[TD] Public discussion

[Roland_Deschain]

This is for everyone and anyone who wants to contribute good ideas and thoughts regarding the consistently flowing team debate setup.​

Please take a look at the original thread posted and "The Debatists" thread in order to have a good example of where we are standing at the moment.​

The purpose of this thread is to feature the involvment of everyone who wants it to succeed and be awesome. ​

Your opinions and views will be reflected in the changes made in "The Debatists" thread. So make sure if you want to say something, that you do. ​

If you are watching "the debatists" thread, and see something you agree with or disagree with, post it in here!!! I garuntee you that our prioritys will be to ensure the best possible growth and success for "you", the public.​

I hope everyone enjoys and participates what we are striving to work for.​

 

[ribbit]

I love a good ol' religious debate on the existence of God. Let's see if we can get one of those in here at some point. This one usually gets a bit more complicated than "I believe God exists" and "I don't believe God exists," but whatever works best.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

I love a good ol' religious debate on the existence of God. Let's see if we can get one of those in here at some point. This one usually gets a bit more complicated than "I believe God exists" and "I don't believe God exists," but whatever works best.

I just want to make sure that you realize you are on the td organization Drak, please have a look and serious thought put into it. We can possibly organize the first RANDOM debate to be a religious one. It is something for you to definately discuss there.


FOR EVERYONE: Who is intrested in a Randon religious debate for the first weekly random setting debate? If so... give some examples of what would be intresting.

 

[Shaissa]

Well If your going to debate religion, I rather stay away from which religions are right and wrong.

More on how helpful or hurtful religions can be, or how religions vs government, how much should religious laws effect government laws.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

Well If your going to debate religion, I rather stay away from which religions are right and wrong.

More on how helpful or hurtful religions can be, or how religions vs government, how much should religious laws effect government laws.

This is very helpful. What does everyone else think? Keeping in mind, we are currently discussing religion based debates for a "random" setting.

 

[ribbit]

I just want to make sure that you realize you are on the td organization Drak, please have a look and serious thought put into it. We can possibly organize the first RANDOM debate to be a religious one. It is something for you to definately discuss there.

Heh, whoops Got confused and thought we could put ideas in here as well.

Well If your going to debate religion, I rather stay away from which religions are right and wrong.

More on how helpful or hurtful religions can be, or how religions vs government, how much should religious laws effect government laws.

Yeah, none of the right and wrong stuff. Those just get way out of hand because everyone will say their religion is right and no one else's. That's why I said the existence of God. Many people argue the fact of His existence, and I wanted to see how many people would argue that here.

 

[Noize]

After reading the rules and guidelines, I think this'll be a fun ride! I just hope the debates won't keep going in circles and the debates won't get out of hand.

 

[Ayumi Hamasaki]

Now I shall give my old fashioned five cents for I was not here when this whole concept was presented.

#1 Voting: Currently there are many ideas regarding this. One popular one seems to advocate making two poles per debate. One of these poles would capture the viewer’s opinion before they read the thread, and the second would offer their choice of what team/persons did the best job debating their sides. Personally I find this idea simple and convenient, but what do you think. If you have an idea please present it.

So the debates are going to be decided by the reader of the thread? If that's the concept, I suggest that you make each person who votes write out a well thought out response on why they choose the person/side that they did, because otherwise it would just be a popularity contest. The viewer's opinion poll could probably use that same concept as well.

Or another option would be for the debate mods to decide or have part of the decision to balance against popularity having too much effect on the outcome. Unless you plan to have the people formulate the arguments themselves and send them to the mods to post in a way not unlike SOTW is done.

You could have a mod a side, and PM each side/person their role, and keep who was on what side secret from the general public. In that way their vote would be for a side and not a particular team or person. Of course, you might already have discussed this idea. To be honest I only read The Debatists thread and not ALL of the original one.

#2 Debate cycle: This is a cornerstone of interest in my opinion. We will need to discuss a good cycle for debating that ensures continuation when some of us are busy, or when other people don’t have things to debate. So far, there has been well received opinions regarding having a standard debate which we could sign up for: 3-5 on each team. Also a Radom Debate worth signing up for, where people can sign up not knowing which side they will be debating. Also a Final Fantasy debate you can sign up for. Now as far as critiquing this idea, we need to discuss how long these debates should last. How much time should we allow for preparation of each debate? How many debates should be set up by the TD’s (us) at one time?

So what you are presenting is one debate where people will choose which side they want, one where it will be random, and a debate about Final Fantasy? The first two ideas work in my head, but I don't really get the Final Fantasy one. How would it be made into more than just a debate of opinion in the end? The only ideas that come to my mind that you could really debate in terms of Final Fantasy are things like "Which games/character/weapon is better?".

Unless you plan to have debates about the philosophical aspects of the game in which case you'd have to be really careful or you'd just end up with the same. Aerith and her Faith comes to my mind and that was a disaster of a debate in the end with both sides just repeating themselves. I'm curious as to what ideas you will think up for the Final Fantasy debate, because it could be really interesting.

Oh or you could do strategy debates. I'm not sure how many people would enjoy that, but it could be interesting. Such as the best way to beat such such or something. It would be something different from the norm at least. But I'm not sure, like I said I'd be interested in a more through explanation of what is planned for that particular debate or to see it play out.

#3 Topical votes: This one I think needs the most work. I think a rotating system of each of us TD’s putting forward polls for the next upcoming debate topics could be successful. For example, we can switch positions evenly on standard, Random, and FF settings. Also, together we can come up with different topics every week for the public to vote which debate would be best, by simply signing up for them. Now one issue pointed out is how the public can be involved by suggesting debate topics, which does not interfere with continued progress. This is a tricky problem which we could figure out together. One thing I realize is the ability for people to make a debate team and set up a debate, might just be more than enough to ensure fairness in inclusion with their ideas for topics. Also please the simple style I put forward for voting placing in usernames to participate. Do you like this A1 A2 B1 B2, ect?

Hmmm, this is more book keeping than something I can have an opinion on, I think. What I understand is that you will have the next topics voted on by the public to see which one they are most interested in? But will there not be a debate for each topic every week then? The wording makes me think you're saying rotate between topics each week and I think that works well if that's what you mean.

The rest I do not think is meant for public comment.

#4 MODERATION CYCLE: Similar to the topic cycle, we need to create a system where we do not moderate our own debates, yet insure we are always moderating the debates at hand. Simultaneously we want this system to allow us to be involved with debates, without and conflict of interest. A system like this could involve us switching the style of debate we are watching for the week, whether it be standard, random, or FF. This should also include a system of casting potential debates topics to vote upon in upcoming threads together. Please leave your feedback on this idea

Could the moderators not agree on topics that they want to debate in before, and the ones who have no interest in a particular topic moderate that thread? Or is that already what's been suggested?

I do think that moderators should be individuals who are able to participate in a debate and still moderate fairly but I can't help but wonder if that would actually happen (no offense to any of the mods chosen for this project). If I had a dime for everytime mods or even former mods were accused of getting bias in the other debate threads, then I'd be pretty rich. So I don't exactly know how to handle that particular problem other than what I said.

Hopefully the sort of person who would resort to that sort of claim (if it's not true, which let's face it a majority of the time it isn't) won't be involved.

However I'd like to STRESS that you outline some sort of constructive way to "report" moderators who people are having issues with just in case. Not that I think any of the moderators involved with this would ever do anything wrong, but so that if someone did feel the "need" to complain they would have a constructive way to do so and not bring it into the debates. Just for fairness sakes you know?

#5 DEBATE REQUIREMENTS: This is very important to discuss. I was thinking each debates, in each debate would be allowed a certain word count coupled with a post limit. These two factors would be set within the debates running timeframe, and I do not think that word count should be carried to others posts if not utilized. Do you agree with this? If you do, please explain what you guys think would be a good number as far as word count and post limit goes. Also about the idea of swapping sides in the standard setting, is this something everyone agrees with?

Post limit for team or for person? Or for that matter, will each person in a team be able to post, or will their be one post for each team? I'm not sure, but I don't think that's been addressed anywhere.

I think that a post limit would be a good idea. That way people/teams (or whatever's decided about the above) will have to think about what they want to say, and there won't be any rambling on, boring arguments that never end because both sides just go on repeating the same points.

A word limit I'm not so fond of, because if it's a serious debate, and you actually have to sources and such then your posts can get quite long. I would say that you don't have one and someone tends to ramble one of the mods could handle it. I really don't see too many walls of text in the debate threads we have now.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by switching sides though. Maybe it wasn't met for me.

#6 DEBATE RULES AND REGULATIONS: The following is a simple rough draft setup of guidelines to be followed during debates. TD’s please discuss if anything should be added or taken away from this list.

OK EVERYONE. Here are some basic guildelines that will be enforced for the team debates

.

- Each debatist will be allowed no more then 800 Words per post.

I don't think this is a good idea for the reason above. If someone needs that many words to use proof and make an intelligent contribution I don't think

- Each Debatist will be allowed no more then 15 overall posts during the debate's duration.

I agree. 15-20. Oh and this settles it....per person and not per side. Okay then 15 would be enough.

- All forms of insults are strictly forbiddon.

Agreed.

- Every "question" given by a person, must be addressed by the person it was asked to.

Does this mean that other people can't answer the question as well? I wasn't sure on that.

- All statistics using percents, ratio's, numbers, must be coupled with posted information.

I assume you mean reputable sources? In that case I agree, and I would also say that general statements should be avoided, (i.e Some people think such and such) but I'm not sure if that needs to be in the rules.

- The duration of each debate will be five days in length in order to work smoothly.

Agreed. The people involved in the debate should mostly have an idea of what they are going to be up to in the next five days so that should flow well and keep things moving.

- Every opponent must cross words with each other at least once, no 1v1 in a 3v3 debate.

Interesting rule. One on one should be avoided, but in general I would think most personal things should be avoided. The debate should be about both the sides and points presented and less about the people presenting them. I think that's what you mean anyway though.

- Use proper Grammar.

I would say Grammar and spelling. If this is going to be serious debate, then you can run your post through Word or Open Office or an online spell checker at very least.

- Do NOT lie. Lying is strictly forbiddon. Only provide honest truths and stated opinions, do not present opinions as facts.

Honestly personal opinions should have no or next to no place in a serious debate. None of us are professionals, and if we are then it shouldn't be too hard to find proof to back ourselves up. Nothing bugged me more than when someone would claim that they were an expert (not in those words) about something such as "I've studied this a long time". Proof please?

- No trolling.

Define trolling. I think that even so much as sarcasm should really be against the rules, because it only leads a more personal feel to the debate and starts the flames. But I may be overdoing it.

And to save space I'll just pick out the ones I wanted to comment on in regards to the next list.

Use the word "Many" or "Some" rather than "Most".

I could be wrong, but I believe if I remember rightly you shouldn't use any of those words. If these debates are going to be really serious than you should have a statistic to back up your claim or you shouldn't make one like that. I wrote a bit about that earlier. If you have proof or a source says some or many, then I believe it's okay, but it's still not as sound as actual statistical evidence.

The use of "Often" and "Generally" allows for exceptions.

Same as above. In serious debates, they are avoided if I remember rightly in favor of actual statistics.

If it is just an opinion, admit it

Or don't post in the first place. Opinions have little to no relevance to most serious debates unless they are backed up with proof.

Be open minded about religion.

On a larger level be open minded about everything. Just because you believe something doesn't make it right, etc etc. Don't get offended that people have a different opinion etc etc.

#7 DEBATE TEAMS: It’s a fairly simple idea involving the public being able to cast together their own teams and debate setups that can be subject to the same discretion and ethics as the debates the TD’s set up. We should adjust this system somewhat so it does not come out sloppy or impossible to run. Please leave your feedback.

Like a poll system, or like people making their own teams willingly? Either way it's a a good idea, as long as the same rules apply as any of the other debates. To be honest, most of the debate threads in the Sleeping Forest had a team vs team feel anyway, but I think you want to avoid that sort of team feeling.

8 MARKETING AND PROMOTING THE IDEA: We have plenty of people interested debate and we have a ton of people interested in FF discussion. Let’s come up with some ideas that can spread the word and get the FF lovers more involved as well. If anyone has any promotion or marketing suggestions please place them forward. Word of mouth is powerful, so let’s start spreading the word.

The best sort of marketing for this (in my opinion) would be picking popular topics and such at first, and really involving the people in the actual idea. Once you get it running if it work well it should have a steady flow of people. There are people who can debate and would like to, but are scared off but the sometimes.....what's the word...hateful (maybe too strong but meh) feeling that is sometimes present.

My other idea would be..to not be over intelligent. It sounds really stupid to say that, but...sometimes these debate threads sound way over the top, or people get a little too....wordy and such. This turns people off. If you are a good debater, you shouldn't need to show how many big words you can use, because you should be able to express yourself in more understandable language just as well as you do in the..... flowery type. But that may just be personal opinion.

#10 FURTHER INVOLEMENT OF THE PUBLIC: Pull out all guns on this one. Right now we are six people who care, but others do as well. It is our responsibility to make this something for everyone who wants to participate. Any ideas regarding how to further involve the public in choosing debates, assisting directions, and promoting variety, are very much welcome from you guys.

I hope my ideas were welcomed too. Even though there are a lot of them. It's just that this is sort of one of the things I always thought it would be neat to have from the moment that I first joined this site. Way back before I was over the top annoying spammer, the debate threads were actual where I spent most of my time.

Anyways, I know it's a lot to read, but I do think that I presented some good ideas. If they were already discussed or implemented I'm sorry.

Oh and an add on. Wikipedia shouldn't be a usable source in most cases, in terms of info in the actual body of the articles. The sources or references that the article itself makes use of should be mostly fair game for all the reasons that the other's listed in the other thread.

And with that I'm out of things to say for the moment.

 

[Naoto Shirogane]

Roland wanted me to post this here. a post wrote by me on the subject of Wikipedia used in Debates.


"On the subject of Wikipedia: i belive we should be able to use Wikipedia. While the fact that it can add anything making some satements false. I see no reason to ban it's usage from our discussions. However. I think that if anyone uses Wikipedia as a source for one of their facts. Must back the wikipedian fact up with At least two other non-wikipedia esque sites.

EX: Wikipedia says: (insert Item here) was made in 1987. yet (Insert other site here) says that (insert item here) was made in 1760. you go to a diffrent site. and that site agrees that (insert item here) WAS made in 1760. so theese two sights prove that it was made in 1760.

This way if Wiki lies to you. which it dose. You can be sure of your facts that two other reliable sources say that (insert item Here) was made then. It also helps discussions if you point out Wikipedia is wrong when you went and searched it. so other people don't make the same mistake."

 

[Roland_Deschain]

So the debates are going to be decided by the reader of the thread? If that's the concept, I suggest that you make each person who votes write out a well thought out response on why they choose the person/side that they did, because otherwise it would just be a popularity contest. The viewer's opinion poll could probably use that same concept as well.

Well among other things yes. Regarding this idea I think that opening the thread up after the debate has finished its weekly run is a good idea. This will allow everyone who observed it to post their two cents as to how they feel about the debate.

Or another option would be for the debate mods to decide or have part of the decision to balance against popularity having too much effect on the outcome. Unless you plan to have the people formulate the arguments themselves and send them to the mods to post in a way not unlike SOTW is done.

The idea of the mods is to stay indifferent and always supportive of progress. I think that the mods should be allowed to vote in poles, but I do not think there should be a system where they have a major part in deciding "winners". As Exocraet said... you have won a debate when you have influeced a mind to think a certain way. I do not think we always need acknowlegment of victory when it comes to debates.

You could have a mod a side, and PM each side/person their role, and keep who was on what side secret from the general public. In that way their vote would be for a side and not a particular team or person. Of course, you might already have discussed this idea. To be honest I only read The Debatists thread and not ALL of the original one.

I think this idea could be efective for the random setting. However, I think it might be hard to ensure everyones UN being a secret to the public.

So what you are presenting is one debate where people will choose which side they want, one where it will be random, and a debate about Final Fantasy? The first two ideas work in my head, but I don't really get the Final Fantasy one. How would it be made into more than just a debate of opinion in the end? The only ideas that come to my mind that you could really debate in terms of Final Fantasy are things like "Which games/character/weapon is better?".

Unless you plan to have debates about the philosophical aspects of the game in which case you'd have to be really careful or you'd just end up with the same. Aerith and her Faith comes to my mind and that was a disaster of a debate in the end with both sides just repeating themselves. I'm curious as to what ideas you will think up for the Final Fantasy debate, because it could be really interesting.

Yes philisophical debates will not be excluded from the variety of things that are debatable. I for one, have a deep intrest in philosophy, but acknowledge that each debate would have a different scenario. As for FF goes, I agree. We could have philisophical debates as to heroism, love, w/e people want to talk about. I think we could compare games based on overall concepts, and I think this could be valuable in influecing certain people to play certain game before the others.

Could the moderators not agree on topics that they want to debate in before, and the ones who have no interest in a particular topic moderate that thread? Or is that already what's been suggested?

Yes we could disagree. This is why we would all offer ideas for debatable topics, and allow the public to vote/signup for the them. The first one filled will be the one held.

I do think that moderators should be individuals who are able to participate in a debate and still moderate fairly but I can't help but wonder if that would actually happen (no offense to any of the mods chosen for this project). If I had a dime for everytime mods or even former mods were accused of getting bias in the other debate threads, then I'd be pretty rich. So I don't exactly know how to handle that particular problem other than what I said.

The mods WILL be allowed to participate in debates, however will not be allowed to interject their own involved debates. This takes away the conflict of intrest aspect.

However I'd like to STRESS that you outline some sort of constructive way to "report" moderators who people are having issues with just in case. Not that I think any of the moderators involved with this would ever do anything wrong, but so that if someone did feel the "need" to complain they would have a constructive way to do so and not bring it into the debates. Just for fairness sakes you know?

Thats why we have 6 of us. We can talk amongst ourselves. Hopefully this does not become a problem. Hopefully those people who signed up to this understand that we want to destroy problems and not create problems. We are like a watch dog group for the system.

Post limit for team or for person? Or for that matter, will each person in a team be able to post, or will their be one post for each team? I'm not sure, but I don't think that's been addressed anywhere.

Each person will be allowed to post. In the "The debatists" thread we are working this out now.

I think that a post limit would be a good idea. That way people/teams (or whatever's decided about the above) will have to think about what they want to say, and there won't be any rambling on, boring arguments that never end because both sides just go on repeating the same points.

Yes 15 posts, and 1400 words per post max.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by switching sides though. Maybe it wasn't met for me.

Three debates, FF, standard, and random. In the standard and FF debates we will allow for the initial sides to be swayed and switched, which is just another way to show how good the debate went... we want to stay open minded to other people. However, the random setting will be strictly about quality debating, to show people can debate all sides wether they agree with it or not.
.

Does this mean that other people can't answer the question as well? I wasn't sure on that.

I think if questions are directed towards the entire opposing side, then anyone can answer. I think if they are directed at a person, then that person should be a gentlman/woman and answer.

Agreed. The people involved in the debate should mostly have an idea of what they are going to be up to in the next five days so that should flow well and keep things moving.

Exactly. We need those days to prepare, especially for random. If you are in a random debate that means extra preperation.

Interesting rule. One on one should be avoided, but in general I would think most personal things should be avoided. The debate should be about both the sides and points presented and less about the people presenting them. I think that's what you mean anyway though.

agreed

I would say Grammar and spelling. If this is going to be serious debate, then you can run your post through Word or Open Office or an online spell checker at very least.

agreed

Define trolling. I think that even so much as sarcasm should really be against the rules, because it only leads a more personal feel to the debate and starts the flames. But I may be overdoing it.

This is what we are trying to avoid altogether. Doing such things will relfect poorly upon yourself, and may subject you to being shunned in the debate.

I could be wrong, but I believe if I remember rightly you shouldn't use any of those words. If these debates are going to be really serious than you should have a statistic to back up your claim or you shouldn't make one like that. I wrote a bit about that earlier. If you have proof or a source says some or many, then I believe it's okay, but it's still not as sound as actual statistical evidence.

Well some of those words can be allowed in many circumstances, especially philisophical debates, FF debates, and theory debates. Not every topic can be resovled with facts, otherwise the topic would not be there in the first place to debate about.

Or don't post in the first place. Opinions have little to no relevance to most serious debates unless they are backed up with proof.

Opinons are partially the reason for different sides to begin with, but I agree to an extent. I think opinions should be allowed to be put forward, however people will realize that they are only opinions. There is nothing that should stop a person from addressing an opinion, but there is nothing to stop another from posting an informative fact to rebuttal it.

On a larger level be open minded about everything. Just because you believe something doesn't make it right, etc etc. Don't get offended that people have a different opinion etc etc.

agreed

The best sort of marketing for this (in my opinion) would be picking popular topics and such at first, and really involving the people in the actual idea. Once you get it running if it work well it should have a steady flow of people. There are people who can debate and would like to, but are scared off but the sometimes.....what's the word...hateful (maybe too strong but meh) feeling that is sometimes present.

Yes, please post some of your ideas for what would be popular starting topics.

My other idea would be..to not be over intelligent. It sounds really stupid to say that, but...sometimes these debate threads sound way over the top, or people get a little too....wordy and such. This turns people off. If you are a good debater, you shouldn't need to show how many big words you can use, because you should be able to express yourself in more understandable language just as well as you do in the..... flowery type. But that may just be personal opinion.

Agreed, thats why there is the last rule. Do not win a debate, and lose a friend.

I hope my ideas were welcomed too. Even though there are a lot of them. It's just that this is sort of one of the things I always thought it would be neat to have from the moment that I first joined this site. Way back before I was over the top annoying spammer, the debate threads were actual where I spent most of my time.

Your opinions are very welcome and we will be sure to expect more.

Anyways, I know it's a lot to read, but I do think that I presented some good ideas. If they were already discussed or implemented I'm sorry.

Even if they were being discussed, our discussion will be a result of what everyone wants hopefully.

Oh and an add on. Wikipedia shouldn't be a usable source in most cases, in terms of info in the actual body of the articles. The sources or references that the article itself makes use of should be mostly fair game for all the reasons that the other's listed in the other thread.

Well like I said, a wiki source can potentially be better then "no source". Please read the TD thread to see how we are handling this one.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

I like the post count limit idea. I am a supporter of that. It prevents people from ranting or playing games to avoid questions. But what about time limit of when a person gets back to a post/argument towards them?


For example, i watched a debate where each person got 5 minutes to make an opening statement for their argument then after, each side had 3 rounds of 3 minutes to counter the other person's arguments?

Will there be a time limit of when a person must get back as well?
Like each debater has one day to get back orrr? what?

I think there will only be a time limit on the thread itself. So we can encourage more use of this feature. I would like something like that...but supply and demand... and we only have so many on the forums who have the time and intent to do so.

 

[Will Graham]

If you find two reputable sources apart from wikipedia, then what is the point of posting a link to wikipedia?

 

[Roland_Deschain]

If you find two reputable sources apart from wikipedia, then what is the point of posting a link to wikipedia?

the issue is more or less that some wiki's have sources within them. And its not a given yet that everyone participating will have reputable sources. So like we said, a wiki source may (at times) be better then no source.

In the gist of things this is not one of the largest concerns. Follow the last two pages of "the debatists" discussion thread to see what our big concerns now are.


"The debatists" thread will take ideas reflected within that particular thread, and this one... in order to have a majority vote for changes to the system

 

[Rorolina Frixell]

Hopefully this is in the right spot

I had a bit of a Vivi vs Cloud debate in the SB in regards to their development and who was the stronger character etc. Could be an interesting debate, assuming it gets as much/more attention than it did last night.

 

[ribbit]

That would be a good one As characters they both do develop a lot, even if some would refuse to admit that about Cloud

 

[Roland_Deschain]

I think it would as well. We can throw it in the sign ups for the nest FF debate

 

[Rydrum2112]

I find that the word limit is almost too long. I think that 1500 is way to long a limit for each post. I would think something under 500 would be better, and then raising the cap on the number of posts.

Maybe its a dumb idea but I find it a lot easier to read many shorter posts than a few long ones and its eaiser to keep track of whats being said.

Plus its much much easier to point-counter point things (and read them) if that is the sole focus of posts.

 

[ribbit]

It's a word limit. Doesn't mean you have to use 1500 words. It's just so people who type a lot don't have to get angry for going over the limit. None of my replies went over 500 words because I don't like to type a lot to get my point through. By around 500 words I've run out of ideas.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

Hopefully this is in the right spot

I had a bit of a Vivi vs Cloud debate in the SB in regards to their development and who was the stronger character etc. Could be an interesting debate, assuming it gets as much/more attention than it did last night.

Regarding this idea I think a lot of people were intrested in it.

I would like to remind the public that they are free to set up aign ups for any team debate that they wish to. It does not just have to be the sign ups that we create.