The Debate Hall Social Thread

[RDK]

Have you done well in any tournament you've been to?

In Brawl tournaments? I've been to like 3, when the game first came out.

 

[Eor]

In Brawl tournaments? I've been to like 3, when the game first came out.

No, any tournaments. Though I should reclassify that as large tournaments, or like...popular tournaments? I don't know how those work, but pretty I think you get what I mean

 

[RDK]

No, any tournaments. Though I should reclassify that as large tournaments, or like...popular tournaments? I don't know how those work, but pretty I think you get what I mean

Lol I think you'd have to classify what "doing well" is. When Melee was popular I did well in plenty of tournaments. Brawl? Not so much.

What's the point of asking me this anyway? We're talking about banning Metaknight.

Speaking of which me and a few friends popped Brawl into the Wii a couple hours ago for ****s and giggles and it helped me remember how utterly gay MK is. Still shouldn't be banned though.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Um... shouldn't this talk be occurring in the MK ban thread instead of here? At least it should be in VMs. Don't want this to be closed.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Actually, a sophist debate hall MK debate would be cool cause I think we'd be able to do it properly (with giant perfectly cited walls of text of course).


At the very least, we'd probably relate the sides to the value systems they're based on.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

I'm pretty sure there was a thread on banning MK in here a while back.

I think it's in the archives.

 

[Reaver197]

Are there still debates going on about whether MK should be banned or not?

Dang, talk about an issue people just don't want to be resolved.

Edit: Also, what do we have to do in order to post in the PG?

 

[KrazyGlue]

Are there still debates going on about whether MK should be banned or not?

Dang, talk about an issue people just don't want to be resolved.

Edit: Also, what do we have to do in order to post in the PG?

To post in the PG, you have to reapply to be a temp debater.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

I think the MK ban stuff is fun. Mostly because I don't care about the outcome, but that's beside the point.

Since the DH is dead, it's nice to have something to debate.

 

[RDK]

I think the MK ban stuff is fun. Mostly because I don't care about the outcome

^ That's what makes it fun.

 

[Reaver197]

I mean, yeah, I found it for a time to be an interesting exercise in trying to really determine a good system for determining when a character warrants being banned or not, and whether a competitive game will be better for it, but Brawl has so many issues in even being considered a good competitive game in the first place that the outcome almost seems irrelevant to me.

Thanks for the info on the PG Hall stuff.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

^ That's what makes it fun.

Exactly. When I played Brawl I actually cared, and then it was annoying. Now it's just a nice way to argue.

Always nice debating with you, RDK. I think I misunderstood you at the end though, sorry about that. We were talking about two completely different things.

 

[KrazyGlue]

We need to let some PGers in!

It seems the PG is getting active again. What's the one thing that they have that the DH doesn't? New people. I honestly think if we want a spark in DH activity, some people from the PG will eventually have to be let in. The average SWF lifespan is very short. If we just keep thee same old group of debaters, our numbers will keep dwindling as people start leaving the site or just becoming less active.

We used to just let people in if they proved to at least be adequate in the PG. Some people were let in after only a few posts. I think people like Sucumbio who are maintaining good activity and posting quality should be let in.

I would set up a criteria. Anyone who maintains good activity and realizes when they are incorrect should be strongly considered. Obviously there needs to be a certain level of posting quality (debating skill, basic grammar, etc.) to get into the DH, but even those who don't yet have all the skills yet can learn. I think if someone has good activity, recognizes when they have been proven wrong, is an adequate debater, and posts legibly, they should be accepted into the DH.

Thoughts?

 

[AltF4]

I've always been of the opinion that the PG should only be used as a bare minimum "show us that you're not completely incompetent" room. Most people are quite capable of debate, as long as they're shown the ground rules. I'm not even convinced that we need a PG. I think most people who go out of their way enough to apply for the DH are good enough.

 

[Eor]

Yeah, I'd agree with Alt. I'd rather we just accept those who apply, and kick out those who suck. By requiring them to apply it should filter out the people who would just make one post then vanish into the beyond

 

[KrazyGlue]

Getting rid of the PG would be ok, it would just allow spam. And if someone spammed once and got kicked out they'd get all mad and start complaining. I also think the PG is useful for making sure we get people who follow rules (such as not flaming or trolling, not using search function to find old threads, etc). What I'm advocating is letting more PGers in so DH admission isn't as strict.

Alt, I agree that the PG should be a sort of "bare minimum" room. Like I said, someone who writes legibly, follows rules, knows how to debate, etc.

 

[AltF4]

I don't even mind so much if they're not terribly good writers, or not terribly good debaters. This is a video game forum, let's keep it in perspective. This should be the sort of place where debate-noobs can come and get some experience.

Ignorance and inexperience are acceptable, since they are easily remedied. All I ask for is intellectual honesty. Don't pretend to know things when you don't, be up-front with what you know little about, and accept that you might be wrong.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I don't even mind so much if they're not terribly good writers, or not terribly good debaters. This is a video game forum, let's keep it in perspective. This should be the sort of place where debate-noobs can come and get some experience.

Ignorance and inexperience are acceptable, since they are easily remedied. All I ask for is intellectual honesty. Don't pretend to know things when you don't, be up-front with what you know little about, and accept that you might be wrong.

Right, right, I agree with you on debate talent. Like I said, people can learn, and as long as their willing to admit fault when they're proven wrong, I support their inclusion. All of that is what I said the first time.

The only thing I disagree is on whether they need basic grammar. From the DH archives:

In my opinion i think it will maybe...I am not hoping it will but anyways... we got all this osama stuff going on and all these countries going on and talk of nuclear war... it seems liek it will happen sooner or later.....

Like china and russia attacking america and america and it's ally's vs them it will lead to a huge destruction of our civlization...Anyone ever play a game called follout where everything was mutated and everyone emerges from vaults after 30 years........

I fear thats what the world will become , its really a shame. i can't picture myself telling my grand children how cool the world used to be and seeing 2 headed cows.....that would suck or seeing the sky being green, i say green because the sky reflects off the water so if the water goes pure green from the nuclear waste then the sky will be green as well......

not only that our ozone would be destroyed a great deal......
cmon think about it amerca dropped2 bombs on japan and they weren't that big either.....imagine the big ones being launced all over the place, that would be so horrible! and cover from it would be scarce.

yes its unfortunate we humans developed weapons of mass destruction as there is no point to power! with power , it curropts.

Granted, this person also doesn't have debating skills, but it's just plain annoying to read through with the constant spelling and grammar problems. I'm fine with people who simply use commas wrong or don't capitalize their sentences, but when it starts becoming a hassle to read, I think it's unacceptable in the DH.

 

[Eor]

Aye. We could include that as a rule for posts, to make sure that the persons grammar/spelling is at least comprehensible. Since this whole place is based on responding and replying to other people's posts, if someone's post can't be understood then it really throws the entire conversation off point, more so then in any other room. Plus it's not like there aren't tools to help them, they can just write their post in Word or some other writing processor that has a spell check. Or they can just use Firefox which comes with a spell checker.

 

[AltF4]

Lol, to all of you guys referencing me in the PG: I don't have posting access in there.

 

[RDK]

Aren't you a universal mod?

 

[AltF4]

No, just Southwest region and Computer Cafe actually. Though I'll take it as a compliment that you think I'm omnipresent. I try.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Aye. We could include that as a rule for posts, to make sure that the persons grammar/spelling is at least comprehensible. Since this whole place is based on responding and replying to other people's posts, if someone's post can't be understood then it really throws the entire conversation off point, more so then in any other room. Plus it's not like there aren't tools to help them, they can just write their post in Word or some other writing processor that has a spell check. Or they can just use Firefox which comes with a spell checker.

We should remove some of the stickies in this room (like 'how to properly reply to a thread' since we already know how) and then put a criteria/guide on how to get in the DH as a sticky in the PG.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Possible Guide/Criteria for DH admission -- Possibly to be posted in PG

Hello and welcome to the Proving Grounds! This room is where you debate with fellow temp debaters, while the debate hall members watch over (and occasionally post) to determine who is worthy of being admitted into the debate hall.

If we feel that you meet the criteria below, you will most likely make it into the debate hall sooner or later.


1. Posting Quality

We need to be able to read your posts! That means at least some level of basic grammar is needed. Missing a few commas or not capitalizing your sentences here or there is ok. However, if a post is at the point where it is a hassle to read, it is unacceptable for the debate hall.

Example of an unacceptable post: "well theres a problem with global warming, the glaciers might melt and then well be sorry cause we didnt do anything about it and then well need to fix it up cause theres floods everywere"



It's just a lot nicer to see posts like this: "I think global warming is a serious issue that needs to be addressed immediately. We have seen polar ice caps melting, which could endanger society, causing us to have to take drastic measures to prevent flooding."

Also, we're looking for people who follow rules! Flaming, spamming, and trolling are common rule violations and will hurt your chances at being accepted into the debate hall.​

2. Debating

Here's a few tips on what we like to see:

- Try to avoid logical fallacies. Here is a list of common fallacies.
- Don't be afraid to admit you were wrong! It's really annoying when someone keeps debating their point even though they have clearly been proven wrong. It makes us repeat what we're saying over and over. However, this does not mean you should give up easily! We also like it when you do well in debates!
- Try to stay on topic. Tangent debates are ok, but try to keep your discussions focused on the central topic.​

Again, flaming, trolling, and spam are not tolerated. Please avoid personal attacks.​

3. Posting and Activeness

The Debate Hall has activity issues of its own, so we like to see active debaters! This does not mean posting 10 times a day! We always look for quality over quantity with regards to your posts. However, it'll be hard for you to stand out if you only post once a month.

If you are posting a thread, read the following guidelines:

- Make sure your topic isn't too general. "What is the meaning of life?" is too general of a topic and there's too much to even consider when debating it.
- Make sure your topic is clear from the get-go.
- Generally the first post in a thread should be the wordiest, or at least close to it. Don't post one-liners like "What do you think of health care? Discuss!" Tell us about the topic. Tell us all the research you've gathered and what you specifically are addressing.
- Give us your opinion! We need something to start with, so it's helpful if you say what you think so that we can agree or disagree and get the debate going.
- If you want a great example for what a successful first post should look like, go into the debate hall and look at the "Intellectual Property" thread. We don't expect you to write that much, but it's got all the things I mentioned above. The author explains the topic in great detail, tells and explains his opinion, and shows enthusiasm for the topic. That's why it is one of the most successful threads in debate hall history!​

Knowing what format to post in is important too. Quoting is a very common and important part of posting in debate threads. Here's some quoting guidelines:

- If you're responding directly to the first post, you generally don't need to quote it. However, it never hurts to do so.
- Quoting whoever you are responding to is always a good, safe idea. It helps avoid confusion.
- If you want to individually address each part of someone's post, you may want to quote each of them separately. First quote the person, then separate each point the person has made that you want to address individually. Then, put the QUOTE code around each point. Then type what you want to say under each point. If you want a better and more in depth explanation of this, read the "How to Properly Reply to a Thread" thread in the debate hall. It is stickied, so it should be right at the top of the screen.​

Good luck on making it into the debate hall! Please provide feedback on this guide and/or tell me what you did or didn't like about it.



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


Well, I realized after making this that it was similar to RDK's "How to Post" guide, except more geared towards PGers. I still think it's a good guide for them though. Tell me what you think.

Personally, I think either this or the "How To Post" thread should go in the PG, where they would serve more of a purpose there than in here. Then admission should be based on how someone fits the criteria.

 

[CRASHiC]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35461838/ns/technology_and_science-security/?GT1=43001

well now, if there was ever something some blatenly unconstitutional that I doubt anyone can deny it, this is probably it.

 

[Mewter]

I think we should boot the Proving Grounds and go back to the way the Debate Hall used to be, where all you had to do to get in was apply.

It would definitely kick activity up, and refraining from debating in the PG wouldn't be so hard!


Edit:
CiC, that is one weird article.

 

[Aesir]

There's really only two Pger's now anyway who are active and trying to debate. I say we just let them in and close up the PG.

Then again we can't really make this decision it's going to have to be CK, or until we get a new Admin.

 

[.Marik]

I think it's absolutely redundant how Debate Hall propers are unable to view the Proving Grounds.

As if activity couldn't get any more limited.

 

[KrazyGlue]

What's the point of the DH if there's no selectivity? If we delete the PG, won't it just be another (more specific) pool room except you have to apply to get in? I don't know if you guys have ever read through one of the Meta Knight Ban Discussion threads, but if you have you'll agree that it's next to impossible to get any intelligent discussion going due to the sheer amount of spam, trolling, and redundancy. I'd rather have an intelligent and less active DH than a low-quality, highly active DH. Personally I've learned a lot in the DH in many different subjects, and I don't think that would be the case without any form of selectivity.

Now, I would agree if you said not enough PGers are admitted or admission is too tough. That's why I thought the PG could be used simply to determine whether someone has the right etiquette to be in the DH. In other words, they actually make an effort to read all of people's posts, have at least some level of grammar, elaborate on their ideas, know debating basics etc. As AltF4 put it, a "bare minimum" room.

 

[Eor]

Maybe you don't remember the debate hall (according to your join date I'll assume you don't) before the PG, but it use to be incredibly active. Then we had it where you had to write a small essay to get in, but not many people did that and it became less active, so then we switched to the PG, which was good. Removing the PG wouldn't be the same as having the entire room be open. Instead anyone who joins would be in here but then kicked out if they don't meet the standards. Considering that just by looking at the PG, it really seems like anyone who is interested enough in the debate hall to join would at least be capable of making points, whether or not they're intelligent.

 

[KrazyGlue]

You're correct in saying that I was not a member before the PG existed, though I did already know that it was only a relatively recent add-on. Didn't know about the essay-admission era though.

Anyway, there's still some flaws with such a system.

1) How many people actually got kicked out of the DH? If you look through the archives you'll see plenty of spammy/unreadable posts. It's nice to think that this could work, but I think we'd end up growing apathetic about actually kicking anyone out.

2) Wouldn't it kind of be a hassle to monitor everyone's posts? I don't just mean picking out the spammers/trolls. You'd have to make sure that people who get ousted don't just reapply in 2 weeks and other things like that.

3) I think the PG also give people a nice second chance. If you get kicked from the DH, it's nice to have the option of re-proving yourself in the PG instead of just not having a chance of coming back.



It just seems easier to pick the people in the PG who deserve to be in the DH than letting in everyone and then ousting the ones that are rule-breakers. I think taking out the PG would actually complicate things.

 

[Eor]

Well I don't think the Debate Hall should be a place for the "best debaters", or even "good debaters". Just a place where people can have reasonable debates. The main reason it was closed off was to stop people from coming in, making a single post, then leaving, or to stop the people who just said stupid **** and were in general idiots. Honestly not many people would get kicked out because we wouldn't have to kick people out unless they caused a problem.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Well I don't think the Debate Hall should be a place for the "best debaters", or even "good debaters". Just a place where people can have reasonable debates.

Agreed. Also to spread knowledge.

The main reason it was closed off was to stop people from coming in, making a single post, then leaving, or to stop the people who just said stupid **** and were in general idiots. Honestly not many people would get kicked out because we wouldn't have to kick people out unless they caused a problem.

Yeah, that's what I think would be the problem. I don't want anyone coming in and saying stupid ****. I think by watching them for a short period of time in the PG would weed out those people, as well as the ones who would only post once. Just make it less difficult to get in.

 

[Eor]

I'd much rather put up with a few dumb posts every now along with increased activity then to have it where it is now. Which is dead.

Like completely 100% dead. Honestly the front page goes all the way back to October, with the majority of those threads not even having 10 posts. Hell, of the top four largest threads, one of them is the social thread and the other is a thread on "how to increase activity". The other one has three pages. The only thread here that could actually be considered "active" in that it had a period of multiple posts would be the "Intellectual Property Law". That's one in the last five months. if we go back to the archive room, we'll see that it's the only active thread in the last seven months, with the only other thread that's large being the "debater nomination topic".

Instead look at the PG. While their threads aren't as large as ours, that's because there are rarely ever more then four of them in there, and they get swapped in and out pretty often. But even there they have more activity. Honestly if I could only post in the PG or in the Debate Hall I wouldn't even have to think about it, because the PG is currently better then the debate hall.

 

[Deleted member]

Look at the Gawker blogs (kotaku, gizmodo, etc)

You can post on those. But if you **** up once, you'll be perma-banned. I don't see why we can't do something similar.

 

[CRASHiC]

I just want the nomination topic opened back up. It was closed for drama but the drama is gone.

 

[Sucumbio]

Congratulations on being accepted into the Debate Hall proper! Before posting, there are a few guidelines to follow. Posting in the Debate Hall is not a right, but a privilege and an honor, and as such the conversations here are held to a higher standard than the rest of the forums. It is for this reason that you should take extra notice of the way you post in here.

This.

Frankly, not every SWF member is cut out to be or deserves to be a Smash Debater. This isn't to sound pretentious or what have you, it's just a fact. There are those who post for fun, then there are those who post for serious intellectual exchange. Doing so on a message forum may seem foolish, impossible, or outright lame, but it's something I've been doing for over a decade and a half, and I take great pride in my ability to do so well.

This said, I would hesitate to remove the PG without there being some other such check/balance or measure in place that could be used to weed out those posters who don't deserve the title "Smash Debater." We are so-named for our demonstrated debate skills, and our respect for information accuracy and intelligent discourse.

An alternative to the PG may be to allow submitting applicants to link to threads on SWF they either created or participated heavily in, which demonstrated things like:

- Maturity
- Source Usage
- Grammar
- Proper Argumentative Statements
- etc.

Another alternative is an application thread such as what I believe CRASHiC is suggesting, in which this same sort of screening process can be performed.

What I would not suggest, is opening the doors for any SWF member to apply, have them let in, then be hopefully kicked out/remain kicked out if they suck.

 

[Eor]

We already had an application system set up.

Honestly I think you guys are forgetting that this is a social forum. This use to just be a place to debate, then we tried to make it hold up to a higher standard, and it killed the entire place. This isn't some sort of back room, it's just another section. We use to actually have activity. This room was fun.

And sorry, but your post still does seem to be pretentious. We might as well just remove the title of "smash debater" because honestly all that's needed to do it is be able to talk and make simple points. Maybe I'm alone, but honestly there's almost no purpose to this room right now. I'd be all for having this be a place for "upper level debates", but there aren't any debates. If anything, we should just have a public debate hall, then have another subforum for "upper level debates" or whatever. But even that's silly, because there wouldn't be any reason to not just have those in the regular topic. So someone dumb might pop up and say something. Deal with it and go on with other posts. Just by having them be forced to apply would weed out almost everyone that'd just want to make one post, and would only keep the ones who are idiots but don't realize it, and they'd be easy to boot out with almost no trouble. Seriously, we're not that cool

 

[Sucumbio]

Is there a reason it takes SO long to go from PG to DH?

 

[Mewter]

I don't like how "Smash Debaters" aren't allowed to debate in the PG, when the PG is basically the Neo Debate Hall without a colored name.

Smash Debater titles should be given to people who do well in the (completely open) Debate Hall, but not everyone who posts there. You would have to earn the title in say, a Debate With Your Power (remember those?) Plus, everyone who already has the title would have it removed and they would have to earn it back (except for the people who got in through the PG).

I think the PG should just be trashed.