It does not.

I've just had a look at dearest apollo's debating thread in USA guys, and frankly I don't think it would survive in the long term. It basically went the way of a new and narrow forum - those who backed the idea initially were all over it for about a week, but the sheer amount of effort it required was too much.

Though I can't know for certain (because it didn't last long enough), I'd also be inclined to say that it would appeal to too few people even as activity grows. The initial phase was a free for all, which might be alright for the time being, but when and if this forum gets more members would be simply chaotic. Then two or more people get selected to debate it out, which requires dedication from them that is frankly too much to ask (it was a weekly thing). And then people voted, a winner was declared, and the whole thing started again the next week.

That's a LOT going on in not very much time. At least for the time being guys, I don't think it's a great idea. I might reconsider depending on feedback, but it would have to be a pretty convincing argument.

Sorry. I like to debate as much as the next man.

This message was edited by Praetorian_Lord on Aug 30 2008.

I don't think formal debates are necessarily the way to go. I think it is too exclusive, and for those unfamiliar with the structure and rules of a formal debate it would be totally over their heads. I think informal and open discussion and debate is what the forum needs to strive for rather than strictly regulated debate threads. I've always enjoyed the more open-ended pondorous nature of some of the threads in this forum.

Yeah, I think we need more of those sorts of topics. The problem is, of course, if they're too open-ended it falls into the realm of I.E. It still needs to be an opinionated, fact-based thing without delving too far into hypothetical situations, etc.

Cheers for that. Bit embarrassing tbh.

A suggestion: what are your thoughts on a possible 'Risk' or 'Diplomacy' game thread where members have control over a particular country's/faction's/side's army, air force and/or navy and go to war with each other?

Don't worry about the details for the minute, just scoping the intrigue it would generate.

quote Praetorian_Lord

A suggestion: what are your thoughts on a possible 'Risk' or 'Diplomacy' game thread where members have control over a particular country's/faction's/side's army, air force and/or navy and go to war with each other?

I shotgun Germany!

Sounds like an interesting idea. Would be nice to know exactly how such a game would run though.

I imagine it would be something that would evolve over time. The best way to come up with a set of rules is largely trial and error. So it would need the dedication of at least several members to be any good.

quote Ajnidehs

I shotgun Germany!

Not a chance.

quote Praetorian_Lord

quote Ajnidehs

I shotgun Germany!

Not a chance.

I shotgunned it. You cannot overrule a shotgun without breaking the unbreakable code of shotgun conduct.

On a serious note, I think what is needed is a basic idea as to how the game would work. Information pertaining to the kinds of things we would be looking at doing, as well as exactly what the game is trying to achieve would all be helpful in piquing people's interests.

Information is indeed the key. This game would have to be well regulated in order for it to work. I figure that we could employ a typical grid system for coordinates. Nation stats would also be a good thing.

Since it's based in fact, biology, etc. I see no problem with it being here. At this stage it can have its own thread too. I might revise that if we become absolutely swamped with news threads, but for the time being it doesn't fuss me at all.

Over your dead body huh? I'll have to see what's in my moderator tools for that.

For the moment at least, this is Rome's brainchild, btw.