[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