The Flat Earth Society
The Flat Earth Society => Suggestions & Concerns => Topic started by: ShowmetheProof on May 10, 2018, 01:21:23 PM
-
At the moment in CN is a list of guidelines that we feel would help debate. In fact, we were voting on a new rule when it was put there. We ask that the guidelines in "A new Debate Style" be made official.
-
You didn't even link to the thread you're talking about. I've already lost interest because you're expecting me to do all the work.
-
You didn't even link to the thread you're talking about. I've already lost interest because you're expecting me to do all the work.
I'll link it if you're still interested. Although it has been moved to CN
-
You didn't even link to the thread you're talking about. I've already lost interest because you're expecting me to do all the work.
Sorry. I'll find it.
-
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9626.0
There it is.
-
All of these guidelines go directly against how online fora work.
In particular, your suggestion that people shouldn't split posts into smaller, relevant quotes and addressing them one by one - that's exactly what they should be doing. The alternative is what we get from noobs these days - an enormous quote followed by a response to god-knows-which-part of the original post.
You're also advocating against transparent moderation. Again, that's unlikely to garner much support. The moderators issue warnings publicly, because the alternative is a world of unsubstantiated accusations.
The argument against Wikipedia is nonsense. Yes, it can be edited by anyone, but if you try to edit it to reflect something untrue, it will get reverted within a minute. Their peer review system works just fine for debates here. Instead of prescribing approved sources, if you disagree with something Wikipedia is saying, present sources to the contrary. And, protip: edit Wikipedia and include your references to help everyone else out.
The same goes for telling people when they can speak. Sorry, not gonna happen. I don't care how many people are speaking for either side. If you find a particular debate "not fun", may I suggest the radical approach of not participating? It's vastly preferable to your attempts at controlling what everyone else does.
I'm sorry that you dislike the style of this communications medium, but I strongly disagree with adopting your personal preferences above common practice. Given the responses in the CN thread, various individuals disagree with various subsets of your suggestions. That alone should be telling.
-
1. I didn't say we shouldn't break things up. I'm doing that right now. I mean don't break it up sentence by sentence.
2. The only people who have disapproved of it ,as I am aware, are Spycrab and Junker. Only one rule has been disapproved of. That rule was being voted on. I would like you to reread it, please.
-
1. I didn't say we shouldn't break things up. I'm doing that right now. I mean don't break it up sentence by sentence.
Why not? I disagree with each sentence of the above quote individually. Your original proposal sure sounds like a ban on breaking quotes, and others objected to it on the same grounds. You are also not breaking up a quote at all - you haven't included a quote in your post.
Why would I want to jumble all that into a single segment? It takes more effort to clarify which part of your sentence I'm objecting to at any given time. Removing this ambiguity is literally the function of the quote tag. If you don't like some users' overly-wordy posts, my suggestion would be that you avoid them. Create a workflow that suits you instead of trying to force others to suit you.
2. The only people who have disapproved of it ,as I am aware, are Spycrab and Junker. Only one rule has been disapproved of. That rule was being voted on. I would like you to reread it, please.
I count: Curious Squirrel (on Wikipedia), 9 out of 10 doctors agree (on most of them), jcks (on two of them). Spycrab has not posted in that thread, so I'll take your word for him objecting elsewhere. Junker was calling your thread garbage, but didn't explicitly voice any objections to your proposals.
In any case, I strongly doubt you're gonna get your way here. What you propose goes directly against how this medium works, and even if you manage to garner some support, I'm not convinced that your model would be workable without significantly transforming the forum format.
-
1. I didn't say we shouldn't break things up. I'm doing that right now. I mean don't break it up sentence by sentence.
Why not? I disagree with each sentence of the above quote individually. Your original proposal sure sounds like a ban on breaking quotes, and others objected to it on the same grounds. You are also not breaking up a quote at all - you haven't included a quote in your post.
Why would I want to jumble all that into a single segment? It takes more effort to clarify which part of your sentence I'm objecting to at any given time. Removing this ambiguity is literally the function of the quote tag. If you don't like some users' overly-wordy posts, my suggestion would be that you avoid them. Create a workflow that suits you instead of trying to force others to suit you.
2. The only people who have disapproved of it ,as I am aware, are Spycrab and Junker. Only one rule has been disapproved of. That rule was being voted on. I would like you to reread it, please.
I count: Curious Squirrel (on Wikipedia), 9 out of 10 doctors agree (on most of them), jcks (on two of them). Spycrab has not posted in that thread, so I'll take your word for him objecting elsewhere. Junker was calling your thread garbage, but didn't explicitly voice any objections to your proposals.
In any case, I strongly doubt you're gonna get your way here. What you propose goes directly against how this medium works, and even if you manage to garner some support, I'm not convinced that your model would be workable without significantly transforming the forum format.
I'm looking at it now, and I disagree with it also. It doesn't make much sense, and a lot of the rules restrict freedom of online fora. It's best to just leave it be and continue debating like normal.
-
It reads more like a bunch of petty complaints rather than guidelines on how to debate. You should have titled it "things I want other people to stop doing because it annoys me".
-
Spycrab has not posted in that thread, so I'll take your word for him objecting elsewhere.
I have voiced my complaints on "Debate Rule 6".
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9627.0 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9627.0)