Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Servant Corps]

Spoiler: IRC Chatroom (click to show/hide)

<+Servant> Keiya is attempting to try and provoke Nikov into an argument.
<+Nikov|SafeMode> Keiya, try being a national organization with a moral compass in this enviroment.
<+Anticheese> "Moral compass in this environment"...Riight
<+Servant> Nikov ignored the bait and addressing the Dwiibulon, and then posed a statement to Keiya. Anticheese responded with scarsam.
<+Servant> Keiya is currently winning the argument, with one person providing indirect support
<+Servant> Nikov needs reinforcements quickly in order to continue the fight.
<+Anticheese> Servant: Bonus points to you if you work out a score card for commentating on internet arguments
<+Dwiibulon> Servant: eventually you need to do the arcade thing where you insert coins to continue during a 10 count
<+Nikov|SafeMode> !df-attack Keiya last resort of the foolish, second option of the wise.
<+MakBot> Nikov|SafeMode hits Keiya in the fourth finger, right hand with their last resort of the foolish, second option of the wise.!
<+MakBot> Keiya's fourth finger, right hand is torn into pieces!
<+Tel_Janin> when dwarfs get really old, does the beard start taking more and more nutrients, becoming larger than the dwarf himself?
<+Zort-> why would that happen?
<+Nikov|SafeMode> Yeah.
<+Tel_Janin> eventually depleting the dwarf entirely
<+Servant> <+Anticheese> Servant: Bonus points to you if you work out a score card for commentating on internet arguments
<+Anticheese> Until the dwarf dies of starvation.
<+Nikov|SafeMode> Hair is dead.
<+Keiya> I wonder what similar groups exist?
<+Servant> I'll see what I can do.
<+Servant> How do you measure victory on the Internet?
<+Anticheese> Until the dwarf dies of starvation.
<+Nikov|SafeMode> Hair is dead.
<+Keiya> I wonder what similar groups exist?
<+Servant> I'll see what I can do.
<+Servant> How do you measure victory on the Internet?
<+Servant> I subscribe to the popularity argument.
<+Servant> The more popular an idea is, as in, the more REAL people commenting in support of it
<+Dwiibulon> when one person hires a hitman
<+Dwiibulon> or goes insane

Internet Warfare happens over political ideologies. I myself was a veteran of the Religion Wars over on another board.  Since they remain with us, we need to measure these arguments right here, right now. I currently subscribe to the Popularity school of thought: Whomever has the more people support a side wins the argument.

Debate Score Card
1) "Real" Active Debater: +10 Points
2) "Real" Active Lurker: +5 Points
3) Conversion During the Argument: +20 Points

"Real" means that the debater/lurker in question is not a multi-account. This is to prevent sockpuppeters from gaming this system and thereby present an illusion of consensus when there is none.

Active Debater means one who is actively arguing in favor of one side or another. Active Lurker means one who does not argue, but rather make posts that state: "I agree/disagree". If an Active Lurker makes a post stating, "I agree with Point A, but not Point B", then they do not count as being with one side or another.

Conversion means a post state in the thread: "Your post has convinced me I am wrong. I hereby join up with your side." Conversion is the point of argument, and a new convert basically showcase the superiority of your debating skill and the validity of your point.

Basically, at the end of the argument, you total up how many points each side has, and the winner is the one with more points.

This system makes the assumption that both sides desire to promote their ideology in question. If one, or both, people are trolls, well, this system doesn't quite work for them, since trolls cause arguments to provoke an emotional response.

[Enzo]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Which is to say I don't really see what you're getting at here.

[Servant Corps]

While I can sympathize with your picture, the fact remains that these arguments will continue nevertheless. People will still wage "flame wars" over political ideologies. And these wars may be rather important.

Therefore, there needs to be a way to measure which side of an argument is "stronger" than the other. If there is a war, you need to have some sort of objective way of defining the winner. That's simple, isn't it?

[Broose]

Conversion should give you like 100 points. I have NEVER seen someone on the internet admit they are wrong and that the other was right. It doesn't happen.

[Cthulhu]

I was going to say the same thing.  If you're arguing on the internet, you've probably seen just about every argument against your viewpoint, and no one will be able to change it.

[Zai]

And these wars may be rather important.

Are you kidding? Flame wars are never important.

Even if they were, using popularity to decide the "winner" is flawed. People on certain sides of different arguments are more likely to appear on the internet than others. Similarly, people on certain sides of arguments are more likely to appear on one part of the internet than others.

Having the opposition convert to your side is pretty much the only way to decide who the "winner" is. And "conversion" is quite rare on the internet, unless dealing with trolls.

[Leafsnail]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Which is to say I don't really see what you're getting at here.

It would be better if we could do away with this offensive cliche altogether, really.

[Aqizzar]

I can think of at least three times on this forum I've been in an argument with someone and agreed I was wrong when proven so.  Now gimmeh mah points!

[Broose]

I can think of at least three times on this forum I've been in an argument with someone and agreed I was wrong when proven so.  Now gimmeh mah points!

Wouldn't that give the other person points? I think you missed something.

[Rilder]

I can think of at least three times on this forum I've been in an argument with someone and agreed I was wrong when proven so.  Now gimmeh mah points!

Wouldn't that give the other person points? I think you missed something.

Being able to accept that your wrong about something is worth at least some points.

[Armok]

Truth is not decided by popularity.
The winner should be the one whit a provably 100% sound argumentation, if both have that, it is a draw until further evidence is acquired or the question is consensually decided to be a matter of opinion, if none have a sound argument the both sides loose.

[Emperor_Jonathan]

Truth is not decided by popularity.
The winner should be the one whit a provably 100% sound argumentation, if both have that, it is a draw until further evidence is acquired or the question is consensually decided to be a matter of opinion, if none have a sound argument the both sides loose.

That's not a debate. You cannot make your opinion 100% sound, because that's just it. It's an opinion, it can be based on facts - and that is what draws people to agree with you - but it doesn't have to be. Then you get into debating life, and other such philosophical questions that do not have answers. Debates are not simply what is X, it's more commonly is X, Y or Z. For example: is abortion right or wrong, you cannot make abortion 100% right or 100% wrong since it's a very personal and opinionated topic.

It's even less so on the internet.

[HAMMERMILL]

Both sides can come up with solid arguments but things like politics or religion? People are solidly set in their viewpoints and will never "convert" to an opposing viewpoint because some dude on the internet make a good argument for their ideology.

Convincing somebody that buses make more sense to impliment then trains in the USA for mass transportation is likely the most hard-core issue you could reasonably expect to have to convert somebody to your point of view.

[Broose]

Both sides can come up with solid arguments but things like politics or religion? People are solidly set in their viewpoints and will never "convert" to an opposing viewpoint because some dude on the internet make a good argument for their ideology.

Convincing somebody that buses make more sense to impliment then trains in the USA for mass transportation is likely the most hard-core issue you could reasonably expect to have to convert somebody to your point of view.

Maybe if this was friendly debate. It is unlikely to even get someone to admit they are wrong on that subject in INTERNET WARFARE.

[Leafsnail]

I guess it depends.  Some things are opinions.  For instance, "Abortion is wrong" is an opinionated statement, and you may mean "Wrong" in a different way, and have a different definition of "Wrong" to the person you're arguing with.  For this reason, it's possible for both sides to hold valid opinions.

Some debates aren't argued over opinions, but things that are certainly either correct or false ("Obama isn't American", "God exists" etc).  This means that one side will be wrong, even if we can't currently prove one way or the other.