| Welcome to Fire Emblem Fusion. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| New Debate Format | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 18 2008, 08:29 PM (146 Views) | |
| Yzarc | Jan 18 2008, 08:29 PM Post #1 |
Coxian
|
This is my suggestion, and I think it should be adopted as the FE Debate format. It's not a new debate format, but it's new in regards to FE debating. I don't know why, but the format we have now implies posts that are ridiculously long if there is substance, and gives an almost absolute advantage to the last poster. Incase this post is archived in the Fire Emblem Forum hall of fame or some such, because it causes some sort of a revolution and the old format is dropped world wide and this new format is adopted, and people in the future don't know what the old format was, here it is. Person A debates Person B. Person A posts. Person B counters. Person A counters. Person B counters. Person A counters. Person B counters. I know what you're thinking. It's one of three things, depending on circumstance. 1. You are in my time period and say "What's the problem?" 2. You are in my time period and say "Yeah, that gives the last poster an advantage. Something must be done." 3. You are in the future and say "What the hell? Those people were retarded!" There are many inherent problems with the way these debates are set up. For the first one, let's say Person A brings up, oh, ten topics in his first post. It is nearly guaranteed that each of those ten topics will be countered in Person B's first post. Following that, Person A will recounter those, Person B will re-recounter and so on and so forth. There is no way to avoid points being repeated. Another thing is that, amongst those ten topics being repeated 5 times, there will more than likely be various other topics brought up throughout the debate, making it even longer. It's not uncommon for a person to take a few hours writing up a single post, which is frustrating to the readers and the writers alike, most of all because points will undoubtedly be repeated. Did I mention yet that points will be repeated throughout the debate? (That was a joke.) But perhaps the biggest problem with our current format is a huge problem that no one who knows things will deny. Note that I don't specify "no one who knows things about Fire Emblem will deny," I just say "things," because it doesn't take specific knowledge to understand how flawed this format is. In any case - The last poster has a ridiculous advantage. On every single point of every single topic in the entire debate, the last poster has the last word on it. Last word is something that cannot be avoided in debates. Someone has to finish, right? But in this format, the last poster gets absolute advantage in every topic, which is very unfair. So, here is my suggestion. We cut each post significantly in length and we make more posts. Each post would contain only data on individual topics. That said, check it out. Person A debates Topic 1. Person B counters Topic 1. Person B debates Topic 2. Person A counters Topic 2. There are various ways we could go about it from there. Naturally, we would need more than those four posts, but we do need posts in multiples of four. So I was thinking 8 posts, four topics, each debater initiates two topics and counters two topics. We could make it longer (12 posts) for anticipated longer debates, like finals or if the debaters want to make more points. So now we have it so that the initiator of a topic actually has an advantage in that he or she chooses the topic. The debater who counters has to counter on that specific subject. No new material may be brought up on the rebuttal, naturally, so they would have to wait until their turn to initiate a topic. Topics themselves could range from Supports to Offense to Joining Situations. As for judging, judges can make their own format for determining who wins each debate, be it by points per topic, by topics overall, but it will be necessary for judges to say how they came to their conclusions, which usually already happens now, but I find it necessary (to remove bias and weed out inadequate judges) to force judges into saying why they came to their conclusion in more ways than just "He proved his points better," which is pretty much what most judges say now. I know, I know. Too long ; Didn't read. I think you should, though, at least if you're a Fire Emblem Debater, because this could bring about a significantly more fair debate structure, and also a significantly shorter, more enjoyable to read structure. |
  
| |
 |
 
|
| +Ema Skye | Jan 18 2008, 09:10 PM Post #2 |
Snackoos = <3. It's science!
|
Solid and I are probably the most experienced judges, followed by CATS. Our format for judging counts the first and last posts the least, and the two in the middle the most by far. If someone is outdebated in the first two exchanges, and then rapes massively on the counter, they should still lose because their last post never had a chance to be countered. |
 MUNCH MUNCH MUNCH MUNCH MUNCH MUNCH MUNCH 
| |
|
|
|
| Super Saiyan SolidSense | Jan 18 2008, 09:19 PM Post #3 |
 
|
People often don't abide by that, however. I say we should post Yzarc's topic on all the major debating boards. And the major problem with Yzarc's suggestion is:
The fact that these are intertwined. Supports, for example, affect offense. Joining situations affect offense. Defense often impacts offense. Breaking it up individually would allow for quite lopsided debates in terms of which character is better. |
| this is the best Brawl match ever....EVER | |
|
|
|
| Yzarc | Jan 18 2008, 11:20 PM Post #4 |
|
Coxian
|
I understand that, but it would be up to the poster to make a point. We could either limit the length or we could limit it by going even more old fashioned by splitting it up into sections of the game itself (early, mid, late and stuff in between) and each topic would be one of those. It really doesn't matter as this is a minor detail that we could even change between debates. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| Super Saiyan SolidSense | Jan 18 2008, 11:30 PM Post #5 |
|
I really think the matter needs more discussion first. Or maybe a trial. If you want to run one with me, I'm willing. |
| this is the best Brawl match ever....EVER | |
|
|
|
| Mekkah | Jan 19 2008, 04:49 AM Post #6 |
|
My only problem with this idea is that the borders between different topics are too vague and that it's really hard to stick to one topic (at least in my experience). However, I'd love to give this a try either way. Perhaps define the topics before the debate (depending on units and game)? |
|
|
|
| Yzarc | Jan 19 2008, 12:41 PM Post #7 |
|
Coxian
|
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Agreed upon topics beforehand, maybe specific to supports or time of game (early, late, etc). Solide and I are planning a test debate with Zihark vs Ilyana. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Fire Emblem 1-5 · Next Topic » |
10:09 PM Nov 28
