StarGateWars Forums

Zeratul wrote:perhaps those religious fanatics that arent priors of the ori should get another subsection to debate in? one designed for religious debate, and then keep the rule you wanted in the intelligent section? Would that placate them?

I personally cannot see that many fanatics in debate section..well there's not many people in total there, I know lol. So I guess relative numbers wise, it's considerable amount of them.
But I mean, in debates, we need to have most point of views in theory, isn't it? And people have different means to state their opinion, some use secular means, some use religious means. As many debates allow it to be so.

Some people tend to be stubborn in their stances, but there, most of debaters of debate section are stubborn in their positions anyway. So it's not really like there's "two categories of people".

Nevermind <_<

Juliette wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:had her post been somewhat less cryptic, and somewhat more reasoned (as beffiting a post in the debate section), i would have.
anyway, it is not a personal issue, but a public one. therefore i see no reason to keep it private.

Fair enough.

Mordack wrote:A better solution might be to have a disclaimer on the debate section; similar to the one which the GC currently has. That way people with strong views who are likely to be offended will have an idea of what they're getting in for. Curtailing intelligent debate to placate a small minority isn't a good thing.

Curtailing intelligent debate? Have you looked at the section of late? If anything curtailed intelligent debate, it is the increasing presence of 'religious' arguments. The dogmatic mannerisms of the section's population preclude actual debate. Unless you would consider repeating your arguments ad nauseam "because they're right" intelligent debate, but that would surprise me.
As for placating a minority.. I have yet to see a smaller subset of forum members placated by any other measure.

Debate is a game/type of conversation of give and take. The debating groups have forgotten this, and have retreated into their Holy Fortresses (for calling them 'houses' would be an understatement) of Dogma and Fallacy.

Zeratul wrote:those religious debates are boring unless there is at least one person playing the role of an prior of the ori...

And that is in part the very core of the issue. People are too invested in their own mindset, too convinced that they should convince others that their frame of reference is the only frame of reference with the potential of revealing the Ultimate Truth.
If only people would play the role of 'Prior of the Ori' or carry any other argument that is not their own.
The debates involving religion are unproductive. In fact, they are a hindrance to actual intelligent debate, defying the very definition of debate by their sheer unwillingness to allow for other opinions. People cannot dissociate with their argument, and are as a consequence unable to accept other arguments occupying 'the same space'.

Dr. House wrote:There is no need for such a rule, it's pointless and flies in the face of "intelligent discussion."

Really? The population of the debate section has shown not to be able to handle the category of subjects, instead of debate, the threads have become pulpits for repetitive arguments. Not 'boring', no.. non-debate. And non-debate does not belong in the debate section. Does it?


It is not a matter of 'boring'. It is self-degradation. If you want a free stage to spew self-centered non-arguments, regardless of your audience who have come to the section with as stubborn a thought as your own.. that can be arranged. Self-degradation is fine, if you must. But do not defile 'Debate' by degrading it along with yourself.
Debate is not a clashing of multiple Immovable, Unchangeable Bulwarks of Dogma. Debate is an exchange of ideas. Give and take, to the enrichment of us all.



We have been sliding down this slope, and it is about time that ended. Unless you have mind-shattering arguments why this gradual devaluation should be allowed to continue? As Thriller knows, I am open to other thoughts.

while this may all be true (which it's not), it bears no relevence.
if a person feels a certain debate is pointless, he can very well choose not to read it.
God knows i've done this on several occasions.
but banning a complete topic? and one that is a quite substantial part of human life? how's that an intelligent move?
you say intelligent arguments are scarce in those debates. well, a diamond gleaned from a dung-heap is still a diamond. and even if there isn't a diamond, if people like going through that dung-heap for their amusement, as long as theire not hurting anyone, let them.

oh, and there's the matter of juristiction. last i've checked, debate section is part of Misc., not General.
as i've stated, as long as this isn't in the forum rules, i'm practicing civil disobedience.
and trust me, if it's in the rules i'll find my way around it.

Juliette wrote:

Zeratul wrote:perhaps those religious fanatics that arent priors of the ori should get another subsection to debate in? one designed for religious debate, and then keep the rule you wanted in the intelligent section? Would that placate them?

I could see that work, yes. I have told Thriller this in our private conversation, a completely uncensored (except to stay on topic, the bare minimum) "Pulpit forum" added to the Debate section would be a good option in my opinion.
My wish is not to ban debate on the subjects pertaining to religion, but to find a workable solution to the current issue. Sloth on my part, and on the part of all debaters, has led us to this situation. We need to have a word, Z.

yep, that's a workable solution. putting up a debate forum which states all out "logic need not apply". i thought we call it the spam temple.

Hitchkok wrote:yep, that's a workable solution. putting up a debate forum which states all out "logic need not apply". i thought we call it the spam temple.

no, thats not the temple... its very logical... to the spammers... but its not as easily definable as that... it just... is...


religious debate, when done nicely, is quite fun... we do remember the wave 1 chaos "debates" between ori players and furlings... the ori were themselves, and the furlings mocked the ori and wanted to gnaw off the legs on the ori...
if the need, and want, is sufficient, we are open for giving you a religious subsection...

Hitchkok wrote:while this may all be true (which it's not), it bears no relevence.
if a person feels a certain debate is pointless, he can very well choose not to read it.
God knows i've done this on several occasions.
but banning a complete topic? and one that is a quite substantial part of human life? how's that an intelligent move?

Banning? It is relegated to another class of conversation. Debates, they are not. Interactive rants, at best.

Hitchkok wrote:oh, and there's the matter of juristiction. last i've checked, debate section is part of Misc., not General.
as i've stated, as long as this isn't in the forum rules, i'm practicing civil disobedience.
and trust me, if it's in the rules i'll find my way around it.

Solus has delegated authority over the Debate section to me after we spoke to our boss. Jurisdiction is not an issue.

Hitchkok wrote:

Juliette wrote:

Zeratul wrote:perhaps those religious fanatics that arent priors of the ori should get another subsection to debate in? one designed for religious debate, and then keep the rule you wanted in the intelligent section? Would that placate them?

I could see that work, yes. I have told Thriller this in our private conversation, a completely uncensored (except to stay on topic, the bare minimum) "Pulpit forum" added to the Debate section would be a good option in my opinion.
My wish is not to ban debate on the subjects pertaining to religion, but to find a workable solution to the current issue. Sloth on my part, and on the part of all debaters, has led us to this situation. We need to have a word, Z.

yep, that's a workable solution. putting up a debate forum which states all out "logic need not apply". i thought we call it the spam temple.

You are mistaken if you believe that would be a debate forum.. it would be a pulpit forum. You can pitch your ideas and brain farts just like the Debate section is currently used on the subjects of religion, but you won't have debates. Just as you don't have debates at the moment.

As I have said, I am not out to ban discussion on the subjects pertaining to religion. I am, however, out to ban non-debate from the Debate section. And jump as high as you want, the aforementioned subjects have not seen proper debate since the days of Our Dark Lord. We have let the section slip into disarray, and it will be brought back from there. A Pulpit forum, where all kinds of rants could go, including religion.. would be a good in-between-solution indeed.

Juliette wrote:As I have said, I am not out to ban discussion on the subjects pertaining to religion. I am, however, out to ban non-debate from the Debate section. And jump as high as you want, the aforementioned subjects have not seen proper debate since the days of Our Dark Lord. We have let the section slip into disarray, and it will be brought back from there. A Pulpit forum, where all kinds of rants could go, including religion.. would be a good in-between-solution indeed.

Semper?

Anyway, like I have said earlier, it's not likely to expect us to be able to follow the path of "proper debate", as afterall, the apparent only other worthy debater around isn't there anymore. So if none is doing a proper debate as it is (non debate as you call those), it means that either qualified debaters according to orthodoxical rules of debate have to come (back), or this will be a constant non following of the "high standards" expected there, because people here are mostly not "professional debaters". Thus are likely to produce more "non debates" than debates stricto sensu.

Hitchkok wrote:oh, and there's the matter of juristiction. last i've checked, debate section is part of Misc., not General.

Juliette wrote:Solus has delegated authority over the Debate section to me after we spoke to our boss. Jurisdiction is not an issue.

as per Juliette's post, I have asked her to take the reigns of the Debate section, as she has FAR more experience there than me. I'll still be *technically* in charge of it, however, Juliette is the one to see regarding issues of debate section nature.

regarding the non-religious debate rule, assuming Zeratul doesnt mind, I'll put together a proposition for a religiously based subsection. IN THE MEANTIME, the rules there are up to Juliette. the downward slant of most arguments of late DOES require attention IMHO, something is in the works.

Hitchkok wrote:as i've stated, as long as this isn't in the forum rules, i'm practicing civil disobedience.
and trust me, if it's in the rules i'll find my way around it.

Keep in mind, that while I have delegated Debate section authority, Trolling/Flaming/Provocation is something I take very seriously and will not tolerate. keep it mature. if you want to start causing problems, be very careful about the how when and where.

~soul

In my opinion, this isn't needed, things should remain as they are.

Why? There's already a debate subsection. "Official league, judged, debates" ( viewforum.php?f=166 ), where there's not many activity (real debates section) and "non-debates" are actually posted into:
"General intelligent discussion topics". Which doesn't say "debate" and is thus section for discussions that aren't debates.

I think that people who can afford doing a proper debate within the rules should use more the first subsection of debate section, as it's not used anymore, despite being there to wait for debates. It's made for those.
While the average people like me, will remain limited to use of the "general intelligent discussion" subsection.

You (plural, so there is no misunderstanding) are not asked to have professional debates. You are asked to have debates.
No one expects you to be a Plato, a Socrates.. or even a Tony Blair. You are asked to refrain from simply repeating your own arguments ad nauseam. It seems the lot of you have become pulpit preaching individuals, whose ideas are exalted and enlightened above all else. This is particularly true for the subjects of religion (debates in which there is a particular strength of inter-individual non-compatibility), but could theoretically be said for all other things. You are so very invested in these thoughts, that you refuse to allow other thoughts to even be considered.
I will go against my better judgement in this and list a few particular examples, of which there are dozens more to be pointed out.
In Apophis' case, we remember his point of view on the EU. In hitchkok's case, we remember his point of view on Israel. In Sandman's case, we remember his point of view on christianity. In KMA's case, we remember his point of view on history, Jesuits, NWO etcetera. These are but a few examples of points of view that will never change. Points of view which, regardless of evidence or discussion on the subject, will remain as they are. These dogmatically adhered to paradigms are poisonous to debates, as they preclude any and all mutual argument.

And who can blame you? You believe you have the truth in your back pocket, so who's going to tell you any different? But if you dare call what you're doing debating, then no.. you are wrong. You would be debating if you were responding to the arguments presented by your peers. But can you honestly call repeating your arguments over and over again debating?!

This is why a pulpit forum is a good idea.
You can rant to your hearts content, no one will stop you, no one will bother with you. Everyone knows that, similar to what is now common knowledge about the current situation of the debate section, any posts you make here will not be treated with the intelligent respect they deserve, but be served to the side because you just don't wear the right badge.

The intelligent debates forum can then be used for intelligent conversation, as opposed to the currently ongoing infantile reruns of my-word-against-yours-on-any-subject-but-the-current.

Leagued debates can still be had, once there are people who actually bother to invest the time to participate in one. As it is, however, people would rather just yell their points of view into the Great Beyond, as opposed to presenting them to each other, responding to each other courteously and intelligently.. No.

Juliette wrote:
This is why a pulpit forum is a good idea.
You can rant to your hearts content, no one will stop you, no one will bother with you. Everyone knows that, similar to what is now common knowledge about the current situation of the debate section, any posts you make here will not be treated with the intelligent respect they deserve, but be served to the side because you just don't wear the right badge.

I don't understand how this lower version of debate section would be used..What will it be for? Everyone starts a topic throws their self righteous vision and they clash till end of time with their stubborn stances?

I understood Kit Fox and Avenger point of views, and myself admit GB has reasons not to want to remain in EU (doesn't mean I would plead for them to quit it, but I understand why GB people might want out).

i'll return later for a more detailed reply, but meanwhile, chew on this, chumps:
if a patient is sick, you treat his illment. you don't cut his arm of.
(and don't give me the "what's if it's a gangrene?" argument, cause it's not).

Juliette wrote:[spoiler]

Hitchkok wrote:had her post been somewhat less cryptic, and somewhat more reasoned (as beffiting a post in the debate section), i would have.
anyway, it is not a personal issue, but a public one. therefore i see no reason to keep it private.

Fair enough.

Mordack wrote:A better solution might be to have a disclaimer on the debate section; similar to the one which the GC currently has. That way people with strong views who are likely to be offended will have an idea of what they're getting in for. Curtailing intelligent debate to placate a small minority isn't a good thing.

Curtailing intelligent debate? Have you looked at the section of late? If anything curtailed intelligent debate, it is the increasing presence of 'religious' arguments. The dogmatic mannerisms of the section's population preclude actual debate. Unless you would consider repeating your arguments ad nauseam "because they're right" intelligent debate, but that would surprise me.
As for placating a minority.. I have yet to see a smaller subset of forum members placated by any other measure.

Debate is a game/type of conversation of give and take. The debating groups have forgotten this, and have retreated into their Holy Fortresses (for calling them 'houses' would be an understatement) of Dogma and Fallacy.

Zeratul wrote:those religious debates are boring unless there is at least one person playing the role of an prior of the ori...

And that is in part the very core of the issue. People are too invested in their own mindset, too convinced that they should convince others that their frame of reference is the only frame of reference with the potential of revealing the Ultimate Truth.
If only people would play the role of 'Prior of the Ori' or carry any other argument that is not their own.
The debates involving religion are unproductive. In fact, they are a hindrance to actual intelligent debate, defying the very definition of debate by their sheer unwillingness to allow for other opinions. People cannot dissociate with their argument, and are as a consequence unable to accept other arguments occupying 'the same space'.

Dr. House wrote:There is no need for such a rule, it's pointless and flies in the face of "intelligent discussion."

Really? The population of the debate section has shown not to be able to handle the category of subjects, instead of debate, the threads have become pulpits for repetitive arguments. Not 'boring', no.. non-debate. And non-debate does not belong in the debate section. Does it?


It is not a matter of 'boring'. It is self-degradation. If you want a free stage to spew self-centered non-arguments, regardless of your audience who have come to the section with as stubborn a thought as your own.. that can be arranged. Self-degradation is fine, if you must. But do not defile 'Debate' by degrading it along with yourself.
Debate is not a clashing of multiple Immovable, Unchangeable Bulwarks of Dogma. Debate is an exchange of ideas. Give and take, to the enrichment of us all.



We have been sliding down this slope, and it is about time that ended. Unless you have mind-shattering arguments why this gradual devaluation should be allowed to continue? As Thriller knows, I am open to other thoughts.[/spoiler]

Blah blah blah.

That whole rant is true for every single **Filtered** thread in the debate section. Whether it be religious or not.

Juliette wrote:

Zeratul wrote:perhaps those religious fanatics that arent priors of the ori should get another subsection to debate in? one designed for religious debate, and then keep the rule you wanted in the intelligent section? Would that placate them?

I could see that work, yes. I have told Thriller this in our private conversation, a completely uncensored (except to stay on topic, the bare minimum) "Pulpit forum" added to the Debate section would be a good option in my opinion.
My wish is not to ban debate on the subjects pertaining to religion, but to find a workable solution to the current issue. Sloth on my part, and on the part of all debaters, has led us to this situation. We need to have a word, Z.

That's a stupid idea and will just end up with two unused sections and one active.

Juliette's complaint is the exact reason there exists a second section in the first place. So technically, you already have your section for "non-debates"

Dr. House wrote:Blah blah blah.

That whole rant is true for every single **Filtered** thread in the debate section. Whether it be religious or not.

And what does that tell you?

Dr. House wrote:Juliette's complaint is the exact reason there exists a second section in the first place. So technically, you already have your section for "non-debates"

Ha, right. No, it's not. Tssk, tssk.

I had this argment with semper about why it shouldn't be the debate section and then he changed it to GIT(i'm sure i had nothing to do with that).

It's supposed to be generally intelligent, not completely. durr

Juliette wrote:

Dr. House wrote:Blah blah blah.

That whole rant is true for every single **Filtered** thread in the debate section. Whether it be religious or not.

And what does that tell you?

That you've just got your panties in a knot for no good reason.

Juliette wrote:

Dr. House wrote:Juliette's complaint is the exact reason there exists a second section in the first place. So technically, you already have your section for "non-debates"

Ha, right. No, it's not. Tssk, tssk.

We Didn't Start The Flame War wrote:If you're gonna call **Filtered**, then put the links to prove it

It most certainly is too. The "official (useless!) debate section" exists for the structured, rule choked debates that you so desire. Use it.

The problem I see in creating a special section for religious debates is that many people base their opinion on their religious beliefs. If one person posts that ____ is wrong because of [insert religious view here], the whole thread could melt down into a religious debate over the current topic. So instead of having a Mod move the thread into a secured religious section, why can't posters simply argue the facts as they have been presented?

If there is a particular thread that is meant to be a religious debate, that would be different. But all of the threads that have been popping up lately have not started out that way, but have dissolved into a debate of religious opinions. But these are the viewpoints of the members, and by even bringing this to issue you are telling posters that they cannot base their opinions on their religious beliefs. Honestly, if someone is basing their opinion off a religious belief then that says they have taken that religion to heart and share the same values; which means they cannot actively debate anything without bringing their religion into it. So do we kick these people from the debate threads simply because they lack the ability to remove themselves from their religion (which I believe to be a terrible thing to ask of someone who is a devoutly religious person)?