Hi, my name is Donovan Zoi and I am here today to speak with you about debate reform. While reviewing the various election threads, I have noticed that there is a call for getting away from the same tired debate questions, month after month. Even some of our newer players have noted that they would like to see a focus on the issues instead of having the DemoGame elections remain a poularity contest month after month.

Is my quest for reform personal? After taking the beating of a lifetime with Eklektikos in the Military polls against CivGeneral, it would be hard for me to argue otherwise. However, I can assure you that is not the case. (Or is it....? :mischief: )

Please read through a debate that happened between myself and Octavian X (DG2 Term 7 Presidential Debate) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45838) not too long ago. As far as I know, this is one of the only examples of head-to-head debate the DemoGame has ever seen. You will see that this debate stays on the issues, but never gets personal. On the downside(especially for me :D), the candidates didn't step to the podium until most of the votes were cast.

That said, I truly believe that we can use head-to-head debate to our advantage before the elections by combining the nomination and debate threads. Doing so would allow a candidate to unveil his/her platform as soon as he throws his hat in the ring. It would also allow 3-4 days of actual debate before the elections started. In this open forum, candidates would respond to questions from the citizenry as well as their opponents. Most importantly, all citizens would be able to make an informed decision because they would be able to see where all candidates stood on key issues.

Please give your feedback on this proposal so that we may put it to good use during the next term.

I agree with you. I think some of the elections are popularity contests. All my election decisions are based on the experience of the players and less on popularity. This term's Domestic election was NOT a popularity contest. CT had much more experience than I did and deserved the position. However, was a certain Chief Justice election (not gonna name names) where I had much more Judicial experience than my opponent, but because of his popularity and big-namedness (former President, but still no Judicial experience) I was thrashed.

I agree with you 100% on this plan, and it will make me and lot's of others who don't have a big name such as me, maybe you, and others happy while hopefully not angering too many big-namers.

Excellent suggestion, DZ. I would much rather see the Nomination threads filled with platform speeches and debates than backslapping and "nth"ing.

I too believe it's time to retire the Inquisition. The debate questions now seem to vague and have not been refreshed lately.

I'm not sure if candidates posting their platforms and answering questions will stop the blind popularity contests we are famous for, but it's worth a shot.

As a newbie, I like the idea. Just as long as people can remain civiland stay on topic. It's always preferable to have a free exchange of ideas, especially during elections.

PS even though it would a free forum, could we set up a neutral moderator for each post to set up basic questions to start the debates of, then open the floor to questions from the citizens?

While I do agree that elections tend to be popularity contests, I am not sure this sort of thing will fix the problem. In fact, I doubt it will help at all. However, this idea does have my support if only because I hope it will work.

I think it could work concurrent with the debate threads but not by joining those threads themselves. First, it's difficult enough to go through those threads and determine who is nominated, accepted and declined. Adding freeform questions, answers and debate would make it that much harder. Second, they are very chaotic threads and a poor environment for intelligent discourse.

I like the idea of debates starting at the same time as nominations but they should have their own threads in the Citizen forum.

Mr. President,

I believe that it is time to move the Debates from the Citizen's forum. When people check on the elections they head straight for the main forum, so the Debate thread is always grossly overlooked.

Also, since all candidates are lumped into 3 different threads based on branch of government(in a different forum), the voters will have to go on a hunting spree to find out anything about the candidates. By having the political discourse going on in the noms thread, citizens will get candidates' take on the issues right alongside all of the nth'ing and backslapping(that ain't going away, Cyc.... ;)).

The reason I didn't recommend a separate debate thread in the Main Forum is because it would make more work for the moderators. With a combined Nomination/ Debate thread, the whole campaign could unfold in one thread. If you want, I can post and update the Nominations Thread next term. I have no problem sifting through the election threads, and enjoy doing so. I will enjoy it even more if this was allowed to happen.

As eyrei said, it may not work but it's worth a shot. Let's try it for a term and see how we like it.

The nominations could be posted with a single thread for each position, as was done a while ago. That was only abbreviated to one for each branch because there was so little participation in the debates. A link to the debate thread from the nomination thread would bring people right to it.

If we went with a combined nomination/debate thread we would need to insist upon (and enforce) an end to multiple nominations for the same player, "nth"ing, kudos, etc. A little chaos is okay but that would be absolute madness.

I think it sounds like a good idea. The debate threads get little or no attention now, making the nomination threads the place to debate would be much better.

Yes, I think I've been answering some of the same questions in three demogames now. Time to mothball those questions. I like the idea of letting candidates campaign in the nominations threads. If citizens are also asking pertinent questions in the nominations threads we may actually start to see some differences in the candidates.

You have my support for this proposal.

This sounds like a good idea. Those questions are always so dry. Truth be told, I had a lot of fun in my debate with Donavon in Term 7 last DG.

@Cpt Kaos - Welcome to the DemoGame! In regards to your suggestion for having set questions from an impartial moderator, we can always pare down our current list of questions to a manageable 4-5 and have them set up in the first post of each Nom thread. I still believe that citizen input will be the key factor in making this work, however.

@Octavian- That was probably the highlight of my DemoGame II experience. It was refreshing to leave a nice 2-3 paragraph dissertation in the Election thread only to come back an hour later to find an equally impressive response from you. And the fact that we were able to keep the volley going is what led me to believe that such a process can work in this DemoGame.

Everyone, thanks for the show of support on this issue. I really believe a lot of good can come from this. I will let the discussion run until Friday afternoon and then post a poll. Hopefully, we can talk the President into supporting this idea as well. ;)

One thing this sort of debate would illuminate is a candidate's ability to write clearly, which is definately a necessity as a leader in a forum game. However, whether people decide to base their voting on this is another story, as I said above.

Nice avatar, DZ.

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
Hopefully, we can talk the President into supporting this idea as well. ;)
The Pres supports a complete revamp of the debates, I'm just not fond of putting them in the nomination threads.

@Cyc - Thanks, and back atcha. :) Any avatar or sig inspired by my all-time favorite album is ok in my book.

@Shaitan - I can understand that to an extent. I feel just as strongly that they should be removed from the Citizen's Forum. Let the whole election process be found in the same forum. I also believe that having a debate start early in the noms thread may curb some of the nth-ing that goes on.

Anyway, how's this for a poll?

1. Combine the Nominations and Debates in one thread per position in the Main Forum.

2. Open separate threads per position for Nominations and Debates in the Main Forum.

3. Keep the Debates where they are in the Citizens Forum.

4. Abstain(of course....)

Let me know what you think of this poll. I will make any necessary changes and post a poll later today.

That looks good. Maybe mention in #2 that the debates would open at the same time as the noms.

I support this idea.

The suggested poll options look good but I think the first post of the poll needs a little meat. For instance I think the first post should explicitly state that by debate we do not mean the standard *debates* we had in the previous demogames. We should let the citizens voting in the poll know that we mean letting the candidates actively campaign in the debate (or nomination/debate) thread and that citizens will be encouraged to ask pertinent questions in those threads.
Actually, since we are not pressed for time on this issue, should we first have a poll about changing our debate system? Or should one of the options of this poll be keep the debates where they are and don't change their format? The suggested poll presupposes our citizens want to chage the debate system.

BTW, I do favor changing how we debate. I missed the term 7 debates but I think Strider and I had a soapbox debate back in the monarchy versus republic dilemma fairly early in DG2. I think that was the election where we had to have two run-offs polls!

I totally agree... supporting all my four beatings in each election... actually three because going for President was something un called for from me.

Originally posted by donsig
The suggested poll options look good but I think the first post of the poll needs a little meat. For instance I think the first post should explicitly state that by debate we do not mean the standard *debates* we had in the previous demogames. We should let the citizens voting in the poll know that we mean letting the candidates actively campaign in the debate (or nomination/debate) thread and that citizens will be encouraged to ask pertinent questions in those threads.
Actually, since we are not pressed for time on this issue, should we first have a poll about changing our debate system? Or should one of the options of this poll be keep the debates where they are and don't change their format? The suggested poll presupposes our citizens want to chage the debate system.

BTW, I do favor changing how we debate. I missed the term 7 debates but I think Strider and I had a soapbox debate back in the monarchy versus republic dilemma fairly early in DG2. I think that was the election where we had to have two run-offs polls!

Good point, donsig. Tell you what....like you said, there is still plenty of time for this discussion so I will bump the thread here and let discourse continue through the weekend.

As far as polls go, I like your suggestion. On Monday, I can post a poll asking if the people prefer the old system or the new proposal. Then, if the people call for change, I will post my aforementioned poll with a slight change in Option #3: Open Separate Debate threads in the Citizen's Forum.

Sound good?

I like it. I think you can go ahead and post the "change/don't change" thread immediately. That's an elemental/emotional decision and as we've been talking about changing for quite some time any additional time isn't going to educate any other players.

Preliminary poll has been added.

Should we change our Debate structure? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52441)

Based on the preceding poll(see post #25 for link), there is much demand for a change in our Debate Structure. Many of our citizens seem to relish the idea of head-to-head debate between our candidates.

So, how do we go about doing this? Should we move the Debate threads from the Citizens Forum into the Main Forum, where they have a better chance of being seen? Do we keep any of the old Q & A format? What measures should we take to keep the debates from becoming a free-for-all?

Let's take a good look at the possibilities here for about a week. Then I can post a poll(or two or three, if necessary) and hopefully have this issue resolved just in time for elections.

I think we're looking for a complicated answer to a simple question. We just need to open new threads, (perhaps one for each position), give the candidates a prompt or two in the first post, and let them at it, with occasional comments from voters.

Maybe we don't even need new threads. Nomination threads could be converted from backslapping into debate threads with the prompts suggested.

We should move it to the general discussion, so as to to get everyone who wants to involved. A new Q&A that is speciific to each department would give us basis to start the debates while giving the debators specific areas to address. As for curtailing a free for all, thats what the moderators are here for, aren't they?

Originally posted by Octavian X
I think we're looking for a complicated answer to a simple question. We just need to open new threads, (perhaps one for each position), give the candidates a prompt or two in the first post, and let them at it, with occasional comments from voters.

Maybe we don't even need new threads. Nomination threads could be converted from backslapping into debate threads with the prompts suggested.

That's pretty much what I had in mind anyway, Octavian. I don't want to overcomplicate things; I just want to make sure that citizens can find the info they are looking for when selecting a candidate. A combination Nomination/ Debate thread is the way to go as far as I'm concerned. Less work for the moderators, and visible to all who are interested.

So how do you think the first post should read? Should it be along the lines of "accept your nomination by answering the following 2-3 questions?" Then on a certain date the public can ask questions of the candidates? What do you think?

Not really. I think we should allow nominations to run as they have in the beginning. Then, after a period of two days, we close the threads to nominations, seconding, and the such, and only allow discussion related to debate.

If we go with the combined threads then I think Octavian has the method to use. Nominations for 48 hours then announce that noms/accepts are closed. The threads then turn into debate questions. Candidates and citizens may then ask questions that all candidates should answer. Candidates could also make speaches. Actually, a candidate's stump speach should probably go in their acceptance post.

I like Octavian's approach.

I also share eyrei's thoughts that this may or may not deal with with the popularity contest issues. Everyone has a vote, and will use it as they see fit, as it should be. Hopefully good discussion will sway those with open minds.

For me, experience in the office is less important. Sure, if they have done well in the past, that is a good sign for the future. However, the next term is what I look at in election, and what will that candidate do to enable victory. A new citizen who just registered the day before may have the best answers.

Thanks, gentlemen. If accepted, I will be posting a three polls on this matter by Tuesday evening EST. They are:

Location of Debates

1. Keep them in the Citizen's Forum
2. Separate thread in Main Forum
3. Combine Nomination/Debate thread in Main Forum
4. Abstain

First Post should include list of questions

1. Yes
2. No
3. Abstain


Debates should begin

1. Immediately after candidate accepts nomination
2. 48 hours after nomination process
3. Abstain

Keep in mind that these are rough drafts, so feel free to lend your ideas to these polls.

It's difficult to contribute suggestions about the poll format without seeing the actual first post you'll be using in the polls. If you just throw these questions out as is it may not be so easy to see that they are all related once the different poll threads start moving around due to posts that are made. I also like to see a first post that gives a little background as to the issue itself and why it's being polled. Such a first post is critical when assessing bias.

Thank you for your response, donsig.

You can pretty much count on a lack of bias from myself. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to fashion a first post for each unsuccessful draft at a poll, so I want to make sure the proper questions are fashioned first. All I am really looking for is whether these polling questions will suit all of our needs on this issue.

If these poll questions pass muster, I will ensure that the first post of the actual polls are objective. If you find otherwise, you may ask for my resignation from the PSC. ;)

Sorry for not looking in this thread earlyer. Though In My opinion, I would like to see the Debate thread separate with the standard questions posted

Looks like we missed the boat for this election cycle. I think those polls can go up any time though and we'll be ready for the next one.