Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

The Five-layered Voting Model and "Votebombs"

NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 5:40:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If I'm not mistaken, the term "Votebombing" used to mean "giving one of the sides the full 7 points without a proper justification in the RFD." Nowadays, the term seems to include any vote thought to be biased.

I personally believe that the evolution of the definition of the word "votebombing" is itself problematic, if not alarming. "Votebomber" is a strong accusation here on DDO, which I feel is frightfully being used as a form of public harassment to smear a person's reputation, similarly to how Media use slanders like "Islamophobic" and "anti-semitic" loosely, although some of those slandered do not deserve such strong classifications, but are slandered because of certain political agendas and vendettas. It is also important to note that such tactics work at putting the accused in an uncomfortable position. Even if he were to provide a substantial rebuttal for each outrageous accusation, the typical outsider would have this middle-ground bias to suspect that those accusations were true to some degree, provided that they're too outrageous to be made in the first place, which I guess is one of the various faults of human perception and reasoning.

To cut the distance short, I ran across something written by LarzTheLoser, which I'm going to personally follow when I speak of "votebombs" from now on. I'm fully aware that I cannot force anyone else to use the same terminology, but I thought that it would be generally useful for the community to be subjected to a five-layered model of voting which clearly defines the difference between a votebomb and the other kinds of votes.

Larz suggests the following model:

1. Vote bombing - just providing a personal opinion

2. Biased - considering only one side's arguments

3. Good - considering both side's arguments

4. Exceptional - considering all of the arguments on both sides in detail

5. Constructive - providing useful feedback to both sides on that basis

As all models, this seems to be rather shady on some important aspects. For instance, what is the LoD (Level of detail) that differentiates between a Good and Exceptional vote. Not to mention that a voter can technically consider the two sides but not in the same spirit, which makes it rather hard to decide if the vote in question was actually Good or Biased. Regardless of those objections, the model does effectively differentiate between votes that should be called "votebombs," and biased votes which are biased in the sense that they only consider the arguments of one side or at least focus more on the arguments of one side. Therefore, I'm personally going to adopt the aforementioned differentiation, simply because it's more accurate and less scandalous.
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 5:50:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Very good standard.

It took me a long time water down what I was willing to call a votebomb, away from the official 7point standard. To account for certain votes a little below that, I made up the term "fluff vote," for votes which were otherwise good but ruined by someone deciding to fluff for the side they wanted to win, via unearned points.
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

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

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 5:11:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 5:40:13 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, the term "Votebombing" used to mean "giving one of the sides the full 7 points without a proper justification in the RFD." Nowadays, the term seems to include any vote thought to be biased.

I personally believe that the evolution of the definition of the word "votebombing" is itself problematic, if not alarming. "Votebomber" is a strong accusation here on DDO, which I feel is frightfully being used as a form of public harassment to smear a person's reputation, similarly to how Media use slanders like "Islamophobic" and "anti-semitic" loosely, although some of those slandered do not deserve such strong classifications, but are slandered because of certain political agendas and vendettas. It is also important to note that such tactics work at putting the accused in an uncomfortable position. Even if he were to provide a substantial rebuttal for each outrageous accusation, the typical outsider would have this middle-ground bias to suspect that those accusations were true to some degree, provided that they're too outrageous to be made in the first place, which I guess is one of the various faults of human perception and reasoning.

That's true.

To cut the distance short, I ran across something written by LarzTheLoser, which I'm going to personally follow when I speak of "votebombs" from now on. I'm fully aware that I cannot force anyone else to use the same terminology, but I thought that it would be generally useful for the community to be subjected to a five-layered model of voting which clearly defines the difference between a votebomb and the other kinds of votes.

Larz suggests the following model:

1. Vote bombing - just providing a personal opinion

2. Biased - considering only one side's arguments

3. Good - considering both side's arguments

4. Exceptional - considering all of the arguments on both sides in detail

5. Constructive - providing useful feedback to both sides on that basis

As all models, this seems to be rather shady on some important aspects. For instance, what is the LoD (Level of detail) that differentiates between a Good and Exceptional vote. Not to mention that a voter can technically consider the two sides but not in the same spirit, which makes it rather hard to decide if the vote in question was actually Good or Biased. Regardless of those objections, the model does effectively differentiate between votes that should be called "votebombs," and biased votes which are biased in the sense that they only consider the arguments of one side or at least focus more on the arguments of one side. Therefore, I'm personally going to adopt the aforementioned differentiation, simply because it's more accurate and less scandalous.

Yes, and the best thing about Larz's model is that nobody has to guess the intentions and biases of the voter. It's based entirely on what they put in the RFD. Because to me that's the most offensive part of these vote-bombing accusations: people make claims about what the voter is thinking, and often accuse them of lying in their RFDs.