If the proponents can get some sort of consensus from the Teeming Millions that they would respect the rules, (and accept Warnings handed out to non-principals who insisted on participating, only to have their posts deleted), then this might work.
Otherwise, the primary reason that this suggestion has never previously gotten traction from the staff has been that we have no way to lock a thread to two participants and the herd of cats that compose the TM have generally been outraged at the very notion that they might be asked to refrain from sharing their views in any given thread. Considering the pissing and whining that has erupted the last couple of times that I actually enforced an adherence to just a topic, I do not actually see this as being a popular idea among the majority of posters.
If someone wants to propose this as an official possibilty, (including a set of rules so that the hapless mod tasked with enforcing them is not accused of making them up in an ad hoc fashion), then this might work.
Otherwise, nothing prevents any two posters from engaging in a debate, today, by the simple act of ignoring all other posts in a thread but their own.
The proposition doesn’t involve rules so much as procedures.
Step 1: Poster A contacts Poster B, either in public or in private, with a challenge for debate.
Step 2: If the challenge is accepted, they hash out the scope of the debate, sources allowed, timeframe in question, whatever’s appropriate for that particular topic.
Step 3: Two threads are created, one for the debate and one for spectator commentary. If the challenge was issued in a public thread, then that becomes the commentary thread. Each thread should have a link to the other. A third thread can be started in the Pit, if anyone feels the need to bitch and moan.
Step 4: Debate between the two posters begins in the debate thread. Commentary commences in the peanut gallery thread. Any posts in the debate thread by non-participants are moved to the commentary thread.
Step 5: The debate can end in a number of different ways: surrender by one side, mutual agreement to cease debate, or abandonment of the debate by either or both parties. The debate thread should probably be locked at that point, though the peanut gallery thread doesn’t necessarily have to be.
Which I think is an excellent idea, as it keeps each side focused and on track. The role of moderator (as opposed to a SDMB Moderator) is largely played by the commentary thread.
Please make it a new forum, or keep it in Great Debates where people always fight. I don’t need to stumble on a thread and get reamed because I wasn’t supposed to talk.
What happens in the game forum when people not in game post in a thread for the game? I don’t think that is a real problem there.
Why would someone want to challenge two people who have stated that they only want to debate themselves? There is nothing stopping that person from creating another thread and then discussing a point brought up in the one-on-one debate thread. Then the posters in the one-on-one debate forum can decide for themselves whether they want to answer that poster in his new thread.
I don’t think one erroneous post in the one-on-one debate thread will hurt anyone really as long as the two debaters ignore it. One of the two debaters, or a mod, can kindly remind the poster that this is a one-on-one debate and that no one will respond to them.
If someone keeps posting after the reminder, or if other posters start posting after the stray poster, then a mod should start issuing warnings. As I’m sure a mod would do if posters not in a game swarm a game thread.
That does, however, bring up a good point–what debates are worthy of 1-on-1? I suggest that any topic that is not automatically Pit-worthy is fair game, but that all 1-on-1 debates be kept in the same forum, even if they would normally be shipped off to another forum, such as Cafe Society or the Game Room.
I like the idea: Poster X Vs. Poster Y: “Title of Debate”
That way you know which debate it is and who’s involved so you don’t comment in it.
But the other way could work as well if there weren’t simultaneous debates (like if 4 people challenged *DT *to a religion duel or something)
Either people would generally be interested in a private debate or they won’t. If they are, then most everybody will respect the rules, those who post in the wrong thread feel mildly embarassed, and those who insist on being a dick about it get shunned or pitted or warned of whatever-it-is that happens to people who threadshit in game threads. If people aren’t interested in private debates, then most everybody ignores the “rules” and the private debate devolves into a public debate and no one really cares, because people aren’t interested in private debates.
No need for new rules, just an extension of conventions already in use elsewhere, and a clear explanation of the “game rules” up front. Then the idea either lives or dies on its own merits.
IMO, there’s a world of difference between a mod trying to artificially prevent a topic from (natural) digression, and a mod enforcing rules that have clearly been delineated for the contents of a thread (e.g., I can’t imagine that you’d cast any flack for tossing someone out of an RPG thread who came in there to post pictures of their new kittens).
I believe the three GD mods are agreed on this: these kinds of threads are definitely permitted, but it’s not practical for us to monitor them at all times and split off every ‘unwanted’ post into a new thread.
So my recommendation would be that when two posters agree to go mano a mano, they explain it’s a one-on-one debate in the OP, and link to the second ‘peanut gallery’ thread to encourage people to go there. Maybe put “One on one: X vs. Y on _____” as a subject.
I’ll have a go. But nothing too complex right now. My boss is making me learn ASP Dot Net, I’m changing computers (a weeklong nightmare), and I’m writing a paper all at once. So keep it light. Perhaps a debate on whether the universe is real.