Actual debate, rather than pop culture bullshit (such as backgrounds and self-aggrandizing forums).
Posted 96 days ago | Tagged As: Intelligent debates
Some of the pop culture debates I don't mind, but the debates and points which are just put up there for people to get points is what annoys me!
i agree ! the stuff i put up are isssues that actually matter to me, or things that i'm curious about. i think people should do the same.
I just got an idea that would work with the forums. After looking through some of the "Debates" I realized that there are a lot there that aren't really "Debates", but more like advice. If we had a forum then we could have advice threads that might eliminate these from showing up as debates. ;^)
Posted 93 days ago | Tagged As: Mini-Forum
If you need advice, go to Yahoo Answers or something. Write to Ann Landers. This is supposed to be Debate.
That's not a good way to look at the situation, especially if you're running a site like this. Create Debate is trying to come out of Beta, and I think at least that CD has a pretty solid demographic. You provide a function for people to use, and it works well but then you find people, and a lot of them that seem pretty independent, all using one function to do many things. Debates are being used as personal advice. This is a function that came from the demographic. Now look at what the demographic doesn't need. Do people talk about great finds on ebay? Do people start debates on the maintenance of Wikipedia? Do people want private messages via CD? No, you don't see evidence of any of this because everyone knows where to find ebay, wikipedia, and myspace or their email accounts. The point is that you can easily find evidence of many people using a single function to do many things that can be sorted into it's own function. This would be a good thing for the primary function of the site, to weed out these other popular functions and separate them. You don't want to drive away your users because there is a site that does something better. If it was really better, they'd use it already. It's not like this forum idea is completely absurd and will eventually kill create debate, so why not? The demographic that is here to debate needs a new function, if it's not going to kill the site, purify the two functions and both functions will prosper in their own ways.
Posted 92 days ago | Tagged As: Mini-Forum
Honestly, I don't care. I know everything gets dumbed down to appeal to teh masses. It's to be expected. Anyway, the implementation is good, which is what this site was designed to sell. I'm sure it will be quite successful with others who wish to license this software for their own use. Hopefully one of those will create a site which fosters real debate. There are hundreds of packages to do all the PM, forum, etc stuff. The creators here were tackling something new. And while I congratulate them on a terrific application, the quality of content on this specific website leaves much to be desired for those interested in actual debate.
Any ideas how we can facilitate what you call "real debate?" Any advice / thoughts are greatly appreciated.
Posted 92 days ago | Tagged As: almost perfect
I think sooner or later (if not now), some sort of additional filtering will be necessary. This site suffers from the same problems as all sites which are centered around a front page with up/down voting (digg, reddit, etc.). As the site grows more popular, the "tragedy of the commons" sets in. Only a few debates make it to the top -- those focused on mainstream interests. More obscure or intellectual topics will get lost in obscurity. One solution to this problem that I really like is employed by StumbleUpon -- everybody knows StumbleUpon, right? Well, you can add people as friends, and that makes you more likely to stumble onto pages they've thumbed up. Further, a personal "What's new" page is created for you that contains the latest page reviews from people you have set as friends. See how this solves the problem I mentioned? Everybody has a different idea about what quality content is -- one man's garbage is another man's gold. Marking people as friends is an easy way of creating your own custom content filter. Now, I'm not sure how exactly this would apply to CreateDebate. Maybe each user could set personal, subjective ratings for other debators and debates/arguments could be filtered according to these ratings. (Btw, while I'm on the subject I really don't like the term "Allies." It sounds too warlike -- like your forming a group for the purpose of battling another group -- debate is supposed to be cooperative, not competetive imo. That's why I haven't set anybody as allies -- sure maybe I like this person, but I don't necessarily agree with their worldview. Maybe "Friends" would be better a term?) Another interesting internet thing to look at is Wikipedia. It doesn't have this problem because nobody cares about Wikipedia's front page. They just have one page per topic. Here on CreateDebate, when a debate falls off the front page nobody will touch it. But people keep editing Wikipedia pages forever. What if CreateDebate were more like Wikipedia? What would that even mean? I suppose the critical difference is that on a Wikipedia page you don't have up/down voting on every piece of information, but instead make a much harsher retain/delete decision. What if debates didn't have up/down voting? Maybe people could post arguments and the decision about what to do with those arguments could be left to the debate moderator. That's a pretty radical shift, but it could be worth an experiment. Ok, so there you go, some random thoughts on CreateDebate and Web 2.0 in general. Gah, every time I edit this post it gets longer, I better cut myself off before it gets ridiculous.
Posted 92 days ago | Tagged As: Additional Filtering
Look at sites like idebate.org. It is a lot more complicated to use than CD. This is where CD finds it's niche. It's easily accessible, easy to use, and easy to keep track of. The actual debates are easier to understand too, than the forum-like debates found there... Then look at the topics. Nothing is out of place. They are all, pretty much, good debates. I believe that it's just about who is there, and the system they have set up isn't bad... but it gets in the way. Also, just because there are questions coming up that suck doesn't mean that the site is no good. It means that it's BETA and there are many ways to fix that problem... the voting of debates it one way that we could get all of this shit off out of the way. If there were a voting system set up for the debate topics, all of these people posting shit debates would realize that they have to compete with good debate topics, and I'm sure this would lead to a higher quality front page, and more people in on more important topics, AND would help draw new people in while the look/feel and functionality and organization of the site would keep them here. I'm sure most of us here that actually give a shit about the site and debating, would choose CD over the other's if the site were more streamlined, feature-full and... most importantly, if the users were more critical (in this case, if the users were allowed to be more critical). --------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Honestly, I don't mind some of the "shitty" debates, and I know a lot of people who get somewhat involved with them, I don't think that the "shitty" debates are the problem, but the promotion of these debates or the way that they get focused on the site needs to be changed. Just implement a voting system and see how it turns out.
Posted 92 days ago | Tagged As: Mini-Forum
mmm well, you said exactly what I said, in a different way. The interface/application here is unique and well-executed. This site is basically set up as an example of what can be done with this framework. The creators hope to license the software to other entities who will use it for various purposes. The fact that it's beta means that we are the test subjects. The content of this particular site if of no consequence to me (and likely, the creators either). My hope is that some other site emerges which employs this mechanism and holds some sort of intellectual integrity to their debates. In other words, I support this endeavor in principle, but in this current manifestation, I find it severely lacking. And that's just my opinion, so if you don't like it, make up your own.
I just took a look at idebate. Debatepedia seems to be the closest thing on there to this site. It's funny, I just wrote a long argument in response to borne's comment where I was considering what it would be like if this site were more like Wikipedia. It seems to me the reason DebatePedia has higher quality debates is that it's much more heavily moderated and the moderation is done by intellectuals rather than all users. The problem with the site, as you mentioned, is that the interface sucks balls compared to this site. Perhaps bringing harsher moderation to this site would be a good thing. Or maybe there could be a second site with heavier moderation, and this one could be left as is.
Posted 92 days ago | Tagged As: Heavier Moderation
Yeah, I don't know if you've noticed but after posting that I went out to the front page to hunt down some meaningless debates. Screamed cancer and tagged everything as "THIS IS WHY WE CANT HAVE NICE THINGS". I don't think the site needs moderators. It can haz it's pop-culture-related garbage, so long as people are active, that's fine with me. I still want to see a voting system implemented for the debates though. If everyone votes up the pop-culture garbage, Oh well, I guess it serves our demographic, which is what it's intended to do. Please the masses.
Posted 92 days ago | Tagged As: Intelligent debates
A request for advice can be a good debate topic. People can debate which course of action is best.
How about preventing people from asking who they should vote for? I mean, how should I know? I have a low efficiency rating! I had to go through pages of political stuff to get to the recent debates.
Case in point Joe! You do have a low efficiency rating but that does not reflect your ability to engage in a terrific debate. If someone were to judge your intellect or knowledge on that rating alone, some here wouldn't bother to debate you and that would be so terribly unfair. I didn't want to point you out so I'm glad you stepped up. I'd debate with you any time or day of the week.
Posted 94 days ago | Tagged As: No Identifying Marks or Symbols
I think I have a low efficiency rating because most people don't want their established view of the world to be challenged. On the other hand, if your mind is too open, your brains will fall out ;) Also, for whatever reason people feel compelled to vote. Maybe it makes them feel empowered. Me, I'm like, "Well, if that what you believe..., whatever." I don't waste my time voting them down. For all I know they may be right ;)
Posted 94 days ago | Tagged As: do nothing
In the short time I've been here I've never voted someone down for their comments on the other side of the debate. I've voted them down for being nasty, bigoted or rude but that's it. You're right about their "established view of the world" being challenged...but then, why debate? There are at least two sides to every argument and one never knows, it may very well turn out that they are right and if one is open minded they may change your take on the issue.
Haha, I know what you mean there. I sort of went on a vacation from CD when all of that was going on, and I'm glad I did. If you need someone to tell you or debate for you who to vote for whereever, maybe just let everyone else vote... just stay home.
Posted 95 days ago | Tagged As: Intelligent debates
Add the ability to not only edit a new post but to also delete it. One time in a yes/no debate, I added my argument to the wrong side, and couldn't delete it.
Posted 80 days ago | Tagged As: delete arguments
A way to prevent repeat debate topics would be nice. I also wish that if there were people with low efficiency scores there was some way to indicate that. Maybe a red box around their icon?
Maybe simply replacing the raw score next to a user's name with their efficiency would be a good idea.
Posted 96 days ago | Tagged As: Effeciency instead of Raw Score
Or rather the efficiency score of that entire side of the debate next to their raw score on the top of the debate itself.
Hi Kirstie1126! Repeats are bound to be there once in a while and most especially if someone has just joined CD or by others if the topic hasn't been brought up in a while. The debate topic may be new to a whole new audience as well! Why, if I may be so bold to ask, would you wish to have people's low efficiency scores highlighted? What would that tell you? That they're not worth debating with or that they may not be as intelligent as others on the site? It's a very arrogant and telling statement which reminds me of "The Scarlet Letter" and the Jews in Germany during WW II who were forced to wear a yellow Star of David as a mark of identification.
Posted 96 days ago | Tagged As: No Identifying Marks or Symbols
|
