No, not a Great Debate!

In this thread, AdminNWR suggests: Jar adds: I am opposed to this. The topic is interesting enough for everybody to take part.edit: Damn! Too late.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 18-Nov-2005 07:59 PM

Sorry, but the two would like to discuss this in the Great Debate format.

---

So I noticed. Too bad.

Par, you can open a peanut gallery for it in order for everyone else to discuss and comment.

I think I'll decline. I'd rather talk to Mike about the topic itself.

Maybe we could have a parallel thread of open commentary?But this also brings to mind an idea I've been kicking around for a while: how about a convention of allowing "one-on-one" phases of debate within an open thread?My model is polite group discussion: often two participants will go one-on-one (OOO) when they find reasons to do so, and the rest of the group politely stands by for a while. When the intensity of the OOO ebbs, other folks rejoin the discussion. In person this can happen quite smoothly and naturally; on a forum, a convention might be necessary.One such convention would be to allow any two participants in a thread to declare an OOO phase for a set number of messages, say 10-20.The OOO status could be indicated in the Subtitle ("OOO: yadda yadda"), and the discussion could then reopen to all when that session reaches the message limit.This might have the additional benefit of encouraging creationists to take part more often. As things stand, new creationist posters are beset by a dozen sharp interlocutors at one time, which can be frustrating, difficult to maintain, and ulitmately discouraging to participation.Another approach: perhaps a Great Debate could have a message limit shy of the 300 message maximum, say 75-150, and then the debate could be opened to all.

I suppose sneaking a quick question or two in this topic wouldn't do any harm. GBs are lengthy, but I've never participated in one, so I took the opportunity.

Your topic or mine?

I meant this topic. Fire. *ducks*

Stand up. The problem I have with your "quick question" suggestion is that not only does your universe require thought, but so do my replies. That is to say, I don't have a quick question at hand right now, I need time to think about it.

*Whispers in the hope Admin isn't reading*...Go away, have a think, and sneak your questions or refutations into this topic for people to discuss, and I might even get back to you.

OK, thanks. You'll hear from me.

Sorry about that, Para.I saw jar's initial comment, that the topic duplicates others. So I thought a great debate might break the logjam.I would have been just as happy with a debate between you and mike. Now why didn't I think of that earlier.On the other hand, I do think that our great debate forum is greatly underutilized. Maybe we should have a topic (it could even be this one), where people could notice a PNT and offer to sign up for a great debate on that topic.Hmm, we had close to a great debate yesterday, between Yaro and randman, even though it took place in the coffee room.

I hate the "great debate" concept.Get rid of it.

That's OK. I wouldn't. I'd rather want this topic to be open for all. But now that it isn't, I'll just follow what you two make of it.My first impression is that you made a good start.