(November 20, 2018 at 11:53 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Here's something I just thought of, but haven't thought about to consider whether it's good or bad. Allow one-on-one or group debates in the current debate forum section, just don't have a moderator. If people who aren't originally invited want, they could PM a member and ask to be invited. Participants could choose to veto any specific person joining. (Still spitballing, but participants--maybe--being allowed to eject a participant by majority vote. Maybe too much Robert's Rules for a discussion, I don't know.)
I thought I did discuss leaving things the way they are and just using the debate section more. Perhaps it was in Ryleh. Then asa suggestion I would suggest a debate type that would be informal like an Impromptu debate with panels and word counts and possibly no round set. It could even start man-to-man (debate type not to be sexist) or have an uneven panel. Topic introduced by a moderator that would have the panel list. As with every debate, a peanut gallery is generated for less restricted content and members of the debate, can't quote outside sources.
I would even possibly be amenable to drawing up scorecards, or rule sets if that is desired.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari