Pre-MEEP: Enforcable rule on colluders, live coaches, 'assisters'...

Your point four isn't unviersally true by the way. You make rules to stop future abuse, not necessarily solely to notice past abuse. Obviously if something bad is happening that needs to be stopped, this is a typical inspiration of rules but it isn't the only reason toake them.

You must defend the rule or we will devolve into anarchy.

You're welcome to devolve into anarchy if you want.

Otherwise gather feedback to refine your proposal for a rule change, turn that into a referendum, and I'll treat it how I would any other.

Granted, I personally don't believe anything in the original debate crossed the line, and would vote against any proposal which outlawed such public criticism of a debate setup.

The coaching could easily go on via personal messages or text messages.

At least if people make their opinions known in the comment sections then it makes it harder for them to vote for the person they are coaching as everyone can see that right from the start this person has been biased to his or her personal opinion on the subject.

Also it would be good for a debater to get a whiff of what the voters are seeing, as having the opportunity to also debate the voters and prove them wrong would be an advantage to the debater, not a disadvantage.

But it really does not matter where a debater gets his or her information from. Whether it be from Wikipedia. Newspaper. Book. Bible. Youtube. Another user. What difference does it make?

The brain's skilled usage of information should be that of the debater, not someone else on their behalf.

The information provided should not be tailored to that specific debate's circumstance beyond the generic, regarding said topic.