Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Election Reform Proposals

bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 5:40:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
== Voting ==

This is just a proposed system. The point system is somewhat arbitrary and needs to be worked out with discussion, but it's a first draft.

Requirements:

(1) 3 months on site.

(2) Meets the eligibility requirements. Eligibility is established by a point system. You need 650 points to qualify and you must have earned them by the start of the election voting period.

Points:

Forum post = 1 point
Completed debates (where you didn't forfeit) = 50 points
Voting on a debate with an RFD = 20 points
Poll votes = 1 point
Opinion votes = 5 points

(3) People who met the point threshold on their previous account can vote.

(4) Once a bolded vote is cast, it cannot be changed.
[Note: this makes it equivalent to submitting a secret ballot that you can't take back out of the ballot box; post-vote contact would also be pointless. People should be sure of their decision before casting their vote.].

== Campaign Conduct ==

(1) Spamming prohibition. Each candidate may have one official thread for campaigning. All posts related to their candidacy, including endorsements by unaffiliated voters, must be in that thread or they will be removed.

(2) Negative campaigning. Anyone affiliated with a candidate cannot post in the opposing candidate's thread. Affiliated personnel and pledged voters may respond to things the other side has said by quoting them, but the response must appear in their own candidate's thread.
[Note: without direct replies, this eliminates the ugly and heated back and forth. People tend to be more objective when they're responding to the *words,* but making their case to DDO, not responding directly to the *person.*]
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 5:43:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 5:40:19 PM, bluesteel wrote:
== Campaign Conduct ==

(1) Spamming prohibition. Each candidate may have one official thread for campaigning. All posts related to their candidacy, including endorsements by unaffiliated voters, must be in that thread or they will be removed.

The problem with that is the threads are going to be overly cluttered.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 5:45:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 5:40:19 PM, bluesteel wrote:

(1) Spamming prohibition. Each candidate may have one official thread for campaigning. All posts related to their candidacy, including endorsements by unaffiliated voters, must be in that thread or they will be removed.

1.a: NO PM spam may be sent. Offenders will be beaten with the Ban Hammer until repentant. Repeat offenders will be drawn and quartered., permabanned, set on fire, and a nasty letter will be sent to their next of kin.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 5:45:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm very much in favor of most of these proposals, especially the minimum time on the site requirement, and the point allocation system.

I also agree with not changing votes, this got especially annoying for me in counting, and while that shouldn't be a consideration, it will prevent members from being contacted to change their vote.

I agree in principal with the campaign conduct proposals, and those will certainly need to be addressed.

In any case, it's clear that election reform is necessary and this is something that Ore and I, and everyone who is willing to contribute to the discussion. will be working on to make sure the next election goes more smoothly.
Debate.org Moderator
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 5:47:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 5:45:44 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 12/14/2014 5:40:19 PM, bluesteel wrote:

(1) Spamming prohibition. Each candidate may have one official thread for campaigning. All posts related to their candidacy, including endorsements by unaffiliated voters, must be in that thread or they will be removed.

1.a: NO PM spam may be sent. Offenders will be beaten with the Ban Hammer until repentant. Repeat offenders will be drawn and quartered., permabanned, set on fire, and a nasty letter will be sent to their next of kin.

Can I interest you in voting?
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
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 5:48:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 5:43:42 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 12/14/2014 5:40:19 PM, bluesteel wrote:
== Campaign Conduct ==

(1) Spamming prohibition. Each candidate may have one official thread for campaigning. All posts related to their candidacy, including endorsements by unaffiliated voters, must be in that thread or they will be removed.

The problem with that is the threads are going to be overly cluttered.

I see your point. As an alternative, each campaign is limited to starting 2 threads per day (does not include endorsements by unaffiliated voters). And no bumping.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 5:48:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 5:47:36 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 12/14/2014 5:45:44 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 12/14/2014 5:40:19 PM, bluesteel wrote:

(1) Spamming prohibition. Each candidate may have one official thread for campaigning. All posts related to their candidacy, including endorsements by unaffiliated voters, must be in that thread or they will be removed.

1.a: NO PM spam may be sent. Offenders will be beaten with the Ban Hammer until repentant. Repeat offenders will be drawn and quartered., permabanned, set on fire, and a nasty letter will be sent to their next of kin.

Can I interest you in voting?

Get off my lawn.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 5:50:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 5:40:19 PM, bluesteel wrote:
== Voting ==

This is just a proposed system. The point system is somewhat arbitrary and needs to be worked out with discussion, but it's a first draft.

Requirements:

(1) 3 months on site.

(2) Meets the eligibility requirements. Eligibility is established by a point system. You need 650 points to qualify and you must have earned them by the start of the election voting period.

Points:

Forum post = 1 point
Completed debates (where you didn't forfeit) = 50 points
Voting on a debate with an RFD = 20 points
Poll votes = 1 point
Opinion votes = 5 points

i can get behind this point system.

(3) People who met the point threshold on their previous account can vote.

(4) Once a bolded vote is cast, it cannot be changed.
[Note: this makes it equivalent to submitting a secret ballot that you can't take back out of the ballot box; post-vote contact would also be pointless. People should be sure of their decision before casting their vote.].

Ok lets say someone is sure of there situation upon coming to the voting. Now lets say during the voting period information comes forward making them change their viewpoint and who they support. Now that vote casted doesn't really show their true feelings does it?

== Campaign Conduct ==

(1) Spamming prohibition. Each candidate may have one official thread for campaigning. All posts related to their candidacy, including endorsements by unaffiliated voters, must be in that thread or they will be removed.

(2) Negative campaigning. Anyone affiliated with a candidate cannot post in the opposing candidate's thread. Affiliated personnel and pledged voters may respond to things the other side has said by quoting them, but the response must appear in their own candidate's thread.
[Note: without direct replies, this eliminates the ugly and heated back and forth. People tend to be more objective when they're responding to the *words,* but making their case to DDO, not responding directly to the *person.*]

I have to disagree. Taking out the action of direct replies won't eliminate the heated back and forth, just delay or warp it a little. What says that someone won't change a few of the quoted words around like you would in a direct argument. I just don't think that'll work
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.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 5:50:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 5:48:35 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/14/2014 5:43:42 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 12/14/2014 5:40:19 PM, bluesteel wrote:
== Campaign Conduct ==

(1) Spamming prohibition. Each candidate may have one official thread for campaigning. All posts related to their candidacy, including endorsements by unaffiliated voters, must be in that thread or they will be removed.

The problem with that is the threads are going to be overly cluttered.

I see your point. As an alternative, each campaign is limited to starting 2 threads per day (does not include endorsements by unaffiliated voters). And no bumping.

No bumping would present a problem too: if an important thread is buried considerably quickly...
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 5:51:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I would agree with the point system in principle, but it seems like a massive pain in the @ss for whoever has to calculate how many points borderline voters have. If an election like this one occurs again, just imagine
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
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 5:57:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Here is another idea to add to it.

Have the votes sent to fresh account (which is made by max). That way it prevents people from seeing who votes for who. That depletes some of the harassment and it stops some of the crap that comes along with it

darth mentioned this earlier, and I thought it was a great idea
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 5:57:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 5:51:47 PM, thett3 wrote:
I would agree with the point system in principle, but it seems like a massive pain in the @ss for whoever has to calculate how many points borderline voters have. If an election like this one occurs again, just imagine

I considered that, but I don't think the work Ore and I have to do should be taken into consideration when considering the best and most fair system. Assuming this is what we eventually go with, this will be a huge pain for us, but it's what we do.
Debate.org Moderator
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:00:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm serious about the PM spam. Seems like everyone on DDO sent me a PM asking me to consider voting for one candidate or another. If you post it in the forums, I can just avoid reading the threads and avoid the idiocy; but when you send me a PM I get an email at home saying, "So-and-so sent you a message."

People should not be allowed to campaign via PM. That's the only real change I want to see. I mean, if you got rid of the presidency altogether, that would be lovely; but I shouldn't have to put up with all this spam.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:01:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 5:50:40 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 12/14/2014 5:40:19 PM, bluesteel wrote:
== Voting ==

This is just a proposed system. The point system is somewhat arbitrary and needs to be worked out with discussion, but it's a first draft.

Requirements:

(1) 3 months on site.

(2) Meets the eligibility requirements. Eligibility is established by a point system. You need 650 points to qualify and you must have earned them by the start of the election voting period.

Points:

Forum post = 1 point
Completed debates (where you didn't forfeit) = 50 points
Voting on a debate with an RFD = 20 points
Poll votes = 1 point
Opinion votes = 5 points

i can get behind this point system.

(3) People who met the point threshold on their previous account can vote.

(4) Once a bolded vote is cast, it cannot be changed.
[Note: this makes it equivalent to submitting a secret ballot that you can't take back out of the ballot box; post-vote contact would also be pointless. People should be sure of their decision before casting their vote.].

Ok lets say someone is sure of there situation upon coming to the voting. Now lets say during the voting period information comes forward making them change their viewpoint and who they support. Now that vote casted doesn't really show their true feelings does it?

My response, although it might seem somewhat callous, is "too bad." If you go to a polling place in real life, fill out your ballot, and drop it off, then learn after the fact that the candidate is against a key issue you care about (like abortion), you can't go back and snatch your vote out of the ballot box. If you think you don't have enough info yet, don't vote. Given that the Rule that you can't unvote once you bold will be announced at the top of the thread and made very clear, people should vote taking into account that they can't unvote.

Also, once you raise the voter eligibility requirements, it's less likely people will change their minds. The point of the requirements is to only capture voters who actually know enough about the site and the candidates to form an opinion.

Lastly, I'll say that although there is a bit of infringement on voter autonomy, it is outweighed by the need for a secret ballot-esque protection, so that an announcement of one's vote is not an invitation to the other side to try to do anything they can to sway you. If the candidates couldn't get their messages out *prior* to someone voting, after their vote has already been cast is *not* a proper time to try to do so. Since I don't like the idea of a true secret ballot system, where votes are sent in private to a mod who declares the winner with no ability for users to double check the outcome, I think the "once you vote, it's final" rule is the only realistic way to stop post-vote lobbying, harassment, and undue influence.


== Campaign Conduct ==

(1) Spamming prohibition. Each candidate may have one official thread for campaigning. All posts related to their candidacy, including endorsements by unaffiliated voters, must be in that thread or they will be removed.

(2) Negative campaigning. Anyone affiliated with a candidate cannot post in the opposing candidate's thread. Affiliated personnel and pledged voters may respond to things the other side has said by quoting them, but the response must appear in their own candidate's thread.
[Note: without direct replies, this eliminates the ugly and heated back and forth. People tend to be more objective when they're responding to the *words,* but making their case to DDO, not responding directly to the *person.*]

I have to disagree. Taking out the action of direct replies won't eliminate the heated back and forth, just delay or warp it a little. What says that someone won't change a few of the quoted words around like you would in a direct argument. I just don't think that'll work

It's more about the emotions of the people involved, not the misconstruing. It's harder to get mad enough at someone to rage at them for hours if you're not allowed to directly respond to them. It's make it more like a debate, where you're talking to the judge, and less likely a personal argument, where you're just yelling into the other person's face. It makes you consider your audience, not just do whatever your emotions tell you to do.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:07:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:00:10 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
I'm serious about the PM spam. Seems like everyone on DDO sent me a PM asking me to consider voting for one candidate or another. If you post it in the forums, I can just avoid reading the threads and avoid the idiocy; but when you send me a PM I get an email at home saying, "So-and-so sent you a message."

People should not be allowed to campaign via PM. That's the only real change I want to see. I mean, if you got rid of the presidency altogether, that would be lovely; but I shouldn't have to put up with all this spam.

I'd like to see all PM spamming banned, site-wide. I don't like hitting end threads and it's one of the reasons why I have turned all notifications off for DDO.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:08:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:04:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I'm very glad to hear that both airmax and ore are behind election reform.

After this clusterf*** of an election, I'm not surprised to hear it...
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:09:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:04:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I'm very glad to hear that both airmax and ore are behind election reform.

I imagine in the next few days Ore and I will have a lengthy discussion on this. We'll take every proposal into consideration, and then come up with a reasonable plan to be posted for approval/disapproval. At that point, with the necessary feedback, some new system will be put in place.

This should actually be rather simple. I think we all know where the problems are and what should be addressed the most. I think some of the details will need to be ironed out, but I'm confident that with the amount of feedback gained after the initial proposal is submitted, that this should be simple enough as well.
Debate.org Moderator
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:12:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
People should absolutely be allowed to campaign via PM. That's CAMPAIGNING. It's the whole point. That's like telling presidential candidates, "sorry, you can only announce your platform and have the debate. No other campaigning allowed."
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:13:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In a point system, why is a forum post equivalent to a poll vote?

Also, I agree with Thett that a point system would suck for the moderator (Airmax, since Ore isn't a mod).
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:20:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Proposal.

Proposal can either be approved by the mods/election holder, or through approved referendum.

Part 1: voting requirements

> 1 month membership requirement, AND
> two of the following (or a compound of one):
- 3 debates (no forfeits by voter) OR
- 250 posts OR
- 50 opinions (answered + made) OR
- 250 polls (votes + made).

Justification: each of the requirements are easy to check. All one has to Adonis scan stats on then user's profile for 4 of the 5 potential requirements, and debates can be checked as they have been.

Each of the requirements in part two have calculations involved. Say each debate is on average 2 rounds (excluding acceptance) of 4000 characters, and each forum post is 100 characters. 3*2*4000 = 24 000 char, very similar to 100*250 = 25 000 char. Opinions require 50 or more words, so at average of 5 char + 1 space per word, that's 60*6*50 = 18 000 char. Poll votes require as little effort as forum posts.

Requirements are evenly inclusive of all 4 DDO sections, and reflect commitment adequately.

Part 2: election reform

> Holding the elections in the DDO polls section, while encouraging policy to adequately and evenly advertising in all 4 sections of DDO. This makes the voting process dramatically easier, more accountable and more transparent.
> Reducing the voting time range to 24 hours based on day of the week. Most votes are cast within the first 24 hours anyway, and this decreases drama-inducing and drawn-out vote soliciting.

Part 3: campaign reform

> Candidates are limited to 3 threads that are explicitly campaign-related. Supporters are limited to 1 endorsement thread. Excessive threads are to be deleted.
> No PM voter solicitation allowed from parties who have any significant association with candidates. Each count of proven solicitation deducts 1 vote from the candidate in question.
0x5f3759df
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:24:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Apologies for phone typos.

"All one has to do is..."
"...adequately and evenly advertise..."
0x5f3759df
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:26:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:12:25 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
People should absolutely be allowed to campaign via PM. That's CAMPAIGNING. It's the whole point. That's like telling presidential candidates, "sorry, you can only announce your platform and have the debate. No other campaigning allowed."

By mass PM, i mean when it has 100 people in it. You send however many individual PM's you want. I don't know what chrys meant by mass PM, honestly. If he meant a copy pasta version of the same PM sent individually to a lot of people, then yeah, I don't agree that should be banned.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:26:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 5:40:19 PM, bluesteel wrote:
== Campaign Conduct ==

(1) Spamming prohibition. Each candidate may have one official thread for campaigning. All posts related to their candidacy, including endorsements by unaffiliated voters, must be in that thread or they will be removed.

(2) Negative campaigning. Anyone affiliated with a candidate cannot post in the opposing candidate's thread. Affiliated personnel and pledged voters may respond to things the other side has said by quoting them, but the response must appear in their own candidate's thread.
[Note: without direct replies, this eliminates the ugly and heated back and forth. People tend to be more objective when they're responding to the *words,* but making their case to DDO, not responding directly to the *person.*]

Disagree. One of the great things of DDO is the many of opinions of DDO users. However, users are less likely to stay looking at an increasingly cluttered single thread and those who make endorsements are less likely to write them. However, a thread giving an endorsement from one user to another allows other users to read why more likely and potentially change their opinions while bringing more debate. Debate is always needed between the people over the candidates.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:27:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:26:08 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/14/2014 6:12:25 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
People should absolutely be allowed to campaign via PM. That's CAMPAIGNING. It's the whole point. That's like telling presidential candidates, "sorry, you can only announce your platform and have the debate. No other campaigning allowed."

By mass PM, i mean when it has 100 people in it. You send however many individual PM's you want. I don't know what chrys meant by mass PM, honestly. If he meant a copy pasta version of the same PM sent individually to a lot of people, then yeah, I don't agree that should be banned.

Ok. I agree with that.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:28:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:20:13 PM, Bullish wrote:
Proposal.

Proposal can either be approved by the mods/election holder, or through approved referendum.

Part 1: voting requirements

> 1 month membership requirement, AND
> two of the following (or a compound of one):
- 3 debates (no forfeits by voter) OR
- 250 posts OR
- 50 opinions (answered + made) OR
- 250 polls (votes + made).

Justification: each of the requirements are easy to check. All one has to Adonis scan stats on then user's profile for 4 of the 5 potential requirements, and debates can be checked as they have been.

Each of the requirements in part two have calculations involved. Say each debate is on average 2 rounds (excluding acceptance) of 4000 characters, and each forum post is 100 characters. 3*2*4000 = 24 000 char, very similar to 100*250 = 25 000 char. Opinions require 50 or more words, so at average of 5 char + 1 space per word, that's 60*6*50 = 18 000 char. Poll votes require as little effort as forum posts.

Requirements are evenly inclusive of all 4 DDO sections, and reflect commitment adequately.

Part 2: election reform

> Holding the elections in the DDO polls section, while encouraging policy to adequately and evenly advertising in all 4 sections of DDO. This makes the voting process dramatically easier, more accountable and more transparent.
> Reducing the voting time range to 24 hours based on day of the week. Most votes are cast within the first 24 hours anyway, and this decreases drama-inducing and drawn-out vote soliciting.

Part 3: campaign reform

> Candidates are limited to 3 threads that are explicitly campaign-related. Supporters are limited to 1 endorsement thread. Excessive threads are to be deleted.
> No PM voter solicitation allowed from parties who have any significant association with candidates. Each count of proven solicitation deducts 1 vote from the candidate in question.

I agree with some of this, but I think you draw the voter eligibility line too low, that a 24 hour voting period is too short since not everyone logs on every day, and that banning all PM's is too far.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:29:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:13:28 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
In a point system, why is a forum post equivalent to a poll vote?

it's just as easy to spam poll votes as it is to spam forum posts
some members on here have gotten a substantial portion of their posts by replying "lol" "XD" or "O_o" in response to other members' posts.


Also, I agree with Thett that a point system would suck for the moderator (Airmax, since Ore isn't a mod).
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:35:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 5:57:37 PM, airmax1227 wrote:

What do you think of having a one-round debate between the two major candidates with nothing written in the rounds but who's on their ticket, and have voters vote for whichever side they would like to elect? (anyone voting for a third party can null-vote and write the alternative in the RFD box).

that would make counting the votes easier for you guys, no?
And it would also solve the problem of multi-accounts since multi-accounts can't get voting rights (i think...)
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:37:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:12:25 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
People should absolutely be allowed to campaign via PM. That's CAMPAIGNING. It's the whole point. That's like telling presidential candidates, "sorry, you can only announce your platform and have the debate. No other campaigning allowed."

There IS no point to your campaigning, and some of us would prefer to be left out of it. Getting all of these copy-paste PMs is spam; I'm not interested, I didn't ask for it, and you aren't even specifically talking to me.

The campaign PMs used to be fewer and more tasteful; now they've gotten out of hand, and should be stopped.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:38:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:29:22 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/14/2014 6:13:28 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
In a point system, why is a forum post equivalent to a poll vote?

it's just as easy to spam poll votes as it is to spam forum posts
some members on here have gotten a substantial portion of their posts by replying "lol" "XD" or "O_o" in response to other members' posts.

Thanks, you got my rationale exactly right.



Also, I agree with Thett that a point system would suck for the moderator (Airmax, since Ore isn't a mod).
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)