Continued from: https://www.bungie.net/en/Forums/Post/208754460 So real quick, just want to say something regarding the last discussion. Its very important that everyone keep in mind that as I've been saying repeatedly, nothing I present to you in these posts is written in stone. They are simply rough drafts serving as a basis for the discussions, something to build upon. If you disagree with anyone, it is far better for you to present OTHER ideas to resolve your issues with something as that actually allows for there to be a conversation. In order to create a system that can stand the test of time and safeguard against those who may try to abuse it for their own personal agenda, its important to subject these topics to intense scrutiny. I am expecting others to be looking for weak points so that we can then address them appropriately. These talks have been going on for a couple months at this point and I have received a great deal of feedback from people, offering different ideas to change things. I shall be compiling all of this feedback and presenting it later on when he start to get into making revisions. For right now, though, I want to get us through the rest of these discussions. As for this post we'll be covering one of the major objectives of the Council itself, which is to actually establish a sense of Order to all the tumultuous chaos around here. An attempt to bring more civility to the forum and encourage intellectual debate as opposed to troll festering shouting contests riddled with insults. Everyone is entitled to having their own opinion, but not every opinion is correct. (That's something we can all agree on, I would think given historical evidence) When there are two opposing sides of an argument, this calls for a Debate to decide which is correct. Debate is an age old concept. Unstructured debates can very easily devolve into utter nonsense, because more often than not you'll have someone who just outright refuses to accept that they are wrong and will continue insisting that they are right, dragging it out for as long as possible with neither side reaching any sort of meaningful conclusion. It wastes the time of everyone involved. However, structured debate operates much differently. First, its important to outline the fundamentals of a solid argument which are broken down into three parts; Claim, Warrant and Impact. [quote][b]CLAIM:[/b] As its name implies, a claim is a statement you are advancing as true. If you are reading evidence, your claim is usually summarized in the card’s tag (or it should be!). Even when you’re not reading evidence, a claim is any declarative statement that you are trying to establish as true within the debate. [b]WARRANT:[/b] This is where the magic happens. Warrants are what you use to create legitimacy for your claims. They are the reasons why the claim is true. You should dedicate a substantial amount of your time to debating about warrants. Warrants can be just about anything, as long as they’re arguments that support the accuracy of the claim. The more specific the explanation is, the better off you will be. [b]IMPACT:[/b] The impacts are why someone should care about your argument. Why is this point important? What does winning it get you in the context of the rest of the debate? How does it interact with other considerations that might also be important?[/quote] Now, there are a number of different ways to go about this. Below I have written up one such method for how to go about handling this, but as always everyone is encouraged to offer up their own ideas for it as well. Remember, the goal here is to create a means in which two parties can present their argument and have it reach an actual conclusion. I have personally been brushing up on the rules and regulations offered by the "National Speech & Debate Association" as well as other various resources for my inspiration. [quote][u][b]Debate Structure[/b][/u] [b]1: Submitted Propositions can be challenged by anyone in the Community. However, any and all disagreements MUST provide an actual argument against such.[/b] (In other words, you can't just say "No" and not give any reasoning for it.) [b]2: When a Proposition has been challenged, it can only be answered by the OP who submitted it. This will trigger the Debate.[/b] [b]3: The OP reserves the right to allow others to represent them in a Debate, however this means that they must accept the outcome of it even if it does not end in their favor.[/b] (Like playing one of those old school games that didn't have checkpoints or save game options and you're at the end but then decide to hand the controller to your buddy. If they die at the final boss and get a game over, you have no one else to blame but yourself.) [b]4: All others observing the Debate shall be referred to as the "Peanut Gallery" and are not allowed to interfere with the proceedings. Doing so could potentially hurt the side that they are trying to support.[/b] [b]5: During the Debate, ANY form of personal attack or insult is strictly forbidden. Based on the severity of the offense, the one found guilty of such behavior may be forced to forfeit the Debate as well as be reported.[/b] (So keep a cool head and don't lose your temper, basically.) [b]6: A Debate will consist of several posts on either side. The following is an example of how this would play out: -[i]Submitted Proposition.[/i] (OP presents their idea) -[i]Challenge Issued.[/i] (Someone disagrees with it) -[i]Counter Argument.[/i] (Post #1 For) -[i]Rebuttal.[/i] (Post #1 Against) -[i]Response.[/i] (Post #2 For)[/b] [b]7: Your opponent in a Debate will have 72 hours to respond to you and vice versa. Either side can ask for an extension if they can provide a good enough reason for it.[/b] [b]8: At the conclusion of the Debate, if neither side can come to an agreement, several Judges will be used to render a verdict based upon the arguments presented. [u]THE JUDGES MUST BE MUTUALLY AGREED UPON BY BOTH SIDES[/u]. Judges must also present the reasoning for their decision.[/b] [b]9: In the event neither side can agree upon Judges, the Council will appoint Judges for them.[/b] (I was also considering that the Council Members could Judge the Debate in this situation themselves, since they have to be reading them anyways.)[/quote] Like I said, there are many different methods to go about handling this. I was talking with Unspoken about this as well and he came up with a very elaborate idea that I feel deserves its own post entirely, which is what will be up for discussion next time. I'm actually not going to be around much this week since me and my wife were asked to house sit for a friend, but I at least wanted to make sure I got this posted up first since folks have been asking me about it. As always, feedback is totally welcome and encouraged. And honestly, even if the Council doesn't end up working out in the long run, we could all benefit from having an actual system in place that actually promotes structured arguments. It would make it easier to stop just blatant trolling and encourage having more civil disputes instead, which is always good. I will be sending PMs to everyone from the previous discussions who took an interest in this as well. (If you don't receive a PM I do apologize, the site isn't really friendly when it comes to this sort of thing...)