Welcome to the Crucible

[Kenn]

Originally Posted by 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.

Shoko,

No problem. We obviously have different perceptions about what The Crucible should look like from the beginning. I’d thought the differences weren’t fundamental enough to affect my understanding of what I think a project like The Crucible should look like. I had erroneously thought we agreed on such fundamental elements as the style and structure of debates, the participation of the larger board and the creation of an exclusive section for that purpose. Whether I was led to believe wrongly or the rules are just being tweaked now, I really don’t want to argue that. The main thing is that the latest rule changes fundamentally alter the three fundamental elements I thought were irrevocable.

I wish you luck in your new structure. I just do not think it has enough in it to keep my interest personally. As it is now, I do not think it adds value or ingenuity to the site. In fact, one can say it is unnecessarily limiting. I’d be happy to be proved wrong, of course; but, for now, let’s say I defer to your wisdom while exercising my fundamental right to make a choice of how I wish to participate here.



CHEERS!

[Shoko Loko Bangoshe]

Kenn,

I respect your decision, and as such I won't try to make you change your mind. Indeed, I agree with your idea of trying to get villagers as a whole involved in the debate - originally, I had set the rules to allow for non-Main Debaters to make contributions to the debate.

Unfortunately, I realised that while this did encourage others to join, it removed focus from the main two debaters as all manner of parallel debates began to spring up, and not all the debates were concerned with the main topic (thus making moderation much more difficult). In addition, I realised producing a final summary of the debate with all these side-debates would be a nightmare. So I moved these non-Main Debater posts to new threads which I created, and left them to the rules of the main board.

I'm still interested in accommodating your desire for more villager participation in structured debate; however, my problem is how to enforce such structure without overburdening the moderator.

[Big-K]

Kenn,
Hold me responsible as I was the one who suggested that we keep the Crucible clean.

SLB
WHile we figure out how to optimize things, I've created a sub-forum where we can move the parallel posts to.

Hopefully this is an OK compromise for the time being.

[DeepThought]

Kenn/Shoko,

I for one think the rules were/are clear enough regarding the purpose of the related threads and how it would be operated. But then, maybe thats just me, it could possibly be confusing to others.

Another observation regarding the main Crucible thread itself:
I observed people posting directly to that thread and thought this shouldn't be the case. My post #63 in the Crucible's related posts section was a mild pointer to this but it could have been that my intepretation of the rules were too strict.

Anyway, I'm glad the moderator eventually moved most posts out and I think these things will become clearer to everyone in future, mistakes will probably be trahsed out in the developmental process?

Here are a few other comments if you don't mind

-

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.

........
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

I think its best not to move the related posts totally from the Crucible. I don't see any confusion at all in the rules . At least for me, the purpose of the supporting threads, were clear and remains clear right from the begining and I repeat, moving the related thread out to the main square section would be what would lactually ead to confusion. I think it should stay where it is but that is your perogative.

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.

Yes, if you feel strongly about moving the supporting thread of the crucible this solution would be perfect and would be much better I think, than completely moving it to the main square. It would make it easier to find and would tie in neately with the debates in the main Crucible . Actually, if its not too programatically complex, could it be possible to put a link on each page of the debates going on in the main crucible saying clearly "RELATED/SUPPORTING THREADS" ? Then people can post comments and do whatever they like there?




Thanks

[Kenn]

Originally Posted by Shoko Loko Bangoshe

Kenn,

I respect your decision, and as such I won't try to make you change your mind. Indeed, I agree with your idea of trying to get villagers as a whole involved in the debate - originally, I had set the rules to allow for non-Main Debaters to make contributions to the debate.

Unfortunately, I realised that while this did encourage others to join, it removed focus from the main two debaters as all manner of parallel debates began to spring up, and not all the debates were concerned with the main topic (thus making moderation much more difficult). In addition, I realised producing a final summary of the debate with all these side-debates would be a nightmare. So I moved these non-Main Debater posts to new threads which I created, and left them to the rules of the main board.

I'm still interested in accommodating your desire for more villager participation in structured debate; however, my problem is how to enforce such structure without overburdening the moderator.

Shoko,


>>>Kenn,

I respect your decision, and as such I won't try to make you change your mind. Indeed, I agree with your idea of trying to get villagers as a whole involved in the debate - originally, I had set the rules to allow for non-Main Debaters to make contributions to the debate.

Unfortunately, I realised that while this did encourage others to join, it removed focus from the main two debaters as all manner of parallel debates began to spring up, and not all the debates were concerned with the main topic (thus making moderation much more difficult).<<<


I knew this problem would occur that was why I proposed in my very first critique of your idea in Post No 7 in the thread NVS Debates: A proposal (January 9, 2008) - when the idea was being muted - that we only allow the two people Proposing or Opposing to be the ones posting on the debate thread while every other person interested contributes from behind the scenes. If that had been adopted for instance, neither DeepThought nor I would have been going back and forth in a parallel thread as everything we have to say would have been channelled from behind the scenes to our respective debate leader (Eja or Mulan), because, to start with, there would have been no parallel threads to divert attention from the main debate. Through PMs and personal emails, we all would be interacting by giving our ideas to our team members and our team leader (Proposer or Opposer) whose duty it would be to accept, reject or synthesize these ideas to deliver on the thread. The rest of us cannot say we are uninterested as we all know what we are doing behind the scenes to get our ideas across.

So, how it would have worked in practical terms would be if the Proposer comes to the thread to introduce his Proposition with his opening post, which would include his formal opening submission, the Opposer comes in and submits his/her opening submission as well. Then, the Moderator comes in to declare the debate open and reiterate the rules, inviting supporters and opposers. However, instead of supporters and opposers to begin debating their own on the same thread or in a so-called parallel thread, all they’d be required to do is to come to the thread and make one sentence of support or opposition. For example, all they’d be required to say is “I support the Proposition” or “I oppose the Proposition”. The purpose of this would be for everyone to know who is on which side. We are not interested in hearing from them, but only from the Proposer and Opposer. Thus, those who support will simply start working their PMs and emails, frantically exchanging ideas with the Proposer or Opposer, suggesting what they expect him/her to argue or how he/she should counter this or that position. He/she would in turn discuss these with them, but in the end he/she has the sole power to determine what to accept, what to reject or synthesize from these suggestions.

The beauty of this, as I said, is that this kind of collaboration “keeps everyone involved and interested and also provides an opportunity to fully make use of all available knowledge and expertise within the group in order to do real justice to the topic (since, of course, we’re talking high-level debates here). This means that at every point in time, mini-debates would be going on within a group behind the scenes with the aim of getting the better of the other team”. You can also see how the suggestion would have easily taken care of the problem you’re highlighting now. I know, Big-K has created a “sub-forum where we can move the parallel posts to”; but I do not think that solves the problems you’ve raised above. Indeed, no matter where the parallel threads are moved to, chances are that it will continue to remove focus from the two main debaters, as far as it remains open and non-moderated. It is obvious that no matter how brilliant the two main debaters, once you’ve opened a parallel thread to run alongside the debate, it is more like pitching the rest of the board against them. There’s no prize for guessing which would command more attention.

So, personally, I think the best approach is the one I earlier suggested – do away with parallel threads, let only the two main debaters post their thoughts and let everyone else interested as a supporter or opposer work from behind the scenes for his/her team. That way, the problem you mentioned above would be solved!



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




>>>In addition, I realised producing a final summary of the debate with all these side-debates would be a nightmare. So I moved these non-Main Debater posts to new threads which I created, and left them to the rules of the main board.<<<


Of course, it was always going to be a nightmare to produce final summary of any debate! Frankly, I was opposed to this idea immediately you suggested it, but I didn’t want to shoot down every idea you suggested in order not to give the wrong impression. I know you and Mulan did a great job of summarizing the debates so far; but, let’s be honest, who needs a summary of the debate? What does the summary do for anybody? The truth is anyone who wants to depend on the summaries to follow the debate or make up their minds shouldn’t be there in the first place. If you’re interested, you’ll follow the argument and the main points the protagonists are making. Usually, in all pointed debates, it is the person/people involved in the debates that make summaries of their final position, not a Moderator. The Moderator should simply limit himself/herself to ensuring that the rules of debate are kept. We don’t need to hear from him/her.

Finally, now that we have an opportunity to talk again, let me say what I think most people are avoiding or shying away from talking about and that is the fact that in every pointed debate, someone is always declared a winner. The winner emerges because a majority on a panel of judges declares them so. Do we need people to be declared winners here? I say “Yes”, because, in truth, that is the climax of the debate. The whole idea of a pointed debate anywhere is to work towards winning. What we have to do is to find a formula that will be transparent and acceptable to all, including terminology/terminologies for people who are not winners that would be acceptable. Earlier, I talked about people coming on board and registering their support or opposition to a Proposition in one identical sentence. That itself could be a starting point. We could say the participants decide who wins with everyone having one vote and having two opportunities (one at the beginning and one at the end to make their choice. So, if at the beginning and during the debate 10 people register their support for the Proposer and 9 register their support for the Opposer, we will bear those numbers in mind. The Moderator can make such rules (as you suggested in one of your latest posts) that every debater has to make at most 7 post per topic. What this means for our purpose is that after the 7th post (which should be a debater's summary and final submission, if they choose to exhaust their 7 chances) the Moderator can again call on members to vote a final time for who they think is the winner. It is this final vote that should count, but it can only be the vote of those who participated (from behind the scenes) and who have earlier registered the interest. Naturally most of the votes will usually confirm what was already expressed; but the purpose of the second vote is to give people the opportunity to change their mind if they want. I can, for instance, decide to switch support because I think the debater I was originally opposing has finally and genuinely convinced me. It could also have something to do with group dynamics, for instance, a leading debater who did not take the views of other team members into consideration or who is adjudged to be making hard work of the debate when his team thinks he/she has the best intellectual support may have some team members declare for the other side. So, really, while they have the sole power of decision, such possibility will keep leading debaters on their toes, as they know they’re required to ‘manage’ their team successfully! It could therefore happen that the person who had 9 votes against the other's 10 during the dabate may end up winning with more votes after simply because people changed their mind.

Of course, it’s all for the fun and people who choose to participate must learn how to create a healthy and matured competition from this! You must realize that this is the way to keep people’s interest in what goes on at The Crucible, because, as it is, it is flat and seemingly with no purpose, even though you get good debates. Already, you can detect that people are already weary of it, even though we're just starting! I personally think the reason The Crucible hasn’t yet picked up as it should is because it lacks that ‘showbiz’ and dramatic element of working towards winning and all it entails. People still see it as not much different from the other sections of the board, especially as debates are actually being derailed to make it seem like that as well on the so-called parallel threads. However, if we follow my suggestion, the Moderator will not be overworked, he/she cannot be accused of favouritism in terms of the results of debates as he/she does not decide and everyone would feel involved whether from behind the scene or as Proposer or Opposer in such debates. And yes, people will always have something exciting to look forward to at the end; so they’ll always be interested.



>>>I'm still interested in accommodating your desire for more villager participation in structured debate; however, my problem is how to enforce such structure without overburdening the moderator.<<<


See above.





CHEERS!

[Kenn]

Originally Posted by Big-K

Kenn,
Hold me responsible as I was the one who suggested that we keep the Crucible clean.

SLB
WHile we figure out how to optimize things, I've created a sub-forum where we can move the parallel posts to.

Hopefully this is an OK compromise for the time being.

Big-K,

I read some of your suggestions when the idea was being muted and I thought I agreed with you more than I agreed with Shoko (though, to be fair, Shoko was engaged in more detailed discussions with not only me, with some others as well). Keeping The Crucible clean can only be done one way – keep everybody out, but only the two involved in the debate at each point in time. I’ve explained earlier how others can get involved. Let that be their headache and an indication of their interest. Putting the “parallel threads” in some kind of “sub-forum” is no viable or necessary compromise because it won’t solve the problem you’ve mentioned or the ones Shoko has talked about. Keeping it clean means there should not only be the debating threads alone in The Crucible; there should be no distraction from any other part of the board in the form of some parallel threads hidden away somewhere, but still accessible to anyone who wants to contribute positively or negatively to the discussion, all of which would inevitably derail the main debating thread.



CHEERS!

[mulan]

I actually prefer the option of the parallel thread for comments or questions while the debate goes on the main thread. In the big picture, whether the contributions are behind the scenes or on the related thread is of little difference. It would be good however to think on locking the parallel thread at the end of the debate. Contributors can take their discussion to the main square after that. Also, maybe suggestions can be put forward on modalities for selecting a winner though I am a bit ambivalent about that. Personally, the exchange of ideas is what draws me but already some commentators have raised the issue of winners on a couple of the debates...

[Kenn]

NB: When I talked about finding the right terminology for the person who didn’t win, what I had in mind was to describe such a person as “the runner-up” or “second winner”, rather than “loser”. This is not being euphemistic. Anyone who is bold enough under the proposed arrangement to put themselves forward and manage the expectations of his/her team, contribute to the debate and stay the course till the end, either as a Proposer or Opposer, does not deserve to be called “loser”. The losers are those who didn’t participate. This is simply a way of making everybody feel appreciated.



CHEERS!

[Khalil]

Errr, Good greetings once again,

But am wondering, must a winner be declared at the end of the debate? I think the debates here are more for the education, done by adults, not anything of the school children where a winner and a loser or whatever must know, feel and gloss over their 'heroism' or otherwise.

Again, I feel the related post should be kept well close to the Crucible for easy access as some of us may want to keep coming for them for reference purposes in our academic or not so academic researches now or in future.

Well just my thoughts

Khalilurrahman

[Kenn]

Originally Posted by Khalil

Errr, Good greetings once again,

But am wondering, must a winner be declared at the end of the debate? I think the debates here are more for the education, done by adults, not anything of the school children where a winner and a loser or whatever must know, feel and gloss over their 'heroism' or otherwise.

Again, I feel the related post should be kept well close to the Crucible for easy access as some of us may want to keep coming for them for reference purposes in our academic or not so academic researches now or in future.

Well just my thoughts

Khalilurrahman

Khalil,


Thanks for your comment. No, a winner does not have to be declared. It’s just my own opinion and my understanding of what pointed debates are all about. But then, I don’t think it is fair or informed to derogatorily refer to the idea of declaring winners as “school children” stuff. You must know that there are adult debating societies within the intellectual community where winners are declared. So, declaring winners and serving educational purposes aren’t mutually exclusive. It’s simply a tradition to declare winners in debates of this nature. I’m personally suggesting it as a way to bring something new to The Crucible and as a means of keeping people’s interest.

Naturally, what we want to guard against are people who aren’t matured enough to realize that this is mostly for fun (even as we’re being educated). Those who do not win are not exactly losers, as I’ve pointed out. The fact that they’re able to come forward, contribute to the debate, listen to various ideas from their supporters, synthesize those ideas and sustain the discussion till the end show clearly they aren’t losers. The fact that someone must win does not necessarily mean that the person who didn’t win is a loser. Nobody is winning any prizes for being declared winner. It’s like engaging in a game of scrabble, monopoly, draught, ludo, boxing, arm wrestling, sprinting and so on. Winning does not make it childish. This is sport, language sport. At the end, like every sporty affair, we all shake hands and move on.

Most importantly, please note that it’s just an idea and you are free to take a shot at it as you have done. But having done so, we need new ideas to make The Crucible interesting and worthwhile.




CHEERS!

[Austin]

Shoko and Big-K,
Thanks a lot for providing us with the crucible.

As one who has participated in my limited way on this particular forum I want to attest first and foremost to the fact that it is indeed a welcome development.

In addition, the introduction of the related thread is also a really good idea. Having said these, here is my 1 kobo on the issue at hand.

1. The main debate need not necessarily belimited to just the main proponents and opponents. It will be good idea to have supporters on both sides paricipate directly in the debating process

2. The main debaters should be given 3 opportunities to present their cases. My line of thinking is that they be allowed to present their main points in their respective first posts. Then, they should be allowed to present any additions, oversights etc. in the second posts. And lastly, they should be asked to summarily react to the points raised by their opponents in their third and final posts.

3. The supporters can then be called forward, again to summarily present their opinions on the subject of the debate, however, these must be substantially different from anything the main debaters have already stated.

4. The number of supporters may be limited to 2-3, or as many as may be deemed necessary.

5. After the passage of a reasonable length of time, the moderator may then summarize all the points made for and against the topic of debate.

6. Victory may then be awarded to a team, not individual, if this is deemed necessary.

7. A related thread could be kept open, where emotional and incoherent neandertals like yours truly, will be allowed to post comments as the spirit may direct them and without the inhibition of rules.

8. The related thread should be kept as close as possible to the main debate, so
as to facilitate easy manouvre.

9. Finally, to really encourage people to use their ingenuity, it is important to stress the fact that this is merely a debate. And therefore that the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the personal belives, politics, religion etc of the participants.

It is my humble opinion that this type of arrangement will facilitate a more lively debate while equally satisfying everybody

[Khalil]

Originally Posted by Kenn1

Khalil,


Thanks for your comment. No, a winner does not have to be declared. It’s just my own opinion and my understanding of what pointed debates are all about. But then, I don’t think it is fair or informed to derogatorily refer to the idea of declaring winners as “school children” stuff. You must know that there are adult debating societies within the intellectual community where winners are declared. So, declaring winners and serving educational purposes aren’t mutually exclusive. It’s simply a tradition to declare winners in debates of this nature. I’m personally suggesting it as a way to bring something new to The Crucible and as a means of keeping people’s interest.

Naturally, what we want to guard against are people who aren’t matured enough to realize that this is mostly for fun (even as we’re being educated). Those who do not win are not exactly losers, as I’ve pointed out. The fact that they’re able to come forward, contribute to the debate, listen to various ideas from their supporters, synthesize those ideas and sustain the discussion till the end show clearly they aren’t losers. The fact that someone must win does not necessarily mean that the person who didn’t win is a loser. Nobody is winning any prizes for being declared winner. It’s like engaging in a game of scrabble, monopoly, draught, ludo, boxing, arm wrestling, sprinting and so on. Winning does not make it childish. This is sport, language sport. At the end, like every sporty affair, we all shake hands and move on.

Most importantly, please note that it’s just an idea and you are free to take a shot at it as you have done. But having done so, we need new ideas to make The Crucible interesting and worthwhile.




CHEERS!

Kenn1,

I am sorry if you feel strong about my reference, it was not intended or conceived to belittle. But permit me please to take another risk at pointing out the truth that even though adults do debate and winners declared, such debates are handled or moderated by professionals in the business and that somehow edged either myself, you or any other member of the forums out, since none, according to the information available, is known to have had considerable training or experience in dealing with debates at such peak.


In that I think we may end up putting a record of history without taking the necessary caution needed. You know a surgeon who makes a mistake of taking the life of a patient on the process of operation faces less penalty than a one who did a surgery with the same end result but happen to be a non-certified surgeon.

Again, in the debates we hold here, both the Proposer and Opposer may not necessarily be professional debaters or trained in the areas being discussed and, the debating rules did not underline specializations, as such I would want to believe declaring winners or losers by any terminology will mean putting to records some not-so-needed information on the wheel of our progress.

Another example will come from the recently concluded debate between Eja and Mulan. Eja I would want to believe is a scholar with a background in social sciences or humanities, this can be tanged from the terms he used and the way he deployed the services of words to achieve analytical values. On her part, Mulan as much as Kenn1, I think, are from pure or practical sciences and this going from the taste and feel of your wordings as much as your responses which does not indicate some deep familiarity with certain concepts Eja was trying to expand to the benefit of the audience.

And the cheer again comes from an audience that are mostly in the pure or practical sciences since Diaspora Nigeria, which forms most of the membership of this forum, is a community of mostly, professional technical persons working abroad.

Well, I am sorry, the above is not an attempt to judge anybody. I would want to believe taking all these into consideration and other ocurances that may not necessarily involve same personalities, one will not fail to see where opinions are likely to tilt when it comes to declaring a winner in debates here on NVS. But then I suppose debates taken through all the needed process should be marked by same entry or degree of professionalism and insight in the issues being handled.

As such I feel we should just have the fun as much the education without necessarily taking it to pronouncements that may end up presenting a picture of professional certification that is half measured and half evaluated.

Sank you beri beri much and my bise Jonasan Gud lak....

Khalilurrahman

[Kenn]

Khalil,


>>>I am sorry if you feel strong about my reference, it was not intended or conceived to belittle. But permit me please to take another risk at pointing out the truth that even though adults do debate and winners declared, such debates are handled or moderated by professionals in the business and that somehow edged either myself, you or any other member of the forums out, since none, according to the information available, is known to have had considerable training or experience in dealing with debates at such peak.

>>>In that I think we may end up putting a record of history without taking the necessary caution needed. You know a surgeon who makes a mistake of taking the life of a patient on the process of operation faces less penalty than a one who did a surgery with the same end result but happen to be a non-certified surgeon.<<<


I really don’t know what you’re talking about here when you say “the truth” is that adult debates “are handled or moderated by professionals in the business”. As far as I know, debating is not a professional business; it’s a hobby. There is nobody who is a professional debater or a professional judge of debates. Adult debating societies are simply put together by diverse groups of professionals or friends who make their own rules, meet at certain times, organise competitions amongst themselves and engage each other in discussing all sorts of diverse issues that transcend their own narrow individual professional outlooks. An adult debating society, like any debating society, is simply to educate, inform and entertain. It is an intellectual sport enjoyed by people who love to exchange ideas. Debating improves verbal/written/communication, conversational and reasoning skills and it does help with logical thought as well. People engage in debating to boost their self-confidence. Apart from the fun, people are increasingly realizing that even at your job, it is not enough to have the technical skills; nowadays employers are increasingly looking for people with good communication and interpersonal skills as well. Adult debates, both formal and informal types, have become means by which people acquire and sharpen these skills. There’s nothing professional about them, just a means of intellectual socialization.




>>>Again, in the debates we hold here, both the Proposer and Opposer may not necessarily be professional debaters or trained in the areas being discussed and, the debating rules did not underline specializations, as such I would want to believe declaring winners or losers by any terminology will mean putting to records some not-so-needed information on the wheel of our progress.<<<


There are no professional debaters anywhere “trained in the areas being discussed”, because a debate can discuss anything or any issue under the sun and no one, absolutely no one, is that omniscient except God! Nobody earns a living from being a “professional debater”. Of course, parliamentarians do debate policies and laws and are paid for it, but that is not the kind of debate we’re talking here obviously.

Declaring a winner or winners in a debate is just a tradition in debating circles. Obviously, what we’re trying to do at The Crucible is to adapt traditional debating style into an online format; yet, declaring winners is so fundamental to the debating culture that I fail to see any reason why we cannot do so here responsibly. Debating, like any sport, is by its very nature competitive. Anyone who cannot stand winning and not winning need to investigate their sporting genes! Besides, since the declaration of winners is to be done in a group context (as the winner would be sharing the joy with his/her team that worked with him/her behind the scenes) it needs not lead to any ill-feelings. Even those who do not win should feel happy with the intellectual effort they put behind an idea at the end of the day! The only people likely to feel bad are people with ego problem.




>>>Another example will come from the recently concluded debate between Eja and Mulan. Eja I would want to believe is a scholar with a background in social sciences or humanities, this can be tanged from the terms he used and the way he deployed the services of words to achieve analytical values. On her part, Mulan as much as Kenn1, I think, are from pure or practical sciences and this going from the taste and feel of your wordings as much as your responses which does not indicate some deep familiarity with certain concepts Eja was trying to expand to the benefit of the audience.

>>>And the cheer again comes from an audience that are mostly in the pure or practical sciences since Diaspora Nigeria, which forms most of the membership of this forum, is a community of mostly, professional technical persons working abroad.<<<


The presumptions here are breathtakingly wrong! I can’t speak for Mulan or Eja, but let me say two things. One, there is no terminology or concept Eja has used in this debate that I am unfamiliar with and two, your conjecture on my background is hundred percent wrong. Indeed, very wrong.





>>>Well, I am sorry, the above is not an attempt to judge anybody. I would want to believe taking all these into consideration and other ocurances that may not necessarily involve same personalities, one will not fail to see where opinions are likely to tilt when it comes to declaring a winner in debates here on NVS. But then I suppose debates taken through all the needed process should be marked by same entry or degree of professionalism and insight in the issues being handled. <<<


It’s no big deal to declare winners. There’s nothing to fear but fear itself. Anyone who isn’t matured enough to enjoy the fun or understand that debates are healthily competitive shouldn’t be at The Crucible and anyone who thinks it has to be a clannish or parapo affair in terms of who to support would soon discover that they do so at their peril as their intellectual reputation and credibility will simply go down the tube once people figure them out. Let those who cannot stand the possibility of not being winners stick to the Main Square and article pages. Declaring winners may look strange in the beginning, but once people get into the spirit, the fun kicks in! Debating is fun, making it competitive is even more fun! I believe that if we want to create something different and unique at Nigerian Village Square, something that will keep people constantly tuned on, that is the way to go. Again, it’s just my opinion.




>>>As such I feel we should just have the fun as much the education without necessarily taking it to pronouncements that may end up presenting a picture of professional certification that is half measured and half evaluated.<<<


This is still carryover of your misconceptions above. There’s nothing professional about what we’re doing here and I don't think anyone has that ambition now or when we started conceiving the idea of The Crucible. Proposing a mechanism to declare winners while at the same time appreciating those who didn’t win without calling them losers is all aimed at having better fun. There’s not much fun at The Crucible right now and there are no prizes for guessing why!





CHEERS!

[Kenn]

Austin,

>>>2. The main debaters should be given 3 opportunities to present their cases. My line of thinking is that they be allowed to present their main points in their respective first posts. Then, they should be allowed to present any additions, oversights etc. in the second posts. And lastly, they should be asked to summarily react to the points raised by their opponents in their third and final posts.<<<

Good point in terms of limitation of opportunities for the debaters to present their case. While I wouldn’t exactly say 3 opportunities, I like the principle. Under normal circumstances, if oral presentations are being made live before an audience, three opportunities will suffice. But, since this is being done online and likely to run for a few days (including the fact that more people are likely to be coming in and taking sides after it starts), giving debaters between 5 and 7 opportunities would seem fairer. But, as you’ve implied the last of those posts should indeed act as a summary and final rebuttal of the points the opponent has made. Of course, this is assuming I was to adapt this to my suggestions above.




>>>6. Victory may then be awarded to a team, not individual, if this is deemed necessary. <<<

My suggestion implies that victory must be awarded to a team, because a lot of people would be working behind the scenes as members of one team or the other while the the two principal protagonists are merely the 'public' faces of the debate. The whole idea of me suggesting for people to come into the thread to simply state what side they support is to get a record of those working behind the scenes on a particular side. In fact, I would also suggest that after the debate and after the winner has been declared, we could encourage a convention where the principal debaters dedicate a final post to acknowledging the support they got and from whom. They can actually do this by stating the ideas they adopted, who presented the idea from within their team, the process of adoption and how they think the idea helped in the debate and so on.





>>>9. Finally, to really encourage people to use their ingenuity, it is important to stress the fact that this is merely a debate. And therefore that the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the personal belives, politics, religion etc of the participants.<<<

That’s the point I’ve been making all along in our exchange at the “This Nigeria will never be a nation” debate and I’m happy you’re finally getting it! In fact, to make it even more interesting, I would suggest that the Nigerian Village Square, being the hosts for the debates, propose topics for debates and, if no objection, even choose persons to debate each other and on what side. At least, that will make it clear to everyone that debating is not about arguing convictions, but just a sport, an art. After all, a good debater should feel comfortable arguing any side of a Proposition intelligently.





CHEERS!

[Khalil]

Originally Posted by Kenn1

Khalil,

The presumptions here are breathtakingly wrong! I can’t speak for Mulan or Eja, but let me say two things. One, there is no terminology or concept Eja has used in this debate that I am unfamiliar with and two, your conjecture on my background is hundred percent wrong. Indeed, very wrong.

CHEERS!

Are you sure I am wrong about you Kenn1? Well, as I said it was something I thought I saw in your mechanical approach, I may quite be wrong, even if not all wrong.

Anyway no need to say much, mine was only a thought not a suggestion, my understanding of what debate is, appears to be in contrast with yours, perhaps the issues of background again. However way we take it to be, and whatever the rules here stipulate you will find me coming in at the time I feel free to, whether as a reader of what others write or contributing in a major or minor way .

Thanks

Khalilurrahman

[denker]

khalilurrahman, my dear, can we talk here===>>>Link

[Khalil]

Originally Posted by denker

khalilurrahman, my dear, can we talk here===>>>Link

Why there denker, my good friend, not here at the Crucible? Where it will look more serious, objective and guarded from the encroachment of very sentimental inputs?

You will then see where I will crush you like Eja crushed Mulan or Mulan crushed Eja, whichever way your thought lean.


Khalilurrahman

[Austin]

>>>9. Finally, to really encourage people to use their ingenuity, it is important to stress the fact that this is merely a debate. And therefore that the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the personal belives, politics, religion etc of the participants.<<<

That’s the point I’ve been making all along in our exchange at the “This Nigeria will never be a nation” debate and I’m happy you’re finally getting it!

My dear Kenn1,
Just when I am feeling relieved about my fast disappearing craw-craw. Anyway sha, I still have left-over of my medication, so this time around I guess I am immuned. No patronising weapon fashioned against me shall prosper, in Jesus name, amen, halleluyah. I am healed.

I just have a question for you though, do you really believe this is all about you? Sometimes we passionate people really need to cool off and actually laugh at our weaknesses. Cheers.

[Kenn]

Originally Posted by Khalil

Are you sure I am wrong about you Kenn1? Well, as I said it was something I thought I saw in your mechanical approach, I may quite be wrong, even if not all wrong.

Anyway no need to say much, mine was only a thought not a suggestion, my understanding of what debate is, appears to be in contrast with yours, perhaps the issues of background again. However way we take it to be, and whatever the rules here stipulate you will find me coming in at the time I feel free to, whether as a reader of what others write or contributing in a major or minor way .

Thanks

Khalilurrahman

Khalil,


You’re still barking up the wrong tree! Listen, I don’t think it’s fair to describe my writing approach or anybody’s writing approach here as “mechanical”. When you describe a piece of writing as mechanical, what it means is that such writing is lacking in thought and feeling. Even if my background were in the “practical sciences”, it’s still no compliment to talk of my approach as mechanical, because being mechanical has nothing to do with background, but all to do with a lack of substance. You may not mean it that way, but that is the simple fact of what it means and you need to take note. I personally do not think you’re in a position to pass judgment on my writing, though you can express an opinion about it, as far as such an opinion isn’t insulting. Again, as I said, it’s possible that you didn’t mean it that way, but I still think I have to point it out to you.



CHEERS!

[Kenn]

Originally Posted by Austin

My dear Kenn1,
Just when I am feeling relieved about my fast disappearing craw-craw. Anyway sha, I still have left-over of my medication, so this time around I guess I am immuned. No patronising weapon fashioned against me shall prosper, in Jesus name, amen, halleluyah. I am healed.

I just have a question for you though, do you really believe this is all about you? Sometimes we passionate people really need to cool off and actually laugh at our weaknesses. Cheers.

And who said it is all about me? What is wrong with pointing out that you’re finally coming around to understanding what The Crucible should be about in line with what I’ve been preaching from day one? Did I force you to write those words of yours I responded to? Maybe you need a reminder of what you used to believe. So, allow me to help juggle your memory.

In one of your first interventions in the related thread “This Nigeria will never be a nation”, specifically in your Post No 49, you warned Eja:

And please my brother, never believe it again when people tell you, this is just a debate and it's all for fun. You believe that and it will be at your own peril. (Austin to Eja)

Obviously, your view of the debate was quite different then to what you’re preaching now. In fact, you went on in Post No 100 and elsewhere to argue your point as a conviction, rather than as a mere position in a pointed debate. You argued this to the extent that I had to point out to you that in spite of all you’d said up to that point, you were yet to say on whose side of the debate you’re on. Indeed, your response to my observation was that the choice isn’t as easy as I make it look “considering the temper, the passion, the labelling, and the fact that the crucible is mainly for the sake of posterity”. In other words, at that point, you did not consider it a mere debate; it was to you a matter of conviction. This prompted me to respond to you thus in my Post No 110 of that thread:

”The choice couldn’t be easier at The Crucible where the circumscription simply asks you to say “Yes” or “No” to a Proposition without having to dance in some middle grounds or navigate grey areas. That is why the rules tell you that contributors are not to be judged by what they say here over an issue, as it is only for the purposes of the “Pointed Debates” in which people are expected to take a side only for the purpose of the specific debate. People are not expected to come here and deliver their Magnus Opus about life – just show how good you are at arguing a viewpoint, even if it’s one you really do not believe in!”(Kenn to Austin)

So, isn’t it appropriate for me to sing hallelujah now that you’re finally humming my tune? Yes, a truly humble and confident person needs to understand and accept his/her weaknesses and laugh at them. I laugh at myself constantly because I’m a self-deprecating person who understands that I’m a fallible human. Besides I enjoy poking fun at myself!

Therefore, my point here is not an indication of me being hot under the collar or needing any cooling off or something like that. It’s a simple basic truth that you have finally come around to the point I’ve been making. And I made this point not only to you, but to all those who think debate is about what you truly believe, rather than defending or opposing a Proposition as part of intellectual sports. If anyone needs cooling off, it’s those who do not know that views here “do not necessarily reflect the personal belives (sic), politics, religion etc of the participants”. Even you know I’m not one of them.




CHEERS!