Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

WEPR question

Posted Sep 2, '12 at 5:06am

sensanaty

sensanaty

862 posts

Wow, people still remember that?

Yes, well, you guys have fun remaking that thread, considering the userbase of the forums these days is nothing in comparison to what it used to be when Moe made it.

 

Posted Sep 2, '12 at 7:41am

partydevil

partydevil

5,097 posts

it sounds so mysterious.
maybe a idea for those that do not remember it like myself. to explain what this is all about.

 

Posted Sep 2, '12 at 10:48am

Kyouzou

Kyouzou

4,753 posts

Hey now, you never know until you try. I don't think I ever actually took part in one of the debates, although I do remember reading quite a few of them.

 

Posted Sep 2, '12 at 3:10pm

Skyla

Skyla

297 posts

People would have to play DA for quite a few topics if this ever came back....

It's sometimes fun to play DA, as Kyouzou pointed out.

While this type of forum of course exists for different ways of thinking to clash, giving one faction power over another hinders this goal. A system such as The Great Debate, no matter how unbiased the intention, creates an intellectual aristocracy while suppressing contrary ideas. No "objective" rules or petty devotion to rationalism can save us from human error.

O.o

Not sure what you're getting at. Debates create an intellectual aristocracy? Extrapolate please >.>

Yes, well, you guys have fun remaking that thread, considering the userbase of the forums these days is nothing in comparison to what it used to be when Moe made it.

The Great Debate would be nice to have, even if activity is low. I think it work better with a smaller userbase, considering the mod userbase is low too.

The ideal situation would be to have a consistent, but slow-paced flow of debates - say 2-4 per day. This way, the judges aren't overwhelmed and the users get to test their skills. (:
----

I can remember a number of issues that were hindering the quality of debates. Here's a list of a few off the top of my head, with possible solutions:

Problem: The sense of competition, especially on forums such as this, tend to attract the Dunning-Kruger effect types.

Solution
: Certain qualifications for entering a debate, e.g. 3+ merits (this would help limit and control the amount of debates, as well).

Problem: ArmorGames is a close-knit community, sort of. With a single judge overseeing debates, the results could favor a friend, despite conscious efforts to be neutral and impartial.

This could be countered by having two or more judges per debate, but I don't see that happening with the limited number of active moderators.

 

Posted Sep 2, '12 at 4:37pm

StDrake

StDrake

190 posts

Seeing how uncommon merits are these days your solution just did what the accusation you quoted mentionned - only a select few "elites" would be admitted, the few that, due to a "little bit of great effort" and a huge lot of luck for it to be noticed and noted, have any merits at all.
Perhaps at first we should debate on how to debate properly again?

 

Posted Sep 2, '12 at 9:54pm

Xzeno

Xzeno

2,082 posts

Hmm. I see where my post could have been unclear. I don't mean debates will create aristocracy. I mean formal debates with explicit winners and losers will create aristocracy. I mean to suggest that, whether consciously or unconsciously, moderators of these debates will seek to promote some ideas while repressing others.

The issue is that the control of the debate would most likely be placed in the hands of a group of people who hold similar ideas. For example: I respect Moe and think he's incredibly thoughtful. Everyone should look to him when they want to know how to debate or just how to think. I also think he's a tool who refuses to seriously consider radically different points of view after he's made up his mind. Which is okay.

So anyway, because I think it's important to pretend to be constructive, I few suggestions:

-Make debates more public. Carry them out on a forum thread, not comments. This will allow users to watch and discuss debates (consider a separate discussion thread).
-Maybe remove winners and losers. This would do a lot to help the "moderators will push their political agendas whether they mean to or not" problem.

As for the merit limit, I don't think that's going to work. For example, I only have the two, and while I should have one for my review of Barbarian Onslaught, I shouldn't have one for my review of some music game, so I call it even. My merit for Epic War... 3? was on the money, though. So anyway, I'm, you know, smart, and excluding me from debates on the basis of merits would be silly.

I'd never deign to join such a debate anyway, not because I think I'm better than anyone, it's just the kind of person I am, but it's an example.

This could be countered by having two or more judges per debate

No it couldn't. It might help address one person's biases, but it does nothing to address the overarching problem, which is that the community of people in charge would develop a culture embracing some ideas while rejecting others.

 

Posted Sep 2, '12 at 10:09pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,018 posts

Knight

We already have a community that strongly embraces certain ideas. Like zealously and sanctimoniously level embrace. Which is irony given the issue.

 

Posted Sep 3, '12 at 2:20am

Skyla

Skyla

297 posts

The issue is that the control of the debate would most likely be placed in the hands of a group of people who hold similar ideas. For example: I respect Moe and think he's incredibly thoughtful. Everyone should look to him when they want to know how to debate or just how to think. I also think he's a tool who refuses to seriously consider radically different points of view after he's made up his mind. Which is okay.

True. Then again, most here would be guilty of holding their ideas guardedly. That's disappointing because it would still be a problem even if debates weren't judged by a select few. However, making a conscious effort to be unbiased wouldn't be impossible. Also, as mentioned before, many of us will be playing DA. If the judges keep that in mind while overseeing the debates, it should help keep things objective.

So anyway, because I think it's important to pretend to be constructive, I few suggestions:

-Make debates more public. Carry them out on a forum thread, not comments. This will allow users to watch and discuss debates (consider a separate discussion thread).
-Maybe remove winners and losers. This would do a lot to help the "moderators will push their political agendas whether they mean to or not" problem.

Pretend to be constructive, that made me giggle. (:

Good suggestions. Without winners or losers, merit-worthy arguments get rewarded regardless of the overall outcome of debates.

 
Reply to WEPR question

You must be logged in to post a reply!