Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Then I think we'd all burn in the fifth circle of hell.
You're actually very flexible with regards to how many people can play. Sixteen or thirty-two would be ideal, but the structure could probably be tweaked to allow for almost any number of entrants (you can change the number of groups or have five players instead of four or whatever).
Five days per debate, two days to judge, slap a week off after the group stages to allow for judges falling behind. Whole thing should be done before the end of the season it started.
¡Roján!;3756790 said:Stats could be more than rep. Such things as post count, date joined, and how the organizers feel about the participant can be put into consideration too.
See, you're mistaken here. I think you're getting pool and group mixed up. A newbie is not going to do well in a pool of newbies. The pool of newbies are going to be evenly shared out. Basically, a group of four would consist of one newbie, one regular, one good and one elite.
I think it should be randomly drawn, as frankly I'd find nothing funnier than what is considered one of the top debators going out in the first round.
As funny as this statement is, I still need a real reason why it would be a bad idea. A straight-up, double-elimination tournament with random seeding picked out of a hat.
The smart thing to do with a World Cup format would be the use different rules for the qualifiers and the tournament rounds.
For the group stages limit people to a simple point-counterpoint structure where players get one post to make their argument, and one post to address their opponent's. This will make things much easier on the judges, and more forgiving for the less experienced competitors.
Once you get to the knock out stages you should only have to top debaters left, and the training wheels can be removed allowing people to have the multi-quote wars that we have come to know and love. There'll be half as many debates happening, so it'll be much easier for the judges to handle.
¡Roján!;3756970 said:D-Man I recommend you make another thread, so we can all vote on the way it's going to be carried out.
As far as the time zone issue, there's no perfect solution to it like Gelgarin mentioned in the other thread.
The one idea I instantly came up with, meaning I haven't completely thought it out, is making 3 or 4 different groups depending on the amount of people in it. You can have all of the people that have the same or very close time zones in each group. So you could have all of the people in England and other countries within a good range in time be in one group and then the people in this side of the hemisphere be in a different one.
That way you won't have as big of delays if it's someone in America facing someone in England for example. They'd be within the same time range so they'd have more than enough time to debate unless anything came up that couldn't be controlled.
That's my solution. Like I said, I didn't think it out completely but tell me what you think anyways.
The time zone issue isn't really much of an issue anymore. Gelgarin proposed that first round or two would have a limited number of replies within the debate threads. I'm suggesting only two replies in each thread. This way, I can put a 3-4 day time limit on each debate (instead of a week), giving the debaters plenty of time to post a thought and get a second crack at it. In addition, we'd save a few days in each debate which will all add up in the end.
I'm not completely against Gelgarin's idea but I feel it would be better to set a minimum amount of posts, which can be what he said, and if people want to continue debating then they should. With so many topics that can be debated on, I don't think it's fair to the people reading the debates and the people doing the debating as well to limit their debates even if it's just for the first few rounds.
But why? The way that debates work is that debaters take turns while having an allotted time period to state all of their points. Whether you run out of time or you run out of posts shouldn't matter. Either way, no one will be able to go back and forth forever.
The first few rounds don't need pages upon pages of debating. The order happens via the flip of a coin, an equal amount of points and rebuttals can be made, and it gets judged. If debaters are effective enough, they won't need extra posts to reinforce their points. The judges will decide accordingly and it will save everyone on time and patience.
But why? The way that debates work is that debaters take turns while having an allotted time period to state all of their points. Whether you run out of time or you run out of posts shouldn't matter. Either way, no one will be able to go back and forth forever.
The first few rounds don't need pages upon pages of debating. The order happens via the flip of a coin, an equal amount of points and rebuttals can be made, and it gets judged. If debaters are effective enough, they won't need extra posts to reinforce their points. The judges will decide accordingly and it will save everyone on time and patience.
¡Roján!;3756790 said:Stats could be more than rep. Such things as post count, date joined, and how the organizers feel about the participant can be put into consideration too.
See, you're mistaken here. I think you're getting pool and group mixed up. A newbie is not going to do well in a pool of newbies. The pool of newbies are going to be evenly shared out. Basically, a group of four would consist of one newbie, one regular, one good and one elite.