Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

New Voting Requirements

bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 12:52:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Here are the New Requirements:

So to qualify to vote you have to be a member for 2 months, have 3 completed debates (all completed before the day of the election) and 100 forum posts.

Or, 2 months membership, 3 completed debates and 250 combined Opinion Arguments, Opinion Questions, Poll Votes, Poll Topics.

[http://www.debate.org...]

---------------------------

My Thoughts:

I think the new voting requirements are a massive improvement on the old system. I think this new system deserve plaudits for its efforts at emphasizing inclusion in the forums as a requisite for voting and for its willingness to enfranchise those who participate in the polls/opinions sections. That being said, I do have some issues with this set of requirements.

Firstly, I think the minimum 3 debates (without forfeits) is too low. A lot of members have 1 round debates or debates where their posts for each round are 1 or 2 sentences, and those are counted towards their eligibility requirements. I believe that those kinds of debates ought not to be counted. I think either increasing the number of total debates required (thus increasing the likelihood of having three substantive debates) or setting a minimum number of rounds would be prudent.

Secondly, if I understand these requirements correctly, they disenfranchise people who just post. I don't think that's fair. The forums are the hub of the community, and people who just post can still be highly aware of community business and may still be invested in the community. I think that people who just post should still be entitled to vote.

Thirdly, again--if I understand this correctly--this system would not enfranchise people with 250 Opinions/Polls and 100 posts but who have not debated. I don't think this is good either; you don't need to have debated to have shown commitment to the community or to have sufficient knowledge of the on-goings of the community to cast a ballot. I do, however, believe that people with the set number of Opinions/Polls should be required to engage in the forums prior to voting, which it doesn't seem like they currently are.

If my interpretation of these rules is wrong, I would appreciate any corrects. I actually found the multiple iterations of the rules to have made them less clear, instead of more clear. I went with the iteration I found most straightforward.
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...
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 1:11:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I have no complaints, provided that somebody whose previous account met these requirements is allowed to vote regardless of the status of their current account.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
BoggyDag
Posts: 379
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 1:13:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 1:11:52 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I have no complaints, provided that somebody whose previous account met these requirements is allowed to vote regardless of the status of their current account.

Doesn't that undermine the idea of making a new account, namely to start over without others knowing it is you?
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 1:14:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 1:13:41 PM, BoggyDag wrote:
At 1/11/2015 1:11:52 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I have no complaints, provided that somebody whose previous account met these requirements is allowed to vote regardless of the status of their current account.

Doesn't that undermine the idea of making a new account, namely to start over without others knowing it is you?

That is true, unless you're not trying to hide your identity.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 1:15:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 1:13:41 PM, BoggyDag wrote:
At 1/11/2015 1:11:52 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I have no complaints, provided that somebody whose previous account met these requirements is allowed to vote regardless of the status of their current account.

Doesn't that undermine the idea of making a new account, namely to start over without others knowing it is you?

There are other reasons why people would make a new account besides having people not know you were behind a past account...... Someone could have made a new account because they didnt like their win-loss ratio on their original, or because they accidentally made an account with a really, really dumb name....
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 1:16:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 1:14:27 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/11/2015 1:13:41 PM, BoggyDag wrote:
At 1/11/2015 1:11:52 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I have no complaints, provided that somebody whose previous account met these requirements is allowed to vote regardless of the status of their current account.

Doesn't that undermine the idea of making a new account, namely to start over without others knowing it is you?

That is true, unless you're not trying to hide your identity.

ah hell you beat me to it
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
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 1:24:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 1:11:52 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I have no complaints, provided that somebody whose previous account met these requirements is allowed to vote regardless of the status of their current account.

I agree with this sentiment.
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...
BoggyDag
Posts: 379
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 1:31:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 1:14:27 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/11/2015 1:13:41 PM, BoggyDag wrote:
At 1/11/2015 1:11:52 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I have no complaints, provided that somebody whose previous account met these requirements is allowed to vote regardless of the status of their current account.

Doesn't that undermine the idea of making a new account, namely to start over without others knowing it is you?

That is true, unless you're not trying to hide your identity.

In that odd case, if taking your voting privileges over to the new account is voluntary, I agree.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 2:20:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 1:24:12 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/11/2015 1:11:52 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I have no complaints, provided that somebody whose previous account met these requirements is allowed to vote regardless of the status of their current account.

I agree with this sentiment.

I concur as well.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 5:17:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Bump.
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: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 8:17:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 5:17:05 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Bump.
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...
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 8:21:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 12:52:39 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Here are the New Requirements:

So to qualify to vote you have to be a member for 2 months, have 3 completed debates (all completed before the day of the election) and 100 forum posts.

Or, 2 months membership, 3 completed debates and 250 combined Opinion Arguments, Opinion Questions, Poll Votes, Poll Topics.

[http://www.debate.org...]

---------------------------

My Thoughts:

I think the new voting requirements are a massive improvement on the old system. I think this new system deserve plaudits for its efforts at emphasizing inclusion in the forums as a requisite for voting and for its willingness to enfranchise those who participate in the polls/opinions sections. That being said, I do have some issues with this set of requirements.

Firstly, I think the minimum 3 debates (without forfeits) is too low. A lot of members have 1 round debates or debates where their posts for each round are 1 or 2 sentences, and those are counted towards their eligibility requirements. I believe that those kinds of debates ought not to be counted. I think either increasing the number of total debates required (thus increasing the likelihood of having three substantive debates) or setting a minimum number of rounds would be prudent.

How about five substantive debates?

Secondly, if I understand these requirements correctly, they disenfranchise people who just post. I don't think that's fair. The forums are the hub of the community, and people who just post can still be highly aware of community business and may still be invested in the community. I think that people who just post should still be entitled to vote.

That is a good point.

Thirdly, again--if I understand this correctly--this system would not enfranchise people with 250 Opinions/Polls and 100 posts but who have not debated. I don't think this is good either; you don't need to have debated to have shown commitment to the community or to have sufficient knowledge of the on-goings of the community to cast a ballot. I do, however, believe that people with the set number of Opinions/Polls should be required to engage in the forums prior to voting, which it doesn't seem like they currently are.

I'm going to reserve commentary on this until I do some investigation into the state of the opinion/polls sections beyond what I see on the main page.

If my interpretation of these rules is wrong, I would appreciate any corrects. I actually found the multiple iterations of the rules to have made them less clear, instead of more clear. I went with the iteration I found most straightforward.
Tsar of DDO
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 8:26:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 8:21:48 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/11/2015 12:52:39 PM, bsh1 wrote:
My Thoughts:

Firstly, I think the minimum 3 debates (without forfeits) is too low. A lot of members have 1 round debates or debates where their posts for each round are 1 or 2 sentences, and those are counted towards their eligibility requirements. I believe that those kinds of debates ought not to be counted. I think either increasing the number of total debates required (thus increasing the likelihood of having three substantive debates) or setting a minimum number of rounds would be prudent.

How about five substantive debates?

That's what I advocated for awhile ago.

Secondly, if I understand these requirements correctly, they disenfranchise people who just post. I don't think that's fair. The forums are the hub of the community, and people who just post can still be highly aware of community business and may still be invested in the community. I think that people who just post should still be entitled to vote.

That is a good point.

Thanks.

Thirdly, again--if I understand this correctly--this system would not enfranchise people with 250 Opinions/Polls and 100 posts but who have not debated. I don't think this is good either; you don't need to have debated to have shown commitment to the community or to have sufficient knowledge of the on-goings of the community to cast a ballot. I do, however, believe that people with the set number of Opinions/Polls should be required to engage in the forums prior to voting, which it doesn't seem like they currently are.

I'm going to reserve commentary on this until I do some investigation into the state of the opinion/polls sections beyond what I see on the main page.

Okay.
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
1/11/2015 8:30:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 12:52:39 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Here are the New Requirements:

So to qualify to vote you have to be a member for 2 months, have 3 completed debates (all completed before the day of the election) and 100 forum posts.

Or, 2 months membership, 3 completed debates and 250 combined Opinion Arguments, Opinion Questions, Poll Votes, Poll Topics.

[http://www.debate.org...]

---------------------------

My Thoughts:

I think the new voting requirements are a massive improvement on the old system. I think this new system deserve plaudits for its efforts at emphasizing inclusion in the forums as a requisite for voting and for its willingness to enfranchise those who participate in the polls/opinions sections. That being said, I do have some issues with this set of requirements.

Firstly, I think the minimum 3 debates (without forfeits) is too low. A lot of members have 1 round debates or debates where their posts for each round are 1 or 2 sentences, and those are counted towards their eligibility requirements. I believe that those kinds of debates ought not to be counted. I think either increasing the number of total debates required (thus increasing the likelihood of having three substantive debates) or setting a minimum number of rounds would be prudent.

Secondly, if I understand these requirements correctly, they disenfranchise people who just post. I don't think that's fair. The forums are the hub of the community, and people who just post can still be highly aware of community business and may still be invested in the community. I think that people who just post should still be entitled to vote.

Thirdly, again--if I understand this correctly--this system would not enfranchise people with 250 Opinions/Polls and 100 posts but who have not debated. I don't think this is good either; you don't need to have debated to have shown commitment to the community or to have sufficient knowledge of the on-goings of the community to cast a ballot. I do, however, believe that people with the set number of Opinions/Polls should be required to engage in the forums prior to voting, which it doesn't seem like they currently are.

If my interpretation of these rules is wrong, I would appreciate any corrects. I actually found the multiple iterations of the rules to have made them less clear, instead of more clear. I went with the iteration I found most straightforward.

The alternative was 100 posts and 250 combined polls votes, etc., not 3 debates + 250 poll votes, etc.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 8:31:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 8:26:23 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/11/2015 8:21:48 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/11/2015 12:52:39 PM, bsh1 wrote:
My Thoughts:

Firstly, I think the minimum 3 debates (without forfeits) is too low. A lot of members have 1 round debates or debates where their posts for each round are 1 or 2 sentences, and those are counted towards their eligibility requirements. I believe that those kinds of debates ought not to be counted. I think either increasing the number of total debates required (thus increasing the likelihood of having three substantive debates) or setting a minimum number of rounds would be prudent.

How about five substantive debates?

That's what I advocated for awhile ago.

I'd be fine with as low as five, and as high as ten.
Tsar of DDO
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 8:32:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 12:52:39 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Here are the New Requirements:

So to qualify to vote you have to be a member for 2 months, have 3 completed debates (all completed before the day of the election) and 100 forum posts.

Or, 2 months membership, 3 completed debates and 250 combined Opinion Arguments, Opinion Questions, Poll Votes, Poll Topics.

[http://www.debate.org...]

---------------------------

My Thoughts:

I think the new voting requirements are a massive improvement on the old system. I think this new system deserve plaudits for its efforts at emphasizing inclusion in the forums as a requisite for voting and for its willingness to enfranchise those who participate in the polls/opinions sections. That being said, I do have some issues with this set of requirements.

Firstly, I think the minimum 3 debates (without forfeits) is too low. A lot of members have 1 round debates or debates where their posts for each round are 1 or 2 sentences, and those are counted towards their eligibility requirements. I believe that those kinds of debates ought not to be counted. I think either increasing the number of total debates required (thus increasing the likelihood of having three substantive debates) or setting a minimum number of rounds would be prudent.

Secondly, if I understand these requirements correctly, they disenfranchise people who just post. I don't think that's fair. The forums are the hub of the community, and people who just post can still be highly aware of community business and may still be invested in the community. I think that people who just post should still be entitled to vote.

Thirdly, again--if I understand this correctly--this system would not enfranchise people with 250 Opinions/Polls and 100 posts but who have not debated. I don't think this is good either; you don't need to have debated to have shown commitment to the community or to have sufficient knowledge of the on-goings of the community to cast a ballot. I do, however, believe that people with the set number of Opinions/Polls should be required to engage in the forums prior to voting, which it doesn't seem like they currently are.

If my interpretation of these rules is wrong, I would appreciate any corrects. I actually found the multiple iterations of the rules to have made them less clear, instead of more clear. I went with the iteration I found most straightforward.

The thread you linked was a typo. See here:

http://www.debate.org...
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 8:32:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 8:30:54 PM, bluesteel wrote:

The alternative was 100 posts and 250 combined polls votes, etc., not 3 debates + 250 poll votes, etc.

I don't think that's the case based on what I read. Can you link me to what you're referencing?
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: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 8:34:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
@Bluesteel,

At the link you sent me, this is what it says:

Minimum of 2 months membership (60 days).
3 completed debates with no forfeits by either side.

And

100 forum posts
or
250 combined Opinion Arguments, Opinion Questions, Poll Votes, Poll Topics.


So, you have to have the former two, but then you only need one of the latter two. So, yes, my interpretation was 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...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 8:34:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 8:32:35 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/11/2015 8:30:54 PM, bluesteel wrote:

The alternative was 100 posts and 250 combined polls votes, etc., not 3 debates + 250 poll votes, etc.

I don't think that's the case based on what I read. Can you link me to what you're referencing?

Yeah just did.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 8:34:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 8:31:17 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/11/2015 8:26:23 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/11/2015 8:21:48 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/11/2015 12:52:39 PM, bsh1 wrote:
My Thoughts:

Firstly, I think the minimum 3 debates (without forfeits) is too low. A lot of members have 1 round debates or debates where their posts for each round are 1 or 2 sentences, and those are counted towards their eligibility requirements. I believe that those kinds of debates ought not to be counted. I think either increasing the number of total debates required (thus increasing the likelihood of having three substantive debates) or setting a minimum number of rounds would be prudent.

How about five substantive debates?

That's what I advocated for awhile ago.

I'd be fine with as low as five, and as high as ten.

I think 10 is a bit too high. I think 5 works.
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
1/11/2015 8:35:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 8:34:00 PM, bsh1 wrote:
@Bluesteel,

At the link you sent me, this is what it says:

Minimum of 2 months membership (60 days).
3 completed debates with no forfeits by either side.

And

100 forum posts
or
250 combined Opinion Arguments, Opinion Questions, Poll Votes, Poll Topics.


So, you have to have the former two, but then you only need one of the latter two. So, yes, my interpretation was correct.

Wow, reading fail! Okay then....
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 8:35:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 8:35:24 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 1/11/2015 8:34:00 PM, bsh1 wrote:
@Bluesteel,

At the link you sent me, this is what it says:

Minimum of 2 months membership (60 days).
3 completed debates with no forfeits by either side.

And

100 forum posts
or
250 combined Opinion Arguments, Opinion Questions, Poll Votes, Poll Topics.


So, you have to have the former two, but then you only need one of the latter two. So, yes, my interpretation was correct.

Wow, reading fail! Okay then....

Lol...it's okay.
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
1/11/2015 8:51:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 12:52:39 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Here are the New Requirements:

So to qualify to vote you have to be a member for 2 months, have 3 completed debates (all completed before the day of the election) and 100 forum posts.

Or, 2 months membership, 3 completed debates and 250 combined Opinion Arguments, Opinion Questions, Poll Votes, Poll Topics.

[http://www.debate.org...]

---------------------------

My Thoughts:

I think the new voting requirements are a massive improvement on the old system. I think this new system deserve plaudits for its efforts at emphasizing inclusion in the forums as a requisite for voting and for its willingness to enfranchise those who participate in the polls/opinions sections. That being said, I do have some issues with this set of requirements.

Firstly, I think the minimum 3 debates (without forfeits) is too low. A lot of members have 1 round debates or debates where their posts for each round are 1 or 2 sentences, and those are counted towards their eligibility requirements. I believe that those kinds of debates ought not to be counted. I think either increasing the number of total debates required (thus increasing the likelihood of having three substantive debates) or setting a minimum number of rounds would be prudent.

Secondly, if I understand these requirements correctly, they disenfranchise people who just post. I don't think that's fair. The forums are the hub of the community, and people who just post can still be highly aware of community business and may still be invested in the community. I think that people who just post should still be entitled to vote.

Thirdly, again--if I understand this correctly--this system would not enfranchise people with 250 Opinions/Polls and 100 posts but who have not debated. I don't think this is good either; you don't need to have debated to have shown commitment to the community or to have sufficient knowledge of the on-goings of the community to cast a ballot. I do, however, believe that people with the set number of Opinions/Polls should be required to engage in the forums prior to voting, which it doesn't seem like they currently are.

If my interpretation of these rules is wrong, I would appreciate any corrects. I actually found the multiple iterations of the rules to have made them less clear, instead of more clear. I went with the iteration I found most straightforward.

I know my preferences for requirements are much higher than other peoples. On the survey, I would have picked 6 months on the site, 10 debates, and 500 forum posts as the only way to qualify. But a lot of people think the requirements should be much lower based on the survey I did, and I think the current requirements reflect that.

It's certainly possible to raise the requirements again, if there are problems again, but I think for now a significant improvement over the old rules is sufficient if it eliminates the type of ground campaign that happened in the previous election with random unknown users deciding the outcome.

I think though that if we're being real, we'd recognize that if we are going to have requirements at all, they should be higher. In American democracy, you're not disenfranchised no matter how little you know about the candidates. You're allowed to vote for McCain because "Obama sounds too much like Osama." We've rejected such a system already on DDO by having requirements of any sort aimed at ensuring some knowledge of the candidates.

The new requirements are aimed at ensuring a threshold *chance* that the voter knows the candidates. But the 2 month and 3 debate requirement are pretty low. You're still capturing a lot of users who know little to nothing about the site. And there will still be ground campaigns to get those users to vote for a certain candidate in a contested election, and they are easy to sway because they don't really know either user.

If you imagine a 6 month, 10 debate, 500 post requirement, you've eliminated almost everyone who doesn't know anything about the site or its regular users (the ones who run for office). It may be a little underinclusive, in the sense that there may be a few users who do know about the site but don't meet those requirements, but those users have been around long enough that if they really wanted to meet those requirements, they could. Personally, I don't know why we bend over backwards for users who don't ever want to debate. It is the site's core feature. I'm not going to lie: I do like some of the users a lot who never debate, but I think they should try their hand at it. Because it is a debate site.

Conclusion: the new requirements are a compromise, and whether you like that compromise is going to depend on how stringent or lax of requirements you wanted. That said, if we are going to have requirements at all, we might as well acknowledge that we want to exclude everyone who has no idea who the candidates are, so it makes more sense to have stricter requirements since the probability that someone with only 3 debates and 100 posts actually knows both candidates is far closer to zero than it is to 100%.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 8:54:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I've Started this Debate on the Topic: http://www.debate.org...
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: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 9:04:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Nvm...here's the debate: http://www.debate.org...
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: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 9:04:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 8:51:44 PM, bluesteel wrote:

I know my preferences for requirements are much higher than other peoples. On the survey, I would have picked 6 months on the site, 10 debates, and 500 forum posts as the only way to qualify. But a lot of people think the requirements should be much lower based on the survey I did, and I think the current requirements reflect that.

I am not sure what survey you're referring to...I didn't ever see one.

It's certainly possible to raise the requirements again, if there are problems again, but I think for now a significant improvement over the old rules is sufficient if it eliminates the type of ground campaign that happened in the previous election with random unknown users deciding the outcome.

My issue is that it raises the wrong requirements. Sure, it excludes a lot of noobs by requiring 2 months of membership, but just because my account is 2 months old that does not mean I have a commitment to the site or have any knowledge of site issues. 3 half-a$$ed debates and a few opinion arguments and--poof!--I can vote. So, it doesn't actually eliminate that kind of ground game. I think the only way to do that is to have a requirement that people be involved in the forums.

The new requirements are aimed at ensuring a threshold *chance* that the voter knows the candidates. But the 2 month and 3 debate requirement are pretty low.

Agreed.

If you imagine a 6 month, 10 debate, 500 post requirement, you've eliminated almost everyone who doesn't know anything about the site or its regular users (the ones who run for office). It may be a little underinclusive, in the sense that there may be a few users who do know about the site but don't meet those requirements, but those users have been around long enough that if they really wanted to meet those requirements, they could.

Frankly, I think that idea is not just a little underinclusive...it is extremely underinclusive.

Conclusion: the new requirements are a compromise, and whether you like that compromise is going to depend on how stringent or lax of requirements you wanted.

I mean, I think your comments are interesting, but they don't really address the specific objections I raised.
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
1/11/2015 9:17:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 9:04:25 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/11/2015 8:51:44 PM, bluesteel wrote:

I know my preferences for requirements are much higher than other peoples. On the survey, I would have picked 6 months on the site, 10 debates, and 500 forum posts as the only way to qualify. But a lot of people think the requirements should be much lower based on the survey I did, and I think the current requirements reflect that.

I am not sure what survey you're referring to...I didn't ever see one.

It's certainly possible to raise the requirements again, if there are problems again, but I think for now a significant improvement over the old rules is sufficient if it eliminates the type of ground campaign that happened in the previous election with random unknown users deciding the outcome.

My issue is that it raises the wrong requirements. Sure, it excludes a lot of noobs by requiring 2 months of membership, but just because my account is 2 months old that does not mean I have a commitment to the site or have any knowledge of site issues. 3 half-a$$ed debates and a few opinion arguments and--poof!--I can vote. So, it doesn't actually eliminate that kind of ground game. I think the only way to do that is to have a requirement that people be involved in the forums.

The new requirements are aimed at ensuring a threshold *chance* that the voter knows the candidates. But the 2 month and 3 debate requirement are pretty low.

Agreed.

If you imagine a 6 month, 10 debate, 500 post requirement, you've eliminated almost everyone who doesn't know anything about the site or its regular users (the ones who run for office). It may be a little underinclusive, in the sense that there may be a few users who do know about the site but don't meet those requirements, but those users have been around long enough that if they really wanted to meet those requirements, they could.

Frankly, I think that idea is not just a little underinclusive...it is extremely underinclusive.

Conclusion: the new requirements are a compromise, and whether you like that compromise is going to depend on how stringent or lax of requirements you wanted.

I mean, I think your comments are interesting, but they don't really address the specific objections I raised.

I meant to say that all the people on the site have different levels of tolerance for how many people and whom they are willing to disenfranchise. Danielle and I have *zero* problem disenfranchising people who only use the opinions and polls section. Others disagree. I have some reservations about disenfranchising people with zero debates, but ultimately conclude that if they really wanted to vote, they'd just do the debates. It's not that big a deal. If they are SO opposed to debating, yet they've been around for awhile and got to know all the candidates, I kind of question why they are so devoted to a debating site yet entirely refuse to ever debate at all. Maybe that isn't someone that should be considered to have contributed sufficiently to the community. If they're not debating, they're not voting on debates, etc. To me, the debating is the site's core functionality, and the slug-fests on the Religion and other forums are a side-show. Other users might disagree, but we'll just have to agree to disagree then because I think that all forum battles are stupid, emphasize the wrong skills, and result in two debaters arguing for each other rather than for a judge, which results in neither listening and both forgetting to make the most convincing case because they get too focused on minutiae. So I don't really have much of a problem disenfranchising people with zero debates because I question why they don't want to contribute to that part of the site. And a lot of the most problematic users are or were forum warriors.

In sum, I think what I said and am saying is relevant. I don't think you can prove your system is objectively better than any other. Each person has different tolerances for disenfranchisement. You want to disenfranchise more debaters (by raising the debate requirement) and enfranchise more non-debaters (by having more non-debate paths to voting). Others would disagree. I think ultimately whatever solution is arrived upon will be a compromise. I don't think your proposal is a bad one; I kind of just don't care enough at this point to argue for another change. I'd have preferred a slightly more stringent system, but we got what we got. I don't think the presidency is valuable enough to spend countless hours debating the voting system.
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
1/11/2015 9:22:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 12:52:39 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Here are the New Requirements:

So to qualify to vote you have to be a member for 2 months, have 3 completed debates (all completed before the day of the election) and 100 forum posts.

Or, 2 months membership, 3 completed debates and 250 combined Opinion Arguments, Opinion Questions, Poll Votes, Poll Topics.

[http://www.debate.org...]

---------------------------

My Thoughts:

I think the new voting requirements are a massive improvement on the old system. I think this new system deserve plaudits for its efforts at emphasizing inclusion in the forums as a requisite for voting and for its willingness to enfranchise those who participate in the polls/opinions sections. That being said, I do have some issues with this set of requirements.

Firstly, I think the minimum 3 debates (without forfeits) is too low. A lot of members have 1 round debates or debates where their posts for each round are 1 or 2 sentences, and those are counted towards their eligibility requirements. I believe that those kinds of debates ought not to be counted. I think either increasing the number of total debates required (thus increasing the likelihood of having three substantive debates) or setting a minimum number of rounds would be prudent.

Secondly, if I understand these requirements correctly, they disenfranchise people who just post. I don't think that's fair. The forums are the hub of the community, and people who just post can still be highly aware of community business and may still be invested in the community. I think that people who just post should still be entitled to vote.

Thirdly, again--if I understand this correctly--this system would not enfranchise people with 250 Opinions/Polls and 100 posts but who have not debated. I don't think this is good either; you don't need to have debated to have shown commitment to the community or to have sufficient knowledge of the on-goings of the community to cast a ballot. I do, however, believe that people with the set number of Opinions/Polls should be required to engage in the forums prior to voting, which it doesn't seem like they currently are.

If my interpretation of these rules is wrong, I would appreciate any corrects. I actually found the multiple iterations of the rules to have made them less clear, instead of more clear. I went with the iteration I found most straightforward.

It also doesn't make sense to me to say {3 debates is too low, it's too easy a requirement to meet} and then say {but people who only post in the forums can't meet the 3 debate requirement; that's not fair}.

I understand your point is about them not having a desire to debate, but if the 3 debate minimum is such an easy threshold, why can't the forum-exclusives just do 3 debates then, if they really want to vote?
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 9:25:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 9:17:38 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 1/11/2015 9:04:25 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I mean, I think your comments are interesting, but they don't really address the specific objections I raised.

I have some reservations about disenfranchising people with zero debates, but ultimately conclude that if they really wanted to vote, they'd just do the debates. It's not that big a deal.

I don't think people should be forced to debate just in order to vote. If they are involved in the community--if they have the knowledge and investment needed to cast a good ballot--then I see no reason to disenfranchise them on the sole basis that they haven't done debates.

To me, the debating is the site's core functionality, and the slug-fests on the Religion and other forums are a side-show.

Sure, the act of debating is the sites core function, but that can play out just as much in the forums or the opinions as in formal debates. I think the implication that real debates only happen in the debate section is a bit of a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Other users might disagree, but we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Done.

In sum, I think what I said and am saying is relevant. I don't think you can prove your system is objectively better than any other.

I can prove it objectively, but I can make an argument that might persuade others.
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: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 9:29:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 9:22:12 PM, bluesteel wrote:

It also doesn't make sense to me to say {3 debates is too low, it's too easy a requirement to meet} and then say {but people who only post in the forums can't meet the 3 debate requirement; that's not fair}.

I think it is easier to be insulated from the community when you only do debates than hen you only post. On balance, someone who has made 1,000 posts is far more likely to be aware of community issues than someone who has done 3 debates. Frankly, I think the forums are the hub of the community, and that the president is a community leader.

I understand your point is about them not having a desire to debate, but if the 3 debate minimum is such an easy threshold, why can't the forum-exclusives just do 3 debates then, if they really want to vote?

Why should they have to? I mean, I feel like that's just an unnecessary burden to levy on them, however small, when we could just enfranchise them with a simple rule change.
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...