Proposed improvements to Debate.org

I suppose I should explain from the outset that this is not exactly an debate, though I certainly welcome any one to express their points on why some of my propositions are bad or are idealized. All other readers are encouraged to give their opinions in the comments box. With that, lets get started. FIRST CONTENTION: Debate.org needs to use html. Almost all forums use html. It allows for underlining text, boldening text, italicising text, can format in bullet formation, etc, so as to draw special attention to a point. As well, the functions can allow quotation boxes. You further can embed long web addresses in a single highlighted word. The beneficial functions of html abound. The purpose for these functions is for clarity and conciseness. As it stands now, the debates are very muddled and disorganized, no fault of the debaters. It makes reading the dialogue for observers more difficult than a very structured post would, all of which could be a reality if they simply added html. It would be in the best interests of everyone, the webmasters, the debaters, and the advertisers to install html. SECOND CONTENTION: From the first day I logged on to Debate.org, I noticed certain trends taking place. Many eloquent and strong debates have not gained the respect they deserve. I noticed certain dialogues for certain debates. What I noticed quite clearly is that there are people on this forum who have forged alliances. I won't name any names, as my intent is not make defamatory remarks about anyone, but rather to fix the problem. It seems that many (not all, but many) debates are being voted for on the basis of like-mindedness rather than an objective judging of the strength of a debate. Allow me to expound: Suppose there is a debate and the topic is socialism vs capitalism and the debaters are ABC123 vs DEF456. Some people may simply find parity with either socialism or capitalism and weigh their decision a priori, without considering just how well one side did against the other. Similarly, lets say that ABC123 is well-liked for their political, religious, or social beliefs. ABC123 may very well have a following behind him/her. There have been times when I've seen a topic JUST come to a close. Immediately (I'm talking, within 1 MINUTE) 4 or 5 votes were already accrued. No one can read that fast and make an honest assessment within that time. This suggests rather highly that alliances are indeed being formulated on the basis of personal biases and or vendetta's against other debtors they may loathe for whatever reason. There is another possibility for why this is, and something Debate.org can address. ABC123 can open up as many dummy accounts they want. It's the same person, but they use the other accounts so that they can dishonestly accrue more votes than what is merited. If Debate.org simply had a function to where members can view all of the members, this would yield some evidence of dummy accounts. Not to mention that the admins can look at IP addresses, which also would benefit them against spamming. If Debate.org simply developed a function to show who is voting for what, along with the times they voted, it would better serve to establish who is prone to bias. Now, bias is not a crime. And if someone chooses to be biased, I would not deny them that right. However, there is a clear social stigma attached to bias. Keeping people accountable would better serve to stop their predilections for judging debates on preconceived biases. In the interest of equity, I see no reason why most people would not find this idea appealing. In fact, the only kinds of people who wouldn't benefit from this are the people forming alliances. THIRD CONTENTION: Lastly, there should be a function where general questions such as THIS and brainstorming is encouraged. What do I mean? Debate.org can have something like a "Coffee House," where people are brainstorming and proposing ways to improve the site. If for no one else, the administrators of Debate.org would benefit from this. Any business who does not have the foresight to continually look toward improvements will show within a matter of time. What will happen as a result is that people might become disillusioned, lose interest, and leave. The quality of the dialogue will suffer. Less and less lurkers will have any interest in the site. As a direct result, less people will become members. Companies advertising on Debate.org will pull their monetary resources out of Debate.org. Debate.org will then fold. All of these proposals are within reason and are remarkably simple to institute. If you support these proposals, then vote PRO. But MOST importantly, whether you agree or disagree, please leave comments and critiques both pro and con. Because whether you disagree with some of the proposals, surely all people would agree that voicing opinions concerning improvements would benefit all people involved, regardless of specific differences. Talk amongst yourselves. I'm looking forward to reading all of the suggestions. Let the People speak.