Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

voting and votebombing: some questions

rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 9:08:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've been accused of votebombing five times in the last couple of weeks, and it's made me realize that I am unsure about the rules of voting. I was hoping people could clarify the following points.

1. Troll debates. Do you vote for who's funnier? My view is that the rules for voting should be much looser for a troll debate. Is this wrong?

2. Is it the voter's job to check the sources and for plagiarism? Can you vote arguments down on these things independently of whether the opponent in the debate comments on them?

3. At what point can you mark arguments down for conduct violations? For example, if one participant derails the debate to the extent that his opponent can't properly respond, is it okay to mark down conduct and arguments? Or must you still grant arguments to the evil side?

4. If a debater is very difficult to understand, how many times are you obliged to read his argument? If you read it, say, twice and still can't make sense of it, but understand the other side, can you give the other side argument points?

5. Is plagiarism only a conduct point loss?

Thanks
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 10:05:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 9:08:06 AM, rross wrote:
I've been accused of votebombing five times in the last couple of weeks, and it's made me realize that I am unsure about the rules of voting. I was hoping people could clarify the following points.

1. Troll debates. Do you vote for who's funnier? My view is that the rules for voting should be much looser for a troll debate. Is this wrong?

You still vote based on the criteria. Typically, if you want to vote based on who is funnier, you give the argument points to the funnier person.

2. Is it the voter's job to check the sources and for plagiarism? Can you vote arguments down on these things independently of whether the opponent in the debate comments on them?

If both sides use sources, and you want to give the sources points, you should check the sources they give. The points are for reliable sources, so if you notice that one side overuses Wikipedia, or uses incredibly biased sources (an example gunluversRus.com for a gun control debate), then you give the points to the other side.

3. At what point can you mark arguments down for conduct violations? For example, if one participant derails the debate to the extent that his opponent can't properly respond, is it okay to mark down conduct and arguments? Or must you still grant arguments to the evil side?

This is based on the severity of the conduct violation. Typically, you are supposed to vote based on the criteria, and since conduct and arguments are separate criteria, those votes are independent of each other. However, recently, we had a user who would take pictures of large amounts of text in order to massively cheat the character limit, and in cases like that, it would be perfectly ok to give both conduct and arguments to the other side.

4. If a debater is very difficult to understand, how many times are you obliged to read his argument? If you read it, say, twice and still can't make sense of it, but understand the other side, can you give the other side argument points?

If you are talking about a generally incoherent argument, you can give points to the other side. A debater's responsibility is to make his argument relevant to the debate and understandable. If it is neither of these things, how could the debater possibly expect you to be convinced by their arguments? However, if the argument is just difficult to read, many voters will deduct the spelling and grammar point.

5. Is plagiarism only a conduct point loss?

It is often also considered an arguments loss. If the debater is not using his or her own arguments, the debater does not deserve to get points for arguments.

Thanks

In general, to avoid being accused of votebombing, be sure to give a descriptive RFD. "I felt that Pro convinced me more" is not a valid reason to give arguments, and you will likely be countered. "Pro brought up many arguments that Con failed to (effectively) refute, like when he said 'When x does this, y happens because z.' Con never proved that wrong" would be a better RFD. If you give all seven points to one side, you should have a pretty good reason to do so.

I hope that I've helped.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 10:34:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 9:08:06 AM, rross wrote:
I've been accused of votebombing five times in the last couple of weeks, and it's made me realize that I am unsure about the rules of voting. I was hoping people could clarify the following points.

1. Troll debates. Do you vote for who's funnier? My view is that the rules for voting should be much looser for a troll debate. Is this wrong?

Sometimes thats how you do it, but most of the time you vote for the side that used semantics to better argue their point.

2. Is it the voter's job to check the sources and for plagiarism? Can you vote arguments down on these things independently of whether the opponent in the debate comments on them?

If he sourced the stuff he is citing then its not really plagiarism, but if you catch a person plagiarizing when the opponent did not you can still vote that down

3. At what point can you mark arguments down for conduct violations? For example, if one participant derails the debate to the extent that his opponent can't properly respond, is it okay to mark down conduct and arguments? Or must you still grant arguments to the evil side?

Usually when curse words start getting dropped is when conduct points get awarded... If someone derails a debate then usually conduct goes to the other side unless the reason the debate was derailed was because the person made a debate meant for an easy win.

4. If a debater is very difficult to understand, how many times are you obliged to read his argument? If you read it, say, twice and still can't make sense of it, but understand the other side, can you give the other side argument points?

If you still struggle to get what hes saying after 2-3 reads then you can give argument points to the other side. Thats what I do anyways :P

5. Is plagiarism only a conduct point loss?

If its a minor case of plagiarism (only plagiarized one paragraph in the whole debate) then that would be only a conduct point loss. However if the person plagiarized almost the entire debate, then that can warrant a forfeit of argument points as well

Thanks
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 11:06:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 9:08:06 AM, rross wrote:
I've been accused of votebombing five times in the last couple of weeks, and it's made me realize that I am unsure about the rules of voting. I was hoping people could clarify the following points.

1. Troll debates. Do you vote for who's funnier? My view is that the rules for voting should be much looser for a troll debate. Is this wrong?

I tend to answer troll debates with troll votes that often use logic that is very borderline. It makes things fun.

2. Is it the voter's job to check the sources and for plagiarism? Can you vote arguments down on these things independently of whether the opponent in the debate comments on them?

Usually that's who it falls on. Just check things that are suspicious. And remember, you can change your vote if someone finds out that they plagiarized later.

3. At what point can you mark arguments down for conduct violations? For example, if one participant derails the debate to the extent that his opponent can't properly respond, is it okay to mark down conduct and arguments? Or must you still grant arguments to the evil side?

I'd say:
1) Ad hominem repeatedly used
2) Violation of rules set in round one or which fit in the general boilerplate rules (no trolling, no semantics, no arguments in last round, plagiarism, etc.)
3) Anything where the debater clearly is doing something questionable

4. If a debater is very difficult to understand, how many times are you obliged to read his argument? If you read it, say, twice and still can't make sense of it, but understand the other side, can you give the other side argument points?

They should have to make their argument readable to the people they seek to persuade. Give Spelling & Grammar to the other side if their argument is incoherent.

5. Is plagiarism only a conduct point loss?

I've always used a 7-point vote bomb on people who plagiarize. I mean, if they can't even put others' arguments in their own words, they don't deserve to win.

Thanks

You're welcome.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 11:50:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 9:08:06 AM, rross wrote:
I've been accused of votebombing five times in the last couple of weeks, and it's made me realize that I am unsure about the rules of voting. I was hoping people could clarify the following points.

1. Troll debates. Do you vote for who's funnier? My view is that the rules for voting should be much looser for a troll debate. Is this wrong?

I agree

2. Is it the voter's job to check the sources and for plagiarism? Can you vote arguments down on these things independently of whether the opponent in the debate comments on them?

I would say no but others would probably disagree. Imo, those responsibilities lie with the debater not the judge

3. At what point can you mark arguments down for conduct violations? For example, if one participant derails the debate to the extent that his opponent can't properly respond, is it okay to mark down conduct and arguments? Or must you still grant arguments to the evil side?

If they derail the debate to the extent that the resolutionn is not being debated (I think that's what you're saying) then obviously the "evil side" loses

4. If a debater is very difficult to understand, how many times are you obliged to read his argument? If you read it, say, twice and still can't make sense of it, but understand the other side, can you give the other side argument points?

I would just not vote in that case. They should be more clear but I dont think it's exactly fair to vote them down because you couldnt understand them for using technical terminology or big words or something. Conversely I think there are exceptions here particularly if its only one part of the argument that doesnt make sense

5. Is plagiarism only a conduct point loss?

I think that conduct violation is so egregious that they should lose the entire ballot.

Thanks
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 11:52:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
To your 5th question -- if the plagiarism was intentional and filled a large fraction of the debate, then it should count as a complete loss.
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 1:27:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Enough bad conduct can overlap into the argument. For example, in the case someone using text screenshots to massively violate the character limit (not to be confused with a picture that has a little text for flavor, or a diagram); if you simply don't read what's on those pictures does their argument actually hold up? Does it even make sense if half of it is missing? Another example is missed rounds affect both conduct, and hurt their argument.

from http://www.debate.org...
"Who made more convincing arguments?(3 Points)
Analysis - Which debater, on balance, did a better job of clearly explaining their arguments and of exposing the weakness of their opponent's arguments?
Refutation - Which debater critically analyzed their opponents' arguments the best and developed clear, appropriate, and understandable responses?
Organization - Which debater organized their arguments the best, creating an easily understood and readable path to follow?"

To me Organization is the criteria which opens the door for things that affect other areas, to influence the argument vote. There's a point where terrible spelling and no grammar, make the argument itself too painful to try to make sense of (no matter how right they are, or how great they meant their points to be).

In any case if you're ever not sure about an area of voting (including argument), simply don't vote on that area.
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 10:46:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2013 7:15:58 AM, leojm wrote:
What is vote bombing, and how do you do it?

I used to think I knew...but don't worry, most of your votes are votebombs :)
jh1234l
Posts: 580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 7:52:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think that no one has the same voting standards as anyone else. So as long as it is reasonable and not affected by your personal bias, I am okay with it. But Doubter disagrees:

At 6/2/2013 9:08:06 AM, rross wrote:
I've been accused of votebombing five times in the last couple of weeks, and it's made me realize that I am unsure about the rules of voting. I was hoping people could clarify the following points.

1. Troll debates. Do you vote for who's funnier? My view is that the rules for voting should be much looser for a troll debate. Is this wrong?

No unless you voted against Qopel (a.k.a. Doubter) , in which case you are a traitor, terrorist, troll, harrasser and hate bomber.

2. Is it the voter's job to check the sources and for plagiarism? Can you vote arguments down on these things independently of whether the opponent in the debate comments on them?

Don't care, unless you voted against Qopel.

3. At what point can you mark arguments down for conduct violations? For example, if one participant derails the debate to the extent that his opponent can't properly respond, is it okay to mark down conduct and arguments? Or must you still grant arguments to the evil side?

Both are okay unless you vote against Qopel.

4. If a debater is very difficult to understand, how many times are you obliged to read his argument? If you read it, say, twice and still can't make sense of it, but understand the other side, can you give the other side argument points?


Don't care, as long as you do not vote against Qopel.

5. Is plagiarism only a conduct point loss?

Nope unless you are voting against Qopel.

Thanks
My political compass:
Economic Left/Right: -1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82
1 square right of Nelson Mandela, 2 squares down from Francois Hollande
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2013 2:24:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think some members just need to focus a bit better on what it means to place a proper vote.

The priority should be with giving argument points and nothing else. In giving these argument points one should explain as well as they can exactly why they believe the debater deserved to win the debate. They should read the debate multiple times if that's what it takes to be able to reasonably articulate why pro or con had better arguments. Pointing to specific arguments, fundamental aspects of the debate (standing/refuted arguments, key points etc), and the crux of the BOP in the RFD goes a long way to providing a good and thoughtful vote.

Following that, if only one side had terrible spelling and grammar, the S&G points would be warranted. If one side displayed particularly poor conduct, it would be reasonable to give conduct point. Similarly with sources, though one shouldn't award source points simply because one side used one more source. It should only be given if it had a significant enough effect on the debate.

In those cases a brief explanation should be given for why those points are being awarded. In general, members should explain every point they award. If a member is going to vote all 7 points (assuming it's a standard debate) the RFD should reflect the extent of the points given, and even more thought should be placed into explaining the vote. Failure to do that, will almost always create the perception that the vote is a votebomb (as it generally is). This is even more true when the vote appears to be ideological.

Otherwise members should use their own judgement on grey areas and unique circumstances. Be as objective as possible and if a vote was a sincere attempt to be fair to both debaters, I find most DDO members aren't inclined to counter it or say anything about it at all even if it goes against their own personal view on the results of the debate.
Debate.org Moderator
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2013 2:35:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 9:08:06 AM, rross wrote:
I've been accused of votebombing five times in the last couple of weeks, and it's made me realize that I am unsure about the rules of voting. I was hoping people could clarify the following points.

1. Troll debates. Do you vote for who's funnier? My view is that the rules for voting should be much looser for a troll debate. Is this wrong?

I would say voting can be done looser on a troll debate. Often there is a criteria for them, but its on a debate by debate basis.

2. Is it the voter's job to check the sources and for plagiarism? Can you vote arguments down on these things independently of whether the opponent in the debate comments on them?

I think conduct is a given for plagiarism, and it can also lead to an entire loss of argument points if the majority of the debaters arguments, and/or the significant ones, were plagiarized.

If the other debater doesn't notice, it is still plagiarism and still essentially cheating and poor conduct. The above would still apply.

3. At what point can you mark arguments down for conduct violations? For example, if one participant derails the debate to the extent that his opponent can't properly respond, is it okay to mark down conduct and arguments? Or must you still grant arguments to the evil side?

I guess this would depend on the circumstances. But in general if one is derailing the debate it's unlikely they are making good arguments, leading to args and conduct for the other side.

4. If a debater is very difficult to understand, how many times are you obliged to read his argument? If you read it, say, twice and still can't make sense of it, but understand the other side, can you give the other side argument points?


Depends on the circumstance and whether or not you can articulate why you are voting in favor of them. Personally, if i can't understand the other debater I probably wouldn't read much of the debate, and likely wouldn't vote. This is a judgement call by the voter.

5. Is plagiarism only a conduct point loss?

I think this was addressed above. If the plagiarism consisted of a significant enough of the arguments that would have otherwise not allowed them to win arguments, then args points should be automatically awarded to the other side. In other words, remove the plagiarized portions of the debate and then evaluate what is left.

Thanks
Debate.org Moderator
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2013 12:03:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 9:08:06 AM, rross wrote:
2. Is it the voter's job to check the sources and for plagiarism?

I don't usually vote sources. If I get suspicious that the source has been misrepresented, and that turns out to be true, then I'll vote source points. Thus, if someone quotes Christopher Hitchens as saying that god does exist, and I follow the link, and Hitchens actually says that god does not exist, then I'll vote source points.

I don't check for plagiarism unless I get suspicious. If someone alternates writing like a professor and a fifth grader, I get suspicious. Plagiarism is almost always worth a full forfeit: all seven points.

The exception is if it's a matter of ignorance. If they meant well but didn't know how to do it properly, then I might just vote the source points. I've only done this once.

You aren't doing someone a favor by treating him gently enough that he might try plagiarism a second time.

3. At what point can you mark arguments down for conduct violations? For example, if one participant derails the debate to the extent that his opponent can't properly respond, is it okay to mark down conduct and arguments? Or must you still grant arguments to the evil side?

I recall voting for the perpetrator in a case like that. He derailed the debate, and his opponent---who had the burden of proof---followed the derail rather than making his case.

4. If a debater is very difficult to understand, how many times are you obliged to read his argument? If you read it, say, twice and still can't make sense of it, but understand the other side, can you give the other side argument points?

How many times are you "obliged" to read it? At least once.

Personally, if I didn't understand the first reading, I've always made a second or third attempt. But I'm not sure there's an obligation to do that. If you can't understand what a debater is saying, then hasn't he failed to persuade?
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2013 7:20:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Just keep in mind that there are no solid cut rules which you will be punished for breaking. It will be something else, like being detrimental to the experience of other users on the site, or voting irresponsibly. Lucky for us the president does a good job being the objective standard of whether or not something needs to be corrected, and if he hasn't approached you, it probably means that none of those people reported you to him. That hints that your votes were not that bad, they just need improving. The other members have basically told you everything you could want to know already.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2013 8:19:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 11:52:56 AM, Mirza wrote:
To your 5th question -- if the plagiarism was intentional and filled a large fraction of the debate, then it should count as a complete loss.

If plagiarism is intentional, then the party tried to win by cheating: Full forfeit (7 point loss) regardless of whether it was a large fraction of the debate.

If the plagiarism is a small bit of the debate and looks accidental---a matter of not knowing how to do citations---then it is conceivable that the punishment be less than a full forfeit.
acrotun24521
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 11:37:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 7:52:32 PM, jh1234l wrote:
I think that no one has the same voting standards as anyone else. So as long as it is reasonable and not affected by your personal bias, I am okay with it. But Doubter disagrees:

At 6/2/2013 9:08:06 AM, rross wrote:
I've been accused of votebombing five times in the last couple of weeks, and it's made me realize that I am unsure about the rules of voting. I was hoping people could clarify the following points.

1. Troll debates. Do you vote for who's funnier? My view is that the rules for voting should be much looser for a troll debate. Is this wrong?

No unless you voted against Qopel (a.k.a. Doubter) , in which case you are a traitor, terrorist, troll, harrasser and hate bomber.

2. Is it the voter's job to check the sources and for plagiarism? Can you vote arguments down on these things independently of whether the opponent in the debate comments on them?

Don't care, unless you voted against Qopel.

3. At what point can you mark arguments down for conduct violations? For example, if one participant derails the debate to the extent that his opponent can't properly respond, is it okay to mark down conduct and arguments? Or must you still grant arguments to the evil side?

Both are okay unless you vote against Qopel.

4. If a debater is very difficult to understand, how many times are you obliged to read his argument? If you read it, say, twice and still can't make sense of it, but understand the other side, can you give the other side argument points?


Don't care, as long as you do not vote against Qopel.

5. Is plagiarism only a conduct point loss?

Nope unless you are voting against Qopel.

Thanks

Who are Qopel and Doubter?