[Suggestion] The Great Debates

[AnwarA101]

So I've often gone into a thread and listened to two people debate opposite points of view. Many things can follow the initial disagreement. One of which is flaming or non-constructive criticism which is unfortunate. The other is that a very important and constructive debate can get derailed or sidetracked by others entering the discussion. While I think that others entering a discussion isn't bad sometimes an important discussion gets lost in the mix. So while the solution to the first situation is moderation the second issue is rarely discussed. My proposed solution for such a problem is having a debate thread. This is how I would lay out such a thread -

First find a topic where there are obviously two people are expressing opposite points of view. While that discussion may or may not continue in that thread it seems better to move that discussion to a new thread where only those 2 participants can post. This would allow the discussion to continue without any unrelated posts. Some examples of such disagreements could be

Mental Note vs. Portent in Threshold

Whether Fish is a good or bad archetype in Legacy

What color splash is best in goblins

In the past there have been people sometimes vocal who have expressed opinions on topics such as these, why not have a useful debate about these things. I don't think that the two people involved will likely agree with the other person but perhaps in the process we can learn the reasoning behind them and whether those things make sense to the community at large.

[Samshire]

I Disagree!!

Edit: j/k, this is a great idea actually. Assuming that the two people debating are intelligent and know what they are talking about.

[Tao]

HA! Confidant or no Confidant in Red Death.

[Whit3 Ghost]

This is an old one

Lava Dart

and great idea Anwar, that could do a lot to help resolve disagreements, or at least prevent them from damaging a thread.

[Anusien]

If you're going to do this (and it's an interesting idea that I think could achieve some great results), why not go through a little extra work to make it much more readable. Lay it out:

#: Claim: Warrant
#: Claim: Warrant

So let's say we're discussing "Mental Note vs. Portent in Threshold"

I might go:

1: Portent powers Tarmogoyf better: Portent is a sorcery in a deck that only runs 4 other sorceries; going up to 8 sorceries helps consistently make Tarmogoyf larger
2: Portent is better in the mirror: By the time creature size is relevant, all the Threshold creatures are going to be Threshed and Tarmogoyfs are going to be the same size. At that point the advantage goes to whoever has a better hand. Mental Note and Portent both get a random card, but Portent makes the opponent's draws worse.

Makes it much easier to pull out the major points and respond to specific arguments. Then I can say "Your #1, you claim Portent helps power Tarmogoyf better, but
1) Mental Note helps get the harder card types in the graveyard: It makes it more likely to put creatures and artifacts into the graveyard
2) Mental Note gets your creatures bigger faster: Portent puts one card type in the graveyard; Mental Note might do 2-3 card types.

[Bovinious]

Or I could just say Portent is good and Mental Note is bad, that works too.

[Tacosnape]

I'll volunteer to defend Life from the Loam over Crucible of Worlds, or Not Wasteland over Wasteland in Landstill.

...Then again, this is sort of like volunteering to basically do my job.

EDIT: But seriously? If you pick the right people (IE, two people who respect each other and won't turn it into a flamewar), this could be a good idea.

[AngryTroll]

Isn't the Thresh debate Serum Visions vs. Portent?

Or did people agree that one is better and I missed it? I much prefer Portent, but I seem to be in the minority.

[AnwarA101]

There are plenty of topics that people definitely disagree about and you guys have mentioned quite a few of them. I'm thinking each person in the debate could also have an opening statement where each person could lay out the case for his or her side. Perhaps a closing statement would make sense as well to sum up each person's point of view.

[Whit3 Ghost]

Be even more interesting if after the debate was over, there was a poll on who the site thought won.

[Pinder]

I think this is a fantastic idea. The only problem I can immediately see is that it might be hard to regulate it so that only two people can post in the thread (I mean, constantly mod watching and deleting of posts by other members would work, but that would be arduous). Is there any way to restrict posting priveleges in a single thread?

On that same note, why just 2 people? As long as it remains on the single topic to be debated, I think that more than 2 people would be just fine, don't you?

[AnwarA101]

I think this is a fantastic idea. The only problem I can immediately see is that it might be hard to regulate it so that only two people can post in the thread (I mean, constantly mod watching and deleting of posts by other members would work, but that would be arduous). Is there any way to restrict posting priveleges in a single thread?

On that same note, why just 2 people? As long as it remains on the single topic to be debated, I think that more than 2 people would be just fine, don't you?

I'm not really sure how hard it is to regulate it to just 2 people though I imagine there is some way to do it. I think two people might make it a little more polite. There won't be a sense that someone is ganging up on just one person and things like that. If you want more than 2 people you have the regular thread to do that. Most often debates occur between mostly two parties and those are the ones that seem to get lost between other people posting. That is what I was trying to avoid.

[freakish777]

Anwar, let's take this idea one step further. You could set up an initial thread in which you post what the debate will be, and take candidates for each side of the debate, then set up 2 more threads for voting to take place on who gets to argue that side of the debate. For instance Bardo and 3 other people declare they want to "defend" Mental Note, Overlord and 3 other people declare they want to "defend" portent. People get X days to declare their interest, Community gets Y days to vote (always have it be the same day of the week for voting to start and end?), if the Community picks Bardo and Overlord, they have Z days to duke it out in a new thread, uninterrupted. End of the debate, the community gets another Y days to vote for a winner, winner gets bragging rights.

If this were to become say a monthly occurence, that was well structured, it could become an extremely useful and informative learning tool, people would just have to agree to commit to such a "project." Perhaps, each month a new debate issue could be brainstormed by a different mod (obviously mod help would be necessary for the thread that the actual debate takes place to keep other posters out), and they could set up the threads, or delegate those tasks to someone.

Perhaps this could even be its own forum, with the debates themselves being numbered/archived? I'm really really liking this idea. When you read an article online about gameplay, you're getting one perspective, in a debate you get 2 competing perspectives, and you get to choose who you believe has the stronger argument, above 2 or 3 voices, and it starts to become noise.

[Tacosnape]

While we're at it, since we now have a Tag Team division too, let's have World Championship Belts.

Flaming can be permitted in the Hardcore division.

[Nightmare]

You guys have gone way too far. There's really nothing wrong with the initial idea.

[scrumdogg]

Not really, they are as relevant as the original concept since you can't pick who posts in your thread, can you? Hmmmm? Equal opportunity for spammers, hijackers, and refugees from the short bus, God bless America and The Source. To work as intended there either needs to be a revision of site rules (or much better enforcement on the rules pertaining to spamming, hijacking, & retardation) or a change allowing only limited, targeted access to these debate threads (similar to the Adept Q&A forum) needs to occur.

[Nightmare]

Not really, they are as relevant as the original concept since you can't pick who posts in your thread, can you? Hmmmm? Equal opportunity for spammers, hijackers, and refugees from the short bus, God bless America and The Source. To work as intended there either needs to be a revision of site rules (or much better enforcement on the rules pertaining to spamming, hijacking, & retardation) or a change allowing only limited, targeted access to these debate threads (similar to the Adept Q&A forum) needs to occur.There may be a way to limit access. We'll discuss it and let you know.

[Phantom]

There may be a way to limit access. We'll discuss it and let you know.

If there isn't a better way, you could always put the debate in the adept forum and temporarly promote the debaters (if needed) and trust the other adepts not to be jerks.

[Nightmare]

We've got a few options we're kicking around, tangental to some other stuff we're working on.

[AnwarA101]

Anwar, let's take this idea one step further. You could set up an initial thread in which you post what the debate will be, and take candidates for each side of the debate, then set up 2 more threads for voting to take place on who gets to argue that side of the debate. For instance Bardo and 3 other people declare they want to "defend" Mental Note, Overlord and 3 other people declare they want to "defend" portent. People get X days to declare their interest, Community gets Y days to vote (always have it be the same day of the week for voting to start and end?), if the Community picks Bardo and Overlord, they have Z days to duke it out in a new thread, uninterrupted. End of the debate, the community gets another Y days to vote for a winner, winner gets bragging rights.

If this were to become say a monthly occurence, that was well structured, it could become an extremely useful and informative learning tool, people would just have to agree to commit to such a "project." Perhaps, each month a new debate issue could be brainstormed by a different mod (obviously mod help would be necessary for the thread that the actual debate takes place to keep other posters out), and they could set up the threads, or delegate those tasks to someone.

Perhaps this could even be its own forum, with the debates themselves being numbered/archived? I'm really really liking this idea. When you read an article online about gameplay, you're getting one perspective, in a debate you get 2 competing perspectives, and you get to choose who you believe has the stronger argument, above 2 or 3 voices, and it starts to become noise.

Well this is alot more involved than what I was considering. Perhaps you could setup something like this, but I think that your process will take quite a bit of time and by then the moment will have been lost. Arguments are somewhat time sensitive. People who are arguing about them want to continue discussing the issue. They rarely want to revisit the topic after several weeks. In a sense, the passion or the excitement behind defending one's position gets lost. Its not that each person doesn't believe in their own position, but I doubt they would want to revisit the same discussion after such a long process. Debates occur naturally, I'm just saying move those debates when its obvious that they are important and shouldn't be derailed by third party conversation and unrelated commentary.

[freakish777]

Well this is alot more involved than what I was considering. Perhaps you could setup something like this, but I think that your process will take quite a bit of time and by then the moment will have been lost. Arguments are somewhat time sensitive. People who are arguing about them want to continue discussing the issue. They rarely want to revisit the topic after several weeks. In a sense, the passion or the excitement behind defending one's position gets lost. Its not that each person doesn't believe in their own position, but I doubt they would want to revisit the same discussion after such a long process. Debates occur naturally, I'm just saying move those debates when its obvious that they are important and shouldn't be derailed by third party conversation and unrelated commentary.

Ok, that gives me a bit more clarity about what your thoughts were, thanks.

I was thinking that someone chose a debate topic, and that the idea was to get two people to duke it out on that topic. Not the other way around where a debate occurred naturally in a thread, and that the mods would jump on it to move it to another thread so that it could run its course without interruption.

Your idea probably has less problems with it as well, as all that really has to be done is add a "Flag as Debate" button option on each post and then mods can decide whether or not an argument between 2 posters is debate worthy or not and appropriately move/rebuild the argument up to that point elsewhere.

What I was suggesting is more complicated, not only with needing heavy initial commitment from the community in order for it to "take off" so to speak, but also in that whoever comes up with the topics would have to be on the ball about what's on everyone's minds instead of letting things happen naturally.

[BreathWeapon]

More important than finding two posters that wont flame each other is finding two posters that can construct an impartial argument with out pre-determining the conclusion or resting their case in hyperbole. It'd be far more interesting if two people were given the positive and negative on issues they weren't initially familiar/adamant about and see where the debate goes from there.

[Zork]

I don't know about that. I think the point of a debate is to find two partial people to politely duke it out verbally. And the point of making it public is to let the reader decide who is right.

Besides, I think most of the most intelligent arguers will already have opinions on the biggest debates because - lets face it - as intelligent people they will have thought of the debate for their own benefit as deckbuilders.