like, if the opponent doesn't catch the fallacy then it's free-game and the voters can't hold it against them?

No lol. If he doesn't explain why it's a fallacy, than yes, it goes. It's not the voters job to spend an hour trying to understand where the fallacy is because you didn't explain it, especially if we find there was none. It's too common for someone to say "nice Red Herring" and leave, leaving the person to question where the redherring is. It's not appropriate. If you call someone out, you should explain the crime in it's entirety. Not having to explain your accusation only does harm to the thread, and the debate.

Oh I fully support this. THIS needs to be introduced into the beginners guide sticky or something.

Agreed.

So to summarize it... It's about the message being sent, and the mentality of signing it. Not about how well others will follow, so long as we follow it.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 7:25:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 7:06:04 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Well.. Based off the rules at the forum he goes to, probably stuff like:
1- Can not quote parts of a user's speech. You have to quote the whole thing.

That's not very feasible in our own forums where we have character limits.

I agree. But I think the rule is for sentence and context, not the whole paragraph. Like providing enough context to ensure what they said isn't getting cherry-picked. Historum doesn't do character limits. And I don't think we should either... It's pointless. If you have 20,000 characters to say, you will just make 20k worth in multiple posts, which is simply worse than a 20k single post

I do agree that the limit isn't ideal in certain circumstances. I also agree that it's better if users give the best context possible when quoting others, but I just don't see how we could enforce such a thing without possibly teaching new members the new standards as they come in. Most older members are already set in their ways or just don't care enough, and the few that would oblige, like myself, don't really need a constitution to do so since it's just the standard we uphold in the first place.

Well. It's not about being able to enforce on others. It's not a legal treaty. As long as the signers follow it, that's all you could ask. It's how many agreements work. As long as we listen to our rules, others will join in time. And if they don't, we've lost nothing.

I fully agree with this, but I don't think it likely that many members would sign-on for this since a majority of the time this is done out of fun here on DDO. Also, sometimes conversations lead to unusual places, where would the line be drawn and how would we justify the time moderators would have to spend cleaning that up when they are already so bogged down with more-pressing issues like ad spammers?

User-led mods. DDO only lacks Mods because it's a business. But a Forum can't be ran with a business model. That's the biggest flaw here.

True.

As for derailing for fun... It's great on a non-serious thread, but in a serious post, it shouldn't happen. Fun is a relative idea, and while you had fun, the op doesn't, and neither does the people who's side or opinion got the butt-end of the derailing.

Okay, I see your point. We have to keep in mind though that only a fraction of the users here actually do that - either fun or seriously - so I don't see the incentive for people to sign a declaration that isn't even going to be backed by Moderators. For this issue to truly be solved, it would need moderators who can actively surf the threads and remove such things when they occur, and for them to get involved it'd have to be a rule recognized by the ToS or Moderators themselves.

I see it happen all the time. Threads get derailed often on this site. As for needing the mods to enforce it, it's not about being able to make others follow. It's about us following it. And depending on who signs up, you can put a thread back on track easily with the right members going at it.

Like, if the opponent doesn't catch the fallacy then it's free-game and the voters can't hold it against them?

No lol. If he doesn't explain why it's a fallacy, than yes, it goes. It's not the voters job to spend an hour trying to understand where the fallacy is because you didn't explain it, especially if we find there was none. It's too common for someone to say "nice Red Herring" and leave, leaving the person to question where the redherring is. It's not appropriate. If you call someone out, you should explain the crime in it's entirety. Not having to explain your accusation only does harm to the thread, and the debate.

Oh I fully support this. THIS needs to be introduced into the beginners guide sticky or something.

Agreed.

So to summarize it... It's about the message being sent, and the mentality of signing it. Not about how well others will follow, so long as we follow it.

Got it. By all means, get him to draft a declaration and present it, maybe I'll end up signing it myself.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 7:49:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 7:25:48 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 12/1/2014 7:06:04 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Well.. Based off the rules at the forum he goes to, probably stuff like:
1- Can not quote parts of a user's speech. You have to quote the whole thing.

That's not very feasible in our own forums where we have character limits.

I agree. But I think the rule is for sentence and context, not the whole paragraph. Like providing enough context to ensure what they said isn't getting cherry-picked. Historum doesn't do character limits. And I don't think we should either... It's pointless. If you have 20,000 characters to say, you will just make 20k worth in multiple posts, which is simply worse than a 20k single post

I do agree that the limit isn't ideal in certain circumstances. I also agree that it's better if users give the best context possible when quoting others, but I just don't see how we could enforce such a thing without possibly teaching new members the new standards as they come in. Most older members are already set in their ways or just don't care enough, and the few that would oblige, like myself, don't really need a constitution to do so since it's just the standard we uphold in the first place.

Well. It's not about being able to enforce on others. It's not a legal treaty. As long as the signers follow it, that's all you could ask. It's how many agreements work. As long as we listen to our rules, others will join in time. And if they don't, we've lost nothing.

I fully agree with this, but I don't think it likely that many members would sign-on for this since a majority of the time this is done out of fun here on DDO. Also, sometimes conversations lead to unusual places, where would the line be drawn and how would we justify the time moderators would have to spend cleaning that up when they are already so bogged down with more-pressing issues like ad spammers?

User-led mods. DDO only lacks Mods because it's a business. But a Forum can't be ran with a business model. That's the biggest flaw here.

True.

As for derailing for fun... It's great on a non-serious thread, but in a serious post, it shouldn't happen. Fun is a relative idea, and while you had fun, the op doesn't, and neither does the people who's side or opinion got the butt-end of the derailing.

Okay, I see your point. We have to keep in mind though that only a fraction of the users here actually do that - either fun or seriously - so I don't see the incentive for people to sign a declaration that isn't even going to be backed by Moderators. For this issue to truly be solved, it would need moderators who can actively surf the threads and remove such things when they occur, and for them to get involved it'd have to be a rule recognized by the ToS or Moderators themselves.

I see it happen all the time. Threads get derailed often on this site. As for needing the mods to enforce it, it's not about being able to make others follow. It's about us following it. And depending on who signs up, you can put a thread back on track easily with the right members going at it.

Like, if the opponent doesn't catch the fallacy then it's free-game and the voters can't hold it against them?

No lol. If he doesn't explain why it's a fallacy, than yes, it goes. It's not the voters job to spend an hour trying to understand where the fallacy is because you didn't explain it, especially if we find there was none. It's too common for someone to say "nice Red Herring" and leave, leaving the person to question where the redherring is. It's not appropriate. If you call someone out, you should explain the crime in it's entirety. Not having to explain your accusation only does harm to the thread, and the debate.

Oh I fully support this. THIS needs to be introduced into the beginners guide sticky or something.

Agreed.

So to summarize it... It's about the message being sent, and the mentality of signing it. Not about how well others will follow, so long as we follow it.

Got it. By all means, get him to draft a declaration and present it, maybe I'll end up signing it myself.

Now to wait for him to make it xD
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 7:53:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 7:25:48 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 12/1/2014 7:06:04 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Well.. Based off the rules at the forum he goes to, probably stuff like:
1- Can not quote parts of a user's speech. You have to quote the whole thing.

That's not very feasible in our own forums where we have character limits.

I agree. But I think the rule is for sentence and context, not the whole paragraph. Like providing enough context to ensure what they said isn't getting cherry-picked. Historum doesn't do character limits. And I don't think we should either... It's pointless. If you have 20,000 characters to say, you will just make 20k worth in multiple posts, which is simply worse than a 20k single post

I do agree that the limit isn't ideal in certain circumstances. I also agree that it's better if users give the best context possible when quoting others, but I just don't see how we could enforce such a thing without possibly teaching new members the new standards as they come in. Most older members are already set in their ways or just don't care enough, and the few that would oblige, like myself, don't really need a constitution to do so since it's just the standard we uphold in the first place.

Well. It's not about being able to enforce on others. It's not a legal treaty. As long as the signers follow it, that's all you could ask. It's how many agreements work. As long as we listen to our rules, others will join in time. And if they don't, we've lost nothing.

I fully agree with this, but I don't think it likely that many members would sign-on for this since a majority of the time this is done out of fun here on DDO. Also, sometimes conversations lead to unusual places, where would the line be drawn and how would we justify the time moderators would have to spend cleaning that up when they are already so bogged down with more-pressing issues like ad spammers?

User-led mods. DDO only lacks Mods because it's a business. But a Forum can't be ran with a business model. That's the biggest flaw here.

True.

As for derailing for fun... It's great on a non-serious thread, but in a serious post, it shouldn't happen. Fun is a relative idea, and while you had fun, the op doesn't, and neither does the people who's side or opinion got the butt-end of the derailing.

Okay, I see your point. We have to keep in mind though that only a fraction of the users here actually do that - either fun or seriously - so I don't see the incentive for people to sign a declaration that isn't even going to be backed by Moderators. For this issue to truly be solved, it would need moderators who can actively surf the threads and remove such things when they occur, and for them to get involved it'd have to be a rule recognized by the ToS or Moderators themselves.

I see it happen all the time. Threads get derailed often on this site. As for needing the mods to enforce it, it's not about being able to make others follow. It's about us following it. And depending on who signs up, you can put a thread back on track easily with the right members going at it.

Like, if the opponent doesn't catch the fallacy then it's free-game and the voters can't hold it against them?

No lol. If he doesn't explain why it's a fallacy, than yes, it goes. It's not the voters job to spend an hour trying to understand where the fallacy is because you didn't explain it, especially if we find there was none. It's too common for someone to say "nice Red Herring" and leave, leaving the person to question where the redherring is. It's not appropriate. If you call someone out, you should explain the crime in it's entirety. Not having to explain your accusation only does harm to the thread, and the debate.

Oh I fully support this. THIS needs to be introduced into the beginners guide sticky or something.

Agreed.

So to summarize it... It's about the message being sent, and the mentality of signing it. Not about how well others will follow, so long as we follow it.

Got it. By all means, get him to draft a declaration and present it, maybe I'll end up signing it myself.
well I was wanting us to to firstly discuss what we would like to see in it, rather then me just putting my personal thoughts alone into it
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 8:10:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 7:53:53 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 12/1/2014 7:25:48 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 12/1/2014 7:06:04 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Well.. Based off the rules at the forum he goes to, probably stuff like:
1- Can not quote parts of a user's speech. You have to quote the whole thing.

That's not very feasible in our own forums where we have character limits.

I agree. But I think the rule is for sentence and context, not the whole paragraph. Like providing enough context to ensure what they said isn't getting cherry-picked. Historum doesn't do character limits. And I don't think we should either... It's pointless. If you have 20,000 characters to say, you will just make 20k worth in multiple posts, which is simply worse than a 20k single post

I do agree that the limit isn't ideal in certain circumstances. I also agree that it's better if users give the best context possible when quoting others, but I just don't see how we could enforce such a thing without possibly teaching new members the new standards as they come in. Most older members are already set in their ways or just don't care enough, and the few that would oblige, like myself, don't really need a constitution to do so since it's just the standard we uphold in the first place.

Well. It's not about being able to enforce on others. It's not a legal treaty. As long as the signers follow it, that's all you could ask. It's how many agreements work. As long as we listen to our rules, others will join in time. And if they don't, we've lost nothing.

I fully agree with this, but I don't think it likely that many members would sign-on for this since a majority of the time this is done out of fun here on DDO. Also, sometimes conversations lead to unusual places, where would the line be drawn and how would we justify the time moderators would have to spend cleaning that up when they are already so bogged down with more-pressing issues like ad spammers?

User-led mods. DDO only lacks Mods because it's a business. But a Forum can't be ran with a business model. That's the biggest flaw here.

True.

As for derailing for fun... It's great on a non-serious thread, but in a serious post, it shouldn't happen. Fun is a relative idea, and while you had fun, the op doesn't, and neither does the people who's side or opinion got the butt-end of the derailing.

Okay, I see your point. We have to keep in mind though that only a fraction of the users here actually do that - either fun or seriously - so I don't see the incentive for people to sign a declaration that isn't even going to be backed by Moderators. For this issue to truly be solved, it would need moderators who can actively surf the threads and remove such things when they occur, and for them to get involved it'd have to be a rule recognized by the ToS or Moderators themselves.

I see it happen all the time. Threads get derailed often on this site. As for needing the mods to enforce it, it's not about being able to make others follow. It's about us following it. And depending on who signs up, you can put a thread back on track easily with the right members going at it.

Like, if the opponent doesn't catch the fallacy then it's free-game and the voters can't hold it against them?

No lol. If he doesn't explain why it's a fallacy, than yes, it goes. It's not the voters job to spend an hour trying to understand where the fallacy is because you didn't explain it, especially if we find there was none. It's too common for someone to say "nice Red Herring" and leave, leaving the person to question where the redherring is. It's not appropriate. If you call someone out, you should explain the crime in it's entirety. Not having to explain your accusation only does harm to the thread, and the debate.

Oh I fully support this. THIS needs to be introduced into the beginners guide sticky or something.

Agreed.

So to summarize it... It's about the message being sent, and the mentality of signing it. Not about how well others will follow, so long as we follow it.

Got it. By all means, get him to draft a declaration and present it, maybe I'll end up signing it myself.
well I was wanting us to to firstly discuss what we would like to see in it, rather then me just putting my personal thoughts alone into it

Oh I see. Well, I'm not really that discontent with the site as it stands. So I'm probably not the best person to help you draft such a document. If I were you, I'd create a declaration committee with those who share similar concerns. Perhaps make a thread about this in the main DDO section since it does deal with the site directly, and see if anyone else shares your sentiments. If they do, ask them to join your committee or start a sign-up list.

Best of luck!
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 12:10:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is kind of off topic, but there was once a giant Government simulation run by FREEDO the magnificent and oh so mighty and powerful.

It ended about 1 1/2 - 2 years ago.

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

It starts here.

It was ridiculous.

Moral of the Link and my post: DDO doesn't often agree.
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!