I have a particular setup in mind which I think would work.
First of all, there will be a nominations thread. I, or whoever wants to take over this thing, will create the nominations thread. People are only allowed to nominate one topic. You may nominate anything that is debatable, regardless of significance or esotericism. Furthermore, after the fifth topic is nominated, the nominations will immediately be closed, and voting will be started. Voting on the topics will last for 72 hours after the thread is created. If there is a tie between topics, those topics will be revoted on for 24 additional hours. After that, a debate can begin. Nominations for the next debate begin while the current debate is going on.
Once a topic is decided, a new thread will be created for members who want to participate in the debate. Members sign up by stating which side of the debate they want to be on. After 72 hours, this thread will be closed. Two new threads will then be created where a leader for each side will be voted on from the members who signed up for the debate with the condition that one can not vote for himself. Voting again, will last for 72 hours. The two leaders will then choose two additional members to represent their side. Additionally, the leaders may choose to promote another team-member to leader if they notify the judges.
Additionally, while members are signing up, there will also be a thread where people who would like to judge can sign up. The first three members to sign up as judges will be given that spot. The judge's responsibility will be to decide who wins the debate at the end and make sure that everyone adheres to the rules. The judges should know a bit about the topic, and must be objective about the decision. Even though they may have an opinion on the subject, they must judge based on the content of the posts rather their own personal beliefs.
The debate will then proceed in turns. Each leader will make his opening post. After that, the team members post in turns. Finally, the leader makes the closing post.
My idea for the rules:
Opening posts:
- presented by the leader
- limited to 500 words
- presents a brief outline of the topic
- presents main arguments for support of their stance
- Must be made within 48 hours of the debate starting
Post from team member 2
- Can not be made by leader
- limited to 500 words
- is allowed to make a rebuttle to anything from the opening post of the opposite team
- is allowed to present additional arguments in support of their stance
- must be made within 72 hours after the period for opening posts is closed
Post from team member 3
- Must be made by the team member who has not posted yet
- limited to 500 words
- is allowed to make a rebuttle to anything from post 2 of the opposite team
- is allowed to present additional arguments in support of their stance
- must be made within 72 hours after the period for the second post is closed
Closing post
- Must be made by leader
- limited to 1500 words
- Is allowed to make a rebuttle to anything the other team has presented
- Can
NOT make additional arguments
- Must be made within 72 hours after the period for the third post is closed
Rules for all posts
- No personal attacks.
- Must stick to the subject at hand.
- Must use propper grammar. I'm not saying it has to be perfect, but it should not look like how I posted in 2003. Example:
http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread....ion#post243067
Rules are up for change. I have a few more things I want to say, but I'm unbelievably hungry right now so I'll post when I get back. Let me know what you think so far. Anyways, off to eat fried chicken. (Yes, I'm purposely being stereotypical.)
Linear Mode
