The Jedi Council

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Ditto nich

+1 for OS

 

[Sucumbio]

for some reason I thought he was already in the DH? Guess not...

definite +1 to OS, he's thoughtful, provocative, and well spoken.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Are we allowed to accept people off of credibility from other sections in smashboards.

 

[Dre89]

I think his debating is terrible but he meets the criterion the forum has set, which is pretty much just be nice, or be a douche but share the same views as the majority of the people in the forum.

So I might as well just +1 him so I don't look like I'm biased against people I'm in debates with.

 

[blazedaces]

I think his debating is terrible but he meets the criterion the forum has set, which is pretty much just be nice, or be a douche but share the same views as the majority of the people in the forum.

So I might as well just +1 him so I don't look like I'm biased against people I'm in debates with.

What the?

You know what, forget it, I know exactly what you're insinuating. But it's silly. There is no "criterion" that we have all agreed upon. There is no single document we use. It's a voting system. Some people, like myself, value maturity above all else. Others prefer certain views, or whatever (I have yet to see this exactly claimed, but whatever).

But your reason for a vote is horrible. You shouldn't vote just to not look biased against others...

-blazed

 

[Sucumbio]

@acrostic - well technically we'd base our opinions for inclusion on PG activity, but you can always link to/cite a post or discussion from elsewhere as evidence that he's consistently good/bad. OS's a long time member, and (mostly) respected on SWF for his discussions on Stage balance and other smash-related things. If you're referring to something of this nature I wouldn't discount your findings, as I've witnessed them also. (this is assuming you're talking about OS, lol)

@Dre. - ... dude, really? (sigh) tired rhetoric is tired. + or - stick to your guns, don't just give it up because you fake-care what others here think. And for crying Heaven's sake if you really feel that strongly about how lax the DH is in processing join requests, then say so. If I want sarcasm I'll babysit my cousins, thank you.

 

[Dre89]

People will think I'm bias though. I seem to have a reputation as a narrow minded, disingenuous debater, but most people don't realise I've +1d people I disagree with, played DA, conceded when I'm wrong, and even send PMs to make peace with people I've had heated debates with, like Alt.

As for me criticising the criterion, it's a lot of unnecessary trouble to cause, especially when a lot of people I don't feel should be in here already are, and it's not like we're going to kick them out. I'm a team player mothaf***a.

 

[blazedaces]

People will think I'm bias though. I seem to have a reputation as a narrow minded, disingenuous debater, but most people don't realise I've +1d people I disagree with, played DA, conceded when I'm wrong, and even send PMs to make peace with people I've had heated debates with, like Alt.

As for me criticising the criterion, it's a lot of unnecessary trouble to cause, especially when a lot of people I don't feel should be in here already are, and it's not like we're going to kick them out. I'm a team player mothaf***a.

I'm not convinced at all people would see you as biased for NOT voting for someone. Explain how not posting in this thread would mean anything other than that you don't post in this thread? We have plenty of members who don't vote consistently (myself included).

Also, seriously, a reputation? Dre, you go to what, some ivy league university or equivalent? You're probably accomplishing things of, you know, importance in this world. Why do you care all that much about your reputation on this board?

This comic comes to mind:

-blazed

 

[AltF4]

The Debate Hall is not some super elite club with huge entrance requirements. We're a video game forum, let's keep ourselves in perspective.

From my point of view, anyone who is willing to honestly try to put together a serious argument should be allowed in. I don't care if you're bad at debating. You can learn. In fact, this debate hall is an excellent place to learn the ropes. I don't care if you're wrong all the time. We all were at once, and mostly still are. I don't care if you make mistakes in logic. There would be no such thing as debate if people didn't do that.

All I ask for here is a level of intellectual honesty. Don't repeat a refuted argument. Don't knowingly misrepresent your opponent. Don't pretend to know more about a subject than you do. Don't ignore direct challenges. (Or if you don't have time, reply stating such) Be clear and up-front about assumptions in your arguments, don't try to hide them.

That said, I see no reason why OS shouldn't be allowed in. Nor most PGers.

 

[Nicholas1024]

I see Dre's complaint though, is it just me or have standards for entry dropped considerably from when I first joined?

 

[AltF4]

I don't see that as a bad thing, though. The whole debate hall was essentially inactive for a long time a number of months back. Largely due to the fact that we had no new members.

I think a private voting system would be preferable instead of this thread. There's too much room for bad blood if someone downvotes somebody publicly.

 

[Theftz22]

I see OS is a fan of the argument from repetition:

(1) God creates morality.
(2) God creates morality.
(3) God creates morality.
...
(n) God creates morality.
(n+1) Therefore, God creates morality.

 

[Dre89]

I'm not convinced at all people would see you as biased for NOT voting for someone. Explain how not posting in this thread would mean anything other than that you don't post in this thread? We have plenty of members who don't vote consistently (myself included).

Also, seriously, a reputation? Dre, you go to what, some ivy league university or equivalent? You're probably accomplishing things of, you know, importance in this world. Why do you care all that much about your reputation on this board?

This comic comes to mind:

-blazed

Actually, I go to a tiny Catholic uni that only started up five years ago, that no one knows because it's located between two bigger and more reputable unis.

It's not that I care that people don't like me, I've actually developed a complex where I prefer to be the villian, or insulted rather than complimented most of the time. I just don't like being misunderstood or misrepresented. I'm sure many people share my sentiment in that I'd rather be hated for who I am than liked for who I'm not.

Also, a fair reputation becomes more important when you constantly interact with a community, which in terms of the debate hall I've probably been doing more than any other currently active member over the last year, seeing as I'm definitely the biggest post contributor in terms of quantity.

OS is rare case in that he's mature, rational, and intellectuallty honest, yet his debating is too simplistic and poor.

Nic- It was even worse when I started. But that's because you and I were arguing things that the majority disagreed with, so they set unfair double standards in terms of what was required to be accepted. It's better now because we reformed the debate hall and now we have a voting system.

 

[ciaza]

aa hit the nail on the head in OS' thread. you can't even argue against him given the inherit nature of the debate.

i don't like be that guy who does this, but i'm going to -1 OS to try and even out the score (no offense to you personally if you're reading this champ)

 

[Suntan Luigi]

+1 to OS, I don't see why not.

 

[Dre89]

Actually I'm going to -1 him, I feel bad doing so because he's mature and probably a nice guy, and he'll probably think I'm bias because I'm debating him.

The thing is his OP is more like a blog post instead of a debate opener.

He assumes God exists and that he has liquid morality, and when you contest those claims he says 'no this debate assumes those conditions'.

Then when you argue that even assuming those conditions, the Christian God still has properties it says it doesn't, meaning that they're contradictory, he says that's not relevant to the debate.

So I'm not sure what exactly he's allowing us to debate. The problem isn't his argument, that's DH quality, it's the conditions he's set around it that don't let you debate anything, and makes it more like a blog post where he's just telling us an argument.

So that's why I initially wanted to -1 him, and that's what I'll do.

Also, we should have a thread in the PG for PGers to respond to our Jedi Council assessments of them. Seems only fair.

Should we just say that thread is the Centre Stage?

 

[rvkevin]

-1 for OS. Assuming and defining your position as correct is not debating. Someone said that he has been in the PG for a while, so if there are any quality posts from the past that we should consider, could someone link them here? However, if all we are basing this on is the Morality and God thread, I don't think he merits introduction.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I'm with all these guys. -1 to OS until we see more from him. The morality and god thread is not showing off very impressive material, for the reasons already mentioned. That said, I'm sure that in the future he will be able to show more prowess, if only because I know him from elsewhere–the guy is good at this crap.

 

[asianaussie]

guys, his train of thinking, wording etc is fine, it's just that he doesn't know how to foster a debate

he's just debating what he's interested in - tbh, he's good DH material imo, he just hasn't shown he can sustain a debate with others

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

guys, his train of thinking, wording etc is fine, it's just that he doesn't know how to foster a debate

he's just debating what he's interested in - tbh, he's good DH material imo, he just hasn't shown he can sustain a debate with others

I believe most people are waiting for more content from Overswarm in the PG. Rarely has a user been let in a few days after initially posting. In order for such a precedent to be broken, the quality of posting should strike one as being unprecedented. No one doubts that OS is an intelligent or thoughtful poster who should belong in the DH. However arguing that OS should be let in based on minimal content in the PG is a reaching case. OS being a good addition to the DH is not an absolute guarantee, and in the unlikely prospect that he is not a likable DH poster there is no substantial paper trail to point that we accepted him on proof otherwise. Therefore I believe that most of the -1 votes are to hedge against running such a risk.

 

[Dre89]

His argument is fine it's just that the conditions he's set around it make it counterprodictive to debating.

 

[asianaussie]

alright, if people -1ing him get that, im fine with it

 

[rvkevin]

GofG +1

10char

 

[Dre89]

I'll +1 him too.

 

[ciaza]

i think gofg would be a good addition to the debate hall if he keeps his posting up, so i'll +1 him as well.

on another note, you guys should check out murarengan's why i'm not an atheist blog.

 

[Theftz22]

I'd also +1 GofG and ElvenKing looks promising too.

on another note, you guys should check out murarengan's why i'm not an atheist blog.

 

[ciaza]

i figured i might get that reaction ^^,

elvinking does look promising, but i'll reserve judgement for now. it's funny though, i've never even heard of him even though he's an aussie.

any thoughts on holderoftheheel?

 

[Dre89]

+1 to Elvenking.

I totes stalked his profile and he posted in the PG back in 2009.

You might not have heard of him because he might not go to tourneys.

I'm guessing you know Aerodome, Toki, Scoot, Leisha, Jezmo and R4ven? They're some of the people I brawl on wifi. There's other too but I couldn't be bothered mentioning all of them.

Lol is anyone in the Debate Hall actually a high level player in any of the games?

I know half the DH is in the 64BR, and spend half their time *****ing about us.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

***Please Ignore***

 

[asianaussie]

ciaran doesn't play brawl

neither do i

we only ***** about religion debates, not anyone in particular

 

[Evil Eye]

Looks like GofG is in! I'll see if he's got a join request.

inb4hedoesn'tandIwishIweredead

 

[Dre89]

+1 to-

Elven
Holder
Cassio
And Vermanubis if he finally starts debating here.

 

[Ganonsburg]

I'll +1 Verm, too. I've seen his debating skills elsewhere on the boards, and he's very knowledgeable.

*goes back to work*

 

[Nicholas1024]

+1 to Verm and Cassio, their debating looks good from what I've read so far. Haven't read that much of Holder or Elven though.

 

[ciaza]

+1 Verm

10

 

[Dre89]

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=316910 Verm participated in this thread. It's the reason why I recommended him to the DH and +1d him before he'd even posted in the PG.

 

[Evil Eye]

GofG and Verm are in. I hope they namesearch, because I'm too lazy and bogged down in studying to PM them right now.

 

[Aesir]

Hows about Okuser? Someone else should debate him in the center stage, I mean I could keep doing it but I get the feeling he'll just argue things I really don't care about or things I already agree with him on.

But I think he could be solid.

 

[Dre89]

He seems good enough.

+1

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

-1 to Okuser. He lied about being an NLF star. He might lie and misinterpret facts in future debates. Do not want.

But in all seriousness, +0. I admire him more for being a state champion in national forensics league than the content present in his posts. Okuser if you read this I did some LD debate, never got too into it for a number of reasons. Want to see more content. Also want to raise the value in my pink colored user title so I can get a better price for this account when I sell it on ebay.