Delegate Forum? Advise.

[Iro]

There seems to have been a lot of mixup on what candidates for the delegacy have said, and they're quoting each other, and I think it's getting pretty ugly. Therefore, I'm suggesting something to make everything a lot simpler, a lot faster.

Basically, it's forcing candidates to say what they mean, without any of the extra crap coming along for the ride. My proposed rules are:

1. You must stick to (insert number) characters for every response. Use http://www.javascriptkit.com/script/script2/charcount.shtml if you're in doubt.
2. Your response must stay along the parameters of the question. Anything that the Forum Commissioner (i.e. me, probably) finds trying to promote something else is unacceptable.
3. You must answer either no questions or every question, giving a suitable answer for each. No avoiding topics that don't suit you.
4. You must give a definitive answer for each question. Choose a side.
5. After you have posted, no discussion in the thread is allowed until it is open for debate.

I think this provides for a more clear-cut response on what our candidates have to say, hm? Any advice is welcome. If you would like to contribute a question to ask, please PM [me]. Of course, candidates are not allowed to.

What do you think?

 

[Romanoffia]

An interesting idea. I like it. It's better than the IRC debate format by leaps and bounds!

 

[Iro]

Glad you think so

---

Here are the main issues I find are important. The actual questions will be hidden for obvious reasons, but give me feedback on these:

• Council of 5
• Activity
• Military
• Security
• Foreign Policy
• Justice

 

[Kingborough]

You must stick to (insert number) characters for every response. Use http://www.javascriptkit.com/script/script2/charcount.shtml if you're in doubt.

I can't see a problem with this, but I know people like Unibot love to write huge lectures.

Your response must stay along the parameters of the question. Anything that the Forum Commissioner (i.e. me, probably) finds trying to promote something else is unacceptable.

I can see this as fine, but the only problem would be an unjust forum commissioner (especially one who happens to be in certain organisations that a candidate is in).

You must answer either no questions or every question, giving a suitable answer for each. No avoiding topics that don't suit you.

See below.

You must give a definitive answer for each question. Choose a side.

What? Politics is all about not choosing a side

After you have posted, no discussion in the thread is allowed until it is open for debate.

Huh?

 

[Iro]

After you have posted, no discussion in the thread is allowed until it is open for debate.

Huh?

Meaning you can't talk until everyone else does. No jibber-jabber about how "oh yeah, i agree with him now."

Your response must stay along the parameters of the question. Anything that the Forum Commissioner (i.e. me, probably) finds trying to promote something else is unacceptable.

I can see this as fine, but the only problem would be an unjust forum commissioner (especially one who happens to be in certain organisations that a candidate is in).

Sigh.

 

[punk d]

Basically, it's forcing candidates to say what they mean, without any of the extra crap coming along for the ride.

You know, if you can do this, you need to not be playing this game but getting paid a lot of money from someone.

Politics is 9 parts BS 1 part real....at most.

 

[Fitzgerald]

Or.. we could leave things as they are and come back to it when we are not in the middle of elections.

 

[Cormac]

Or.. we could leave things as they are and come back to it when we are not in the middle of elections.

This. If changes to our electoral process need to be made, I don't think they should be made in the heat of the election season. Let's get past this election and look back on it with cooler heads to see if these changes are needed or would be beneficial.