TTF Debate Tournament - UNOFFICIAL Rules Draft

[Eriol]

Dragged out of retirement by my Guild-Master...

:eek:

I wrote down some rules for the TTF Debate Tournament. These rules are, obviously, not official yet, since I (thankfully) have no official position. This draft is meant to be a suggestion. Any modifications are more than welcome. After all, I did this rather quickly over this morning. I'm sure a lot of loopholes and deficiencies will be found ;).

I think this is "in line" with the first rounds of the Tournament.

Even if these rules are thrown in the garbage can, fellows, I strongly urge you (i.e., us) to write down a set of rules to prevent -- or at least minimize -- further hassles. (By the way, these rules are directed to the round-robin phase -- perhaps they have to be changed a bit for the final rounds -- EDIT: I was under the impression that there would be a final round between the leading Guilds, after the Round-Robin phase . Am I right? I have no idea...)

And I hope that the final draft of the Rules is agreed upon by members of EVERY Guild, otherwise it won't be fair... you know the drill.

So, here they are:

TTF Debate Tournament Rules – Round-robin phase

1.This tournament will be contested by the Debating Guilds already inscribed by the Tournament Organizer:

The Guild of Dwarves/Elves
The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil
The Guild of Outcasts
The Guild of the Periaur
The Guild of Scholars
The Guild of Tolkienologists

This is to say that any breach by an individual member of a guild can and will be regarded as a breach by that particular guild. All Guild-Masters have the duty to publicize these rules inside their own Guilds to prevent inadvertent breaches, possibly resulting in penalty for the Guild.

2. In the debates of the Round-robin phase, the following procedure must be followed:

a) A Host shall be selected by the Guild responsible for hosting that particular debate, according to the rotation previously established by the TO (Tournament Organizer);
b) The Host will select 4 judges among the other neutral Guilds, and 1 Neutral (Guild-less) Judges;
c) The Debating Guilds shall select teams of 4 members, among its own members;
d) Members of more than one Guild cannot debate for two different Guilds in the Tournament - the penalty for breaching this rule is forfeiting the match in which he played for a second Guild, with further penalties for the offending Guild under the discretion of the Tournament Organizer.

3. DUTIES OF THE HOST

a) To open the debate thread in the Home Guild (see below);
b) To choose a topic, following the procedures established below;
c) To conduct the debate;
d) To set the time for the end of the Debate, usually 7 days after the first post of the Debate proper (the Host can adjust this period slightly for convenience purposes, according to his Time Zone)
e) To close the thread, or ask a moderator to do so, after the debate is over;
f) To open a Judging thread in which the Judges’ opinions will be publicized;
g) To report the result to the Tournament Organizer;
h) To deal out penalties, in accordance with Rule 9.

4. DUTIES OF THE GUILDS

a) There will be a Home Guild and a visiting Guild in each debate, according to the rotation established by the TO;
b) The Home Guild shall choose the side it wants to defend in the debate, and make the first post;
c) The Visiting Guild shall defend the other side in the debate;
d) The members of the Debating Teams of both Guilds shall be named before any post is made addressing the topic itself – it is a duty of both Guilds to announce the teams as quickly as possible.

5. DUTIES OF THE JUDGES

a) Each judge shall examine the debate thoroughly once it is over, and post a considered opinion in support of his vote;
b) There shall be no time limit for the presentation of the vote, but each judge must agree beforehand to devote his full consideration for the debate. The position of Judge is very demanding, and members who do not feel they will have the time to do it should refuse the duty before the Debate begins.

6. SELECTION OF TOPICS

a) As was set out in 3b, the Host must select a topic. Maedhros is the sole person in charge of the topics. Any topic must be pre-approved by him. If the Host does not want to offer any topic of his own, Maedhros shall supply him with a topic;
b) If any of the involved Guilds does not agree with the topic, he must inform the Host;
c) The Host is the sole person in charge of accepting or not the Guild’s plea for a change of topic, and he shall not, under any circumstances, accept this plea after there has been a post from each Guild in the Debate thread.

7. DEBATE PROCEDURES

a) There is no restriction as regards the order of posting, or length of posting, in any case.
b) The Rules of Conduct set out below apply at all times.

8. RULES OF CONDUCT IN THE DEBATE

a) The TTF general rules of conduct apply at all times – no personal attacks, no use of offensive terms, etc.
b) Sarcasm and irony are accepted, and perhaps even encouraged :D; as long as they are directed to the arguments, and not to the people involved;
c) No posts in the debating thread shall be made in an attempt to influence the judges, either by the debating members or by other members of any Guild; the Judging thread shall be a place in which opinions are set out as simply as possible, and only the Judges shall expound on their reasons for a vote;
d) Any and all “bashings” of any participant (Judges or Host or Members) outside the respective Guild of the person posting the “bashing” shall be subject to penalties according to Rule 9; the provision that a post inside the Guild is exempt of penalty does not apply to directly-related threads (Debate, Judging);
e) All members participating directly in the debate shall be held up to the strictest conditions of courtesy and good sportsmanship;
f) Posts by non-participants (Debators, Host, Judges) in the Debate thread shall be frowned upon and can subject the offending Guild to penalty, as set out under Rule 9.

9. PENALTIES IN THE DEBATE

a) Breach of any of the above rules, and particularly breaches of the Rules of Conduct (Rule 8), shall be subject to penalty;
b) The Host of the Debate is the person in charge of dealing out penalties – no penalty shall be given without his assent;
c) The first penalty for any Guild after a Rule breach must, in all cases, consist of a Warning, with no further effects;
d) The third penalty, and subsequent penalties for any Guild after the same Rule has been breached three times must, in all cases, consist of the loss of 1 point in the overall standings;
e) The second penalty for any Guild after the same Rule has been breached two times is left at the discretion of the Host – either Warning or Loss of a point in the overall standings.

10. APPEALING PENALTIES

a) An appeals committee must be established by the Tournament Organizer, including:

The Tournament Organizer himself;
A Member appointed by the Guild of Dwarves/Elves
A Member appointed by the Guild of Ost-in-Edhil
A Member appointed by the Guild of Outcasts
A Member appointed by the Guild of the Periaur
A Member appointed by the Guild of Scholars
A Member appointed by the Guild of Tolkienologists
A Neutral (Guild-less) Member.

b) Any member of the appeals committee who is a member of an appealing Guild (either defendant or plaintiff) in a given appeal must excuse himself from participating in the appeals process;
c) If there is any appeal the Tournament Organizer will open a thread in the Member Announcements Forum to hear both sides of the story; in this thread, after a period not over three days since its opening, the arguments for the appeal by defendant and plaintiff must be presented;
d) After the argument phase is over the members of the appeals committee shall vote. In case of a tie the Neutral member has the tie-breaker vote; if he refuses this duty, the tie-breaker vote goes to the Tournament Organizer;
e) The members of the Appeals Committee shall take no more than 3 days after the end of the argument phase to vote;
f) There shall be no consideration of any appeal if the reason for the warning/penalty was a breach of the TTF general rules of conduct.





Whew. I hope this can lead to something.

Probably not... ;)

[Aulë]

Wow,
Very good work Eriol. :)

Minor nitpicking:
4c) I don't think the 'away' Guild should be privilaged the last post. It would be too hard to manage, since the other Guild wouldn't know when to stop posting.
And the rule hasn't been enforced from the beginning either.

That is all that I can find wrong with it. :)
But I'm sure I'll remember something else later on. ;)

I suppose when this is complete, we can post in in the Scoreboard thread that I just put up.

I am also thinking of adding a Best & Fairest award into the Tournament too, which would require another task for the Host. But I'll go into that in the Discussion thread.

We could also add the scoring system to it. The rules of which can be found in the Scoreboard thread.

[Lhunithiliel]

EXCELLENT JOB, Eriol !!!! :D

I have read carefully all and really do not have ANY objections whatsoever.
If these Rules receive the confirmation of all the debating Guilds, I think it would be only just to consider them OFFICIAL.

[Mrs. Maggott]

I would only make one suggestion based upon years of experience. When we were children and there was only one large piece of cake left, my mother would ask one of us to cut it so that both my sister and I would have a piece. However, to prevent the "cutter" from dividing the piece in such a way that she got the much larger piece, my mother made the following caveat: one of us would cut it, but the other got the first choice of the two pieces! This meant that the cutter made quite sure to be as even-handed as possible to prevent being stuck with the much smaller piece.

In the spirit of my mother's insight into human nature, might I suggest that while the host of the debate gets to pick the topic (or at least have the right to reject a particular topic), that the other side then gets to choose which side they wish to defend? This way, no one can say that the host chose a "slam-dunk" topic and then took the easier side leaving the opposition to see itself as being in a "no win" position. Knowing that the other team will be able to choose which side they will defend will assure that the host will do his or her best to choose a topic that affords both sides the possibility of victory.

Anyway, it's just a thought.

[Gil-Galad]

.hmhmhmhmhm ..........I think that post clarifies some things about the rules,which made the first two Rounds awful for our Guild.I think that will help.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Oh, and one other thing. Perhaps it was mentioned in the rules and I just didn't see it, but I would request that there be at least 48 hours between the presentation of a topic and the beginning of a debate. That will allow time for the sides to be chosen, some preparation to be made by the side that posts first and also for the topic to come under discussion if it is problematic. This topic to instant debate leads to problems (see present GoT/GoP debate!).

[Aulë]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
I would only make one suggestion based upon years of experience. When we were children and there was only one large piece of cake left, my mother would ask one of us to cut it so that both my sister and I would have a piece. However, to prevent the "cutter" from dividing the piece in such a way that she got the much larger piece, my mother made the following caveat: one of us would cut it, but the other got the first choice of the two pieces! This meant that the cutter made quite sure to be as even-handed as possible to prevent being stuck with the much smaller piece.

In the spirit of my mother's insight into human nature, might I suggest that while the host of the debate gets to pick the topic (or at least have the right to reject a particular topic), that the other side then gets to choose which side they wish to defend? This way, no one can say that the host chose a "slam-dunk" topic and then took the easier side leaving the opposition to see itself as being in a "no win" position. Knowing that the other team will be able to choose which side they will defend will assure that the host will do his or her best to choose a topic that affords both sides the possibility of victory.

Anyway, it's just a thought.

I think you misinterpreted something, Mrs. M.
The host (eg, Arvedui in the GoP v GoT debate) choses the topic (with the permission of Maedhros).
The home Guild (eg, GoT in the GoP v GoT debate) choses the stance.
To even this out, the Guilds play each other twice in the Tournament, with the 'home Guild' position being swapped,

[Mrs. Maggott]

I understand that. But I still say that whomever chooses the topic (unless it is simply "given" and both sides have to accept it) should not have the right to choose the side his/her Guild will defend. Again, it will put a stop to anyone believing that a topic (and side) was chosen so as to make the other side's position impossible.

If I might somewhat gently remind you, that is indeed the position that was taken by your own Guild in the present debate; that is, that our Guild chose an unworthy topic as well as the only "arguable" side. As I recall, you did not seem to derive much consolation in the fact that the positions would be reversed in a later debate!

It is just such feelings and allegations that I had hoped to address in my suggestion, given that they led to considerable ill will on both sides. Of course, if it is not acceptable, I have no problem. I merely wished to avoid another debate such as the last one between our two Guilds. I find that I have quite enough aggravation and "hassle" at home without going afield to find it.

[Arvedui]

Hold it just a sec!

that our Guild chose an unworthy topic
I am not a member of the Guild of Tolkienology.:mad: ;)

I am a proud member of the Ost-in-Edhil, so there is no way that anyone could have thought that the Tolkienologists choose the topic themselves.

To the topic:
With the already proposed alterations, I think we have a fair set of rules. Great work, Eriol!

I find that I have quite enough aggravation and "hassle" at home without going afield to find it.
Amen!

[Lhunithiliel]

I would VERY MUCH wish to see this thread FREE of confrontations!

The rules are carefully thought of and it's a matter of just discussing the opportunites of accepting them as they are or and IF needed some cchanges to be done...

So, I'd suggest we stick to this subject.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Arvedui
Hold it just a sec!


I am not a member of the Guild of Tolkienology.:mad: ;)

I am a proud member of the Ost-in-Edhil, so there is no way that anyone could have thought that the Tolkienologists choose the topic themselves.


It was not I who made allusions to the "ease" (unworthiness) of the topic, but others in the debate discussion thread (see quotes therein). We were told that the topic was "too easy" and that we had chosen the only position that could be argued (obviously not, as it turns out). This is my first debate and therefore I assumed that we as the "home" Guild had the right to "choose" or reject the topic - and we chose it, whomever offered it to us.

If this is not the case, then all the contretemps that took place on the debate discussion thread was silly, erroneous and a waste of everyone's time since we had no choice about the topic in the first place. But in the end, one cannot have it both ways! Either the GoP is correct in their assertions about the topic and how it came to be part of the debate, or you are and they were wrong. I don't care which is the case, personally, I simply wished to avoid another such dispute.

[Eriol]

Well, at least the ball is rolling... good!

To Aulë: you are right. (gasp!). :D ;) 4c has been amended. (see below)

To Mrs. Maggott: The Host and Maedhros are the only persons responsible for the selection of the topic, at least under these rules (what happened in the first rounds, I believe, followed them, but I can't affirm that for sure). Their Neutrality must, thus, be assumed from the start. The Home Guild only selects the side it wants to defend. It most assuredly has no choice in the topic. We all know what you are talking about, or at least everybody who have posted so far in this thread know it. But this thread is not the proper venue to discuss it, in my opinion.

I think the most welcome effect of this thread, for me at least, was to "let the steam out" and renew some friendships. But this is not its purpose. Folks, we have to agree on some rules, as quickly as possible! Any delay may mean a further hassle.

I am a long-time defendant of the necessity of every Guild ratifying the Rules. Can the Organizer (FoaT if Aulë has already left) PM the Guild-Masters and tell them about this thread? I guess we can establish a time limit for alterations, 5 days for instance, after which all Guilds will be presumed to agree with the rules. But all Guild-Masters will have to be notified of this time limit.

As for the rules, themselves, I left some questions in the open -- after all I can't presume to decide anything, most of this work is based on what I've seen in the debates so far (the people's rules, hehe). But a major point that must be agreed upon is, precisely, WHO decides in the case of any major interpretation problem in the rules. My position is that the Appeals Committee should have that power (besides judging appeals from penalties, it should be the final interpreter of the rules).

And now for a proposal for the NEXT Tournament, in 2004

The matter of closing posts is rather arbitrary at the moment. What do you think of both Guilds sending their closing posts in a PM to the Host, who would then post them in the thread once he got both? This would prevent "counter-closing posts", which give an advantage to the last posting Guild, and results in a lot of tension and perhaps problems in the last moments of a debate.

What do you think?

[Lhunithiliel]

The matter of closing posts is rather arbitrary at the moment. What do you think of both Guilds sending their closing posts in a PM to the Host, who would then post them in the thread once he got both? This would prevent "counter-closing posts", which give an advantage to the last posting Guild, and results in a lot of tension and perhaps problems in the last moments of a debate.

What do you think?
I don't know... but I fail to see the reason for doing this, Eriol... Could you give more details on your reasons?:rolleyes:
Because even if the host posts the closing posts of the teams there's always going to be #1 and #2... They can't go simultaneously.

I have seen however a good practice by some hosts - When the time is right they post a warning message - sth.like "Teams, it's time for your closing posts". After the teams do so, the host then closes the debate.

Posting such a message, speaks to the debators that all countering-posts should be finalized and that the team should decide who of the 4 participants is to prepare the closing post stating the strongest arguments of the team.

Just a thought...:rolleyes:

[Eriol]

My reasons are simply that the guild posting last has an enormous advantage as it is, being able to rebut his opponents without a re-rebutting. My scheme would allow for "simultaneous" posting of the closing post. They would be composed without looking at the opponents' closing post. It would then be much more objective, a summing up of the arguments offered so far, and a rebuttal of the arguments presented by the opponents -- but both Guilds would be on equal grounds.

That's my main consideration.

The order of the posts in the thread is not really important. The point is allowing (or not) arguments to be refuted without rebuttal. My scheme, I think, would prevent it -- or at least give an equal footing for both Guilds, allowing BOTH to rebut their opponents without re-rebuttals.

As it is, if a Guild has time-zone problems and can't post in the finishing hours, it gives a big advantage to the opponents.

[Lhunithiliel]

Oh! I see what you mean...
Yes... Perhaps it can be a good step...

And don't I know about time-differences! :) :D

Now I have been also thinking on another issue - the TOPICS themselves.

I have been reading through the debates in the passed 2 rounds and I think that some topics leave too much space for personal opinions rather than providing facts from the writings.

So, the point is that a topic should give the opportunity to not speculate on and build "scenarios" different from the events as given in the books, but somewhat more "suitable" for objective view at the issue it forwards.

Of course, the teams will always defend their side and search for facts to back up their arguments. But it can be possible IMHO only when and if the topic itself has less to deal with personal individual understandings and interpretations.

Therefore, I think that maybe it would be a nice idea to build up a "Topic suggestions - bank" as some kind of a closed thread, viewd only by Maedhros and the Coordinator(s). The Hosts will PM their suggestions to Maedhros >> he enters it into that closed thread (closed = in the meaning NOT available for reading by all the TTF-members) and then discuss it probably with the Coordinator.

Just a thought....

Oh! And Aule, FoAT, I think it is HIGHT TIME to include Eriol as a Co-ordinator as well!!!!

I would even advise to think about including even more people for this job.
I mean it quite seriously!

The Tournament is long and it can help.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Lhunithiliel


Oh! And Aule, FoAT, I think it is HIGH TIME to include Eriol as a Co-ordinator as well!!!!


:eek:

These were my thoughts when I read that:

" 'No', said Gandalf, 'not willingly. He might do so, if all the free folk of the world begged him, but he would not understand the need.' "

:D

No, Lhun, I'd rather not, but thanks for the "appointment" ;). I'll help as I can, and I can do it if all the free folk of the world begs me, but I don't understand the need -- Aulë and FoaT are doing well by themselves.

I prefer to stay on the sidelines... as a matter of habit.

Seriously now, if Aulë and FoaT need any help, they have only to ask.

[Lhunithiliel]

Originally posted by Eriol
[BSeriously now, if Aulë and FoaT need any help, they have only to ask. [/B]
Oh! Be sure that as long as you put it this way (them - needing your help!!!) you are sure to never get the job!!! :p :D

But I still think that the Tournament should have some kind of a Board or a Committee... or sth.similar.... :rolleyes:

[Beleg]

I have been reading through the debates in the passed 2 rounds and I think that some topics leave too much space for personal opinions rather than providing facts from the writings.

The topics IMO have been good enough. If everything revolved around giving providing facts from the writings then these things won't be called debates. Personal logical interpretation based up on some kind of canonicaal evidance and possibly backed up with some logical and canonical facts is what IMO a real debate is.
There should be space for personal arguements, remember subjective renderings are based upon some kind of facts and the real fun of the debate is to present our own opinions and interpretations in such a way that they sound convincing and victorious.
WE are to prove what is correct, It has not allready been proven.

My reasons are simply that the guild posting last has an enormous advantage as it is, being able to rebut his opponents without a re-rebutting. My scheme would allow for "simultaneous" posting of the closing post. They would be composed without looking at the opponents' closing post. It would then be much more objective, a summing up of the arguments offered so far, and a rebuttal of the arguments presented by the opponents -- but both Guilds would be on equal grounds.

I think we should let the way things are. I am saying this because usually the Guild which is the home one has the choice of the topic and posts first. This allready counts as a disadvantage on part of the opponent Guild. However this disadvantage can be levelled if the opponent Guild is allowed to make the last post. Which is the way It should be and It is.

[Lhunithiliel]

Originally posted by Beleg_strongbow
WE are to prove what is correct, It has not allready been proven.
And do you expect personal attitude to prove this?
Only facts can, not personal interpretations.
IMO, personal understanding of facts is fit for discussions. But in a debate, I think facts should rule if we wish to reach the truth.
And facts should be provided and taken into consideration viewing the overall "picture", drawin in and about Tolkien's writings. Separate and isolated, facts can only serve personal interpreatation, NOT the truth itself.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Or you could limit the last post in any debate to a summary of that side's points and forbid rebuttals or new arguments. That would remove the necessity of being concerned about the side who actually posts last being able to bring up a new argument or make a rebuttal to which the other side is unable to respond.

[Beleg]

And do you expect personal attitude to prove this?
Yes, If our personal attitude is not convincing enough then how can we prove our point to our opponent?

Only facts can, not personal interpretations.

Sometimes personal interpretations hit close to the mark, and we have to rely on them, that is when there are no solid, hard facts present. Then all depends upon the personal interpretation and how cleverly and convincingly you present it.

Separate and isolated, facts can only serve personal interpreatation, NOT the truth itself.

I don't quite understand....:confused:

[Eriol]

On the matter of topics, I agree with Beleg. It is the duty of the Guild with "the truth" to cloth it in fair words, or in abrasive words, as needs be. It is part of debating skill.

But on the matter of the closing post, Beleg, the problem is that right now there is no such rule like "Visiting Guild posts last", and therefore it becomes a free-for-all dependent mostly on luck and internet availability.

(By the way, I don't think that choosing the side is such a great advantage. ALL debates which I have followed ended in the Visiting Guild winning.)

Finally -- why is this thread becoming "the backyard of the Guild of Tolkienologists??"

:D ;)

Are the people from other Guilds really so carefree about the rules? Don't they want to suggest anything? This is the time to do it.

[Mrs. Maggott]

I shall once more (not again) ask what is wrong with limiting the last post on both sides to summaries of positions and forbidding rebuttals and new arguments? This would certain take care of any of the problems that seem to be being bruited about and remove any advantage from the teams posting last.

However, it is just a suggestion and nothing more; it is unimportant to me, certainly.

[Lhunithiliel]

I'm just passing by our backyard ;) as to see what's going on....
Nothing...
I mean no party, no barbeque, no guests... Just us! ;)

All right, we have a saying here that goes like this:
"Silence is gold"
So, the other guilds must surely be very "rich" as to keep silent on these matters. ;) This must be the reason they never come to comment the Rules.

But on the other hand, silence means ones fully agrees and has nothing to say or/and discuss.

If this be the case, then I offer the Coordinators to make these rules OFFICIAL and known by all the debating guilds.

Well?

[Nóm]

I find the idea of limiting the closing post to a summary of one's own side, without rebuttal, for the sole reason that teams might have a last minute war type exchange with rebuttals, to be absurd.

If teams aim to engage in such a war this will only push that war back to a battle taking place directly before the closing arguements.




The home guild chooses when to make the opening post and therefore when the closing time is to be, and each guild will get a turn as home and away team against each other guild. So I do not think time zones should be made into an issue. I dislike the idea of PMing the closers to the host.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Nóm
I find the idea of limiting the closing post to a summary of one's own side, without rebuttal, for the sole reason that teams might have a last minute war type exchange with rebuttals, to be absurd.

If teams aim to engage in such a war this will only push that war back to a battle taking place directly before the closing arguements.

The home guild chooses when to make the opening post and therefore when the closing time is to be, and each guild will get a turn as home and away team against each other guild. So I do not think time zones should be made into an issue. I dislike the idea of PMing the closers to the host.
You might find it to be "absurd", but it would seem to me that the most superficial reading of this thread so far is centered on the very concern that the last guild to post is going to make new arguments and rebuttals to which their opponents cannot respond. My suggestion (and it has been done on other sites) that each side's last post be limited to summaries without new arguments or rebuttals is sound and (since it works very well elsewhere) hardly "absurd".

Nevertheless, as I have said, those involved in these debates may choose to run them (including the final posts) as they see fit. I merely made a suggestion which addressed concerns and which I know works elsewhere.

[Eriol]

My idea, unlike Mrs. Maggott's, would not forbid rebuttals, but merely give an equal footing for both guilds. They could rebut at will, but their rebuttals in the closing post would not be re-rebutted.

(A confused sentence...)

Anyway, I think something of the sort is needed for the sake of fairness.

[Aulë]

Arg!
I go away for a few days, and you lot start arguing!
Luckily, I was told of this by someone on MSN.

Mrs Maggott, you're idea would work, but then the two Guilds would fight it out trying to get the second last post.
I know you may say this goes on at other sites, but this is TTF, we don't do that here.
When I organised this Tournament, I tried as hard as possible to make it so the debates had similar, if not the same, rules as the normal inter-Guild debates that are held here. And since there has never been any problem with this before, and as far as I see there is none now, I don't believe that there is a need to have that rule.
ALSO, I don't want to have rules changed midway through the Tournament. Perhaps we can consider that rule for future events, but if we add that rule now, it will be unfair.

You may say that this rule is the superficial reading of this thread, but that is only because you and Lhun are agreeing backwards and forward about it.
You two don't represent the debating body as a whole. And even though Lhun says that 'silence means that everyone agrees', it does not. Not everyone has read this thread, but everyone who I have spoken to about it, have gone here and thought you two have gone mad.

Lhunithiliel
Oh! And Aule, FoAT, I think it is HIGHT TIME to include Eriol as a Co-ordinator as well!!!!
No. One Co-ordinator is all we need. And even if another Co-ordinator was added, it would not be Eriol (no offense), but there is already one GoT Co-ordinator, and to have two would not be fair.

Now, could you people get along nicely now? ;)
I'm already interupting my studies to type this. :(
Better get back to hitting the books...

[Nóm]

I think it is absurd because:

1) In all the many debates I have seen at TTF there has only been one where there was a problem about last minute posting. That is the Round 2 debate, GoT vs. Periaur.

So, I do not think the issue is big enough to warrant a lot of organization and implimenting a rule that would drasticly change the flow of things.

2) It would not eliminate the possability of last minute rebuttal wars, since no matter what there will always be a team making the last rebuttal. So what does it matter if this happens in the final post, or the second to final post?

It is also because the proposed solution to the "problem" is not effective enough, that I think it is not worth putting the idea into practice.

Also, this is a competition and I think a dead-line adds spice.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Aulë
One Co-ordinator is all we need. And even if another Co-ordinator was added, it would not be Eriol (no offense), but there is already one GoT Co-ordinator, and to have two would not be fair.


Whew. Lucky break.

;) :D

Anyway, the fact that a problem is rare does not mean it should be ignored. Remember guys, this discussion of closing posts is simply theory, it will NOT be implemented this year, only in 2004. So we have alot of leeway and can spin off crazy ideas.

However, the rules for THIS tournament are not being much discussed...

[Lhunithiliel]

Originally posted by Aulë
I know you may say this goes on at other sites, but this is TTF, we don't do that here.
When I organised this Tournament, I tried as hard as possible to make it so the debates had similar, if not the same, rules as the normal inter-Guild debates that are held here. And since there has never been any problem with this before, and as far as I see there is none now, I don't believe that there is a need to have that rule.
ALSO, I don't want to have rules changed midway through the Tournament. Perhaps we can consider that rule for future events, but if we add that rule now, it will be unfair.
You may say that this rule is the superficial reading of this thread, but that is only because you and Lhun are agreeing backwards and forward about it.
You two don't represent the debating body as a whole. And even though Lhun says that 'silence means that everyone agrees', it does not.
No. One Co-ordinator is all we need. And even if another Co-ordinator was added, it would not be Eriol (no offense), but there is already one GoT Co-ordinator, and to have two would not be fair.

There was at the beginning of Time the All-Father, and it came to pass that he called together all the TTF-ers and MSN-ers and declared to them a mighty theme, unfolding to them things greater and more wonderful than he had yet revealed; and the glory of its beginning andthe splendour of its end amazed them, so they bowed before the All-mighty and were silent.
**********

Aule: Not everyone has read this thread, but everyone who I have spoken to about it, have gone here and thought you two have gone mad.
Aule, you are flattering me!
You seem to have taken my name and myself as a serious subject of your conversations with your MSN friends :p But why this confidentiality?! Come! Invite these people who think of me this way to state it openly! And NOT on MSN but HERE on TTF! Don't you think that if sth. is to be discussed it should be done face-to-face!
And next time I see you attacking me in such a nasty way, I will not be any more so polite. :rolleyes:

[Eriol]

;)

I have just sent a PM to each Guildmaster, at Aulë's request, inviting them to the discussion. The time limit he suggested on a MSN conversation is until the end of Round 3 -- meaning that BEFORE round 4 begins we will have some official rules.

Yay!

[Maedhros]

Therefore, I think that maybe it would be a nice idea to build up a "Topic suggestions - bank" as some kind of a closed thread, viewd only by Maedhros and the Coordinator(s). The Hosts will PM their suggestions to Maedhros >> he enters it into that closed thread (closed = in the meaning NOT available for reading by all the TTF-members) and then discuss it probably with the Coordinator.
Lhun, this is very unlikely to happen, I really don't think that the powers that be in this forum would be interested in that.
I wonder what happened to the Guild Moderators idea? Has it been implemented?

I'm ok with the rules. I just wanted to point out something about the Judging. So far it has been pretty good, but there is something that has bothered me for quite some time, this goes before the Tournament.
I have seen that several judges, in certain topics, have in their minds a certain idea (a predisposition) on a side of the topic, and it would seem that the guild/person who argues for the other side has to counter against the other guild/person and the predisposition of a judge, and to me that seems unfair. It should be the arguments of the sides and the predisposition of a judge should not come into account in the judging.

[Gil-Galad]

And something else I would like to add ,concerning the judging problem.Some judges are representative of their Guilds.And when they have to decide they probabl will have in mind which Guild is better to win.I mean that:
If a judge is from Guild A and he judges a debate between Guild B and Guild C and if Guild B is Guild A 's biggest opponent for 3rd place for example,he would decide to vote for Guild C or for a draw.And Guild B will not have the chance to become 3rd.Thus,although he is only a judge he will represents also his Guild's interests,quite unfair in my opinion.

[Eriol]

I don't see an easy way around that. It's not as if we have a big pool of disinterested judges. It would surely be preferable.

If this competition were for big money I would be more worried :D

We have to trust the integrity of the people involved. My position is that a rule that induces people to gain advantage is an evil rule, but we really have no alternative. And as I said once, the amount of "jerkdom" in this Forum is astonishingly low compared to the general population...

And it's not for big money, just to increase our knowledge, so I'm not worried. Also, I'm a trusting guy. Of course, I can only speak for myself.

;)

One thing that might be added to the rules, in an advisory role, is a chapter called "Guidelines for Judging". What Judges should look for in their judgment, how they should disregard their prejudices about the subject of the debate, etc. Maedhros raised this topic, a while ago. And in these guidelines there should be a few lines about that.

I never judged any debate, so I don't think I'm the proper person to write this. Can any of you do it?

[Gil-Galad]

But if we chose judges right before the next Round?And if the judges are chosen having in mind the position of their Guilds towards the two debatings Guilds.
For example:
A debate between Guild A and Guild B
We see which Guilds will be in advantage if some of these two lost and we'll not chose judges from these Guilds.For example,
Guild C will be glad if A loose and Guild D will be glad if B loses,then nobody from these Guilds should judges.The judges will be from:E, F, and three neutral or something like that........

[Eriol]

hmm... the problem is that I don't think anyone -- even neutrals -- is immune to this sort of consideration. We simply have to trust people to try their hardest to be fair. It is the role of the rules (odd sentence) to prevent, as far as possible, situations like that, but I don't think that's possible in this instance because no one is absolutely disinterested. I'm ashamed to admit it, but I have likes and dislikes here in this Forum. If I ever judge anything I will try my best to disregard them, but I don't think we should wait for "pure judges" -- there isn't any.

But as I said I'm just a member. We'd have to see what everyone else thinks about it.

[Gil-Galad]

Ok,let's see what the other will say.........:)

[Idril]

Originally posted by Gil-Galad
But if we chose judges right before the next Round?And if the judges are chosen having in mind the position of their Guilds towards the two debatings Guilds.
For example:
A debate between Guild A and Guild B
We see which Guilds will be in advantage if some of these two lost and we'll not chose judges from these Guilds.For example,
Guild C will be glad if A loose and Guild D will be glad if B loses,then nobody from these Guilds should judges.The judges will be from:E, F, and three neutral or something like that........

Crikey! This didn't even occur to me - tactical judging! You're assuming the judges are that clever!;)

I have to admit though - all this moaning about the judges and there abilities is kinda insulting:(.

Some of this sounds a bit like sour grapes to me.

[Lhunithiliel]

Originally posted by Idril
I have to admit though - all this moaning about the judges and there abilities is kinda insulting:(.

Some of this sounds a bit like sour grapes to me.
And although I am sure to never get any point for a good debator ( ;) ), I would be much obliged to understand one simple thing.

Why should every opinion that does not match be considered as "moaning", "whinning" "insult" etc?

We here have an important and a serious subject to discuss - the Rules of this and all all the future tournaments.
Why not concentrate on this and not keep looking for some "unsaid" things"... some imagined things that as if have been said "between the lines"...
Can't we leave aside personal feelings and opinions ?

[Gil-Galad]

Originally posted by Idril
Crikey! This didn't even occur to me - tactical judging! You're assuming the judges are that clever!;)

I have to admit though - all this moaning about the judges and there abilities is kinda insulting:(.

Some of this sounds a bit like sour grapes to me.
INSULTING?! ?!!!If you think my thoughts are insulting then what more can I say.I just said things that may happen some day.I'm not offending anybody,but who knows what would happen?ah?
There are persons among the judges who I deeply respect and I don't want to offend them.I just mention a simple possibility.And that could happen someday,who knows?Moaning?!That was not moaning,but thinking about some improvements.Nothing is perfect and we should try to do it as better as possible.
You said I was moaning......:( ....sad..........I've never moaned about such things.I'm sad to hear such things.........:(

[Nóm]

c) No posts in the debating thread shall be made in an attempt to influence the judges, either by the debating members or by other members of any Guild; the Judging thread shall be a place in which opinions are set out as simply as possible, and only the Judges shall expound on their reasons for a vote;

Only the judges shall expound on their reasons for a vote?

Do you mean that only official judges should post a judgement and give reasons?

[Ithrynluin]

Perhaps it should read 'only the Judges should expound on their reasons for a vote'. No one besides the judges is under any obligation to elaborate on their reasons...

[Eriol]

I think either reading is OK. The operative part of that rule is mainly the first sentence (No influencing the judges); and if a non-Judge posts his vote and gives reasons, he will have to thread a thin line to avoid influencing the judges. Some would say it is impossible.

As the rules stand, a non-Judge may even incur a penalty for his own Guild if the Host sees his opinion as an attempt to influence the Judges. It is safer for non-Judges to keep their opinions to themselves, at least while the Judges have not posted their votes. Later, anyone is welcome to posting a reasoned vote. Is this right, in your view? Or should the rules be more lenient about non-Judges giving their opinion?

What do you all think, Shall or Should? For me it is indifferent...

[Nóm]

I just think non-judges should be allowed to post their own judgements.

I certainly aim to do so in the current debates, the ones about Manwe (love that topic!!) and the Finrod/Turgon! I was also planning to do so in the last debate between OiE and GoS but was asked to be an official judge at the last minute... so it worked out fine!

[Eriol]

What do you think of opening a different thread for non-Judges to give their opinions?

[Beleg]

No. There is no need for a seperate thread. Sure It would be a good idea that any member who is not a judge should post his un-offical judgements/thoughts/reasonings after the judges have decided. It's fun, It's intellectual and It is nice to see that other people are also interested in reading your work. No need for a seperate thread.

[Eriol]

Yes, but I believe that the question Nóm raised was pointed at non-Judges giving their opinions before the Judges. Of course they can post their opinions after the voting is over, but should they be allowed to do it before the voting?

I am inclined to say no, or at least not in the same thread. It is far too easy to construe an honest, compelling opinion as an attempt to influence the Judges. It can lead to unnecessary quarreling. I think that if a non-Judge wants to post an opinion, it is better to do it in another thread.

But this is another subject that must be discussed between the Guilds... Just like many subjects that have been raised here, chances are that the rules will stand as they were drafted, since no one really wants to discuss it :(.

Nóm, if you feel strongly about that, I suggest that you try to persuade the GoO to assume the official position of not agreeing with that part of the rules. Then at least the other Guilds will have to say something.

My own opinion is in favor of opening a second thread for non-Judges. The moderators can merge the two threads later, after the voting is over.

[Nóm]

Is anyone other than Eriol against sharing the same thread, and even someone posting their opinion before the judges do?

You say posting before a judge in the same thread that he/she will post in (see brow raiser below) may be taken as an attempt to sway the judges. So what?

You can not prove a person has posted his/her opinion for that reason, and I'd hope you think more of the judges in general than to think they're going to be swayed by another person's opinion alone.

At worst a judge will read it and realise something he had over looked... and that is doubtful with a judge who knows their stuff.

But no matter what, 4 out of 5 judges are going to post after they have had access to another's opinion, and this is the main reason I think it doesn't matter if a non-judge post before all judges have.

But this really raises by brow:

My own opinion is in favor of opening a second thread for non-Judges. The moderators can merge the two threads later, after the voting is over.

You trust the judges to hold off on reading the judgements in the unofficial judging thread. Now, is would there be a rule that says they can not look there?
If not, then they are allowed to! In which case it doesn't matter if it is in the same thread or not - a judge can read it regardless!

Now if it is a rule that they can not look in the non-judgement thread, it is absurd to the point of being hilarious because this can not be enforced, and again, is shows a distrust of judges. Trusting judges is something we have to do in this.

I think some judges are not nearly as able as others, yeah. Mostly because I think they either don't understand Tolkien enough, or to be frank, have poor reasoning... but what can be done about that? Nothing. I accept that a team wins based on the fact that it got the majority of votes from 5 members who were selected to decide the winner.

[Eriol]

I don't distrust any judge -- where did you see that? Quite the contrary, I always said that the Judges must be trusted implicitly...

:confused:

I don't know who agrees with me or not. However, as the rules draft stand now, a non-judge posting in that thread might (not a certainty, and it is up to the Host to decide) result in a penalty for his Guild. If we, the community, do not want that, we must change the rules. But if people (meaning more than you, Nóm) do not speak against it, then the rule will have to remain as set. After all, a lot of people already took a look at it and found no fault. This is not to say that they will not agree with you, but the silence means they agree with the draft -- perhaps because they had not given the matter due consideration. I have no strong opinion on this matter -- for I trust the judges.

I'd rather not get into the subjective analysis of what influences or not a Judge. As I said, they must be trusted implicitly, and no rule will change that. However, having said that, I think it is quite obvious that an opinion in the Judging thread has a greater chance to be noticed, never mind read, by a Judge than an opinion in another thread.

My fear is not that they would break an "unwritten rule" that they should not look at a non-judges thread -- I abhor unwritten rules. If there were such a thread, clearly the judges could look at it. But I think having a separate thread will lessen the opportunity for "unwanted influences". If a judge really wants to see other opinions, that's fine with me, but if he does NOT want to see other opinions, I'd make his job easier by keeping the judging thread clear of opinions.

It has nothing to do with trusting the Judges or not -- it is just about making their job easier. If they want to avoid looking at other opinions, fine; if they want to check them, that's also easy. But it is harder, if there is a lot of opinions scattered about the judging thread, to avoid looking at them, and reading them.

Human nature, you know.

By the way, I think -- but that's, again, just my opinion -- that a Judge should NOT look at the opinions of his fellow Judges, and try to form a judgment without any external influences. But a rule against that would be nonsensical. And this shows the difference between a Rule and a Guideline. A Rule must be enforceable, otherwise it will be ridiculous; it must open the possibility of punishing the Rule-breaker, or it will be ineffectual. A Guideline, on the other hand, is simply a piece of advice - no one can be punished for failing to follow it.

Maedhros already addressed an issue related to Judging in this thread. If I were writing the Guidelines to Judging, I would add this opinion of mine (that they should not look at other judges' opnions). And this is why I am NOT writing these guidelines -- they would be "Eriol's guidelines", and probably idiosyncratic, since I have almost no experience of debates here. We have umpteen members more experienced than myself to do that, like yourself, Nóm.

P.S. I'm quite used to my opinions being brow-raisers :D.

[Nóm]

As a judge I do not read the judgements of the other judges first.

I am almost always the first judge to vote though. In the last debate I judged, I happend to be the last judge to give judgement. In this case I did look at the judgements, but only skimmed through to see the votes and did not read the judge's reasoning.

As a judge I just feel better about now knowing the other judges reasons until I have posted.

Any other like-minded judges can simply avoid reading the thread until the judgement is typed up.

Any judges who do like to read others' judgement before giving his/hers, is doing nothing wrong and can do this no matter which thread the judgements are in.

But I think having a separate thread will lessen the opportunity for "unwanted influences".
It is no less difficult to avoid reading a non-official judgement thread than it is to avoid looking into the official judgement thread.

For that reason I think your reason is poor.

I will tell others about this thread and this issue though, so we can get more opinions.

[Eriol]

Complete agreement about your "judging procedures". And though my reason may be poor, I simply see no reason against it... opening a separate thread is not so hard or expensive :D.

But I hope you get people to agree with you, and change the rules. If only because it will wake them up to this thread :D. I like to think that most Guilds' silence is due to their agreeing with the rules -- but as I said, I'm a trusting guy ;).

[Ithrynluin]

This is getting just a little too complicated, and changing anything in this respect would be needless in my opinion.

[Mrs. Maggott]

NO ONE other than the person opening the thread, the participants and the judges should be permitted to post on the debate thread until the debates if finished and the judging completed and posted. Only then should everyone else who wishes to post about the debate do so. Otherwise you have pandemonium.

Let the debate be properly opened, go forward, conclude and then let the judges post. Once that is over and done with, let the whole world post if it wishes, but I for one believe that to permit non-participants to post either in the debate or before the judges post is sadly lacking in good order if nothing else.

[Eriol]

Well, Mrs. M., right now the practice is to open a separate thread for the Judging. I think we all agree that posting on the Debate thread proper is a serious offense (unless, of course, there is an OVERWHELMING reason to do so -- we're civilized here, no one will be hanged and quartered for doing it :D).

But the point being discussed is whether non-Judges (including debators!!) should be able to post anything at all in the JUDGING thread. We see a lot of courtesy posts ("I wish you all good luck", "Good job!", and the such) in these threads, and I am in favor of them - I think that courtesy is always welcome. But an OPINION about the debate itself could be construed as an attempt to influence the judges.

As the rules are drafted NOW, it is of no importance whether the judges were actually influenced or not -- any attempt to influence the Judges makes the Guild of the alleged "influencer" open to penalty. It is up to the Host to decide whether a penalty is merited or not. But a non-Judge post opens that possibility. "Trusting the judges" is not an issue -- they may not even have noticed the offending post. Who knows? Who cares? As it is drafted, only the Host must care.

What Nóm is suggesting (if I understood her correctly) is that this possibility, of penalizing the Guild of a non-Judge who posted an opinion, should be removed from the rules, therefore "freeing" the thread for everybody.

As I said, I have no strong opinion -- I'm just posting here now because I think you misunderstood Nóm.

(I hope I have not misunderstood her also... :) )

So, the issue is not really about "allowing people to post on the Judging thread" -- they already are allowed. The point is whether their Guild can be open to penalty if the Host judges that the post is an attempt to influence the judges -- whether it is an opinion, an outburst, or any other thing.

[Lhunithiliel]

If I may, but are you trying to "discover the Americas" again? ;) :D

I'm sorry! I'm not being sarcastic or anything!
The thing with the non-judges posting is not some new matter to be thoroughly thought of and decided about.

In the "Eldar Days" ;) it was a common and a quite successful practice:
>> The Debate is finished
>> The judges post their decisions
>> AFTER that non-judges posted all sorts of opinions.

I think this can work perfectly now, too.
I wouldn't say I distrust the judges but still I think that the non-judges posters should be allowed to post ONLY AFTER the final result is already known.
Eriol:We see a lot of courtesy posts ("I wish you all good luck", "Good job!", and the such) in these threads, and I am in favor of them - I think that courtesy is always welcome.
Oh! One could see some other comments, too! ;) :D

As for posting in a separate or in the same judging thread, I think it doesn't really matter ONCE the judgment has been finished.
I don't think it would be wise to let this happen DURING the time while the judges are still thinking over their decision.

And speaking about the judges, I can only say this: We shall have to trust them and hope and believe that they will put aside all their personal and individual "pro"-s and "con"-s in regard to both - debators and the topic itself.

I doubt however that this will be ever achieved!
Say we put Nom to judge the present debate Turgon vs. Finrod. Nom, (who is the greatest fan of FF!) how could you be objective in such a situation? ;) :D (Please, understand me right! I chose you as an example because I know how much you admire Finrod!)

[Mrs. Maggott]

What I have said (about no one posting until the debate is finished and that includes the judging) is valid whether one has two separate threads or one single thread for the processes involved. That is quite beside the point.

No one should post on either and/or both threads until the process is complete unless the powers that be wish to permit "good luck" sentiments. However, since someone might say that their "good luck" post (which just happened to include a position on the debate) was only intended to be such a harmless comment, I think it is safer to simply say "NO POSTS" until the contest is completed.

Frankly, I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand or such a "big deal". If all comments are forbidden until such time as the debate is completed in its entirety, there can be no "misunderstanding" about anyone's intentions in their post - and hence, no conflicts. Is this not an example of the simplest solution being the best solution?

[Ithrynluin]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
NO ONE other than the person opening the thread, the participants and the judges should be permitted to post on the debate thread until the debates if finished and the judging completed and posted. Only then should everyone else who wishes to post about the debate do so. Otherwise you have pandemonium.

Let the debate be properly opened, go forward, conclude and then let the judges post. Once that is over and done with, let the whole world post if it wishes, but I for one believe that to permit non-participants to post either in the debate or before the judges post is sadly lacking in good order if nothing else.

No one is asking whether anyone other than the two teams and the host should be allowed to post in the debate thread itself. And I really fail to see how anyone's opinion other than that of the judges could cause trouble, let alone pandemonium. That's blowing it way out of proportion (and making the judges appear as rather brainless and easily influenced and swayed). I'm convinced that is not the case with the majority of cases - there are always exceptions of course.

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
If all comments are forbidden until such time as the debate is completed in its entirety

All comments ARE forbidden until the debate is completed, because the judgement thread is not opened before the debate comes to an end.

[Gil-Galad]

Originally posted by ithrynluin
I'm convinced that is not the case with the majority of cases - there are always exceptions of course.



...And we should try to reduce such exceptions.....

[Ithrynluin]

Originally posted by Gil-Galad
...And we should try to reduce such exceptions.....

Not at the expense of tiring the debators and the judges with needless and countless little rules and restrictions.

[Gil-Galad]

Originally posted by ithrynluin
Not at the expense of tiring the debators and the judges with needless and countless little rules and restrictions.
Yes,you are right in a way.It shouldn't be at the expense of tiring the debators and the judges with too much little rules,but we still need them.

[Ithrynluin]

There already is a sufficient outline and some bigger changes to the rules have already been implemented.

[Nóm]

Originally posted by ithrynluin
Not at the expense of tiring the debators and the judges with needless and countless little rules and restrictions.

Right!

No matter what or where - the less rules the better!

I mean, now all the sudden it is against the rule to post your opinion of a debate before all judges post?

Because why!?

I already said that 4 out of 5 judges will end up posting after another opinion has been posted (one of them after 4! can you believe?), so what does it matter if the opinions of non-judges have been posted as well?

Because doing so may look like an attempt to sway the judges? If you think they can be swayed then you do not trust their abilities to judge... even putting up a thousand rules would not change the judges ability, or your trust in them..

Why make things so complicated.

People get rule-hungry and it never stops... more and more rules that really don't do any good!

Don't do any good because cheating can be done if someone really wants to do it... and minor problems will arise no matter what, and situations unforeseen come up regardless of rules.

One the one hand, we have to trust, or least agree to abide by the decisions of others in this thing, and yet tons of rules be made to supposedly lessen the chances of dishonesty?

[Chymaera]

I think that the Rules as they are now are fine.

no one has stepped over the line so far and I hope that we never have to deal with penilties and such

[Eriol]

Exactly... the rules only give the Host the maneuver room to punish someone if this someone, in fact, steps over the line. Without the rules, what can one do when it happens? Shrug, only. Cry foul. But without penalties, it is moot.

I was not thinking about "cheating", I was thinking about "undesirable attitudes" when I wrote that. Believe me, we have seen them. I, for one, think that if these rules were in effect both the GoT and the Periaur would have been penalized in their debate, though no one "cheated".

And I think that if the rules were in effect we would have seen less of these undesirable attitudes, or even not see them at all.

The rules are supposed to be never used. We all hope for that.

[Nóm]

Eriol the rule stands now as this:
c) No posts in the debating thread shall be made in an attempt to influence the judges, either by the debating members or by other members of any Guild; the Judging thread shall be a place in which opinions are set out as simply as possible, and only the Judges shall expound on their reasons for a vote;


That means that only judges can give their reasons for their choice of who won. This means no one else can post their reasons. That is wrong.

If I give my opinion on the Manwe and the Finrod/Turgon debate, even after the judges have posted, I would be breaking the rule as it stands now.

[Elendil3119]

I agree with Nóm. Independant observers should be able not only to say who they thought won, but also to expound on their "vote", in the Judging thread. What is the point of someone being able to state their opinion without being able to expound on it?!

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Nóm
If I give my opinion on the Manwe and the Finrod/Turgon debate, even after the judges have posted, I would be breaking the rule as it stands now.

Er... that's obviously a stupid rule. You're right, at least after the debate is over it should be allowed to voice a considered opinion.

As for opinions before it is over, once again, I have no strong opinion.

(I never used the word "opinion" so many times in a post :D).

Can the other Guilds voice something about it? I'll open a thread to deal specifically with it, so that the Guilds will have to actually say something!

[Chymaera]

I don't see a problem with non-judge judgements.

We are going to have rookie judges along with rookie debaters.
(NOT that I am some kind of pro;))

People learn from experience and example.

So give them examples

----

The host shouldn't open the judging thread before the end of the debate.

Sometimes this is unavoidable and then courtesy comes into force.

[YayGollum]

Would it be impossible for a list of the rules that are definitely official to be posted somewhere? I'm assuming that every rule that hasn't been ranted about is now official. :eek: Or at least should be.

[Eriol]

After the end of Round 3, and before the beginning of Round 4, I will post the Official Rules to the Schedule/Scoring thread. This thread will hopefully be sent to the Archives.

[YayGollum]

What does that thread have to do with these rules? oh well. Got it. You won't be bored after that? :eek: :rolleyes:

[Eriol]

Bored? Me?

I'm very hard to bore...

:D

I'll just keep on minding my own business. Or did you think I was elected to this job? Hopefully that Appeals Committee will get into action.

:rolleyes:

[YayGollum]

You never answered my other question. Anyways, no, I'm stupid enough to think that you were elected for this thing. You came up with it yourself. Which is why I wondered if you'd get bored now that this job is mostly over. oh well. I would hope that we wouldn't need to have that Appeals Committee thing, but I guess it would be good to be ready for the worst. How many people have cared to volunteer for that?

[Eriol]

Originally posted by YayGollum
You never answered my other question. Anyways, no, I'm stupid enough to think that you were elected for this thing. You came up with it yourself. Which is why I wondered if you'd get bored now that this job is mostly over. oh well. I would hope that we wouldn't need to have that Appeals Committee thing, but I guess it would be good to be ready for the worst. How many people have cared to volunteer for that?

That thread probably has nothing to do with the rules, but Aulë asked me to do it in that way.

And the Appeals Committee will be mostly formed by people appointed by the Guilds. So the Guilds have to choose their representatives.

Thanks for worrying about me getting bored, by the way ;).

[YayGollum]

Well, I was bored. :rolleyes: Anyways, you missed another question. How many people have already volunteered for that Committee thing? Or are all of the people in charge of guildses expected to start ranting at people to take the job? I'd volunteer to help out for the guild of Outcasts. So I won't be bored.

[Eriol]

As far as I know, nothing has been done in any Guild about that.

[YayGollum]

Got it. Well, didn't somebody PM all of the people in charge of guildses to get them to read this thread? Why not do that again to get them to pay attention to this other crazy idea? Or should I? *twiddles thumbs*

[Eriol]

Well, I wouldn't get mad at you for doing it ;). And I'd wish you good luck. Some of them answered, some didn't...

If you are bored, go ahead.