Debate moderation

We all know that many interesting debates on
here are scuppered by one side or the other.
(Actually it is always Mad Christians 😉 )

Could we have a debate with a moderator we all respect?

I nominate
CalJust
bbarr
DeepThought
Zahlanzi

I suggest they determine the object of debate by means of an opening
post and thereafter do not participate in the debate except as mediator.

Other nominations?
Opinion?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
We all know that many interesting debates on
here are scuppered by one side or the other.
(Actually it is always Mad Christians 😉 )

Could we have a debate with a moderator we all respect?

I nominate
CalJust
bbarr
DeepThought
Zahlanzi

I suggest they determine the object of debate by means of an opening
post and thereafter do not participate in the debate except as mediator.

Other nominations?
Opinion?

I think Zahlanzi is a lightweight who manages somehow to get outwitted and duffed up by the Debates Forum's frothers and fulminators time and time again and so does not belong on this list of names you have suggested.

I'd suggest that JS357 be tempted out of apparent retirement to take his place.

vistesd and BiggDogProblem are other worthy candidates.

Originally posted by FMF
I think Zahlanzi is a lightweight who manages somehow to get outwitted and duffed up by the Debates Forum's frothers and fulminators time and time again and so does not belong on this list of names you have suggested.

I'd suggest that JS357 be tempted out of apparent retirement to take his place.

vistesd and BiggDogProblem are other worthy candidates.

I am literally on vacation. Only have a kindle. Back Dec two. Proposed topic is

The Bible is a reliable source of knowledge.

Wow. I don't know if I'm competent to moderate. I'm happy with the subject JS357 has suggested.

I'd add Lemonjello to that list

Originally posted by Agerg
I'd add Lemonjello to that list

In a way, I'd agree with this nomination, of course, because of his rigour and meticulousness. But in practical terms, his posts tend to cause many of the religionists who interact with him to resort to all manner of logical fallacies, that often get all piled up and overlapping.

Originally posted by FMF
In a way, I'd agree with this nomination, of course, because of his rigour and meticulousness. But in practical terms, his posts tend to cause many of the religionists who interact with him to resort to all manner of logical fallacies, that often get all piled up and overlapping.

Yeah, LJ is a great choice. He and CalJust would make a nice team.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Wow. I don't know if I'm competent to moderate. I'm happy with the subject JS357 has suggested.

The Bible is a really reliable source of knowledge concerning that which is in the Bible. We might want to narrow that topic down.

Originally posted by bbarr
The Bible is a really reliable source of knowledge concerning that which is in the Bible. We might want to narrow that topic down.

That's basically implied I'd have thought. I doubt anyone would claim it makes a good handbook for midwives; or that it not being a good handbook for midwives means it is not a reliable source of knowledge. There's a clear implied relevance rule. Or did you mean that the topic is far too wide?

What is the scope of the moderator(s)? And how many are there? The OP suggests 1, I think that is too few. You've said two which is fine. Three has the advantage that if they disagree it's possible to have a majority decision. More than that and there's too many cooks. For scope I'd tentatively suggest this list:

1) Relevance - posts should be relevant to the discussion.
2) Ad hominem fallacies - they can stop them, but spotting non-personalized logical fallacies is up to the debaters not the moderators.
3) Argumentum ad nauseam - we don't want to be bored to tears.
4) Confusion - Where people are talking at cross purposes they can intervene to keep things relevant.
5) Points of Information - if someone has got a fact wrong and the mod knows it's wrong it will save time if they point it out (this one should be used sparingly).

Do they intervene pre-emptively or only when asked?

Originally posted by DeepThought
That's basically implied I'd have thought. I doubt anyone would claim it makes a good handbook for midwives; or that it not being a good handbook for midwives means it is not a reliable source of knowledge. There's a clear implied relevance rule. Or did you mean that the topic is far too wide?

What is the scope of the moderator(s)? And how many ar ...[text shortened]... out (this one should be used sparingly).

Do they intervene pre-emptively or only when asked?

I was being glib, but I do think the topic is far too broad. Is the Bible a reliable source of historical knowledge, scientific knowledge, or spiritual knowledge, or ethical knowledge, or...?

Originally posted by DeepThought
That's basically implied I'd have thought. I doubt anyone would claim it makes a good handbook for midwives; or that it not being a good handbook for midwives means it is not a reliable source of knowledge. There's a clear implied relevance rule. Or did you mean that the topic is far too wide?

What is the scope of the moderator(s)? And how many ar ...[text shortened]... out (this one should be used sparingly).

Do they intervene pre-emptively or only when asked?

I think those 5 "rules" will suffice (lets not overcomplicate it!)
For the sake of practicality I think ONE moderator per thread.

My idea is for anyone to start a thread with the mod's name in
brackets in the thread title. Anyone who thinks the mod will not
be impartial can simply ignore that thread. The mod should be pro-active.

I will start a thread for volunteer mods.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I think those 5 "rules" will suffice (lets not overcomplicate it!)
For the sake of practicality I think ONE moderator per thread.

My idea is for anyone to start a thread with the mod's name in
brackets in the thread title. Anyone who thinks the mod will not
be impartial can simply ignore that thread. The mod should be pro-active.

I will start a thread for volunteer mods.

Call me a pessimist but what happens when the likes of Dasa and "friends" are on the case? How exactly can even a good thread be moderated once it devolves into a mud fight? (as is often the case these days)

Originally posted by Agerg
Call me a pessimist but what happens when the likes of Dasa and "friends" are on the case? How exactly can even a good thread be moderated once it devolves into a mud fight? (as is often the case these days)

Dasa doesn't post frequently enough to be a huge problem. If posters refuse to play by the rules then there isn't very much non-site authorized moderators can do about it. It would be a matter of the other participants ignoring the offenders posts in that thread. The ultimate sanction would be for the moderator to report them to the site moderators, but that would require the offence to be at a level where the site moderators would be likely to be interested.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Dasa doesn't post frequently enough to be a huge problem. If posters refuse to play by the rules then there isn't very much non-site authorized moderators can do about it. It would be a matter of the other participants ignoring the offenders posts in that thread. The ultimate sanction would be for the moderator to report them to the site moderators, b ...[text shortened]... require the offence to be at a level where the site moderators would be likely to be interested.

Sounds to me like you need to set up a club (it's dead easy to do) where you will then be able to delete posts. You can invite all the people you think who are not "offenders" to join debates there and you will be able to kick them out of the club if they stray from your "rules". Personally, I do not want others deciding what I can and cannot see on a public forum ~ even offensive stuff ~ and I am rather baffled why people would want to censor stuff when simply ignoring posts and threads they find uninteresting is so easy to do. 🙂

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I think those 5 "rules" will suffice (lets not overcomplicate it!)
For the sake of practicality I think ONE moderator per thread.

My idea is for anyone to start a thread with the mod's name in
brackets in the thread title. Anyone who thinks the mod will not
be impartial can simply ignore that thread. The mod should be pro-active.

I will start a thread for volunteer mods.

If there is more than one thread then moderators can confer with one another, which is the main reason that I was thinking there should be more than one mod. I'm wondering about time zones though, a thread can progress by several pages overnight. A single moderator is potentially left reading pages and pages of posts. As long as it's not expected to happen in real time then that is fine.