Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2016, 06:34:49 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: I think we need some common objectives...  (Read 1559 times)
Anonymous
Guest

July 14, 2011, 02:12:25 AM
 #1

We need a common procedure placed on our debate and conversation. I think it would also be nice if we had a repository of axioms covering what we all agree on and what we cannot. It's not that I am necessarily calling for order or a rigid structure for just the sake of it but a method that allows us to achieve more pleasure in our discussion, while gaining more in our perspectives. Clearly, right now, things aren't very pleasurable.

Your thoughts?
1481438089
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481438089

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481438089
Reply with quote  #2

1481438089
Report to moderator
1481438089
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481438089

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481438089
Reply with quote  #2

1481438089
Report to moderator
1481438089
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481438089

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481438089
Reply with quote  #2

1481438089
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481438089
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481438089

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481438089
Reply with quote  #2

1481438089
Report to moderator
1481438089
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481438089

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481438089
Reply with quote  #2

1481438089
Report to moderator
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 14, 2011, 02:17:12 AM
 #2

We need a common procedure placed on our debate and conversation. I think it would also be nice if we had a repository of axioms covering what we all agree on and what we cannot. It's not that I am necessarily calling for order or a rigid structure for just the sake of it but a method that allows us to achieve more pleasure in our discussion while gaining more in our perspectives. Clearly, right now, things aren't very pleasurable.

Your thoughts?

I'm in a agreement to some extent, but not entirely. One of the currently active threads has actually provided me with a great deal of humor and entertainment this week. Yesterday was especially entertaining.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 14, 2011, 03:20:11 AM
 #3

Here are my political axioms:

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=18489.msg351447#msg351447

They aren't a set of rules or objectives but they do have the air of axiomatic proofs.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
bjorn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 12


View Profile
July 14, 2011, 03:20:17 PM
 #4

Perhaps a sort of thing which allows axioms to be submitted and organized hierarchically, and then some mechanism to vote on the axioms (yea or nea) so that level of agreement can be assessed. Discussion could fork off of each axiom submitted so that qualifications and whatnot can be discussed. Based on the level of agreement, the axioms could then be organized on another page according to the level of agreement.
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 14, 2011, 04:10:52 PM
 #5

Perhaps a sort of thing which allows axioms to be submitted and organized hierarchically, and then some mechanism to vote on the axioms (yea or nea) so that level of agreement can be assessed. Discussion could fork off of each axiom submitted so that qualifications and whatnot can be discussed. Based on the level of agreement, the axioms could then be organized on another page according to the level of agreement.

Bad idea in my opinion. I've seen plenty of mantras tossed about in this forum where the poster feels it qualifies as an axiom, and the general groupthink in this forum would probably allow it to be qualified as an axiom, thus lending credence to an argument only by virtue of the biased thinking present herein.

It would be akin to a board full of Global Warming deniers setting up and voting on a set of axioms which seemingly demonstrate that Global Warming is not an issue.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
MatthewLM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092



View Profile WWW
July 14, 2011, 04:47:10 PM
 #6

An axiom is one of two things:

1) Widely accepted premise.
2) Self-evident fact.

An example of the first type is "murder is bad".

An example of the second is "I think therefore I am".

Bitcoin Extra Wallet | Peercoin Android Wallet
BTC: 1D5A1q5d192j5gYuWiP3CSE5fcaaZxe6E9  PPC: PH7fVn1Xs7nkUFmdwCX2ZRYfLPCSwGxAq9
bjorn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 12


View Profile
July 14, 2011, 04:49:15 PM
 #7

Perhaps a sort of thing which allows axioms to be submitted and organized hierarchically, and then some mechanism to vote on the axioms (yea or nea) so that level of agreement can be assessed. Discussion could fork off of each axiom submitted so that qualifications and whatnot can be discussed. Based on the level of agreement, the axioms could then be organized on another page according to the level of agreement.

Bad idea in my opinion. I've seen plenty of mantras tossed about in this forum where the poster feels it qualifies as an axiom, and the general groupthink in this forum would probably allow it to be qualified as an axiom, thus lending credence to an argument only by virtue of the biased thinking present herein.

It would be akin to a board full of Global Warming deniers setting up and voting on a set of axioms which seemingly demonstrate that Global Warming is not an issue.

I agree, but the purpose isn't to agree on the truth of the matter, but to find fruitful topics for discussion (I think that's what OP is getting at, anyways). The best topics to discuss might be ones which have equal amounts of agreement and disagreement; avoiding topics which are skewed either way might help avoid the groupthink problem.
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
July 14, 2011, 05:08:14 PM
 #8

I agree with Vroomfondel, what we need are rigidly-defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.

I am an employee of Ripple.
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
epi 1:10,000
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
July 14, 2011, 06:05:46 PM
 #9

I agree with Vroomfondel, what we need are rigidly-defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.


ROLF  Cheesy
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 14, 2011, 06:48:58 PM
 #10

I agree with Vroomfondel, what we need are rigidly-defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.


ROLF  Cheesy



Huh 

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
epi 1:10,000
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
July 14, 2011, 06:56:24 PM
 #11




Huh 

I'm convinced.. I now like ROLF more than ROFL.  The question is do 30 Hellen's agree?
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
July 14, 2011, 07:08:10 PM
 #12

The question is do 30 Hellen's agree?
Nope, just a single milliHelen, but that's enough to launch a ship.

I am an employee of Ripple.
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
TheGer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490



View Profile
July 16, 2011, 06:01:14 AM
 #13

If you want to truely explore this option I suggest this.

1. A Debate Forum
2. A thread in said forum where people can post debate topics for consideration.
3. A Tribunal of say 3-5 people to oversee the appoval process for debate topics(based on voting by forum members interested in suggested debates) and offer impartial judgement on the debate results(win/lose/draw).
4. Team signups for the debate(2-5 people per team)

I suggest a panel of lets say 5 people(Tribunal) to oversee the debate in a sort of rotating position of 3 judges.  I suggest this to allow those in the Tribunal to sign up and participate themselves in a debate and remove themselves from all oversight authority temporarily.

I suggest a limited amount of posts say 15-20 per side before the debate is closed.  Each post consisting of no more than lets say 1000-1500 words.  Postings to be done each taking a turn after the other until the end with no more than 36hrs between posts or the debate is closed unfinished.

I suggest all posts from non-signups to the debate be deleted immediately(if neccessary).


This is just an idea I had in my head that I thought would add a new dimension to all the debating going on.  I think the structure would really bring a new level of entertainment to this forum for alot of people.

Let the flaming begin lol

 
We need a common procedure placed on our debate and conversation. I think it would also be nice if we had a repository of axioms covering what we all agree on and what we cannot. It's not that I am necessarily calling for order or a rigid structure for just the sake of it but a method that allows us to achieve more pleasure in our discussion, while gaining more in our perspectives. Clearly, right now, things aren't very pleasurable.

Your thoughts?
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 16, 2011, 06:16:23 AM
 #14

If you want to truely explore this option I suggest this.

1. A Debate Forum
2. A thread in said forum where people can post debate topics for consideration.
3. A Tribunal of say 3-5 people to oversee the appoval process for debate topics(based on voting by forum members interested in suggested debates) and offer impartial judgement on the debate results(win/lose/draw).
4. Team signups for the debate(2-5 people per team)

I suggest a panel of lets say 5 people(Tribunal) to oversee the debate in a sort of rotating position of 3 judges.  I suggest this to allow those in the Tribunal to sign up and participate themselves in a debate and remove themselves from all oversight authority temporarily.

I suggest a limited amount of posts say 15-20 per side before the debate is closed.  Each post consisting of no more than lets say 1000-1500 words.  Postings to be done each taking a turn after the other until the end with no more than 36hrs between posts or the debate is closed unfinished.

I suggest all posts from non-signups to the debate be deleted immediately(if neccessary).


This is just an idea I had in my head that I thought would add a new dimension to all the debating going on.  I think the structure would really bring a new level of entertainment to this forum for alot of people.

Let the flaming begin lol

 
We need a common procedure placed on our debate and conversation. I think it would also be nice if we had a repository of axioms covering what we all agree on and what we cannot. It's not that I am necessarily calling for order or a rigid structure for just the sake of it but a method that allows us to achieve more pleasure in our discussion, while gaining more in our perspectives. Clearly, right now, things aren't very pleasurable.

Your thoughts?

This, I think, is a good idea.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Tawsix
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


I have always been afraid of banks.


View Profile
July 16, 2011, 11:34:35 PM
 #15

I'm not sure if this is the biggest troll thread in history or the most laughable hypocrisy I've ever witnessed...  Either way I'm enjoying it, continue on!

Raoul Duke
aka psy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442



View Profile
July 17, 2011, 12:16:09 AM
 #16

               ^^                       ^^

TheGer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490



View Profile
July 17, 2011, 02:59:01 AM
 #17

Lol at last 2 posters.  Blind leading the blind indeed.
Tawsix
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


I have always been afraid of banks.


View Profile
July 17, 2011, 03:14:06 AM
 #18

Lol at last 2 posters.  Blind leading the blind indeed.

Perhaps the irony is lost on you.  You are truly missing out, I recommend you give it all your thought so you too can enjoy it.

TheGer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490



View Profile
July 17, 2011, 03:21:16 AM
 #19

Perhaps it is, but I'll continue to appreciate the forest while you stare at the tree.
Raoul Duke
aka psy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442



View Profile
July 17, 2011, 10:29:24 AM
 #20

Perhaps it is, but I'll continue to appreciate the forest while you stare at the tree.

Are you talking about that forest where all the trees lean to the same side?  Roll Eyes

Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!