Debate Pit Requirements

[Guest]

I know some people may disagree with me, but I figured I'd make my opinion on this known:

 

I think we should raise the requirements for the debate pit. I feel that at times too many people can get here and within less than 24 hours get right into the debate pit before they read the rules, and just start posting away being completely rude and ignorant in most topics. They are not obligated to lurk for very long before they can start posting away which has lead to problems before because we get people that pop in and instantly start disrespecting long time users who have been debating in the forum for years.

 

I feel like 40 posts isn't really enough time for a user to get a feel for the site to get into the debate pit and start posting. There is no real "lurk" period.

 

My idea is this:

 

• At 40 posts users can SEE the debate pit, but can not post yet. This will hopefully give them a mandatory lurk period where they can watch other users.
• They can not start posting until 100 posts. I feel 100 is a nicer threshold, it only takes maybe a day or two more to achieve for most users and it ensures that those spamming to get to the debate pit will be caught more often. After 100 posts you've talked around enough to see what to sort of expect out of the site.
• Stricter rules regarding abusive behavior. A lot of topics are bordering offensive premises that probably should be thwarted in their infancy and a lot of users are using rather insulting tactics to debate.
• PERHAPS a time requirement to be given entry to the debate pit? Maybe 1 week? Like people who have only been here for a day and hop right into the most controversial forum on the site a lot of the time is a recipe for disaster.

[Vulcan 3,254]

I'm all for this. Setting such limits may even decrease the amount of moderation efforts required for that section.

 

Though I kinda wonder just how many new members join the debate pit within their first week. I , myself. only ever tried that section after a couple months of joining the site. 

[Guest]

Furthermore I think there should be a little guide to debating respectfully that users should be required to read before posting as well that should cover common abusive behaviors in the debate pit such as:

 

• Excessive sarcasm.
• Mocking other users opinions repeatedly.
• Continually not backing up your arguments which isn't debating it's just screaming your opinion.
• What debate topics will not be tolerated in a definitive list (such as justifying child molestation, etc.)
• Going over what is an appropriate way to disagree with someone vs. an inappropriate and disrespectful way.

[Jeric 46,851]

Off hand, I can't see any iron clad reason why the Debate Pit post count limit shouldn't be raised. The climate on MLPF is so unique that it stands to reason that additional investment in understanding the community would be beneficial.

 

And yes, we've had a history of individuals making their way to DP intentionally to post flame bait usually in a series of topics that would be hugely controversial, so 100 posts would act as a better deterrent.

 

As far as a posting guide, that was actually something that was discussed and generally agreed on, particularly with framing the discussion from go. The only concern some had was it becoming a defacto rule to shut down 'poor quality' OP's in general - something I vehemently opposed in other areas of the forum.

 

Some of your other ideas may be worth kicking around. I know you definitely have more than a few on and off staff who would agree that we need to try and raise the level of discussion in general.

[Guest90210 3,568]

I definitely agree with pretty much everything said here. There should be a 1 or 2 week waiting period before you can enter the debate pit, and a 100 post requirement to post in it. This would hopefully weed out potential trolls and spammers who only enter the pit to start problems.

[Jeric 46,851]

Considering we have a new user that blatantly publicized post inflation to access other areas of the forum, this is now even more appropriate.

 

 

People that already have full access to DP with under 100 posts can be manually adjusted out of fairness.

[Guest]

Considering we have a new user that blatantly publicized post inflation to access other areas of the forum, this is now even more appropriate.

 

 

People that already have full access to DP with under 100 posts can be manually adjusted out of fairness.

 

Anyone who can't get back up to 100 posts to re-enter the debate pit really I feel probably wasn't that active to begin with to where it won't bug them that much.

 

Also a debate pit etiquette that all users must see before making a topic would be awesome.

[Jeric 46,851]

Anyone who can't get back up to 100 posts to re-enter the debate pit really I feel probably wasn't that active to begin with to where it won't bug them that much.

 

Also a debate pit etiquette that all users must see before making a topic would be awesome.

The problem is you now create a situation where active members who occasionally post in DP, but have contributed months worth of content in areas that don't count ... now have a legitimate complaint where the response is their contributions are 'eh you don't count as much'.

 

At least that is how they might see it, and what a subsequent Feedback topic would say.

[Guest]

The problem is you now create a situation where active members who occasionally post in DP, but have contributed months worth of content in areas that don't count ... now have a legitimate complaint where the response is their contributions are 'eh you don't count as much'.

 

At least that is how they might see it, and what a subsequent Feedback topic would say.

I suppose we could find a good medium ground to make it work then. Maybe put a notification up before the change to let everyone know like a month or so in advance?

I can't stress enough that we REALLLLLLLY need a debate pit etiquette thing that people should be required to read before entering because there is a lot of "tactics" used in the debate pit which lead to threads being locked because they're disrespectful. Like we need it in writing not to do certain crap so that when people do it they can have no excuse for not knowing it's rude behavior. The forum needs to be kept to a level where only people who know how to carry themselves should be coming in. It's not like the other forums because of the controversial element of it. If people are not able to handle that, then we need to weed out the people who are not adhering to at least a level of respect for the other users.

[greenflare 154]

Haven't used the dabate pit, probably am not going to, but this would be a very wonderful change tbh.  Then people (like me) watching the debate, get educated and watch others (like you) discuss serious issues without any real troubles~

[Jeric 46,851]

Haven't used the dabate pit, probably am not going to, but this would be a very wonderful change tbh. Then people (like me) watching the debate, get educated and watch others (like you) discuss serious issues without any real troubles~

This is a very interesting statement and echoes something I've said while on staff. It is easy to assume that most of the traffic is from topic and post content creaters. It isn't. Lotsa lurkers here.

 

However, Key Shark did give a suggestion that accounts for that. Visibility would not change from what it is now. The ability to participate would be the primary system restriction, so it wouldn't impact your case. People would still be able to read at 40 posts.

[Fhaolan 4,483]

Just to add information: I've gone over the permission options, and it is possible to set the Debate Pit to be visible at 40 posts, but only postable at 100 posts. I can't find any permissions that would *directly* prevent someone who is newer than a week from posting. I can see a way to indirectly set that up, but it would involve some jiggery-pokery and changing how Muffins get promoted.

 

Providing IP.B actually works like it's supposed to for once, of course.

[Guest]

Just to add information: I've gone over the permission options, and it is possible to set the Debate Pit to be visible at 40 posts, but only postable at 100 posts. I can't find any permissions that would *directly* prevent someone who is newer than a week from posting. I can see a way to indirectly set that up, but it would involve some jiggery-pokery and changing how Muffins get promoted.

 

Providing IP.B actually works like it's supposed to for once, of course.

 

Well at least we could have the 100 post cost in place. That's something.

 

If I was willing to write an etiquette thread going over debate etiquette (obviously with approval and revision) would the staff be able to just pin that? It'd save you guys some time.

[Fhaolan 4,483]

Well at least we could have the 100 post cost in place. That's something.

 

If I was willing to write an etiquette thread going over debate etiquette (obviously with approval and revision) would the staff be able to just pin that? It'd save you guys some time.

 

Well, we've been discussing this in staff forums, and amazingly there has been no dissent on this so far. So I'm going to go ahead and set up the 100 posts 'posting' limit. And if you want to take a crack at writing up an etiquette post, I'm not going to stop you. Use the 'wait for mod approval' feature, so we can have a go at editing and revising it before it goes live.

 

It might take awhile to get it implemented, as I'll have to search through all the various rules/help/FAQ/resource/whatever posts and update anywhere that mentions the current 40 post requirement for Debate Pit. 

[Shanks 10,816]

Continually not backing up your arguments which isn't debating it's just screaming your opinion.

That sounds more like something that should be discouraged but not necessarily a rule unless of course someone slides into things like abusive behavior. It smacks too close to potential ideological policing for my taste. Also I would like to add that there are also people who technically back up their opinions but do so with sources that are highly biased BS.

[Jeric 46,851]

That sounds more like something that should be discouraged but not necessarily a rule unless of course someone slides into things like abusive behavior. It smacks too close to potential ideological policing for my taste. Also I would like to add that there are also people who technically back up their opinions but do so with sources that are highly biased BS.

Citing sources isn't a bad thing. The strength of a source can always be disputed based on its author, how replicable it is, and how often the source is cited by reliable experts. I'm sorry if this comes across as elitist, but my household has six sheepskins and several peer reviewed authors that strenuously disagree with the implication that an emphasis on backing up claims would have a bad influence on discussion.

[Guest]

That sounds more like something that should be discouraged but not necessarily a rule unless of course someone slides into things like abusive behavior. It smacks too close to potential ideological policing for my taste. Also I would like to add that there are also people who technically back up their opinions but do so with sources that are highly biased BS.

Essentially not backing up your claims isn't debating, it's screaming your opinion and hoping others will blindly follow. Debate is about fact.

 

Also I am working on a guideline to submit for mod approval now.

[Eloquence 2,076]

Just thought I'd pop in to say that I really like the discussion being had here. I think that taking some steps to improve the Debate Pit and make it more about respectful debating and less about, well, some less honorable pursuits we'll call them, would be rather nice. I think that a debate guideline would be very helpful, and that upping the required number of posts and being stricter about what crosses the AB line would go a long way.

[Lil Pip 775]

Key Sharkz, on 05 Jul 2016 - 8:10 PM, said:Key Sharkz, on 05 Jul 2016 - 8:10 PM, said:Key Sharkz, on 05 Jul 2016 - 8:10 PM, said:

Essentially not backing up your claims isn't debating, it's screaming your opinion and hoping others will blindly follow. Debate is about fact.

 

Also I am working on a guideline to submit for mod approval now.

It'd come down to the definition of fact then as some people consider authority figure's opinions to be fact. There might need to be a statement about what constitutes evidence, but then the topics would be restricted by such a statement. A lot of arguments could degrade to arguing over types of evidence as opposed to the evidence itself but maybe thats an improvement, it would get more people to understand after a few engagements of topics and be better prepared in the future or it could dissuade them from coming in if they refuse to follow it. Another thing to consider is graham's hierarchy of disagreement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_(computer_programmer)#Graham.27s_hierarchy_of_disagreement which is also why evidence shouldn't be required for every single post, but encouraged I guess. Also some true things lack sufficient documentation but maybe we want to filter those topics out, or propose evidences for our lack of evidences which is still better than just apparent speculation.

Edited July 6, 2016 by Lil Pip

[Guest]

It'd come down to the definition of fact then as some people consider authority figure's opinions to be fact. There might need to be a statement about what constitutes evidence, but then the topics would be restricted by such a statement. A lot of arguments could degrade to arguing over types of evidence as opposed to the evidence itself but maybe thats an improvement, it would get more people to understand after a few engagements of topics and be better prepared in the future or it could dissuade them from coming in if they refuse to follow it. Another thing to consider is graham's hierarchy of disagreement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_(computer_programmer)#Graham.27s_hierarchy_of_disagreement

Guidelines would be more of guidelines rather than rules, but blatantly ignoring them for a long time would be punishable if you just kept disregarding them. More like light rules.

[Jeric 46,851]

https://youtu.be/hMTsMwXCLAA

 

I am a bit biased as ... well ... it is John Green. However, his comment about how to start a conversation and false dichotomy is particularly relevant. Perhaps the author of any guidelines would find some inspiration from this.

[Foxy Socks 2,599]

I haven't participated in the debate pit yet, or look at it very often, but I doubt your suggestion would help. I don't know how someone can get enough posts for it in a day, then again I post a few times a day.

 

Raising the limit will not help from what I think, as just having more posts doesn't mean a user is civil in discussion. Higher moderation and stricter rules are okay, but the post requirement seems fine as it stands.

 

Also, for users who may be frequenting it without having 100 or so posts yet may be confused if they aren't allowed in yet, though it may not be an issue.

[Guest]

I haven't participated in the debate pit yet, or look at it very often, but I doubt your suggestion would help. I don't know how someone can get enough posts for it in a day, then again I post a few times a day.

 

Raising the limit will not help from what I think, as just having more posts doesn't mean a user is civil in discussion. Higher moderation and stricter rules are okay, but the post requirement seems fine as it stands.

 

Also, for users who may be frequenting it without having 100 or so posts yet may be confused if they aren't allowed in yet, though it may not be an issue.

My logic is this: being around the site longer usually means you have a better grasp of what to expect around here and have seen more posts and thus know a bit better on how to conduct yourself. With the recent changes it makes it so at 40 posts users can still SEE the debate pit, but can't post until 100. This is excellent because now it makes it so users are forced to lurk a bit, see how people debate first before posting themselves. It gives them the opportunity to learn to debate respectfully first.

 

If 100 posts is too much for you to get into a very controversial part of the site, then you're probably only here to debate and in which case you'd be better off joining a debate forum.

[Foxy Socks 2,599]

My logic is this: being around the site longer usually means you have a better grasp of what to expect around here and have seen more posts and thus know a bit better on how to conduct yourself. With the recent changes it makes it so at 40 posts users can still SEE the debate pit, but can't post until 100. This is excellent because now it makes it so users are forced to lurk a bit, see how people debate first before posting themselves. It gives them the opportunity to learn to debate respectfully first.

 

If 100 posts is too much for you to get into a very controversial part of the site, then you're probably only here to debate and in which case you'd be better off joining a debate forum.

 

I can see that, but it doesn't seem like the best way to execute it. Lurking seems like an okay idea, but it might confuse users too.

[Lil Pip 775]

Key Sharkz, on 25 Jul 2016 - 2:31 PM, said:

My logic is this: being around the site longer usually means you have a better grasp of what to expect around here and have seen more posts and thus know a bit better on how to conduct yourself. With the recent changes it makes it so at 40 posts users can still SEE the debate pit, but can't post until 100. This is excellent because now it makes it so users are forced to lurk a bit, see how people debate first before posting themselves. It gives them the opportunity to learn to debate respectfully first.

 

If 100 posts is too much for you to get into a very controversial part of the site, then you're probably only here to debate and in which case you'd be better off joining a debate forum.

Other debate forums are way way worse, ad hominems for days, circular reasoning for days, elitism, distractions. That coming from a site literally called debate.