StarDestroyer.Net BBS

So havokeff, according to you, it makes no difference whether a commentry thread occurs during or after a debate.

If that's the case, then why are you insisting the commentry thread should be started during the debate, when by your own logic it doesn't matter?

The staff have provided reasons as to why they don't want a commentry thread started until the debate is finished, so leave it at that. Whether you agree with those reasons or not is irrelevent. You've conceded it doesn't matter when the commentry thread begins anyhow.

Ok, I'm gonna toss this out there and see...


This wouldn't be a damned thing like a real life debate. Saying that people commenting on a debate on the board would be more like a few people in the audience of an IRL debate blogging. Go ahead and make a comment thread, the frigging participants in the main debate don't have to even look at it. Pull your heads out of your uptight asses already.

Again, there have been reasons submitted by the staff as to why they do not want a commentry thread during the debate. Furthermore, upcoming participants in the debates have pointed out they'd rather not have a commentry thread until the debate is concluded. (one good reason was they don't want similar ideas/arguments in a commentry thread to undermine their own originality)

Therefore, the question becomes, why does a commentry thread need to be started during the debate? Why can it not wait until it's over?

Havokeff has conceded it doesn't matter when the commentry thread starts. So again, why is there a fuss about starting one during the course of the debate rather than after?

Maybe it is due to the fact that people can't resist talking? Many people would feel the urge to respond to something when one guy said something stupid. They want to call you out for being stupid and etc.

However, such behavior works both ways. If you cannot resist commenting on a debate, what makes you think other people would have better restraints?

Havokeff and Mr Coffee is a prime example of people unable to control their restraint to a certain extend. When a critical post has been made in a discussion thread, the participant in the coliseum will get emotional to a certain extend, and will try and respond to that critical post. When that happens, the purpose of a coliseum will be gone.

It is my opinion that Mr. Coffee and Havokeff is arguing based on personal feelings as opposed to rational thought in this discussion. They simply get angry when discussion is prohibited, and that cause them to be very emotional when they are discussing about this topic.

I find it funny to see Havokeff and Mr. Coffee talking about how bad drama is bad for the board when they are proposing actions that will actually encourage such a behavior. Double standards should not be applied to the board community as a whole.

ray245 wrote:Maybe it is due to the fact that people can't resist talking? Many people would feel the urge to respond to something when one guy said something stupid. They want to call you out for being stupid and etc.

Is anyone forcing the people in the coliseum read a commentary thread? No. That right there negates that retarded "It's like talking really loud in a real life debate" horse shit.

ray245 wrote:However, such behavior works both ways. If you cannot resist commenting on a debate, what makes you think other people would have better restraints?

No one is saying the participants have to read the comments thread. So who gives a shit about "restraint". Restraint isn't even an issue, moron.

ray245 wrote:Havokeff and Mr Coffee is a prime example of people unable to control their restraint to a certain extend. When a critical post has been made in a discussion thread, the participant in the coliseum will get emotional to a certain extend, and will try and respond to that critical post. When that happens, the purpose of a coliseum will be gone.

And you're a prime example of why the HoC is a Bad Idea. Seriously, everything that you post is either poorly thought out, barely legible, or both. Do the board a favor and shut the hell up already.

ray245 wrote:It is my opinion that Mr. Coffee and Havokeff is arguing based on personal feelings as opposed to rational thought in this discussion. They simply get angry when discussion is prohibited, and that cause them to be very emotional when they are discussing about this topic.

Wait, so you're saying that pushing for discussion on a fucking DISCUSSION BOARD is now a bad thing? For fuck's sake, would you just stop posting. Also, where the hell are you getting this shit about it being a "personal issue" on Havokeff's and my part? We've been pointing out that having a commentary thread isn't anything like people talking in an auditorium in the middle of a real life debate and so far all we get are cries about "dogpiles" and your retarded ass posting more retarded shit.

Go fuck off and come up with another idiotic suggest for the HoC or something. Christ, don't they have homes for people like you in your homeland?

ray245 wrote:I find it funny to see Havokeff and Mr. Coffee talking about how bad drama is bad for the board when they are proposing actions that will actually encourage such a behavior. Double standards should not be applied to the board community as a whole.

What drama? The only drama that seems to happen any more is coming out of HoC, usually when people like you come up with idiotic "suggestions". Jesus, go play in traffic.

Oh good. Bubble Boy is here.

Bubble Boy wrote:So havokeff, according to you, it makes no difference whether a commentry thread occurs during or after a debate.

Correct. Glad you are reading along.

If that's the case, then why are you insisting the commentry thread should be started during the debate, when by your own logic it doesn't matter?

Oops. Guess you weren't reading along. I didn't "insist" anything idiot. The point is that Bean's instance that NO thread be started during the debate is fucking lame. If someone wants to start a thread or say something about something someone has posted, in a debate that could take days or even weeks, then it should not be a problem. And not be automatically assumed to be a dogpile in the making.

The staff have provided reasons as to why they don't want a commentry thread started until the debate is finished, so leave it at that. Whether you agree with those reasons or not is irrelevent. You've conceded it doesn't matter when the commentry thread begins anyhow.

I haven't conceded anything moron. I have pointed out that the supposed reasons that Bean and others have put out there to not have a discussion thread during the debate are not time sensitive, and will happen no matter when a discussion thread is started and conversely don't affect the debate unless the participants let it. The whole "taint" the debate is bullshit as well.

ray245 wrote:Maybe it is due to the fact that people can't resist talking? Many people would feel the urge to respond to something when one guy said something stupid. They want to call you out for being stupid and etc.

However, such behavior works both ways. If you cannot resist commenting on a debate, what makes you think other people would have better restraints?

Havokeff and Mr Coffee is a prime example of people unable to control their restraint to a certain extend. When a critical post has been made in a discussion thread, the participant in the coliseum will get emotional to a certain extend, and will try and respond to that critical post. When that happens, the purpose of a coliseum will be gone.

It is my opinion that Mr. Coffee and Havokeff is arguing based on personal feelings as opposed to rational thought in this discussion. They simply get angry when discussion is prohibited, and that cause them to be very emotional when they are discussing about this topic.

I find it funny to see Havokeff and Mr. Coffee talking about how bad drama is bad for the board when they are proposing actions that will actually encourage such a behavior. Double standards should not be applied to the board community as a whole.

OK Ray. Care to find an example of me being "unable to control their restraint to a certain extend"? Seriously. Find me one. Even in the recent thread where I flamed Poe, there was no loss of restraint. I knew precisely what I was doing and knew exactly what I wanted to say and how I wanted to say it. Not every one is an irrational, emotional retard that can't get their thoughts together before they type like you.

This argument has nothing to do with "board drama" it has to do with me seeing something I don't agree with and saying so. If that is what people view as "drama" on this board, then I just solved the "problem" right there. You, along with anyone else that thinks that, are fucking idiots.

Why people automatically assume that a dogpile is going to ensue in a discussion thread about a debate in the Coliseum is beyond me.

And just for the record, it is called the Coliseum, not the Prim and Proper Debate Room. The Coliseum was meant to be a spectacle.

The Coliseum does not exist to suit your whims Hav. Live with it.

Who's talking about Hav's whims? They're talking about the public making comments on the Coliseum from their own spectator thread, and Ray's whimming for the public to not make comments on the Coliseum from their own spectator thread.

And the Coliseum was meant to have awesome sights for the spectators to see and be amazed at. It's meant for discourses that get other people interested and talking about stuff. That was the idea when it was brought up and implemented some time ago.

Just to stir the soup even more, how about if the participants themselves agree whether or not they want a discussion thread? Some people may enjoy a peanut gallery.

Mods would have to step in if it looked like a participant was spending too much time interacting with the crowd than in the Coliseum, and if commentary was just being abusive, they could HoS or lock, or just delete the post in question.

The "Report" button can be useful in providing instant action if that is the case.

Shroom Man 777 wrote: And the Coliseum was meant to have awesome sights for the spectators to see and be amazed at. It's meant for discourses that get other people interested and talking about stuff. That was the idea when it was brought up and implemented some time ago.

And then we did jack all with it. Leading to me taking power via declaration and exercising dictatorial control over the forum.

As you may have noted, the rest of the staff is fine with my control of it. Since taking control we are already on our second debate with it with a third one in the coming weeks and I've already gotten PM's from people interested in a dozen more. So look forward to more activity in the coming weeks.

I don't see what the big fuss is about. So we wait to comment on the debate...I think a bigger issue are the debates that go around and around in circles with no chance of a 'finish him off' in sight.

Alyeska wrote:The Coliseum does not exist to suit your whims Hav. Live with it.

And I am not arguing about the Coliseum at all. I like the idea, and I like the format. You guys are really missing the point or are just not reading.

Coliseum debate=Good
No talking during the debate=Bad

Take the current debate for example. Thanas laid down a wall of text. It has been two days, going on three with no response. Many people on the board are interested in Rome and it's Empire, but everyone is forbidden from talking about it. Why? The only arguments presented thus far are that FOR SURE a dogpile is going to ensue on Thanas or Duchess and that discussion is going to influence the debate.

To the latter, I doubt seriously, that with the research Thanas, and probably Duchess, have put into the topic that any thoughts, negative or positive, from a discussion thread is going to have influence on either of their opinions or ideas.

To the former, I have observed that dogpiles only ensue when there is some glaring stupidity or poorly defended point or badly made argument. That is certainly not the case in the current debate so far, nor was it the case in the previous debate, and only happened in the debate with Volly.

havokeff wrote:

Bubble Boy wrote:If that's the case, then why are you insisting the commentry thread should be started during the debate, when by your own logic it doesn't matter?

Oops. Guess you weren't reading along. I didn't "insist" anything idiot.

Ah, so your entire effort of arguing for a commentry thread that's concurrent to a debate isn't your way of insisting there one should be allowed. Ok, so what are you arguing for if not a commentry thread? Just to get attention?

The point is that Bean's instance that NO thread be started during the debate is fucking lame. If someone wants to start a thread or say something about something someone has posted, in a debate that could take days or even weeks, then it should not be a problem. And not be automatically assumed to be a dogpile in the making.

And your personal opinion on this should override the desires of the board staff and Coliseum participants...why?

The staff have provided reasons as to why they don't want a commentry thread started until the debate is finished, so leave it at that. Whether you agree with those reasons or not is irrelevent. You've conceded it doesn't matter when the commentry thread begins anyhow.

I haven't conceded anything moron. I have pointed out that the supposed reasons that Bean and others have put out there to not have a discussion thread during the debate are not time sensitive, and will happen no matter when a discussion thread is started and conversely don't affect the debate unless the participants let it. The whole "taint" the debate is bullshit as well.

Let's humor you havokeff, and pretend every reason you've read for a delayed commentry thread is in fact bullshit. You are neither a participant in the Coliseum thread nor part of the board staff who are in charge and get the final say (you know, that whole issue you were so passionately arguing for in the HoC discussion thead).

So why does a commentry thread need to be active during the debate rather than after? What's the critical difference? What is a post commentry thread incapable of doing that concurrent one can? Feel free to ignore the rest of my post if you can just answer that, havokeff.

Coyote wrote:Just to stir the soup even more, how about if the participants themselves agree whether or not they want a discussion thread? Some people may enjoy a peanut gallery.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

havokeff wrote:

Alyeska wrote:The Coliseum does not exist to suit your whims Hav. Live with it.

And I am not arguing about the Coliseum at all. I like the idea, and I like the format. You guys are really missing the point or are just not reading.

Coliseum debate=Good
No talking during the debate=Bad

Take the current debate for example. Thanas laid down a wall of text. It has been two days, going on three with no response. Many people on the board are interested in Rome and it's Empire, but everyone is forbidden from talking about it. Why? The only arguments presented thus far are that FOR SURE a dogpile is going to ensue on Thanas or Duchess and that discussion is going to influence the debate.

To the latter, I doubt seriously, that with the research Thanas, and probably Duchess, have put into the topic that any thoughts, negative or positive, from a discussion thread is going to have influence on either of their opinions or ideas.

To the former, I have observed that dogpiles only ensue when there is some glaring stupidity or poorly defended point or badly made argument. That is certainly not the case in the current debate so far, nor was it the case in the previous debate, and only happened in the debate with Volly.

Perhaps a compromise can be made? Letting people PM each other about the debate?

We open up a commentary thread in the duration of the debate. People who really want to comment on it can add their names into the thread, and says people can PM them for discussion. Like how people comment on debates in real life, people would only chat with 1-2 people about the debate.

There are flaws in this idea though.

Coyote wrote:Just to stir the soup even more, how about if the participants themselves agree whether or not they want a discussion thread? Some people may enjoy a peanut gallery.

I would agree with this avenue certainly over the current "talking=face breaking" Beanism.
And I would point out that the current participator, Thanas, agreed with my original assessment of "dumb" as far as the rule went, but he didn't specify if he himself would want a discussion thread.

Mods would have to step in if it looked like a participant was spending too much time interacting with the crowd than in the Coliseum, and if commentary was just being abusive, they could HoS or lock, or just delete the post in question.

I also agree with this. You are there to debate your opponent first and foremost. If you want to engage in the discussion thread, fine, just don't let the cause for the discussion slide. If you can't handle two things at once, stick with the Coliseum only. And absolutely commentary should be kept from becoming what it was when Volly debated, but that is something that should always be the case, not just in a Coliseum discussion thread. Bean's fascist ass can enforce this to his hearts content.

havokeff wrote:

Alyeska wrote:The Coliseum does not exist to suit your whims Hav. Live with it.

And I am not arguing about the Coliseum at all. I like the idea, and I like the format. You guys are really missing the point or are just not reading.

Coliseum debate=Good
No talking during the debate=Bad

You are talking about the Coliseum. Discussion threads are openly visible and taint the entire process. There is a reason why public viewing of debates requires silence. You don't start a loud discussion in the middle of public debates.

havokeff, why can't we let people post after the debate? When the debate is over, the participants would actually have a chance to disagree with certain people's opinions.

They can defend their arguments personally without being distracted from the Coliseum. Moreover, Havokeff, what is the point of having a discussion thread so early into the game?

In the current debate, we have yet to hear from the Duchess. How can we judge the debate by the OP alone? Even if you want a discussion thread, can't you wait until the opposition replied?

Really, what can we really discuss about Thanas post beyond 'gee, we don't know that!' ? I mean, most of us lack a proper understanding of the Romans as compared to Thanas and co. Is there any productive post that can be made in regards to Thanas post? Very few members here has the credentials to even criticize or judge Thanas knowledge of history.

In schools you would have to learn from your teachers instead of thinking you have a better idea than your teachers. How could you criticize your teachers when you know less stuff as compared to him or her?

In regards to debates issues where most people would not be familiar with, isn't it better to listen and learn from the debaters before speaking?



One important thing to note as well, is the problem of a mob mentality. A discussion thread during a debate may not be conductive to the community as a whole. The mob mentality may scare off a number of people from voicing out their opinion due to fears of getting flamed. Isn't it better to judge their debate yourself, as compared to letting others judge the debate before it ends?

The problem of 'walking into a debate' may occur if we have a discussion during the debate. Walking into the debate is basically when the judges or viewers have already decided from the start who will win the debate. Letting too many people form their opinions during the course of the debate can encourage such a behavior. People might not even judge the replies from the opposition bench and see everything coming from one side as stupid without even looking at it.

Let me put it to you simply Havokeff.
I have declared(Yes Declared) that part of the rule about debates held in the Coliseum is that no discussion thread existing during the debate(Mirroring professional debates where all comments are after the match). The Coliseum is not the rest of the board, you are quite able for example to hold your own debate with whatever rules you like in SL&M or N&P we have such threads every day.

The Coliseum however plays to a different set of rules, specifically the rules I set. The rules I have the right and power to set. And those rules are whatever I decided they will be. Those rules as it stands are few, a set date for a match to begin, a set date it will end, an acceptable level of evidence(IE no making shit up) with citation whenever possible. And a nice clean easy to read OP so you can understand what is going on, who's debating which side and what each side is trying to prove.

Oh and no discussion threads while the match is ongoing. In the current matches case its running from January 1st to January 7th. Between themselves Thanas and The Duchess of Zeon set down two dozen other rules both of them agreed to follow, but you know what? They can do that, such rules will not apply during the Darth Hoth Tiriol debate on Jedi Morality. That is a brand new debate with different rules which the two of them themselves will set.

Coyote drew up a nice set of debate rules and guidelines here and I rejected them, not because I don't like them, but because I want to give people more freedom. When I put together my form-letter post tomorrow I intend to use it as a possible guideline of rules you can follow and set yourselves.

So you got that? If you don't like the current set of rules that's fine, there's ten other forums right here in SD.Net where you can do whatever you like(Within the over-all rules of SD.Net).

Your free to come and go as you wish. But if you sir, want a match in The Coliseum, then sir you will obey by the rules set.

Fair enough.

This is from a PM. Wanna carry on the argument? Do it in public where the argument is.

Formless wrote:

havokeff wrote:

Formless wrote: Hav, if you were Volly, what do you think the price of NOT responding would be? What do you think it would do to your already low popularity? It was lose-lose for him, and he chose to cut his losses in a way that dragged out the debate.

If I was Voly? I would have done the debate and ignored the discussion thread. I know that may be difficult for you to comprehend, since you probably have no will power, and pander to what people think of you constantly, but that is what I would have done. Who gives a fuck what people think about you? They either like you or they don't. This whiny bullshit you are using in your argument makes me sick. WHAAAAAA no one likes me.

Okay, just for the record, Hav, I don't care about what people think of me. You can take your personal attack and stab it in your gonads. Fact is that to some people reputation matters, and like it or not, that is going to sour some debates where one debater is put into that position. Popularity is the difference between people taking you seriously by default and having to prove yourself, at least in the minds of people like Volly, if nowhere else. So howabout (in the future, since you already conceded to Bean) attacking an argument I actually made, fuckass?

In live, formal debates there's no heckling from the audience. I suggest the same should apply to the Coliseum.

havokeff wrote:This is from a PM. Wanna carry on the argument? Do it in public where the argument is.

Since you already conceded the issue, I figured I wouldn't spam up the thread anymore, but if this is the way you want to fight, I'm game. Now, how about addmitting you were arguing and Ad Hominim and get it out of the way? Since, you know, I was arguing from Volly's POV and not my own?

Fact is that to some people reputation matters, and like it or not, that is going to sour some debates where one debater is put into that position. Popularity is the difference between people taking you seriously by default and having to prove yourself

As we are tallking in the context of the forum when it comes to debates here; you still have to prove yourself no matter how well respected you are. You prove yourself with evidence and logic so really in the context of this forum which is what you are talking about with the Coliseum and all, that does not matter unless you want to be able to argue with no evidence or logic or something.

Bluewolf wrote:As we are tallking in the context of the forum when it comes to debates here; you still have to prove yourself no matter how well respected you are. You prove yourself with evidence and logic so really in the context of this forum which is what you are talking about with the Coliseum and all, that does not matter unless you want to be able to argue with no evidence or logic or something.

Whilst what you say is true, it is a value judgment about how you are received outside the debate in the rest of the forums. The existence of the senate and the several cults of personality that float around the board are proof of the power of reputation over people. It is not hard to see how some people might consider that when responding to someone else, especially in the context of a Coliseum debate discussion thread.

In any case, this was a personal thing between me and Hav. As long as he will admit that he was making an Ad Hominim about my personality founded not in fact and irrelevant to the point I was making and apologize, I will let it go. That is also why I chose to take it to PM rather than here.