Debate Tactics, Rules and Guidelines

[Nalates]

Over centuries debate has evolved to competitions with rules and specific styles. For casual discussions formal debate rules are too restrictive and onerous. One still needs to understand the generally accepted rules for educated discussion.

Online debating is evolving a whole new set of rules. The Must-Uru community has not yet chosen to formally adopt such rules and most are probably not even aware of them. Many do not associate the legal proceeding of a trial with debate, but that is one of the most formalized and rigorous forms of debate in civilization. Because of that many debate organizations use the legal system’s rules of evidence. While that set of rules is probably too restrictive for casual discussion the ideas are useable.

In many cases Roberts Rules of Order are used, which are supposedly the rules of debate used by the American Congress. That rules set is probably overkill for an online community, but still contains useful concepts.

Debate Subject: In formal debates there is a topic. In formal online debates the opening post must state a debatable topic and issue to be debated. In the Myst-Uru community debates are more spontaneous and casual. Yet, being clear on the subject of a debate is important. People having different ideas of a topic tend to debate at cross purpose with no change of consensus. Also, changing and or expanding the topic subject is a tactic used in debates when on feels a position is untenable.

Robert’s Rule 43, in part, says, It is not allowable to arraign the motives of a member, but the nature or consequences of a measure may be condemned in strong terms. It is not the man, but the measure, that is the subject of debate.

Changing the Subject is considered a dishonest tactic by most debate standards. Questioning the motives of the opponent is considered a change of subject by most debaters. While questioning the motives of a proponent of an opposing view is sometimes relevant, it is generally not possible to know another’s motives unless they state them, especially online.

Citing irrelevant facts or logic is often an attempt to change subject.

Time Limit, Teams, Turns: One concept in debate is a speakers time limit. In verbal debate time limits are usually measured in minutes. In online debates time limits for a response are measured in days, something unheard of in verbal debate. The size of the post is not limited, which may not be a good idea for the Myst-Uru community. Also, sides of a debate take turns and have specific teams. In online debate the idea of selected teams is not common, neither are turns.

In formal debates there is a clear ending. A point is decided on or a draw is called. In political election debates time is called and the audience decides. In the Myst Uru community an end would be a reasoned consensus, whether a decision is reached or all simply agree to disagree the discussion reaches a conclusion. In some cases one proponent simply refuses to agree and stops participating. In the Myst-Uru community this often results in the topic and opinions coming up again and again. In the more formal online debates a failure to post within the time limit signifies the point/concept is yielded.

I’m not sure the community needs time limits. Possibly post size limits. On occasion GoMa has used a voluntary soft 500 word limit. The limit excludes quoted post text. I’ve experimented with it on MOUL with mixed results. I think a soft 500 word limit guide line would be good. It keeps the thread on topic and avoids a tendency for the subject/topic to drift.

Redefining words:English is ambiguous. There are words that are difficult to define. For instance ‘game’ while possible to define is challenging. Wordsmiths have debated its meaning for some time and used it as an example of a word customarily defined by usage. The Wikipedia covers some of the problems with and debates about its definition. However, in debate the shifting of definitions often is used as a tactic, which most consider intellectually dishonest, especially, when a new definition conveniently supports a position. Political rhetoric and propaganda make extensive use of redefined words and terms. This is so common we have the term 'buzz words' and the phrase 'code for...' The purpose is to confuse and mischaracterize a point of view to gain support.

Others we can get to later.
Argument from intimidation:
Innuendo:
My resume’s bigger than yours:
Quoting Authority:
Trolling:
Flaming: (personal attacks - ad hominem)

Which of these are problems in the Myst-Uru community?
What would you suggest as a rule or guideline to reduce their use?

[Mac_Fife]

I participate in a regular discussion run under the auspices of the IEEE Computer Society. The guideline there is that discussions are conducted informally until such informality breaks down, wereupon Roberts' Rules are applied in increasing strictness until order is restored. This can be invoked at any time by any participant by appeal to the chair. Which brings me to point of this post.

In formal discussion, a chairperson will oversee the debate, ensuring that the rules of conduct are adhered to, the chair normally being impartial; if the chair is compelled to join the debate, then they devolve the role to the vice-chair or some other party. There is no chair for an on-line debate. So who enforces the rules and standards? Generally speaking, the nearest we have to incumbents of that role are the forum moderators. Now this where things seem to get sticky for a number of reasons.

• In many forums, the actions of the moderators in deleting or editing posts has been a source of controversy or rancour in itself.
• Being a moderator in no way provides assurance of impartiality.
• Within OpenURU.org, we have decided that mods will not have obvious indicators, such as coloured text. This was the interests of removing any erroneous implications of "hierachy" or "authority": We've all seen the assumptions made on Cyan's forums when a "blue poster" expresses a personal opinion and it is interpreted as an official statement.

To me, developing the rule set is perhaps not the most difficult job in the world: Ensuring fair and equitable application of those rules and visibility of that is perhaps much more challenging.

[Nalates]

Mac_Fife, I mostly agree...

I have not seen a forum where there was the option to call Roberts Rules. That is a new idea I like and want to think about.

I think much of the problem with moderator enforcement of rules is the subjective and nebulous nature of the rules. Everyone has their idea of what they mean. Even with no bias or investment in the issue under discussion the participants and the moderator may see it differently. I hope this forum section can resolve some measure of that problem.

Moderator bias is a real problem. I think that too can be mitigated by good rules with good examples. I hope that good rules and examples would remove a good measure of the need for moderation. I also think those participating in debates will be self policing with good rules. It's sort of an American ideal of decentralizing authority and power to get a better result.

As I've said, no amount of rules and guidelines will turn the forums into a harmonious utopia. But it can be better.

[Nalates]

The ideas on moderators was split into its own thread.

See: Forum Moderator Issues