Debate Subform Format

[HypnoToad]

Although members voted to open a debate subforum, the vote did not differentiate what type of debating it was for, and there has been several members confused as to what the subforum's actual purpose is and what it should be.

I think there are two main views as to how the debate subforum should operate.

1. All debate goes there. This would be the one area in CC where non-members could debate an issue. Debates between only CC members would also be there. (We can easily set up a rule that the OP specifies who can participate, so CC-only debates can stay that way.)

2. The subforum is strictly for non-members to post an issue they want to debate with members on. Any CC-members-only debating would stay in the main forum.

If it's the latter, we can always regulate it to keep it controlled in various ways, like allowing the non-member who started the thread to be the only non-member who can post in that thread.

So, if we're gonna poll it, the question I guess would be "What type of debating for the subform?" (just something to that effect, anyway), and either 1 or 2 from above for the options.

[GreenMunchkin]

See, I'd say number 2. But I remembered what made us realise we needed that subforum. A debate between us got really really nasty. It was, like, 2 days after the forum was opened or something, and it poisoned the entire forum a little. It was a fairly contentious topic, though...

Could we add that any topics we *know* has the potential to become angry, will also take place in he sub-forum? Or would that then open it up to non-members participating... :scratch:

[Lisa0315]

I opt for #2. The reason is we need some way to separate debates and discussions just for CCC members and for between us and others.

The only other way to do this would be to label each debate thread as "open" or "CCC only".

Lisa

[Nadiine]

Although members voted to open a debate subforum, the vote did not differentiate what type of debating it was for, and there has been several members confused as to what the subforum's actual purpose is and what it should be.

I think there are two main views as to how the debate subforum should operate.

1. All debate goes there. This would be the one area in CC where non-members could debate an issue. Debates between only CC members would also be there. (We can easily set up a rule that the OP specifies who can participate, so CC-only debates can stay that way.)

2. The subforum is strictly for non-members to post an issue they want to debate with members on. Any CC-members-only debating would stay in the main forum.

If it's the latter, we can always regulate it to keep it controlled in various ways, like allowing the non-member who started the thread to be the only non-member who can post in that thread.

So, if we're gonna poll it, the question I guess would be "What type of debating for the subform?" (just something to that effect, anyway), and either 1 or 2 from above for the options.
My 2 cents would be to mention that I think 2 debate sections would be ok - one for more Q & A ( ask a CC), where it's about them wanting to know why we think a certain way,
the other debate area could be ISSUES. I kinda like them being able to ask us Q's and toss around the reasons Behind our views - which don't necessarily need "debating" but is more probing into what goes on in our thought process.

Also, within that debate forum I think some 'controversial doctrines' should be forbidden - ie. universalism and possibly homosexuality (there's already a whole homosexuality section in the Christian theology area).

Again, just 2 cents :wave:

[£amb]

I'm gonna repeat what everybody else has voiced and I like the Option 2 as well for the similar reasons as the above.

[HypnoToad]

My 2 cents would be to mention that I think 2 debate sections would be ok - one for more Q & A ( ask a CC), where it's about them wanting to know why we think a certain way,
the other debate area could be ISSUES. I kinda like them being able to ask us Q's and toss around the reasons Behind our views - which don't necessarily need "debating" but is more probing into what goes on in our thought process.
Yeah, I'm also trying to get a "Ask a CC" subforum that would cover the first one you mention, and then the debate one I'm talking about in this thread would be more geared towards the second one you mention.

I didn't say in the OP, but out of the options I give, I prefer #2.

We can also easily set up limits on which topics we deem to be "undebatable", but that would probably be a separate issue (we want to keep polls down to two options whenever possible). This thread is more for just getting the main overall format set.

[GreenMunchkin]

Am sort of lost as to the state of the forum as a whole, you know. Everything's so up in the air. Way I see it, we need to sort out our FSRs; membership rules; sort out what the debate sub-forum is for and sort out what the Ask a CC sub-forum would be for, and how both sub-forums will/would be regulated.

Don't even know where we should start.

[Lisa0315]

Am sort of lost as to the state of the forum as a whole, you know. Everything's so up in the air. Way I see it, we need to sort out our FSRs; membership rules; sort out what the debate sub-forum is for and sort out what the Ask a CC sub-forum would be for, and how both sub-forums will/would be regulated.

Don't even know where we should start.

I agree, and when you are a mod, I think you are going to find it even more so. What date are you official?

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

I went and looked. August 30 at 5:45 pm

Lisa

[HypnoToad]

Way I see it, we need to sort out our FSRs
"FSR" = ?

membership rules;
We are doing that now. The poll is still open (probably needs to be bumped), but it's looking like we will have open membership - just have to agree to the Wiki, and let someone know you want to be put on the list.

sort out what the debate sub-forum is for and sort out what the Ask a CC sub-forum would be for, and how both sub-forums will/would be regulated. Don't even know where we should start.
And we're working on that here and in the other thread I started. Just have to give it time to go through the process. In a couple days the polls will get started, and we'll go from there.

[Lisa0315]

"FSR" = ?


We are doing that now. The poll is still open (probably needs to be bumped), but it's looking like we will have open membership - just have to agree to the Wiki, and let someone know you want to be put on the list.


And we're working on that here and in the other thread I started. Just have to give it time to go through the process. In a couple days the polls will get started, and we'll go from there.

Forum Specific Rules ;)

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

We are doing that now. The poll is still open (probably needs to be bumped), but it's looking like we will have open membership - just have to agree to the Wiki, and let someone know you want to be put on the list.And not be a member of WWMC. So we'll need to re-write our wiki. Eep. No, ok, but that's a good thing.

And we're working on that here and in the other thread I started. Just have to give it time to go through the process. In a couple days the polls will get started, and we'll go from there.Cool :) Glad someone has a grasp on it all, cos to my mind, it's all very "Auuuugh!" and overwhelming.

I think it feels a little like a vicious circle, where nothing is definite, but we can't make anything definite because another aspect is still up in the air and it'll have an impact on the definite bit... etc etc. Mind you, there's no rush. Ok. Crisis averted :)

[HypnoToad]

And not be a member of WWMC. So we'll need to re-write our wiki. Eep. No, ok, but that's a good thing.
The WWMC part is already there, and the current rules just say you have to be put on the list before voting and debating. All we have to add is "you just need to agree to the rules and ask to be added". The poll is already open, and will close soon, so there's not much left to do there.

Cool :) Glad someone has a grasp on it all, cos to my mind, it's all very "Auuuugh!" and overwhelming.

I think it feels a little like a vicious circle, where nothing is definite, but we can't make anything definite because another aspect is still up in the air and it'll have an impact on the definite bit... etc etc. Mind you, there's no rush. Ok. Crisis averted :)It just seems that way because we're at the initial phases, so we're still in the formation process. While things are technically "not settled" yet, we are well on the way of taking care of it.

[Criada]

The WWMC part is already there, and the current rules just say you have to be put on the list before voting and debating. All we have to add is "you just need to agree to the rules and ask to be added". The poll is already open, and will close soon, so there's not much left to do there.

[COLOR=green]It just seems that way because we're at the initial phases, so we're still in the formation process. While things are technically "not settled" yet, we are well on the way of taking care of it.
Thanks for all the hard work you people are putting in on this!
Is much appreciated! :hug:

[Criada]

Is a bit sad that the Israel debate was closed before it started!
If most people want non-members to be able to debate in the subforum, can't we just let them for now?
Or at least wait until someone objects before closing it!

(This is not meant as a criticism, BTW, just a suggestion :) )

[Lisa0315]

Is a bit sad that the Israel debate was closed before it started!
If most people want non-members to be able to debate in the subforum, can't we just let them for now?
Or at least wait until someone objects before closing it!

(This is not meant as a criticism, BTW, just a suggestion :) )

I appreciate that, and as a mod, I would have overlooked it if someone else had set that up. However, I feel very uncomfortable with having done that myself. I have been told over and over that I will be held to a higher standard, so I am trying to anticipate things like that.

Lisa

[Criada]

I appreciate that, and as a mod, I would have overlooked it if someone else had set that up. However, I feel very uncomfortable with having done that myself. I have been told over and over that I will be held to a higher standard, so I am trying to anticipate things like that.

Lisa
Fair enough!
Wouldn't want you to get into trouble :hug:

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

My thoughts on the debate subforum is that I thought when we made it that it was meant for members only. Nonmembers have other forums already made especially for debate. Why do we have to have them here also? Why do we have to have yet ANOTHER place for them to argue with us?

And GM is right...when the forum first started we had an issue that turned ugly...and then there were people coming in starting political debates. :doh:

[Nadiine]

My thoughts on the debate subforum is that I thought when we made it that it was meant for members only. Nonmembers have other forums already made especially for debate. Why do we have to have them here also?

And GM is right...when the forum first started we had an issue that turned ugly...and then there were people coming in starting political debates. :doh:
Here's why Lady Trekki (it's just my view of course),
Becuz in the other forum areas, the CHRISTIANS that are responding to the unsaved HAVE FALSE DOCTRINES that don't even agree w/ the Nicene Creed.
The nonchristians that are debating in the wide open sections are getting 300 different teachings from people that support universalism, nontrinitarianism, heavy liberalism (many who refute that the Bible is even the inspired word of God), and now Mormon's & JW's & Unitatarians.

IMO I WANT them to come here becuz we uphold the Standard of the Christian faith - it's holy scriptures inspired by God to man, that all need salvation, what SIN actually is, etc.

I think we HAVE to have this section opened up becuz they're getting one truth of God within it.
I realize why you wouldn't want debate opened up here, but I think it's imperative TO have it for truth's sake.

The nonchristians in the other sections are just hammered with false teachings out there - with continual disagreements between people calling themselves "christians".

That's my view on why I think it's necessary to have here. Just that we need tight control so it doesn't get out of hand.

[HypnoToad]

My thoughts on the debate subforum is that I thought when we made it that it was meant for members only.
It was never specified either way. Yes, people certainly talked about it, but the poll itself only asked about opening a debate subforum, it did not address who was going to participate.

Nonmembers have other forums already made especially for debate. Why do we have to have them here also? Why do we have to have yet ANOTHER place for them to argue with us?
Yeah, there's other generic debate areas, but this would be specifically ours. We can manage it better than some of the others are managed. It can be better controlled, for example we can limit it so that only the non-member who started the thread is the only non-member who can participate in that thread. Also, those who respond for the opposing view will all be CC members, instead of just anybody.

And GM is right...when the forum first started we had an issue that turned ugly...and then there were people coming in starting political debates. :doh:
We can also forbid political debates if we want to, keep it strictly theological. We could make a list of things that aren't debateable, if we wish.

There's plenty of members so far that want this kind of area. Those who don't want to debate, well they don't have to go into that subforum then.

[HypnoToad]

Here's why Lady Trekki (it's just my view of course),
Becuz in the other forum areas, the CHRISTIANS that are responding to the unsaved HAVE FALSE DOCTRINES that don't even agree w/ the Nicene Creed.
The nonchristians that are debating in the wide open sections are getting 300 different teachings from people that support universalism, nontrinitarianism, heavy liberalism (many who refute that the Bible is even the inspired word of God), and now Mormon's & JW's & Unitatarians.

IMO I WANT them to come here becuz we uphold the Standard of the Christian faith - it's holy scriptures inspired by God to man, that all need salvation, what SIN actually is, etc.

I think we HAVE to have this section opened up becuz they're getting one truth of God within it.
I realize why you wouldn't want debate opened up here, but I think it's imperative TO have it for truth's sake.

The nonchristians in the other sections are just hammered with false teachings out there - with continual disagreements between people calling themselves "christians".

That's my view on why I think it's necessary to have here. Just that we need tight control so it doesn't get out of hand.
Yeah, basically what I was trying to say.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Yeah, there's other generic debate areas, but this would be specifically ours. We can manage it better than some of the others are managed. It can be better controlled, for example we can limit it so that only the non-member who started the thread is the only non-member who can participate in that thread. Also, those who respond for the opposing view will all be CC members, instead of just anybody.

I like this idea actually. :) I just didnt see the difference in our forum debate than any other place they are debating. That would be ok then to me.

We can also forbid political debates if we want to, keep it strictly theological. We could make a list of things that aren't debateable, if we wish.

I would like this...:thumbsup:

There's plenty of members so far that want this kind of area. Those who don't want to debate, well they don't have to go into that subforum then.

Well...that's true too. :D

[Nadiine]

Yeah, there's other generic debate areas, but this would be specifically ours. We can manage it better than some of the others are managed. It can be better controlled, for example we can limit it so that only the non-member who started the thread is the only non-member who can participate in that thread. Also, those who respond for the opposing view will all be CC members, instead of just anybody.


We can also forbid political debates if we want to, keep it strictly theological. We could make a list of things that aren't debateable, if we wish.

There's plenty of members so far that want this kind of area. Those who don't want to debate, well they don't have to go into that subforum then.
Good points. As a Subforum, it's beyond EASY to bypass the area entirely.

My main 'ministry' is debate, so for me, it's 90% of my participation at this site.

I also agree that some subjects should be forbidden - they're just a MESS~! Political for sure. But even if that is allowed, if the guidelines & rules are comprehensive enough, it can be kept civil and respectful & orderly... ER ELSE!!! :ebil: :mad:

One thing I wanted to mention just in general, the more we "over" limit & constrain people, the less interest they'll have in participating here.
I want it popularized AND fair (so that us CC's aren't swarming with people hammering us with attacks).

So I think it's a fine line & balance - one thing I've learned from nonchristians is, they want to be (or feel) HEARD by us. Not just preached at.

Over time I think everything can be fine tuned & run smoothly. I'd err on the side of giving room to them first, and AFTER they hang themselves with abusing the liberties we offer, THEN yank back and tighten up rules & guidelines.
Just my opinion -

[HypnoToad]

One thing I wanted to mention just in general, the more we "over" limit & constrain people, the less interest they'll have in participating here.

Yeah, we should keep limits as minimal as possible.

Aside from no politics, I wouldn't mind the following being non-debatable:
1. Abortion
2. Homosexuality
3. The Trinity (by definition, this includes Jesus being God)
4. Authority of Scripture (including that if we use a Scripture for our position, they can't argue, "well you can't prove Scripture is true")

I don't think we need to go beyond that, otherwise it does become too restrictive. If we had those, I'd probably be willing to let more than one non-member participate in a particular thread (should try to give them something in return).

[Nadiine]

Yeah, we should keep limits as minimal as possible.

Aside from no politics, I wouldn't mind the following being non-debatable:
1. Abortion
2. Homosexuality
3. The Trinity (by definition, this includes Jesus being God)
4. Authority of Scripture (including that if we use a Scripture for our position, they can't argue, "well you can't prove Scripture is true")

I don't think we need to go beyond that, otherwise it does become too restrictive. If we had those, I'd probably be willing to let more than one non-member participate in a particular thread (should try to give them something in return).
:thumbsup:
Well, it's not like we can't ADD rules later when the looser standard gets overly abused and ruins the threads...
I'm all for restrictions, but the nonchristians lose interest real quickly when they feel they can't express themselves. There's just a fine line in how far you allow them to express... when it goes into personal attacks, etc. rude comments against God etc.

One thing I've been ADAMANT on at CF was Erwin's refusal to define Christian as "accepting the Bible as the inspired word of God".
His refusal to use that standard is what IMHO ruined the Christian area - he removed the very foundation we operate from.
Take out the rule book, and it's a free for all. NOTHING can be based on it as a source of truth.

If we take that route here, I believe debate becomes empty opinion back & forth. "Oh, I don't believe that verse should be in the bible, therefore, it's not true for me".
Any "Christian" can think anything they want and it's true. Arguing INTERPRETATION is open tho for sure.
Interpreting and accepting it's authoratative/from God are 2 different things.
good post Jedi. :thumbsup:

[Nicki4Christ]

Where is the poll on this topic?? I was unable to find it.

Is the CC debate area open or closed? I am sorry I feel so confused, and I think this pertains to our discussion in defining debate.

[GreenMunchkin]

Heya, Nicki :hug:

The Debate Sub-forum is open to everyone :)

Our defining debate is more for the main forum, really, to prevent unnecessary reports and to help with working out whether a post is a violation or not.

Lots of pieces of string that we just have to tie together :swoon:

[Nicki4Christ]

Heya, Nicki :hug:

The Debate Sub-forum is open to everyone :)

Our defining debate is more for the main forum, really, to prevent unnecessary reports and to help with working out whether a post is a violation or not.

Lots of pieces of string that we just have to tie together :swoon:
Okay thanks . I was just confused then. :doh:

[GreenMunchkin]

Okay thanks . I was just confused then. :doh:Heh, if you weren't, I'd nominate you for Queen. Tis all sooper-confuddling. Am sorry. We're slooooowly getting there :)