Return the Politics/Debate forum to the IC Starnet... Thing

Sometimes it turned out pretty nasty. Dont know if some people wanna have it back.

 

While it allowed for some cool RP, people got emotionally invested from what I remember, and had issues separating IC from OOC. I don't think that's the sort of environment you want on a rather social forum.

 

I think if you want any REAL political debate I'd suggest keep it between two groups. You can make it publicly view-able but no one outside the leaders can respond.

 

A debate forum isnt what is needed, incencitive to start out for yourself. Create a business, small or big. But most people join the big factions because thats a easy and straightforward thing to do. Leaving the smaller fish unable to grow, so to speak. This in turn makes them hang around the big factions because no one else would hop over to them instead. A sad but true fact, experienced it myself. TWICE.

 

IC forums need an overhaul in general

 

It would work if it was monitored, sure, but staff would not be able to focus so much attention to one particular forum. I remember that when the forums were reworked that was a specific one we removed because it caused too much grief.

 

So have I, so have I...

 

Being able to deal with a wee bit of adversity in the privileged lives we live is a virtue! Virtuous people are generally healthier people. Healthier people can engage in public debate with a mature outlook and optimistic sentiments. Therefore, since the server would benefit from a virtuous, mature player base, it should restore the debate forum.

As you can see:
If p then q
If q then r
If r then s

Therefore:
If p then s

 

If p == "able to deal with wee bit of diversity" and q = "healthy" while r = "can engage in public debate" and s = "should restore forum" then

if able to deal with wee bit of diversity then should restore forum

need to see a proof for the value of p before evaluating s

EDIT:

Let's say t = "virtuous, mature, playerbase"

if s then t
p and s != t
however, t = p
therefore, must have t before s

 

But what if that's not actually true? What if it's just hoping for the best outcome? It's Optimism.

 

Bad pun is bad

 

I don't make puns. Only self-loathing nobodies make puns.

 

You are wrong and are also significantly less attractive in my eyes for thinking this!
...
...
Ah...memories. These "mature debates" always, and I mean ALWAYS, devolved into name calling and deadlocks. I know it's a popular idea to be able to prove people wrong over the internet, but it never turns out well even in the supposedly safe environment of alter egos. But then again, we could be taking this too seriously. What's the harm in having a salty, gross part of the forums again?

 

I think it's a bit unfair to write off an idea because it's execution hasn't been flawless in the past. Here, let me use your post as an example of how debate can fail.

"You are wrong and are also significantly less attractive in my eyes for thinking this!"-Mugwump 2015 (Addressing Optimism's feels)

Me boyo, I'm not going to argue with your opinion, but this is similar to troll-tier structure writing. It's what I'd do if I just wanted to annoy someone; say their idea is shit and I dislike them for having it without explaining why. This is what you don't want to do in debate.

You seem to like to state absolutes, like 'never' and 'ALWAYS' in all caps. Have you really read every single debate thread on this forum? I doubt it. Also, your writing assumes you know what other people think, which isn't a productive debate mechanic:

"I know it's a popular idea to prove people wrong over the internet."

Dear God I hope you're not comparing this kind of internet potato-logic starch porn to actual debate. Anyways, look, I sincerely think organizing a forum or a couple of threads where chars could debate hot, saucy, delicious social justice issues and controversies of opinion would be a good thing because it'd give the forums more utility and incentive for involvement.

The one premise stated so far that I agree with is that these 'threads/forums' could benefit from someone monitoring them who knows their debate stuff and can act as a mediator. Maybe roleplay the online "Debate Moderator" while people debate IC and censor or advise when necessary. Replace them foul language swears with things like 'pudding' 'garden' and 'tarnation'. I think it'd be pretty hilarious, and also interesting.

Much love to your idea, and I think you could go along with it even without a forum section devoted duly to debate. You could just make a couple of threads with different topics to debate, like for example: "Frontier Law: Productive or Destructive?".

 

Intended as a joke but ok.

I used to be a global moderator for Antares.

I'm pretty sure I just got attacked (note the excessive you's) and declared to be wrong all at once. Welp. There's my point I was making. When debating, it's nice to avoid ad hominem finger pointing. Because finger pointing is rude.

 

Can confirm. Was Admin at the time.