|
|
|
tkster
Skeptic Friend
USA
193 Posts |
 Posted - 12/05/2004 : 10:31:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Oh, forcryingoutloud, tkster. I just read the thread Mab linked to. Don't accuse Mab of lying by saying that you've only posted "DONE" three times in your debate thread when the note at the bottom of your rules post in that thread clearly says "edited 7 times in total." Such lies are easily spotted, and made all the more egregious by calling people illiterate and ignorant.
You know what "ticks me off?" People who think that they can insult other people's intelligence so blatantly (regardless of whether they're Christian or atheist or whatever). Whether or not our memories of a one-week time limit are correct is no longer the issue.
Notice in this topic the argument about there not being any time limit for rebuttals. It was very obvious from the get-go that there wasn't any and it wasn't added.
quote:
1) Your hypocrisy in insisting that rebuttals should take less time than introductory posts in a debate, yet being "surprised" that Peptide posted "so quickly" (when he took the same amount of time for intro and rebuttal) and allowing jimi 37 days now for his rebuttal, despite your current confidence that he won't ever post again to that thread. The idea that this is in any way "fair" (per your baseball analogy, the "home team" has taken a couple days off to rest up for the bottom of the ninth inning in a single game) is simply and obviously ludicrous.
False. I said that I didn't expect that rebuttals would take that much time as you know what to address. That was the whole point of there being no time limit, but honestly I figured Peptide would wait a week or so.
I didn't think anyone would wait over two weeks to a month's period of time.
quote:
2) Your ability to maintain a public Web forum with any amount of credibility when it's clear that your friends, no matter how idiotic they act, will not only be tolerated, but promoted to moderators. Kevin and Courtney are going to cause you nothing but problems. Their posts speak for themselves in this regard.
Kevin is immature yes, but because of new banning restrictions he can't go crazy again. And Courtney? She's hasn't done anything wrong to my knowledge except disagree with a few people that are here. Big deal.
tk |
 |
|
|
tkster
Skeptic Friend
USA
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2004 : 10:57:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Does the new forum even exist yet?
Yes and No. Things are still changing and once the logo is "Universe City Forums" it will be. The outlook and colors will look the same, however, new rules, new forums in it, and of course, new mod-ships.
As for the debate and new forum, I have the other admin working now so JD's time is up.
tk |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
tkster
Skeptic Friend
USA
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2004 : 12:37:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
Notice in this topic the argument about there not being any time limit for rebuttals. It was very obvious from the get-go that there wasn't any and it wasn't added.
And notice how that post says:
Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 9:49 pm Post subject: Formal Creation vs. Evolutionism Debate - Member From LW
While the debate post started:
Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 8:22 pm
Also notice the title, "Member From LW." This was regarding the LW debate, not Peptides.
Keep reading and again you and Peptide were arguing with me on there being no time limit.
quote:
Edited to add:
quote:
False. I said that I didn't expect that rebuttals would take that much time as you know what to address. That was the whole point of there being no time limit, but honestly I figured Peptide would wait a week or so.
I didn't think anyone would wait over two weeks to a month's period of time.
How does that make any sense at all? If you didn't think they would take any more than a month, why not give them a month? Why allow for an infinite of time. Normally you say:
"Its going to take a long time, so I'll give you as long as you want on it."
But you say:
"Its going to take a short amount of time, so I'll give you as long as you want on it."
That doesn't make any sense...
False. My statement was - I don't think that rebuttals will take as long so there's no need to put a time limit on it. And there is no need to put a time limit on it as it should take no longer than a couple of weeks max.
tk |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2004 : 13:21:17 [Permalink]
|
| Can anyone tell me what the point is of going over this again? It's not going to change anything... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2004 : 13:55:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tkster
Notice in this topic the argument about there not being any time limit for rebuttals. It was very obvious from the get-go that there wasn't any and it wasn't added.
Yes, and notice that you posted the OP in that thread 57 minutes after Peptide posted his introduction in the other debate thread. But, you're missing the point.quote:
False. I said that I didn't expect that rebuttals would take that much time as you know what to address. That was the whole point of there being no time limit, but honestly I figured Peptide would wait a week or so.
You said,...rebuttals shouldn't take too long to do. The hardest part of a debate is presenting the argument because you don't know what to pick, whereas with a rebuttal, you know what you will be dealing with. You used the word "shouldn't."quote:
I didn't think anyone would wait over two weeks to a month's period of time.
Then why wait longer still to formally end the debate? There are people looking for closure...  quote:
Kevin is immature yes, but because of new banning restrictions he can't go crazy again.
Oh? He can't go on a post-deleting spree, either? Or any other sort of spree which would disrupt the forums as a whole?quote:
And Courtney? She's hasn't done anything wrong to my knowledge except disagree with a few people that are here. Big deal.
And encourage a thread which could easily have gotten you sued.
Kil wrote:quote:
Can anyone tell me what the point is of going over this again? It's not going to change anything...
I don't know, you're probably right. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
tkster
Skeptic Friend
USA
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2004 : 14:35:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Yes, and notice that you posted the OP in that thread 57 minutes after Peptide posted his introduction in the other debate thread. But, you're missing the point.
Exactly, it's called "DONE." The rules were clear from the get-go.
quote:
You said,...rebuttals shouldn't take too long to do. The hardest part of a debate is presenting the argument because you don't know what to pick, whereas with a rebuttal, you know what you will be dealing with. You used the word "shouldn't."
Uh so? Just because I thought that doesn't mean JD was going to do that, see? I have no clue when or if he's going to post. From my point of view rebutting the points was easier, either JD doesn't give a rip or found it to difficult to do.
quote:
Then why wait longer still to formally end the debate? There are people looking for closure...
Because I know something you don't. JD isn't going to post, if someone skips school and leaves work, it is obvious that he could careless about a debate. Look at his first post - it is obvious he never really cared to begin with.
Whether I close it today or in a year, he won't post. I am just allowing things to go as is because the forum isn't going to be the same.
quote:
Oh? He can't go on a post-deleting spree, either? Or any other sort of spree which would disrupt the forums as a whole
He could do it, but banning was more of his problem.
quote:
And encourage a thread which could easily have gotten you sued.
Peer Network.
quote:
Kil wrote:[quote]Can anyone tell me what the point is of going over this again? It's not going to change anything...
It's not. Bottom line: JD isn't going to post, and it won't matter anyways.
tk |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2004 : 16:54:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tkster
Just because I thought that doesn't mean JD was going to do that, see? I have no clue when or if he's going to post. From my point of view rebutting the points was easier, either JD doesn't give a rip or found it to difficult to do.
The point was you should have seen this coming. It was blantently obvious to everyone that if you didn't put a time limit on the rebuttles, the losing side could extend the debate indefinitely by never posting.
This was explained to you repeatedly, and now it has come to pass. Jimmy will never post, and the debate will never conclude. Face it, you dropped the ball. You left a gaping loophole in the rules. It was a stupid decision.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2004 : 19:16:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tkster
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Also notice the title, "Member From LW." This was regarding the LW debate, not Peptides.
Keep reading and again you and Peptide were arguing with me on there being no time limit.
That is a blatant lie!
You were arguing the time limits with River, as River wanted to debate too.
The only thing you and Peptide discussed in that thread was rebuttals because Peptide wanted two rounds of rebuttals, and you only one. Peptide conceded to only one round, but there never was a concession specifically about any time limits. You originally stated one week for rebuttal, then changed it.
Why do you think Peptide worked his ass off to make the rebuttal post ready for the 'imagined' time limit of one week?
On the seventh page of this very thread he writes:
quote:
It is finished. I ramble on quite a bit, but I was under time constraints. Hope everyone enjoys.
(emphasis added by Mabuse)
Could it be that he was under the impression that there was a time limit?
Well perhaps these questions are best answered by Peptide.
In my opinion, it is your duty, tkster, as the debate moderator to make sure the participants are up to speed on the rules.
Not that it matter very much anymore, Peptide's rebuttal was very good, but would have kicked ass as well as would have been more layman-friendly if he had spent another week perfecting it.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
tkster
Skeptic Friend
USA
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2004 : 19:29:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by tkster
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Also notice the title, "Member From LW." This was regarding the LW debate, not Peptides.
Keep reading and again you and Peptide were arguing with me on there being no time limit.
That is a blatant lie!
You were arguing the time limits with River, as River wanted to debate too.
The only thing you and Peptide discussed in that thread was rebuttals because Peptide wanted two rounds of rebuttals, and you only one. Peptide conceded to only one round, but there never was a concession specifically about any time limits. You originally stated one week for rebuttal, then changed it.
Why do you think Peptide worked his ass off to make the rebuttal post ready for the 'imagined' time limit of one week?
On the seventh page of this very thread he writes:
quote:
It is finished. I ramble on quite a bit, but I was under time constraints. Hope everyone enjoys.
(emphasis added by Mabuse)
Could it be that he was under the impression that there was a time limit?
Well perhaps these questions are best answered by Peptide.
In my opinion, it is your duty, tkster, as the debate moderator to make sure the participants are up to speed on the rules.
Not that it matter very much anymore, Peptide's rebuttal was very good, but would have kicked ass as well as would have been more layman-friendly if he had spent another week perfecting it.
River was the first to bring it up. The others responded with surprise. I got an email from gregory before Peptide ever posted asking why there wasn't a time restriction on the rebuttals. I told him similiarly the same thing, there really shouldn't have to be. You either know what you are going to say or not, and in this case JD didn't. I got another email from Dave after JD posted about the same question. In other words, it was clear to people that there was no time limit, but again I say that it is obvious why if the person is thinking.
Pay close attention.
tk |
| Edited by - tkster on 12/05/2004 19:31:31 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2004 : 20:14:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tkster
River was the first to bring it up. The others responded with surprise. I got an email from gregory before Peptide ever posted asking why there wasn't a time restriction on the rebuttals. I told him similiarly the same thing, there really shouldn't have to be. You either know what you are going to say or not, and in this case JD didn't. I got another email from Dave after JD posted about the same question. In other words, it was clear to people that there was no time limit, but again I say that it is obvious why if the person is thinking.
(emphasis added)
Hey, TKster. I didn't follow the discussion about the debate format, so I can't comment on that. I will say, however, that I somehow early on got the impression that the rebuttals were also to have a one week time limit. As Mab posted above, Peptide was certainly under the impression that there was a deadline.
In any case, the real reason I'm responding here is in regards to your logic behind the no-time-limit rebuttal. You argue above that in the rebuttal phase, "you either know what you are going to say or not," but in fact, the exact opposite is true. For a week after Peptide posted his initial argument, he could have no idea how he was going to close, as Jimi was still a week away from posting. Only after Jimi posted could Peptide know which arguments to address. Thus, you're probably right that the time-limits need to re relaxed for the rebuttals, as you have to do extra work delving into material you aren't familiar with-- i.e. your opponent's!
Still, having a limit set-- two or three weeks, say-- obviously was what should have happened. As is now clear, without that it's impossible to say that Jimi lost-- he (or anyone who sides with him) can simply say that he's not finished and the matter will continue unresolved.
I don't know if you plan to moderate any more debates on your new forum, TKster, but I think you've learned a valuable lesson or two. Regardless of the topic, from sports to religion to politics, time-limits are important.
(And if I might suggest a superior format with three rounds. Round one, the introdutory arguments, is set to be posted at a certain time (e.g. one week) with both sides' posts due on the same day. Then, a set time after that (but longer than the first limit-- say two weeks) have rebuttals, again posted on the same day. Finally, a set time after than (back to the original length, i.e. one week), have each side post concluding remarks, again at the same time.) |
|
|
|
tkster
Skeptic Friend
USA
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2004 : 20:51:30 [Permalink]
|
Your right Cuneiformist, however, it was clear to others there was no time restriction. Peptide knew if he had any questions he could have asked, the first round was clear, but the second round apparently people assumed the same rules.
The problem is getting people to post on exact times for round 1 and 2. I like the old days of one person post, then next post, then next post, then final post. Of course, if it is all up in the air, it will never be solved.
Time limits have to be evaluated obviously and for clear reasons as it will continue to be up in the air.
tk |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2004 : 21:50:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tkster
Because I know something you don't. JD isn't going to post, if someone skips school and leaves work, it is obvious that he could careless about a debate. Look at his first post - it is obvious he never really cared to begin with.
Whether I close it today or in a year, he won't post. I am just allowing things to go as is because the forum isn't going to be the same.
[Shakes head] I didn't give a rat's ass about JD posting, and officially terminating the debate wasn't supposed to prompt him to post anything anywhere. You doing this:Well the debate is over and JD never posted his final post.
Thanks to all who participated. Was for everybody else.
Leaving the debate unfinished could only have benefited JD. Closing it benefits all other interested parties. Now, I never need to check that thread again (I'd guesstimate that at least 30 of the views were mine).
Thanks for officially ending the debate, tkster.quote:
Peer Network.
Courtney is not a peer of a 16-year-old. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2004 : 22:19:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
Peptide knew if he had any questions he could have asked, the first round was clear, but the second round apparently people assumed the same rules.
Both mab and I remember the rules saying the rebuttal should be posted within 1 week. We also both regret that we didn't save this before it was edited, as it would come in very handy right now.
Does anyone else remember reading this rule (especially Peptide)
I do. However, this doesn't actually give any basis for evidence. I might not have read right and we might have influenced each other in what we think. Unfortunately, we can't go back. The debate is over, Jimi won't post, we won, hooray and let's go on to the next topic. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
