-->
@949havoc
Start by living your A.C.T.
The C stands for confront, not civil, so I have no idea why you even mentioned that.
Some observations regarding debates on DebateArt
Posts
Total:
63
-->
@RationalMadman
Civil confrontation. Doesn't have to be a war. We are talking about the NCC, are we not, promoting God's justice, peace and healing in the world, or is that just words? I don't happen to ascribe to that particular organization, but I am aware, and thought of hypocrisy never entered my head. Please don't spoil the fantasy.
-->
@oromagi
StackExchange has something called reputation, maybe every 3 votes you get 10 rep? And you get priveliges based on the amount of rep you have?
11 days later
-->
@oromagi
there are many worthy debates that end unvoted, much to the discontent of regular debaters. Proper voting requires a lot of time and consideration and yields little reward-there's a lot of challenges and a lot of resentment that sometimes carries over to other debates.
100% THIS.
-->
@oromagi
I have recommended:
- auto-loss on first forfeit (to save voters time and effort)
- setting debates for a minimum number of votes before closing- 3 seems reasonable
- Make voting the price of initiating a debate: something like writing 3 votes earns you 1 debate
This is the first I've seen of these proposals.
A resounding YES to ALL THREE.
-->
@Crocodile
That's around 77% of the user base not posting stuff that matches the average.
That's how averages work.
And that's why averages are always misleading.
-->
@oromagi
I sense a deep ambiguity about marketing this site.
It's more of a "secret garden".
-->
@secularmerlin
@Athias
@oromagiI have recommended:
- auto-loss on first forfeit (to save voters time and effort)
- setting debates for a minimum number of votes before closing- 3 seems reasonable
- Make voting the price of initiating a debate: something like writing 3 votes earns you 1 debate
This is the first I've seen of these proposals.A resounding YES to ALL THREE.
Have you seen this ^^^ ??
-->
@oromagi
Well, a guy we just voted into the hall of fame a couple of weeks ago made a big speech about how screwed up voting is
LINX PLEEZ
-->
@oromagi
THANX
-->
@3RU7AL
@oromagi
949havoc is likely fauxlaw especially when you look at how he writes, look at havocs debates the way he structures arguments is the same as fauxlaw he just made it abc's to look a little different he also seems to know a lot about the constitution.
-->
@drlebronski
949havoc is likely fauxlaw especially when you look at how he writes, look at havocs debates the way he structures arguments is the same as fauxlaw he just made it abc's to look a little different he also seems to know a lot about the constitution.
Well, I certainly hope so.
Everyone deserves a clean slate.
-->
@3RU7AL
@drlebronski
No imagination figment of an online presence has real existence, anyway, regardless of username, so, what's in a name? We merely use tools as disassociated extensions of reality. Those extensions are not reality, pure and simple.
-->
@949havoc
I can tell a lot about a person even from an online persona. If you can't, that's just lack in ability.
-->
@RationalMadman
Good thing not all of us 0share the same talents. Boring place, otherwise. But I never said I don't share that one, so, maybe there are things that slide by you. Doesn't matter, anyway, so,, no big deal.
-->
@949havoc
If I make a new user account, don't ask mods to shut my old one down and pretend I'm a different age, there are issues regarding integrity and rule obedience.
I don't care either way, do what you want. I just noticed. Eventually, you'll have to close one of your accounts.
-->
@RationalMadman
pretend I'm a different age
Isn't that what an avatar is all about? I said in my profile, it isn't about me, because little of it is reality at all.
-->
@949havoc
Any comment directed at the speaker (or their identity and or character and or state of mind) instead of their words is technically an AD HOMINEM ATTACK.
-->
@3RU7AL
Tell it to RM; he's the one attacking my identity.
-->
@949havoc
how did I attack your identity
17 days later
-->
@3RU7AL
@oromagiI have recommended:
- auto-loss on first forfeit (to save voters time and effort)
- setting debates for a minimum number of votes before closing- 3 seems reasonable
- Make voting the price of initiating a debate: something like writing 3 votes earns you 1 debate
This is the first I've seen of these proposals.A resounding YES to ALL THREE.Have you seen this ^^^ ??
No, I haven't. The first two are fine, though I'd disagree with "pricing" one's initiation of a debate.
-->
@Athias
No, I haven't. The first two are fine, though I'd disagree with "pricing" one's initiation of a debate.
66% is a great start.
-->
@3RU7AL
66% is a great start.
Perhaps the reputation of a voter can play more of a role in one's capacity to cast a vote, rather than some laundry list of metrics which the moderators believe substantiate an "impartial" vote. Their reputation of course is determined by the market of individuals who participate in the debates.
16 days later
-->
@Vader
@whiteflame
-->
@RationalMadman
Alright, I’ll bite: why are you noting these two posts? There’s nothing wrong with bumping your debates by commenting.
-->
@whiteflame
lol. do you think the second wrote that or copy-pasted it to test if posts that are pasted get moderated?
Copy-pasting posts in the forums isn’t against any standard that I can think of.
Copy-pasting posts in the forums isn’t against any standard that I can think of.
Copy-pasting posts in the forums isn’t against any standard that I can think of.