Glad I'm not the only one that has problems with that Sig. It was starting get into logic loops in my head and if I don't resolve/voice my complaint this kind of thing, it tends to pop into my head and make me debate it with myself years later. I find this rather annoying.
Though your versions are much more palitable to me, I feel I should reitterate one of my sticking points in discusions. This sticking point is what I call the Gloobleflarg. What the Gloobleflarg is, is any term that is a key point in an arguement or discusion or explaination that no one involved ever bothers to set a standard definition for. far to often I've seen people argue the same points with different buzzwords. As this results in a large portion of the pointless screaming matches in exsistance, I like to avoid such things. The pointlessness at least.
One of the things I've thought would be fun is to make all speakers for the sides sit down in separate rooms,... maybe those sillence booths they use during game shows strip them of any microphones, radios, etc.., and give them those little blue answer books from schools. Now give them the key words in the upcoming debate and make them definite each key word on up to one side of a page. Then let them have the debate.
Once the debate is is over have them fill out the blue books again, adding in any left out key terms from any participant (just to see what the other participants figured the definition of the word by the word usage in the debate)... why they are taking the after test take a transcript of the debate and hightlight any and all key words. Now replace the keywords in the transcripts with the definitions given in the candidates blue book... then their personal after debate blue books... then the blue books of the other participants. Now have some people who didn't watch the debate try to translate the answers to each question in random order without knowing who said what.
What this gives up is the ability to see if what the candidates said was actually coherant... 1) by their own definition of the words, 2) When heard by the other candidates, 3) As heard by random people who have the definitions the candidate proclaimed to by using.
Remember the translators don't actually get to know what words were used only get the answers to the definitions and the slots they go in.
Anyone that is not at all coherent by their own defined words is dubbed over by howler monkeys in the basic broadcast. Anyone who is internally consistant is allowed to be broadcast with their words intact. If the participant is a mix of the two randomly they're going to randomly end up speaking in English and howler monkey. This is the version of the debate in their own words, as defined by the participants themselves.
Then a version is made for each participant which has the candidate in their own uncensorsed words, though the question is translated first. Then the candidate is translated into their before and after books translations. With such labled on the screen, unless they are actually consistant, then they get one translation with a single lable of translated. Then each of the other participants is translated by the Roseta Stone of the candidate the version is named after provided in the blue books. The other candidates are dubbed over as heard by the first candidate. Which may mean that a lot of the stuff is in Wookie, with random 'Nu uh' 'Uh huh's thrown in, in the voice of a third grader... or that the original speaker has their head surrounded by question marks floating around the screen or that one of the other people involved has their head morph in into a Ditto pokemon and rambles in Ditto (this is when the candidates mirror each other) and is sped up so they sound like a chipmunk, with a timer on the bottom speeding forward. Possiblely all the other participants are on the split screen at once.
Note that if the candidate ignores the question and babbles about a different topic the one asking the questions is translated to what the candidate heard via their blue book... which means Godzilla bad dubbing kicks in and the mediator lips may stop moving half way through the question... or keep going long after the question is done being asked. The participants may all start off ignoring the mediator and stating so. If only the candidate who it is the version of ignores the question start off with the mediator in adults on Charlie Brown speach.
For added fun try translating the debate responses into the same language as the mediator is asking them in... maybe getting the mediator/question asker to fill out blue books.
Rambling that, however I see far too much of people agrueing , because the participants are using different definitions of the words involved or because they keep changing the basic definitions of their arguements at random intervals. Seething hatred between two sides that are using the same definitions of words is one thing... seething hatred between two or more sides that can't even bother to explain to each other what they are arguing about in the first place is another, far more common and stupid thing.
Though your versions are much more palitable to me, I feel I should reitterate one of my sticking points in discusions. This sticking point is what I call the Gloobleflarg. What the Gloobleflarg is, is any term that is a key point in an arguement or discusion or explaination that no one involved ever bothers to set a standard definition for. far to often I've seen people argue the same points with different buzzwords. As this results in a large portion of the pointless screaming matches in exsistance, I like to avoid such things. The pointlessness at least.
One of the things I've thought would be fun is to make all speakers for the sides sit down in separate rooms,... maybe those sillence booths they use during game shows strip them of any microphones, radios, etc.., and give them those little blue answer books from schools. Now give them the key words in the upcoming debate and make them definite each key word on up to one side of a page. Then let them have the debate.
Once the debate is is over have them fill out the blue books again, adding in any left out key terms from any participant (just to see what the other participants figured the definition of the word by the word usage in the debate)... why they are taking the after test take a transcript of the debate and hightlight any and all key words. Now replace the keywords in the transcripts with the definitions given in the candidates blue book... then their personal after debate blue books... then the blue books of the other participants. Now have some people who didn't watch the debate try to translate the answers to each question in random order without knowing who said what.
What this gives up is the ability to see if what the candidates said was actually coherant... 1) by their own definition of the words, 2) When heard by the other candidates, 3) As heard by random people who have the definitions the candidate proclaimed to by using.
Remember the translators don't actually get to know what words were used only get the answers to the definitions and the slots they go in.
Anyone that is not at all coherent by their own defined words is dubbed over by howler monkeys in the basic broadcast. Anyone who is internally consistant is allowed to be broadcast with their words intact. If the participant is a mix of the two randomly they're going to randomly end up speaking in English and howler monkey. This is the version of the debate in their own words, as defined by the participants themselves.
Then a version is made for each participant which has the candidate in their own uncensorsed words, though the question is translated first. Then the candidate is translated into their before and after books translations. With such labled on the screen, unless they are actually consistant, then they get one translation with a single lable of translated. Then each of the other participants is translated by the Roseta Stone of the candidate the version is named after provided in the blue books. The other candidates are dubbed over as heard by the first candidate. Which may mean that a lot of the stuff is in Wookie, with random 'Nu uh' 'Uh huh's thrown in, in the voice of a third grader... or that the original speaker has their head surrounded by question marks floating around the screen or that one of the other people involved has their head morph in into a Ditto pokemon and rambles in Ditto (this is when the candidates mirror each other) and is sped up so they sound like a chipmunk, with a timer on the bottom speeding forward. Possiblely all the other participants are on the split screen at once.
Note that if the candidate ignores the question and babbles about a different topic the one asking the questions is translated to what the candidate heard via their blue book... which means Godzilla bad dubbing kicks in and the mediator lips may stop moving half way through the question... or keep going long after the question is done being asked. The participants may all start off ignoring the mediator and stating so. If only the candidate who it is the version of ignores the question start off with the mediator in adults on Charlie Brown speach.
For added fun try translating the debate responses into the same language as the mediator is asking them in... maybe getting the mediator/question asker to fill out blue books.
Rambling that, however I see far too much of people agrueing , because the participants are using different definitions of the words involved or because they keep changing the basic definitions of their arguements at random intervals. Seething hatred between two sides that are using the same definitions of words is one thing... seething hatred between two or more sides that can't even bother to explain to each other what they are arguing about in the first place is another, far more common and stupid thing.