Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Petition on Forfeit only conduct votes

TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 3:06:15 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I am up to here with this issue. It"s getting ignored, and it"s getting worse. The fact that moderation allows votes for a user like "dspjx" to go uncontested or removed is not just silly, it"s absolutely insane. I am not sure this user has cast a single useful vote in his existence on the site. Every single vote of his is a conduct vote for forfeit, but some of those forfeits are every round forfeits. If you want to argue that those votes are justified, that is one thing. But to argue that his votes are justified on the debates with singular forfeits, on debates that have actually received other RFD"s, there is absolutely no reason to allow these types of votes

. Or votes awarding conduct to users based on them accepting a debate without commenting first (dspjx actually vote bombed this way, even though no standard to this degree was set up in the debate). I have reported votes from this user, and attempted to counter vote bomb him. In response, all my counters were removed, while Dspjx"s votes remained with no response containing logical reasoning for allowing the users votes to stay. This was a test to see how the moderators would treat this issue, and it shows that moderation is very robotic. Moderation isn"t willing to apply current voting standards to things already in place, for what seems to be fear of backlash.

So far the only real logical attempt at a response to this issue has been from F-16, and even his response doesn"t seem to really by supporting these type of votes per se. His only issue is that these votes are better voted on unfairly then voted on at all (yeah that"s manipulating his words a bit, but that"s exactly my understood meaning based on what he is saying he agrees with). That is a simple enough problem to mitigate, and I have asked the head of the voters union (Donald.Keller) to place unvoted votes with expiring time limits to the top of the list for priorities in order to solve this. Even with good votes going on forfeited debates, though, it does not solve the problem of people like dspjx5 from vote bombing these debates.

Because Airmax so heavily is afraid of backlash, I would like to get a gauge of where the community stands. Airmax is ignoring the other thread, so we need to show him that we care about this issue. Please put a short description of why you are for or against changing the policy on forfeited debates. The more names we have, the more we can incite discussion on this and push for a change. Right now AMA"s are airmax"s priorities, we need to make this his priority. Please stand with me here and bring this up to discussion. I don"t care if you don"t agree with me on this, your opinion is still valuable in bringing this back into discussion and preventing it from being ignored.
Please Sign your name here with reason for being for or against allowing forfeit only conduct votes. Thanks in advance.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 3:16:56 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I am against allowing such votes. /in for the petition.
"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
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 3:38:00 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Reason: debaters spent hours of time writing out arguments only to have them ignored because one debater ha his wifi go out, or because a site glitch. Absolutely bullsh!t. Only used to inflate people's vote counts
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 5:49:06 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
If the guy is only voting conduct votes, meaning they are votes that have a 1-point swing to them, then I can make peace with it simply because a 1-point swing rarely ever determines the outcome of a debate, especially if its a debate where one side forfeited
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

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
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 6:24:50 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I'm so happy this is becoming an issue with a lot of support. Thank you TUF. Without your efforts, my original complaint would have gone unnoticed.

/in
-- 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 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 6:26:14 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 5:49:06 PM, imabench wrote:
If the guy is only voting conduct votes, meaning they are votes that have a 1-point swing to them, then I can make peace with it simply because a 1-point swing rarely ever determines the outcome of a debate, especially if its a debate where one side forfeited

In each debate used as an example, there were 3 or more 1-point ff votes, and no real votes. Usually, these debates don't get real votes because of the ff, and even the winner is rarely happy with that outcome.
-- 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 --
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 7:17:56 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
This seems to be the most current thread for discussing this topic and I don't want to go over the same arguments again. Just to give an idea of where I'm coming from, take this debate: http://www.debate.org... and skim it really quick and the vote on it.

Basically what happened was a newbie started a debate asking for help with a case. The entire debate was him asking for help and BlackVoid who accepted it helping him out. After the debate, BV PM'd me and asked me to give him conduct for helping out the newbie and obviously he cared about his win/loss ratio (we didn't have ELO then) and I put down a vote so he'd have a win for helpfulness.

Obviously, this is four years ago and voting standards have changed. Today, that debate might be a considered a "troll" debate akin to "who's the hotter model" type debates because no actual debate took place.

But the point I'm making is that sometimes people don't want to read the debate but if you took a debate and gave your best, and your opponent didn't show up and no one wants to read the debate, you should at least be able to ask people to give you conduct so you can have that win on your record.

TUF's arguments are good and its true that this is often abused by some lazy voters. All the same I'm conflicted here.
fire_wings
Posts: 5,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 7:19:24 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
/in depending on the debate.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 8:36:14 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 3:06:15 PM, TUF wrote:
I am up to here with this issue. It"s getting ignored, and it"s getting worse. The fact that moderation allows votes for a user like "dspjx" to go uncontested or removed is not just silly, it"s absolutely insane.

The rules right now allow people to award conduct for a forfeited debate. We can change those rules, but we aren't going to just delete them because you personally have an issue with it.

I am not sure this user has cast a single useful vote in his existence on the site. Every single vote of his is a conduct vote for forfeit, but some of those forfeits are every round forfeits. If you want to argue that those votes are justified, that is one thing. But to argue that his votes are justified on the debates with singular forfeits, on debates that have actually received other RFD"s, there is absolutely no reason to allow these types of votes

Again, as I have said before, I don't disagree with you in principal, but any actual policy change then needs to take place to address the issue. We aren't going to start removing certain votes that comply with the standards because TUF has a problem with them.

I appreciate that you have brought this issue up, discussion has taken place, and while I prefer a certain time line for these things to consider them, further steps are being taken to consider what, and how far new policies should go to implement standards that mitigate this problem.

I have reported votes from this user, and attempted to counter vote bomb him. In response, all my counters were removed, while Dspjx"s votes remained with no response containing logical reasoning for allowing the users votes to stay.

Considering that the users votes comply with the current standards, and that your counter votes are against the rules, it should have been obvious what would occur here. All you accomplished was making vote moderation spend more time dealing with your reports and counter votes.

This was a test to see how the moderators would treat this issue, and it shows that moderation is very robotic.

Vote moderation deals with the standards as they currently are - NOT how TUF wants them to be. Vote moderation applies the actual standards to how it deal with votes, and if you want to call this robotic, fine, but that's how vote moderation is done. It should not come as a shock to you or anyone else that vote moderation applies current standards to how it currently moderates votes.

Moderation isn"t willing to apply current voting standards to things already in place, for what seems to be fear of backlash.

This is just nonsense. Vote moderation is applying current standards. Under the current standards, those votes are allowed, and your counter votes aren't. Vote moderation isn't going to apply standards you just came up with, that much is true, and it's not of fear of backlash, though there certainly should be backlash if vote moderation just suddenly changed the rules out of nowhere because TUF demanded it. In any case, the rules will be changed if and once there is enough discussion on it and a reasonable policy change is devised.

So far the only real logical attempt at a response to this issue has been from F-16, and even his response doesn"t seem to really by supporting these type of votes per se. His only issue is that these votes are better voted on unfairly then voted on at all (yeah that"s manipulating his words a bit, but that"s exactly my understood meaning based on what he is saying he agrees with). That is a simple enough problem to mitigate, and I have asked the head of the voters union (Donald.Keller) to place unvoted votes with expiring time limits to the top of the list for priorities in order to solve this. Even with good votes going on forfeited debates, though, it does not solve the problem of people like dspjx5 from vote bombing these debates.

I believe most, like myself, agree with you in principal. That's different than applying a new policy and implementing it.

Because Airmax so heavily is afraid of backlash, I would like to get a gauge of where the community stands. Airmax is ignoring the other thread, so we need to show him that we care about this issue.

Seriously TUF, it has nothing to do with backlash (and I'm also not ignoring it - I just don't need to be directly involved to see reactions). It has to do with being reasonable, thoughtful, considering all suggestions and then having an actual plan for dealing with it. Versus say your approach, which is to demand a change, using arbitrary language and then saying "remove all vote bombs" and then trying to bully vote moderation into it by reporting tons of votes and placing counter votes.

The discussion is on going in a productive way currently, and when I am confident a reasonable policy has been devised that is broadly supported, only then will the change be made.

In any case, this issue has been acknowledged, I have taken steps to gauge member interest in it, and I have asked for feedback on a specific change that could deal with this issue.
Debate.org Moderator
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 12:44:33 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 3:06:15 PM, TUF wrote:
I am up to here with this issue. It"s getting ignored, and it"s getting worse. The fact that moderation allows votes for a user like "dspjx" to go uncontested or removed is not just silly, it"s absolutely insane. I am not sure this user has cast a single useful vote in his existence on the site. Every single vote of his is a conduct vote for forfeit, but some of those forfeits are every round forfeits. If you want to argue that those votes are justified, that is one thing. But to argue that his votes are justified on the debates with singular forfeits, on debates that have actually received other RFD"s, there is absolutely no reason to allow these types of votes

. Or votes awarding conduct to users based on them accepting a debate without commenting first (dspjx actually vote bombed this way, even though no standard to this degree was set up in the debate). I have reported votes from this user, and attempted to counter vote bomb him. In response, all my counters were removed, while Dspjx"s votes remained with no response containing logical reasoning for allowing the users votes to stay. This was a test to see how the moderators would treat this issue, and it shows that moderation is very robotic. Moderation isn"t willing to apply current voting standards to things already in place, for what seems to be fear of backlash.

So far the only real logical attempt at a response to this issue has been from F-16, and even his response doesn"t seem to really by supporting these type of votes per se. His only issue is that these votes are better voted on unfairly then voted on at all (yeah that"s manipulating his words a bit, but that"s exactly my understood meaning based on what he is saying he agrees with). That is a simple enough problem to mitigate, and I have asked the head of the voters union (Donald.Keller) to place unvoted votes with expiring time limits to the top of the list for priorities in order to solve this. Even with good votes going on forfeited debates, though, it does not solve the problem of people like dspjx5 from vote bombing these debates.

Because Airmax so heavily is afraid of backlash, I would like to get a gauge of where the community stands. Airmax is ignoring the other thread, so we need to show him that we care about this issue. Please put a short description of why you are for or against changing the policy on forfeited debates. The more names we have, the more we can incite discussion on this and push for a change. Right now AMA"s are airmax"s priorities, we need to make this his priority. Please stand with me here and bring this up to discussion. I don"t care if you don"t agree with me on this, your opinion is still valuable in bringing this back into discussion and preventing it from being ignored.
Please Sign your name here with reason for being for or against allowing forfeit only conduct votes. Thanks in advance.

I'm flattered by all the attention. In the future, however, I ask that you refer to me as Falcon does (Dick5)
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
Peepette
Posts: 1,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 1:08:05 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 6:26:14 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 3/20/2016 5:49:06 PM, imabench wrote:
If the guy is only voting conduct votes, meaning they are votes that have a 1-point swing to them, then I can make peace with it simply because a 1-point swing rarely ever determines the outcome of a debate, especially if its a debate where one side forfeited

In each debate used as an example, there were 3 or more 1-point ff votes, and no real votes. Usually, these debates don't get real votes because of the ff, and even the winner is rarely happy with that outcome.

I agree. I see single round FF debates receive only conduct votes. At times 2 or 3 FF votes and no other votes containing RFDs. This means the time put into the debate has been negated . The FFd side might have a better argument that needs to be examined. I personally have a problem with this. I have no problem with conduct only votes for multiple FFs. Single FF should require a RFD.
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 1:31:14 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 8:36:14 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 3/20/2016 3:06:15 PM, TUF wrote:
I am up to here with this issue. It"s getting ignored, and it"s getting worse. The fact that moderation allows votes for a user like "dspjx" to go uncontested or removed is not just silly, it"s absolutely insane.

The rules right now allow people to award conduct for a forfeited debate. We can change those rules, but we aren't going to just delete them because you personally have an issue with it.

So in the meantime, to save these debaters getting vote bombed, since I can't counter bomb there copy/pasted line that demonstrates they didn't read past the forfeited line, would it be okay if I made a big convoluted vote explaining how the forfeit shouldn't be accounted for as the only voting criteria for each specific debate, explaining the logical principles that make the debate worth reading? Would I be allowed to counter votes in that way? I am reading the debate still, and providing way more analysis in the RFD section then the vote bomber.

I am not sure this user has cast a single useful vote in his existence on the site. Every single vote of his is a conduct vote for forfeit, but some of those forfeits are every round forfeits. If you want to argue that those votes are justified, that is one thing. But to argue that his votes are justified on the debates with singular forfeits, on debates that have actually received other RFD"s, there is absolutely no reason to allow these types of votes

Again, as I have said before, I don't disagree with you in principal, but any actual policy change then needs to take place to address the issue. We aren't going to start removing certain votes that comply with the standards because TUF has a problem with them.

This isn't a "TUF" issue. I am not the only one standing in this position, nor am I the one who brought it to light. I am just the one being the most vocal about it, because I foresee it likely being ignored and swept under the carpet. If I didn't bring this back up over the weekend, I honestly feel like it would have been lost in the ether of new posts constantly appearing on the front page. I get the feeling you were kind of hoping that would happen, but I could be wrong. And I know most people while supporting this idea, won't go out of their way to make sure things get changed. But don't put this movement as a negative connotation. Whether you agree with me or not, I am genuinely trying to help the voting community with this.

I appreciate that you have brought this issue up, discussion has taken place, and while I prefer a certain time line for these things to consider them, further steps are being taken to consider what, and how far new policies should go to implement standards that mitigate this problem.

It seems like your making it a bigger problem then it really is. The fix just seems really obvious and easy.

I have reported votes from this user, and attempted to counter vote bomb him. In response, all my counters were removed, while Dspjx"s votes remained with no response containing logical reasoning for allowing the users votes to stay.

Considering that the users votes comply with the current standards, and that your counter votes are against the rules, it should have been obvious what would occur here. All you accomplished was making vote moderation spend more time dealing with your reports and counter votes.

I reported every single vote, nothing was done. Just because something "falls in line with current standards" aesthetically, doesn't mean it is always justified. You and your mods 100% refused to take any of the votes in context. That doesn't apply with most moderated votes, yet this is such a hot issue that it is only one way or the other? I can see a non-removal one like one or two of those debates, but when the user is literally copy/pasting conduct votes 20 times a day on relatively good debates like vortex's technology debate where there was only a single forfeit, THAT is the problem. If there was at least a logical reasoning behind the non-removal of the votes other than "it falls within standards" that would be one thing. Instead you are just treating this as if I am a crazy person, rather than trying to understand or listen to my reports.

This was a test to see how the moderators would treat this issue, and it shows that moderation is very robotic.

Vote moderation deals with the standards as they currently are - NOT how TUF wants them to be. Vote moderation applies the actual standards to how it deal with votes, and if you want to call this robotic, fine, but that's how vote moderation is done. It should not come as a shock to you or anyone else that vote moderation applies current standards to how it currently moderates votes.

I am just saying if you aren't going to remove a vote that was reported you actually provide detailed explanation of how the vote was qualified rather than just saying "It technically falls within standards".

Moderation isn"t willing to apply current voting standards to things already in place, for what seems to be fear of backlash.

This is just nonsense. Vote moderation is applying current standards. Under the current standards, those votes are allowed, and your counter votes aren't. Vote moderation isn't going to apply standards you just came up with, that much is true, and it's not of fear of backlash, though there certainly should be backlash if vote moderation just suddenly changed the rules out of nowhere because TUF demanded it. In any case, the rules will be changed if and once there is enough discussion on it and a reasonable policy change is devised.

Vote moderation isn't this black and white in other areas. Are people so scared of this topic that it is taboo, and limited to this robotic nature?
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 1:54:10 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/21/2016 1:31:14 AM, TUF wrote:
At 3/20/2016 8:36:14 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 3/20/2016 3:06:15 PM, TUF wrote:
I am up to here with this issue. It"s getting ignored, and it"s getting worse. The fact that moderation allows votes for a user like "dspjx" to go uncontested or removed is not just silly, it"s absolutely insane.

The rules right now allow people to award conduct for a forfeited debate. We can change those rules, but we aren't going to just delete them because you personally have an issue with it.

So in the meantime, to save these debaters getting vote bombed, since I can't counter bomb there copy/pasted line that demonstrates they didn't read past the forfeited line, would it be okay if I made a big convoluted vote explaining how the forfeit shouldn't be accounted for as the only voting criteria for each specific debate, explaining the logical principles that make the debate worth reading? Would I be allowed to counter votes in that way? I am reading the debate still, and providing way more analysis in the RFD section then the vote bomber.

As long as your vote is legitimate (meets the current standards), that would be fine.

I am not sure this user has cast a single useful vote in his existence on the site. Every single vote of his is a conduct vote for forfeit, but some of those forfeits are every round forfeits. If you want to argue that those votes are justified, that is one thing. But to argue that his votes are justified on the debates with singular forfeits, on debates that have actually received other RFD"s, there is absolutely no reason to allow these types of votes

Again, as I have said before, I don't disagree with you in principal, but any actual policy change then needs to take place to address the issue. We aren't going to start removing certain votes that comply with the standards because TUF has a problem with them.

This isn't a "TUF" issue.

I realize that. But you are the one hassling me, placing votes that are against the rules, and framing your suggestion for resolving the issue in a ridiculous way. So you are the one I am addressing here. Not that this matters, since I'm carrying the discussion now in a thread designed for it, in a way that may actually accomplish what you want. A reasonable suggestion for a change or addition to policy would have been nice, but since you wont do that, I will do the leg work on this then

I am not the only one standing in this position, nor am I the one who brought it to light. I am just the one being the most vocal about it, because I foresee it likely being ignored and swept under the carpet. If I didn't bring this back up over the weekend, I honestly feel like it would have been lost in the ether of new posts constantly appearing on the front page. I get the feeling you were kind of hoping that would happen, but I could be wrong. And I know most people while supporting this idea, won't go out of their way to make sure things get changed. But don't put this movement as a negative connotation. Whether you agree with me or not, I am genuinely trying to help the voting community with this.

I wasn't ignoring the issue or hoping it would go away. I was hoping that you would make a reasonable suggestion to mitigate the issue. You didn't do that, and I guess don't know how to actually do that, so I went ahead and did so. And now I'm the one carrying the discussion and forced to work out all the kinks in the actual solution to this problem. I don't have a problem with that, but my hope was that you would help with that, and you haven't. You've stated a grievance, framed the solution in a ridiculous and impractical manner, and so now I have to get resolving the issue back on track.


I appreciate that you have brought this issue up, discussion has taken place, and while I prefer a certain time line for these things to consider them, further steps are being taken to consider what, and how far new policies should go to implement standards that mitigate this problem.

It seems like your making it a bigger problem then it really is. The fix just seems really obvious and easy.

I suppose if you frame this issue incorrectly and in a way that doesn't reflect reality, then it seems obvious and simple. Since that is what you have done with regards to any suggestions for a solution, it seems simple to you. Since I'm being asked to actually implement the change based on reality and practicality, it's not as simple to me.
Debate.org Moderator
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 1:54:18 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/21/2016 1:31:14 AM, TUF wrote:


I have reported votes from this user, and attempted to counter vote bomb him. In response, all my counters were removed, while Dspjx"s votes remained with no response containing logical reasoning for allowing the users votes to stay.

Considering that the users votes comply with the current standards, and that your counter votes are against the rules, it should have been obvious what would occur here. All you accomplished was making vote moderation spend more time dealing with your reports and counter votes.

I reported every single vote, nothing was done.

Something was done, those reports were reviewed, and those votes were determined to comply with current standards. Honestly TUF, what is it about this that you don't get? If we are going to make changes, fine. But I'm not going to humor some imaginary fantasy land you live in where reality isn't what reality is. This is also entirely pointless. Just accept that standards are what they are, we can discuss changing them to a way that deals with this issue, and we can move on. Going back and forth on you telling me what the standards are is point - because you are wrong, and I am right. So let's discuss how to deal with the issue and not deal with the pointless side stuff.

Just because something "falls in line with current standards" aesthetically, doesn't mean it is always justified.

It complies with the current standards so I wont remove it. That's the end of that issue. If we want to change that standard, fine, we can discuss that.

You and your mods 100% refused to take any of the votes in context.

The context was that they were votes that met the standards. So yeah, we moderate based on the standards, not some ideal that you wish the standards were.

That doesn't apply with most moderated votes, yet this is such a hot issue that it is only one way or the other? I can see a non-removal one like one or two of those debates, but when the user is literally copy/pasting conduct votes 20 times a day on relatively good debates like vortex's technology debate where there was only a single forfeit, THAT is the problem.

I agree, and we can deal with that. Though we can't deal with that by retroactively changing what the standards are, based on your misinterpretation of them. So let's just accept reality, and have a discussion to change that.

If there was at least a logical reasoning behind the non-removal of the votes other than "it falls within standards" that would be one thing. Instead you are just treating this as if I am a crazy person, rather than trying to understand or listen to my reports.

Votes just need to explain why they are awarded. A forfeit has always been considered a conduct issue, and so by extension a conduct vote on a forfeited debate is justified. I don't think you are a crazy person, I just think you are misunderstanding a lot here and getting bogged down in some really pointless stuff. The framing of the discussion this way is a pointless distraction. We can certainly change things, but I'm not going to humor you telling me that black is white and that is the end of the argument.


This was a test to see how the moderators would treat this issue, and it shows that moderation is very robotic.

Vote moderation deals with the standards as they currently are - NOT how TUF wants them to be. Vote moderation applies the actual standards to how it deal with votes, and if you want to call this robotic, fine, but that's how vote moderation is done. It should not come as a shock to you or anyone else that vote moderation applies current standards to how it currently moderates votes.

I am just saying if you aren't going to remove a vote that was reported you actually provide detailed explanation of how the vote was qualified rather than just saying "It technically falls within standards".

That's not just what you are saying, but that's actually a reasonable discussion. It also doesn't technically fall within the standard, it very much falls within the standards and has so for the past year (and well beyond that before vote moderation was a formal thing in the way it is now).

Moderation isn"t willing to apply current voting standards to things already in place, for what seems to be fear of backlash.

This is just nonsense. Vote moderation is applying current standards. Under the current standards, those votes are allowed, and your counter votes aren't. Vote moderation isn't going to apply standards you just came up with, that much is true, and it's not of fear of backlash, though there certainly should be backlash if vote moderation just suddenly changed the rules out of nowhere because TUF demanded it. In any case, the rules will be changed if and once there is enough discussion on it and a reasonable policy change is devised.

Vote moderation isn't this black and white in other areas.

It really is. Standards are intended to be as objective as possible. That means plenty of bad votes remain, but we don't remove them because they comply with that standard. As long as all point are explained, they are sufficient.

Are people so scared of this topic that it is taboo, and limited to this robotic nature?

No one is scared of this topic. I'm certainly not. I just want it to be a rational discussion focused on the issue and intended to resolve the issue. Instead, we're going over entirely pointless interpretations of the standards that have been applied forever.

Anyways, none of this matters. I'll carry the conversation to a resolution because you are pretty much forcing me to. I'd have liked you to draft an actual solution to this, but fine, don't. I did so, and that is now being discussed.

I realize that this is all getting pretty testy for no reason, and that's unfortunate, but I will do everything I can to try to resolve this, and I've already started to take those steps.
Debate.org Moderator
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 2:02:24 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
On a side note, I also think it's a good idea to explain why the votes weren't removed. I've seen some non-removals and they are pretty generic. I realize that sometimes it's just going to feel like repeating the RFD but briefly tying it to how it met the standards might be nice if it's not too much of a hassle.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 2:04:42 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/21/2016 2:02:24 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
On a side note, I also think it's a good idea to explain why the votes weren't removed. I've seen some non-removals and they are pretty generic. I realize that sometimes it's just going to feel like repeating the RFD but briefly tying it to how it met the standards might be nice....

Yeah, we'll have to consider that. Non-removals make a broad assumption about meeting standards and therefore less of an explanation is needed, but I'll consider how to better deal with that.

...if it's not too much of a hassle.

haha it'll definitely be a hassle... but if it improves things we can live with that, and we'll just do what we have to do
Debate.org Moderator