Balloon Debate Discussion.

[Mänwe]

I apologise if this is not the right place to start this thread; but as I foresee it as a blend of Tolkien and the Barrow-Downs itself I thought it best go here. I hope my reasoning is sound. (All complaints to Boromir88 if I am wrong )

I have noticed many fine quizzes and games but I've not seen a sign of a "Balloon Debate", (I may not have looked deep enough) so I wanted to start this thread and guage the interest of the members.

Would you like to take part in a Balloon Debate?

Now what is a "Balloon Debate" for those a little unfamiliar with the term. Well it is simple, a number of participants for example six (this figure is usually a managable number for the moderator and participants and time length desired), speaks on behalf of themselves, or a character or race, (however my intention is for this to change to accomodate different challenges) to win over the audience.

That is to say that the balloon in which they are in, is sinking, one person must be thrown out at the end of each round (the voting is made by the non-participants) until there is one "Champion" left.

[Mithalwen]

Having googled to find out what it was... it is not a million miles from the survivor threads... hopefully the single champion thing would stop it getting quite so err....vitriolic?

[Mänwe]

Ah, silly of me not to have included a description of what it is...I shall edit it in a minute.

Yes, there has not been a debate yet that I have either participated in, viewed or moderated that has degenerated into any sort of nastyness. I am sure that should one go ahead that nothing of the sort will occur here.

So would you be interested?

Or is it too similar to the Survivor threads to contemplate beginning the idea?

[Mänwe]

I would suggest, if the idea were to be accepted, that 6 would be sufficient for the first to see how things would progress.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

What would the debate be? Or did I miss that?

[Mänwe]

Feanor, I cannot reveal too much for then those who were interested would have time to prepare. But it would include a blend of both Tolkien (his books) and the Barrow-downs site.

[Mänwe]

*Question: Why does Santa have 3 gardens?

Answer: So he can ho-ho-ho."

[the phantom]

Heh- I had an idea similar to this at one time, but I didn't (and still don't) have the time to do it.

In each round the topic of debate would be different, and teams/players would be assigned which side of the argument they would be on. Once, and once only, a player would be allowed to choose to argue for the other side (once the individual rounds had started).

At the end of each round, myself and a group of handpicked judges would select the winning team/player/players. (If I'm remembering correctly the members I jotted down to ask to be judges with me were SPM, Kuru, Esty, and Form.)

I think that I had the game starting with five teams of three, and each would debate head-to-head with the other four teams. At the end of each contest every judge would award a score out of five points to both teams. Naturally each judge would be weighing things in a slightly different manner, but things such as participation by all team members would be rewarded, as well as clever/logical use of quotes, effective use of examples or logical parallels, and the ability to keep things fun, entertaining, and civil.

At the end of team-play, the two teams with the lowest scores are eliminated, save for one of the six players. All the judges will vote to save one player from extermination- the player who was the most active, engaging, and showed great promise as a debater.

At that point we will have ten contestants left. Five will be assigned to argue one side of an argument against the other five, but they will not be on teams. It will be up to each individual to decide if his chances are greater functioning as a team or on his own. In other words, he will be free to cut down the arguments of those on his side without fear of being penalized for not being a team player. At the end, the audience at large votes for one person to advance. That player will then advance to matter what the decision of the judges is. The judges will each choose eight people to advance. The eight receiving the most votes advance.

The next round the process is repeated, only the judges will only take the top six plus whoever the audience chooses. (if the audience chooses someone who will advance anyway, no additional person advances)

The next round trims things to four. Then two.

Then one. In the final round, the vote of the audience would count as one judge vote.

Not all the topics would be completely serious. Some would be pointless topics with no clear answer, yet still topics that allow for the use of debating skills and Tolkien quotes.

When any sort of tie occurs, all of the tied advance if at least one of those tied would need to advance in order to fill the number for the next round. In other words, when cutting the field from 10 to 8, if 9 and 10 were tied, they would not advance, for the 8 are already accounted for. But if 8, 9, and 10 tie, all three advance, for at least one of them must.

I think I had some other rules and whatnot written up, but I can't remember it all. I think I even scribbled some topics down. I know I had some rules regarding civility. Something like the judges giving two warnings about being nice. The third time you are eliminated. And when it comes to antagonizing remarks from the audience during voting time, if a viewer is warned once and doesn't stop, their vote is no longer counted.

But like I said I have no time to do this. I just thought I'd mention it seeing as you brought up something similar.

[Firefoot]

I've actually considered bringing this up before, although I think it would need to go in Mirth.

What would the debate be? Or did I miss that?

For example, a round might work like this. The mod would choose a topic (such as "Characters whose names begin with F", "Weapons," or "Downs fora"). Each player is assigned a character/object within the topic - for those topics you might get "Frodo", "Anduril", or "Mirth." It is then up to that player to argue why you should be kept around. Arguments might be "I save Middle-earth," "I was possibly the most powerful sword to exist, having been both Narsil and Anduril," and "I make people laugh and have the favorite threads of Werewolf and Crazy Captions." Once arguments are all posted (a time limit is recommended... anyone who does not post in the time limit would be automatically kicked out or something like that - up to the mod), then the arguments are voted on - Manwe said by non-players, but the way I've played it is where the players of the round vote. I would do this by pm, bearing in mind arguments that have occurred when people feel insulted or what not, with the mod just posting the results. And unlike Survivor, you don't vote based on your favorite item in the round but on who makes the best/worst argument. Person with the most votes is thrown out and it continues until there's only one person left.

Personally I don't see why it would be necessary to limit it to six people, either... I've played with a lot more.

[Kuruharan]

but things such as participation by all team members would be rewarded, as well as clever/logical use of quotes, effective use of examples or logical parallels, and the ability to keep things fun, entertaining, and civil.

And coin-flipping, don't forget coin-flipping.

[Mänwe]

Well I am glad the subject has bought some discussion, of its potential rules and other intricacies of the 'competition'. I thank you phantom for your input.

However does this mean that you all are interested?

There can be no glorious debate without any willing participants.