Inter-Party Discussion thread: suggestions

[UnOrthOdOx]

There is enough support to start this up, I believe. Therefore we need:

1. A name. I am no good at that part, I didn't even name the Gazette, jdjdjd did.

2. A first topic. Independants, please voice your opinions.

3. Rules for conduct?

4. Should we designate speakers for the parties? Rotating turns, perhaps?

Anything else...

[UnOrthOdOx]

Proposal for some rules:


1. First post should be titled: Name of group: topic of discussion.

The first post will be a neutral post, containing the subject, and points that should be addressed within that subject. NO opinions in the first post.

2. We will rotate which party goes first, but the parties should take turns with their responses. Parties may choose a speaker, or take turns within their own ranks.

3. After the first two party posts, we will await a period of time (12-24 hours) for any independants to be heard, then continue with a set of responses.

4. At each interim, the Public is encouraged to both comment or ask questions. The Parties, however should not respond untill their turn to do so.

5. Mudslinging, and party insulting are considered a part of the fun, and are not to be taken personally.

[Ninot]

it is my personal opinion that any party-orientated mudslinging can be left out. its just spam, speacially if nothing else appears in a post.

and its probably one of the only ways party politics are "detrimental"

if we are to have some kind of official party debate system, i think it would be better if unneeded mudslinging be kept out, and we stick to the topics.

[UnOrthOdOx]

I am not meaning that should be the only thing in your post, but something saying: "Unlike those mindless grunts would do, the DIA encourages peacefull expansion. Let our superior production and culture speak for us rather than our military might, which should be used against those that challenge our superiority."

There is no need to make that the point, but it can be fun, when done properly. The ARE thread was all in good fun IMO, and contained plenty of mudslinging, mostly directed at Duddha, but still it was well done, and did not become the point of the thread.

[Ninot]

quite true.

any post that has mudslinging, but a valid and reasonable point... well, thats fine

but say a line comes out that is just very simply mudslinging, nothing more... thats just spam and uneeded

[DAVOUT]

Suggestion for a topic :

Explain from where the ideas of your party come from : belief, history, experience, projects, assesment of our current situation, observation of human nature, expectations for the future, or other origins, if any ?

[jdjdjd]

Originally posted by Ninot
quite true.

any post that has mudslinging, but a valid and reasonable point... well, thats fine

but say a line comes out that is just very simply mudslinging, nothing more... thats just spam and uneeded

Ninot, you ignorant cokehead. If you weren't so busy sticking your hands between the cuhions of your couch looking for pennies and nickels (or the Canadian equivalent) to buy your next fix, maybe you'd see the point. ....(insert actual ideas here)

I think he means that kind of thing.

Please note, as far as I know Ninot is not addicted to anything other than Civ, the Simpsons, and the occassional peak at nude photographs of Sarah Ferguson, Dutchess of York.



Anyway....

The Title could be any of these:

JungleFire (like Cross Fire)
CrossBananas (again)
HardBanana (like Hardball)
Banana:Counter-Banana (like Point: Counter-Point)
The Jerry Springer Show (if he'll do it)

As for format, set it up like a formal debate...A & B would rotate.
You should leave out independents, it would get too cumbersome, too untamed, and too disorganized; since the independents have a wide variety of opinions, so several may choose to respond. The same of questions from citizens. However, if keeping independent view and citizen questions in...you could do this.

opening statement by party A (24 hours to post)
rebuttal by party B (24 hours to post)
opening statement by Party B (24 hours to post)
rebuttal by party A (24 hours to post)
independent opinions (24 hours)
A response to independents (24 hours)
B respond to independents (24 hours)
questions from citizens (24 hours)
A response to questions (24 hours)
B response to questions (24 hours)
Closing remarks A (24 hours)
Closing remarks B (24 hours)

One person does not have to do the whole thing, it could be split up. The time frames could be changed...its already 12 days to discuss a topic.

It will be impossible to leave out mudslingng, you could only ask that it be coupled with actual content.


As for first question, since I am currently an independent: How about.....

What type of victory do you envision for Apolytonia? Why do you choose that victory? Name a specific area where Apolytonia needs to concentrate on in order to reach that victory and what policies/programs do you think need to be established to bolster that area and prepare us for victory?

Another could be....

The constitutional convention has been created to revise our Code of Laws. What current portion of the Code of Laws do you feel needs immediate attention? Why? How would you change it?

Hope this helps...

[Togas]

Originally posted by jdjdjd
CrossBananas (again)
HardBanana (like Hardball)
Banana:Counter-Banana (like Point: Counter-Point)

I adore these titles and support any banana-related title for this continuing thread.

I'd like to suggest that a charismatic independent create and host these threads. This thing needs a dedicated HOST who would choose topics for the weekly debates (and take submissions from the people for other topics/questions via PM).

Any nominations?

I'd also like to ask that each party choose a weekly representative for the program. Maybe change reps every few weeks to keep things interesting.

Looking foward to this -- Apolytonia's first public debate program!

--Togas

[UnOrthOdOx]

If no independant steps forward, I would be more than happy to host these things. I may be a Hawk, but I beleive that my record speaks for itself that I know when to keep things impartial. I don't know if I could be considered 'Charismatic' though: jdjdjd, NYE, SirRalph, adaMada, whole bunch of others come to mind that would be good at this.

My one concern is I have NOT seen alot of party members respond to this...Perhaps just getting two opposing views, be they party affiliated or not would be best?

We could get Panag to do it, and call the show 'Have a nice day!'

Making it such a program would be great! We could even choose independants to visit as well, submitting their views on that weeks topic.

[Ninot]

we'll im an independant... i might be available to do it...
how time consuming might it be?

[adaMada]

I'd love to do it, but I may not be able. I'm pretty sure I will be, however, and would enjoy it greatly. I think it'd be really cool if the Moderator, though independent, was allowed to ask 'tough' questions to both sides (like the BBC does), as long as the Moderator is fair in asking equally hard questions to both sides.

I'd also be willing to testify to UnOrthO's ability to be independent in matters such as this -- he does have an affiliation, but he can be impartial. Having said that, I think the Hawk party would probably rather not loose one of it's most respected and best-spoken members ability to participate in this debate. I second jdjdjd and NYE (both Judges, so they're a given for impartiality), and would add Togas to the list of nominations (as he's independent now, I think). Ninot would be fine as well.

I think it'd be best to find an independent to do it, as anyone respected enough to be able to take on this job from either party would probably be an assit to their party in debate.

I like the 'find any two opposing issues and discuss' idea better than the political parties, but why couldn't the same organization do both? For the non-political issues, two 'guests' could be invited to direct the arguement of their platform.

One final thought: If enough people wanted to, we could probably have a pannel of three hosts that could host various issues.

-- adaMada

[Togas]

Originally posted by Ninot
we'll im an independant... i might be available to do it...
how time consuming might it be?

Ninot might be the guy to do it...

Just imagine: Former President Ninot brings you: HardBanana! "A weekly debate about the issues that drive Apolytonia."

The Host would have to pick the weekly topic, find the two guests who will argue the two sides of the issue, post the thread, moderate it (if possible), and keep it entertaining.

Who knows. The "show" might even become more popular than the Jungle Gazette.

Might be some work involved, but certainly no where near the work required to run the country.

--Togas

[GodKing]

Couldn't many people post... just the main focus be on the two debaters? Just thinkin out loud. Also, I am not sure if we need a moderator. Let everybody moderate and ask their Q's. Then each debater answers. Only reason for an independant is to a) decide the topic b) call foul if someone gets out of hand and c) declair a winner at the end of the week (if we choose to have winners). Those three reasons stated... why do we need a neutral? Someone pick a topic and two debaters, post in the gazette the who, what, etc. so people have time to think and prepair, then a couple of days later start a thread and let the mud sling.

Also, I like jdjdjd's suggestion for the first topic of what victory type are we aiming for, is it the best we could do, and so forth. This has been a major contention among ourselves and we still haven't come to any sort of conclusion or resolution regarding this.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Togas

Who knows. The "show" might even become more popular than the Jungle Gazette.

Fine by me. I would just be improving on my original idea to have the parties make statements each Gazette. That became a logistical nightmare with certain party leaders not wishing to tackle certain questions. Frankly, this is something I have always wanted to happen, inside the Gaette, and now those opposing the idea are rather silent, and I think a seperate entity would be best format...

I like the host idea for style, GK. Have the public PM the host their questions at first, then a QA/comment section at the end, similar to a court case thread.

No winners. This is a debate.


OK.

Summing up the ideas:

Host informs the two debaters of the topic at least 24 hours before beginning. Creates thread.

Two sides, parties or not, take turns in the following manner:

Party 1 posts within 8 hours of thread start.
Party 2 posts wihin 8 hours of party 1.
(is this enough time given the time will be prearranged?)
Host posts any questions either recieved from public, or from himself, or encourages rebuttles within 24 hours of party 2's post.
Party 1 responds. 10 hours.
Party 2 responds. 10 hours.
Host opens to public comments.
24 hours for public comments.
Host closes comments and asks parties to repond.
Party 1 10 hours.
Party 2 10 hours.

Is that enough time? Do we need more in between?

I think whoever could host, should. One week ada, next Togas, next Ninot... whoever has time. These could possibly go up each wed, or even every other depending on how long the threads go.

[adaMada]

I like UnOrthO's idea in general, but do think GK's idea about having two 'guests' being nominated as the main spokesmen from their parties, but everyone being allowed to speak in the time that the guest they support would speak has merit (For instance, if you are in support of Party 2, then whenever he/she could speak, you'd be allowed to speak as well) -- I'm not saying we should do it, but maybe it could vary from show to show.

The rotating basis for host would probably work out fine... we could also have a council of hosts, who would work out what they wanted to do the most and do it. With enough quality hosts, we could probably run two debates at a time if there was ever the interest (especially two shows on two different topics), or if both were important debates about decisions to make in the near future, such as a controversial war).

It'd be nice if there was also a 'condensed' schedule, for quick debate on a decision that needs to be made soon. For instance, in the GL debate, we could have asked Ghengis or Shiber to represent Sun Tzus, and nye to represent not using the GL on Sun Tzus (I forget what option he was for -- I'm mainly using him because I remember he was against Sun Tzu and he's a respected and well spoken citizen. Hope you don't mind, nye ). This way, people could hear the two sides in debate organized format before they have to vote.

Just a few thoughts...

If we do a rotating host, however, we'd need to decide if hosts who aren't hosting that week allowed to represent a party. If so, then we could have partisan hosts (UnOrthO! UnOrthO! ) who would only host for non-partisan issues.

Just a few more random thoughts...

-- adaMada

[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