Re: IRC debate feedback
martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Adrian von Bidder <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2005.03.16.1344 +0100]:
I found the first hour basically wasted time - the strength of IRC
is that it's real-time, while the form of the first hour of debate
did not really use that,
The goal of the first hour was to make sure that the candidates do
not have much time to polish their responses but must write more or
less off the top of their heads. I feel this allows us to get to
know them better without their diplocatic DPL candidate masks.
Personally, I found I had to be more "diplomatic" in the first hour than
just writing to lists -- in the first section you had to keep your eye
on the clock, and spend time worrying about how to cut & paste, and
flicking between two channels, all of which is distracting when trying
to understand multipart questions and respond to them. And there was no
chance of back & forth, which seems to me the point of a "debate".
During the second hour, I was struggling hard to find my purpose.
I thought the second hour was really quite good; especially part way in
where, it seemed to me, we all worked out what we were doing.