Debate Hall Reform Ideas

[KrazyGlue]

I think the idea of 'reformers' adds an unnecessary level of heirarchy and complexity. Reforms and suggestions can be proposed by anybody in this thread.

Yeah, I guess I would tend to agree with this.

As far as the compiled list goes, I'll go ahead and start the thread. Then, any DHer can post in that thread with topics/links/etc. and I can just edit it into the first post.

Sounds great!

In regard to removing the PG: I disagree.

Since anybody can apply to the PG, it means there will be a number of people who aren't really up to par for the DH. The PG is good because we can let them develop while discussing a number of topics. What if there was no PG? Would you want to limit these people to a 'mentoring thread' of some sort? There are two issues with this: 1) Logistical/moderating issues. If we don't want these people posting in other threads until they've improved, we have no way of physically stopping them, and 2) How's a 'mentoring thread' supposed to work? Does everybody post there? Are multiple debates or discussions going on at the same time between multiple people? It's much better to separate these into a different room that contains different threads on different topics, ie, the PG.

The PG is not at all being used to help temp debaters get better. It's just leeching activity from the DH. Look at it! 95% of the posts are from actual debaters! How do you plan to "physically stop" debaters from posting in the PG? Even if we say we're going to do that now, let's be realistic: it will never happen. Regardless of whether or not we use the mentoring thread, anything, anything at all is better than the PG. Even kicking people out who aren't up to par would be better than the PG.

By the way, the mentoring thread would be just like the center stage. The person would just ask for a 1 on 1 debate with a debater, and they would be evaluated. The way you "physically stop" the person from posting in the rest of the threads is by telling them that if they do, they will be kicked out. It's not a perfect system, but honestly anything is better than the PG.

If the mentoring thread is a bad idea, fine, I don't care. But if that's the case let's come up with a better system.

 

[Dre89]

The problem I have with mentoring threads is that it supposes we are better debaters than they are.

Suppose a philosophy student joins the PG and requests a 1v1 philosophical debate with a DHer. I'd probably get selected because I'm probably the most active DHer here (in terms of post-rate anyway) so I do it, then the guy absolutely tears me to shreds in the debate.

Not only is it embarrassing to me, but it's embarrassing to the DH that we assume we are better debaters then them and then actually lose the debates.

Also, I don't think being in the DH gives people a right to critique other people's debating style. I remember when I was in the PG and getting critiqued by people who didn't really consider so superior to me a debater that they ha dthe right to do so. Some people would criticise me for things that acually got me high marks at uni, where the critieria is virtually exactly the same.

When I said we whould have one mentor per PG thread, I just meant someone who provoked discussion, not critiqued them extensively as debators.

With the multiple reformers idea I proposed, the reason why I suggested it is because nothing is really being done. We've had over a month of just discussiong things, and while the easy list is being compiled, it doesn't really make a signiifcant impact on the debating in the DH.

All I suggest these 2 or 3 reformers do is just add new features, like Devil's advocate, essay contests etc. not things which shake the fundamental structure of the hall. In this way, debaters who don't like the reforms can ocntinue debating in the old format, while debaters who want to do something new can try out the new features.

Goldshadow, if you don't want to elect 2-3 reformers, maybe you should just go ahead and just make some yourself, so that something is being done. The reality is, you're only the moderator because you're a respected DH veteran, so people here will trust you to make good reforms, I doubt you'd initiate anything so terrible that your moderation privellages should be reovked.

 

[RDK]

Well it's been done before so don't get too hasty there with your reform itch.

 

[Dre89]

What's been done before?

 

[RDK]

Bad ideas regarding the Debate Hall.

 

[GoldShadow]

With the multiple reformers idea I proposed, the reason why I suggested it is because nothing is really being done. We've had over a month of just discussiong things, and while the easy list is being compiled, it doesn't really make a signiifcant impact on the debating in the DH.

All I suggest these 2 or 3 reformers do is just add new features, like Devil's advocate, essay contests etc. not things which shake the fundamental structure of the hall. In this way, debaters who don't like the reforms can ocntinue debating in the old format, while debaters who want to do something new can try out the new features.

Goldshadow, if you don't want to elect 2-3 reformers, maybe you should just go ahead and just make some yourself, so that something is being done. The reality is, you're only the moderator because you're a respected DH veteran, so people here will trust you to make good reforms, I doubt you'd initiate anything so terrible that your moderation privellages should be reovked.

I still don't think another level of heirarchy is necessary, especially considering that we don't have enough members to justify it. That said, I do understand your frustration, and I take some of the blame for not having done much over the past month (the rest of the blame I place on getting used to the whole moderator thing and getting a few technical issues sorted out!). I prefer to discuss new ideas with the other mods, even if you are right that these things wouldn't get my privileges revoked if I implemented changes without first discussing them. On the bright side, talking it over is a quick and easy process, it's just a matter of me (or one of the others) taking the initiative to do so.

In the interest of actually implementing some of these things I'll go ahead and get the details hammered out, and discuss it with the others, over the next couple days. Look forward to seeing something within the week.

 

[Sucumbio]

I'll work on making a new thread explaining the procedures.

I like the thread, hopefully potentials will read it before applying. It would be nice if the short description of the User Group in the UCP could be reworded somehow to identify the temp debater group as being required to be applied to first if you're not already a DH member. Not sure how it'd be worded, though.

I think this is a little unnecessary and perhaps too convoluted without a real purpose. There's no need to limit who can post in what thread or subdivide by topic. Just put forth an effort and make sure that, if you're a DHer, you don't start arguing with other DHers in the PG.

I've been thinking that Debate Hall members should lose Temp Debater access, with the exception of literally a handful of seasoned debaters, who could commit to helping Temp Debaters progress. CK did have at one point a standing rule (I think it was his rule) that once you got into the DH you were to leave the Temp Debaters. Now technically we can boot members from the group, but before anything of that nature is done it should be discussed so that those who do have access right now aren't suddenly "wtf, why can't I post in there anymore." I see this as fixing the leeching issue. There should be no one feeling as if the PG is stealing thunder from the DH, and if Smash Debaters can't post there, then it becomes a non-issue (unless someone really does think they'll be jealous of the PG's jr. debates which I think shouldn't be the case).

The PG is not at all being used to help temp debaters get better. It's just leeching activity from the DH. Look at it! 95% of the posts are from actual debaters! How do you plan to "physically stop" debaters from posting in the PG? Even if we say we're going to do that now, let's be realistic: it will never happen. Regardless of whether or not we use the mentoring thread, anything, anything at all is better than the PG. Even kicking people out who aren't up to par would be better than the PG.

See above; and GS has made a good example of why a single thread is less efficient to a separate room.

 

[KrazyGlue]

A fair suggestion. However, people in the DH who can't post in the PG will pay far less attention to it, again potentially raising the issue of not letting in PGers quickly when they deserve acceptance. On the other hand, with active moderators, this has become far less of an issue. I say we give Sucumbio's plan a shot for now, but if it becomes apparent it's not working out, serious consideration should be given to removing the PG.

EDIT: I have an interesting idea actually. The Smashboards Mentoring Program is currently under renovation. Perhaps they could add a slot for "Debate Mentors" and a few of us could volunteer. Not sure exactly how it would work, but it could get people interested in applying to the PG.

 

[Sucumbio]

That's an excellent suggestion, it'd not only give the Debate Hall more exposure and to the newest of members, but it'll provide an excellent place to answer questions about the DH and its activities. Good call, yo.

And well, ok we agree on a coa, lets have GS and EE weigh in, and if we're all in consensus I'll start purging PG access for those who are DH members (which will take me a while, but it's not a difficult task by any stretch, just time consuming.)

And of course we'll want anyone who objects to weigh in too.

 

[RDK]

Good call.....yo?

What is this, the projects?

 

[GoldShadow]

Purging PG access seems like a good idea on one hand because it'll force DHers to post in the DH.

On the other hand, it could be counterproductive to helping foster PGers' skills and discussion. Also, if DHers cannot post in the PG, they have less incentive to go into that room and check out new talent/recommend people for DH admission.

 

[Sucumbio]

That's the one thing I don't like about purging the PG. I'm not so concerned about loss of post ability, but iirc you can't even enter the forum unless you're a member of it, it's password protected. This is where "a select few" comes in. We'd literally have a handful of debaters who remain accessed to the PG and it'd basically be up to them who'd gain new membership (which may put too much responsibility on them, but I don't know).

What I propose is that newer DH members (anyone who joined the DH after myself) should -not- have PG access any longer, anyone before myself should, minus anyone who's obviously not a currently active DH member. In some respects there's even been suggestion that the latter be purged altogether but that's another horse to beat, for now I'd like to concentrate on the "leeching" issue.

 

[GoldShadow]

I thought it was like the DH in that you can view it but can't post in it unless you have group membership.

 

[Sucumbio]

I thought so too at first, but my wife whom you recently let in to the PG, spookyskeptic, was originally unable to enter the forum. Just to be sure I went ahead and removed her from the PG, logged in as her, and as suspected when you try to click on it it says "spookyskeptic, you do not have permission to blah blah blah" ... it also reads as "private" on the main DH page. She's been re-admitted to the PG since it was just a test but this of course means without a doubt that if we purge PG access for Smash Debaters they will NOT be able to view PG activity, thus making it difficult for them to give valuable opinions on their posting ability.

Which leads us to the original question, do we leave it as it is, or do we purge only new(er) members (starting with Bob-T), or do we purge everyone except a hand-picked "selection" committee etc. My vote is on the second option.

 

[KrazyGlue]

This all seems way too complicated. I know the administrators would need to do this, but wouldn't it be a lot more convenient if the PG was viewable by anyone? Either that, or just make the "selection committee" people you trust won't get into a debate, but will just ask probing questions, give advice, etc.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

This all seems way too complicated. I know the administrators would need to do this, but wouldn't it be a lot more convenient if the PG was viewable by anyone? Either that, or just make the "selection committee" people you trust won't get into a debate, but will just ask probing questions, give advice, etc.

The way I see it, make the forum viewable by the public. It means that all DH members can recommend PGers to get in, and we'd be able to see what's going on without having to be able to post there.

That said, the selection committee is all fine and good, if they're the only one's with posting rights, but only while the other DHers can see what's going on. I just think it's more transparent that way.

 

[RDK]

I don't understand why the PG isn't viewable by everyone. I hadn't noticed it because I have posting rights in the PG but I logged out and tried looking at it and it's blocked.

 

[GoldShadow]

I talked to CK about it, he says he'll fix the viewability issue.

 

[Sucumbio]

That's excellent, once he has done so I'll purge the PG of any current Smash Debaters and this will once and for all solve the leeching issue, while also allowing everyone to still read PG threads so that recommendations can be made properly.

 

[Lore]

That's excellent, once he has done so I'll purge the PG of any current Smash Debaters and this will once and for all solve the leeching issue, while also allowing everyone to still read PG threads so that recommendations can be made properly.

Can I keep my PG posting rights? I'm in the middle of a debate, and I'd like to finish it.

Am I right to assume that when the PG gets purged, we will be allowed to post threads in the main Hall that are duplicates of PG threads?

 

[Sucumbio]

Yes (until your debate is concluded) and yes (as far as I'm concerned).

 

[RDK]

Um who ever decided that people were going to lose their PG posting rights? Not a good idea.

 

[Deleted member]

I lost mine ages ago.

 

[Sucumbio]

Um who ever decided that people were going to lose their PG posting rights? Not a good idea.

Congratulations on being accepted into the Debate Hall.

For verification purposes, you must PM a DH moderator to let him/her know that you no longer have any business with the Proving Grounds, as you've earned your spot in the main room. We'll need your aid with this until we update the boards with easier methods of removal(Such as auto-removal of a room upong being accepted to another)

By requirement, you are to make 3 posts within your first week to see how you fair with the veterans of the room.

Basically it has always been a given that once you're in the DH you were to be removed from the PG. This was no doubt decided upon by Zero because he foresaw an issue with the PG and DH competing for activity (which is the current complaint, this so-called "leeching" issue). By removing Smash Debaters from the PG there should be literally no one complaining about how the PG leeches activity from the DH, because the only people posting in the PG will be Temp Debaters. And once CK has fixed the read permissions, DH members will still be able to view the PG so that they can make justifiable decisions on who should/should not be admitted.

I do however see why you'd think it's a bad idea, at least I assume it's because DH members will be unable to coach Temp Debaters. This would be why my personal option was to have a select few DH members remain accessed to the PG (yourself included). This is still on the table as far as I'm concerned. And technically I'll at first only be removing PG access for DH members starting with Bob Jane T-Mart and going forward, anyone before him (TGK, and previous) would probably stay in there unless they've already lost access or are otherwise inactive in the PG. There are approx 250 PG members currently. I have yet to cross reference the number of those that are also DH members, but I believe the list to be short, so it's not as if tons of people will get screwed over by this. And of course if anyone here in the DH really wants to keep PG access they can make a case for themselves here in this thread, but I will say right now it'll be the exception to the rule, not the norm. For the most part, DH members should not be posting in the PG.

Do not post in this room if you are not a mod of the Debate Hall. Your post will be deleted.

This room is to hone the membership for the Debate Hall. If you wish to argue a topic that is in here, recreate it in the other debate hall.

Though this rule specifically targets mods, the reason it was as such is because mods were not barred from entering the PG despite them not being members of the Temp Debater user group (a mod privilege). Since Zero's post already encompassed everyone else, CK's took into account the mods who were otherwise excluded by Zero's rule.

Now if you're suggesting that the PG does NOT leech activity from the DH and we should not in fact be enforcing these older rules of posting etiquette, then by all means make your case, but so far we have only heard from the one side.

The PG has basically turned into a proxy DH.

By the way, I'm still against the PG. Sucumbio has done a great job and all, but it's more active in there than in the DH. I think we really just need a single, centralized debate hall with no side areas. I REALLY think that the DH activity plus the PG activity could make for a lively room. Most people who come to the PG generally have good intentions and are decent enough, and when there's an exception they can be dealt with appropriately.

The PG is not at all being used to help temp debaters get better. It's just leeching activity from the DH. Look at it! 95% of the posts are from actual debaters! How do you plan to "physically stop" debaters from posting in the PG? Even if we say we're going to do that now, let's be realistic: it will never happen. Regardless of whether or not we use the mentoring thread, anything, anything at all is better than the PG. Even kicking people out who aren't up to par would be better than the PG.

TL;DR: KrazyGlue.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Thank you for letting me keep my PG rights.

I got in through CK, so maybe that had something to do with it.

Correct me as needed CK...

 

[KrazyGlue]

I do however see why you'd think it's a bad idea, at least I assume it's because DH members will be unable to coach Temp Debaters. This would be why my personal option was to have a select few DH members remain accessed to the PG (yourself included). This is still on the table as far as I'm concerned. And technically I'll at first only be removing PG access for DH members starting with Bob Jane T-Mart and going forward, anyone before him (TGK, and previous) would probably stay in there unless they've already lost access or are otherwise inactive in the PG. There are approx 250 PG members currently. I have yet to cross reference the number of those that are also DH members, but I believe the list to be short, so it's not as if tons of people will get screwed over by this. And of course if anyone here in the DH really wants to keep PG access they can make a case for themselves here in this thread, but I will say right now it'll be the exception to the rule, not the norm. For the most part, DH members should not be posting in the PG.

True, I see where not being able to "coach" PGers is viewed as a negative. But it's hard to resist jumping in a debate when you see someone who is clearly wrong. It's great to think that all DHers could just restrain themselves and not get involved in any debates, but I don't think that will ever happen. That's why I support the PG purge idea Sucumbio proposed.

I'm still on the fence on the "selection committee" part, as I think all DHers should have an equal say in who gets admitted. I also think people not on the committee would feel left out. On the other hand, it's nice to have people to help promote discussion or ask probing questions along with Sucumbio, as it's very hard to keep track of all the threads by yourself. On the other other hand, Sucumbio would also have to watch over the selection committee and make sure they are not intentionally getting in any elongated debates themselves (although I don't think a few back-and-forth posts is a problem, it should not become a multi-page one on one debate).

 

[Sucumbio]

Well, CK has brought the point up... twice now that I can count, at least recently.

So what do you all think? Shall I go ahead with the original purge idea mentioned a few posts back? Should we re-entertain the idea of allowing some DH'rs to keep PG posting rights, removing everyone else? Should we just say F it and move on? I dunno... I am starting to feel a bit, torn in this issue. If I continue to do nothing then the issue will progressively worsen until the line between PG and DH is literally only one of semantics (ergo, you're in one user group, not the other). If we remove PG posting rights for new DH members, that may help, but not really.

I wish to elicit the opinions of those who frequently post in the PG for whatever reason. This includes but is not limited to Dre. rvkevin, acrostic, reaver, aesir, ... drawing a blank on any others. Dre. is definitely frequent, even making threads there.

I'd of course invite the opinions of everyone, but I wish to gain perspective from those who would potentially stand to lose their posting rights in the PG. Thanks in advance.

 

[Sieguest]

Personally I wouldn't have a problem with the purge going through. We could keep a few DH members in there for coaching and CS purposes, but past that it should be a place for the PGers to do their business and show their stuff among other PGers vying for the same goal. Allowing every DH member who wants to post in PG to post just makes the PG a second debate hall in all but name. That's my take on it.

Besides we could always make the DH as active as the PG is. The main difference I see between the DH and the PG is that a much larger variety of topics are being discussed in the PG. Also the PGers have the initiative to do some research on topics they don't know about instead of just not posting in them, which I honestly feel some DH members (myself included) suffer from. With more DHers just being restricted to posting the Debate Hall, maybe there will be some more motivation to spark activity instead of just falling back on the PG.

 

[ballin4life]

I post in the Proving Grounds because there is activity there.

I'm strongly against restricting people from posting in the Proving Grounds.

 

[Dre89]

I post threads in the PG because I remember being a PG and being annoyed that I couldn't post in the DH threads when someone said something that ticked me off.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Generally speaking, this appears to be an issue of integrity vs. frequency. Integrity of course maintaining the identity of both the DH and PG as two distinct entities and frequency being a DH-PG collaboration that results in increased activity. It appears as if the relationship between these two variables is inversely proportional. Therefore, the cost of increasing integrity for the DH would result in decreasing overall activity for both sections and vice versa. Assuming these rudimentary assessments to be true, the question that needs to be asked is whether it is more important for the Debate Hall to refine its integrity at potential cost to board activity or whether it should focus on gaining more post traffic from the DH/PG users by remaining with a collaborative based system. Again this assumes that breaking a DH-PG collaboration would reduce overall post traffic, whereas allowing DH-PG collaboration to continue would reduce the individual identity of each section and therefore result in a homogeneous mixture of the two, rather than a heterogeneous distinction.

 

[Reaver197]

I personally try to restrict my posting in the PG to either posting relevant articles or videos I find to a topic to help stimulate it or keep it going, or to maybe fix very erroneous claims that no one else seems able or cares to correct.

I'm not sure whether we should restrict DH access to the PG. On one hand, it seems to take away the point of having a DH, but on the other hand, I don't see how arbitrarily limiting people's ability to post helps at all. I just the think the whole system we have is flawed to achieving a good level of activity, and there could be other ways to make it work so to maintain a somewhat high level of quality if that is a high priority as well.

However, I guess it does seem disproportionate in some threads how much PGers are posting versus DHers. What's the point of the PG hall, if none of the PGers are able to debate in their own threads?

Either way, I think the dual room system should get the boot.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I think we shouldn't restrict posting to the DH once you've made it there. I sometimes partake in debates to judge the skills of the people involved, or make some corrections, prod them in the right direction etc. If I couldn't do that, it'd be very annoying and it'd just get in the way of progress.