Originally posted by Philosophía
'Poor debating tactits' is what's used in pretty much 85-90% of the discussions on this board.
Originally posted by Philosophía
The burden of proof is quite clear who it lies upon, as long as the posters have a basic amount of logic.
Originally posted by Newjak
Hmm... I have an easy solution how about newjak is always right and everyone else is always wrong. sounds good to me 😄Nah I think the problem lies with 85-95 % of this forum thinking they are a lot better then what they are.
Originally posted by PhilosophíaAs an example
Just randomly browse a thread (prefferably a relativly active one, with a few pages) and read any reply which doesn't belong to Avalon/Juntai/Galan/Bran/Smurph and a few other posters.Or just check your posting history.
I'm just playing 😛
Originally posted by darthgoober
I know, and that's a situation that I think needs to be remedied.
👆
Originally posted by darthgoober
You'd think so, but go to any thread that has more than 50 post to it and I can all but guarantee that you'll find at least one person who's making flat statements and asking others to prove him/her wrong.
Yes. But the thing is that there are many posters employing this kind of tactics, and I'm not sure if the mods have the time to read each of these discussions and make decisions/hand out warnings.
Though, if the rules are formulated nicely, it will probably do their job a lot easier.
Originally posted by Philosophía
[BYes. But the thing is that there are many posters employing this kind of tactics, and I'm not sure if the mods have the time to read each of these discussions and make decisions/hand out warnings.Though, if the rules are formulated nicely, it will probably do their job a lot easier. [/B]
Originally posted by PhilosophíaCoolio I thought you were.
I was just playing with him also.Though I'm pretty sure that the instant after reading that post he reported me.
Personally though I think people take these things too seriously. The fundamental problem presented in debating in an online medium is as such.
There is no personal accountability held to the person making the comments. As long as they don't they bash/troll/spam then they are free to form any opinion without factual basis they so desire.
And there is no reason why they should change if they do not choose to have an open mind on a particular topic.
The only way I find to change this ever engaging cycle is to instead approach the forum as a non-confrontational information sharing experience.
One that is use more to share and discuss facts which hopefully introduces a less aggressive and more open minded way to go about matches.
Unfortunately this requires a fundamental change in mentality throughout the board. Something we probably won't see because once again people are not held in any check to change.
Especially when you have stubborn mods like Bada running things ha-son
Originally posted by psycho gundam
a question or two from the possible F.A.Q., then obviously the correct way of posting.
The information SHARING angle will cure much burden of proof trolling, spamming and idle flaming.
I propose a rule to ban members who ask for proof or ask to be proved wrong.
This command will eliminate bickering and free the debate for members with a genuine interest in the characters to contribute.
An Example:
Inhuman Fist can hold his breath for ten minutes
Nuh Uh PROVE iT
do you know anything? yOU prove me Wrong
Well? I'm waiting.
I'm waiting too.
Reported for Spamming
Reported for Trolling
Fanboy
Idiot etc
And so on
The Solution:
Inhuman Fist can hold his breath for ten minutes.
I don't think so.
.....
3rd poster Appears and contributes something constructive.
In the absences of feuding the debate can flow smoothly or die a natural death.
I wanted to use a different example because it seems like the only thing I talk about nowadays but pg put me on the spot so it's all I can think of right now. But I'm not suggesting any kind of limits on the Faq or that my way is necessarily the "right way" so if anyone can come up with anything else feel free to pitch it.
Who's responsibility is it to prove whether or not Character X can successfully speedblitz Character Y?
1. Well first things first, since the speedblitz is being pitched by Character X it's up to the person suggesting the tactic to show proof that Character X has both the ability and inclination(since we're talking about "In Character" fighting) to preform a speedblitz at all.
2. With both of those things established, it falls to the person defending Character Y to show that he has the ability to defend against a speedblitz.
If both Character X and Character Y have evidence to support their case, then things have to become a little more specific to keep the debate moving forward(otherwise people just start arguing in circles). So then it becomes...
3. What quantifiable speed feats does Character X have that give an idea as to his max speedblitzing speed(since his opponents ability to defend against a "generic" speed has been established).
4. What quantifiable speed feats does Character Y have that give an idea as to his ability to defend against "high speed attacks"(since his opponents ability to preform more than a "generic speedblitz" has been established).
If Character X's quantified feats are superior to Character Y's quantified feats then there's definite evidence to suggest that the tactic can be preformed successfully so the debate should move on to what the effect of the blitz will be on Character Y. If not, then there's no evidence to support the initial claim so it should be dropped in favor of other tactics.
And that's it, one very simple procedure and a 200 page circular debate becomes a 1 page debate. No one has to change their opinion as to whether or not the tactic will be successful, they just have to concede the point when there's no evidence to support their opinion. And it's not even any kind of actual change to the rules because it goes right along with the "No biased claims" rule that we already have in place but is often ignored. Just apply it to a couple of common claims that are made(one-shotting, weakness exploitation, ect.) for the Faq and it'll give a good idea to all as to who should be providing what in any particular situation.
I know that many topics/tactics are very subjective and because of that are hesitant to support adding guidelines to the debates themselves, but we've got more than enough intelligent members to cover the basics of a debate. I mean Digi and leo are school teachers for God's sake, I'm pretty sure they can successfully come up with some impartial guidelines that will save tons of time all around.
Originally posted by shiv
The information SHARING angle will cure much burden of proof trolling, spamming and idle flaming.I propose a rule to ban members who ask for proof or ask to be proved wrong.
This command will eliminate bickering and free the debate for members with a genuine interest in the characters to contribute.
An Example:
Inhuman Fist can hold his breath for ten minutes
Nuh Uh PROVE iT
do you know anything? yOU prove me Wrong
Well? I'm waiting.
I'm waiting too.
Reported for Spamming
Reported for Trolling
Fanboy
Idiot etc
And so on
The Solution:
Inhuman Fist can hold his breath for ten minutes.I don't think so.
.....
3rd poster Appears and contributes something constructive.
In the absences of feuding the debate can flow smoothly or die a natural death.
I'm the Emperor of China and I'm typing this from my throne room.
Now see how long it takes for someone to show why the above statement is false so the discussion can move forward. Plus, what happens when the third parties disagree?
Originally posted by psycho gundam
heh, china has no current emperor. they ended their dynasties in the early 1900's with the appropriation/invasion of the british.then they became commies.