Slashdot Mirror

If you want to shift the debate at issue on the fly, look at debatepoint.com, it lets you shift the point under debate as a basic function. However, issues tend to stabilize based on certain principles people think are important and persistent briefings on issues are important.

So once you have gone over the issues a few times you may discover you have to stabilize them into something like an openpolitics.ca type issue statement. If you want to do this on American issues right now try looking at the FrameShop methods from dkosopedia. Looks like it's based on the George Lakoff model. The issue organizing is from work dating back to the 1970s.

However, there are asshats there too. For instance, people just trying to enforce neutral naming conventions have actually been blocked by jerks who think they "own" pages or issues and can control their presentation. How such people are mistakenly given sysop powers on a political site, hard to say, but all such sites have growing pains.

There are also pretty serious biases just because of American media and the people who participate in English. It's hard to find a single political service in America where you can question Zionist occupation of Palestine without some form of harassment and exclusion by technical means. In Arabic of course it would be the other way around. Probably you have to debate in French to get anything like a neutral treatment of that issue, and the French would have strong feelings on things like Algeria and Lebanon. In any political site the systemic biases of who participates are going to rule what is said. Any "majority rule" system like rankings will drive off any minority however outspoken. So most of what is done on commercial sites and in software like slash just doesn't cut it.

While still being groupthink, I've developed an open-source (Affero GPL) and open-content (GFDL) website at debatepoint.com that is a more democratic means of deliberation than wiki's. With moderation like slashdot, I would think points would be argued over in a manner like science.. the ability to falsify or approve of arguments. The few people with the bright ideas would be moderated up and falsify their parent argument, which in turn effects the validity of the grandparent, etc. It's still not ready for heavy usage, but try out one of the debates on the front page or in my sig for an example.

'The right to freedom of expression does not imply the right to offend religious beliefs.'

It _is_ protected free speech. However, the speaker can be held accountable for any results of the speech.

-metric

New religious discussion site.

God Exists: 9% support

-metric

This isn't an argument.

-metric

'teach evolution instead of creationism'

currently dead even at 50%

metric

Larry mentions the lack of enforceable government in wikipedia. This seems like a good time to mention the website I'm working on: debatepoint.com. It could represent the judicial branch of such a government. I would consider the source code of the website its constitution. The computer isn't going to become corrupt unless there is something wrong with the code. Administrators should vow not to bypass the code in order to modify the data.

-metric

There is no God

you can debate it here, or just moderate other's arguments.

-metric

You are making very good arguments, and it is a shame this is so deep in some unknown thread on slashdot that nobody will read.

Rather than replying to your post here, I'm going to move my arguments to a more appropriate forum for debate:
government is worse than corporations

-metric

I guess the question is, can one really play that game at all?

Tough question, I have an idea! Lets Debate It!

how could you setup something akin to a formal debate in the form of a web forum?

I didn't want to release it yet,
so please don't kill it:

example:'The "two party" system is bad for the US.'

it really isn't ready, but I'm actively working on it.

-metric