Just general rules and stuff. And it's very hard to debate properly when it's something that incites emotions!
the best debater (debatee?) at my school in grade 12 could switch his emotions off. He was one of the most passionate people I met but when he debated he was practically cold hearted. he was fantastic!
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."
not to criticise other adults involved to boys. This does not prevent
fair and measured comment on the proceedings in the proper circumstances for the purposes of
guidance of the boys.
3. Coaches or parents are not to dispute the result. This does not prevent them from putting
questions to the adjudicator in a reasonable way or having a reasonable discussion. Nor does it
prevent them from lodging a formal complaint in writing later to the committee about an
adjudicator. Any such complaints will be dealt with not as potential grounds for reversing a
decision but as a potential basis for discussion with the adjudicator about future occasions and,
where necessary, for the issuing of guidelines.
4.
Adjudicators and coaches are to encourage courtesy among the boys, and to provide an example
of courtesy themselves. They are also to remember that the manner of presentation of an argument
is important and in their adjudications and coaching encourage an effective and appropriate
presentation. This includes discouraging any remarks which could be offensive to schools,
such as any offensive references to religion, and any excessively sharp or personal attacks on
the other side in a debate.
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."
Well obviously that'd need to be rewritten as we don't have coaches or parents on RYL.
But tbh the majority of it is common sense. I don't know how one would dispute the result of any debate as in most of them there is no winner. And I think the personal attacks would be covered under the no flaming rule.
In my opinion RYL's current rules already give adequate guidelines for how to have a civil debate. adding extra rules and bureaucracy can only hamper open and honest discussion about what people want from this community.
Common sense to many of us, but to a few their opinion and insecurities can get the better of them. I think if anything, it would encourage more debate because people would feel as though they are protected that little bit more?
Ahh common sense (and common courtesy) are anything but common. *nods*
but the mods are like the adjudicators and Harley is the final judge sort of thing. Does that make sense? maybe someone who's brain is working (mine is in wedding mode) could write out a set or guidelines that fit RYL?
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."
whaaat i do agree with heidi i think that is common sense, and i think people KNOW when they are going to post something that may get edited/deleted, or at least have an inking, especially in a debate. or else they should know really.
i don't think rules are needed for every aspect of ryl.
Not rules, but guidelines. Debates need direction, and guidelines set those directions. otherwise you just have... chaos and it gets heated and becomes an argument
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."
I think though that by deeming moderators to be "adjudicators" it set's things up to be adversarial with two teams. And discussions needn't be like that, I mean people can take one point of view, another or be a million things in between.
And I think if people feel they've been given the opportunity to talk, they remain calmer, I mean look at Nils leaving thread now, it all got very heated at the start. But once people realised that with having a freedom to post comes a responsibility it all got a lot more constructive. I think the only guidelines needed for a successful debate are to remain calm and not construe everything as a personal attack.
But with a proper debate there is no right or wrong! That is the idea of the debate! If you have to tell someone that they're wrong then you're not debating. You're dictating (that's not the word i need but i can't think of it >.<). And it's not critisicm that you give, you just disprove someone elses point.
So I say, school uniforms are necessary as they put each child on the same level as some can't afford nice clothes, uniforms eliminate "class"
you say, school uniforms are not necessary as they eliminate the individuality of each student, and some students cant afford new uniforms and have to wear old hand me downs, therefore the class issue is disproven.
Does that make any sense at all? lol sorry if it doesn't!
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."
I just feel imposing more rules is like tugging hard on a dog's lead, the dog feels constrained and so tugs back. I feel that giving members the freedom to debate as long as it remains within RYL's current rules is a responsibility, obviously if they break the rules actions should be taken, such as the current rule framework already allows for. Asking for more rules implies that you don't believe members can be trusted to remain civil to each other.
Not rules though. A guideline on how a debate actually works. And maybe the suggestion that if you're getting too worked up over something, to stop posting or debating until you can do so calmly? I think one of the problems is, that people pick a side and that's it. From there on in it's "you're wrong becasue i think this" and same from whomever is on the other side. Instead of giving valid reasons to promote their arugments it becomes i think this and that's it. Some people are absolutely brilliant it and some aren't (i know i'm not sometimes lol). Or Maybe someone could set up a debating thread? And set a topic and people could pick a side and debate it. And then, swap sides. That's what we use to have to do in highschool for debating practice. We'd have to debate for or against and then we'd have to swap and debate the other side.
Debates are wonderful things to have but they're really hard to do properly. If we keep within the RYL rules and set out guidelines (almost like tips and hints or something) then I think it could work?
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."
I have to agree with the general view on this thread - keep your emotions in check and don't post something against the current rules. It bothers me when the posts start out with a personal attack or "This'll probably get deleted/edited...", and when people decide to close off and do the three year old "na na na na I'm right you're wrong not listening to you lalala".
And I agree that there should be guidelines to debate posted along with reminders to step away and come back later if you're getting too emotional.
Not rules, but guidelines. Debates need direction, and guidelines set those directions. otherwise you just have... chaos and it gets heated and becomes an argument
I am on another site where there are guidelines for debate, and to be honest, they just stifle. If the debate goes off on to another topic (which can happen a lot, like in this thread) then it gets stopped and pulled back on topic again. When really there is not much else to be said about it and people were happy with the debate evolving.
Debates/discussion and arguments are totally different. Maybe some people just need to learn that. If I try to rebut your point of view with a logical point, I'm not arguing with you or flaming, I'm discussing.
That's true, but if you say "well this is right and you're wrong" then that's arguing *nods*
And I don't mean guidelines that will keep it purely on one topic that is finished. I mean guidelines that keep a debate as a debate and stop it from turning into an argument. So maybe use those guidelines from the other forum but refine them so they don't stifle debate here?
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."
I think a point about the the debating thing, and fear of arguments being pulled apart - if you do debate, that is going to happen. You make a point, disagreeing with somebody elses' point, and they retaliate. It's a natural point of debating.
Saying 'I'm too scared to post my opinion in case it gets pulled apart' kinda completely undermines your opinion - if you aren't willing to fight for your opinion, or at least, stand up to criticism, why bother posting your opinon at all? At least, that's what I feel.
If a person in an official debate said 'this is my point. But now I've said it, I'm going to leave', that kinda ruins the debate. It's not a debate. It's somebody preaching their opinion.
Quote:
i think people are so desperate to have their voice heard now a 'platform' has appeard (this is not ment to sound negative at all btw. or anything bad)
I also agree with this, from Liz. Some particularly loud members, and other members, with opinions have found a soapbox to stand on, and so are doing so.
I am really not liking the idea of rules for a debate!
And I am sorry, I don't like organised debates, I like the kind of debates that just happen, people are debating something they are passionate about, but being able to respect others opinions and be willing to maybe change aspect of theirs.
We don't need any more rules. Please don't bog the freedom of a debate down with rules. As long as they stick to the current RYL rules as in, no flaming etc, I don't see what the problem would be.
They're not rules! Guidelines! Guidelines give you an idea of how it's supposed to go. I just hate seeing 'debates' spiral into arguments. At least with a guideline (or even a reminder of the RYL rules) it should keep it on track. *shrugs*
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."
