Check this out. It would be called the Battle of the Boards, or something stupid like that. Philosophy forums would compete with one another over a pot, say, one years cost of maintaining that forum, for example. Each of two forums would nominate a small team of philosophers. A subject would be set and the two teams would debate over it. The winning forum would collect the prize and sit around the family throne picking their teeth.
So far so good, but here’s the problem. Who would be the judge(s)? There would have to be a third party that was indifferent to either of the competing forums. Hmm. Maybe we could have like a roster where each forum got to be the judge at some point in the series. But then you’d have to worry about bribes and cheaters, conspiring forums, rigged debates, etc.
On second thought, forget about it. It would be pointless for me to play because I’m always right, and therefore ILP would always win. Maybe if Ben gave me a cut of the prize we could work something out.
On third thought, let’s go ahead and try it. I’m arguing for free anyway, so what would I lose doing charity debates?
What are some of the popular forums that come up on any given search?
I’ll send an invitation to their King via messenger. Meanwhile, who among you would be willing to represent your ILP in the Battle of the Boards?
Now you’ve got me wondering because no one knew I was kidding in the fat thread… Whatever, I’ve been told before I shouldn’t post while I’m drinking, but that would eliminate more than half of my posts.
I’d make a terrible debater on any philosophy forum.
Also, a skill-drill. You will be tested for speed and accuracy:
How do you synthesize a mentholated alkaloid?
Quickly now!
childsplay:
Well thank you. I try.
You should check out the member “Gamer” if you want pure unbridled wit. This guy will have you falling out of your chair with some of the things he says.
I don’t know how to pronounce my screen-name. Its French, so you’d have to cough your way through the ‘tro’ part of it, like you were going to hock-up-a-loogey.
I’ve never attempted to say it, frankly I’m tired of the name, but I have to keep it for posterity. You understand.
[Wrraarrk] A buzzard sounding…? Thirst - humour or vocab failure…?
I’d step forward too, but I’d need someone to hold my leash…
Judges - you’d have to get a guest judge from outside ilp to be completely impartial.
No - scratch that. After the furore had died down - spam the entire thread to complete strangers with the question “who’s right…?” typed on the bottom… first returned reply settles the winner.
ILP’s speciality lies in the fact that it’s more open minded than most others, but obviously this lawlessness has caused a bit of caos… so moderators read this to have a direction to follow:
Basically, you’ve got two ways:
Set up strict rules, which forbidens chitchat, but not undermining even the most crazy philosophical idea. This way, the craps talks are effectively allieviated, but at the possible expense of intellectual liveliness.
Promote total open mindness, ban anyone who talks so sturbonly as if they are the virtue renforcer of something like the god. This way, there is a utopian possiblility that everybody will become engeric and busy argueing with their fascinating ideas, but it requires refine intellectual consciousness from members who at the moment, aren’t even conscious about their intellect in the first place.
Seriously, this is got nothing to do with tasteless humor or endless baning, both of which only serve to bring the site down. This is all about showing the members a bright direction and make a strong lead - like a talented king runing the kingdom towards a dreaming prosperity.
ROFLMAO I had been just thinking of my grandmother* before reading this (no, shes not in our garden) so I was totally ambushed by the ending.
(*My grandmother used to have some pretty witty insights… the one I was thinking about just before reading this was: “people are funniest when they don’t intend to be funny”. I see this all the time on ILP.)
