Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

New restrictions for voting in DDO elections

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 4:13:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The current requirements for voter eligibility are far too lax, and are allowing people to have a voice in shaping a website they have not committed to and have no knowledge of. Some of these voters I have never seen before, and in a community as small as DDO, this signifies an inadequate level of participation. I contend that every potential voter must have a legitimate stake in this site if we are to recognize their right to direct its future. This means that every voter must demonstrate that they would have something to lose if the site were to decline in quality. Engaging in three debates of whatever length and with whatever sincerity does not establish this. I propose the following requirements to ensure that voters meet the criteria proper for voting privileges :

1) At least 1,000 forum posts. This would be to ensure that the user would have sufficient time to interact with and observe the candidates they'd be endorsing.

2) At least 10,000 words of debate content spanned over at least five debates. This wouldn't include debates that are not debate oriented, nor ones which are not taken seriously. This requirement could also be satisfied by obtaining a minimum of 2,000 forum posts over the span of at least three months.

3) A trend of activity that suggests the user would be active in the months following the election. This requirement wouldn't be as easy to enforce given that certain cases would be up for interpretation, but I think many of the current voters are clearly not going to be here for long, and therefore it is essential that we deny them the right to influence decisions for which they will face no consequences.
Subutai
Posts: 3,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 4:14:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I strongly agree, although I'd wish you'd lower the forum post requirement to 924 posts...
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 4:26:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 4:14:35 PM, Subutai wrote:
I strongly agree, although I'd wish you'd lower the forum post requirement to 924 posts...

We all know that you can vote >.>
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Subutai
Posts: 3,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 4:29:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 4:26:11 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/13/2013 4:14:35 PM, Subutai wrote:
I strongly agree, although I'd wish you'd lower the forum post requirement to 924 posts...

We all know that you can vote >.>

I'm just kidding >.>
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 4:33:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 4:13:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The current requirements for voter eligibility are far too lax, and are allowing people to have a voice in shaping a website they have not committed to and have no knowledge of. Some of these voters I have never seen before, and in a community as small as DDO, this signifies an inadequate level of participation. I contend that every potential voter must have a legitimate stake in this site if we are to recognize their right to direct its future. This means that every voter must demonstrate that they would have something to lose if the site were to decline in quality. Engaging in three debates of whatever length and with whatever sincerity does not establish this. I propose the following requirements to ensure that voters meet the criteria proper for voting privileges :

1) At least 1,000 forum posts. This would be to ensure that the user would have sufficient time to interact with and observe the candidates they'd be endorsing.

2) At least 10,000 words of debate content spanned over at least five debates. This wouldn't include debates that are not debate oriented, nor ones which are not taken seriously. This requirement could also be satisfied by obtaining a minimum of 2,000 forum posts over the span of at least three months.

i was about to ask about if people don't debate but hang out in the forums

3) A trend of activity that suggests the user would be active in the months following the election. This requirement wouldn't be as easy to enforce given that certain cases would be up for interpretation, but I think many of the current voters are clearly not going to be here for long, and therefore it is essential that we deny them the right to influence decisions for which they will face no consequences.
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
TheOncomingStorm
Posts: 249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 4:41:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
We should vote on it :P
Official "Director of Weather and Hyperbole in the Maximum Degree of Mice and Men" of the FREEDO bureaucracy.
Heineken
Posts: 1,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 5:02:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yea, not gonna happen. Not at this point. All these new people are actual users. Both sides have been actively campaigning in the back end of the user list because even those users who don't join the mainstream clique get a voice.

This is an annoying thread.
Vidi, vici, veni.
(I saw, I conquered, I came.)
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 5:29:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 5:02:16 PM, Heineken wrote:
Yea, not gonna happen. Not at this point. All these new people are actual users. Both sides have been actively campaigning in the back end of the user list because even those users who don't join the mainstream clique get a voice.

This is an annoying thread.

I forgot to add that I only ever intended this to apply to the next election.
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 5:31:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Unless the low qualifications for letting people vote actually has a noticeable impact on election results, which it doesnt, then only then should we raise them to such a high level that you are proposing.
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
Heineken
Posts: 1,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 5:41:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 5:29:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/13/2013 5:02:16 PM, Heineken wrote:
Yea, not gonna happen. Not at this point. All these new people are actual users. Both sides have been actively campaigning in the back end of the user list because even those users who don't join the mainstream clique get a voice.

This is an annoying thread.

I forgot to add that I only ever intended this to apply to the next election.

I can support that. I thought you were trying to disqualify the votes they already had gotten.
Vidi, vici, veni.
(I saw, I conquered, I came.)
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 5:48:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I agree that the voting requirements ought to be updated, however this proposed list would be horrible. It is completely immeasurable. Form some subjective scales on if members are active enough to counting words in debates which we have no quick means to do.

I reccomend that whomever becomes president create an election committee to update these rules before the next election.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Yraelz
Posts: 4,056
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 5:51:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There should be multiple eligibility scenarios:

1. 20 Debates

or

2. 2000 forum posts

or

3. Agreed upon by the running candidates to be an active site member. (Alternatively a group could be formed of a few users, who don't care about the elections, to judge this).
Heineken
Posts: 1,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 5:51:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 5:48:10 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I agree that the voting requirements ought to be updated, however this proposed list would be horrible. It is completely immeasurable. Form some subjective scales on if members are active enough to counting words in debates which we have no quick means to do.

I reccomend that whomever becomes president create an election committee to update these rules before the next election.

Very sober suggestion.
Vidi, vici, veni.
(I saw, I conquered, I came.)
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 5:55:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 5:48:10 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I agree that the voting requirements ought to be updated, however this proposed list would be horrible. It is completely immeasurable.

The last one would be difficult to measure, but the first two could be done very simply. If you are concerned about assessing the word count, then DDO could implement some sort of counting tool to make it easier.

Form some subjective scales on if members are active enough to counting words in debates which we have no quick means to do.


What do you mean?

I reccomend that whomever becomes president create an election committee to update these rules before the next election.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 5:56:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 4:41:07 PM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:
We should vote on it :P

It's wouldn't exactly be an attractive proposition to a large portion of the electorate, hence the proposition.
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 5:56:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 4:13:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The current requirements for voter eligibility are far too lax, and are allowing people to have a voice in shaping a website they have not committed to and have no knowledge of. Some of these voters I have never seen before, and in a community as small as DDO, this signifies an inadequate level of participation. I contend that every potential voter must have a legitimate stake in this site if we are to recognize their right to direct its future. This means that every voter must demonstrate that they would have something to lose if the site were to decline in quality. Engaging in three debates of whatever length and with whatever sincerity does not establish this. I propose the following requirements to ensure that voters meet the criteria proper for voting privileges :

1) At least 1,000 forum posts. This would be to ensure that the user would have sufficient time to interact with and observe the candidates they'd be endorsing.

2) At least 10,000 words of debate content spanned over at least five debates. This wouldn't include debates that are not debate oriented, nor ones which are not taken seriously. This requirement could also be satisfied by obtaining a minimum of 2,000 forum posts over the span of at least three months.

3) A trend of activity that suggests the user would be active in the months following the election. This requirement wouldn't be as easy to enforce given that certain cases would be up for interpretation, but I think many of the current voters are clearly not going to be here for long, and therefore it is essential that we deny them the right to influence decisions for which they will face no consequences.

#3 is incredibly arbitrary.
Yraelz
Posts: 4,056
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 5:58:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 5:55:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Form some subjective scales on if members are active enough to counting words in debates which we have no quick means to do.

Let the presidential candidates flag users they are concerned about. A committee of five regular members can then give a quick up/down vote after checking the profile.

For instance, when I saw HenryGBR's recent vote (http://www.debate.org...) I felt like it was probably illegitimate. But a fifteen second examination of his most recent debate showed him to be a semi-dedicated user.
Yraelz
Posts: 4,056
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 5:59:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 5:57:51 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
Get rid of the elections entirely. A monarchy would be more appropriate here.

Later.... shhhhh. They're called PMs because they are "private".
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 6:01:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 4:13:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The current requirements for voter eligibility are far too lax, and are allowing people to have a voice in shaping a website they have not committed to and have no knowledge of. Some of these voters I have never seen before, and in a community as small as DDO, this signifies an inadequate level of participation. I contend that every potential voter must have a legitimate stake in this site if we are to recognize their right to direct its future. This means that every voter must demonstrate that they would have something to lose if the site were to decline in quality. Engaging in three debates of whatever length and with whatever sincerity does not establish this. I propose the following requirements to ensure that voters meet the criteria proper for voting privileges :

1) At least 1,000 forum posts. This would be to ensure that the user would have sufficient time to interact with and observe the candidates they'd be endorsing.

2) At least 10,000 words of debate content spanned over at least five debates. This wouldn't include debates that are not debate oriented, nor ones which are not taken seriously. This requirement could also be satisfied by obtaining a minimum of 2,000 forum posts over the span of at least three months.

3) A trend of activity that suggests the user would be active in the months following the election. This requirement wouldn't be as easy to enforce given that certain cases would be up for interpretation, but I think many of the current voters are clearly not going to be here for long, and therefore it is essential that we deny them the right to influence decisions for which they will face no consequences.

Here is the problem with this. It would only apply to those users who debate AND also frequent the forums. Some people, such as myself come to this site primarily to debate and only post on the forum very occasionally, due to time constraints or interests and therefore these frequent users would be excluded.

A more reasonable requirement would be 10 valid debates, or 500 forum posts. This makes it so that those who are a bit newer and invested in the site (such as myself and others) would be able to participate. Investigations on whether or not a person will continue to frequent the site are too subjective and should not be taken into consideration imo. If a person takes the time to vote, and qualifies, it would appear they have some interest in the future of this site.

To conclude, these requirement should appeal to those who participate on any part of the site, whether it be Debates (which I primarily frequent), Forums, Opinions and Polls. Not all of us have the time to post thousands of post on the forums (which I am not a fan of the format) and also engage in lengthy debates.

Regards,
TrueScotsman
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 6:01:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 5:56:33 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
At 12/13/2013 4:13:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The current requirements for voter eligibility are far too lax, and are allowing people to have a voice in shaping a website they have not committed to and have no knowledge of. Some of these voters I have never seen before, and in a community as small as DDO, this signifies an inadequate level of participation. I contend that every potential voter must have a legitimate stake in this site if we are to recognize their right to direct its future. This means that every voter must demonstrate that they would have something to lose if the site were to decline in quality. Engaging in three debates of whatever length and with whatever sincerity does not establish this. I propose the following requirements to ensure that voters meet the criteria proper for voting privileges :

1) At least 1,000 forum posts. This would be to ensure that the user would have sufficient time to interact with and observe the candidates they'd be endorsing.

2) At least 10,000 words of debate content spanned over at least five debates. This wouldn't include debates that are not debate oriented, nor ones which are not taken seriously. This requirement could also be satisfied by obtaining a minimum of 2,000 forum posts over the span of at least three months.

3) A trend of activity that suggests the user would be active in the months following the election. This requirement wouldn't be as easy to enforce given that certain cases would be up for interpretation, but I think many of the current voters are clearly not going to be here for long, and therefore it is essential that we deny them the right to influence decisions for which they will face no consequences.

#3 is incredibly arbitrary.

We could avoid arbitrary decisions concerning if someone meets this requirement by making it applicable only where it is absolutely clear. In reality, number three would either be implied or not implied from the first two, but I wanted to include it.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 6:02:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 6:01:00 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 12/13/2013 4:13:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The current requirements for voter eligibility are far too lax, and are allowing people to have a voice in shaping a website they have not committed to and have no knowledge of. Some of these voters I have never seen before, and in a community as small as DDO, this signifies an inadequate level of participation. I contend that every potential voter must have a legitimate stake in this site if we are to recognize their right to direct its future. This means that every voter must demonstrate that they would have something to lose if the site were to decline in quality. Engaging in three debates of whatever length and with whatever sincerity does not establish this. I propose the following requirements to ensure that voters meet the criteria proper for voting privileges :

1) At least 1,000 forum posts. This would be to ensure that the user would have sufficient time to interact with and observe the candidates they'd be endorsing.

2) At least 10,000 words of debate content spanned over at least five debates. This wouldn't include debates that are not debate oriented, nor ones which are not taken seriously. This requirement could also be satisfied by obtaining a minimum of 2,000 forum posts over the span of at least three months.

3) A trend of activity that suggests the user would be active in the months following the election. This requirement wouldn't be as easy to enforce given that certain cases would be up for interpretation, but I think many of the current voters are clearly not going to be here for long, and therefore it is essential that we deny them the right to influence decisions for which they will face no consequences.

Here is the problem with this. It would only apply to those users who debate AND also frequent the forums. Some people, such as myself come to this site primarily to debate and only post on the forum very occasionally, due to time constraints or interests and therefore these frequent users would be excluded.

A more reasonable requirement would be 10 valid debates, or 500 forum posts. This makes it so that those who are a bit newer and invested in the site (such as myself and others) would be able to participate. Investigations on whether or not a person will continue to frequent the site are too subjective and should not be taken into consideration imo. If a person takes the time to vote, and qualifies, it would appear they have some interest in the future of this site.

To conclude, these requirement should appeal to those who participate on any part of the site, whether it be Debates (which I primarily frequent), Forums, Opinions and Polls. Not all of us have the time to post thousands of post on the forums (which I am not a fan of the format) and also engage in lengthy debates.

Regards,
TrueScotsman

You didn't read it carefully, I see.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 6:05:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 6:01:00 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 12/13/2013 4:13:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The current requirements for voter eligibility are far too lax, and are allowing people to have a voice in shaping a website they have not committed to and have no knowledge of. Some of these voters I have never seen before, and in a community as small as DDO, this signifies an inadequate level of participation. I contend that every potential voter must have a legitimate stake in this site if we are to recognize their right to direct its future. This means that every voter must demonstrate that they would have something to lose if the site were to decline in quality. Engaging in three debates of whatever length and with whatever sincerity does not establish this. I propose the following requirements to ensure that voters meet the criteria proper for voting privileges :

1) At least 1,000 forum posts. This would be to ensure that the user would have sufficient time to interact with and observe the candidates they'd be endorsing.

2) At least 10,000 words of debate content spanned over at least five debates. This wouldn't include debates that are not debate oriented, nor ones which are not taken seriously. This requirement could also be satisfied by obtaining a minimum of 2,000 forum posts over the span of at least three months.

3) A trend of activity that suggests the user would be active in the months following the election. This requirement wouldn't be as easy to enforce given that certain cases would be up for interpretation, but I think many of the current voters are clearly not going to be here for long, and therefore it is essential that we deny them the right to influence decisions for which they will face no consequences.

Here is the problem with this. It would only apply to those users who debate AND also frequent the forums. Some people, such as myself come to this site primarily to debate and only post on the forum very occasionally, due to time constraints or interests and therefore these frequent users would be excluded.

A more reasonable requirement would be 10 valid debates, or 500 forum posts. This makes it so that those who are a bit newer and invested in the site (such as myself and others) would be able to participate. Investigations on whether or not a person will continue to frequent the site are too subjective and should not be taken into consideration imo. If a person takes the time to vote, and qualifies, it would appear they have some interest in the future of this site.

To conclude, these requirement should appeal to those who participate on any part of the site, whether it be Debates (which I primarily frequent), Forums, Opinions and Polls. Not all of us have the time to post thousands of post on the forums (which I am not a fan of the format) and also engage in lengthy debates.

Regards,
TrueScotsman

Oh wait, you meant the forum part. I think it's necessary since its the only medium by which someone could reasonably familiarize themselves with the candidates. Sorry lol
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 6:07:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 6:01:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/13/2013 5:56:33 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
At 12/13/2013 4:13:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The current requirements for voter eligibility are far too lax, and are allowing people to have a voice in shaping a website they have not committed to and have no knowledge of. Some of these voters I have never seen before, and in a community as small as DDO, this signifies an inadequate level of participation. I contend that every potential voter must have a legitimate stake in this site if we are to recognize their right to direct its future. This means that every voter must demonstrate that they would have something to lose if the site were to decline in quality. Engaging in three debates of whatever length and with whatever sincerity does not establish this. I propose the following requirements to ensure that voters meet the criteria proper for voting privileges :

1) At least 1,000 forum posts. This would be to ensure that the user would have sufficient time to interact with and observe the candidates they'd be endorsing.

2) At least 10,000 words of debate content spanned over at least five debates. This wouldn't include debates that are not debate oriented, nor ones which are not taken seriously. This requirement could also be satisfied by obtaining a minimum of 2,000 forum posts over the span of at least three months.

3) A trend of activity that suggests the user would be active in the months following the election. This requirement wouldn't be as easy to enforce given that certain cases would be up for interpretation, but I think many of the current voters are clearly not going to be here for long, and therefore it is essential that we deny them the right to influence decisions for which they will face no consequences.

#3 is incredibly arbitrary.

We could avoid arbitrary decisions concerning if someone meets this requirement by making it applicable only where it is absolutely clear. In reality, number three would either be implied or not implied from the first two, but I wanted to include it.

*In most cases. People don't tend to hop on just to vote, unless they do, in which case all the more reason to include it.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 6:11:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 6:05:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/13/2013 6:01:00 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 12/13/2013 4:13:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The current requirements for voter eligibility are far too lax, and are allowing people to have a voice in shaping a website they have not committed to and have no knowledge of. Some of these voters I have never seen before, and in a community as small as DDO, this signifies an inadequate level of participation. I contend that every potential voter must have a legitimate stake in this site if we are to recognize their right to direct its future. This means that every voter must demonstrate that they would have something to lose if the site were to decline in quality. Engaging in three debates of whatever length and with whatever sincerity does not establish this. I propose the following requirements to ensure that voters meet the criteria proper for voting privileges :

1) At least 1,000 forum posts. This would be to ensure that the user would have sufficient time to interact with and observe the candidates they'd be endorsing.

2) At least 10,000 words of debate content spanned over at least five debates. This wouldn't include debates that are not debate oriented, nor ones which are not taken seriously. This requirement could also be satisfied by obtaining a minimum of 2,000 forum posts over the span of at least three months.

3) A trend of activity that suggests the user would be active in the months following the election. This requirement wouldn't be as easy to enforce given that certain cases would be up for interpretation, but I think many of the current voters are clearly not going to be here for long, and therefore it is essential that we deny them the right to influence decisions for which they will face no consequences.

Here is the problem with this. It would only apply to those users who debate AND also frequent the forums. Some people, such as myself come to this site primarily to debate and only post on the forum very occasionally, due to time constraints or interests and therefore these frequent users would be excluded.

A more reasonable requirement would be 10 valid debates, or 500 forum posts. This makes it so that those who are a bit newer and invested in the site (such as myself and others) would be able to participate. Investigations on whether or not a person will continue to frequent the site are too subjective and should not be taken into consideration imo. If a person takes the time to vote, and qualifies, it would appear they have some interest in the future of this site.

To conclude, these requirement should appeal to those who participate on any part of the site, whether it be Debates (which I primarily frequent), Forums, Opinions and Polls. Not all of us have the time to post thousands of post on the forums (which I am not a fan of the format) and also engage in lengthy debates.

Regards,
TrueScotsman

Oh wait, you meant the forum part. I think it's necessary since its the only medium by which someone could reasonably familiarize themselves with the candidates. Sorry lol

Except the candidates will have an influence on the WHOLE site, not just the forum (which appears to be your favorite medium). It's not difficult for someone like myself to figure out what these candidates stand for and also form my own opinions for what would improve the site and therefore vote accordingly. Your changes would effectively only allow extremely regular forum users to have a say at all about this site, which is entirely unfair. It's not just about knowledge of the candidates, it's about people getting a say, who have a desire to see this site improve and then vote according to the user who best represents that.

Once again, I find your requirements too strict and unreasonable, and will only be supported by those who use the forum primarily.

Regards,
TrueScotsman
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 6:11:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 6:01:00 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 12/13/2013 4:13:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The current requirements for voter eligibility are far too lax, and are allowing people to have a voice in shaping a website they have not committed to and have no knowledge of. Some of these voters I have never seen before, and in a community as small as DDO, this signifies an inadequate level of participation. I contend that every potential voter must have a legitimate stake in this site if we are to recognize their right to direct its future. This means that every voter must demonstrate that they would have something to lose if the site were to decline in quality. Engaging in three debates of whatever length and with whatever sincerity does not establish this. I propose the following requirements to ensure that voters meet the criteria proper for voting privileges :

1) At least 1,000 forum posts. This would be to ensure that the user would have sufficient time to interact with and observe the candidates they'd be endorsing.

2) At least 10,000 words of debate content spanned over at least five debates. This wouldn't include debates that are not debate oriented, nor ones which are not taken seriously. This requirement could also be satisfied by obtaining a minimum of 2,000 forum posts over the span of at least three months.

3) A trend of activity that suggests the user would be active in the months following the election. This requirement wouldn't be as easy to enforce given that certain cases would be up for interpretation, but I think many of the current voters are clearly not going to be here for long, and therefore it is essential that we deny them the right to influence decisions for which they will face no consequences.

Here is the problem with this. It would only apply to those users who debate AND also frequent the forums. Some people, such as myself come to this site primarily to debate and only post on the forum very occasionally, due to time constraints or interests and therefore these frequent users would be excluded.

A more reasonable requirement would be 10 valid debates, or 500 forum posts. This makes it so that those who are a bit newer and invested in the site (such as myself and others) would be able to participate. Investigations on whether or not a person will continue to frequent the site are too subjective and should not be taken into consideration imo. If a person takes the time to vote, and qualifies, it would appear they have some interest in the future of this site.

To conclude, these requirement should appeal to those who participate on any part of the site, whether it be Debates (which I primarily frequent), Forums, Opinions and Polls. Not all of us have the time to post thousands of post on the forums (which I am not a fan of the format) and also engage in lengthy debates.

Regards,
TrueScotsman

There could also be a less stringent forum post requirement for people who debate a lot, to accommodate the 'debate people' in addition to the forum frequenters.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 6:14:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 6:11:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/13/2013 6:01:00 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 12/13/2013 4:13:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The current requirements for voter eligibility are far too lax, and are allowing people to have a voice in shaping a website they have not committed to and have no knowledge of. Some of these voters I have never seen before, and in a community as small as DDO, this signifies an inadequate level of participation. I contend that every potential voter must have a legitimate stake in this site if we are to recognize their right to direct its future. This means that every voter must demonstrate that they would have something to lose if the site were to decline in quality. Engaging in three debates of whatever length and with whatever sincerity does not establish this. I propose the following requirements to ensure that voters meet the criteria proper for voting privileges :

1) At least 1,000 forum posts. This would be to ensure that the user would have sufficient time to interact with and observe the candidates they'd be endorsing.

2) At least 10,000 words of debate content spanned over at least five debates. This wouldn't include debates that are not debate oriented, nor ones which are not taken seriously. This requirement could also be satisfied by obtaining a minimum of 2,000 forum posts over the span of at least three months.

3) A trend of activity that suggests the user would be active in the months following the election. This requirement wouldn't be as easy to enforce given that certain cases would be up for interpretation, but I think many of the current voters are clearly not going to be here for long, and therefore it is essential that we deny them the right to influence decisions for which they will face no consequences.

Here is the problem with this. It would only apply to those users who debate AND also frequent the forums. Some people, such as myself come to this site primarily to debate and only post on the forum very occasionally, due to time constraints or interests and therefore these frequent users would be excluded.

A more reasonable requirement would be 10 valid debates, or 500 forum posts. This makes it so that those who are a bit newer and invested in the site (such as myself and others) would be able to participate. Investigations on whether or not a person will continue to frequent the site are too subjective and should not be taken into consideration imo. If a person takes the time to vote, and qualifies, it would appear they have some interest in the future of this site.

To conclude, these requirement should appeal to those who participate on any part of the site, whether it be Debates (which I primarily frequent), Forums, Opinions and Polls. Not all of us have the time to post thousands of post on the forums (which I am not a fan of the format) and also engage in lengthy debates.

Regards,
TrueScotsman

There could also be a less stringent forum post requirement for people who debate a lot, to accommodate the 'debate people' in addition to the forum frequenters.

Or simply make it a situation where a person could qualify like this.

A) 10 Debates and 500 forum posts.
Or...
B) 20 Debates
Or...
C) 1000 forum posts.

This would make it so that those who only adhere to debating, but do so more frequently, and those who only use the forum, but of course do so more frequently would be allowed to vote. I just don't see how the measures you have presented here could have any hope of being passed as they only make accommodations to your favorite medium.

Regards,
TrueScotsman
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 6:15:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 6:11:04 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 12/13/2013 6:05:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/13/2013 6:01:00 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 12/13/2013 4:13:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The current requirements for voter eligibility are far too lax, and are allowing people to have a voice in shaping a website they have not committed to and have no knowledge of. Some of these voters I have never seen before, and in a community as small as DDO, this signifies an inadequate level of participation. I contend that every potential voter must have a legitimate stake in this site if we are to recognize their right to direct its future. This means that every voter must demonstrate that they would have something to lose if the site were to decline in quality. Engaging in three debates of whatever length and with whatever sincerity does not establish this. I propose the following requirements to ensure that voters meet the criteria proper for voting privileges :

1) At least 1,000 forum posts. This would be to ensure that the user would have sufficient time to interact with and observe the candidates they'd be endorsing.

2) At least 10,000 words of debate content spanned over at least five debates. This wouldn't include debates that are not debate oriented, nor ones which are not taken seriously. This requirement could also be satisfied by obtaining a minimum of 2,000 forum posts over the span of at least three months.

3) A trend of activity that suggests the user would be active in the months following the election. This requirement wouldn't be as easy to enforce given that certain cases would be up for interpretation, but I think many of the current voters are clearly not going to be here for long, and therefore it is essential that we deny them the right to influence decisions for which they will face no consequences.

Here is the problem with this. It would only apply to those users who debate AND also frequent the forums. Some people, such as myself come to this site primarily to debate and only post on the forum very occasionally, due to time constraints or interests and therefore these frequent users would be excluded.

A more reasonable requirement would be 10 valid debates, or 500 forum posts. This makes it so that those who are a bit newer and invested in the site (such as myself and others) would be able to participate. Investigations on whether or not a person will continue to frequent the site are too subjective and should not be taken into consideration imo. If a person takes the time to vote, and qualifies, it would appear they have some interest in the future of this site.

To conclude, these requirement should appeal to those who participate on any part of the site, whether it be Debates (which I primarily frequent), Forums, Opinions and Polls. Not all of us have the time to post thousands of post on the forums (which I am not a fan of the format) and also engage in lengthy debates.

Regards,
TrueScotsman

Oh wait, you meant the forum part. I think it's necessary since its the only medium by which someone could reasonably familiarize themselves with the candidates. Sorry lol

Except the candidates will have an influence on the WHOLE site, not just the forum (which appears to be your favorite medium). It's not difficult for someone like myself to figure out what these candidates stand for and also form my own opinions for what would improve the site and therefore vote accordingly. Your changes would effectively only allow extremely regular forum users to have a say at all about this site, which is entirely unfair. It's not just about knowledge of the candidates, it's about people getting a say, who have a desire to see this site improve and then vote according to the user who best represents that.

Once again, I find your requirements too strict and unreasonable, and will only be supported by those who use the forum primarily.

Regards,
TrueScotsman

The forums are the only place where people get to know each other, and therefore the section where participation should be required to vote. People who don't look at the forums don't know what's going on. Also, the opinion and poll sections are garbage.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 6:19:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 6:14:49 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 12/13/2013 6:11:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/13/2013 6:01:00 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 12/13/2013 4:13:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The current requirements for voter eligibility are far too lax, and are allowing people to have a voice in shaping a website they have not committed to and have no knowledge of. Some of these voters I have never seen before, and in a community as small as DDO, this signifies an inadequate level of participation. I contend that every potential voter must have a legitimate stake in this site if we are to recognize their right to direct its future. This means that every voter must demonstrate that they would have something to lose if the site were to decline in quality. Engaging in three debates of whatever length and with whatever sincerity does not establish this. I propose the following requirements to ensure that voters meet the criteria proper for voting privileges :

1) At least 1,000 forum posts. This would be to ensure that the user would have sufficient time to interact with and observe the candidates they'd be endorsing.

2) At least 10,000 words of debate content spanned over at least five debates. This wouldn't include debates that are not debate oriented, nor ones which are not taken seriously. This requirement could also be satisfied by obtaining a minimum of 2,000 forum posts over the span of at least three months.

3) A trend of activity that suggests the user would be active in the months following the election. This requirement wouldn't be as easy to enforce given that certain cases would be up for interpretation, but I think many of the current voters are clearly not going to be here for long, and therefore it is essential that we deny them the right to influence decisions for which they will face no consequences.

Here is the problem with this. It would only apply to those users who debate AND also frequent the forums. Some people, such as myself come to this site primarily to debate and only post on the forum very occasionally, due to time constraints or interests and therefore these frequent users would be excluded.

A more reasonable requirement would be 10 valid debates, or 500 forum posts. This makes it so that those who are a bit newer and invested in the site (such as myself and others) would be able to participate. Investigations on whether or not a person will continue to frequent the site are too subjective and should not be taken into consideration imo. If a person takes the time to vote, and qualifies, it would appear they have some interest in the future of this site.

To conclude, these requirement should appeal to those who participate on any part of the site, whether it be Debates (which I primarily frequent), Forums, Opinions and Polls. Not all of us have the time to post thousands of post on the forums (which I am not a fan of the format) and also engage in lengthy debates.

Regards,
TrueScotsman

There could also be a less stringent forum post requirement for people who debate a lot, to accommodate the 'debate people' in addition to the forum frequenters.

Or simply make it a situation where a person could qualify like this.

A) 10 Debates and 500 forum posts.
Or...
B) 20 Debates
Or...
C) 1000 forum posts.

This would make it so that those who only adhere to debating, but do so more frequently, and those who only use the forum, but of course do so more frequently would be allowed to vote. I just don't see how the measures you have presented here could have any hope of being passed as they only make accommodations to your favorite medium.

Regards,
TrueScotsman

Some sort of forum minimum is needed. Only engaging in debates doesn't demonstrate voter competency.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 6:19:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 6:15:42 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/13/2013 6:11:04 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 12/13/2013 6:05:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/13/2013 6:01:00 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 12/13/2013 4:13:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The current requirements for voter eligibility are far too lax, and are allowing people to have a voice in shaping a website they have not committed to and have no knowledge of. Some of these voters I have never seen before, and in a community as small as DDO, this signifies an inadequate level of participation. I contend that every potential voter must have a legitimate stake in this site if we are to recognize their right to direct its future. This means that every voter must demonstrate that they would have something to lose if the site were to decline in quality. Engaging in three debates of whatever length and with whatever sincerity does not establish this. I propose the following requirements to ensure that voters meet the criteria proper for voting privileges :

1) At least 1,000 forum posts. This would be to ensure that the user would have sufficient time to interact with and observe the candidates they'd be endorsing.

2) At least 10,000 words of debate content spanned over at least five debates. This wouldn't include debates that are not debate oriented, nor ones which are not taken seriously. This requirement could also be satisfied by obtaining a minimum of 2,000 forum posts over the span of at least three months.

3) A trend of activity that suggests the user would be active in the months following the election. This requirement wouldn't be as easy to enforce given that certain cases would be up for interpretation, but I think many of the current voters are clearly not going to be here for long, and therefore it is essential that we deny them the right to influence decisions for which they will face no consequences.

Here is the problem with this. It would only apply to those users who debate AND also frequent the forums. Some people, such as myself come to this site primarily to debate and only post on the forum very occasionally, due to time constraints or interests and therefore these frequent users would be excluded.

A more reasonable requirement would be 10 valid debates, or 500 forum posts. This makes it so that those who are a bit newer and invested in the site (such as myself and others) would be able to participate. Investigations on whether or not a person will continue to frequent the site are too subjective and should not be taken into consideration imo. If a person takes the time to vote, and qualifies, it would appear they have some interest in the future of this site.

To conclude, these requirement should appeal to those who participate on any part of the site, whether it be Debates (which I primarily frequent), Forums, Opinions and Polls. Not all of us have the time to post thousands of post on the forums (which I am not a fan of the format) and also engage in lengthy debates.

Regards,
TrueScotsman

Oh wait, you meant the forum part. I think it's necessary since its the only medium by which someone could reasonably familiarize themselves with the candidates. Sorry lol

Except the candidates will have an influence on the WHOLE site, not just the forum (which appears to be your favorite medium). It's not difficult for someone like myself to figure out what these candidates stand for and also form my own opinions for what would improve the site and therefore vote accordingly. Your changes would effectively only allow extremely regular forum users to have a say at all about this site, which is entirely unfair. It's not just about knowledge of the candidates, it's about people getting a say, who have a desire to see this site improve and then vote according to the user who best represents that.

Once again, I find your requirements too strict and unreasonable, and will only be supported by those who use the forum primarily.

Regards,
TrueScotsman

The forums are the only place where people get to know each other, and therefore the section where participation should be required to vote. People who don't look at the forums don't know what's going on. Also, the opinion and poll sections are garbage.

I don't think it's as big of a deal as you do apparently, in regards to how well you know the candidates. They all have their campaign platforms posted on this forum for all the users to read (which I did before voting), and I voted not for the person I like the most but rather the one who best represented what I would like to see change on the site.

Which is how a representative democracy should work.

I also have gotten to know other users here despite rarely posting on the forums. So again, I have to disagree with your assessment.

Regards,
TrueScotsman