Thank you to all who expressed an interest in participating in a new form of debating on the RAWK LFC forum.
Many
expressed doubts that such a format can work and there are of course no guarantees that it will. I think the fact that so many are prepared to participate is positive however and have now come up with a proposal to take things further. Please review it and offer any positive suggestions that come to mind. For those of you who think the idea stupid, unworkable or similar please simply click the back button on your browser and try another thread
If you must have a go then please do it on the original ‘Raising the standard’ thread so that this one can be kept on topic. (I'll bump this thread back up so that the inevitable carping can find a good home
)
OptionsI’ve considered a few different formats to try and get a good thread started – one was to take the traditional debating society format and transpose it to the screen. Two teams could alternate on either side of a proposition with a vote being taken at the end. Posts would be limited to assertion and rebuttal and the use of debating tricks such as the ‘straw man’ or attacking the person rather than the argument would be prohibited.
Another option was a set of rules concerning what constituted acceptable debating and a yellow card red card system of enforcement. This would ask more of our overworked moderators however and may also be too clunky. There are other formats as well and if someone has a variant of the ideas above or a new idea I’d be interested to see it.
A final variant was a 3 para minimum thread which would discourage 1 line put downs and encourage more thought before the submit button was pressed.
The problem with these systems is that they’re rigid and limiting. As any TV cop will tell you – sometimes you have to break the rules. Occasionally a 1 line response is all that’s required and all else is waffle. We don’t need a rulebook, we need a philosophy that expresses the groups desire to have an honest and open debate.
Solution?I’ve taken as my model the infamous Dogme 95 manifesto created by Scandinavian filmmakers Lars Von Trier and Thomas Vintnerberg. For those of you who don’t follow Danish filmmaking (uncultured swine) this was a statement by 2 directors who were concerned about the state of filmmaking and wanted to try a different approach. You can read about them, see clips of the films and see the Dogme 95 manifesto here:
http://www.dogme95.dk/menu/menuset.htm Its well worth a look but you don’t have to read it to see how it might be applicable for our own community as well. Dogme has a set of guidelines that the Directors may not fully follow, each of the films made under it however are an expression of their belief - in this case that filmaking was bound by artifice and that it should be more focussed on story.
I think we should draw up our own Dogme manifesto – which those who are interested in could contribute to and sign. Then, if anyone wants to start a thread they can specify that the thread is being run under the Dogme code and that all who wish to participate in it should abide by it. Any posts which contravene the code can be challenged with the number of the rule broken. At this point the poster has the option to remove, rephrase or defend the point in question. Breaking a Dogme rule once in while will be ok but if an entire post is against the spirit of the code then it should be called as such by other members and the writer should withdraw it. If they dispute that the code has been broken then we will have to move on but the important thing is that all in the thread wish to commit themselves to a better level of debate.
Obviously the hope long term is that the principles and standards within the threads will become widespread and that others will see the benefit in writing within some gentle standards. Participants are committing themselves to a vision of how an argument can be conducted. They are assuming collective responsibility to self edit their posts according to rules agreed by the group.
Here is a draft
‘RAWK Dogme 04’ manifesto:
"I swear to submit to the following set of rules drawn up and confirmed by RAWKDOGME ‘04:
1. No Personal abuse of other members.
2. Debates are not ‘won’ or ‘lost’ by people but by argument. We reject triumphalism.
3. We agree to restrict our criticism to what has been written within the thread.
4. We reject the use of ‘Straw man’ debating tactics – we will not misrepresent others views to further our argument.
5. We will strive to enter any argument with an open mind, if we know we will not alter our position regardless of what others say we will not participate.
6. Logic, assertion and rebuttal are the bases on which we will construct our arguments.
7. The ‘Ooters’ debate has no place here. We will never question another members status as a supporter on the basis of their geographical location.
8. ?
9. ?
10. ?
I’ll leave some blank to encourage some participation – this is not something I wish to author on my own!
So to repeat anyone interested in this as an idea – sign up your name and then put your suggestions for the 10 points. When we’ve got a final list – maybe by vote not sure, we will start a thread under Dogme conditions and see if it can work.
