2011 Debaters League Discussion - NEW FORMAT NEEDS YOUR FEEDBACK!

[D-Man]

Ok, guys. It's that time of year again.

I know a lot of you have asked about the league coming back again this year and I'd like to address all that are interested in here. In the past, the DL has begun as a fantastic idea and contained some of the best posting on Wrestlezone. However, by the end, it has become a complete clusterfuck that has shown the irresponsibility and lack of dedication from many of the posters involved. It's a shame because the dedicated ones wind up getting robbed of their fun in the process. Therefore, things need to change.

Last year, regardless of all the controversy, quitters, and lack of dedication, DirtyJose showed his dexterity and rose to become champion. His work was masterful and he deserves to defend his title. Which brings me to my idea on how to improve this year...

Instead of ALL competitors having weekly debates and standings being kept by a points system, I feel that the champion need only to defend his crown. Here's how I feel it should work:

- A list needs to be created of all interested competitors. These competitors will be thrown into a hat and their order of debating will be chosen at random, prior to the beginning of the league. Therefore, everyone will know exactly when they need to debate.

- DirtyJose will begin and will be pitted against a challenger. A debate will be created in which the competitors will have an allotted time period to discuss the topic.

- Two men will enter, one man will leave. In other words, this is single elimination; if a challenger loses a debate, they are eliminated from the league.

- Each debater that becomes a champion automatically earns themselves a second chance. If they are defeated in a regular-season debate, they have an opportunity for redemption after the regular season ends in the Tournament of Champions.

- In the Tournament of Champions, all defeated champions will be seeded, tournament-style. The number 1 seed will be the current champion at that time, followed by past champions from highest amount of wins to lowest. (For example, if DirtyJose wins four debates in a row and is defeated in the regular season, he has the opportunity to enter the tournament of champions. Unless someone else racks up more than four wins as champion, DirtyJose will have the #2 seed in the brackets.)

- The Tournament of Champions will be single-elimination and a winner will be decided in the final bracket: The Debaters League Grand Championship.

If this works the way it should, the only posters that can win will be the deserved and dedicated ones. And this should be more efficient when it comes to time. Most of you will have less debates and the good debaters will rise above all others quickly with the least amount of time wasted. No more teams... no more point system (besides judging)... no more 3-4 months of debating before determining a winner. If my calculations are correct, the only debaters who will have an excessive amount of debating will be the ones that continue to win and the league shouldn't last longer than 2-3 months MAXIMUM, depending on how it all turns out.

Now, this idea is a new brainchild of mine. On paper, it seems simple. But I'm sure it has flaws and that's where all of you come in. Please take a moment to read through these rules and feel free to ask me questions or make suggestions on how to improve this method.

 

[¡Roján!]

Interesting. I can't really think of much that can go wrong. Also, throw me in the hat, I'd like a shot to show what I can do.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

I think the format you have drawn up will work well as it will force newbies to bring their A-game right away and I think overall will make for more spirited debates and weed out the posters who really don't want to put in the time for the DL. Also I felt last years got a little cumbersome at times and this helps keep things fresh.

Also put me in, I was following it closely last year and would definitely like to join.

 

[Gelgarin]

Seems ludicrously overcomplicated and liable to remove the vast majority of players (competent or not) in the first round - thus depriving most people of the chance to actually do very much. Also seems like it would involve a colossal quantity of 'sitting around waiting for your turn' for all involved, which isn't my idea of a good time.

I thought that the duel league structure worked really well when TM did it. It was simple, understandable and everyone got the opportunity to debate multiple times on multiple subjects, which did a much better job of highlighting the best posters.

 

[Miko]

Run it on the Countdown system eh, it could work I guess, especially if Rachel Riley is guest judging.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

I understand what Gelgarin is saying but my issue with the old format is some people thought it looked good on paper, signed up and after a debate or 2 decided they didn't want to do it anymore so this is a much better way to go.

The only real issue I can see with it is when you do the tournament because if you have a low number of champions then you don't really have much of a tournament to decide who's the best.

 

[D-Man]

Interesting. I can't really think of much that can go wrong. Also, throw me in the hat, I'd like a shot to show what I can do.

I tried to keep it simple with the weight being on the champion to follow through. And I tried to slim down the time of the whole league, since it always takes forever.

 

[D-Man]

Seems ludicrously overcomplicated and liable to remove the vast majority of players (competent or not) in the first round - thus depriving most people of the chance to actually do very much. Also seems like it would involve a colossal quantity of 'sitting around waiting for your turn' for all involved, which isn't my idea of a good time.

I thought that the duel league structure worked really well when TM did it. It was simple, understandable and everyone got the opportunity to debate multiple times on multiple subjects, which did a much better job of highlighting the best posters.

I understand what Gelgarin is saying but my issue with the old format is some people thought it looked good on paper, signed up and after a debate or 2 decided they didn't want to do it anymore so this is a much better way to go.

The only real issue I can see with it is when you do the tournament because if you have a low number of champions then you don't really have much of a tournament to decide who's the best.

deanandterry caught my point here, Gelgarin.

This new method is actually quite simple. Everyone involved will get at least one chance to prove themselves. After all, a good debater should be able to argue any topic thrown at them. Therefore, they'll get their chance to shine and if they don't, they're goners. Prior to the season beginning, everyone will have their schedule as to when their debate will happen. (So, they'll have PLENTY of notice before they start tossing out excuses as to why they can't debate that day.) The winners move on, losers are eliminated, and the best debaters have their showdowns in the Tournament of Champions.

 

[The Crock]

I like it.

Also -- I want to be in it. DirtyJose, I'm comin' for you, ninjah.

 

[D-Man]

The same way as it is every year, there will be a subforum created for the league. As for a list of competitors, I will create a separate thread for it once I completely approve of this new format. The signup list will be there.

 

[FunKay the Inevitable]

I could've sworn Nick was the winner last year.

 

[Miko]

Same

 

[D-Man]

Hmmm... you guys might be right.

If that's the case, I'll change it accordingly.

Quite honestly, last year's tournament is something I'd rather NOT remember...

 

[Miko]

You silly goose

 

[D-Man]

Eh, that's not important right now.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

To add onto what I was saying about the tournament it could get messy too unless you luck out on numbers. Lets say you have 9 or 13 champions, it gets a little challenging to make a tournament like that, not saying it can't be done it just gets messy. If I would make 1 suggestion its that, do a fixed number for the tournament, do like the top 8 champions (and if its less do 6 or 4, just to make life easier on yourself) and go from there.

Another one is if someone takes control early and just goes on a mad streak, but at the end of the day that isn't a huge deal, it just makes them defend their title more and at the end of the day makes it easier to figure out who the champ is.

 

[FunKay the Inevitable]

So will you and a group of others judge the contest's or..?

 

[Gelgarin]

Unless I'm misunderstanding things, everyone gets exactly one chance to prove themselves, and anyone who debates are at anything less than elite level has no prospect of advancing.

Your method eliminates the vast majority of posters after their first debate, which will invariably be with one of the forum's top heavyweights. Unless one of them decides not to show up, the winner stays on format will ensure that very top tier of posters has a reliable chance of advancing, and even then it's not guaranteed. The vast majority of the big encounters will happen in the first round, thus providing no real indication that the people in the tournament brackets are any better than all the people who got an unlucky draw.

There's also the danger of a top poster taking control of the game right at the beginning, and then being forced to debate twenty consecutive times. The more you win the more you debate sounds good on paper, but this structure is liable to make things venture the far side of silly.

I can only speak based on the time I entered the blasted thing, but when I played the issue with dropouts was kept to a minimum. Anyone who did quit was immediately replaced. None of my debates were called off, and the reason it generated so many of the best posts from so many people is that everybody was given the change to really involve themselves. When it was a league you always knew that even if your posts weren't up there with Gelgarin vs IC25, you'd get plenty of opportunities to debate people your own level... which was fun. I just don't see much fun for a lot of people when all they'll be doing is waiting around several weeks in order to have one debate that statistically speaking they will probably loose. That's not an epic experience.

If being incredibly unforgiving and getting things over as quickly as possible are top priorities then I pose the question, why not just have a straight up tournament bracket? It's simpler, fairer, you get all of the same advantages, people have a much better change at achieving a certain level of progression, matches can be run in tandem streamlining the process and there is no risk of one person ending up participating in 97% of the debates run.

 

[Miko]

Shall I just put my hand up and offer to judge from the beginning this time.


EDIT- Gotta say though, I lean toward Gelgarin with this one -EDIT

 

[D-Man]

To add onto what I was saying about the tournament it could get messy too unless you luck out on numbers. Lets say you have 9 or 13 champions, it gets a little challenging to make a tournament like that, not saying it can't be done it just gets messy. If I would make 1 suggestion its that, do a fixed number for the tournament, do like the top 8 champions (and if its less do 6 or 4, just to make life easier on yourself) and go from there.

Another one is if someone takes control early and just goes on a mad streak, but at the end of the day that isn't a huge deal, it just makes them defend their title more and at the end of the day makes it easier to figure out who the champ is.

I've taken this into consideration already but I just can't see THAT many winners. However, if there are, we'll take action from there.

So will you and a group of others judge the contest's or..?

We take volunteers for judges. I'll probably be involved in some capacity.

Unless I'm misunderstanding things, everyone gets exactly one chance to prove themselves, and anyone who debates are at anything less than elite level has no prospect of advancing.

And if they aren't at that level, they don't deserve to advance.

Your method eliminates the vast majority of posters after their first debate, which will invariably be with one of the forum's top heavyweights. Unless one of them decides not to show up, the winner stays on format will ensure that very top tier of posters has a reliable chance of advancing, and even then it's not guaranteed. The vast majority of the big encounters will happen in the first round, thus providing no real indication that the people in the tournament brackets are any better than all the people who got an unlucky draw.

I see what you're saying but it's not necessarily true. Everyone gets a fair shot to debate against a champion. Although, on paper, the champion seems to be the "better" debater, it gives a challenger the opportunity to step up. This eliminates the competitors who absolutely suck, waste our time every year, and wind up quitting in the middle of the season, anyway.

There's also the danger of a top poster taking control of the game right at the beginning, and then being forced to debate twenty consecutive times. The more you win the more you debate sounds good on paper, but this structure is liable to make things venture the far side of silly.

This league takes dedication. It always has. The difference between the old method and my new one is that the dedicated ones are rewarded and the rewarded ones are dedicated. It leaves little to no reason for anyone to drop out of the league as well as an easy fix if anyone does. For once, I'm being a bit selfish with this one because the majority of the work falls on me, anyway.

I can only speak based on the time I entered the blasted thing, but when I played the issue with dropouts was kept to a minimum. Anyone who did quit was immediately replaced. None of my debates were called off, and the reason it generated so many of the best posts from so many people is that everybody was given the change to really involve themselves. When it was a league you always knew that even if your posts weren't up there with Gelgarin vs IC25, you'd get plenty of opportunities to debate people your own level... which was fun. I just don't see much fun for a lot of people when all they'll be doing is waiting around several weeks in order to have one debate that statistically speaking they will probably loose. That's not an epic experience.

This is very good feedback and something I gave a lot of though towards. I weighed an even amount of "fun" for everyone against the killer instinct of debaters that want to win. I felt that sheer determination from competitors would make for better debates with the ultimate prize of winning the tournament.

When you utilize the old method, the debates drag on for weeks and weeks, simultaneously causing pain onto competitors, judges, and debaters alike. I know it robs average posters of a bit of fun but I feel that winning is more important than floating through, week-in and week-out, dragging along in last place or the middle of the pack with the potential of quitting at any time (which many will. Last year being a shining example.)

If being incredibly unforgiving and getting things over as quickly as possible are top priorities then I pose the question, why not just have a straight up tournament bracket? It's simpler, fairer, you get all of the same advantages, people have a much better change at achieving a certain level of progression, matches can be run in tandem streamlining the process and there is no risk of one person ending up participating in 97% of the debates run.

Because last year's champion deserves to defend their crown. They've proven their dedication and have already voiced their motivation to do it again. I feel that EVERYONE has a fighting chance and, instead of wasting months and months, can have a championship match every single week. It's more exciting than the old way of doing things, by far.

Thank you for that feedback!

 

[Gelgarin]

That's the kind of thinking that brought us the 24/7 hardcore championship.

 

[D-Man]

That's the kind of thinking that brought us the 24/7 hardcore championship.

I hear you. But once again, if you were with me when I ran it for the past two years, you'd see this is best for everyone.

 

[Gelgarin]

Well given that it has been scientifically proven that I'm not you, that's an argument that I logically cannot disprove.

It's not best for everyone though, it's best for a tiny minority of posters.

 

[The Crock]

When it was a league you always knew that even if your posts weren't up there with Gelgarin vs IC25, you'd get plenty of opportunities to debate people your own level...

 

[Gelgarin]

Go read Irish and I debating Rogers vs Rocca and tell me that I'm bluffing.