A proposition
theyoungdem said 05/07, 05:13 PM
The cheating and inadequecy has come to a point where we have to step up and do something. I propose we make a group of worthy, trustworthy debators. After we confirm and all agree who is in this group and who isn't, we will do our debates with each other rather than risk going against debators who are not serious and plan to put forth terrible arguments then cheat in the end.
Now this is how I propose we do it. In this argument in the comment section, you say if you want to be in the group or not, and who else should be in this group.
Others who oppose some people may also write why they oppose some people.
In the end we should have a group of people who agree that those other people in the group should be in the group.
This group does not limit us to not take debates from other people, or debate other people. It simply provides the insuarance of having a fair and enjoyable debate with other members.
Also just a side not, I do not have to be in this group if the majority of the good debators does not want me in it, I'm simply proposing the idea.
MorgMcA said 05/08, 01:31 AM
While it would seem that this proposal is valid, under the circumstances, i oppose it in that it formalizes a group of those deemed trustworthy and of those deemed as untrustworthy
Most of us are very aware of foul play, many of us have been victims of it, others disgusted by it, and some have been unwanted beneficiaries of it. But to formalize a bloc of trustworthy debators is itself a mistake. It further escalates the hype and suspicion of cheating, some of us are still making wild accusations, while others who have made them in the past have all but abandoned the site
This group of people, while comprised of people I'm sure I personally would find trustworthy, is in no way immune to the effects of cheating. For example i trust Pablo to be one who refuses to cheat and can only assume that he thinks likewise, however it does appear that someone did cheat in that debate, in my favor bytheway. we cannot form a group immune to cheating and to attempt to do so and watch it happen anyways it to invite further suspicion
This formalization also has the effect of causing new members to be put off by our elitist group and lose interest fast. we then lose a chance for a new debate
theyoungdem said 05/08, 10:04 PM
Instead of an entire group that is labelled as trustworthy, why don't we have a simple small group, that we form, and in it, we may debate each other. Honest debators and cheaters would both be able to vote (there is no way to deprive the right to do so.) But in the comments section, the people in the group could openly state their vote, whoever has the most votes in the comment section from these people would be the unofficial winner according to just the group, not the entire site.
This would not be a substitution but just another way of seeing how people who are most definitely trustworthy debators. We would not split the site into two groups. Especially labelling one has dishonest, that would be wrong, however we could create a simple small group for our own pleasure. This way of voting would be immune to any cheating.
And again I do not have to be in that nor do I say we have to form one. Just a suggestion.
It may seem difficult to do, but lets say we have ten people in this group, it would not mean all the honest people are in that group, and all liars are not. But it would just mean that those ten people would have that group and vote in the comment section for fun
MorgMcA said 05/10, 04:12 AM
I fail to see how we would determine the legitamacy of each vote under the "comment voting" set up. (meaning who would do the counting and how to count the votes)
This formality still brings up the issue of making us all a group of elitists who can easily alienate new people that would bring another point of view and flavor to the site
The very creation of this group in actuality would exacerbate the problem and many people would begin to bicker over who should and shouldn't be a part of this group. Ex. POST & Pit, chesty & gopdiva, DD & D D, and let's not forget all of the accusations against weareallequal and P&L, justified or otherwise
Now if you were to propose that people who feel burned should limit who they debate based on an individual basis, ok, but let's not formalize this plan
I would like to issue a counter-proposal. I suggest that we all challenge Hadrian on a ridiculous topic. I'm sure Hadrian would enjoy the sport and considering how many debates he's started that haven't finished, i bet he'd enjoy all the attention. Also how can anyone feel bad losing to Hadrian, i mean have you seen the debates he's had? this would bring us all back to having fun with it.
theyoungdem said 05/10, 10:00 AM
Hm point taken. Allrite then.
MorgMcA said 05/10, 12:17 PM
Alright.
Bytheway the counter-proposal still stands, everyone challenge Hadrian on something ridiculous using only (or at least 75%) satire and shenanigans to back yourself up.
Comments
Add Your Comment
I do not think that at all. Thanks for your compliments, but I really don't deserve them, I don't have much of an "ability to debate", it is fine if anyone suspects me of cheating, there's no way to tell if I do or don't, I just feel there's something we can do to make it more fun.
theyoungdem | 05/08/08
Report Offensive Comment
Morg gets the vote here. Youngdem, I like your spirit, but what happens when you have a "trusted circle" of ten people, every single one of them knowing where everyone else stands on every single issue? Where's the fun in that? Let the cheaters cheat if they will.
IamFry | 05/09/08
Report Offensive Comment
Just a sample : ???A judge's decision against the 5 second rule for dropped food and for a new 30 second rule is not only reasonable, it's fair.??? ???McCain housing bill calls for 100 year mortgages in Iraq for America's middle class.??? ???God orders re-call of polar bears.??? ???All flags in US public buildings should be replaced by tactical nuclear weapons.??????Monday = Conservative. Friday = Liberal??????Crosswalk signal buttons are some sort of social experiment.??????Fat Americans promote Democracy!??????Ancient human footprints discovered in the Mexican desert may be the oldest evidence of illegal immigration in the Americas.??? Thanks for all the laughs Hadrian, you take our minds off the other problems we have here.
MorgMcA | 05/10/08
Report Offensive Comment
I HAVE BEEM ACCUSED OF CHEATING MY A SORE LOOSER, CHESTYPULLER IS MAD I BEAT HIM AND NOW IS ACCUSING ME OF CHEATING. PLEASE SHOW YOUR SUPPORT AND VOTE TO SAVE MY REPUTATION IN OUR DEBATE!!! THANK YOU SO MUCH!
gopdiva | 05/10/08
Report Offensive Comment
Gopdiva, give Hadrian a challenge. I promise you'll be back to laughing in no time.
MorgMcA | 05/10/08
Report Offensive Comment
Does anyone think this debate is fishy: http://elephant-donkey.com/elephantdonkey/show/9801?comments_page=1#throwdown_9801_comments_pages or am I really doing badly
theyoungdem | 05/10/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
Pakistan's Vulnerable Northwest Passage
Armed militant groups push into Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province and its principal city, Peshawar, threatening the stability of a key transit point in the American effort to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan
(Mohammad Sajjad / AP)
Mark Twain: Portraits
The celebrated author and humorist was feted in photographs his entire career
(Bettmann / Corbis)
YoungDem, please don't think i think down on you. i respect you, your ability to debate, your trustworthiness and your initiative in attempting to fix this. i just think it a mistake to label us into two groups. i think it best to let this all just pass. Sorry, i think i'm debating in the comment section, but i wanted to let you know i don't accuse you of anything nor suspect you of anything.
MorgMcA | 05/08/08
Report Offensive Comment