[Amendment] CdeC/Curator Debate thread

[Desperado †]

Proposer: [user]Caradog[/user]
Supporters: [user]Acco[/user]

Election Votes, Article II. Election Procedure

<snip>
Where the election is for the vacant position of Curator, all candidates must meet the requirements of CdeC applications. Where the election is for the position of Curator or for CdeC membership, a debate thread shall be opened at the same time as the application thread in the main Curia by the Curator for Curia members to question candidates on their election. No non-candidate may post in this thread more than twice, and all must be directing a relevant question or questions towards the candidates. Non-candidates may post relevant questions for the candidates, and debate the candidates' answers / previous statements they have made that are relevant. Candidates may not debate with/question other candidates, and non-candidates may not debate with other non-candidates. There is no limit to how many posts a candidate or non-candidate may post in this thread, though non-candidates may not post more than two unanswered posts at a time directed towards one candidate. Candidates may post as much as needed in this thread. The debate thread shall be closed at the end of the elections.
</snip>

Let's make these actual debate threads, rather than Q&A threads, shall we?

EDIT: Slightly edited it. The wording of that last sentence is a bit dodgy, but I hope you get the general idea. basically, if a candidate dosen't answer a post, the non-candidate isn't allowed to persist questioning/debating and fill up the debate thread. Stops it from becoming a mudpit thread.

[Acco]

Support.

[Lord Condormanius]

Oppose.

[Squid]

Oppose, the current format mirrors a formal debate in that two parties (any non-candidate vs candidate(s)) have only two chances to discuss the issue, as such it is an actual debate no changes need to be made.

[Каие]

Oppose.

[Spiff]

Nothing stops people making their own unnoficial thread just now, obviously candidates wouldnt have to reply to it but as with the official thread it would look bad if they didnt.

Anyway i oppose the amendment as it's a bit wordy. If it was tightened up a bit then fair enough as the current 2 post system isnt really enforceable and seems to be used more as a tool to prevent proper debates.

[Squid]

I'd say it's used as a tool to prevent the ongoing, circular and rambling nature of most debates that don't have a limit on the number of responses.

[Augustus Lucifer]

There's simply not enough difference in the candidate's platforms to substantiate a debate. It's going to boil down in the votes to gut feeling, track record, and popularity. You might see some differences in the way the three current candidates handle things, but the Curator doesn't have radical enough power for there to be sweeping differences.

[Каие]

Having experienced, I feel it shouldn't be a cockfight and circular debate, but just that. A question and answer session.

The purpose of it is for people to ask about they feel is most important, and a candidate to answer.

[Bokks]

Sorry Caradog, but I don't see much of a point to the change.
It would be more interesting if it's more of a debate thread than a Q&A, however our candidates aren't running long enough for there to be much of a difference. If candidates ran for months at a time than yes, a change like this would be somewhat necessary, but as it is they are up for a matter of weeks at most when they go to vote.

This would also not, as I see it, make it more of a debate, it would just effect the flexibility of non-candidates to post more after their questions have been answered. As it stands with a two post limit on non-candidates they can't pester the candidates anyway, so there's no issue with the preceedings becoming a crazy quagmire.

It's also easier to keep track of a non-candidate posting more than twice than it is to keep track of a non-candidates question getting answered.

Oppose.

[Thanatos]

Opposed.

[Carl von Döbeln]

Opposed

[Viking Prince]

oppposed

There is a value of the Q&A format. To eliminate it is an error. Just start up a commentary thread linked to the Q&A thread as is done with Garb's Debate Club if commentary debate is desired. No need to drop that which functions and seems to work.

[Lord Condormanius]

I am all for a debate thread...that is, a thread that is actually a debate amongst the candidates. This, however, does not not fix anything, IMO.

[Hunter Makoy]

I am all for a Curator Election debate as well, but I am certainly not for a Curator election Mud Pit.

If there is an issue with points not getting across, or questions not getting answered, there should be measures to ensure candidates answer every question posed to them, rather then allowing spamming.

Oppose as is.

[Acco]

I supported earlier, and despite the chorus of opposition I still support now. The practice of non-candidates posting more than two posts in the debate thread has been in practice for a lengthy period, but wasn't necessarily ordained by the Constitution. This amendment is simply making this practice official.

I am all for a Curator Election debate as well, but I am certainly not for a Curator election Mud Pit.

I can only assume you have never visited nor posted in the Political Mudpit, because letting Citizens post more than twice with legitimate questions and answers for the candidates is nowhere near the situation of the Political Mudpit. Also, if you take a look at past debate threads where some non-candidates posted more than twice you will see the thread did not devolve into spam, trolling or flaming.

If there is an issue with points not getting across, or questions not getting answered, there should be measures to ensure candidates answer every question posed to them, rather then allowing spamming.

Spam will be deleted by the Curator, and has been in the past. Besides, could you elaborate on these undefined 'measures' you stated? If you have a good idea or a more preferable proposal, there is no need to hold it back.

There is a value of the Q&A format. To eliminate it is an error.

The amendment does not eliminate the Q&A format. The amendment still states that the non-candidates have to compose and ask relevant questions to the candidates, but in addition states that there is an opportunity to respond to the candidate should the non-candidate find it necessary. From the looks of past debate threads, this is more or less what occurred in the past.

Oppose, the current format mirrors a formal debate in that two parties (any non-candidate vs candidate(s)) have only two chances to discuss the issue, as such it is an actual debate no changes need to be made.

No, it does not mirror a formal debate. In formal debates (take Garb's FC, for example), the topic of debate has already been decided. In these Curial debate threads, non-candidates usually open with a simple question to either one specific candidate or to all of the candidates. The candidate in turn responds with his or her stance on the said issue. If the non-candidate chooses to respond to the candidate, his or her final post has been drained. Meaning that the non-candidate is not technically allowed to respond to the candidate's inevitable response nor are they allowed to ask further questions to the candidates. Of course this would be different if the non-candidate opened up their first post with an elaborate argument for or against an issue and if the candidate responded with his or her argument to the contrary. In that scenario, both debators are given two chances to convince the other of their stance. In our current scenario, it's different. As such, you could say the 2-post system works as a tool to prevent debate. And taking the debate out of a debate thread seems fruitless, in my opinion.

[Hunter Makoy]

I can only assume you have never visited nor posted in the Political Mudpit, because letting Citizens post more than twice with legitimate questions and answers for the candidates is nowhere near the situation of the Political Mudpit. Also, if you take a look at past debate threads where some non-candidates posted more than twice you will see the thread did not devolve into spam, trolling or flaming.

You assume wrong, big time. I don't draw the comparison based on potential flame wars, but on the potential for derailment and continuous circular arguing.

Spam will be deleted by the Curator, and has been in the past.

So we should just allow the chance for it to increase because someone else will deal with it for us? Brilliant idea.

Besides, could you elaborate on these undefined 'measures' you stated? If you have a good idea or a more preferable proposal, there is no need to hold it back.

Nothing really to elaborate on. If its an issue with certain questions not being answered, just have a provision that says every candidate has to answer every question posed to them.

[Acco]

You assume wrong, big time. I don't draw the comparison based on potential flame wars, but on the potential for derailment and continuous circular arguing.

If you were drawing a comparison between such and such and not something else then perhaps you should say so beforehand, because simply saying these debates would be akin to the Political Mudpit is very vague and can be perceived in a number ways on an individual basis. Regardless, Citizens are supposed to conform to a certain high standard of posting and should very well be able to debate properly. The hallowed halls of the Symposium and the debates that occur within it are a testament to this. The Symposium has seen many mature debates, none of which contained derailment or circular arguing. Even *if* there is a bit of derailment, the Curator will deal with it no problem. After all, it is the Curator's job to do so. The advantages of this amendment (i.e. actual debate in the debate thread) outweigh the possible and highly unlikely downsides. Call me a skeptic, but just because something may turn awry doesn't mean it actually will, especially when evidence seems to prove the contrary and when little or no evidence is given in light of the claim.

So we should just allow the chance for it to increase because someone else will deal with it for us? Brilliant idea.

I believe you have misunderstood that specific selection of my post. I merely meant that spam, trolling or any un-Citizen like behavior would be dealt with accordingly by the Curator (the local moderator for The Capitol), since his job requires so.

[Hunter Makoy]

If you were drawing a comparison between such and such and not something else then perhaps you should say so beforehand, because simply saying these debates would be akin to the Political Mudpit is very vague and can be perceived in a number ways on an individual basis. Regardless, Citizens are supposed to conform to a certain high standard of posting and should very well be able to debate properly. The hallowed halls of the Symposium and the debates that occur within it are a testament to this. The Symposium has seen many mature debates, none of which contained derailment or circular arguing. Even *if* there is a bit of derailment, the Curator will deal with it no problem. After all, it is the Curator's job to do so. The advantages of this amendment (i.e. actual debate in the debate thread) outweigh the possible and highly unlikely downsides. Call me a skeptic, but just because something may turn awry doesn't mean it actually will, especially when evidence seems to prove the contrary and when little or no evidence is given in light of the claim.



I believe you have misunderstood that specific selection of my post. I merely meant that spam, trolling or any un-Citizen like behavior would be dealt with accordingly by the Curator (the local moderator for The Capitol), since his job requires so.

Your whole argument for this boils down to "So what if this creates more spam or trolling, its just more work for the Curator"

[Desperado †]

I am all for a Curator Election debate as well, but I am certainly not for a Curator election Mud Pit.

Hence the last clause in my legislation.

The only difference this makes is that the current 'debate' between candidate and non-candidate does not have to be quesation and answer, and the discussion between candidate and non-candidate may go for further than a few posts should the candidate keep responding to the non-candidates posts.