Aye

Aye. It will be useful to set a sort of standard though for what qualifies as a response. Is one line good enough? Should there be at least one argument? Or would writing anything be acceptable?

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

Absolutely; very annoying.

If I wanted to just read an article, I'd go to the website myself...

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Aye. It will be useful to set a sort of standard though for what qualifies as a response. Is one line good enough? Should there be at least one argument? Or would writing anything be acceptable?

Now this is a bit more difficult to enforce. One user, for example, started posting one-liners after the articles he pasted here. Does that really make any difference? Even if you limit to "one argument", he might just say something like "I think XXX is right/wrong because God/Nietzsche/the President says it is so", and that is an argument.

Got any ideas?

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

Big NO...I like when people share interesting stuff here. I don't visit dozens of websites so it's nice when someone posts a good story or editorial that could spark a debate.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Now this is a bit more difficult to enforce. One user, for example, started posting one-liners after the articles he pasted here. Does that really make any difference? Even if you limit to "one argument", he might just say something like "I think XXX is right/wrong because God/Nietzsche/the President says it is so", and that is an argument. Got any ideas?

I agree that this is where it gets tricky. Specially because the definition of a 'quality' argument can become very subjective, very quickly. I think that at least on opinion on whatever is posted can start off a debate, it needn't be a comprehensive argument. This is way it will be kept simple and people won't be put off by having to write a coherent well documented argument (which in all truth is a bit sad that most people are not willing to do this in a debate forum but alas its how it goes).

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Big NO...I like when people share interesting stuff here. I don't visit dozens of websites so it's nice when someone posts a good story or editorial that could spark a debate.

Isn't it even better when that interesting article is accompanied by some interesting arguments/opinions by the poster though? This is supposed to be a debating forum after all.

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Lately there have been some complaints about threads being posted with no original content: sometimes, there isn't even an article, but just a link. Personally, I see no reason why the PDD should become a news feed. This is a place for debates, after all, not a bloody bookmark repository. But, I think this should be discussed before any measure is taken. So, guys, tell me what you think

Aye, of course. Couldn't agree more. As to a particular standard set at how much of an opinion needs to be said, I might agree to one but it should be a very minimal standard to be met. A couple of sentences, even one sentence depending on the article itself I suppose. An opinion of some sort related to the article/site should be given. That way a following responder will know where the thread starter stands on the issue he/she wishes to debate or discuss.

But to play devil's advocate, I'll have to admit that occasionally I'll post a question to the readers instead of my opinion. I've occasionally posted an article with a statement or two that didn't define my position just yet, and then ended the post by asking for the thoughts and opinions of others. Sometimes an article is newsworthy enough just in the content itself, and I may not have enough information to post my complete thoughts on the matter so I like leaving it open for others first. I'd like to think that's the exception for me rather than the rule.

If I had to lean one way or the other, I'd prefer a minimal standard of leaving an opinion of some sort alongside the article. I would also suggest that whatever is decided that it be added to the Simple Rules sticky thread, whenever possible.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Lately there have been some complaints about threads being posted with no original content: sometimes, there isn't even an article, but just a link. Personally, I see no reason why the PDD should become a news feed. This is a place for debates, after all, not a bloody bookmark repository. But, I think this should be discussed before any measure is taken. So, guys, tell me what you think

It's essentially part of the reason why I've withdrawn interaction with this part of the forum any more and probably will continue to not read it, it seems to be locked in the same circular process of-

*Domestic global news, which I've already read anyway and provided it's factual enough, doesn't need to be commented on. Fabricating a possibility of the information being invalid isn't really a debate, it's purely hypothetical.
*Endless threads about conspiracies which no one seems to be able to sway anyone else opinion and thus turns into slandering one another, possibly an amusing activity for some. But pointless.
*Local domestic political news. Even if it's political then I find it to be uninteresting, (no vested interest) but it's fair enough to comment for people who do.
*There is an inordinate amount of page space accorded to the US domestic affairs.
*The middle east... over and over... and over.

Which sort of leaves the rest of the world somewhat marginalised at best and usually completely ignored, even if it's global ramifications will be felt somewhere or held up to equal comparison.

In short, it gets dull really quickly.
I don't know if locking or sticky threads will solve anything though.

Mostly I find the place is a chore aside from the topic selection, simply because of the manner of the arguments which follow a linear progression of strawman fabrication/abuse and then comment by attrition, posting the same thing over and over. Which means the argument is little more than personal attack or an investment in time to get the last word in, it doesn't even mean you're correct/incorrect, it just means you've managed to either bore or offend anyone else into retracting their involvement.
You don't actually convince them of anything and you can't really 'win' a debate if the other side isn't bothered showing up.

adios

Aye, and the minimal standard should be this...

1. A thesis sentence of the thread starters opinion.

or

2. A thought provoking question.

___________________

how about a "Interesting new thread". Some people don't have time to write a few paragraphs about an article, and just would like to share information because it's important or interesting to them.

___________________
"You won a new refrigerator, great! Where you gonna put it?" - Tony Danza