SA Debate League: Legorii Kryotek Entar vs Scelestus

Legorii

05-07-2012 12:11:50

Promotions are the Dark Jedi Brotherhood. While that statement is an oversimplification of our organization, promotions are indeed the most sought-after rewards in an internet club that, at first glance, would appear to have many such incentives. Promotions of the Equite level are elusive and fulfilling, and this is due to their demanding requirements. The object here is not to make a case for lowering the requirements, but for acknowledging that contributions to the Brotherhood outside of a leadership position can be of equal merit and thus deserving of a promotion.

In a perfect world, there would be no debate here. Ideally, the Brotherhood would not have enough leadership spots for every prospective leader to serve, and promotions would not require leadership. As things currently stand, however, there are plenty of spots available for those who demonstrate adequate leadership qualities and activity, and are willing to serve. But this does not tell the whole story.

Brotherhood contributions can be measured by so many standards that it is unfair to pigeonhole members into strict and overbearing promotion guidelines that impede their service to the organization, and, more alarmingly, diminish their enjoyment. Journeyman promotions are governed by cut-and-dried requirements that allow new members to clearly understand what they must do to advance. In some cases, that is as easy as logging into IRC, participating in three competitions, or creating a character sheet. Equite promotions are an entirely different beast. Their requirements are rightly vague and flexible, reliant on the recommendations of other members – recommendations that are based on the member’s overall contributions and impact in whichever circle a particular recommender represents.

Equite requirements such as leadership service or Dark Jedi Knight mentoring are a step in the wrong direction. We do not want to create a checklist. The underlying concept is that members are pushed to go above and beyond, to exercise their inherent creativity and originality to make an impact on their units in ways that the Office of the Master at Arms may not have thought of when creating the promotion requirements. Journeymen guidelines encourage bare-minimum effort – I went through this with my own apprentice just a few weeks ago, encouraging him to do easy competitions like graphics and trivia to meet his required three submissions. While this works for Journeymen, it will not work for Equites.

By having the broad, flexible requirements that Equite promotions have, members are encouraged to find their own niche, and to contribute in ways that are distinctly their own. By removing the leadership requirement in Equite promotions, members will no longer be spurred to join their House Summits for a month or two to meet the requirement. Leadership tenures that are extrinsically motivated often go awry, creating subpar and inactive leaders who do more harm than good. The very best Brotherhood leaders are the ones that are driven to improve their units, because they care about their Houses or Clans and the people in them. Believe it or not, there are real people behind each and every Brotherhood dossier, not just machines churning out competitions and reports while tallying up leadership time.

It is critical that the Dark Jedi Brotherhood be adaptable, because as an internet club relying on Star Wars writing it has to compete for its target audience with cutting-edge gaming systems and new fictional franchises. More kids now are into Twilight and the Hunger Games than Star Wars, using PlayStation Move and Xbox Kinect instead of sitting in front of the computer, writing about their fictional character. This increases the demand for creative members who aren’t just rank-and-file Quaestors and Aediles (not to diminish the work done by House leaders, as the Brotherhood would not exist without them).

The member who earns First Hero in the next Great Jedi War, inspiring his fellow Arconans and helping his Clan win, has made a significant contribution to the Brotherhood. The member who undertakes a major recruiting drive on The Old Republic and brings in fresh faces has made a significant contribution to the Brotherhood. The member who drives out to the next nerd/comic convention and helps bring in new members has made a significant contribution to the Brotherhood. None of these three members are officially Brotherhood leaders in the sense that the promotion requirements desire; rather, they are true leaders, deserving of their Equite promotions whether they spent seven months as Aedile of House Whocares or not.

The most distinguishable feature of the Equite promotion is the recommendation. The higher the promotion, the higher the quantity and quality of the recommendations. These are reflections of a member’s worth in an organization that can seem thankless at times, and each speaks volumes more than a few dates of leadership service. While these recommendations are written for the Master at Arms, they are, in fact, more vital to the member being promoted, because they represent the recognition and thanks that are hard-earned in the organization. They are comforting and congratulatory, and can be everything a member needs to keep going. A simple poll taken of long-standing members would show quite clearly that the reason for their longevity is the connections and friendships formed in the Brotherhood, and without these ties, the organization would have faltered long ago.

I can sit here and try to make a case for Equite promotions without the leadership component, but the truth is, I don’t have to. My opponent will do it for me, since there is no logical reason for the requirement. The requirement is oppressive, stymying activity and ingenuity, and deals a harsh blow to the most crucial rank bracket. Its removal will result in increased effort and an outpouring of new ideas. Members, who previously were trapped, despairing and dreading taking an official leadership position, will be freed. The Brotherhood is looking for leaders, and leaders get promoted. But leadership takes too many forms, and is too difficult to define, for a member to have to serve in an official position in order to be promoted.

Scelestus

07-07-2012 18:31:45

Unfortunately there are simply too many holes in my opponent’s argument for me to concede the point to him as he suggests. In fact, his opening postulation is in error. He makes the claim that promotions define the Brotherhood, and that they are the driving force behind keeping people engaged in the activity of the club. However, there is no proof to support this claim. In fact, the recent poll run by our own Grandmaster Muz Ashen, suggests something entirely different. One hundred members responded to the poll, which turns out to be twenty-six percent of the active membership of the club, and therefore a statistically reasonable representation of the whole.
This poll shows that while being recognized for their work does show up on the radar of things that of interest to the members, it does not show up frequently enough to support the claim that promotions are the Brotherhood. Rather, the most common response for what people like about the Dark Jedi Brotherhood, was the chance to have fellowship and camaraderie with friends—both ones they knew before joining and those they have made since joining. Therefore, if any one concept defines the Dark Jedi Brotherhood, it would be just that…brotherhood, a fact that Legorii later admits, making his entire opening thought seem contradictory.
My worthy opponent then goes on to admit that there are plenty of leadership positions in the Brotherhood, a statement that is borne out again by the poll, where only twelve percent of responding members stated that they had yet to serve in a position of leadership. Even more telling is that twelve percent almost exactly correlates to those survey takers who had yet to attain the rank of Dark Jedi Knight, and we know that both in the past and in the present that it is very unlikely for those who have yet to be knighted to find their way into positions of leadership. Clearly however, that once they attain their rank of Knight, there is no limiting factor in terms of having leadership positions available. So I must question my opponent conceding the point that there are plenty of positions open…this seems to weaken the argument for removing the leadership requirement when it does not appear to be standing in the way of anyone getting a promotion.

The next couple of paragraphs are taken up by an eloquent dissertation on why leadership stifles and pigeonholes the membership, forcing them down pre-determined paths that strip them of their creativity and their ability to be productive members of the Brotherhood. I must assume that he does not mean all members that serve in leadership positions as there are plenty of examples (Wuntila, Marick, Muz, Halcyon, Socorra, and Invictus) of members who have flourished in positions of power and responsibility. But regardless of the scope of the target audience of his argument, there is a more fundamental problem with his claims. Legorii makes wonderful use of descriptive language and ethos to sway the audience, but at the end of the day his claims are all ethereal fluff and no substance. He does not pose the first shred of evidence to support his ideas. It seems that we are simply to trust that these things are true, or perhaps that they are self-evident, but I counter that this is simply not the case. By being able to show examples of those who can excel under the current system of leadership, I have proven that it is not self evident to say that this requirement is detrimental for the membership.

Even if we take Legorii’s claims at face value, I believe it is incorrect to say that requiring a leadership position somehow equates to setting up the same group of checklists that dominate the journeyman ranks. It is obvious that there are many, many different ways to serve in leadership roles. This is made clear both by the wide variety of positions available and the wide variety of members that serve in them.

While I agree with the idea that the club should be adaptable to keep up with the changing times, I also postulate that we should not change fundamental aspects of what makes our club unique on a whim. Servant leadership that is widespread and encompasses all levels of the club is one of those fundamental aspects. As Muz mentions in his poll response, there could be no competitions without people to run and grade them, there could be no Clans or Houses without the summit to guide them into cohesiveness. These positions of authority are elements of the foundational pillars of the club. It is true that anyone can write a fictional story, but I think we all agree that it adds a whole new level to the enjoyment of the fiction for it to have direction and purpose, to combine with other fictional pieces to make a greater whole like the various swatches that come together to make a mighty tapestry. The leaders are the weavers that guide this process.

Knowing the essential role that leaders play in the Brotherhood, it follows that we need to ensure that the club continues to have leaders. Having a leadership requirement for higher level promotions helps to both fulfill this need, and ensure that these crucial members of the brotherhood are properly rewarded and motivated. I have been involved with numerous online clubs that have been similar to the DJB, and it has been my universal experience that is critical to make the role of leadership an appealing proposition. It is widely known that it is a role that requires a large amount of work, service, and dedication and there are few people that take it on as its own reward. Earning promotions for this service can help be the catalyst to encourage new members to try on the mantle of leadership. In fact, it is the ability to get the vast majority of the membership into positions of leadership that provides the ideas that stave off the staleness and lack of creativity that Legorii denounces in the leadership promotion requirement.

In summary, Legorii’s arguments are passionate and moving, but they lack the substance to be taken seriously, and I believe that he has failed to uphold the burden of proof that there is damage to the Brotherhood by continuing to uphold the current standards in high level Equite promotions. As we have learned through the first course in the Shadow Academy Debate Classes, if we cannot prove that the status quo is damaged by the proposed problem, or that the proposed solution alleviates the problem, then it is folly to accept the postulation. We should not throw away time honored traditions that have brought us to our current position when those traditions make us who we are, not hold us back.

Legorii

08-07-2012 00:07:36

The assertion that my opening statement, that the Brotherhood is soundly based on promotions, is invalid is, to be frank, outrageous. As Scelestus stated, 100 members participated in the recent survey conducted by the Grand Master. Rather than disproving my position, this data greatly strengthens my argument, and removes any doubt as to whether official leadership should be required for promotions. Of the 100 members surveyed, only 26 were not Equite-level or above. Three quarters of the respondents are subject to the leadership requirement for promotions - 74 members - and there are certainly not 74 leadership positions in the Houses and Clans of the Brotherhood. There are, however, hundreds of opportunities to improve your House, Clan, or the Brotherhood, and it is for capitalizing on these opportunities that members should be rewarded.

As Scelestus seems to think that there was some doubt, I wish to be firm on a particular point: the requirement that Equites serve in Brotherhood leadership positions in order to be promoted is, unequivocally, standing in the way of members being fairly promoted. Not all members can attain leadership positions, and most cannot attain them at the moment when they can best handle them - when you’re an Epis in need of leadership experience to be promoted, and your Clan just filled its only opening (an Aedile role) with a young Knight who they feel has more of a future, what do you do? Maybe you transfer, forced into leaving by an unfair requirement, and leave your friends - losing out on that camaraderie that you claimed to so enjoy in the survey - or maybe you don’t. The situation is demoralizing. Your hands are tied. If the requirement was removed, you could coordinate a project to improve your Clan with the help of your Summit, serving your unit and earning your promotion.

My opponent’s ability to name-drop Arconans is cute, but ultimately worthless. You could make the case for every leader in the Brotherhood “thriving” under the so-called system, but without any substantial evidence to prove this, and tie it to the leadership requirement, it is just useless drivel that we could both do without.

Scelestus claims that requiring leadership experience for higher level promotions is the reason why we still have leaders, but this claim is foolish. Leaders who serve only to be promoted are the kind of poor leaders who do real damage to the Brotherhood, and the leadership requirement encourages these members, enabling them to deal their damage. These leaders are self-serving and uninvested in their units, as they are just “putting in their time”. Returning to the recent survey, if members are truly driven by camaraderie and friendship, they will be willing to lead and participate in the community they cherish, and they will be promoted for their hard work. Scelestus need not be worried about the Brotherhood losing quality leadership if the requirement is removed.

In the survey, at least one member complained about the “politics” of the Brotherhood. This is an issue that is created, in part, by the leadership requirement. By requiring official experience for promotions, greedy and power-hungry members are aggressive and abusive in pursuing and holding power, creating an unpleasant experience for all involved. Removing the requirement would significantly alleviate this problem, as members looking for promotions will be forced to make legitimate contributions to their units to earn them - not just do their time - and intrinsically motivated leaders who genuinely care about the people they work with will rise to the top.

The removal of the leadership requirement will improve our collective experience.

Scelestus

08-07-2012 23:00:55

I fail to see how the poll results establish your point. Of those 74 people that you say are bound by the leadership promotion requirements, all of them have already met the requirements by serving in leadership positions by their own admission. The requirement is simply to have served at some point in the past, not to be serving currently at the time that you are seeking promotion. Therefore whether or not there are 74 positions of leadership in the Brotherhood becomes irrelevant and we see that this requirement isn't holding them back.

Also I believe that saying that people should be rewarded for the hundreds of opportunities to improve House, Clan, or Brotherhood, while true is irrelevant to the point at hand. They certainly should be, and are. In fact it ties into the recommendations that Legorii was speaking of previously. The argument here is not whether leadership requirements are the sole basis for obtaining higher level Equite promotions, we all know that they are not. The issue is whether the requirement should be removed as part of the overall promotion process, and this argument doesn't pertain to that discussion.

As to the issues that Legorii raises in his second paragraph, I have already addressed that the leadership requirement is not holding anyone back from being promoted…again the requirement is that you have served in leadership at some point and the poll results clearly show that everyone has had that opportunity by the time they are ready to reach the higher level Equite ranks.

Moving on to the third paragraph, I have to disagree with my opponent strenuously. It is not meant to be cute nor is it drivel. It is solid evidence to disprove his claim that leadership stifles creativity, which he made in his opening arguments. Not only is it evidence, which Legorii continues to fail to provide for any of his points, it is substantial evidence. You have only to look at the track record of those I have mentioned to see that their creativity is abundant and obvious rather than being stifled at all.

In his fourth paragraph, Legorii seems to have misrepresented my argument, I don't attempt to claim that you have to require leadership to get leaders…there are those, such as myself that truly enjoy positions of leadership and would seek them out for their own reward. However, my experience over thirteen years of membership in online clubs says that such people are the minority. Therefore, I still believe that providing incentives for leadership is important. Even those people that don't want to be there can still serve important administration functions that have to be done. If they don't shine then they don't have to continue being leaders, and in fact their turn over is part of the very reason why there won't be a lack of leadership positions open to people. Also to claim that these members who are conscripted into leadership will cause damage to the Brotherhood smacks of nothing more than a scare tactic, especially without any cited examples to back up these claims.

The fifth paragraph appears to be a violation of the rules of the debate by entering in a new argument about leadership requirements leading to the hated politics, as I don't remember that being a part of Legorii's opening statements. However if, for the sake of argument, we call it just another example, it still falls short, again due to a lack of solid evidence or examples as to when and where this has happened. Without that it is simply speculation. It may be true, but we aren't here to discuss 'may be' but rather 'is' or 'is not'. We certainly shouldn't effect policy changes on what we fear could come to pass.

In closing, I have to again, at the risk of sounding redundant, say that my opponent has failed to provide evidence to back up his claims, and without that evidence it would be foolhardy to change established policies.

Legorii

09-07-2012 19:04:48

The 74 members who responded the poll and are bound by the leadership requirement support my argument because, while they have served in a leadership capacity in the past, they are not all doing so now. Scelestus, I am concerned that your knowledge of the requirement is lacking. The requirement is not that a member serve a few weeks at Aedile while EQ1, and then cite that years later for their EQ3 promotion - “at some point”, your words - rather, that leadership has to be current, since their last promotion. For any of those 74 members to be promoted, they will have to serve in some leadership role since their last promotion, and thus they are being limited by the requirement.

The relevance of leadership outside of officially defined positions is not in question because, while it does currently supplement official service towards promotions, it should not have to. That service should be able to stand alone. If Prelate John puts together and hosts a successful Clan-wide feud, entirely on his own, is this contribution sufficient for his promotion? It should be, but unless one of John’s superiors gets out of his way and he is willing to serve as a leader in his House, he can kiss that promotion goodbye.

Scelestus continues to whine about lack of evidence, but I am unsure what more evidence he is looking for. His subjective and somewhat sad, worshipful views of his Arconan leaders are not sufficient to prove the effectiveness of the leadership requirement, as he cannot prove that there is a causal link. The six applicants to the recent Galeres Aedile opening, five of whom were Equite or above, is an indication that the leadership requirement is limiting members. Until such a time as one of Arcona’s Aediles steps down, or the applicants transfer or find positions outside the Clan, they have no realistic shot at a promotion - regardless of what they accomplish in the meantime.

Finally, I submit my own case as an example. I recently took the Galeres Aedile job, but until I did so, I had not served as a leader in years. I have not been promoted in over 38 months, despite being relatively active and being awarded hundreds of medals since that promotion. I could not be promoted until I took this job.

I have been limited by the requirement, and others have too.

Selika Roh

22-07-2012 20:34:00

All right, judgement day has arrived. In the end, the debate was a 3-0 judgement for Scelestus.

Given that this is a learning event as well, each judge has seen fit to provide both participants feedback, as well as a reason for decision. So let's look at the judgements:

Judgement: Tra'an Reith

In looking over this debate several times, there were a very few things that stood out from the beginning.

Legorii's opening was impassioned. It was mellifluous and impassioned, and yet oddly lacking in solid support. In the second paragraph, he states that "Ideally, the Brotherhood would not have enough leadership spots for every prospective leader to serve, and promotions would not require leadership. As things currently stand, however, there are plenty of spots available for those who demonstrate adequate leadership qualities and activity, and are willing to serve." From the beginning, this undermines the affirmation of the topic. That this was mentioned at all, gives the negative room to yank out the carpet from underneath all arguments which shall follow, as this first foundation block is already crumbling.

The word choice is very solid. It's descriptive and certain enthralls the reader, though at the same time, it's not wound around a hard core of facts. Rhetoric without facts to ground it, lacks the solidity to be unassailable.

Almost immediately, Scelestus takes this as an opportunity to do exactly the opposite. His opening is immediately couched in terms of the Grand Master's poll. This fact source becomes his rock, upon which most of his counter arguments are housed, allowing very effective point by point refutation. Had the opening been couched in similar style, it would have been much more difficult for the negative to dismiss and dismantle the opening arguments. For Example, " Even more telling is that twelve percent almost exactly correlates to those survey takers who had yet to attain the rank of Dark Jedi Knight, and we know that both in the past and in the present that it is very unlikely for those who have yet to be knighted to find their way into positions of leadership. Clearly however, that once they attain their rank of Knight, there is no limiting factor in terms of having leadership positions available. So I must question my opponent conceding the point that there are plenty of positions open…this seems to weaken the argument for removing the leadership requirement when it does not appear to be standing in the way of anyone getting a promotion."

In utilizing this specific example, I'd like to point out that the target here is the argument that leadership positions stand in the way of advancement. Scelestus produces data, from a recognized source, that shows exactly the opposite, and then proceeds to utilize it as both reason and tool. It's powerful proof that evidence trumps oration.

Where it fails though, is as Legorii points out, that "Three quarters of the respondents are subject to the leadership requirement for promotion". The weakness of point by point refutation, is that the evidence is available for individual refutation. It must be solid in its own right, in order to stand.

Part of the argument about the 74 members however, is invalid in and of itself. Those members indicating they had leadership experience, may have already satisfied the need to be promoted due to that requirement. What is most compelling about this particular point, is that the official promotion requirements do not require active time in slot at time or promotion, to be promoted. Thus a member with a well documented Aedile tenure of three plus months from two years ago, may still qualify, if they meet other requirements and have the recommendations to earn the promotion.

On Scelestus's use of specific named members, to argue his point about leadership stifling creativity, I would ask that he cast a wider net to make such a point. Keeping it to Arcona, when the scope of the topic is Brotherhood wide, is too narrow. As such, it misses Houses like Tarentum and Revan, whose lack of active membership and interest by the members, both being predominately Equite heavy, can serve to invalidate the choice selection.

In the last post however, I noticed something that was blatantly wrong, and it served to be a wedge issue. "The requirement is not that a member serve a few weeks at Aedile while EQ1, and then cite that years later for their EQ3 promotion - “at some point”, your words - rather, that leadership has to be current, since their last promotion." Technically, it does not state anywhere that leadership used for promotion must be current in order to qualify. There are other issues with the specific citation, but its general characterization is incorrect. After all, Previous leadership experience, not used for a promotion, would be used in the future if well documented enough that Korras deems the effort sufficient.

In the end, the point by point refutation and evidence offered by Scelestus are more solid and follow a more reasonable chain of logic than Legorii's Oration. The ability to dismantle the argument of irreparable harm, by showing evidence that it appeared not to exist, and to then counter the points and claims of its existence, is enough to earn the win.

Tra'an Reith[/*:m][/list:u]

Judgement: Ronovi Tavisaen
1. Having thoroughly read the arguments on both sides for this debate, I conclude that what it comes down to is execution. This particular topic is rather hot to handle, and as such, one must be prepared to take either side.
  
  Legorii and Scelestus, you both delivered your arguments, and you both staunchly defended them. However, once again, technique and execution must be reviewed. Legorii, while your zeal was perhaps admirable, what you lacked was a consistent point of defense, only further weakened by a strong lack of substantive evidence and a lackluster effort to disprove your opponent's case. In other areas, your facts were not exactly straight: In your final affirmative post, you claimed that the requisites for Equite ranks surmounted to a time in leadership within a specific time allotment - specifically, you said, "[members] will have to serve in some leadership role since their last promotion, and thus they are being limited by the requirement" Upon review of the actual requirements, it was discovered that nowhere within the notes for Equite requisites is the statement "since last promotion" ever stated in regards to leadership experience. This cripples your argument, particularly when you use this inaccurate information to emphasize the supposed limitations of the requirement.
  
  Scelestus, you very handily used the Debate exam information to break down Legorii's arguments sufficiently. Within your second post, it was particularly strong: You presented Legorii's argument; you presented a counter to it; you provided supportive evidence to defend it. You repeated this with Legorii's other arguments on hand. While perhaps on a personal note I would've liked to see more substance in your oppositional argument, as a judge, I view your refutation technique as impressive. Your execution of your side of the debate, consequently, was much more effective, and as a result, any audience, upon seeing your counters, would more likely be willing to side with you.
  
  Therefore, I hand the win of the debate to Scelestus. Both of you clearly put hard work into your arguments, and I applaud both of you. But the situation does provide a clear winner, and it reminds us that sometimes technique clinches the victory.
  
  -Ronovi Tavisaen Dupar
  Headmaster of the Shadow Academy[/*:m][/list:u]
  
  Judgement: Solus Gar
  1. First, I want to say that I think both debaters did an excellent job with their cases, but of course somebody has to come out the victor.
    
    Legorii’s case seems very well reasoned in its initial presentation, but it suffers from being light on direct examples or data to back up its assertions. I realize that our competitors can’t go to news sources or an encyclopedia upon which to rest their arguments, but examples make things all the better. With the later refutation, things got a little disjointed. I think you got wrapped up in trying to turn the opponent’s examples to serve your case as opposed to also offering some of your own. There are a few places where it works for you, but plenty where it doesn’t.
    
    Scelestus puts forth refutation that really shows that he’s looked at the debate courses and internalized the material. Point by point refutation supported by evidence, just what we’re looking for. I was pleased to see the recent survey data analyzed and incorporated into the case as well. I didn’t know it was going to be released when I came up with the topic, but its use shows adaptation on the fly. There are a few places I think you could have made stronger arguments against those your opponent made, however.
    
    Looking towards the point raised by Scelestus about new arguments in the first rebuttal, I wholeheartedly agree. However, that alone doesn’t result in a loss for Legorii. It just means that I am not going to consider those new arguments when I come to make my judgement, in effect severing them from the debate.
    
    The one thing that really strikes me with both competitors, however, is a lack of what we in the business call “terminalized impacts”. It’s an advanced concept not directly covered in the course notes, but it’s something that’s good to get in the practice of. In essence, you want to take your “bad things” out to their farthest, or terminal, conclusion. People aren’t being promoted, or they are pigeon holed into paths and roles. So what? Why is that inherently bad? Why would removing the push into leadership be bad for the organization in the future? Don’t assume that your audience (or judge) is going to automatically agree with you about why your assertions are harmful, tell them why they’re harmful. Otherwise you might run into somebody that thinks those paths are just fine and dandy or that encouraging leadership isn’t really needed. This is where the real critical thinking portion of the activity comes in, as you examine and extend out the impacts of what you’re talking about, both for your audience but also for yourselves.
    
    At the end of the day, really it comes down to a case with a few too many assertions without warrants backing them up countered by supported argumentation. My vote goes to Scelestus.
    
    - Solus Gar[/*:m][/list:u]