- 26 Jul 2004 08:37
#391230
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.
» disclaimer: pathological liar / moral bankruptcy / lulz / kameradenpolizei
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.
Last edited by Vivisekt on 27 Jul 2004 21:03, edited 1 time in total.
» disclaimer: pathological liar / moral bankruptcy / lulz / kameradenpolizei