The House of Noble Discourse

[Flinn]

err well it was Caillagh and not Hitai of course

you damned de Bodemlozes!!!

[Elfdude]

I'm glad this is underway, I'm happy to join, reading the thread left me a bit confused about what it was though, as I understand this is a voluntary association of folks trying to promote higher quality debate? What if we have issues with others not promoting quality debate?

[Love Mountain]

We put them in Putin's Gulag. Obviously.

[Katsumoto]

If someone joins and then doesn't stick to the rules we can vote to remove them, is what I figured. And yes, also gulag.

[Seether]

Consider me in

As far as self-policing and voting people out if they misbehave, what kind of requirements for the vote to stand? 3/4 majority? 2/3 majority? A simple majority? And will there be a minimum number of votes required (something small like 5)?

[PikeStance]

I wonder if it is a good idea to establish a "permission group" that people can request to join like a development group or the Help Project. Have it so that it can be viewed by the public but you have to be a member to post in it.
Just to stress; if someone wants in, they are in. Logical location would be the mudpit area.

[sumskilz]

I think I may prefer to reserve the right to occasionally make completely inane posts rather always stick to a higher code. I'm also pretty sure I'm less concerned about the state of D&D, and have a higher tolerance for nonsense, than many of you participating in this discussion, but I do have a suggestion that might improve things. Something some others here have no doubt arrived at either consciously or intuitively, and that is know when to quit (or at least take a break).

There are, and probably will always be as long as this site is up, posters who will continue to talk past your posts without ever addressing the content of your argument. Maybe their worldview is too different from yours to follow your points, maybe they don't consider your arguments strong enough to be worth responding to, maybe they're just happy to have another opportunity to repeat their talking points without double-posting, maybe they're deliberately trolling you. I'm not saying you need to write anyone off (although you may want to in some cases, though posters do develop in their styles over time or their contributions vary depending on the particular topic) but after someone has talked past you a couple times consecutively in a particular thread, it seems to me to be more productive to either bow out immediately, or make just one more concise post summarizing your main point before walking away. Don't return to the thread until you feel there is actually something new of substance worth addressing. Yes, some posters will use that opportunity to declare your lack of further response as evidence of their own victory, no, that doesn't convince anyone following the thread unless they already agree.

This post of mine is actually too preachy for my own tastes, but I have seen some of you guys effectively trolled repeatedly and at great length, whether that was your interlocutor's intent or not. For whatever that's worth.

[Katsumoto]

I wouldn't worry about it being too preachy, I think you were very fair. I'm happy for us to change the code if we think it's too restrictive or unrealistic, as it isn't set in stone or anything - the intention definitely isn't to force every post to be some expansive essay or to stop us having any fun. I've seen your 'inane' comments and I certainly wouldn't want them 'banned' if you were a member of the House. The idea was to encourage civil discussion more than anything, to prevent us resorting to ranting, trolling and the like, by holding each other accountable. That makes it sound like a support group but I think it would be good to have a group of us that are interested in mostly productive/intellectual debate working together to encourage that. I think you raise a really good point about knowing when to leave the discussion, as some really dumb debates go on for ages because people are coming back and falling prey to trolling or disingenuous debate. That's something maybe we could look out for and let each other know about - "don't bother with this discussion, they're trolling you." Maybe people don't realise that's what's happening.

[Aexodus]

I’m interested in joining if this group gets set up yes, but my concern is that this will make the actual DnD worse not better. I know that the mudpit has changed to being dominated by one group of extremists around 2010, and another today, but quarantining the discussion only takes activity away from the forum? Or spreading it across another forum dilutes it.

[Katsumoto]

The main purpose is to improve the D&D, yes, though as mentioned people can debate here or in the Symposium as well.

Also Seether, 2/3 majority perhaps, 5 votes minimum? I suppose we can figure that out once we solidify membership.

I'll start listing confirmed members in the OP.

[PikeStance]

I think I may prefer to reserve the right to occasionally make completely inane posts rather always stick to a higher code. I'm also pretty sure I'm less concerned about the state of D&D, and have a higher tolerance for nonsense, than many of you participating in this discussion, but I do have a suggestion that might improve things. Something some others here have no doubt arrived at either consciously or intuitively, and that is know when to quit (or at least take a break).

There are, and probably will always be as long as this site is up, posters who will continue to talk past your posts without ever addressing the content of your argument. Maybe their worldview is too different from yours to follow your points, maybe they don't consider your arguments strong enough to be worth responding to, maybe they're just happy to have another opportunity to repeat their talking points without double-posting, maybe they're deliberately trolling you. I'm not saying you need to write anyone off (although you may want to in some cases, though posters do develop in their styles over time or their contributions vary depending on the particular topic) but after someone has talked past you a couple times consecutively in a particular thread, it seems to me to be more productive to either bow out immediately, or make just one more concise post summarizing your main point before walking away. Don't return to the thread until you feel there is actually something new of substance worth addressing. Yes, some posters will use that opportunity to declare your lack of further response as evidence of their own victory, no, that doesn't convince anyone following the thread unless they already agree.

This post of mine is actually too preachy for my own tastes, but I have seen some of you guys effectively trolled repeatedly and at great length, whether that was your interlocutor's intent or not. For whatever that's worth.

This is pretty much what I do. A good portion of the animosity that has developed is some people think that people reading the discussion somehow lack critical thinking skills. They feel a need to address silly comments and the discussion divulges into nonsense. Another side effect is the written word is perhaps the worse form of communication. A lot his communicated in body language or even voice inflection. Too often people fail to realize they actually misunderstood and are not "trolling."

To be honest, I tend to not bother reading posts in the mudpit. It is too rigidly discussed and posters often get petty in the discussion. Other forums or comment sections are full of insight and a lot of zany comments that just make the discussion more fun.

[Love Mountain]

When are we going to talk about how superior our debating skills are boys?

[PikeStance]

We?

[Katsumoto]

I do find it impressive how some of you manage to write up these massive replies that address multiple points - I find it exhausting sometimes even addressing a single one. Especially when the other guy comes back with a blanket dismissal of every source you provide. I suppose at that point it's like Sumskilz said - best to ignore them.

[Flinn]

every human activity should be "profitable" in a way or another; debating for the sake of it, does make little sense IMO so, yes, it is how Sumskilz said, best to ignore them, especially if they are already ignoring what you tell them

I always find difficult to debate online, because the line of discussion is easily disrupted (even not intentionally) and it's very hard to listen to other people's opinion when you are under a constant barrage of new inputs, the majority of which are redundant or off-topic. I honestly envy those who are able to keep their posts civil and efficent despite being subject to the above; I think it's a matter of having the skill of being able to keep the post clear and easy to read while at the same time providing deep thoughts and sound facts/sources, this way one can keep the attention of the reader focused and the read in itself will never result long or boring, no matter how long the text is
In other words, debating is not just about having the right ideas, but also (or rather) about having the right skills to present them (remember Cicero? )

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

In other words, debating is not just about having the right ideas, but also (or rather) about having the right skills to present them (remember Cicero? )

Couldn't agree more! Plus the gift of objective thinking and judgment, if I may add

[♔atthias♔]

Could agree more! Plus the gift of objective thinking and judgment, if I may add

which raises the question if both of these exist in my opinion

since everyone and their mother has their bias myself included

[PikeStance]

In other words, debating is not just about having the right ideas, but also (or rather) about having the right skills to present them (remember Cicero? )

I could not disagree more. What is the "right" idea? Opinion? A skillful debater is someone who could take any idea and debate the merits of that idea convincingly.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

which raises the question if both of these exist in my opinion

since everyone and their mother has their bias myself included

Well, we should always try our best

[Iskar]

I could not disagree more. What is the "right" idea? Opinion? A skillful debater is someone who could take any idea and debate the merits of that idea convincingly.

Certainly not. Not all opinions are equally valid and the best rhetorics cannot compensate an inconsistent or contrafactual position. The idea that debating is a merely rhetorical exercise to defend any randomly given position is a harmful child of the angloamerican debate-society-culture.