Welcome to the Crucible

[Kenn]

Originally Posted by katampe

Ken says :

The whole idea is to see how far people can go to defend a position, how much facts they can muster, how good they are at public speaking or convincing people that their view wins the day. It’s not about this view being true or false – it’s about the art of debate, the art of using words and indeed emotions to swing views.

Katampe adds:

It shouldn't be about defending a position , rather it should be about developing the art of effective reasoning. I believe this enables us to learn something new from the debate that could be the basis for policy (decision) , a new idea, or a new way of looking at things.

Pushing it further, it should be about preponderance of evidence that shows that the probability of your proposition is higher. I would wish to take emotion out of it because when we move into the province of emotion (it raises dubious arguments), and we are ultimately entering the province of rhetoric that we argue for arguing sake.

It is what I was against in my earlier critique of setting up the crucible.This should be about the exploration of an idea and devleopment of substantive arguments for that idea.

Finally, Ken you put forward a concrete suggestion of setting up the debate proposition.SLB has done well so far , I hope as it evolves it continues to be fine tuned.

Katampe,


The major problem here is that you are still approaching the issue with the mentality of your initial criticism of the idea. This has made it impossible for you to see the difference between what we should be doing at The Crucible and what we do in other parts of the board. Now, ask yourself: What is the difference between The Crucible and other discussion threads/areas of the Nigerian Village Square site? Of course, we argue and defend positions and develop the art of effective reasoning in our various discussions – be they on articles posted by authors or in the Main Square. This is more or less what we’ll be doing at The Crucible. The difference however is that in those other discussions, we speak with belief and conviction. It is not about fun; it’s all seriousness. Yes, we are most times giving opinions, but they’re opinions we believe in.

However, at The Crucible, you do not necessarily have to support the position you believe in. Here it is fun. You may support or argue a position today only to argue against it tomorrow! You don’t expect someone to come and claim tomorrow that a position you took in a debate at The Crucible is indeed your belief. For instance, I’ve just responded to you on the Gbenga debate you initiated in the morning. Ordinarily, if I was discussing outside The Crucible, I would be arguing the opposite of what I’m saying there, because the opposite is exactly what I believe. In a debate, it does not matter what side you’re on, the fun is in the art!


CHEERS!

[Kenn]

Originally Posted by WallaceBobo

Kenn said:


Did you actually read my post? I wasn't asking for a debate on whether Naija can make it or not.

WallaceBobo,

Of course, I read you very well. I was not criticizing you; I was only referencing your post as per the suggestion for a debating topic. I was only pointing out that articles written as articles need not be the basis for debate at The Crucible, especially as the authors are not writing these articles with the aim of them being debated in the form we’ll be debating them at The Crucible. And, of course, they are not Proposers at The Crucibles. I only said it with reference to the title of Abati’s article which is on whether Nigeria will ever make it. I am not saying you want us to debate whether Nigeria will ever make it. Indeed, what I am saying is that it is enough to take inspiration from the article than debate the topic itself (for the obvious reason of duplication). That is why you see that all I did was simply adopt Wayfarer’s idea from the article (which you informed us about) by framing it thus: “Nigeria’s problem lies with the leaders, not the citizens/followers”.



CHEERS!

[Kenn]

Shoko,

I’ve actually made a response to you earlier in the morning before leaving for work; but I’m yet to retrieve it from where I stored it. When I do, I’ll post it.

CHEERS!

[Kenn]

The Great Kunuikhan,

Below is the response I made yesterday morning before leaving for work. I had hoped to post it on my return. Obviously, things have moved on since then, including the fact that another debate thread has been opened by WaleAkin and you’ve been getting on with the job of Moderator there. Nonetheless, I think my response is still relevant to the whole issue; so, I’m posting it as promised.


--------------------------


>>>Kenn,

Just so that I understand you correctly, are you suggesting that the Proposer must debate the first person that makes a post opposing his motion?

If this is so, then what if the proposer doesn't want to debate with such a person? I'm very big on people doing things out of free will rather than coercion, so I don't know if this is a good idea. But let's see how my idea flies; even before the fourth debate, if it's obvious that it's cumbersome, then we can switch to your proposal.<<<


Yes, I’d prefer for the debate to commence with the Proposer (first poster) and the Opposer (second poster) opposing the proposition. The purpose of this board is to encourage decorum, civility and friendship, not enmity or discord – directly or indirectly. Why would anyone say they don’t want to debate anybody here? We are all matured adults. If Mr A feels because he’s had a disagreement with Mrs B before now or that for one reason or the other he doesn’t like Mrs B and for that reason he cannot debate Mrs B when Mrs B is the person expressing opposition to his proposal, then Mr A ought not to be here! Anyone who comes here must come with the mind to play and have fun with all, not transfer here old animosities. If you think you want to keep a grudge against someone you’ve had a not-so-friendly exchange with in the past, please do so outside The Crucible. We must be able to show at The Crucible that we believe in the time-honoured tradition of good debate conducted in an atmosphere of mutual respect and civility.

Imagine if you’re a Year 2 secondary school student and a member of your school’s Literary and Debating Society. A debate is then organized where you find yourself on one side while your opponent on the other side is the terrible Labour Prefect from Year 4 who has put you through hell in the name of discipline. Now, tell me, are you going to walk away, saying: “Oh, I can’t debate him because I don’t like him”? Are you prepared to stand the disgrace of walking away from a debate and risk the ribbing from your peers or are you going to say right, this is my opportunity to ‘beat’ this big gorilla at something? I think anyone with a hint of confidence would do only one thing – which is debate whoever is put at the other end of an argument. You say you’re all for “people doing things out of free will rather than coercion”, but the point is there is no coercion. You are not forced to come here and debate, but if you must, like every other person, you have to follow the rules, including the rule to debate anyone who wishes to debate. Once you begin to think you can cherry-pick your opponent, the vibrancy dies and we could as well close shop and walk away.

As a corollary to the above, there is the issue of fairness. By giving a Proposer the right to reject a prospective Opposer for whatever reason, you would have unwittingly created an unfair situation. It is akin to giving the Proposer the power of ‘life’ and ‘death’ over a thread simply because he happens to propose a topic! I mean, it’s a debate and, from your stipulations, this will involve others and will run for weeks. So, why should a Proposer, who in the end might not even be the person that contributes most in terms of ideas or elucidation, be given such power to determine who opposes him or her? The Proposer and Opposer are two persons with equal rights on this board. By originating the debate (Proposer) and by responding in terms of opposition (Opposer), both have showed their intention to debate. That’s all they’ve showed; so, why should one be given the sole power to ‘kill’ the intention of the other just like that? The Opposer wants to debate the Proposer and that’s why he’s throwing his hat in the ring. If the Proposer is given the power to stop him, then it’s like giving the little child who first got into the playground the right to tell another child he can’t play simply because he happened to come to the playground before any other person.

The fact is, if you’re giving the Proposer a right, there must be a corresponding right granted the Opposer since the Opposer is not only losing his right to debate whom he pleases, but he’d also possibly have to deal with unhealthy slurs cast on him even before the debate. For instance, even if he comes into the debate as part of the general membership commenting on the debate as it progresses, no matter what he says, no matter the solidity of his argument or the beauty of his style, there’d be people who are bound to say he’s opposing the Proposer because they’re enemies or because he doesn’t like the Proposer and the Proposer doesn’t like him and so on.

So, to me, it’s unhealthy to give anyone that kind of power. If we’re following your approach, which is to have more than one or two Opposers declare their interest to debate the Proposer while the latter exercises the right to choose who amongst them he’d want to debate, I say fine, as far as we’re not told by the Proposer that he doesn’t want to debate this or that person because he doesn’t like him or her. The Proposer can keep that detail to himself/herself and simply make a choice and get on with it. And if we’re adopting my approach, which is debate whoever opposes first on the thread, it’s not a problem as well. We don’t want to know if you like the guy or not; if you don’t want to debate him, simply drop out as Proposer without giving us any reason bordering on your dislike of the Opposer and someone else will pick the baton of Proposer and get on with the debate! If you’re here, the presumption should be that you want to debate anybody, not make convenient choices! That’s why we call it The Crucible!

You know it is reminiscent of such village martial sports like traditional wrestling. In most African wrestling traditions, the fun is in the dance, the sweat and the exhibition of strength and valour. You get the whole village in a festive mood and everyone troops out to the village square or marketplace (The Crucible). People dance and mill around in a huge circle, leaving the centre free for action. A prancing strongman jumps into the circle (the ring). He gyrates, taunts and puffs up in challenge to any other. The drumbeats quicken, the atmosphere gets more electric and the dance steps of the entire village quakes the ground for response. Another strongman jumps into the circle to take on the challenge and in steps the referee to commence proceedings. The men grapple, grapple and grapple to the sound of thunderous clapping and martial drumbeats. One strongman throws the other to the ground and the fight is over. Both wrestlers hug and melt away into the circle as other wrestlers take over and so on. That should be the spirit here! We want to set a good example with The Crucible. We want people to see that you can disagree without being disagreeable.

I know that it’s possible for a mischief maker to exploit my proposal for his/her own ends. For instance, we could be confronted with a situation where a particular poster (maybe because he has too much time on his hands or out of plain mischief) targets The Crucible to the extent that anytime a debate is proposed, he’s almost always the one jumping in to oppose. In that case, your discretion and that of Admin will need to be exercised. He’d need to be told to step aside because there are others who want to share the ‘limelight’ as drivers of the debate. It’s only fair. This, of course, also applies to a serial Proposer. As much as we want people to show interest and participate in the affairs of The Crucible, we don’t want unhealthy dominance of the Proposer and Opposers chairs by just a handful of people. We should be encouraging others to take leading roles.

In any case, I think if we adopt the rule that only a debate or two can run at a time, we may solve the problem. That way, people will concentrate on the ongoing debate(s) for the time (say, three weeks), exhausting it/them fully before going to the next. Perhaps, you Shoko can open the threads in advance by simply putting dates of commencement temporarily as titles. For instance, if we say a debate lifespan is 3 weeks (which is 21 days), since Katampe has opened one on the 14th of January, you can simply go now and open another thread with the title – “Debate Commencing February 4, 2008”. You can then choose what time zone to adopt officially. If you say GMT, for instance, by 12:01 am February 4, 2008, the thread is open. At that time, anyone whose proposition is first posted on the thread becomes the bona fide Proposer who gets the debate underway. The same principle can then be applied to the opening of subsequent threads in The Crucible. Once the debate gets underway, you can always remove the temporary title of dates and replace with the substantive title of issues. At that point, titles should simply be the proposition.




>>>Yes, you are correct that Nkala (the Proposer) should not just make a proposition, but a defence of that proposition (just as the Opposer will make his proposition and his defence of it). I will amend the guidelines appropriately.<<<


Thank you.




>>>(This paragraph is also directed to Katampe): I'm hesitant to propose that the debate should be about reasoning to a common ground or about holding one's position to the end. I would say that the debate should flow according to the temperament and passion of the debaters; some debaters seek to explore positions and ideas; some seek to propagate their beliefs. So I don't want to insist on the debate taking a particular course, since both styles of debate are equally informative and entertaining.<<<


We do enough of all these in the main board. The Crucible should establish some kind of uniqueness. My idea of a debate (not a discourse, analysis or commentary) is that you choose a side and deploy words and all your intelligence to defend or propagate that position. It may not be a position based on your belief, but a position you’ve adopted temporarily for that debate. Of course, the arguments will be based on facts; but the fun is in how you interpret these facts to serve your debating purpose and how you’re able to convince enough people to see it your way. What I think we are doing here is to develop our skills at public ‘speaking’, even though we’re doing this online.

Anyone who wants to discuss beliefs or convictions should simply stick to the Main Square threads or the ones discussing articles. The Crucible should be for fun! Otherwise, I see nothing unique in The Crucible. I certainly do not want to be judged by the opinions I express in The Crucible since to me it’s simply language sports. Anyone interested in knowing what I really believe or think should read my comments on the article threads or the Main Square, not The Crucible.



CHEERS!

[mulan]

However, at The Crucible, you do not necessarily have to support the position you believe in. Here it is fun. You may support or argue a position today only to argue against it tomorrow! You don’t expect someone to come and claim tomorrow that a position you took in a debate at The Crucible is indeed your belief. For instance, I’ve just responded to you on the Gbenga debate you initiated in the morning. Ordinarily, if I was discussing outside The Crucible, I would be arguing the opposite of what I’m saying there, because the opposite is exactly what I believe. In a debate, it does not matter what side you’re on, the fun is in the art!

We do enough of all these in the main board. The Crucible should establish some kind of uniqueness. My idea of a debate (not a discourse, analysis or commentary) is that you choose a side and deploy words and all your intelligence to defend or propagate that position. It may not be a position based on your belief, but a position you’ve adopted temporarily for that debate. Of course, the arguments will be based on facts; but the fun is in how you interpret these facts to serve your debating purpose and how you’re able to convince enough people to see it your way. What I think we are doing here is to develop our skills at public ‘speaking’, even though we’re doing this online.

GBAM! GBAM! GBAM!

[Shoko Loko Bangoshe]

Kenn,

I think we have to agree to disagree on the issue of who gets to debate who. Sure I have the power to kill the debate if I choose not to debate against anyone. But that is like the case of the bird who fouled his nest - why would I want to do that?

No - I'm pretty insistent that people should not be forced to debate who they don't want to. I would definitely walk away from a debate against someone who I thought couldn't string two coherent sentences together, or someone who was always getting personal, or someone who was always digressing. What is the point in agreeing to debate with someone if the experience proves to be more painful than pulling teeth without any anasthetic?

Please let us see how this works. If you as a Proposer wish to choose the first person that comes along, fine. But I don't think that this should necessarily be the method of choosing for others.

[admin]

Lets see how things go . After two debates, we definitely should review the modalities. I have a few ideas already from the Wale Akin-Busanga's "debate"

[Kenn]

Shoko,

The Crucible is up and running. I wrote that before WaleAkin opened the debate. It’s just a view, but in the end, you have the responsibility to take decision. As you said, we have to agree to disagree on the issue of who gets to debate who. On all other matters, I defer to your judgment.

Yes, you’re doing great as a Moderator. Keep it up!


CHEERS!

[Shoko Loko Bangoshe]

Kenn,

I forgot to add, I think I'm coming round to the idea (also proposed by the Admin) that topics for debate should be more issue-related than news-story related. My concern with news story based debates is that there is only so much scope for debate before they fizzle out.

But we'll see how things work out.

[Shoko Loko Bangoshe]

All,

Reviewing the recently concluded debate between Wale Akin and Busanga, I'm proposing three changes to the rules above:

- The Proponent should begin his first post by stating his key position in one single sentence. This is the position that the entire debate will hinge upon. He may provide other points to buttress this position, but the position should be made unambiguously.

- Only timeless issues will be debated, not news stories. This means that a topic like "It is right for Ribadu to be redeployed" is not acceptable; however, a topic like "Government officials should have fixed terms of service that can only altered by a clear presidential statement" is.

- Only the Proponent, Opponent and Moderator are allowed in the debate thread. Other posts may be made concerning the debate, but they should be made on an alternate thread (which the Proponent and Opponent may participate in and answer questions or comments).


Please let me know what you think.

[Eja]

SLB, I am in agreement with you.

[Nigerian]

Originally Posted by Shoko Loko Bangoshe

Dear all,

I would like to introduce you to a new section opening in the Square called the Crucible - so named, because it is where ideas and opinions on a range of issues will be forged in the white heat of debate.

I have already explained briefly the procedure for initiating and maintaining debate here:

http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/...-proposal.html

However, for the avoidance of confusion, I will list the rules here again:

1. The Debate opens when a villager (who I will refer to now on as the Proponent) creates a thread whose title will contain a description of the issue he wishes to debate.

2. In the first post on this thread, the Proponent will state his position in a single sentence. He will then call for villagers who wish to debate against this position to do so. He should keep the issue simple (i.e. not to try to cram too many issues into the debate) otherwise the debate can easily be led off-track.

Optionally, the Proponent can explain why he holds this position - he doesn't have to do this, but it will speed up the debate and encourage responses if he does.

Only timeless issues will be debated, not news stories. This means that a topic like "It is right for Ribadu to be redeployed" is not acceptable; however, a topic like "Government officials should have fixed terms of service that can only altered by a clear presidential statement" is.

Also, any position that a Debater holds in a debate should not be deemed to be a position they hold outside the debate, and as such any argument made within the debate such not be referenced elsewhere.

3. Any villager wishing to debate against the Proponent will then signify their intention by making posts on the newly created thread stating their positions also in a single sentence. They may (optionally) state why they hold their positions.

4. The Proponent must then clearly indicate who (of all the respondents) he wishes to debate with. (I will refer to this selected villager as the Opponent, and to both of them together as the Debaters.)

5. Once the Opponent has been selected, a Moderator needs to be chosen. The role of the Moderator will be:

- to keep the debate focused by reminding the Debaters to stay on-topic;

- to weed out off-topic posts by alerting a board moderator to these so that they can either be moved to another thread or deleted entirely (see point 10);

- to end the Debate if one of the Debaters fails to respond in good time (see point 8) or if she feels the debate has gone on for too long (see point 12);

- to summarise the points made by the Debaters at the end of the thread (see point 13).

The Moderator can either be chosen by the Proponent and/or Opponent issuing a call on the thread for a Moderator and then picking from the list of volunteers, or by approaching specific villagers and asking them to moderate.

6. The Debaters may choose not to debate with a Moderator is one isn't available. However, they have to then trust that they will not stray off-topic, and they will have to fully take on the role of policing the thread for off-topic or insulting posts by alerting a board moderator to these. Lastly, they themselves will need to produce a fair summary of their positions at the end of the debate.

7. Once a Moderator has been chosen, the debate may start. The Proponent will start by responding to the first post made by the Opponent in which he stated his position; after this, the Opponent will respond to this new post by the Proponent, and so on.

8. A Debater must respond to a post within 36 hours, otherwise the Moderator may declare the Debater as absent and may choose to end the debate. If a Debater knows that they will not be available in the next 36 hours, they should make a post on the debate thread informing everyone of the next possible date they will be able to make a post. If the absent Debater fails to make a post before or on the date they have set, then the Moderator may choose to end the debate.

9. No other villager may participate in the debate - only the Proponent, Opponent and Moderator may make posts on the debate thread. If a villager wishes to make a comment or ask a question, he should create a new thread (preferably with a similar title to the debate thread) - but he should do this only if a thread like this does not exist already. Then he can make his post there. Such a thread will not be moderated, so the thread will just be like any other thread on the board.

10. If a villager other than the Debaters and Moderator makes a post on the debate thread, the Moderator will cause a new thread to be created and cause the villager's post to be moved to that thread. He may also cause insulting posts to be deleted in their entirety.

11. If a Debater feels he has been insulted in a post, he can ask his fellow Debater to amend the offending post or to delete it entirely. The fellow Debater may comply, or he may insist that his post should stand and give his reasons. The offended Debater has two options - he may accept the reason given, or he may choose not to debate any further, in which case the debate ends.

12. The debate ends when:

- Either of the Debaters calls for it to end because they have made all the points they can make on the issue;

- The Moderator ends the debate because it has run on for too long, say over a month (this is not hard and fast, though);

- The Moderator ends the debate because one of the Debaters has been absent for longer than the stipulated period (see point 8);

- Either of the Debaters calls for it to end because they have been insulted by their fellow Debater and don't wish to continue debating with him (see point 11).

13. At the end of the Debate, the Moderator will produce a summary of the points made by both Debaters. This will be helpful to those who revisit the debate at a future date and who may not have the time to go through every single post made to determine the positions of both Debaters.



[I have deleted the examples I gave, as we now have real world examples of how a debate may proceed.]



To get things off to a smooth start, I'll offer my services as debate moderator for the first three debates unconditionally. After that... well, we'll see.

So - if you are interested in debating an issue with someone else, open a new thread, issue a call for debaters and get going!

This might be coming a little late in the day but I think debates are more interesting and effective when done live and when timed, you know, real time. You might want to consider setting up a phone line where debaters and moderator can call at a dedicated time to discuss a chosen topic in real time mode thereby eliminating the possibility of a debater researching answers before responding to posers/questions. Another way to achieve this, if the phone option proves too expensive, is to use a real time chat room with debaters allocated a set time to complete the debate. The key word here is real time otherwise the debate won't be any different from other 'discussions or debates' in the Lounge or other sections of the board.

If possible, interested audiences can also be setup to call in but with listen-only (or read-only) priviledges, otherwise, you may just want to publish the recorded debate as an audio podcast (or a text transcript) under the Crucible section where villagers can further discuss it and decide on who made the most compelling/convincing argument during the debate.

[Kenn]

Good idea, Nigerian; but the logistics?

[Nigerian]

Originally Posted by Kenn1

Good idea, Nigeria; but the logistics?

You're right, dude. Logistics will be a pain but I bet the results will be much better qualitatively. No pain, no gain, remember?

[Kenn]

Nigerian,

Yep, I know; maybe we’ll get there one day; but at least, for now it’s better to try out our cheap model rather than do nothing at all. Over time, we may be in a position to make it more structurally qualitative as you suggested.


CHEERS!

[Shoko Loko Bangoshe]

Hello all,

So I see that people are still contributing to the parallel threads in the section, which is good... but it would be nice to see some new debates. I'm still available for moderate, if that is a cause of concern for anyone thinking about starting a new debate.

I'm making a couple of changes to the debating rules:

- Instead of having a time limit for debates, each Debater will be limited to a total of seven submissions (including their oriiginal position post). That way, there is no uncertainty about how long the debate will go on;

- Parallel debates will now be moved out of the Crucible section and into the Main Square, where (as I have said before) they will be treated just like any ordinary thread.

So if you have a position you wish to argue for, whether it is "Nigeria should be allowed to invade other countries and expand its territory in order to progress" or "Corruption is a necessary evil that can never be killed", don't hesitate - join the debate!

[Kenn]

Originally Posted by Shoko Loko Bangoshe

Hello all,

So I see that people are still contributing to the parallel threads in the section, which is good... but it would be nice to see some new debates. I'm still available for moderate, if that is a cause of concern for anyone thinking about starting a new debate.

I'm making a couple of changes to the debating rules:

- Instead of having a time limit for debates, each Debater will be limited to a total of seven submissions (including their oriiginal position post). That way, there is no uncertainty about how long the debate will go on;

- Parallel debates will now be moved out of the Crucible section and into the Main Square, where (as I have said before) they will be treated just like any ordinary thread.

So if you have a position you wish to argue for, whether it is "Nigeria should be allowed to invade other countries and expand its territory in order to progress" or "Corruption is a necessary evil that can never be killed", don't hesitate - join the debate!

Field Marshall Shoko,

Why are you moving the parallel debates out of The Crucible to another section? How else do you hope to involve others, apart from the two principal debaters in the debates if you’re moving their supposed involvement out of The Crucible with the effect of making the rules of The Crucible inapplicable to them? Should the rules of The Crucible be only applicable now to only the two principal debaters? Of what use are the rules now if this is the case? Of what use is the idea of The Crucible itself if this is the case? The fact is The Crucible was formed for a purpose – to encourage members who come there to engage in a kind of debate stylistically and structurally different from the kind of discussions they engage in elsewhere on the board. Now, we’ve started this new debating style for only a few weeks and suddenly out of the blues you come in to unilaterally change the rules and the structure to more or less return us to where we were before the idea of The Crucible was dreamt up. Is that wise? Is that fair?

Why would any serious-minded person want to engage in The Crucible now that the rules do not make any more sense with your latest twist? Why are you keen on duplicating parallel threads in the Main Square when the same rules do not apply with the original threads? How can anyone involved in the parallel threads feel part of the same debate when different rules apply and when they are actually not part of The Crucible, but the Main Square? Of course, the Main Square is always there for anyone to initiate any topic they feel like; so, why would you want to impose parallel threads from elsewhere there? If anyone feels like discussing the issue being debated in The Crucible in the traditional discussion threads and in the traditional discurssive manner at the Main Square, they’re free. That has never been an issue. But to move parallel threads from The Crucible to the Main Square is one, to effectively exclude others apart from the two principals engaged in the debate from the debate and two, to effectively kill off The Crucible, because with your new rules in place it would be obvious that any two debaters engaging themselves at The Crucible are on their own. The fact that others are not effectively involved will naturally kill off any debate and ultimately The Crucible.

Please, note that I have no intention to turn your idea controversial; but since I’ve been part of The Crucible from its inception, including contributing to what we have known up till now as the initial rules, I think I do have a right to voice an opinion about this unilateral drift of yours. Maybe some people will find your new rules okay and work with it; but for me, there would be no reason to come to The Crucible if you insist on your plan because I believe any debate there would be meaningless. Again, it’s my opinion and I’m entitled to it. Rather, I will just stick to discussions on the Main Thread or the articles area. At least, when you are discussing in these areas, you know you’re talking conviction and can respond to anybody on that basis. Indeed, what I’ve noticed so far with The Crucible is that it was started without the initiators having a clear idea of what they want and, having started, we now have a situation where you, the main initiator, are now engaged in ideas to defeat the clearer and settled purpose of the project. I would rather you save all of us the pain by just closing down The Crucible and let’s all continue to engage as before in the traditional threads and in the traditional manner we know how. That will save everyone the needless headache that The Crucible is turning out to be, at least in the eyes of some people.




CHEERS!

[Shoko Loko Bangoshe]

Kenn,

Thanks for your response.

I'm puzzled at your reaction though, because I have never seen the parallel threads as subject to any of the rules in the Crucible. Please see this:

9. No other villager may participate in the debate - only the Proponent, Opponent and Moderator may make posts on the debate thread. If a villager wishes to make a comment or ask a question, he should create a new thread (preferably with a similar title to the debate thread) - but he should do this only if a thread like this does not exist already. Then he can make his post there. Such a thread will not be moderated, so the thread will just be like any other thread on the board.

I've created them in the Crucible section only as a convenience, so that people do not have to wonder where their posts have been moved to if they post in the Crucible.

Perhaps a solution would be to create a child section of the Crucible where such threads can stay; but I don't like the idea of the main debates and the side debates being in the same section - I think this is confusing to those who are only interested in the main debates.

And no - my decision isn't unilateral; I did discuss it beforehand.

[Kenn]

Originally Posted by Shoko Loko Bangoshe

Kenn,

Thanks for your response.

I'm puzzled at your reaction though, because I have never seen the parallel threads as subject to any of the rules in the Crucible. Please see this:



I've created them in the Crucible section only as a convenience, so that people do not have to wonder where their posts have been moved to if they post in the Crucible.

Perhaps a solution would be to create a child section of the Crucible where such threads can stay; but I don't like the idea of the main debates and the side debates being in the same section - I think this is confusing to those who are only interested in the main debates.

And no - my decision isn't unilateral; I did discuss it beforehand.

Shoko,

I’m surprised you’re now saying you’ve “never seen the parallel threads as subject to any of the rules in the Crucible” when they are the only other threads in The Crucible section along with the original debating threads. Do you have to directly tell anyone the parallel threads are subject to the rules of The Crucible when their origin and sustenance are tied to debates at The Crucible? Did you say at the beginning that the rules you’re making do not apply to certain sections of The Crucible?

Of course, the excerpt you provided is shedding no light on the matter, because most reasonable people who opened up parallel threads did so at The Crucible for a reason. They understand that it is reasonable to assume that every thread to do with “Pointed Debates” should be in one place. If you wanted to put them in the Main Thread, you should have said so at the beginning, rather than doing so now when the assumption has been made and when people have had an exchange over it.

The fact that you stated that such threads “will just be like any other thread on the board” cannot be assumed to mean that the stylistics and structure of the debate in the parallel threads should be different from that of the original debate threads to which they’re intrinsically related. It is most reasonable for people to think that by saying it is going to be “just like any other thread on the board”, you simply mean it won’t be moderated just like any other thread on the board. To assume that it means we can discuss the issue of the debate in the same way we would discuss or comment in the Main Square or the articles thread simply doesn’t make sense to me, because it defeats the whole idea of The Crucible as a new form of discussion/debate. As I said earlier, my understanding is that The Crucible is formed for a purpose. I can't see that purpose there now with your new rules. Indeed, I’m surprised that even now, you still cannot see how hollow your new rules will make The Crucible!

Anyway, if you think it makes sense, go ahead with the plan. It’s a free board and each of us must find a way of making our time here worthwhile. I just had to say my piece and I appreciate your response, even as I don’t agree with it. There are enough free areas on the board for me to enjoy myself without worrying about The Crucible and that’s what I intend to do.




CHEERS!

[Shoko Loko Bangoshe]

Kenn,

I'm sorry that you've been led to the wrong conclusion, but the rules I specified in the first post on this thread were only ever intended for the actual debates between the Proponent and Opponent - I never spoke anywhere about the rules applying to all threads in the Crucible. This is why I never moderated or got involved in those parallel threads that were created for debates I was moderating. But I guess that's why we have these discussions - to clarify the ambiguous.

Also, just to clarify - nobody actually opened any parallel thread for the purpose of debate. All that happened was that I moved posts out of the main debate thread into parallel threads which I created for the purpose. In retrospect, it would have been less confusing if I had moved them out of the Crucible altogether, but as I said, it was a convenience issue.