Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Improper Moderation; Debate.org is Undermine

LaughingRiddle
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 10:46:12 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
I cast a vote on the following debate voting for the only sourced argument.
http://www.debate.org...

A biased moderator later cancels my vote because it 'was not specific enough' when really there is no specifics required. 1 side had facts, evidence and a source and the other side had nothing but opinion that was not convincing based on evidence.

This kind of behavior is maybe why nobody bothers voting in the first place. So why bother debating either. Clean up the moderator staff with actually unbiased people. My family has been threatened with rape and molestation at knife point and here the biased moderators are pathetically cannot even allow unbiased debates to go on properly appropriating blame.

In case you don't get it even the legendary left win liberal BBC can no longer deny many immigrants are just opportunistic rapists. http://www.bbc.com...

Note the implication of over 1,000 organized gang of arab immigrant rapists attacking women in Cologne. This was on new years. This requires outrage and people like the moderator who observes facts deserves to face such outrage and be axed for it.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 11:05:15 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 10:46:12 PM, LaughingRiddle wrote:
I cast a vote on the following debate voting for the only sourced argument.
http://www.debate.org...

A biased moderator later cancels my vote because it 'was not specific enough' when really there is no specifics required. 1 side had facts, evidence and a source and the other side had nothing but opinion that was not convincing based on evidence.

This kind of behavior is maybe why nobody bothers voting in the first place. So why bother debating either. Clean up the moderator staff with actually unbiased people. My family has been threatened with rape and molestation at knife point and here the biased moderators are pathetically cannot even allow unbiased debates to go on properly appropriating blame.

In case you don't get it even the legendary left win liberal BBC can no longer deny many immigrants are just opportunistic rapists. http://www.bbc.com...

Note the implication of over 1,000 organized gang of arab immigrant rapists attacking women in Cologne. This was on new years. This requires outrage and people like the moderator who observes facts deserves to face such outrage and be axed for it.

This complaint is meaningless. A review of the debate shows both sides had arguments, and so an evaluation of those arguments is required. Both sides listed 'facts.'

I don't care what the BBC says unless the opponent brought it up in the debate. It's not your job as a voter to put forth sources and arguments the debaters didn't bring up. And it's not your job to disregard arguments as 'opinions' because you don't believe them.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
LaughingRiddle
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 11:24:49 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 11:05:15 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/5/2016 10:46:12 PM, LaughingRiddle wrote:
I cast a vote on the following debate voting for the only sourced argument.
http://www.debate.org...

A biased moderator later cancels my vote because it 'was not specific enough' when really there is no specifics required. 1 side had facts, evidence and a source and the other side had nothing but opinion that was not convincing based on evidence.

This kind of behavior is maybe why nobody bothers voting in the first place. So why bother debating either. Clean up the moderator staff with actually unbiased people. My family has been threatened with rape and molestation at knife point and here the biased moderators are pathetically cannot even allow unbiased debates to go on properly appropriating blame.

In case you don't get it even the legendary left win liberal BBC can no longer deny many immigrants are just opportunistic rapists. http://www.bbc.com...

Note the implication of over 1,000 organized gang of arab immigrant rapists attacking women in Cologne. This was on new years. This requires outrage and people like the moderator who observes facts deserves to face such outrage and be axed for it.

This complaint is meaningless. A review of the debate shows both sides had arguments, and so an evaluation of those arguments is required. Both sides listed 'facts.'

I don't care what the BBC says unless the opponent brought it up in the debate. It's not your job as a voter to put forth sources and arguments the debaters didn't bring up. And it's not your job to disregard arguments as 'opinions' because you don't believe them.

One side gave facts with sources; the other side gave nothing but opinion without any sources. There was no argument to address for the Con position. Commenting on the sources is a reflection of commenting on the arguments anyway. Do I really need to say; "The argument of con had no sources"?

This is extreme nit picky details; fact is it was a back and for debate with very little content so there was little but facts offered to vote on. One side gave sources so they win. End of story unless you are a very biased moderator pushing an agenda.

It is impossible to ignore outside knowledge as a voter that only affirms what the clear result of the debate for an unbiased voter is. Sorry I commented that AFTER I had already rationalized my voted beyond any need for further doubt with the simple fact sources wins against mere opinion that is against the given facts and sources.

Argument doesn't even come into the picture really. There is no reason to even listen to Con's argument at any point without any qualification.
LaughingRiddle
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 11:27:38 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 11:05:15 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/5/2016 10:46:12 PM, LaughingRiddle wrote:
I cast a vote on the following debate voting for the only sourced argument.
http://www.debate.org...

A biased moderator later cancels my vote because it 'was not specific enough' when really there is no specifics required. 1 side had facts, evidence and a source and the other side had nothing but opinion that was not convincing based on evidence.

This kind of behavior is maybe why nobody bothers voting in the first place. So why bother debating either. Clean up the moderator staff with actually unbiased people. My family has been threatened with rape and molestation at knife point and here the biased moderators are pathetically cannot even allow unbiased debates to go on properly appropriating blame.

In case you don't get it even the legendary left win liberal BBC can no longer deny many immigrants are just opportunistic rapists. http://www.bbc.com...

Note the implication of over 1,000 organized gang of arab immigrant rapists attacking women in Cologne. This was on new years. This requires outrage and people like the moderator who observes facts deserves to face such outrage and be axed for it.

This complaint is meaningless. A review of the debate shows both sides had arguments, and so an evaluation of those arguments is required. Both sides listed 'facts.'

I don't care what the BBC says unless the opponent brought it up in the debate. It's not your job as a voter to put forth sources and arguments the debaters didn't bring up. And it's not your job to disregard arguments as 'opinions' because you don't believe them.

If my complaint is meaningless it is only because this website is meaningless. People hardly even vote and when you look at stuff like this is is easy to see why that is. Because apparently they don't even let you vote for things they don't like no matter if that is the only side you could have logically voted for under any circumstances.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 11:27:40 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 10:46:12 PM, LaughingRiddle wrote:
I cast a vote on the following debate voting for the only sourced argument.
http://www.debate.org...

A biased moderator

It's always interesting when we start with things like this. Stating that I'm biased and that that bias led me to remove your vote is unwarranted. I haven't, to my knowledge, shown bias against you. If you feel I'm biased, please explain how and where I showed bias in my decision. You might disagree with it, but that doesn't mean that the decision to remove your vote was made out of bias.

later cancels my vote because it 'was not specific enough' when really there is no specifics required. 1 side had facts, evidence and a source and the other side had nothing but opinion that was not convincing based on evidence.

I don't disagree that one side having evidence can be significant. What I found issue with in your vote was the point that, so long as one side presented evidence and the other did not, the former side should always earn source points. It's explained rather clearly in the voting standards that merely pointing out that one side had more sources than the other is not sufficient - the voter has to explain why those sources were integral to the debate.

This kind of behavior is maybe why nobody bothers voting in the first place. So why bother debating either. Clean up the moderator staff with actually unbiased people.

I don't doubt that many people have stopped voting due to what they perceive as biased or overly harsh moderation. The latter is something a lot of people disagree on, as evidenced by bsh1's polls on the matter. The former is, again, a claim without evidence. I'm not biased merely because I removed your vote, nor have I shown clear biases in my other interactions on the site.

My family has been threatened with rape and molestation at knife point and here the biased moderators are pathetically cannot even allow unbiased debates to go on properly appropriating blame.

...I really don't understand what you're getting at here, mainly because the latter half of your sentence is a bit of a jumbled mess. Whatever your personal history with violence, it has nothing to do with this decision, nor do I think that those threats bear any resemblance to the decision to take down your vote based on the site standards.

In case you don't get it even the legendary left win liberal BBC can no longer deny many immigrants are just opportunistic rapists. http://www.bbc.com...

...Not sure what this has to do with anything.

Note the implication of over 1,000 organized gang of arab immigrant rapists attacking women in Cologne. This was on new years. This requires outrage and people like the moderator who observes facts deserves to face such outrage and be axed for it.

I think what you meant was "people like the moderator who OBSCURES facts." I don't see how removing your vote obscured a fact. People are still able to read the debate, as you did. People can still make their own decisions based on the facts presented there. Removing your vote doesn't constitute an effort to silence you, as you clearly have taken the floor in back-to-back forum posts that everyone can see. I didn't censor the debate, and I don't plan on doing so. As far as I know, being outraged at gangs of Arab rapists (whether they exist or not - no judgment of that statement here) doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with the removal of your vote.

Now, if you'd like to discuss the reasons for your vote's removal, I'd be more than happy to discuss this in a PM with you. Since I'm open to receiving messages from anyone and I am the public face of vote moderation on the site, I'm disappointed to see that this is the first place where you chose to air your grievances, though I'd still be willing to continue this privately. You would apparently rather make a public spectacle of this (which I would say turns moderation into the main issue and turns attention away from such issues as you discuss), so if you'd like to discuss it here, we can do that, though I'd rather that we discussed this between the two of us.
LaughingRiddle
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 11:34:28 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 11:27:40 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 1/5/2016 10:46:12 PM, LaughingRiddle wrote:
I cast a vote on the following debate voting for the only sourced argument.
http://www.debate.org...


It's always interesting when we start with things like this. Stating that I'm biased and that that bias led me to remove your vote is unwarranted. I haven't, to my knowledge, shown bias against you. If you feel I'm biased, please explain how and where I showed bias in my decision. You might disagree with it, but that doesn't mean that the decision to remove your vote was made out of bias.

Sure;
1) Unfair application of voting requirements; by the nit picky standards shown over my vote I cannot help but think 1/3rd of the website votes could be discounted also, that is an indication of bias if this is applied so selectively.
2) There was no lack of specifics in my vote; any look at the debate I voted on will see it lacked any details other than a Claim + Source vs claim + no source. Very short debate rounds. There is no argument to address more so than I did in my vote. Only reason for discounting it can be bias.


I don't disagree that one side having evidence can be significant. What I found issue with in your vote was the point that, so long as one side presented evidence and the other did not, the former side should always earn source points. It's explained rather clearly in the voting standards that merely pointing out that one side had more sources than the other is not sufficient - the voter has to explain why those sources were integral to the debate.

It was explained. The sources corroborate facts that clearly support the resolution. There were no nuances in these small debate rounds that were short paragraphs in length. You wanted a longer vote comment than some of the arguments they gave. Clearly that is unreasonable and the extreme technical application of rules here vs so many other votes is grounds for accusations of bias.

I don't doubt that many people have stopped voting due to what they perceive as biased or overly harsh moderation. The latter is something a lot of people disagree on, as evidenced by bsh1's polls on the matter. The former is, again, a claim without evidence. I'm not biased merely because I removed your vote, nor have I shown clear biases in my other interactions on the site.

What I find strange is that there is nothing I could have said in my vote that would have added anything. This is complete technicality to discount a completely rational vote. The debate was more about one side giving facts and the other side saying no because 'my opinion.'

There is nothing more to say on the matter.
LaughingRiddle
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 11:43:39 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 11:27:40 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 1/5/2016 10:46:12 PM, LaughingRiddle wrote:
I cast a vote on the following debate voting for the only sourced argument.
http://www.debate.org...

A biased moderator

It's always interesting when we start with things like this. Stating that I'm biased and that that bias led me to remove your vote is unwarranted. I haven't, to my knowledge, shown bias against you. If you feel I'm biased, please explain how and where I showed bias in my decision. You might disagree with it, but that doesn't mean that the decision to remove your vote was made out of bias.

later cancels my vote because it 'was not specific enough' when really there is no specifics required. 1 side had facts, evidence and a source and the other side had nothing but opinion that was not convincing based on evidence.

I don't disagree that one side having evidence can be significant. What I found issue with in your vote was the point that, so long as one side presented evidence and the other did not, the former side should always earn source points. It's explained rather clearly in the voting standards that merely pointing out that one side had more sources than the other is not sufficient - the voter has to explain why those sources were integral to the debate.

This kind of behavior is maybe why nobody bothers voting in the first place. So why bother debating either. Clean up the moderator staff with actually unbiased people.

I don't doubt that many people have stopped voting due to what they perceive as biased or overly harsh moderation. The latter is something a lot of people disagree on, as evidenced by bsh1's polls on the matter. The former is, again, a claim without evidence. I'm not biased merely because I removed your vote, nor have I shown clear biases in my other interactions on the site.

My family has been threatened with rape and molestation at knife point and here the biased moderators are pathetically cannot even allow unbiased debates to go on properly appropriating blame.

...I really don't understand what you're getting at here, mainly because the latter half of your sentence is a bit of a jumbled mess. Whatever your personal history with violence, it has nothing to do with this decision, nor do I think that those threats bear any resemblance to the decision to take down your vote based on the site standards.

In case you don't get it even the legendary left win liberal BBC can no longer deny many immigrants are just opportunistic rapists. http://www.bbc.com...

...Not sure what this has to do with anything.

Note the implication of over 1,000 organized gang of arab immigrant rapists attacking women in Cologne. This was on new years. This requires outrage and people like the moderator who observes facts deserves to face such outrage and be axed for it.

I think what you meant was "people like the moderator who OBSCURES facts." I don't see how removing your vote obscured a fact. People are still able to read the debate, as you did. People can still make their own decisions based on the facts presented there. Removing your vote doesn't constitute an effort to silence you, as you clearly have taken the floor in back-to-back forum posts that everyone can see. I didn't censor the debate, and I don't plan on doing so. As far as I know, being outraged at gangs of Arab rapists (whether they exist or not - no judgment of that statement here) doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with the removal of your vote.


Now, if you'd like to discuss the reasons for your vote's removal, I'd be more than happy to discuss this in a PM with you. Since I'm open to receiving messages from anyone and I am the public face of vote moderation on the site, I'm disappointed to see that this is the first place where you chose to air your grievances, though I'd still be willing to continue this privately. You would apparently rather make a public spectacle of this (which I would say turns moderation into the main issue and turns attention away from such issues as you discuss), so if you'd like to discuss it here, we can do that, though I'd rather that we discussed this between the two of us.

Also; just with a cursory look at your profile it seems like you are the opposite political spectrum than I. So the motivation for bias is certainly there. And as I said there is nothing I could have added into my vote that would have provided any merit and would have ended up with a vote as long as the debate rounds in that particular debate. Simplistic debate should not surprisingly equal a simplistic vote.

You seem like a nice guy but nothing can shake the sense that technical nit picky application of voting rules by someone who can be said to be biased against the non-liberal vote in question based on their self declared liberal profile.

It just adds up from my side to the accusation of bias and nothing but meaningless nit picking that could be applied ruthlessly to half the votes on this website from a moderator who has such a bias seems to explain this all properly.
Roukezian
Posts: 1,711
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 12:24:43 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Firstly, I'm disgusted by the racist stereotype that the Middle East and North African cultures are rape cultures, but to evaluate the debate...

The resolution was, Many European countries are importing rape cultures from the Middle East and Africa.

Pro began with a "research of immigrants doing rape" but it was simply a biased source called the Gateson Institute Dot Org which is called by TheNation, "The Sugar Mama of Anti-Muslim hate" and lacks any educational or scholarly status and is well-known for its propaganda and conspiracy theories. The report itself accuses the German Police of collaborating to hide the rape cases and adds many other far-fetched claims such as that a refugee raping a German girl is commonplace(Oh really?).

Con responds with statistics he didn't source showing that the actual number of rape cases actually decreased after immigrants/refugees came in.

Pro responds by repeating that this report talked about cases of immigrants committing rape. But again, if a refugee rapes or gets raped, that doesn't mean a whole rape culture is being imported. That's a broad-brush generalization.

Con responds with another argument that immigrants from ME and Africa have always been migrating to Germany without a rape-immigration correlation being detected (again without a source, just mere speculation).

I believe both were very bad at this debate, but I don't understand why the OP doesn't just vote again properly instead of wasting his time justifying a bad RFD.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 4:32:22 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 11:34:28 PM, LaughingRiddle wrote:
At 1/5/2016 11:27:40 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 1/5/2016 10:46:12 PM, LaughingRiddle wrote:
I cast a vote on the following debate voting for the only sourced argument.
http://www.debate.org...


It's always interesting when we start with things like this. Stating that I'm biased and that that bias led me to remove your vote is unwarranted. I haven't, to my knowledge, shown bias against you. If you feel I'm biased, please explain how and where I showed bias in my decision. You might disagree with it, but that doesn't mean that the decision to remove your vote was made out of bias.

Sure;
1) Unfair application of voting requirements; by the nit picky standards shown over my vote I cannot help but think 1/3rd of the website votes could be discounted also, that is an indication of bias if this is applied so selectively.

Any evidence of me unfairly applying the voting requirements? If I have so commonly done so, then it should be no problem at all finding an example or two. If your point is that there are many votes that are not moderated at all, that's not due to an unfair application of the voting requirements. That's due to how moderation works. I only address votes that are reported, the vast majority of which are reported by other people than me. That leaves the determination of what is viewed for moderation mostly outside of my control.

2) There was no lack of specifics in my vote; any look at the debate I voted on will see it lacked any details other than a Claim + Source vs claim + no source. Very short debate rounds. There is no argument to address more so than I did in my vote. Only reason for discounting it can be bias.

There is a clear lack of specifics in the vote. Both debaters had arguments. They may both have been little more than claims, but they require more assessment than the dismissal you gave them. The inclusion of a source may indeed have facilitated an argument from one side to the point that it became something more substantial and, thus, ensured the victory of that side, but that requires that I know what the argument is, what the source did to improve it, and why that was sufficient to affirm or negate the resolution. None of that appeared in your RFD.

I don't disagree that one side having evidence can be significant. What I found issue with in your vote was the point that, so long as one side presented evidence and the other did not, the former side should always earn source points. It's explained rather clearly in the voting standards that merely pointing out that one side had more sources than the other is not sufficient - the voter has to explain why those sources were integral to the debate.

It was explained. The sources corroborate facts that clearly support the resolution. There were no nuances in these small debate rounds that were short paragraphs in length. You wanted a longer vote comment than some of the arguments they gave. Clearly that is unreasonable and the extreme technical application of rules here vs so many other votes is grounds for accusations of bias.

I disagree. You explained only in the most nebulous of terms, never actually pointing to specific points made by either side or even explaining why the source was important to the debate beyond a general view that sources > no sources, which may be true in a great majority of cases, but it isn't automatically a reason for one side to win, particularly if a given source has no bearing on the debate. This may not have been the problem here, but that requires that you explain why those sources are important. As for length, adding an extra sentence (or a few extra words, as I feel would have been enough here) is neither clearly unreasonable nor extreme, no matter what the length of the arguments in the debate.

I don't doubt that many people have stopped voting due to what they perceive as biased or overly harsh moderation. The latter is something a lot of people disagree on, as evidenced by bsh1's polls on the matter. The former is, again, a claim without evidence. I'm not biased merely because I removed your vote, nor have I shown clear biases in my other interactions on the site.

What I find strange is that there is nothing I could have said in my vote that would have added anything. This is complete technicality to discount a completely rational vote. The debate was more about one side giving facts and the other side saying no because 'my opinion.'

There is nothing more to say on the matter.

Again, I disagree. I feel there is a good deal you could have added. Rationality alone doesn't make an RFD sufficient, not by this site's standards. The reality is that, while we can argue this extensively and determine whether or not the standards are reasonable, they do exist and are explicated at length in one of the stickied forums (http://www.debate.org...) and in our president's guide to voting (https://docs.google.com...). Whether you feel that those standards are appropriate or not is a different matter than whether or not you are in violation of them, and in this case, you clearly are.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 4:49:33 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Also; just with a cursory look at your profile it seems like you are the opposite political spectrum than I. So the motivation for bias is certainly there.

See, I can understand the rest of your assertions on my supposed bias, but not this one. The fact that we disagree politically is not a reason for me to remove your vote. I've removed plenty of votes from liberals and plenty from conservatives. I do not check profiles before I make these decisions, nor do I critique the logic of a given vote, using personal disagreements with a given RFD as justification to remove it. You're assuming that because I disagree with you politically, I have some reason to abuse my position to remove votes like yours from the site, but that's just an unwarranted assumption about my character, and frankly it's a little offensive to me that you think that I can't possibly come to a decision on a given RFD without bringing politics into the matter.

And as I said there is nothing I could have added into my vote that would have provided any merit and would have ended up with a vote as long as the debate rounds in that particular debate. Simplistic debate should not surprisingly equal a simplistic vote.

Already addressed this previously. There was plenty you could have added, and it did not require making an incredibly long RFD. You spent 3 short sentences on your RFD, it's not particularly awful to require you to add another few words to make it sufficient.

You seem like a nice guy but nothing can shake the sense that technical nit picky application of voting rules by someone who can be said to be biased against the non-liberal vote in question based on their self declared liberal profile.

I... seem to be a nice guy... but I'm really a prick who removes the votes of conservative voters from the site, abusing my position in order to engage in something so petty as subverting their votes? And you're basing this on a "sense" that I'm biased, with no actual evidence (rather ironic, considering your vote), chiefly because I had the temerity to declare my political views in my profile? Treating my political leanings as sufficient for me to essentially ignore the basic duties I agreed to uphold in this position, and all of the effort I put in on a daily basis to ensure that I meet those duties, is more than a little insulting from my perspective, and completely unwarranted.

It just adds up from my side to the accusation of bias and nothing but meaningless nit picking that could be applied ruthlessly to half the votes on this website from a moderator who has such a bias seems to explain this all properly.

Yes, it's an accusation, and from what I can see little more. If you want to call it meaningless nit-picking, that's fine, but then you have a problem with the standards and not with my application of them, which is consistent. If you were liberal and had made the same vote, it would still have been removed. This is not a ruthless process, and it's not applied to some subset of the population on the site determined solely by the moderator. Frankly, I think you'd have to see an unprovable conspiracy behind the process in order to believe that my being biased is the only explanation for your vote's removal, and I think it also requires an individual who is unwilling to critically analyze their own vote and ensure that it fully meets the standards of the site.
Raisor
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 5:28:25 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 11:43:39 PM, LaughingRiddle wrote:
At 1/5/2016 11:27:40 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 1/5/2016 10:46:12 PM, LaughingRiddle wrote:
I cast a vote on the following debate voting for the only sourced argument.
http://www.debate.org...

A biased moderator

It's always interesting when we start with things like this. Stating that I'm biased and that that bias led me to remove your vote is unwarranted. I haven't, to my knowledge, shown bias against you. If you feel I'm biased, please explain how and where I showed bias in my decision. You might disagree with it, but that doesn't mean that the decision to remove your vote was made out of bias.

later cancels my vote because it 'was not specific enough' when really there is no specifics required. 1 side had facts, evidence and a source and the other side had nothing but opinion that was not convincing based on evidence.

I don't disagree that one side having evidence can be significant. What I found issue with in your vote was the point that, so long as one side presented evidence and the other did not, the former side should always earn source points. It's explained rather clearly in the voting standards that merely pointing out that one side had more sources than the other is not sufficient - the voter has to explain why those sources were integral to the debate.

This kind of behavior is maybe why nobody bothers voting in the first place. So why bother debating either. Clean up the moderator staff with actually unbiased people.

I don't doubt that many people have stopped voting due to what they perceive as biased or overly harsh moderation. The latter is something a lot of people disagree on, as evidenced by bsh1's polls on the matter. The former is, again, a claim without evidence. I'm not biased merely because I removed your vote, nor have I shown clear biases in my other interactions on the site.

My family has been threatened with rape and molestation at knife point and here the biased moderators are pathetically cannot even allow unbiased debates to go on properly appropriating blame.

...I really don't understand what you're getting at here, mainly because the latter half of your sentence is a bit of a jumbled mess. Whatever your personal history with violence, it has nothing to do with this decision, nor do I think that those threats bear any resemblance to the decision to take down your vote based on the site standards.

In case you don't get it even the legendary left win liberal BBC can no longer deny many immigrants are just opportunistic rapists. http://www.bbc.com...

...Not sure what this has to do with anything.

Note the implication of over 1,000 organized gang of arab immigrant rapists attacking women in Cologne. This was on new years. This requires outrage and people like the moderator who observes facts deserves to face such outrage and be axed for it.

I think what you meant was "people like the moderator who OBSCURES facts." I don't see how removing your vote obscured a fact. People are still able to read the debate, as you did. People can still make their own decisions based on the facts presented there. Removing your vote doesn't constitute an effort to silence you, as you clearly have taken the floor in back-to-back forum posts that everyone can see. I didn't censor the debate, and I don't plan on doing so. As far as I know, being outraged at gangs of Arab rapists (whether they exist or not - no judgment of that statement here) doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with the removal of your vote.


Now, if you'd like to discuss the reasons for your vote's removal, I'd be more than happy to discuss this in a PM with you. Since I'm open to receiving messages from anyone and I am the public face of vote moderation on the site, I'm disappointed to see that this is the first place where you chose to air your grievances, though I'd still be willing to continue this privately. You would apparently rather make a public spectacle of this (which I would say turns moderation into the main issue and turns attention away from such issues as you discuss), so if you'd like to discuss it here, we can do that, though I'd rather that we discussed this between the two of us.

Also; just with a cursory look at your profile it seems like you are the opposite political spectrum than I. So the motivation for bias is certainly there. And as I said there is nothing I could have added into my vote that would have provided any merit and would have ended up with a vote as long as the debate rounds in that particular debate. Simplistic debate should not surprisingly equal a simplistic vote.

You seem like a nice guy but nothing can shake the sense that technical nit picky application of voting rules by someone who can be said to be biased against the non-liberal vote in question based on their self declared liberal profile.

It just adds up from my side to the accusation of bias and nothing but meaningless nit picking that could be applied ruthlessly to half the votes on this website from a moderator who has such a bias seems to explain this all properly.

You clearly haven't been here very long if you think the moderators take down voted based on their political views.

First, the mods are mature enough to not really care whether the side they agree with is winning or not. Whiteflame doesn't give two hoots what the Resolution is much less whether you're on the side he agrees with.

Second, whiteflame has a history with competitive debating, meaning he has certainly debated in favor of positions he disagrees with. I'm sure you can look through his history and find debates where he plays devil's advocate. IF he is willing to advocate against his beliefs for the sake of competitive debate, he is willing to to ignore his own beliefs while moderating votes.

Third, people get votes removed all the time for not meeting voting standards, regardless of the political orientation of the vote. History just doesn't bear out your claims.

Bottom line is, if you are voting on debates for political reasons, or if you think that it somehow matters to your real world political beliefs whether one side is winning, you have no business casting votes and don't really understand the concept of competitive debate. You probably are looking for the poll section.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 5:56:58 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 11:24:49 PM, LaughingRiddle wrote:
At 1/5/2016 11:05:15 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/5/2016 10:46:12 PM, LaughingRiddle wrote:
I cast a vote on the following debate voting for the only sourced argument.
http://www.debate.org...

A biased moderator later cancels my vote because it 'was not specific enough' when really there is no specifics required. 1 side had facts, evidence and a source and the other side had nothing but opinion that was not convincing based on evidence.

This kind of behavior is maybe why nobody bothers voting in the first place. So why bother debating either. Clean up the moderator staff with actually unbiased people. My family has been threatened with rape and molestation at knife point and here the biased moderators are pathetically cannot even allow unbiased debates to go on properly appropriating blame.

In case you don't get it even the legendary left win liberal BBC can no longer deny many immigrants are just opportunistic rapists. http://www.bbc.com...

Note the implication of over 1,000 organized gang of arab immigrant rapists attacking women in Cologne. This was on new years. This requires outrage and people like the moderator who observes facts deserves to face such outrage and be axed for it.

This complaint is meaningless. A review of the debate shows both sides had arguments, and so an evaluation of those arguments is required. Both sides listed 'facts.'

I don't care what the BBC says unless the opponent brought it up in the debate. It's not your job as a voter to put forth sources and arguments the debaters didn't bring up. And it's not your job to disregard arguments as 'opinions' because you don't believe them.

One side gave facts with sources; the other side gave nothing but opinion without any sources. There was no argument to address for the Con position. Commenting on the sources is a reflection of commenting on the arguments anyway. Do I really need to say; "The argument of con had no sources"?

A source is helpful. But lacking it does not make your arguments an opinion.

This is extreme nit picky details; fact is it was a back and for debate with very little content so there was little but facts offered to vote on. One side gave sources so they win. End of story unless you are a very biased moderator pushing an agenda.

It is impossible to ignore outside knowledge as a voter that only affirms what the clear result of the debate for an unbiased voter is. Sorry I commented that AFTER I had already rationalized my voted beyond any need for further doubt with the simple fact sources wins against mere opinion that is against the given facts and sources.

Hardly true. You MUST enter without outside knowledge. Me, Whiteflame, Bluesteel, Balacafa, and Midnight do it all the time. If you enter with outside knowledge, why even read the debate? When you can just explain why the opponent is wrong with your "obvious outside knowledge." That, and your "outside knowledge" can easily be wrong.

Argument doesn't even come into the picture really. There is no reason to even listen to Con's argument at any point without any qualification.

I can list off several arguments both sides made. Your denial of these arguments because of your obvious bias makes your the only problem here... Not Whiteflame.

If my complaint is meaningless it is only because this website is meaningless. People hardly even vote and when you look at stuff like this is is easy to see why that is. Because apparently they don't even let you vote for things they don't like no matter if that is the only side you could have logically voted for under any circumstances.

That doesn't flow at all... While it makes sense that if the site is worthless, complaining about it is worthless, that doesn't mean that follows that if your complaint is worthless, the site must therefore be worthless. The circumstance is what matters. You're complaint was on false grounds, and you're the bad guy in the actual event.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Mikal
Posts: 11,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 12:33:40 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 11:43:39 PM, LaughingRiddle wrote:

Also; just with a cursory look at your profile it seems like you are the opposite political spectrum than I. So the motivation for bias is certainly there.

Dude I am probably one of the most liberal people on the site. I think prostitution should be legal, I think women should be encouraged to go into the porn industry, I think all drugs that only inflict self harm should be legal, I hate what Christianity stands for, and I use to be an avid satanist.

With that being said, he removes my votes on a day to day basis. There is no bias when he removes votes. He either removed it because you were to lazy to explain why you voted in a certain way, or because you failed to understand how voting requirements work and what is expected when you vote. All in all it's a lax standard, it just literally requires you to weigh arguments
imabench
Posts: 21,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 12:36:10 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 12:33:40 AM, Mikal wrote:

I think prostitution should be legal, I think women should be encouraged to go into the porn industry, I think all drugs that only inflict self harm should be legal, I hate what Christianity stands for, and I use to be an avid satanist.

I really gave $550 to you?

With that being said, he removes my votes on a day to day basis. There is no bias when he removes votes. He either removed it because you were to lazy to explain why you voted in a certain way, or because you failed to understand how voting requirements work and what is expected when you vote. All in all it's a lax standard, it just literally requires you to weigh arguments
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

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

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Mikal
Posts: 11,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 12:36:37 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 12:36:10 AM, imabench wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:33:40 AM, Mikal wrote:

I think prostitution should be legal, I think women should be encouraged to go into the porn industry, I think all drugs that only inflict self harm should be legal, I hate what Christianity stands for, and I use to be an avid satanist.

I really gave $550 to you?

You hate liberals lol?

With that being said, he removes my votes on a day to day basis. There is no bias when he removes votes. He either removed it because you were to lazy to explain why you voted in a certain way, or because you failed to understand how voting requirements work and what is expected when you vote. All in all it's a lax standard, it just literally requires you to weigh arguments
imabench
Posts: 21,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 12:38:05 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 12:36:37 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:36:10 AM, imabench wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:33:40 AM, Mikal wrote:

I think prostitution should be legal, I think women should be encouraged to go into the porn industry, I think all drugs that only inflict self harm should be legal, I hate what Christianity stands for, and I use to be an avid satanist.

I really gave $550 to you?

You hate liberals lol?

I hate everyone equally

With that being said, he removes my votes on a day to day basis. There is no bias when he removes votes. He either removed it because you were to lazy to explain why you voted in a certain way, or because you failed to understand how voting requirements work and what is expected when you vote. All in all it's a lax standard, it just literally requires you to weigh arguments
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

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

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Mikal
Posts: 11,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 12:38:40 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 12:38:05 AM, imabench wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:36:37 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:36:10 AM, imabench wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:33:40 AM, Mikal wrote:

I think prostitution should be legal, I think women should be encouraged to go into the porn industry, I think all drugs that only inflict self harm should be legal, I hate what Christianity stands for, and I use to be an avid satanist.

I really gave $550 to you?

You hate liberals lol?

I hate everyone equally

I'll debate any of those topics for what it's worth XD


With that being said, he removes my votes on a day to day basis. There is no bias when he removes votes. He either removed it because you were to lazy to explain why you voted in a certain way, or because you failed to understand how voting requirements work and what is expected when you vote. All in all it's a lax standard, it just literally requires you to weigh arguments
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 12:40:58 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
People like the OP here are why it's so hard to say anything bad about vote moderation, for fear of being grouped together with such intellectuals.

If you have a problem with a moderator decision, please first try talking to them about it; rather than airing your dirty laundry on the main forum.
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...
imabench
Posts: 21,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 12:41:05 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 12:38:40 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:38:05 AM, imabench wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:36:37 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:36:10 AM, imabench wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:33:40 AM, Mikal wrote:

I think prostitution should be legal, I think women should be encouraged to go into the porn industry, I think all drugs that only inflict self harm should be legal, I hate what Christianity stands for, and I use to be an avid satanist.

I really gave $550 to you?

You hate liberals lol?

I hate everyone equally

I'll debate any of those topics for what it's worth XD

Ive lost to you three times already im not itching to make it four

With that being said, he removes my votes on a day to day basis. There is no bias when he removes votes. He either removed it because you were to lazy to explain why you voted in a certain way, or because you failed to understand how voting requirements work and what is expected when you vote. All in all it's a lax standard, it just literally requires you to weigh arguments
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

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

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Mikal
Posts: 11,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 12:41:57 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 12:41:05 AM, imabench wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:38:40 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:38:05 AM, imabench wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:36:37 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:36:10 AM, imabench wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:33:40 AM, Mikal wrote:

I think prostitution should be legal, I think women should be encouraged to go into the porn industry, I think all drugs that only inflict self harm should be legal, I hate what Christianity stands for, and I use to be an avid satanist.

I really gave $550 to you?

You hate liberals lol?

I hate everyone equally

I'll debate any of those topics for what it's worth XD

Ive lost to you three times already im not itching to make it four

The porn industry one could be fun , I would actually have a very hard time to win that

With that being said, he removes my votes on a day to day basis. There is no bias when he removes votes. He either removed it because you were to lazy to explain why you voted in a certain way, or because you failed to understand how voting requirements work and what is expected when you vote. All in all it's a lax standard, it just literally requires you to weigh arguments
imabench
Posts: 21,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 12:45:24 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 12:41:57 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:41:05 AM, imabench wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:38:40 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:38:05 AM, imabench wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:36:37 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:36:10 AM, imabench wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:33:40 AM, Mikal wrote:

I think prostitution should be legal, I think women should be encouraged to go into the porn industry, I think all drugs that only inflict self harm should be legal, I hate what Christianity stands for, and I use to be an avid satanist.

I really gave $550 to you?

You hate liberals lol?

I hate everyone equally

I'll debate any of those topics for what it's worth XD

Ive lost to you three times already im not itching to make it four

The porn industry one could be fun , I would actually have a very hard time to win that

Dont you try your jedi mind tricks on me. They may have worked the first three times but it wont work the fourth time
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

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

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Mikal
Posts: 11,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 12:47:15 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 12:45:24 AM, imabench wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:41:57 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:41:05 AM, imabench wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:38:40 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:38:05 AM, imabench wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:36:37 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:36:10 AM, imabench wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:33:40 AM, Mikal wrote:

I think prostitution should be legal, I think women should be encouraged to go into the porn industry, I think all drugs that only inflict self harm should be legal, I hate what Christianity stands for, and I use to be an avid satanist.

I really gave $550 to you?

You hate liberals lol?

I hate everyone equally

I'll debate any of those topics for what it's worth XD

Ive lost to you three times already im not itching to make it four

The porn industry one could be fun , I would actually have a very hard time to win that

Dont you try your jedi mind tricks on me. They may have worked the first three times but it wont work the fourth time

Dude i'm arguing in favor of women being encouraged to do porn. I'm taking a huge hit against the majority consensus which goes hand in hand with bias voters lol

IDK about my record anymore, half the time i dont even finish my debates anymore due to time stuff lol

lets do it for fun xD