Interfactional Debating Contest

[GeneralTacticus]

I'd be happy to judge debates in which I'm not participating...

[Mr. President]

I could join the University team for this debate; I'm pretty busy right now, though, so hopefully I'll be able to make it to everything.

[Kody]

Vev wrote:
So is the Uni happy to team up with Jtsisyoda?

[GeneralTacticus]

I'd have no objection.

[FlameFlash]

<- Third debate team member for Peace... all I need to know is when a debate is started...

[Kody]

We might need to add in time limits between speakers to prevent stalling.

[Mead]

Originally posted by Kody
We might need to add in time limits between speakers to prevent stalling.

I make several housekeeping proposals to enhance the flow of the Debates.

Below are the guidelines of the debate that were posted earlier:

VEV'S POST - BEGIN
As there appear to be some interest in an interfactional debating contest. The point of this event is to generate more a lively ACDG atmosphere and factional culture. The main point is to have fun, be creative and generate good convicing arguements. There would be different tones of debating, from humorous to serious ones. Participants are encourage to roleplay their faction and use factional philosophy.

Here are some guidelines for the debate.


* 4 days are given for both sides to present all their arguements. After that the debate is closed and any points presented after that time is ignored by the judges.
* There are three independant judges who will review and judge the debate within 3 days after the debate has closed
* Members outside the two factions are not to participate during the 4 days.
* But after the 4 days, any observer may comment any points they wish on the debating thread.
* Well structured arguements and a conclusion is recommend as ultimately it is the judges who have to read through all the posts. So make make their job easy and fun for them.
* Having fun and roleplay is recommended too


__________________
Promoter of Public Morale & Commissioner of General Security for the Hive
VEV'S POST - END


My proposals:
I note that more than four days have elapsed from the time of the first Posts in the debates. Vev started the Hive v. Uni Debate on 18-09-2003 at 08:00. johndmuller started the Cycon v. Peace debate on 18-09-2003 at 10:48.

In the interest of making this as transparent as possible and because I have not PM'd, or been PM'd, by any of the other judges yet. I make the following proposals here.

1. We give more time to the Debaters for the current two ongoing Debates.

2. For future Debates we allow for a specific number of arguments from each side. I suggest four from each side (Opening, Main Case, Closing, Rebuttal). This does not mean that both side has to make four arguments - they can waive any of the turns they are entitled to.

3. Just like PBEM, the teams decide what the are going to post, arrange their argument amongst themselves, and then they post the 'argument/turn/save'

4. We give each team a specific number of hours in which to respond to the other side's argument (I suggest 72 hours). They can respond earlier, but, if they are late they waive that turn.

Please let me know what you think. I do not know the mechanics of how we will adopt these above four proposals, but I think if there is a consensus amongst the competing teams and the judges to adopt them or a modified version we will do so. I think if we reach a general consensus it will be fine. Let me know if you feel we need a vote.


Mead

[Hercules]

Yeah I like the overall approach.

How do the judges review and judge the debate. By PM, email combination or are their ongoing deliberations posted in the thread for transparency. I think they should deliberate in private and deliver an interim (in case they have further questions on clarification).

There also needs to be limits on the additional observer contributions, - time and number of contributions. Also length.

[Kody]

Well I've already reached the limit of the responsibilities I'm willing to take up. Also Vev says he's willing to let someone else control the debates due to time restrictions. So the position of debate organiser is open to anyone that is willing to put the time in.

If the interested parties can sort it out amongst themselves that would be great. However, if there is a serious disagreement over who has the last say do a poll on the issue.

[Vev]

Evil evil real-life stopping me from attaining higher level thinking!

[Provost Harrison]

Excuse the delay in getting back, I have quite a few big life changes going on at the moment...but blast away, I am reading

[Kody]

Links for the currently running debates. For anyone that is just interested in watching the debates, but not the other ACDG spam.

Hive vs University & Drones - nervestapling is perfectly safe.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97064

Cycon vs Pirates - cycon's parrots are better than pirate's parrots

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97052

_____________________________________
Provost Harrison,

The debates are going rather slowly so you didn't miss much.

[Mead]

Judges Please Check Your PM's

Judges Please Check Your PM's

In the PM traffic I am proposing to the Judges that we wrap up the first two debates and begin Deliberations.

The PM traffic discusses housekeeping details of the deliberations.

Contestants, because we are considering closing the time for new arguments from each side please let us know if you need more time.


Mead

[Provost Harrison]

Well I am ready, it isn't too hard to judge thus far.

[Mead]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Well I am ready, it isn't too hard to judge thus far.

I'm ready too.

Hercules/Tassadar

All we is for at least one of you to to agree in this Forum that you are ready to start judging and we will begin.

I recommend WE GIVE ALL CONTESTANTS FAIR WARNING that they have twenty-four (24) hours after either Hercules or Tassadar confirm in this Forum that they are ready to start judging to post final submissions. Let's not start deliberations until the 24 hours are up.

I further propose that the deliberations be conducted in the open, in the same threads as the respective Debates.

If anyone has any objection speak now (within twenty-four hours) or foverer hold you peace, (or something like that).


Mead