New rules regarding the General Banter subforum

[Br3admax]

Speaking softly with a big stick is essentially the same, but I do wish we could have "real" debates.

"Real" debates can't be made from any old normal joe with a keyboard and mouse.

Some times I use a PS3 controller,

[AKB]

Speaking softly with a big stick is essentially the same, but I do wish we could have "real" debates.

What? I cannot comprehend the first part of that sentence. As for the second half, I could see that as being a possibility. We'd need to take two users who agree to participate, give them an issue that they're on a specific side of, give them a while to create their argument, and then have them post it at a designated date. That would be much closer to an actual debate than what we've been subject to.

[Kestral]

Speaking softly with a big stick is essentially the same, but I do wish we could have "real" debates.

What? I cannot comprehend the first part of that sentence. As for the second half, I could see that as being a possibility. We'd need to take two users who agree to participate, give them an issue that they're on a specific side of, give them a while to create their argument, and then have them post it at a designated date. That would be much closer to an actual debate than what we've been subject to.

That would be an actual debate, but everyone would think that they are Lincoln and the other is Douglas, and would complain how they can't rattle off their personal fetishes, blind to the fact that they are unable to debate without turning it to an argument.

[Kestral]

Haven't we done that before, years ago? those kind of debates, where someone is given a while to create an argument(If they believe it or not) are best.

I've been here for four years, and I've never seen that.

[AKB]

Speaking softly with a big stick is essentially the same, but I do wish we could have "real" debates.

What? I cannot comprehend the first part of that sentence. As for the second half, I could see that as being a possibility. We'd need to take two users who agree to participate, give them an issue that they're on a specific side of, give them a while to create their argument, and then have them post it at a designated date. That would be much closer to an actual debate than what we've been subject to.

That would be an actual debate, but everyone would think that they are Lincoln and the other is Douglas, and would complain how they can't rattle off their personal fetishes, blind to the fact that they are unable to debate without turning it to an argument.

I'm unsure. If they're given time to craft a proper response, it would likely make them research a topic in-depth and respond in a reasonable fashion. Of course, this would only work for two users. Any other comments are sure to be the same nonsense as before, just with a bit better framing for the thread.

[Kestral]

\
I'm unsure. If they're given time to craft a proper response, it would likely make them research a topic in-depth and respond in a reasonable fashion. Of course, this would only work for two users. Any other comments are sure to be the same nonsense as before, just with a bit better framing for the thread.

It would have to be contained to the two users. If you would have to make a debate forum, you'd have to do it right. Plan the topics in advance, make a group of few people who can actually post in the forum, create some rules and regulations. Of course, by no means should there ever be questions like "Does God exist?" They'd have to be questions like, "Is it ethical to use targeted elimination as a foreign policy tool?" or "Is capital punishment a morally justifiable offense for domestic abuse?" By all rights, more engaging topics.

[AKB]

Yes, I agree. However, that's not what I think people want. Which is why this won't work. People don't want debates, they want fights.

[Br3admax]

Call it what you want, the topic will end up "Does God exist, and yes I mean mine?" We feel so strong about it, that it will happen, we couldn't even deside to eat or not to eat. We're human, I hope, and we will always fight.

[MARS]

You just don't get it, do you?

[Br3admax]

Would it change anything if I did?

[MARS]

Yes. You'd get it and you wouldn't be saying all these stupid things.

[ZeRoc]

oooh, is there going to be an argument in the thread that announces no arguing, this will be good...

[MARS]

What did you expect, exactly?

[AKB]

Call it what you want, the topic will end up "Does God exist, and yes I mean mine?" We feel so strong about it, that it will happen, we couldn't even deside to eat or not to eat. We're human, I hope, and we will always fight.

I am having trouble understanding what you're saying. You do not need to fight to converse a topic. The very fact that this belief is even being held by anyone here actually makes me ever more unwilling to see these kind of threads. No, we don't need to fight. You can peacefully discuss a subject. If you can't peacefully discuss a subject, you should either avoid discussing it or face the risk of moderator action.

[House of the Wolf]

Bah! Stop! Stop it guys! The irony is ripping me to pieces!

[MARS]

Admit it, you're just laughing your ass off.

[House of the Wolf]

Tiny bit..

[Musicman247]

If you want to discuss the new policies that's fine, but let's not re-create the actions that brought about the policy.

[AKB]

I think it's actually pretty useful having an example of why this is being done in the thread banning this behavior. That way we don't have to go for the archives to find an example for the future.

[logansrun]

touchy subject, but going to chime in here and this is the only time I'm going to participate in any more "controversy". after this post you will only find me contributing to the gaming threads and helping new players as was the original intent of both mine and these forums. the fact is, real damage has resulted. people have been banned as a result of some of these so-called "debates" and the fact is, mistakes were made on all sides.

opinionated threads were allowed on sensitive subjects that people have strong feelings about. I personally know about several instances where an unpopular opinion was expressed and the resulting chaos that ensued was that the posters got ganged up on by a clique of members who THINK they're the "old guard" but really aren't.

I've been lurking these threads a long time ... years ... and seen long time members in good standing who spent a lot of time in game threads posting helpful info and trying to help other players, get sucked into these so-called "debates", tempers flared and they got themselves banned or otherwise run off by a small cardre of "popular" individuals after being insulted and called "trolls", etc.

funny, they weren't being insulted or called "trolls" when they were helping out real newbs in the gaming threads so who are the real losers here? the members that got banned over a momentary lapse of reason or the community, and forum posters needing sage advice on the games?

AKB hit the nail on the head ...

If people are only sticking around to fight over these issues, maybe it would be best if they leave. There are plenty of other things to do on this site. There are roleplays, mods, games, art, more pleasant discussions, etcetera etcetera. By banning one kind of thread it won't drive everyone away. And if it does drive anyone away, then their main reason for being here was most likely causing trouble in these threads, and I'm fairly certain many people won't mourn their leaving if this is true.

the problem is that the individuals who got banned as "trolls" were never here "causing trouble in these threads" until controversial sensitive topics were introduced and their opinions proved unpopular. up until that point they stayed in their favorite gaming sections helping out posters with game-related problems and discussing gaming strategies, and these so-called "trolls" were here years before some of the other offenders who didn't get banned.

[Kerr]

This is like stoping car crashes by outlawing driving. I guess I can live with it.

[House of the Wolf]

The only issue I have regarding this new ban is where the line is drawn. As I recall, there were "heated" debates after Skyrim first came out about the Civil War and about the racism in the game. Are we strictly banned from real-world controversial topics, or does the ban extend beyond that into Elder Scrolls games?

I'm just looking for the boundary-lines in this case.

Thanks
-Your friendly neighborhood wolf

[Frost Mage]

The only issue I have regarding this new ban is where the line is drawn. As I recall, there were "heated" debates after Skyrim first came out about the Civil War and about the racism in the game. Are we strictly banned from real-world controversial topics, or does the ban extend beyond that into Elder Scrolls games?

I'm just looking for the boundary-lines in this case.

Thanks
-Your friendly neighborhood wolf

I'm pretty sure the mods know better than to stop Elder Scrolls debates. Those are some of the best discussions the forum has. Nothing wrong with debating on things that aren't real.

[Ed~]

I'm pretty sure the mods know better than to stop Elder Scrolls debates. Those are some of the best discussions the forum has. Nothing wrong with debating on things that aren't real.

But it's boooooring!

Who cares about some silly game. The best discussions you can have are about the facets of real life.

[ZeRoc]

Yeah, but there is a lot lower chance of someone getting angry when debating something that doesn't matter as opposed to serious subjects.