[Royal Society] All-Party Debate

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

The Royal Society for the Advancement of Knowledge is pleased to host the upcoming All-Party Debate.

The All-Party Debate will begin on January 25, 2016. Anyone may submit questions for the debate via PM to one of our two debate moderators, Ián Tamorán S.H. or Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. . All questions must be submitted in advance.

Debate Rules:

• All registered parties are invited to debate.
• The moderators will select five questions from those submitted based upon their relevance, interest, and/or any other criteria the moderators choose. 
• Each party leader of a registered party will be chosen to respond in alphabetical order by last name, with the first responder chosen at random by the moderator. At present, the order of participation shall be RUMP, Talossan National Congress, Moderate Radicals, Free Democrats.
• The moderator will publicly ask a question to which the responder (the moderator will tag the responder) will have 24 hours to respond.
• Rebuttals to each answer will proceed according to the specified order of respondents. Each leader wishing to issue a rebuttal shall have only 12 hours to respond.
• A final answer/rebuttal by the original responder shall be allowed for a period of 12 hours after the last rebuttal.
• The moderator shall then proceed to the next party leader and ask the next question and the process shall begin again.

As of January 6, 2016, the following political parties are registered and fully paid:

Talossan National Congress - Breneir Itravilatx
Free Democrats - Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
RUMP - Sir Alexandreu Davinescu
MRPT - Lüc da Schir

Any other parties that register with the Chancery (not necessarily paid) prior to the All-Party Debate shall also be included. Debate rules can be modified or updated at any time prior to the debate beginning. 

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Looks good to me.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

I have picked a starting party, and filmed the process.

I am uploading the file right now and will post the result in a few minutes.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Here is the video where I select the Starting Party for the 1st Question:



If we follow my idea, this means this is the schedule:

First question: Talossan National Congress, Moderate Radicals, Free Democrats, RUMP
Second Question: Moderate Radicals, Free Democrats, RUMP, Talossan National Congress
Third Question: Free Democrats, RUMP, Talossan National Congress, Moderate Radicals
Fourth Question: RUMP, Talossan National Congress, Moderate Radicals, Free Democrats

As for the Fifth, I propose the following order:

Fifth Question: RUMP, Free Democrats, Moderate Radicals, Talossan National Congress,

Which is the reverse of the first question.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Uh... shouldn't we wait to see if the PP or the RPT will participate?

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Well, I guess if they were already tagged and reminded of this, it's their lookout. Never mind.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Jan 19, 2016 11:17:46 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Uh... shouldn't we wait to see if the PP or the RPT will participate?

If other parties join up, I will restart the process!

I have all sorts of dices (I could have used a D4, but I found a D8 first and I don't like the D4 dices).

If we have 5 parties, I will use a D10, with each party getting 2 numbers.

If we have 6 parties, I will use a D6, with each party getting 1 number.

If we have 7 parties, I will use a D8 and reroll on a 8.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

If this is writing, here is what I propose:

I had propose a 2 minutes limit per answer. 2 minutes is between 125 and 150 words, which isn't a lot...

As such, each answer would be limited to say, 200 words.

Any answer of less than 200 words will give a credit for future answers. Answer with 100 words in the first question and you have 100 spare words for future questions...

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jan 19, 2016 15:53:45 GMT -6 Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. said:

If this is writing, here is what I propose:

I had propose a 2 minutes limit per answer. 2 minutes is between 125 and 150 words, which isn't a lot...

As such, each answer would be limited to say, 200 words.

Any answer of less than 200 words will give a credit for future answers. Answer with 100 words in the first question and you have 100 spare words for future questions...

This kind of limit seems rather artificial. When it was planned to be live, of course there were time constraints involved, but if it is a textual debate, as long as people answer on time, who cares how long the answers are?  I guess we may want to limit it to 500-600 words, in order for the populace to be able to read it in a reasonable time.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Jan 19, 2016 16:04:15 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Jan 19, 2016 15:53:45 GMT -6 Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. said:

If this is writing, here is what I propose:

I had propose a 2 minutes limit per answer. 2 minutes is between 125 and 150 words, which isn't a lot...

As such, each answer would be limited to say, 200 words.

Any answer of less than 200 words will give a credit for future answers. Answer with 100 words in the first question and you have 100 spare words for future questions...

This kind of limit seems rather artificial. When it was planned to be live, of course there were time constraints involved, but if it is a textual debate, as long as people answer on time, who cares how long the answers are?  I guess we may want to limit it to 500-600 words, in order for the populace to be able to read it in a reasonable time.

I could work with 500 words, but wasn't the idea to have short concise answers?

[Breneir Itravilatx]

Jan 19, 2016 16:52:01 GMT -6 Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. said:

Jan 19, 2016 16:04:15 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

This kind of limit seems rather artificial. When it was planned to be live, of course there were time constraints involved, but if it is a textual debate, as long as people answer on time, who cares how long the answers are?  I guess we may want to limit it to 500-600 words, in order for the populace to be able to read it in a reasonable time.

I could work with 500 words, but wasn't the idea to have short concise answers?

I thought the idea was to hash out the differences in policy and ideas between parties in an open and respectful manner, MPF.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Yeah, let's not get silly with word limits or start making up new rules on the fly. There's no reason to make this more complicated than it is right now. If someone writes a thousand words, they'll hurt themselves because few people will then read it.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. ... I don't even... how do you pronounce your Talossan name? Because I'm hearing “Furcënah”, after having listened to it about 7 times.

Also, Martì-Paír should rhyme with French « mardi haïr ». And no, I am not saying that « mardi haïr » should make any sense!

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Jan 19, 2016 19:11:38 GMT -6 Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun said:

Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. ... I don't even... how do you pronounce your Talossan name? Because I'm hearing “Furcënah”, after having listened to it about 7 times. :D

Also, Martì-Paír should rhyme with French « mardi haïr ». And no, I am not saying that « mardi haïr » should make any sense!

Ben had told me it was supposed to be something like Furghaïr... and I messed up in the video.

Am I wrong?

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

Pronunciations of names aside, the Royal Society is not imposing a word limit. Each debate participant knows the effectiveness of concise language and the acronym TLDR is quite apropos here.