Q Like/Dislike vs Agree/Disagree and Why
http://forum.duelingnetwork.com/index.php?/topic/138199-likedislike-vs-agreedisagree-and-why/
This idea came up during a discussion on how to go about developing a debate forum/site. And I thought the merits of it were worth discussing here, though I don't believe it should be implemented here, just that some might have input/criticism.
Essentially, we accept the merits of user input to determine what content is good/bad. But when discussing subjective material, this can be very easily abused, and instead of just moderating the use heavily, we decided to work with the medium to come up with a new content review method.
Much the same as like/dislike, upvote downvote, etc. But you must OPENLY explain why you agree/disagree. No more wordless, mindless likes or dislikes. If you disagree with someone, you must adequately explain why. That post itself is open for disagreement, but not from the person you disagreed with. (Though right of reply is allowed.
Every measure will be taken to make users not fear being disagreed with. Agrees/Disagrees will not be shown on their profile or recorded publicly in any fashion, if a debate link receives too many disagrees in relation to participating agrees it will be LOCKED from allowing new disagreers in the conversation. Your account name can be changed to Anonymous at any time to prevent Doxxing or personal attacks in areas where your views may be considered problematic and freedom of speech infringed upon. Your posts can also be deleted at any time, and can be deleted all at once (Though this will be a less publicized feature to avoid people screencapping to negate this feature)
Potential Ideas:
Maximum of 10 posts allowed to be made in reply to a user. And a 1000 character limit for replies. (Links don't count.) Replying to a user without using the "reply" tab to avoid this is a bannable offense.
Why? In real debate, you don't have an endless amount of time to waste. You prepare your evidence, replies, presentations, and make do with the time given to work in a concise, efficient manner. As some of you may have notice, often people you argue with online have simply not done their research and when met with evidence to the contrary, they refuse to admit they were wrong, move goalposts, or otherwise detract from discussion.
This idea is to address that, and hopefully mitigate it, while also hopefully taking some of the stress out of online debate. If you and them both know the argument must come to an end soon, perhaps that'll make people stay on topic and finish the point they set out to make. A lot of people forget debate is not about getting people to admit they were wrong, but about explaining their point of view for onlookers to construct their opinion. If you do it right, and both you and them have a strong logical core, they will agree.
UQ
