Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

about to lose my voting privilege...

Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 10:19:03 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I've just been warned that I'm at risk of losing my voting privilege because I've had so many votes removed.

So I have some questions.

1. Burden of proof

Is it not the case that the instigator has burden of proof? In this debate, Pro instigated but did not address the resolution, and so did not meet his burden. I voted as such and my vote was removed. Blade-of-truth said,
"The voter is correct that Pro didn't address the resolution, but the voter only states that Pro has the BoP, which was never argued in the debate. If the voter feels that Pro carried the BoP anyway, the voter has to explain why."

My vote was, "Pro had BoP, but did not address the resolution during the debate, as Con pointed out, and therefore failed to uphold it. "
http://www.debate.org...

So I'm guessing it would have been ok if I'd said. "Pro had BoP because he instigated..."

It seems a bit much that I'm about to lose voting privileges over this.

2. Defining the framework of the debate in the first round.

In this debate, the instigator did not clearly frame the concept of morality and that weakened his entire argument, in my opinion. His opponent defined morality as that which comes from god, and because the framework wasn't set up in the first round, there was no reason to disregard it. I wrote:

"Pro lost because he did not establish a clear definition of "immoral" from the beginning. He did not define it in the first round, and so Con was free to define it as god's actions are by definition moral (god instructs the sinners). Pro had the BoP to prove that god is immoral, and this is almost impossible to do without a clear framework around the concept of immoral. If we define moral as coming from god, then it is also impossible. You can't assume that everyone shares your definitions of words. Next time just state it in round 1, and you'll be in a much stronger position. "
http://www.debate.org...

Blade_of_truth disagreed with my vote. He's free to disagree of course, but I don't think he has grounds to remove it. Even if I read the debate wrongly, in his opinion, each voter comes to a debate with a different perspective.

He wrote,

the voter seems to attribute arguments to Con that do not exist and a lack of arguments to Pro that just aren't true. Con didn't define moral in the opening round. Pro did define it in the second round, and it doesn't appear to have been disputed. It's fine if the voter wants to view the lack of a clear definition in R1 as a factor, but the voter has to take into account actual arguments made in the debate and not expand on or detract from points without clear reasons why that either have to do with logic or appear in the debate.

I don't think the vote should have been removed. I don't think I should lose my voting privilege over this.

But I welcome other people's views.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 11:09:42 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 10:19:03 PM, Hoppi wrote:
I've just been warned that I'm at risk of losing my voting privilege because I've had so many votes removed.

You could have just contacted me about this. Posting a thread in the general DDO forum is not the best way to go about addressing issues like this. If you want personalized feedback, contact me or talk to Blade-of-Truth about it. He clearly sent you a message, and it's worth discussing this with him if you feel something is problematic in the process.

So I have some questions.

1. Burden of proof

Is it not the case that the instigator has burden of proof?

Not always, and particularly not in this case where it's posted in the opening round that BoP is shared. You are allowed to disagree and state why in your RFD, but you can't just say how you view and move on.

In this debate, Pro instigated but did not address the resolution, and so did not meet his burden. I voted as such and my vote was removed. Blade-of-truth said,
"The voter is correct that Pro didn't address the resolution, but the voter only states that Pro has the BoP, which was never argued in the debate. If the voter feels that Pro carried the BoP anyway, the voter has to explain why."

My vote was, "Pro had BoP, but did not address the resolution during the debate, as Con pointed out, and therefore failed to uphold it. "
http://www.debate.org...

So I'm guessing it would have been ok if I'd said. "Pro had BoP because he instigated..."

That's one way some people tend to view it, but you can't just get away with saying that instigation = carrying BoP. Burdens were brought up in the debate. You have to state why you think the distribution of burdens in the debate was unreasonable if you think they should be changed.

It seems a bit much that I'm about to lose voting privileges over this.

You've made this claim from the start that we're about to remove your voting privileges. You've had 2 votes removed. You're not going to lose your voting privileges over that, particularly not if you're responsive to those issues. That's part of why we got into contact with you. That's not to mention that any loss of voting privileges isn't permanent, as you can easily gain them back.

2. Defining the framework of the debate in the first round.

In this debate, the instigator did not clearly frame the concept of morality and that weakened his entire argument, in my opinion. His opponent defined morality as that which comes from god, and because the framework wasn't set up in the first round, there was no reason to disregard it. I wrote:

"Pro lost because he did not establish a clear definition of "immoral" from the beginning. He did not define it in the first round, and so Con was free to define it as god's actions are by definition moral (god instructs the sinners). Pro had the BoP to prove that god is immoral, and this is almost impossible to do without a clear framework around the concept of immoral. If we define moral as coming from god, then it is also impossible. You can't assume that everyone shares your definitions of words. Next time just state it in round 1, and you'll be in a much stronger position. "
http://www.debate.org...

Blade_of_truth disagreed with my vote. He's free to disagree of course, but I don't think he has grounds to remove it. Even if I read the debate wrongly, in his opinion, each voter comes to a debate with a different perspective.

He wrote,

the voter seems to attribute arguments to Con that do not exist and a lack of arguments to Pro that just aren't true. Con didn't define moral in the opening round. Pro did define it in the second round, and it doesn't appear to have been disputed. It's fine if the voter wants to view the lack of a clear definition in R1 as a factor, but the voter has to take into account actual arguments made in the debate and not expand on or detract from points without clear reasons why that either have to do with logic or appear in the debate.

This was my reasoning, not Blade-of-Truth's, but that's beside the point. You basically said that since Con didn't define a specific term in R1, that it was up in the air and that it destroyed the debate as a whole. But that doesn't get you out of actually analyzing the arguments in the debate itself. You still have to go through and explain why Con's arguments weren't sufficient to net him the win, and that's not clear from your RFD. The only reasoning you gave is that Pro defined immoral the next round, which I noticed wasn't true after reading through that very round. He even asked for a specific definition at the end of that round, and never provided one himself. It seems to me like you misinterpreted some of what happened in this debate and didn't do the specific analysis of arguments from each side that is required of every voter who awards argument points.

I don't think the vote should have been removed. I don't think I should lose my voting privilege over this.

Again, it's not this one single vote removal or even both that will result in the loss of voting privileges.

But I welcome other people's views.

I'll fully admit that these votes weren't removed under the usual circumstances, since more often than not, they're rather straightforward. In these cases, I'm not disagreeing with your reasoning, I'm just stating that they need to be better clarified. If you're going to say that the BoP's on Pro, then you need to address the elephant in the room that is the declaration of shared BoP. You're always going to need to specifically analyze arguments given by both sides, but if one side does provide a definition, you either have to give a decent reason for ignoring it or provide good reason to believe that the other side supplied it, which didn't appear to be the case here.
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 11:31:48 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 11:09:42 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 3/19/2016 10:19:03 PM, Hoppi wrote:
I've just been warned that I'm at risk of losing my voting privilege because I've had so many votes removed.

You could have just contacted me about this. Posting a thread in the general DDO forum is not the best way to go about addressing issues like this. If you want personalized feedback, contact me or talk to Blade-of-Truth about it. He clearly sent you a message, and it's worth discussing this with him if you feel something is problematic in the process.

I think it's relevant to the site as a whole in the context of vote moderation discouraging voting.

So I have some questions.

1. Burden of proof

Is it not the case that the instigator has burden of proof?

Not always, and particularly not in this case where it's posted in the opening round that BoP is shared. You are allowed to disagree and state why in your RFD, but you can't just say how you view and move on.

So I've just said that he doesn't address the resolution and so loses on arguments. Is that ok?

In this debate, Pro instigated but did not address the resolution, and so did not meet his burden. I voted as such and my vote was removed. Blade-of-truth said,
"The voter is correct that Pro didn't address the resolution, but the voter only states that Pro has the BoP, which was never argued in the debate. If the voter feels that Pro carried the BoP anyway, the voter has to explain why."

My vote was, "Pro had BoP, but did not address the resolution during the debate, as Con pointed out, and therefore failed to uphold it. "
http://www.debate.org...

So I'm guessing it would have been ok if I'd said. "Pro had BoP because he instigated..."

That's one way some people tend to view it, but you can't just get away with saying that instigation = carrying BoP. Burdens were brought up in the debate. You have to state why you think the distribution of burdens in the debate was unreasonable if you think they should be changed.

But certainly, he had the burden to argue the resolution at some point.

It seems a bit much that I'm about to lose voting privileges over this.

You've made this claim from the start that we're about to remove your voting privileges. You've had 2 votes removed. You're not going to lose your voting privileges over that, particularly not if you're responsive to those issues. That's part of why we got into contact with you. That's not to mention that any loss of voting privileges isn't permanent, as you can easily gain them back.

I've had three votes removed. I only mentioned two here, because those are the two that blade_of_truth PMed me about. He said, "Continual poor votes may result in having your voting privileges revoked."

The other one was on this debate: http://www.debate.org...

The debate was set up as a question that Pro needed to answer.
My vote was: "Pro did not really answer the question about how to know truth from fiction. He spoke vaguely of evidence and proof, without explaining what that is."

You said: "The voter fails to analyze either the burden of proof or Con's specific arguments in order to come to a decision in favor of him."

2. Defining the framework of the debate in the first round.

In this debate, the instigator did not clearly frame the concept of morality and that weakened his entire argument, in my opinion. His opponent defined morality as that which comes from god, and because the framework wasn't set up in the first round, there was no reason to disregard it. I wrote:

"Pro lost because he did not establish a clear definition of "immoral" from the beginning. He did not define it in the first round, and so Con was free to define it as god's actions are by definition moral (god instructs the sinners). Pro had the BoP to prove that god is immoral, and this is almost impossible to do without a clear framework around the concept of immoral. If we define moral as coming from god, then it is also impossible. You can't assume that everyone shares your definitions of words. Next time just state it in round 1, and you'll be in a much stronger position. "
http://www.debate.org...

Blade_of_truth disagreed with my vote. He's free to disagree of course, but I don't think he has grounds to remove it. Even if I read the debate wrongly, in his opinion, each voter comes to a debate with a different perspective.

He wrote,

the voter seems to attribute arguments to Con that do not exist and a lack of arguments to Pro that just aren't true. Con didn't define moral in the opening round. Pro did define it in the second round, and it doesn't appear to have been disputed. It's fine if the voter wants to view the lack of a clear definition in R1 as a factor, but the voter has to take into account actual arguments made in the debate and not expand on or detract from points without clear reasons why that either have to do with logic or appear in the debate.

This was my reasoning, not Blade-of-Truth's, but that's beside the point. You basically said that since Con didn't define a specific term in R1, that it was up in the air and that it destroyed the debate as a whole.

Right, but I meant framed the concept more than defined it in specific terms, although there's an overlap.

But that doesn't get you out of actually analyzing the arguments in the debate itself.

I did. I think his failure to establish a framework for morality weakened his entire argument.

You still have to go through and explain why Con's arguments weren't sufficient to net him the win, and that's not clear from your RFD. The only reasoning you gave is that Pro defined immoral the next round, which I noticed wasn't true after reading through that very round.

Yes he did. I've rewritten the RFD an put a quote, although there's a few places he refers to it.

He even asked for a specific definition at the end of that round, and never provided one himself. It seems to me like you misinterpreted some of what happened in this debate and didn't do the specific analysis of arguments from each side that is required of every voter who awards argument points.

Maybe you and i disagree on interpretation. That's no reason to remove my vote.

I don't think the vote should have been removed. I don't think I should lose my voting privilege over this.

Again, it's not this one single vote removal or even both that will result in the loss of voting privileges.

That's only for you to say. You know your own criteria for stopping people from voting.

But I welcome other people's views.

I'll fully admit that these votes weren't removed under the usual circumstances, since more often than not, they're rather straightforward. In these cases, I'm not disagreeing with your reasoning, I'm just stating that they need to be better clarified. If you're going to say that the BoP's on Pro, then you need to address the elephant in the room that is the declaration of shared BoP. You're always going to need to specifically analyze arguments given by both sides, but if one side does provide a definition, you either have to give a decent reason for ignoring it or provide good reason to believe that the other side supplied it, which didn't appear to be the case here.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 1:04:45 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
You could have just contacted me about this. Posting a thread in the general DDO forum is not the best way to go about addressing issues like this. If you want personalized feedback, contact me or talk to Blade-of-Truth about it. He clearly sent you a message, and it's worth discussing this with him if you feel something is problematic in the process.

I think it's relevant to the site as a whole in the context of vote moderation discouraging voting.

I don't think your personal vote removal concerns are directly applicable to anyone else, though I could be wrong. What I know is that we could have had a discussion about the standards that were applied to your votes, and you could have asked me specific questions about them before making it a public discussion. Having this kind of discussion is a lot more beneficial when others can more easily relate to it, and presenting standards instead of the specifics of your votes goes a long ways towards that.

Not always, and particularly not in this case where it's posted in the opening round that BoP is shared. You are allowed to disagree and state why in your RFD, but you can't just say how you view and move on.

So I've just said that he doesn't address the resolution and so loses on arguments. Is that ok?

That would not. You can't establish a vote for one side simply by showing a failure of the other side. You need to either state how the side that didn't address the resolution held the BoP, and therefore why it doesn't matter what the other side said, or you have to state how the other side met his BoP.

That's one way some people tend to view it, but you can't just get away with saying that instigation = carrying BoP. Burdens were brought up in the debate. You have to state why you think the distribution of burdens in the debate was unreasonable if you think they should be changed.

But certainly, he had the burden to argue the resolution at some point.

Sure, but that doesn't obviate the requirement to show that the other side warranted your vote. If the only burden in the debate is his, then his failure is game ending, but that's something you have to explain given that BoP was mentioned in the debate as shared. If BoP is shared, then both sides could fail in their burden resulting in a tie.

You've made this claim from the start that we're about to remove your voting privileges. You've had 2 votes removed. You're not going to lose your voting privileges over that, particularly not if you're responsive to those issues. That's part of why we got into contact with you. That's not to mention that any loss of voting privileges isn't permanent, as you can easily gain them back.

I've had three votes removed. I only mentioned two here, because those are the two that blade_of_truth PMed me about. He said, "Continual poor votes may result in having your voting privileges revoked."

The other one was on this debate: http://www.debate.org...

The debate was set up as a question that Pro needed to answer.
My vote was: "Pro did not really answer the question about how to know truth from fiction. He spoke vaguely of evidence and proof, without explaining what that is."

You said: "The voter fails to analyze either the burden of proof or Con's specific arguments in order to come to a decision in favor of him."

Every voter is required to provide analysis of specific arguments made in the debate by both sides. If one side doesn't make an argument, then you don't have to, but in this case they both did. BoP analysis can substitute for one, but that also must be specific. In order to show that you both read and processed the debate, you needed to do more than you did here.

This was my reasoning, not Blade-of-Truth's, but that's beside the point. You basically said that since Con didn't define a specific term in R1, that it was up in the air and that it destroyed the debate as a whole.

Right, but I meant framed the concept more than defined it in specific terms, although there's an overlap.

Your concern seemed specific to the lack of a definition, but fine.

But that doesn't get you out of actually analyzing the arguments in the debate itself.

I did. I think his failure to establish a framework for morality weakened his entire argument.

That's fine if you view the lack of a framework in R1 as a huge issue, and if you see a lack of a clear concept from Con that would be necessary for establishing that framework, I could even understand a vote on that basis. But the key word is "weakened". Much of your RFD was focused on this being crucial, and while that may be the case, the only way I can know that Con's case is now weakened to the point that he loses this debate is if I know the strength of Pro's case. From reading your RFD, I don't.

You still have to go through and explain why Con's arguments weren't sufficient to net him the win, and that's not clear from your RFD. The only reasoning you gave is that Pro defined immoral the next round, which I noticed wasn't true after reading through that very round.

Yes he did. I've rewritten the RFD an put a quote, although there's a few places he refers to it.

If that quote has to do with the concept of the term, then the same problem persists. Beyond that, the disagreement over the term immoral probably can and should affect the debate, but that requires more than just saying that Pro presented a concept first and therefore his trumps Con's.

He even asked for a specific definition at the end of that round, and never provided one himself. It seems to me like you misinterpreted some of what happened in this debate and didn't do the specific analysis of arguments from each side that is required of every voter who awards argument points.

Maybe you and i disagree on interpretation. That's no reason to remove my vote.

I disagree. I'd say the standards are pretty blatant on providing specifics from the debate that are absent in this RFD. I'm not forcing you to ascribe to my interpretation of the arguments given, but if you are going for these views, you do need to better explain them.

Again, it's not this one single vote removal or even both that will result in the loss of voting privileges.

That's only for you to say. You know your own criteria for stopping people from voting.

The standards are available for everyone to read. The criteria for removing voting privileges is admittedly more nebulous, but usually if we're being contacted and engaged with, the number of removed votes is less at issue.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,025
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 2:14:23 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 10:19:03 PM, Hoppi wrote:
I've just been warned that I'm at risk of losing my voting privilege because I've had so many votes removed.

So I have some questions.

1. Burden of proof

Is it not the case that the instigator has burden of proof? In this debate, Pro instigated but did not address the resolution, and so did not meet his burden. I voted as such and my vote was removed. Blade-of-truth said,
"The voter is correct that Pro didn't address the resolution, but the voter only states that Pro has the BoP, which was never argued in the debate. If the voter feels that Pro carried the BoP anyway, the voter has to explain why."

My vote was, "Pro had BoP, but did not address the resolution during the debate, as Con pointed out, and therefore failed to uphold it. "
http://www.debate.org...

So I'm guessing it would have been ok if I'd said. "Pro had BoP because he instigated..."

It seems a bit much that I'm about to lose voting privileges over this.

2. Defining the framework of the debate in the first round.

In this debate, the instigator did not clearly frame the concept of morality and that weakened his entire argument, in my opinion. His opponent defined morality as that which comes from god, and because the framework wasn't set up in the first round, there was no reason to disregard it. I wrote:

"Pro lost because he did not establish a clear definition of "immoral" from the beginning. He did not define it in the first round, and so Con was free to define it as god's actions are by definition moral (god instructs the sinners). Pro had the BoP to prove that god is immoral, and this is almost impossible to do without a clear framework around the concept of immoral. If we define moral as coming from god, then it is also impossible. You can't assume that everyone shares your definitions of words. Next time just state it in round 1, and you'll be in a much stronger position. "
http://www.debate.org...

Blade_of_truth disagreed with my vote. He's free to disagree of course, but I don't think he has grounds to remove it. Even if I read the debate wrongly, in his opinion, each voter comes to a debate with a different perspective.

I didn't disagree with your vote. Whiteflame is the head vote moderator and thus the one who reviews any reported votes. I only do so if there is a conflict of interest pertaining to either Whiteflame or Airmax, which wasn't the case here.

He wrote,

the voter seems to attribute arguments to Con that do not exist and a lack of arguments to Pro that just aren't true. Con didn't define moral in the opening round. Pro did define it in the second round, and it doesn't appear to have been disputed. It's fine if the voter wants to view the lack of a clear definition in R1 as a factor, but the voter has to take into account actual arguments made in the debate and not expand on or detract from points without clear reasons why that either have to do with logic or appear in the debate.

That was written by Whiteflame, the one who mainly reviews reported votes.

I don't think the vote should have been removed. I don't think I should lose my voting privilege over this.

But I welcome other people's views.

I see that Whiteflame has already taken up the issue with you. Glad to see that it's working towards being resolved.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 5:32:11 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 2:14:23 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
That was written by Whiteflame, the one who mainly reviews reported votes.

Okay. I assumed it was from you because the PM came from you. Obviously, I assumed too much there.
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 5:42:28 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 1:04:45 AM, whiteflame wrote:
Not always, and particularly not in this case where it's posted in the opening round that BoP is shared. You are allowed to disagree and state why in your RFD, but you can't just say how you view and move on.

So I've just said that he doesn't address the resolution and so loses on arguments. Is that ok?

That would not. You can't establish a vote for one side simply by showing a failure of the other side. You need to either state how the side that didn't address the resolution held the BoP, and therefore why it doesn't matter what the other side said, or you have to state how the other side met his BoP.

That's one way some people tend to view it, but you can't just get away with saying that instigation = carrying BoP. Burdens were brought up in the debate. You have to state why you think the distribution of burdens in the debate was unreasonable if you think they should be changed.

But certainly, he had the burden to argue the resolution at some point.

Sure, but that doesn't obviate the requirement to show that the other side warranted your vote. If the only burden in the debate is his, then his failure is game ending, but that's something you have to explain given that BoP was mentioned in the debate as shared. If BoP is shared, then both sides could fail in their burden resulting in a tie.

How about if I said "Pro did not put forward arguments that addressed the resolution, but Con did and therefore Con wins."?

You've made this claim from the start that we're about to remove your voting privileges. You've had 2 votes removed. You're not going to lose your voting privileges over that, particularly not if you're responsive to those issues. That's part of why we got into contact with you. That's not to mention that any loss of voting privileges isn't permanent, as you can easily gain them back.

I've had three votes removed. I only mentioned two here, because those are the two that blade_of_truth PMed me about. He said, "Continual poor votes may result in having your voting privileges revoked."

The other one was on this debate: http://www.debate.org...

The debate was set up as a question that Pro needed to answer.
My vote was: "Pro did not really answer the question about how to know truth from fiction. He spoke vaguely of evidence and proof, without explaining what that is."

You said: "The voter fails to analyze either the burden of proof or Con's specific arguments in order to come to a decision in favor of him."

Every voter is required to provide analysis of specific arguments made in the debate by both sides. If one side doesn't make an argument, then you don't have to, but in this case they both did. BoP analysis can substitute for one, but that also must be specific. In order to show that you both read and processed the debate, you needed to do more than you did here.

Yeah, but the debate was set up so that Pro had to answer a specific question. He didn't answer it. That overrides other considerations, and that's the reason why I voted the way I did.

This was my reasoning, not Blade-of-Truth's, but that's beside the point. You basically said that since Con didn't define a specific term in R1, that it was up in the air and that it destroyed the debate as a whole.

Right, but I meant framed the concept more than defined it in specific terms, although there's an overlap.

Your concern seemed specific to the lack of a definition, but fine.

But that doesn't get you out of actually analyzing the arguments in the debate itself.

I did. I think his failure to establish a framework for morality weakened his entire argument.

That's fine if you view the lack of a framework in R1 as a huge issue, and if you see a lack of a clear concept from Con that would be necessary for establishing that framework, I could even understand a vote on that basis. But the key word is "weakened". Much of your RFD was focused on this being crucial, and while that may be the case, the only way I can know that Con's case is now weakened to the point that he loses this debate is if I know the strength of Pro's case. From reading your RFD, I don't.

Well, you should. Pro had a clear framework for defining morality and Con didn't. That's the main reason why Con's argument was weaker. I don't know how to be clearer than that.

You still have to go through and explain why Con's arguments weren't sufficient to net him the win, and that's not clear from your RFD. The only reasoning you gave is that Pro defined immoral the next round, which I noticed wasn't true after reading through that very round.

Yes he did. I've rewritten the RFD an put a quote, although there's a few places he refers to it.

If that quote has to do with the concept of the term, then the same problem persists. Beyond that, the disagreement over the term immoral probably can and should affect the debate, but that requires more than just saying that Pro presented a concept first and therefore his trumps Con's.

Con had BoP as instigator. He did not provide a framework for understanding his definition of immorality. Pro did provide a framework, which made his arguments stronger. Con did not really challenge Pro's framework. That's the main reason why I voted the way I did. To say I have to talk about every argument they made is ridiculous. They don't need to be addressed to explain my decision.

He even asked for a specific definition at the end of that round, and never provided one himself. It seems to me like you misinterpreted some of what happened in this debate and didn't do the specific analysis of arguments from each side that is required of every voter who awards argument points.

Maybe you and i disagree on interpretation. That's no reason to remove my vote.

I disagree. I'd say the standards are pretty blatant on providing specifics from the debate that are absent in this RFD. I'm not forcing you to ascribe to my interpretation of the arguments given, but if you are going for these views, you do need to better explain them.

I did explain them. Not understanding a vote or disagreeing with a vote should not be enough reason for you to delete votes. You're free to place a vote yourself if you have a different opinion about how the debate went.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 5:59:03 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
How about if I said "Pro did not put forward arguments that addressed the resolution, but Con did and therefore Con wins."?


If you want to go that route, you have to give at least one example of an argument Con gave that addressed the resolution, briefly state why it's effective, and then you're good to go.

Yeah, but the debate was set up so that Pro had to answer a specific question. He didn't answer it. That overrides other considerations, and that's the reason why I voted the way I did.

That's a BoP concern, which requires examination of what the question was, what Pro tried to do, why it was ineffective at providing an answer, and why Con wasn't required to answer it. Simply stating that Pro didn't answer the question doesn't accomplish any of those, and it doesn't show that you read the debate.

Well, you should. Pro had a clear framework for defining morality and Con didn't. That's the main reason why Con's argument was weaker. I don't know how to be clearer than that.

Having a clear framework doesn't establish that they had clear argumentation. The framework gives the basis for evaluating the debate, providing a context in which to evaluate the arguments. Without evaluating the arguments, the framework is only of theoretical importance. If you want to go with Pro's framework because it's clearer, a) state why it's clearer (I don't get that from your RFD), b) state why Con's framework is unclear (I sort of get this, though this seems based chiefly in whether or not it was presented in R1), c) evaluate arguments from both sides under Pro's framework (definitely don't see this).

Con had BoP as instigator. He did not provide a framework for understanding his definition of immorality. Pro did provide a framework, which made his arguments stronger. Con did not really challenge Pro's framework. That's the main reason why I voted the way I did. To say I have to talk about every argument they made is ridiculous. They don't need to be addressed to explain my decision.

I'll refer you back to the three pieces I gave above. This addresses b), but doesn't explain what Pro's framework is or why the arguments given in the debate favor Pro through that framework. You do need to address at least 1 argument per side and explain how they pan out under that framework because a) it shows you read the debate and b) frameworks are only potent insofar as they alter the importance of a given set of arguments.

I did explain them. Not understanding a vote or disagreeing with a vote should not be enough reason for you to delete votes. You're free to place a vote yourself if you have a different opinion about how the debate went.

I didn't say I didn't understand your decision. I didn't say that I disagreed with your decision. You keep ascribing that kind of mentality to the reasoning for why I chose to remove your votes, but that's not the case. I'm describing how to meet the voting standards as clearly as I can. It has nothing to do with whether I agree with you - I haven't read these debates and I have no opinion on either one in the first place, let alone an idea of who should or should not be winning. Nor do I have sufficient time to be voting on every debate on which I remove a vote, as that would almost certainly make my time on the site into a full time, unpaid job. I am, however, still willing to discuss this with you, though I'd rather transition to a PM.
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 6:22:53 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 5:59:03 AM, whiteflame wrote:
How about if I said "Pro did not put forward arguments that addressed the resolution, but Con did and therefore Con wins."?


If you want to go that route, you have to give at least one example of an argument Con gave that addressed the resolution, briefly state why it's effective, and then you're good to go.

That's a ridiculous requirement, I know you don't read the debates, but anyone who did read the debate would see clearly that Con was arguing to the resolution and Pro wasn't. The vote is for people who have read the debate not for people who haven't so me having to provide an example is just silly.

Yeah, but the debate was set up so that Pro had to answer a specific question. He didn't answer it. That overrides other considerations, and that's the reason why I voted the way I did.

That's a BoP concern, which requires examination of what the question was,

that was in my original vote

what Pro tried to do, why it was ineffective at providing an answer,

yes, I put that.

and why Con wasn't required to answer it.

The resolution was phrased as a question. It was clearly set up as a challenge to Pro in round 1. Again, that would be obvious to anyone who read the debate - the audience of my rfd.

Simply stating that Pro didn't answer the question doesn't accomplish any of those, and it doesn't show that you read the debate.

Now you're requiring rfds that cater to people who haven't read the debate. That's may be in the interests of vote moderation, but I can't see how that's in the best interests of the site.

Well, you should. Pro had a clear framework for defining morality and Con didn't. That's the main reason why Con's argument was weaker. I don't know how to be clearer than that.

Having a clear framework doesn't establish that they had clear argumentation. The framework gives the basis for evaluating the debate, providing a context in which to evaluate the arguments. Without evaluating the arguments, the framework is only of theoretical importance. If you want to go with Pro's framework because it's clearer, a) state why it's clearer (I don't get that from your RFD), b) state why Con's framework is unclear (I sort of get this, though this seems based chiefly in whether or not it was presented in R1), c) evaluate arguments from both sides under Pro's framework (definitely don't see this).

If you're arguing that God's actions are immoral, then it really matters what you mean by "immoral". If you don't define it, then you don't have an argument. It doesn't really matter what arguments you come up with if the concept of immorality is not clear. Unlike Con, Pro did actually provide an explanation of morality, which favored his line of argument. I said that in my rfd.

Con had BoP as instigator. He did not provide a framework for understanding his definition of immorality. Pro did provide a framework, which made his arguments stronger. Con did not really challenge Pro's framework. That's the main reason why I voted the way I did. To say I have to talk about every argument they made is ridiculous. They don't need to be addressed to explain my decision.

I'll refer you back to the three pieces I gave above. This addresses b), but doesn't explain what Pro's framework is or why the arguments given in the debate favor Pro through that framework. You do need to address at least 1 argument per side and explain how they pan out under that framework because a) it shows you read the debate and b) frameworks are only potent insofar as they alter the importance of a given set of arguments.

I did explain them. Not understanding a vote or disagreeing with a vote should not be enough reason for you to delete votes. You're free to place a vote yourself if you have a different opinion about how the debate went.

I didn't say I didn't understand your decision. I didn't say that I disagreed with your decision. You keep ascribing that kind of mentality to the reasoning for why I chose to remove your votes, but that's not the case. I'm describing how to meet the voting standards as clearly as I can. It has nothing to do with whether I agree with you - I haven't read these debates and I have no opinion on either one in the first place, let alone an idea of who should or should not be winning.

Your reason for deleting my vote did imply that you'd read it. You said that I attributed arguments to Con "that do not exist". You couldn't know that without reading the debate. There were other comments you made later that strongly implied you read it.

Nor do I have sufficient time to be voting on every debate on which I remove a vote, as that would almost certainly make my time on the site into a full time, unpaid job. I am, however, still willing to discuss this with you, though I'd rather transition to a PM.

Don't worry. There's only so much more that can be said about this. Just take this thread as a protest. I don't think my votes deserved to be deleted, and i don't think you should be sending PMs to people threatening to revoke their voting privileges.

Obviously and clearly the actions of vote moderation would discourage voters. I feel totally discouraged. I don't care enough about any of those debates to go through this kind of argument each time. Just under a quarter of my votes have been deleted so far, for reasons that seem silly to me or which make no sense, and I don't see that there's any way I can avoid having this happen in future unless I laborously go through each point of the debate and write pages of drivel about it. And why would I do that?
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 8:13:07 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
My main suggestion is to try to include even a short quote from the debate.

Example: "This may as well have been an FF, as pro feigned retardation instead of offering argument in two separate rounds, having no more to say in them than 'Old phone lost my contacts who dis.'"

I should say I don't endorse actually calling someone a retard, but I occasionally do call out people for their intellectual failings, and were I to have voted on that debate, it might have been a case of it.

The BoP line can be tricky, because that used to be a way people would cast vote bombs on actual complex debates (imagine seeing that exact same RFD on any real debate). Not taking a side on if the RFD should or should not have been removed, but explaining a contributing factor to RFD's like it may have been deleted with less review (if it was less... I am not up to date on these things).
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...
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 9:45:33 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 8:13:07 AM, Ragnar wrote:
My main suggestion is to try to include even a short quote from the debate.

Example: "This may as well have been an FF, as pro feigned retardation instead of offering argument in two separate rounds, having no more to say in them than 'Old phone lost my contacts who dis.'"

I should say I don't endorse actually calling someone a retard, but I occasionally do call out people for their intellectual failings, and were I to have voted on that debate, it might have been a case of it.

The BoP line can be tricky, because that used to be a way people would cast vote bombs on actual complex debates (imagine seeing that exact same RFD on any real debate). Not taking a side on if the RFD should or should not have been removed, but explaining a contributing factor to RFD's like it may have been deleted with less review (if it was less... I am not up to date on these things).

Yes, of course, my rfd could have been better. I'm sure lots of people could write better ones. I just read the debate and then explained my vote, and of course if I'd spent more time crafting it it would have been clearer etc.

Also, to be completely honest, I missed the shared BoP. But who cares? One side was trolling, the other wasn't. One side didn't refer to the resolution, the other side presented arguments. Even so, any debater has the burden to address the resolution in some way, so I wasn't completely wrong.

None of that really matters though. Whether I could have interpreted the debate better or written a better rfd is beside the point. What's relevant is I explained every point I awarded. Anyone was free to ask me to elaborate further if there's something that was unclear.

Instead, I get punished, my vote is deleted, I get told off. Fvck that. I know it's nothing personal and the site has agreed and blah blah blah, but I'm not interested. It's like being at school or having a supervisor micromanaging you at work. Then I get told that further poor voting performance will result in blah blah blah. It's like a work appraisal.

And even though paragraphs and paragraphs have been written now about my vote, I haven't learned a single interesting thing about voting from it. I still think debaters need to address the resolution. I still think having a framework for what "immorality" means is central to a debate about whether god is immoral or not, and so on.

What's the point of all this? It sucks all the fun out of the process of debating, and I bet everyone is gaming on votes - people who are exciting by their elos are probably reporting every vote in the hope it might get deleted. It's neither fun nor clever.

Sorry, I know you posted in a friendly way, but the process is annoooooying. It's so destructive to debate culture , and nobody seems to see that. I'm so aloooooone here.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 4:27:05 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
That's a ridiculous requirement, I know you don't read the debates, but anyone who did read the debate would see clearly that Con was arguing to the resolution and Pro wasn't. The vote is for people who have read the debate not for people who haven't so me having to provide an example is just silly.

It doesn't matter if someone else can see it or not. Every voter is required to show that they read through the debate, and part of doing so is analyzing the arguments given. Merely stating that one side argued the resolution doesn't tell me you read the debate. And I don't see how it's ridiculous - pointing to the argument that persuaded you to vote a certain way is not that onerous.

that was in my original vote

what Pro tried to do, why it was ineffective at providing an answer,

yes, I put that.

And we've been over why your BoP analysis was insufficient originally. I've explained how it could have been improved.

The resolution was phrased as a question. It was clearly set up as a challenge to Pro in round 1. Again, that would be obvious to anyone who read the debate - the audience of my rfd.

Fine, but then you should at the very least say why Con didn't have to answer the question. It shows that you're cognizant of how BoP affects both sides and not just Pro.

Now you're requiring rfds that cater to people who haven't read the debate. That's may be in the interests of vote moderation, but I can't see how that's in the best interests of the site.

I'm not requiring that you cater to people who haven't read the debate. I'm requiring that you show you personally read the debate by presenting examples. It's in the best interests of the site because (and I know this happens) many people vote on debates without reading through the majority of them, and it's very simple to give a threadbare analysis of BoP and claim that one side won the debate based on nebulous points. Debaters want to see that their hard work is being read and considered.

If you're arguing that God's actions are immoral, then it really matters what you mean by "immoral". If you don't define it, then you don't have an argument. It doesn't really matter what arguments you come up with if the concept of immorality is not clear. Unlike Con, Pro did actually provide an explanation of morality, which favored his line of argument. I said that in my rfd.

I agree that it matters, but a framework isn't a winning argument in and of itself. If a side argues for a given framework, but never upholds that framework with their arguments, then they've accomplished nothing. If a side argues for a given framework, but the other side does a better job upholding that framework through their arguments, then they've done themselves more harm than good. You explained why one side provided a better framework. You did not explain how they upheld it with their argumentation.

Your reason for deleting my vote did imply that you'd read it. You said that I attributed arguments to Con "that do not exist". You couldn't know that without reading the debate. There were other comments you made later that strongly implied you read it.

I skimmed through the debate to figure out whether the point you'd made was accurate. I did not specifically read through the debate to find those points, but those issues were secondary to the lack of analysis of specific arguments.

Don't worry. There's only so much more that can be said about this. Just take this thread as a protest. I don't think my votes deserved to be deleted, and i don't think you should be sending PMs to people threatening to revoke their voting privileges.

...That's a part of being a vote moderator. People lose their voting privileges when it's clear that they're not adhering to the standards or working to improve their votes. If that weren't the case, then I'd be dealing with hundreds of vote removals a night.

Obviously and clearly the actions of vote moderation would discourage voters. I feel totally discouraged.

I recognize that some voters are discouraged by vote moderation. I also recognize that many debaters were discouraged by a lack of vote moderation. This swings both ways, and it's an argument that's often had on the site.

I don't care enough about any of those debates to go through this kind of argument each time.

The debaters care enough to have gone through the process of arguing these points and making the effort. Requiring that the voter specifically analyze certain points is not too laborious, but it's up to you whether or not you're willing to do so.

Just under a quarter of my votes have been deleted so far, for reasons that seem silly to me or which make no sense, and I don't see that there's any way I can avoid having this happen in future unless I laborously go through each point of the debate and write pages of drivel about it. And why would I do that?

I've been through these as thoroughly with you as I am able. If they still seem silly, then chances are nothing I could say would make these reasons clear or reasonable to you. But let me clarify one thing: I never said you had to go through each point in the debate and write out pages and pages to make up a vote. This is a common misconception about how votes are moderated. You're required to analyze at least one argument on one side of the debate and that side's BoP, or one argument per each side. That's two sentences of analysis that are required of you. That's not pages, that's not even more than 1000 characters. There are countless examples on this site of people producing minimal RFDs that are sufficient.
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 4:20:06 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
The BOP of the debate is essentially what one side has to do to win the debate. "He didn't fufill his BOP" is the same as saying "he didn't fulfill what he needed to win the debate." But you need to highlight *what* the BOP is and *why* it was not fulfilled, because otherwise the feedback is as generic as saying "he had less convincing arguments." It's the same thing. Both sides in the debate you mentioned made arguments, and you have to address those arguments, however bad and troll-ish they were.

Your second vote is fine.
"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: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 4:22:23 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
@whiteflame

You're misinterpreting Hoppi's second vote. While the "not defined in R1" logic is nonsense, his vote -- I think -- means what my vote means: Pro doesn't justify any framework for morality in-round, so Pro's BOP isn't fulfilled since Pro has to establish such a framework and show how the rez links to that framework.
"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
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 4:43:10 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/21/2016 4:22:23 AM, tejretics wrote:
@whiteflame

You're misinterpreting Hoppi's second vote. While the "not defined in R1" logic is nonsense, his vote -- I think -- means what my vote means: Pro doesn't justify any framework for morality in-round, so Pro's BOP isn't fulfilled since Pro has to establish such a framework and show how the rez links to that framework.

I'm getting that from what he's told me since, though that's not the chief reason why his RFD was insufficient. Not presenting a framework is important, but it isn't enough to establish a decision in and of itself without examining the arguments made in the debate.