UFO Panel Committee

**~~Reiku~~** · 03-03-12, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by JDawg

So you can't make up the point system...but you've decided it's one point per "logical argument?"

No I am confused... for instance

Alice says ''grass is green''

Opposition Bob says, ''grass is blue''

...Panel members evaluate evidence

...science says Alice is right, point awarded.

What is wrong with the system. Seems right to me?

ARE we really gonna waste hours, maybe days on these quibbles or are we gonna get to the hard stuff... or is the opposition already failing... in fear maybe of the arguements?

**Balerion** · 03-03-12, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by Reiku

please let it all out now. Because when the proceedings occur, you will not be allowed to be so.... artistic in your expressions.

Are you in or out?

I won't consider my panel's rules in an antiquated or destructive methodologies. These rules have been placed for an equality in discussions. If you are not happy about these rules, state your reasons, reasonably atleast.

You are already showing skeptic hack signs. I will make sure the rules will not comply to this.

I already did state my reasons. Your rules are ridiculous. They're redundant, confusing, and contradictory.

Can I suggest something?

This is from the "How the Formal Debates forums works" thread:

1. We will each post one "introductory" post, setting out our main arguments.
2. There will then be exactly two follow-up and rebuttal posts from each debater, in which the debaters may address and refute points made by the other person, as well as adding any new points that may come up.
3. Finally, each debater will post one concluding post, summing up their side of the debate. Following the concluding posts, the thread will be closed.
4. Debaters each have exactly one day from the time of posting of a post by their opponent to post their next post. If they do not post in the required time limit, the debate will be declared finished, and the thread closed.
5. Debaters may not post more than 4 posts in total. Once the 4-post limit is reached, further posts by that debater will be deleted from the thread, but the thread will remain open for posts by the opponent, until either his or her own 4-post limit is reached or until time runs out.
6. Debaters may include links to any supporting information or references in their posts. They may also quote extracted sections of text from other sites.
7. Individual posts may not be longer than 1500 words, including any quotes.

This is just an example, but why don't we just use it? We both agree that we won't name-call each other, and we'll even allow for a judge or two to decide a winner at the end.

Clean and simple. What do you say?

**~~Reiku~~** · 03-03-12, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by JDawg

I already did state my reasons. Your rules are ridiculous. They're redundant, confusing, and contradictory.

Can I suggest something?

This is from the "How the Formal Debates forums works" thread:

This is just an example, but why don't we just use it? We both agree that we won't name-call each other, and we'll even allow for a judge or two to decide a winner at the end.

Clean and simple. What do you say?

Anyone else find my rules, ridiculous?

If so dawg, write up your own then... no one is stopping you... lets see if your rules are of a better conduct?

**~~Reiku~~** · 03-03-12, 08:26 AM

Oh you did...

**~~Reiku~~** · 03-03-12, 08:28 AM

They seem more like posts required by normal forum format.

I am happy to oblige but my rules on the judges and the High Judge should not be changed.

**Balerion** · 03-03-12, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by Reiku

They seem more like posts required by normal forum format.

I am happy to oblige but my rules on the judges and the High Judge should not be changed.

Then I'm not doing this. There will be no censoring of posts, no "high judge" to act as oversight. I'm not playing your game, Reiku.

**~~Reiku~~** · 03-03-12, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by JDawg

Then I'm not doing this. There will be no censoring of posts, no "high judge" to act as oversight. I'm not playing your game, Reiku.

It would have been your game too... an equal one.

I hold you then as a coward.

**Balerion** · 03-03-12, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by Reiku

I hold you then as a coward.

No sweat off my back. Besides, you probably don't even know what that word even means.

**~~Reiku~~** · 03-03-12, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by JDawg

No sweat off my back. Besides, you probably don't even know what that word even means.

I am willing to allow Cosmic to be the high judge... so do you:

If we both agree on that, what have you to worry about?

**Balerion** · 03-03-12, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by Reiku

I am willing to allow Cosmic to be the high judge... so do you:

If we both agree on that, what have you to worry about?

Just the judge, okay? No need for high judge, or judge panel. Just a f***ing judge, alright?

Then we're cool.

**~~Reiku~~** · 03-03-12, 08:43 AM

... ... ...

...mmmm...

... not happy about one single dictatorship... but... ok.

**~~Reiku~~** · 03-03-12, 08:44 AM

RELUCTANTLY... I agree. I find that very Nazi like.

What are you worried about?

**Balerion** · 03-03-12, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by Reiku

... ... ...

...mmmm...

... not happy about one single dictatorship... but... ok.

Are you just going to bitch that you were robbed at the end of this? Just tell me now, because honestly I am not going to waste my time doing this if you're just going to cry foul when you lose. That's all I'm worried about. Your arguments don't scare me; you can barely string together a coherent sentence. In fact, often times, you can't.

You are going to lose, by the way. Cosmic isn't a Believer, and he/she (sorry that I don't actually know which one you are, C-Money) isn't going to buy what you're selling.

And I don't even know what we're debating here. Are we debating the UFOs are of alien origin?

**~~Reiku~~** · 03-03-12, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by JDawg

Are you just going to bitch that you were robbed at the end of this?

No.

**~~Reiku~~** · 03-03-12, 08:50 AM

In a way... I am more happy you have your way so you can't BITCH.

**Balerion** · 03-03-12, 08:53 AM

Alright, we'll begin with opening statements. Remember, keep it under 1500 words.

If you want to post at the same time, so one person isn't actually using their opener as a rebuttal, just PM me when yours is ready, and we'll do it.

EDIT: WAIT! What are we debating?

**~~Reiku~~** · 03-03-12, 08:54 AM

Wait.. has Cosmic agreed?

**~~Reiku~~** · 03-03-12, 08:55 AM

We also need a mod to censor when tactics are not appropriate. You cannot base this on your normal approaches. I won't stand for it. You may as well have created this idea for youself?

**Balerion** · 03-03-12, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by Reiku

We also need a mod to censor when tactics are not appropriate. You cannot base this on your normal approaches. I won't stand for it. You may as well have created this idea for youself?

That's it, I'm out. You had your chance to do this the right way, but you got scared and made it impossible for me to agree.

Way to bail, Reiku.