Total Posts:93|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Vote Moderation Poll

F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 12:06:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
This poll is mostly to gather feedback from members about vote moderation in the past 6 months. You've observed what voting standards are like. You've seen the voting guide (http://www.debate.org...). Here's your chance to discuss moderation and potentially influence its future direction.

Poll Question: How do you feel about the current stringency of vote moderation?

A) I want standards to be tightened.
B) I'm perfectly happy with the way moderation is currently done.
C) Standards should not be so strict. You should loosen them to only remove really sub-par votes.

PM me your answers with additional comments. The more responses, the better. While you are free to post in this thread, a private discussion where you won't be scrutinized may be helpful or preferable.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 12:55:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Forgot to add, I may share the exact content of your message with Airmax but no one else will get anything more than a rough paraphrase and your identity will be known only to me and Airmax so it is semi-confidential. Feel free to say anything you like.
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 10:03:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
A & the first half of C.
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: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 10:42:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 12:06:41 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
This poll is mostly to gather feedback from members about vote moderation in the past 6 months. You've observed what voting standards are like. You've seen the voting guide (http://www.debate.org...). Here's your chance to discuss moderation and potentially influence its future direction.

Poll Question: How do you feel about the current stringency of vote moderation?

A) I want standards to be tightened.
B) I'm perfectly happy with the way moderation is currently done.
C) Standards should not be so strict. You should loosen them to only remove really sub-par votes.

PM me your answers with additional comments. The more responses, the better. While you are free to post in this thread, a private discussion where you won't be scrutinized may be helpful or preferable.

You're doing a pretty good job in my opinion. I don't think it needs to be tightened, nor do I think it should be less strict, it's good as is. However, I do think y'all should expand the voting moderation team to lighten your own personal load while keeping the current standards in place.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 3:18:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 3:01:38 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 7/5/2015 10:03:13 AM, Ragnar wrote:
A & the first half of C.

What does this mean?

Tight but not too tight? That's my guess at least.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 4:09:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 3:01:38 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 7/5/2015 10:03:13 AM, Ragnar wrote:
A & the first half of C.

What does this mean?
That moderation should not be as strict as it is; but you should also still go beyond only really removing sub-par votes. He's essentially implying that he wants strictish moderation, but that moderation as it stands goes beyond what is necessary.

Or at least, that's what I got from it.
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 4:22:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
They need to be loosened a bit. the site needs t be more welcoming of noobs, so the can be integrated. The current route is a form of darwinism thatbmight help a few voters vote better, but for the most part it jus discourages them from voting. The current way it's done is a bastardization of what was origonally was bsing advocafed for in terms of requesting stricter moderation.

there are more debates going unvoted now, than before the change. There are significantly fewer people also ddtermjning the outcome of more debates.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 4:24:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Basically it should be stricter than when airmax had no help, but looser than now. So maybe actuall doing wha the commuit discussed ind take back the over reach which was onlh advocated for by a few (and what we were led to believe would take place)
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,771
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 4:35:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I have a question -- can we make it so debaters can choose a heightened standard at the start of a debate? I think if you'd enforce whatever standard debaters chose, we'd have a great system that caters to everyone without the need for making the standard higher or lower. People could choose higher/lower standard if they really care (e.g. I'd choose higher). It might be harder to enforce, but it'd be the best system, I think.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 4:43:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 4:35:58 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
I have a question -- can we make it so debaters can choose a heightened standard at the start of a debate? I think if you'd enforce whatever standard debaters chose, we'd have a great system that caters to everyone without the need for making the standard higher or lower. People could choose higher/lower standard if they really care (e.g. I'd choose higher). It might be harder to enforce, but it'd be the best system, I think.

This idea, and the details regarding it, are currently being discussed.

There are certainly things to work out so that the moderation systems can handle such a thing in a fair and reasonable way, but the concept is something being considered for implementation and this poll is a part of that.
Debate.org Moderator
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 4:58:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 4:35:58 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
I have a question -- can we make it so debaters can choose a heightened standard at the start of a debate? I think if you'd enforce whatever standard debaters chose, we'd have a great system that caters to everyone without the need for making the standard higher or lower. People could choose higher/lower standard if they really care (e.g. I'd choose higher). It might be harder to enforce, but it'd be the best system, I think.

Yeah, as Airmax said, we're discussing the idea and considering whether its implementation is feasible.

What in your opinion would be those higher standards? Do you an idea about the type of standards you want to see?
greatkitteh
Posts: 394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 5:24:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 12:06:41 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
This poll is mostly to gather feedback from members about vote moderation in the past 6 months. You've observed what voting standards are like. You've seen the voting guide (http://www.debate.org...). Here's your chance to discuss moderation and potentially influence its future direction.

Poll Question: How do you feel about the current stringency of vote moderation?

A) I want standards to be tightened.
B) I'm perfectly happy with the way moderation is currently done.
C) Standards should not be so strict. You should loosen them to only remove really sub-par votes.

PM me your answers with additional comments. The more responses, the better. While you are free to post in this thread, a private discussion where you won't be scrutinized may be helpful or preferable.

A), It should be faster before people lose ELO. Also, The vote Text shiuld be Increased, As when I report a Vote says "RFD IN COMMENTS" It can't be investigated.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 5:34:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 4:24:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
Basically it should be stricter than when airmax had no help, but looser than now. So maybe actuall doing wha the commuit discussed ind take back the over reach which was onlh advocated for by a few (and what we were led to believe would take place)

I appreciate your feedback and believe what you have said here and above is fair, though I disagree with some of it and I'm not sure what you are referring to with "what the community actually discussed" and how the current system is an overreach. I'm not meaning to be critical of the statement, I just don't know what you mean specifically.

Broadly though, the standards haven't really changed a whole lot (from when I did it alone until now) in terms of what the very basic standards explanation is. 'Explain every point awarded, don't be too generic', has always been the basic guideline. The difference now is the total number of votes removed (based on an increase in reports), the number of voting privileges suspended (based on mitigating the problem of new voters voting frequently and needing to have standards explained), and the transparency of the system, showing every vote that is removed with a comment in the debate.

I think those factors make it seem like the standards are more harsh, and in some sense they are since they are applied consistently, openly, quickly and in greater numbers.

But I believe what is more important here, and the reason I felt it important to reply, is that what qualifies as an adequate vote hasn't really changed at all, and is still an objective system. All a voter has to do is explain (to a 'reasonable' extent, reasonable being meant to specify something integral to the outcome of the debate - though this isn't meant to be official language of standards) every point they award.

I realize it can seem harsh when we use terms like "Explanation too generic" or "X points insufficiently explained", but this is, from what I have found, the only thing that mitigates ideological voting ("Pro made better points via the resolution and therefore wins argument points", "Pro's arguments were better and he had better spelling") and lazy voting ("Pro wins", "Cons arguments were poor"). If anyone is of the opinion that we should allow a greater number of ideological/lazy votes (votes that point to a winner, but don't specify why they won) to pass standards (requiring a change of standards) so that fewer votes are removed and members can more easily vote (and spend less time on doing so), that is certainly a valid opinion, but one that would need to be specified.

This doesn't mean that the system catches all bad votes, certainly more than enough qualify as adequate and aren't what I would consider "good" votes - but I can't think of a reasonable system that would remove all "bad" votes that doesn't require moderation to insert its own opinions (beyond the objective standards) on what the voter wrote. This would create a less consistent, much more time consuming process and therefore I am hesitant to increase the stringency of the standards beyond what they are now - though that is the point of this discussion to understand what members want, and in what way they would like to see that applied.

Conversely, lessening the standards described above would allow the types of generic votes that the system is specifically designed to mitigate. If we don't have, as a standard of all votes, a specific requirement to be specific about certain arguments and how they impacted the debate then votes essentially saying "X won the debate because he made better arguments" would open all votes to being generic, ideological and lazy.

With the above explanation in mind, could you (and anyone else who has read this explanation for why the standards have evolved in the way that they have) offer specific feedback on what about this system they would change? Again, while saying "less strict" is a perfectly reasonable reply in this thread, it doesn't provide the type of feedback necessary to change/update anything.

We certainly want to create the best system that is appreciated by the greatest number of people and having as many thoughts on the matter is necessary to do that. I want to reiterate that this reply wasn't a criticism of your opinion on the matter, and I certainly appreciate it, but an explanation for why things are the way they are right now (so that members can keep in mind why vote moderation is done how it is done with its specific intent in mind) and a request for more specificity, so that feedback can be more easily understood and applied to the current system.
Debate.org Moderator
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 5:46:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 5:24:15 PM, greatkitteh wrote:

Your feedback is appreciated, and I just want to clarify some of what you brought up.

A), It should be faster before people lose ELO.

Almost every vote reported is dealt with within 24 hours and usually less than that (closer to 12). Every evening I go through all the reports and submit the votes to the current vote moderator who provides a reason for removal or non-removal. I then read the reasons and remove the votes. This process take about an hour or so, but is, in the great majority of the time, concluded within a day of the report (usually much less) and in rare cases within 48 hours max.

For us to be able to do it faster would pretty much require around the clock vote moderation, which isn't likely to happen unless we return to the system where I do it unilaterally.

Also, The vote Text shiuld be Increased, As when I report a Vote says "RFD IN COMMENTS" It can't be investigated.

This is a separate issue (not within the sphere of this discussion) requiring a coding change to the site, but is something I and I'm sure the current (and every former and future) DDO president would agree with. When it is possible to increase the character limit it will happen.

However, it is worth pointing out that "RFD in Comments" votes are held to the standards of every other vote and are in fact investigated just like any other.

In any case, I just wanted to clarify and explain those issues. Your thoughts are appreciated and welcome, and feel encouraged to continue to offer your thoughts and concerns.
Debate.org Moderator
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 6:13:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 5:24:15 PM, greatkitteh wrote:
At 7/5/2015 12:06:41 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
This poll is mostly to gather feedback from members about vote moderation in the past 6 months. You've observed what voting standards are like. You've seen the voting guide (http://www.debate.org...). Here's your chance to discuss moderation and potentially influence its future direction.

Poll Question: How do you feel about the current stringency of vote moderation?

A) I want standards to be tightened.
B) I'm perfectly happy with the way moderation is currently done.
C) Standards should not be so strict. You should loosen them to only remove really sub-par votes.

PM me your answers with additional comments. The more responses, the better. While you are free to post in this thread, a private discussion where you won't be scrutinized may be helpful or preferable.

A), It should be faster before people lose ELO. Also, The vote Text shiuld be Increased, As when I report a Vote says "RFD IN COMMENTS" It can't be investigated.

On this point: Your ELO will return to what it originally was after the vote is removed. It may drop temporarily but once we remove a vote, it will no longer affect the ELO.

We can also remove votes after the voting period ends if you reported the vote while the debate is still in the voting period (we have a statute of limitations but that is a different matter). If you report a vote on a debate still in the voting period and it ends before we act on it, we'll still moderate it and your ELO will reflect the final tally.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 6:16:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 10:42:13 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
You're doing a pretty good job in my opinion. I don't think it needs to be tightened, nor do I think it should be less strict, it's good as is. However, I do think y'all should expand the voting moderation team to lighten your own personal load while keeping the current standards in place.

Thanks for the feedback. Vote moderation currently takes about an hour of work each day give or take a few tens of minutes. I don't currently have plans to expand the team but that may change depending on the circumstances.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 6:19:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 4:22:14 PM, Wylted wrote:
They need to be loosened a bit. the site needs t be more welcoming of noobs, so the can be integrated. The current route is a form of darwinism thatbmight help a few voters vote better, but for the most part it jus discourages them from voting. The current way it's done is a bastardization of what was origonally was bsing advocafed for in terms of requesting stricter moderation.

there are more debates going unvoted now, than before the change. There are significantly fewer people also ddtermjning the outcome of more debates.

I think people will differ in whether they consider these to be negative outcomes. For instance, I'd rather have 4-5 great votes on my debate over 20 mediocre ones. The goal is to improve standards of voting and there have definitely been people who've had their privileges removed, re-instated and are now better voters.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 6:34:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 6:16:45 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 7/5/2015 10:42:13 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
You're doing a pretty good job in my opinion. I don't think it needs to be tightened, nor do I think it should be less strict, it's good as is. However, I do think y'all should expand the voting moderation team to lighten your own personal load while keeping the current standards in place.

Thanks for the feedback. Vote moderation currently takes about an hour of work each day give or take a few tens of minutes. I don't currently have plans to expand the team but that may change depending on the circumstances.

Well, the best judge for knowing their own limits is the person performing the task. In regards to your original inquiry I think it's all good as I said. I would like to hear more about this proposed option of choosing the standards to be held for the debate votes, but I'm sure more info on that will come with time.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 6:54:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Air max, "Broadly though, the standards haven't really changed a whole lot (from when I did it alone until now) in terms of what the very basic standards explanation is. 'Explain every point awarded, don't be too generic', has always been the basic guideline. The difference now is the total number of votes removed (based on an increase in reports), the number of voting privileges suspended (based on mitigating the problem of new voters voting frequently and needing to have standards explained), and the transparency of the system, showing every vote that is removed with a comment in the debate."

The standards have in fact changed. You could look at a lot of the removed votes and the explanations for why. "Explain every point awarded" was what the community demanded, to end the ideological voting. However it has moved beyond that. F16 has explained to me that he wants the voters to explain what the voter considered about every major contention. It is no longer enough to give a summary of your conclusion, you must now address every major argument and explain why you did or did not accept them etc.

I like "explain every point awarded", and removal of "generic votes", but it's went beyond that Airmax. The vote moderators are acting consistently which I applaud them for, but they've tightened these voting restrictions without discussing it with DDO at large, and without consideration of how much it alienates newer members. The strictness of their actions, discourages voting, discourages the involvement of newer members, acts as a form of voting Darwinism mechanism that leaves a survival of the fittest, when a more inclusive program that helps voters become integrated in the community is better, because it would improve voting of more people, as opposed to improving the voting of just a tiny amount.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 7:00:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 6:19:39 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 7/5/2015 4:22:14 PM, Wylted wrote:
They need to be loosened a bit. the site needs t be more welcoming of noobs, so the can be integrated. The current route is a form of darwinism thatbmight help a few voters vote better, but for the most part it jus discourages them from voting. The current way it's done is a bastardization of what was origonally was bsing advocafed for in terms of requesting stricter moderation.

there are more debates going unvoted now, than before the change. There are significantly fewer people also ddtermjning the outcome of more debates.

I think people will differ in whether they consider these to be negative outcomes. For instance, I'd rather have 4-5 great votes on my debate over 20 mediocre ones. The goal is to improve standards of voting and there have definitely been people who've had their privileges removed, re-instated and are now better voters.

Members like me and you, don't have a problem obtaining votes, no matter how much you tighten those restrictions. I'm speaking for the noobs. Look at the invited debate column. I try to get a little here and there, but it's impossible to keep up with. If noobs aren't getting their debates voted on, they will lose interest in debating. I'm also concerned about the alienation of newer voters, who become scared to vote. It's one thing to receive harsh criticism from a debater, they'll learn from that. Harsh criticism from a moderated doesn't encourage learning as much as you may think. It actually works as a deterrent to voters.

Though experienced members may appreciate the fact the votes are more fair now on their debates, they miss how this effects the community as a whole, particularly the noobs.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 7:01:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I actually like Edeb8s voting system and think it should be completely ripped off. It allows everyone to vote, while giving better voters more power with their vote. Though the system isn't perfect, it takes less effort to maintain and is a good compromise that works in favor of noobs and experienced members
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 7:18:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 6:54:55 PM, Wylted wrote:
Air max, "Broadly though, the standards haven't really changed a whole lot (from when I did it alone until now) in terms of what the very basic standards explanation is. 'Explain every point awarded, don't be too generic', has always been the basic guideline. The difference now is the total number of votes removed (based on an increase in reports), the number of voting privileges suspended (based on mitigating the problem of new voters voting frequently and needing to have standards explained), and the transparency of the system, showing every vote that is removed with a comment in the debate."

The standards have in fact changed. You could look at a lot of the removed votes and the explanations for why. "Explain every point awarded" was what the community demanded, to end the ideological voting. However it has moved beyond that. F16 has explained to me that he wants the voters to explain what the voter considered about every major contention. It is no longer enough to give a summary of your conclusion, you must now address every major argument and explain why you did or did not accept them etc.

I like "explain every point awarded", and removal of "generic votes", but it's went beyond that Airmax. The vote moderators are acting consistently which I applaud them for, but they've tightened these voting restrictions without discussing it with DDO at large, and without consideration of how much it alienates newer members. The strictness of their actions, discourages voting, discourages the involvement of newer members, acts as a form of voting Darwinism mechanism that leaves a survival of the fittest, when a more inclusive program that helps voters become integrated in the community is better, because it would improve voting of more people, as opposed to improving the voting of just a tiny amount.

I appreciate that, though I suppose we interpret some of this differently. In terms of what you specified about F-16's interpretation of how the arguments must be addressed and how that is applied to vote moderation, I consider a lot of it a natural part of the same policies, but you are right that it is a more strict enforcement. That, and every other aspect of this is being discussed both privately, and in this thread to find the proper balance (that has always been the goal) that encourages good votes, without discouraging voting in general. You hit on one of the most important issues regarding the extent voters have to go in explaining all debate contentions, and that will certainly be something resolved with all these discussions that are taking place right now with vote moderators, the DDO President and every member who cares to be a part of the conversation.

I don't exactly understand your terminology of "Vote Darwinism" though. A lot of new member get their voting privileges and simply place poor votes by any standard. What we do is contact those voters, explain the standards, and then they are able to place better votes. It is true that members who just wish to vote lazily, vote ideologically, or simply not abide by the standards are not part of the voting community any longer, but that's going to be the case unless we want to adopt a system with no, or very low standards.

"when a more inclusive program that helps voters become integrated in the community is better"

Could you please describe this system. I'm not against a system that would make it easier or simpler for new voters to vote, but any system that allows new voters to vote poorly just so that they don't get discouraged doesn't seem like a realistic one. Conceding for a moment that the standard you described above (that voters need to touch on all arguments etc - and this is something being discussed because it is an issue of interpreting standards) is too strict and discourages voters, would you argue that aside from this, that other vote moderation aspects need to be toned down to integrate new voters more easily into the voting community?

"because it would improve voting of more people, as opposed to improving the voting of just a tiny amount."

I'm not entirely sure of this. We have a standard across the board that improves votes universally. I recognize that those standards alienate people who'd rather just vote by offering an opinion ("I believe pro won) or vote in the simplest way possible ("Pro's argument X wasn't refuted and therefore Pro wins" - this could be considered a valid vote, though the degree to which we insist on describing "Impact" of that argument is part of the issue described earlier), but I believe that those are the inevitable costs of having any standards in place. Of course I realize that this isn't a discussion about standards or no standards, but how far those standards should go, because we should consider what cost there is to having higher and lower standards. Instead, my query here is with regards to how you believe we can implement a system of reasonable standards, that allows the greatest balance described earlier, that alienates the fewest people. In other words, is it simply the extent of cited arguments points already being considered that you brought up, or are there further steps that you believe we could take? Like new member voter outreach things, or being slower to remove new member voting privileges, or anything else you have considered?

Again, I appreciate your feedback and engaging me on this discussion. Even if there are things we don't see eye to eye on I assure you that everything you have written is being taken seriously and will be considered as we move forward to developing the best system possible.
Debate.org Moderator
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 7:29:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 6:54:55 PM, Wylted wrote:
Air max, "Broadly though, the standards haven't really changed a whole lot (from when I did it alone until now) in terms of what the very basic standards explanation is. 'Explain every point awarded, don't be too generic', has always been the basic guideline. The difference now is the total number of votes removed (based on an increase in reports), the number of voting privileges suspended (based on mitigating the problem of new voters voting frequently and needing to have standards explained), and the transparency of the system, showing every vote that is removed with a comment in the debate."

The standards have in fact changed. You could look at a lot of the removed votes and the explanations for why. "Explain every point awarded" was what the community demanded, to end the ideological voting. However it has moved beyond that. F16 has explained to me that he wants the voters to explain what the voter considered about every major contention. It is no longer enough to give a summary of your conclusion, you must now address every major argument and explain why you did or did not accept them etc.

I like "explain every point awarded", and removal of "generic votes", but it's went beyond that Airmax. The vote moderators are acting consistently which I applaud them for, but they've tightened these voting restrictions without discussing it with DDO at large, and without consideration of how much it alienates newer members. The strictness of their actions, discourages voting, discourages the involvement of newer members, acts as a form of voting Darwinism mechanism that leaves a survival of the fittest, when a more inclusive program that helps voters become integrated in the community is better, because it would improve voting of more people, as opposed to improving the voting of just a tiny amount.

There are two major things I look for: specificity and bias. Overt bias is easy to pick apart. If an RFD gives reasons not in the debate or says they are voting because they agree with a side, that's straight up removed.

Internal bias is harder to tell apart. The best way to address it and other problems like lazyness is to have the RFDs be as specific as possible. A voter can simply pick an arbitrary argument, call it the most important argument and vote. But that doesn't give meaningful feedback to the debaters as to why that specific argument is important. As long as a voter puts it in perspective, goes over the debate and explains why it was the strongest, most meaningful argument in relation to the entire debate, and then votes off of it, that's fine. BS justifications for arguments is one of the things I look for when evaluating votes.

Based on general feedback, the only significant group that wanted standards lowered were voters whose votes have been removed - which also makes them the most unobjective. Votes aren't cast as entertainment for the voters but are more a service to the debaters. And they are always welcome to not offer their services. I've yet to see very many debaters argue that too stringent voting standards are causing them to have their debates unvoted because the majority prefer to get quality votes over poor ones. And newbies who get poor/biased votes on their debates I think will just as likely tire of the site because of a lack of meaningful voting as ones that don't get a lot of votes.

We'll have to try our best to serve the greatest number of people and I feel based on not just this poll but any discussion that took place on voting that most of the site will be against lowering the status quo.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 7:50:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Members like me and you, don't have a problem obtaining votes, no matter how much you tighten those restrictions. I'm speaking for the noobs. Look at the invited debate column. I try to get a little here and there, but it's impossible to keep up with. If noobs aren't getting their debates voted on, they will lose interest in debating. I'm also concerned about the alienation of newer voters, who become scared to vote. It's one thing to receive harsh criticism from a debater, they'll learn from that. Harsh criticism from a moderated doesn't encourage learning as much as you may think. It actually works as a deterrent to voters.

I think this is a separate problem, Wylted. If a debate isn't getting attention by more experienced voters, then it's unlikely to have any reported votes, even if the votes are poor. Either that or it will have no votes, which is unfortunately common and a difficult problem to keep up with. That's something we should handle, though it will require concerted efforts by numerous individuals over a long period of time. It's possible that these votes will get reported and removed anyway, but I'm not clear on whether people would feel more degraded by a lack of votes or by insufficient votes. I know several people who left the site due to perceived injustice resulting from those votes that would be removed under this system. A lack of feedback sucks, too, but discouragement isn't restricted solely to that lack.
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 8:21:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 4:09:13 PM, Daltonian wrote:
At 7/5/2015 3:01:38 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 7/5/2015 10:03:13 AM, Ragnar wrote:
A & the first half of C.

What does this mean?

That moderation should not be as strict as it is; but you should also still go beyond only really removing sub-par votes. He's essentially implying that he wants strictish moderation, but that moderation as it stands goes beyond what is necessary.

Or at least, that's what I got from it.

Pretty much. Some areas I believe should be more strict, other areas less so.
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...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 9:00:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What I mean by voter Darwinism:

It's a survival of the fittest mentality. The two ways that voters are being removed from the voting pool is a, by being removed through it by banning and B. By removing them through discouragement. It is survival of the fittest, it doesn't leave much room for bad voters to get better, they just get removed from the voting pool.

An ideal system wouldn't have any of these Darwinistic principles, or very few. The system would encourage voters to get better, and the only ones removed from the voting pool, are those incapable of improving.

I'd also like to see this system scaled back to merely providing a reason for the decision. The standard right now is to encourage people to completely lay their decision making decisions on the table. While such a laying on the table of a voters decision making process can be useful to debaters and those trying to determine if a voter had bias, they're an unnecessary hindrance, that has no bearing on the outcome of the vote.

I'll explain more on my next break at work, and I'm not completely sure why people have a hard time grasping the philosophy I'm trying to relay to them. I'll try to be more clear,