Starfleet Jedi

Perhaps you're previously unaware of the new forum on SDN, called the Coliseum. The thing about it is that it's the complete opposite of the rest of SDN in terms of style-in fact, it was formed because of complaints about the SDN style.

I was wondering if anyone would be interested in going over to the Coliseum and facing SDN's champion one-on-one.

Opecoiler wrote:Perhaps you're previously unaware of the new forum on SDN, called the Coliseum. The thing about it is that it's the complete opposite of the rest of SDN in terms of style-in fact, it was formed because of complaints about the SDN style.

Judging by the example they have there, it seems rather the same as everything else. People post, then a thread is locked at the end and a moderator chooses a winner and mocks the "loser", getting the last word in behind a locked thread.

It's an interesting concept though, one on one debating. It was tried once here too, I believe.

l33telboi wrote: Judging by the example they have there, it seems rather the same as everything else. People post, then a thread is locked at the end

Obviously. The debates are controlled, with each side getting a limited amount of responses.

And it was created as a difference in style. Voluntaryist was getting ganged up on by the whole board, protested, and Wong created the forum so that someone with views contrary to those of the rest of the board could debate without getting ganged up on by dozens of SDNers. In short, the Coliseum is made just for people like those on this board.

and a moderator chooses a winner and mocks the "loser", getting the last word in behind a locked thread.

He closed the thread because each side had made of its allowed responses, and then stated his opinion on the outcome. He's allowed to do that, it's his board. No official declaration of a winner was made in that post.

Opecoiler wrote:He closed the thread because each side had made of its allowed responses, and then stated his opinion on the outcome. He's allowed to do that, it's his board. No official declaration of a winner was made in that post.

Sure he's allowed to post his opinion. It's more then a bit strange of course, given it's a debate against two people and not three. But hey. I'm just saying that it's pretty much the same as the rest of the board because of this.

The one on one part is interesting, but hardly new in any fashion.

Opecoiler wrote:Perhaps you're previously unaware of the new forum on SDN, called the Coliseum. The thing about it is that it's the complete opposite of the rest of SDN in terms of style-in fact, it was formed because of complaints about the SDN style.

I was wondering if anyone would be interested in going over to the Coliseum and facing SDN's champion one-on-one.

May we have a link to this page? The concept sounds good, but the implementation, that's another thing.
-Mike

l33telboi, you are probably thinking of the brief Spock v Sothis debate, which more or less came to a close after Sothis conceded a speed and agility advantage to Federation ships. I am willing to support or engage in "one vs one" style debates.

If folks would like to see a separate formal debate section here (with the same or different rules from our main discussion sections), I can arrange for that to happen in a heartbeat.

Opecoiler wrote:Obviously. The debates are controlled, with each side getting a limited amount of responses.

And it was created as a difference in style. Voluntaryist was getting ganged up on by the whole board, protested, and Wong created the forum so that someone with views contrary to those of the rest of the board could debate without getting ganged up on by dozens of SDNers. In short, the Coliseum is made just for people like those on this board.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that. However, the Coliseum's creation does appear to attempt to address two of the more common complaints I have heard about SDN, namely that:

• It is impossible to get heard through a flood of "me-too" posts, partial post clippings, gratuitous fly-by insults, and noise.
• Serious dissenting argument is usually removed from public view fairly quickly.

It does not, of course, address all of the complaints I have heard (I notice Wong stepped in to put a time limit on posts, for example, which constitutes changing the rules mid-stream, declaring failure to abide by the new rules a "concession"), but perhaps it will prove to be enough for some.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:It does not, of course, address all of the complaints I have heard (I notice Wong stepped in to put a time limit on posts, for example, which constitutes changing the rules mid-stream, declaring failure to abide by the new rules a "concession"), but perhaps it will prove to be enough for some.

This is my concern is Wong stepping in to suddenly change the rules in mid-debate, rather than just let things play out.

I for one would support a similar forum here at SFJ, though I think we can do better on providing a more fair third-party referee system than Wong appears to be doing with the SDN Colosseum... Coliseum or whatever it's supposed to be called.
-Mike

The time limit on posts was imposed simply because the debate was moving ridiculously slowly, and Wong wanted it to get done faster, not to favor either side.

You could avoid that by agreeing to a time limit on posts before the debate and sticking to it-something which was not done in the Voluntaryist debate.

Opecoiler wrote: The time limit on posts was imposed simply because the debate was moving ridiculously slowly, and Wong wanted it to get done faster, not to favor either side.

But why should there be a time limit at all, except if there are other people needing to use the same forum for their debates? And by doing as he did, Wong may be indadvertantly giving an unfair advantage to someone. If you look at the JMS/Sothis debate here, it started off slowly, but picked up on it's own, and resolved itself to satisfaction without the need for heavy-handed intervention.

Opecoiler wrote: You could avoid that by agreeing to a time limit on posts before the debate and sticking to it-something which was not done in the Voluntaryist debate.

The problem I have so far is would Wong abide by those agreements, or make fair provision should one party or the other be inconvienced by factors outside their control? My past experiance where Wong is concerned says "no".
-Mike

Seems there's a downside to the Colliseum I hadn't predicted.

Ender wrote:I find the quality of your work to be rather poor - overly simplistic, limited in scope, and ignores other ways of doing things.

So do SW ship to ship, and I will see you in the Coliseum to defend your conclusions.

What's wrong with mails?

Regarding SW v ST, is there anything they'd like to talk about? Why not do it in the appropriate forum?

l33telboi wrote:Seems there's a downside to the Colliseum I hadn't predicted.

How is that a downside? Ender's stating his personal opinion on that guys figures, and is challenging him to a Coliseum match. He hasn't accepted it, and no official preparations are being made. How is this singular remark indicative of a downside to the Coliseum?

As long as a refusal to participate in a duel doesn't turn out as being a concession, there's no problem.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:As long as a refusal to participate in a duel doesn't turn out as being a concession, there's no problem.

A great many things have been taken as concessions on SDN.

The funny thing is that it's nearly always a factual error to claim a concession. You can't really declare that someone else has conceded; only they can make their own concessions. In claiming that your opponent has conceded the debate when they in fact still disagree with you, you are laying forth a false claim.

Dictionary.com wrote:1. to acknowledge as true, just, or proper; admit: He finally conceded that she was right.
2. to acknowledge (an opponent's victory, score, etc.) before it is officially established: to concede an election before all the votes are counted.
3. to grant as a right or privilege; yield: to concede a longer vacation for all employees.
–verb (used without object)
4. to make concession; yield; admit: She was so persistent that I conceded at last.

It's one of the numerous argumentatively fallacious tactics of rhetoric visible in the VS debate. I have no doubt that should the SDN Coliseum stick around, refusal to participate in a Coliseum debate will at one point or another be claimed as a concession. As is usual, such claims should be ignored as absurdities.

E.g.:

Darth Wong wrote:Voluntaryist, if your post is not up by Saturday, I will declare that you have conceded this debate by failing to be present for it.

What is actually being promised here? That if Voluntaryist does not post, that Darth Wong will promulgate the falsehood that Voluntaryist has conceded that anarchism isn't any good.

If I rephrase what he wrote to "Post or else I will lie about you!" there is little difficulty in seeing the absurdity of it.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:As long as a refusal to participate in a duel doesn't turn out as being a concession, there's no problem.

I agree on this one. As long as people don't start using the refusal to duel in the arena as an excuse for a concession, then it's not a problem. Unfortunately, I do see it as eventually being abused that way.
-Mike