Interfactional Debating Contest - Page 2

GeneralTacticus · September 15, 2003, 03:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Vev
Factions Please Sign Up

Hurry, factions, you have up until Tuesday 16th of September to decide to go against the Hive. Currently only Jtsisyoda of the Drones have nominated himself. If there are excess of participanting factions, then they can pair up and run the debate in parallel or in the following debate.

Currently no other faction nominate themselves, then it will be Hive vs. Drones.

I'll be signing up for the PUT, but I'm not sure if anyone else is...

Snowflake · September 15, 2003, 11:12

I'm heartbroken dear Kody.

Kody · September 15, 2003, 11:13

Would you feel better if we name a hill after you?

Snowflake · September 15, 2003, 11:17

The hill of broken heart.

Kody · September 15, 2003, 12:19

So the teams so far are.

Hive
Voltaire - Debating Team Leader
EZRhino
Vev
Vander

Drones
Jtsisyoda - Debating Team Leader

University
GeneralTacticus - Debating Team Leader

We'll make it so the team leaders will organise who makes which arguments on behalf of the team. Other debating team members can be added during the debate if the team is small and support is rustled up by the team leader.

I think vev wants the format of the debate to be fairly unstructured with respect to rules. However, the judges probably won't like it if your team starts making random posts during the debate and your arguments are fragmented.

Anyway once the topic is finally decided I'm guessing the debate can finally get started.

Corellion · September 15, 2003, 14:07

I will participate for the Cybernetic Consciousness. We also have a candidate for judge, but I'll leave that up to the person involved to announce, in case he changes his mind.

AdamTG02 · September 15, 2003, 18:38

I'm conducting another Xenobiology experiment outside our faction boundaries, but unless sunspots knock out my communications I should be able to participate for the University via long-distance commlink. [That is to say, due to Hurrican Isabel headed this way I may become incommunicado all of a sudden. GT, if you'd rather I sit out until the hurricane has passed so that I don't disappear in the middle of things, I'll do so. I'm just not sure how out-of-the-ordinary situations apply to this.]

Vev · September 15, 2003, 18:57

Bonus, another sign up. If we are getting desparate with numbers, is it possible for Jtsisyoda and GT to team up?

jtsisyoda · September 15, 2003, 19:25

Teaming up might be good for me. I don't know how much

I mean intellectualism I'll be able to spout, due to some new IRL responsibilities.

Hercules · September 15, 2003, 20:25

Foolish_Icarus is volunteering from Peace.

Vev · September 15, 2003, 22:20

Is that for judging for debating?

Makahlua · September 16, 2003, 01:10

Debating - and I'm volunteering for the same too

Vev · September 16, 2003, 01:37

Okay there appears to be enough members for two concurrent debates.

With the current trends, it would look something like this, although it is open to some adjustments:

Hive vs Uni and Drones
Topic: Repeated Nervestapling is Perfectly Safe

Cycon vs Pirates
Topic: The CyCon's gorillas are better weapons of war than the Peace's psi-nuclear parrots

So is the Uni happy to team up with Jtsisyoda?

Vev · September 16, 2003, 02:01

Since the Cycon has made their gorilla obsolete, Cyber-parrots can be used instead.

Kody · September 16, 2003, 02:22

So the teams so far are.

Hive
Voltaire - Debating Team Leader
EZRhino
Vev
Vander

Drones
Jtsisyoda - Debating Team Leader

University
GeneralTacticus - Debating Team Leader
AdamTG02

CyCon
Corellion - Debating Team Leader

Peace
Foolish_Icarus - Debating Team Leader
Makahlua

The judges are.

Provost Harrison - Head Judge

Mead - Volunteer Judge

Hercules - Peace Faction Judge
Tassadar - Hive External To Faction Judge

CyCon, Drones & University can still submit a nomination for a judge.

GeneralTacticus · September 16, 2003, 04:40

I'd be happy to judge debates in which I'm not participating...

Mr. President · September 16, 2003, 07:40

I could join the University team for this debate; I'm pretty busy right now, though, so hopefully I'll be able to make it to everything.

Kody · September 16, 2003, 07:59

Quote:

Vev wrote:
So is the Uni happy to team up with Jtsisyoda?

GeneralTacticus · September 16, 2003, 08:00

I'd have no objection.

FlameFlash · September 19, 2003, 10:28

<- Third debate team member for Peace... all I need to know is when a debate is started...

Kody · September 23, 2003, 00:51

We might need to add in time limits between speakers to prevent stalling.

Mead · September 23, 2003, 17:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Kody
We might need to add in time limits between speakers to prevent stalling.

I make several housekeeping proposals to enhance the flow of the Debates.

Below are the guidelines of the debate that were posted earlier:

VEV'S POST - BEGIN
As there appear to be some interest in an interfactional debating contest. The point of this event is to generate more a lively ACDG atmosphere and factional culture. The main point is to have fun, be creative and generate good convicing arguements. There would be different tones of debating, from humorous to serious ones. Participants are encourage to roleplay their faction and use factional philosophy.

Here are some guidelines for the debate.

* 4 days are given for both sides to present all their arguements. After that the debate is closed and any points presented after that time is ignored by the judges.
* There are three independant judges who will review and judge the debate within 3 days after the debate has closed
* Members outside the two factions are not to participate during the 4 days.
* But after the 4 days, any observer may comment any points they wish on the debating thread.
* Well structured arguements and a conclusion is recommend as ultimately it is the judges who have to read through all the posts. So make make their job easy and fun for them.
* Having fun and roleplay is recommended too

__________________
Promoter of Public Morale & Commissioner of General Security for the Hive
VEV'S POST - END

My proposals:
I note that more than four days have elapsed from the time of the first Posts in the debates. Vev started the Hive v. Uni Debate on 18-09-2003 at 08:00. johndmuller started the Cycon v. Peace debate on 18-09-2003 at 10:48.

In the interest of making this as transparent as possible and because I have not PM'd, or been PM'd, by any of the other judges yet. I make the following proposals here.

1. We give more time to the Debaters for the current two ongoing Debates.

2. For future Debates we allow for a specific number of arguments from each side. I suggest four from each side (Opening, Main Case, Closing, Rebuttal). This does not mean that both side has to make four arguments - they can waive any of the turns they are entitled to.

3. Just like PBEM, the teams decide what the are going to post, arrange their argument amongst themselves, and then they post the 'argument/turn/save'

4. We give each team a specific number of hours in which to respond to the other side's argument (I suggest 72 hours). They can respond earlier, but, if they are late they waive that turn.

Please let me know what you think. I do not know the mechanics of how we will adopt these above four proposals, but I think if there is a consensus amongst the competing teams and the judges to adopt them or a modified version we will do so. I think if we reach a general consensus it will be fine. Let me know if you feel we need a vote.

Mead

Hercules · September 23, 2003, 17:56

Yeah I like the overall approach.

How do the judges review and judge the debate. By PM, email combination or are their ongoing deliberations posted in the thread for transparency. I think they should deliberate in private and deliver an interim (in case they have further questions on clarification).

There also needs to be limits on the additional observer contributions, - time and number of contributions. Also length.

Kody · September 23, 2003, 19:07

Well I've already reached the limit of the responsibilities I'm willing to take up. Also Vev says he's willing to let someone else control the debates due to time restrictions. So the position of debate organiser is open to anyone that is willing to put the time in.

If the interested parties can sort it out amongst themselves that would be great. However, if there is a serious disagreement over who has the last say do a poll on the issue.

Vev · September 23, 2003, 19:14

Evil evil real-life stopping me from attaining higher level thinking!

Provost Harrison · September 24, 2003, 15:37

Excuse the delay in getting back, I have quite a few big life changes going on at the moment...but blast away, I am reading

Kody · September 24, 2003, 19:22

Links for the currently running debates. For anyone that is just interested in watching the debates, but not the other ACDG spam.

Hive vs University & Drones - nervestapling is perfectly safe.
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=97064

Cycon vs Pirates - cycon's parrots are better than pirate's parrots
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=97052
_____________________________________
Provost Harrison,

The debates are going rather slowly so you didn't miss much.

Mead · September 24, 2003, 20:45

Judges Please Check Your PM's

In the PM traffic I am proposing to the Judges that we wrap up the first two debates and begin Deliberations.

The PM traffic discusses housekeeping details of the deliberations.

Contestants, because we are considering closing the time for new arguments from each side please let us know if you need more time.

Mead

Provost Harrison · September 25, 2003, 16:22

Well I am ready, it isn't too hard to judge thus far.

Mead · September 25, 2003, 22:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Well I am ready, it isn't too hard to judge thus far.

I'm ready too.

Hercules/Tassadar

All we is for at least one of you to to agree in this Forum that you are ready to start judging and we will begin.

I recommend WE GIVE ALL CONTESTANTS FAIR WARNING that they have twenty-four (24) hours after either Hercules or Tassadar confirm in this Forum that they are ready to start judging to post final submissions. Let's not start deliberations until the 24 hours are up.

I further propose that the deliberations be conducted in the open, in the same threads as the respective Debates.

If anyone has any objection speak now (within twenty-four hours) or foverer hold you peace, (or something like that).

Mead