I think we need some common objectives...

[Anonymous]

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?

[1714905593]

1714905593

[1714905593]

1714905593

[1714905593]

1714905593

[1714905593]

1714905593

[1714905593]

1714905593

[1714905593]

1714905593

[ascent]

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.

[FredericBastiat]

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.

[bjorn]

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]

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.

[MatthewLM]

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".

[bjorn]

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]

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

[epi 1:10,000]

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

ROLF 

[myrkul]

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

ROLF 

 

[epi 1:10,000]

 

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

[JoelKatz]

The question is do 30 Hellen's agree?

Nope, just a single milliHelen, but that's enough to launch a ship.

[TheGer]

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]

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.

[Tawsix]

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]

               ^^                       ^^

[TheGer]

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

[Tawsix]

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]

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

[Raoul Duke]

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?