I just wanted to stop in here and talk about what I've noticed helps a debate become more enjoyable. I know many people who debate matters like politics and race can allow the issues they believe in to narrow their willingness to take other debaters seriously. I've often been no exception to that, especially when I first started debating politics. I'm a conservative debater who has taking a liking to this site, and AD has a very strong liberal presence. There are a lot of independents here too that I don't always agree with on everything, and it's taken time for me to get to the point where I'm really very interested in what some of our more liberal members are saying.

As time has gone by I've been able to open myself up more to other opinions, and what I've noticed is that I'm learning more about what our members believe, and I've also learned that almost everyone here is debating politics and other issues because these issues are important to those who take the time to debate. We really have some intelligent members here too, and as much as I disagree with the left wing on certain issues It's often interesting to hear what they have to say.

I wanted to lay out a few principals that I believe help make for a better debate, and these are things that I've learned through time really do improve the quality of any debate.......


1. Before you make a post in a new forum, take the time to research the issue first. It helps make for a more intelligent debate.

2. If you disagree with someone, don't allow that to be an excuse to brush that person off and treat them like an outsider.

3. Take the time to hear people out, everyone enjoys a debate more when they feel like their replies are actually being read.

4. Sometimes its better to be fair and respectful, rather than being right all the time.

This one was very important for me.........

5. In a situation where someone is taunting you, or flaming on a debate board, or even if the debate ends in disagreement, sometimes its better not to reply than to go on and on with that poster in debate. Thats something that took me forever to figure out, if someone starts rambling I've had the tendency to carry out that debate to its final stupidity.


Anyways these are some things I've learned help make for a constructive debate, I hope some of our members find something useful in that, and I'm looking forward to having more debates here at AD!

Here's a link to a site I have found useful:

"Intellectually-honest and intellectually-dishonest debate tactics" by John T. Reed.

An excellent article on debate techniques with links to many other resources on logic, critical thinking, and argument. (Although I have no idea who Mr. Reed is or what his qualifications might be.)

The first, and IMO the most important, tip on debate:

There are two intellectually-honest debate tactics:

1. revealing errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts
2. revealing errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic

It doesn't usually apply on other boards, but here on , taunting and flaming are against the Rules, and not only should all debaters here not engage with the taunting and flaming, they should report the offending post(s) for the Staff to deal with.

Now, one person's flaming is another's reasonable debate - some people can see any kind of disagreement with the points they make as unreasonable. The Staff reserve the right not to take any action if they don't consider any rules to have been broken (but even then, we've issued Strikes to posters who have continually pushed at the edges of the Rules without overtly breaking them if they carry on doing so after they've been asked not to). But the point is, if in doubt, report it. Otherwise, if you take the bait and reply "in hot blood", as it were, you may end up breaking Rules and being reported yourself.

That is a tough job Julian that I would not look forward to. If I read your statement correctly the best way to survive is to simply accept Staff statements as the final word. My issue to you is:

We all have good days and bad days. I can recall warnings over the years where the warnings issued by the staff has physically participated in or entered the debate. The confusing part is whether they are speaking on behalf of the moderation team or individually. This has allowed a certain degree of freedom in this no-man's land to be disruptive because as you guessed it, the moderation team's decisions are final.

What are your recommendations on rogue staff members? Report and hope there is no longstanding ill will? Then what? Or should we just knuckle under because expressing an opinion is simply going to sour our survivability aspects? Is a happy medium even possible?

I doubt that's true. I am the longest-serving member of the staff here (apart from Jaime and Mike) - I've been at it for over six years - and I monitor the moderation of the site very closely. In the several years since staff procedure has been codified, there has been one instance - one - in which a moderator issued a Mod Note to a thread in which they had participated. That was an error and it was dealt with in a more public fashion than was necessarily warranted or should have been expected.


There is no reason for confusion whatsoever. Again, for the past several years, all official moderator intervention has been in the form of Mod Notes. These are uniform and very easy to identify. They appear in a box with a red, broken-line border. If you haven't seen one, look at the last post in any closed thread. That's what they look like. All other posts by members of staff are contributions made as any other participant would post to a thread.


You are quite right that the moderation team's decisions are final (and, unless there are obvious and egregious breaches of the rules, they are made by the team, not by individuals), but there is no "no-man's land". There are official Mod Notes - posted only by Administrators and Moderators - and there are all other posts - by everyone. That's it. No grey areas - and 999,999 times out of 1,000,000, no Mod Notes posted by staffers who have "physically participated" in a thread.

Members of the staff will, on occasion, try to draw participants back to a topic or criticize a contributor for uncivil or unconstructive behavior - just as any other participant might. While it is recommended that everyone use the REPORT button when there are breaches of the rules, there is nothing wrong with a bit of self-policing where people are stretching the rules or treading on thin ice - so long as such admonitions do not further derail a thread. But such comments should never be confused with official moderation, regardless of who posts them.


"Rogue staff members" - are you serious? And "sour survivability aspects"? There are very few staff members (if any) who have not had one or another of their posts reported from time to time. I doubt any of us could even remember who made the report(s), never mind harboring some sort of prejudicial grudge. Indeed, the only specific reports that I can call to mind are instances of staff members reporting other staff members - and there has been no lingering ill will among the staff, never mind between the staff and other forum members.

It may be difficult for you to believe, but the staff - individually and collectively - is quite capable of objectivity when it comes to moderation, thank you very much. And, where there's even the potential for prejudice, we are quite willing to admit bias in discussing reported posts and often recuse ourselves from disciplinary decisions when we are either involved in the debate in question or have any class of history with the participant in question.

I don't know if this will allay your fears or not, but it should. If you can find a more objectively moderated political debate forum anywhere, you are welcome to participate there. Meanwhile, if you have a specific complaint about a particular "rogue staff member", please PM any other member of the staff with details and we will all give it our immediate attention.

Thank you for answering my question. I may have to take you up on your advice on the button. I've never used that feature because I've felt it should only be used in very extreme circumstances but may moderate away from this position.



I think you are ascribing benevolent traits onto others and using yourself as a baseline. While it is natural to speak of others in this way Wertz I think such a projection is an inaccurate one to make.



The key word often is not practiced across the board as universally as you might think. I will file this response away for future reference because I know it will be tested.



I was going to go with mods gone wild but that reference had other cultural stigmata attached to it which conjured a slightly different image.



I will make a note to save future conversations when the need arises. Thank you for your input.

Why do you think that? I can vouch for Wertz' statements here.



Again, I have to wonder why you think that? I vouch for Wertz' statements here as well. Staff discussions are quite objective, and almost always when someone thinks they might have a bias, they say so. The whole point of having the staff discussions is to ensure objectivity--to not let one person's opinion be the final say in the matter.

Also, what 'testing' are you referring to, as you have no insight into our internal discussions? Which also makes me wonder how you would know whether it was 'often' practiced across the board or not? The external mod note is all that would be apparent, and it is the result of internal discussion amongst staff. It is never anyone who has participated in the thread that makes the mod note, and usually someone who has no bias in the matter... but even if one thought they did, they are only making known the feelings of the staff after discussion, not their own judgement on the matter.

The moderating on this site is appreciated. Especially when a moderator is willing to call out posters they happen to agree with in debate. There is nothing worse than when a moderator gives special treatment to those who share their beliefs.

I remember when I first started posting on a debate site called christianforums.com that the moderation was so loose that people were able to talk about practically anything in some of the debate boards. For example, I joined a debate in the science section of that site once, and the subject was supposed to be about how heat is generated in the center of the earth. Yet somehow the subject managed to jump around to everything from religion to the Iraq war.

I dont see too much wandering from the topics on this site though, which is good.

As a side note If AD ever decides to host a religious debate section on this site, I'd be willing to moderate it. Doesn't seem like Mike and Jamie are too interested in the prospect of a religious forum unfortunately.