I don't see the big benefit of such a solution, but as I don't see a big risk with it either, it might be worth trying. The subforum thing seems like a bit overkill, though, a dedicated thread for each such discussion would suffice, I'd think.
One on one debate forum?
- Thread starter GhostWriter16
- Start date
GhostWriter16
Deity
Can't you just make a "one-on-one debate thread" in which two people and only two people debate something? Call it something like "GhostWriter16 vs Useless: Is Homosexuality wrong?"
I guarantee that nobody would enter that thread even if you paid them
The tavern would be too sophisticated for that fight. We'd need a special, no moderators allowed, thread for it.
Otherwise both of us would end up permabanned by the time we were done
Ailedhoo
wonderer
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,809
The tavern would be too sophisticated for that fight. We'd need a special, no moderators allowed, thread for it.
Otherwise both of us would end up permabanned by the time we were done
Hence why unmoderatated discussions on a internet forum tend to be a bad idea.
GhostWriter16
Deity
The debates would be moderated and in the Chamber. However, that particular debate, with those participants, is not worthy of chamber, or even tavern, status.
I will refrain from saying anything else because I'd probably get infracted for flaming...
Ailedhoo
wonderer
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,809
That particular debate is of political and social observations. Hence it would require Chamber or other kind of moderation.
All serious talks should take place in the Chamber.
I actually think this could be interesting, and a subforum may not be a bad way to do it. It could clean out a little quote warrioring from the Tavern, we can add a public poll after a day or two so folks can judge "who won", and we could move on.
And if we do it and it sucks, we can get rid of it in a month. MOAR INNOVATION I say!
And if we do it and it sucks, we can get rid of it in a month. MOAR INNOVATION I say!
It is being discussed in staff.
I think one-on-one would be a bit unchallenging. I am willing to go up against 5 victims at once.
OK, we can give it a try.
Here's how it will work. Every 1-on-1 thread should have:
* A chair/host (don't say "moderator" as it's confusing for obvious reasons - the chair can be an ordinary member).
* Two participants.
* A question, such that one participant will defend "yes" and the other will defend "no".
How you organise the debate is up to you. Issues you'll need to sort out are:
* What role the chair will have: relatively hands-off, relatively hand-on? Putting questions to the participants, or letting them argue directly with each other?
* Whether other people will be allowed to post. If so, when? If not, might you have a separate thread for commentary?
* How long it goes on for, and how (if at all) the outcome will be decided: popular vote? Chair's decision? Submission by one participant?
It may be that each 1-on-1 thread decides different answers to these questions. In any event, the rules of the debate should be posted by the chair in the OP.
As far as protocol with the staff goes, it will be treated as we did the "Ask a..." threads. That means that anyone who wants to start one of these threads should work out among themselves who will be involved, what the question will be, and what the rules will be. Then they should PM a mod or admin to ask permission to start it. It would be wise, when doing so, to specify why you think it will be a good or interesting thread. That means, among other things, that slug-fests between our resident pairs of frenemies are not going to be approved.
If the mod gives permission, then away you go, and it's up to you (and especially the chair) to run it. The moderators will treat it exactly like any other thread in the Chamber and warn/infract for breaking the usual rules. The only difference, as far as the moderators are concerned, is that if non-participants post when they're not supposed to, we'll delete/move their posts as requested by the chair.
I think threads of this kind could be worthwhile - provided the participants and topics are well chosen. In that case I'd be quite interested in seeing how some of them go or even taking part myself, for the right topic. If it turns into a slightly more formalised version of typical bickering then we may put an end to the whole idea. So think carefully about the requests before making them.
Here's how it will work. Every 1-on-1 thread should have:
* A chair/host (don't say "moderator" as it's confusing for obvious reasons - the chair can be an ordinary member).
* Two participants.
* A question, such that one participant will defend "yes" and the other will defend "no".
How you organise the debate is up to you. Issues you'll need to sort out are:
* What role the chair will have: relatively hands-off, relatively hand-on? Putting questions to the participants, or letting them argue directly with each other?
* Whether other people will be allowed to post. If so, when? If not, might you have a separate thread for commentary?
* How long it goes on for, and how (if at all) the outcome will be decided: popular vote? Chair's decision? Submission by one participant?
It may be that each 1-on-1 thread decides different answers to these questions. In any event, the rules of the debate should be posted by the chair in the OP.
As far as protocol with the staff goes, it will be treated as we did the "Ask a..." threads. That means that anyone who wants to start one of these threads should work out among themselves who will be involved, what the question will be, and what the rules will be. Then they should PM a mod or admin to ask permission to start it. It would be wise, when doing so, to specify why you think it will be a good or interesting thread. That means, among other things, that slug-fests between our resident pairs of frenemies are not going to be approved.
If the mod gives permission, then away you go, and it's up to you (and especially the chair) to run it. The moderators will treat it exactly like any other thread in the Chamber and warn/infract for breaking the usual rules. The only difference, as far as the moderators are concerned, is that if non-participants post when they're not supposed to, we'll delete/move their posts as requested by the chair.
I think threads of this kind could be worthwhile - provided the participants and topics are well chosen. In that case I'd be quite interested in seeing how some of them go or even taking part myself, for the right topic. If it turns into a slightly more formalised version of typical bickering then we may put an end to the whole idea. So think carefully about the requests before making them.
Chamber or Tavern?
Mise
isle of lucy
Let the posters decide? Is there any reason we should keep it all in one or the other?
Chamber subforum. Proper debates only work with established rules and structure. Letting other posters chime in whenever they feel like it would only cause the whole thing to fall apart.
The debates I was involved in during my high school years had strict rules and structure. It wasn't until each side had done their opening remarks, speeches, rebuttals, etc. that the spectators were allowed to ask questions. And I stress - questions, not comments. The debaters were expected to answer these questions, to the best of their ability.
After that, the judging would begin. Or, in the case of my aforementioned Grade 12 social studies class, the teacher would ask for a show of hands how many people now supported which side. The side that gained the most supporters from the "before" poll was declared the winner.
The debates I was involved in during my high school years had strict rules and structure. It wasn't until each side had done their opening remarks, speeches, rebuttals, etc. that the spectators were allowed to ask questions. And I stress - questions, not comments. The debaters were expected to answer these questions, to the best of their ability.
After that, the judging would begin. Or, in the case of my aforementioned Grade 12 social studies class, the teacher would ask for a show of hands how many people now supported which side. The side that gained the most supporters from the "before" poll was declared the winner.
Mise
isle of lucy
Meh, what if they don't want a "proper debate", just a place where they can hash things out, with an audience?
That's no different from what is already available.
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
Cool. No new subforum please. Maybe a new color diamond. Maybe a thread (or social group?) soliciting participants.
