Total Posts:425|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What the sh1t is this?

drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 10:35:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I just got a message about my vote being deleted on a debate because some arbitrary "Voting Board" didn't feel it met some equally arbitrary voting requirements?

I get that you're trying to combat vote-bombing and voter fraud but - in case anyone has forgotten - we're also trying to combat a horrible lack of voting overall to begin with.

I didn't see anything wrong with my vote:

"The Theory of Evolution Is Valid

"Con's arguments were rooted in a misunderstanding of evolution, biology, zoology, and science in general. His opposition to evolution appears to be rooted in ignorance, rather than actual objections. Pro did a thorough job of dismantling the arguments and supporting them with relevant sources."

5 points, args, sources to Pro"


Especially with regards to the pulled-out-of-butt requirements that I just found out about as a result of this. What is this, a FISA court?

Seriously though, fvck this sh1t. After I'm done modding my current mafia game I'm bouncing from this joint.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 10:57:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yeah I'm no longer voting on debates either.

RFDs are supposed to be solid yes, but it has gotten ridiculous. I can't write a dissertation for my vote and consult an arbitrary board of rules. It adds way way way too much annoyance to what should be a simple intelligent act.

While I think leaving the site is a bit overkill I will no longer vote on debates either. Which is sad because this site, based around debating ,seems to be out to kill debate. The formal debate section is dying under the iron fist of Juggle. We all saw the writing on the walls with the Opinions section and Polls section but it has gotten alarmingly anti-debate around here. Juggle is undermining the core of this site and when the core rots away significantly enough it will collapse.

If people like drafterman start leaving the site will only remain populated by impatient, simple minded drive by intellectuals and the thing that made this site truly amazing will be completely dead.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 11:05:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 10:57:14 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Yeah I'm no longer voting on debates either.

RFDs are supposed to be solid yes, but it has gotten ridiculous. I can't write a dissertation for my vote and consult an arbitrary board of rules. It adds way way way too much annoyance to what should be a simple intelligent act.

While I think leaving the site is a bit overkill I will no longer vote on debates either. Which is sad because this site, based around debating ,seems to be out to kill debate. The formal debate section is dying under the iron fist of Juggle. We all saw the writing on the walls with the Opinions section and Polls section but it has gotten alarmingly anti-debate around here. Juggle is undermining the core of this site and when the core rots away significantly enough it will collapse.

If people like drafterman start leaving the site will only remain populated by impatient, simple minded drive by intellectuals and the thing that made this site truly amazing will be completely dead.

Maybe it is overkill. Maybe it's part of the bad week I've been having. But the activity in the games section is dying out and there isn't much of new conversational topics in the religion forum. I was thinking about trying to get back into debating but with this nonsense - forget it.

But sometimes a harsh message is needed. You might say that saying you'll never buy a product from a company again (i.e. a boycott) is harsh in response to, say, a bad manager at a single store, but the point is to get attention which is achieved through significant actions or numbers, or both.

What really irritates me is the following:
1. Who the hell knew that this was going on? I don't frequent the Debate.org forum a lot, but I don't recall people saying that this was going to happen. If I missed it, my bad, but otherwise, who the hell thought that opaque, back-room, elitist judging of votes was a good idea?

2. Why not - oh I don't know - WORK WITH FVCKING PEOPLE. You just up and deleted my vote without prior warning/communication. Maybe if someone came to me a head of time, and saying that I should beef up my RFD a bit I would have been amenable to that. No, I get a sh1t form letter.

3. You didn't even give me the courtesy of FVCKING LINKING TO THE DEBATE. I had to fvcking search and find the debate in question. So not only are you arbitrarily deleting votes without telling people (Except after the fact), you actually making it harder for them to fix the issue.

Jesus, why have voting at all if this is what you're going to do? Let's just have debates and we can sit and look at them as if they're pictures in a museum.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 11:08:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
BTW, there isn't any channel for feedback either. I tried to respond to the PM and was told by the "messenger" that he wouldn't convey my feedback. So basically it's just: you're vote's gone, suck it up. You can vote again (if you can find the debate) but - not feedback, no appeal, nothing.

Great administration.
YYW
Posts: 36,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 11:14:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think there has always been fundamental disconnect between Juggle and the site, and I think they have -based on what has transpired in the past- utterly no interest in reaching that gap. The way they model their developments seems to be that they only want their ideas to come to fruition, which is fine because this is their website, but I think tat the people at juggle often forget why there is traffic on here to begin with -or they never knew, because they are out of touch with the site's community and its culture.

I know that any Juggle official who read that would either (1) disregard what I'm saying or (2) write it off in a way such that even if I'm right, they don't care, but the fact remains that the vision that Juggle has for DDO has seemed to stand at odds with what we, the members, want. I maintain that the aesthetic changes were disastrous. The color scheme is audacious, the giant banners -which is still incompatible with smartphones- and the layouts remain a problem -but I'm equally aware that there's not a thing that the site designers are going to do about it. So, I stopped mentioning it... namely because I'm not a fan of pissing in the wind.

The opinions section, I think we can all agree, was probably the single worst thing that they have ever come up with. Not only does its structure encourage anti-intellectual behavior, but it draws in people who have utterly no interest in doing anything meaningful to the site -such that their presence lowers the academic value of all that is posted. But, here and again, the difference is in values. We, the people, value intellectual quality. The site designers value traffic, which -as I understand it- has vastly increased as a result of the opinion section.

The polls section, though, I think is pretty cool. It doesn't discourage well thought out responses and its structure and interface are really cleverly put together. Unlike the opinion section, the polls section doesn't feel like a cheap knockoff of Create Debate -which, btw. is not something even worth being copied. Perhaps to put this more clearly, If DDO is a pair of Oakley sunglasses, then Create Debate is more on par with Panama Jack. Granted, neither are on par with Oliver Peoples, but the point remains.

One thing I'd like to know, though, is who sent the PM. I'd like to know if it was someone from DDO or if it was from the voting commission that Airmax established. If it's on of the members who sent the message or made the call, then we can far more easily address that than if it were actual Juggle people. I'd be very surprised, though, if Juggle were allocating its resources to policing old debates... that's like going after the boiling water on the stove when the fireplace is throwing sparks on the carpet.

But that's my two cents... take it for what it is. As usual, I'm sure that no one could really give a sh!t what I have to say on this issue, but c'est la vie.
Tsar of DDO
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 11:15:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 11:08:39 AM, drafterman wrote:
BTW, there isn't any channel for feedback either. I tried to respond to the PM and was told by the "messenger" that he wouldn't convey my feedback. So basically it's just: you're vote's gone, suck it up. You can vote again (if you can find the debate) but - not feedback, no appeal, nothing.

Great administration.

Wow they refused to give you feedback?

I've been gone from DDO for a couple months and I had no idea it had gotten so bad... I know that site quality, in my mind, is on the serious downturn. But hey maybe leaving isn't so radical. But I wasn't aware of this new vote deleting policy either.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 11:55:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 11:15:21 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 10/25/2013 11:08:39 AM, drafterman wrote:
BTW, there isn't any channel for feedback either. I tried to respond to the PM and was told by the "messenger" that he wouldn't convey my feedback. So basically it's just: you're vote's gone, suck it up. You can vote again (if you can find the debate) but - not feedback, no appeal, nothing.

Great administration.

Wow they refused to give you feedback?

No, the "messenger" refused to convey my feedback to whatever coven conjured up this decision.

I've been gone from DDO for a couple months and I had no idea it had gotten so bad... I know that site quality, in my mind, is on the serious downturn. But hey maybe leaving isn't so radical. But I wasn't aware of this new vote deleting policy either.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 11:57:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 11:14:42 AM, YYW wrote:

One thing I'd like to know, though, is who sent the PM. I'd like to know if it was someone from DDO or if it was from the voting commission that Airmax established. If it's on of the members who sent the message or made the call, then we can far more easily address that than if it were actual Juggle people. I'd be very surprised, though, if Juggle were allocating its resources to policing old debates... that's like going after the boiling water on the stove when the fireplace is throwing sparks on the carpet.

It's a normal DDO user, though whether they are part of the voting commission or not I don't know. I am not revealing the name because he is just that - the messenger (though his decision to stop relaying messages would make him of questionable utility). Since my beef isn't with him, I'm not going to reveal his name.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 11:57:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 11:55:30 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/25/2013 11:15:21 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 10/25/2013 11:08:39 AM, drafterman wrote:
BTW, there isn't any channel for feedback either. I tried to respond to the PM and was told by the "messenger" that he wouldn't convey my feedback. So basically it's just: you're vote's gone, suck it up. You can vote again (if you can find the debate) but - not feedback, no appeal, nothing.

Great administration.

Wow they refused to give you feedback?

No, the "messenger" refused to convey my feedback to whatever coven conjured up this decision.

I've been gone from DDO for a couple months and I had no idea it had gotten so bad... I know that site quality, in my mind, is on the serious downturn. But hey maybe leaving isn't so radical. But I wasn't aware of this new vote deleting policy either.

Well that's a great way to improve voting practices! We'll make everyone abide by the age old guess and check strategy!
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 12:01:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've sent the following PM to airmax:

--------
Since when is this a practice?
Since when is the DDO administration in the game of deleting non-votebomb votes? When was this publicly established, along with the guidelines against which we would be judged?

Who is on this committee? Do we not have a right to challenge our accusers?
Do we not have a right to see the evidence leading to a judgement?
Do we not have a right to cha[lle]nge/defend our vote BEFORE it is secretly and summarily taken down?

I've put my vote back up, AS IS and I will continue to submit the vote AS IS until such a time as it is judged in an open, transparent, manner in which I can see the evidence and reasoning and provide my own defense of it. Or until I leave or am banned from the site.
----------
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 12:08:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 11:08:39 AM, drafterman wrote:
BTW, there isn't any channel for feedback either. I tried to respond to the PM and was told by the "messenger" that he wouldn't convey my feedback. So basically it's just: you're vote's gone, suck it up. You can vote again (if you can find the debate) but - not feedback, no appeal, nothing.

Great administration.

Did you message airmax?

He is the moderator--it is he who ultimately decides and deletes votes, just as it is he who ultimately decides and deletes anything that gets deleted. He has, to quote He-Man, "the powerrrrrrrrrrrr". (Though of course Juggle does also have the power on their own of course, just not generally)

I'm a bit concerned that you're the (Still?) Deputy Director of Site Development, and that neither you, nor YYW--the Chief of Staff--are familiar with the Voting review board.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 12:12:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 12:08:05 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/25/2013 11:08:39 AM, drafterman wrote:
BTW, there isn't any channel for feedback either. I tried to respond to the PM and was told by the "messenger" that he wouldn't convey my feedback. So basically it's just: you're vote's gone, suck it up. You can vote again (if you can find the debate) but - not feedback, no appeal, nothing.

Great administration.

Did you message airmax?

Yes.

He is the moderator--it is he who ultimately decides and deletes votes, just as it is he who ultimately decides and deletes anything that gets deleted. He has, to quote He-Man, "the powerrrrrrrrrrrr". (Though of course Juggle does also have the power on their own of course, just not generally)

I'm a bit concerned that you're the (Still?) Deputy Director of Site Development, and that neither you, nor YYW--the Chief of Staff--are familiar with the Voting review board.

Am I? The only projects I've been involved in were the "Voter of the Week" and a Debate "Tournament" design. Yeah, two months ago how to combat "poor" votes was being discussed but I'm completely caught unawares by this fascist nonsense.
YYW
Posts: 36,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 12:13:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 12:08:05 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/25/2013 11:08:39 AM, drafterman wrote:
BTW, there isn't any channel for feedback either. I tried to respond to the PM and was told by the "messenger" that he wouldn't convey my feedback. So basically it's just: you're vote's gone, suck it up. You can vote again (if you can find the debate) but - not feedback, no appeal, nothing.

Great administration.

Did you message airmax?

He is the moderator--it is he who ultimately decides and deletes votes, just as it is he who ultimately decides and deletes anything that gets deleted. He has, to quote He-Man, "the powerrrrrrrrrrrr". (Though of course Juggle does also have the power on their own of course, just not generally)

I'm a bit concerned that you're the (Still?) Deputy Director of Site Development, and that neither you, nor YYW--the Chief of Staff--are familiar with the Voting review board.

I know that it exists and that theoretically I'm a part of it, but I was not privy to the decision to delete the debate in question. I have contacted Airmax about it, and I'm confident that he will rectify any problematic decision.
Tsar of DDO
lannan13
Posts: 23,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 12:17:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Since when da hell did this occur?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 12:33:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 12:12:31 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/25/2013 12:08:05 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/25/2013 11:08:39 AM, drafterman wrote:
BTW, there isn't any channel for feedback either. I tried to respond to the PM and was told by the "messenger" that he wouldn't convey my feedback. So basically it's just: you're vote's gone, suck it up. You can vote again (if you can find the debate) but - not feedback, no appeal, nothing.

Great administration.

Did you message airmax?

Yes.

Apparently I was slowly typing my reply when you were saying that you'd messaged him already. Sorry.

He is the moderator--it is he who ultimately decides and deletes votes, just as it is he who ultimately decides and deletes anything that gets deleted. He has, to quote He-Man, "the powerrrrrrrrrrrr". (Though of course Juggle does also have the power on their own of course, just not generally)

I'm a bit concerned that you're the (Still?) Deputy Director of Site Development, and that neither you, nor YYW--the Chief of Staff--are familiar with the Voting review board.

Am I? The only projects I've been involved in were the "Voter of the Week" and a Debate "Tournament" design. Yeah, two months ago how to combat "poor" votes was being discussed but I'm completely caught unawares by this fascist nonsense.

I believe it was originally noted during the update, when the "vote report" function was first implemented, though I can't find that post right this second. Airmax has mentioned it a few times (ex: http://www.debate.org...).

I don't want to say much, as I don't want to speak out of turn, as it were. Airmax will undoubtedly comment as soon as he's aware.

But in the interests of transparency, and in the hope that I'm not speaking out of turn:

The VRB has been in place since the beginning of August. Though in theory airmax has the sole discretionary power of deletion as his moderator prerogative, he chooses to post and gets input from other members on votes that have been reported (generally by a third party, though as normal members the folks who have been participating have the same ability to click a button as anyone else).

I have been involved in the VRB. A good portion are obviously bad/bombs. Some are gray-area-types.

drafter, I think it would be okay to explain specifics to your situation further in PM (with the caveat that I am not the boss). Since airmax isn't on, but you are, and you're clearly upset, I can at least give some more explanation specific to your vote (Probably I could do it here, too, which would be more transparent--but like I said I already feel like I'm speaking out of turn in saying anything...it's just that "keeping my mouth shut" is my dump stat).
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 12:45:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 12:33:32 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

drafter, I think it would be okay to explain specifics to your situation further in PM (with the caveat that I am not the boss). Since airmax isn't on, but you are, and you're clearly upset, I can at least give some more explanation specific to your vote (Probably I could do it here, too, which would be more transparent--but like I said I already feel like I'm speaking out of turn in saying anything...it's just that "keeping my mouth shut" is my dump stat).

Non-sarcastic congratulations. Even without giving the full details you allude to, you have done a better job, the job that should have been done, then this phantasmic VRB.

If the "messenger" come to me and had said just that - saying that someone had reported my vote, that it was reviewed by a board, and that it could (or even should) be expanded upon, I would have been all kinds of okay with that.

This is one of this situations where it is not so much what is happening but how it is being carried about. For the record, I agree that my RFD could be made better. But was part of a large batch of voting I was doing, going through debates in the voting period and the winner was so clear that I didn't think it was necessary to go point-by-point (WHICH I HAVE DONE BEFORE).

As far as the "Reporting" function. Ok, I missed that. I don't think the existence of that indicates what's going on here. Here are the reasons given for the report function:

"Vote is From a Fake Account
Vote Bomb
Lack of RFD
RFD Contains Hate Content
Impersonation or Misrepresentation
Insulting Other Member(s)
Violence or Threats
Other (please specify)"


Mine contains none of that Maybe it's a weak RFD. Maybe it's not the ideal RFD, but it's still an RFD, so "Lack of RFD" doesn't apply. It's not like I just mashed my hand against the keyboard to create some characters.

But this seems more than just processing reported vote claims. There are actual voting guidelines above and beyond this function they are judging people on, guidelines which are very subjective and up to interpretation, and there is no involvement with the people in question.

This isn't an issue of my vote being spam or a bomb or fraud, where deletion is the ideal solution. The ideal solution is they wanted me to improve my RFD. If they want me to do that, then they need to address it specifically, address me as an individual and contributor to this site. Not conduct a hidden trial and execute private punishment with no recourse or review and actually make it more difficult for me to rectify it. I've been put in the same bucket as vote bombers and fraudsters and I don't think that's appropriate.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 12:52:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I am finding it disturbing that you are anxious about revealing the details here, that you are speaking "out of turn." I get the point of discretion but I've made this public by myself, so there can't be an issue of protecting me and - if this was all done legitimately - what's to protect on the other side?

I thought airmax was trying to run a transparent administration (http://www.debate.org...) and yet you appear to be having some anxiety about revealing what's going on behind the lines.
thett3
Posts: 14,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 12:59:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 12:45:52 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/25/2013 12:33:32 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

drafter, I think it would be okay to explain specifics to your situation further in PM (with the caveat that I am not the boss). Since airmax isn't on, but you are, and you're clearly upset, I can at least give some more explanation specific to your vote (Probably I could do it here, too, which would be more transparent--but like I said I already feel like I'm speaking out of turn in saying anything...it's just that "keeping my mouth shut" is my dump stat).

Non-sarcastic congratulations. Even without giving the full details you allude to, you have done a better job, the job that should have been done, then this phantasmic VRB.

If the "messenger" come to me and had said just that - saying that someone had reported my vote, that it was reviewed by a board, and that it could (or even should) be expanded upon, I would have been all kinds of okay with that.

This is one of this situations where it is not so much what is happening but how it is being carried about. For the record, I agree that my RFD could be made better. But was part of a large batch of voting I was doing, going through debates in the voting period and the winner was so clear that I didn't think it was necessary to go point-by-point (WHICH I HAVE DONE BEFORE).

You bring up a good point drafter. Perhaps instead of outright deletion in more ambiguous cases or even in most requesting more expansion on the RFD should be pursued before outright deletion. I understand your frustrations but can only offer that leaving the site probably isn't the best solution. Airmax is very fair and I have no dog to this situation will be resolved. Keep in mind that this committee thing is quite new and isn't going to be perfect. Your case is a great example of where it could be bettered.

As far as the "Reporting" function. Ok, I missed that. I don't think the existence of that indicates what's going on here. Here are the reasons given for the report function:

"Vote is From a Fake Account
Vote Bomb
Lack of RFD
RFD Contains Hate Content
Impersonation or Misrepresentation
Insulting Other Member(s)
Violence or Threats
Other (please specify)"


Mine contains none of that Maybe it's a weak RFD. Maybe it's not the ideal RFD, but it's still an RFD, so "Lack of RFD" doesn't apply. It's not like I just mashed my hand against the keyboard to create some characters.

But this seems more than just processing reported vote claims. There are actual voting guidelines above and beyond this function they are judging people on, guidelines which are very subjective and up to interpretation, and there is no involvement with the people in question.

This isn't an issue of my vote being spam or a bomb or fraud, where deletion is the ideal solution. The ideal solution is they wanted me to improve my RFD. If they want me to do that, then they need to address it specifically, address me as an individual and contributor to this site. Not conduct a hidden trial and execute private punishment with no recourse or review and actually make it more difficult for me to rectify it. I've been put in the same bucket as vote bombers and fraudsters and I don't think that's appropriate.
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
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 12:59:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Let me go ahead and shed some light on this entire voting board situation just for the sake of clarification

1) The voting board consists of Blackvoid, Airmax, F-16, Maikuru, Bladerunner, Thett3, Sargon, Wiploc, Ragnar....... And myself. Its basically 2/3rds of Airmax's inner circle along with some super active members who have experience voting, and we review all votes that get reported to Airmax

2) The voting board isnt really a secret and within the PM it wasnt ever said that this WAS a secret. If you guys have any questions about it then feel free to ask about it/us

Here's the slightly f*cked up part though: Only one person actually thought your vote should have been deleted.

The voting circle has a SH*TLOAD of votes to review on a pretty daily basis and not everyone within the circle actually offers their opinion on whether a vote should or shouldnt be deleted.... Usually its 4 or 5 people giving input per vote, but for some reason still unknown to me, Your vote was deleted when only one person saw anything wrong with it.

I personally saw nothing wrong with your vote, I wouldnt have called for it to be deletedm and others in this voting circle might not have as well. As far as I know only one person saw an issue with your vote and thought it should be removed
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
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 1:15:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 10:57:14 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Yeah I'm no longer voting on debates either.

RFDs are supposed to be solid yes, but it has gotten ridiculous. I can't write a dissertation for my vote and consult an arbitrary board of rules. It adds way way way too much annoyance to what should be a simple intelligent act.

While I think leaving the site is a bit overkill I will no longer vote on debates either. Which is sad because this site, based around debating ,seems to be out to kill debate. The formal debate section is dying under the iron fist of Juggle. We all saw the writing on the walls with the Opinions section and Polls section but it has gotten alarmingly anti-debate around here. Juggle is undermining the core of this site and when the core rots away significantly enough it will collapse.

If people like drafterman start leaving the site will only remain populated by impatient, simple minded drive by intellectuals and the thing that made this site truly amazing will be completely dead.

Ok 1) Calm the f*** down

2) Not every vote every person ever makes ever is reviewd, so you can put that paranoid fantasy to rest.... The only votes that actually get reviewed are the ones that get reported as being bad votes, we dont receive every vote ever made and judge whether or not it should stand ourselves, about 99% of all votes are left alone by the group.

3) The votes that DO get reported are almost always 7 point votebombs or votes that have an outstanding amount of bias within them.... Votes like draftermans are rarely submitted review and they rarely even get deleted either
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
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 1:20:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 11:14:42 AM, YYW wrote:
I think there has always been fundamental disconnect between Juggle and the site, and I think they have -based on what has transpired in the past- utterly no interest in reaching that gap. The way they model their developments seems to be that they only want their ideas to come to fruition, which is fine because this is their website, but I think tat the people at juggle often forget why there is traffic on here to begin with -or they never knew, because they are out of touch with the site's community and its culture.

I know that any Juggle official who read that would either (1) disregard what I'm saying or (2) write it off in a way such that even if I'm right, they don't care, but the fact remains that the vision that Juggle has for DDO has seemed to stand at odds with what we, the members, want. I maintain that the aesthetic changes were disastrous. The color scheme is audacious, the giant banners -which is still incompatible with smartphones- and the layouts remain a problem -but I'm equally aware that there's not a thing that the site designers are going to do about it. So, I stopped mentioning it... namely because I'm not a fan of pissing in the wind.

The opinions section, I think we can all agree, was probably the single worst thing that they have ever come up with. Not only does its structure encourage anti-intellectual behavior, but it draws in people who have utterly no interest in doing anything meaningful to the site -such that their presence lowers the academic value of all that is posted. But, here and again, the difference is in values. We, the people, value intellectual quality. The site designers value traffic, which -as I understand it- has vastly increased as a result of the opinion section.

The polls section, though, I think is pretty cool. It doesn't discourage well thought out responses and its structure and interface are really cleverly put together. Unlike the opinion section, the polls section doesn't feel like a cheap knockoff of Create Debate -which, btw. is not something even worth being copied. Perhaps to put this more clearly, If DDO is a pair of Oakley sunglasses, then Create Debate is more on par with Panama Jack. Granted, neither are on par with Oliver Peoples, but the point remains.

juggle has nothing to do with the voting review board..... This was all a creation to try to eliminate the horrendous DDO culture of coalition voting and vigilante counter voting that has rendered countless debates in ruin.....

One thing I'd like to know, though, is who sent the PM.

Sure as hell wasnt me

I'd like to know if it was someone from DDO or if it was from the voting commission that Airmax established.

The voting commission is made up of people from DDO

If it's one of the members who sent the message or made the call, then we can far more easily address that than if it were actual Juggle people. I'd be very surprised, though, if Juggle were allocating its resources to policing old debates... that's like going after the boiling water on the stove when the fireplace is throwing sparks on the carpet.

Their not, so you can relax on that one

But that's my two cents... take it for what it is. As usual, I'm sure that no one could really give a sh!t what I have to say on this issue, but c'est la vie.
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
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 1:20:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 1:15:54 PM, imabench wrote:
2) Not every vote every person ever makes ever is reviewd, so you can put that paranoid fantasy to rest.... The only votes that actually get reviewed are the ones that get reported as being bad votes, we dont receive every vote ever made and judge whether or not it should stand ourselves, about 99% of all votes are left alone by the group.

This wasn't made clear in the PM I got.

Here is the preamble:

"Some (or one) of your votes have been deleted.

Here's what's going on: DDO has been getting way too many generic RFDs (reasons for decision), and way too many votebombs and counter votebombs. Therefore, DDO president Airmax1227 has created a Vote Review Board.

It's worked wonders. The counter-votebomb wars have ended. (Instead of countering a bad vote, people just report it.) The votebombs themselves are much reduced.

We still get a lot of generic votes. Example: "I voted for Pro because Pro won." You can't even tell from that whether the voter has read the debate. That's "generic" or "cookie cutter" because it could be used as the RFD for any debate. People voting for Con could use the same RFD with "Con" substituted in for "Pro." Such RFDs contain no information not contained in the vote itself. "


There is nothing about the only reviewed votes being reported votes. Based on the wording, it implies that there is an issue with generic RFDs in general that the VRB is trying to actively combat which certainly does suggest an active and overall review of RFDs, not merely an analysis of RFDs which have been reported (For which "generic RFD" isn't an option on the report form).
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 1:20:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 12:52:10 PM, drafterman wrote:
I am finding it disturbing that you are anxious about revealing the details here, that you are speaking "out of turn." I get the point of discretion but I've made this public by myself, so there can't be an issue of protecting me and - if this was all done legitimately - what's to protect on the other side?

I thought airmax was trying to run a transparent administration (http://www.debate.org...) and yet you appear to be having some anxiety about revealing what's going on behind the lines.

That's nothing to do with airmax, and everything to do with my knowledge that I have a natural tendency to speak out of turn, just in general. Were I not involved in the VRB, I would be opining as much as I darn well please. That this is something I'm involved in, which is headed by him, it seems....unfair for me to comment overmuch when it seems like it's his place. But maybe I'm just weird. It's certainly not from anything he's ever said to me.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 1:25:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
LOL. I got some unofficial, unauthoritative feedback on why my RFD was selected for deletion.

"You make it clear that _you_ could have whipped Con soundly, but you never mention whether Pro was able to deal."

LOL. So apparently someone on this board thought I was talking about myself when I referred to and voted in Pro's favor.
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 1:26:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 1:20:28 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/25/2013 1:15:54 PM, imabench wrote:
2) Not every vote every person ever makes ever is reviewd, so you can put that paranoid fantasy to rest.... The only votes that actually get reviewed are the ones that get reported as being bad votes, we dont receive every vote ever made and judge whether or not it should stand ourselves, about 99% of all votes are left alone by the group.

This wasn't made clear in the PM I got.

Here is the preamble:

"Some (or one) of your votes have been deleted.

Here's what's going on: DDO has been getting way too many generic RFDs (reasons for decision), and way too many votebombs and counter votebombs. Therefore, DDO president Airmax1227 has created a Vote Review Board.

It's worked wonders. The counter-votebomb wars have ended. (Instead of countering a bad vote, people just report it.) The votebombs themselves are much reduced.

We still get a lot of generic votes. Example: "I voted for Pro because Pro won." You can't even tell from that whether the voter has read the debate. That's "generic" or "cookie cutter" because it could be used as the RFD for any debate. People voting for Con could use the same RFD with "Con" substituted in for "Pro." Such RFDs contain no information not contained in the vote itself. "


There is nothing about the only reviewed votes being reported votes.

Well that is how it works....

Based on the wording, it implies that there is an issue with generic RFDs in general that the VRB is trying to actively combat which certainly does suggest an active and overall review of RFDs, not merely an analysis of RFDs which have been reported (For which "generic RFD" isn't an option on the report form).

No we only review votes that actually get reported, we dont go out and hunt for votes to judge them, we get more then enough votes to review in the first place
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
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 1:27:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 1:26:55 PM, imabench wrote:
At 10/25/2013 1:20:28 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/25/2013 1:15:54 PM, imabench wrote:
2) Not every vote every person ever makes ever is reviewd, so you can put that paranoid fantasy to rest.... The only votes that actually get reviewed are the ones that get reported as being bad votes, we dont receive every vote ever made and judge whether or not it should stand ourselves, about 99% of all votes are left alone by the group.

This wasn't made clear in the PM I got.

Here is the preamble:

"Some (or one) of your votes have been deleted.

Here's what's going on: DDO has been getting way too many generic RFDs (reasons for decision), and way too many votebombs and counter votebombs. Therefore, DDO president Airmax1227 has created a Vote Review Board.

It's worked wonders. The counter-votebomb wars have ended. (Instead of countering a bad vote, people just report it.) The votebombs themselves are much reduced.

We still get a lot of generic votes. Example: "I voted for Pro because Pro won." You can't even tell from that whether the voter has read the debate. That's "generic" or "cookie cutter" because it could be used as the RFD for any debate. People voting for Con could use the same RFD with "Con" substituted in for "Pro." Such RFDs contain no information not contained in the vote itself. "


There is nothing about the only reviewed votes being reported votes.

Well that is how it works....

And how would I be able to conclude that from the PM without it being mentioned?

Based on the wording, it implies that there is an issue with generic RFDs in general that the VRB is trying to actively combat which certainly does suggest an active and overall review of RFDs, not merely an analysis of RFDs which have been reported (For which "generic RFD" isn't an option on the report form).

No we only review votes that actually get reported, we dont go out and hunt for votes to judge them, we get more then enough votes to review in the first place

Yeah, I get that now.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 1:27:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 12:45:52 PM, drafterman wrote:

Non-sarcastic congratulations. Even without giving the full details you allude to, you have done a better job, the job that should have been done, then this phantasmic VRB.

Thank you, I think, and I'm sorry, since I've been involved in the VRB. I think there has been a lack of "official" commentary due to efforts to address it as part of a comprehensive voting guide, FAQ update, etc. Out of curiosity, did his original message or his response refer to you airmax for further questions/comments/concerns?

If the "messenger" come to me and had said just that - saying that someone had reported my vote, that it was reviewed by a board, and that it could (or even should) be expanded upon, I would have been all kinds of okay with that.

I can understand. The messages are a relatively new idea--the VRB has been around since August, but the messages have only started going out this month, barely over a week ago.

It is my understanding that the logic was that simply asking for clarification in the vote made airmax's job twice as hard (in that he now has to monitor the vote), and encouraged ad hoc rationalization, while deletion was more likely to weed out the people who were really unclear out of laziness or malice, while not being unduly burdensome to those with good intent. I'm not asserting this, just explaining the logic used.

This is one of this situations where it is not so much what is happening but how it is being carried about. For the record, I agree that my RFD could be made better. But was part of a large batch of voting I was doing, going through debates in the voting period and the winner was so clear that I didn't think it was necessary to go point-by-point (WHICH I HAVE DONE BEFORE).

I don't think anyone is saying or trying to say "drafterman sucks at voting"--if it felt like that, that's bad.

As far as the "Reporting" function. Ok, I missed that. I don't think the existence of that indicates what's going on here. Here are the reasons given for the report function:

"Vote is From a Fake Account
Vote Bomb
Lack of RFD
...

Mine contains none of that Maybe it's a weak RFD. Maybe it's not the ideal RFD, but it's still an RFD, so "Lack of RFD" doesn't apply. It's not like I just mashed my hand against the keyboard to create some characters.

I don't think that's fair in terms of "Lack of RFD". What if you had said (you didn't, but some have): "Pro argued better" and awarded arguments and sources. Didn't note source point reasoning at all--is that a "lack"? Didn't justify anything for the arguments beyond a generic "better"--is that a "lack"?

i will say this: to the best of my knowledge, no vote has been deleted (assuming that airmax hasn't been secretly deleting votes) that didn't either: contain a non-existent of cookie-cutter explanation for specific votes (such as "X was better"), or demonstrate clear evidence of bias without reference to the actual debate (such as "voted against X because I hate X", or somesuch). If a vote has an RFD that directly relates to the debate, addresses each point and gives something specific (or at least notes that it is blatantly obvious--as in the case of, say, S&G, when one side is obvious near-gibberish), then it is not deleted.

But this seems more than just processing reported vote claims. There are actual voting guidelines above and beyond this function they are judging people on, guidelines which are very subjective and up to interpretation, and there is no involvement with the people in question.

The general rule has been: "Is each point of this vote which has been reported justified by the debate, with a non-generic explanation."

This isn't an issue of my vote being spam or a bomb or fraud, where deletion is the ideal solution. The ideal solution is they wanted me to improve my RFD. If they want me to do that, then they need to address it specifically, address me as an individual and contributor to this site. Not conduct a hidden trial and execute private punishment with no recourse or review and actually make it more difficult for me to rectify it. I've been put in the same bucket as vote bombers and fraudsters and I don't think that's appropriate.

I can understand your frustration.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 1:30:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 12:01:48 PM, drafterman wrote:
I've sent the following PM to airmax:

--------
Since when is this a practice?

August 7th

Since when is the DDO administration in the game of deleting non-votebomb votes?

August 7th again

When was this publicly established, along with the guidelines against which we would be judged?

The first line of the PM is "This PM is for evaluating reported votes. The job of each person here is to look at the votes that Airmax posts and see if its worthy of being removed."

Who is on this committee?

I mentioned that before somewhere

Do we not have a right to challenge our accusers?

The person who reported your vote in the first place or the people who judged your vote?

Do we not have a right to see the evidence leading to a judgement?

I dont see how

Do we not have a right to cha[lle]nge/defend our vote BEFORE it is secretly and summarily taken down?

I dont see how

I've put my vote back up, AS IS and I will continue to submit the vote AS IS until such a time as it is judged in an open, transparent, manner in which I can see the evidence and reasoning and provide my own defense of it. Or until I leave or am banned from the site.
----------

Youre not going to be banned so you can tone down the drama a bit
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
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 1:33:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 1:27:59 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/25/2013 12:45:52 PM, drafterman wrote:

Non-sarcastic congratulations. Even without giving the full details you allude to, you have done a better job, the job that should have been done, then this phantasmic VRB.

Thank you, I think, and I'm sorry, since I've been involved in the VRB. I think there has been a lack of "official" commentary due to efforts to address it as part of a comprehensive voting guide, FAQ update, etc. Out of curiosity, did his original message or his response refer to you airmax for further questions/comments/concerns?

Yes, but I missed it upon first reading.

If the "messenger" come to me and had said just that - saying that someone had reported my vote, that it was reviewed by a board, and that it could (or even should) be expanded upon, I would have been all kinds of okay with that.

I can understand. The messages are a relatively new idea--the VRB has been around since August, but the messages have only started going out this month, barely over a week ago.

It is my understanding that the logic was that simply asking for clarification in the vote made airmax's job twice as hard (in that he now has to monitor the vote), and encouraged ad hoc rationalization, while deletion was more likely to weed out the people who were really unclear out of laziness or malice, while not being unduly burdensome to those with good intent. I'm not asserting this, just explaining the logic used.

This is one of this situations where it is not so much what is happening but how it is being carried about. For the record, I agree that my RFD could be made better. But was part of a large batch of voting I was doing, going through debates in the voting period and the winner was so clear that I didn't think it was necessary to go point-by-point (WHICH I HAVE DONE BEFORE).

I don't think anyone is saying or trying to say "drafterman sucks at voting"--if it felt like that, that's bad.

Well, no, it doesn't say that nor would I have actually had anything really wrong with that. The initial message really didn't say anything about my vote specifically. It was just a list of guidelines, my RFD, and a statement that it should be obvious as to why it was deleted.

As far as the "Reporting" function. Ok, I missed that. I don't think the existence of that indicates what's going on here. Here are the reasons given for the report function:

"Vote is From a Fake Account
Vote Bomb
Lack of RFD
...

Mine contains none of that Maybe it's a weak RFD. Maybe it's not the ideal RFD, but it's still an RFD, so "Lack of RFD" doesn't apply. It's not like I just mashed my hand against the keyboard to create some characters.

I don't think that's fair in terms of "Lack of RFD". What if you had said (you didn't, but some have): "Pro argued better" and awarded arguments and sources. Didn't note source point reasoning at all--is that a "lack"? Didn't justify anything for the arguments beyond a generic "better"--is that a "lack"?

No, it isn't. An RFD is just that: a reason for decision. Admittedly that covers a WIDE AREA. But "lack" is a binary situation. It's there or it isn't. To me, to say that it lacks an RFD is to say that someone just typed gibberish to get past the filter.

i will say this: to the best of my knowledge, no vote has been deleted (assuming that airmax hasn't been secretly deleting votes) that didn't either: contain a non-existent of cookie-cutter explanation for specific votes (such as "X was better"), or demonstrate clear evidence of bias without reference to the actual debate (such as "voted against X because I hate X", or somesuch). If a vote has an RFD that directly relates to the debate, addresses each point and gives something specific (or at least notes that it is blatantly obvious--as in the case of, say, S&G, when one side is obvious near-gibberish), then it is not deleted.

No, I didn't address "each point." It's a 5 round dissertation on evolution. I provided a summary that highlighted MY reasons for making the decision I made.

But this seems more than just processing reported vote claims. There are actual voting guidelines above and beyond this function they are judging people on, guidelines which are very subjective and up to interpretation, and there is no involvement with the people in question.

The general rule has been: "Is each point of this vote which has been reported justified by the debate, with a non-generic explanation."

This isn't an issue of my vote being spam or a bomb or fraud, where deletion is the ideal solution. The ideal solution is they wanted me to improve my RFD. If they want me to do that, then they need to address it specifically, address me as an individual and contributor to this site. Not conduct a hidden trial and execute private punishment with no recourse or review and actually make it more difficult for me to rectify it. I've been put in the same bucket as vote bombers and fraudsters and I don't think that's appropriate.

I can understand your frustration.