StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I've used the thread title created by fgalkin in the Imperial Senate for ease of reference and relativity.

According to fgalkin, there is currently four volunteers so far for 'troll actors' (myself included) in regards to the potential idea of orchestrating 'fake debates' as a form of entertainment and education for the board's users.

Said actors would take unfavorable/incorrect positions and argue them to the best of their ability against whomever wishes to take the hero's role.

In the interest of keeping this idea on the burner, are there any other individuals interested in this?

While we're on the issue, any ideas on what would make good topics to try out for this activity? How about suggestions on limitations for the actors; for example, how racist/intolerant and derogatory could a pleb be as the volunteer victim, since everyone would know that their position is an outright fake one?

One of my first suggestions would be that any volunteer actors for the positions shouldn't be just playing the part of a clueless idiot. Effort should extend beyond mere gibberish and bad spelling skills (assuming this would be acceptable for said actor). The main goal should be to actually try to argue the position as much as possible; make the logical fallacies as difficult as possible to point out and genuinely try to challenge the logical position and at least make some work out of the arguement.

I think an ideal situation is if actors could introduce arguements and angles that aren't just recycling of old garbage arguements. Perhaps a tall order, but certainly worth a try at any rate.

I could probably do it fairly well; I'm experienced in debating against people who take issues that don't often come up around here (Confederate apologism being a perennial favorite in a couple of my haunts), so I could bring fresh material if that's what's needed.

I personally would love to take up a pro Intelligent Design position, since it's one of my favored topics. I'm under the impression I could possibly throw out a couple of arguements for it that would be difficult to pin down. Unless of course I got victimized by a true pro, I suppose.

Also, I'd be very interested in seeing how such a debate would go. Presumeably the actors in question should be more logically minded/educated than your typical trolls, and thus should be more effective at trying to spot weak points and create arguements, however fictitiously.

Hmm. This may make good Coliseum fodder.

Dalton wrote:Hmm. This may make good Coliseum fodder.

Yes, it certainly seems likely, and it would really be as entertaining as hell, unlike Voluntaryist, who was boring.

I would be happy to debate either side on quite a number of issues, regardless of my personal views (I was in a high school debate club where we were required to do this). Schedual permitting, of course.

I don't think I'd want to do many science topics though, due to pure lack of knowledge. If the point is to set up good debates where the individual defending the unfavorable or unpopular position still tries to make a good fight out of it, then as an art student with only a high school-level math education, I am obviously not a good choice for science debates in general.

Actually, that makes you perfect for science debates! Many of the classic trolls bluffed about their personal credentials or knowledge. There is also several aesthetic fallacies that you can pull that would make you appear even more ludicrous when its revealed by the Horseman. And that is not getting into the numerous forms of the wall of ignorance! Selling yourself short, man!

Formless wrote:Actually, that makes you perfect for science debates! Many of the classic trolls bluffed about their personal credentials or knowledge. There is also several aesthetic fallacies that you can pull that would make you appear even more ludicrous when its revealed by the Horseman. And that is not getting into the numerous forms of the wall of ignorance! Selling yourself short, man!

Well I was looking at this from the point of view of having a good debate on a topic that would not normally be covered, and trying to defend the topic to the best of my abillities. However, if you want demonstrations of fallacies by someone ignorant of a topic, then yes I can probably do that for science debates .

I would rather 'train' the horsemen by asking them to constantly flame or hammer down the other side, when the horsemen is arguing against his personal stand.

ray245 wrote:I would rather 'train' the horsemen by asking them to constantly flame or hammer down the other side, when the horsemen is arguing against his personal stand.

The whole idea is that the Horsemen already know how to flame.

Ace Pace wrote:

ray245 wrote:I would rather 'train' the horsemen by asking them to constantly flame or hammer down the other side, when the horsemen is arguing against his personal stand.

The whole idea is that the Horsemen already know how to flame.

It is much harder to flame a person supporting your personal stance.

Really though, a good debator shouldn't have to troll in many cases just because they're arguing the weaker side. Every debator makes mistakes, and those mistakes can be exploited even if their position is stronger.

Just one question if these debates take place outside of the coliseum (or even in) are these volunteers going be debating under their names or are they going to make sock puppets so we don't know that they're doing this on purpose?

Kartr_Kana wrote:Just one question if these debates take place outside of the coliseum (or even in) are these volunteers going be debating under their names or are they going to make sock puppets so we don't know that they're doing this on purpose?

That seems needless. If we do that, people won't know when a real troll comes along.

Kartr_Kana wrote:Just one question if these debates take place outside of the coliseum (or even in) are these volunteers going be debating under their names or are they going to make sock puppets so we don't know that they're doing this on purpose?

Part of the idea of this activity is that it demostrates debating skills on both ends for educational purposes. If one of the troll actors actually brings up interesting angles or arguements, surely they'd want the credit for at least creatively challenging the debate.

Besides, one of the primary issues I think that still needs to be addressed is some basic ground rules, which could be flexible per topic. For example, if the topic is one that is argueably a sensitive or heated one, how far can the 'troll' go in terms of remarks or arguements?

My initial thought is that a lot of slack could be cut for the user, since their position is a false one, but we don't want to offend anyone either even if the comments are understood to be false.

However, a good troll actor shouldn't be concerned primarily with insults or appearing stupid. We get that enough with your genuine trolls; what we want is intelligent counter arguements that require the logical side to at least give some thought on how to point out their flaws.

Ideally everyone gets some experience and education on any particular topic, with possibly new arguements and positions refining the current knowledge of the correct/moral position.

Part of the idea of this activity is that it demostrates debating skills on both ends for educational purposes. If one of the troll actors actually brings up interesting angles or arguements, surely they'd want the credit for at least creatively challenging the debate.

If someone was bringing up decent arguments, would they qualify as a troll? Perhaps the terminology being used here is confusing.

Besides, one of the primary issues I think that still needs to be addressed is some basic ground rules, which could be flexible per topic. For example, if the topic is one that is argueably a sensitive or heated one, how far can the 'troll' go in terms of remarks or arguements?

If your thinking of things like hate speech, any really extreme remarks are covered by the word "illegal".

My initial thought is that a lot of slack could be cut for the user, since their position is a false one, but we don't want to offend anyone either even if the comments are understood to be false.

Possibly relax rules regarding fallacies/proper debating, but not the rules regarding flaming?

However, a good troll actor shouldn't be concerned primarily with insults or appearing stupid. We get that enough with your genuine trolls; what we want is intelligent counter arguements that require the logical side to at least give some thought on how to point out their flaws.

In which case it is incorrect to say they are acting like a troll.

Ideally everyone gets some experience and education on any particular topic, with possibly new arguements and positions refining the current knowledge of the correct/moral position.

That last bit is bothering me. In setting up these debates, are we going to be effectively declaring in advance that one position is the morally correct one? I understand that in some cases its obvious, but I don't feel comfortable with setting the precident of officially declaring that certain positions are the morally correct ones on SDN. Now if something is scientific fact, that's another matter.

The Romulan Republic wrote:If someone was bringing up decent arguments, would they qualify as a troll? Perhaps the terminology being used here is confusing.

You're right, the term 'trolls' probably doesn't suit what is actually being discussed. "Devil's Advocate" would be more appropiate I'd think.

If your thinking of things like hate speech, any really extreme remarks are covered by the word "illegal".

Well, I wasn't by any means suggesting going that far.

Possibly relax rules regarding fallacies/proper debating, but not the rules regarding flaming?

Sounds about right to me.

In which case it is incorrect to say they are acting like a troll.

True enough...

That last bit is bothering me. In setting up these debates, are we going to be effectively declaring in advance that one position is the morally correct one? I understand that in some cases its obvious, but I don't feel comfortable with setting the precident of officially declaring that certain positions are the morally correct ones on SDN. Now if something is scientific fact, that's another matter.

Point taken, morality is subjective. I was aiming more for 'logically justifiable morality'.

That said...

I'd like to officially volunteer for either an abortion pro-life or pro Intelligent Design stance, with a preference for the latter if anyone is interested in commencing such a debate if and when the system is in place for it.

Bubble Boy wrote:I personally would love to take up a pro Intelligent Design position, since it's one of my favored topics. I'm under the impression I could possibly throw out a couple of arguements for it that would be difficult to pin down. Unless of course I got victimized by a true pro, I suppose.

Also, I'd be very interested in seeing how such a debate would go. Presumeably the actors in question should be more logically minded/educated than your typical trolls, and thus should be more effective at trying to spot weak points and create arguements, however fictitiously.

*waves hand*

I would enjoy taking you up on that with a certain... fanatical zeal.

And actually wouldnt mind playing internet troll as well if the situation calls for it.

Dalton wrote:Hmm. This may make good Coliseum fodder.

If by which you mean "let them earn the title in the Coliseum" I agree wholeheartedly.

I'd be happy to play a CCP apologist troll (who, ironically enough, also fully supports a return to Imperial China, beause Emperors are the best). I'm even willing to insist that Mao did no wrong if that's necessary for me to sound truly trollish.

Alyrium Denryle wrote:*waves hand*

I would enjoy taking you up on that with a certain... fanatical zeal.

Bring it! I went and bought my fundie hat already.

Seriously though, assuming there's a board go ahead for the idea, I'd be glad to 'debate' you as a pro Intelligent Designer, Alyrium.

Just remember I already know I'm working with something of a limited bucket of logic in that corner.

You guys want to be our first (probably only) Coliseum match for December, then? Say, a nice Holiday Special? (I said "Holiday" because I am in the War on Christmas this year).

Can we have a go-date by Pearl Harbor Day-- start dropping bombs on December 7th?

Lusankya wrote:I'd be happy to play a CCP apologist troll (who, ironically enough, also fully supports a return to Imperial China, beause Emperors are the best). I'm even willing to insist that Mao did no wrong if that's necessary for me to sound truly trollish.

As it's been pointed out, 'troll' may be a bit misleading on what we would expect of our 'actors'. A think the term 'Devil's Advocate' would be more applicable, since I would sincerely expect board members in decent standing to be more intelligent and educated.

We could even call the group "The DA's".

Anyone interested in drafting a basic guideline of how such a debate would proceed?

One thought I've had is that the 'actor' in question would be the one to obviously go first, making their arguement that would get the ball rolling.

Perhaps a time and/or post limit, to ensure that things don't just go in circles. Although naturally we would expect that would be avoided by the very nature of the activity.

We could inject some fun into the idea as well; for example, making an official 'disclaimer' every actor must recite to ensure they are, in fact, not really holding this position personally.

Coyote wrote:You guys want to be our first (probably only) Coliseum match for December, then? Say, a nice Holiday Special? (I said "Holiday" because I am in the War on Christmas this year).

Can we have a go-date by Pearl Harbor Day-- start dropping bombs on December 7th?

I'm all for that, assuming Alyrium's schedule permits and the basic setup of how to proceed is worked out (ie: those in charge give the go ahead).

We could even call the group "The DA's".

How about "The Devils Lawers?" seems to describe the group a lot better to me!