|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 28, 2014 16:37:15 GMT -6
Miestra and I have, as mentioned, had very civil discussions before. I think she is a great Talossan and it was an interesting conversation.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Jul 28, 2014 16:40:23 GMT -6
I suggested to RT Radio that there be two leader's debates: one "major party" (RUMP/ModRads/ZRT) and one "minor party" (LibCon/TWP/PC). The first one, particularly, would have to be moderated with a branding iron and a flamethrower to keep order: eg a hard line against interjections, all statements to go through the moderator, etc.
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Jul 28, 2014 16:44:37 GMT -6
I suggested to RT Radio that there be two leader's debates: one "major party" (RUMP/ModRads/ZRT) and one "minor party" (LibCon/TWP/PC). The first one, particularly, would have to be moderated with a branding iron and a flamethrower to keep order: eg a hard line against interjections, all statements to go through the moderator, etc. You don't get to make the call on which party is a major party and which one is a minor party. If you're going to have a party leader debate, you should include all the registered party leaders in the same debate or it will be most unfair to us inferior parties...
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 28, 2014 16:50:17 GMT -6
Yeah, I'm not really sure about either including everybody (seven-way debate?) or excluding people based on subjective assessment. Maybe just include all parties with more than three members, or something similarly objective?
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Jul 28, 2014 16:51:22 GMT -6
You don't get to make the call on which party is a major party and which one is a minor party. No, the number of seats in the Ziu make that call for me. Sorry, but a six-way debate would be insane.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jul 28, 2014 16:53:15 GMT -6
So does that leave one medium size party debate with only the Progressives ?
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Jul 28, 2014 16:56:27 GMT -6
You don't get to make the call on which party is a major party and which one is a minor party. No, the number of seats in the Ziu make that call for me. Sorry, but a six-way debate would be insane. Why number of seats in the Cosa? We have a Senator, three seats, and a good number of members - how could you justify not including the Liberal Congress? Further, why not the number of members?
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Jul 28, 2014 16:57:23 GMT -6
You don't get to make the call on which party is a major party and which one is a minor party. No, the number of seats in the Ziu make that call for me. Sorry, but a six-way debate would be insane. Given that the Liberal Congress, TWP, and the PC party are all new to this election, it's not very fair to say that the number of Ziu seats make that call, when none of our parties have had the opportunity to win any seats yet. We have six-way debates all the time in the States, every time another presidential primary season rolls around, and it's not that big of a deal.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Jul 28, 2014 16:58:15 GMT -6
So does that leave one medium size party debate with only the Progressives ? Crap, forgot the Progs! Er... perhaps the debate should be in "left" and "right" camps. One debate for the Monarchist end of the spectrum (RUMP/ModRads/Progs) and one for the "democratic" end of the spectrum... sorry, ModRads, no insinuation that you're not democratic, I'm trying to think how to divide this up.
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Jul 28, 2014 17:00:36 GMT -6
So does that leave one medium size party debate with only the Progressives ? Crap, forgot the Progs! Er... perhaps the debate should be in "left" and "right" camps. One debate for the Monarchist end of the spectrum (RUMP/ModRads/Progs) and one for the "democratic" end of the spectrum... sorry, ModRads, no insinuation that you're not democratic, I'm trying to think how to divide this up. How about we just have a 6 or 7 or whatever side debate? Like Dien said, if the States can manage it, why can't we?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 28, 2014 17:05:28 GMT -6
Well, the immediate problem is that if each leader speaks for just ten minutes total, you're already at an hour. This is why those sorts of American debates tend towards chipper taking points and away from real discussion - or end up giving the lesser-known participants less speaking time.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jul 28, 2014 17:06:11 GMT -6
In The Netherlands, where we usually have about 12 parties in parliament and 10 more unrepresented parties participating, it is not uncommon to have only the big parties participating in most debates, which is usually decided based on either polls or number of parliament seats. Of course that usually still makes for 6 party debates.
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Jul 28, 2014 17:07:25 GMT -6
You format the debate so you ask a particular question on a particular topic, allowing quick (yes, I guess AD and Miestra may have trouble with that part) responses. You can keep it snappy and interesting, and there won't be a problem.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 28, 2014 17:19:48 GMT -6
I do prefer discussion, rather than short-answer... that's what makes it a debate, not an audible questionnaire. But I will be happy to participate, either way.
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Jul 28, 2014 17:29:46 GMT -6
30 seconds should be long enough to outline your party's position on any given issue if you take out the frills, and that also leaves the possibility of discussion on points as well if we're more concise.
Anyway, we're already paying for the privilege of having our name on the ballot; we have every right to be included in the debate. Further, refusing the inclusion of opponents in political discussion is far more damaging to new parties than any policy requiring them to appeal to more than just one person in order to be elected. Not only that, but it would be damaging to the political culture of our country if we were to set such a precedent.
|
|