Total Posts:189|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

*****Vote Moderation Policy Vote 2******

airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 5:50:53 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
An initial thread was posted to gauge member interest in this policy and to optimize it based on the discussion therein. That thread can be viewed here:

http://www.debate.org...

The policy presented in this thread is the culmination of all of the discussions that lead up to the previous thread, the discussion that is included in that thread, and the discussions that followed it.

From those discussions, and other discussions both public and private, this thread presents for your approval or disapproval a specific change in vote moderation policy.

The following policy is designed to mitigate the negative effects of votes that ignore the entirety of a debate to simply place a single point for conduct.

To that end, the following policy is being presented to the membership of Debate.org for a vote of approval or disapproval.

If you want to see vote moderation implement the following policy post "YAY". If you do NOT want vote moderation to implement the following policy, vote "NAY".

The policy being presented for your consideration is as follows:

******

Any debate in which the number of rounds forfeited by either side is fewer than half the number of rounds, a voter is required to provide an RFD for Arguments as a prerequisite to awarding Conduct.

Put more simply, if more than half of the debate is posted (not forfeited), you must explain Arguments to award conduct.

In other words, you may NOT award conduct points without explaining Arguments if forfeited rounds do not equal at least half of the rounds of the debate by either side.

In other words, in a 3 round debate with one forfeit (by either or both sides), a voter would be required to provide an RFD for arguments as a prerequisite to voting for conduct.

For example:

[A 2 round debate with 1 forfeit would be exempt as the debate is half forfeited.]
[A 3 round debate with 1 forfeit would require an argument RFD as a prerequisite to awarding conduct]
[A 4 round debate with 2 forfeits would be exempt as the debate is half forfeited.]
[A 5 round debate with 2 forfeits would require an argument RFD as a prerequisite to awarding conduct]

Each of these cases refers to the total number of only one side, and is not cumulative of both sides for forfeiting. So for example, if both debaters forfeit 2 rounds in a 5 round debate, an RFD for arguments must still be presented as less than half of the debate was forfeited by either side.

"Providing an RFD for arguments" does NOT mean awarding those points to either side. Instead, in a case where a voter feels that neither side deserves those points, a voter is simply required to explain why neither side is being awarded those points, following which, they will be allowed to award conduct for a forfeit.

In short, if less than half a debate is forfeited, you must explain Arguments to be able to vote on Conduct.

******

If you agree that vote moderation should enforce the above policy, vote "YAY". If you do not approve of vote moderation enforcing the above policy, vote "NAY".
Debate.org Moderator
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 5:58:57 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
YAY.

I still believe the first person dinging just conduct is fine (as much as a detailed vote would always be preferable), but the policy as written would be a significant improvement.
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...
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 5:59:37 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Yay
-- 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 --
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 6:13:13 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Vote: YAY
"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: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 6:13:45 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 6:04:38 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I thought we were going with the option A. What changed?

This is option A--half or more of the rounds means you can vote a forfeit for conduct points.
"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
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 6:16:42 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 6:04:38 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I thought we were going with the option A. What changed?

Committees, subcommittees, special interests, amending processes, congressional haggling... you know how these legislative processes go

In all seriousness though, in the end, this was what was determined to be the best way to rectify the issue at hand, and a decent compromise of the various suggestions on the table that was felt most would be most likely to be amenable to. If you have reservations about this policy, that's perfectly fair and understandable and no one should hold a Nay vote against you.
Debate.org Moderator
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 6:17:20 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 6:13:45 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/22/2016 6:04:38 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I thought we were going with the option A. What changed?

This is option A--half or more of the rounds means you can vote a forfeit for conduct points.

I'm fairly sure it was Option B but let me check. Regardless, I thought we were going with the option that more than one forfeit means people can vote conduct without having to assess arguments. That's a lot more easy to uniformly enforce and if someone forfeited two rounds, then they really don't care enough about the debate to necessitate them having an equal probability of winning.

With the "half-as-many-rounds" language, it can get confusing as to where exactly you draw the line.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 6:19:25 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
I'm really curious to know who was involved in all that haggling that they couldn't just post in the previous thread for the public to discuss openly the pros and cons.

I mean if I'm wrong and the "half-as-many" language really is more beneficial, I would have liked to have seen someone post a good argument to convince me.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 6:20:36 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 6:13:45 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/22/2016 6:04:38 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I thought we were going with the option A. What changed?

This is option A--half or more of the rounds means you can vote a forfeit for conduct points.

I've gone through so many iterations of this and had so many discussions that it is possible I'm not recalling correctly, but I believe Op A was anything more than a single round FF is exempted, and Op B was half or more is exempted. So this is option B with the "Imabench exclusion" (since he brought it up, where argument points don't have to be awarded, but do have to be explained) thrown in as well.
Debate.org Moderator
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,846
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 6:25:18 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Nay
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 6:26:46 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 6:17:20 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/22/2016 6:13:45 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/22/2016 6:04:38 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I thought we were going with the option A. What changed?

This is option A--half or more of the rounds means you can vote a forfeit for conduct points.

I'm fairly sure it was Option B but let me check.

I do believe you are correct.

Regardless, I thought we were going with the option that more than one forfeit means people can vote conduct without having to assess arguments.

That was part of the discussion certainly. The initial suggestion was prereq Arg for everything (the most strict), and Option A was the most lax (anything more than a single FF exempted) and so the middle choice (half or more exempted) is what seemed logical to bring to the table.

That's a lot more easy to uniformly enforce and if someone forfeited two rounds, then they really don't care enough about the debate to necessitate them having an equal probability of winning.

I don't personally have a horse in this, so I'm not sure it's appropriate for me to argue the virtues one way or another, but the thinking is that a debate in which less than half of it is forfeited, may still be legit enough to require an explanation for Argument points.

With the "half-as-many-rounds" language, it can get confusing as to where exactly you draw the line.

I think it's pretty specific. I'm not sure how much more clear it could possibly be. If half the debate or more is FF'd no Arg prereq necessary. Seems pretty simple on that end.
Debate.org Moderator
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 6:36:47 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 6:26:46 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
I think it's pretty specific. I'm not sure how much more clear it could possibly be. If half the debate or more is FF'd no Arg prereq necessary. Seems pretty simple on that end.
So, this includes acceptance rounds and any other rounds where the debater skipped a round or posted "Extend" or any such thing? Just the total number of rounds that actually exist regardless of how many of the rounds contained actual debate?

That was part of the discussion certainly. The initial suggestion was prereq Arg for everything (the most strict), and Option A was the most lax (anything more than a single FF exempted) and so the middle choice (half or more exempted) is what seemed logical to bring to the table.

I feel like a lot of politics from both sides resulted in a very suboptimal solution. I was initially against any change but if we have to change, I'd have been happier with uniformly requiring arguments to be evaluated on all debates before any other points can be awarded. That at least seems more reasonable than having a specific caveat for forfeited debates.

I'm probably going to be the only one who disagrees with the "imabench exclusion." How is it that people can write up an RFD to award a tie? Judges are supposed to judge the debate. That means, making a choice however hard it is and however tiny the margin. It seems so silly to have that little exclusion where the voters don't have to choose a winner and I'm surprised someone involved in formal debate like whiteflame is on board with it. I'm sure anyone who's debated irl like Raisor or bluesteel will tell imabench that voting ties is silly.

I'm just disappointed that this is the product that comes out of all these sub-committees and politics and how much of politicians members of DDO are.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 6:48:58 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 6:17:20 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/22/2016 6:13:45 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/22/2016 6:04:38 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I thought we were going with the option A. What changed?

This is option A--half or more of the rounds means you can vote a forfeit for conduct points.

I'm fairly sure it was Option B but let me check. Regardless, I thought we were going with the option that more than one forfeit means people can vote conduct without having to assess arguments. That's a lot more easy to uniformly enforce and if someone forfeited two rounds, then they really don't care enough about the debate to necessitate them having an equal probability of winning.

It was never "more than one forfeit." That option didn't even exist. Option B was people have to assess arguments no matter what, Option A was this.
"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
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 6:52:04 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 6:48:58 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/22/2016 6:17:20 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/22/2016 6:13:45 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/22/2016 6:04:38 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I thought we were going with the option A. What changed?

This is option A--half or more of the rounds means you can vote a forfeit for conduct points.

I'm fairly sure it was Option B but let me check. Regardless, I thought we were going with the option that more than one forfeit means people can vote conduct without having to assess arguments. That's a lot more easy to uniformly enforce and if someone forfeited two rounds, then they really don't care enough about the debate to necessitate them having an equal probability of winning.

It was never "more than one forfeit." That option didn't even exist. Option B was people have to assess arguments no matter what, Option A was this.

The options I was talking about were these: http://www.debate.org...
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 6:52:55 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 6:52:04 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
The options I was talking about were these: http://www.debate.org...

That's ... interesting. I clearly didn't realize those were the options.
"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
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 6:54:24 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 6:36:47 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
How is it that people can write up an RFD to award a tie? Judges are supposed to judge the debate. That means, making a choice however hard it is and however tiny the margin.

If you never want to say arguments are tied, by all means don't... However on a good debate would you prefer feedback without points awarded, or no feedback?
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...
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 6:54:57 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 6:36:47 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/22/2016 6:26:46 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
I think it's pretty specific. I'm not sure how much more clear it could possibly be. If half the debate or more is FF'd no Arg prereq necessary. Seems pretty simple on that end.
So, this includes acceptance rounds and any other rounds where the debater skipped a round or posted "Extend" or any such thing? Just the total number of rounds that actually exist regardless of how many of the rounds contained actual debate?

It's actual forfeited rounds by time elapsing. The first round couldn't be included anyway since if the first round is forfeited by a challenger the debate resets. So yes, it would include all rounds.

That was part of the discussion certainly. The initial suggestion was prereq Arg for everything (the most strict), and Option A was the most lax (anything more than a single FF exempted) and so the middle choice (half or more exempted) is what seemed logical to bring to the table.

I feel like a lot of politics from both sides resulted in a very suboptimal solution. I was initially against any change but if we have to change, I'd have been happier with uniformly requiring arguments to be evaluated on all debates before any other points can be awarded. That at least seems more reasonable than having a specific caveat for forfeited debates.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I'm also the wrong person to be arguing about the virtues of this. I don't think there was any actual politics involved with this, perhaps my joke was poorly timed, it was just a lengthy discussion through many threads, and more complex than it needed to be, and that's all I meant.

I'm probably going to be the only one who disagrees with the "imabench exclusion." How is it that people can write up an RFD to award a tie? Judges are supposed to judge the debate. That means, making a choice however hard it is and however tiny the margin. It seems so silly to have that little exclusion where the voters don't have to choose a winner and I'm surprised someone involved in formal debate like whiteflame is on board with it. I'm sure anyone who's debated irl like Raisor or bluesteel will tell imabench that voting ties is silly.

Again, I don't necessarily disagree. The goal is to make it clear the voter actually read the debate. So forcing them to explain argument points, even if they aren't awarded, encourages more than just a "forfeit" and a conduct vote on a debate that may have had 2 rounds of legitimate debate occur.

I'm just disappointed that this is the product that comes out of all these sub-committees and politics and how much of politicians members of DDO are.

That was a joke. If we actually had subcommittees and a real political machine these things might actually be simpler. This is just the result of all of the feedback provided from the many discussions on the issue.

Again though, I'm not the person to argue in favor of the virtues of this, or offer any personal opinion on it whatsoever. I'm presenting it for approval or disapproval based on the many conversations had both publicly and privately and in G+ hangouts and this is what I feel is the best compromise of the various degrees of strictness of all ideas presented. This is the specific language that I feel addresses the issue, and is most likely to be agreeable to the most people. If you don't like it in this iteration, that's perfectly fine, and I don't blame you one bit.
Debate.org Moderator
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 6:58:33 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 6:54:57 AM, airmax1227 wrote:

Yeah, I realize you don't have or don't want to state an actual position on this. It's more that the details could have been hashed out publicly rather than google hangout which only some members would be present in.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 7:00:40 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 6:54:24 AM, Ragnar wrote:
At 3/22/2016 6:36:47 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
How is it that people can write up an RFD to award a tie? Judges are supposed to judge the debate. That means, making a choice however hard it is and however tiny the margin.

If you never want to say arguments are tied, by all means don't... However on a good debate would you prefer feedback without points awarded, or no feedback?

Feedback loses a good portion of its value if no winner is decided. The best part of the feedback is understanding which arguments were crucial to the judges' decision and why and which arguments outweighed others and why. I want to see a judge agonize over their decision and put it in words.

An RFD for a tie will just come down to listing out some strong and weak arguments and commenting to them. That's not useful in the same level as a real RFD.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 7:21:07 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 6:58:33 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/22/2016 6:54:57 AM, airmax1227 wrote:

Yeah, I realize you don't have or don't want to state an actual position on this. It's more that the details could have been hashed out publicly rather than google hangout which only some members would be present in.

Fair enough, though I do feel like most of this was publicly discussed. Some people want Option A, some want Option B, and some want my original proposal. Some even want Option C, which is any debate in which 2 rounds are posted in any length debate requires an Arg prereq.

So in the end I have to present something, and that something is never going to have unanimous approval. Even with all of these conversation that occurred before I got directly involved, no actual suggestions for a practical policy change were suggested. So I had to start from scratch and then go through several changes and then come up with something that might work and be agreed upon.

I understand you like Option A, but person C likes option B, and person B prefers option C, and person D likes none of the above. I'm not trying to push anything here, or really do much of anything as I've said before, except to move things forward as my role as a facilitator in this.

If you would like to discuss this further privately, I'm more than happy to, but in terms of this thread I'll just leave it by saying that some members raised an issue, some public discussions were had, and this is the compromise plan culminating from those discussions that I feel best addresses the issue.
Debate.org Moderator
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 9:22:06 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 5:50:53 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
An initial thread was posted to gauge member interest in this policy and to optimize it based on the discussion therein. That thread can be viewed here:

http://www.debate.org...

The policy presented in this thread is the culmination of all of the discussions that lead up to the previous thread, the discussion that is included in that thread, and the discussions that followed it.

From those discussions, and other discussions both public and private, this thread presents for your approval or disapproval a specific change in vote moderation policy.

The following policy is designed to mitigate the negative effects of votes that ignore the entirety of a debate to simply place a single point for conduct.

To that end, the following policy is being presented to the membership of Debate.org for a vote of approval or disapproval.

If you want to see vote moderation implement the following policy post "YAY". If you do NOT want vote moderation to implement the following policy, vote "NAY".

The policy being presented for your consideration is as follows:

******

Any debate in which the number of rounds forfeited by either side is fewer than half the number of rounds, a voter is required to provide an RFD for Arguments as a prerequisite to awarding Conduct.

Put more simply, if more than half of the debate is posted (not forfeited), you must explain Arguments to award conduct.

In other words, you may NOT award conduct points without explaining Arguments if forfeited rounds do not equal at least half of the rounds of the debate by either side.

In other words, in a 3 round debate with one forfeit (by either or both sides), a voter would be required to provide an RFD for arguments as a prerequisite to voting for conduct.

For example:

[A 2 round debate with 1 forfeit would be exempt as the debate is half forfeited.]
[A 3 round debate with 1 forfeit would require an argument RFD as a prerequisite to awarding conduct]
[A 4 round debate with 2 forfeits would be exempt as the debate is half forfeited.]
[A 5 round debate with 2 forfeits would require an argument RFD as a prerequisite to awarding conduct]

Each of these cases refers to the total number of only one side, and is not cumulative of both sides for forfeiting. So for example, if both debaters forfeit 2 rounds in a 5 round debate, an RFD for arguments must still be presented as less than half of the debate was forfeited by either side.

"Providing an RFD for arguments" does NOT mean awarding those points to either side. Instead, in a case where a voter feels that neither side deserves those points, a voter is simply required to explain why neither side is being awarded those points, following which, they will be allowed to award conduct for a forfeit.

In short, if less than half a debate is forfeited, you must explain Arguments to be able to vote on Conduct.

******

If you agree that vote moderation should enforce the above policy, vote "YAY". If you do not approve of vote moderation enforcing the above policy, vote "NAY".

Nay
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
ssadi
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 10:15:47 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 5:50:53 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
An initial thread was posted to gauge member interest in this policy and to optimize it based on the discussion therein. That thread can be viewed here:

http://www.debate.org...

The policy presented in this thread is the culmination of all of the discussions that lead up to the previous thread, the discussion that is included in that thread, and the discussions that followed it.

From those discussions, and other discussions both public and private, this thread presents for your approval or disapproval a specific change in vote moderation policy.

The following policy is designed to mitigate the negative effects of votes that ignore the entirety of a debate to simply place a single point for conduct.

To that end, the following policy is being presented to the membership of Debate.org for a vote of approval or disapproval.

If you want to see vote moderation implement the following policy post "YAY". If you do NOT want vote moderation to implement the following policy, vote "NAY".

The policy being presented for your consideration is as follows:

******

Any debate in which the number of rounds forfeited by either side is fewer than half the number of rounds, a voter is required to provide an RFD for Arguments as a prerequisite to awarding Conduct.

Put more simply, if more than half of the debate is posted (not forfeited), you must explain Arguments to award conduct.

In other words, you may NOT award conduct points without explaining Arguments if forfeited rounds do not equal at least half of the rounds of the debate by either side.

In other words, in a 3 round debate with one forfeit (by either or both sides), a voter would be required to provide an RFD for arguments as a prerequisite to voting for conduct.

For example:

[A 2 round debate with 1 forfeit would be exempt as the debate is half forfeited.]
[A 3 round debate with 1 forfeit would require an argument RFD as a prerequisite to awarding conduct]
[A 4 round debate with 2 forfeits would be exempt as the debate is half forfeited.]
[A 5 round debate with 2 forfeits would require an argument RFD as a prerequisite to awarding conduct]

Each of these cases refers to the total number of only one side, and is not cumulative of both sides for forfeiting. So for example, if both debaters forfeit 2 rounds in a 5 round debate, an RFD for arguments must still be presented as less than half of the debate was forfeited by either side.

"Providing an RFD for arguments" does NOT mean awarding those points to either side. Instead, in a case where a voter feels that neither side deserves those points, a voter is simply required to explain why neither side is being awarded those points, following which, they will be allowed to award conduct for a forfeit.

In short, if less than half a debate is forfeited, you must explain Arguments to be able to vote on Conduct.

******

If you agree that vote moderation should enforce the above policy, vote "YAY". If you do not approve of vote moderation enforcing the above policy, vote "NAY".

YAY!

This is obviously necessary, because there are some debates where one side really provides extensive and much more convincing arguments than the other. So, it is unfair when s/he looses the debate due to 1 round ff, for example. Therefore, it is obviously YAY from me..
Or were they created without anything being before them (or out of something different than the basic material of all creation, so that they know things others do not), or are they the creators (of themselves, so that they can maintain themselves and are free in their acts)? Or did they create the heavens and the earth (so that their sovereignty belongs to them)? No indeed. Rather, they have no certain knowledge (about creation, humankind, and the basic facts concerning them).

Quran, 52:35-36
NothingSpecial99
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 11:17:37 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Nay
"Check your facts, not your privilege" - Christina Hoff Summers

If you go to jail for Tax Evasion, you're living off of Taxes as a result of not paying Taxes

"Facts don't care about your feelings" - Ben Shapiro
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 12:34:26 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
YAY nac
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
Vaarka
Posts: 7,613
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 12:38:56 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
YAY nac
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCatX: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 12:42:47 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 6:04:38 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I thought we were going with the option A. What changed?

When was this agreed upon? I starting seeing more people opting for option B more than anything. Also there was a lot of discussion happening in the hangout that might have gone missed in the forum, but we introduced an option C, which is what this basically was. A simplified version of option B.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 12:48:35 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 6:36:47 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I feel like a lot of politics from both sides resulted in a very suboptimal solution. I was initially against any change but if we have to change, I'd have been happier with uniformly requiring arguments to be evaluated on all debates before any other points can be awarded. That at least seems more reasonable than having a specific caveat for forfeited debates.

I agree 100% on this. Unfortunately I found out that is not how things work here. There has to be a big step by step process where every aspect of the idea is scrutinized to its core. In other words, what could have been a small easy fix in my opinion, is so some huge elaborate change. I am going along with it at this point because any change is better than none, but I do wish this process would have been streamlined much easier under a system phrased the way you interpreted it (the way I was also wanting it to be interpreted).

In the end it basically accomplishes much of the same thing, though now there are more specifics, and standards. I was hoping it would be as easy as just having a mod use his discretion on each vote when evaluating whether the individual had read the debate. Either way, I think this for the most part accomplished that.

I'm probably going to be the only one who disagrees with the "imabench exclusion." How is it that people can write up an RFD to award a tie? Judges are supposed to judge the debate. That means, making a choice however hard it is and however tiny the margin. It seems so silly to have that little exclusion where the voters don't have to choose a winner and I'm surprised someone involved in formal debate like whiteflame is on board with it. I'm sure anyone who's debated irl like Raisor or bluesteel will tell imabench that voting ties is silly.

I'm just disappointed that this is the product that comes out of all these sub-committees and politics and how much of politicians members of DDO are.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 12:53:08 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 6:54:24 AM, Ragnar wrote:
At 3/22/2016 6:36:47 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
How is it that people can write up an RFD to award a tie? Judges are supposed to judge the debate. That means, making a choice however hard it is and however tiny the margin.

If you never want to say arguments are tied, by all means don't... However on a good debate would you prefer feedback without points awarded, or no feedback?

Feedback, for sure. I have received votes like this that I felt were really helpful even though they didn't award a winner. I can definitely see f-16's position on it though, especially knowing that he has debate experience in real life (which is mostly how that works, a decision has to be made).
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227