[Discussion] Custom title for Coliseum losers

[K. A. Pital]

Voluntarist spectacularly lost the debate in the Coliseum as you all know, and the following wishes came from the populace:

You big whigs should come up with a temporary custom title for losers in the Flavian. Like "cat food" (feed him to the lions!) or something Roman-y. Maybe have it stick until the next loser emerges and claims the title.

The same was wished and faved by several other forum members.

What say you, fellow Senators?

[Coyote]

Cat Food
Pussy Toy
Puddy Boy
Meow Mix
Kit'n Biskit
Catbox Stuffins
Kitty Litter
Lamb for Lions


...going with the cat theme, at least.

[K. A. Pital]

Cat Food is simple, and it has a brutal ring to it I like.

[Imperial Overlord]

I wouldn't want it for all losers at the Coliseum, it being possible to lose in a manner that doesn't forfeit the respect of this august body. On the other hand, it is entirely appropriate that disgraceful performances be labeled appropriately. If we aren't going to ban the imbecile for his repeated violations of the debating rules we should at least title the fool.

EDIT: Cat Food is good.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Frankly, he's violated the rules so much that now that the fun is over, let's ban him.

[Edi]

I wouldn't want it for all losers at the Coliseum, it being possible to lose in a manner that doesn't forfeit the respect of this august body. On the other hand, it is entirely appropriate that disgraceful performances be labeled appropriately. If we aren't going to ban the imbecile for his repeated violations of the debating rules we should at least title the fool.

I agree with this. A derogatory custom title is not and should not be an automatic consequence. It is entirely possible to have a good debate over a subject that comes to a conclusion where one side wins but the losing side does not make a fool of himself.

But for a performance like Voluntaryist gave, a derogatory custom title at the minimum. With his antics in general, a ban would be the normal order of business.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Cat Food...

but only if it was a thumbs up total slaughter...

if it was a thumbs down entertaining match then the title should be "Gladiator"

[Frank Hipper]

Frankly, he's violated the rules so much that now that the fun is over, let's ban him.

Not only that, but there's the fate of actual defeated gladiators in the original coliseum to consider...they didn't promenade around the Forum with humiliating signs hanging around their necks, now, did they.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Frankly, he's violated the rules so much that now that the fun is over, let's ban him.

Not only that, but there's the fate of actual defeated gladiators in the original coliseum to consider...they didn't promenade around the Forum with humiliating signs hanging around their necks, now, did they. 8)

Thumbs up, off with his head!

[Coyote]

Should we look at this as a way to deal with Volly, or as a way to deal with Volly AND what shall be done with future Coliseum veterans?

We may need to have two seperate threads, then...

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Should we look at this as a way to deal with Volly, or as a way to deal with Volly AND what shall be done with future Coliseum veterans?

We may need to have two seperate threads, then...

I agree. Volly's egregious violation of the debate rules, his spectacular Wall of Ignorance and his repeated broken-record debating tactics merit a separate thread all by themselves.

[Connor MacLeod]

I'm fine with titling him, but if the people who want to punish him don't do a better job of meeting burden of proof this time, I'm going to be exceedingly annoyed. I do NOT want to be expected to drag through these debates and find the proof myself, and I'm getting tired of having to bring this point up over and over again (and, as far as I can tell, being ignored.)

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I didn't view this as a ban thread, Connor, just a discussion about what to do in the circumstances. If a ban thread comes up, there will be plenty of evidence.

[K. A. Pital]

Just something I'd like to have passed on to the senate.

If the losers are to be 'dealt with' after a debate, I feel it's only appropriate to give some form of congratulations to the winners. Perhaps an icon or custom title, although I don't feel the second is a good idea seeing as how many of the successful debaters will likely already have custom titles.

[LadyTevar]

I can see titling Volly for his actions (or others like him) but isn't titling anyone losing in the Colliseum counter productive? Why should anyone participate in the Colliseum if they are titled "Cat Food" or some other title should they lose?

What I do support is the exact opposite and has been already mentioned. Awarding the victor. A special icon like a star indicating the poster has won at the Colliseum. More stars could be added for every victory.

Just my two cents.

Personally, I would rather see the winner rewarded with his Laurels than the loser jeered.

[Coyote]

Personally, I would rather see the winner rewarded with his Laurels than the loser jeered.

Positive reinforcement is better.

This brings up an issue we've discussed before-- is there a way that the board software can support "battle ribbons" or "medals" being displayed somewhere on a person's account, such as under their AV or as an accessory part of a sig banner?

[Simplicius]

Any award, positive or negative, should be temporary though - a competitor should not be allowed to rest on his laurels after only one good showing, nor should someone who makes a fool of himself in a single high-profile debate be tarred for the duration. I support Havokeff's original suggestion that the accolades or demerits of a Coliseum debate last until the next debate occurs.

[CmdrWilkens]

Putting my two cents in I think some sort of recognition for the victor would be fine but honestly I am not much invested in it. As to Vol and his actions I've seen some titling proposals and I've even heard ban mumblings but there really doesn't seem to be much of any movement in that direciton. What I will request is that if someone truly feels he should be punished they need to start a seperate discussion thread so we can discuss just that one topic, in turn those in favour of punishmen will need to show some evidence that folks like me (who didn't really follow the Colesium) can sort through.

[Connor MacLeod]

I didn't view this as a ban thread, Connor, just a discussion about what to do in the circumstances. If a ban thread comes up, there will be plenty of evidence.

What does it matter if its a ban thread or a titling? either way an argument should be made and burden of proof met. At least met in a much BETTER fashion than the last times its been. Otherwise we might just throw out the rules and do it "cuz we feel like it" because that's what it'd amount to.

Seriously, is it that unreasonable to expect someone who wants to punish someone to do something more than a half-assed job at it?

[Connor MacLeod]

Anyhow, doesn't the "win/lose" thing depend largely on how the debate is conducted? I mean I dont envision someone deserving something unless they do a particuarily good OR bad job in the debate - and that's largely going to be the determining factor (if the debate is "lost" because of rules violations, then does that automatically mean the winner was an effective debator/duellist?)

So it probably will have to be handled on a case by case basis, as well as the specific punishments/rewards. We might allow victors an opportunity to decide the fate of the loser within certian limits, (if the winner was particularily intelligent/effective and the loser was particularily bad.)

Really there's no reason to set anything down in stone, or decide that EVERY coliseum debate need go "winner" or "loser"

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I didn't view this as a ban thread, Connor, just a discussion about what to do in the circumstances. If a ban thread comes up, there will be plenty of evidence.

What does it matter if its a ban thread or a titling? either way an argument should be made and burden of proof met. At least met in a much BETTER fashion than the last times its been. Otherwise we might just throw out the rules and do it "cuz we feel like it" because that's what it'd amount to.

Seriously, is it that unreasonable to expect someone who wants to punish someone to do something more than a half-assed job at it?

What I meant, *grinds teeth*, is that I was stating a personal opinion without attempting to make an argument. I am providing no evidence because I am not making an argument. I'm simply stating a personal opinion.

I'm too busy with Statics, searching for a job, keeping the house clean, writing, etc, to actually put together a bunch of evidence for a ban poll. Therefore, I am not proposing a ban poll, duh, just stating the personal opinion that he should be banned.

[K. A. Pital]

Debating in the Flavian is not a punishment. If a person agrees to debate there then they can certainly bear the burden of a silly title for a while if they are deemed the loser, by Mike, or whichever staff member starts the "games". It shouldn't be viewed as a disgrace, but just simply as what it is, a little reminder that you are a silly mono-godded Christian that got fed to the lions and that you should work on your debating skills and come back and try again and be better.
I mean really, is someone going to die if they have "Cat Food", or whatever, under their name for a few weeks, or a month? I have never been under the impression that this is a board with members that can't handle a little light hearted ribbing.

I also think that a positive custom title would be good too. "Victorious Gladiator" or "Freed Slave" or something else fun and Romany. Specific though, so that you know it's from a gloriously won battle in the Flavian.

[seanrobertson]

Voluntarist spectacularly lost the debate in the Coliseum as you all know, and the following wishes came from the populace:

You big whigs should come up with a temporary custom title for losers in the Flavian. Like "cat food" (feed him to the lions!) or something Roman-y. Maybe have it stick until the next loser emerges and claims the title.

The same was wished and faved by several other forum members.

What say you, fellow Senators?

I say no.

I like Havokeff, but he seems to be basing the idea of a CT on the premise that losing in the Coliseum means a poster is of Voluntarist's ilk. That was the case for the first battle, but what of the second? The third?

What if it's "close-fought"? What if it's a tie? How's the winner decided then, by popular vote?

That's waaaaay too much voting and discussion for something that's meant to entertain us and the plebs. If someone's an idiot and loses badly, give them a title; if, on the other hand, he acquits himself honorably but concedes defeat in the end, leave 'em the fuck alone.

Case-by-case.

[The Yosemite Bear]

yeah after all Volly was a clear thumbs up, go for the head. If the case was a good "Thumbs Down" (sheath your blade man) then a medal or something should show.

[LadyTevar]

A question from the Peons:

Personally, I would rather see the winner rewarded with his Laurels than the loser jeered.

Any reason we can't do BOTH?