Request

[240 is Back]

Anyone know of a universally accepted code of conduct for debates?

I think the board has been soaked lately with personal attacks, red herrings, and in some cases, the original attacker hijacking his own threads when they don't go his way.

I'm all for freedom of speech, hey, anyone post what they like.  But it's really watering down the quality of thread here.  We have 4 or 5 really good debate topics that are now crappy attack threads.

I dunno... I'm not saying we have anything enforced.  Just maybe a pinned list, with common terms like 'red herring' or 'personal attack'.  It would help those who cannot debate, learn to debate.  And more importantly, when a person chooses to ruin a good thread with one of these universally accepted debate no-nos, we'd have a common term to use, so we could quickly label that behavior.

It would deter personal attacks, and make for better threads through peer reminders of common debate etiquette and standards.

[Nordic Superman]

Would you class this an ad hominem attack:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=179180.0

This is a responce to a statement I made conflicting with Berserkers stance on this thread:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=179102.0

BRB just going out to kill a few lion cubs with a hammer.

[Cap]

Anyone know of a universally accepted code of conduct for debates?

I think the board has been soaked lately with personal attacks, red herrings, and in some cases, the original attacker hijacking his own threads when they don't go his way.

I'm all for freedom of speech, hey, anyone post what they like.  But it's really watering down the quality of thread here.  We have 4 or 5 really good debate topics that are now crappy attack threads.

I dunno... I'm not saying we have anything enforced.  Just maybe a pinned list, with common terms like 'red herring' or 'personal attack'.  It would help those who cannot debate, learn to debate.  And more importantly, when a person chooses to ruin a good thread with one of these universally accepted debate no-nos, we'd have a common term to use, so we could quickly label that behavior.

It would deter personal attacks, and make for better threads through peer reminders of common debate etiquette and standards.

Isn't this the third time you have come up with a thread about this issue?

[OzmO]

The vault thing we had but never got going was a good idea to deter ad-hom attacks.


but like anything else, ad-hom becomes an issue if:

-  you respond to it in anyway (direct or indirect)
-  you fight back with ad-hom

Otherwise it's not an issue.

[Cap]

The vault thing we had but never got going was a good idea to deter ad-hom attacks.


but like anything else, ad-hom becomes an issue if:

-  you respond to it in anyway (direct or indirect)
-  you fight back with ad-hom

Otherwise it's not an issue.

So in other wise, control yourself and don't pay attention to stupid shit.  I would think any adult could understand that much. 

[OzmO]

So in other wise, control yourself and don't pay attention to stupid shit.  I would think any adult could understand that much. 

Yeah, I would think so.


I get into Ad-hom exchanges with people all the time.   I fully realize i am at least 50% responsible for it regardless of who started it.

Frankly it doesn't bother me, even though i do enjoy a good discussion with out it much more.  And many people on this forum are great at having good discussion with conflicting view points and not falling into ad-hom.  You, BB, HH6, Kh300, C-500, & Decker are the first that come to mind. 

[Hugo Chavez]

I remember one of the things people didn't want when the forum started was to much modding.  It's been a very hard line to try and walk. 

What I'm sure about backing up:  If you feel a thread has been hijacked or sabajoged with BS to kill the debate, please please report it right away.  The BS will be wacked or split out.  The debate what's most important and it takes a back seat to the jabbing that is a getbig trademark. 

I know nothing sucks more than laying out something you want a serious debate on only to recieve several smart ass remarks, end of thread... I've been there many times and have even dished it a few times. I have an idea, tell me what you guys think?  What if we had some kind of tag that could be used witch requires only serious respectful debate ensues.  Something like a red tag at the top of the thread like Strictly Moderated to be posted by the thread creator in the first post.  Any posts that deviate from the debate gets wacked.  Then when someone posts in the thread, they do so knowing what they say will be strickly modded in that thread, no grounds to complain when their post gets wached.  It's a sign that moderaters may moderate at free will in that thread to keep the debate respectful and on point.  This would allow people who wanted to engage in a serious discussion to have one while others who wanted to debate in the getbig tradition are free to do so in other threads.  If we did this, be wary, it could very well mean nobody posts in the thread.  The fact is, this is getbig and people come here in part because you're allowed for the most part to speak your mind--within reason.  As we've seen extreme psycho attacks don't go over well with most people.  So good idea or bad idea?

[Hugo Chavez]

I'm pinning this thread for a short time because I think it's important that we talk these things out when a complaint or suggestion for the forum is made.  We've been here with this one before but it's clear we still have some concerns and heck you never know what we might come up with that everyone likes.

[240 is Back]

berserker, i like the idea - but -


any mod participating in that thread should forfeit mod powers.


we don't want another Bob Chic deal, where he deletes all responses he deems inappropriate, after he instigates them.

[Hugo Chavez]

berserker, i like the idea - but -


any mod participating in that thread should forfeit mod powers.


we don't want another Bob Chic deal, where he deletes all responses he deems inappropriate, after he instigates them.

actually if you stop to think about it, it's a beautiful balance we've created.  Using the book club thread as an example, I whacked several posts made by a mod so the thread would be on point--a thread that I thought was important to the forum.  In a strictly modded thread, I would have no problems with Ozmo or Beach whacking my posts that got out of line.  I would also not have a problem deleting theirs.  We have been really good with eachother on the modding level so I think we would be professional about it even if we had to wack one of the others comments.  The problem I see is that if the mods participate in the thread, which often happens, who will mod it?  or if two of us engage, the other would feel like they couldn't because of that rule.  I think we would not engage in a Bob Chic meltdown and delete with ill intent.  I hope not anyway.  At the least, it would allow for that thread to be strictly moderated and have no grounds for complaint when the mods did so.  The way it is now, we have to deal with a potential string of attacks for deleting something.

[OzmO]

It sounds good, but i foresee many

Strictly Moderated

tags everywhere.

Do we want that?

I don't care either way, but it will hard to determine ad-hom at times as some indirect ad-hom is very debatable.

[Cap]

Yeah, I would think so.


I get into Ad-hom exchanges with people all the time.   I fully realize i am at least 50% responsible for it regardless of who started it.

Frankly it doesn't bother me, even though i do enjoy a good discussion with out it much more.  And many people on this forum are great at having good discussion with conflicting view points and not falling into ad-hom.  You, BB, HH6, Kh300, C-500, & Decker are the first that come to mind. 

You aren't bad about it either, frankly I think most are good but we all have our moments.  It's natural when you are passionate about a topic.  However, there are some that get a little too into their attacks and frankly, they are often the ones that bring up the attacking.  The best thing we can all do is to 1.) not get baited into a position to attack or to be attacked 2.) take the fight to another board.

[240 is Back]

see, BB has called me 'nuts' and other insults multiple times today.

I can respond.  I can call him an illiterate trashy moron who couldn't finish high school.  I can do it ten times in ten threads.  He'll delete them all.  I bet he won't delete the threads where he calls me nuts tho, huh?

[Hugo Chavez]

It sounds good, but i foresee many  tags everywhere.

Do we want that?

I don't care either way, but it will hard to determine ad-hom at times as some indirect ad-hom is very debatable.

Maybe we good put it into effect for a two week period and see how it goes, to be reviewed at the end of two weeks.  I don't know that everyone will be using it.  I won't be because I don't mind giving a little heat and I don't get bent out of shape over receiving it so for me, I like a roughty debate within reason.  But I also would not have a problem entering a strictly modded thread and posting in all respect to the debate.  Others like Nordic have a tradition of getting fiesty in a thread too.  But even though some of us like the feistier debate, I know there are times where I would like a strict debate too so on some subject, I might like something like this.  The tag should be just a sign that the thread is clear for a mod to go in and strictly mod without backlash.  Anyway, maybe a trial run would be good if people like the idea.  If it doesn't go well, we don't have to go, but if everyone liked it we could do it.

[Hugo Chavez]

see, BB has called me 'nuts' and other insults multiple times today.

I can respond.  I can call him an illiterate trashy moron who couldn't finish high school.  I can do it ten times in ten threads.  He'll delete them all.  I bet he won't delete the threads where he calls me nuts tho, huh?

no but another mod would in a thread marked for serious debate.  At minimum we could give it a trial run and see how it goes down.

[Cap]

see, BB has called me 'nuts' and other insults multiple times today.

I can respond.  I can call him an illiterate trashy moron who couldn't finish high school.  I can do it ten times in ten threads.  He'll delete them all.  I bet he won't delete the threads where he calls me nuts tho, huh?

I knew this was the basis for your thread.  Dude, why even bother to respond if you think you are above it all?  Honestly, give it a rest and have a normal thread.  Calling someone nuts is not a major attack or a low blow and if you think it is then you have bigger problems.  Shake it off, realize this is an online community, you can log out and go relax. 

[Hugo Chavez]

I know I would not want to lose the ability to call someone nuts in this forum.  If we overmod the place, not as many people will post.  That's something several have noted.  But there are also some who don't post here because it's gets to carried away.  It would allow those individuals to come in and post a thread where they won't be called nuts

[240 is Back]

hey, i dont want moderation either.   ij just want better debate etiquette, and stronger understanding of the common rules of debate

[Hugo Chavez]

hey, i dont want moderation either.   ij just want better debate etiquette, and stronger understanding of the common rules of debate

But I'm sure you see the delema in how to make that happen for people who want that to happen.  If we could come up with a workable solution that makes everyone happy, that would be awesome.

[240 is Back]

But I'm sure you see the delema in how to make that happen for people who want that to happen.  If we could come up with a workable solution that makes everyone happy, that would be awesome.

i just thought a list, with the top 10 debate tactic violations, would be cool.  Most ppl here don't know what a red herring is, but they see it ten times a day.  If 5 people all said "dude, that is a red herring, stop being a douche" it would clean stuff up and make it more fun.  We had some great threads derailed today, as one guy just kept changing subjects and calling names.

[Dos Equis]

It sounds good, but i foresee many  tags everywhere.

Do we want that?

I don't care either way, but it will hard to determine ad-hom at times as some indirect ad-hom is very debatable.

I agree.  It's fine the way it is. 

We have some who are sensitive, some who are drama queens, but overall it's just fine. 

Whoever came up with this idea is nuts. 

(couldn't resist   

[240 is Back]

I agree.  It's fine the way it is. 

We have some who are sensitive, some who are drama queens, but overall it's just fine. 

Whoever came up with this idea is nuts. 

(couldn't resist   

Yep.  But at least I respect Reagan, unlike yourself

[Straw Man]

I agree.  It's fine the way it is. 

We have some who are sensitive, some who are drama queens, but overall it's just fine. 

Whoever came up with this idea is nuts. 

(couldn't resist   

Bum, you're the biggest pussy lip on this board.  How often do you dodge questions on your own threads or deem questions "disingenious" or somehow beneath you?  I'm talking about serious questions on the topic at hand and not questions like "why are you such a pussy"?  Your other favorite tactic is to play dumb and pretend you don't understand the question but now I realize that you're probably not playing most of the time.

Seriously though, if the mods just called this out when it happened it would greatly improve the actual dialogue on this site and we'd probably have a lot less thread's that just devolve into a pissing contest

[Dos Equis]

Yep.  But at least I respect Reagan, unlike yourself

O.K. 

[Hugo Chavez]

ok, it was a bad idea, it's a no go.  BUT it remains, if you feel a thread is getting derailed, excessive attacks, sabatoged it's your duty to report it for review.  If people don't do this, it's their own fault.  As far as red herrings and such, it's really part of debating and the role of the individual debating to point out a red herring and why it's a red herring.  If someone can come up with the list of these tactics, I do think 240 is right that such a list could serve well to have around.  Come up with the list and I'll stick it in the rules forum, not as a rule but for reference.