How should I moderate a candidate forum when one answer uses up another candidate's time?
Politics"If you cut me off there, you've helped him dodge the question," one candidate told me during a rehearsal for our civic club's forum.
Six candidates have accepted an invitation to a forty-minute discussion in a café's upstairs room. I wrote a format with the same opening time for each, two shared policy questions, and short closing statements. Nobody objected to it by email.
At the rehearsal, one candidate used an answer about public transport to accuse another of ignoring residents. The second asked for time to respond. If I give it, the remaining candidates lose part of their turn. If I don't, an accusation may hang in the room while I look busy keeping the stopwatch fair.
The café owner wants a calm evening. A club member says calm isn't the point if a candidate won't explain a difficult decision. Both objections seem reasonable. I don't want a rule that lets people run down the clock with personal attacks, or a rule that keeps every uncomfortable follow-up out.
Before the actual forum, what should I clarify about interruptions, accusations and questions that haven't been answered? How can equal time still leave room for a meaningful challenge?
The forum and candidates are fictional; this asks about moderation choices.