Why the closed Debate Hall is a bad idea

[ballin4life]

As I see it, there is one main argument for the Debate Hall being a closed forum that requires application to access. The complaint is that there would be too many "bad posters" if the Debate Hall were open to all. Let's examine what might happen when these "bad posters" are allowed to post in the Debate Hall.

1) Perhaps there would be too much spam/short messages/flaming. But that's what Moderators are for, and this is a problem on all forums. One might argue that the Debate Hall is different because of the contentiousness of the issues, but anyone that actually breaks the forum rules will be given infractions and subsequently banned.

2) Perhaps these posters would offer "bad opinions", or not back up their arguments, or be poor debaters in general. I have three questions for this case. The first: If they are so bad at showing their points, then why not just refute them? The second: What if they are correct? The third: If it's really that bad, why can't you just ignore them, or notify the Moderators?

Most other forums that I have been on do not have a closed "debate serious issues" forum. Instead, anyone can post. Non-substantive OPs get locked, but overall there are no barriers to entry. My main argument in favor of having an open Debate Hall is that forcing people to go through a multi-step process of application will reduce the number of posters, which will reduce the number of opinions that are heard. You never know who may post a new idea that changes your own perspective (I know from experience). Limiting the number of posters will limit the number of ideas.

The other potential issue is the voting process. It is easy for someone to decline to vote for an applicant because he disagrees with the applicant's stances, or dislike the applicant's (perfectly valid) debating style, or thinks that he "totally beat" the applicant in a debate (when that's not clear to everyone).

One last point is that it makes little sense to have ongoing concurrent debates on the same topic in both the Debate Hall and the Proving Grounds. This is organizationally annoying, and also makes it more difficult some to read and respond to everyone's arguments. People might be following only one thread or the other, and miss out on a great post.

I bring this up in part because I see relatively low activity in both the Proving Grounds and Debate Hall forums. At the least, one should not have to do anything in the User CP to post in the Proving Grounds (this was a bit difficult for me as I had never done anything of that sort on smashboards, and it also took a few days for my permission to go through).

One of the great things about the Internet is that it allows for such freedom of expression and ideas (I can definitely say that the Internet has affected my own opinions). Keeping the Debate Hall closed limits this exchange of ideas.

 

[Life]

Excellent post. I honestly wanna play devil's advocate for this thread, but I'm having trouble coming up with stuff.

Instead, let me take this a step further: lots of debate goes on in the Current Events section. Why do we have PG, DH, and CE when they all serve similar purposes? You could say debate is secondary to CE, but I'd argue that nearly all debate is based on our continuous movement through history (even FDR attracts lots of debate and he died something like 65 years ago!) which is what CE tracks.

 

[Sieguest]

As I see it, there is one main argument for the Debate Hall being a closed forum that requires application to access. The complaint is that there would be too many "bad posters" if the Debate Hall were open to all. Let's examine what might happen when these "bad posters" are allowed to post in the Debate Hall.

Didn't see this coming. o.o However I do remember something like this being brought up whenever debate hall reforms were being discussed some time ago.

1) Perhaps there would be too much spam/short messages/flaming. But that's what Moderators are for, and this is a problem on all forums. One might argue that the Debate Hall is different because of the contentiousness of the issues, but anyone that actually breaks the forum rules will be given infractions and subsequently banned.

The issue with this is that moderators have lives. They can't be on SWF 24/7/365.25. It would be too much of a hassle for three or four moderators to come back from whatever event they were doing and then have to go through fifty threads with two hundreds posts worth of nonsense in each of them. Moderators would not be able to keep up with all of the bad posting that would go on.

2) Perhaps these posters would offer "bad opinions", or not back up their arguments, or be poor debaters in general. I have three questions for this case. The first: If they are so bad at showing their points, then why not just refute them? The second: What if they are correct? The third: If it's really that bad, why can't you just ignore them, or notify the Moderators?

Well, we can't call anyone's opinion bad, because it's their own opinion and they're entitled to believe what they wish. However it gets annoying debating someone with poor debating after a while for a few reasons:
1). Even when presented with a counter, they will propose the exact same argument over and over again. It gets monotonous and the topic will pretty much lose all intellectual value it had. And they can't be banned or punished because technically they're not doing anything wrong.
2.) They're more prone to falling back on flaming and other things inappropriate to arguing which falls under what I was talking about in your first point.

Also if they really are that bad, we could notify the moderators, but once more consider what I have posted in response to your first point.

Most other forums that I have been on do not have a closed "debate serious issues" forum. Instead, anyone can post. Non-substantive OPs get locked, but overall there are no barriers to entry. My main argument in favor of having an open Debate Hall is that forcing people to go through a multi-step process of application will reduce the number of posters, which will reduce the number of opinions that are heard. You never know who may post a new idea that changes your own perspective (I know from experience). Limiting the number of posters will limit the number of ideas.

Every single post/piece of data submitted on these forums takes up space. While true the space they take up is very small, they will add up. Seeing as how locking doesn't empty that used space, then eventually these threads that are just locked up will add up and unnecessarily take up space usable for something else. True the number of the ideas in the debate hall would decrease due to being dissuaded, but taken from the context of minimizing space wasted to useless posts and given the idea that those who truly wish to have their voice heard will do so, a closed debate hall seems somewhat fine in this aspect.

The other potential issue is the voting process. It is easy for someone to decline to vote for an applicant because he disagrees with the applicant's stances, or dislike the applicant's (perfectly valid) debating style, or thinks that he "totally beat" the applicant in a debate (when that's not clear to everyone).

Which is why one "nay" isn't going to be the end for a person trying to get into the DH. If you follow the Jedi Council thread in the DH you'll even see that those who make judgments based on biased criteria such as "I don't agree with this person" or "I totally wrecked this guy here" usually get called out on that bias. Heck, I've voted "yay" to a lot of people with whom I disagree. So I don't really think you make a point here.

One last point is that it makes little sense to have ongoing concurrent debates on the same topic in both the Debate Hall and the Proving Grounds. This is organizationally annoying, and also makes it more difficult some to read and respond to everyone's arguments. People might be following only one thread or the other, and miss out on a great post.

This may sound callous, but that's the reader's fault. There is nothing stopping the reader from reading both the PG and the DH as both are read only by default (as of the recent changes to the PG). Those PGers who don't have posting rights in the DH yet can easily just copy and paste an interesting post they see in a thread covering the same topic in the DH and make a response to it/follow up with it in the PG version.

I bring this up in part because I see relatively low activity in both the Proving Grounds and Debate Hall forums. At the least, one should not have to do anything in the User CP to post in the Proving Grounds (this was a bit difficult for me as I had never done anything of that sort on smashboards, and it also took a few days for my permission to go through).

The reason it takes a few days is because once again, group leaders have lives. They can't check SWF 24/7/365.25 they may miss a day or two for one reason or another. To apply for any usergroup you must do so through the User CP.

One of the great things about the Internet is that it allows for such freedom of expression and ideas (I can definitely say that the Internet has affected my own opinions). Keeping the Debate Hall closed limits this exchange of ideas.

The internet also allows for censorship of expression. (e.g. censoring terms deemed inappropriate). And keeping the Debate Hall closed would be in following this.

Having an open debate hall has its advantages and its disadvantages as does having a closed debate hall. It pretty much falls down to studying how discussions in the other boards which are open to public generally play out, and then picking what will have more benefits to being open or closed compared to the costs of it.

Excellent post. I honestly wanna play devil's advocate for this thread, but I'm having trouble coming up with stuff.

Instead, let me take this a step further: lots of debate goes on in the Current Events section. Why do we have PG, DH, and CE when they all serve similar purposes? You could say debate is secondary to CE, but I'd argue that nearly all debate is based on our continuous movement through history (even FDR attracts lots of debate and he died something like 65 years ago!) which is what CE tracks.

The PGs purpose is to allow those interested in debating to show their stuff. In all honesty it pretty much is a second DH. Basically a buffer to keep spammers from entering the DH.

Current Events is exactly what the name implies. The reason why FDR can be associated with current events is because the stuff he did affects us today. Though talking about the presidency itself doesn't really qualify as a current event. For example the mid-term elections coming up could classify as a current event topic, but half a year after that it wouldn't really.

I'd also like to see how you would prove to me how a topic of debate that just now makes it surface (such as the universal healthcare bill) would be tracking our movement through history.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Debate Hall Reform is a social group and thread discussion has taken place in both the Proving Grounds and the Debate Hall. Older conversations regarding this issue can be found here, here, here, and fragmented discussion can be found in current and past iterations of the Proving Ground, Debate Hall Social Thread, ect.

 

[Dre89]

Don't know if this has been already said, but the Current Events section of the Pool Room functions like an open DH, and considering that you don't have to commit to one or the other, I don't see why both types can't co-exist.

 

[1048576]

What really vexes me is when people bring up points that have already been refuted. (Either they can't be bothered to read the thread, they're genuinely stupid, or their goal is not to find truth but to irk their adversaries.) Having some sort of screening increases the seriousness of the posters here, which reduces the likelihood of this happening.

 

[Dre89]

What really vexes me is when people bring up points that have already been refuted. (Either they can't be bothered to read the thread, they're genuinely stupid, or their goal is not to find truth but to irk their adversaries.) Having some sort of screening increases the seriousness of the posters here, which reduces the likelihood of this happening.

Except that still happened repatedly in the homosexuality thread.

What annoyed me even more was that people thought the responsibility was on me to re-explain everything to the new posters, then they complained when I didn't respond to every sentence of the six debaters I was debating at once.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

If you bring up the homosexuality thread again, I will kick you to hell and back.

 

[Jim Morrison]

I think it should be much like the Proving Grounds, where you apply to be one and can just be one, otherwise you can't post, but without the part where you also have to prove yourself to get into the ACTUAL Debate Hall.

I've seen some issues in the Debate Hall that I would like to talk about too, but don't have access to. "Go get rights to post there then." The point is that there are seldomly things I would actually debate on, and there's no chance to get in the Debate Hall if you only post in the Proving Grounds every so often.

Best idea, to me, would be to have the Debate Hall be the same as the proving grounds, except without the proving part.

As for dealing with contious spammers and bad posters, you can just remove them from the usergroup.

 

[Dre89]

Nowadays though, it doesn't take that long to get into the DH. Just make a few posts then ask to debate a DHer in the Centre Stage.

 

[Deleted member]

If you look at the DH, it's really quite inactive. Most of the exciting debates happen in the PG.

I think the main reason why it's a good idea to have it closed, is that once it's a "privilege" to be in the DH, people will put some more thought into their posts, and take it more seriously. It's mostly just a rule for the sake of making people take it seriously.

 

[asianaussie]

Yeah...i posted 3/4 times in one session then went on a huge post streak and clocked up like 20 in three days, then i got accepted without a centre stage debate even happening because one of the DH'ers argued for me instead of staying in the DH like he should've :3

If you want to talk about stuff then go to the pool room. If you want to debate topics intelligently, apply for and prove you're worthy to enter the Debate Hall.

The closed Debate Hall exists so debaters don't have to deal with bad posts in the first place (outside the proving grounds ofc). Debaters are often lazy people on the inside.

 

[Dre89]

Yeah it's not that there are no intelligent people in the Proom, it's just that there alot of stupid people as well.

A perfect example is a God debate. In the DH (not the PG), a God debate will centre around the prominent philosophical arguments, and perhaps theoretical physics. In the Proom, it's all people uneducated in philosophy of religion making uninformed claims such as "everyone who believes in God thinks the world is 6 000 years old" "God is a guy in the clouds with a beard" "Catholics just change their deifinition of God to avoid refutation" "religion is just about faith" "if evolution is true, why are there still gorilas?' etc.

What the DH does is filter out those kinds of people.

 

[Crimson King]

Since I closed this room, I might as well argue this. The room when I took over was without a mod for about a year. It was a cesspool. You'd have people argue ******** points, leave, and essentially kill the debate. You'd have spam all the time, along with debates that were either stupid (Pirates vs Ninjas, console wars, and other topics that had no factual evidence to go on) or just totally spam. It was atrocious.

Now, the room has come to a new standard, where I think it would be okay without being locked down to an extent, but I'd hate to take away the identity the room created.

Don't know if this has been already said, but the Current Events section of the Pool Room functions like an open DH, and considering that you don't have to commit to one or the other, I don't see why both types can't co-exist.

This. The CE works really well for people to sound off on current ideas. Some time ago when I reformed the DH (one of the times), I told people to post articles and comment on it. Basically, I tried to do the CE in the DH. No one really picked it up. I believe that could still be done without harming the integrity of the CE, but that's my opinion.

What really vexes me is when people bring up points that have already been refuted. (Either they can't be bothered to read the thread, they're genuinely stupid, or their goal is not to find truth but to irk their adversaries.) Having some sort of screening increases the seriousness of the posters here, which reduces the likelihood of this happening.

Yep. This.

If you look at the DH, it's really quite inactive. Most of the exciting debates happen in the PG.

I think the main reason why it's a good idea to have it closed, is that once it's a "privilege" to be in the DH, people will put some more thought into their posts, and take it more seriously. It's mostly just a rule for the sake of making people take it seriously.

One thing I really wanted was to curb the amount of DHers in the PGer (down to 0, if at all possible) since you can't have two rooms with the same function where one is more restricted than the other. If we did this, I'd rather make the PG completely open so all members can post, then the DH picks from that newer, larger pool.

Of course, I can say this since I have no power whatsoever over these boards.

 

[Evil Eye]

I'd actually be in strong favor of an open Proving Grounds (there's literally no curve to getting in anyway), and lessening the amount of DH people in the PGs. Really didn't like when we had a good and sturdy debate about homosexuality going on and it was basically the entire DH posting in it with maybe a PG post every three pages. Really defeats the purpose and siphons off activity.

An open Proving Grounds, however, with perhaps a few proven Debaters of varying stances and a strong desire to take DA stances and the like, could remain on a team that would actively work to foster and bring out the potential in members, rather than simply having the whole DH go in there and debate them for a long time.

 

[Dre89]

Whilst I agree with what EE is saying, the reason why PG threads are always more active is because the community is really small. Generally, unless people have strong opinions or are emotionally attached, such as the homosexuality thread, there isn't enough activity in the DH alone to sustain topics, you generally need the combined effort of PGers and DHers.

That's why I usually make threads in the PG, to include them, and to give the topic more activity.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I used to be an ardent supporter of making DH admission free. However, after giving some thought to it, the PG needs to be here. As ideal as it is to say "oh, the mods can just get rid of all spammers", that it way too much work for only a few people. Look at the other boards! Many of them have very active and efficient mods. However, the DH remains one of the very few (if not only) rooms to have virtually no spam.

By the way, some other opinions on this issue were posted in this thread: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=276068

However, I do think it should be easier than we are making it for people in the PG to get into the DH. It should be anyone who is not a spammer or just completely awful at debating. Basically, a large percentage of PGers should make it to the DH.

This. The CE works really well for people to sound off on current ideas. Some time ago when I reformed the DH (one of the times), I told people to post articles and comment on it. Basically, I tried to do the CE in the DH. No one really picked it up. I believe that could still be done without harming the integrity of the CE, but that's my opinion.

I think this system is already effectively in place with the Current Events thread and Social thread.

I'd actually be in strong favor of an open Proving Grounds (there's literally no curve to getting in anyway), and lessening the amount of DH people in the PGs. Really didn't like when we had a good and sturdy debate about homosexuality going on and it was basically the entire DH posting in it with maybe a PG post every three pages. Really defeats the purpose and siphons off activity.

An open Proving Grounds, however, with perhaps a few proven Debaters of varying stances and a strong desire to take DA stances and the like, could remain on a team that would actively work to foster and bring out the potential in members, rather than simply having the whole DH go in there and debate them for a long time.

Really excellent ideas here, but you have two conflicting plans.

1. Make the PG open.
2. Keep DHers out of the PG.

How can you keep them out if the PG is open?

I think that the PG usergroup should be kept. Admission is free, but you CAN be kicked out. Even the PG has some standards, and major spammers need to be removed to allow PGers to prove themselves.

As somebody else has already suggested (Sucumbio, perhaps?), the DH should send a few "ambassadors" to the PG who can be trusted to spur on discussion without interfering with the debates. The PG should be viewable by everyone so that all DHers can make judgments on the PGers, but all DHers except a few should be removed from the group.

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

Another possible idea is a stickied "Debate Hall Policy Suggestions" thread. Perhaps all discussions like these should be place in that one thread so we don't need separate threads each time we think of an idea. If we were to implement this, one should be posted in the DH and the PG, so PGers can make suggestions as well.

 

[Sucumbio]

--Smash Debaters and Moderators- please refrain from carrying on debates with each other in this forum. You can recreate PG topics of interest in the Debate Hall. Please feel free to interject, however, if you feel you have valuable insight into a PG member's post, position or debate technique.

Not exactly rocket science. People just have trouble following rules. But that's what infractions are for

Basically Smash Debaters should not feel banned from posting in the PG, but they should at the same time only be posting if they see a coaching opportunity, i.e. a debate that's going awry, way off topic, is built on logical fallacy, etc. And of course debating 1v1 in Center Stage is expected, but against PG's not Smash Debaters, lol.

I think having an open PG would accomplish exactly one thing, which is eliminating the need for us mods to check the que to see if anyone's asked to join. Other than that, it's already open to the general public to read, and anyone wanting to post has to join (there are some who have admittedly done this so they could post in the PG topic itself, not due to ambition for the DH proper.) That said, I'm not at all against this idea. The DH proper however I feel should remain admission-only, and I like our current system of voting for membership. I also like the function of the Center Stage which allows Smash Debaters to challenge 1v1 PG hopefuls.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Not exactly rocket science. People just have trouble following rules. But that's what infractions are for

But honestly, that rule is broken relatively frequently, and have you actually dealt out any infractions for it? Moreover, do people deserve to be infracted for that?

Basically Smash Debaters should not feel banned from posting in the PG, but they should at the same time only be posting if they see a coaching opportunity, i.e. a debate that's going awry, way off topic, is built on logical fallacy, etc. And of course debating 1v1 in Center Stage is expected, but against PG's not Smash Debaters, lol.

Yes.

I think having an open PG would accomplish exactly one thing, which is eliminating the need for us mods to check the que to see if anyone's asked to join. Other than that, it's already open to the general public to read, and anyone wanting to post has to join (there are some who have admittedly done this so they could post in the PG topic itself, not due to ambition for the DH proper.) That said, I'm not at all against this idea. The DH proper however I feel should remain admission-only, and I like our current system of voting for membership. I also like the function of the Center Stage which allows Smash Debaters to challenge 1v1 PG hopefuls.

It should definitely be open for everyone to read though; I've NEVER seen ANYONE oppose that idea, so if anything, we should do that. It should draw in more people, because a lot of people will realize that debating in the PG isn't as hard or intense as they think it will be.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Hahaha DH members getting too involved in the PG? Certainly not the case for this thread.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Well, this is obviously an exception, since it's not a conventional debate and it directly concerns the DH.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Lowering boundaries increases contributions, only when contributions are waiting at the other side of the boundary. My major concern is that the Debate Hall gains an influx of users for the short term, but faces the trade-off of becoming an over-glorified Pool Room. A section that contains debates of "right vs. left" or other garbage threads that are littered across the section before they are ultimately locked. Then in the long term, the novelty of the lowered boundaries is no longer amusing and people stop posting. The result is still a low post board, but now contains several times more trash on the shore.

 

[KrazyGlue]

You and your cryptic fortune-cookie-esque adages!

In this case, there are contributions waiting at the other side of he "boundary"; that's why the PG is often more active than the DH.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

You and your cryptic fortune-cookie-esque adages! In this case, there are contributions waiting at the other side of he "boundary"; that's why the PG is often more active than the DH.

The PG is more active than the DH, because of mutual interest. Debate Hall members are interested in recruiting PG members who will raise activity in the DH, because they are too lazy to do it themselves. PG members are interested in being recruited by Debate Hall members so that they can receive a superficial status increase on their profile and then quickly leave with their spoils. The DH itself is inactive due to the fact that inherent interest in the DH does not exist, it is a representative relic for what should be valued, not what is valued by the current community.

 

[KrazyGlue]

That's certainly true; the PG is more active because there is a "goal" (getting into the DH). And once people get in the DH, only the ones who like debating stay, as opposes to the ones who just wanted the title. The thing is, by accepting more people, more of them will stick around, assuming about the same percent stay when we accept more people.

 

[Jim Morrison]

If you would accept people just for the sake of them wanting to debate, it might help, but it would also lower the quality of the room. That is, if you accept more people who would otherwise not be accepted.

 

[th3kuzinator]

The PG is more active than the DH, because of mutual interest. Debate Hall members are interested in recruiting PG members who will raise activity in the DH, because they are too lazy to do it themselves. PG members are interested in being recruited by Debate Hall members so that they can receive a superficial status increase on their profile and then quickly leave with their spoils. The DH itself is inactive due to the fact that inherent interest in the DH does not exist, it is a representative relic for what should be valued, not what is valued by the current community.

If DHers were only interested in gaining the Group Membership for the status increase and colored name tag, why would they bother even checking the PG for more candidates for the DH?

Even if the DHers are too lazy to post and debate in the actual DH (which is ridiculous), the fact that they want to improve the DH by finding good posters in the PG shows they are not as superficial as you state.

The thing is, by accepting more people, more of them will stick around, assuming about the same percent stay when we accept more people.

This. Though there will inevitably be PGers just seeking status, it will be impossible to decipher their true intentions before letting them in to the DH. Simply from percentages, letting more thoughtful PGers into the DH will step up the activity in both rooms regardless if there are a few outliers who choose to abandon the DH altogether.

If someone has enough initiative to come to the debating hall, read the instructions for gaining access to the DH, apply for the proving grounds and debate thoughtfully and constructively in the PG for a reasonable amount of time, they probably have intentions of actually debating in the DB.

People who start the process with the mindset of just gaining status will usually either
(a) develop a genuine interest for debating along the way
or
(b) lose interest and give up

either scenario is in the best interest of the DH.

Basically Smash Debaters should not feel banned from posting in the PG, but they should at the same time only be posting if they see a coaching opportunity, i.e. a debate that's going awry, way off topic, is built on logical fallacy, etc. And of course debating 1v1 in Center Stage is expected, but against PG's not Smash Debaters, lol.

I agree with this as well, albeit this thread is an exception. Let us PGers get some action.

 

[KrazyGlue]

You'd be surprised though. For whatever reason, the vast majority of people who get into the DH leave or become far less active after a few months. I could go on for a long time about all the people I've met along the way who have retreated from the DH.

"Just wanting the title" isn't the only reason, but people get busy and forget about it, get tired of similar debates, leave the site, etc.

Regardless, the point about percentages still stands, as you've said.

 

[ballin4life]

At the very least, you should be able to post in the Proving Grounds without having to wait 2-3 days to join the user group.

Also, I've seen plenty of intelligent debate on other forums that do not have a closed debate hall. The crowd on smashboards might be a bit different though.

Overall, I think it's clear that restricting access to both the Debate Hall and the Proving Grounds is limiting activity.

 

[asianaussie]

Limiting activity on what, activity in the debate hall o.o...I thought the point was to eliminate activity from those who merely want to troll, as opposed to those who want to have a serious debate or intellectual discussion.

If you want to discuss current events and topics then by all means go to the Pool Room. On that note, I doubt opening the PG would actually do that much to help traffic...

 

[ballin4life]

The past week has seen extremely limited activity in both the Debate Hall and the Proving Grounds.

Also, how many people do you really see trolling in the Proving Grounds, which is at least somewhat open? I really don't think trolling is the main issue, especially since moderators can always take care of it. And to everyone saying "moderators have lives too", I'm not saying that they should be modding 24/7. But I really, really doubt that the amount of trolling will be so significant that the moderators will have to mod 24/7.

The real issue is that there would be "bad debaters". But it's honestly not that difficult to ignore or briefly respond to these people and point out their errors.

 

[Sieguest]

The past week has seen extremely limited activity in both the Debate Hall and the Proving Grounds.

Also, how many people do you really see trolling in the Proving Grounds, which is at least somewhat open? I really don't think trolling is the main issue, especially since moderators can always take care of it. And to everyone saying "moderators have lives too", I'm not saying that they should be modding 24/7. But I really, really doubt that the amount of trolling will be so significant that the moderators will have to mod 24/7.

I would think the reason why there isn't much of a trolling problem in the PG is that people must apply to it. Methinks in the mindset of a troll, it's too much work just to do that just to post nonsense and get kicked out a day later.

The real issue is that there would be "bad debaters". But it's honestly not that difficult to ignore or briefly respond to these people and point out their errors.

The thing about it is. "Bad debaters" don't just stop once they've been refuted. Even when faced with a counter to their points, they will just say the same thing and consider that a response to your counter.


To be honest, I'm sure that we could handle an open DH, but just considering the nature of this site is what really keeps me from advocating an open DH.

 

[th3kuzinator]

I have been posting in the CE section of the PR for quite some time before actually coming here. I was very happy with the intelligent level of discussion and did not witness many incidents of baseless assumptions or accusations.

That being said, for someone who does not want to get mixed up in the process of applying for the DH or PG, the CE sections is a surprisingly efficient and rewarding alternative.

An open debate hall would take all the purpose away from a proving ground (since people would no longer have the goal of debating their way into the DH) and the subsequent fusion of the DH and the PG would become a less prestigious place of discussion which already exists in the from of the PR.

As it is now, posters without the curiosity or initiative to gain acess to the DH can just post in the PR, while the truly motivated users can tackle the PG in hopes of making it into the DH. This current system is working fine and keeping the PG closed will dissuade the people who are not hardcore debaters away from trying to get into the debate hall.

Last month when I started posting in the PR, I honestly did not not think much of debating and it was just something I did to talk with other members other than the ones in the smash64 section. However, the amount of knowledge and enjoyment I have gleaned from the PR inspired me to actually apply for the PG and here I am now.

I have legitimately developed a joy for debating from this forum.

 

[ballin4life]

Your use of acronyms is confusing me.

One of my points in the first post was that it's a bit silly to have the Debate Hall and the Proving Grounds carry on concurrent debates on the same subject. Someone said earlier "Well it's the reader's fault if they can't keep track" but honestly expecting everyone to read and reply to both threads is a bit optimistic, and it's inefficient nonetheless.

 

[th3kuzinator]

Maybe it is inefficient atm because too many DHers are posting in the PG which I agree is an issue.

I do agree that requiring people to read both discussions is a bit much and inefficient. A PGer should not have to read the arguments in the DH about the same subject before posting in the PG and vice-a-versa.

If the PG were closed to DHers, it would be interesting to see where the discussion would go from both standpoint. Since this is not the case, however, I agree with ballin that having two discussion on the same topic is silly.

 

[Sucumbio]

At the very least, you should be able to post in the Proving Grounds without having to wait 2-3 days to join the user group.

Well, okay. I normally check the que once a day. Sometimes I don't log on to SWF for 48 hours. That's 2 days that'll go by where no requests are checked. Once in a blue moon it'll be 72 hours. If someone requests after I've already checked it'll be the next day before they're in because I only check the que once/day.

And to everyone saying "moderators have lives too", I'm not saying that they should be modding 24/7.

Oh, well in that case my above explanation seems to have no point. But you did bring it up, so I guess you -do- expect me to be here continually so that people can be accepted right away. Eh? No, I know what you're saying but from a moderator standpoint, and from a forum standpoint, it's not a poor expectation for it to take a day or two to gain acceptance. This is not the rest of the site. This is the Debate Hall. Posting here (should) require(s) dedication and so too a little patience.

One of my points in the first post was that it's a bit silly to have the Debate Hall and the Proving Grounds carry on concurrent debates on the same subject.

Actually that (should) serve an important service. The Proving Grounds is not meant for Smash Debaters to debate in. So if a PG'r thinks of a great topic, we ask that instead of jumping in, they make a DH version. PG's can't post in the DH, so it makes no sense why they'd be "confused." If a DH'r is confused and doesn't know which one to post in, that's their fault for not paying attention. There need not be any special restrictions or reduction of restrictions to counter this scenario. Just pay attention.

And yes, KG it is a rule, and no, I've not been enforcing it, because as so many have pointed out, any activity is better than none. I think what we're seeing here, why we're seeing a literal repeat of the SAME issues from before the "reform" period now in the "reformed" hall, is because inherently, Debate is best between a Senior and a Junior. Two seniors debating can be quite good also, but it lacks immediate depth, and people's attention spans aren't up to par to resist the urge to just ignore the argument. It also makes it hard for lesser debaters to become engaged. But between juniors and seniors, there's always heat. Reaction. It's catalytic to good argumentation (normally) and it leads to what we've come to identify as "good activity."

I cannot suggest any further improvements or revisions. I just have to trust that the system we have in place will work, and that there will always be smash debaters who take "real life" over ... this. I'm starting a new topic btw, in the DH, about the idea of "real life." I hope Bob doesn't get offended

 

[ballin4life]

What is the purpose of forcing people to join a usergroup to post in the Proving Grounds if everyone just gets accepted anyway?

Note that I'm arguing for there being no usergroup requirement, not for you checking the usergroup requests 10x a day

 

[th3kuzinator]

To gain access to the proving grounds, one must go through all the steps of signing up and has therefore already gone to the "how to get posting rights in the Debate Hall" thread. After not being deterred by the amount of work it takes to get in, they actually find their User CP and apply.

This effectively limits the amount of spam posts in general, as most trolls/spammers will not have the patience to complete the registration and it will also keep out the people who are so computer disoriented that they cannot locate their user CP.

I know there are mods to clean up the spam, but as everyone has stated multiple times, they dont want to patrol the PGs 24/7. Opening up the Proving Grounds will not bring in that much more attention. Even if it did, the majority of them would not be qualified for the room.

Actually that (should) serve an important service. The Proving Grounds is not meant for Smash Debaters to debate in. So if a PG'r thinks of a great topic, we ask that instead of jumping in, they make a DH version. PG's can't post in the DH, so it makes no sense why they'd be "confused." If a DH'r is confused and doesn't know which one to post in, that's their fault for not paying attention. There need not be any special restrictions or reduction of restrictions to counter this scenario. Just pay attention.

This +10.

The system is fine as it is now. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

 

[KrazyGlue]

I cannot suggest any further improvements or revisions. I just have to trust that the system we have in place will work, and that there will always be smash debaters who take "real life" over ... this. I'm starting a new topic btw, in the DH, about the idea of "real life." I hope Bob doesn't get offended

What about making the PG visible to everyone? Once again, nobody has ever disagreed with this. Primarily because there are no negatives. It only stands to improve activity levels.

Other than that, I don't think that any structural changes need to be made, but I think there should be an adjustment in our ideology. We need to be more accepting of PGers. We're almost as strict as we used to be, except now with more active mods. People like ballin4life who have been in the PG for quite a while and have debated with competence should be let in. That would also help work towards the "senior vs. junior" chemistry you're talking about. I also think this would stand to help PGers who debate well but do so sparingly (which is perfectly fine to be honest). Under the current system, they will rarely or never get in, but if we were more accepting we could really find some people with great potential.

What is the purpose of forcing people to join a usergroup to post in the Proving Grounds if everyone just gets accepted anyway?

Note that I'm arguing for there being no usergroup requirement, not for you checking the usergroup requests 10x a day

As kuz said, less trolls and spammers come through, and the ones that do get through can easily be kicked out.

Other than that, meh.

 

[Sucumbio]

What about making the PG visible to everyone?

It is already publicly visible. This was accomplished a few months ago, and has definitely improved activity. As I said earlier there are actually some PG'rs who joined solely to post in a thread that caught their eye.

Other than that, I don't think that any structural changes need to be made, but I think there should be an adjustment in our ideology. We need to be more accepting of PGers. We're almost as strict as we used to be, except now with more active mods. People like ballin4life who have been in the PG for quite a while and have debated with competence should be let in. That would also help work towards the "senior vs. junior" chemistry you're talking about. I also think this would stand to help PGers who debate well but do so sparingly (which is perfectly fine to be honest). Under the current system, they will rarely or never get in, but if we were more accepting we could really find some people with great potential.

I'd suggest bringing this up in the Jedi Council, actually. I actually thought if you recall that the ... attitude was we were too lax, but as we can see, or as you point out, we're almost too strict. It's a fine line to be drawn, and "standards" are almost always sure to change with the needs of the users.

Also just to clarify, the Proving Grounds are a User Group because it is a sub-forum of a User Group (Debate Hall). vBulletin afaik requires it to be uniform. However the aesthetic issues that have been pointed out are also valid reasons to keep it restricted. "Open Posting" is not appropriate, because the PG is quite literally a mock-DH. Posters are expected to learn how to post properly in DH format, and so user group joining though a short step is also not extraneous or overtly difficult.