Alyeska wrote:havokeff, Coliseum debates are supposed to be impartial and the process is supposed to be clean.
Agreed, which is why they are carried out away from the normal forums.
Commentary threads absolutely destroy that.
Bullshit. Commentary/discussion threads are just that. They aren't tainting the process unless you are assuming that the debators are completely dishonest pricks that have no original thoughts.
Get it through your thick skull. The Coliseum doesn't exist for you to post running commentary on the forum. Its about structured debates. Dogpiles are bad.
Again, why is everyone assuming that I am advocating dogpiles? I said DISCUSSION. Is this board and it's members all of a sudden incapable of having a discussion on a debate? Seriously? Because this seems to be the basis of all the arguments I'm hearing.
Giving information to the preferential side is bad. Everything about what you want is absolutely bad in a structured debate.
OK, except this isn't A REALTIME debate. The debtors aren't on stage facing a moderator and a 2 hour time limit. This is an internet debate, on a BBS. Look at Thanas's first post. Think he knew all those citations of the top of his head? Hell no. He took the time to look them up to make his argument, so don't make it seem like the debaters aren't using sources to make their argument. If it is a book, or google or another poster, what the fuck is the difference? NOTHING. And what if there is information for the un-preferential side? SO WHAT. It is the same story.
If you want commentary, post a thread afterwards.
Again, what is the difference? You automatically assume dogpile, so it is going to happen during or after right? Mods still have to clean it up or keep it on track, the same people are being "attacked" for the same exact points. The only difference is the SUPPOSED influence on the debate, which of course is great to say, since you can't prove it.