Vote moderation standards are an overall benefit to the site
Debate Rounds (4)
More than a few voices have voiced public dis-interest in the way moderation has affected voting. From my shoes, I have definitely seen changes since vote moderation has become a such a big thing, but to me these changes have been objectively better. I want to defend my views on this in a public debate where both debaters can discuss this in the most logical way that best escapes fallacies, uses sources and up to date information about the site's changes since vote moderation, etc.
For a brief sort of framework prior to the start of this debate, I do not intend to defend specific moderation instances. I know moderation isn't perfect, and has messed up in the past. I am not defending the actions of specific mods in every case, and I do believe with good moderation there should also be discretion applied. I am defending the ideas behind the policies themselves, and want to prove how they positively impact site voting overall.
I will be defending the current standards created by vote mod Blade-Of-Truth,(1) and how they have evolved through time to become as effective as they currently are. This debate is not intended to specifically tackle the individual points in the policies so much as it is about how enforcement of these policies has bettered voting.
I have set the debate up for 3,000 elo minimum, with a select winner system. 10,000 characters to argue with in each round, and a 2 weeks voting period. Round 1 will be designated for acceptance, and I will begin my arguments in round 2. I am willing to change Elo standards for accepting depending on the opponent's history of debating and forfeits, though I'd prefer a more active vocal member in the forums about this issue takes this debate up.
Good luck to whomever accepts this debate, I look forward to it.
Argument 1: Moderation has helped Quality over Quantity
Before vote moderation was ramped up, users weren't fully expected or required to actually read an entire debate before they voted. In fact most of the time, members skimmed and gave very vague RFD's that didn't demonstrate clearly whether a voter read and understood all of the points in said debate. Let's take a look at some of the more "popular" debates on the site, that rank high in the search engine.
In the debate titled: Homosexual acts are Immoral (1) Between WriterDave and Contradiction there were a total of 54 votes. There are plenty of other debates with similar votes, but I'll use this debate as a sample debate since it was a defining debate in DDO's history. v
Davididit, Meatros, SocialPinko, Larz, stephen_Hawkins, KeytarHero, and 16kadams about the only members voting on that debate that even demonstrated having read the debate. Most of the rest were poorly explained RFD's that provided no evidence the entirety of the debate was read. A good majority were counter vote bombs, and overall just horrible votes. Basically one of the most popular serious debates on the website had only 7 decent votes. That's 12.96% of all the votes on that debate being "good". (2)
Times have changed, so has voting; but for the better.
When the most popular serious debate on the website accrues 7 real good votes that provide the debaters with feedback, that is still good. How does that compare to some of today's debates with moderation?
Here is a debate on Legalized prostitution between Miss.Bailey and Izz220(3) where 6 of 7 serious votes were cast that demonstate the debate read the debate, and provided the debaters with quality feedback.
Another debate from Kasmic and Blahmonkey on lowering the voting age gets 5 Quality votes. (4)
These are just a couple recent examples that took place over the last couple of weeks. Both of these debates were not far in quality votes from one of the biggest debates on DDO, but are absent the spam of all the counter vote bombs, and horrible RFD's. So that is the impact with this point, that moderation has not severely impacted the physical number of the good RFD's. On average, decent debates will usually get 2-3 good votes which prima facie seems to be pretty consistent throughout July, where as some debates 4 years ago got plenty of votes, with no quality feedback. Essentially 0 votes.
Argument 2: Mis-directing blame
A common argument that poeople make is that the lack of voting is due to intimidation from heavy vote standards. It is assumed that the total number of 0-0 Tied debates is a result of vote moderation, when in reality, that number is due to the increased number of debates on the actual website. Let's check out a random date in 2011, and see there are currently 3 debates in the challenge period (5), and compare this to today's most recent capture (April 10th, 2016) where there were 28 debates in the challenge period(6). Now in order to actually provide hard stats on percentages of active debates in the challenge period now VS then, an actual study would have to be done. A study of that caliber would take an immense amount of time and effort, which I am not currently willing to do. Whether the trends remained consistant between lack of debates in the challenge period 4-6 years ago to the immense amount of debates there now, is left up mostly to an individuals memory. But with the influx of debates being instigated, there are plenty of them being created that are absolutely horrible debates. As one of the Mod's for the Voters Union that has to sift through the voting period section pretty often, I have found that I am lucky to find a quality debate worth reading on any given 2 pages of debates currently in the voting period. I'll task any readers of this debate to browse the challenge section to verify my claim. Site developments like the polls and the opinions section have drawn a bigger crowd to DDO, and unfortunately that crowd seems to be made up of mostly younger individuals with shorter attention spans. This results overall in lack of interest in writing long arguments, which then ends up in debates with paragraph long rounds, or forfeited debates, overall debates that no one wants to go out of their way to read. The influx of members combined with the much smaller community of members that care about good voting, is unfortunately a drastic ratio.
The point of all of this is that there isn't a ton of evidence that lack of voting stems from vote moderation. Showing some of the current debates from my first argument demonstrate that poeople are still interested in casting good votes, just less interested in voting on crappy debates. Who is the real enemy here, the mods that do their best to encourage productive voting, or the site developers who focus more on bringing members that lower the content quality on their website to make the appearence of no voting prominent?
Argument 3: Vote moderation Deterance? Good riddance!
Kind of going into the first point about vote moderators being responsible for pushing voters away, this is the argument that I find the most proposterous, because if you are a decent vote moderation shouldn't be effecting you anyways right? I am not saying that vote mods haven't removed good votes (re-iterating this from my round 1 framework), but that overall have removed more bad votes then good ones, and have created an atmosphere that sets the standards of our voting community higher.
But let's be honest, the vote standards aren't overly complicated enough to where all of the potential problems with a vote can't be solved by just reading the debate in it's entirety. That's what the standards encourage members to do. Do we really want members voting who don't want to put the time and effort into giving you feedback on a debate you worked so hard on? I say good riddance to any voter that quits voting because they think the standards themselves are "too strict" and happily welcome the new era of voters who care enough about the site and community to contribute to fixing the problems themselves.
So the purpose of my opening arguments are to prove that 1. If anything, we have more "good" votes now then we used too, and that debates now have 80-100% chance of having every vote be a quality vote compared to the 12% on the biggest debate on the site, 2. That the problems caused by Juggle should be blamed on Juggle, not the mods who work hard to better the site, and 3. That anyone choosing to stop voting as a result of moderation standards shouldn't be voting anyway. In ragnar's voice I echo the question: Is voting for the debaters, or is it for the voters? Back to you Wylted.
We have different motives for debating. Some of us want high quality debates with only the highest quality voters. That's not what I want. I want lots of readers. I want people to enjoy reading my debates. Some members debate to persuade others to their point of view. They think debate can change the world. Those people would benefit from having more people, analyze and read their debates. Pro admits that most of the debates are short and very informal. Certainly these people are not concerned with the quality of votes, and given that the site is for profit, their presence and ability to click ads makes them just as valuable as Tuf. people are more likely to read a debate if they know they can vote on it. This helps me get the attention I crave, it allows users who want to change the world the ability to reach more people, and most importantly it gives each debate more page views allowing Juggle to make more ad revenue. More ad revenue is good, it keeps the site running. There is no reason to value the needs of the good debaters over the poor debaters. Each user is equally as valuable, and the noobs outnumber us Tuf.
Quality vs Quantity
Tuf's whole case rests on this presupposition that quality material should be the only thing or the most prevalent thing on this site. The problem with presuppositions is that they aren't defended. We are just expected to accept them. I've shown why the number of readers of a debate matters, as well as why high activity level matter. We know that the people on the front page of the leaderboard are not the only people with a stake in this site. We know the site makes more money with more page views, and more activity. This allows Juggle to pay for the upkeep of the site, and these things are essential to give the people on the leaderboard a place to debate. What we haven't been told is why we should abandon everything for the sake of quality.
2 Minute Warning
Okay I have 20 minutes to complete this now because I am a huge procastinator, but my case is clear. My opponent's case by his own admission has not increased the amount of quality vote, merely the proportion. If vote moderation does not increase the number of high quality votes we shouldn't be doing it. Peer pressure and love of debate is what causes high quality votes, the moderation only gets rid of the worst votes. By the way if we look at the debate he mentions, whether the worst votes are included or not the same person won. The bad votes did not influence the outcome of the debate at all. Typically the bad votes do exactly that, they cancel each other out on both sides and the good voters overwhelmingly agree most of the time and have the most control over who wins the debate.
I don't advocate for no modding of votes as displayed in the mentioned debate, but we can see that it was self policed, tha modding was not even neccesary because Counter vote bombs removed many of the bad votes.
My opponent claims many debates years back recieved 0 quality votes, but I have a debate with Danielle in the voting period with Danielle which has very few days left that has had no feedback. This is two high ELO debaters, debating a subject that rarely ever gets debated. It should be getting tons of attention, but it is ignored. This is a debate better than most of the ones in the Hall of fame, but will end with no votes because of these mod practices. I used to do debates with a 10 day voting period and get a ton of votes, now I may have to do 30 day periods to get a few votes. I noticed many debaters have been forced to go to 30 day periods.
Also some people are bad at voting, nothing will make a 12 year old good at it, and these policies alienate the most common users, the people who just lack enough sense to vote as well as bladerunner, but enjoy using the site and make it profitable for Juggle
My opponents arguments here are that he wants people to read his debates, and attempts to contrast this with people who want to have quality votes as an underlying difference, and therein lies the problem with this argument. People who want quality votes want the same thing, people to read their debates. In fact voting and having debates read go hand in hand. How do you really know someone read the entirety of your debate or even did more than simply click on the debate title to have read the debate?
Having a lot of views doesn't necessarily mean that someone has read your debate. All this aside, my opponent has not actually proved that debates today aren't getting a lot of views. In fact, depending on the topic and overall quality of the debaters, some debates will get plenty of views. In fact, as I am writing this argument now, this debate has 550 views. That's half a thousand views for a debate that at this point only has one argument from either debater (2 after this one posts obviously). Views also are counted every time a debate is clicked on. So this time every time either myself or you have clicked on a debate, that page view number goes up by one. Which means a large majority of those views on these debates are coming from the debaters themselves as they are checking the time limit restraints, etc. And finally my opponent has no evidence to suggest that views themselves have any direct impact on Juggle's revenue. It is the comments, and specific key words in the debate that rank in the search engines and are what ultimately make up the majority of what people key in on Google.
But just to clarify, my opponent in this argument has yet to show how vote moderation directly applies to the downfall of debate views in the first place. My opponent complains later that people aren't voting on his debates, yet in this argument also uses views as a factor in determining how many people are reading his debate. In his just finished debate with Danielle on Japanese internment camps, the debate has 45 comments and just under a thousand views however. (1) The debate has no votes as of the time I am writing this argument, however meets all the other criteria on how Juggle makes ad revenue, with the comments and debate keywords ranking in the search engine. So right here we can create a disconnect between views meaning people have taken the time to read a debate, and translating that by actually writing out proving they've read the debate in an RFD.
My opponent has no impact here.
Quality VS Quantity
My opponents only real argument here is that quality isn't the only important factor for voting, but he fails to substantiate this argument with any convincing reasoning. He mentions the leaderboard; A board that even with the ELO system, does not measure the quality of votes being placed on debates that have a high number of votes. My opponent ends his argument essentially asking why we should "disbandon everything for quality", and that is a very easy question to answer to even meet my opponents own expectations for the site.
Quality debates bring quality members to the site; If I am researching an article on Abortion looking to form a solid opinion on the issue, and see a good debate from two very intelligent adults that helps me reach an opinion, I will probably gain a certain respect for the site in question and be more willing to sign up. Now if I see a bunch of trollish debates that don't appear to have a lot of effort into them and I don't feel I learned anything from it, my opinion of the site will be prima facie that it is a haven for trolls. And let's face it, unfortunately these are the type of debates that are now making it on the home page, and pulling up in search engines. Silly polls that don't require effort put into an argument are now also attracting younger members to the site, particularly teens, and children.
How does all this translate into vote moderation? These individuals tend to vote bomb debates, because they don't have a big enough attention span to read the entire debate prior to voting. I don't blame them, they are young and these are the type of individuals who probably already have a hard time finishing a 3 minute youtube video. Nonetheless, the community should make an aim to coach them into reading debates fully and voting properly, as that encourages what my opponents wants by having his debates read, and what the majority of the community want in getting proper feedback on the site. Moderation encourages people to finish reading that debate so that they can give the debater the quality feedback he/she deserves. Moderation's goal isn't to punish individuals; Moderators don't go out of their way to remove votes. These votes are reported by the debaters generally, because the debater didn't feel they got the proper understanding for why a vote happened the way it did. Voting is for the debaters, not the voters. Voting is and should continue to be an act of service, pushing the mindset of "what goes around comes around". People are starting to realize that demanding votes while not being willing to vote themselves, will typically result in the furthering the problem of getting no votes at all.
This all means that vote moderation isn't at fault for the "lack of votes", it's personal motivation. People are less willing to put the time and effort into winning an argument if they think they will lose the debate simply on a basis of being vote bombed by an individual who may be more popular on the site, or who has messaged more people lobbying for votes on their debate. Vote moderation by extension creates higher quality debates from the most committed community members. This doesn't push out the noobs; it creates a standard for the noobs to adapt to in order to fit in better on the website, and there is nothing wrong with that.
My opponent says that if I don't prove that vote moderation creates more votes then we "shouldn't be doing it". This logic is a completely backwards way to think about this resolution. First of all, it would be near impossible for me to prove statistically that vote moderation has created more high quality votes, and would require tons of research compiled into a study over the past while since vote moderation has been amped. It's impossible for to prove that vote moderation results in more votes, the same way it's impossible for my opponent to prove that there are overall less votes as a result of vote moderation by the same standards. Either way, this is a flawed argument. Even if we were to assume the quality votes have remained generally the same over the past 4 years, my opponent needs to make a case for how keeping all the bad ones that clearly do not indicate the member having read the debate, to impact the overall decision of who the winner of said debate is. Reverting back to the "homosexual acts are immoral" debate I pointed to earlier in round 2, if only 12% of the votes on a debate demonstrate they properly understood the arguments in a debate, doesn't that mean that the debate winner was clearly impacted by the plethora of bad votes? That is what moderation does. It eliminates the bad votes to give the winner to the person who had the most positive feedback given to them from individuals who took the time to read the entirety of the debate.
My opponents last argument is about how his debates used to get votes, but no longer do. He hasn't attributed any of these old debates of his as getting quality votes, and we've already proven that his debate with danielle has got popular attention. So what remains for my opponent to do, is to prove how vote moderation itself is the cause for the lack of quality votes on his debates. Unless my opponent is okay with a 12 year voting and saying "Danielle wins because of poop". My opponent says that these policies alienate the 12 year olds. I deny this, and see the policies and an invitation for a new member to learn to be a better voter. There are plenty of good voters on the site also that are completely willing to assist these new members. Having their vote removed isn't a punishment to the voter; The voter gains nothing from voting poorly. Removing their vote is an assistance to the debater, and an opportunity for coaching and feedback for the voter. Only the debaters are at risk from poor votes.
Good luck to wylted in the voting period, and thank you all for reading this debate.
I urge all voters of this debate to also vote in the presidential election.
vote me for president by bolding my name in the following thread please.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 3 months ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: This is an easy vote... Con merely states that, in their opinion, quantity is more important without actually, meaningfully linking it to the resolution. Pro shows that there are a lot of quality votes thanks to the environment that vote moderation creates, and that merely a vote isn't an indicator of whether a person has read a debate. Con is non-responsive to Pro's case and responses, so I vote Pro.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.