Debate Hall Reform Ideas

[KrazyGlue]

In our social group, the members of the debate hall gathered ideas on how to improve activity in this room. The following is what we came up with.

Debate Hall Reform Ideas​

DEBATER ACCEPTANCE REFORM

1. Remove the proving grounds. We the debaters believe that the current system paralyzes debate hall activity. Many solid proving grounds members who have gathered the support of debate hall members are left stuck in the proving grounds. Beyond being very discouraging to the person not being admitted, debate hall members feel ignored. Also, the proving grounds may intimidate some members of the site, and they may feel they have no chance of being accepted into the debate hall. Additionally, some members may be capable of making intelligent, insightful comments but may wish to do so sparingly, which gives them no chance of making through the proving grounds.
2. The new system should allow anyone who applies to the debate hall to be accepted (although some discretion may be used if the member clearly has a history of receiving infractions). They will be evaluated based on their performance immediately following their acceptance. If it is determined that they are struggling and/or unintentionally holding back other debaters from advancing discussion, they may be assigned to be mentored by the more experienced debaters. If a member is intentionally interfering with debates through breaking global rules such as posting spam, flaming, trolling, etc., they will be removed from the debate hall. They will be able to reapply in one month (or possibly a lesser or greater amount of time depending on the offense). A “three strikes” system may be implemented. That is, if a member is removed from the debate hall three times for disorderly conduct, they will not be allowed to reapply. Strict moderation should be enforced in order to make it clear that the Debate Hall is intended to be a serious place.
3. If a new debater is struggling and/or is unintentionally preventing other debaters from advancing discussion at a reasonable pace, they should be mentored by a more experienced debater. There will be a “Mentoring Thread” in which the struggling debater will practice against more experienced members to hone their skills and receive advice on how to improve. When they have improved, they may post in the rest of the threads.
4. We realize that through this new system, the quality of the posts in the debate hall will need to be monitored more. We will hold our members to certain posting quality standards, which if broken could result in a warning or suspension for the offender. Posting quality refers to making posts with substance, a certain level of grammar and spelling, maintaining a mature and generally serious tone, courtesy towards others, remaining calm, and several other factors. Below are some examples of posts that would not meet the quality standards:

a. THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS ISSUE! WE NEED TO STOP THE OIL SPILL AND MAKE BP PAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
b. You’re being ridiculous. I’m increasingly convinced that you have no idea what you are talking about.
c. That’s what she said.
d. well theres an oil spill in mexico and stuff so i dont know but they got to stop it before it comes to us​

5. There should be a guidelines thread that explicitly elaborates on these rules so they are clear to all new members.
6. "Probation" refers to a short (possibly 1-3 weeks) period of time right after an applicant is accepted into the debate hall. A member who is "on probation" should be monitored closely by the moderators, so we are able to figure out their basic skills, mannerisms, and intentions. The member on probation should be required to post relatively frequently during this period of time so that the moderators are able to figure out this information. If all goes well for the member during this time period, they will no longer be on probation. Probation can also refer to a member who has been assigned to be mentored in the mentoring thread.​

 


IDEAS OR EVENTS TO INCREASE ACTIVITY

1. The current events thread may be retried. We may need to adjust the idea, but repetitive events may help people keep ties with the debate hall. We may also retry the idea of debate contests.
2. The Archives should be re-integrated into the Debate Hall. We the debaters don’t see any reason why these topics shouldn’t be eligible for bumping if there is a relevant reason for doing so.
3. We believe that the system described under the “Debater Acceptance Reform” system will increase activity by making the debate hall more accessible and attracting more members.
4. We the debaters request that we have active moderators to help carry out this plan.
5. A Debate Hall Activities Thread may be made. This thread would provide debate challenges or contests that are both enjoyable and intellectual. Sucumbio is quoted below explaining some of the activities that could be a part of this thread. Please note that these activities were originally intended for use in real life, and have not yet been formatted for internet use. We have yet to adjust these so that they will be practical on Smash World Forums.

Debate Hall Activities!

There's several things we used to do in debate club. Some of them are less viable due to this being an internet-based forum, and not specifically Lincoln-Douglas formatted debate, but perhaps we could modify those to work on here... for simplicity sake I will mark modifiable portions with an asterisk.*

1.) Quick Challenge / Debate of the Day - The debate coach* chooses a topic of debate including agenda and argument, then each team spends half an hour researching the topic. Once the research period is over debate begins. Each side has 5 minutes presentation (2 minutes introduction, 3 minutes argumentative - 3 valid points) 3 rebuttals for each of the 3 points and 2 minutes closing statements.* This is obviously a Lincoln-Douglas formatted debate drill but I like the idea of breaking off into pairs or even quads and having 2 member on 2 member or 4 on 4 as team debates. We can even hold sessions at scheduled times in which there IS a formal time period for research and prep, and a proper panel of debate judges.

2.) The Hot Seat - The debate coach* chooses an argument to debate. The hot seater has 30 minutes to prepare their argument for/against.Then they take the hot seat and are drilled by 2-5 debaters who challenge the person. Hot seat gets the floor first and presents their piece (5 minutes). Arguments against the position (3) minutes and rebuttals (3 minutes) exchange one by one until each debater has gone twice for a total of 4-10 arguments. A judge will score the quality of arguments -on both sides-. I used to think of it like the old atari game Combat with the 3 little planes vs the 1 big plane. Either can win but to win -and- be in the hot seat is an accomplishment. Deserving of a Weekly Trophy perhaps, the SWF DH Trophy or something.

3.) Rate my Argument - A debater presents a piece typed double-spaced 1 in margins* with full introduction/conclusion and 3 body paragraphs, 6 sentences each. The piece is graded on accuracy, grammar, persuasiveness, use of citations, form, voice/style, and depth. Up to 10 points are awarded in each category for a total of 70 points max. Highest score of the week gets a 10 dollar gift certificate to the mall. Haha well ok, in our case, perhaps the reward would be something more along the lines of getting to choose the topic for the Debate of the Day or something.

4.) Devil's Advocate - Another team activity, 2-4 member teams. Each team is assigned a debate topic and have 30 minutes to prepare, 15 minutes supporting arguments (3), 15 minutes denouncing arguments (3). Team A presents their first supporting argument, and Team B rebuts using their first denouncing argument. So forth and so on until both teams have exhausted all their points. A panel of judges scores.*

----------------------------------------------------------------


All comments, questions, and concerns are welcome.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Good stuff, looking good. It's nice to see all our ideas in a cohesive thread like this.

Hopefully we can get some support and change this place for the better.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

I'll read this tomorrow and give my two cents.

Liked what I saw from just scanning it...

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Neat ideas! Though I'm not sure how the timed stuff is going to work...

Then again, I suppose we could limit the amount of words, using a word count as opposed to a timed speech.

 

[blazedaces]

If I had access to the website's inner-workings I could program it in easily if it's not already a setting possible within the forum's content management system... but alas, I do not haha.

-blazed

 

[KrazyGlue]

Neat ideas! Though I'm not sure how the timed stuff is going to work...

Then again, I suppose we could limit the amount of words, using a word count as opposed to a timed speech.

Yeah, we we're not completely sure how to work out the timing, but we figured we'd just post the ideas and we can just adjust whatever we need to later.

 

[Sucumbio]

Looking good KrazyGlue! Love the write up. It's great to see our cumulative efforts in play.

About timed events, it's something that'll need hashing out, but essentially it'd work if we had designated times for which to hold timed events. For instance, for the Quick Challenge, you'd first establish who will participate (say, 2 teams, 4 members each) and when (time/zone xx/xx/xxxx). Once all members are accounted for you begin, and the timer starts. Being online, there would no doubt be more lax time restrictions due to connection speed, and the ability to properly work together (through the use of AIM, or even the SWF IRC Chat, etc).

A completely different way to do the same event is to not have time limits, and simply pose a daily Debate Topic, posted at X time/zone and closed the next day at the same time, and your next one posted, etc. Each daily debate at its conclusion is then judged by a panel of debaters and award points are given out to the best arguments, etc.

Another thing that's mentioned a lot in here, are debate topic creators, and debate judges. Both of these types of posters would need to be imho seasoned or veteran debaters. Once a debater has shown they really got what it takes, they can themselves be judges. One of the activities is actually to try your hand at debate coaching, judging, etc. Your performance as such is then itself judged by others who already do it normally.

Lots to think about anyway, haha but I'd expect we'll wanna start slow with this, the planning for these reforms has been very well timed and paced, and I wish to keep it that way.

edit: BTW I posted in the User Group, but going forward I'll prolly just post here unless there's something specific we need to address there

 

[KrazyGlue]

Good stuff, Sucumbio.

Yeah, there's no more need to post in the group for now. We will use it again if we need to fix some specifics or need a new reform later. But for now, using this thread is more convenient.

 

[Faithkeeper]

I think until this place becomes at least moderately active, 24 hours for debate is a little short. It could be bi-daily, weekly, or a weekend event perhaps.

Or maybe I'm the exception and most people can log on daily and have enough free time to develop solid arguments and refute rebuttals, but if others are in a similar situation as I am (I would think at least a significant proportion), it may be unrealistic to expect participation on a daily basis. If this is the case I believe we would need a larger active user base to implement the daily debate with any great degree of success. Especially if we want poster variety, not just the same handful of posters posting consistently with others occasionally chiming in.

Or at least that's the way I see it, if I overlooked something point it out.

 

[KrazyGlue]

That's probably true. Like I said, those ideas are not final. They haven't been formatted for internet use. We'll work out the specifics before creating the thread.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Looking good KrazyGlue! Love the write up. It's great to see our cumulative efforts in play.

About timed events, it's something that'll need hashing out, but essentially it'd work if we had designated times for which to hold timed events. For instance, for the Quick Challenge, you'd first establish who will participate (say, 2 teams, 4 members each) and when (time/zone xx/xx/xxxx). Once all members are accounted for you begin, and the timer starts. Being online, there would no doubt be more lax time restrictions due to connection speed, and the ability to properly work together (through the use of AIM, or even the SWF IRC Chat, etc).

A completely different way to do the same event is to not have time limits, and simply pose a daily Debate Topic, posted at X time/zone and closed the next day at the same time, and your next one posted, etc. Each daily debate at its conclusion is then judged by a panel of debaters and award points are given out to the best arguments, etc.

Another thing that's mentioned a lot in here, are debate topic creators, and debate judges. Both of these types of posters would need to be imho seasoned or veteran debaters. Once a debater has shown they really got what it takes, they can themselves be judges. One of the activities is actually to try your hand at debate coaching, judging, etc. Your performance as such is then itself judged by others who already do it normally.

Lots to think about anyway, haha but I'd expect we'll wanna start slow with this, the planning for these reforms has been very well timed and paced, and I wish to keep it that way.

edit: BTW I posted in the User Group, but going forward I'll prolly just post here unless there's something specific we need to address there

I really like the whole judging thing. But as everyone else seems to be saying, 24 hours isn't quite enough for a good debate, I say the thing should last a week, with one post each day, and a certain word allocation devoted to specific parts. Say, 500 words for Rebuttals, 1000 for body, 500 for questions, etc.

 

[Sucumbio]

Yes, actually that could work too. I do see a week being more viable than a day. Plus we may be hard pressed to come up with debate topics so frequently but weekly far more likely. Word limits are an interesting idea though perhaps it'd be less necessary especially if as part of the score we judge someone's ability to be succinct.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Yes, actually that could work too. I do see a week being more viable than a day. Plus we may be hard pressed to come up with debate topics so frequently but weekly far more likely. Word limits are an interesting idea though perhaps it'd be less necessary especially if as part of the score we judge someone's ability to be succinct.

Yeah, fair enough, but that doesn't stop a giant succinct wall of text occurring. But then again, that'd actually be rather interesting to read.

Still, I think in place of time limits, we should have word limits.

 

[Aesir]

When I first joined it was like this.

You applied

You posted

after a week if you were still a member you passed the test.

We should go back to that.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Except with more purges. I remember lots of people just joined for the name/title.

To be perfectly honest, I don't think some of this stuff for new debaters is needed. In all seriousness, the best way for them to learn is just to hop in and start debating. That's how a good number of current debaters learned, and it works pretty well. I feel like everyone could act as a "coach" with new members. Teach them as they go along.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Yeah, agreed. Applicants should jump in and start right away. The Mentoring Thread would only be necessary in the case of someone who slows down activity by doing things such as bringing up the same point up repeatedly and not realizing its been refuted.

And yeah, there should be some inactivity purges. If someone is posting 10 times a day on SWF but hasn't posted in the DH in over a month, they clearly just wanted the title.

I really wish the moderators would throw in their two cents. I'm interested to hear what they think.

By the way, I'm adding a clause that explains what "probation" is.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Yeah, agreed. Applicants should jump in and start right away. The Mentoring Thread would only be necessary in the case of someone who slows down activity by doing things such as bringing up the same point up repeatedly and not realizing its been refuted.

Yeah, but other than that it isn't really necessary.

And yeah, there should be some inactivity purges. If someone is posting 10 times a day on SWF but hasn't posted in the DH in over a month, they clearly just wanted the title.

For sure, we can have a rule regarding that.

I really wish the moderators would throw in their two cents. I'm interested to hear what they think.

Yeah...

By the way, I'm adding a clause that explains what "probation" is.

Sounds good.

 

[GoldShadow]

How about we keep the PG, except that it's only reserved for people who aren't yet quite up to par for the DH.

So in other words, anybody who applied to be a debater would be allowed in the DH. If they prove to be good enough, or decent, then they are allowed to stay. But if they're really bad, and they still want to debate, it might be better to send them off to the PG for a while so that they can build up their skills (and so they don't muck up DH debates ).

 

[KrazyGlue]

That was pretty much the intention of the Mentoring thread. I was thinking the same thing as you earlier, but I realized it would be way too much of a hassle to force more experienced debaters to apply as a temp debater and check both rooms just to help a few people. The mentoring thread would be pretty much like the center stage except more centered around advice-giving (and of course it would be in the DH).

 

[Faithkeeper]

How about we keep the PG, except that it's only reserved for people who aren't yet quite up to par for the DH.

So in other words, anybody who applied to be a debater would be allowed in the DH. If they prove to be good enough, or decent, then they are allowed to stay. But if they're really bad, and they still want to debate, it might be better to send them off to the PG for a while so that they can build up their skills (and so they don't muck up DH debates ).

I like it. But I would suggest that there's some activity there by debate hall level individuals to perhaps "provoke" them into posting better or to simply serve as a constant example.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I just don't see why there would need to be an entire room for something that can easily be consolidated to a single thread, especially if it's only going to be used under rare/extreme circumstances. I think it would be too seldom used to warrant its own room. The idea is essentially the same, it's just the way we format it that's different.

 

[Sucumbio]

The difficulty is the 2 separate forums. While I agree there should be a place for ... coaching opportunities, having a completely different forum is too segregated. With a single thread we can accomplish the same thing, and without the administrative headache.

Also let us not forget our three strikes system. Anyone concerned over how we'll be able to enforce any of these standards or practices just remember that we all of us new and veteran alike will answer to the 3 strikes rule.

In fact this is something we should hash out in this thread. One of a couple things, actually:

Strikes

I propose that a "strike" will be constituted by the following:

1.) Failure to follow instructions as stated in the "how to post" thread. This includes posting outside of the Mentoring Thread if you've been asked to post only there due to your need for coaching.

2.) Blatant disregard for rules as stated in the DH rules thread (which may be a good place to keep DH probates listed for reference). This includes derailing debate topics, off-topic posts, etc.

3.) Obvious violations of SWF Global Rules such as SPAM, trolling, etc.

Now it may fall best to moderators to include strike dealing in addition to normal infractions, so regular DH members don't appear to be abusive. We can make recommendations to moderators, but I expect our moderators to be active enough in this forum to keep up with posts and make the proper judgment call themselves. If someone is obviously just new and/or borderline with something they can be warned by anyone that they risk getting a strike.

A strike will last 90 days (3 months) before it "falls off." You cannot have negative strikes. If you attain a total of 3 strikes you will be stripped of DH access for a period of one year. If you have been previously removed from the DH due to strikes and reapply a year later, and get 3 MORE strikes, you will permanently lose access to the DH.

Thread: DH Rules

In this thread we need not reiterate what's explained in the how to post thread, but I propose this thread have the explicit definitions required to fully understand "strikes," "probation," etc. as well as links to the mentoring thread, an explanation of it, why you could be remanded there, why you'd want to visit there, etc. A formal write up of the DH rules would be a good thing, but for now I'm just throwing out these bullet points.

 

[Faithkeeper]

The biggest problem I see with the striking system is I think it would require additional programing. I think that would add work to whomever bails us out, and personally, I'd be thankful just for having active staff to work with the PG. If we can change the system to make it more efficient, even better, but I'm hesitant to ask them to program out a strike system when they would have already done so much for the boards. Therefore I'd lean more towards a fix that would require minimal work on the side of whomever would potentially help us out.

Spoiler

Did I use whom correctly? I never did figure that out in high school...

 

[KrazyGlue]

The difficulty is the 2 separate forums. While I agree there should be a place for ... coaching opportunities, having a completely different forum is too segregated. With a single thread we can accomplish the same thing, and without the administrative headache.

Also let us not forget our three strikes system. Anyone concerned over how we'll be able to enforce any of these standards or practices just remember that we all of us new and veteran alike will answer to the 3 strikes rule.

In fact this is something we should hash out in this thread. One of a couple things, actually:

Strikes

I propose that a "strike" will be constituted by the following:

1.) Failure to follow instructions as stated in the "how to post" thread. This includes posting outside of the Mentoring Thread if you've been asked to post only there due to your need for coaching.

2.) Blatant disregard for rules as stated in the DH rules thread (which may be a good place to keep DH probates listed for reference). This includes derailing debate topics, off-topic posts, etc.

3.) Obvious violations of SWF Global Rules such as SPAM, trolling, etc.

Now it may fall best to moderators to include strike dealing in addition to normal infractions, so regular DH members don't appear to be abusive. We can make recommendations to moderators, but I expect our moderators to be active enough in this forum to keep up with posts and make the proper judgment call themselves. If someone is obviously just new and/or borderline with something they can be warned by anyone that they risk getting a strike.

A strike will last 90 days (3 months) before it "falls off." You cannot have negative strikes. If you attain a total of 3 strikes you will be stripped of DH access for a period of one year. If you have been previously removed from the DH due to strikes and reapply a year later, and get 3 MORE strikes, you will permanently lose access to the DH.

Thread: DH Rules

In this thread we need not reiterate what's explained in the how to post thread, but I propose this thread have the explicit definitions required to fully understand "strikes," "probation," etc. as well as links to the mentoring thread, an explanation of it, why you could be remanded there, why you'd want to visit there, etc. A formal write up of the DH rules would be a good thing, but for now I'm just throwing out these bullet points.

Yeah, the only reason we haven't started writing up more specifics is that I'm still waiting for one or more of the moderators to post their thoughts. Because, you know, none of this can actually happen without the moderators. They're the only ones in power of making these changes.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

What do you mean "programming?"

People could just report the post and mods would give them a warning. 3 of them and they're gone.

 

[Sucumbio]

The biggest problem I see with the striking system is I think it would require additional programing. I think that would add work to whomever bails us out, and personally, I'd be thankful just for having active staff to work with the PG. If we can change the system to make it more efficient, even better, but I'm hesitant to ask them to program out a strike system when they would have already done so much for the boards. Therefore I'd lean more towards a fix that would require minimal work on the side of whomever would potentially help us out.

I also felt as if the PG could stay and it'd require minimal assistance from mods. But then I realized just how polarizing and segregating it is. It's very function is to separate the DH into 2 groups, "true" DH members and "pending" or "aspiring" DH members. I no longer feel that this works. Ages ago, perhaps it -was- necessary simply due to the sheer volume of spammy posters gaining entrance to the DH. But now? No... there's hardly anyone anymore. With its removal the admission process goes from 2 steps to 1. Instead of mod having to accept PG members, then check up on their progress, then process DH membership, they can simply process DH membership. It's in their removal that a moderator will have "more work" (but it's hardly that much) and in all actuality I doubt that it'll be common for people to be violating our rules.

Did I use whom correctly? I never did figure that out in high school...

LOL you poor thing.

http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/whoever.asp

To determine whether to use whoever or whomever, here is the rule:
him + he = whoever
him + him = whomever

Examples:

Give it to whoever/whomever asks for it first.
Give it to him. He asks for it first.
Therefore, Give it to whoever asks for it first.

We will hire whoever/whomever you recommend.
We will hire him. You recommend him.
him + him = whomever

We will hire whoever/whomever is most qualified.
We will hire him. He is most qualified.
him + he = whoever

Yeah, the only reason we haven't started writing up more specifics is that I'm still waiting for one or more of the moderators to post their thoughts. Because, you know, none of this can actually happen without the moderators. They're the only ones in power of making these changes.

Yeah I saw something similar in the PG version. I agree of course, as originally decided the first and foremost thing we need is proper moderator support. Zero Beat's Last Activity: 05-12-2010 02:47 AM

Can't read Evil Eye's. Now obviously there could a very good reason why ZB's not logged in recently. But from an administrative standpoint, and not to be insensitive, that's irrelevant. If a moderator needs to "go away" for several days-weeks, it's up to them to alert admin staff to find a temporary replacement.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Perhaps we should PM the three of them to let them know that this thread exists, and request that they post their thoughts.

 

[Sucumbio]

I didn't want to appear pushy, but I think you're right. Since you made this topic I feel you'd be better suited to PM CK and copy the others about it.

As suggested by Vrael I will add a link to this thread into the forum support topic as well.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Alright, I'll send it. Edit: Nevermind, Vrael beat me to it.

By the way Sucumbio, linking us to the forum support thread would be great, but I think if we click on the link it'll just tell us we don't have permission to view the page. You might need to just copy-paste the text in here. But by all means try linking it first.

 

[Sucumbio]

I meant linkking this DH thread in my Support Forum thread. Vrael thought it'd be a good idea so that CK would at least know it exists, but now that PMs have been sent, it's a sure thing.

I hesitate to re-post the support forum topic since CK said he wanted to... not sure what the hold up is though.

I'd like to get some other feedback in THIS topic from seasoned debaters. RDK for instance just mentioned in the social thread how the devil's advocate thing didn't work cause of participation limitations but since that's one of the activities we're proposing maybe it could work now that we've got some reforms in mind. I'd like to hear his thoughts on the reforms in general, others too. The more input we have the more likely we'll accomplish what's best for the debate hall.

 

[Crimson King]

Yeah, I read/replied to that on my phone at work, and I got busy since then:

The Debate Hall forum is languishing in self-defeat. Since the promotion of CK to Admin and the seeming re-evaluation of moderator support, the forum has literally fallen off the map. There has been NO participation from moderators, and even a non-forum mod (Jam Stunna) is at a loss as to what the real issue even is, let alone how to fix it.

The Problem:

The Proving Grounds while somewhat active has become a dumping ground for posters. There is no follow up being done to their activity, so once a poster gains PG rights, there they remain. If they happen to apply for DH status, despite the feedback and support given by DH members, their applications seemingly lie in wait, without any appropriate follow up in terms of application status or approval status.

This is where my issues lie. The PG was Mediocre's idea, and we never really had any idea what to do with it beyond what we did. He had a plan in place, but he got too busy to keep up with the boards and had to resign before enacting it.

Just from my own experience, it took me PM'ing a MOD to get into the PG! Had I not done that, I'd have actually just been waiting and waiting and waiting. I even PM'd a Forum Mod, and got literally NO reply. At least when I PM'd a non-forum mod that I was friends with, something got done.

And since CK was active and cared about the DH, I was able to gain DH membership. The process was still too unstructured, however. I basically posted a bunch and finally got up the nerve to ask him if I could be let in, and he said 'yes' and I was in.

Continuation to what I said: Had no idea what to do with the PG, so it languished. I liked the idea of it as a rock tumbler, but either people were unwilling to actually better their style or just want to get in the DH without questions.

I had done the mini-essays on a topic to weed out slackers, and that killed activity so I was pressured to do more. Honestly, at some point the room will have to be reopened for real activity, which I've always been opposed to.

The Solution:

There are 2 solutions at play here, but really they can be handled with one. The moderators need to be changed out with members who have the time to be active in the day-to-day routines of the DH/PG. I'd even volunteer my own services to handle this seemingly "boring" assignment of clicking a button to let someone go from PG to DH or from regular poster to PG.

EE has been ready to work on the room, but without any co-mods, it is hard. I want to put a mod for the PG and a mod for the DH with EE overseeing it all. This will create two rooms that react co-dependently.

The other solution that has been presented is the removal of the PG altogether. I hesitate to present this as a separate solution because in order for this to work, we would still need active moderators to handle DH membership application. Ultimately whether the PG is eliminated or kept, the DH NEEDS mods who will actually go there routinely and who will routinely handle their assigned tasks, in this case membership approvals/denials.

Think my suggestion would alleviate the need for this.

In summation I have been an active member of the PG/DH for several months and am loathe to see these recent attitudes come to fruition. It is indeed sad when a veteran poster such as RDK even admits that "the debate hall is dead." It is indeed not! There are plenty of us who wish to continue participating in properly organized and meaningful discussions. We wish to remain SWF's signature members on matters of discourse. All that we ask, is that we have the required oversight so that our forum may function properly and efficiently.

Thank you for your time in addressing this concern.

Kind Regards,
Sucumbio

As part of the mod situation, I will speak with room mod for an inter-room contests. I like the boards to have a unique mindset per room (Disco, LOD, and Broom have this, along with character rooms and the forum games. Cultivating this room mindset will allow us to target rooms and harbor a inter-connectivity between rooms (in essence create a mindset in order to break that mindset). What I'd like to see is some Debate Games form in the FG with DH members leading it. I'd like to see a bracket AIM debate mediated by DH members. Make the DH title/color/postbit (whenever that happens) mean something.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Alright, CK. Thanks a lot for the update.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Okay, the more I think about this mentoring thread, the more it seems strange. Am I comprehending this correctly? All the debate coaching will occur in one thread?

Shouldn't we have a specific room for this, like the PG except members of this mentoring room are allowed to post in the DH? I'm not really sure on this at the moment....

 

[Sucumbio]

Thanks, CK. So what I'm hearing is that you agree the PG as it is currently, does suffer as we've specified, but the why is now more clear; it's because its implementation wasn't entirely complete.

I'm also hearing that you don't want to remove it, but would rather have a specific PG Mod and a DH mod, and then EE to oversee both.

And lastly you'd like to begin an inter-connectivity between boards, so that for instance things that we were tossing around for the Debate Hall Activities thread we've proposed would actually be more suited in things like the Forum Games board, as well as organizing AIM-based competitive debates (AWESOME IDEA) ... and this sort of thing.

I believe this could work, our main concern was the lack of DH activity, not so much that "Smash Debater" didn't mean anything (other than loud-mouth opinionated wretch ) which stemmed from an initial concern of lack of Mod support. As you have stated EE is alone on this, though I fail to see why that matters in terms of the simple daily functions of allowing Guest, Dre, et al into the DH now. But whatever, his reasons are his own.

Who do you have in mind for the PG Mod and other DH mod if I may ask? And what sort of participation can we expect from them?

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Thanks a lot for posting CK, I like your ideas.

In my suggestions I didn't want to PG around anymore because it seemed counterproductive to stimulating activity, but what you've proposed should alleviate the need to remove it.

Just one question: what timeframe do you see these changes occurring in? Now that we have our ideas and your ideas, we wouldn't want to see them slip into oblivion.

 

[RDK]

I'm up for any changes that'll bring some fresh blood into the DH. I think it stinks that we used to have so much fun arguing in here, and now it's kind of drifted.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Yeah, so I'll take the half hour or so to reply to this.

Pardon the formatting on some of the responses, I don't know how exactly to change it...

Flashy Intro...

Debate Hall Reform Ideas​

DEBATER ACCEPTANCE REFORM

1. Remove the proving grounds. We the debaters believe that the current system paralyzes debate hall activity. Many solid proving grounds members who have gathered the support of debate hall members are left stuck in the proving grounds. Beyond being very discouraging to the person not being admitted, debate hall members feel ignored. Also, the proving grounds may intimidate some members of the site, and they may feel they have no chance of being accepted into the debate hall. Additionally, some members may be capable of making intelligent, insightful comments but may wish to do so sparingly, which gives them no chance of making through the proving grounds.​

Being an old school guy who had to get the pink the hard way (NB This makes me no better or worse than anyone here), I have some input as to #1.

I don't believe that we should remove the Proving Grounds. In fact, I still feel that it is a good vehicle to determine DH potential. Someone becomes a PGer, posts a selection of debate topics, and keeps @ it until one of the mods notices it (or, a lot of DHers.) When I was trying to get in the DH, this is what exactly happened. However, I do agree that some may find the system a little intimidating. However, I feel this is because that (@ times) the mods of the PG & DH don't often give enough feedback to the PGers, which makes them feel quite isolated to the entire DH as a whole. This is true: As living proof, I know that @ times, you won't get into the DH without giving the mods a full court press. Mind you, this doesn't mean that you nag them, but it requires a certain kind of persistence that really shouldn't be expected from people on a video game forum.

Which leads into people who want in and don't post often. I'm not exactly buying this that much. I do believe that a little more effort is needed to become a DHer, so a sustained effort is the best approach here.

2. The new system should allow anyone who applies to the debate hall to be accepted (although some discretion may be used if the member clearly has a history of receiving infractions). They will be evaluated based on their performance immediately following their acceptance. If it is determined that they are struggling and/or unintentionally holding back other debaters from advancing discussion, they may be assigned to be mentored by the more experienced debaters. If a member is intentionally interfering with debates through breaking global rules such as posting spam, flaming, trolling, etc., they will be removed from the debate hall. They will be able to reapply in one month (or possibly a lesser or greater amount of time depending on the offense). A “three strikes” system may be implemented. That is, if a member is removed from the debate hall three times for disorderly conduct, they will not be allowed to reapply. Strict moderation should be enforced in order to make it clear that the Debate Hall is intended to be a serious place.

See above. Though, a system like this for the DH & PG would be very key.

3. If a new debater is struggling and/or is unintentionally preventing other debaters from advancing discussion at a reasonable pace, they should be mentored by a more experienced debater. There will be a “Mentoring Thread” in which the struggling debater will practice against more experienced members to hone their skills and receive advice on how to improve. When they have improved, they may post in the rest of the threads.

I definitely would like to lead (or be a part of) a system like this. I actually did this a good bit a year ago, so I do have a little experience with it.

4. We realize that through this new system, the quality of the posts in the debate hall will need to be monitored more. We will hold our members to certain posting quality standards, which if broken could result in a warning or suspension for the offender. Posting quality refers to making posts with substance, a certain level of grammar and spelling, maintaining a mature and generally serious tone, courtesy towards others, remaining calm, and several other factors. Below are some examples of posts that would not meet the quality standards:

a. THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS ISSUE! WE NEED TO STOP THE OIL SPILL AND MAKE BP PAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
b. You’re being ridiculous. I’m increasingly convinced that you have no idea what you are talking about.
c. That’s what she said.
d. well theres an oil spill in mexico and stuff so i dont know but they got to stop it before it comes to us​

5. There should be a guidelines thread that explicitly elaborates on these rules so they are clear to all new members.
6. "Probation" refers to a short (possibly 1-3 weeks) period of time right after an applicant is accepted into the debate hall. A member who is "on probation" should be monitored closely by the moderators, so we are able to figure out their basic skills, mannerisms, and intentions. The member on probation should be required to post relatively frequently during this period of time so that the moderators are able to figure out this information. If all goes well for the member during this time period, they will no longer be on probation. Probation can also refer to a member who has been assigned to be mentored in the mentoring thread.

See my response to #2.
​

 


IDEAS OR EVENTS TO INCREASE ACTIVITY

1. The current events thread may be retried. We may need to adjust the idea, but repetitive events may help people keep ties with the debate hall. We may also retry the idea of debate contests.
2. The Archives should be re-integrated into the Debate Hall. We the debaters don’t see any reason why these topics shouldn’t be eligible for bumping if there is a relevant reason for doing so.
3. We believe that the system described under the “Debater Acceptance Reform” system will increase activity by making the debate hall more accessible and attracting more members.
4. We the debaters request that we have active moderators to help carry out this plan.
5. A Debate Hall Activities Thread may be made. This thread would provide debate challenges or contests that are both enjoyable and intellectual. Sucumbio is quoted below explaining some of the activities that could be a part of this thread. Please note that these activities were originally intended for use in real life, and have not yet been formatted for internet use. We have yet to adjust these so that they will be practical on Smash World Forums.
​

----------------------------------------------------------------


All comments, questions, and concerns are welcome.

1) There is actually a Current Events thread in the PRoom that isn't doing to bad. We should take an idea or two from them...
2) I read through some of these, and a good number of the threads are retreads of things that I have seen before.
3) Not too much to say here.
4) Twenty times this. We wouldn't even need this thread if we had mods who came on here on a regular basis.
5) I dunno about this, but meh...

Yep, that about covers it.

 

[Crimson King]

One of the two new mods accepted. I'll add him today. The other has a PM waiting, and I'll add him and set up their privileges asap.

I should have this room going by the weekend.

 

[KrazyGlue]

So who are they?

 

[Sucumbio]

yours truly is the new PG mod, dunno who the new DH mod is...