[Lnc-business] Fwd: COC NOLA Debate
Daniel Hayes
daniel.hayes at lp.org
Sat Jun 2 17:44:16 EDT 2018
Forwarding for Mr. Moellman.
Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large Member
LNC COC Chairman
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lp.org>
> Date: June 2, 2018 at 4:28:27 PM CDT
> To: chair at lp.org, vicechair at lp.org, treasurer at lp.org, secretary at lp.org, william.redpath at lp.org, sam.goldstein at lp.org, starchild at lp.org, daniel.hayes at lp.org, joshua.katz at lp.org, caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org, craig.bowden at lp.org, ed.marsh at lp.org, steven.nekhaila at lp.org, elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org, dustin.nanna at lp.org, jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org, aaron.starr at lp.org, james.lark at lp.org, steve.scheetz at lp.org, david.demarest at lp.org, sean.otoole at lp.org, whitney.bilyeu at lp.org, erin.adams at lp.org, justin.odonnell at lp.org, Alex Merced <alex.merced at lp.org>
> Subject: COC NOLA Debate
>
> Hello everyone.
>
> I have been made aware that there is a motion from the LNC to demand the COC organize a debate with different criteria than what has been selected by the COC. And there are motions to propose alternatives. I would ask you to please consider the following, in regard to the debate. It's long and it's math, so I apologize in advance.
>
> As the person who has been tasked with organizing the debate, it was extremely difficult for me to support doing tokens at all. I struggled with this for weeks. I love debate. I'm a high school debate coach. I want people to have their visions and plans to be heard and understood.
>
> In 2016, I ran 7 hours - yes, SEVEN HOURS - of unofficial debates for the presidential nomination process, with a personal loss of $300 on the event. We ran three rounds for president and a round for VP. Every person got a shot. There were only about 20 people in attendance, besides candidates for the bottom-tier event, with increasing attendance through the day.
>
> But this year, we only have 1 hour to do each debate. This is the "short" convention year, so there's a day missing. If there was another whole day, where we could run official or unofficial debates, I'd be all over it. I'd gladly run hours of debate again.
>
> One thing is for sure - you can't put 15 candidates on stage at the same time. That lesson was learned at the unofficial debates in 2008. In that scenario, everyone gets a 2-minute open, answer 1 one-minute question, and a one-minute close. And poof, over an hour is gone. That's not fair to the candidates or the audience. That's why we did tiers in 2016. (Also, there are only 5 podiums.)
>
> The Chair debate is scheduled to start right after Regional Caucuses, and already conflicts with LPTX karaoke. The Vice-Chair debate is scheduled to start right after the Chair debate, and conflicts with LPTX karaoke, an Adam Kokesh event, and the Outright Masquerade Ball.
>
> On top of the issue of a lack of time, another logistical problem is that there's been no polling, so doing a tiered debate would present further challenges. Unlike in 2016, where there were a couple of groups doing some sort of polling that helped create the seeding, I have no objective data to even work from to determine tiering. While I could try to do polling myself, I am already stretched for time.
>
> In trying to strike some sort of balance, and after much discussion, the inclusion rules were determined by the committee: Minimum 10% of tokens to participate, with a maximum of the top-5 candidates. Top candidates get preferred speaking order as a bonus for collecting more tokens.
>
> Prior to that decision, we discussed multiple options on how to handle all of the variables in this situation. I had originally used math; 1050 divided by six, plus 1 = 176 tokens as a minimum, ensuring there were only up-to 5 people on stage. I think the criteria we chose are more generous to "minority" candidates, and I like that.
>
>
> Here's the math behind the criteria (Algebra ahead. You were warned.):
>
> C = # of candidates
> q = # of questions
>
> Statement from moderator (2 minutes)
> Rebuttal cards: 2 x C x 0.5 min
> Opening statements: 2 min x C
> Questions from panel, selected from delegates: 2.25 min x q x C
> Question from candidate to another candidate: 2.25 min x C
> Closing statements: 2 min x C
> Closing statement from moderator (1 minute)
>
> So the math formula is: 2 + C + 2C + 2.25qC + 2.25C + 2C + 1
>
> With 5 candidates, that's 2 + 5 + 2*5 + 5*2.25q + 2.25*5 + 2*5 + 1 = 39.25 + 11.25q
> 11.25q = 60 - 39.25
> q=1.844
> So that's enough time for 1 (or maybe 2, with rebuttal cards removed) questions from the delegates.
>
> With 4 candidates, that's 2 + 4 + 2*4 + 4*2.25q + 2.25*4 + 2*4 + 1 = 32 + 9q
> 9q = 60 - 32
> q=3.111
> So that's enough time for 3 questions from the delegates.
>
> With 3 candidates, that's 2 + 3 + 2*3 + 3*2.25q + 2.25*3 + 2*3 + 1 = 24.75 + 6.75q
> 6.75q = 60 - 24.75
> q = 5.222
> So that's enough time for 5 questions from the delegates.
>
> With 2 candidates, that's 2 + 2 + 2*2 + 2*2.25q + 2.25*2 + 2*2 + 1 = 17.5 + 5q
> 5q = 60 - 17.5
> q = 8.5
> So that's enough time for 8 questions from the delegates.
>
>
>
> Former chair Geoff Neale chimed in with relevant thoughts to the notes posted by Mr. Vohra on Facebook delegate groups, prior to any response being given from me:
>
> "... any "system" can be gamed, and probably will be. If any announced candidate can participate in a debate, and that debate will be one hour, then a great strategy is to get a lot of people to announce, and thus diminish the time for each candidate. You could even have people announcing just to get their five minutes of face time, to do such things as strip or play a song they wrote. Imagine how meaningful a debate between twenty people would be. Three minutes each? That time would all be taken up with opening and closing remarks, leaving no debate.
>
> Of course, with tokens, good candidates will try to get as many as possible to shut out competition, and many people (like myself) will give their tokens to "dark horses".
>
> I'd like to hear an actual viable alternative.
>
> However, comparing this system to the CPD is flawed. The CPD uses polls of their choosing that are frequently exclusionary in themselves. The current token is "polling" of those who've actually shown up to vote."
>
>
> And the last line, IMO, is the most important. This debate isn't being held for the benefit of candidates, it's for the delegates.
>
>
> Now, I'm open to other ideas. I would have preferred that alternative ideas be discussed with the committee, rather than be run through the LNC to trump the COC. I hope that this message provides the background on why things came to be.
>
> I am happy to entertain alternative solutions. But if you want more debate, then I must ask: where is the time to accomplish that? Find more time. I'll gladly run more rounds of debate.
>
>
> ken
>
>
> --
> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
-------------- next part --------------
Forwarding for Mr. Moellman.
Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large Member
LNC COC Chairman
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ken Moellman <[1]ken.moellman at lp.org>
Date: June 2, 2018 at 4:28:27 PM CDT
To: [2]chair at lp.org, [3]vicechair at lp.org, [4]treasurer at lp.org,
[5]secretary at lp.org, [6]william.redpath at lp.org,
[7]sam.goldstein at lp.org, [8]starchild at lp.org, [9]daniel.hayes at lp.org,
[10]joshua.katz at lp.org, [11]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org,
[12]craig.bowden at lp.org, [13]ed.marsh at lp.org,
[14]steven.nekhaila at lp.org, [15]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org,
[16]dustin.nanna at lp.org, [17]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org,
[18]aaron.starr at lp.org, [19]james.lark at lp.org,
[20]steve.scheetz at lp.org, [21]david.demarest at lp.org,
[22]sean.otoole at lp.org, [23]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org,
[24]erin.adams at lp.org, [25]justin.odonnell at lp.org, Alex Merced
<[26]alex.merced at lp.org>
Subject: COC NOLA Debate
Hello everyone.
I have been made aware that there is a motion from the LNC to demand
the COC organize a debate with different criteria than what has been
selected by the COC. And there are motions to propose alternatives. I
would ask you to please consider the following, in regard to the
debate. It's long and it's math, so I apologize in advance.
As the person who has been tasked with organizing the debate, it was
extremely difficult for me to support doing tokens at all. I struggled
with this for weeks. I love debate. I'm a high school debate coach. I
want people to have their visions and plans to be heard and understood.
In 2016, I ran 7 hours - yes, SEVEN HOURS - of unofficial debates for
the presidential nomination process, with a personal loss of $300 on
the event. We ran three rounds for president and a round for VP. Every
person got a shot. There were only about 20 people in attendance,
besides candidates for the bottom-tier event, with increasing
attendance through the day.
But this year, we only have 1 hour to do each debate. This is the
"short" convention year, so there's a day missing. If there was another
whole day, where we could run official or unofficial debates, I'd be
all over it. I'd gladly run hours of debate again.
One thing is for sure - you can't put 15 candidates on stage at the
same time. That lesson was learned at the unofficial debates in 2008.
In that scenario, everyone gets a 2-minute open, answer 1 one-minute
question, and a one-minute close. And poof, over an hour is gone.
That's not fair to the candidates or the audience. That's why we did
tiers in 2016. (Also, there are only 5 podiums.)
The Chair debate is scheduled to start right after Regional Caucuses,
and already conflicts with LPTX karaoke. The Vice-Chair debate is
scheduled to start right after the Chair debate, and conflicts with
LPTX karaoke, an Adam Kokesh event, and the Outright Masquerade Ball.
On top of the issue of a lack of time, another logistical problem is
that there's been no polling, so doing a tiered debate would present
further challenges. Unlike in 2016, where there were a couple of
groups doing some sort of polling that helped create the seeding, I
have no objective data to even work from to determine tiering. While I
could try to do polling myself, I am already stretched for time.
In trying to strike some sort of balance, and after much discussion,
the inclusion rules were determined by the committee: Minimum 10% of
tokens to participate, with a maximum of the top-5 candidates. Top
candidates get preferred speaking order as a bonus for collecting more
tokens.
Prior to that decision, we discussed multiple options on how to handle
all of the variables in this situation. I had originally used math;
1050 divided by six, plus 1 = 176 tokens as a minimum, ensuring there
were only up-to 5 people on stage. I think the criteria we chose are
more generous to "minority" candidates, and I like that.
Here's the math behind the criteria (Algebra ahead. You were warned.):
C = # of candidates
q = # of questions
Statement from moderator (2 minutes)
Rebuttal cards: 2 x C x 0.5 min
Opening statements: 2 min x C
Questions from panel, selected from delegates: 2.25 min x q x C
Question from candidate to another candidate: 2.25 min x C
Closing statements: 2 min x C
Closing statement from moderator (1 minute)
So the math formula is: 2 + C + 2C + 2.25qC + 2.25C + 2C + 1
With 5 candidates, that's 2 + 5 + 2*5 + 5*2.25q + 2.25*5 + 2*5 + 1 =
39.25 + 11.25q
11.25q = 60 - 39.25
q=1.844
So that's enough time for 1 (or maybe 2, with rebuttal cards removed)
questions from the delegates.
With 4 candidates, that's 2 + 4 + 2*4 + 4*2.25q + 2.25*4 + 2*4 + 1 = 32
+ 9q
9q = 60 - 32
q=3.111
So that's enough time for 3 questions from the delegates.
With 3 candidates, that's 2 + 3 + 2*3 + 3*2.25q + 2.25*3 + 2*3 + 1 =
24.75 + 6.75q
6.75q = 60 - 24.75
q = 5.222
So that's enough time for 5 questions from the delegates.
With 2 candidates, that's 2 + 2 + 2*2 + 2*2.25q + 2.25*2 + 2*2 + 1 =
17.5 + 5q
5q = 60 - 17.5
q = 8.5
So that's enough time for 8 questions from the delegates.
Former chair Geoff Neale chimed in with relevant thoughts to the notes
posted by Mr. Vohra on Facebook delegate groups, prior to any response
being given from me:
"... any "system" can be gamed, and probably will be. If any announced
candidate can participate in a debate, and that debate will be one
hour, then a great strategy is to get a lot of people to announce, and
thus diminish the time for each candidate. You could even have people
announcing just to get their five minutes of face time, to do such
things as strip or play a song they wrote. Imagine how meaningful a
debate between twenty people would be. Three minutes each? That time
would all be taken up with opening and closing remarks, leaving no
debate.
Of course, with tokens, good candidates will try to get as many as
possible to shut out competition, and many people (like myself) will
give their tokens to "dark horses".
I'd like to hear an actual viable alternative.
However, comparing this system to the CPD is flawed. The CPD uses polls
of their choosing that are frequently exclusionary in themselves. The
current token is "polling" of those who've actually shown up to vote."
And the last line, IMO, is the most important. This debate isn't being
held for the benefit of candidates, it's for the delegates.
Now, I'm open to other ideas. I would have preferred that alternative
ideas be discussed with the committee, rather than be run through the
LNC to trump the COC. I hope that this message provides the background
on why things came to be.
I am happy to entertain alternative solutions. But if you want more
debate, then I must ask: where is the time to accomplish that? Find
more time. I'll gladly run more rounds of debate.
ken
--
Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
References
1. mailto:ken.moellman at lp.org
2. mailto:chair at lp.org
3. mailto:vicechair at lp.org
4. mailto:treasurer at lp.org
5. mailto:secretary at lp.org
6. mailto:william.redpath at lp.org
7. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
8. mailto:starchild at lp.org
9. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
10. mailto:joshua.katz at lp.org
11. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
12. mailto:craig.bowden at lp.org
13. mailto:ed.marsh at lp.org
14. mailto:steven.nekhaila at lp.org
15. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
16. mailto:dustin.nanna at lp.org
17. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
18. mailto:aaron.starr at lp.org
19. mailto:james.lark at lp.org
20. mailto:steve.scheetz at lp.org
21. mailto:david.demarest at lp.org
22. mailto:sean.otoole at lp.org
23. mailto:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
24. mailto:erin.adams at lp.org
25. mailto:justin.odonnell at lp.org
26. mailto:alex.merced at lp.org
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list