A Proposal of Protocols (for those who care)

First, thanks to Sweatyjojo for accepting and helping. I agree that it's a good thing in-itself that people use the site for different reasons. It is not my intention to censor anyone - but simply to improve, however slightly, the quality and integrity of the debate experience. Sjj, you immediately bring to light two very important points: 1)Many, or at least some, of the problems we're discussing will be corrected when the new version of the site launches, and that some of the problems are out of our hands entirely (looking for multiple accounts or anything that would require changing in the site's code); and more importantly 2)when you write "... I think that what may appear to you and to others as a misunderstanding of debate is actually a signal that people using this website need to express their opinions in more ways than just an argument or comment" you point out the prime issue for me, I suppose - this is debate.org, not opinion.com. (Please understand if my tone seems sardonic or harsh, it isn't meant toward you, I am simply frustrated.) Thus, we are looking for a temporary solution to problems that fall in category 1, and a permanent "solution" to those that fall in category 2 - the problems that lie wholly in the realm of the user and not the administrator. Since we have plenty of space, I'm going to jump straight into a draft of what our code might include based off of your input and what I've got together, and we can go from there. "I, [X], as a debater and judge, will/do... 1.Use only one account. 2.Understand and make it understood to others that the topic of the debate IS the resolution when I Instigate a debate. 3.Respect the wishes of the Instigator of the debate when I accept a First-Come Challenge; i.e., if a person writes "I'm a Christian and want to debate an atheist," this will be respected. (The last two can help curb your pet-peeve of the broad usage of the semantics argument, which I am actually partial to, but I agree that it can be irksome. Your friend - or anyone else - can simply say in his opening argument "I do not want to debate semantics, but the issue at hand more thoroughly," and hopefully enough people will get on board so it makes a dent. We differ when it comes to newbies, however; I am a proponent of trial-by-fire. I learned very quickly to make the resolution/topic as immune to semantics as possible, which is what LR496FTW4EVA was doing, and although I agree it's a little bothersome to have to be so extreme in providing clarity, newbies will learn fast. That's life:) 4.Vote based on strength of argument, or by the parameters set forth by the Instigator, and not on my opinion of the topic. If I cannot provide a Reason For Decision, I will not vote. If I do not understand the debate, I will not vote. (I understand your thoughts on mandatory feedback, so we'll wait on feedback in this debate to see where to go. This comes down to a person's win percentage, and although theLwerd makes a strong case for its irrelevance, I will not deny satisfaction in victory. On a different level, I am tired of losing and not knowing why because there is no feedback, or winning unjustly. With respect to the former, I am here to grow intellectually. With respect to the latter, if I or someone else concede, it is an understood loss, yet I am experiencing both situations currently.) 5.Attempt to write correctly in the language known as English. (This is what I was talking about when I wrote "disrespect to language." Although substance takes primacy over presentation, a debater still loses points with me if they don't have the patience or whatever to at the very least capitalize the first word in sentences and proper nouns, and to make paragraphs, or run the spell check feature. This is about readability.) 6.Not go through a user's account and vote against them on every debate they've had because I had one bad experience with them, or disagree with them on something I feel strongly about, or for any other reason. ("Troll-tastic." I love it.) So that's what I have. You have excellent ideas about things that could be done by the site itself, but that's out of our hands. Back to you, Sjj. Britt