Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Vote Alliences and Retaliatory Voting

Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 3:04:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I believe voting should not be based on preexisting bias, I think it is safe to say the strong majority of us agree.

I am of the firm opinion voting alliances should not be allowed. This stems from my simple belief that DDO should be about each intellectual bout, not about things outside the debate, such as popularity and traded favors.

I outright believe if you can't separate the names of the debaters, from the arguments you're reading, you are weighting your vote based on something other than the debate, and thus should refrain from voting (or at least come back when you're clearheaded, and re-read the debate before voting).

A few hypothetical scenarios...

1.1: Bluesteel just deleted my AWESOME vote, so I'm going to go into all of his debates, and if in doubt vote against him, if he wins however I'll just refrain from voting.
1.2: Bluesteel just deleted an AWESOME vote in my favor, so I'm going to go into all of his debates, and if in doubt vote against him, if he wins however I'll just refrain from voting.
1.3: Bluesteel just voted against me on a debate... So he's on my list, I'm only going to vote against him, never for him, not even if his opponent FFs.

Do we all agree this behavior is both childish and intolerable?

Taking the personhood out of it

2.1: If user A votes votes against user B, B will retaliate by voting against A. But if A votes solely in B's favor, B will solely vote in A's favor.
2.2: If A is ever not nice (enough) to B..., B will retaliate by voting against A, or at least cease ever voting in A's favor. But if A is nice enough to B, B will solely vote in A's favor.

3.1: Someone starts a thread on the main forum titled 'Join My Voting Club,' by joining you agree to never vote against any other member; if you ever violate this you lose the protection, and they cast their previously withheld votes against you...
3.2: Voting Club against some issue, say any member who has X Ethnicity (or religion, or whatever) in their profile. Of course the founder of said club insists it's not racism (or other applicable ism), because they're just abstaining from voting in favor of an [explicit].

4.1: Airmax sees that one user only votes for a certain other user, and they share an IP address, but they explain to him they're brothers who use the same computer.

Am I missing something? Are there any positive consequences if everyone joined a voting alliance? I see it as very negative, we'd just sit around with the only potential votes being against new members, with those members unable to receive any favorable ones.
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

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

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 3:59:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I agree, bluesteel is the worst.

Voting alliances used to be rampant and devastating before the voting tab was created. Biases have become more subtle now, though it is still (and likely will always be) an issue to some degree. Blind voting along idealogical lines is an obvious example.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 9:59:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 3:59:37 PM, Maikuru wrote:
I agree, bluesteel is the worst.

Voting alliances used to be rampant and devastating before the voting tab was created. Biases have become more subtle now, though it is still (and likely will always be) an issue to some degree. Blind voting along idealogical lines is an obvious example.

I made this post when thinking about a recent complaints by a misogynist, who felt they didn't have to explain the points they award, because it's their moral duty to give like minded people some fluffing to keep them motivated, regardless of how badly they lost said debates. So yeah, blind voting along ideological lines.

The problem of course is not just the one user. I can't speak for the motivations of each user involved in this type of thing, but to me it seems to undermine the credibility of the debaters involved, that they feel so poorly about the arguments to need to artificially augment the vote count.

I know we will never wholly solve the underlying problem, but that's no reason to not fight against it. I will not share names, but I've gotten a decent bit of hatemail for not voting enough in peoples favor. Not even for voting against them (that too, but such is besides the point), but not awarding them enough points. Things like requests to never vote on any of their debates again. There was actually a user back when I joined, which whenever he started a debate he had a list of "cheaters" who were not allowed to vote, the list was primarily anyone who ever voted against him.

Interestingly, shortly after I started this thread, Airmax made a post about people who share a computer. I feel the problem is not the shared computer, but the clearly biased behavior, with those IP addresses being undeniable evidence. http://www.debate.org...
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

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

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 11:26:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 3:59:37 PM, Maikuru wrote:
I agree, bluesteel is the worst.
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...
debatability
Posts: 1,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 11:45:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 3:04:38 PM, Ragnar wrote:

Am I missing something? Are there any positive consequences if everyone joined a voting alliance? I see it as very negative, we'd just sit around with the only potential votes being against new members, with those members unable to receive any favorable ones.

I strongly agree the the presence of voting alliances lowers intellectual quality on debate.org. Debating on this website should be a learning experience - a time to figure out the flaws in your argument and become a better debater. The goal of debating on ddo is *not* to become the site's best debater, and even if someone did have such a goal, voting alliances would lower such an achievment.

Firstly, voting alliances are going to lower the quality of the votes themselves, even if users claim they would abstain from voting if they believe the desired winner lost the debate. If I promise thett I'll never vote against him because he's my best pal, I'm going to be more likely to read and evaluate his debates in a way that is biased towards him by ignoring the flaws in his arguments and focusing on the strengths as I compile my RFD so that I don't have to abstain from voting. Essentially, RFD's lose almost all credibility when voting alliances are present because users cannot be sure that debaters are voting against them because they truly lost.

Secondly, voting alliances lower the intellectual quality of the site. Voting alliances show that people are debating to win, not debating to learn. This is understandable, but alliances take the learning part out of debate. If everyone promises not to vote against me because i'm a female on the internet, I'll learn very little as I debate on this site, because people who feel I lost certian arguments won't be voicing their opinions and helping me get better.

So far, I've just talked about personal voting alliances. The same effects apply to alliances to a certian side of a particular argument. An example of that would be me voting up only arguments that support the legalization of marijuana because I love weed.

The problem with trying to take action against voting alliances, is that it's almost impossible to enforce their removal. This site has some pretty open voting alliances, examples being YYW abstaining from voting against BSH (they made a thread about the ethics of vote abstention) and chuz-life abstaining from voting against pro life arguments. While such conduct isn't banned under the TOS, I wouldn't deem such behavior appropriate. A few voting alliances aren't going to have the large scale impacts I've talked about above, but if one person is allowed to form an alliance, why not everyone? Such action should be discouraged, in my opinion, but I'm not really sure how action could be taken against it.
RevNge
Posts: 13,835
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 11:55:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 11:26:31 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 4/5/2015 3:59:37 PM, Maikuru wrote:
I agree, bluesteel is the worst.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 5:16:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 3:04:38 PM, Ragnar wrote:
I believe voting should not be based on preexisting bias, I think it is safe to say the strong majority of us agree.

I am of the firm opinion voting alliances should not be allowed. This stems from my simple belief that DDO should be about each intellectual bout, not about things outside the debate, such as popularity and traded favors.

I outright believe if you can't separate the names of the debaters, from the arguments you're reading, you are weighting your vote based on something other than the debate, and thus should refrain from voting (or at least come back when you're clearheaded, and re-read the debate before voting).

A few hypothetical scenarios...

1.1: Bluesteel just deleted my AWESOME vote, so I'm going to go into all of his debates, and if in doubt vote against him, if he wins however I'll just refrain from voting.
1.2: Bluesteel just deleted an AWESOME vote in my favor, so I'm going to go into all of his debates, and if in doubt vote against him, if he wins however I'll just refrain from voting.
1.3: Bluesteel just voted against me on a debate... So he's on my list, I'm only going to vote against him, never for him, not even if his opponent FFs.

Do we all agree this behavior is both childish and intolerable?

Taking the personhood out of it

2.1: If user A votes votes against user B, B will retaliate by voting against A. But if A votes solely in B's favor, B will solely vote in A's favor.
2.2: If A is ever not nice (enough) to B..., B will retaliate by voting against A, or at least cease ever voting in A's favor. But if A is nice enough to B, B will solely vote in A's favor.

3.1: Someone starts a thread on the main forum titled 'Join My Voting Club,' by joining you agree to never vote against any other member; if you ever violate this you lose the protection, and they cast their previously withheld votes against you...

I have agreed with your points in this thread up until this point right here. I believe your intention with this thread is noble, and on the right path, but there are some issues I have with this particular comment.

As many people here know, I run a Voting Council that has always consisted of roughly 15 members at any given time. The Council itself has been up and running for over a year now, and when I first started it, I was definitely one of those people who started a thread saying "join my voting club", more or less, which can be seen here: http://www.debate.org.... One of my foundational tenets and key rules is that there is no favoritism or bias in the voting, and that getting caught doing such a thing is grounds for expulsion from the Council. For any of the hundreds of debates that myself and my fellow Council members have voted on there has been wins and losses. I've voted against my fellow council member before, as has any member who truly felt that the person rightfully lost. Fortunately, it doesn't happen very often because a majority of the debaters themselves are highly talented in their own right, but if it ever came down to it, them being a fellow Council member does nothing to influence my vote on their debates - it only ensures that I leave a vote should it be unvoted or in a tie.

So, to say that "by signing up for one of these clubs means you're automatically agreeing to always vote in favor of your fellow members" just seems like a bunch of hogwash. While I can't speak on behalf of other voting groups or previous ones, I can assure you that The Supreme Council of Determination follows no such practices. Our mission is to leave no debate unvoted or stuck in a tie. We never pledged to always vote in favor of one another, and I believe that's one of the key reasons why we've been able to maintain such a high degree of lasting success so far.

3.2: Voting Club against some issue, say any member who has X Ethnicity (or religion, or whatever) in their profile. Of course the founder of said club insists it's not racism (or other applicable ism), because they're just abstaining from voting in favor of an [explicit].

That's just terrible. Hopefully such activity can be spotted sooner rather than later, and can be extinguished before causing too much damage.

4.1: Airmax sees that one user only votes for a certain other user, and they share an IP address, but they explain to him they're brothers who use the same computer.

Am I missing something? Are there any positive consequences if everyone joined a voting alliance? I see it as very negative, we'd just sit around with the only potential votes being against new members, with those members unable to receive any favorable ones.

There are numerous benefits, including the ones I mentioned earlier or those that can be found in my original recruitment thread. I actually don't see many negatives whatsoever as long as the voting group is managed and operating in accordance with the website guidelines. Most of your negatives are built on poorly managed or illegal site activities, such things wouldn't be an issue as long as it's all in accordance with site policy. I also think some of these issues extend farther than just voting groups, such as retaliatory voting, and in those cases I agree with everything you've said. I just want to make it clear and known that not every voting group is out to cause harm, as some (including mine) actually try to do good for one another and the site as a whole.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
AngelofDeath
Posts: 2,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 9:57:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 3:04:38 PM, Ragnar wrote:
I believe voting should not be based on preexisting bias, I think it is safe to say the strong majority of us agree.

I am of the firm opinion voting alliances should not be allowed. This stems from my simple belief that DDO should be about each intellectual bout, not about things outside the debate, such as popularity and traded favors.

I outright believe if you can't separate the names of the debaters, from the arguments you're reading, you are weighting your vote based on something other than the debate, and thus should refrain from voting (or at least come back when you're clearheaded, and re-read the debate before voting).

A few hypothetical scenarios...

1.1: Bluesteel just deleted my AWESOME vote, so I'm going to go into all of his debates, and if in doubt vote against him, if he wins however I'll just refrain from voting.
1.2: Bluesteel just deleted an AWESOME vote in my favor, so I'm going to go into all of his debates, and if in doubt vote against him, if he wins however I'll just refrain from voting.
1.3: Bluesteel just voted against me on a debate... So he's on my list, I'm only going to vote against him, never for him, not even if his opponent FFs.
Do some people really have no life, or that much time on their hands as to just go through and do this to specific people on all their debates???
Do we all agree this behavior is both childish and intolerable?
They need to get a life if they're actually doing this. Just imho.
Taking the personhood out of it

2.1: If user A votes votes against user B, B will retaliate by voting against A. But if A votes solely in B's favor, B will solely vote in A's favor.
2.2: If A is ever not nice (enough) to B..., B will retaliate by voting against A, or at least cease ever voting in A's favor. But if A is nice enough to B, B will solely vote in A's favor.

3.1: Someone starts a thread on the main forum titled 'Join My Voting Club,' by joining you agree to never vote against any other member; if you ever violate this you lose the protection, and they cast their previously withheld votes against you...
3.2: Voting Club against some issue, say any member who has X Ethnicity (or religion, or whatever) in their profile. Of course the founder of said club insists it's not racism (or other applicable ism), because they're just abstaining from voting in favor of an [explicit].

4.1: Airmax sees that one user only votes for a certain other user, and they share an IP address, but they explain to him they're brothers who use the same computer.

Am I missing something? Are there any positive consequences if everyone joined a voting alliance? I see it as very negative, we'd just sit around with the only potential votes being against new members, with those members unable to receive any favorable ones.
I may or may not be a cat
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 9:51:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
If I posted what I really wanted to say in this thread, I would make at least one enemy and gain the unwanted attention of His royal Airness.

Reminds me of PAC's arguing about how good PACs are and how they can be trusted to be self regulating.

Right.
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 8:42:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 11:45:47 AM, debatability wrote:
At 4/5/2015 3:04:38 PM, Ragnar wrote:
Am I missing something? Are there any positive consequences if everyone joined a voting alliance? I see it as very negative, we'd just sit around with the only potential votes being against new members, with those members unable to receive any favorable ones.

Firstly ... If I promise thett I'll never vote against him because he's my best pal, I'm going to be more likely to read and evaluate his debates in a way that is biased towards him by ignoring the flaws in his arguments and focusing on the strengths as I compile my RFD so that I don't have to abstain from voting. Essentially, RFD's lose almost all credibility when voting alliances are present because users cannot be sure that debaters are voting against them because they truly lost.

A few times when I've helped people refine their arguments, I was later asked why I had not voted yet. I had to explain to them why I ethically could no longer vote, due to having put extra effort into spotting every flaw in the opponents case, and maximizing every strength of their own.

Secondly, ... If everyone promises not to vote against me because i'm a female on the internet, I'll learn very little as I debate on this site, because people who feel I lost certian arguments won't be voicing their opinions and helping me get better.

I recently made a very similar case against a certain misogynist's voting habits: "Were I a [ideology here], I'd be really insulted by those sympathy votes. They are (hopefully) grown adults. Yet you are choosing to marginalize them, as if they were at a camp for the mentally-disabled, being given a prize for last place in a contest."

The problem with trying to take action against voting alliances, is that it's almost impossible to enforce their removal. ... While such conduct isn't banned under the TOS, I wouldn't deem such behavior appropriate. ... Such action should be discouraged, in my opinion, but I'm not really sure how action could be taken against it.

I honestly do not believe it can be stopped. That something can't be stopped, doesn't mean it's not a problem to discuss and seek improvements on.

My immediate suggestion, would be simple discouragement of positive-vote-trading. A TOS update to ban this type of thing: "2.1: If user A votes votes against user B, B will retaliate by voting against A. But if A votes solely in B's favor, B will solely vote in A's favor."
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

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

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2015 12:20:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
To be crystal clear, this thread was not aimed at Blade-of-Truth's group, of which I honestly had forgotten the existence.

At 4/6/2015 5:16:48 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 4/5/2015 3:04:38 PM, Ragnar wrote:
3.1: Someone starts a thread on the main forum titled 'Join My Voting Club,' by joining you agree to never vote against any other member; if you ever violate this you lose the protection, and they cast their previously withheld votes against you...

I have agreed with your points in this thread up until this point right here. I believe your intention with this thread is noble, and on the right path, but there are some issues I have with this particular comment.

As many people here know, I run a Voting Council that has always consisted of roughly 15 members at any given time. The Council itself has been up and running for over a year now, and when I first started it, I was definitely one of those people who started a thread saying "join my voting club", more or less, which can be seen here: http://www.debate.org.... One of my foundational tenets and key rules is that there is no favoritism or bias in the voting, and that getting caught doing such a thing is grounds for expulsion from the Council. For any of the hundreds of debates that myself and my fellow Council members have voted on there has been wins and losses. I've voted against my fellow council member before, as has any member who truly felt that the person rightfully lost.

That you and hopefully the other members vote against each other, is evidence that your group is not the positive only alliance described. Much like how two good users can share an IP address, there are exceptions to risky behavior always being bad (I for one love parachuting!); it just needs to be done with care, and without ever forgetting that you're metaphorically walking on thin ice (which you seem to remember). I am also in no way opposed to the Unvoted Debates Thread, for increasing the total number of votes.

Fortunately, it doesn't happen very often because a majority of the debaters themselves are highly talented in their own right, but if it ever came down to it, them being a fellow Council member does nothing to influence my vote on their debates - it only ensures that I leave a vote should it be unvoted or in a tie.

See comment on Unvoted Debates Thread above.

So, to say that "by signing up for one of these clubs means you're automatically agreeing to always vote in favor of your fellow members" just seems like a bunch of hogwash. While I can't speak on behalf of other voting groups or previous ones, I can assure you that The Supreme Council of Determination follows no such practices. Our mission is to leave no debate unvoted or stuck in a tie.

I am also not opposed to Bladerunner's No Unvoted Debate efforts when he was president, of which your group seems to be nearly an extension (not saying it is, but I am far more familiar with his efforts than yours, and you have to agree they are incredibly similar). Were he (or your particular group) to solely vote for or against a certain class of people, than it would cross into the "by joining you agree to never vote against any other member" category of problems (like if Airmax set a rule in the Unvoted Debates Thread, that by posting in it you agree to never vote against anyone else who posts there). You have basically the opposite rule "immediate expulsion if ever caught voting with pre-determined bias."

We never pledged to always vote in favor of one another, and I believe that's one of the key reasons why we've been able to maintain such a high degree of lasting success so far.

3.2: Voting Club against some issue, say any member who has X Ethnicity (or religion, or whatever) in their profile. Of course the founder of said club insists it's not racism (or other applicable ism), because they're just abstaining from voting in favor of an [explicit].

That's just terrible. Hopefully such activity can be spotted sooner rather than later, and can be extinguished before causing too much damage.

Such behavior has creeped into this site a few times, thankfully it's normally in the form of single users, rather than organized efforts (as much as I have witnessed those too).

4.1: Airmax sees that one user only votes for a certain other user, and they share an IP address, but they explain to him they're brothers who use the same computer.

Am I missing something? Are there any positive consequences if everyone joined a voting alliance? I see it as very negative, we'd just sit around with the only potential votes being against new members, with those members unable to receive any favorable ones.

There are numerous benefits, including the ones I mentioned earlier or those that can be found in my original recruitment thread. I actually don't see many negatives whatsoever as long as the voting group is managed and operating in accordance with the website guidelines. Most of your negatives are built on poorly managed or illegal site activities, such things wouldn't be an issue as long as it's all in accordance with site policy.

Yes but how often do people cite the it's not illegal yet and/or but there's a loophole defense for their behavior? A couple times I've even seen the openly admitting it's wrong but Airmax hasn't stopped me yet bastardry for direct and intentional violations of the TOS.

I also think some of these issues extend farther than just voting groups, such as retaliatory voting, and in those cases I agree with everything you've said. I just want to make it clear and known that not every voting group is out to cause harm, as some (including mine) actually try to do good for one another and the site as a whole.
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

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

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2015 1:12:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/8/2015 12:20:28 PM, Ragnar wrote:
To be crystal clear, this thread was not aimed at Blade-of-Truth's group, of which I honestly had forgotten the existence.
At 4/6/2015 5:16:48 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 4/5/2015 3:04:38 PM, Ragnar wrote:
3.1: Someone starts a thread on the main forum titled 'Join My Voting Club,' by joining you agree to never vote against any other member; if you ever violate this you lose the protection, and they cast their previously withheld votes against you...

I have agreed with your points in this thread up until this point right here. I believe your intention with this thread is noble, and on the right path, but there are some issues I have with this particular comment.

As many people here know, I run a Voting Council that has always consisted of roughly 15 members at any given time. The Council itself has been up and running for over a year now, and when I first started it, I was definitely one of those people who started a thread saying "join my voting club", more or less, which can be seen here: http://www.debate.org.... One of my foundational tenets and key rules is that there is no favoritism or bias in the voting, and that getting caught doing such a thing is grounds for expulsion from the Council. For any of the hundreds of debates that myself and my fellow Council members have voted on there has been wins and losses. I've voted against my fellow council member before, as has any member who truly felt that the person rightfully lost.

That you and hopefully the other members vote against each other, is evidence that your group is not the positive only alliance described. Much like how two good users can share an IP address, there are exceptions to risky behavior always being bad (I for one love parachuting!); it just needs to be done with care, and without ever forgetting that you're metaphorically walking on thin ice (which you seem to remember). I am also in no way opposed to the Unvoted Debates Thread, for increasing the total number of votes.

It's definitely a fine line to walk, and I honestly wish there was a way to make what we do more transparent. Being a private group makes it extremely difficult to do so since we only deal with our own internal affairs. I also know you weren't aiming this solely at my group, and I appreciate the clarification of that point above. I just want to make sure, since my group does fall under the umbrella term of 'Voting Alliances', that everyone understands not all voting alliances are done for selfish or malicious reasons. Honestly, it's a shame that such things happen because it ruins the perception of groups like mine which exist solely to fight against the unvoted debates issue prevalent on this site at times.

So, to say that "by signing up for one of these clubs means you're automatically agreeing to always vote in favor of your fellow members" just seems like a bunch of hogwash. While I can't speak on behalf of other voting groups or previous ones, I can assure you that The Supreme Council of Determination follows no such practices. Our mission is to leave no debate unvoted or stuck in a tie.

I am also not opposed to Bladerunner's No Unvoted Debate efforts when he was president, of which your group seems to be nearly an extension (not saying it is, but I am far more familiar with his efforts than yours, and you have to agree they are incredibly similar).

The Council actually existed before Bladerunner began those efforts, and we were even asked by him to serve his administration as an extension of his own efforts. I gladly lent a hand where I could, and you are absolutely right that they were very familiar, mostly because we were both fighting the same battle.

Were he (or your particular group) to solely vote for or against a certain class of people, than it would cross into the "by joining you agree to never vote against any other member" category of problems (like if Airmax set a rule in the Unvoted Debates Thread, that by posting in it you agree to never vote against anyone else who posts there). You have basically the opposite rule "immediate expulsion if ever caught voting with pre-determined bias."

Yup. That rule we have ensures that we never cross that line into strategic or manipulative voting practices. People who do such things are an unfortunate reality of this site, and if there is anything we can do to stop or dissuade people from doing such things then by god I'll do it. That rule is one way in which I can make sure we keep things in accordance with the site standards.

Am I missing something? Are there any positive consequences if everyone joined a voting alliance? I see it as very negative, we'd just sit around with the only potential votes being against new members, with those members unable to receive any favorable ones.

There are numerous benefits, including the ones I mentioned earlier or those that can be found in my original recruitment thread. I actually don't see many negatives whatsoever as long as the voting group is managed and operating in accordance with the website guidelines. Most of your negatives are built on poorly managed or illegal site activities, such things wouldn't be an issue as long as it's all in accordance with site policy.

Yes but how often do people cite the it's not illegal yet and/or but there's a loophole defense for their behavior? A couple times I've even seen the openly admitting it's wrong but Airmax hasn't stopped me yet bastardry for direct and intentional violations of the TOS.

Unfortunately people cite that alot as a defense. It's a poor excuse for such behavior, and something that can hopefully be put to a stop at some point in the future.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2015 3:49:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"Vote Alliances and Retaliatory Voting" Really? people are so lame that they do that?
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 1:25:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 9:57:57 PM, AngelofDeath wrote:
At 4/5/2015 3:04:38 PM, Ragnar wrote:
1.1: Bluesteel just deleted my AWESOME vote, so I'm going to go into all of his debates, and if in doubt vote against him, if he wins however I'll just refrain from voting.
1.2: Bluesteel just deleted an AWESOME vote in my favor, so I'm going to go into all of his debates, and if in doubt vote against him, if he wins however I'll just refrain from voting.
1.3: Bluesteel just voted against me on a debate... So he's on my list, I'm only going to vote against him, never for him, not even if his opponent FFs.

Do some people really have no life, or that much time on their hands as to just go through and do this to specific people on all their debates???

Correct. I will not drop any names, but it's happened many times to different people. It is actually part of why counter-votebombs got banned, a few people were committing 7point retaliatory votebombs, but calling them "CVB," even while not specifying any vote to counter, and still casting those when there were no seven point votes (and if memory serves, in a few cases when there were no votes at all to counter).

Do we all agree this behavior is both childish and intolerable?

They need to get a life if they're actually doing this. Just imho.
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

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

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 2:52:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
In the perfect world everyone would to the best of their ability vote on a debate on it's own merits putting their own prior beliefs aside.........

Now back to reality..........

The best way I know how to get the best voting possible is that whole pre-determined judges option.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 6:39:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 2:52:16 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
In the perfect world everyone would to the best of their ability vote on a debate on it's own merits putting their own prior beliefs aside.........

Now back to reality..........

The best way I know how to get the best voting possible is that whole pre-determined judges option.

Judges can be misused, but it is generally a great option. It gives both sides a chance to look at the selected judges, and see if they like their voting habits and style.
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

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

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...