Debate Hall Reform Ideas

[KrazyGlue]

Well, congrats then! *Tries to figure out other mod*

 

[Mewter]

Awesome, Sucumbio!
You'll make a great PG mod!

 

[Sucumbio]

^^ thanks. Yeah I'm looking forward to it. I'm also glad for the increase in activity as of late.

 

[Faithkeeper]

yours truly is the new PG mod, dunno who the new DH mod is...

I'm 1/2 way to that peanut butter brownie, I called you as the PG mod! I'm almost there. I think I'll let myself eat all the instant ramen I want for 1 meal if I get the other 1/2 wrong.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Ok, now that Sucumbio and GS have been officially selected, we should start working on some of these ideas! Namely, the Debate Hall Activities thread. First we need to work on formatting, such as how we will enforce time limits or if we will even use that system at all. We could also discuss the possibility of there being debates on AIM.

 

[Sucumbio]

sweeeet GS is the new DH mod, then.

Yeah, actually I'd love to. I'd like to touch base with the other mods to ensure we're all on the same page. In the meantime I think it's a great idea to start brainstorming ideas for an activities thread. And CK did suggest the possibility of some of these activities being hosted in other forums and headed up by DH members. But yeah, discuss we should.

Time Limits: yeah, that's definitely something that needs working out. We have one idea on the floor which submits using word-limits in lieu of time limits. In a debate game where speed is as important as accuracy, time limits normally would be the only real way to measure. But given our format here in the DH, perhaps word limits -could- be used as a substitute. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

 

[KrazyGlue]

Well that would be where AIM would useful since it's a lot easier to enforce time limits in a chat room format. I don't think using a word limit is quite the same. It would also be great if we could skirt limits altogether in some games, either by altering the ideas already presented or adding new ones.

 

[GoldShadow]

Since we've taken care of the staffing issues around here and have a couple more moderators, I figure it's only right for me to re-read this thread and for all of us to start making changes.

As far as DH admission goes, we've clearly had a lot of ideas discussed in this thread and in other threads. Because we've decided to keep the PG and appointed a dedicated moderator for the PG (Sucumbio), all that's left is to streamline the process by which members are promoted from the PG to the DH.

I also like most of KrazyGlue's ideas from the first post in this thread in regard to increasing activity. I don't know what specific ideas you guys have for revamping the "current events" thread (originally started by KrazyGlue), but I know that the Current Events sub-forum in the Pool Room was mentioned and also that this sub-forum seems to be pretty popular. We could use the same format as in KrazyGlue's current events thread, but rather than trying to come up with a topic out of the blue each week, we could use a topic from the Current Events sub-forum in the PRoom. So in other words, each week, look at all the threads in the Current Events sub-forum, pick one we like, and then use that as the topic of the week for our current events thread in the DH. This could be mirrored in the PG as well (ie, make a current events thread in the PG that discusses the same topics as the one in the DH).

Regarding the Archives: There are a number of threads in here that made for and can still make for very good debate and discussion. These threads should be opened up and moved back to the DH. There are also a lot of threads with little merit that should remain locked and perhaps be removed altogether (sent to the Rubbish Bin). Also, there should be a compiled list of all previous debates with links to those threads. For instance, we've had topics in the past on global warming, evolution, health care, etc. We could consolidate a list of these threads in one stickied topic. This way, if someone is thinking of making a new thread ("I wonder if this topic has been discussed before in the DH...") there's an easy way of finding out.
I believe we should retain the Archives sub-forum as a permanent storage for threads related to past contests, the "DHAI", and other such events.

I like Sucumbio's ideas for a Debate Hall Activities thread, quoted in the first post, and we'll have to figure out good way to implement these. Same with CK's ideas for collaborating with Forum Games and such.

I know there were a few more things discussed, and I'll have to read those points later. These are some of my thoughts for the time being.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I also like most of KrazyGlue's ideas from the first post in this thread in regard to increasing activity. I don't know what specific ideas you guys have for revamping the "current events" thread (originally started by KrazyGlue), but I know that the Current Events sub-forum in the Pool Room was mentioned and also that this sub-forum seems to be pretty popular. We could use the same format as in KrazyGlue's current events thread, but rather than trying to come up with a topic out of the blue each week, we could use a topic from the Current Events sub-forum in the PRoom. So in other words, each week, look at all the threads in the Current Events sub-forum, pick one we like, and then use that as the topic of the week for our current events thread in the DH. This could be mirrored in the PG as well (ie, make a current events thread in the PG that discusses the same topics as the one in the DH).

Great idea; I hadn't thought of that.

Regarding the Archives: There are a number of threads in here that made for and can still make for very good debate and discussion. These threads should be opened up and moved back to the DH. There are also a lot of threads with little merit that should remain locked and perhaps be removed altogether (sent to the Rubbish Bin). Also, there should be a compiled list of all previous debates with links to those threads. For instance, we've had topics in the past on global warming, evolution, health care, etc. We could consolidate a list of these threads in one stickied topic. This way, if someone is thinking of making a new thread ("I wonder if this topic has been discussed before in the DH...") there's an easy way of finding out.

Funny, I was just thinking about proposing this idea. So yeah, I agree obviously. I'd be willing to help put the list together.

Here's my proposal of the layout:

[collapse=Topic: Marijuana]Marijuana threads here[/collapse]

[collapse=Topic: Global Warming]Global warming threads here[/collapse]

[collapse=Topic: Religion]Religion threads here[/collapse]

And so on. We could even put subtopics within the collapsed general topics, like so:

[collapse=Topic: Religion][collapse=Subtopic: Does God exist?]Threads here[/collapse]
[collapse=Subtopic: Is Religion beneficial to society?]Threads here[/collapse][/collapse]

I believe we should retain the Archives sub-forum as a permanent storage for threads related to past contests, the "DHAI", and other such events.

Yeah, sounds fine.

 

[blazedaces]

Wow, great idea Krazy... I like it.

-blazed

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

I agree with Blazed, that idea looks really good. It should help with organization and will help new and old members alike look for specific topics to debate.

 

[BSP]

And, the idea would keep the debates alive and going. Looks great to me.

Keeping the PG is cool. I'm positive Succumbio will be a moderator for the room, keeping activity up and letting us know who he thinks is ready. If we have active moderation, with more temp. debators, it should run smoothly.

 

[RDK]

I'm liking the epic circle-jerk in here guys, keep it up.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Thanks for the support blazed, Vrael, and mariobrouser.

Anyway, I'm thinking I could pretty much start the revamped current events thread now. I'll just bump the old one and edit it. Do you guys have any preferences for the first topic, or should I just pick one from the pool room?

(By the way, instead of weekly I think I'll just switch the topic when it seems the old one has been sufficiently discussed.)

 

[Sucumbio]

the CE thread will be fun, can't wait to see its revamped-ness. same with the archives catalog, and thank you for volunteering to go through all those bazillion topics and linking them up

 

[RDK]

the CE thread will be fun, can't wait to see its revamped-ness. same with the archives catalog, and thank you for volunteering to go through all those bazillion topics and linking them up

Go **** yourself.

 

[blazedaces]

Thanks for the support blazed, Vrael, and mariobrouser.

Anyway, I'm thinking I could pretty much start the revamped current events thread now. I'll just bump the old one and edit it. Do you guys have any preferences for the first topic, or should I just pick one from the pool room?

(By the way, instead of weekly I think I'll just switch the topic when it seems the old one has been sufficiently discussed.)

I say just pick one from the pool room, but whatever.

I'm really liking the activity I see in the DH... finally being able to check daily and finding new posts...

-blazed

Edit: ... RDK? ... What?

 

[Sucumbio]

"It's just his style, Morg. He doesn't mean anything."

Yeah I guess pick a topic from the PR CE discussion but change it out if it gets stale? something to this effect.

 

[Riddle]

Does anyone remember my idea about tutoring PG'ers? I think that if we matched up experienced debaters and up-and-coming ones that we could boost the quality of debate.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Right, I guess we could still have a mentoring thread in the PG. I'm pretty sure Sucumbio supports the idea, but we'll have to hear from GS and EE as well.

Alright folks, I'll bump that CE thread soon, but it'll take a bit of time to rewrite the rules and post the new topic. I'll try to get it up today, but don't be surprised if I need a day or two.

 

[GoldShadow]

Okay, so some more on a few of the ideas thrown around in here:

-Instead of making any major changes to the Debate Hall Archives, it would make more sense to just move certain threads back here to the DH. This would include recent threads on topics that are still relevant, discussable, etc. It would not include older threads in which the members who participated are no longer Debaters.

-We'll have to get working on a compiled list of debates. KG, you said you'd be willing to help with that?

-As for a mentoring thread in the PG, I personally don't see a need for it, as that's what the entire PG is for. If Sucumbio or EE or others think it's a good idea, though, I don't see how it could hurt.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Yes, I'd like to help with the compiled list. I just need to know which ones I should include. Below is what the OP would look like and what categories the debates could be organized into.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Easy-Find" List of Archived Topics



This should help people find old topics and ideas in the archives.

NOTE: I'm not done yet. And it will most likely take a while to finish. At first, it will probably appear disorganized, but once I've put all the links in, I'll figure out how to organize them better.

NOTE #2: Many topics will not be included since little or no useful/pertinent discussion occurred in them. Even if a 2008 election thread had many intelligent posts, I'm not going to include it because it is no longer relevant. I might add an "outdated" section later, but that is very low priority.

Topics​

[collapse=Environment / Energy]not complete[/collapse]

[collapse=Philosophical / Moral]not complete[/collapse]

[collapse=Political / Legal]not complete[/collapse]

[collapse=Religion]not complete[/collapse]

[collapse=Scientific]not complete[/collapse]



------------------------------------------------------------------



By the way, I'm still against the PG. Sucumbio has done a great job and all, but it's more active in there than in the DH. I think we really just need a single, centralized debate hall with no side areas. I REALLY think that the DH activity plus the PG activity could make for a lively room. Most people who come to the PG generally have good intentions and are decent enough, and when there's an exception they can be dealt with appropriately.

 

[Sucumbio]

I don't really see a need for a mentoring thread in the PG. If the PG is eliminated then yes, I'd recommend one be created. But then we're back to "what's the difference between having the PG or having a thread like the PG" to which the reply is "one is just a thread, the other is a whole different room with mod requirements/posting restrictions, etc."

My take, I'm all for making things better, and I cannot disagree that reducing everything to one forum would technically be more efficient, and would likely lead to a greater post-count in the room (activity). I believe the hesitation against this course of action is the presumed quality of this activity, but as you point out the potential problem posters would be far and few between and dealt with easily.

 

[Deleted member]

Perhaps a "Post pictures of yourself in the DH" thread?

 

[blazedaces]

Perhaps a "Post pictures of yourself in the DH" thread?

I'd vote against this, but that's just me. I enjoy the anonymity...

-blazed

 

[Deleted member]

I'd vote against this, but that's just me. I enjoy the anonymity...

-blazed

You would.

 

[Mewter]

New topic of the day: Which hat looks better on Del?
Go. : P

I'm with blazed.

 

[Sucumbio]

KG has kindly reminded me of our discussion prior regarding a debate hall activities thread.

As such I'd like to open discussions on what types of activities we'd like to see in here, and how they'd play out, rules, etc.

Any thoughts on what type of planned activities we could muster? I think we may want to start with something simple, but any ideas/input are welcome!

My first thoughts are on an essay contest. We often enjoy making long posts. I think it'd be great to have a thread where a single poster posts an essay and then fellow DH members debate it. For instance this essay which was used as a contest piece for myself, Dre. and Bob-T to debate upon, while a fairly ridiculous piece of work, is good fodder for debate. Rather than just searching for like essays to debate upon, I'd like to see some of our DH members craft their own essays, to which others may debate on it. The OP need not participate in the debate itself, it'll be hard enough to craft an essay that can be debated properly, but they may if they wish, and especially if the discussion following contains points that signify a deep misunderstanding of the OP.

 

[Dre89]

KG has kindly reminded me of our discussion prior regarding a debate hall activities thread.

As such I'd like to open discussions on what types of activities we'd like to see in here, and how they'd play out, rules, etc.

Any thoughts on what type of planned activities we could muster? I think we may want to start with something simple, but any ideas/input are welcome!

My first thoughts are on an essay contest. We often enjoy making long posts. I think it'd be great to have a thread where a single poster posts an essay and then fellow DH members debate it. For instance this essay which was used as a contest piece for myself, Dre. and Bob-T to debate upon, while a fairly ridiculous piece of work, is good fodder for debate. Rather than just searching for like essays to debate upon, I'd like to see some of our DH members craft their own essays, to which others may debate on it. The OP need not participate in the debate itself, it'll be hard enough to craft an essay that can be debated properly, but they may if they wish, and especially if the discussion following contains points that signify a deep misunderstanding of the OP.

That seems like a good idea. How many people are willing to craft essays for is another story. If anyone's interested I'm happy to just paste essays I've done for uni.

What do you think about 1 v 1 debates? This is generally the standard 'organised activity' for a debate forum, and in my opinion, they generate the best debates. I also suggested devil's advocate debates, where people argue opposing positions (I would argue God doesn't exist for example). Someone said the DA debates were done in the past and apparently they were pretty interesting. I also think it's a good way of measuring how good a debater truly is because they don't have the bias of defending a position they are personally tied to.

 

[Sucumbio]

1.) Essay Contest
2.) 1 on 1 Debate
3.) Devil's Advocate Debate

that's 3, lets see what else we can think of.

My thoughts on 1v1 ... hm, well yeah I'd be down, there's no reason why it would not work. We can start a 1 on 1 thread in which DH members submit their names and 2 are drawn randomly to debate upon a subject that could also be picked randomly (I have a random number generator, would just need to number each participant and subject matter) and of course for this we'd need to come up with several potential topics.

My thoughts on DA ... this could work well, DA debate are usually good, again it'd require some sort of consensus regarding topics and then we'd want to establish the participants and which side they're defending.

And for any of these and any others we may wish to formulate a debate judge panel. I'd submit several names to be debate judges, as their ability to identify logical fallacy is well met.

Goldshadow
AltF4
RDK
Aesir

I think these 4 debaters would make a good panel of judges for weighing in on any contest results, especially 1v1 or the like.

 

[Dre89]

The problem with topics being chosen randomly is that people will get topics they're not familiar with.

I think trying to prepare in such a formal manner will slow down productivity, I say people should just start 1v1 threads with their opponent (and label them 1v1 threads) to save time.

As for judge panels, I don't think there should be a permanent panel. I think the panel should be selected depending on the topic, so that the panel encompasses a diversity of beliefs.

Take a God debate for example with the panel you just mentioned. They'd all be fair and unabised as possible, but that doesn't change the fact that the panel is four atheists who prioritise physics over metaphysics. So I think the panel should be dependant on the topic.

Perhaps we could vote on judge panels for specific fields. For example there could be a panel for philosophical issues, then one for scientific, one for politcs, one for arts etc.

Edit: How cool would it be if the judges got different coloured titles that said 'Debate Judge' or something like that.

 

[KrazyGlue]

The problem with topics being chosen randomly is that people will get topics they're not familiar with.

I think trying to prepare in such a formal manner will slow down productivity, I say people should just start 1v1 threads with their opponent (and label them 1v1 threads) to save time.

I agree with all of this. Plus, if two people are chosen randomly and the topic turns out to be something they agree on, one of them may be forced to play DA, giving them and unfair disadvantage.

As for judge panels, I don't think there should be a permanent panel. I think the panel should be selected depending on the topic, so that the panel encompasses a diversity of beliefs.

Take a God debate for example with the panel you just mentioned. They'd all be fair and unabised as possible, but that doesn't change the fact that the panel is four atheists who prioritise physics over metaphysics. So I think the panel should be dependant on the topic.

Perhaps we could vote on judge panels for specific fields. For example there could be a panel for philosophical issues, then one for scientific, one for politcs, one for arts etc.

Good suggestion. The panels would probably have to be just 2 people for some issues though, since in many issues there is only one person who has different views than the majority. For instance, your views on religion may be unique here, and I'm pretty sure I'm the only one here against the legalization of marijuana.

Edit: How cool would it be if the judges got different coloured titles that said 'Debate Judge' or something like that.

Haha, yeah that would be nice but the admins would never grant us that lol.

 

[Dre89]

I agree with all of this. Plus, if two people are chosen randomly and the topic turns out to be something they agree on, one of them may be forced to play DA, giving them and unfair disadvantage.

Isn't it funny that the only time someone agrees with me is when I'm not debating.

Good suggestion. The panels would probably have to be just 2 people for some issues though, since in many issues there is only one person who has different views than the majority. For instance, your views on religion may be unique here, and I'm pretty sure I'm the only one here against the legalization of marijuana.

To be honest, the reason why I think the panel should be limited to two people is because most debaters here aren't active enough to have a productive debate with two debaters and then four panelists.

In fact, I'd even be happy with one judge. I'd be happy to judge something like a God debate. I'm not bias towards theism/diesm, I've read two God debates that I haven't participated in, and it was my belief the atheist won both times (one of those was even Richar dDawkins, so that's proof I wouldn't be baised).

What I suggest is that we divide into the fields I mentioned before. Then what we do is elect a certain number of people for each field. These people would be people who we feel are good debaters in that field and have the maturity to conduct themselves in such debates. Then what we can do is use that pool of people as both the debaters and judges for that field. Generally if we rate that person high enough to debate in that field, they would be good enough to judge as well.

For more grey issues such as the God debate, which is technically a philosophy issue but has had good contributions from non-philosophers, we can just elect a pool of people who have been notable contributors to the debate.

Haha, yeah that would be nice but the admins would never grant us that lol.

I probably wasn't going to be elected as a judge anyway so there was no need for me to get excited.

Just another question; has there been a system established as to how reforms are passed? Or is it just a matter of asking the moderator, and if he likes it we go ahead with it?

Because to be honest, reform activity seems to be slow. It's been at least over a month since we started brainstorming new reforms and despite the good ideas apart from new moderators nothing has been done.

I think something has to change for there to be action. What I suggest is that the moderator delegate reform responsibility to 3 or so respected debaters. What I mean is that they are given the authority to initiate any reforms they desire without having to run it past the general community.

What this would give us is faster activity, and naturally the power will be used for good for they will be trusted debaters. I can't imagine the people initating reforms so horrid that their privellage be revoked.

Also, if we're going to keep the PG, I think it should actually be a PG, not just a second DH.

The PG is no longer a place where DHers merely stimulate PG debate, DHers now dominate debates there, even at times ganging up on PGers.

What I suggest is that from now on, DHers should not be allowed to make any argumentative posts in the PG, only do things such as ask questions to stimulate discussion.

To avoid further DHer debates in there, only one DHer should be allowed to participate per thread. We can even elect (or just have the moderator choose) who the 'mentors' will be, and perhaps like with the 1v1 debates we can divide them into separate fields of study.

Just my two cents. Let me know what you guys think. All the talk here is good but nothing is being done, I'm not blaiming anyone but I really want to push for some immediate changes.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Isn't it funny that the only time someone agrees with me is when I'm not debating.

I don't think there's anything wrong with me disagreeing with your views; that shouldn't be held against me.

Just another question; has there been a system established as to how reforms are passed? Or is it just a matter of asking the moderator, and if he likes it we go ahead with it?

Because to be honest, reform activity seems to be slow. It's been at least over a month since we started brainstorming new reforms and despite the good ideas apart from new moderators nothing has been done.

I think something has to change for there to be action. What I suggest is that the moderator delegate reform responsibility to 3 or so respected debaters. What I mean is that they are given the authority to initiate any reforms they desire without having to run it past the general community.

What this would give us is faster activity, and naturally the power will be used for good for they will be trusted debaters. I can't imagine the people initating reforms so horrid that their privellage be revoked.

I'd love to participate in this. But I think the "reformers" should run their ideas by the community to make sure the people who are going to be affected by the change actually like it. Also multiple reformers could help compile that "Easy Find" (links to archived topics) list we were planning to do, since it's way too much for me to do by myself.

Waiting for input from Sucumbio, GoldShadow, and EE on this idea.

Also, if we're going to keep the PG, I think it should actually be a PG, not just a second DH.

The PG is no longer a place where DHers merely stimulate PG debate, DHers now dominate debates there, even at times ganging up on PGers.

What I suggest is that from now on, DHers should not be allowed to make any argumentative posts in the PG, only do things such as ask questions to stimulate discussion.

To avoid further DHer debates in there, only one DHer should be allowed to participate per thread. We can even elect (or just have the moderator choose) who the 'mentors' will be, and perhaps like with the 1v1 debates we can divide them into separate fields of study.

Just my two cents. Let me know what you guys think. All the talk here is good but nothing is being done, I'm not blaiming anyone but I really want to push for some immediate changes.

Sounds like a lot of red tape to me. I still think the PG should just be eliminated.

 

[Dre89]

I don't think there's anything wrong with me disagreeing with your views; that shouldn't be held against me.

I never said it was wrong it to disagree with me, I just find the fact funny but almost sad at the same time.

I'd love to participate in this. But I think the "reformers" should run their ideas by the community to make sure the people who are going to be affected by the change actually like it. Also multiple reformers could help compile that "Easy Find" (links to archived topics) list we were planning to do, since it's way too much for me to do by myself.

Waiting for input from Sucumbio, GoldShadow, and EE on this idea.

I guess the reforms I'm talking about don't really affect non-willing debaters. I'm talking about 1v1 debates, Sucumbio's essay contests, they don't affect people who don't want to participate in them.

There'd still be the option to have the regular debates we have now, just additional styles two. The elected authorities wouldn't have moderating privellages so it's not as if they could change fundamental sturcture of the DH, they'd just add new threads with different styles of debating (essays, 1v1, etc.)

Sounds like a lot of red tape to me. I still think the PG should just be eliminated.

I agree it should be removed, but it doesn't seem like anything is being done to remove it, so for now I suggest we actually make it a PG again and not just another DH where slightly more people can post. To be honest it's gotten to the point that if I start a thread I just start it in the PG so more people can participate.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I guess the reforms I'm talking about don't really affect non-willing debaters. I'm talking about 1v1 debates, Sucumbio's essay contests, they don't affect people who don't want to participate in them.

There'd still be the option to have the regular debates we have now, just additional styles two. The elected authorities wouldn't have moderating privellages so it's not as if they could change fundamental sturcture of the DH, they'd just add new threads with different styles of debating (essays, 1v1, etc.)



I agree it should be removed, but it doesn't seem like anything is being done to remove it, so for now I suggest we actually make it a PG again and not just another DH where slightly more people can post. To be honest it's gotten to the point that if I start a thread I just start it in the PG so more people can participate.

These all sound well and good to me. I love your last paragraph. The PG has basically turned into a proxy DH.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Is there anyone actually opposed to getting rid of the PG? It doesn't seem like it. So I don't know why it's still here.

Also it would be nice to see the moderators' positions on these suggestions.

 

[Sucumbio]

As I understand it the Proving Grounds of the past served a purpose in reducing the workload for staffs to keep the Debate Hall clutter-free. The Proving Grounds of today, however, is more of a stepping stone to becoming a Debate Hall member.

I'm glad you brought this up again, because being a moderator and now having que-ability I can see that several potentially good debaters have applied for Debate Hall status, but are NOT first joining the Temp Debaters group, just going straight for the Debate Hall. This isn't because they're trying to be slick, it's because intuitively speaking, they feel that this is the correct course of action. This ultimately defeats their initiative because there their request remains, unapproved due to the fact they have not first joined the temp debaters group.

To help remedy this I've PM'd several of the pending DH posters requesting they first apply to the PG. Hopefully this will be well met (we've had 2 out of 10 or so follow these instructions).

The real question is, going forward, is it enough for us Mods to just keep an eye on the request ques and do what we're doing, or is it better to eliminate the PG and just handle requests. It's no issue to simply click "remove" if a particular poster is being disruptive. Records of our decisions are easily kept in PMs so we do not get confused or "forget" who we've had to forcibly remove, etc. Now that we have 3 active mods, the process should not be too complicated.

Ultimately, I'd wait for some input from CK. When we made the social group for reform ideas and posted them here, he did reply, and with satisfactory results, but perhaps this particular issue of "can we get rid of the PG" needs an affirmative yes/no.

 

[GoldShadow]

What I suggest is that from now on, DHers should not be allowed to make any argumentative posts in the PG, only do things such as ask questions to stimulate discussion.

Yeah, I agree with this. This is pretty much what I try to do when I post in the PG, rather than crafting complex arguments. I think DHers should limit their posts in the PG to stimulating proper argument, correcting PGers' style or method when it's incorrect, asking critical questions as necessary, steering the debate to better avenues, etc. In other words, leave the actual debating to the PGers.

To avoid further DHer debates in there, only one DHer should be allowed to participate per thread. We can even elect (or just have the moderator choose) who the 'mentors' will be, and perhaps like with the 1v1 debates we can divide them into separate fields of study.

I think this is a little unnecessary and perhaps too convoluted without a real purpose. There's no need to limit who can post in what thread or subdivide by topic. Just put forth an effort and make sure that, if you're a DHer, you don't start arguing with other DHers in the PG.

I'd love to participate in this. But I think the "reformers" should run their ideas by the community to make sure the people who are going to be affected by the change actually like it. Also multiple reformers could help compile that "Easy Find" (links to archived topics) list we were planning to do, since it's way too much for me to do by myself.

I think the idea of 'reformers' adds an unnecessary level of heirarchy and complexity. Reforms and suggestions can be proposed by anybody in this thread.

As far as the compiled list goes, I'll go ahead and start the thread. Then, any DHer can post in that thread with topics/links/etc. and I can just edit it into the first post.


In regard to removing the PG: I disagree.

Since anybody can apply to the PG, it means there will be a number of people who aren't really up to par for the DH. The PG is good because we can let them develop while discussing a number of topics. What if there was no PG? Would you want to limit these people to a 'mentoring thread' of some sort? There are two issues with this: 1) Logistical/moderating issues. If we don't want these people posting in other threads until they've improved, we have no way of physically stopping them, and 2) How's a 'mentoring thread' supposed to work? Does everybody post there? Are multiple debates or discussions going on at the same time between multiple people? It's much better to separate these into a different room that contains different threads on different topics, ie, the PG.

 

[GoldShadow]

I'm glad you brought this up again, because being a moderator and now having que-ability I can see that several potentially good debaters have applied for Debate Hall status, but are NOT first joining the Temp Debaters group, just going straight for the Debate Hall. This isn't because they're trying to be slick, it's because intuitively speaking, they feel that this is the correct course of action. This ultimately defeats their initiative because there their request remains, unapproved due to the fact they have not first joined the temp debaters group.

I think the issue is that there's nothing explaining the procedure for entry into the DH (and PG), and the DH description on the main page is outdated.

I'll work on making a new thread explaining the procedures.