After some thought, I've decided that maybe a debate between a "Polly" and a "doomer" might be a good idea. However, in order for it to be of any value, we'll have to set up some ground rules so that it doesn't degenerate into the name-calling and back biting that I, for one, am sick of.

Following is my suggestion for a format that would make the debate useful. I welcome feedback from anyone who is sincerely interested in getting a genuine debate started. Assuming that we can come to some agreement on rules, I'll be happy to represent the "doomer" side, facing any representative that the "Polly" side wants to put up.

Here are my suggested rules.

1. This will be a moderated debate. The "doomer" side will pick one moderator, the "Polly" side will pick one moderator, and those two moderators will jointly select the third moderator.
2. All messages from either side of the debate will be screened by the moderators. No personal references of any sort will be tolerated. That is, the discussion will be limited to statements about the seriousness of the Y2K situation, supporting data and/or arguments for those statements, and refutations of the supporting data and/or arguments. If either party to the debate refers to the personal characteristics of a person or persons on either side of the debate, the message making such references will be deleted by the moderators and the offending party will be warned. Three such infractions by one party will result in termination of the debate and awarding of "victory" to the other side. Any two moderators can jointly make the decision to declare a message unacceptable.
3. No messages will be posted to the debate thread by anyone other than the two representatives or the moderators. Any such messages will be deleted by the moderators.
4. The debate will begin with the representative of one side posting a message with the following format:
   1. A statement of the likely seriousness of the Y2K situation, including a range from "best likely case" to "worst likely case", as well as an estimate of the "most likely case".
   2. A list of no more than 10 supporting statements and arguments, each in a separate paragraph and numbered consecutively. Links to supporting data are encouraged, but not required. Regardless of the presence or absence of links, however, the actual data being relied upon must be stated in the body of the message.
   Once this message has been posted, the representative of the other side in the debate posts a reply that addresses each and every one of the individual supporting statements and arguments in the first post, referencing the specific item numbers from the first post. If he or she has no answer to a specific point in the first post, then that must be noted in the reply.
5. The representative of the first side of the debate posts a reply to the message from the representative of the second side, again referencing each point by number and noting any points to which he or she has no answer.
6. This process continues until either side has no responses to the points made by the other side.
7. Now the roles are reversed: the representative of the second side posts an initial message in the format given above, and the representative of the first side responds.
8. Once each side has had its turn, if the first side has further arguments or supporting statements, the process will begin again, and similarly for the second side. When neither side has anything further to contribute, the debate will be over. A new thread will be started for discussion of the results.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), August 06, 1999

Answers

Steve...I would really like your input on my thread below. The responses I got so far have not helped much ( to say the least!). Thanks.

-- steve (steve@NWMo.com), August 06, 1999.

Please do NOT post unrelated messages on this thread. My email address is valid, so email me if you have questions or comments about other matters.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), August 06, 1999.

Under the "About" section of this forum:

This forum is intended for people who are concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem on their personal lives, and who want to discuss various fallback contingency plans with other like-minded people. It's not intended to provide advice/guidance for solving Y2000 problems within an IT organization.

I see nothing about debating the issue of Y2K as the purpose of this forum. I do not come to this forum to be persuaded that Y2K will be a bump in the road. If I begin to doubt my opinion I know which forums to go to.

-- Johnny (can@read.thanks), August 06, 1999.

The debate thread is a great idea. Good luck to both sides. I will pull for the polly underdog, but I think their argument will be weak.

-- a (a@a.a), August 06, 1999.

Sorry, but I'm not interested in debating someone who refuses to reveal his identity. Actually, I'm not really interested in debating at all: Y2K is not an intellectual exercise but a real world danger. Anyone who refuses to see the possibility of a disaster after all of the missed deadlines, lying, and incompetence that has been amply documented is beyond my ability to convince.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), August 06, 1999.

*********************************************************************

That is amazing Steve H., I didn't realize a human being could grow an entire backbone in less than twenty four hours. You must be a damn miracle of modern science.

-- (I've been@to Heller. and back), August 06, 1999.

Gentlemen, the time is approaching when we will know who was right and who was wrong. This matter is so serious that it should not be relegated at this late hour to endless debates on this forum. None of us has the time to have the clutter here. If someone wishes to be a polly, DGI, DWGI or fool, that is their prerogative. You who are not in those categories will have the last laugh, which doesn't need a debate...they won't be here to do it then. Seriously, can we all get on with the business of LEARNING the status of things and PREPARING to meet the future, and stop playing mind-game-sports. Thanks a lot for freeing up the space for serious GIs.

-- Elaine Seavey (Gods1sheep@aol.com), August 06, 1999.

Your rules are fine wth ONLY ONE EXCEPTION:
there is ONLY ONE person who has the delete keys. Your suggestion of multiple moderators can work ONLY if the debate posts happen in an e-mail form and are then posted by the "moderators" after they are reviewed.
Sorry, but the password to the delete keys can't be given out. The Mgmnt

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), August 06, 1999.

Chuck:

Sounds fine to me - email submissions it is. Any takers?

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), August 06, 1999.

Hey Lunkhead, I think a debate held on neutral ground is only fair?? I wouldn't trust reading anything from a debate that was filtered through Chuck first. Now 'cause I'm such a smart fellow I'd be willing to guess that the debate, if moderated by the Moderators, just wouldn't stand a chance of being unbiased in it's final release.

One Moderator, one "Polly", neutral territory. Whaddya say? Is that spine temporary or did you grow it for keeps?

-- (Call me @ crazy. com), August 06, 1999.

Call me @ crazy. com

Hey Lunkhead, I think a debate held on neutral ground is only fair?? I wouldn't trust reading anything from a debate that was filtered through Chuck first. Now 'cause I'm such a smart fellow I'd be willing to guess that the debate, if moderated by the Moderators, just wouldn't stand a chance of being unbiased in it's final release. One Moderator, one "Polly", neutral territory. Whaddya say? Is that spine temporary or did you grow it for keeps?

Thank you for illustrating the difficulty with having a debate. It's obvious that no matter how I try to frame the terms so that personal attacks will be off-limits, you and others like you will continue to make them.

If I hear from anyone who demonstrates their willingness to behave in a civilized manner, I'll be happy to discuss the details and work out a mutually agreeable arrangement as to venue and exact rules.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), August 06, 1999.

Bold off.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), August 06, 1999.

Why the need for a "debate" on Y2K? Is there some misunderstanding or disagreement about it?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 06, 1999.

Well, Steve, if you're up to it, so am I.

If you accept, we'll discuss the details.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 06, 1999.

Okay, Hoffmeister, let's discuss the details.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), August 06, 1999.

OK.

The basics of your proposal are OK. I'd suggest the following mechanics:

1) Side A submits, via e-mail to moderator for Side B, the post. If moderator disputes, the third moderator is e-mailed. Third moderator decision is final. When accepted, notified by moderator, post is submitted. Moderators can notify Chuck if any unauthorized post is sent, which will then be deleted.

2) I would also suggest a limit on rebuttals. After main point is posted, other side has rebuttal. This should be limited to 3 rounds; post, rebuttal; response, rebuttal; response, rebuttal. 3 is debatable; just seems that after that, the main point is no longer being discussed.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 06, 1999.

So which one is the polly here???

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 06, 1999.

Hoff:

The basics of your proposal are OK. I'd suggest the following mechanics: 1) Side A submits, via e-mail to moderator for Side B, the post. If moderator disputes, the third moderator is e-mailed. Third moderator decision is final. When accepted, notified by moderator, post is submitted. Moderators can notify Chuck if any unauthorized post is sent, which will then be deleted.

Sounds good to me.

2) I would also suggest a limit on rebuttals. After main point is posted, other side has rebuttal. This should be limited to 3 rounds; post, rebuttal; response, rebuttal; response, rebuttal. 3 is debatable; just seems that after that, the main point is no longer being discussed.

I'm assuming that you are discussing only one side's original points; i.e., after your three rounds, the side that originally responded gets to start with their own points. If so, I agree.

One point that hasn't been mentioned is any time limit on responses. I suggest 24 hours should be enough to compose a response; I don't want to be too short, as I prefer to give each side sufficient time to think through their responses. However, I don't want this to drag out forever either. What are your thoughts on this?

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), August 06, 1999.

You are right regarding my second suggestion.

A time-limit is fine, and I was going to suggest it as well. Realizing though, other things may intrude, I'd suggest this be flexible. If a hard and fast rule is required, I'd suggest giving both sides 2 24 hour extensions, which can be invoked if required.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 06, 1999.

Hoff: (you don't mind if I call you that, do you?)

You are right regarding my second suggestion.

Good.

A time-limit is fine, and I was going to suggest it as well. Realizing though, other things may intrude, I'd suggest this be flexible. If a hard and fast rule is required, I'd suggest giving both sides 2 24 hour extensions, which can be invoked if required.

I'm perfectly willing to be flexible, and would not refuse any reasonable request for an extension. However, I think it's a good idea to start out with a fairly well-defined rule, and your suggestion makes sense. One question, though: do you mean that each side has a "bank" of two 24-hour extensions, sort of like time-outs in football? That's the only way I can interpret your suggestion, but I could be misunderstanding what you have in mind. Please clarify if I have it wrong.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), August 06, 1999.

Yes, both sides have in essence 2 timeouts, if you will, of 24 hours.

Sorry, but I have to take off. I'll be offline until about 8 pm EST tomorrow. We can pick this up then.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 06, 1999.

Hoff:

Yes, both sides have in essence 2 timeouts, if you will, of 24 hours. Sorry, but I have to take off. I'll be offline until about 8 pm EST tomorrow. We can pick this up then.

Okay, see you then.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), August 06, 1999.

Aw comeon you guys! Jeeze and I just got a fresh bag of popcorn and a six pack for the debate!

-- (a@aaaa.hole), August 07, 1999.

OK, waiting on confirmation from a moderator.

When do you want to start?

I'll be offline again tomorrow until about 8PM.

I'll be at a client site Monday. If the third moderator can be agreed upon, I'd suggest Monday evening.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 07, 1999.

Okay, Monday evening sounds good, if we can get the moderators. Anyone here want to volunteer? Also, would you (Hoff) like to go first?

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), August 07, 1999.

I nominate Dieter as moderator, he won't put up with any MONKEY BUSINESS from Hoffy...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 07, 1999.

OK, then, Monday night. I guess I'll take you up on the offer, and go first.

Oh, and Andy, I'd stay away from the MONKEYs and stick to the REPTOIDs.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 07, 1999.

Monday night it is then, assuming we can get the moderators.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), August 07, 1999.

ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssttttttttt!~)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 07, 1999.

OK, Paul Davis agreed to act as moderator.

He can be reached at stheller@koyote.com

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 08, 1999.

Ooops, quick submit. Try again.

OK, Paul Davis agreed to act as moderator.

He can be reached at davisp1953@yahoo.com

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 08, 1999.

I'd like to point out that all of the deletions with my finger prints have been due to reasons OTHER than point of view on Y2K. I DO NOT delete due to point of view, as i explained in the original post announcement of my taking the keys to the delete key.

But, if someone chooses to believe otherwise, I can't control that. C

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), August 09, 1999.

Chuck, are you offering to act as the "doomer" moderator? If so, I accept your offer.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), August 09, 1999.

Hoff,

I accept the nomination of Paul Davis as the "polly" moderator.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), August 09, 1999.

King of Spain,

Do you like to mudwrestle? ;-)

-- Deborah (infowars@yahoo.com), August 09, 1999.