[Vivisekt]

These are the poll results. I'm moving this to Viv's section without a poll. For the continuation, read on the Opinion Polls forum about the debate judges.

DF.

Boondock Saint
20% [ 4 ]
Maxim Litvinov
25% [ 5 ]
Mr. Bill
0% [ 0 ]
Socialist-BLUE-Gonzo
5% [ 1 ]
Yeddi
10% [ 2 ]
Der Freiheitsucher
5% [ 1 ]
Al Khabir
5% [ 1 ]
Jaakko
20% [ 4 ]
U235
0% [ 0 ]
other nomination [please elaborate]
10% [ 2 ]

Total Votes : 20

First of all, thanks to DF for allowing this poll into his forum.

As you may have noticed, I've been appointed moderator of our new formal debate forum. The updated format, rules, FAQ, and information is posted here.

This poll is Part 1 of 2 polls that will be open over the next few days to determine who will be Judging formal debates the first time around.

The purpose of this poll is to nominate 10 potential judges.

Once that is complete, I will make another poll where members can vote to elect 5 of those potentials to actual Judge positions. Judges who will review the formal debates and, upon their completion, decide who gave the better argument by casting a vote and outlining (in as little as a paragraph or as much as a page) what made them vote as they did. Details about the duties of judging are also located here.

Above I have listed nine people; mostly those that were judges under the 'old' format. You may either nominate one of these people, or you may nominate someone who is not listed, via a post to this thread. The ten users who recieve the highest number of nominations, and are also willing to do the job, will go on to the final vote. If you are nominated and do not want to be a judge, please post here and let us know.


IMPORTANT:
In any event, please be sure to post and briefly explain why you feel that the person that you've nominated or otherwise voted for would make a good formal debate judge. You might also want to post a 'second choice', in case the person that you nominate as a primary turns out to be uninterested in judging, or is unable to judge for some reason.

I may not count nominations that are not backed by a post.

Keep in mind that as the formal debate forum's moderator, I am going to be moderating all debates as they take place. Judges will solely be responsible for objectively evaluating (to the best of their abilities) and deciding which team (or person) presented the better argument (thereby winning the debate) - and elaborating upon that point.

Also, please, do not nominate me to judge. I will only act as a judge if we suddenly find ourselves lacking one, for some reason (such as an elected judge not having enough time, or an elected judge wanting to suspend judging for a little while so that he or she can argue in a debate), and nobody sutiable is available to be appointed. Generally speaking, I'm going to have my hands full with moderation and administration of the debates.

Before you vote, it might be a good idea to check out the format post, so that you can get a better idea of what being a judge entails.

As of this point, all previous teams are 'disbanded' with the exception of Libertarians and Liberals because they are currently engaged in an ideological debate. That's not to say that other teams cannot reform if they want to debate, but the focus of these debates has changed and it is no longer predominately (nor is it limited to) ideology vs ideology. Anyone interested in formally debating a topic should PM me with the topic that they would like to discuss, and the point of view that they want to argue from. Information concerning pending, underway, and complete debates will be listed in the second post of the linked thread.

If you have any questions about the formal debate forum, please see the FAQ. Additional questions can be sent to me via PM.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Hmm. Well I should say up fron that I would prefer to be nominating judges on a debate-by-debate basis. But then I should say that I trust you to preside over a good debate system, Viv, and am glad you've put in the 'hard yards' already.

If I am to vote on one person who I'd think would make a good judge, irrespective of the topic of the debate, I think I'd go for Yeddi. Why? Because I think he is never so 'involved' in any issue as to be obviously biased. And I think he's already respected as an arbiter in his capacity as an admin.

So, that's my vote done.

[Vivisekt]

Hmm. Well I should say up fron that I would prefer to be nominating judges on a debate-by-debate basis. But then I should say that I trust you to preside over a good debate system, Viv, and am glad you've put in the 'hard yards' already.

I considered employing such a system, but that would mean running two polls for each and every debate. One for nominations, and one for elections. Since the concept of 'ideological teams' facing off against each other down a long list of prearranged matches - over the course of several months - has been more or less scrapped in favor of these go-by-request debates - and 'issue' debates have become an option, the volume of formal debates taking place could be large. I think that using a system where each individual debate has its own set of nominated and elected judges would become confusing poll-wise (not to mention flooding the opinion polls forum), especially as I intend to have several formal debates going on at once, if needed.

that is why i opted for a system where elected judges can serve as judges for as long as they like (pausing from time to time to participate in debates themselves), up until the point where i refresh the entire judge panel with another round of voting.

[Attila The Nun]

I chose Jaakko simply ecause I don't thik he'd be biased for communists at all. He's pretty sensible, all around.

[Vivisekt]

We're going to need far more nominations than we have now...

If people don't want to vote, then I'll have to appoint judges. These debates are going to be running in short order, so there isn't alot of time to languish on the issue.

[Boondock Saint]

Well, I am only allowed to vote for one person on that list but honestly there is more then one person on that list that is capable of being a judge. I would agree with Max that Yeddi is more than capable.

Folks like Max and Jaako would also make great judges, though I might prefer to see those two debate a topic as both are very capable.

DF rarely debates as far as I can tell and does a fine job with this forum as its moderator so I think he would be a good candidate as well.

Mr. Bill hates aircraft carriers and fighter jets thus I do not trust him.

Anyway, sorry for the length of my post, of the people up there I would choose Yeddi, no offense intended to anyone on that list and no offense to those who were not personally mentioned in this post.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I choosed Jaakko, because he is a wonderful moderator on the Communism forum, in that he does not try to instigate personal disputes, whereas almost all of the rest of the people thus far entrusted with the authority of moderatorship have used their authority for personal pleasure in instigating and or starting personal disputes and using their authority to make the other person feel unwelcome at PoFo for merely having a strongly opposing political ideology.

Also, it is natural for a Communist to choose another Communist over all others (all of whom are not Communist), especially when it comes to voting for a political change, even if the political change is as minor as in occurring on a free political forum over the internet.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I chose DF as a good moderator for the debates.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I chose DF as a good moderator for the debates.

Me too, I change my choice from Jaakko to DF. But I can't change my vote, or can I?

[jaakko]

I voted Max (for being quite "balanced"), but DF and Viv would be good too. Obviously there has to be clear right-wingers too, for balance as this is supposed to be a pluralistic forum. What comes to them, there are enough choices. Maybe Demo, maybe some Libertarian like Dao. But what's more important than political representation of different "extremes" is the ability of those appointed to judge "who argued better" irrespective of whether the argued stance itself was correct or total BS.

What comes to me, I have no problem admitting when a "capitalism vs. socialism/communism" sort of debate goes wrong for the latter. If leftist ideas are argued badly, then that's just how it is. I rather criticise wrong "leftist" arguments than accept them in the arsenal. So in principle, I think I could do some judging. But whether I do it or not depends not only on Viv or these polls, but certain practical issues such as dates and durations of debates, on the exact duties of the judges etc.

[Al-'Alim]

Other - Me (I am soooooooo arrogant.)

[Vivisekt]

Me too, I change my choice from Jaakko to DF. But I can't change my vote, or can I?

I will allow it.

Viv would be good too.

I'm not going to be accepting any nominations for myself, as I will have my hands full with moderating the debates and handling the administration of future debates. I will only act as a judge when an elected judge wants to take part in a debate himself (and only for the debate that they are involved in), or when that judge is unavailable.

But what's more important than political representation of different "extremes" is the ability of those appointed to judge "who argued better" irrespective of whether the argued stance itself was correct or total BS.

I absolutely agree

So in principle, I think I could do some judging. But whether I do it or not depends not only on Viv or these polls, but certain practical issues such as dates and durations of debates, on the exact duties of the judges etc.

I've got the duties for judges (as well as the rules for the debate) outlined here.

Judges and Scoring

* Judges are awarded their positions by the general membership of PoFo, via a voting process that I set up when it is needed. Occasionally I might be required to step in and judge for a debate or two, or appoint someone on the spot, should we find ourselves suddenly lacking for some reason - but generally speaking, I'm just going to be moderating and administering the debates.

* There are five judges, each with one vote.

* Judges are required (to the best of their ability) to read through the debates, asscess the argument presented therein, and try to objectively decide a winner based upon the merits of the argument as it is presented (regardless of that judge's personal bias on the issue). Judges will not need to intervene in the actual debate while it is progressing, as I am going to be handling all moderation.

* Upon completion of each debate, each judge should write a review of their reaction to the arguments that were presented; outlining why they voted as they did. Besides rendering a verdict on the completed debate and determining a winner, this will also allow all teams to improve their arguments in the future. Again, I will attach these reviews onto the end of each completed debate thread.

* Once elected, judges will continue to judge subsequent debates until they don't want to continue, are unable to continue (say - due to their participation in a debate, or a lack of time), or are removed by me for some other reason. Every so often, I will refresh the entire judge pool with another member's-vote.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Me too, I change my choice from Jaakko to DF. But I can't change my vote, or can I?

I will allow it.

How? I can't go back and change the vote, or can I, how do you do it?

[Vivisekt]

How? I can't go back and change the vote, or can I, how do you do it?

When I tabulate the votes, I will just take mental note of your change.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

How? I can't go back and change the vote, or can I, how do you do it?

When I tabulate the votes, I will just take mental note of your change.

Ok, sure. By the way, will this poll actually be used for determining who should be the moderator/judge or will it just be a choice if one wants to acknowledge the poll when making the decision, or like contributary to helping the decision-making process?

[Vivisekt]

By the way, will this poll actually be used for determining who should be the moderator/judge or will it just be a choice if one wants to acknowledge the poll when making the decision, or like contributary to helping the decision-making process?

The purpose of this poll is for nominating ten potential judges (the ten with the most nominations). I am going to close this poll at some point today, and start the second poll where the ten nominated individuals will be put to a vote.

In that poll, the five people with the most votes will become judges.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I voted other and that other being *JT*

The guy makes alot of good points in issues of his own and I know his personal referance will not sympathize towards either party thus making him an unbiased and wise judge of sorts..

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I voted other and that other being *JT*

The guy makes alot of good points in issues of his own and I know his personal referance will not sympathize towards either party thus making him an unbiased and wise judge of sorts..

Wow, you must be joking right? He is the most biassed one on the forum (for the right wing repugs).... He never accepts the fact that a leftist could have a valid point and he refutes everything by calling one a moron. Not what I would call impartial....

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Exactly.

Both "liberals" and "liberatarians" are on a leftist-platform but have very obvious deciphering factors that seperate the two.

JT is an utter right-wing idelouge and therefor would be the perfect unbiased judge for the job. Cause he hates both.

Sometimes I astound myself with that keen cosmic logic..

[Garibaldi]

I voted Boon, whenever I see his posts he seems to remind me of John Stewart. Hmmm... Did I spell his name right?

Anyways, I usually see him use common sense and logic at the same time when he argues. They tend to be a good mix for a judge.