|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: No, not a Great Debate! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
In this thread, AdminNWR suggests:
Mike, Would you like to debate this one on one with nwr as a great debate topic? Jar adds:
So how would you feel about a Great Debate discussion between you and nwr? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
Sorry, but the two would like to discuss this in the Great Debate format.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Sorry, but the two would like to discuss this in the Great Debate format. So I noticed. Too bad.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6527 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Par, you can open a peanut gallery for it in order for everyone else to discuss and comment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
I think I'll decline. I'd rather talk to Mike about the topic itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3992 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.5 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
I meant this topic. Fire. *ducks*
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
mike the wiz: *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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
*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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
OK, thanks. You'll hear from me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Damn! Too late.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I hate the "great debate" concept.
Get rid of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
nwr writes: Sorry about that, Para. That's OK.
I would have been just as happy with a debate between you and mike. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024