jmaine: Always knew the thread will boil cos of the texture of the Judges list . . . . Most can be seen to be strictly Anti Government first before objectivity is imported. But i decided to give them the benefit of the doubt to do a fair job at least . . .

In order to clear all doubt . . . .I hereby suggest that during the debating process . . .All the judges score card should be fully on display on the board to enable spectators guage their ratings for fairness and competence

This should act as a double check for scores collation and overall calculation of averages . . .

The seeming texture of the Judges means no known supporter of the Admin might never win any debate, regardless of contents dished out with an already prejudiced judge siting boldly in the arena

Jarus:

We shall publish the indivudual judge result and the average, but we wont include name of the Judge, Just Judge 1-5 and each's scoring.

Pharoh: The best way should have been for the organizers to just go with any kind of judges and encourage them to leave their bias behind instead of trying to look for people who were neutral and that is really impossible in my opinion so lets stop deceiving ourselves.

Jarus:

We shall publish the individual judge's result and the average, but we wont include name of the Judge, Just Judge 1-5 and each's scoring.

Jarus: From this point, any comment that contains hate/hard words will be hidden and the poster banned for 5 hours. You can protest or defend yourself without using strong words.

Pls.

Jarus:


You need credible, independent seconders before we can at least revisit the choice. In addition, the fact that he criticized GEJ is not a ground for disqualification. Bring better arguments.

Jarus: From this point, any comment that contains hate/hard words will be hidden and the poster banned for 5 hours. You can protest or defend yourself without using strong words.

Pls.

I demand an explanation. Great injustice on this thread. U left his and hid mine. What do u mean by strong words? are his words also not strong Thats criminous.

Jarus:

No, we are not saying they are neutral. We (and majority other forumers agree) see them as 1, not having extreme opinion 2, capable of dropping their sentiments. Even as a coordinator, I have my personal views. Even Seun, the forum owner, has his sentiments. But it is easy for us to drop them.

jmaine:

Not publishing their names might not do well for transparency, considering some of the judges are known to be prejudiced to certain quarters . . . . .

Jarus: From this point, any comment that contains hate/hard words will be hidden and the poster banned for 5 hours. You can protest or defend yourself without using strong words.

Pls.

PointB:

And who are these majority? Or are now into making claims that cannot be substantiated. You noted you wanted judges acceptable to all. Now it is has been established that Coogar was an over-sight.

Rather than drop him, you are now saying that is doesn't matter whether judges are neutral or not. Why use such duality to ruin a process, rather than saving the process by dropping one man who integrity, neutrality, and maturity is called to question. Why is so difficult for u to play by your own rules. Do you have special interest in coogar?

PointB: @Jarus,
Despite her her tendency for boring repetitiveness, is Kobojunkie not more mature than Coogar? What is the rationale for choosing coogar who had lover votes than say Edo_girl, HNOsegbe, and Northsharp ?

#drop coogar!

Jarus:

Are you sure the cons of publishing their names do not outweigh the merits? I think so.

Merit of not publishing
1, A judge will be objective. Dayokanu is my friend, if I score him 0/5 ( ). He wont forgive me in 5 years. LOL. But if my name isnt there, he wont know who scored him 0. . Funny, but it can happen.

2, It reduces rancour. A debater that doesnt perform well can easily say the judge that scores him lowest doesnt like his face, bringing out a past thread where they disagreed(and he will always find one, because we have all disagreed at one thread or the other)

You talk correct . . .So Dayokanu sef go be debater . .Na wao

Jarus: I have just banned PointB and Coogar for 5 hours, for deying the simple rule that they should protest/defend only with civil words. I am aware that one was on the attack and the other on the defensive, I had to wield the big stick on both of them because they both used insulting words in the process.

See you guys by 17:07 hours.

Let's all learn to pass across our disagreements/defence with civility.

afam4eva:
I hereby apologise on their behalf. Release the both of them and they'll go home and sin no more.

Jarus:


Let them drink water and sleep for the 5 hours and come back by 17:07 hrs

Let's have some peace on the thread abeg.

jmaine:

You talk correct . . .So Dayokanu go be debater . .Na wao

afam4eva:
5 hours no be beans ooo...tender justice with mercy. At least you can reduce the punishment to 1 hour. That should do.