> Wild Flower Soul wrote:

> Te problem is that most of the debaters end up trolling as well. If we'd apply the rules tightly, there would hardly be anyone left..

Why is this problem so prevalent?

I like the voting idea, it would make certain people buck-up their ideas very quickly... or make them throw a tantrum to end all tanrums, and thus get banned for a week.
Then post a "I have returned and I am unrepentant and you are all satanists and rapists" thread... and thus be perma-banned.

PS: No dickhead's here:
http://www.politicsforum.org/

Trolling is a art.

Zarf.  Regarding the constitution for IC Politics.  I'm all for a constitution.

We have all been debating for how many years? I know Key, Kemp and Flint were around when I was, and that was at least 6-7 years ago.

Justinian I: "We have all been debating for how many years? I know Key, Kemp and Flint were around when I was, and that was at least 6-7 years ago."

Yeah, I remember your IA days. I've been here for at least as long as you mention.

You Fool,

Well, according to Zarf, if you ignore a post, you conceed whatever point that post was making.

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> You Fool,

Well, according to Zarf, if you ignore a post, you conceed whatever point that post was making.

Correction: If you ignore a specific point yet post anyway, you concede the argument.  I fully understand if you just stop posting in a thread for some reason.  However, at the point where you keep the discussion alive, yet ignore the posts of other people, I would argue that is a concession.

As a model
Post 1: OP, contains 3 points
Post 2: Disagrees with OP, answers all 3 of OP's points, plus introduces 4 arguments
Post 3: OP, answers all 3 responses to his points, plus answers 3 of Post 2's arguments

In this scenario, I would say that for the sake of fairness and promoting debate, OP should be considered to have functionally conceded that argument.

Reason being:
1: Such a stance prevents sides from doing a giant rehashing of old stuff every post.
2: Debaters had their chance in their post just after the answer.
3: Possible solution to concerns with the system: Non-answering answers (I dunno, I'm researching this) should probably be accepted as answers.  That being said, a poster is still held to their non-answering answer in later posts (i.e.: if someone said they were still doing research about a particular answer, we should expect an answer at a later date.  If they simply ignore it in future posts, with no question as to what has occurred with the research to date, it should be considered functionally conceded).
4: Go ahead and provide one alternative explanation as to why you would answer points 1-7 and 9-14, but skip #8 without a reason posted, assuming I numbered my points correctly?  Note: This argument is uniquely true when debating against me.  If you've noticed, I number all my arguments most of the time, especially with you.  That means you could literally look at your post and say "hmm... a number's missing!"
5: Such a viewpoint encourages debaters to engage one another's posts, rather than spend more time rambling about their side.  Your stance would encourage people to simply ignore the points of others and wax poetically about their side of the debate.  Without that clash, there's never room for the debate to go further than step 1.  Since the Politics forum is about stepping beyond that first layer of talking points and exploring people's viewpoints, we should promote the structure of political discourse which best encourages this.

Now I could understand if your reason for not answering an argument was because you just didn't know it was there.  Hence, I would say that for such a rule/guideline to exist, it must complement a rule/guideline that says posters must somehow have a method to ensure individual points are clearly identifiable.

Now in terms of ignoring entire posts, I would say there is an easy way to discern whether it is justified or simply a way of getting out of a debate.
1: We can identify trolling posts easily.
2: If people, such as Flint, decide they are going to ignore others, warning people in advance that they are ignored prevents readers from having the problems of distinguishing between conceded and ignored posts.
3: A simple "I refuse to answer-troll" could suffice, as it is a method to acknowledge that someone did post something, yet not dignify them with a substantive response.

@ Acolyte and Zarf

I think that if we are going to improve this forum, we will need to have a way to address the problem of ignored points / posts.  I realize it is not conducive to an effective debate for posts and points to be ignored, however nor can we expect every post and every point to be responded to.

This is a casual, relaxed venue for discussion without formal rules you would expect at a debate seminar hosted by a university.  I find this relaxed atmosphere refreshing.  However, a constitution and perhaps a set of more detailed 'guidlines' for this politics forum would improve the level of discourse and yet retain the relaxed, casual atmosphere we enjoy here.

Therefore, instead of assuming a point or post is conceded if it is ignored, we'll need to make it clear that on this forum posters are expected to state when a point or a post is conceded. 

Example:

"I agree with your 1st and 3rd points, but as for your 2nd point it discounts the possibility that blah blah blah..."

If we make it a requirement that posters are to state when points are conceded, we don't have to require people to sate that they are ignoring someone for trolling or flaming them.  That would get as tedious as responding to every ridiculous point / post some people <cough, cough> (look above for example) make.

...A debate that is no longer discussed isn't a won or lost debate.  It's just everyone who wish to have their say had their say.

If you're talking about what xeno's saying, then yes.  In regards to the Constitution I mentioned (and am in the process of producing a draft copy of), then... no... sort of... hard to explain just yet.