Article 24539 of talk.origins:
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: t.o., the home game
Message-ID: <97924@BU.EDU>
Date: 8 Oct 92 00:13:40 GMT
References: <91820@NETNEWS.UPENN.EDU> <97817@BU.EDU> 
Sender: news@bu.edu
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome
Lines: 157

Below is my proposal for making debating on t.o. a competitive
event. Posters can score points depending on what they induce
the creationist (C'ist) they are debating to do or say in the 
t.o. forum. Email responses do not count. Using the chart below
each person can easily keep track of his/her own score and t.o.
members could from time to time compare their scores for a given
period of time or "race" to reach a certain score. The possibilities
are almost limitless. So, submitted for your approval, are my rules
for "The talk.origins game". Enjoy!


SCORING POINTS
--------------

+2 if the C'ist avoids a direct question (The C'ist must respond to
part of the post and omit the question. Posts that are completely
ignored score no points.)

+4 for each subsequent time you ask and the C'ist ignores the question

+5 if the C'ist claims he will answer you, then leaves the group

+6 if the C'ist claims he will answer you, then continues to
post away while ignoring the question (This scores six points
once, not every subsequent post, else those debating Bales would
have an unfair advantage.)

+1 for every time the C'ist give an irrelevent or non-sensical
response (posters debating Antti or Lionel must scale their score 
by dividing by 3 for this category)

+3 for every (new) factual error you catch a C'ist making

+7 if, to correct the error, you needed to do library work

(For both of the above, the fact must be a fact (*) and not a matter 
of opinion. Since this is t.o., no points will be gained simply from
asserting that evolutiion is fact (too easy). "Library work" will 
mean you had to go to a source more involved than a introductory
text in biology or evolution. Scientists or grad students do not
qualify for the +7 in their feild as they have easy access to more
involved literature. They can only score +3.)

(*) -- I'm talking about easy to verify, unambiguous statements, 
like horses (in general) have four legs.

+0.5 for correcting incorrect "facts" that are old hat

+2 for correcting a C'ists logic

+4 each time the C'ist makes the the same general mistake (i.e. using 
"appeal to authority" again, but appealing to a different authority)

+5 for pointing out when a C'ist contradicts himself

+15 if a C'ists argument comes around full circle, i.e. if, in
piling on ad hoc layers of explanation to save his viewpoint,
the C'ists reasserts an earlier point which the present ad hoc
argument is meant to save

+10 for catching a C'ist lying. This includes re-presenting "facts"
that have been refuted or logical arguments which have been refuted
without the C'ist addressing the criticism. In general, you must show
the C'ist is indeed deliberately lying, not just ignorant or stupid.

+20 for each time the C'ist repeats the lie

(If you are arguing with Ted, you must scale your score by dividing
by 10 for the above two categories.)

+5 getting a C'ist to admit he was wrong about something (no matter
how trivial)

+10 for convincing a C'ist in the fact of microevolution (They must
be non-believers to start with.)

+100 getting Ted to admit he was wrong about something (no matter
how trivial -- Hey Ted, what was the name of that author you
constantly quote? Is the felt effect of spelling somehow
influencing your writing?)

+250 for convincing a C'ist of the fact of common descent and
modification with descent (This may seem like a lot of points,
but I don't think I've ever seen this happen so I made it worth
alot.)

SPECIAL AWARDS
--------------

These can only be given to you by others

The gut-buster award
+6

Every once in awhile, someone cracks a really good joke. Upon seeing
one, any t.o. member may bestow this award on the jocular poster.
Jokes that are funny at the expense of another may qualify, in
addition, for the next category.

The white-hot flame award 
+6

This can be bestowed on any t.o. member by any other in recognition
of a truly superior flame. This should be reserved for flames that
are truly exceptional; mere scorched-earth, name-calling tirades
do not count.

The "Ted Badge of Courage" award
+12

This can only be awarded by Ted, and you can only recieve the points
for it once. You score 12 if Ted responds by attacking you personally.
For example, if he attempts to ridicule you by making fun of your
weight or claiming you must be on drugs to believe whatever it is
you believe. 

The "burn in hell" award
+8

This can only be awarded by C'ists. You score six if, in response
to a posting of yours, a C'ist claims you are a pawn of Satan,
part of a Satanic conspiracy, Satan himself or will burn in hell
for your beliefs. 

PENALTIES
---------

-5 for failing to sense when humor is being used 8-)

-25 if there was a smiley present

-15 for posting anything about punk eek without understanding it

-50 if a C'ist corrects a factual error of yours (This may seem
like a big penalty, but lets face it -- if a C'ist has a better
grasp of bio than you do, maybe you shouldn't be posting.)

-8 for crossposting to other boards when this results in useless
threads continuing in talk.origins

-16 for crossposting and starting a irrelevant religious thread
on t.o.
 
-1 for quoting the entire text of a post, then responding to
a single point (unless you are composing a parody of Antti)

-1 if your post originates from a third world country... like
Canada (he says, hoping to cheese of Larry and get a nasty
email response 8-)

Well, what do you think? Let the games begin.

Chris Colby     ---      email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu     ---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
        --Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"