As we have yet to hear back from some of WS's new team-mates, the procedural bullshit is staying in a private forum for the moment, and the identities of the participants will be revealed anon. Hopefully both things will change. For the moment the publicly announced names are Wahrheitseeker and Mark Turley for the revisionists, and Nick Terry plus Kent Ford for the non revisionist, to be reinforced by up to half a dozen helpers a side. More anon on that. If any revisionist wishes to offer their services for scutwork, research, writing, etc, then they should contact Wahrheitseeker by private message. For the non-revisionist side, contact Kent Ford.
This thread is thrown open to anyone, from whatever stance, to comment on what they'd LIKE to see by way of conduct, extent, focus, and so on. It is better to offer suggestions, as questions may be greeted with a 'we haven't reached agreement yet'. Suggestions, whether on the tone of debate (avoidance of cliched insults, ad hominems) or the format, are very much welcome. While we have our own ideas it would certainly help to hear suggestions from the RODOH membership as a whole, and it may well help decide how things are done if there is a groundswell or especially well put point made outside the private forum.
The following issues immediately came to mind when thinking about the ROEs
1) precise proposal to be debated
2) who goes first
3) time-frame
4) formatting of statements (lengths, footnotes, etc)
5) relevance
6) standards of evidence
7) languages
8) shared texts (online etc materials)
9) adjudication
10) "publication"
11) self-citation and related matters
12) size of debate teams
13) outside assistance
14) Sprachregelung (denier, believer etc)
15) ad hominem
16) stipulations
with the basic principle being devising rules that are fair on both sides, meet conventional academic standards, and take into consideration the, ah, local peculiarities of this discussion while rising above the run-of-the-mill yapping that goes on around here. It's unlikely that any attempt to strong-arm or stack the rules against one side is going to fly.


