Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    There did used to be a rule against excessive 'multi quoting'. Its is not conducive to good debating because it is often used to break apart the theme of someones post.
    When you listen to music you don't listen to 10 second chunks, you listen to the whole song and base your summaries upon it. Fact is , especially with this new drive to merge any vaguely similar threads into collosal sized threads, that it is often hard to find the original post that people subsequently argue about. Valid points go unanswered and are lost. Small errors are called up as if they are a major mbasis of the argument.

    Poor debating through and through. O how the old boys at the union would cringe...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robot Chicken)
    There did used to be a rule against excessive 'multi quoting'. Its is not conducive to good debating because it is often used to break apart the theme of someones post.
    When you listen to music you don't listen to 10 second chunks, you listen to the whole song and base your summaries upon it. Fact is , especially with this new drive to merge any vaguely similar threads into collosal sized threads, that it is often hard to find the original post that people subsequently argue about. Valid points go unanswered and are lost. Small errors are called up as if they are a major mbasis of the argument.

    Poor debating through and through. O how the old boys at the union would cringe...

    Misuse
    of multiquoting is poor debate technique, on the other hand in certain situations, especially when you are debunking a poor argument, it is a useful technique and as such it shouldn't be outlawed entirely. Obviously it is better to answer someone’s post as a whole unfortunately this is not always practical.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Nefarious)

    Misuse
    of multiquoting is poor debate technique, on the other hand in certain situations, especially when you are debunking a poor argument, it is a useful technique and as such it shouldn't be outlawed entirely. Obviously it is better to answer someone’s post as a whole unfortunately this is not always practical.
    I have to simply disagree. I think it is lazyness and at times a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters.
    There is absolutely nothing to stop someone from taking a 18 line post with 4 major points, clicking reply, and then arguing against that post in one go. Its what those qaint little things like the return button and paragraphs come in handy for.

    It has nothing to do with practicality - its used here time and time again as a cheap attempt at point scoring in a debate. Which fits the pattern of thinking that can be noted in some members here that debates are to be 'won' at all costs, even if the only loser is the art of debating.

    Am i being a bit upity? perhaps. I just miss the days when debating here was fun and stimulating. Its not the fact that many of the arguments that come up are old ones thats the problem in my eyes, its the fact so many members here become like rabid dogs if ever challenged.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robot Chicken)
    I have to simply disagree. I think it is lazyness and at times a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters.
    There is absolutely nothing to stop someone from taking a 18 line post with 4 major points, clicking reply, and then arguing against that post in one go. Its what those qaint little things like the return button and paragraphs come in handy for.

    It has nothing to do with practicality - its used here time and time again as a cheap attempt at point scoring in a debate. Which fits the pattern of thinking that can be noted in some members here that debates are to be 'won' at all costs, even if the only loser is the art of debating.

    Am i being a bit upity? perhaps. I just miss the days when debating here was fun and stimulating. Its not the fact that many of the arguments that come up are old ones thats the problem in my eyes, its the fact so many members here become like rabid dogs if ever challenged.
    On that last point I agree with you completely, I would go on to say that it isn't helped by the fact that there are a large number of people posting here who know when they need to concede a point and will continue arguing the same point time and time again even after they have lost what has by that point become an argument.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Nefarious)
    On that last point I agree with you completely, I would go on to say that it isn't helped by the fact that there are a large number of people posting here who know when they need to concede a point and will continue arguing the same point time and time again even after they have lost what has by that point become an argument.
    I agree, Nef.

    Some come to the conclusion that they need to concede before others. Regarding the latter, I would call it 'inflated ego-itis'.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not sure if this has been asked before, but is it really necessary to have so many threads on Israel? Yes - they all start off in response to specific news stories, but within a few pages they always end up the same. It sort of clutters D&D, I think.

    I do like reading the arguments, since it's not something I know particularly much about. But would it not be easier to have one uber Israel thread?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    We're merging similar threads. Some threads on Israel genuinely talk about different topics. Most Israel-related threads are clones though.
    Offline

    13
    Do any D&D regulars think that we could do with new moderators?

    I have witnessed the attitudes of moderators on other parts of TSR and they seem to be very supportive and helpful to the membership - not in the least abrasive or inclined to abuse of their powers.

    PQ is one who immediately springs to mind.

    I haven't seen V on D&D for over two weeks now. We are down to two mods and it is very difficult I should imagine, to do the moderation efficiently.

    Any others have any ideas?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Under 10 posts are getting reported every day. There isn't even enough work for 2 moderators...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The volume of post reports was never going to require three mods. The only possible problem with fewer moderators is the amount of time that some post reports get left unanswered. With two mods a temporary absence of one may lead to inappropriate posts hanging around for hours, festering and generating more problems. Indeed even with two mods around (as opposed to three) the amount of time to answer a post report in my experience lengthens significantly.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Nefarious)
    The volume of post reports was never going to require three mods. The only possible problem with fewer moderators is the amount of time that some post reports get left unanswered. With two mods a temporary absence of one may lead to inappropriate posts hanging around for hours, festering and generating more problems. Indeed even with two mods around (as opposed to three) the amount of time to answer a post report in my experience lengthens significantly.
    Volume isn't the issue. Never has been. Modding D&D is pretty easy. THe problem comes when you are forced to start modding debates and threads in which you are involved. IT leaves you open to attack, and questions fo misuse of powers.
    Now that there are these 'mini-D&D mods' it should be easy to increase the number a bit to 4/5 and have a strict rule that one cannot moderate a thread in which one is involved.
    Offline

    13
    When a thread is 'moved' why can we not access it by clicking on the link?

    I refer to the thread started by Juicy Fruit entitled "The double standards of D&D". The title suggests it could be of interest to regular contributors.

    I am denied access to it for some reason and cannot find any trace of it in the the forum search facility, nor the OP's threads.

    Is this common on D&D since I haven't had problems of this kind before?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robot Chicken)
    Now that there are these 'mini-D&D mods' it should be easy to increase the number a bit to 4/5 and have a strict rule that one cannot moderate a thread in which one is involved.
    Except for the fact that it is logical that only quite active D&D members are made mods - because they are the ones that are around, but simultaneously they are also the ones likely to be "involved" in a substantial amount of threats. Also, what happens if a Mod is debating and the other person posts an obviously unsuitable post, with say a racist slur or something? Is the Mod meant to leave it?
    I cannot see your suggestion working.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    I refer to the thread started by Juicy Fruit entitled "The double standards of D&D". The title suggests it could be of interest to regular contributors.
    I'm fairly sure it was deleted, because, as the Mods always say, if you have a problem the place is in Ask a Mod. Basically, her thread was just a rant because Juicy Fruit made a few idiotic posts yesterday, trolling essentially, and then got annoyed upon their deletion and her warning. So obviously she had to complain it was "double standards", despite the fact that TWO separate D&D mods were involved in dealing with her.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    I'm fairly sure it was deleted, because, as the Mods always say, if you have a problem the place is in Ask a Mod. Basically, her thread was just a rant because Juicy Fruit made a few idiotic posts yesterday, trolling essentially, and then got annoyed upon their deletion and her warning. So obviously she had to complain it was "double standards", despite the fact that TWO separate D&D mods were involved in dealing with her.
    I believe my query was proper to this thread, since that is what was indicated by the mods.

    It was a question about the mechanics of 'moving a thread' to another place and the link not being able to be accessed.

    If it was deleted it should not have said it had been moved, should it?

    I do not have a problem with the decision of the mod who dealt with it, just the erroneous message relating to the thread.

    Thanks anyway, Jon.
    Offline

    13
    Thinking it was about time we 'refreshed' this thread...what is the situation on new mods on D&D?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I never thought having new ones was being considered.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Thinking it was about time we 'refreshed' this thread...what is the situation on new mods on D&D?
    You have been appointed God.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Nefarious)
    I never thought having new ones was being considered.
    We have a new one - afits - aka 'a fire in the sky'.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    We have a new one - afits - aka 'a fire in the sky'.
    Are you sure? I think he's just the minimod of the House of Commons.
 
 
 
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.