Bay 12 Games Forum

Finally... => Creative Projects => Topic started by: Servant Corps on August 03, 2009, 03:18:25 pm

Title: "Internet Warfare"---Measure of Victory
Post by: Servant Corps on August 03, 2009, 03:18:25 pm
Spoiler: IRC Chatroom (click to show/hide)

Internet Warfare happens over political ideologies. I myself was a veteran of the Religion Wars over on another board.  Since they remain with us, we need to measure these arguments right here, right now. I currently subscribe to the Popularity school of thought: Whomever has the more people support a side wins the argument.

Debate Score Card
1) "Real" Active Debater: +10 Points
2) "Real" Active Lurker: +5 Points
3) Conversion During the Argument: +20 Points

"Real" means that the debater/lurker in question is not a multi-account. This is to prevent sockpuppeters from gaming this system and thereby present an illusion of consensus when there is none.

Active Debater means one who is actively arguing in favor of one side or another. Active Lurker means one who does not argue, but rather make posts that state: "I agree/disagree". If an Active Lurker makes a post stating, "I agree with Point A, but not Point B", then they do not count as being with one side or another.

Conversion means a post state in the thread: "Your post has convinced me I am wrong. I hereby join up with your side." Conversion is the point of argument, and a new convert basically showcase the superiority of your debating skill and the validity of your point.

Basically, at the end of the argument, you total up how many points each side has, and the winner is the one with more points.

This system makes the assumption that both sides desire to promote their ideology in question. If one, or both, people are trolls, well, this system doesn't quite work for them, since trolls cause arguments to provoke an emotional response.
Title: Re: "Internet Warfare"---Measure of Victory
Post by: Enzo on August 03, 2009, 04:59:43 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Which is to say I don't really see what you're getting at here.
Title: Re: "Internet Warfare"---Measure of Victory
Post by: Servant Corps on August 03, 2009, 07:26:00 pm
While I can sympathize with your picture, the fact remains that these arguments will continue nevertheless. People will still wage "flame wars" over political ideologies. And these wars may be rather important.

Therefore, there needs to be a way to measure which side of an argument is "stronger" than the other. If there is a war, you need to have some sort of objective way of defining the winner. That's simple, isn't it?
Title: Re: "Internet Warfare"---Measure of Victory
Post by: Broose on August 03, 2009, 07:37:37 pm
Conversion should give you like 100 points. I have NEVER seen someone on the internet admit they are wrong and that the other was right. It doesn't happen.
Title: Re: "Internet Warfare"---Measure of Victory
Post by: Cthulhu on August 03, 2009, 07:44:47 pm
I was going to say the same thing.  If you're arguing on the internet, you've probably seen just about every argument against your viewpoint, and no one will be able to change it.
Title: Re: "Internet Warfare"---Measure of Victory
Post by: Zai on August 03, 2009, 08:19:45 pm
Quote from: Servant Corps on August 03, 2009, 07:26:00 pm
And these wars may be rather important.

Are you kidding? Flame wars are never important.

Even if they were, using popularity to decide the "winner" is flawed. People on certain sides of different arguments are more likely to appear on the internet than others. Similarly, people on certain sides of arguments are more likely to appear on one part of the internet than others.

Having the opposition convert to your side is pretty much the only way to decide who the "winner" is. And "conversion" is quite rare on the internet, unless dealing with trolls.
Title: Re: "Internet Warfare"---Measure of Victory
Post by: Leafsnail on August 03, 2009, 08:39:13 pm
Quote from: kinseti on August 03, 2009, 04:59:43 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Which is to say I don't really see what you're getting at here.
It would be better if we could do away with this offensive cliche altogether, really.
Title: Re: "Internet Warfare"---Measure of Victory
Post by: Aqizzar on August 03, 2009, 09:51:32 pm
I can think of at least three times on this forum I've been in an argument with someone and agreed I was wrong when proven so.  Now gimmeh mah points!
Title: Re: "Internet Warfare"---Measure of Victory
Post by: Broose on August 03, 2009, 10:36:56 pm
Quote from: Aqizzar on August 03, 2009, 09:51:32 pm
I can think of at least three times on this forum I've been in an argument with someone and agreed I was wrong when proven so.  Now gimmeh mah points!

Wouldn't that give the other person points? I think you missed something.
Title: Re: "Internet Warfare"---Measure of Victory
Post by: Rilder on August 03, 2009, 10:58:22 pm
Quote from: Broose on August 03, 2009, 10:36:56 pm
Quote from: Aqizzar on August 03, 2009, 09:51:32 pm
I can think of at least three times on this forum I've been in an argument with someone and agreed I was wrong when proven so.  Now gimmeh mah points!

Wouldn't that give the other person points? I think you missed something.

Being able to accept that your wrong about something is worth at least some points.
Title: Re: "Internet Warfare"---Measure of Victory
Post by: Armok on August 04, 2009, 12:27:39 am
Truth is not decided by popularity.
The winner should be the one whit a provably 100% sound argumentation, if both have that, it is a draw until further evidence is acquired or the question is consensually decided to be a matter of opinion, if none have a sound argument the both sides loose.
Title: Re: "Internet Warfare"---Measure of Victory
Post by: Emperor_Jonathan on August 04, 2009, 12:31:25 am
Quote from: Armok on August 04, 2009, 12:27:39 am
Truth is not decided by popularity.
The winner should be the one whit a provably 100% sound argumentation, if both have that, it is a draw until further evidence is acquired or the question is consensually decided to be a matter of opinion, if none have a sound argument the both sides loose.
That's not a debate. You cannot make your opinion 100% sound, because that's just it. It's an opinion, it can be based on facts - and that is what draws people to agree with you - but it doesn't have to be. Then you get into debating life, and other such philosophical questions that do not have answers. Debates are not simply what is X, it's more commonly is X, Y or Z. For example: is abortion right or wrong, you cannot make abortion 100% right or 100% wrong since it's a very personal and opinionated topic.

It's even less so on the internet.
Title: Re: "Internet Warfare"---Measure of Victory
Post by: HAMMERMILL on August 04, 2009, 12:34:00 am
Both sides can come up with solid arguments but things like politics or religion? People are solidly set in their viewpoints and will never "convert" to an opposing viewpoint because some dude on the internet make a good argument for their ideology.

Convincing somebody that buses make more sense to impliment then trains in the USA for mass transportation is likely the most hard-core issue you could reasonably expect to have to convert somebody to your point of view.
Title: Re: "Internet Warfare"---Measure of Victory
Post by: Broose on August 04, 2009, 01:09:03 am
Quote from: HAMMERMILL on August 04, 2009, 12:34:00 am
Both sides can come up with solid arguments but things like politics or religion? People are solidly set in their viewpoints and will never "convert" to an opposing viewpoint because some dude on the internet make a good argument for their ideology.

Convincing somebody that buses make more sense to impliment then trains in the USA for mass transportation is likely the most hard-core issue you could reasonably expect to have to convert somebody to your point of view.

Maybe if this was friendly debate. It is unlikely to even get someone to admit they are wrong on that subject in INTERNET WARFARE.
Title: Re: "Internet Warfare"---Measure of Victory
Post by: Leafsnail on August 04, 2009, 05:55:52 am
I guess it depends.  Some things are opinions.  For instance, "Abortion is wrong" is an opinionated statement, and you may mean "Wrong" in a different way, and have a different definition of "Wrong" to the person you're arguing with.  For this reason, it's possible for both sides to hold valid opinions.

Some debates aren't argued over opinions, but things that are certainly either correct or false ("Obama isn't American", "God exists" etc).  This means that one side will be wrong, even if we can't currently prove one way or the other.
Title: Re: "Internet Warfare"---Measure of Victory
Post by: IndonesiaWarMinister on August 04, 2009, 08:49:29 am
Quote from: Broose on August 04, 2009, 01:09:03 am
Quote from: HAMMERMILL on August 04, 2009, 12:34:00 am
Both sides can come up with solid arguments but things like politics or religion? People are solidly set in their viewpoints and will never "convert" to an opposing viewpoint because some dude on the internet make a good argument for their ideology.

Convincing somebody that buses make more sense to impliment then trains in the USA for mass transportation is likely the most hard-core issue you could reasonably expect to have to convert somebody to your point of view.

Maybe if this was friendly debate. It is unlikely to even get someone to admit they are wrong on that subject in INTERNET WARFARE.


START THE WAR!

GET YOUR GUNS, LOAD THEM WITH BULLETS, MANY MANY BULLETS!

AIM TO THE ENEMY! SHOUT... FIRE!

Title: Re: "Internet Warfare"---Measure of Victory
Post by: HAMMERMILL on August 04, 2009, 09:16:15 am
Productive discussions on the internet never last long. All that can be said, is said logically and quickly and opinions on either side are either changed or reinforced.

Arguments about politics or religion last forever and never accomplish anything. You will not convince an Atheist to pray to The Lord or a Christian to abandon his religion anymore then you will convert Osama bin Laden to Catholicism. You just simply cannot waterboard people with online discussions and that is the major downfall of internet conversations.

Arguing left or right wing political ideology is the same way. Unless you can physically hammer peices of bamboo under a Republican's fingernails, you cannot convince him that Socialist ideology is the way to go. This cannot be accomplished by typing words in a box on a screen, even if you were on the highschool debate team.

Title: Re: "Internet Warfare"---Measure of Victory
Post by: Cheeetar on August 04, 2009, 09:17:36 am
It really depends how deep their beliefs are, and how prepared they are to actually listen to the other person's argument.
Title: Re: "Internet Warfare"---Measure of Victory
Post by: Il Palazzo on August 04, 2009, 09:28:42 am
Adding a poll to a given discussion thread would suffice. E.g. X is right, Y is right. This way you can measure who is more convincing in their argumentation.
While it's very hard to convince the person you're arguing with, it's not necessary the point of the discussion. Public debates are, after all, about two(or more) opposing sides trying to gain support of the audience. Look at the political discussions - you won't make that democrat guy abandon his evil ways and become republican, but you can present your case is such a way as to convince voters to support your party instead of the other one.
Title: Re: "Internet Warfare"---Measure of Victory
Post by: HAMMERMILL on August 04, 2009, 09:34:31 am
Nope, the unpopular minority will just feel alienated and will go even crazier with his ideology, even if he stops arguing.

You cannot even convince a guy that his favorite beer is crappy even it really is crappy and you happen to be an expert on the subject matter. That Bud Light swilling freak will lash out and become even more vicious and loyal with his favorite beer.

Thats just beer. Imagine trying to convince a Muslim that Allah is dead and pork blood is a great condiment to add to oatmeal.
Title: Re: "Internet Warfare"---Measure of Victory
Post by: Il Palazzo on August 04, 2009, 09:37:15 am
You don't convince fanatics(of whatever type), they already found their salvation. You convince the undecided part of the audience. That's where you can measure your "success".
Title: Re: "Internet Warfare"---Measure of Victory
Post by: HAMMERMILL on August 04, 2009, 09:41:16 am
There usually isn't an "unconvinced audience" in an internet discussion. Nobody posts in subjects they don't care about.

A sXe Mormon guy isn't going to care what sort of beer some heathens think is better then the other and a guy that never votes and sees all politics as different colors of the same damn thing is not going to be persuaded either. He will just see it like it is, two groups of fanatics foaming at the mouth at each other.
Title: Re: "Internet Warfare"---Measure of Victory
Post by: Il Palazzo on August 04, 2009, 09:49:28 am
Quote from: HAMMERMILL on August 04, 2009, 09:41:16 am
There usually isn't an "unconvinced audience" in an internet discussion. Nobody posts in subjects they don't care about.
I beg to disagree. There's a distinction between "not caring about the subject" and "not having formed an opinion about the subject". The former are not your audience, the later are there to convince.
Title: Re: "Internet Warfare"---Measure of Victory
Post by: Servant Corps on August 04, 2009, 10:30:55 am
Quote
I can think of at least three times on this forum I've been in an argument with someone and agreed I was wrong when proven so.  Now gimmeh mah points![/quot]

Did you concede to the other side entirely, or did you only concede away a minor point while the main argument continue? Conceding away a minor point does not count as "conversion", you'll need to agree totally with the other side. I suppose a concession is important to have though, because if someone admits that they are wrong, that does score as an important tactical victory.

Quote
Being able to accept that your wrong about something is worth at least some points.

I'm not that sure. If you accept that you are wrong, you are giving in to somebody else's worldview. It might make sense logically, but it might not make sense in an online argument where you have to persuade people that you're right.

Quote
Adding a poll to a given discussion thread would suffice. E.g. X is right, Y is right. This way you can measure who is more convincing in their argumentation.

Well, polls could measure how many Active Lurkers they are, however, people who vote in polls may not read the thread in question and only put in their own flaws. Plus, polls could be biased for one side or another, and could easily lead to problems.

UPDATED SCORE CARD
Debate Score Card
1) "Real" Active Debater: +10 Points
2) "Real" Active Lurker: +5 Points
3) Concession During the Argument: +20 Points
4) Conversion During the Argument: +100 Points
Title: Re: "Internet Warfare"---Measure of Victory
Post by: Ciber_Ninja on August 16, 2009, 10:12:30 am
Quote from: HAMMERMILL on August 04, 2009, 09:16:15 am
Arguments about politics or religion last forever Agree and never accomplish anything yep . You will not convince an Atheist to pray to The Lord or a Christian to abandon his religion If you can come up for with solid evidence that god exists you have a convert from me but dont expect me to go to church. You just simply cannot waterboard people somebody should invent a punch in the face utility for the internet online discussions are the major downfall of internet conversations.



Title: Re: "Internet Warfare"---Measure of Victory
Post by: a1s on September 01, 2009, 06:56:46 pm
Quote from: Servant Corps on August 04, 2009, 10:30:55 am
Quote
Being able to accept that your wrong about something is worth at least some points.
I'm not that sure. If you accept that you are wrong, you are giving in to somebody else's worldview. It might make sense logically, but it might not make sense in an online argument where you have to persuade people that you're right.
Actually, since debate is a team sport, a full conversion doesn't just give arbitrary points away, it earns points for your new team. (and by extension to you.  ;))

Speaking of points, the proof of eating, as they say is in the pudding. Would you care to tally up a score so far?
Title: Re: "Internet Warfare"---Measure of Victory
Post by: Squeegy on September 01, 2009, 07:11:03 pm
DOHOHOH, A DEBATE IN A THREAD ABOUT DEBATE.
Title: Re: "Internet Warfare"---Measure of Victory
Post by: Servant Corps on September 01, 2009, 07:16:09 pm
Quote from: a1s on September 01, 2009, 06:56:46 pm
Quote from: Servant Corps on August 04, 2009, 10:30:55 am
Quote
Being able to accept that your wrong about something is worth at least some points.
I'm not that sure. If you accept that you are wrong, you are giving in to somebody else's worldview. It might make sense logically, but it might not make sense in an online argument where you have to persuade people that you're right.
Actually, since debate is a team sport, a full conversion doesn't just give arbitrary points away, it earns points for your new team. (and by extension to you.  ;))

Speaking of points, the proof of eating, as they say is in the pudding. Would you care to tally up a score so far?

Hm. Let me look at some other debate topic, and see if I can tally stuff.
Title: Re: "Internet Warfare"---Measure of Victory
Post by: a1s on September 03, 2009, 03:33:01 pm
Quote from: Servant Corps on September 01, 2009, 07:16:09 pm
Hm. Let me look at some other debate topic, and see if I can tally stuff.
I'm assuming no suitable topic was found? We could always just make our own test flame war (with controlled burn, as it were :) )
Title: Re: "Internet Warfare"---Measure of Victory
Post by: Servant Corps on September 03, 2009, 11:47:00 pm
Nah, no staged arguments yet. I'll just find some topic and look at it soon. I just don't have time at the moment, since I got other things to worry about.
Title: Re: "Internet Warfare"---Measure of Victory
Post by: Enzo on September 04, 2009, 12:59:32 am
Ooh, ooh! Use this one (http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=34795.0)! Nothing bad could possibly come from arbitrarily declaring a winner in that debate!
Title: Re: "Internet Warfare"---Measure of Victory
Post by: Neruz on September 04, 2009, 04:08:53 am
Aw, i thought this was going to be some sort of crazy game idea.
Title: Re: "Internet Warfare"---Measure of Victory
Post by: Vester on September 04, 2009, 04:21:52 am
I don't know why that thread still lives.

People have been trying to kill it for a long time (via derailment).