One on one debate forum?
- Thread starter GhostWriter16
- Start date
Seems you could contact:
Eran of Arcadia, Grisu, Truronian, Birdjaguar, Atticus or illram
All have been on the boards sometime during this day.
Eran of Arcadia, Grisu, Truronian, Birdjaguar, Atticus or illram
All have been on the boards sometime during this day.
Just PM a spread... you should catch one of us.
Mise
isle of lucy
Can someone just report the relevant post requesting the one-on-one debate in the sign-up thread? That way it will go to all the moderators, right?
Yes, that would probably be the fastest, most convenient method.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
I'd like to elaborate here for anyone who's interested in hearing a debator's perspective:
This sounded like one of the greatest ideas ever and a lot of people seemed very enthused to participate. Here's my take on the whole process:
1) It takes a lot of work to set up the debate's format if you aren't willing to let it just be freewheeling (that's the point of formal debates, IMO, to not be fast and loose but rather more structured). The way this site works make that virtually impossible to do as a group - you have to have the debators sit down (possibly with the moderator of the debate's help) and hash things out alone. This takes a lot of effort to do it correctly and a lot of time.
Then you have to be ready for intense levels of criticism based on the rules. That's par for the course here, but a lot of it can be counterproductive as people who aren't debating start to get snarky over points they are clearly not even considering.
2) You really can't count on any sort of moderation. It's a huge time commitment just from the debaters, who are motivated to see it through for obvious reasons. It's really too much to ask of another poster to actively moderate.
Warpus and I thought we had that, but by the end of the very first round it was clear we were on our own. I am not at all knocking our moderator. I completely understand it was just too much. But I want to be clear to everyone thinking about doing this that it really is up to the two debators to be civil and work out issues with each other. That can be really tricky in the best of circumstances and could quickly derail the debate into a hot mess.
I'm pretty proud of how equitable Warpus and I were to each other.
3) The debate itself takes waaaay more time than you would think it does. Unless you're doing one-liners at ten paces (which again IMO is contrary to the point of formal debates). Debators need to be aware of that.
4) The whole peanut gallery concept was a huge let down. I think it had a lot to do with the tl;dr nature of the posts in the debate. But that's what's going to happen in a true formal format. It's a good suggestion to add short summaries at the end of points though for everyone's benefit.
But it was really maddening to have so little participation and discussion after all the work that was put into it and after all of the interest that was shown. And the final result really hurt me. I don't mean I'm hurt I lost - I'm hurt that only 12 or 13 people voted (2 of those being the debators themselves). As I said at one point, I would have been happy losing by 20 votes out of 50. Instead I lost by 3 or 4 votes out of 12 or 13. It's almost disrespectful to the debaters quite honestly.
I don't really have any solutions for how the peanut gallery can be more engaged. I don't really think it could happen, I just think the whole thing is destined to go nowhere.
Final analysis:
More work and time are required than are really practical.
People aren't nearly as interested or willing to participate in any fashion as all of the 1 on 1 debate discussion/proposal threads would leave you to believe.
I'd be happy to answer any specific questions that anyone might have.
This sounded like one of the greatest ideas ever and a lot of people seemed very enthused to participate. Here's my take on the whole process:
1) It takes a lot of work to set up the debate's format if you aren't willing to let it just be freewheeling (that's the point of formal debates, IMO, to not be fast and loose but rather more structured). The way this site works make that virtually impossible to do as a group - you have to have the debators sit down (possibly with the moderator of the debate's help) and hash things out alone. This takes a lot of effort to do it correctly and a lot of time.
Then you have to be ready for intense levels of criticism based on the rules. That's par for the course here, but a lot of it can be counterproductive as people who aren't debating start to get snarky over points they are clearly not even considering.
2) You really can't count on any sort of moderation. It's a huge time commitment just from the debaters, who are motivated to see it through for obvious reasons. It's really too much to ask of another poster to actively moderate.
Warpus and I thought we had that, but by the end of the very first round it was clear we were on our own. I am not at all knocking our moderator. I completely understand it was just too much. But I want to be clear to everyone thinking about doing this that it really is up to the two debators to be civil and work out issues with each other. That can be really tricky in the best of circumstances and could quickly derail the debate into a hot mess.
I'm pretty proud of how equitable Warpus and I were to each other.
3) The debate itself takes waaaay more time than you would think it does. Unless you're doing one-liners at ten paces (which again IMO is contrary to the point of formal debates). Debators need to be aware of that.
4) The whole peanut gallery concept was a huge let down. I think it had a lot to do with the tl;dr nature of the posts in the debate. But that's what's going to happen in a true formal format. It's a good suggestion to add short summaries at the end of points though for everyone's benefit.
But it was really maddening to have so little participation and discussion after all the work that was put into it and after all of the interest that was shown. And the final result really hurt me. I don't mean I'm hurt I lost - I'm hurt that only 12 or 13 people voted (2 of those being the debators themselves). As I said at one point, I would have been happy losing by 20 votes out of 50. Instead I lost by 3 or 4 votes out of 12 or 13. It's almost disrespectful to the debaters quite honestly.
I don't really have any solutions for how the peanut gallery can be more engaged. I don't really think it could happen, I just think the whole thing is destined to go nowhere.
Final analysis:
More work and time are required than are really practical.
People aren't nearly as interested or willing to participate in any fashion as all of the 1 on 1 debate discussion/proposal threads would leave you to believe.
I'd be happy to answer any specific questions that anyone might have.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
Right and we probably did go too formal.
My main thing is that it's a tricky balance and it can't be done by CFC consensus. I support efforts to experiment with formats, but I think the whole thing is dead.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
I did my part.
They do prefer free-for-all's, that's why the formal debates won't last.
