Total Posts:95|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

My Proposal for Voting Requirement Reform

bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:07:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There are three big issues that I see in voting requirements: (1) that people in the polls are largely disenfranchised, (2) that users who are barely part of the community are able to vote, and (3) that users with no interactions in the forums can vote. I think that (1) and (2) are very obvious in why they're problematic, but (3) is an issue insofar as the forums are the heart of the community. You cannot be truly aware of site-related matters and election issues when you hide out in the debate and polls sections.

Here are the changes I would like to see to eligibility:

- 1,000 posts
- 5 debates without any forfeits AND 100 posts
- 3 debates without any forfeits AND 75 polls that haven't been deleted by mods AND 100 posts
- 200 posts AND 75 polls that haven't been deleted by mods

This ensures that every voter has engaged in the forums, addressing issue (3). It makes it easier for people who use the polls to be enfranchised, as per issue (1), and it raises the overall difficulty to become eligible, responding to issue (2).

I hope this feedback is useful. I would be interested to hear your thoughts...
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:12:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think that there is a significant risk of making requirements overcomplicated, so it is not immediately clear if someone can vote. I think we need to keep things as simple as possible, while addressing the problems in the system.

I think that we should add the following provisions to the election reform package:

1. No contacting voters after they've voted
2. If a voter asks explicitly not to be contacted further, all communication with them needs to cease
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
mishapqueen
Posts: 3,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:12:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:07:05 PM, bsh1 wrote:
There are three big issues that I see in voting requirements: (1) that people in the polls are largely disenfranchised, (2) that users who are barely part of the community are able to vote, and (3) that users with no interactions in the forums can vote. I think that (1) and (2) are very obvious in why they're problematic, but (3) is an issue insofar as the forums are the heart of the community. You cannot be truly aware of site-related matters and election issues when you hide out in the debate and polls sections.

Here are the changes I would like to see to eligibility:

- 1,000 posts
- 5 debates without any forfeits AND 100 posts
- 3 debates without any forfeits AND 75 polls that haven't been deleted by mods AND 100 posts
- 200 posts AND 75 polls that haven't been deleted by mods

This ensures that every voter has engaged in the forums, addressing issue (3). It makes it easier for people who use the polls to be enfranchised, as per issue (1), and it raises the overall difficulty to become eligible, responding to issue (2).

I hope this feedback is useful. I would be interested to hear your thoughts...

So a person only has to fit one of the four sets?
You cannot choose whether or not you will live by rules, but you can choose which rules you will live by. --Me

"I was wrong. Squirrels are objectively superior to bunnies in every conceivable dimension."
--Joey

"Silence is golden, duct tape is silver" --PetersSmith

Nunc aut Numquam
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:13:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:12:22 PM, mishapqueen wrote:
At 12/14/2014 6:07:05 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Here are the changes I would like to see to eligibility:

- 1,000 posts
- 5 debates without any forfeits AND 100 posts
- 3 debates without any forfeits AND 75 polls that haven't been deleted by mods AND 100 posts
- 200 posts AND 75 polls that haven't been deleted by mods

So a person only has to fit one of the four sets?

That is correct.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:14:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:07:05 PM, bsh1 wrote:
There are three big issues that I see in voting requirements: (1) that people in the polls are largely disenfranchised, (2) that users who are barely part of the community are able to vote, and (3) that users with no interactions in the forums can vote. I think that (1) and (2) are very obvious in why they're problematic, but (3) is an issue insofar as the forums are the heart of the community. You cannot be truly aware of site-related matters and election issues when you hide out in the debate and polls sections.

Here are the changes I would like to see to eligibility:

- 1,000 posts
- 5 debates without any forfeits AND 100 posts
- 3 debates without any forfeits AND 75 polls that haven't been deleted by mods AND 100 posts
- 200 posts AND 75 polls that haven't been deleted by mods

This ensures that every voter has engaged in the forums, addressing issue (3). It makes it easier for people who use the polls to be enfranchised, as per issue (1), and it raises the overall difficulty to become eligible, responding to issue (2).

I hope this feedback is useful. I would be interested to hear your thoughts...

This is perfect.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:15:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
oh gawd, this is like the time I started all those AMA's..... There's gonna be 100 of these proposals now.

At 12/14/2014 6:07:05 PM, bsh1 wrote:
There are three big issues that I see in voting requirements: (1) that people in the polls are largely disenfranchised, (2) that users who are barely part of the community are able to vote, and (3) that users with no interactions in the forums can vote.

Agree, agree, and kinda agree.

I think that (1) and (2) are very obvious in why they're problematic, but (3) is an issue insofar as the forums are the heart of the community. You cannot be truly aware of site-related matters and election issues when you hide out in the debate and polls sections.

It is a debate site tho. It seems absurd to say that the forums are the heart of the site. They are *one* way you learn about other members, but someone with enough debates and PM or profile-to-profile conversations should have sufficient knowledge about the site. Also, what if they're lurkers and read posts, but don't post themselves, which is what I did in the forums when I first joined.


Here are the changes I would like to see to eligibility:

- 1,000 posts
- 5 debates without any forfeits AND 100 posts
- 3 debates without any forfeits AND 75 polls that haven't been deleted by mods AND 100 posts
- 200 posts AND 75 polls that haven't been deleted by mods

You're assigning relative weight to debates and posts, but an overall point system (like the one Ore and I proposed) is easier for the person counting to administer. If you list out 4-10 separate ways someone can meet the requirements, there's too many different things to check.


This ensures that every voter has engaged in the forums, addressing issue (3). It makes it easier for people who use the polls to be enfranchised, as per issue (1), and it raises the overall difficulty to become eligible, responding to issue (2).

I hope this feedback is useful. I would be interested to hear your thoughts...

I barely posted in the forums when I first joined the site, which is why people who joined long after me have almost the same # of posts I do. I did try to keep up on site stuff, and I had some sense of who the most active users were. I did do a bunch of debates though. I generally object to a system that would have disenfranchised me for lurking in the forums when I first joined the site, especially since it is a debate site, not a forum site.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:16:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:14:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/14/2014 6:07:05 PM, bsh1 wrote:
There are three big issues that I see in voting requirements: (1) that people in the polls are largely disenfranchised, (2) that users who are barely part of the community are able to vote, and (3) that users with no interactions in the forums can vote. I think that (1) and (2) are very obvious in why they're problematic, but (3) is an issue insofar as the forums are the heart of the community. You cannot be truly aware of site-related matters and election issues when you hide out in the debate and polls sections.

Here are the changes I would like to see to eligibility:

- 1,000 posts
- 5 debates without any forfeits AND 100 posts
- 3 debates without any forfeits AND 75 polls that haven't been deleted by mods AND 100 posts
- 200 posts AND 75 polls that haven't been deleted by mods

This ensures that every voter has engaged in the forums, addressing issue (3). It makes it easier for people who use the polls to be enfranchised, as per issue (1), and it raises the overall difficulty to become eligible, responding to issue (2).

I hope this feedback is useful. I would be interested to hear your thoughts...

This is perfect.

Thanks! I would be amenable to changing 75 polls to 50, but I think, otherwise, that this would be a useful reform.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
mishapqueen
Posts: 3,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:16:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:13:35 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 12/14/2014 6:12:22 PM, mishapqueen wrote:
At 12/14/2014 6:07:05 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Here are the changes I would like to see to eligibility:

- 1,000 posts
- 5 debates without any forfeits AND 100 posts
- 3 debates without any forfeits AND 75 polls that haven't been deleted by mods AND 100 posts
- 200 posts AND 75 polls that haven't been deleted by mods

So a person only has to fit one of the four sets?

That is correct.

To be honest, this is the only proposal I have read that I like. I might say lower the last option to 150, but that's it.
You cannot choose whether or not you will live by rules, but you can choose which rules you will live by. --Me

"I was wrong. Squirrels are objectively superior to bunnies in every conceivable dimension."
--Joey

"Silence is golden, duct tape is silver" --PetersSmith

Nunc aut Numquam
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:17:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:12:00 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I think that there is a significant risk of making requirements overcomplicated, so it is not immediately clear if someone can vote. I think we need to keep things as simple as possible, while addressing the problems in the system.

I think that we should add the following provisions to the election reform package:

1. No contacting voters after they've voted
2. If a voter asks explicitly not to be contacted further, all communication with them needs to cease

Have a Do Not Contact list? Cuz telling one person to leave you alone hasn't seemed to be enough, since there are so many people separately campaigning.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:17:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:16:36 PM, mishapqueen wrote:
At 12/14/2014 6:13:35 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 12/14/2014 6:12:22 PM, mishapqueen wrote:
At 12/14/2014 6:07:05 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Here are the changes I would like to see to eligibility:

- 1,000 posts
- 5 debates without any forfeits AND 100 posts
- 3 debates without any forfeits AND 75 polls that haven't been deleted by mods AND 100 posts
- 200 posts AND 75 polls that haven't been deleted by mods

So a person only has to fit one of the four sets?

That is correct.

To be honest, this is the only proposal I have read that I like. I might say lower the last option to 150, but that's it.

Thanks you so much, Mishap. Cool...I was thinking, instead of lowering the forum post number, than we change 75 polls to 50. What are your thoughts on that?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:18:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:17:26 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/14/2014 6:12:00 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I think that there is a significant risk of making requirements overcomplicated, so it is not immediately clear if someone can vote. I think we need to keep things as simple as possible, while addressing the problems in the system.

I think that we should add the following provisions to the election reform package:

1. No contacting voters after they've voted
2. If a voter asks explicitly not to be contacted further, all communication with them needs to cease

Have a Do Not Contact list? Cuz telling one person to leave you alone hasn't seemed to be enough, since there are so many people separately campaigning.

Good idea. I think that candidates should also PM people the no contact list when they PM them...that way it's easy for people to find the list.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:18:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:16:27 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 12/14/2014 6:14:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/14/2014 6:07:05 PM, bsh1 wrote:
There are three big issues that I see in voting requirements: (1) that people in the polls are largely disenfranchised, (2) that users who are barely part of the community are able to vote, and (3) that users with no interactions in the forums can vote. I think that (1) and (2) are very obvious in why they're problematic, but (3) is an issue insofar as the forums are the heart of the community. You cannot be truly aware of site-related matters and election issues when you hide out in the debate and polls sections.

Here are the changes I would like to see to eligibility:

- 1,000 posts
- 5 debates without any forfeits AND 100 posts
- 3 debates without any forfeits AND 75 polls that haven't been deleted by mods AND 100 posts
- 200 posts AND 75 polls that haven't been deleted by mods

This ensures that every voter has engaged in the forums, addressing issue (3). It makes it easier for people who use the polls to be enfranchised, as per issue (1), and it raises the overall difficulty to become eligible, responding to issue (2).

I hope this feedback is useful. I would be interested to hear your thoughts...

This is perfect.

Thanks! I would be amenable to changing 75 polls to 50, but I think, otherwise, that this would be a useful reform.

It accommodates really well for different types of users, and the numbers you picked are just so on the mark.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:20:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:18:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/14/2014 6:16:27 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 12/14/2014 6:14:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/14/2014 6:07:05 PM, bsh1 wrote:
There are three big issues that I see in voting requirements: (1) that people in the polls are largely disenfranchised, (2) that users who are barely part of the community are able to vote, and (3) that users with no interactions in the forums can vote. I think that (1) and (2) are very obvious in why they're problematic, but (3) is an issue insofar as the forums are the heart of the community. You cannot be truly aware of site-related matters and election issues when you hide out in the debate and polls sections.

Here are the changes I would like to see to eligibility:

- 1,000 posts
- 5 debates without any forfeits AND 100 posts
- 3 debates without any forfeits AND 75 polls that haven't been deleted by mods AND 100 posts
- 200 posts AND 75 polls that haven't been deleted by mods

This ensures that every voter has engaged in the forums, addressing issue (3). It makes it easier for people who use the polls to be enfranchised, as per issue (1), and it raises the overall difficulty to become eligible, responding to issue (2).

I hope this feedback is useful. I would be interested to hear your thoughts...

This is perfect.

Thanks! I would be amenable to changing 75 polls to 50, but I think, otherwise, that this would be a useful reform.

It accommodates really well for different types of users, and the numbers you picked are just so on the mark.

I really appreciate that :)
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:22:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This depends on what we would call a community. Obviously its DDO users, but how active should they be? I disagree that we should make all four required. DDO policy every aspect of the site, so users who focus on debates and little on the forums are probably going to be hit in some way. Several members of DDO might pay little attention to opinions and polls, but at the same time there are plenty who do and care little of debating and forums. Nevertheless, these people could be affected by policies. It is also takes way DDO users who have started a major interest, but may not have any requirements to vote despite, let's say, a month of activity (just not activity required). I believe the voting requirements should stand as is.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:23:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:07:05 PM, bsh1 wrote:
There are three big issues that I see in voting requirements: (1) that people in the polls are largely disenfranchised, (2) that users who are barely part of the community are able to vote, and (3) that users with no interactions in the forums can vote. I think that (1) and (2) are very obvious in why they're problematic, but (3) is an issue insofar as the forums are the heart of the community. You cannot be truly aware of site-related matters and election issues when you hide out in the debate and polls sections.

Here are the changes I would like to see to eligibility:

- 1,000 posts
- 5 debates without any forfeits AND 100 posts
- 3 debates without any forfeits AND 75 polls that haven't been deleted by mods AND 100 posts
- 200 posts AND 75 polls that haven't been deleted by mods

This ensures that every voter has engaged in the forums, addressing issue (3). It makes it easier for people who use the polls to be enfranchised, as per issue (1), and it raises the overall difficulty to become eligible, responding to issue (2).

I hope this feedback is useful. I would be interested to hear your thoughts...

I also think it's arbitrary to exclude debates where your opponent forfeited a single time, which you have no control over, which is why I made my system that the debate counts as long as *you* didn't forfeit.

Although based on some people's responses to your system and thinking about it more, I think an overall point system kind of sucks because voters have to do a complicated calculation to know if they are eligible. Although they could just vote and hope it counts. But at least it's clearer under your system.

But seriously, why the no forfeit rule? The requirement isn't that you win the debate legitimately, it's just that you had it. You didn't control whether your opponent forfeited. And if anything, if people are creating fake debates with multis to gain privileges, why would there be forfeits? It takes 2-3 days for a forfeit to go through. Forfeited debates are more annoying and take longer to enter the voting period than real debates. I feel like if I were a new member, I'd be really frustrated already that everyone kept forfeiting, and pissed that it made me ineligible when I had no control over it. A rough estimate for me is that about 50-70% of open acceptance debates currently on the site will result in one side forfeiting.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:24:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:15:26 PM, bluesteel wrote:
oh gawd, this is like the time I started all those AMA's..... There's gonna be 100 of these proposals now.

I certainly hope I don't have to ban election reform proposals to the personal forums :P

As for the topic, I think BSH has some great ideas here, and the criteria seems fair enough.

As I've said in other places, the feedback and discussion is appreciated. Ore and I will do our best to come up with a plan soon based on everything that has been said, and present a "working proposal" based on what's been offered, practical, fair etc, and we'll go from there to get feedback to finalize a plan that will be used in the future.
Debate.org Moderator
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:25:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:23:22 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/14/2014 6:07:05 PM, bsh1 wrote:


I also think it's arbitrary to exclude debates where your opponent forfeited a single time, which you have no control over,

Racking up 5 debates with no forfeits is not very hard at all.

which is why I made my system that the debate counts as long as *you* didn't forfeit.


Even when they just say "extend arugments" each round? I mean, I can see letting one forfeit go, but not more than that.
mishapqueen
Posts: 3,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:25:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:17:29 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 12/14/2014 6:16:36 PM, mishapqueen wrote:
At 12/14/2014 6:13:35 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 12/14/2014 6:12:22 PM, mishapqueen wrote:
At 12/14/2014 6:07:05 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Here are the changes I would like to see to eligibility:

- 1,000 posts
- 5 debates without any forfeits AND 100 posts
- 3 debates without any forfeits AND 75 polls that haven't been deleted by mods AND 100 posts
- 200 posts AND 75 polls that haven't been deleted by mods

So a person only has to fit one of the four sets?

That is correct.

To be honest, this is the only proposal I have read that I like. I might say lower the last option to 150, but that's it.

Thanks you so much, Mishap. Cool...I was thinking, instead of lowering the forum post number, than we change 75 polls to 50. What are your thoughts on that?

Well, polls are easy, forum posts are a little harder. For example, I read a lot more than I post, and it seems that posts are the sticking point. 200 is way better, but we'd probably still have people spamming to get up to par, and I don't know if that's a good thing that fulfills our intentions. For most people you can get a poll done in less than five minutes. It's not a big issue, I just want to make sure people like PetersSmith get in. Some of her polls take her 3 hours and she's done over 500 of them.
You cannot choose whether or not you will live by rules, but you can choose which rules you will live by. --Me

"I was wrong. Squirrels are objectively superior to bunnies in every conceivable dimension."
--Joey

"Silence is golden, duct tape is silver" --PetersSmith

Nunc aut Numquam
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:26:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:15:26 PM, bluesteel wrote:
oh gawd, this is like the time I started all those AMA's..... There's gonna be 100 of these proposals now.

Lol...mayhaps it will.

At 12/14/2014 6:07:05 PM, bsh1 wrote:
There are three big issues that I see in voting requirements: (1) that people in the polls are largely disenfranchised, (2) that users who are barely part of the community are able to vote, and (3) that users with no interactions in the forums can vote.

Agree, agree, and kinda agree.

Sweet.

I think that (1) and (2) are very obvious in why they're problematic, but (3) is an issue insofar as the forums are the heart of the community. You cannot be truly aware of site-related matters and election issues when you hide out in the debate and polls sections.

It is a debate site tho. It seems absurd to say that the forums are the heart of the site. They are *one* way you learn about other members, but someone with enough debates and PM or profile-to-profile conversations should have sufficient knowledge about the site. Also, what if they're lurkers and read posts, but don't post themselves, which is what I did in the forums when I first joined.

I can't agree with that. Much of the community action--in fact, I would say the largest and most meaningful means of community interaction--occurs in the forums. Sure, this is a debate site, but if you never ventured into the forums there is *a lot* that you might never learn. I don't think you can be a fully informed voter without *some* presence in the forums.

Besides, I don't think that the forum requirements I posted are onerous--and there really isn't a good way to separate lurkers from non-lurkers. The only way we can quantifiably measure forum presence is through a post count.

Here are the changes I would like to see to eligibility:

- 1,000 posts
- 5 debates without any forfeits AND 100 posts
- 3 debates without any forfeits AND 75 polls that haven't been deleted by mods AND 100 posts
- 200 posts AND 75 polls that haven't been deleted by mods

You're assigning relative weight to debates and posts, but an overall point system (like the one Ore and I proposed) is easier for the person counting to administer. If you list out 4-10 separate ways someone can meet the requirements, there's too many different things to check.

I am not sure I agree that it a point system is any easier. Frankly, I actually think that the system I proposed is easier to verify. But, ultimately, because I feel as if some involvement in certain areas of the site is necessary, I am just never going to be on board with a point system, because you could only do debates or only vote and never debate or post, and still be enfranchised.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:26:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:23:25 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/14/2014 6:22:07 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
I disagree that we should make all four required.

Only one is required.

Ok
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:27:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:22:07 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
This depends on what we would call a community. Obviously its DDO users, but how active should they be? I disagree that we should make all four required.

You only need to meet ONE of my bullets to vote. I am sorry if that wasn't clear.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:28:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:27:42 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 12/14/2014 6:22:07 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
This depends on what we would call a community. Obviously its DDO users, but how active should they be? I disagree that we should make all four required.

You only need to meet ONE of my bullets to vote. I am sorry if that wasn't clear.

No problem.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:30:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:23:22 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/14/2014 6:07:05 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I hope this feedback is useful. I would be interested to hear your thoughts...

I also think it's arbitrary to exclude debates where your opponent forfeited a single time, which you have no control over, which is why I made my system that the debate counts as long as *you* didn't forfeit.

Sure, I would be willing to alter that. Maybe if there was just *one* forfeit, the debate could be counted. This is definitely something I am willing to tweak, because you have a point.

Although based on some people's responses to your system and thinking about it more, I think an overall point system kind of sucks because voters have to do a complicated calculation to know if they are eligible. Although they could just vote and hope it counts. But at least it's clearer under your system.

^ This. I very much agree.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:30:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:28:26 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 12/14/2014 6:27:42 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 12/14/2014 6:22:07 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
This depends on what we would call a community. Obviously its DDO users, but how active should they be? I disagree that we should make all four required.

You only need to meet ONE of my bullets to vote. I am sorry if that wasn't clear.

No problem.

Does that help to allay your concerns?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
numberwang
Posts: 1,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:31:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:07:05 PM, bsh1 wrote:
There are three big issues that I see in voting requirements: (1) that people in the polls are largely disenfranchised, (2) that users who are barely part of the community are able to vote, and (3) that users with no interactions in the forums can vote. I think that (1) and (2) are very obvious in why they're problematic, but (3) is an issue insofar as the forums are the heart of the community. You cannot be truly aware of site-related matters and election issues when you hide out in the debate and polls sections.

Here are the changes I would like to see to eligibility:

- 1,000 posts
- 5 debates without any forfeits AND 100 posts
- 3 debates without any forfeits AND 75 polls that haven't been deleted by mods AND 100 posts
- 200 posts AND 75 polls that haven't been deleted by mods

This ensures that every voter has engaged in the forums, addressing issue (3). It makes it easier for people who use the polls to be enfranchised, as per issue (1), and it raises the overall difficulty to become eligible, responding to issue (2).

I hope this feedback is useful. I would be interested to hear your thoughts...

I think there should also be an activity or account activation requirement, kind of like a voter registration thing. Something like accounts have to have been made more than a week or two before elections or something. To make multiaccounting more difficult, since there were some blatant new fake accounts.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:32:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:24:59 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 12/14/2014 6:15:26 PM, bluesteel wrote:
oh gawd, this is like the time I started all those AMA's..... There's gonna be 100 of these proposals now.

I certainly hope I don't have to ban election reform proposals to the personal forums :P

Rofl... :)

As for the topic, I think BSH has some great ideas here, and the criteria seems fair enough.

Thank you! That means a lot, Airmax!

As I've said in other places, the feedback and discussion is appreciated. Ore and I will do our best to come up with a plan soon based on everything that has been said, and present a "working proposal" based on what's been offered, practical, fair etc, and we'll go from there to get feedback to finalize a plan that will be used in the future.

Okie dokie. As I said to you earlier, I would love to help if I am able and if you could use me.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:32:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:30:40 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 12/14/2014 6:28:26 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 12/14/2014 6:27:42 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 12/14/2014 6:22:07 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
This depends on what we would call a community. Obviously its DDO users, but how active should they be? I disagree that we should make all four required.

You only need to meet ONE of my bullets to vote. I am sorry if that wasn't clear.

No problem.

Does that help to allay your concerns?

What would you say about new DDO members who have major interest in the site, but don't make the requirements by the time of the election. Say a user comes on a month before and is clearly active and interested, yet is barely off from requirements.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:34:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:31:44 PM, numberwang wrote:
I hope this feedback is useful. I would be interested to hear your thoughts...

I think there should also be an activity or account activation requirement, kind of like a voter registration thing. Something like accounts have to have been made more than a week or two before elections or something. To make multiaccounting more difficult, since there were some blatant new fake accounts.

I am not going to comment on the fake account thing, since that seems more appropriate for Airmax or Ore to address.

My concern with the activity thing is it could disenfranchise users who come in only every now and then, but who are still part of the community. I would be willing to consider the idea that if you've been gone 6 months or more, you shouldn't be able to vote. But, I think that would need to be discussed a bit more.

Besides that, do you like my proposal?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:35:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:30:16 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 12/14/2014 6:23:22 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/14/2014 6:07:05 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I hope this feedback is useful. I would be interested to hear your thoughts...

I also think it's arbitrary to exclude debates where your opponent forfeited a single time, which you have no control over, which is why I made my system that the debate counts as long as *you* didn't forfeit.

Sure, I would be willing to alter that. Maybe if there was just *one* forfeit, the debate could be counted. This is definitely something I am willing to tweak, because you have a point.

Can you explain to me though the rationale behind the forfeit exclusion? Why is it okay to penalize a person for their opponent's bad conduct?


Although based on some people's responses to your system and thinking about it more, I think an overall point system kind of sucks because voters have to do a complicated calculation to know if they are eligible. Although they could just vote and hope it counts. But at least it's clearer under your system.

^ This. I very much agree.

Yeah, I thought of an easy solution though. It'd be really easy to code a simple calculator where you just plug the numbers in from your profile and it will tell you if you're eligible. It can be posted on the DDO Wiki or DDO fans or something.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)