The Proving Grounds Discussion

[RDK]

Vorguen, Raze, Straked, and Aorist all seem competent enough.

Exactly what's wrong with Aorist again?

 

[Aesir]

Uhh bad regulation might as well be unregulated. So you're both kind of right lol.


Aorist kinda got caught in a trap by Del, he activated his trap card and Aorist wen't "OH **** NO" and lost all his life points.

 

[Deleted member]

Have you seen his posts in the feminist thread?

 

[Aesir]

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=6842479&postcount=24

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=6842954&postcount=27

I think these are the posts in question incase anyone wanted to know.

 

[RDK]

I've only seen one other Debater lose all his life points, and that was Jonah Diaper.

This guy must be bad news.

 

[Aesir]

Yeah he fell into everyones trap card, hell even I make some really ******** mistakes in debating. =X

But hey live and learn right?

 

[Deleted member]

He activated my trap card...

edit: hahahaha Aesir beat me to it

 

[aeghrur]

I make ******** misteaks all the time.
But maybe I'm just mindgaming? :O
Nah, lol, I'm just ******** at times. xD

 

[DtJ Jungle]

we're all retardeda t times

 

[RDK]

How unfortunate that you would make such a grievous spelling error right when you said that.

 

[Darxmarth23]

Not really because there are a lot, a lot of members in this group. However, most do not post. And many who do post don't post often. I'm assuming the same will be somewhat true of the recruits. I am guessing the will post but some will post only so often.

I am fairly sure some are changing their habits in the Proving Grounds to get in. We need 10.

If they are willing to post in the proving grounds to become a debater and they have consistently posted there, i don't think they'll stop in the debate hall. And if they do change their habits here and slack off, then the only think they will have is a pink name, and will be purged from here soon enough. *If they know that, and are still debating that means they will most likely will be willing to post for the sake of debating.

* Do they know about getting removed for not posting at all?

 

[illinialex24]

If they are willing to post in the proving grounds to become a debater and they have consistently posted there, i don't think they'll stop in the debate hall. And if they do change their habits here and slack off, then the only think they will have is a pink name, and will be purged from here soon enough. *If they know that, and are still debating that means they will most likely will be willing to post for the sake of debating.

* Do they know about getting removed for not posting at all?

Well many users don't post at all and do not get removed. So we should first show them this is the case with other users. Steel2nd is still a debater and he has not posted here for sure in his last 500 posts and since the start of this year. Sounds like a good person to kick. Oh wait he hasn't been. We should have inactivity rules for old members if we want them to apply to new members.

 

[aeghrur]

How unfortunate that you would make such a grievous spelling error right when you said that.

Who was that in reference to?
Because I intended the misspelling of misteaks.

 

[lonejedi]

Next person thats starts debating something other than the PG's nominees gets a big fat warning from me. (And I really need to use my modding powers soon before people start claiming im too inactive ) I'm serious though, if you want to debate the actual stimulus package, do it the actual stimulus package thread. And that goes for any topic.

 

[adumbrodeus]

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=6842479&postcount=24

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=6842954&postcount=27

I think these are the posts in question incase anyone wanted to know.

Ugh, add my vote to "not ready", that was one of the most stupidly avoidable misreads I've seen around here, I really can't believe that it was actually a misread because he refused to edit the argument when explained.

Seriously "that women get ***** more then men doesn't matter" = "that women get ***** doesn't matter"?

I think it should've been pointed out a little more clearly, but still if he even read the argument the distinction should be very clear.




On an unrelated matter, I REALLY wanna post in the fairness doctrine thread, nobody seems to know why it was implemented (there's only a limited number of airwaves which prevents new companies from using airwaves without interfering with others, causing the companies to ultimately ask for it to become a public asset).

So, yeah, I really wanna be on that list.

 

[BFDD]

Ugh, add my vote to "not ready", that was one of the most stupidly avoidable misreads I've seen around here, I really can't believe that it was actually a misread because he refused to edit the argument when explained.

That and he doesn't read his own links. He claims that women are discriminated against then posts a link in which the first line is:

In the United States males experienced higher victimization rates than females for all types of violent crime except **** and other sexual assault

Maybe I missed something but that to me that seems to hurt his argument.

 

[GoldShadow]

Maybe I missed something but that to me that seems to hurt his argument.

No, it supports it. Women experience higher rates of **** and sexual assault, which I think is exactly what Ao was trying to get across, and then it goes on to say that 20% of violent crimes against women are by intimate partners vs 3% for men (ie, domestic violence is much worse against women than it is for men).

Regardless, I've been re-reading some of those posts and perhaps Aorist isn't quite ready yet.

Part of the problem is quoting wikipedia too much. Okay when trying to help someone understand a concept or general idea; not so much for statistics (better if those come from more reputable sources).

Also, I don't know if somebody has already done this or not, but could you tell Aorist to stop using this one word/one link/no separation scheme to link to things? It's pretty annoying. It also doesn't help to throw out a bunch of random links and then not actually discuss what's in them.

 

[BFDD]

(ie, domestic violence is much worse against women than it is for men).

Except it isn't in the case of non sexual abuse. But this isn't the place for that discussion.

I see what you mean though, when it comes to sex women get the worst of it. Which seems to be what he is going for, so he may have read his own links but not explaining his links causes issues.

I would really love to post in that feminist thread...if I could find my notes from my philosophy class last semester. I have a bunch of links for the anti-feminist side.

 

[RDK]

Except it isn't in the case of non sexual abuse. But this isn't the place for that discussion.

LOL, what? Explain this ^.

 

[Aesir]

Didn't you know? Woman don't get abused.

 

[RDK]

Didn't you know? Woman don't get abused.

Well according to him, they're the ones doing the abusing. Which is laughable.

I'm sorry, but if you're a guy getting knocked around by your wife, that's just sad.

 

[Aesir]

Yeah Rihanna tried that ****, now look at her.

 

[BFDD]

In cases of domestic abuse it is the man getting attacked a majority of the time. Feminists, in I think California, pushed for a law that required police to make an arrest in any domestic violence calls. The feminists later took it back when they found out that it was mostly women being arrested. I have a page of links somewhere I will see if I can find it.

It is exactly that attitude that you have that makes it less well known. Maybe I will start a topic in the DH about it later.

 

[Darxmarth23]

Well many users don't post at all and do not get removed. So we should first show them this is the case with other users. Steel2nd is still a debater and he has not posted here for sure in his last 500 posts and since the start of this year. Sounds like a good person to kick. Oh wait he hasn't been. We should have inactivity rules for old members if we want them to apply to new members.

We should. The mods should enforce that rule. I remember when Crimson King made "The Purge Topic." For a good month we got a lot of posts in here. Now that a lot of debaters got cut, we don't need it. But in Steel2nds case we do. Maybe he was just one of the ones who didn't get cut for some reason we don't know about. Still i think that rule should be enforced, as a punishment for old members, and a threat to the new ones.

So yeah, i agree with you. I think having a rule like this enforced would be good for the debate hall. We would also get more frequent posts in the DH because everyone will be afraid to lose their status as a debater because of inactivity in the debate hall.

 

[illinialex24]

We should. The mods should enforce that rule. I remember when Crimson King made "The Purge Topic." For a good month we got a lot of posts in here. Now that a lot of debaters got cut, we don't need it. But in Steel2nds case we do. Maybe he was just one of the ones who didn't get cut for some reason we don't know about. Still i think that rule should be enforced, as a punishment for old members, and a threat to the new ones.

So yeah, i agree with you. I think having a rule like this enforced would be good for the debate hall. We would also get more frequent posts in the DH because everyone will be afraid to lose their status as a debater because of inactivity in the debate hall.

Thank you, I totally agree with you here. Who else wants to discuss this before I bring this to the attention of Crimson King. Or he just sees it lol.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I'd support a fair warning policy, before anyone is purged, they get a pm saying they've been in-active for too long, and that they've gotta be active or get kicked. We could set a standard time that seems fair (for example, 3 months before warning, then 2 more months before getting kicked), and use that as our standard. Heck, it could probably be automated if somebody's willing to fiddle with the board.

What do you guys think?

Well according to him, they're the ones doing the abusing. Which is laughable.

I'm sorry, but if you're a guy getting knocked around by your wife, that's just sad.

...

That's so sexist it's not even funny, and remember there's not just physical abuse.


I won't say anymore on this to avoid a warning, but seriously a topic should be made on this.

 

[Darxmarth23]

I'd support a fair warning policy, before anyone is purged, they get a pm saying they've been in-active for too long, and that they've gotta be active or get kicked. We could set a standard time that seems fair (for example, 3 months before warning, then 2 more months before getting kicked), and use that as our standard. Heck, it could probably be automated if somebody's willing to fiddle with the board.

What do you guys think?

I think time restrictions should be just 1 month for a warning, and another month for getting kicked. Other than that, i think it is good. With the proving grounds, we can constantly filter what comes in, and we can keep an eye on what stays in, so we know who to kick out.


...

That's so sexist it's not even funny, and remember there's not just physical abuse.


I won't say anymore on this to avoid a warning, but seriously a topic should be made on this.

I agree. A topic on this would get us a heated debate, which is what we need. I also vouch for more "simpler" debate topics. Something like "Gun Control," "Drinking Age," and other simple things that others might be able to relate to. Sometimes we get topics in here that we really can't relate to in our typical, modern life. I don't know if that makes sense, cau' its just my two cents.

My responses are in "Deep Sky Blue." I hope its not too hard to read.

 

[illinialex24]

If the discussion is too hard to understand then you should research the subject in question.

 

[RDK]

A gun control or drinking age topic is a really good idea, guns and alcohol being two of my favorite things.

And remember, Aesir made a really good electoral reform thread that nobody's even posted in.

 

[Aesir]

Electoral Reform is really more important topic because it effects ALL TOPICS.

 

[RDK]

I want Alt to make another theoretical physics topic. Useless, abstract discussions are always fun.

 

[Darxmarth23]

If the discussion is too hard to understand then you should research the subject in question.

Its not that its too hard to understand, its that when a "complex" topic is given, then they usually post information about the topic in the OP. Sometimes its just hard to relate that information to your real life. If you have something to relate to then it much easier to post a confident argument about the topic. I'm sorry if this doesn't make sense.

A gun control or drinking age topic is a really good idea, guns and alcohol being two of my favorite things.

And remember, Aesir made a really good electoral reform thread that nobody's even posted in.

@illinialex24: See things like gun control and drinking age will effect us more than some of the other topics that were discussed, like the cloning type of thing. Its easier to relate to. We will be able to post based on our experiences and opinions, whereas with cloning we post our basic thoughts and build off of what others say.

Electoral Reform is really more important topic because it effects ALL TOPICS.

^^This^^

Exactly.

 

[Eor]

God****it, I keep clicking on the thread that's shown from the main page and just assume it's Debate hall

 

[Pluvia's other account]

God****it, I keep clicking on the thread that's shown from the main page and just assume it's Debate hall

I know exactly what you mean. That School Teaching Abstinence one is annoying me like crazy.

Yes it should be up to the parents to parent their kids, rather than the school, but not all parents parent their children!

Arrrrrgh!

 

[blazedaces]

I know exactly what you mean. That School Teaching Abstinence one is annoying me like crazy.

Yes it should be up to the parents to parent their kids, rather than the school, but not all parents parent their children!

Arrrrrgh!

And crossing guards don't exist...

-blazed

 

[RDK]

And crossing guards don't exist...

-blazed

Did anyone else get this? Or am I really that slow today?

 

[blazedaces]

Did anyone else get this? Or am I really that slow today?

Sorry, I had just read the last post at the time in the proving grounds discussion talking about schools teaching abstinence or whatnot.

Some person made some point about parents being the ones that help their children cross the street and schools don't... Yeah, I see how random it sort of sounds now...

-blazed

 

[Steel]

Well many users don't post at all and do not get removed. So we should first show them this is the case with other users. Steel2nd is still a debater and he has not posted here for sure in his last 500 posts and since the start of this year. Sounds like a good person to kick. Oh wait he hasn't been. We should have inactivity rules for old members if we want them to apply to new members.

I wasn't kicked during the cut because I was actively posting around that time. I still lurk this board but lately there hasn't been many discussions that interest me.

 

[Darxmarth23]

We need to establish a purge topic again. And we need more people FAST!

 

[illinialex24]

I wasn't kicked during the cut because I was actively posting around that time. I still lurk this board but lately there hasn't been many discussions that interest me.

Its true but you should still post a lot more....