Total Posts:68|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A Conservative Solution: Opt Out Option

YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 5:38:36 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
It would be interesting to see people opt out of vote moderation entirely. Not just have a lower or raised standard, but opt out completely. Thus, counter-vote bombs would be allowed. The only remedy to a bad vote would be more votes. DDO would return to what it once was.
Tsar of DDO
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 5:44:26 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
If thats the conservative solution then whats the liberal solution?

Welfare?

*crosses fingers*
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
Reformist
Posts: 679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 5:50:00 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/8/2016 5:38:36 AM, YYW wrote:
It would be interesting to see people opt out of vote moderation entirely. Not just have a lower or raised standard, but opt out completely. Thus, counter-vote bombs would be allowed. The only remedy to a bad vote would be more votes. DDO would return to what it once was.

Or we realize that the site is dying and that people rarely vote and the majorit of debates have one vote or less. Not only that but lack of moderation means I can just put "I hate gays" as my rfd and it wouldnt get removed
DDO History Revival Officer
Fuher of the Reich

"I'm not Asian"-Vaarka

"I would rather have a fascist than a socialist in office"- Bball

To be a feminist or to be smart that is the question
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 5:52:02 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/8/2016 5:44:26 AM, imabench wrote:
If thats the conservative solution then whats the liberal solution?

Welfare?

*crosses fingers*

The liberal solution is the status quo, I guess. The status quo where CVB's are not allowed. The status quo where vote moderation spends tremendous amounts of time doing what the community themselves should do.

Creating new structures of power--as we have done now--is not the solution to an organic problem.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 5:52:36 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/8/2016 5:50:00 AM, Reformist wrote:
At 3/8/2016 5:38:36 AM, YYW wrote:
It would be interesting to see people opt out of vote moderation entirely. Not just have a lower or raised standard, but opt out completely. Thus, counter-vote bombs would be allowed. The only remedy to a bad vote would be more votes. DDO would return to what it once was.

Or we realize that the site is dying and that people rarely vote and the majorit of debates have one vote or less. Not only that but lack of moderation means I can just put "I hate gays" as my rfd and it wouldnt get removed

The problem with vote moderation is that it does not serve the purposes it should.
Tsar of DDO
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 5:54:04 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
This option already exists. It's called "no RFD voting." Just select "No" under the "voting comments" option when you create a debate.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 5:55:32 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/8/2016 5:54:04 AM, bsh1 wrote:
This option already exists. It's called "no RFD voting." Just select "No" under the "voting comments" option when you create a debate.

That is not an option, because it forecloses the possibility of an RFD being written and publicly viewable. Similar effects does not indicate functional congruence.
Tsar of DDO
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 6:00:04 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/8/2016 5:55:32 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/8/2016 5:54:04 AM, bsh1 wrote:
This option already exists. It's called "no RFD voting." Just select "No" under the "voting comments" option when you create a debate.

That is not an option, because it forecloses the possibility of an RFD being written and publicly viewable. Similar effects does not indicate functional congruence.

I am not certain that what you said is accurate, so I'll check with Max. But, if it is, the solution seems simple: just post your RFD in the comments.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 6:03:21 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/8/2016 5:55:32 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/8/2016 5:54:04 AM, bsh1 wrote:
This option already exists. It's called "no RFD voting." Just select "No" under the "voting comments" option when you create a debate.

That is not an option, because it forecloses the possibility of an RFD being written and publicly viewable. Similar effects does not indicate functional congruence.

I went and did a search for a "No RFD Required" debate [http://www.debate.org...]. You will notice that it permits comments but it does not require them. This debate is only 1 month old, and so anything that can be technically done on that debate should be able to be done now.

So, again, this option already exists.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 6:04:54 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/8/2016 6:03:21 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 3/8/2016 5:55:32 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/8/2016 5:54:04 AM, bsh1 wrote:
This option already exists. It's called "no RFD voting." Just select "No" under the "voting comments" option when you create a debate.

That is not an option, because it forecloses the possibility of an RFD being written and publicly viewable. Similar effects does not indicate functional congruence.

I went and did a search for a "No RFD Required" debate [http://www.debate.org...]. You will notice that it permits comments but it does not require them. This debate is only 1 month old, and so anything that can be technically done on that debate should be able to be done now.

So, again, this option already exists.

The option does not exist because it does not permit RFD's to be posted; the fact that comments can be posted requires circumventing the voting structure to post an RFD.

The option does not exist. The rules can be bent to make it exist, and that is what you're advocating for... which frankly I'm fine with.

I've never much cared for rules.
Tsar of DDO
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 6:08:27 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/8/2016 6:04:54 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/8/2016 6:03:21 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 3/8/2016 5:55:32 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/8/2016 5:54:04 AM, bsh1 wrote:
This option already exists. It's called "no RFD voting." Just select "No" under the "voting comments" option when you create a debate.

That is not an option, because it forecloses the possibility of an RFD being written and publicly viewable. Similar effects does not indicate functional congruence.

I went and did a search for a "No RFD Required" debate [http://www.debate.org...]. You will notice that it permits comments but it does not require them. This debate is only 1 month old, and so anything that can be technically done on that debate should be able to be done now.

So, again, this option already exists.

The option does not exist because it does not permit RFD's to be posted

This is false. Did you even check the debate I linked. People did post RFDs in their actual votes. To quote from one ballot: "Reasons for voting decision: Pro listed his sources...but that is about it...."

In other words, the system permits RFDs to be posted, but does not require them to be posted. Ergo, the option you are seeking ALREADY EXISTS.

the fact that comments can be posted requires circumventing the voting structure to post an RFD.

You don't need to post in the comments in a "No RFD Required" debate...as the link I just posted proves. Did you read where I said: "You will notice that it permits comments but it does not require them"?

The option does not exist.

It does.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 6:12:21 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
YYW, you are objectively wrong on this issue--the alternative you seek exists. My link shows that:

1. There are "No RFD Required" debates
2. Moderation will confirm it does not moderate vote quality on these debates
3. "No RFD Required" debates still permit RFDs within the ballot itself/within the structure of the vote (i.e. not in the comments).
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...
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 6:36:36 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/8/2016 5:54:04 AM, bsh1 wrote:
This option already exists. It's called "no RFD voting." Just select "No" under the "voting comments" option when you create a debate.

That was my first reaction, until I realized what exactly the proposal is--the proposal requires an RFD, preferably a one that is "sufficient," but if people find it insufficient, they counter-vote bomb. The CVB's should also have reasoning. Basically, an option where the community does what moderation does other debates.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 6:37:27 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/8/2016 6:12:21 AM, bsh1 wrote:
YYW, you are objectively wrong on this issue--the alternative you seek exists. My link shows that:

1. There are "No RFD Required" debates
2. Moderation will confirm it does not moderate vote quality on these debates
3. "No RFD Required" debates still permit RFDs within the ballot itself/within the structure of the vote (i.e. not in the comments).

I'm fairly sure this isn't what YYW means. He's talking about mandatory-RFD's voting--only the community does what moderation usually does.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 6:37:50 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
(Note: I do not necessarily support this proposal; I'm merely highlighting what it is.)
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 6:39:33 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/8/2016 6:37:27 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/8/2016 6:12:21 AM, bsh1 wrote:
YYW, you are objectively wrong on this issue--the alternative you seek exists. My link shows that:

1. There are "No RFD Required" debates
2. Moderation will confirm it does not moderate vote quality on these debates
3. "No RFD Required" debates still permit RFDs within the ballot itself/within the structure of the vote (i.e. not in the comments).

I'm fairly sure this isn't what YYW means. He's talking about mandatory-RFD's voting--only the community does what moderation usually does.

Yes.

There is literally no point in even speaking to bsh1 when his sole and explicit purpose in everything he does is to act like a petulant contrarian.
Tsar of DDO
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 6:40:58 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/8/2016 6:39:33 AM, YYW wrote:
There is literally no point in even speaking to bsh1 when his sole and explicit purpose in everything he does is to act like a petulant contrarian.

This was really unnecessary. Even if you do feel like that--or consider it true--there's no reason to say it publicly. If you want to engage someone, do it civilly.

Thank you.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 6:41:48 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/8/2016 6:37:27 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/8/2016 6:12:21 AM, bsh1 wrote:
YYW, you are objectively wrong on this issue--the alternative you seek exists. My link shows that:

1. There are "No RFD Required" debates
2. Moderation will confirm it does not moderate vote quality on these debates
3. "No RFD Required" debates still permit RFDs within the ballot itself/within the structure of the vote (i.e. not in the comments).

I'm fairly sure this isn't what YYW means. He's talking about mandatory-RFD's voting--only the community does what moderation usually does.

No, based on his remark, it's clear YYW thought that the RFDs permitted no comments whatsoever:

"The option does not exist because it does not permit RFD's to be posted; the fact that comments can be posted requires circumventing the voting structure to post an RFD."

Regardless, I don't see much substantial difference between "No RFD Required" and the system you just described, Tej, primarily because even under a NRR system, most people at least offer a perfunctory RFD, and those who didn't would be CVB'd, per YYW's recommendation.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 6:43:04 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/8/2016 6:40:58 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/8/2016 6:39:33 AM, YYW wrote:
There is literally no point in even speaking to bsh1 when his sole and explicit purpose in everything he does is to act like a petulant contrarian.

This was really unnecessary. Even if you do feel like that--or consider it true--there's no reason to say it publicly. If you want to engage someone, do it civilly.

Thank you.

I have tried being civil with him; there is no point. He takes every opportunity to act like a petulant child, and I see no reason not to point that out.

His idea was wrong, that was obvious, and then he wants to get testy about it.

I have better things to do than argue with someone like that.
Tsar of DDO
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 6:43:29 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/8/2016 6:41:48 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 3/8/2016 6:37:27 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/8/2016 6:12:21 AM, bsh1 wrote:
YYW, you are objectively wrong on this issue--the alternative you seek exists. My link shows that:

1. There are "No RFD Required" debates
2. Moderation will confirm it does not moderate vote quality on these debates
3. "No RFD Required" debates still permit RFDs within the ballot itself/within the structure of the vote (i.e. not in the comments).

I'm fairly sure this isn't what YYW means. He's talking about mandatory-RFD's voting--only the community does what moderation usually does.

No, based on his remark, it's clear YYW thought that the RFDs permitted no comments whatsoever:

"The option does not exist because it does not permit RFD's to be posted; the fact that comments can be posted requires circumventing the voting structure to post an RFD."

Regardless, I don't see much substantial difference between "No RFD Required" and the system you just described, Tej, primarily because even under a NRR system, most people at least offer a perfunctory RFD, and those who didn't would be CVB'd, per YYW's recommendation.

But the point is they aren't CVB'd. What YYW is proposing isn't something Juggle needs to do--it's something the debaters should specify (read: they should say "please counter vote-bomb votes without reasoning").
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 6:43:49 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/8/2016 6:41:48 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 3/8/2016 6:37:27 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/8/2016 6:12:21 AM, bsh1 wrote:
YYW, you are objectively wrong on this issue--the alternative you seek exists. My link shows that:

1. There are "No RFD Required" debates
2. Moderation will confirm it does not moderate vote quality on these debates
3. "No RFD Required" debates still permit RFDs within the ballot itself/within the structure of the vote (i.e. not in the comments).

I'm fairly sure this isn't what YYW means. He's talking about mandatory-RFD's voting--only the community does what moderation usually does.

No, based on his remark, it's clear YYW thought that the RFDs permitted no comments whatsoever:

"The option does not exist because it does not permit RFD's to be posted; the fact that comments can be posted requires circumventing the voting structure to post an RFD."

Regardless, I don't see much substantial difference between "No RFD Required" and the system you just described, Tej, primarily because even under a NRR system, most people at least offer a perfunctory RFD, and those who didn't would be CVB'd, per YYW's recommendation.

Comments and RFD's are not the same thing. The fact that you are shifting between them is obvious to anyone who reads this thread.
Tsar of DDO
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 6:48:41 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/8/2016 6:43:49 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/8/2016 6:41:48 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 3/8/2016 6:37:27 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/8/2016 6:12:21 AM, bsh1 wrote:
YYW, you are objectively wrong on this issue--the alternative you seek exists. My link shows that:

1. There are "No RFD Required" debates
2. Moderation will confirm it does not moderate vote quality on these debates
3. "No RFD Required" debates still permit RFDs within the ballot itself/within the structure of the vote (i.e. not in the comments).

I'm fairly sure this isn't what YYW means. He's talking about mandatory-RFD's voting--only the community does what moderation usually does.

No, based on his remark, it's clear YYW thought that the RFDs permitted no comments whatsoever:

"The option does not exist because it does not permit RFD's to be posted; the fact that comments can be posted requires circumventing the voting structure to post an RFD."

Regardless, I don't see much substantial difference between "No RFD Required" and the system you just described, Tej, primarily because even under a NRR system, most people at least offer a perfunctory RFD, and those who didn't would be CVB'd, per YYW's recommendation.

Comments and RFD's are not the same thing. The fact that you are shifting between them is obvious to anyone who reads this thread.

I am using them interchangeably because when you go to "Start a New Debate," it asks to enable comments or not regarding RFDs. Regardless, it does not change the meaning of your statement that "The option does not exist because it does not permit RFD's to be posted." This language was totally unambiguous.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 6:50:10 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/8/2016 6:43:29 AM, tejretics wrote:
But the point is they aren't CVB'd. What YYW is proposing isn't something Juggle needs to do--it's something the debaters should specify (read: they should say "please counter vote-bomb votes without reasoning").

You can CVB on a NRR debate--moderation won't remove it.
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...
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 6:53:39 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/8/2016 6:50:10 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 3/8/2016 6:43:29 AM, tejretics wrote:
But the point is they aren't CVB'd. What YYW is proposing isn't something Juggle needs to do--it's something the debaters should specify (read: they should say "please counter vote-bomb votes without reasoning").

You can CVB on a NRR debate--moderation won't remove it.

I am aware. But people don't, so this thread basically *tells them to do it.*
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 6:53:43 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/8/2016 6:50:10 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 3/8/2016 6:43:29 AM, tejretics wrote:
But the point is they aren't CVB'd. What YYW is proposing isn't something Juggle needs to do--it's something the debaters should specify (read: they should say "please counter vote-bomb votes without reasoning").

You can CVB on a NRR debate--moderation won't remove it.

If you say "I m CVBing X vote." your vote will be removed. That is the issue, which you consistently fail to understand, namely because your only purpose here is to be a contrarian.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 6:54:49 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/8/2016 6:53:39 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/8/2016 6:50:10 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 3/8/2016 6:43:29 AM, tejretics wrote:
But the point is they aren't CVB'd. What YYW is proposing isn't something Juggle needs to do--it's something the debaters should specify (read: they should say "please counter vote-bomb votes without reasoning").

You can CVB on a NRR debate--moderation won't remove it.

I am aware. But people don't, so this thread basically *tells them to do it.*

Indeed, which is why the site president is very much encouraging subversion of the rules.

He seems to labor under the delusion that rules cease to apply because of alternative voting structures, and that is obviously wrong, despite his instance to the contrary.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 6:57:08 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
So the real question is....

will bsh1 make this yet another case study in his desire to initiate conflict with me, or will he concede that he was mistaken?

Time will tell.

If only he'd offered something constructive....
Tsar of DDO
Rosalie
Posts: 4,605
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 6:58:41 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
http://www.fullwallpapers.in...
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump

Officially Mrs. 16Kadams 8-30-16
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 6:59:47 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/8/2016 6:53:43 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/8/2016 6:50:10 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 3/8/2016 6:43:29 AM, tejretics wrote:
But the point is they aren't CVB'd. What YYW is proposing isn't something Juggle needs to do--it's something the debaters should specify (read: they should say "please counter vote-bomb votes without reasoning").

You can CVB on a NRR debate--moderation won't remove it.

If you say "I m CVBing X vote." your vote will be removed. That is the issue, which you consistently fail to understand, namely because your only purpose here is to be a contrarian.

No, that is not true. On NRR debates, you do not need to justify your vote in any way--as far as I understand it. CVB are entirely permissible on those debates.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 7:01:27 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/8/2016 6:59:47 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 3/8/2016 6:53:43 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/8/2016 6:50:10 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 3/8/2016 6:43:29 AM, tejretics wrote:
But the point is they aren't CVB'd. What YYW is proposing isn't something Juggle needs to do--it's something the debaters should specify (read: they should say "please counter vote-bomb votes without reasoning").

You can CVB on a NRR debate--moderation won't remove it.

If you say "I m CVBing X vote." your vote will be removed. That is the issue, which you consistently fail to understand, namely because your only purpose here is to be a contrarian.

No, that is not true. On NRR debates, you do not need to justify your vote in any way--as far as I understand it. CVB are entirely permissible on those debates.

To be "permissible" is not to be "permitted."

If Max knew a CVB was a CVB, he would remove it. The fact that he can't necessarily prove it does not mean that something is permitted.
Tsar of DDO