Talk:Democracy

From Intelligent Designs

[edit] Moderation

I was wondering what the moderation standard will be. If there are any more than 35 or 50 people in on the chat, it may not be effective or worthwhile to have a non-moderated approach. In that case, I propose having two separate channels. One for the person who is presenting their project, and another for the moderators and audience to sort out who asks what when.

From my personal experience it can be a little hectic and confusing at times for moderators if there is a large volume of messages and statements/discussions in a single moderated channel. As well, it will serve to make it easier for the audience to read and process what is being said - as opposed to filtering out the messages or questions in amongst the desired responses. Thoughts?Cleisthenis 23:45, 14 November 2005 (CET)

These are excellent points. I suggest deciding this spontaneously depending on how many people come. If there's less than 20, not moderating should work. If there's more than that, I like the two-channel idea. About 10% of the people in the main channel could be given voice, under the condition that they do not ask their own questions. They would be tasked with copy & pasting snippets from the second channel into the main one. I'll draft up some moderation guidelines before the chat in case we need them.--Erik 04:48, 19 November 2005 (CET)

I'm interested into presenting 'parlement', do I simply include myself into the planning? [parlement] is the successor to [VeniVidiVoti] --echarp 21:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes! :-) Just edit the timetable.--Erik 02:29, 26 November 2005 (CET)

[edit] Pete Ashdown

You should check out Pete Ashdown's policy and strategy wiki (via).