Dear Rudyard Griffiths,

On Monday, you will be moderating the next federal leaders' debate, which will be focused on foreign policy. I’ve had the honour (or misfortune, depending on how you look at it) of moderating three federal and three Ontario provincial election debates over the past decade. Through the course of those experiences, I’ve had a chance to think about what formats and approaches work and which don’t.

The morning after the last debate organized by the Globe and Mail, I asked Tina, one of our very talented technicians on The Agenda, what she thought of it.

“I was watching the Blue Jays game,” she began, “but during commercials, I flipped over to the debate just to see how it was going. Every single time I did, they were all shouting at each other at the same time. So I got frustrated and gave up.”

Rudyard, my friend Tina has perfectly summed up the single most frequent piece of criticism I always received when moderating debates: don’t let them all speak at once. If they do, we can’t understand any of it and it’s a useless exercise.

Stay up to date! Get Current Affairs & Documentaries email updates in your inbox every morning.

So on behalf of Tina and the hundreds of others who entreated me over the years to keep order, we all wish you well on that score. Trust me, it’s not easy to do. If they’re all determined to misbehave at the same time, there’s actually precious little you can do. But you have to try. Be firm but polite and assure them they’ll all have a chance to make their case, but they just can’t all do it at the same time.

Debates are designed to showcase the contrasting positions among the leaders, so voters can better understand what’s on offer. If they’re all shouting at once, then Mission One is unachievable.

Here’s another piece of advice: Don’t do what Jake Tapper did at the Republican presidential candidates’ debate last week. At that event, Tapper asked a series of loaded “gotcha” questions simply designed to create food fights between Donald Trump and all the other candidates.

This kind of questioning might make you look like a tough guy to the reporters covering the debate, but it does nothing to fulfill your mission. A reminder: the mission is to get them debating in an energetic but civilized fashion so the viewer is wiser by the end of it, not give you a platform for pontificating or making mischief. I know you know this, but unfortunately, plenty of others who’ve had this job don’t.

You must also resist the temptation to offer snide “asides” after you’ve heard an answer you don’t like. It’s not your job to evaluate the quality of the leaders’ answers. That’s actually the voters’ job.

So rather than go for a snarky tone, why not opt for a nice, lean, brief, neutral question which the leaders can actually debate?

“What would you do about the Syrian refugee crisis?”

“Do we still need the F-35 fighter jet?”

“How would you improve our relations with the United States?”

These are open-ended enough to kick-start the debate. Then, if you hear something in the responses that deserves following up because it doesn’t pass the sniff test, follow up more specifically. But remember, this is a debate where the focus needs to be on the leaders, not the moderator.

Rudyard, you’ve done a lot of these before. I’ve attended almost all your Munk Debates which are always entertaining and illuminating. But this is different. In an election campaign where the three main parties are essentially tied, this could move the goalposts. Not to put too much pressure on you, but the country could really benefit from a solid leaders’ debate, now that more Canadians are focused on their electoral duties.

Good luck, and know that this viewer will be rooting for you.

Image credits: Facebook/pmharper, Facebook/TomMulcair, Facebook/JustinPJTrudeau, Facebook/ElizabethMayGreenLeader