Debates (The Duels)

Rachel Richardson said:Here it is.
How would you even punish this?🍿

Yeah, that’s the dilemma. Do you punish them, or just hit back just as hard?

One way to handle this is just to declare it "What kind of controversy is this?(The Duelists)—those kinds of things used to make the front page back in the day. She deserves a different set of rules entirely. If you want some inspiration, just look at the wreckage left behind by that famous public feud between George Saunders and John Updike back in 2006.

Here’s how Saunders writes about Updike in the New York Times Quote. New York Times 😁

Updike claims he recognized himself as a "clunky, sweaty mass" among the "liberal American intellectuals" in my piece. If I were actually forced to say anything about Updike, I wouldn't recognize a liberal in him even if I were tripping on hallucinogens. Updike is just a pathetic fascist. And calling him an intellectual? Please. He’s a career parasite. I would never use metaphors like "clunky, sweaty mass" to describe his spiritual or moral character—that would be an exaggeration, or at least an awkward way to describe someone's physical appearance, which I wouldn't do even if Updike were perfect in every other way. If I actually wanted to say something about him, and felt like using a metaphor, I’d just call him a massive idiot. In any conversation about Updike, that part of him carries more weight than his head.

This is something out of Updike, too. New York Times

The fundamental issue—the fact that Chicago can never be Boston, nor even remotely resemble it—points toward a possible way to read why Saunders constantly brings up Houellebecq's mother. It’s clearly just his own projection. To Saunders, the liberal American intellectuals are all to blame because he failed to find a maternal figure in a city where one simply doesn't exist. No wonder he always feels like an outsider there.

Should we allow these kinds of duels here or not? If we do, then the rules have to change. No bans, and no more thirsty comments from sidekicks... 😉 Ridley Scott’s *The Duelists* is actually a brilliant, inspiring piece of cinema in that regard. The Duelists. 🙂

Look, you can obviously refuse a duel. Any further provocation would just be asking for sanctions. I'm just sketching out how this works. 🙂

Scott Long71 said:Yes, it’s a dilemma—whether to issue a penalty or simply meet force with force.

One option is to frame this as a "polemic" (essentially a duel), much like the ones used to be waged in newspapers. Such an approach would require an entirely different set of rules. For inspiration, one might look at the remains of that rather famous public feud between George Saunders and John Updike back in 2006.

Here is how Saunders writes about Updike in the New York Times

And here is a bit more from Updike in the New York Times

The question is whether we should allow such duels here or not. If we do, then different rules apply—no red cards, no jumping in as a second... 😉 In that regard, Ridley Scott’s brilliant film—The Duelists—is quite inspiring. 🙂

Of course, a duel can be declined, and any further provocation after that refusal would be subject to sanction. Just sketching out a thought. 🙂

An interesting concept.
To my mind, the key lies in establishing clear rules and boundaries regarding what is tolerated.
Every boundary represents a different tier of engagement.

As I previously noted in the thread regarding self-censorship, the problem with forums (generally speaking, not just this one) always seems to lie with the other party.
It often happens when someone drifts in from the outside—someone completely unexpected, operating on a totally different frequency—making communication impossible.
Naturally, everyone perceives that outsider differently.

The most civilized way to handle it is through ignoring them. However, the issue arises when the same behavior persists over a long period.

A constructive conflict might resolve things in certain instances, though I am not convinced we fall into that category.

Sometimes, perhaps, it is acceptable to mentally "defeat" someone just to establish a boundary. But I wonder if it’s truly worth it—we risk descending back into dealing with toxic and frustrated personalities.

Besides, even an arena like that shifts the focus away from our goal of a pleasant atmosphere; I wouldn't be surprised if those who were "defeated" ended up wanting a rematch. 🤣

If we go down this road, I suggest a title with a US flair, like "Showdown at the Engineering Firm," or something along those lines. 🍿

edit : for some man
I have actually found another alternative for certain people (usually women).
I wrote a little poem.
It didn't quite reach those profound depths, but typically, after that, they left me alone. 🙂

The idea is simple: take what we usually call "bad behavior" on Reddit and turn it into an authorized verbal duel with its own set of rules. Too often, someone starts a fight, but the other person refuses to bite because they know it breaks the rules, leaving them to just sit there and take the mental hit.

Just like street brawls evolved into the "noble art" of boxing, or how insults to one's dignity used to be settled through formal duels.

Reddit is built on dialogue, so having duels is actually logical and natural. But in our obsession with being politically correct and civilized, we’ve basically banned the discipline of arguing—we've stifled intense debate. Yesterday proved that once you loosen the reins, there's plenty of reason for both duels and duelists.

We aren't opening the floodgates for mindless fighting; we're creating a separate space for free, heated debate governed by clearly defined rules.

I see some incredible debating talent on this platform. 🙂 It’s stupid to hand out warnings and bans to people who are clearly gifted debaters when they could be stars. 🙂

Sure, if you think this idea actually has legs, I expect a full breakdown.

Alright, what are the ground rules?
Avoiding any mention of family or real-life details is likely the most fundamental rule of all.

This should primarily focus on providing descriptive profiles of various Reddit users.
There are a few individuals who could certainly be profiled.

Anthony Nguyen81 said:This should mainly be about making fun of how different users carry themselves on the forum.
There are a few people here who are easy targets.

Rachel Richardson said:For certain people (usually women), I found an even better alternative.
I wrote a little poem.

it’s like taking a bag of ash and just dumping it over your own head...
Go ahead and start a new thread, obsess over insults from last September, and stop being a nuisance—you basically killed the moderation discussion yourself.

Just thinking about how poor Bill got a lifetime ban for posting nonsense just like you do—only he was older, had a shorter fuse, and was sick on top of it... honestly, I don't care what your excuse is. ☕

Can we move this duel to its designated thread? Give the people what they want—bread and circuses, Boss. ☕

Let people vent their frustrations in a proper duel, but honestly, this whole voting thing for the "best" duelist is just mindless filler (as someone already pointed out). It’s completely pointless; obviously, everyone is just going to vote for whoever they happen to be rooting for, no matter how poorly they actually handled the argument.

stormylynx4 said:...maybe you should just grab a bag of ash and start sprinkling it over yourself...
Feel free to start a new thread—go ahead and debate those insults from last September—but quit being a nuisance; you’ve essentially single-handedly killed this discussion about moderation.

Hold on—I have people picking on me in the DMs, acting completely out of line, and while I'm trying to handle them with some level of grace, you're coming after me?
Well, bravo—truly a masterclass in logic. 👍

Listen up, everyone. Stick to the topic and get creative. First, we need to build a space where you can argue to your heart's content. 🙂

For instance, if a fight breaks out in a thread, it could be pulled aside and handled under formal duel rules—or it might just end up in the trash per general Reddit rules, possibly with some bans applied.

I believe this should serve as our foundation;

In short—no family drama, and no RLA.
Husbands, wives, mistresses... none of that.
Comments should be strictly limited to the Reddit users themselves—their specific contributions and behavior on the platform.

Let’s keep this a civilized discussion.

Richard Ramirez87 said:Let people vent during a fight. The only stupid, useless part is this voting for the "best duelist" thing (someone brought it up). Of course everyone is going to vote for their own side, no matter how much they're losing the argument.

The numbers in the poll don't mean squat; it's about the usernames. It doesn't matter if one clan is bigger—what matters is who has the heavier hitters. Not all usernames carry the same weight. 😉

Anthony Nguyen81 said:I think this should be the foundation;

So, no family stuff, no personal lives.
Husbands, wives, mistresses... none of it.
Comments stay strictly on the users and their activity on the Reddit.

Keep it a civilized discussion.

That works, but if the debate stays completely civilized, there’s no need to make a special distinction.

Do you think Judolin's text cited in the first post could work in the discussion? My thought is we can leave it in. He’s still more polite than the Saunders quote. 😁

The trick is, you can always give him a taste of his own medicine.

Keep the debate civil and stop making it personal. Leave out the cheap shots about someone’s status, their post count, where they’re from, how old they are, or their gender.

Scott Long71 said:I agree with what was said above, though if it’s a completely civilized discussion, there's really no need to single it out.

Do you think Judolin's text, which was cited in the first post, could actually work in this discussion? My take is that we can keep it. He's still being more polite than the Saunders quote we used. 😁

That makes sense. I don't recall Judolin ever bringing up Houellebecq's mother.

Judolin's and Rachel Richardson. It’s like putting Chuck Liddell and Ned Blatnik in the same ring. Calling it a duel is being generous—we all know how this ends.
But hey, I agree, we definitely need a dedicated thread for this kind of showdown.

Scott Long71 said:The whole point is to take stuff that’s usually considered "bad behavior" on the site and spin it into an allowed verbal duel—you know, with its own set of rules. It happens all the time where someone starts a fight, but the other person won't even bite back because they know it violates the rules, so they just end up sitting there taking the mental hits.

It's kind of like how street brawls eventually evolved into "noble sports" like boxing, or how insults used to be handled through formal duels.

Since this site is basically built on dialogue, it actually makes sense—it's natural—to have duels. But, in our desperate rush to stay politically correct and "civilized," we’ve basically killed off the art of the argument, or at least the harder-hitting debates. Well, yesterday proved that once you loosen the reins a little, there’s plenty of reason for duels and duelists to exist.

We aren't trying to open the floodgates for mindless trolling; we want to allow for these intense, free-flowing discussions within a clearly defined framework.

Honestly, I see some incredible debating talent right here. 🙂 It’s just silly to hand out bans and warnings to people who are actually good at this—they could be stars if they weren't being penalized for their talent. 🙂

Alright, let's go! This is a killer idea. But look, if we're turning street fights into noble sports, we need a total mindset shift—moving from just throwing mud to actual skilled debating. A boxing ring has a ref, and duels have strict rules and seconds standing by.
We should probably have that too.

As for those typical internet arguments, there’s another reason why one side always gets crushed—it’s because they realize the person attacking them is just some random jerk jumping at them, totally unworthy of their time or energy. Once you realize it's just nonsense, it becomes pure gibberish. Fighting just for the sake of fighting? That gets boring fast for anyone watching.

So, what do we call it? The skill of polemics, debating... how would we even define it?

Scott Long71 said:Do you think Judolin's text cited in the first post belongs in this discussion? I’m thinking we should let it stay. It’s actually more polite than the Saunders quote used earlier.😁

You didn't ask me, but everyone has an opinion, right?😁

In the first part of the post, Judo was just reacting to someone else's writing, which he considers garbage. It isn't an insult. Compared to the reviews I've left on Goodreads for big-shot publishing house authors, Judolin calling things "garbage" is practically high praise.
Calling someone a rude brat is about the same level as mocking fifty-year-old women—it's not really an insult, even if it is a bit of generational bias.😬
If someone reported Judolin's post to me, I'd ignore it. If you can't handle some harsh criticism on a Reddit thread, go start a blog for your "masterpieces."

It reminds me of those people on certain PDF forums who get offended when their "deep analyses" aren't treated like gospel.🤣 Maybe we should just create a Nobel Prize category for anonymous forum writing.🙄

Ban insults strictly on the basis of race or ethnicity, and let everything else be settled between the parties involved. No other restrictions on creative expression should even be considered. I guess whoever gets brutally roasted first will just tuck their tail and slink back to their den like a coward.

Honestly, this first post by Judolin should probably have been scrubbed and polished to fit today’s "perfect" standards. I know if it were me, I’d be doing it. 😁

But if you’re asking my opinion? Nah, I wouldn't delete it. I mean, why have a sterile, empty Reddit thread when you can actually see the personalities of the people posting—even when those personalities are... well, a bit much?

Look, obviously, the raw, mindless insults and the random jumping around that doesn't make any sense? Yeah, that needs to go. But these little "flavors" in a debate—in my book, they stay.

I'm actually really digging this whole topic. There's so much potential here. 😁

Jacob Alvarez said:Judolinov and Rachel Richardson. It’s like putting Mirko Filipović and Nenad Blatnik in the ring together. Calling it a fair fight feels a little cruel when we all know exactly how this one ends.

Exactly. If the boss really wants to turn Judolinov into a sideshow, he should just bring in some random amateurs or low-level nobodies instead. 🙄