The Debate Forum use

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: Riffrafter

Just common logic to a hypothetical that would explain why there would be a limit.

24 participants may be too large for a first run. Maybe 12 with 3 alts. But that leads to an odd second round unless an alt was tagged in with a random draw for round two bracket positions.

Or maybe some other lineup other than traditional brackets...hmm.

Thank you SO much for responding and thinking about opening up the Debate forum again.

I've no idea what being a Mod on ATS entails, but I would imagine it's like attempting to herd cats.

That are on crack.

And on fire.

So a lot of your time is probably taken up trying to keep the beasties in the right cages.

But I would love the opportunity to try the Debate forum, at least.

I hope that my OP sparked some interest on ATS to try to bring it back.

And let's see where it goes.

Again, I appreciate you taking the time to reply.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Gender-fluid maybe?

(JK)

Why not?

I mean, why should I be different?

a reply to: Lumenari

Easy days are herding cats. Hard days are juggling cats.

As a Pen and Paper RPGer from way back, it doesn’t take much to spark creative juices. In fact, I first came to ATS looking for source material for a d20 Modern game that I never ran some thirteen years ago. But liked how the site was ran so I joined and stayed. So don’t let my participation as member in this thread clarifying how things were done be any real indication as to what may or may not happen.

Biggest Risk versus Reward is will the membership as a whole benefit or even participate if only as a spectator compared to the time and effort committed by everyone involved. Time and effort isn’t a huge investment to be clear here. But what if there was something else that could also use that time and effort, that might be a better benefit to the membership? In considering things many, many things are considered.

In my honest opinion, doing something only halfassed with the Debate Forum would be a disservice to everyone. I would rather fail spectacularly with a genuine attempt and take the ire for a mistake than to do something unnoticed perfectly to a chorus of “Who Cares?” because it didn’t have the support needed.

And while that sounds odd, and is probably poorly phrased as I have had a long day today. What I am getting at is that mistakes can be corrected, tried again and come out great. Losing the appeal of the crowd to something lackluster is harder to get a second chance.

If there is a Debate Forum Revival, it going to be good because it has to be. Why? Because everyone involved is going to try. Because this is ATS and that is how we do such things.

a reply to: Ahabstar

I'd like it done right.

Even if it means waiting a bit.

Debate hones the mental edge, so to speak.

It actually makes you think and work towards your argument/case.

I am just a humble member and will patiently await any determination.

a reply to: Ahabstar

Your reply wasn't poorly phrased at all and if it happens it should be a net benefit to the community so reviving it right is important.

In my experience in life, doing it right takes time.

So think it over and if it flies it does and if not that's fine too.

Don't want to half-ass it out of the gate.

As an aside, I was a DM in 1984... the best pen and paper realities take time too.

I've a book I've never written based on a world I made once...


ETA... the mental image of juggling cats on crack on fire was both hysterically funny and yet deeply disturbing.

a reply to: Ahabstar

If this has been covered already I apologize, but why was the debate forum deactivated in the first place? I imagine it'd have something to do with impractical logistics, which is the sort of implication I'm getting from your replies here. It's hard to fairly adjudicate a debate given anonymous judges and no means of compensation. The only method I can think of would be to establish a "Referee" tag to complement the "Fighter" tag which, upon appeal of a ruling, can be revoked. The "Referee" class would act as a quorum when considering appeals, and I'm sure the owners have methods of mitigating alt abuse, e.g. IP tracking.

Off-topic follow: Was it White Wolf? I bet it was White Wolf.

ETA: whoops. Overlooked the capital M. Now I know what d20 Modern is!

a reply to: DBCowboy

Liar, you are itching for a scrap. Especially after that taunt I pulled...oh wait, that was Intrepid that would sucker people into debates like that.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: DBCowboy

Liar, you are itching for a scrap. Especially after that taunt I pulled...oh wait, that was Intrepid that would sucker people into debates like that.

I love a good fight, and if memory serves, I've lost more than I've ever won.

But that doesn't stop me from wanting to battle.



Edit: That cagey Canadian was the Master.

a reply to: Zelun

It was a combination of inactivity amongst Fighters and IRL stuff getting in the way of the people running the forum. Add in the radio shows taking considerable time. A few deaths along the way. It all adds up.

The general format has always been that 2-3 staffers ran tournaments and generally other staffers judged and probably would early on until people were familiar with how things went and Fighters could be tapped for judging/referee opinions down the road. New staffers running things might make other changes from the past.

The only White Wolf game I ever owned was Wraith and that really takes a certain kind of player to play it. It didn’t even play well with other World of Darkness games. I was hedging between d20 Modern or Chaosium’s BRP (because I always liked CoC’s percentile system). Still love Star Wars but not totally sold on d6 System.

a reply to: Lumenari

Steve Martin in The Jerk was the cat juggler. That’s why his reacting in horror to himself was hilarious.

a reply to: Ahabstar

"I've heard of this...Cat Juggling!"

a reply to: Ahabstar

Still love Star Wars but not totally sold on d6 System.

Of course not, the resolution of d6, while like the imperial system is easily divisible by 2s and 3s, is by no means as intuitive as something metric like d20.

Okay okay, prevent thread drift. Hmm, okay:

I see no reason why a user account couldn't possess both Fighter and Ref tags. Maybe the flaw in the original system was reliance upon staff to manage things, rather than allowing the community to self-regulate. You hand-pick maybe 20 accounts for the "Referee" tag, then require something like 5 wins net wins to acquire a new Ref tag. Fighter tags only require a request, could be automated. Now, any Ref can establish a bout in the forum(create thread permission) and thereafter anyone possessing a Ref tag can adjudicate. Only Fighters listed in the OP may participate in the thread, violation of this rule(probably a rule 1 violation) results in censure, multiple violations removal of Privileges in the Debate forum.

Appeals: A Fighter, having been defeated, may appeal defeat by submitting one public comment in the thread in question, citing specific examples of mis-adjudicaton, to include direct links to comments and the appropriate quoted verbiage. The victor may then defend the ruling in one reply, in the same thread, to counter the appeal. A quorum of no less than 5, and within an elapsed time from the appeal's final ruling's submission time of 24 hours, will then record their ruling in said thread. In the event of a tie, the most recent Referee vote is stricken.

a reply to: Zelun

Very reasoned except there is no Referee tag at this time and only SO could create such a thing. Staff generally held (and by extension) sanctioned bouts by tournament or other means. By setting the rules, organized bouts and declared winners for advancement.

Pick up debates were always allowed between tournaments (or any other official event) by making a thread, inviting (calling someone out), settling on a topic and was generally judged by Fighters at large who was the winner.

What I would like to see is a scoring and critique of opener, argument, rebuttal and closer phases. This would be helpful for all levels and may generate more interest in joining by spectators. Side effect might be that more Civility and Decorum spills over into other forums as people do so to keep in practice. I know, shades of John Lennon lyrics.

a reply to: Ahabstar

I must admit (from a spectator only) that the civil styling of the debate forums often gained my respect and understanding of other members postings that I disagreed with. I definitely believe that the more civil debate forum would be an appropriate balancer vs the ranting mud pit forum.

I have seen some posters who have provided awesome debate quality posts in threads, but they become lost amongst the current threads flow. Keeping my fingers crossed for this to be activated again on ATS. Debate forum threads are often inspiring for me to research deeper myself for answers.

a reply to: CynConcepts

Part of the counterbalance of the Mudpit was the structure of the Debate Forum. The Bully Pulpit (for those that remember) was an intermediary with stricter rules for posting but lacked the formal structure of the Debate Forum. Members had to sign a pledge for behavior within the confines of the forum as opposed to conditions of conduct to keeping the Fighter tag which was were standards held site wide to keep the Fighter tag.

If I am not mistaken the Bully Pulpit Forum was recycled into something else so is gone entirely now.

a reply to: Lumenari

You want to see a one on one debate?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's going mental !! lol