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

Moderator Update: Voting stuff

airmax1227
Posts: 13,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 7:53:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hey DDO!

How's it goin? I hope you are having a wonderful week, and that all is well.

A decent number of voting related issues have come up lately and while I imagine we will have many conversations about how best to deal with refining voting standards, that is not what this thread is about.

At this point, the basic standards of voting require that one explain all points awarded and give a sufficient RFD. There's a bit more to it then that which I'm happy to expand on, but that's the basic gist, and a lack of that in a vote will lead to a vote being deleted. I'm sure we will continue to have many discussions about this standard and how to improve on it in a practical way, but again, that isn't what this thread is intended for. Instead, I want to announce a few things that I hope will improve the process of moderating votes and working on new voting standards, as well as reiterate a couple of rules that haven't ever really been stated explicitly.

1) Bluesteel is being appointed as the Voting Issues Moderator.

I'd like to thank Bluesteel for agreeing to do this. He and I have worked on voting issues (as well as general site moderation issues) for a long time now, and I believe that having him work on this in a formal manner will allow me to more effectively delegate those responsibilities. As with anything on the site, the ultimate decision is up to me, and therefore all blame should be directed at me. I believe that by having Bluesteel's assistance on these issues, we can more quickly resolve voting issues. These issues relate to dealing with poor votes, improving voting standards, dealing with vote collusion, retributive voting, voter harassment, and any other vote related issues that come up.

As mentioned, Bluesteel and I have worked on site issues, including vote related issues, for a long time now and I am looking forward to having him do this in an official capacity. I am confident that delegating many of the voting issues to him will allow a quicker and ultimately more fair process of vote moderation issues.

Members are still able to PM me about any voting issues they may have, but are encouraged to contact Bluesteel first so that he may review the situation in full and then offer a recommendation to me. I will still certainly do my due diligence, but having Bluesteel break down the important aspects and offer his thoughts should provide a quicker, more comprehensive form of moderation for these issues.

While the following is subject to change and be refined, Bluesteel was kind enough to offer a quick and basic explanation for how he intends to approach voting moderation. It's worth noting that not a lot of this is an actual change from the current intended approach, but is a detailed explanation for it and should be better enforced now that there is an individual specifically dedicated to doing so:

(1) (A) No argument point vote will ever be removed merely because the moderator disagrees with its conclusion. As long as it is evident from the RFD that the person read the debate and weighed the arguments, the vote will never be removed. (B) What we're policing here is for votes based on *bias* or *not finishing reading the debate.* Votes that based on the voters own arguments on the topic, which were not made in the debate, or raise an inference that the voter made the decision made on a personal opinion, not an argument made in the debate, will be subject to removal. (C) Procedure. The vote will be removed, and the voter will be notified. The voter can reissue the RFD and try to provide reasons that are sufficient and non-biased. If votes are removed prior to the voting period ending, no harm is done to the voter, who can simply revote and provide a more sufficient RFD.

(2) (A) Source votes are often used strategically, so unfortunately these need to be policed a little more stringently than arguments. A source vote will be removed if it references that one side merely had more sources, unless the other side simply had too few sources to support his or her position. The website requires that the sources be "better," not more numerous, so a mere reference to numerical quantity (i.e. "Con had two more sources than Pro") is not a sufficient reason by itself. (B) Votes based on conduct related to sources will also be removed because these belong as conduct point votes, e.g. "Con's sources were inaccessible to Pro because they were in a book," or "Con posted all his sources in an external link." These have nothing to do with source quality, which is what the point is about. (C) Procedure. Bad source votes will also be removed. The voter can revote and provide a more sufficient justification.

(3) S&G. (A) Unfortunately, these points are also often used strategically. The moderator will skim a debate where S&G points are awarded. If it is not immediately apparent that one side had serious grammar and spelling problems, the vote will not be removed, but rather, the voter will be notified and will have 48 hours to justify the vote by pointing to specific S&G problems that led to their vote. We are unwilling to say that a specific number of S&G problems will justify a point, but the number of problems does have to be more than one or two.

(4) Conduct. (A) Wider latitude is granted with this point. This point is meant to ensure that competitors treat judges nicely and competitors nicely. (B) However, actual debate arguments are not justifications for rewarding conduct, i.e. moving the goalposts or defining a word in an abusive way. These are problems that the opponent could have answered by pointing out what was happening and offering a counterargument. The judge's resolution of this issue is reflected in his or her argument point vote, so allowing it to show up in conduct as well would be double counting. (C) Procedure. Since conduct is only one point, a voter's valid argument point and/or sources vote will not be immediately removed for a bad conduct point vote. The voter will be given 24 hours to remove the invalid conduct point vote; if the voter fails to do so, the entire vote will be removed.

(5) Re-voting will always be treated as suspect, especially under the 7-point system. If there is evidence that a voter changed his or her vote to award more points, the RFD will be held to a much higher standard because -- on its face -- this appears like strategic voting behavior.

6) The following *may* result in a temporary and/or permanent loss of voting privileges, at the discretion of the moderator:

(a) an obvious vote bomb with absolutely no justification

(b) repeated mod removal of marginal votes

(c) encouraging vote countering; dealing with votes is up to the moderator, not the users, and when you encourage countering, you make our job harder

(d) proof that a user encouraged someone to vote without reading the debate

Once again, I'd like to thank Bluesteel for agreeing to help with this. Any member with any questions about this should feel free to contact Bluesteel or I at any time so that we may address any questions or concerns.
Debate.org Moderator
airmax1227
Posts: 13,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 7:53:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
2) Voter harassment

I'm just going to offer a basic guideline on this so we can discuss it first, and then I will offer a more comprehensive guideline in the near future for things related to this that I view as problematic.

It is fine to ask judges clarification questions so you fully understand their RFD. It's not okay to argue with them, no matter why you're doing it, whether you want them to change their mind, you're just mad, or you don't really know why you're doing it. Arguing with every judge who votes creates a disincentive for people to vote on that debate, or at least to vote against you. That's not fair. Even worse forms of harassment are obviously not acceptable conduct, like blatantly calling voters names, belittling them, or PMing them to continue said harassment.

Some language I'd like to refine in explaining this is essentially the following:

Vote intimidation is not allowed. Voting intimidation is any action or series of actions that deter voters from voting or to change or influence their votes on a given debate; voter intimidation involves passive or explicit threats, insults, harassment, or other coercive tactics.

All of this is necessary to discuss, but I feel like this is a good starting point.

3) Vote lobbying

Again, I'm just providing the basic guidelines and issues here to we may discuss it. In the near future I will provide a more comprehensive explanation for what is and isn't acceptable.

It's never okay to tell someone to vote *for* you, or for anyone. You can ask people to vote on a debate, but you shouldn't be dictating the outcome to them.

Specific examples of problematic vote lobbying behavior includes the following:

1. Soliciting a Votebomb

This could be defined as importuning or requesting users to vote on a debate in favor of a specific side. This offense could be committed by a debater, or by a third party.

2. Orchestrating a Votebombing Campaign (Rigging a Debate)

This could be defined as importuning or requesting large numbers of users to vote on a debate in favor of a specific side in order to ensure that side's ultimate victory in the debate. A "large number" could constitute 10 or more people. This offense could be committed by a debater, or by a third party.

3. Vote Bribing

This could be defined as soliciting a vote in your favor by promising to return that favor in kind or by offering some other kind of favor as payment.

As with the above, this is intended to spur a discussion on how we should define and address these issues.

Thank you, I look forward to an interesting a productive discussion on these issues and once again would like to thank Bluesteel for his contributions up to this point, and for what I expect to be very helpful contributions moving forward.
Debate.org Moderator
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:01:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 7:53:12 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
1) Bluesteel is being appointed as the Voting Issues Moderator.

Cool.
"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
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:01:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think that the voting issues moderator idea is a good one, and I think Bluesteel is an excellent choice for that role.

My one concern is this: "Con's sources were inaccessible to Pro because they were in a book."

That is NOT a conduct issue, it's a sources issue--it relates directly to the credibility of a source. A source is less credible if I cannot reasonably access it to verify its legitimacy. Therefore, linked sources are "better" because they're credibility is at least ascertainable.
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...
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:02:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I would like to put everyone at ease and assure you all that I approved of airmax's actions and will be personally overseeing these updates for a brief probationary period to ensure their smooth implementation. If anyone has any questions, concerns, or issues whatsoever with these updates, please do not hesitate for a moment to PM thett and he will address them immediately.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:03:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I also agree strongly with post number 2 (obviously, since I helped define those terms) and I would actually support adding them as rules into the code of conduct in some form to assist moderation when those particular issues arise.
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...
airmax1227
Posts: 13,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:06:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:02:26 PM, Maikuru wrote:
I would like to put everyone at ease and assure you all that I approved of airmax's actions and will be personally overseeing these updates for a brief probationary period to ensure their smooth implementation. If anyone has any questions, concerns, or issues whatsoever with these updates, please do not hesitate for a moment to PM thett and he will address them immediately.

haha as much as I (and I'm sure Thett) appreciate this, there weren't any actual updates implemented here, aside from appointing Bluesteel as the Voting Issues Moderator. Everything else is intended to promote discussion.
Debate.org Moderator
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:06:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Discussing votes with voters is always permissible whether there is a specific policy against it or not. Otherwise, this policy looks good.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:09:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:06:59 PM, YYW wrote:
Discussing votes with voters is always permissible whether there is a specific policy against it or not. Otherwise, this policy looks good.

In general, I agree.

I think, however, a voter should, after a reasonable amount of clarification/discussion, be able to stop discussing it. Any further discourse would then turn, IMO, to harassment and voter intimidation.
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: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:13:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:09:53 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:06:59 PM, YYW wrote:
Discussing votes with voters is always permissible whether there is a specific policy against it or not. Otherwise, this policy looks good.

In general, I agree.

I think, however, a voter should, after a reasonable amount of clarification/discussion, be able to stop discussing it. Any further discourse would then turn, IMO, to harassment and voter intimidation.

The line between harassment and intimidation can be a hard one to draw, but I'm confident in Bluesteel's ability to draw it. The reason I say this here is because I don't want people to get the idea that saying that a voter is wrong or critiquing an RFD rises to the level of harassment, because it does not.

Recent events widely known to all of us have made voting a subject of some considerable degree of frustration across the site. That should not give rise to a desire to pass some kind of policy to limit discourse about RFD's, however. RFD's can be critiqued without judges being harassed, and they should be where they are wrong, because this is a learning community before it is anything else.

That said, I will never have open voting on any debate I do again.
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:16:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:01:58 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I think that the voting issues moderator idea is a good one, and I think Bluesteel is an excellent choice for that role.

My one concern is this: "Con's sources were inaccessible to Pro because they were in a book."

That is NOT a conduct issue, it's a sources issue--it relates directly to the credibility of a source. A source is less credible if I cannot reasonably access it to verify its legitimacy. If we keep giving voters more convenience, then we will have voter welfare and develop a voter entitlement society. Therefore, linked sources are "better" because they're credibility is at least ascertainable.

I disagree. I use sources all the time that are books and there's no problem with them because otherwise voters would have taken note and voted against me in sources, but this has only happened on one occasion. It MUST be up to the voters to be responsible with voting and looks up the credibility of the author as well as the book through reviews or their own reading. This is just like a professor reading an essay.
"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: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:17:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:13:20 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:09:53 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:06:59 PM, YYW wrote:
Discussing votes with voters is always permissible whether there is a specific policy against it or not. Otherwise, this policy looks good.

In general, I agree.

I think, however, a voter should, after a reasonable amount of clarification/discussion, be able to stop discussing it. Any further discourse would then turn, IMO, to harassment and voter intimidation.

The line between harassment and intimidation can be a hard one to draw, but I'm confident in Bluesteel's ability to draw it. The reason I say this here is because I don't want people to get the idea that saying that a voter is wrong or critiquing an RFD rises to the level of harassment, because it does not.

There is nothing wrong with critiquing an RFD as such. It becomes problematic when critiques become caustic or when ad hominems are used as part of the critique.
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: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:20:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:17:07 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:13:20 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:09:53 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:06:59 PM, YYW wrote:
Discussing votes with voters is always permissible whether there is a specific policy against it or not. Otherwise, this policy looks good.

In general, I agree.

I think, however, a voter should, after a reasonable amount of clarification/discussion, be able to stop discussing it. Any further discourse would then turn, IMO, to harassment and voter intimidation.

The line between harassment and intimidation can be a hard one to draw, but I'm confident in Bluesteel's ability to draw it. The reason I say this here is because I don't want people to get the idea that saying that a voter is wrong or critiquing an RFD rises to the level of harassment, because it does not.

There is nothing wrong with critiquing an RFD as such. It becomes problematic when critiques become caustic or when ad hominems are used as part of the critique.

I would agree with that too, but the line between what constitutes a caustic RFD critique and what does not is one that different people would draw in different places.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:22:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:16:44 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:01:58 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I think that the voting issues moderator idea is a good one, and I think Bluesteel is an excellent choice for that role.

My one concern is this: "Con's sources were inaccessible to Pro because they were in a book."

That is NOT a conduct issue, it's a sources issue--it relates directly to the credibility of a source. A source is less credible if I cannot reasonably access it to verify its legitimacy. If we keep giving voters more convenience, then we will have voter welfare and develop a voter entitlement society. Therefore, linked sources are "better" because they're credibility is at least ascertainable.

I disagree. I use sources all the time that are books and there's no problem with them because otherwise voters would have taken note and voted against me in sources, but this has only happened on one occasion.

Okay, just because other people don't do it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. This is a form of an ad populum fallacy. I think it's actually a perfectly reasonable objection to raise to sources. Sure, if you use one or two books and the debate doesn't hinge on the info drawn from those sources, it's not a big deal. But if a lot of books are used, it becomes problematic.

There are several factors that go into determining whether a source is "better" or not. Relevance, accuracy, accessibility, etc. are all important.

It MUST be up to the voters to be responsible with voting and looks up the credibility of the author as well as the book through reviews or their own reading. This is just like a professor reading an essay.

Sure, the voters bear some responsibility for checking up on sources. But, even if I can confirm your book exists, if I cannot find the text of that book, I cannot confirm that the book says what you say it says, and I cannot, to flip a phrase, judge the validity of the context of the book simply by the book's cover. I need the text.

The voter does not bear a duty to do any heavy research on the sources, IMO. That puts too much of an onus on the voter. Every voter should do a cursory check, but if that cannot produce the requisite information, it should count against the source.
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: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:27:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I will say this too... there is a lot of language in here that really could (and should) be cleaned up because it's ambiguous. But, at the end of the day, if enforcement overreaches, it's going to blow back on the mods... so I'm really not worried.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:28:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:06:10 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:02:26 PM, Maikuru wrote:
I would like to put everyone at ease and assure you all that I approved of airmax's actions and will be personally overseeing these updates for a brief probationary period to ensure their smooth implementation. If anyone has any questions, concerns, or issues whatsoever with these updates, please do not hesitate for a moment to PM thett and he will address them immediately.

haha as much as I (and I'm sure Thett) appreciate this, there weren't any actual updates implemented here, aside from appointing Bluesteel as the Voting Issues Moderator. Everything else is intended to promote discussion.

This is awkward, but I'd appreciate it if we did our best to keep disagreements like these out of sight of the hoi polloi. We'll discuss it further in our Enlightened Leaders Intellectually Tackling Engagement, or E.L.I.T.E., PM. Thank you.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
airmax1227
Posts: 13,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:30:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:28:15 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:06:10 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:02:26 PM, Maikuru wrote:
I would like to put everyone at ease and assure you all that I approved of airmax's actions and will be personally overseeing these updates for a brief probationary period to ensure their smooth implementation. If anyone has any questions, concerns, or issues whatsoever with these updates, please do not hesitate for a moment to PM thett and he will address them immediately.

haha as much as I (and I'm sure Thett) appreciate this, there weren't any actual updates implemented here, aside from appointing Bluesteel as the Voting Issues Moderator. Everything else is intended to promote discussion.

This is awkward, but I'd appreciate it if we did our best to keep disagreements like these out of sight of the hoi polloi. We'll discuss it further in our Enlightened Leaders Intellectually Tackling Engagement, or E.L.I.T.E., PM. Thank you.

Fair enough, and that works... my bad
Debate.org Moderator
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:31:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:30:12 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:28:15 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:06:10 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:02:26 PM, Maikuru wrote:
I would like to put everyone at ease and assure you all that I approved of airmax's actions and will be personally overseeing these updates for a brief probationary period to ensure their smooth implementation. If anyone has any questions, concerns, or issues whatsoever with these updates, please do not hesitate for a moment to PM thett and he will address them immediately.

haha as much as I (and I'm sure Thett) appreciate this, there weren't any actual updates implemented here, aside from appointing Bluesteel as the Voting Issues Moderator. Everything else is intended to promote discussion.

This is awkward, but I'd appreciate it if we did our best to keep disagreements like these out of sight of the hoi polloi. We'll discuss it further in our Enlightened Leaders Intellectually Tackling Engagement, or E.L.I.T.E., PM. Thank you.

Fair enough, and that works... my bad

I think your clarification was appropriate; even though Makiuru was clearly being sarcastic (in a weird sort of way), it could be misinterpreted by someone who wasn't aware of his unique sense of humor.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:33:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:20:47 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:17:07 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:13:20 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:09:53 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:06:59 PM, YYW wrote:
Discussing votes with voters is always permissible whether there is a specific policy against it or not. Otherwise, this policy looks good.

In general, I agree.

I think, however, a voter should, after a reasonable amount of clarification/discussion, be able to stop discussing it. Any further discourse would then turn, IMO, to harassment and voter intimidation.

The line between harassment and intimidation can be a hard one to draw, but I'm confident in Bluesteel's ability to draw it. The reason I say this here is because I don't want people to get the idea that saying that a voter is wrong or critiquing an RFD rises to the level of harassment, because it does not.

There is nothing wrong with critiquing an RFD as such. It becomes problematic when critiques become caustic or when ad hominems are used as part of the critique.

I would agree with that too, but the line between what constitutes a caustic RFD critique and what does not is one that different people would draw in different places.

I think a stricter interpretation is probably better.
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...
airmax1227
Posts: 13,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:34:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:27:07 PM, YYW wrote:
I will say this too... there is a lot of language in here that really could (and should) be cleaned up because it's ambiguous. But, at the end of the day, if enforcement overreaches, it's going to blow back on the mods... so I'm really not worried.

I agree and the intent isn't to overreach or to make voting moderation discouraging of voting (I'm very cognizant of finding that balance between good vote moderation but not in discouraging voting). I did want to post the language above to give us plenty to discuss though, but in terms of immediate changes, all that is occurring is that Bluesteel is taking a lot of the voting moderation analysis stuff off my plate.

Otherwise I agree that it is in places ambiguous and doesn't define well certain areas. This wasn't intended as policy language though, and simply, as I said above, is a general idea of how Bluesteel feels about voting areas generally, and things we should discuss moving forward.
Debate.org Moderator
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:36:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:33:27 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:20:47 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:17:07 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:13:20 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:09:53 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:06:59 PM, YYW wrote:
Discussing votes with voters is always permissible whether there is a specific policy against it or not. Otherwise, this policy looks good.

In general, I agree.

I think, however, a voter should, after a reasonable amount of clarification/discussion, be able to stop discussing it. Any further discourse would then turn, IMO, to harassment and voter intimidation.

The line between harassment and intimidation can be a hard one to draw, but I'm confident in Bluesteel's ability to draw it. The reason I say this here is because I don't want people to get the idea that saying that a voter is wrong or critiquing an RFD rises to the level of harassment, because it does not.

There is nothing wrong with critiquing an RFD as such. It becomes problematic when critiques become caustic or when ad hominems are used as part of the critique.

I would agree with that too, but the line between what constitutes a caustic RFD critique and what does not is one that different people would draw in different places.

I think a stricter interpretation is probably better.

What we're trying to balance here is the interest in promoting discourse v. discouraging drama. Policies are more or less "guidelines" in how to achieve the content we want on this site, and the ultimate issue is beyond the reach of any policy -it's how people chose to conduct themselves when they interact with each other. Policies can affect those choices, but what we really want is for people to do the right thing.
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:38:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:34:56 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:27:07 PM, YYW wrote:
I will say this too... there is a lot of language in here that really could (and should) be cleaned up because it's ambiguous. But, at the end of the day, if enforcement overreaches, it's going to blow back on the mods... so I'm really not worried.

I agree and the intent isn't to overreach or to make voting moderation discouraging of voting (I'm very cognizant of finding that balance between good vote moderation but not in discouraging voting). I did want to post the language above to give us plenty to discuss though, but in terms of immediate changes, all that is occurring is that Bluesteel is taking a lot of the voting moderation analysis stuff off my plate.

Otherwise I agree that it is in places ambiguous and doesn't define well certain areas. This wasn't intended as policy language though, and simply, as I said above, is a general idea of how Bluesteel feels about voting areas generally, and things we should discuss moving forward.

I'll clean it up, if Bluesteel doesn't, sometime in the future. Since (per bsh1's request) I'm not critiquing his debate with Cassie, I should have time to do that this weekend.

But the thing to keep in mind is that what's really important here is that we want people to buy into the reason for the policy, so that they act in accord with it because it's the right thing to do, as opposed to because they don't want to put up with unpleasantness from you.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:38:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:31:22 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:30:12 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:28:15 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:06:10 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:02:26 PM, Maikuru wrote:
I would like to put everyone at ease and assure you all that I approved of airmax's actions and will be personally overseeing these updates for a brief probationary period to ensure their smooth implementation. If anyone has any questions, concerns, or issues whatsoever with these updates, please do not hesitate for a moment to PM thett and he will address them immediately.

haha as much as I (and I'm sure Thett) appreciate this, there weren't any actual updates implemented here, aside from appointing Bluesteel as the Voting Issues Moderator. Everything else is intended to promote discussion.

This is awkward, but I'd appreciate it if we did our best to keep disagreements like these out of sight of the hoi polloi. We'll discuss it further in our Enlightened Leaders Intellectually Tackling Engagement, or E.L.I.T.E., PM. Thank you.

Fair enough, and that works... my bad

I think your clarification was appropriate; even though Makiuru was clearly being sarcastic (in a weird sort of way), it could be misinterpreted by someone who wasn't aware of his unique sense of humor.

I understood his joke (and thought it was funny), but felt like it was a good opportunity to make it clear to others that this is mostly just a discussion thread - in contrast to a declaration of new policies (which can unfortunately be easily misunderstood sometimes)
Debate.org Moderator
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:38:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:22:20 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:16:44 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:01:58 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I think that the voting issues moderator idea is a good one, and I think Bluesteel is an excellent choice for that role.

My one concern is this: "Con's sources were inaccessible to Pro because they were in a book."

That is NOT a conduct issue, it's a sources issue--it relates directly to the credibility of a source. A source is less credible if I cannot reasonably access it to verify its legitimacy. If we keep giving voters more convenience, then we will have voter welfare and develop a voter entitlement society. Therefore, linked sources are "better" because they're credibility is at least ascertainable.

I disagree. I use sources all the time that are books and there's no problem with them because otherwise voters would have taken note and voted against me in sources, but this has only happened on one occasion.

Okay, just because other people don't do it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. This is a form of an ad populum fallacy. I think it's actually a perfectly reasonable objection to raise to sources. Sure, if you use one or two books and the debate doesn't hinge on the info drawn from those sources, it's not a big deal. But if a lot of books are used, it becomes problematic.

However, we know that voters do validate sources and if they feel that my sources are weak, equal, or stronger than my opponents they will vote accordingly based on their research into my sources. It also makes DDO more educational by having voters go on an expedition to research the reliability of sources, which is important in real life.


There are several factors that go into determining whether a source is "better" or not. Relevance, accuracy, accessibility, etc. are all important.

You can actually find out how reliable a source is through reviews, either professional or from something like Amazon, as well as researching the author. Most of what you argued ("relevance, accuracy, etc.") is dunked by Google.

It MUST be up to the voters to be responsible with voting and looks up the credibility of the author as well as the book through reviews or their own reading. This is just like a professor reading an essay.

Sure, the voters bear some responsibility for checking up on sources. But, even if I can confirm your book exists, if I cannot find the text of that book, I cannot confirm that the book says what you say it says, and I cannot, to flip a phrase, judge the validity of the context of the book simply by the book's cover. I need the text.

If you want to find out, email the author or contact through other means, then point to this debate and ask if they actually wrote that. Off course that is if you think I would be lying, which no one on DDO has ever done since everyone here is naturally good.

The voter does not bear a duty to do any heavy research on the sources, IMO. That puts too much of an onus on the voter. Every voter should do a cursory check, but if that cannot produce the requisite information, it should count against the source.

A simple cursory check is all you actually need. You are also assuming debaters would provide unreliable information.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:39:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:38:35 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:31:22 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:30:12 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:28:15 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:06:10 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:02:26 PM, Maikuru wrote:
I would like to put everyone at ease and assure you all that I approved of airmax's actions and will be personally overseeing these updates for a brief probationary period to ensure their smooth implementation. If anyone has any questions, concerns, or issues whatsoever with these updates, please do not hesitate for a moment to PM thett and he will address them immediately.

haha as much as I (and I'm sure Thett) appreciate this, there weren't any actual updates implemented here, aside from appointing Bluesteel as the Voting Issues Moderator. Everything else is intended to promote discussion.

This is awkward, but I'd appreciate it if we did our best to keep disagreements like these out of sight of the hoi polloi. We'll discuss it further in our Enlightened Leaders Intellectually Tackling Engagement, or E.L.I.T.E., PM. Thank you.

Fair enough, and that works... my bad

I think your clarification was appropriate; even though Makiuru was clearly being sarcastic (in a weird sort of way), it could be misinterpreted by someone who wasn't aware of his unique sense of humor.

I understood his joke (and thought it was funny), but felt like it was a good opportunity to make it clear to others that this is mostly just a discussion thread - in contrast to a declaration of new policies (which can unfortunately be easily misunderstood sometimes)

I think that was the right decision to make.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:40:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:38:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:34:56 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:27:07 PM, YYW wrote:
I will say this too... there is a lot of language in here that really could (and should) be cleaned up because it's ambiguous. But, at the end of the day, if enforcement overreaches, it's going to blow back on the mods... so I'm really not worried.

I agree and the intent isn't to overreach or to make voting moderation discouraging of voting (I'm very cognizant of finding that balance between good vote moderation but not in discouraging voting). I did want to post the language above to give us plenty to discuss though, but in terms of immediate changes, all that is occurring is that Bluesteel is taking a lot of the voting moderation analysis stuff off my plate.

Otherwise I agree that it is in places ambiguous and doesn't define well certain areas. This wasn't intended as policy language though, and simply, as I said above, is a general idea of how Bluesteel feels about voting areas generally, and things we should discuss moving forward.

I'll clean it up, if Bluesteel doesn't, sometime in the future. Since (per bsh1's request) I'm not critiquing his debate with Cassie, I should have time to do that this weekend.

But the thing to keep in mind is that what's really important here is that we want people to buy into the reason for the policy, so that they act in accord with it because it's the right thing to do, as opposed to because they don't want to put up with unpleasantness from you.

I'm certainly happy to see any language that you come up with. Send it to me via PM whenever you get the time.
Debate.org Moderator
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:41:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:36:41 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:33:27 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:20:47 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:17:07 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:13:20 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:09:53 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:06:59 PM, YYW wrote:
Discussing votes with voters is always permissible whether there is a specific policy against it or not. Otherwise, this policy looks good.

In general, I agree.

I think, however, a voter should, after a reasonable amount of clarification/discussion, be able to stop discussing it. Any further discourse would then turn, IMO, to harassment and voter intimidation.

The line between harassment and intimidation can be a hard one to draw, but I'm confident in Bluesteel's ability to draw it. The reason I say this here is because I don't want people to get the idea that saying that a voter is wrong or critiquing an RFD rises to the level of harassment, because it does not.

There is nothing wrong with critiquing an RFD as such. It becomes problematic when critiques become caustic or when ad hominems are used as part of the critique.

I would agree with that too, but the line between what constitutes a caustic RFD critique and what does not is one that different people would draw in different places.

I think a stricter interpretation is probably better.

What we're trying to balance here is the interest in promoting discourse v. discouraging drama.

That's not necessarily true. Voter intimidation doesn't have to incite drama...it can occur quite quietly or subtly. That's partly why it's such a pernicious threat.

I would frame the issues as balancing the right to cast a ballot without undue coercion and a debater's right to receive a fair hearing and get candid feedback against the community's right to discuss RFDs.

I think, at least in my POV, the former obviously outweighs the latter.

Policies can affect those choices, but what we really want is for people to do the right thing.

Sure, but the policies are there for when they don't. I just think the policies should be enforced a little more strictly.
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: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:42:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:40:54 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:38:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:34:56 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:27:07 PM, YYW wrote:
I will say this too... there is a lot of language in here that really could (and should) be cleaned up because it's ambiguous. But, at the end of the day, if enforcement overreaches, it's going to blow back on the mods... so I'm really not worried.

I agree and the intent isn't to overreach or to make voting moderation discouraging of voting (I'm very cognizant of finding that balance between good vote moderation but not in discouraging voting). I did want to post the language above to give us plenty to discuss though, but in terms of immediate changes, all that is occurring is that Bluesteel is taking a lot of the voting moderation analysis stuff off my plate.

Otherwise I agree that it is in places ambiguous and doesn't define well certain areas. This wasn't intended as policy language though, and simply, as I said above, is a general idea of how Bluesteel feels about voting areas generally, and things we should discuss moving forward.

I'll clean it up, if Bluesteel doesn't, sometime in the future. Since (per bsh1's request) I'm not critiquing his debate with Cassie, I should have time to do that this weekend.

But the thing to keep in mind is that what's really important here is that we want people to buy into the reason for the policy, so that they act in accord with it because it's the right thing to do, as opposed to because they don't want to put up with unpleasantness from you.

I'm certainly happy to see any language that you come up with. Send it to me via PM whenever you get the time.

It could be a week, or longer. But a policy like this is definitely necessary, given recent events. While there remain many specifics that need to be hammered out, this is a good conversation to be having.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:44:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:42:05 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:40:54 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:38:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:34:56 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:27:07 PM, YYW wrote:
I will say this too... there is a lot of language in here that really could (and should) be cleaned up because it's ambiguous. But, at the end of the day, if enforcement overreaches, it's going to blow back on the mods... so I'm really not worried.

I agree and the intent isn't to overreach or to make voting moderation discouraging of voting (I'm very cognizant of finding that balance between good vote moderation but not in discouraging voting). I did want to post the language above to give us plenty to discuss though, but in terms of immediate changes, all that is occurring is that Bluesteel is taking a lot of the voting moderation analysis stuff off my plate.

Otherwise I agree that it is in places ambiguous and doesn't define well certain areas. This wasn't intended as policy language though, and simply, as I said above, is a general idea of how Bluesteel feels about voting areas generally, and things we should discuss moving forward.

I'll clean it up, if Bluesteel doesn't, sometime in the future. Since (per bsh1's request) I'm not critiquing his debate with Cassie, I should have time to do that this weekend.

But the thing to keep in mind is that what's really important here is that we want people to buy into the reason for the policy, so that they act in accord with it because it's the right thing to do, as opposed to because they don't want to put up with unpleasantness from you.

I'm certainly happy to see any language that you come up with. Send it to me via PM whenever you get the time.

It could be a week, or longer. But a policy like this is definitely necessary, given recent events. While there remain many specifics that need to be hammered out, this is a good conversation to be having.

Whenever you get around to it is fine. I certainly think that having the discussion is worthwhile and I hope that many will share their opinions.
Debate.org Moderator
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:46:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:01:58 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I think that the voting issues moderator idea is a good one, and I think Bluesteel is an excellent choice for that role.

My one concern is this: "Con's sources were inaccessible to Pro because they were in a book."

It's a case-by-case issue. I can certainly see a situation where the book is called into question and one debater is sketchy about providing the original source material. Then it's certainly reasonable to penalize the debater the source point. I think the main issue is that strategic votes often cite a single source being inaccessible as a reasonable to double penalize sources and conduct. That's not appropriate, given that the "better quality sources" point is supposed to be an aggregate measure.


That is NOT a conduct issue, it's a sources issue--it relates directly to the credibility of a source. A source is less credible if I cannot reasonably access it to verify its legitimacy. Therefore, linked sources are "better" because they're credibility is at least ascertainable.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)