My speech was about the type of arguments being made, I thought if I articulated the specific types so people could establish a baseline of what is a valid debate it might help. They are logical fallacies basically. Lets say the moon shines at night, A valid debate might be that you think the sun reflects off it, and I say that phosphorous micro organisms emit a glow. That is a valid debate until science can prove one way or another. Someone else might come along and say that it obviously glows since the sun was no where to be seen, so lets debate what kind of glow it must be, and when you come along with your sun theory and they pat you on the head and try to send you back to primary school. Member whoring is the same issue in my view. My only observation is that some people have a lot of associates. But I realize they might actually be nice guys, I am an asshole, and as a result the associates I get are far and few between. So knowing that we aren't all super popular, maybe a guy with a silly grin gets all the newbs. Personally I have never had the experience of being whore'd either, nor is it in my 14+ months of notes. I did once see a less than bright person try to turn our conversation into an attempt to member whore, but they were weak, slow, dimwitted, and I have proof because soon after they were dead. Unfortunately they also had managed to be wearing a slanty suit by that time. So, as for member whoring and rank "giving" I see the only proper debate being IS it happening. Not, it happens so lets argue about what we should do about it. That being my view, and no one able to name names, the debates can't happen.