New DDO members shouldn't be able to start debates right away.

Thanks to Pro for providing answers to some of my questions, unfortunately many of the answers only lead to more questions, many of which are too complicated to be discussed here. That is what happens when trying to implement new systems, only after issues occur will they be realized and thus corrected. Pros arguments sound convincing because he is trying to have it both ways. He claims that the system is not complicated at all, yet claims that it will increase the quality of debates on this site. To put forward a simple plan to solve a problem, is to imply that the problem itself is simple. Increasing the quality of debates on DDO is not a simple problem. I think the moderators understand this quite clearly and the members should as well. I will have more on this. 1. DDO’s Purpose Pro refutes my “free and easy” claim by first stating that the website will not cost anything. Money is not the only factor in something being free. It also factors how much one must give or personally invest to enjoy the rewards. The Falcon Plan clearly adds to this. But I suppose this argument is more suited for the “easy” portion of it. Either way this goes right back to my first argument, if it is so easy how will it make any significant difference? Pro states that his “few” requirements will enhance the quality of DDO by educating new members about the site. However pseudovotes will not educate them about anything unless they are forced to read the debate in its entirety and provide an informed RFD. Forum posts will not teach them anything unless they are forced to provide a contributive comment, and a quiz will not teach them anything unless it is informative and therefore not easy to pass. The bottom line here is that it will either be easy, or effective, it will not be both. So we go back to the purpose of DDO. If this plan is free and easy it will barely affect anything. If it is not free and easy then it goes against the purpose of this site. Either way the plan should not be implemented. 2. Too complicated (i) Pro provides his explanation of a pseudovote to a new member implying that it is simple. The issue is that while it may be easy for myself and the readers here to understand, a new member will not understand it. Here is the definition: “Pseudovote: Provide a Reason For Decision in the comments section for each option in the voting category such as why Pro should get arguments or Con should get conduct. For help, refer to the DDO voting guidelines.” The reason we can all understand this definition is because we have all participated in debates and have learned the lingo. New members will not understand what any of the underlined portions mean. They may not be hard to understand but the whole point of the “too complicated” argument is that it is a turnoff for new members, in addition to placing an additional burden on existing members. Pro states that more complicated does not mean it is not beneficial. Indeed it does not. First of all this comment contradicts his assertion that his plan it is not complicated. Second, the issue is not weather it is complicated but weather it should be. Since this website is designed to be free and easy, it should not be complicated. 3. Member Access Pro states that we control abusive pseudovotes the same way we control votebombs. There are two issues with this answer. First, most of us know what it is like to lose a debate based on what we see as a votebomb. They do happen. It is one thing to lose a debate because of one, but being denied or delayed access to a website after putting in the necessary effort is very different and much worse. Second, how many of us will honestly pay attention to pseudovotes? Currently there is a major issue with voting on DDO. If people don’t vote on debates there is no reason to think people will pay attention to a new member’s pseudovote about that debate. This will make counter pseudovotes far less common then counter votebombs. 4. Better Debaters Pro begins by introducing a third group of people who join this site. The third group is the same as the second group: B) people who join the site because they are interested in debating in general. A) Pro states that the plan will make people who are only came here to debate specific topics better debaters by forcing them to go through the requirements. Again, if they are not interested in going through the requirements they will probably not stick around for them. But even if they do stick around they will not take the requirements any more seriously then they would have taken this site anyway. This reminds me of the “clean your room” analogy. If a parent has to force a child to clean their room they will only clean what they can get away with. If they can just shove everything under the bed or the closet they will do that. By the same token, if a new debater does not want to take these requirements seriously they will only put in the effort needed to get past them. You can not make somebody want to be a better debater, which is required for this to improve the current system. B) Pro states that debating is a skill that can be learned. Yes it is. But those who want to learn will do that on their own, they do not need the Falcon Plan to force them to. That desire to work hard is what comes from within, as I stated clearly in Round 2. 5) Members should choose when they are ready Almost out of space so I will only address the forfeit point. Pro states that this Plan addresses the root of the problem. Many debaters forfeit because they are busy and can not find the time to post an argument. The Falcon Plan does not address this reason. When it comes to new members forfeiting their own debates I ask: why is this such a big issue? If the purpose of the plan is to improve quality of debates then why are we concerned about debates that do not even show up? I understand the concern about new members forfeiting someone else’s debate but that is not what we are discussing.