UESP Forums

but here is even more point, how many times ahve there been poorly chosen words?how do we decide betwen those who chcoe some words bad and others who did not?

you can not in till it just gose to far.

as such, IMO what you are saying is not only impossible it will make things much much worse then now to the point that to me, we should keep it as is (if we keep them at all)

I'm just a new guy, so my voice doesn't carry much weight, however I'd still like to add it to the chorus of people who oppose the debate club proposal. Setting aside the fact that all or most of the threads would degenerate into mutual recriminations and links to wikipedia articles on logical fallacies, and the fact that a significant chunk of the people you would want participating in such a forum: the long-timers, mods, and those with the potential to become mods, would avoid it because they are also the people most in need of keeping a good reputation, because the legitimacy such a reputation brings is helpful to being a good steward of the community. Again, setting all that aside. As a forum member, my larger concern is that debate club could promote a culture of animosity that would bleed over into the game forums.

In my opinion, this forum is at its best when posts are written in the spirit of 1) wit or humor regarding one's own contribution, and 2) charity toward the contributions of others (good-natured ribbing excepted). Would this new debate forum promote or impede that sort of spirit? How many can disagree (for long) about contentious issues without becoming disagreeable? Without grudges and ideological rivalries forming? And when you see information about a poster (that they volunteer) or arguments advanced by a poster in debate club that really turns you against them, there is no off switch that lets you forget about that when you interact with them on Skyrim – General. A response would be: so don't go into debate club then. But that response misses the point; the point is that such a debate club will cause the overall temperature of the site to rise, which is a negative outcome.


I thought this wretched hive of scum and villainy area existed here already, in the for(u)m of General Banter. Maybe these proposed "serious" threads should be posted in GB but with a tag before or after them e.g. Megadeath Frontman Endorses Rick Santorum (Serious Discussion). That way people who want to post in them will know to leave their fallacies at the door and carefully research and contemplate their posts. Yeah, I wrote that last sentence with a straight face.

In sum, what AKB said.

Now we have some reason in the thread

Perhaps, there should be a trial period? I mean, it can't hurt to try it out? If it doesn't work, it can be closed down in a moment, but we'll never know whether it'll work or not if we don't try it.

That's basically the only part of this that I would find myself supporting, a wish for further organization. Still, the main need for further organization, the reason that it would actually be useful, would be if serious discussions were getting ignored due to other threads clouting them. This isn't happening. The need for further organization isn't present as General, despite being as popular as it is, isn't receiving such heavy traffic as to make it necessary to neatly organize things a bit more. That might change in the future, and if they did, I would support this, but it's currently unneeded. It's not like people are panicking due to things getting lost due to other topics crowding them out.

By the way, I think you missed what I was referring to. I was talking about the occasional amusing incident on forums where a thread would get moved to one sub-forum, and then the next, and then the next, occasionally ending back at its original starting point. It's not a real problem, I admit, but it does cause some commotion.

Huh... I'm amazed by your poker face good sir.

Seeing this debate is actually a good example of how the sub-forum would work, a few people discussing the subject, some pop in to put forward their thoughts, conversing continues. Moderator comes and gives a warning that the thread is getting off topic, it gets back on topic.

Right now I'm inclined to agree with Will Zurmacht that people could just put "(Serious Discussion)" in the title bar. Problem solved. We could try Sloady's trial period, but I'm not sure if Daveh would want to go through the trouble if it's just going to be deleted after a week.

ZeRoc, the admin account is active now. It wouldn't be difficult to get set up.

The idea of putting "Serious Discussion" in the title bar is a good one, but it doesn't solve the problem of General Banter being flooded with non-serious topics that will be a lot more used than the discussions. Serious Discussions/Debates are naturally slower paced, and therefore would get lost in a sea of lolcatz and funny videos.

Easy, a mod cleans it up... and warns people. As said before in different words, if you can't stand the heat get out the kitchen.

A mod can tell when someone is being hostile or not (or should be able to anyway) and should be able to sort out any problems that may arise because of the silly internet scuffle.


The long timers, the people who survive on this site, have all been involved in the serious topics. Reputation is only important to fakes, simple as that, because they don't want to reveal their true selves.
I could not see how this would effect the game forums unless their has been a big rise in potential discussion openings for non-TES related attacks.

Also how does adding (serious discussion) in a title change anything? the topics will still be discussed even if they aren't in their own section... so they will still supposedly 'effect the rest of the site' wherever they are. I have not seen a case of serious discussion effecting the game portion of the site. They are like two different worlds.


A lot of the arguments against this are fear driven, but how can you know how bad something is without giving it a go? I believe the benefits will outweigh the few petty negatives that come from this.

I'm pretty sure Dave was busy trying to fix a database error and would be to busy to arbitrate this.



You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. There is no flood to speak of. Yes, they're slower paced, but quite honestly, most of them die due to being locked, not due to other threads. In fact, I can't think of an example of that happening.

edit:


I gave you an example of this happening back in the thread. Not of serious discussion effecting the game portion, the other way around. Doros was a rather common target for ridicule, entire pages were taken up to badmouthing him. That's just an example. Someones behavior in one area can reach other areas, and even make them infamous.

and why cant they do that with out a sub-forum?


This is justy not true, a mod has no specal powers to be able to sense what pepole say, many mods on here have thgout I was doing something when I was not, and its not their fault, its just that you CAN'T always tell what someone means with only letters.



most of us have on other forums, and it did not work



and we dont, which is what this is about, what we think, and we said our part.

We should let this thread sit around for a bit, bump it up a every once and awhile. if yes is ever 75% above NO, then go ahead and do it.

Yes, fast board syndrome could be an issue. However, glancing at GB reveals that it has threads on the first page with last posts dating back to Feb 3 (two weeks ago). The second page stretches back to the beginning of the year. So it's not that fast. And I just found out about the thread subscription feature in the user control panel. People who wanted to follow the serious discussions without worrying about them falling into second page oblivion could subscribe and be notified of any recent replies.

That seems rather arbitrary.

Add to the fact if you posted justy hit "view your posts" and if there is anything new you will see it.

a subforum is just not needed becuse GD dont go by that fast.

It seems we're very much locked in this. It's not going to be sorted out here and now, and I think we've all had our say - I guess it's up to the mods now.

It's not about how fast GB is going, it's about organisation and promoting of decent topics. Some of the topics in GB make me want to eat my face off.

This site is not just about the games for a lot of us, it's for the decent discussion. You keep talking about people getting effected by serious discussion, but you don't help anyone by keeping them so close to the non-serious topics like the offtopic thread.

The only way to please the 'no' people seems to be by banning the discussions altogether because it might hurt someone... I think the problem last time was that we weren't allowed them.

Anyway, like I proposed before I think the only way you can possibly know the outcome would be to give it a trial.
Depends on the forum, because I know a site just like this one with a calm community that has a political sub-forum.


Like I said above, it promotes serious discussion and keeps those who don't want to get involved from being involved.


Well, this could just be because your not brilliant at wording things. It's easy to tell what 'most' people mean anyway, and some people use that 'misunderstood me' thing as an excuse to get out of something. If moderators couldn't tell what people mean then they wouldn't be mods for long. Not saying they get it right all the time, but most of the time they do.

This has been a great discussion and there's been wonderful and strong points both for and against. I thought I would add a few things:

1) Setting up a new subforum is relatively easy at the moment. Daveh and the moderators have granted yours truly admin powers, to help out as Ratwar is inactive. Adding particular forum permissions - such as removing posting privileges and making a forum read only for some - is also relatively easy.
2) The two problems I have, as a moderator, with appointing a sectional moderator are the following:

• How confusing the concept of a sectional moderator is - a moderator, unless put into a category like a Tea Party Moderator, really should just moderate a small section and that is it. We temporarily abused that category while we had a trolling crisis, where TPMs were given special powers, and then TPMs were elevated to global moderators without being put into the proper category, half because of laziness. Unless you are training, which is what a TPM is more or less becoming, you ought to have all the keys to the castle - but, realistically, we each have our moderating preferences.
  No one really likes sectional moderators, from the admins to we moderators ourselves. They're sort of awkward and in limbo.
• Appointing moderators as opposed to strengthening the team - this is an issue I have personally. I'm not yet ready to appoint another moderator when I still think our current team, who really does handle the volume on this site relatively well, still needs some love. A problem we ran into in the past is just adding people aboard without addressing fundamental concerns by members and the moderators themselves about how things are done. I'd like to see the administration laid out more clearly and members feeling more comfortable being able to bring concerns to us before we go adding more mouths to feed, so to speak. Getting a forum-dedicated admin is a good step in the right direction. So is getting your input!

Just remember, moderators are people, too, with real life responsibilities. It's very hard to be here 24/7, and even so sometimes real life creeps into the picture. Everyone is a moderator for different reasons.
3) It's true that we come here and get to know each other, and certainly civilized conversation, even on touchy topics, is possible - this thread is a great example at how sane a balanced, good discussion can be. However, I still think the reality is that not everyone is entirely mature enough for this. If this idea was to be put into place, we would have to have very strict rules. I'm personally okay with that.
4) I suggested the idea of flagging these subjects in the General Banter subforum when it was first proposed, to mark them as serious topics. I like that this idea was revisited; it is relatively easy.

Still, this is a careful debate and it won't be answered very quickly. A few of us discussing it is not going to make it happen; everyone needs to get involved. So come and give your opinion, everyone! All are welcome, whether you agree or disagree. That's what it's all about.

...or is that the hokey pokey? Oh, well - small detail, that one.

And? you dont have to go to them, your basicly saying
lets devide them more cause I want nothing to do with GD, yey there are others who say dont cause they want nothing to do with SD and you tell them they dont have to deal with them.




I highly doubt them being close afects anything.


Oh, I'm a no, and IM 100% okay with them in GD.

I'd only agree to this if its claer a good deal of us want it, other wise its not worth it in the first place.


no its not, its why pepole have the saying "dont talk about these subjects" becuse its true for ALL humans

it may seem nice, but if you look its there, I'd bet my life on that.



and it being in GD makes you invloved how?

We've been talking in a circle for about six pages now. As neither side is willing to give in, I think we should look at different alternatives, like the marking topics as serious suggestion (maybe making it so that a link to appropriate rules for such discussion is automatically placed at the top, if possible. It should be possible to do it manually otherwise).

Well if I'd rather spend my time with Serious Discussion topics, and those people want to spend time in the General Discussion... so yeah I am indeed saying that they don't need to deal with them if they are outside the sub-forum they love. Your post doesn't makes sense... infact it just backs up what I'm saying.


Erm, most people discuss politics, science, new creations and religion due to them being the most interesting. Someone would rather know your stance on abortion then your favourite pet name.


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


Finally I don't see how adding a marking to something changes anything, I'm for creating a new subforum not adding a pointless tag to something. What would that accomplish? it promotes nothing, and would effect nothing. We should stick to the idea at hand, not go onto something completely different.

I think you miss my point, someone says they dont want to deal with SD, and you say just dont go to them

you dont want to go deal with other threads but when someone says just dont go to them its not valid?





Yep and you know what is interesting?
War moves, fighting, lies, scream etc

and when said person finds out your stance you go back and forth for ever never chaging your minds and only pulling you two futher apart.






I'm going to say the same thing to you, how about a trail with the tags?

The problems is we, are saying the same thing about SD.

I just don't see the sub-forum you want so badly actually doing anything you want. Just because you believe it'll spawn decent conversation doesn't make it so. More likely, it'll just get bogged down by the problems they already suffer from, no matter what, it will suffer the exact same problems. It will tax moderators. It will cause problems in the community as a whole, no matter how much you believe people should ignore it if they don't like it. People are practically attracted to things they hate. It's just that they're in their own little, almost guaranteed to be barely used by anyone but four or five people, section.

What I've noticed seems to be the idea that you just want a new section, as you don't want to talk to certain people. You think that by separating the two, the kinds of people you don't want to talk to won't appear in the serious threads. But they will, the only difference will be the sub-forum that you have these conversations with them in. They'll still interact, in fact, that's basically the only way the new sub-forum will ever have any life. As I said a while back, if you want to talk with a few specific people, it isn't that hard to get their contact info if they want to talk as well.

No offence but it's not my fault if I can't read your posts properly.
I don't get involved in a lot of the stupid topics in the GB sub-forum, so they don't need to get involved in the SD threads if they are in a completely different sub-forum. Problem is at the moment is that sometimes it's hard to tell what type of thread it is without clicking on it, our way solves this.

It's a win-win for both sides.


Yeah they are... your point? sound like good things to discuss. Progression in medicine and radical political ideas are also pretty good things to discuss.


Actually with enough decent evidence on your side it's possible to change minds, my mate recently changed my opinion about wikileaks(also a great thing to discuss in the SD sub-forum).
People are not always stubborn, and there are those who are undecided about subjects.


Well I've already given my reasons why it would multiple times already, so I refer you back to that.


Sorry but i completely disagree, more likely it will spur good conversation and show members that they shouldn't be afraid to talk about things. As long as it is moderated appropriately then no harm done.
If people are attracted to things they hate(which is funny because a lot of people love these discussions to) then that is more then the five people you say will use it afterwards, especially since 15 people want this if it's implemented properly. Not to mention all those that haven't voted, or got to the topic yet.


This is nothing about avoiding people, this is about promoting good things for the site. I have nothing against the people who make the threads I call stupid, I'm calling their specific threads stupid not them... it's completely different. The more people involved in serious discussions the better and this is what I'm trying to get done. I'm not an open book sunshine, your completely off.

did I anywhere blame you? No.
and it seems like you read in to my post and thgout my "i think you misunderstand" to be a "bad thing"

it was not, I was just stated I think you did not get what I was trying to say.




so dose the tag idea and it requires less work.




We find conflict entertaning, we LIKE these things, we like to fight if you will.

I dont mind debating them, and I'm all for it but there is no reasson to make a new forum, it jsut adds more space thats not needed.
evreything you want can be awnser with our tag idea

you will know what topic is witch
will never have to open a thread thats not tagged,
very few threads in GD get spilt over to the 2nd pg if there is any form of talking going on.





Can they? sure but how often? once in a blue moon.

How many threads ahve we had so far? how many pepole have chnaged their minds?




and I've giving you mine, so I refer you to that, and we go in a never ending cycle.