Critique on The Debate Pit of Tartarus

[EpicEnergy 23,218]

I decided to give a critique on the relatively new debate section here. As a participant and observer of both the former and current debate sections, my experience should be sufficient enough for this to be valid and credible. Also, before I begin, I wanted to say that I highlighted each paragraph's general topic for organization purposes.

So, to begin with, I noticed numerous arguments with flaws. One such flaw is fallacy usage. Now, there are numerous fallacies, some worse than others, but I will only focus on the common ones being used here. The strawman fallacy is the most used one that comes to mind, as it is highly bothersome to a debater for another debater to post a refute to an argument that really isn't refuting the argument at all. It also often leads to off-topic discussions. The reason for me bringing that up is that those consequences for using the strawman fallacy could have been avoided entirely if both debaters refuted each other's arguments correctly. In the end, the solution to fallacy usage is education; therefore, I propose that the staff post educational resources about debating for debaters to use. Now, I wouldn't advocate the staff requiring those educational resources to be used before engaging in a debate, but rather that it be recommended before engaging in debates.

Another topic I wanted to address is snarky and passive-aggressive remarks. Now, there is a rule against passive-aggressive behavior in the debate section, but I've noticed some very subtle and indirect passive-aggressive behavior that occurs anyways. Such behavior comes in the form of snarky remarks. For some reason, a few times debaters have gotten away with throwing in a snarky remark or other subtle passive-aggressive behaviors. I've noticed this is happening more frequently, and I would guess that "massive walls of text" in the form of argumentation is one of the reasons this happens. As such, I suggest that debaters pay close attention to what their opponents are saying and that readers also pay attention to detail in the debate they are reading, and that both readers and debaters report what they think are violations of the rules, because reading a large amount of argumentation is tedious for staff and may even put a strain on their productivity.

I also wanted to say that some topics have been temporarily locked for the sake of "clean-ups" and "cooldowns". I think that this is a good idea, since debates often get heated and before you know it, a massive "wall of text" exists that needs moderation. To let a massive debate go on unmoderated is dangerous, but these clean-ups and cooldowns assist in allowing everyone to catch up with what is being discussed. I suggest, however, that these clean-ups and cooldowns not last too long, or it might get too cold and no one resumes debating or posting their thoughts.

Lastly, I will write about banning debaters. I think that there should be some mercy in banning debaters, like allowing them a second chance after having been banned for a certain period of time, depending on the severity of the violation. I say that because everyone makes mistakes sometimes, and that people can change their behavior. I would also suggest, in the event that a debater is perceiving another debater of having passive-aggressive behavior, that the staff carefully examine the accusation, since perceived passive-aggressive behavior and actual passive-aggressive behavior are different from each other.

With that said, I conclude that while the new debate section is flawed, it is also much better than the former debate section. The flaws would be subtle passive-aggressive behavior and numerous argumentation flaws, while the improvements would be temporarily locking topics, rejecting emojis, and rejecting passive-aggressive behavior. In the end, all that I have said is feedback, and my purpose in saying all that is to convey to staff and users my thoughts on what the new debate section is doing right and where it is going wrong.

[Luna the Great of all the Russias 2,984]

The following is something participants sometimes do: they include an article or video in their post as a way to delegate the task of arguing to their source instead of arguing themselves. This is not necessarily to say one ought not to use said sources--it is good to have sources when needed. However, I think it would be better to summarize or quote directly from said source in one's post so that it is better integrated into one's argument. That is, instead of essentially saying "watch this 30 minute video that supports my position", instead one should summarize the key points (or explain at length depending on the context) and then mention the source in case the reader is interested to look into the matter further. I would guess that in most cases, whatever is not on a user's posts directly on the forums will not be read/watched; whenever someone leaves a lengthy article or video in their post, I would guess that it will not be read in most cases.

20 minutes ago, WinterS said:

I would also suggest for terms such as 'conspiracy theories' to be banned or recommended to not use, because it strikes me as a poor argument to just say something is a 'conspiracy theory'. I've seen that a few times in the Debate Pit and it struck me as rather strange. Saying buzzwords like "Alt right" or "Alt left", etc, strikes me as aggressive and un-necessary and could probably need further clarification in the rules. I admit there were a few times where I was guilty of this, and that my posts are not as high quality as I could make them, and it's something for me to keep in mind in the future. I feel as if people could be more careful for the terminology that is used, the term 'conspiracy theory' is used too much to have any real value in discussion.

l do not oppose recommendations, but I do oppose an outright ban. If the staff is to intervene in some way, I am of the position that it ought to be as close to laissez-faire as possible so that discussion is minimally inhibited. The debate section has been open for about a month now which is more than enough time for each of the regular participants to have developed some kind of reputation anyway. If one has a habit of accusing others of, for example, pushing "conspiracy theories", "Alt-this", "Alt-that", etc. without elaborating on it... that is to use a dismissive response as a substitute for actual argumentation, then other users will recognize this and their opinion on the user will be affected accordingly; people can distinguish between someone who strongly disagrees with them but is fair (or at least it is apparent that they are trying), as opposed to another who seems to try to "win the argument at all costs" which includes acting in bad faith.

17 minutes ago, WinterS said:

I would also like to suggest the removal of the anonymous feature. Really, I don't know why this exists. If you aren't comfortable having your username and profile picture in your posts, maybe you shouldn't be posting? Nobody really seems to use the feature anyway, so I don't think it has a point in existing.

This would decrease the total activity in the section. I oppose abolishing this feature.

[SharpWit 2,647]

As a suggestion for ease of discussion and simplicities sake, I think it would be best for debaters to keep their answers and retorts relatively short.

I would have considered myself a pretty active user in the former debate pit, with about a third of my posts being devoted to it.

It was easier to engage more before I became into a relationship, full time work, and all the other things that come with adulthood. I would like to be more active than I am currently and intend to go through the existing topics in the near future.

However, it also felt quite daunting when I saw a topic with well over a hundred responses to it. It brings me joy to see such an active discussion, but that could hours to read and process. Apologies to the moderators for my whining of what they endure so graciously.

This feeling also made me recall back to a time when I took a break from the pit. I had lost myself in it, become obsessed and stayed up late, night after night, typing away, building walls of text with such fury as though I were constructing a fortress of argumentation. I lost sight of the goal at hand, struggled to function as a person and fulfill my responsibilities in day to day life. It was maddening.

I realized no one enjoys a great wall of text, so I've done my best to keep thoughts and retorts short and to the point.

[Luna the Great of all the Russias 2,984]

12 minutes ago, SharpWit said:

I realized no one enjoys a great wall of text, so I've done my best to keep thoughts and retorts short and to the point.

It is good to be as concise as possible.

And I know well how time consuming it can be to participate in the section. I would like to participate more than I currently am.

[Luna the Great of all the Russias 2,984]

8 minutes ago, WinterS said:

I don't see how that would decrease the activity, as there have been only like...5 or so total posts with it, as I remember?

That is still a decrease, and there may possibly be greater use of it in the future. There may be various reasons why people do not wish to be associated with their arguments. With how the feature has been used so far, it has not been abused in any way.

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 41,457]

The debate pit developed a massive amount of issues before and it seems that those problems still exist in the new one. There is clearly a particular bias in terms of the moderation as well. I see no purpose to bringing something back when it is handled so poorly.

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 41,457]

Moments ago, WinterS said:

@Kyoshi

What examples would you have, of those problems? From my perspective, I haven't seen any issues with the moderation.

I did inform you of the main example via DM. There isn't much point of me going into specifics here, lest I say something some staff may not like.

[Luna the Great of all the Russias 2,984]

7 minutes ago, WinterS said:

@Luna the Great of all the Russias

I suppose what I am saying is, if one does not want to be associated with their arguments - then why even make them? With how this site is declining, I am not too sure if things will be relatively more active in the future, in the sense of new users being pulled in.

Perhaps it is not a feature you or most of the debate participants would use, but it was still valued by the few who did use it. Instead of removing the feature, users can choose to not use it and ignore anonymous users.

[Octavian 5,421]

your princess enjoys this 'debate pit'  although there's something funny seeing all these cute pony avs/sigs debate things like gun control  

my only real issue is with the complete ban on emotes, but I guess I understand why that's needed. 

I have to second the people who are preferring concise points. A text wall can be great if people are on a similar page and are trotting a position together (and there are some great text walls in there), but when we have people starting with very different positions often one will feel that the premise of the other's position is wrong and no amount of extra detail will do.

strongly agree with @WinterS about the name-calling. If you think the other pony believes in conspiracies, then challenge the reality of their points rather than label them. Similarly, if you think they adopt a position that you think is unfair towards some individuals (a common stance against 'right wingers') or degrades personal/national character (a common stance against 'left wingers'), then just make those points rather than label etc.

not feeling the lack of moderation @WinterSor bias of moderation @Kyoshi personally. If anything, I sometimes feel there's a lil more moderation than needed, but overall I think the amount of moderation is just right. In terms of bias, I've seen posters all over the political spectrum have posts modded and it is always clear which rules are broken (I guess it might help if you had an equally active mod to the great @The Wife of Levi but whose politics were more on the left... but it's just not much of an issue to me).

[Steve Piranha 29,424]

9 hours ago, Kyoshi said:

I did inform you of the main example via DM. There isn't much point of me going into specifics here, lest I say something some staff may not like.

I’m afraid not elaborating makes your argument fall into ad omnes fallacy as, unless I’ve missed something, mods showed impartiality overall

 

8 hours ago, abrony-mouse said:

my only real issue is with the complete ban on emotes, but I guess I understand why that's needed. 

 

Yeah, it all started with ONE user who abused the feature to enhance sarcastic and passive aggressive comments. Now if you excuse me, I have to look myself at the mirror for a bit 

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 41,457]

1 minute ago, Steve Piranha said:

I'm afraid not elaborating makes your argument fall into ad omnes fallacy as, unless I’ve missed something, mods showed impartiality overall

I don't know what the limits are anymore on what I I'm allowed to say around here. Might as well not even bother. 

[Octavian 5,421]

2 hours ago, Steve Piranha said:

I’m afraid not elaborating makes your argument fall into ad omnes fallacy as, unless I’ve missed something, mods showed impartiality overall

 

Yeah, it all started with ONE user who abused the feature to enhance sarcastic and passive aggressive comments. Now if you excuse me, I have to look myself at the mirror for a bit 

your princess wants to see this previous debate section, filled with all this delicious drama and emotes >:3

[Steve Piranha 29,424]

1 hour ago, abrony-mouse said:

your princess wants to see this previous debate section, filled with all this delicious drama and emotes >:3

Gone from public eye, I’m afraid . 

[Luna the Great of all the Russias 2,984]

1 hour ago, abrony-mouse said:

your princess wants to see this previous debate section, filled with all this delicious drama and emotes >:3

My memory of the old debate section is vague, but I managed to save a very limited selection of the old debate section; these were tabs I still had open after the old section was permanently closed. Despite the increasing hostility in the current debate section, it still seems that the quality of the posts are still notably higher than it used to be (based on what I have saved) as it was more blatant that the debate section was used as a means to vent instead of arguing about certain topics.

[Jeric 46,851]

I want to directly address this topic and all the comments more in depth, but I want to tackle a few general ones now. 
 

1. Anonymous Posting - This feature was the key reason we reopened Debate. Members can’t see the user who posts, but we can. Some staff also use it since in the past people have levied insinuations that the staff leans one way or the other so strongly that it biases moderation and replies to any opinions posted. 
 

Also, several users are known to exclusively report fellow users who are on the opposite end of the political spectrum so often that it feels like a targeted approach. Allowing people to post anonymously in there may have the effect of preventing revenge reporting. As of now this feature is staying. 

 

2. Passive aggressive remarks - Staff should be catching these. However, I really would like have cases of this reported. 
 

3. Bans - I will fully admit to being aggressive with moderation when I am skimming the Debate section. I want cordial discussion that stays focused on the topic. Mods and Admins can kick a user from a specific topic or the section. If a user wants back in they need to create a support ticket or message an Admin. We will consider lifting the restriction. Permanent bans from the area will be rare, and usually done if there is a noticeable inability to maintain a level of conduct. 
 

4. Maintaining actual academic debate rules would be far too strict and manual an approach. I’m not even sure how many members can name all the logical fallacies that are typically seen and marked in an academic of professional debate. Most take cues from social media and traditional media which, frankly, have destroyed the notion of legitimate debate structure. I don’t even know how many on staff would be able to recognize when a user is using an ad-hominem for instance. 
 

5. I just yawned hard. I must do Jeric sleep. 

 

[Jeric 46,851]

On 2022-08-30 at 1:10 PM, WinterS said:

I remember that back then, my posts compared to now, were relatively low quality. I do not miss the old debate pit personally - but I wouldn't mind seeing it in an archived section. 

This may be possible and something I’ll think over

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 41,457]

1 hour ago, Jeric said:

Bans - I will fully admit to being aggressive with moderation when I am skimming the Debate section. I want cordial discussion that stays focused on the topic. Mods and Admins can kick a user from a specific topic or the section. If a user wants back in they need to create a support ticket or message an Admin. We will consider lifting the restriction. Permanent bans from the area will be rare, and usually done if there is a noticeable inability to maintain a level of conduct

What I'm curious about is the number of these you've done so far and if that decision is made through a process of discussion with other admins. From whom I've talked with, the latter part of that statement doesn't happen. 

[Octavian 5,421]

While I'm happy with the 'no sassing others' rule, I am less sure with a rule against sassing world leaders. For example,  

8 hours ago, The Wife of Levi said:

eh, I don't think the West hates Russians, just their idiot ‘leader’.

I think calling a leader 'an idiot' and similar sass (provided it's non-profane etc) should be allowed. Not because it is fun (although it totally is), but because ridicule actually serves a purpose sometimes. Putin has created a cult of personality around himself and carefully crafted an image as a strong-man, which I find to be pompous - ridicule is a good way of cutting them down to size. The same goes for many figures at the top, and ridicule (eg caricature) of them is something most societies have in spades. So I want our pony debate society to also be allowed to do this! 

'Course I will accept the rule, but I think this one should change.

[Luna the Great of all the Russias 2,984]

8 hours ago, abrony-mouse said:

While I'm happy with the 'no sassing others' rule, I am less sure with a rule against sassing world leaders. For example,  

I think calling a leader 'an idiot' and similar sass (provided it's non-profane etc) should be allowed. Not because it is fun (although it totally is), but because ridicule actually serves a purpose sometimes. Putin has created a cult of personality around himself and carefully crafted an image as a strong-man, which I find to be pompous - ridicule is a good way of cutting them down to size. The same goes for many figures at the top, and ridicule (eg caricature) of them is something most societies have in spades. So I want our pony debate society to also be allowed to do this! 

'Course I will accept the rule, but I think this one should change.

I think there is some ambiguity on this. Because in Jeric's thread announcing the re-opening of the debate section, he stated:

Quote

Public figures are NOT the community. You are able to speak your mind on them freely provided you do not use profanity (or absurd hidden versions of it). 
 

The system will stop you from posting if you use certain words and profanity. If you circumvent the filter, you will be banned from the debate pit until we have unanimous Admin approval to allow you back in. 
 

You say something like Fuck Trump or Fuck Biden … tossed from the topic on strike one. Phrasing is important.

And the current debate section rules do not cover how public figures can be addressed:

Quote

Debate Pit Rules! 

More coming … 

No Profanity 
Be cordial
No emoji / emoticons 
No passive aggressive behavior 
No overt Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, Transphobia, Religious Practitioner Bashing*
No Pro Nazi posting/imagery

So with this...

On 2022-09-08 at 7:19 PM, The Wife of Levi said:

A reminder to everyone:

Do not refer to those in positions of power in this situation (Vladimir Putin, Joe Biden, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, etc.) using insulting names.

This will not be tolerated and all offending posts will be dealt with accordingly.

...I am wondering to what extent a user can freely express their opinions on a given public figure. In the announcement post, it struck me that the only restriction was the use of profanity. Granted, many aspects of his announcement post may have been tentative measures, and I assume that the set of rules posted for the section is not meant to be exhaustive (to inhibit users who may be more interested in technically not breaking the rules instead of adhering to the overall intention of the rules). But I think it would be helpful to have some clearly defined rule on this; as of now, users may unintentionally break this implicit rule.

Edited September 12, 2022 by Luna the Great of all the Russias

[Octavian 5,421]

2 hours ago, Luna the Great of all the Russias said:

Public figures are NOT the community. You are able to speak your mind on them freely provided you do not use profanity (or absurd hidden versions of it). 
 

 

D:

wait...

so is calling Putin an idiot and such against the rules @Jeric @The Wife of Levi? 

  

4 hours ago, Props said:

I think that the rule creates a better and more serious atmosphere.

happy for it not to get too jokey or shouty, but editing/removing posts for a bit of ridicule of public figures seems a bit OTT to me if the goal is to keep the debates reasonably serious.

[Jeric 46,851]

8 hours ago, abrony-mouse said:

D:

wait...

so is calling Putin an idiot and such against the rules @Jeric @The Wife of Levi? 

I was waiting for this to happen. I have always been a proponent of transparency. 

I’ll give the rest of the staff time to chime in honestly before I give my input on what happened. Needless to say, you did not violate the intent or letter of the rule. You should not have been messaged or told you did anything wrong. 
 

I am moving away from moderation duties soon, because of this issue. I’ll be focused exclusively on site improvements and community events. 

[Jeric 46,851]

8 hours ago, abrony-mouse said:

happy for it not to get too jokey or shouty, but editing/removing posts for a bit of ridicule of public figures seems a bit OTT to me if the goal is to keep the debates reasonably serious.

I didn’t want people to be “Fuck Trump”, “Biden is an asshole”. Calling Putin an idiot should be fine. I trust you guys to not go overboard. 

[Troblems 5,617]

I have a couple of things to add, but nothing groundbreaking. First, keep in mind that moderating in general can be mentally taxing. Especially with the more concentrated user base, even if you don’t know someone that well, you know their username. The debate pit is worse as you’re dealing with charged situations. We’re doing our best, this system is new and we’re all trying to learn the new ins and outs together. We knew the original was deeply, deeply flawed. @Jericput a lot of thought and energy into it. That doesn’t negate the current issues with it. Also props @Splashee, @Courageous Thunder Dash, and @The Wife of Levi. You three have been great with reports. 

I agree with posting resources for debating in general. You should always try to link sources for your arguments if you can. Fallacious arguments are going to be a part of debating, here or otherwise. Responding to them is hard because often you and the other person are not talking about the same topic. This is going to be something that I’m going to say time and again in this post and goes for anyone on the site, in life, and everywhere you go: be kind to one another. Treat others as you want to be treated. Remember that there is another person with complex thoughts and feelings on the other end of the debate. Don’t make it personal. Keep in mind that not everyone has the same knowledge with debates. In all cases, remember name calling weakens your own arguments.
 

For locked threads, I’m not sure if it’s possible, but having a timer on locked threads could be a possibility. Do not quote me on this. I don’t work on features. Keep in mind, threads get locked and unlocked as staff are available. 

 

We’ve been going through old bans a lot. There were a lot where we came across really heavy handed; myself especially. We try to start with suspensions while keeping the health of the site and the section in mind. We try to keep an open mind with bans and suspensions, and Jeric in particular is an advocate for second chances. Talk to us if you have a problem, if you disagree with a decision, if you want to get access to a section you’ve lost access to. Also keep in mind we can hide DP from your view if you need some time to cool off but want to continue to use the forums upon request. 

I’m hesitant to ban any use of conspiracy theories for a couple reasons. One is that the theories themselves (in their own topics) can be fascinating to discuss, and I wouldn’t want to take that possibility away. The second is I don’t want to censor what anyone says in the section. The key word is in the name of the position. We’re here to moderate, to keep it civil, not to censor. 
 

Some topics will inherently gather more discussion. We’ve stopped locking old threads. Should any disagree, I’m cool with it and would love to have a talk about it, but personally I’m not interested in letting threads stay locked because nothing new is being contributed. I also understand @SharpWit is saying, so a good compromise might be to lock threads but remake them so that not every post with hundreds of posts don’t have to be parsed through to continue discussion. 
 

The ability to post anonymously will not be removed at this time. It was fundamentally one of the reasons why DP was reopened. We want all users to be able to post with confidence without feeling targeted for their ideas. There will continue to be no emotes. There was a lot of tomfoolery before with them in the previous version of the section. 
 

I want to reiterate this: think about how the person on the other end of your debate. Attack arguments, not people. State disagreements, avoid calling names. Be mindful of what you say. Be kind. 

[Jeric 46,851]

17 minutes ago, Props said:

I also personally disagree with the allowance for people to call leaders and politicians 'idiots', as I believe we are all better than that and can converse effectively without any kind of insults or name calling.

This is a topic of legitimate discussion.

The public figures rule only came up because of internal confusion or disagreement of the rules. As communicated and my intent was to curb overly aggressive and inflammatory rhetoric while allowing some freedom to criticize a public figure.
 

Stopping at profanity was a reasonable first step. I did leave the rules open to bring amended, mostly because I wanted to carefully watch the tone and interest level. My other concern is that if you further restrict how you can criticize, the rule becomes more and more ambiguous and is opened to more and more concerning questions as people try and wrestle with how to communicate dissatisfaction. Is saying that someone is dangerous a violation? Does this apply up living AND dead figures? Are we to allot a level of similar protections to figures who are known at all levels of society and academia as villainous and sociopathic? 
 

Worse, it can have a chilling effect on conversation from the more level headed and genuine debaters. Why risk discussion when rules have proven to be nebulous with no clear boundaries? I don’t want Debate Pit to die of a thousand cuts, and I don’t want to scare off those who want to have make arguments supporting a claim about a public figure. 
 

Then there is the oft cited argument that I’ve heard over the many years from fellow staffers, who may have been well-intentioned, that boils down to, “Give a mouse a cookie.” 
 

One of the hardest parts of running a forum is to know when you should trust your community. I try to reject the slippery slope argument that some have. If we allow mild “name-calling”, I don’t assume that it will lead to more aggressive behavior. Most of us are adults with responsibility. We know how to act. If the general tone is reasonable, I feel that taking too much prevention can feel like we as community leaders are distrusting of the community. 
 

The found of this place believes, as do I, that the bedrock of forum engagement lies in the public activity of the staff. It’s why I chime in on the debates from time to time. I like to engage. That alone can help keep emotions in check. This is not an activity mandated, but some prefer to lurk in the shadows, but it is one I have encouraged. 
 

I think the current application of the rules has been mostly stellar, with the strong disagreement I have over the interpretation of a rule that is covered under “No profanity”.  That was NOT a personal preference. I’m from Philly and when you get me going … I can sound like Gordon Ramsay. But, it fit with the requirements that people be cordial. 
 

I had a very light hand on moderation in general unless it became so often that enough was enough. I usually sought agreement with the other staff, something that has slowly eroded away. The issue with calling Putin “idiotic” was not a settled report. If this was how the rest of the staff wanted to go, then it should have been communicated in the Throne Room and added to the listed rules in that section before we held people to that standard.
 

On a personal note, I also have a tendency to take on too much by myself, so stepping away from this element of Community Administration, for me, is a blessing … even if the catalyst was not. What happens with DP is no longer going to be something I focus on. I’d rather get stuff like Clubs, Events, and Movie Nights going again. You’ll see me in there discussion current events though  

 

[Jeric 46,851]

2 minutes ago, Props said:

I would wager I've only gotten good at it this year, if not more recently - I still have a long way to go, and I try to adhere to decent personal standards whenever possible.

Personally, you have gotten much better at communicating your views with focus while being insightful. Props to you. (Don’t blame me, I’m a dad)