Just a suggestion....

[betsy]

Is there a possibility of having another section added to Mapleleaf? One-on-one formal debates. Another site got this kind of set-up and it's really interesting. And there's a separate thread for the peanut-gallery to discuss among themselves without giving particular info as to the subject being debated (the official debators cannot post in this thread).

Of course there are rules to follow. There's a poll in the end of the debate for viewers to vote for the winner.

[Moonlight Graham]

Interesting idea. Betsy, do you have a link to that other forum you said this idea was used in so we can get a better idea of how such a section might work in practice?

[jbg]

Is there a possibility of having another section added to Mapleleaf? One-on-one formal debates. Another site got this kind of set-up and it's really interesting. And there's a separate thread for the peanut-gallery to discuss among themselves without giving particular info as to the subject being debated (the official debators cannot post in this thread).

Of course there are rules to follow. There's a poll in the end of the debate for viewers to vote for the winner.

Why wouldn't e-mail or Facebook suffice for that?

[betsy]

Interesting idea. Betsy, do you have a link to that other forum you said this idea was used in so we can get a better idea of how such a section might work in practice?

Am I allowed to post that here? I'll pm you...

[betsy]

Why wouldn't e-mail or Facebook suffice for that?

For some maybe that would suffice. But obviously others loved it, otherwise it wouldn't be in a forum that has over 18,000 members.

[Guest American Woman]

I think it would take away from the activity on the general forum. Anyone who wants to have a one-on-one could do it by personal message. And voting for the winner? Why??

[betsy]

I think it would take away from the activity on the general forum. Anyone who wants to have a one-on-one could do it by personal message. And voting for the winner? Why??

The general forum is verrrrry busy there....no, it didn't take away because similar subjects are still being discussed in the general forum.

What I find appealing about it is that the two debators (they've got their own thread) can really do their discussion without any interference or distractions from others. For us spectators, most of us would tend to know the leaning of the two debators - the appeal is really to see them go at it (without the distraction of anyone butting in). It's fun too to just be a spectator to a serious debate.

One debate going on right now is a reversal debate - the debators take the opposite position and defend it. So the guy who's actually anti-gun control (as an example) takes the position of a pro-gun control. So far, the spectators agreed that the debate from the two surprised them - both prepared well.

As for the poll, I guess it puts an incentive for the debators to try their darndest, and for the element of fun. It also attracts spectators to follow it, after all it is a performance - there is no excitement if there are no spectators.

It might also help draw viewers who normally are not active in posting into participating even if it's just to cast a vote....and perhaps, that gets them to start posting.

A forum that may have thousands of members wouldn't be as appealing if there are not enough active posters.

I don't know though how they get to debate one another - if the two combatants had decided to set it up, or if they were approached and asked to participate. I've got to navigate and check. The debate is announced.

Edited April 28, 2013 by betsy

[Guest American Woman]

The general forum is verrrrry busy there....no, it didn't take away because similar subjects are still being discussed in the general forum.

That's not true of this forum, though - it's not so busy. Which is why I think it would take away from the posting on the board in general.

What I find appealing about it is that the two debators (they've got their own thread) can really do their discussion without any interference or distractions from others. For us spectators, most of us would tend to know the leaning of the two debators - the appeal is really to see them go at it (without the distraction of anyone butting in). It's fun too to just be a spectator to a serious debate.

I would have no desire to be a "spectator;" that's why I post on a forum - so I can 'talk back.' If two people aren't interested in the comments of anyone else, they can simply ignore their comments. The "notifications" at the top of the page lets you know when someone has quoted and replied to your post, so you could simply click on the posts from the poster you are interested in having a discussion with using that feature. It's easy enough to ignore the others. Or, as I said, carry on the discussion in PM. A discussion between only two people doesn't have to be public.

One debate going on right now is a reversal debate - the debators take the opposite position and defend it. So the guy who's actually anti-gun control (as an example) takes the position of a pro-gun control. So far, the spectators agreed that the debate from the two surprised them - both prepared well.

If I were interested in being the spectator of a debate, I wouldn't be doing it here. Seems to me the purpose if this site is to discuss our actual beliefs, not partake in a formal debate, arguing what we don't believe. I see no point in that. I'm interested in people's actual views.

As for the poll, I guess it puts an incentive for the debators to try their darndest, and for the element of fun. It also attracts spectators to follow it, after all it is a performance - there is no excitement if there are no spectators.

On this type of board, people would pick their favored poster regardless - or their view, regardless. We don't have 18,000 active posters, nor would I be interested in it if it did. It seems as if you found a board that does what you are describing, so why would this one have to do it, too? As far as I can see, it's a different type of board, serving a different purpose. IE: the purpose of this board is the discussion of one's views, not a formal debate.

It might also help draw viewers who normally are not active in posting into participating even if it's just to cast a vote....and perhaps, that gets them to start posting.

Casting a vote is ultimately nothing but a popularity contest - and that "popularity" is going to depend on who is active at the time as well as who is on suspension. I can see a change in the board now with a number of people suspended. A certain 'pack mentality' tends to prevail. Furthermore, casting a vote is hardly participation in discussion. I would think people casting a vote, and nothing else, would not be a desirable thing. Edited April 28, 2013 by American Woman

[Moonlight Graham]

And voting for the winner? Why??

That's what media/pundits do for TV political debates etc. It would be a formal debate so why not have fun and judge a winner, although it would probably come down to ideological lines and not who actually had the more compelling argument.

[The_Squid]

Not interested in those types of changes. AW did a nice job of describing the flaws/issues with the suggested changes.

[Guest American Woman]

That's what media/pundits do for TV political debates etc. It would be a formal debate so why not have fun and judge a winner, although it would probably come down to ideological lines and not who actually had the more compelling argument.

Yeah, ideological lines. As I said. But to compare a debate here to a TV political debate ... I'm thinking not.

[jbg]

I don't know though how they get to debate one another - if the two combatants had decided to set it up, or if they were approached and asked to participate. I've got to navigate and check. The debate is announced.

I need some debate help here (link).

[betsy]

Perhaps maple leaf should re-think about the impracticality of giving one-month suspensions.

There is a very good reason why suspensions are carefully doled out by busy boards issuing one-day, two-day, one-week, 2-weeks, etc., length of suspensions....fitting the punishment with the "crime."

A month is a very long stretch for both sides - suspendee, and the board. Anything can happen in that one month.

Edited May 3, 2013 by betsy

[jbg]

Perhaps maple leaf should re-think about the impracticality of giving one-month suspensions.

There is a very good reason why suspensions are carefully doled out by busy boards issuing one-day, two-day, one-week, 2-weeks, etc., length of suspensions....fitting the punishment with the "crime."

A month is a very long stretch for both sides - suspendee, and the board. Anything can happen in that one month.

I agree. I received a one-month suspension, and have really lost momentum. My post should have been for about two or three days, if anything.

[Guest]

How come I never see a single post that is worthy of a warning point, suspension or banning?

Posters are dropping like flies but it always seems to me that this one of the most gentle sites I've ever been to.

For what were you suspended?

[Bryan]

How come I never see a single post that is worthy of a warning point, suspension or banning?

Posters are dropping like flies but it always seems to me that this one of the most gentle sites I've ever been to.

For what were you suspended?

I agree, I never see posts here that would so much as get a warning on any other site I go to. I always wonder what happened.

[betsy]

How come I never see a single post that is worthy of a warning point, suspension or banning?

Posters are dropping like flies but it always seems to me that this one of the most gentle sites I've ever been to.

For what were you suspended?

I was suspended for posting long articles. I don't know though which particular article got me into trouble since at that time, I posted articles in different threads I was discussing.

I was told before to shorten them...and I thought I did. I guess whatever it was, wasn't short enough.

Edited May 5, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

I agree, I never see posts here that would so much as get a warning on any other site I go to. I always wonder what happened.

The site(s) that I go to - I discovered two of them during my hiatus - puts a link to the infraction so everyone get an idea what could get you into trouble (especially the poster).

That, to me, is very practical and quite important....especially when you're involved in several heated on-going discussions at the same time.

Considering the sizes of those two places, actually they are both gentle and posters seem to be mindful of rules. I'm currently involved in two very heated arguments in two religion forums and the discussions on both are really going well. We're talking real discussions here....hardly any one-liner adhominem. I'm surprised that we managed to get into a lengthy discussion without the threads dissolving into trash. Once in a while there would be trashers who just want to insult....they're just ignored, or moderators delete. One of the forums is stricter as to personal attacks. Actually I got deleted for something I would normally post here....it's that strict in that one.

The other site protects its Religion section by separating it from Philosophy so that people of faith can freely discuss about their faith...there are Baha'ist and Muslims posting there. Christians got in a very lengthy debate with baha'ists....and surprisingly, for a very heated argument, both sides tried their best to toe the line (though there were intense moments), and maintain their cool. An interesting thread too with an angry atheist looking for answers. So for me, it's really refreshing. So far that's what I've been seeing for a month on those two sites.

Btw, I stumbled on a section in one of those sites where it listed all the "old" ranking posters banned, and they gave the reason for each and every banning. They seem to want to keep everything above board to avoid any accusation(s) or suspicion(s) of unfairness.

If I'm not mistaken, they can appeal their suspension and there's a section for it in one of those forums (so it's also open for everyone to see)...I speculate this is trying to keep everything above board. I think that is important too.

Posters must be reassured of a fair playing field.

Mind you, those two sites have lots of moderators so I can understand it might not be that easy for MLF to entertain appeals. Therefore, I suggest a very clearly written rules or guidelines, and links to infractions. Create a section where the moderator can post who got suspended for what, and for how long!

No need for appeals and speculation(s) if everything is in the open.

I come here for the people.

Because I've been here for a long time and I've known, and argued with a lot of posters over the years.

MLF is the very first forum I've joined, so there's that sentimental attachment to it, too.

All those years until a month ago, MLF was the only forum I go to. Except for a short stint at the local city website of my former residence...that site was a joke, occupied and ruled by a small bunch!

So, coming to MLF had also become a habit. I bother giving suggestions because I want to keep MLF relevant and going strong!

Edited May 5, 2013 by betsy

[jbg]

How come I never see a single post that is worthy of a warning point, suspension or banning?

Posters are dropping like flies but it always seems to me that this one of the most gentle sites I've ever been to.

For what were you suspended?

I started a thread called "How Does Chavez's Death Affect Canada" and said that we would lose his great moral leadership. I was obviously being sarcastic and not serious.

[betsy]

I started a thread called "How Does Chavez's Death Affect Canada" and said that we would lose his great moral leadership. I was obviously being sarcastic and not serious.

You got suspended for that?

Even if you're not being sarcastic....why would you be suspended for expressing yourself?

Are you sure that's the reason?

Edited May 5, 2013 by betsy

[Guest]

I started a thread called "How Does Chavez's Death Affect Canada" and said that we would lose his great moral leadership. I was obviously being sarcastic and not serious.

I remember that thread! Like Betsy, I would never have imagined that for a suspension offence.

I have had a couple of threads disappear, but I just re-entered them and they stuck around the second time.

Edited May 5, 2013 by bcsapper

[betsy]

Oh I forgot....I also go to this Christian site, but that shouldn't count since it's more for support/fellowship for us Christians.

[jbg]

You got suspended for that?

Even if you're not being sarcastic....why would you be suspended for expressing yourself?

Are you sure that's the reason?

Someone on the thread called it a "trolling thread" and the warning I got was "That was trolling. You should know better than that."

It happens that the admiration I professed for Mr. Chavez was incomplete.

[BubberMiley]

It happens that the admiration I professed for Mr. Chavez was incomplete.

There's nothing more annoying than someone who thinks they're being funny when they aren't at all. I agree that people with lame senses of humour should be banned.

[guyser]

There's nothing more annoying than someone who thinks they're being funny when they aren't at all. I agree that people with lame senses of humour should be banned.

Amen brother bubber.

Not to mention that tactful way of trying to be humourous has been done to death by the same poster. One would think the first time it doesnt garner any laughs to quit....but no, lets keep trying it a couple dozen times, then they will get the humour !

Pk maybe not banned, flogged would be fine.