Inter-Party Discussion thread: suggestions

[Ninot]

i'll hapily be host and moderator dude... but i prefer to keep out of the creation

[UnOrthOdOx]

In what seems to be becomming a theme in my endeavors, I have yet to see any DIA support for this organization. So, like some of my past projects, I will continue and they will come out of the woods so as to not be left without a voice.

Would someone like to help in a demonstrative thread?

Topic: How to properly peel and eat a banana.

Sides: From the Stem or from the 'bottom'

Need a moderator, and one person to choose a side. I will take the opposing side.

[Nimitz]

Hey the reason we haven't done this is because we've been busy with our selves trying to revive the party. If this is still going I'll do a chat repersenting the DIA.

[UnOrthOdOx]

It will get going. I don't let things die. I am a bit preoccupied right at the moment, though. If one of the other inerestd people could take a lead on it, and organize a first topic?

ada?
Ninot?

[Ninot]

Sorry, Ninot's been dead
ressurected now

you want to do that bananapeeling thread?
ill be moderator... i suppose.

[adaMada]

Sorry, I didn't even notice that this was back up here until now .

I'll gladly take any role -- moderator, topic picker, thread starter -- whatever. I'd need to know which if the many good ideas posted in this thread we were going to use, but after that then I could start the demonstrative thread easily.

Here's my suggestion, in the context of the Demonstrative thread:

adaMada: Thread Starter (Will be responsible for Starting the thread with input from the public; can also moderate; one person do this all the time or several?)
Ninot: Moderator (Will be responsible for Organization; Rotating Basis) (Ninot, if you don't want to, keeping in mind that it would only be for this one thread and any future ones you should want to do, then I will)
Side A: UnOrthO, Peeling his Banana's from the Bottom (Invited by Thread Starter)
Side B: Whoever should volunteer to argue the case of Peeling his or her Banana from the top (Invied by Thread Starter) ** Whoever goes here can switch positions with UnOrthO if they want to; I don't think he really cares what side he peels from .

Any thoughts?

-- adaMada

[adaMada]

Rules Proposal:
First post in thread is Title, Topic, people who will be participating, and timetable.
First post is neutral.
Party A posts his viewpoint on the issue. (Thread Starter decides who gets to go first based on public input, if one side is 'defending' and another is attacking the other, etc. If Thread Starter cannot find a logical starter, then he/she should flip a coin.).
Party B posts his viewpoint on the issue. Should not reply to Party A's points yet.
Party B posts his response to Party A's issue.
Party A posts his responce to Party B's issue
Party A posts his responce to Party B
Party B posts his responce to Party A
Party A posts his responce to Party B

For this entire discussion, there could be between one and three days. In theory, each party would respond to the other's entire point, so if the other party never responded then there would be no unconcluded busness. If EITHER party wants to post an amendment to their stance as part of their response, that is acceptable, as long as they mark it clearly as an amendment and seperate it from the rest of their response.

Twenty four/forty eight hours for Questions from Citizens; Questions can be PMmed to Moderator to ensure privacy or posted. Questions may be leading, and opinion may be used to support a question, but you cannot just post opinion. Citizens are encouraged to post the hardest questions they can come up with.

Both sides answer all questions in several longish posts. If any citizen does not feel that a question has been answered well or has been dodged, they may PM the moderator who can force clarification. Stage lasts as long as it takes for both sides to get their posts up, with a bit of time being allowed so Citizens can read their post and PM the moderator, and a maximum time after which a side looses the ability to respond.

Statements from Independents on their feelings on the issue.

Responce from both sides (again, in several longish posts, not lots of short ones) (if any) to any points the Independents raise.

Closing Remarks.

Discussion closed by moderator, placed in public record.

I haven't put timetables on a lot of these steps -- in general, if a side hasn't responded after a set time, they loose their ability to respond. Also, the 'main' person for each side may appoint someone else to represent him for any number of steps he chooses, which would allow more than one person to represent each time (but never more than one per step, with the exception of public input).

Any thoughts? This is a very rough idea, and I might go through the post and clarify in the near future, but that's my proposal...

-- adaMada

[Arnelos]

Too many d*** rules...

just my two Apo

[adaMada]

Arnelos,
It's not really rlues -- more like a procedure to follow.

We could have no procedures at all -- but then what's the point? It'd just be another discussion thread... We could do that, I guess, but I think it'd be much less innovative and useful then UnOrthO's idea of a structured discussion is.

-- adaMada

[Ninot]

i like your last well structured post on the steps

but, it can be a little more detailed maybe?

i dunno, its pretty complete, im just looking for how the moderator will proceed for all steps.

[UnOrthOdOx]

The host should reply after the initial viewpoints. Then he should be the one to trigger responses.

IE party A posts view
Party B posts view
Host asks party b to respond to A and/or asks B a question
Part B responds
Hosts asks party A to respond to B and/or asks a queston
Party A responds.

Rinse and repeat.

[adaMada]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
The host should reply after the initial viewpoints. Then he should be the one to trigger responses.

IE party A posts view
Party B posts view
Host asks party b to respond to A and/or asks B a question
Part B responds
Hosts asks party A to respond to B and/or asks a queston
Party A responds.

Rinse and repeat.

I like the idea of having the host NOT switch the floor for the FIRST part (where the two parties go back and forth) unless it's necessary -- when a party finishes speaking, they release the floor, and then the other can speak on their own. The host could come in if they FAIL to release the floor, but if both parties can move back and forth without problem then that'd be great -- it'd allow a lot more discussion in that short time period.

After the first part, however, the host could play a more active role in deciding who has the floor and who doesn't.

Finally, one more thought. I remember that there was a moderator who asked questions of both parties in one of the American Presidental Election Debates, and I know the BBC grills the people they interview. Would it be good to have another neutral party, the moderator, or someone else ask tough questions of both sides for a part? You'd have to have a good and thoughtful person for this role, but I think it could add another dimension to the debate by forcing both sides to address all issues, not just the ones they want to.

-- adaMada

[UnOrthOdOx]

Thats what I was meaning. If the parties aren't doing a good job of identifying and asking questions of the opposition, the host should be ready to post the tough questions in between the responses.

[Ninot]

Maybe the moderator can also throw in small resumes, for those not interested in reading entire arguments...

like

Side A: Bananas should be peeled top down, because bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla .

Moderator: Very interesting. So we have some very good points for peeling downwards. But is there an argument for the other way around. Side B?

[adaMada]

Yea, the Moderator should be able to 'prod' sides along, either through tough questions or neutral statements such as the one above -- that'd be most fun for the moderator, everyone else, and probably more informative. It'd probably be lousy if you were going to be one of the parties, but hey, we won't invite people we actually like, so .

-- adaMada