[Discussion] A Program Schedule for the Coliseum

[Coyote]

Ray has thoughtfully provided the following for the Coliseum:

The Senate will open up the Coliseum and release the motion of a debate on the starting of the month to the members in the forum. Submission entry deadline is on the 5th of every month.

In regards to the selection process for the participants, the senate will reach a decision on the 7th of every month, and people are selected on a first come first serve basis. Note that the senate will not be able to choose the participants, as the ability to select the members will only be given for those joining in a special round debate.

The debate will formally start on the 10th of every month, and users are restricted to a posting limit and a time limit. It is to ensure a debate can come to a conclusion easily and prevent any act of flaming in the Coliseum.

January: Scientific debates, motion selected and chosen by the Senate or Mike, debating for your personal stance.
February: Political debates, Motion taken from the public discussion board, debating against your personal stance
March: Economic debates, selected motion, debating side chosen at random by the senate (you may or may not debate against your personal stand)
April: Humour round debate, person who made the funniest arguments wins the debate
May: Sci-fi fantasy debates, motion selected, against your personal stand.
June: philosophical/ moral debate, motion taken from discussion board, for your personal stand.
July: Scientific debate, motion taken from discussion board, debating against your personal stand.
August: Political debates, Motion taken from the public discussion board, debating for your personal stance
September: Economic debates, motion taken from the public discussion, debating for your personal stand.
October: Sci-fi fantasy debates, motion selected, for your personal stand.
November: Political debates, Motion taken from the public discussion board, debating side chosen at random by the senate.
December: Economic debates, motion taken from the public discussion, debating side chosen at random.

Special round debates: hosted together with the official debate, if an issue not related to the type of motion in that month was getting interesting and is heavily discussed by the forum.

Special round debates include history debates and any other debates that is not listed in the above list as well.

Submission or request for a special round debate needs to be made by two participants as compared to one. This is to reduce the needless amount of request that only one person will be interested in.


Ask about the changes that needs to be made.

Since the participants in the Coliseum shall be from among the masses, what say you? We'll discuss this and eventually take the ideas to vote, just like the Senate.

If this passes the House of Commons, it'll go to the Senate for vote, and provided it passes both we'll refer this to Lord Wong to be posted as an official timetable for Coliseum participation.

So, in the House's first official topic up for review, what say ye?

[Lusankya]

Possibly change the submission deadline to the first of every month, so there's a week for the decision to be made (with an exception for this December, if we get this organised in time, I guess).

And maybe, instead of "arguing for/against your personal stance", we should just delegate someone to take the affirmative side and someone else to take the negative side - otherwise we could end up with the same problem that we had before, but in reverse, where everyone wanted to debate the same side. Participants can express a preference for affirmative or negative, and if there are no applicants for one side of the argument, then an opponent will be chosen from those who applied for the other side.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Possibly change the submission deadline to the first of every month, so there's a week for the decision to be made (with an exception for this December, if we get this organised in time, I guess).

And maybe, instead of "arguing for/against your personal stance", we should just delegate someone to take the affirmative side and someone else to take the negative side - otherwise we could end up with the same problem that we had before, but in reverse, where everyone wanted to debate the same side. Participants can express a preference for affirmative or negative, and if there are no applicants for one side of the argument, then an opponent will be chosen from those who applied for the other side.

That would indeed make the most sense. We are not going to find many people on this board to argue for economic regulation if we are supposed to argue against our position.

[ray245]

Just noticed something, I have failed to put in numbers for the posting limit and the time limit.

Perhaps a debate can last for 10 days , and the debaters are only limited to 10 post? This way, we can actually ensure the debate can come to a conclusion and allows the judge to see if the debaters missed out any points.

When you are limited to 10 posts, there is a high chance you might miss out a chance for a rebuttal. Hence, causing you to lose the debate, even if you are arguing against a moral high ground.

[Samuel]

What is the criteria to get a debate from the boondocks booted up into the Coliseum? And why would I want to undergo that?

[Ghost Rider]

What is the criteria to get a debate from the boondocks booted up into the Coliseum?

Who knows. Apparently this is some preliminary to...use it more? Really, that's about it.

And why would I want to undergo that?

Probably not all unless it is a subject you want one on one and people are dogpiling you. Which is the intent of the place to begin with. But given we haven't had many last long enough to put forward to the place, this looks more or less trying to force debates, which is the wrong way of handling things on a place where people come to entertain themselves.

[ray245]

What is the criteria to get a debate from the boondocks booted up into the Coliseum? And why would I want to undergo that?

Through a special request to the Senate. And to have a coliseum special round debate allows you to deliver a decisive argument and post.

Say a lurker is on this board reading about the political issues. Instead of having read through 20 pages of flaming and debate, he only needs to read a debate in coliseum, where there is a posting limit, and he can actually see what is the arguments being made.

Bascially, discussion will be a long-winded form of debate, while a debate inside the coliseum can be a short and straight forward one.

A posting limit also ensure people will make use of less personal attacks.

[Sarevok]

No offense guys but I think we had far more discussion about what we will do in collesium than we did in there...

Maybe it's time for a "Collesium Proposals" sub forum ? :p

[Ace Pace]

No offense guys but I think we had far more discussion about what we will do in collesium than we did in there...

Maybe it's time for a "Collesium Proposals" sub forum ? :p

I'm seriously tired of pointing this out, but in the Senate Coliseum thread, there kept coming up mentions of people wanting to debate. And you know what happened? Nothing, with all the good will.
You know what series of actually useful suggestions came up in the end?

I wonder if we're going about this Coliseum business in the wrong way. By soliciting topics and then trying to find volunteers to debate it, or by having someone pick a pet topic and asking if anyone would like to debate them on it, the process takes too long and none of the topics proposed stay fresh enough for action to be taken - if two people ever even decide to take positions against each other, which happens rarely enough.

Inspired by the proposed revitalization of the Horsemen, I say we take the Coliseum less seriously and let it be a little more free-wheeling. I say we treat it like a dueling ground and let topics come from the general debate forums; anyone can challenge anyone else on any topic at any time, and if the challenge is accepted we just give it a quick Yes or No before it goes into the arena. It's already understood that the Coliseum is meant for in-depth debates so I don't think we'll have to weed out joke topics, and it will also encourage people who want to prove themselves at debate to get in on the game, and even acceptably re-hash old topics without cluttering up the individual forums with redundancy, since the showcase is the debaters rather than the topic itself.

What say ye?

We'd probably have to ask a challenger or challenge-ee to PM a Senator with a link to the challenge so we know one has been made and accepted, but I don't think that's such a big deal.

What someone anon suggested:

Appoint someone, senator, plebe, or actually anyone with some common sense to accept challenges, check if they're valid. If so, said person will open a thread, announce the schedule of rounds and let it go. This way you can have quick turn around from "idea" to "debate".

Thoughts?

I think we should do that. Nothing too formal, just let members challenge each other. If the challenge is accepted, they agree to some rules (length of debate, maximum response time, acceptable sources), with the option for someone in the staff to impose conditions if they can't come to an agreement (maybe come up with a standard format for debates that the participants can change if they agree, but otherwise, they stay with the standard). And then let them go to town with just the two of them.

I would add, no commentary threads. The last one was used to dogpile Voluntaryist by proxy; that's hardly fair. It's like letting the spectators at a boxing match throw batteries at the fighter they're rooting against.

Or to sum it up, the proposed structure was have someone appointed (or multiple people) who vet Coli matchs. Any pair of people can turn to that person, ask for a debate, lay out their points, and said person can open a thread and kick it off.
No overally complicated "monthly matchs" where you won't find anyone. Or finding convuleted topics. You get a pair of people who want to debate each other? Coli match.

[ray245]

Ace Pace, I do see merit in your idea, but you have to consider several factors as well.

If the senate simply let anyone who wish to debate in the Coliseum, then it will undermine the purpose of a Coliseum.

Which means there will be huge amount of debates going on at the same time, and potentially it can have a negative effect. When you let too many people post at once in the coliseum, rules enforcement will be harder, people may get themselves involved in other debating thread and so on.

In essence, the uniqueness of the Coliseum will be gone.

Secondly, if you are going to limit the debates to a certain amount, how is the senators going to ensure debaters that are less touched upon will be given a chance. If there is many people requesting for a social/political debate, and only two members requesting for a history debate, how are you going to choose which topic should be opened in the Coliseum?

The problem of affirmitive actions will take place. Take for example, the design of military equipment is a type of debate where most people cannot participate in, due to a lack of specific and detailed knowledge. So, will the Senate give a precedence for this kind of debate over a social debate?

[Thanas]

There is no way I am going to debate with the Duchess about the roman military if there is any kind of post or time limit. So if anybody makes those ideas into mandatory rules you can count me out.

Limits should be decided between the two persons who enter the debate.

[Ace Pace]

Ace Pace, I do see merit in your idea, but you have to consider several factors as well.

If the senate simply let anyone who wish to debate in the Coliseum, then it will undermine the purpose of a Coliseum.


Which means there will be huge amount of debates going on at the same time, and potentially it can have a negative effect. When you let too many people post at once in the coliseum, rules enforcement will be harder, people may get themselves involved in other debating thread and so on.

In essence, the uniqueness of the Coliseum will be gone.

What the fuck do you think I suggested? Some person (doesn't have to be a senator) is basically a common sense dude. You don't let sixty debates go on, you let something unique. Anarchism debate is unique. McCain Vs Obama is unique. Random debate between two people? not unique.

Secondly, if you are going to limit the debates to a certain amount, how is the senators going to ensure debaters that are less touched upon will be given a chance. If there is many people requesting for a social/political debate, and only two members requesting for a history debate, how are you going to choose which topic should be opened in the Coliseum?

I trust the person in charge will have some common sense. Asumming said person is senator/mod/admin, said person probably has common sense.

The problem of affirmitive actions will take place. Take for example, the design of military equipment is a type of debate where most people cannot participate in, due to a lack of specific and detailed knowledge. So, will the Senate give a precedence for this kind of debate over a social debate?

A military equiptment debate is not something for the Coli, because it's not a 'real' debate. I think you're overestimating the complexity and what will be brought up.

Most debates will not take place there. The idea in a nutshell is to simplify getting a debate there.
The details is some person/persons is/are in charge of deciding what goes in and doesn't, and the format. Format can be anything from a template to free flow discussion (though I think that should be in the specific forum rather than in the Coli). Thats it.


Thanas, I agree there is no reason to involve these time limits or whatever, this is why we have people with common sense in charge. Though personally, such a debate can be done in the current history forum.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Honestly I think structuring the debates and schedule is needlessly complicated. Roman despots did not have a rigid schedule. The emperor declared the games, and underlings organized the matches and forms. That is how this should be.

All we need is some set system in place to bring gladiators to the field. We already have 1 confirmed match between myself and bubble boy on ID, with him playing devils advocate. All we really needed in the end was a way for us to directly communicate with The Senate instead of through disjointed PMs. The existence of the House of Commons has pretty much as far as I see it, solved the problem.

[ray245]

Not necessary. The Senates needs set up a deadline and open up a debate within a time limit. For example, there was a Obama and McCain debate that was supposed to take place.

What happened in the end? The senate is unable to give us a clear date on when will the debate start, and who is involved in it. And due to that reason, the Coliseum never really kick off.

If anything, I feel that the 'training round' debate that is going to start owes its origin to chance. I have a feeling that if we don't have a proper schedule, it will take months before the next debate will be orgainsed. The next debate after the 'training round debate'.

Moreover, there are voices in the crowd who feels that the 'training round' serve no purpose. If there are enough people who oppose that motion or debate, the debate will be cancelled, and we can never see a debate in the Coliseum.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Not necessary. The Senates needs set up a deadline and open up a debate within a time limit. For example, there was a Obama and McCain debate that was supposed to take place.

What happened in the end? The senate is unable to give us a clear date on when will the debate start, and who is involved in it. And due to that reason, the Coliseum never really kick off.

If anything, I feel that the 'training round' debate that is going to start owes its origin to chance. I have a feeling that if we don't have a proper schedule, it will take months before the next debate will be orgainsed. The next debate after the 'training round debate'.

Moreover, there are voices in the crowd who feels that the 'training round' serve no purpose. If there are enough people who oppose that motion or debate, the debate will be cancelled, and we can never see a debate in the Coliseum.

The debate's subject is such that it's existence will probably remain even if the purpose for it does not. Because both BB and myself want to do it for our own pleasure and the Arena needs a good match.

The reason nothing has happened with the Senate proper is Diffusion of responsibility. With the only Colliseum thread open in the senate we have to go through the senators and none of them wants to take the initiative past the opening stages of saying "That sounds fun" and motion in the senate.

This way, we can bug them about it, set the rules, and time, and then they can just vote up or down on it. Makes the process much smoother.

[Coyote]

Look, here's the deal with the Coliseum. The Senate isn't really in a position to set the timetable or make the arrangements because the Senate is an advisory body, not a implementation body. The closest we get to implementing something is when it comes time to ban someone, and even then, we decide the ban but someone else has to carry out the action. Otherwise, take note about recent events-- we can discuss, debate, agree, and decide on something, but when that "something" needs to be done, we have to track down a Admin or Mod.

Not everyone has the desire to be an Admin or Mod, and of those that have the temperament & desire may not always have the time. That's why there's a lot of "gee, this/that debate schedule is a great idea" in the Senate, followed by a lot of nothing. No one in the Senate really wants to tell people what to debate about and to be honest I don't think it's our jobs to. It's up to motivated individuals to come up with topics that really inspire them.

Ray's plan is to fill the gaps with a schedule of ideas. From what I understand about his plan, it is not set in stone-- this is what we use to fill the gaps when no one can think of anything else. Otherwise, if there is another debate topic that is already of interest, we go with that. I think it's a good idea precisely because it is not some proclamation from up on high, so to speak, but a grassroots idea that can be morphed as we need it.

And, speaking of morphing-- we already see some disagreement about having time restrictions and limits ot the amount of posts. To an extent, there is precedent for that with Voluntaryist's argument about libertarianism. The problem is, that was largely a show trial. But there's no reason why we cannot allow for a "structured" debate in some cases, or a "freestyle" debate in others, provided both agree to it beforehand. For example, Marina is very busy so if she were to agree to a debate, she'd probably want something with a set period of rounds and a definite end point. But someone without a restriction on their personal time could agree to go until the debate was won-- and let's face it, even our most knock-down drag-out fights, things like Israel & Palestine, Gun Control, and others-- have lasted about 2-3 weeks at most, I think.

[Coyote]

In the upcoming Alyrium vs. Bubble debate, I set December 7th as a go-date because it was symbolic (Pearl Harbor Day) and because it was early in the month (giving time for a debate to unwind over the following weeks) and yet also far enough in advance to give the two participants time to prepare.

But again, because we're all finding out feet with this, it should not be set in stone.

I'd recommend that topic and participants be decided "no later than" the 7th of each month, because that's within the first week and leaves 3 weeks for a debate-- plenty of time.

If no one steps up, we go with what's on Ray's proposed schedule if anyone is interested (if no one's motivated for anything at all, well, I guess that's what).

At any time, a feud in another part of the board can become a main event, and pre-empt something on the schedule.

[ray245]

I was wondering, if there is anyone else that oppose such a proposal in regards to Coyote post?

Perhaps we can create a deadline for this discussion to end, and create a poll in regards to the program schedule for the Coliseum?

If not, such a proposal will never go beyond the discussion stage.

[Coyote]

Here is my proposal for the Rules of the Coliseum. If we can agree on these, I'll make a Sticky.

CHALLENGERS TO THE COLISEUM:


SETTING UP DEBATES:
Here is what you do to get into the Coliseum:

1- NOBLE'S DUEL: You and an opponent agree to debate something in the Coliseum.
2- THUNDERDOME: You are in a debate elsewhere on the board and feel you are being ganged up on/dogpiled, and challenge your opponents to pick a champion to debate one-on-one in the Coliseum. Two may enter, one may leave.


TYPES OF DEBATES:
Debates in the Coliseum can be Structured or Freestyle.

STRUCTURED: You agree to a set number of rounds and/or time. For example, you may agree to five posts each within a two-week time period. One person leads, the other responds. After each has given their five posts, a winner should be determined. (NOTE: "Five posts" is given as an example; you can agree to any set number within reason).

FREESTYLE: You go at each other with nothing but standard board rules for logic & debate.


DEBATE SCHEDULING:
Ideally, a debate will be picked at the beginning of each month; scheduled, and forms agreed to, by no later than the 7th of each month (the first week). That will typically leave three weeks in the month to fight it out. The day of the 7th is when the opening shots are fired.

If a Freestyle debate is going to spill over into the next month, and no one else has made reservations for the Coliseum, then the Freestyle debate can continue. If, however, someone else's reservations are looming, then a Moderator (at least a Governor) will tell the participants to wrap it up within the next post or two.


A NOTE ON TIMING:
Many debates will be carried out against opponents who are in different countries and different time zones. Bear this in mind when scheduling a debate; also, bear in mind different holidays or school schedules coming up when an opponent may be away. At a minimum, there should be a grace period of 48 hours from post-time to response; when cutting across weekends allow for 72 hours or more. It is best to agree beforehand on what will be the maximum allowance of time for a response.

Blowing the grace period twice in a row will be considered a Forefeit, unless prior agreements are made publicly.



MONTHLY PROPOSALS:
If there are no challengers, then a series of monthly set proposals can be argued by any interested parties. It is encouraged that debaters at SDN occassionally hone their skills by challenging themselves to try arguing on behalf of a position or stance they do not actually agree with as a challenge. Monthly set-piece debates are a good opportunity to try this, since these are not necessarily personal in nature, but suggested.

Monthly motions will be selected from the public forums and chosen by the Senate, Governors, or Emperor (Mike).


January: Scientific debates.
February: Political debates.
March: Economic debates.
April: Humour round debate, person who made the funniest (yet still logical!) arguments wins.
May: Sci-fi/fantasy debates.
June: philosophical/ morality & ethics debate.
July: Scientific debate.
August: Political debates.
September: Economic debates.
October: Sci-fi/fantasy debates.
November: Political debates.
December: Economic debates.



FORM AND ETIQUETTE:
"Drop the Matter/Forfeit" -- If you agree to a debate, and then decide to back out, you have to negotiate with your opponent. If you can get your opponent to agree to put it off or drop the matter, that's is your opponent's decision should they choose to be merciful. But be warned: If you fail to secure your opponent's agreement, it is not a Drop, but a Forfeit in favor of your opponent!

"I'm not prepared!" -- If you come to a debate unprepared, that is your fault. You can bargain for a Drop, a Forefeit, or a Reschedule, but if your opponent refuses, then you're going in there on thin ice, buddy.

"But... but... I won!" -- If no clear winner can be determined, then the matter can be decided by a decree from the Moderator that was watching; basically the 'thumbs up/thumbs down'. Or, the matter can be decided by popular vote in th eHouse of Commons.

"I'm on limited time!" -- If you are on limited time, then maybe you should put off your fight until you have time, or not participate at all. Time can be a crucial factor, especially if you are debating someone in another time zone who may also have other workdays or holidays that will add lag time between responses.

"@!$%&*!" -- There are no Nanny Rules governing Politeness at SDN. However, the more you can argue and make your point in a dignified manner, with class and creative style rather than gutter vulgarities, the more respectable you appear.

[Thanas]

A quick note - the Duchess and I have already agreed on a historical debate about Luttwak and his ideas about the military strategy of the Roman empire. It is supposed to start after or at the end of December.

[Surlethe]

If I might add a quick content-free post ...

A quick note - the Duchess and I have already agreed on a historical debate about Luttwak and his ideas about the military strategy of the Roman empire. It is supposed to start after or at the end of December.

I'm really looking forward to this.