Forums → WEPR → WEPR question

What happened to Moegreche's "The Great Debate"?

Didn't know where else to post this so..

What happened to Moegreche's "The Great Debate"?

Basically any info about why the debates stopped and whether or not they're going to make a comeback.

I thought they were a fun and challenging way to earn merits, not to mention educational.

What, you trying to say I forgot all about those? How dare you, good sir!

Even before Moe resigned, the debates were slowly dieing down. Mainly because the most interested, involved and skilled members gradually drifted away from the forums.

Devoidless is right - those debates just sort of winded themselves down. And BRAAINZz is also right - I do still tend to lurk the forums.

As it stands right now, my time is very limited (and hopefully, it continues to be that way). If anyone is interested in starting the debates back up, then I'm confident the current moderators would support this in whatever ways they can. But even if it end up being a 'rogue thread' it would still be really fun for those involved. I enjoyed overseeing the debates, but real life has a tendency to get in the way of most online things.

I thought they were a fun and challenging way to earn merits, not to mention educational.

I stand corrected.

Anyway, if anyone has any ideas on how to get this ball rolling again, feel free to discuss it here.

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

Yes, our forum does seem to lack the diverse viewpoints it was brimming with a few years ago. I wouldn't mind playing devil's advocate depending on the situation, it's usually very easy to see the two sides of a situation, although there are some people and situations who/which it's absolutely infuriating to argue with/about, which tends to ruin the fun of a debate.

That's why we need someone to moderate any official debate....

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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