Cleaning Stuff Up

[Mediocre]

Wonderful. This would be perfect for Bulblax and his spiritual successors.

But you know, you might want to add something to your post about how many people are allowed to debate in one of these threads, or how you really shouldn't use religious books as a source, or how simply restating disproven arguments or citing disproven sources does not constitute a rebuttal, or how you shouldn't quote the other poster's words in a way that changes their original meaning.

You might also want to explain what format you expect the responses to be in, if not quote/response. Obviously, we're going to be responding to another poster, and we're going to want to reference what part of his post we're rebutting. Otherwise, it will just be a big block of text, and we'll probably have to jump back and forth just to understand what is being responded to.

While you're at though, you might want to create a thread for commentary on the official debates and sticky it, so that we don't have people talking about them in the open debates, or popping up threads just to talk about one debate.

Yeah it's good, but I think it needs some reworking. Becuase generally, people are stupider than they have any right to be. Make the **** thing fool proof.

I'd also suggest disallowing sigs, just for ease of reading.

 

[Rainy Day Toast]

There will be no limit on the number of people involved in a debate. Partially because I have no practical way of limiting the number of people posting in a given thread, but mostly because I want this to encourage more people to post intelligently, or to encourage intelligent people to post here who previously did not. I don't want these threads to be limited to a clique of the same group of three or four internet losers bickering with each other.

As for some comments on debate rules... I will not say anything regarding religious books as sources. There will be debates in which citing a religious text as a source will be relevant. Of course, "well the bible says god made the earth!" will not be accepted as proof of anything in a debate about creationism. But that goes without saying, as debate over creationism pretty much takes for granted that at least one party involved in the debate is a biblical literalist.

I have made a few changes to the rules as per some of your other suggestions, though. Thank you.

Edit: as for making it idiot-proof... Well, again, I want to keep this laid back. Eventually, after all, it comes down to my judgement. The rules won't be idiot-proof; that's why I'm moderating.

 

[DarkRoom]

What will the rule be on citing non-electronic/internet sources? Say someone wants to cite a book by Dr. Anyone and it's not possible to verify his or her claim on the internet. Will that kind of non-electronic citation be allowed?

 

[Rainy Day Toast]

Quote the relevant passage, and cite the book by title, author, year of publication. Actual standard MLA citation would be nice, but I won't get picky about that.

 

[Hoefler]

I think the whole quote/response thing is a good idea though. When people are debating they need to formulate arguments off of points. This is just me and maybe some other, but I don't find it too annoying when someone does that. It seems to make their arguments more focused too.

But hey, who am I? I obviously can't debate either.

Opinons, pfft. Effable pieces of ****.

 

[Neo Debisu]

I must say, Soggy Toast Man...

When I returned to these forums yesterday for the first time in who knows how many months, and saw that you were modding my Debate Hall, I was pretty darn skeptical.

But now I see you're really doing a terrific job revamping this cesspool.

I never thought it would turn into the pile of crap it did, and once it did I thought it was irreparable.

ALL PRAISE STM!!

 

[Syterion]

Long piece of blather...

So RDT is a mod? No way.


This Debate Hall has changed since I was here. I might comeback next summer if I am particularly bored, now is just a lazy weekend.

I used to come here a few years ago, then I found a different forum. But whatever, right.

I did a few of these style debate threads at this other forum, and I just thought I'd make a suggestion.

First, it is hard to get people to put the time in to properly debate. So maybe you should make the biggest and most controversial debates (Death Penalty, Religion, Bush) always as official debates so it cuts down on spam and flaming.

Second, for even more structure, you might even consider a phasing plan. First phase an introduction with your opinion. Second phase outline your reasons. Third an argumentative phase, attacking others reasons. Foruth a defending phase. Repeat third and fourth until satisfactory, and conclude with a conclusion phase.

It's actually helpful when certain threads have a nasty tendency to get long and bloated. So maybe you use my ideas, maybe not. I'm sure you'll do a fine job no matter your decision.

P.S. I remember your fight I think with xXGamerXx about your sig at the time. It was near when you joined. Hilarious.

Toodles.

EDIT: ****, this is an alternate account I made. I was here a year before I made this account. Had a good number more posts too.

EDIT2: This forum censors everything.

 

[Rainy Day Toast]

Yeah, well, I was dumb(er) then.

Can we stop using this thread for pseudo-"I'm back!" posts and random musing, please?

 

[Craftstar]

Rar Dinosaurs Eat Cavemen

 

[raxus]

so do you have to PM all the time or is that just to get a password? Are you going to be able to check the status of a debate despite not desiring to post in that particular thread? Do our recent posts count to allow us in or do we have to wait until we are about to type more (without being able to see if responses have been made) to get back into what we're already involved in?

 

[Evil Eye]

I've supported this idea from the beginning and I am one of the few people whose bitching may have motivated the regenesis of this room.

To give you guys an idea, this is what got me my membership in the Hall:

On the topic of cloning--particularly human.

Years ago, a corporation called ClonAid claimed to have cloned a human--a baby had been born and they were saying that the baby would eventually turn out exactly the same as the person whose DNA it apparently borrowed from.

The company has since gone under, of course; God knows the average North American doesn't have the patience to wait thirty-odd years in the name of science. Similar corporations presently are working on trying to clone full-sized animals--and God knows, eventually humans--as they presently are, and not in the form of a zygote. However, the process raises many ethical questions.

Doesn't that sound logical? As seen in the movie The 6th Day, hunger could be staved off through the production of cloned fish, chicken, crops. Mad cow disease? No problem--find a nondiseased cow, clone it a few times, Farmer John still makes the mortgage payment.

Certainly, the advances of cloning can solve many a problem when it treads carefully around questions of morality.

Some people view cloning as a way to conquer death. Your kids didn't get to know grandpa? That's so sad! Listen, I think I can help you...

At a glance, it looks magical, doesn't it?

Here's something to chew on--the process of life and death is a fundamental one in our society. "Conquering death" would give way to all kinds of problems. Overcrowding. Perhaps GrandpaClone2000 is one of the first ever, and he isn't genetically stable. Maybe he finds out he's not really him and develops mental disorders, suffering far more than Cancer or whatever it was had caused him to in his former life.

More importantly, the pressure is suddenly on Man to play God. You may not believe in God--I myself don't--but playing God is still something we should never attempt; as a fictional entity, God's actions are even more taboo for mankind. After all, if playing God is so great and vast that no entity actually exists that can do so, how can Man, who is plagued by wayward morals and disease and greed?

Mental anguish comes for the family of Grandpa, too. Suddenly it isn't in God, or Fate, or whatever's hands to decide when Grandpa departs. It's on yours. That's a big, big burden to hold. "Just one more time," you'll say, and you'll bring Grandpa or your beautiful wife or your dog back. But you'll do it again and again, and when you finally drop it altogether, you're like a Coke-fiend trying to dry up, only the impact is much more significant.

And, of course, the children suffer too. If you shelter them from the concept of death until they are fifteen, imagine how they would handle it. If they flick on the news one day. If they crash their first car into Grandma while she crosses the street to Countrykitchen Buffet. The trauma would be unimaginable. We can't shelter children from violence or sex for too long before serious damage can be done to their minds, and the aspect of life and death is no exception.

Who decides who lives and who sleeps in a coffin, anyway? It's obvious that the rich and powerful would never stay dead, and can we really say that the world would be better off? Josef Stalin certainly would have taken more from the Soviet working man's pocket to ensure that he'd be coming back. Hitler definitely wouldn't be gone--unless all the speculation about suicide is accurate, of course.

One of the biggest questions this raises is quite a large one--if you could give a clone the same memories, scars, personality quirks, and physical attributes as the person they are copied off of--and even convince them that they are the deceased party--would they truly be the same person? If you were cloned while still alive and stared the other man who is like you but obviously not you, would you be able to say that it is the exact same person? That it is not just a separate entity, designed to mimic the original in every way?

Is it even, truly, human?

The fact is, we can never conquer death. Everyone knows that remakes are never as good as the original.

_______________

By the way, Eric has since made me aware that Clonaid was most likely lying. Makes sense--I smelled a rat the moment I found out the CEO was Raelian.

-I

 

[Mediocre]

I'm guessing it'll be like the backroom. That's the only password protected room I've got access to, but the others are probably the same.

Once you're in, it's just like a normal room. You can do whatever the hell you want. It's not actually "password protected" either. You won't have to type in a password to get in the room, ever. You'll just be part of a group of members with DH access, and you'll be able to get into the DH when you click on it.

It's simple, really.

Anyway, I think I like the idea, although I have my reservations. As long as it's not too hard to get in, I'm fine with it.

Is there any way we could make it read only? That way, people could come in and think "oh, I want to post in that topic." Otherwise, I'm afraid that the DH will just die off.

 

[Crimson King]

so do you have to PM all the time or is that just to get a password? Are you going to be able to check the status of a debate despite not desiring to post in that particular thread? Do our recent posts count to allow us in or do we have to wait until we are about to type more (without being able to see if responses have been made) to get back into what we're already involved in?

It's hard for me to make sense what you are asking. Let me clarify.

The new debate hall will be like the Back Room or Smash Back Room. Instead of all members being allowed to post, only members who apply are allowed to come in and debate. Post count and date join have no bearing on your admittance. If you want your first post to be back there, go ahead and PM me and, bearing a good admission argument, you'll be in. What I meant about not having permanent member ship is that, you can be kicked for being disrespectful, flaming, ect. It's just to cut back on the overall spam. Now, I will allow joke debates and comic relief because that would be boring otherwise.

I hope I answered your question.

 

[snex]

am i allowed to point you to debate topics ive already started? if so id like to use "why 'arguments for god' fail" which can be found here: http://smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=44280

 

[Crimson King]

Is there any way we could make it read only? That way, people could come in and think "oh, I want to post in that topic." Otherwise, I'm afraid that the DH will just die off.

Precisely what I intended. The overall idea is to make the DH a room that people can actually feel comfortable posting their beliefs.

In reply to snex, what do you think, we could create an archived sub-Debate Hall for reference and have a brand new room for Debate Hall or we could just password-lock this one.

I want this room to have a chance and possibly become great. But I will not go forward unless I have at least 15 members added, which is about what the Broom has not including mods.

 

[snex]

i think it should be read-all, post-restricted. if people cant see whats going on, theyll never want to join in the fun.

 

[Crimson King]

That's along the lines of what I was thinking.

Sadly, I only have one member who has access.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

This room is going to be so dead when no one can get in...

Really, whats the point of a debate hall with no one to debate?

>I think guns are good...
>Hello?
>Does anyone else have an opinion?
>
>
>
>Hellooooooooo?!?

 

[KiraYamato]

So to get in I just have to pm you with a well written argument on any debate I want.

 

[Crimson King]

One paragraph of a debate and one sentence on why you should get in. Simple as that.


G4F, and free reign of spam is keeping it alive? This is to insure the people that want to debate and feel passionately, will have a place to debate without the people who just want high post counts and to piss people. Just give it a chance.

 

[Bowser87]

Alright, can you take any paragraph of an argument I posted in this room, I don't feel like making anything up right now especially without any context. That, and I'm too lazy.

As for the sentence: I've been posting here for years and I never did anything wrong, I contributed a lot to many debates, that enough? Please, let me in?

 

[3.14159]

Alright, can you take any paragraph of an argument I posted in this room, I don't feel like making anything up right now especially without any context. That, and I'm too lazy.

Adding to that, can I copy/paste at least parts of previous arguments I've made into my pm?

Yes, this is a wonderful idea to keep out one-liners/ incomprehensible stuff.

 

[Crimson King]

If you don't have to interest to create a PM with a debate, you won't really assist the Debate Hall in anyway. Just submit a real article, because otherwise I could go through and add people at will, but I am giving everyone a chance to impress me even if they had terrible posts prior.


EDIT:

Two members have been added and accepted thus far. I'd like to see that number grow before the weekend.

 

[snex]

perhaps there should be some rule about editing posts in certain circumstances. it seems all too easy to corner somebody only to have them edit a post and say "no i never said that, see?" i dont know if its ever happened, but i do suspect one person (long gone) of doing it. maybe a set of formal vs informal debates?

 

[Crimson King]

I don't know how we could moniter that though. Spelling errors will occur, but how would we know they are editting content.

Official Debate Hall Count: 3

 

[Crimson King]

Just bumping to keep this up.

I need at least 12 more members to consider this for next week.
I have also decided if it does not work for a month we'd look into reverting. I just want this idea to have a chance.

 

[Crimson King]

I hate bumping my topics like this, but I feel stickying this would just kill it quicker.

I need some responses. I am almost to the point of picking members who are good enough debaters, but I will wait before deciding that one. I want it to be something desired, not asked of people.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Well, I have (let me look) over one hundred excellent posts on debate in here so my getting in should be guaranteed. For example: The Gamer4Fire on Smoking, The Gamer4Fire on Firearms, The Gamer4Fire on the Death Penalty, The Gamer4Fire on Cloning, The Gamer4Fire on The Legalization of Marijuana, The Gamer4Fire on Lesbian Panda Bear Abortion Rights in Nicaragua, et al.

 

[Crimson King]

Sigh, I'll be sending PMs out later tonight and tomorrow to people who I have admitted.

 

[Lanowen]

I actually think this is a great idea; I am disappointed with myself that I didn't see it before.

It would be good, keep people who know what they are saying in, and people who don't out, plus you get real input, less one liners, blah blah, you do know better than I.

It would be good to look at it for a month, as you said, and see how it turns out, that way, we can get the best possible choice.

I don't really have any debates I wish to pursue, all the ones that I like reading are currently made, Creationism vs. Evolution/Big Bang, Time Travel (*cry* no more input, but hopefully in the future maybe, lol).

I would like to be able to get in, you wouldn't need to worry about me making very stupid posts, I try to keep my posts as meaningful as possible, I mostly like to read, and maybe post if there is something to say, if a question is answered, I don't bother repeating it, if it can be helped.
This should control the hall greatly, and meaningful input can be added, without much spam. Even if I don't get accepted, hopefully I will be able to get in later, and bask in the intelligence.

I also payed money. >.>

 

[Shy Guy604]

Just to reiterate what other people have said, it's still going to be "Read-Only" for members who don't have access right? I'm mostly a ghost around this forum, but I still like reading debate topics now and then.

 

[Crimson King]

Definately, it will be a read-only thread.

 

[snex]

make sure you check the submitted articles for plagiarism!

 

[Crimson King]

Well, I am posting to say, I didn't get as much of a response as I had hoped, but people are still posting like crazy so as of Tomorrow (noonish I hope) the Debate Hall will become read only accept for members. I will clean up the useless debates and closed ones later tonight to make it a little more presentable.

Hopefully, that will catch some attention. I have about 7-8 active members who will be debating, but I believe when the people who post here on a daily basis but do not read this can't post, they would be more likely to apply.

Keep your fingers crossed.

 

[BigPimpin504]

Hello, I think this is a great idea, it would stop a lot of the spam that I see in the Debate Hall. Is there any possible way that I can be accepted into the 'New' Debate Club? Thanks for doing this, it should make the DH a lot better

 

[Crimson King]

Read the first post. It includes admission rules and how to get in.

Tonight at midnight, I will post the list of all who made it. I'd like some opinions on what color to make the group. Green is Broom, I think Blue is SBROOM, Red is Mods, Purple is I believe Smash Tourney hosts, and Yellow( orange?) is basic members. So, any suggestions?

 

[Mediocre]

Read the first post. It includes admission rules and how to get in.

Tonight at midnight, I will post the list of all who made it. I'd like some opinions on what color to make the group. Green is Broom, I think Blue is SBROOM, Red is Mods, Purple is I believe Smash Tourney hosts, and Yellow( orange?) is basic members. So, any suggestions?

Pink.

10characters

 

[Lanowen]

These are the present colours:

Administrators - Red
BRoomers - Green
Smash BRoomers - DarkOrchid
Tournament Directors - RoyalBlue
Registered Members - Yellow

I think the debate group colour would maybe look best in,

Debate Members - Lime?
Debate Members - Orange?


I am only saying this because all the other colours are taken, and these stand out.

 

[Resting_Fox]

How About Cyan It's noticeably different than royalblue. In fact the Spanish have a different word for light blue, as distinguished from regular blue, thus proving my point.

Or My personal favorite of Smashboards
Sienna
It's the color of some business suits and thus would add an aptly applied formal tone to the title of the member.

Dark slate Gray
or Dim gray also match this idea, but they're practically invisible on these backgrounds. (not that that's a complaint)


Or you could use White. Although, on formats other than Smash revolution there would be no noticeable difference. But who uses anything but Revolution anyway? [R_F looks at the smash blue format on screen]

Oh. me.

 

[Crimson King]

I like the Orange.