Post by Ikken Isshu on Mar 28, 2009 11:31:58 GMT -5
(Note that I did public debate in high school, so I got a lot of these rules from that. It sounds complicated, but once you get into it, it's really just the initial setting-up (resolution, definitions, plan, and so on) that takes a bit of doing. The rest is good ol' fashioned debate. 
I DID, however, rework a few things, so if YOU did debate in high school, don't just assume the format is the same, 'cause it's not.
In a very general sense, this is going to be somewhat similar to Public Debate, with only two participants rather than four.
Finally, you do NOT have to read this entire post all the way through unless you want to. All of the colored information is structured so that you can reference it when you need it; it details how posts should be written. The only generally important information is the stuff that is not colored, like this.)
So here we are, at our First... uh... (let me see, 'annual' doesn't work because God forbid one debate takes a year; no other unit of time works because we really don't know how long one debate would take... so let's see... aha!) our First Anachronistic Debate here at TotalRP! I'm Solipsism, your host!
Today begins the voting on exactly what topic will be the first to be discussed. Voting will go until... well, until we all agree that enough people have voted, and then whichever topic has the most votes will be the subject of the Anachronistic Debate!
Once a topic has been chosen, anyone who wants to participate will put themselves forward as a volunteer, and state their position - AFF (Affirmative - For) or NEG (Negative - Against). More on this follows.
Once all volunteers have been counted, we'll have a... Oh, darn, Rochambeau wouldn't work on a forum... Well... Well, we're all mature here, so we'll just collectively decide who will participate. The only rule about who can participate is that there has to be someone on one side of the argument, and someone on the other. No "I totally agree with you" debates like the lovely one that spawned this monstrosity! Ahem.
So now we have a topic, and we have our two opposing sides. What happens next? The AFF side will state their specific position in a 'resolution statement'. This is an important part of real debate, as it can often change everyone's expectations, and can even change the footing of the entire debate! For example, if the issue at hand is Freedom of Speech and the Government's Right to Restrict it, your resolution does not have to be "We think the government should censor stuff!" Your only requirement is to be in favor of something to do with the issue. For instance, "We think the government should censor sexual lyrics in music." This would effectively restrict the entire debate to the topic of sexual song lyrics - rendering any arguments the opposing side might have about late-night episodes of South Park completely useless. Now, whatever the AFF side's resolution statement is, the NEG side is a reversal of that statement. In the above example, the NEG would be "We do not think the government should censor sexual song lyrics." So you see that by taking the NEG side, you may be putting yourself in a tight spot if the AFF gives you an unexpected resolution statement.
And now the debate begins. Sort of. The AFF side should first define their resolution. In other words, define the important terms in your resolution, in regards to this debate. If your resolution statement was "We think the government should censor sexual song lyrics," you might want to define the "Government" as being the United States of America's governing body that consists of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches; "Censor" as meaning to impose legal restrictions on the production of a product (or, alternately, to ban it outright, or however you wish to define it); "Sexual" as any reference, implied or otherwise, to physical intercourse (or, alternately, you could define "Sexual" as only those lyrics that directly and explicitly reference physical intercourse); "Song" as any individual piece of music produced by a professional label (which would leave independent artists free from censorship, unless you want to be more strict and define "Song" as any musical composition); and "Lyrics" as the words that make up the vocal component of a song. As you see, your definitions have about as much impact on the footing of the debate as your resolution statement, so be thorough, and be specific. Anything you don't define, the NEG side is free to define, so if you leave a definition out, don't be surprised if the NEG side shoots you down just by defining a piece of your own resolution statement!
Once the AFF gives their resolution statement and defines the resolution, they will state their plan. Basically, the resolution statement says that there's an abstract thing that needs to be done - i.e., we should censor sexual song lyrics - and the plan is a specific (but not too specific) course of action for getting that done. For example, "The U.S. Government will institute a heavy financial penalty for any national record labels that deliberately produce and market albums featuring sexual lyrics." (By this point, everything in the resolution has been defined, so no more definitions are necessary.) As Wikipedia so helpfully states, "If the Affirmative fails to present a plan, the negation can claim that they win automatically because the Affirmative did not give them a concrete procedure to argue against and effectively ruined the educational value of the debate." So don't forget a plan!
So, to summarize for the AFF's opening: State your position, define the key parts of it, and make a plan to legally institute your position. All of this sets the framework for the debate.
Once this is done (it really won't take as long as it took me to type all that, so don't be too freaked out), the AFF should make their first post proper. Basically, this is where you start arguing your resolution. It is advisable to argue specific points, but beyond that, we won't impose any structural rules on individual posts. Just be sure to argue in such a way that your key points can be identified and addressed. In public debate, it's not uncommon for participants to actually say "Our first point is such-and-such. [Argument] Our second point is such-and-such. [Argument]" And so on. You don't have to do this, but it might help you keep your argument easily navigable. In addition, by doing this, you can navigate your own post, so if you want to insert an extra thought, you can go up through your post and put it where it will make the most sense, instead of sticking it at the end with an "Oh and also..." But, as I said, this isn't required by any means. Try to include every relevant point you can think of, because this is the only post in which you should introduce arguments. After this, it's all rebuttal and review. Once you've made all the arguments you wish to make, just end your post.
Everything in yellow should be incorporated into the AFF's first post.
So now the NEG finally gets to post. Your first order of business is going to be to try to pick holes in their set-up. If their resolution doesn't fit with the original issue - if, for example, the issue was censorship and they said "We think animal testing should be banned" - point out that their resolution doesn't have anything to do with the issue. Make sure to see if they defined every important term. If they didn't, go ahead and define it for them, in a way that puts you at an advantage and them at a disadvantage. If they forgot to define "Lyrics", define it as "Any words sung by the lead singer", so that the background singers could sing all the inappropriate garbage they want. And later in the debate, point out that censoring the music wouldn't do much good, since some genius decided to let the background lyrics be free from censorship. Trust me - the AFF can't do anything about it at this point, and it really makes them look like heels. Finally, make sure they have a plan. If they don't, point it out. And just like before, make sure their plan is relevant to their resolution. If not, point it out.
Once you've filled in all the cracks in the AFF's setup, you can begin arguing. Your FIRST post should be essentially the same as theirs; make your first argument. This is NOT the place where you address their arguments. Feel free to be subtle and clever about shooting down their arguments, but don't directly address anything the AFF has said. Just make YOUR argument.
Everything in teal should be incorporated into the NEG's first post.
Now the AFF gets to address the NEG's first post. Basically, try to refute, as completely and effectively as you can, their entire post, point-by-point. If their post was badly structured and difficult to get a coherent meaning out of, do the best you can to address any arguments they made. Don't introduce any new points in this post; this is just a rebuttal, so all you need to do is shoot down the NEG's arguments.
Everything in orange should be incorporated into the AFF's second post.
And reverse. The NEG's second post should be the same as the AFF's. Don't introduce new points, and try as hard as you can to address, if not completely shoot down, all of their points. If you don't address a point, called "dropping" the point, this will look very bad for you. NOTE that you have a bit of an advantage here, because you ARE allowed to rebut both their first and second posts. It's advisable to rebut their first post, and once you're done, move on to the second. You're NOT required to rebut their second post, but it will make you look like a debate ninja if you completely rebut both of their posts.
Now, in genuine public debate, this is where the Leader of the NEG would sit down and the Member of the NEG would stand up and make their 'third speech', but since we only have two participants, you're just going to continue your post with this. It's suggested to make some sort of separation, like a page break with three asterisks, or something distinctive to let us know your rebuttal is completely finished.
Once you're done with your rebuttal, you'll make your closing arguments. Basically, reiterate your main points in a way that makes them sound cool and absolute and unarguable, and close off any rebuttals that still need to be made. As a final closing, state your reason for believing that you should win the debate. Even if you think you did miserably and there's no way you can win, tell us with confidence why you kicked your opponents behind and why you should win.
Everything in blue should be incorporated into the NEG's second post.
This is the same as the second half of the NEG's second post; you close off with your arguments, any remaining rebuttals, and then tell us why you pwnt the NEG side.
Everything in brown should be incorporated into the AFF's third post.
And then I edit this post to make a poll to see who the judges (basically, everybody but the participants) think wins. And to make sure there is NO CHEATING, there will be a third option entitled "Participants' Choice", and if you participated, you must vote for that option. If there are not two (and only two) votes for that option, then someone is not doing what they're supposed to be doing! 
And finally, for those of you unsure about the poll options, some elaboration on them!
Violence in the Media: Do you think GTA turned America's youth into car-stealing, foul-mouthed rapists and murderers? Do you think Marilyn Manson turned Kip Kinkel into a sociopathic gun-toting lunatic? An AFF would say "Yes" - Violence in the Media is bad. It's up to you to refine this into a resolution.
Adoption by Same-Sex Couples: Do you think gay parents will inevitably raise gay children? Do you think it would matter if they did? Do you think same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt children?
An AFF would say "Yes" - Adoption by Same-Sex Couples is good. It's up to you to refine this into a resolution.
Anarchism: Do you think Democrats and Republicans should shut the hell up and realize that they're all idiots? Do you think the presence of a government itself is the real problem? An AFF would say "Yes" - Anarchism is good. It's up to you to refine this into a resolution.
Organ Donation: Opt-In or Opt-Out?: Do you think it would be more efficient if people had to opt-out of being an organ donor, thus making everyone an organ donor until they say 'No', instead of the current system, where no one is an organ donor until they say 'Yes?' An AFF would say "Yes" - We should switch to an Opt-Out Organ Donation system. It's up to you to refine this into a resolution.
War Crimes Tribunals: Do you think victors of a war should be able to prosecute the losers for crimes committed in wartime, or do you think this is nothing more than pretentious gloating? Do you think War Crimes Tribunals should be allowed? An AFF would say "Yes" - War Crimes Tribunals are good. It's up to you to refine this into a resolution.
Wikipedia: Do you think Wikipedia is a useful tool, or a deceptively inefficient gimmick? Do you think it's as unreliable as your teachers say it is, or is it really a quick source of useful information? An AFF would say "Yes" - Wikipedia is good. It's up to you to refine this into a resolution.
Mercenaries: Do you think mercenaries should just get over themselves and join the army? Or do you think they should be afforded the same rights, respect, etc., as the government-run military? An AFF would say "Yes" - Mercenaries are good. It's up to you to refine this into a resolution.
Genetic Screening: Do you think it's immoral to utilize the ability to decide whether we want a male or female child, a blonde or a redhead, an athletic chick magnet or a reserved genius? Or do you think we should be able to alter our unborn childrens' genetic makeup as we please, to design our children in the same way we design a GaiaOnline avatar? An AFF would say "Yes" - Genetic Screening is good. It's up to you to refine this into a resolution. (Note that some of that was nonsense; it might be possible in the future, but it's not possible at the present. But the basic concept still applies.
)
As a closing note, I'll include some most-likely-useless information. For starters, this debate is completely academic. In a hundred years - Hell, probably in one year - no one will even remember that this debate took place, let alone still care. So don't take anything personally, and keep a sense of perspective. All we're really doing here is arguing in a closed-circle environment, for our own reasons, but none of those reasons are personal. In order to keep me from becoming a liar, keep some of these real public debate rules in mind. I am not instituting ANY of these rules here, I'm just putting them forward for you to think about:
1. Don't talk to your opponent. Don't even look at them. You're not attacking them - you're attacking their argument. You shouldn't really address your opponent at all, except perhaps to say "My opponent claims that [blank]," and then address whatever point they claimed. Feel free to be snarky and passive-aggressive if you must, but know that it won't make your argument look any cleverer, and it won't make you any friends. If, on the other hand, your opponent gets snarky and passive-aggressive, just put yourself on a high horse and be the mature one.
2. In Public Debate, there are varying time limits for all of the speeches, but none of them are over eight minutes. Take advantage of the fact that there is no limit for how much you can write here - you have space for a lot more points here than you can make in a real debate.
3. In Public Debate, not only do you not necessarily get to choose your topic, but you don't even get to choose what side you're on. Again, take advantage of the fact that you get to choose (sort of) your topic, and what side you argue.
4. This is not a rule in Public Debate, but those who keep it in mind do much better: Think from your opponent's point of view. Before you ever see their arguments, try and think up your own arguments for their side, and come up with good rebuttals for them. That way, you've already gotten a taste of what they'll say, and you'll be better prepared to deal with it.
There may be more, but like I said, none of this is really vital, so you only have to check back here if you really want to.
(So this is the first time I've ever made a thread like this, and this post is probably long and intimidating and scary. If there are ANY questions, please ask me (or someone else that would be able to help)!
Remember, the colored information isn't required reading unless you are a participant, so don't be too intimidated by all the text.
I DID, however, rework a few things, so if YOU did debate in high school, don't just assume the format is the same, 'cause it's not.In a very general sense, this is going to be somewhat similar to Public Debate, with only two participants rather than four.
Finally, you do NOT have to read this entire post all the way through unless you want to. All of the colored information is structured so that you can reference it when you need it; it details how posts should be written. The only generally important information is the stuff that is not colored, like this.)
So here we are, at our First... uh... (let me see, 'annual' doesn't work because God forbid one debate takes a year; no other unit of time works because we really don't know how long one debate would take... so let's see... aha!) our First Anachronistic Debate here at TotalRP! I'm Solipsism, your host!
Today begins the voting on exactly what topic will be the first to be discussed. Voting will go until... well, until we all agree that enough people have voted, and then whichever topic has the most votes will be the subject of the Anachronistic Debate!
Once a topic has been chosen, anyone who wants to participate will put themselves forward as a volunteer, and state their position - AFF (Affirmative - For) or NEG (Negative - Against). More on this follows.
Once all volunteers have been counted, we'll have a... Oh, darn, Rochambeau wouldn't work on a forum... Well... Well, we're all mature here, so we'll just collectively decide who will participate. The only rule about who can participate is that there has to be someone on one side of the argument, and someone on the other. No "I totally agree with you" debates like the lovely one that spawned this monstrosity! Ahem.
So now we have a topic, and we have our two opposing sides. What happens next? The AFF side will state their specific position in a 'resolution statement'. This is an important part of real debate, as it can often change everyone's expectations, and can even change the footing of the entire debate! For example, if the issue at hand is Freedom of Speech and the Government's Right to Restrict it, your resolution does not have to be "We think the government should censor stuff!" Your only requirement is to be in favor of something to do with the issue. For instance, "We think the government should censor sexual lyrics in music." This would effectively restrict the entire debate to the topic of sexual song lyrics - rendering any arguments the opposing side might have about late-night episodes of South Park completely useless. Now, whatever the AFF side's resolution statement is, the NEG side is a reversal of that statement. In the above example, the NEG would be "We do not think the government should censor sexual song lyrics." So you see that by taking the NEG side, you may be putting yourself in a tight spot if the AFF gives you an unexpected resolution statement.
And now the debate begins. Sort of. The AFF side should first define their resolution. In other words, define the important terms in your resolution, in regards to this debate. If your resolution statement was "We think the government should censor sexual song lyrics," you might want to define the "Government" as being the United States of America's governing body that consists of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches; "Censor" as meaning to impose legal restrictions on the production of a product (or, alternately, to ban it outright, or however you wish to define it); "Sexual" as any reference, implied or otherwise, to physical intercourse (or, alternately, you could define "Sexual" as only those lyrics that directly and explicitly reference physical intercourse); "Song" as any individual piece of music produced by a professional label (which would leave independent artists free from censorship, unless you want to be more strict and define "Song" as any musical composition); and "Lyrics" as the words that make up the vocal component of a song. As you see, your definitions have about as much impact on the footing of the debate as your resolution statement, so be thorough, and be specific. Anything you don't define, the NEG side is free to define, so if you leave a definition out, don't be surprised if the NEG side shoots you down just by defining a piece of your own resolution statement!
Once the AFF gives their resolution statement and defines the resolution, they will state their plan. Basically, the resolution statement says that there's an abstract thing that needs to be done - i.e., we should censor sexual song lyrics - and the plan is a specific (but not too specific) course of action for getting that done. For example, "The U.S. Government will institute a heavy financial penalty for any national record labels that deliberately produce and market albums featuring sexual lyrics." (By this point, everything in the resolution has been defined, so no more definitions are necessary.) As Wikipedia so helpfully states, "If the Affirmative fails to present a plan, the negation can claim that they win automatically because the Affirmative did not give them a concrete procedure to argue against and effectively ruined the educational value of the debate." So don't forget a plan!
So, to summarize for the AFF's opening: State your position, define the key parts of it, and make a plan to legally institute your position. All of this sets the framework for the debate.
Once this is done (it really won't take as long as it took me to type all that, so don't be too freaked out), the AFF should make their first post proper. Basically, this is where you start arguing your resolution. It is advisable to argue specific points, but beyond that, we won't impose any structural rules on individual posts. Just be sure to argue in such a way that your key points can be identified and addressed. In public debate, it's not uncommon for participants to actually say "Our first point is such-and-such. [Argument] Our second point is such-and-such. [Argument]" And so on. You don't have to do this, but it might help you keep your argument easily navigable. In addition, by doing this, you can navigate your own post, so if you want to insert an extra thought, you can go up through your post and put it where it will make the most sense, instead of sticking it at the end with an "Oh and also..." But, as I said, this isn't required by any means. Try to include every relevant point you can think of, because this is the only post in which you should introduce arguments. After this, it's all rebuttal and review. Once you've made all the arguments you wish to make, just end your post.
Everything in yellow should be incorporated into the AFF's first post.
So now the NEG finally gets to post. Your first order of business is going to be to try to pick holes in their set-up. If their resolution doesn't fit with the original issue - if, for example, the issue was censorship and they said "We think animal testing should be banned" - point out that their resolution doesn't have anything to do with the issue. Make sure to see if they defined every important term. If they didn't, go ahead and define it for them, in a way that puts you at an advantage and them at a disadvantage. If they forgot to define "Lyrics", define it as "Any words sung by the lead singer", so that the background singers could sing all the inappropriate garbage they want. And later in the debate, point out that censoring the music wouldn't do much good, since some genius decided to let the background lyrics be free from censorship. Trust me - the AFF can't do anything about it at this point, and it really makes them look like heels. Finally, make sure they have a plan. If they don't, point it out. And just like before, make sure their plan is relevant to their resolution. If not, point it out.
Once you've filled in all the cracks in the AFF's setup, you can begin arguing. Your FIRST post should be essentially the same as theirs; make your first argument. This is NOT the place where you address their arguments. Feel free to be subtle and clever about shooting down their arguments, but don't directly address anything the AFF has said. Just make YOUR argument.
Everything in teal should be incorporated into the NEG's first post.
Now the AFF gets to address the NEG's first post. Basically, try to refute, as completely and effectively as you can, their entire post, point-by-point. If their post was badly structured and difficult to get a coherent meaning out of, do the best you can to address any arguments they made. Don't introduce any new points in this post; this is just a rebuttal, so all you need to do is shoot down the NEG's arguments.
Everything in orange should be incorporated into the AFF's second post.
And reverse. The NEG's second post should be the same as the AFF's. Don't introduce new points, and try as hard as you can to address, if not completely shoot down, all of their points. If you don't address a point, called "dropping" the point, this will look very bad for you. NOTE that you have a bit of an advantage here, because you ARE allowed to rebut both their first and second posts. It's advisable to rebut their first post, and once you're done, move on to the second. You're NOT required to rebut their second post, but it will make you look like a debate ninja if you completely rebut both of their posts.
Now, in genuine public debate, this is where the Leader of the NEG would sit down and the Member of the NEG would stand up and make their 'third speech', but since we only have two participants, you're just going to continue your post with this. It's suggested to make some sort of separation, like a page break with three asterisks, or something distinctive to let us know your rebuttal is completely finished.
Once you're done with your rebuttal, you'll make your closing arguments. Basically, reiterate your main points in a way that makes them sound cool and absolute and unarguable, and close off any rebuttals that still need to be made. As a final closing, state your reason for believing that you should win the debate. Even if you think you did miserably and there's no way you can win, tell us with confidence why you kicked your opponents behind and why you should win.
Everything in blue should be incorporated into the NEG's second post.
This is the same as the second half of the NEG's second post; you close off with your arguments, any remaining rebuttals, and then tell us why you pwnt the NEG side.
Everything in brown should be incorporated into the AFF's third post.
And then I edit this post to make a poll to see who the judges (basically, everybody but the participants) think wins.
And to make sure there is NO CHEATING, there will be a third option entitled "Participants' Choice", and if you participated, you must vote for that option. If there are not two (and only two) votes for that option, then someone is not doing what they're supposed to be doing! And finally, for those of you unsure about the poll options, some elaboration on them!
Violence in the Media: Do you think GTA turned America's youth into car-stealing, foul-mouthed rapists and murderers? Do you think Marilyn Manson turned Kip Kinkel into a sociopathic gun-toting lunatic? An AFF would say "Yes" - Violence in the Media is bad. It's up to you to refine this into a resolution.
Adoption by Same-Sex Couples: Do you think gay parents will inevitably raise gay children? Do you think it would matter if they did? Do you think same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt children?
An AFF would say "Yes" - Adoption by Same-Sex Couples is good. It's up to you to refine this into a resolution.
Anarchism: Do you think Democrats and Republicans should shut the hell up and realize that they're all idiots? Do you think the presence of a government itself is the real problem? An AFF would say "Yes" - Anarchism is good. It's up to you to refine this into a resolution.
Organ Donation: Opt-In or Opt-Out?: Do you think it would be more efficient if people had to opt-out of being an organ donor, thus making everyone an organ donor until they say 'No', instead of the current system, where no one is an organ donor until they say 'Yes?' An AFF would say "Yes" - We should switch to an Opt-Out Organ Donation system. It's up to you to refine this into a resolution.
War Crimes Tribunals: Do you think victors of a war should be able to prosecute the losers for crimes committed in wartime, or do you think this is nothing more than pretentious gloating? Do you think War Crimes Tribunals should be allowed? An AFF would say "Yes" - War Crimes Tribunals are good. It's up to you to refine this into a resolution.
Wikipedia: Do you think Wikipedia is a useful tool, or a deceptively inefficient gimmick? Do you think it's as unreliable as your teachers say it is, or is it really a quick source of useful information? An AFF would say "Yes" - Wikipedia is good. It's up to you to refine this into a resolution.
Mercenaries: Do you think mercenaries should just get over themselves and join the army? Or do you think they should be afforded the same rights, respect, etc., as the government-run military? An AFF would say "Yes" - Mercenaries are good. It's up to you to refine this into a resolution.
Genetic Screening: Do you think it's immoral to utilize the ability to decide whether we want a male or female child, a blonde or a redhead, an athletic chick magnet or a reserved genius? Or do you think we should be able to alter our unborn childrens' genetic makeup as we please, to design our children in the same way we design a GaiaOnline avatar? An AFF would say "Yes" - Genetic Screening is good. It's up to you to refine this into a resolution. (Note that some of that was nonsense; it might be possible in the future, but it's not possible at the present. But the basic concept still applies.
)As a closing note, I'll include some most-likely-useless information. For starters, this debate is completely academic. In a hundred years - Hell, probably in one year - no one will even remember that this debate took place, let alone still care. So don't take anything personally, and keep a sense of perspective. All we're really doing here is arguing in a closed-circle environment, for our own reasons, but none of those reasons are personal. In order to keep me from becoming a liar, keep some of these real public debate rules in mind. I am not instituting ANY of these rules here, I'm just putting them forward for you to think about:
1. Don't talk to your opponent. Don't even look at them. You're not attacking them - you're attacking their argument. You shouldn't really address your opponent at all, except perhaps to say "My opponent claims that [blank]," and then address whatever point they claimed. Feel free to be snarky and passive-aggressive if you must, but know that it won't make your argument look any cleverer, and it won't make you any friends. If, on the other hand, your opponent gets snarky and passive-aggressive, just put yourself on a high horse and be the mature one.
2. In Public Debate, there are varying time limits for all of the speeches, but none of them are over eight minutes. Take advantage of the fact that there is no limit for how much you can write here - you have space for a lot more points here than you can make in a real debate.
3. In Public Debate, not only do you not necessarily get to choose your topic, but you don't even get to choose what side you're on. Again, take advantage of the fact that you get to choose (sort of) your topic, and what side you argue.
4. This is not a rule in Public Debate, but those who keep it in mind do much better: Think from your opponent's point of view. Before you ever see their arguments, try and think up your own arguments for their side, and come up with good rebuttals for them. That way, you've already gotten a taste of what they'll say, and you'll be better prepared to deal with it.
There may be more, but like I said, none of this is really vital, so you only have to check back here if you really want to.
(So this is the first time I've ever made a thread like this, and this post is probably long and intimidating and scary. If there are ANY questions, please ask me (or someone else that would be able to help)!
Remember, the colored information isn't required reading unless you are a participant, so don't be too intimidated by all the text.
There's still two more days to make it a week, of course. Think we can expect many more to pop by? L'Tia might come by, but I don't know of anyone else who's likely to be active enough to see it before then.
