Discussion in 'Debates & Contests' started by E_Pluribus_Venom, Jul 5, 2011.
I want to apply for this position. I consider myself capable of unbiased judging.
Potential judges should be tested on their ability to recognise fallacious arguments. That's one of the big problems with all internet debate.
"He doesn't know when he's beaten, this boy. He doesn't know when he's winning either. He doesn't have any sort of sensory apparatus."
I can judge I'm a cool headed, fair, and all around froody dude.
Changed my mind. I will not be participating.
Count me out.
I second that notion.
No way will I participate in this Sham. Who here has the right to ''Judge another Poster'' and why? I can only imagine the Taunting the ''Loser'' will receive,,,LOL
Just look at some of the ''Gotcha'' posts and you will have an idea, and who are those ''Gotcha'' comments from? Why they are from SOME of the very people that want to be judges,,,HAHAHAHAAH What a JOKE! HAHAHAAHAHAH
Secondly I would like to see all the other debates here that are having a ''Problem'' due to other posters. I have never had a problem with any debate I have ever had, none. This is a nothing more than a couple of show offs that feel ''They'' deserve their own private thread,,,Selfish Much?
We have been told other posters may learn from this,,,LOL,,,How utterly arrogant and condescending can you get!!!! I wonder, has it crossed their egotistical little minds that those other posters do not care for how ''They Post''?, and that boring is NOT better,,,it's just boring...
Put it where it belongs, it's a group, leave our other threads alone.
This site has always been a open posting one, there is no reason to change that, however if a few posters want to have a private one on one they are welcome to form a group, and have many options open to them. This is where ''EXCLUSIVE'' posting belongs.
I do not want to be a judge. I would hardly enjoy debating the merits of a debate with Teamosil or most of the liberal trolls on this site.
and the very reason I would not participate
Sounds like the start up of a band of bullies if you ask me! And you did!!!
That's a great argument. How can you judge if you don't have a clue what the discussion is all about. So we are left with those who are experts on any given subject, and no, having the right skin color or sexual persuasion or gender doesn't make anyone an expert.
Some food for thought.
How about letting two posters go head to head, and those of us sitting on the sidelines report only insults and such, basically calling for mod intervention, if needed.
After X amount of posts, the thread will be closed, and the two posters come up with a poll to let us vote, all of us interested parties.
No judge needed, or you could call all of us judges.
Creates more interest for the average poster to read along, because I'm thinking that the posters who aren't actually involved with the subject, posters/judge, could care less about a discussion even taking place.
How much are you paying? Do we get payed in currency, infraction pardons, booze or brownies?
I dont think you get banned for having self control...LOL....then again perhaps that's just me...
Then don't participate.
That was intended as a joke perhaps a sense of humor is in order.
I will judge and be judged
That is the spirit sir!
I would be a judge
This single judging thing isn't a good idea. I know when I've won a debate, and the person with whom I'm arguing is dead man walking, but still walks, seemingly oblivious to the lethal blow they've suffered.
There is only one way to judge a debate: have it public, and have people vote on a winner in a public poll. Naturally, you'll have the majority voting along party lines, but - and this is key - the winner will be determined on the margins, with posters who are normally known for one way of thinking voting against their own ideology based upon the strength of the debate.
This is the only way to truly judge this sort of thing. If we can do that sort of thing, I would enjoy being both a debate participant and a judge.
If the SCOTUS cannot avoid judging along party lines, why would anyone in here expect different?
We realize the concern, which is why we've left it up to you (the potential participant) to include judges or not if you accept a topic challenge we put forth.
We threw around the public poll option briefly, and I say briefly for good reason. With public polling, no one has to explain their vote... which is essential for all participants to ensure their performance wasn't overlooked simply to "agree" along party lines or aligning perspectives. With the set structure we're tweaking, we've found a "worthy of trying" method that can rule out the bias that may exist. Thank you for your input.
Some good points. Let me revise a bit:
Without judging, debating is pointless.
Public polling is still superior to single judging, however, as one can glean more information through the votes of multiple judges than we could with only one.
I would also say that each person judging in this public poll would have to be compelled to post their own rationale. Their rationale, combined with their vote, could be weighted to provide a score, and - from there - a winner could be declared.
Perhaps in a summary, I don't see the problem with something like that... great input. I realize we're expecting a lot of everyone here without you actually having seen the method by which we plan to structure the judging process... and some concerns should be addressed once we're finished with our version of it (allowing for you and others to tweak it further if plausible).
Reading over this thread, a good number of your potential judging pool have been banned. I'm sure you've made allowances for this.
Unless there's a way for banned personnel to accept judging calls, not sure why we'd have to make allowances.
Separate names with a comma.