I've always wanted to see the ability to tag a response (or the article itself) with its rhetorical type and fallacies in particular. Maybe add some extra categories for "citation needed", "supporting evidence", "contrary evidence" that I don't think would exist in a traditional rhetorical set (could be wrong there). Let moderators (probably users) do more than just say "this post sucks". Let them list WHY it sucks. The moderation could be more concretely proven as accurate or inaccurate, and even better, it might train the readers to spot the nonsense not only in responses but elsewhere as well. Of course, that could be bad for newspapers and terrible for advertisers.

I suppose I'm attacking the foundation of being a sports fan, but why can you only root for the team that plays down the street? With the frequency of trades in the NHL I have to wonder when I hear someone say they've been a fan of team X for 20 years. The team is obviously totally different than when it started and has probably seen a few shifts in playing "philosophy" in that time, and you're telling me that no other team would have been more entertaining to watch that the one you are lucky enough to share a town (or state/territory) with? I'll admit this is a bit of a dream. It's just plain easier to root for a team that you can hear talked about constantly in local media. But as media becomes less local, wouldn't a discriminating hockey fan check out the various teams and decide which on they think is the "best" and root for that one? Yeah, I really am attacking the core of the sports fan. Not that any league is encouraging this sort of thing. While Sling may allow me to catch my home team game when I'm traveling, the league still actively blocks games in areas outside their local markets. Even though I get the Altitude channel, I can watch everything but sports on it. And it's obviously not FCC regulations since if they can show the game to me when I cough up to buy the Center Ice package.