UESP Forums

Unless said people be mature over it, and just realise it is some guy/gal sitting at a screen somewhere in the world.

The internet is vast, and so are opinions. People are bound to disagree. Deal w/ it.

The best discussions are discussions, not arguments.


See point #3

*raises hand* I haven't seen any threats insofar.

Yeah, so, whatever the mod team decided, I'll run with. You guys, our stalwart protectors against ourselves. <3

Wut

Well just because there are forums to debate stuff like this, doesn't mean they're that great to use.

You say this is a "Friendly forum". Well shouldn't a friendly forum be able to discuss such matters without conflict?

Or really are you just hiding the fact most people here perhaps despise certain people, or cliques. And this suppression of such expression is only going to cause more underlying conflict.

Perhaps the issue is not the debate threads, but the forum itself.

This is probably the best way to sum it up, because it's true that most of the debates we have here are only flamed because of a specific group of people. If the moderators feel bad about banning this group for breaking the rules, that's on them, but it's not fair to everyone else-- the people who actually can debate. Cactopia actually has decent debates and hasn't had an issue with this because we actually do warn and ban people who cause too much trouble. Doros is a prime example of a former Cactopian who-- despite his intentions in doing so-- rattled the cage a bit too much in the threads.

That said, it's true that this is a gaming forum, and whether or not debates on life are allowed is a decision strictly left to the people who volunteer to moderate it. Cactopia is more suited because it's a forum about life (and also because the number one rule is about personal responsibility), so I'm not going to pretend that my comparison of the two is wholly accurate. My only qualm with this decision, personally, is the lack of action taken before it got to the point wherein this was made remotely necessary. To extrapolate: this was a last resort that was used in lieu of the steps leading up to it, including temp- and perm-banning the offending users.

Respect and deepest regards to the mods.

I don't know though, most of the things said aren't really that hurtful. In the forums we, as in some users, tell someone that they are wrong. I think the debates could work actually if we didn't present sides. Maybe we should just lean toward one side or the other without being overbearing. Some of us feel really strongly towards a topic and may come across as rash. If presented evidence towards a topic, without making it personal, we could debate. I just don't know if everyone can do that.

This is exactly my point-- except for the "not presenting sides", because "presenting (and discussing) sides" is literally the definition of debate. The spear of my rhetoric is directly aimed at the offending users who took the "debates" too far and turned them into flame wars. I'll admit that I've been guilty of this myself a couple times, but that's why we have moderators in the first place: to watch, warn, and cut users who repeatedly offend.

It's not that I'm against sides, it's just that I don't want one sided debates. Even the debator doesn't have to agree only prove a point, but that is hard to do when no one helps you or if five people yell at you.

People will debate on whichever side they want to debate. If you can't handle five people (civilly) debating you, then it would be good to stay out of the thread.

They will debate, but the one alone may retaliate more fierce, that leads to arguments. Everyone isn't mature, and maybe that's the problem.
On a side note: Why am I debating on how to debate?

What's important is that this debate is mature!

Kinda ironic in the light of things.

It is the responsibility of each person to conduct hisself in a manner promoting civility and open discussion in debate threads. The number of people on the opposing side does not give the apologist an excuse to act any differently.



Again: mods watch, warn, and ban specifically for this reason.



I don't know, but look how civil we're being.

You're all wrong! You guys obviously know nothing about these forums, or life for that matter, and you should all go play in traffic.

Totally. It was all you. Every time I said "them" or "specific group of people", I really meant "Believe is an [&@%!]".

What's wrong about this change is that you punish the majority because a few 3 people are constantly butthurt and yell at people on the internet, because that makes them so cool, like.

Come on, change it back and make everyone happy, or just make a new debate sub-forum and make everyone happy.

you know as well as I do its not so much "debates" as the topic of said debate

Almost evrey one has at least ONE time where they name called or insulted someone., or in some shape or form broke the rules.




Becuse rules where being broken by many pepole claiming that a debate can work...

People get mad at debates, that's normal. People just need to not fling insults because they're mad.

But we had been told in evrey thread and evrey time it happen.

They locked how many threads? This site just cant debate that stuff with out it the mods come in evrey 2nd page or so and warn and then lock it after the 573737 time

If you get mad over something on the internet, you're using the internet wrong. If you want internet for mad, go to Stormfront or Chimpout, pls.

This.

Raven has a valid assertion though.

The same person who founded, or was a focus of the majority of arguments in the political/religious threads is also who has started the bickering here.

Before their arrival, everything was fine and dandy.

Perhaps the problem doesn't lie within the majority, but those certain minority.

The thread was not locked because of "bickering". It was locked due to constant insults. Most posts were punctuated by some slander.

I support this wholeheartedly! I like a friendly atmosphere. . especially on a forum that wasn't exactly created for debates. If you want to debate . . Here you go.

When it pertains to insults, where is the line? I've always felt it acceptable to attack someone's ideas and words, but I've personally drawn the line when it comes to the person behind them (with one very clear exception).

I feel that sometimes users misconstrue shaggier say, in that regard, and immediately jump on the defensive.

I'm not saying that I'm right, but I do want to point-out my perspective, and figure-out if this is what people are referring to in this thread.