A Proposal of Protocols (for those who care)

I'd like to start asking that no one vote on this topic, as this is a way to communicate between debaters, and is not intended to be in any way a competition. Overall, I agree with you Britt, that the overall quality of debate.org has diminished. I'm not much of the inventive type, so I can't think about any new problems that you haven't mentioned, but I would like to give my two cents about each. In my opinion, the fact that different people use debate.org in different ways is a good thing. Some people use it to practice run their real life debate league arguments. Other people use it to argue politics with a person of differing views. Then there are others who use it just to argue about someone over something completely pointless, for no reason other than because its fun to argue in a structured manner. I think all of those ways of using debate.org are fine. However, I think that what may appear to you and to others as a misunderstanding of debate is actually a signal that people using this website need to express their opinions in more ways than just an argument or comment. I think that problem will soon be solved, as the owners of this fine website say that v.3.0 of this website will be released by the end of this month, providing many a new feature, including forums and "blogs." I think this will reduce the amount of debates that are not really debates, for example one with this topic, "I don't know what to believe on the subject of...God. [Does this even qualify as a debate? D=]" The intention of the 'instigator' was in my opinion to do some form of discussion with others regarding their beliefs in a Supreme Being(s).(Not to pick on those who instigated or participated in this debate, simply an example.) On to voting on merits other than the quality of the debate, I think that the biggest reason for this happening one's personal preference regarding the Debate topic. This is most prevalent in "hot button" issues, where oftentimes people will simply cast a vote based on which side of the topic they find more palatable. I think an honor code would be an effective means of keeping those who are serious about this website in. Also, a prerequisite for voting could be effective, and more tangible. I think a good requirement would be simply that you must complete a multi-round debate. (Not via forfeit, obviously.) Another potential quick fix that may yield results would be simply to place the buttons that cast votes at the bottom of the page, below the text of the arguments. This could at least be a hindrance to people that simply go 'hey, I agree/disagree with this topic -click-' Although that last one wasn't anything major, it can only help. Mandatory voter feedback in my opinion is a bad idea, as it would most likely become repetitive, and would likely be full of '100 characters 100 characters...', which really don't do anything but take up space. On the topic of silly debates and debaters, I think that lightheartedness on debate.org should be encouraged from time to time, I think there's nothing wrong with having a debate about something that is funny. (I personally like the joke contests that some users have had) On the other hand, there is a line that has been crossed by some 'debates' into sheer unfunny nonsensicality. Some topics that Debate.org could do without... (I do not intend to incite dislike or embarrass those whose topics I cite as nonsensical.) "Random stuff?", "Jesus is FO REAL", "hi. hi. hi. hi. hi. hi." et cetera. I think the best thing that can be done is to ignore these debates, and refuse to vote on them. One thing that is a pet peeve of mine is the usage of the semantics argument against an obviously inexperienced debater, or even a well versed debater that didn't write the perfect resolution. ( A friend, LR496FTW4EVA, once wrote parameters for a debate that was regarding Mr.Bush's job security, to explicitly ensure that "talking about the George W. Bush that is the current president of the United States of America, the nation founded in 1776, on planet Earth in North America." Ridiculous. To me, this is a practice that is mean and against the spirit of honest debate. If we did make an honor code, I would certainly hope that it would be written somewhere in there that people well versed in "debate-speak" don't go around picking off newbies, using the sole argument that the resolution didn't explicitly state something. As far as disrespect of language goes, I'm not too sure what you mean, please enlighten me. If you're referring to cursing in a debate, I have a slight tendency to do this in real life as well as on this website in particularly heated moments. I don't do it gratuitously, and it helps me emphasize my meaning. On the topic of multiple accounts, I think that if there is suspicion of this, an IP check should be performed. This is a simple practice that will thwart 98% of all multis. This capability should either be enabled for users or site administrators, to maintain the website's integrity. On the subject of trolls, I haven't yet found them to be a major problem on this website. I can see the potential for it in some debate comments, but nothing that is purely troll-tastic. I think its important that we try to maintain users' freedom of expression, especially on a site such as this. I also have a proposal of policy, one that would need to be written into the website's code, but one that would be invaluable. A feedback system for users I believe would make debate.org a better website as a whole. As I envision it, it would be something similar to that of those used by sites like Amazon.com or Ebay. It would allow users, post debate, to rate their opponent from 1 to 5 on their opponent's virtue, and also post a comment about how the debate went. I think this ability would be able to effectively keep people who take debate.org very seriously from having an unfortunate encounter with those who take things more lightly. Semantics arguers can unleash themselves against their fellow nit-pickers, and jokesters can safely compete against each other for title of class clown. Of course, this feedback system would only be effective in debates where one user directly challenges another. In "First-Come" debates there would need to be a way for instigator to terminate debates against contenders that will, in the eyes of the instigator, create an unfair debate. So actually its a second proposal. "Instigators" should in my opinion have the ability to cancel a debate against a "contender" within 24 hours of acceptance by the contender. I think this will help debate.org also by reducing the amount of 'Forfeit Fests.' Well, I'm done for now, I can't wait to hear what you have to say britt, along with the comment's of others.