Suggestion for Layth and Mods : Moderated Debates
-
Peace mquran n all,
I would like to see this work also, however, I don't think creating a separate section will help any. Mainly because the debates may or may not be restricted to a particular topic which we already have. If I understood mquran's suggestion correctly (and I must say I'm still a wee bit confused as to where the lines of censorship and free speech are drawn, that is, other than the already existing rules for the board) we could create a thread in a specific section of the board pertaining to the debate at hand. Granted. This particular thread can be arranged through any of the mods by the parties involved, for the sake of argument Debate about a contradiction on one verse and another between X and Y This topic will be raised by the 2 members and they would have agreed on the subject. They contact a mod/admin to start. A thread is created with one or 2 posts from the above mentioned, and then locked. When it's X or Y's turn to reply then the same is posted and again locked.
Am I off so far? Did you want others to participate in the said debate? Coz this is where it got a little fuzzy for me. confused If others are allowed to participate, won't it go back to the same thing where someone can choose to genuinely reply a line from a previous post and slowly the thread deviates from the subject? I'm not talking about intentional going-off-tangents, or making fun, or simply disrupting the threads for the sake of it.
Another thing I wasn't sure of is, if the mods are to determine whether Y answered X's question or not, wouldn't there be a point where Y could cry foul and say the mod was biased because we know his/her beliefs conforms with X? Again I'm not talking about someone just saying that coz they're losing the debate or something, some could actually feel that way. AB mentioned a debate where he would choose some 2 'judges' on his side and would allow the other party to choose their 2 'judges' also... I'm not sure how that would work also, but it probably does give both parties some kind of a fall back system? If you're confused, I am too. D
Please clarify those points for me, and I'm sure we can come to a solution. ) As mquran mentioned, time would not be a huge factor. The thread would be locked until a reasonable response from the concerned members is available. The thread would be a 'sticky' so that it doesn't sink into the forgotten pages just because someone took 3 days to reply.
Any more suggestions/clarifications would be highly appreciated.
Peace!
-
Peace Zein, all
I would like to see this work also, however, I don't think creating a separate section will help any. Mainly because the debates may or may not be restricted to a particular topic which we already have.
Contradictions et al section Vs. Health & Fitness section?!? Sacrilege!
This particular thread can be arranged through any of the mods by the parties involved, for the sake of argument Debate about a contradiction on one verse and another between X and Y This topic will be raised by the 2 members and they would have agreed on the subject. They contact a mod/admin to start. A thread is created with one or 2 posts from the above mentioned, and then locked. When it's X or Y's turn to reply then the same is posted and again locked.
I agree, sounds good, or maybe the thread is just reserved for them and any other replies are deleted to ensure ease of posting?
Am I off so far? Did you want others to participate in the said debate? Coz this is where it got a little fuzzy for me. If others are allowed to participate, won't it go back to the same thing where someone can choose to genuinely reply a line from a previous post and slowly the thread deviates from the subject? I'm not talking about intentional going-off-tangents, or making fun, or simply disrupting the threads for the sake of it.
I think that this can only be implemented with two people with opposing viewpoints who want a modded debate.
Another thing I wasn't sure of is, if the mods are to determine whether Y answered X's question or not, wouldn't there be a point where Y could cry foul and say the mod was biased because we know his/her beliefs conforms with X? Again I'm not talking about someone just saying that coz they're losing the debate or something, some could actually feel that way. AB mentioned a debate where he would choose some 2 'judges' on his side and would allow the other party to choose their 2 'judges' also... I'm not sure how that would work also, but it probably does give both parties some kind of a fall back system? If you're confused, I am too.
Very good point you raise. I was thinking about this too. It's kinda confusing. I mean in a modded debate I would probabaly choose judges I know are going to be impartial...but in any given issue crying foul will always be there. I think by giving actual facts for why the question wasn't answered would take care of this. If those facts are going to be contested, we can always have another thread for that. I seriously think though that the members having the debate must accept the judgement of the judges they choose, but then they would only accept that of the judges they themselves choose...God...what are we going to do? Maybe the judges should be anonymous to the other party, so that they can't say that it's because they believe in so and so that they are doing this, instead rely more on what they write and counter those facts.
-
I kind of agree with your idea mquran. I think all that our discussions need is a bit more maturity in handling sensitive issues like the contradictions in the quran.
The problem with your suggestion is that on this forum, because people aren't talking face to face or even at the same time, it is sometimes hard to determine what someone is trying to say exactly.Well, I have personally tried to field questions to clarify the person's points further but this has rarely been effective. The reason for this is, some people on this forum aren't interested in the responses to their views. Rather, they're interested in validating their views i.e. how anachronistic al-quraan is, how we dont need it, how its internally contradictory.
So sometimes one thinks that he/she has answered another's question.
This is how moderators will be useful.
So basically, we should try to be as clear, concise, and mature in our posts as possible. And give the other person a chance to explain themselves.
We can have much more productive debates if people can keep their emotions out of their posts.If they're interested in explaining themselves, that might work.
-
Peace mquran n all,
I would like to see this work also, however, I don't think creating a separate section will help any. Mainly because the debates may or may not be restricted to a particular topic which we already have.
Ok. Where the debates take place isn't of the utmost importance.
If I understood mquran's suggestion correctly (and I must say I'm still a wee bit confused as to where the lines of censorship and free speech are drawn, that is, other than the already existing rules for the board) we could create a thread in a specific section of the board pertaining to the debate at hand. Granted. This particular thread can be arranged through any of the mods by the parties involved, for the sake of argument Debate about a contradiction on one verse and another between X and Y This topic will be raised by the 2 members and they would have agreed on the subject. They contact a mod/admin to start. A thread is created with one or 2 posts from the above mentioned, and then locked. When it's X or Y's turn to reply then the same is posted and again locked.
Even better. That would prevent answer modifications which has been used nefariously by certain people to induce the 'moving target' tactic.
Am I off so far? Did you want others to participate in the said debate? Coz this is where it got a little fuzzy for me. confused If others are allowed to participate, won't it go back to the same thing where someone can choose to genuinely reply a line from a previous post and slowly the thread deviates from the subject? I'm not talking about intentional going-off-tangents, or making fun, or simply disrupting the threads for the sake of it.
Perhaps a paralell thread could be created for others who wish to comment. After all, this is not a wrestling contest but a contest to determine truth. My intention of suggesting this is to subvert the dirty tactics used by certain people to divert the intention of this forum. If this forum promotes 'islam based on god alone' and 'islam' is 'fully detailed in the quran', then ipso facto, this forum supports the quran. Can or should this forum allow people to come in wantonly and accuse al-quraan of this , that and other without justifying their claims? In my opinion, it should not.
Another thing I wasn't sure of is, if the mods are to determine whether Y answered X's question or not, wouldn't there be a point where Y could cry foul and say the mod was biased because we know his/her beliefs conforms with X?
Then Y should go to another forum where the mods support him. In a Quranic legislature, there'll be lots of people crying foul but if their behaviour is unquranic, they shouldn't be there.
Again I'm not talking about someone just saying that coz they're losing the debate or something, some could actually feel that way. AB mentioned a debate where he would choose some 2 'judges' on his side and would allow the other party to choose their 2 'judges' also... I'm not sure how that would work also, but it probably does give both parties some kind of a fall back system? If you're confused, I am too. D
2 judges ? The job isn't to judge but to ensure the questions are answered. This is the problem, zenje. The problem are not the accusations themselves at all. Some of us here have spent a lot of time studying the Quran to see if there really are contradictions so they'd probably not appreciate others coming and doing 'hit and runs' and refusing to answer. All that's needed is the assurance that questions are answered or the admission that the person cannot answer the question.
Please clarify those points for me, and I'm sure we can come to a solution. ) As mquran mentioned, time would not be a huge factor. The thread would be locked until a reasonable response from the concerned members is available. The thread would be a 'sticky' so that it doesn't sink into the forgotten pages just because someone took 3 days to reply.
Good idea, the versatility of these pages can be put to good use. Many thanks for your response.
-
Peace mquran,
Can or should this forum allow people to come in wantonly and accuse al-quraan of this , that and other without justifying their claims? In my opinion, it should not...
what would you accept as justification? Even Atheists are invited here to examine the god alone islam, therefore its basis, the quran the book. For instance, if I find contradictory "women and men have similar rights but men are a degree above them" what kind of justification do you want? the key word is "but" = similar rights or not? This it's just an example, I have read a lot of explanations, so I am not asking you to exaplain this but to tell me what kind of justification you would want.
-
Elenawhat would you accept as justification? Even Atheists are invited here to examine the god alone islam, therefore its basis, the quran the book. For instance, if I find contradictory "women and men have similar rights but men are a degree above them" what kind of justification do you want? the key word is "but" = similar rights or not? This it's just an example, I have read a lot of explanations, so I am not asking you to exaplain this but to tell me what kind of justification you would want.
Justification here would include verses from al-quraan or customs practised by humankind.
-
Peace mq and thanks for the clrifications... much bettah! ;D
The only thing left to do is actually have a moderated debate. I especially like the parallel thread idea.
Contact any of the mods or myself and, let's get it on!
PS - Can we say 2 or 4 (2 vs 2) participants on one subject?
-
PS - Can we say 2 or 4 (2 vs 2) participants on one subject?
and what are the rest of us supposed to do?
I'm not liking this whole moderated debate idea. We don't need it. We shouldn't need it. And I don't want it.What moderators should do is delete posts that are off topic or contain too much drama and little else or at least warn the user. That's all.
This forum has been working really well for every type of debate (much better than others) except the "contradictions" thread, where i think people got too emotional (on both sides).
Give that debate another chance without changing anything, and see what happens.
-
and what are the rest of us supposed to do?
??? This is for people who agree to a moderated debate from both sides, it's not a normal forum debate. The rest can do what they normally do and/or discuss it in parallel threads if they must.I'm not liking this whole moderated debate idea. We don't need it. We shouldn't need it. And I don't want it.
We do need it in some cases, these are the cases that will actually go in for it.This forum has been working really well for every type of debate (much better than others) except the "contradictions" thread, where i think people got too emotional (on both sides).
No, there have been a lot of debates in the past where it could have been used with far better results and less frustration. No doubt there are going to be a lot of topics that can use this form of debate in the future as well.Give that debate another chance without changing anything, and see what happens.
I commend your optimism. I really don't share it because I've seen the patterns most forums go through inclusive of this one. It doesn't change much. Some of it depends on the kind of people one is debating tbh. Some play fair and some play dirty. This is against the rules of fair debate and these rules should be enforced if need be. -
Why don't we create a section for moderated debates?
Now if we had a critical examination section, we could have had a category for moderated debates in it...otherwise, another seperate section will have to do I guess. Peace.
-
Peace mq and thanks for the clrifications... much bettah!
And thank you for your attention.
The only thing left to do is actually have a moderated debate. I especially like the parallel thread idea.
Contact any of the mods or myself and, let's get it on!Allow me to formulate the phrases and contact the person first. Once he agrees, we will then get in touch.
PS - Can we say 2 or 4 (2 vs 2) participants on one subject?
Wow, its getting to be like badminton or tennis now! Or you could think of it like so, all the people for or against are at liberty to contact the representative party to add in their points at the appropriate juncture.
-
Phoenixand what are the rest of us supposed to do?
I'm not liking this whole moderated debate idea. We don't need it. We shouldn't need it. And I don't want it.You could contribute to the side you believe in.
I don't prefer a moderated debate idea either but disagreeing with you, I think we need it. We owe the newcomers to the forum a right view as to the capabilities of al-quraan in the field of discourse. If they came and saw how al-quraan is being disparaged and how any attempt to defend it is being obfuscated, they would get the exact idea the detractors are trying to propagate.
What moderators should do is delete posts that are off topic or contain too much drama and little else or at least warn the user. That's all.
You would need a professional moderator for that.
-
Peace all. Just for clarification,this phrase 'for or against'....Is this like bushes' 'youre either with us or against us'? .....In a positive critical discussion do we have to start off from 'specific representative parties',and 'entrenched positions'? And is there going to be 'branding',jingoism,and sectarianism in these discussions....Or critical study of the quran?....If people just want to defend their books from faith,or subjective means,then i dont see a lot being achieved....unless people are brave and open-minded enough to handle some home-truths..... elektro
Peace all. ps; no offense to the moderators,but they have not even addressed the jaxal/dq/banning issues with the other members of the forum....You really expect moderated debates to be 'impartial' and competent.....(im not saying the moderators are corrupt or intentionally bad,but i dont think they have the time or professionalism to moderate effectively....If they prove me wrong,i will apologise and stand corrected. ) -
Enquirereace all. Just for clarification,this phrase 'for or against'....Is this like bushes' 'youre either with us or against us'? .....
One is 'for and against' , the other is 'with and against' . You needn't be 'for' a thing in order to be 'with' a thing. I'm not for giving drunks 'curative measures of alcohol' as part of my taxes, but I do it anyway, so i'm 'with' it.
In a positive critical discussion do we have to start off from 'specific representative parties',and 'entrenched positions'?
This is a DEBATE so that people who claim certain things (like the quran doesnt have bla bla bla, as I recall one chap crowing some weeks ago) will have to prove their points and not use the forum as a place for verbal defacation.
And is there going to be 'branding',jingoism,and sectarianism in these discussions....Or critical study of the quran?
Or for that matter, dirty 'hit and run' tactician? People who come in with full of slogans but refuse to entertain even simple questions. We can't have such losers, you're right.
....If people just want to defend their books from faith,or subjective means,then i dont see a lot being achieved....unless people are brave and open-minded enough to handle some home-truths.....
You wouldn't see a lot being achieved because your goal is the dismantling of al-quraan and your ill-fated attempt in the contradiction thread, I can see why you're not relishing the idea that your answers will be checked for relevance ) . As for being brave, I think the first person who needs your advice is yourself and then Lote-Tree and Danish. You three have been coming and peddling your ideologies but think yourselves too high-and-mighty to respond to us religious plebs.
-
Enquirereace all. Just for clarification,this phrase 'for or against'....Is this like bushes' 'youre either with us or against us'? .....
One is 'for and against' , the other is 'with and against' . You needn't be 'for' a thing in order to be 'with' a thing. I'm not for giving drunks 'curative measures of alcohol' as part of my taxes, but I do it anyway, so i'm 'with' it.peace mquran,
i think what enquirer meant was that there shouldn't be 2 FIXED positions. For or against.It isn't always black and white, so I think everyone should be able to post their understanding without having to worry about where they stand.
Also agree with enquirer (kind of) that the purpose of the debates shouldn't be defending the Quran, but acquiring a better understanding of what it says and what it is.
-
Peace mquran. I guessed rightly you had a hidden agenda when you suggested these moderated debates....Male intuition......or should i say revelation...
Your subjective opinion may suggest 'hit and run'....but i try to discuss when there is some benefit in the discussion,where the discussion isnt personalised,and when there is some civility,or compatibility in the discussion...If you feel thats dishonest or running,then thats your subjective opinion....No offense but i dont think there are many who are open-minded enough to even entertain a constructive debate about the quran....just as some sunnis cannot debate about hadith without being emotional,or some christians cannot debate about jesus' exclusive divinity without getting irrational/emotional etc....I think you underestimate the fact that there are very valid arguments against a lot of 'quranic' understandings'... In your discussions on the forum with AB,you guys are barely civil,and are often not constructive....You think i want to waste my time with baseless argumentation?... You seem a very intelligent guy from your posts,but i think some of this intelligence is mis-directed.... I dont see why you have a burning need to prove the quran to be 'infallible'?....Why dont you follow its goood advices instead? I notice that a lot of people here just use whatever interpretation suits them,or their intellect/current mindset.......thats very subjective....I dont have too much problem with people doing that,but then allow others the liberty of their 'subjective' opinions too.
For the record,im not into post-mordernism or moral relativism....The closest you can get to pigeon-holing me is a 'humanist'...
Peace all. Ps;i wish you peace,no hard feelings...Just gotta say it like it is sometimes. )
