LOST-Theories.com

i agree with the rules! and am excited about this! one question, why cant new members vote if they have joined during the debating period?

Yay! I cant wait to see this. Will be a few bugs at first, understandably, but if we keep the “all in fun” thing in mind this will be great! We, as the voters, will have to remember to vote on the specific points that are being raised by debators and not just the writing style and big words used. I know writing style is important but if we went on that alone then it would always be the same few winners at the top all of the time. Just my two cents. I am eager for you guys to get this thing started. I would love to hear what you think about Juliette, as it is a question I ask myself all of the time.

belle13,

members who join during the debating period can’t vote so as to avoid trollish behavior such as one competitor creating multiple accounts to comment his side of the argument up.

Lojazz,

I like this debate idea and the structure seems solid. However, maybe I missed something in the previous thread regarding this idea. I don’t think I’d do well under these circumstances:

1) Am I correct to assume that the two opposing views are posted and that’s that? No further discussion or opportunity to offer rebuttal, clarification, or counter points to issues raised by the competitor? Or is the debate allowed to continue in the comments section of each opposing viewpoint? If it is, then see #2

2) 1000 words? I have to edit most of my comments down to the 3000 character limit. There’s no way I could thoroughly and effectively debate “who’s in the coffin” or “what the numbers mean” or “why 3.2 million dollars” in less than 23,428 characters (roughly 8,154 words give or take). But allowing the debate to continue in the comments section immediately dismisses the initial 1000 word limit.

3) Say I’m current king based on my winning arguement of why the Smoke Monster is the result of a magetic disturbance at the Dharma Willy Wooly landfill. Then someone challenges me to debate on how Juliet is a hermaphrodite and Jack and Juliet traveled back in time to become Adam and Adam. But if both the challenger and myself believe Juliet to be a hermaphrodite, then any argument against said theory is likely to be poorly presented and the Monarch dethroned.

Can you clarify these points to me in comment or elsewhere? Thanks!

belle good question and its not meant to exclude anybody, but whats to stop one of the debators joining with lots of different ID’s and boosting their score.

New members will be perfecly welcome to join in the debate they will just have to wait until the following debate to be eligable to vote. Does that seem harsh?

belle, I’m assuming new members can’t vote due to the multiple multiple usernames option on this site.

I think the rules cover just about everything Lojozz..

Should there be negative votes at all? I would have thought you would just vote a positive vote to your preference.

why have + and - votes? why not just + votes, to avoid confusion?

Lojozz, just a suggestion but should perhaps a third post be opened for a votes tally after the comments on the debaters posts are finished?

Appolo thats the attitude thanks!

Billy your points: 1) Once posted there will be 3 days of discussion/debate/rebutal, over these 3 days people can vote if they wish or wait till the end.

2) 1000 is not set in stone and i’m quite happy to increase it.

3) A rule I mentioned in the previous post and forgot above (I will add as an edit) the monarch gets to decide which side of the debate they will take.

lol, yeah i get it now. no it doesnt sound harsh, it makes sense. :)

cant wait for this to start!!!

WTF & CB The only reason I say -ve votes is people may hate both arguments and want to express which they hate the most.

If they are not wanted I’m happy to lose them.

wtf thats a good idea.

Does this suit:

Debate Club - ‘Title’ - Results

If so I will add it to the conventions section.

I don’t like the - vote either, just go to the other side and vote +1. And are we to vote for who has best argued their side or who we agree with? I can see most people voting for whichever side they agree with. If it’s a debate, I would vote for the side that best argued their point whether I agree with them or not. And last for now, are there any rules on the challenge itself? Would a challenge be “Michael is in the coffin”? The (for) side would be fairly limited, whereas the (against) side has have the rest of the cast to pick from. Or would it be “Michael is in the coffin” (for) “Ben is in the coffin” (against)? Then the next challenger could argue Walt is in the coffin.

abstract I think you should vote on whoever convinces you the most, that should hopefully be the same as who debated the best, but I guess not necessarily.

As far as the challenge is concerned the Monarch will get to decide which side to argue, so it might be wise to word it carefully. I really hope we don’t get a coffin debate. This whole thing was inspired because I was fed up of reading coffin theories.

Another reason for including a -ve vote is in the challenge, If a challenge gets 10 + votes but 30 people don’t want it and can’t vote negatively we may end up with lots of debates we don’t want. But i guess we could include the -ve only on the challenge and not the arguments themselves.

I agree with losing the negative votes. Perhaps (abstractarzt’s point) the monarch and challenger could agree the wording of the challenge so both sides are happy?

I think when the debate is over by the debaters, there should be pref. 24 hours for all votes to be in, to allow for time-zone differences. If this seems too long to wait then perhaps 12 hours?

I like the idea of the results post. But I think there should be an independent person responsible for overseeing each debate and posting the results.

Let’s try it out, see how it goes, we can have a post-mortem after and adjust or abandon as necessary!

To your corners..!

Lojozz,

Firstly, sorry I called you Lojazz… Second, I suppose you’ve addressed each of my points well enough. As long as competitors are allowed to make rebuttals to their opponents points to debunk and/or reinforce, then I’m cool with it. 1000 words is a good way to start it off and will quickly turn into hundreds of thousands of words in the comments.

I see no point in negative votes. Only positive votes should be tallied and only votes in the comments sections with brief explanations should be considered. This eliminates drive by voting all together, regardless of whether it’s positive or negative.

Traditional voting would still be allowed, but it would continue to represent the popularity of the thread itself, not the believability of the theory contained within.

I would hope that whichever side of the theory was shown to be more substantial based on facts and logical conclusions would suggest that people change what they believe in and vote accordingly.

The only uncontrollable factor is premature voting. It would be impossible to keep people from voting on a debate which is incomplete and they will have to learn the hard way that their initial vote is final.

Thanx LoJozz for the idea! Finally something to get excited over! +1

this will be fun whoo

Lets do this! :D

One question - would I be voting on which theory I agree with? Or who presented it better? Or who has the strongest point?

If I am supposed to vote on which theory I agree with then it will be a bit one sided, depending on the topic. If I challenge AC and I choose the topic “The entire show is all Hurley’s dream” and take the opposing side, then I will pretty much automatically win. IF the voting is just by which theory we agree with. Everybody is going to vote against the person who has to defend that theory. Am I missing something here? I could be…

Oh my goodness, this is as complicated as Lost itself! I am glad I am just in the peanut gallery! Does anyone else ever wonder if any of the Lost cast/crew, etc., reads stuff like this? Besides DMon, of course (laughing hysterically). If they do, they must be pretty amused by our little world.

Sounds like you’ve got it worked out! Can’t wait!

Lojozz,

I get your point. Out with the seriousnes, in with the fun. Just didn’t want this debate thing to become exclusive. So long as everyone has a chance to chip-in and the oppurtunity to be a challenger, I’m game.

As my post didn’t spark the reaction I was expecting, suppose I’ll ‘fess- up’ and admitt to being JohnLockeLegend (not that I have to, I’m signed in as him!). I was just concerned that as I hadn’t been a member long, I wouldn’t be listened to (although I’ve been lurking for ages!) - you obviously have though, for which I’m grateful.

I suppose in a way, by making our discussions more ordered and formalised, it will cut-out the negative way in which dudes like RS are treated. Maybe I could police this through my newly aquired alter-ego ‘Anon’, saviour of the ‘tards and theory adverse lol! Only joking.

If I may, despite my out-burst, make a suggestion? 1000 words is not alot to set-out your initial argument.Would you consider increasing that a little? Then again, it will encourage people to enter true debate rather than it becoming a battle of thesises.

What ever happens, watch your back ‘cus once your crowned King, I’m gunning for you (in a very liberalist, don’t put people down kind of way)! Peace.

….Oh yeah, and I’m not completly innocent when it comes to weird theory bashing, RS is crazy , sometimes to the point of annoyance.

Apollobar personally I would be voting for the best presented case and I would also probably give an advantage to the person with the more difficult side of the argument.

I guess the anonymous debate is not going to happen, but I think what Billy G is saying should be considered. There should be a chance for the monarch to respond to any counter arguments made by the challenger. The challenger should also be able to respond after this. Perhaps voting should be held AFTER all of the debate has ended.

When Billy and I debated the orchid station and worm holes a short time ago, it would not have been fair to just end the voting after I posted my counter theory. We needed to go back and forth for clarity as well as to address specific points made by the other.

To see how this happend:

BillyG’s theory: http://www.lost-theories.com/theories/2008/apr/03/dr-manhattan-or-how-i-learned-/

My counter theory (see the comment section for the bulk of our debate): http://www.lost-theories.com/theories/2008/apr/05/rumor-mill-and-why-time-travel/

So is there going to be only one monarch fielding all challenges, or will there be multiple debates going on at any given time? I vote for the multiple debates.

Wait… what? JLL is also someone else? I wish I had a cheat sheet to keep track of everyone’s aliases.

My final thoughts…

I’m stating the obvious when I say the goal of any debate is to win the hearts and minds of non-believers. Ideally, in a quality debate, the competitor with the most factual evidence and logical conclusions will, by default, present the most plausible case and defend his/her position clearly. This plausbility, by definition, should not only give credence those who already believed it but also convince those who didn’t believe it to reconsider their opinion.

It would do the entire debate a disservice to vote based on one’s emotional investment in a character, theme or theory, regardless of how much emotion inspires the theory. There is already a system for that in place which is abused by trollish commentary and drive-by voting. One can only hope that voters will give their +1’s to the theory which was best presented, defended and ultimately believable, based on the evidence they provided.

In other words, I’ll vote for “Ben is an alien in the coffin and the world is a snowglobe filed with 3.2 million doallars in Hurley’s dream at the Sanitarium” if it’s presented and defended well.

I think having a single King of the Hill scenario, where one theorist claims the crown and must be dethroned by others, is better than having multiple debates going at the same time. It ensures the debate receives maximum attention and consideration before moving on to another theory. The ulterior motive to such a game is to increase the quality of theories and raise the bar for individual theoristsso that future theories and comments are the most insightful they can possibly be.

I look forward to the first debate.

I agree with losing the - votes. It keeps it simpler. Vote for whichever side you think should win based on the debate. Whatever criteria you use to vote can be your own.

Yes Billy_G, I morphed into ‘Anon’ for a while, but shhhhh….

Personally, I think there are several members on LT who could wipe AC’S butt for him in the ‘debate’ department. I would like to see some of them participate.

I would like to recommend a fellow countryman of AC’S by the name of “SolarChap” who might do the trick just nicely. If you are reading this Solar, I hope you take up the challenge.

Regardless of the outcome, I refuse to refer to AC as HRH. I will leave that up to his fiancee. LOL

Lojozz has said something that I think most everyone can agree on :

“I really hope we don’t get a coffin debate. This whole thing was inspired because I was fed up of reading coffin theories.”

Okay, I’ll admit that I also started a post recently that I was calling a Poll of “Who really is in that Coffin?” My reason was ,in part because of the endless amount of posts about that subject. My thinking was that a lot of the community could state an opinion or maybe just have a rant about that subject all in the same place.Didn’t seem to work though !

Anyway , I thought that whoever wanted to ,could all come together in a common thread to discuss it. I think what Lojozz is proposing is pretty much the same,it is just being called a debate instead of a poll. I love this site,and I believe that the majority of us on here have one very big thing in common. We all have taken Lost into our hearts and minds.

When it comes down to it something such as “Is Juliet on the level or not.”It seems to be something that could be discussed in one forum,instead of possibly several different ones. This idea of having a debate to me,just seems to me a very simple way of having one discussion going ,instead of several about a single subject.

I am not really good at expressing my thoughts on this,but I tried ! Let the Debate begin ! :)

I like the idea of debate. But …

In the proposed first debate, “Is Juliet on the level or not”, I have to ask, on the level from who’s perspective? There are 4 groups on the island now, the others at the temple, the others/losties waiting to fight, the losties waiting to be rescued, and the freighties. So it stands to reason that Juliet is on the level, but to who is more of the question.

I know when a person gets thinking along a certain line, everything makes total sense (in that person’s head). But to most anyone else, there may be an endless number of interpretations. In this first debate for example, the for side could possibly interpret to argue that yes, in fact, Juliet is on the level (to ben) while the against side could argue that no, Juliet is not on the level (to the losties waiting to be rescued). This would end up with both sides argueing the same point.

Now on to the rules…

First I think there will be lots of challenges out there so the +10 or else rule is going to be negated. If 5 of us post a challenge and 3 of them get a +10 and there can only be one debate at a time, does that mean the other 2 of us automatically become monarch? Of course not. The monarch selects which challenge to debate and the other two can rechallenge later, no blood, no foul. And that’s not to mention that the monarch could select a non +10 challenge to debate, thus putting the three stronger ones on the back burner. In typing this, I propose that once a previous debate is finished, a deadline for challenges is set, then a deadline for voting, and those challenges are voted on, and the highest vote wins (by the comment voting like everything else) that’s the next challenge, take it or leave it, in the event of a tie, the monarch can choose. The rest can be re-challenged next time. This is kinda flowing as I type so I hope it makes sense.

Second, I think the challenger should be the one to choose sides. If the monarch is such a great debater, then they should be capable of winning on either side.

OK seems the last remaining points to iron out are:

1. The time the debate will last, I still think 3 days after the arguments are posted feels about right.

2. Word count, its seems people would like this larger so what about 1500 words?

3. -ve voting will not be counted in the arguments but I will keep it for the challenges.

4. How we should vote. This is a difficult one because you can not dictate how a person makes up their mind and something that sways one person may equally put off another. So how to vote I leave to individual conscience.

5. Rebuttals and counter arguments. Once an argument is posted there will be 3 days to argue on each thread to hearts content. It can go back and forth as much as possible and as I’ve said I’m happy for anybody to join in.

I hope this address’s all concerns, if not let me know. I will contact AC today and we will set a deadline for the first arguments.

abstract that all sounds good if we get a lot of challenges at once. We’ll have to see and perhaps adopt that if required. I still think the monarch should chose which side to argue given they could be debating anything. But again if this proves to be too easy and one person is walking it then we can tweak.

Phew I think I’m ready to go!!

I think 1000 words is enough. People should feel confident when clicking on a Debate Club post they are going to get something concise and fine-tuned. Not something sprawling.

Given that I am guilty of writing long-winded posts and taking my time to make my points this may be a counter-productive measure, but I still feel it’s the right one. As has been stated, the comments allow for extended debate.

(I also think it’s fair enough for the challenger to decide which side of the argument they want. If that makes it tough for the monarch, then tough. The last thing we want is for anyone to be a reigning monarch for ages. That’ll just get on everyone’s nerves.)

I suppose given the fact that the monarch can decide not to take a challenge and if s/he if forced then it will be a subject deemed worthy of debate then there is no harm in the challenger getting to decide which side to argue.

All sounds good to me. But just a thought. How about the challenger throwing the glove down by saying (say):

“Hey, Monarch, I believe that 1) Juliet is on the level; 2) Jack is in the coffin; 3) Locke is Jacob; and 4) Rose and Bernard are Adam and Eve. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it !!!”

The reigning Monarch could then choes one that he disagrees with. +1

Sounds good and I’m sure the unavoidable bugs that pop up when you start something new can be worked out in-situ.

A few quick questions/comments…

Just to be clear…Who goes first? Random choice…member with the most postings…member with the most positive votes on all past postings combined? Members with webbed toes or dandruff? Or does one member just call out another with the first debate deciding who is the “Monarch”

The opponents can rebut each other and answer questions in the comments but do they do they do so only in their own posting’s comments section or do they post comments/rebuttals in their opponent’s comment section as well?

I absolutly agree with Billygoat that the 1000 word limit is way too low. I would suggest at least 2000 words…I know it sounds like a lot but it really isn’t. The details count and we don’t want to wind up with just glossy, unclear “outlines” of an argument. When I worte an article about tachyons, Desmond’s time shifting and the purple sky it was over 3000 words long and I still had to clarify the theory several times in the comments section. (okay, so I’m long-winded too…as you can tell from this comment :)

I would suggest putting up a separate posting immeadiately after the debate posting go up with a title like “Voting for Debate–debate subject name” and when the post is viewed, the time that the voting begins and ends is written plus voting instructions. Votes would be easier to count if people only voted with the name of the author of the side they support or their chosen debator’s name and a +1

You are going to also need basic kind of a “moderator”, if only to keep time, assess possible penalty points for a late posting by a debator and to announce the winner.

But the oveall format looks pretty good to me

Lojazz, if you are reading I challenge you to a 10vote theory-post-off. please respond on any recent theory if you accept… if not, pass the crown please. (ahem, sorry I forgot the rules already, but do I get to name the issue we will be posting on? If so I choose the topic if there is a volcano or not, may sount stupid but we’ll see)