Running a simultaneous “Moderated Debate Comment Thread” will prevent the majority of posters from interrupting the flow of the main thread. Most dopers aren’t jerks.
I won’t be able to participate, but I’ll definitely lurk.
Yeah, I don’t think you can herd these cats.
What about if somebody, participating in the debate, “reported” a post that they felt wasn’t following the agreed-upon terms, and the thread would then be in time-out mode until the mod could step in and un-derail things? Or is the fear that this would happen with every other post when two people (or more) got deadlocked?
Which? 
I’d argue it with you, but I couldn’t referee it. Any volunteers?
I will argue for the following positions:
- That God does not exist
- That we should not take action now to reduce global warming.
- That corporate capitalism is empowering the impoverished and should be encouraged to thrive and expand across the world.
I’m in.
I have just ref’ed the first post, and I thought I would display it and my comments here to give an idea of what the referee does. None of ITR Champions post has been edited out, so if you only read the sections in the quote box, you will have read his full post.
You do not need to defend the existence or scope of the issue, though of course it does not hurt to explain to the readers what that scope is.
If that is your intention, I think you could state it clearer. I would be fine to post it as it is, though.
If these examples are intended only as examples, they are fine. But you would probably do better to also include more formal summary and breakdown of the expected consequences of global warming for our readers.
If, however, you are trying to make an argument for the US and other modern nations to step in, then you would be better served to relate this to those nations and their plans. But it seems rather anecdotal to rely on a couple of isolated cases rather than dealing on the macroscopic level.
Comments on the contents aside, I would be fine to post this as is to the thread. Do you want me to do so, or would you rather edit it first?
I would volunteer as a moderator for such threads, and although I don’t have an interest as a debater in any sample threads, I’d be interested in debating gun control, methods of constitutional interpretation, and whether Ginger or Mary Ann was hotter.
I saw another message board have surprising success with one-on-one debates. Because all attention was to be focused on just two posters, their posts were robust and unfailingly civil. That might be a way to go.
We could develop an “elite” forum where a designated qualified moderator selects worthy posts from the regular GD thread and deposits them in the elite thread.
Not all GD threads of course. That would be at the discretion of the moderator based on his/her assessment of the emailed demand for such allocation for each and every thread.
I’d suggest that such a scenario could actually boost the overall quality of GD as many posters would like to see their contributions recognized as having merit.
Just a thought.
Good idea, but as noted above it seems like it would work better on a different site with a different format (or maybe just a different forum within). It seems like for every topic you’d have two threads — the “official” thread and the “conversation” thread adding a modicum of clutter and pushing other threads off the first page. In addition, given the immense breadth of posters here, it would be necessary to read both, which may be counterproductive to your purpose.
Consider the goals of your idea — enhanced debate. Consider the major strength of the Board — broad, quality membership. Which means that someone who is not an “official” debater, but who has something of substance to add, can only post in the second thread. Telling someone/everyone that a debate is completely closed but for the inner circle seems quite contrary to the spirit of open and free discussion we have fostered here. Therefore, to read Poster X’s substantive comment, one would have to wade through the conversation thread, which would be plagued by many of the same problems you’re trying to avoid.
It would, for example, likely have a larger signal-to-noise ratio as there would be substantive comments intermixed with lawnchairs and woots. It may also make following the overall debate fairly difficult to follow, with cross conversations that are taking place on the same topic but with different tacks.
Of course, some people would only be interested in the one thread, but I don’t think your idea really apply to someone with a relatively shallow interest in a topic (as in, reading just six poster’s views). I also don’t fall in the Game Room all that often, so I don’t know how the mechanics of game and conversation threads work. I assume, though, that the side thread wouldn’t be appropriate for GD (increasing the hassle of reading everyone’s substantive input).
Laudable idea though, I’m just throwing out some hurdles that I think need to be addressed to make it work. Perhaps I should volunteer for ATMB debates?
-
I’d prefer pro and con teams. I feel we have far too many smart folks here for one on one.
-
Give the moderator job to Volunteer Bricker, with SuperPowers to rule on all matters.
-
Maybe shut the thread down (if it runs too long) at a prescribed time to prevent down time poaching; resume at a specified time the following day.
I think the debates would be must see, must be there events.
Jr. Modding or refereeing only seems appropriate to the Games forum, IMHO.
I’d propose the debate be a game, for some of our active debaters to show off their debating skillz.
Choose two debate teams, then pick a topic and flip a coin, so we can see our master debaters debate POVs they may not personally hold.
Interesting idea.
I might try that if nothing happens in the next week or so.
And let me note that anyone who has said they would like to referee, to go ahead and start a thread on a topic. You don’t need to wait for me to give you the go ahead.
Now that sounds like fun. How 'bout a bit of a variation? Post the topic first, so folks can decide if they know/care enough about a topic to commit to some minimum number of posts. After a certain threshold of posters signs up, sides are randomly assigned (perhaps by looking at the timestamp or average post count of the last or X[sup]th[/sup] poster to sign on and if it’s odd, pro is for usernames starting with a-m. Randomness shouldn’t be too hard to figure out). I’d still leave it open to anyone, with the stipulation/request that newcommers simply comment as per their assigned “team.”
In a university course we had a group debate, where each group was given a viewpoint to argue for. Since people received viewpoints they did not hold themselves, it quickly devolved into overly stereotypical over-the-top arguments (the subject was environment and global warming etc.) and silliness. Some things are hard to argue for when you find the viewpoint totally counterintuitive and illogical (religion etc.). With that in memory, I’m not sure such a format would work, as proposed by levdrakon. Maybe you have other experiences of that. Do you all think it would work? I’m a bit skeptical.
On the other hand, moderated debates as proposed in the OP would be very interesting if it garnered enough interest.
I like the idea of randomly assigned teams. Sounds interesting. Best wishes to the debaters!
Anybody do Parliamentary in college?[sup]*[/sup] American style had the random gov/opp to begin, and gov brought the case. You ended up finding yourself debating all sorts of random sides to thing (though I had a blast goving so-called “op-choice” debates). The point being, in my (limited) experience, when people entered the debate they did so honestly and wholeheartedly no matter what their leanings. It was pretty neat post-debate talking over sides, laughing over certain awkwardnesses, etc. Quite invigorating to be on the opposite side of where you’d normally be, and great fun.
In World’s style (well, we called it that in America… it’s probably English Rules or some such) the host college would assign teams and sides in General Assembly, then ten minutes (for prep time) before the round would start they’d announce the topic.
Maybe the difference was that the teams were all voluntary?
(Wow, maybe we know each other. I was on Columbia’s team from about '95-99, and was at Worlds in South Africa '97 and Greece '98.)
We’re better than that, and what’s a referee for?
I would love to read threads like this, though I don’t really think a lot of the moderation rules are necessary. The idea of proposed edits doesn’t really sit well with me. I think most of the people here who would be able to contribute to one of these debates don’t really need that moderation.