h a l f b a k e r yYou want a piece of this?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
[Edited: changed from ArgumentsContinued] [re-edited
removed all monitoring issues]
Format:
_________
Two sides of discussion above.
Separated two sides of discussion below.
Workflow
___________
Lines (with option to hide or show those lines), connect
between
responses.
Step1: To join, you take a side saying what you think,
without responding to any of the current comments.
Step2: You can then begin responding to the discussion.
Changing Sides: You are allowed to change sides, if you
have been convinced.
Neutrality: Even if you are neutral, you must choose a
side, but specifically explain that you are neutral. Side
changes can take place once a week at most.
Votes: Each side's users have a separate vote on every
comment. That is every comment has a Side A's
comments and Side B's Votes.
Side Names: Whoever opens the discussion gets to name
one of the sides. The first person to argue gets to name
the other side.
[Edited] Monitoring: To be decided when baking this
website. [Edited: Note there was much detail here on
how to keep the sides clean]
Stretch
________
Once every half hour, the takeSides website will
encourage you to stand up and stretch, and check if you
weren't supposed to do the dishes or something.
Hey ! no double dipping.
continuedDiscussions_2ecom
[FlyingToaster, Aug 22 2011]
Another earlier Idea similar to this one
WikiDebate
Another earlier Idea similar to this one [Vernon, Aug 23 2011]
9 / 11 heated debate
http://www.abovetop...um/thread320548/pg1
I was going to show examples of hate comments in heated topics, but the first google result has a fantastic saying to prove I'm correct: Beginning at the time of this announcement, if your post contains a personality attack against anyone, no matter if your target is an ATS member or not, within the 9/11 Forum, it will be removed and replaced with this graphic... Nuf said. [pashute, Aug 23 2011]
ARGUE.COM The fastest and easiest way to get what you want!
http://www.argue.com
The best part is the image - that's the best argument I ever saw [pashute, Aug 29 2011]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
//you must choose a side//
Simplistic drivel. [-]. |
|
| |
DrBob makes a good point, any debatable
argument that can
be resolved into two (and only two) distinct
"sides" is probably bollocks by definition - anyone
engaging in such a polarised argument is likely to
be missing the point - usually on purpose. |
|
| |
Having said that, duality does seem to be the
basis on which our legal (unless you live in
France), political, industrial and more widely, the
general Classical thought system on which our
society is built. Polarisation, while simplistic,
dangerous and harmfull in many cases, is also a
great driver, and certainly gets things done (likely
the wrong things, but still) |
|
| |
[ ] I think the Idea of a website, where discussions which have overflown the boundaries of the original forum/newsgroup/whatsis are continued, is redundant. ie: I think we've done this before. |
|
| |
I would sign up for this, just so I could knock down some of the more asinine planks of libertarianism. |
|
| |
The main part of the idea is the arguments. Not the
"continued". Now I realize you could even do without
the "continued" and just post any argument. |
|
| |
The website of course would have "fields of
argument". |
|
| |
One more step toward a Cleeseian society... |
|
| |
I sense an argument coming on... |
|
| |
Flying [toaster] your right. The idea was
redundant. I removed the first part and kept the
second and IMHO unique part. |
|
| |
BTW I participate in many heated online
arguments, even ones so hot that they reach the
level of calling to kill (!! me or) others for various
reasons. The main point in this idea was to more
or less clear out the sides, so that each side gets
its fair share of information. And how to keep
those annotations clean of hate responses, quite
common on heated discussions like 9/11
conspiracy, creationism, atheism, regimes, border
clashes, current news, health and many other
matters. |
|
| |
OK! Just got the correct name for this idea. |
|
| |
[Also edited] For the interesting parts of this post I see little difference between this and the previous, apart from registration as to "which side are you on?" which most people could pick up by reading the conversation. |
|
| |
The boring parts, the bulk, is pretty bad, sorry. |
|
| |
I find it disturbing that you've subdivided unwanted/malicious postings into "trolls", "illegal" and "hateful" categories with precise instructions as to how to handle each, that you're calling for "exposing" "hateful" users' real identities using the user group as a resource, and that you claim that online people are calling for your death. The amount of vitriol suggests somebody stewing in their own juices against their foes. That's not healthy. |
|
| |
Perhaps the shrink can fit you in between 8th's fear of cats and Ao's delusions regarding deer. |
|
| |
[marked-for-deletion] advocacy:
specifically the bit where you want the group to turn on users which they have decided are "hateful". Apart from causing devious people to simply hide better, or worse, set up a false trail leading to an innocent person, what do you expect to accomplish from that that can't be accomplished by deleting an account/posts ? |
|
| |
Issues rarely have two sides, though they often have two combatants. Most often those combatants consist of those who are fighting, blind to the other point of view, or trolling. Everybody else sees things in shades of gray. |
|
| |
[marked-for-consideration] Baked:
- Most forums have automated filters of varying intensity to delete or mark-for-review questionable language
- Moderators
- Large multi-category forums often have subforums devoted to spam, off-topic, and threads that have wandered off
- Topic discussion groups incorporate software that allows users to vote on specific postings, bringing those that garner positive votes to the fore while gradually graying out others.
- Forums exist where users have to register giving their real personal information. |
|
| |
(I realize this might not be the type of edit you were looking for, but in the grand scheme of things I don't have anywhere I have to be real soon) |
|
| |
// between 8th's fear of cats // |
|
| |
We do not fear cats; we hate cats, not the same thing at all. |
|
| |
// Ao's delusions regarding deer // |
|
| |
Just because you've never seen a teleporting deer doesn't mean there aren't any. Mere accumulation of observational evidence is not proof.
In an infinite Universe, anything (including, unfortunately, Leonardo DiCaprio) is possible. |
|
| |
FWIW, I find anti-Semitism to be even more baffling than the Jewish persecution complex. |
|
| |
I didn't read any of the almost 3,000 comments that vid (your link) garnered. I assume yours was a simple statement that you considered the title subtext as inappropriate [edit: said assumption turned out to be incorrect] |
|
| |
If you want my simple observations:
a) it's obviously the soldiers' dog, since they didn't shoot/buttstroke it.
b) the dog is either very poorly trained or has been allowed to continue to hold the woman. The vid isn't at a high enough resolution to see if the handler is attempting to get the dog to let go of her sleeve or if they're using it as a canine handcuff while they talk to her.
c) the woman is taken into light custody or escort. |
|
| |
If you want my opinion, she had trespassed, either unwittingly and/or to cause a nuisance confrontation (based on the coincidental positioning of a fixed camera which goes completely unnoticed by the soldiers), into an area of military interdiction that had only been there for a few days, maybe a week or so (based on the soldiers' loadout). |
|
| |
[edit: at second look/listen, it appears to be a manually controlled, but tripod/steadycam based shot and there is a noise in the background that sounds like a crowd of people] |
|
| |
I still don't care much for the idea though; at best I see it as an addendum to your previous, rather good, idea plus an undisguised rant. |
|
| |
If you want to trade, you can look for footage of the G20 conference where police were reported as being "out of control" against protests which included orchestrated incitement and acts of vandalism. |
|
| |
// Just because you've never seen a teleporting deer
doesn't mean there aren't any. // |
|
| |
Damn right! The bastards are out there... waiting. Just...
waiting... |
|
| |
bottom line: This idea gives the non hateful
people a chance to "fight back" against hatred and
the many hate comments expected on heated
debates. |
|
| |
Again, hate comments are quite common in
heated arguments. e.g. 9/11 conspiracy
discussions, atheism and creationism discussions
and many more. In some sites, moderators simply
remove them. |
|
| |
Here, since I expect them to be prevalent and ruin
the experience of the user, I propose a way to
deal with them in a way that makes life more
interesting for the non-hateful user, giving them a
feeling they can fight back. |
|
| |
See link about hate comments in heated debate
websites. |
|
| |
Vernon, thanks! (gave you a [+] there). You are
discussing the same problems with a site like this. |
|
| |
Although this idea is not about a wiki but rather a
forum type of site. |
|
| |
[quote from a deleted annotation kept just to show which 'side' of your posted link you're on, without causing people to have to wade through it. Feel free to delete this anno, pash it's mostly a non-sequitur]
//Most of the people reading it understood that they were seeing Israeli soldiers purposefully sending an attack dog on an old lady// |
|
| |
You may be surprised at how few people comprise "most of the people". |
|
| |
[marked-for-deletion] it's not a new idea to have a moderated forum where certain behaviours are sanctioned by the moderation team. I don't see anything new here. |
|
| |
You're likely to find that the sorts of "discussion" sites you are frequenting are either unmoderated, or not moderated "properly", for one reason or another. |
|
| |
If you're looking for a considered and proper argument, but are finding a polarised them and us debate, you're probably looking in the wrong place. |
|
| |
Sometimes an argument is more than just the rationale behind the argument, but becomes an identity. It's unlikely you are going to change a person's perception of their own identity using logic and a well balanced argument. It usually takes something more visceral than that. |
|
| |
People see what they want to: initially I mistook the video feed for a wall-mounted b/w security camera when a second look shows that it's probably a long-range tripod or steadycam mount, and the crowd whistles (which I assume are normal in that corner of the world) for wind-noise. |
|
| |
However you seem to be missing that the dog is wearing quite a thick collar, is not attacking the women during the footage in any way save restraint, and the soldiers are quite unconcerned about their own safety with the animal. |
|
| |
So, if you want the latest in a series of snap judgements based on a half-assed review of a couple minutes of poorly shot footage taken in a corner of the world which customs I'm almost completely ignorant of... |
|
| |
The strayed dog was trying to save the woman from what it considered a dangerous situation by pulling her away from it and the soldiers understood that the dog didn't mean the woman harm. |
|
| |
Or the dog is an army dog and may or may not have been responding to proper commands or acting on its own initiative. |
|
| |
I never said that moderation is what makes this
site unique. it's the separated two sided
discussion with links between them. |
|
| |
Its just that once I show this idea, I MUST
immediately also resolve some of the more
problematic issues, which would be more
emphasized in that kind of a forum as opposed to
a regular one string (not two sided) forum. Hence
my proposed details on moderation, some of
which apparently are not acceptable. |
|
| |
The thing is that debates in halfbakery never get
that hot. Hate or cruelty is simply removed or
fishboned. (I once had an idea on fighting
terrorists with pain instead of lethal weapons. I
quickly removed it after seeing it in the eyes of
the HBers). But on debate forums, you sometimes
see lines and lines of hateful comments from both
sides. |
|
| |
I was hoping that measures like the ones I
proposed would help lessen the amount of this
kind of writing. It would be used only after due
warning to any user who continues to use hate
messages, after being warned. |
|
| |
[pashute] you are answering your own questions: |
|
| |
//I never said that moderation is what makes this site unique. it's the separated two sided discussion with links between them. // |
|
| |
//The thing is that debates in halfbakery never get that hot. Hate or cruelty is simply removed or fishboned. // |
|
| |
So here we are, on a "debate" site (I know, it's a site to discuss inventions, but if debate==discuss, then on a general level, what we have here is a debate site) Furthermore, if the purpose of the debates/discussions is aligned with the bun/bone measure of community acceptance, then it seems reasonable to say that there is some "taking of sides" though it's not always obvious which side anyone is taking at any one time. |
|
| |
And yet, it's rare that anyone actually threatens violence, or expresses hatred, or any of those things. |
|
| |
Considering the intent of your invention is to create a site in which people aren't unpleasant to one another, isn't it ironic that you have posted it onto a site on which people aren't unpleasant to one another? If this site manages to achieve these things without the technical bells and whistles you describe, then maybe those bells and whistles aren't required? |
|
| |
The main part of this idea is a different graphic
view for debate forums with two sides. |
|
| |
Some here claim two sides never really exist. Could
be. I find that many issues do have a two sided
tendency. |
|
| |
The idea is having two sides separated graphically
- with graphical links (lines) between sides and
responses. I'm removing all the moderation ideas,
which obviously are for the baking stage, and can
be implemented in many ways. |
|
| |
Thanks [flying]. That IS the kind of edit I was
looking for. I read what you are saying. |
|
| |
Somebody gave me a [+] ... so obviously not
everybody agrees this should be deleted. |
|
| |
I never said that takeSides is a site where people
are pleasant to each other. I was making a site
where people who disagree, and are not intending
to agree in the near future, can discuss their side
and argue with the other side. Rayford for
example said he would sign on just to argue about
hair stylers. |
|
| |
Some people like to watch and participate in
debates, where one halfscreen shows somebody
from one side and the other shows the other side
of the debate. Here its similar with a website
divided in two. |
|
| |
Halfbakery is more a community, where people
clarify ideas, and air them out. Even when there is
an argument, it is for the sake of advancing an
idea. Usually with the goal of solving the
argument. (Sometimes people disagree and leave
with a slammed door). |
|
| |
Also, there are some assumptions that leave the
discussion here on HB always on one side. You
won't find creationists, or anti-scientists here,
because "bad science" or "wibni" posts are deleted
or boned to the bone. |
|
| |
My idea is to get traffic and interesting
discussions without getting the other to agree. |
|
| |
I once met a Satmar guy in a wheelchair who asked
me something. I was searching in the book by his
rabbi to prove a point. He asked me: What are you
doing? Are you trying to convince me? But I already
agree with you! You don't even have to say it! |
|
| |
He then explained himself with the
countercurrent mechanism: If we argue and I
assume that I am totally correct, then at the end
of the argument you will totally agree with me.
But you assume you are totally correct so I will
agree with you by the end of the argument. So
what do we get? We will still totally disagree. |
|
| |
//
My idea is to get traffic and interesting discussions without getting the other to agree. // |
|
| |
I think that's called "civilization". It's been attempted before, with mixed results. |
|
| |