Private forum topics

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,222

3

2

7

11.04.2018 09:51AM

3

2

7

11.04.2018 09:51AM

-->

@DebateArt.com

It was just an amusing vision. Don't let worst case scenarios bog you down. It's a really good idea. I really think you should stick to it. The problems can be discussed and worked out. It deserves a trial period at least.

Topic's author

#33

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,403

3

8

11.04.2018 09:58AM

3

8

11.04.2018 09:58AM

-->

@RationalMadman

I support 'spies' who can see even what mods can't that way you stay in power. We will spy for the mods and lie to them at times to stir the pot about what's going on in the private communities, they will punish us if we lie too much, we will lie if they punish us too much.

Lol, that's not helping

Topic's author

#34

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,403

3

8

11.04.2018 09:58AM

3

8

11.04.2018 09:58AM

-->

@Castin

It was just an amusing vision. Don't let worst case scenarios bog you down. It's a really good idea. I really think you should stick to it. The problems can be discussed and worked out. It deserves a trial period at least.

Yeah, I still haven't even thought about it properly, just got a random idea yesterday

#35

Tejretics

Debates: 7

Posts: 497

2

4

8

Tejretics

11.04.2018 10:17AM

2

4

8

11.04.2018 10:17AM

-->

@DebateArt.com

This just seems like a DDO mass PM. Or an email thread.

#36

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,052

3

11.04.2018 10:29AM

3

11.04.2018 10:29AM

-->

@Tejretics

Wouldn't it result in the site appearing to have no activity? People - especially noobs - would see only a fraction of what might interest or concern them or could usefully contribute to. i think It would establish groupthink,not debate,as the basis of DA.

#37

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,222

3

2

7

11.04.2018 10:33AM

3

2

7

11.04.2018 10:33AM

-->

@keithprosser

Obviously limits would need to be placed on private threads. As to what kind, I don't know. Bears thinking on.

#38

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,052

3

11.04.2018 10:57AM

3

11.04.2018 10:57AM

-->

@Castin

I would prefer an area restricted to 'members of good standing'. Membership would be invitation by the siteowner or their appointed deputy and can be revoked atany time but the sort of poster invited would be a good self-policer anyway. The area would be read-only for ordinary and new members.

It's unashemedly elitist and undemocratic idea, but DA is a privately owned board not a public service. No one is prevented from debating in the public area so free speech is unaffected, but the elite are expected to hold themselves to high standards or suffer demotion.

Topic's author

#39

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,403

3

8

11.04.2018 01:16PM

3

8

11.04.2018 01:16PM

Wow, there are so many things I didn't even think about ...

#40

Debates: 0

Posts: 627

3

2

7

11.04.2018 04:33PM

3

2

7

11.04.2018 04:33PM

-->

@DebateArt.com

@Castin

I think that we should extend some basic CoC to the titles and description, which will be publicly viewable. So, 'no call-out thread' applies.

#41

Debates: 0

Posts: 627

3

2

7

11.04.2018 04:34PM

3

2

7

11.04.2018 04:34PM

-->

@keithprosser

If that happened, it would just be a powerful unspoken referendum that people prefer a more lax moderation environment.

#42

Debates: 0

Posts: 627

3

2

7

11.04.2018 04:35PM

3

2

7

11.04.2018 04:35PM

-->

@DebateArt.com

Just to be clear, it may be my fault, not the mods', since we have no means of deleting only the first post from the topics and therefore they might have had to delete the whole topic to achieve the goal.

It was a single forum post that was deleted within a thread that is still up.

#43

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,052

3

11.04.2018 04:55PM

3

11.04.2018 04:55PM

-->

@ResurgetExFavilla

If that happened, it would just be a powerful unspoken referendum that people prefer a more lax moderation environment.

I would say it reflects the real world where there are people who enjoy intelligent, informed debate and others who like to troll. That's just how the world is..!

#44

bsh1

Debates: 14

Posts: 2,589

5

8

bsh1

11.04.2018 07:19PM

5

8

11.04.2018 07:19PM

I have some more thoughts on this which I'll post later, hopefully...

#45

Debates: 1

Posts: 4,188

3

6

11.05.2018 03:47PM

3

6

11.05.2018 03:47PM

-->

@Mopac

Yes they are. And you are a disgusting bigot.

#46

Debates: 1

Posts: 4,188

3

6

11.05.2018 03:47PM

3

6

11.05.2018 03:47PM

-->

@bsh1

More stuff for you to piss with . What more could you want.

#47

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

11.05.2018 06:40PM

3

4

7

11.05.2018 06:40PM

-->

@Polytheist-Witch

I don't hate anyone, and have devoted my life to loving people who most people believe don't deserve love. So your accusations are unfounded.

I don't hate you, but witchcraft is the sin of rebellion, as idolatry an iniquity. I don't hate you for being deceived or a deceiver. I would much rather you come to the saving grace of The Truth. If I hated you, I would not hope for your salvation.

#48

Plisken

Debates: 0

Posts: 706

2

1

5

Plisken

11.05.2018 07:06PM

2

1

5

11.05.2018 07:06PM

If people are having trouble establishing an agreement to conduct for the topic at hand, that could be very helpful! What do you think if you had an option to start a designated private thread and deselect people from entering posts, or only selecting certain members?

#49

Debates: 1

Posts: 4,188

3

6

11.05.2018 07:48PM

3

6

11.05.2018 07:48PM

-->

@Mopac

Your god is bs and so is your hate. Thanks.

#50

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

11.05.2018 07:54PM

3

4

7

11.05.2018 07:54PM

-->

@Polytheist-Witch

The Ultimate Reality is God.

And God loved you enough to form you in the womb and provide for you this existence that you live. When you reject God in favor of lying vanities, you forsake your own mercy. It was God that gave you everything.

Your identity is not in your sin. You are better than that. The sin is unreality, but God is what is real. I believe in the real you, not these false identites that belittle and cheapen who you really are.

The Truth sets you free.

#51

Debates: 1

Posts: 4,188

3

6

11.05.2018 08:08PM

3

6

11.05.2018 08:08PM

-->

@Mopac

Adam and Eve are not my ancestors. Your god is a liar. And you are evil.

#52

1harderthanyouthink

Debates: 0

Posts: 256

0

1

3

1harderthanyouthink

11.05.2018 08:51PM

0

1

3

11.05.2018 08:51PM

For a debate site? Meh.

#53

Debates: 6

Posts: 934

3

4

9

11.05.2018 09:01PM

3

4

9

11.05.2018 09:01PM

-->

@DebateArt.com

By private, I mean that only users, invited by the creator of the topic, would have access to it and I guess they wouldn't be moderated either, since neither the mods nor I would have an access to them, that is, if we're not invited.

What do you think?

I actually like this idea a lot because even though I am a politics/news junkie, I can almost never make a thread about it since the conversation inevitably gets derailed by the same one or two idiots who post just to bring attention to themselves rather than actually discuss the topic at hand.

#54

Debates: 1

Posts: 4,188

3

6

11.05.2018 09:13PM

3

6

11.05.2018 09:13PM

-->

@Imabench

Religion forum too.

#55

Debates: 6

Posts: 934

3

4

9

11.05.2018 09:18PM

3

4

9

11.05.2018 09:18PM

-->

@Polytheist-Witch

Would there even be any visible threads in the religion forum? I imagine it would just result into two to three mass factions of people just discussing things amongst themselves rather then leave the thread open for anyone else to jump in and derail things.

#56

Debates: 1

Posts: 4,188

3

6

11.05.2018 09:25PM

3

6

11.05.2018 09:25PM

-->

@Imabench

I think there would be some things still open but many topics would be private. Yes.

#57

Debates: 0

Posts: 627

3

2

7

11.05.2018 11:37PM

3

2

7

11.05.2018 11:37PM

-->

@Polytheist-Witch

Are you for or against that? Personally, I think that it would be for the better. You can pretty much never have a discussion in the religion forum without it becoming a God-debate pissing contest between the same handful of people.

#58

Vader

Debates: 30

Posts: 14,591

5

8

11

Vader

11.05.2018 11:50PM

5

8

11

11.05.2018 11:50PM

I would instate group PMs before instating this feature, but in the future, I would be down

#59

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

11.05.2018 11:56PM

3

4

7

11.05.2018 11:56PM

-->

@Imabench

Howndo you have a bible study as an example when such a topic will get flooded with people who say, "the bible is a lie!" And the people taking part are taking the bait?

Besides that, if a bible study topic as an example were to be started with the premise that there are rules for that particular topic, like, respecting the subject matter and not trying to undermine the scriptures, those rules would not be respected.

Is it possible to actually discuss what a piece of scripture is saying? It's impossible at this point.

#60

Debates: 1

Posts: 4,188

3

6