Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

My problem with vote moderation

Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 8:36:46 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Lately I've been writing rfds to satisfy the mods. I used to write rfds to communicate with the debaters, but lately I've had that as a lower priority because I'm more likely to get in a discussion with a mod than I am with a debater over my vote.

That's the essence of my problem with the vote mod system. It distorts what we're doing. we're supposed to communicate with debaters, not with some vote judging panel. An rfd is not a performance or an assessment task. It shouldn't be.

The worst discussions I've had with mods are over my votes over semi-troll debates. My rfd was intelligible in the context of the debate, but not to someone who had never read the debate. If both debaters are okay with an rfd, why should there be an external mod standard applied?
lannan13
Posts: 23,029
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 2:07:42 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 8:36:46 AM, Hoppi wrote:
Lately I've been writing rfds to satisfy the mods. I used to write rfds to communicate with the debaters, but lately I've had that as a lower priority because I'm more likely to get in a discussion with a mod than I am with a debater over my vote.

That's the essence of my problem with the vote mod system. It distorts what we're doing. we're supposed to communicate with debaters, not with some vote judging panel. An rfd is not a performance or an assessment task. It shouldn't be.

The worst discussions I've had with mods are over my votes over semi-troll debates. My rfd was intelligible in the context of the debate, but not to someone who had never read the debate. If both debaters are okay with an rfd, why should there be an external mod standard applied?

If you commit a crime and the victum is okay with you murding them, is it still a crime?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 2:31:54 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 8:36:46 AM, Hoppi wrote:
Lately I've been writing rfds to satisfy the mods. I used to write rfds to communicate with the debaters, but lately I've had that as a lower priority because I'm more likely to get in a discussion with a mod than I am with a debater over my vote.

That's the essence of my problem with the vote mod system. It distorts what we're doing. we're supposed to communicate with debaters, not with some vote judging panel. An rfd is not a performance or an assessment task. It shouldn't be.

The worst discussions I've had with mods are over my votes over semi-troll debates. My rfd was intelligible in the context of the debate, but not to someone who had never read the debate. If both debaters are okay with an rfd, why should there be an external mod standard applied?

This is a very reasonable point. If anyone is, and I think many are, writing RFDs with the mod in mind more than the debate itself - that is a problem.

This, as you said, is not some school or work assignment. There should be no grades.
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 2:43:44 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 8:36:46 AM, Hoppi wrote:
Lately I've been writing rfds to satisfy the mods. I used to write rfds to communicate with the debaters, but lately I've had that as a lower priority because I'm more likely to get in a discussion with a mod than I am with a debater over my vote.

That's the essence of my problem with the vote mod system. It distorts what we're doing. we're supposed to communicate with debaters, not with some vote judging panel. An rfd is not a performance or an assessment task. It shouldn't be.

The worst discussions I've had with mods are over my votes over semi-troll debates. My rfd was intelligible in the context of the debate, but not to someone who had never read the debate. If both debaters are okay with an rfd, why should there be an external mod standard applied?

As a general rule, there are certain things a vote must do. For example, it must indicate why the winner won and the loser lost, and that explanation must reference specific arguments made in a debate, and weigh their relative strength against one another.

Some voters are able to do this, but some are not.

If you are speaking with white flame, I understand your frustration. His imperious tendencies with respect to vote moderation, coupled with his incompetence with respect to the writing of a proper RFD, make for a nasty combination.

BOT, however, has demonstrated competence in an area that white flame has not, however. If you take a look at white flame's most recent RFD on a high profile debate (the one between bsh1 and Airmax), it's as if he read the debate with distortion goggles on. Raisor's RFD was also wrong (both ultimately and substantively), but he is not a mod... just a bad voter. In contrast, TUF's RFD was lucid; as was Tej's and mine.

As a rule, you do not have to "show your work" on all votes, but that is in the end what moderation tries to do... is to get you to show your work.

Some have suggested, correctly, that this reduces the overall number of votes. Indeed it does, and that's a good thing if your interest is only in votes being cast that are good.

The problem is that people learn from making mistakes, unless of course you are white flame, in which case he does not learn; he just digs his heels in, defends his position, and then when he has lost, walks away being convinced evermore that he is correct. There are also debaters like this; it is not an attribute unique to white flame.

So, the implication here is that the current vote moderation regime ensures really that people aren't going to "learn" because they are't going to make mistakes because votes are being "chilled." Many view this as an improvement, because it means that no mistakes will be made on *their* debate. I view it as an exercise in idiocy, because the system benefits only those debaters who are already moderately competent in their ability to cast votes; meaning, simply, that there is a finite limit on the number of voters who are going to vote in the first place, and that number will not likely increase to the extent that moderation continues as it is.

Worse, voters will decidedly fail almost every single time to "improve" where they are coached by white flame, for obvious reasons. The phrase "blind leading the blind through shadows and fog" comes to mind. To illustrate this phenomenon more concretely, I may do a Terrible RFD of the Week ("TRW") describing each and every reason why, with regard to Bsh1's debate with Airmax on Free Speech, Whiteflame's vote was wrong.

Keep a look out.
Tsar of DDO
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 3:18:03 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 2:07:42 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 3/30/2016 8:36:46 AM, Hoppi wrote:
Lately I've been writing rfds to satisfy the mods. I used to write rfds to communicate with the debaters, but lately I've had that as a lower priority because I'm more likely to get in a discussion with a mod than I am with a debater over my vote.

That's the essence of my problem with the vote mod system. It distorts what we're doing. we're supposed to communicate with debaters, not with some vote judging panel. An rfd is not a performance or an assessment task. It shouldn't be.

The worst discussions I've had with mods are over my votes over semi-troll debates. My rfd was intelligible in the context of the debate, but not to someone who had never read the debate. If both debaters are okay with an rfd, why should there be an external mod standard applied?

If you commit a crime and the victum is okay with you murding them, is it still a crime?

It's not possible to be okay with being murdered because you're dead...

All the justifications for vote moderation say that it's about respecting the debaters. So what justification is there in insisting on a sort of rfd that debaters don't actually have a problem with?

For example, if there was a vote that said, "yes wearing boots over jeans may be practical, but I agree that it's often unsexy" that would be deleted as not specific enough. It would have to be rewritten as "yes wearing boots over jeans may be practical (as pro convincingly argued in round 1) but I agree with con's round 2 argument that it's often unsexy.". The only purpose of the rewrite is to satisfy the mods. The debaters already know who argued what. So where's the crime?
lannan13
Posts: 23,029
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 3:28:58 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 3:18:03 PM, Hoppi wrote:
At 3/30/2016 2:07:42 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 3/30/2016 8:36:46 AM, Hoppi wrote:
Lately I've been writing rfds to satisfy the mods. I used to write rfds to communicate with the debaters, but lately I've had that as a lower priority because I'm more likely to get in a discussion with a mod than I am with a debater over my vote.

That's the essence of my problem with the vote mod system. It distorts what we're doing. we're supposed to communicate with debaters, not with some vote judging panel. An rfd is not a performance or an assessment task. It shouldn't be.

The worst discussions I've had with mods are over my votes over semi-troll debates. My rfd was intelligible in the context of the debate, but not to someone who had never read the debate. If both debaters are okay with an rfd, why should there be an external mod standard applied?

If you commit a crime and the victum is okay with you murding them, is it still a crime?

It's not possible to be okay with being murdered because you're dead...

All the justifications for vote moderation say that it's about respecting the debaters. So what justification is there in insisting on a sort of rfd that debaters don't actually have a problem with?

For example, if there was a vote that said, "yes wearing boots over jeans may be practical, but I agree that it's often unsexy" that would be deleted as not specific enough. It would have to be rewritten as "yes wearing boots over jeans may be practical (as pro convincingly argued in round 1) but I agree with con's round 2 argument that it's often unsexy.". The only purpose of the rewrite is to satisfy the mods. The debaters already know who argued what. So where's the crime?

That wouldn't be a good enough RFD. The voting rules are a one size fits all deal. Some of the points are starting to become mute even. Max, himself, stated that pratically any debate that awards S&G unless it's a Vi_Spex debate will be removed. There's a 10 post Voting forum and all of your questions are answered there. I think it's just the problem that you haven't read it or even understood the process. If you did then you'll see your vote is invalid and unjustified.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 3:35:36 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 3:28:58 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 3/30/2016 3:18:03 PM, Hoppi wrote:
At 3/30/2016 2:07:42 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 3/30/2016 8:36:46 AM, Hoppi wrote:
Lately I've been writing rfds to satisfy the mods. I used to write rfds to communicate with the debaters, but lately I've had that as a lower priority because I'm more likely to get in a discussion with a mod than I am with a debater over my vote.

That's the essence of my problem with the vote mod system. It distorts what we're doing. we're supposed to communicate with debaters, not with some vote judging panel. An rfd is not a performance or an assessment task. It shouldn't be.

The worst discussions I've had with mods are over my votes over semi-troll debates. My rfd was intelligible in the context of the debate, but not to someone who had never read the debate. If both debaters are okay with an rfd, why should there be an external mod standard applied?

If you commit a crime and the victum is okay with you murding them, is it still a crime?

It's not possible to be okay with being murdered because you're dead...

All the justifications for vote moderation say that it's about respecting the debaters. So what justification is there in insisting on a sort of rfd that debaters don't actually have a problem with?

For example, if there was a vote that said, "yes wearing boots over jeans may be practical, but I agree that it's often unsexy" that would be deleted as not specific enough. It would have to be rewritten as "yes wearing boots over jeans may be practical (as pro convincingly argued in round 1) but I agree with con's round 2 argument that it's often unsexy.". The only purpose of the rewrite is to satisfy the mods. The debaters already know who argued what. So where's the crime?

That wouldn't be a good enough RFD. The voting rules are a one size fits all deal. Some of the points are starting to become mute even. Max, himself, stated that pratically any debate that awards S&G unless it's a Vi_Spex debate will be removed. There's a 10 post Voting forum and all of your questions are answered there. I think it's just the problem that you haven't read it or even understood the process. If you did then you'll see your vote is invalid and unjustified.

It's possible that I don't understand "the process". There are already two long voting guides I've been referred to. I've read those, but there may be more...

That's not the point though. I'm talking about situations where both debaters are okay with an rfd. What justifications is there for a third party moderation committee to seem it insufficient? In theory. Aren't the votes FOR debaters?
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 3:39:53 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 8:59:27 AM, Death23 wrote:
Theory: You got on the radar because of the pot debate.

Lol maybe
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 3:40:26 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 8:36:46 AM, Hoppi wrote:
Lately I've been writing rfds to satisfy the mods. I used to write rfds to communicate with the debaters, but lately I've had that as a lower priority because I'm more likely to get in a discussion with a mod than I am with a debater over my vote.

That's the essence of my problem with the vote mod system. It distorts what we're doing. we're supposed to communicate with debaters, not with some vote judging panel. An rfd is not a performance or an assessment task. It shouldn't be.

The worst discussions I've had with mods are over my votes over semi-troll debates. My rfd was intelligible in the context of the debate, but not to someone who had never read the debate. If both debaters are okay with an rfd, why should there be an external mod standard applied?

I think it stems from the fact an obvious bias is shown.

Personally, its hard for me to hold a vote with a straight face after stating I disregarded whole sections of argumentation because the opposition didn't have a chance to reply...

only to keep the same vote after being shown to be wholly incorrect about when such argumentation was made as a point in the debate.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
lannan13
Posts: 23,029
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 3:40:33 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 3:35:36 PM, Hoppi wrote:
At 3/30/2016 3:28:58 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 3/30/2016 3:18:03 PM, Hoppi wrote:
At 3/30/2016 2:07:42 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 3/30/2016 8:36:46 AM, Hoppi wrote:
Lately I've been writing rfds to satisfy the mods. I used to write rfds to communicate with the debaters, but lately I've had that as a lower priority because I'm more likely to get in a discussion with a mod than I am with a debater over my vote.

That's the essence of my problem with the vote mod system. It distorts what we're doing. we're supposed to communicate with debaters, not with some vote judging panel. An rfd is not a performance or an assessment task. It shouldn't be.

The worst discussions I've had with mods are over my votes over semi-troll debates. My rfd was intelligible in the context of the debate, but not to someone who had never read the debate. If both debaters are okay with an rfd, why should there be an external mod standard applied?

If you commit a crime and the victum is okay with you murding them, is it still a crime?

It's not possible to be okay with being murdered because you're dead...

All the justifications for vote moderation say that it's about respecting the debaters. So what justification is there in insisting on a sort of rfd that debaters don't actually have a problem with?

For example, if there was a vote that said, "yes wearing boots over jeans may be practical, but I agree that it's often unsexy" that would be deleted as not specific enough. It would have to be rewritten as "yes wearing boots over jeans may be practical (as pro convincingly argued in round 1) but I agree with con's round 2 argument that it's often unsexy.". The only purpose of the rewrite is to satisfy the mods. The debaters already know who argued what. So where's the crime?

That wouldn't be a good enough RFD. The voting rules are a one size fits all deal. Some of the points are starting to become mute even. Max, himself, stated that pratically any debate that awards S&G unless it's a Vi_Spex debate will be removed. There's a 10 post Voting forum and all of your questions are answered there. I think it's just the problem that you haven't read it or even understood the process. If you did then you'll see your vote is invalid and unjustified.

It's possible that I don't understand "the process". There are already two long voting guides I've been referred to. I've read those, but there may be more...

That's not the point though. I'm talking about situations where both debaters are okay with an rfd. What justifications is there for a third party moderation committee to seem it insufficient? In theory. Aren't the votes FOR debaters?

They are, but an Ace is an Ace and a Spade is a Spade, even if the voters are okay with a cr@p vote doesn't make the vote justifiable.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 3:43:36 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 3:40:33 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 3/30/2016 3:35:36 PM, Hoppi wrote:
At 3/30/2016 3:28:58 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 3/30/2016 3:18:03 PM, Hoppi wrote:
At 3/30/2016 2:07:42 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 3/30/2016 8:36:46 AM, Hoppi wrote:
Lately I've been writing rfds to satisfy the mods. I used to write rfds to communicate with the debaters, but lately I've had that as a lower priority because I'm more likely to get in a discussion with a mod than I am with a debater over my vote.

That's the essence of my problem with the vote mod system. It distorts what we're doing. we're supposed to communicate with debaters, not with some vote judging panel. An rfd is not a performance or an assessment task. It shouldn't be.

The worst discussions I've had with mods are over my votes over semi-troll debates. My rfd was intelligible in the context of the debate, but not to someone who had never read the debate. If both debaters are okay with an rfd, why should there be an external mod standard applied?

If you commit a crime and the victum is okay with you murding them, is it still a crime?

It's not possible to be okay with being murdered because you're dead...

All the justifications for vote moderation say that it's about respecting the debaters. So what justification is there in insisting on a sort of rfd that debaters don't actually have a problem with?

For example, if there was a vote that said, "yes wearing boots over jeans may be practical, but I agree that it's often unsexy" that would be deleted as not specific enough. It would have to be rewritten as "yes wearing boots over jeans may be practical (as pro convincingly argued in round 1) but I agree with con's round 2 argument that it's often unsexy.". The only purpose of the rewrite is to satisfy the mods. The debaters already know who argued what. So where's the crime?

That wouldn't be a good enough RFD. The voting rules are a one size fits all deal. Some of the points are starting to become mute even. Max, himself, stated that pratically any debate that awards S&G unless it's a Vi_Spex debate will be removed. There's a 10 post Voting forum and all of your questions are answered there. I think it's just the problem that you haven't read it or even understood the process. If you did then you'll see your vote is invalid and unjustified.

It's possible that I don't understand "the process". There are already two long voting guides I've been referred to. I've read those, but there may be more...

That's not the point though. I'm talking about situations where both debaters are okay with an rfd. What justifications is there for a third party moderation committee to seem it insufficient? In theory. Aren't the votes FOR debaters?

They are, but an Ace is an Ace and a Spade is a Spade, even if the voters are okay with a cr@p vote doesn't make the vote justifiable.

Why not?
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 3:49:51 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 3:40:33 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 3/30/2016 3:35:36 PM, Hoppi wrote:
At 3/30/2016 3:28:58 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 3/30/2016 3:18:03 PM, Hoppi wrote:
At 3/30/2016 2:07:42 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 3/30/2016 8:36:46 AM, Hoppi wrote:
Lately I've been writing rfds to satisfy the mods. I used to write rfds to communicate with the debaters, but lately I've had that as a lower priority because I'm more likely to get in a discussion with a mod than I am with a debater over my vote.

That's the essence of my problem with the vote mod system. It distorts what we're doing. we're supposed to communicate with debaters, not with some vote judging panel. An rfd is not a performance or an assessment task. It shouldn't be.

The worst discussions I've had with mods are over my votes over semi-troll debates. My rfd was intelligible in the context of the debate, but not to someone who had never read the debate. If both debaters are okay with an rfd, why should there be an external mod standard applied?

If you commit a crime and the victum is okay with you murding them, is it still a crime?

It's not possible to be okay with being murdered because you're dead...

All the justifications for vote moderation say that it's about respecting the debaters. So what justification is there in insisting on a sort of rfd that debaters don't actually have a problem with?

For example, if there was a vote that said, "yes wearing boots over jeans may be practical, but I agree that it's often unsexy" that would be deleted as not specific enough. It would have to be rewritten as "yes wearing boots over jeans may be practical (as pro convincingly argued in round 1) but I agree with con's round 2 argument that it's often unsexy.". The only purpose of the rewrite is to satisfy the mods. The debaters already know who argued what. So where's the crime?

That wouldn't be a good enough RFD. The voting rules are a one size fits all deal. Some of the points are starting to become mute even. Max, himself, stated that pratically any debate that awards S&G unless it's a Vi_Spex debate will be removed. There's a 10 post Voting forum and all of your questions are answered there. I think it's just the problem that you haven't read it or even understood the process. If you did then you'll see your vote is invalid and unjustified.

It's possible that I don't understand "the process". There are already two long voting guides I've been referred to. I've read those, but there may be more...

That's not the point though. I'm talking about situations where both debaters are okay with an rfd. What justifications is there for a third party moderation committee to seem it insufficient? In theory. Aren't the votes FOR debaters?

They are, but an Ace is an Ace and a Spade is a Spade, even if the voters are okay with a cr@p vote doesn't make the vote justifiable.

I think I generally agree with this. Moderation should have standards irrespective of the debaters satisfaction with the vote.

Nonetheless if there are a lot of debates where votes are bein challenged or removed by moderation while the participants feel the going had been fair, that is a red flag that the standards mods are using need to be tweaked.
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 3:54:05 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 3:40:26 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 3/30/2016 8:36:46 AM, Hoppi wrote:
Lately I've been writing rfds to satisfy the mods. I used to write rfds to communicate with the debaters, but lately I've had that as a lower priority because I'm more likely to get in a discussion with a mod than I am with a debater over my vote.

That's the essence of my problem with the vote mod system. It distorts what we're doing. we're supposed to communicate with debaters, not with some vote judging panel. An rfd is not a performance or an assessment task. It shouldn't be.

The worst discussions I've had with mods are over my votes over semi-troll debates. My rfd was intelligible in the context of the debate, but not to someone who had never read the debate. If both debaters are okay with an rfd, why should there be an external mod standard applied?

I think it stems from the fact an obvious bias is shown.

Personally, its hard for me to hold a vote with a straight face after stating I disregarded whole sections of argumentation because the opposition didn't have a chance to reply...

only to keep the same vote after being shown to be wholly incorrect about when such argumentation was made as a point in the debate.

Meh. You should have argued that point more strongly rather than just slapping it in a quote and saying here's what some important woman thinks. But a good vote and a mod-sufficient vote are different anyway.
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 3:55:38 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 8:36:46 AM, Hoppi wrote:
Lately I've been writing rfds to satisfy the mods. I used to write rfds to communicate with the debaters, but lately I've had that as a lower priority because I'm more likely to get in a discussion with a mod than I am with a debater over my vote.

That's the essence of my problem with the vote mod system. It distorts what we're doing. we're supposed to communicate with debaters, not with some vote judging panel. An rfd is not a performance or an assessment task. It shouldn't be.

The worst discussions I've had with mods are over my votes over semi-troll debates. My rfd was intelligible in the context of the debate, but not to someone who had never read the debate. If both debaters are okay with an rfd, why should there be an external mod standard applied?

So do you think only the participants in a debate should be allowed to report votes for moderation on that debate?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 4:00:00 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 3:54:05 PM, Hoppi wrote:
At 3/30/2016 3:40:26 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 3/30/2016 8:36:46 AM, Hoppi wrote:
Lately I've been writing rfds to satisfy the mods. I used to write rfds to communicate with the debaters, but lately I've had that as a lower priority because I'm more likely to get in a discussion with a mod than I am with a debater over my vote.

That's the essence of my problem with the vote mod system. It distorts what we're doing. we're supposed to communicate with debaters, not with some vote judging panel. An rfd is not a performance or an assessment task. It shouldn't be.

The worst discussions I've had with mods are over my votes over semi-troll debates. My rfd was intelligible in the context of the debate, but not to someone who had never read the debate. If both debaters are okay with an rfd, why should there be an external mod standard applied?

I think it stems from the fact an obvious bias is shown.

Personally, its hard for me to hold a vote with a straight face after stating I disregarded whole sections of argumentation because the opposition didn't have a chance to reply...

only to keep the same vote after being shown to be wholly incorrect about when such argumentation was made as a point in the debate.

Meh. You should have argued that point more strongly rather than just slapping it in a quote and saying here's what some important woman thinks. But a good vote and a mod-sufficient vote are different anyway.

... and you should have actually read the debate. Clearly you didn't follow the sources I presented, and "skimmed" I think is a gross overestimation of what you did.

Its really easy to say that I should have argued something stronger if you weren't reading what was presented from the onset.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 4:00:08 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 3:49:51 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 3/30/2016 3:40:33 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 3/30/2016 3:35:36 PM, Hoppi wrote:
At 3/30/2016 3:28:58 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 3/30/2016 3:18:03 PM, Hoppi wrote:
At 3/30/2016 2:07:42 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 3/30/2016 8:36:46 AM, Hoppi wrote:
Lately I've been writing rfds to satisfy the mods. I used to write rfds to communicate with the debaters, but lately I've had that as a lower priority because I'm more likely to get in a discussion with a mod than I am with a debater over my vote.

That's the essence of my problem with the vote mod system. It distorts what we're doing. we're supposed to communicate with debaters, not with some vote judging panel. An rfd is not a performance or an assessment task. It shouldn't be.

The worst discussions I've had with mods are over my votes over semi-troll debates. My rfd was intelligible in the context of the debate, but not to someone who had never read the debate. If both debaters are okay with an rfd, why should there be an external mod standard applied?

If you commit a crime and the victum is okay with you murding them, is it still a crime?

It's not possible to be okay with being murdered because you're dead...

All the justifications for vote moderation say that it's about respecting the debaters. So what justification is there in insisting on a sort of rfd that debaters don't actually have a problem with?

For example, if there was a vote that said, "yes wearing boots over jeans may be practical, but I agree that it's often unsexy" that would be deleted as not specific enough. It would have to be rewritten as "yes wearing boots over jeans may be practical (as pro convincingly argued in round 1) but I agree with con's round 2 argument that it's often unsexy.". The only purpose of the rewrite is to satisfy the mods. The debaters already know who argued what. So where's the crime?

That wouldn't be a good enough RFD. The voting rules are a one size fits all deal. Some of the points are starting to become mute even. Max, himself, stated that pratically any debate that awards S&G unless it's a Vi_Spex debate will be removed. There's a 10 post Voting forum and all of your questions are answered there. I think it's just the problem that you haven't read it or even understood the process. If you did then you'll see your vote is invalid and unjustified.

It's possible that I don't understand "the process". There are already two long voting guides I've been referred to. I've read those, but there may be more...

That's not the point though. I'm talking about situations where both debaters are okay with an rfd. What justifications is there for a third party moderation committee to seem it insufficient? In theory. Aren't the votes FOR debaters?

They are, but an Ace is an Ace and a Spade is a Spade, even if the voters are okay with a cr@p vote doesn't make the vote justifiable.

I think I generally agree with this. Moderation should have standards irrespective of the debaters satisfaction with the vote.

The mods need the vote to be intelligible to someone who hasn't read the debate. This is a requirement that is additional to the actual function of the rfd. The requirements of an rfd are partly to support the moderator function.

Nonetheless if there are a lot of debates where votes are bein challenged or removed by moderation while the participants feel the going had been fair, that is a red flag that the standards mods are using need to be tweaked.

Why does there have to be a particular number of votes for this to be true?
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 4:08:44 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 4:00:00 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 3/30/2016 3:54:05 PM, Hoppi wrote:
At 3/30/2016 3:40:26 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 3/30/2016 8:36:46 AM, Hoppi wrote:
Lately I've been writing rfds to satisfy the mods. I used to write rfds to communicate with the debaters, but lately I've had that as a lower priority because I'm more likely to get in a discussion with a mod than I am with a debater over my vote.

That's the essence of my problem with the vote mod system. It distorts what we're doing. we're supposed to communicate with debaters, not with some vote judging panel. An rfd is not a performance or an assessment task. It shouldn't be.

The worst discussions I've had with mods are over my votes over semi-troll debates. My rfd was intelligible in the context of the debate, but not to someone who had never read the debate. If both debaters are okay with an rfd, why should there be an external mod standard applied?

I think it stems from the fact an obvious bias is shown.

Personally, its hard for me to hold a vote with a straight face after stating I disregarded whole sections of argumentation because the opposition didn't have a chance to reply...

only to keep the same vote after being shown to be wholly incorrect about when such argumentation was made as a point in the debate.

Meh. You should have argued that point more strongly rather than just slapping it in a quote and saying here's what some important woman thinks. But a good vote and a mod-sufficient vote are different anyway.

... and you should have actually read the debate. Clearly you didn't follow the sources I presented, and "skimmed" I think is a gross overestimation of what you did.

I shouldn't have to read your sources. To vote, I'm assessing what you say in the debate, not what your sources say.

Its really easy to say that I should have argued something stronger if you weren't reading what was presented from the onset.

You didn't present anything about the Dempsey rule. It just was in a quote, and you introduced the quote as even important people have issues with this. It was an appeal to authority. So, yeah, saying argued more strongly is a polite way of saying that you should have actually articulated a position in relation to that issue, but you didn't. Anyway. This thread is not about your debate, so we should talk about it in the comments there if you want to.
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 4:13:51 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 3:55:38 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 3/30/2016 8:36:46 AM, Hoppi wrote:
Lately I've been writing rfds to satisfy the mods. I used to write rfds to communicate with the debaters, but lately I've had that as a lower priority because I'm more likely to get in a discussion with a mod than I am with a debater over my vote.

That's the essence of my problem with the vote mod system. It distorts what we're doing. we're supposed to communicate with debaters, not with some vote judging panel. An rfd is not a performance or an assessment task. It shouldn't be.

The worst discussions I've had with mods are over my votes over semi-troll debates. My rfd was intelligible in the context of the debate, but not to someone who had never read the debate. If both debaters are okay with an rfd, why should there be an external mod standard applied?

So do you think only the participants in a debate should be allowed to report votes for moderation on that debate?

Yeah maybe. When it comes to sufficiency of rfd, anyway.
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 4:45:21 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 2:07:42 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 3/30/2016 8:36:46 AM, Hoppi wrote:
Lately I've been writing rfds to satisfy the mods. I used to write rfds to communicate with the debaters, but lately I've had that as a lower priority because I'm more likely to get in a discussion with a mod than I am with a debater over my vote.

That's the essence of my problem with the vote mod system. It distorts what we're doing. we're supposed to communicate with debaters, not with some vote judging panel. An rfd is not a performance or an assessment task. It shouldn't be.

The worst discussions I've had with mods are over my votes over semi-troll debates. My rfd was intelligible in the context of the debate, but not to someone who had never read the debate. If both debaters are okay with an rfd, why should there be an external mod standard applied?

If you commit a crime and the victum is okay with you murding them, is it still a crime?

https://en.wikipedia.org...
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 4:49:56 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 3:55:38 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 3/30/2016 8:36:46 AM, Hoppi wrote:
Lately I've been writing rfds to satisfy the mods. I used to write rfds to communicate with the debaters, but lately I've had that as a lower priority because I'm more likely to get in a discussion with a mod than I am with a debater over my vote.

That's the essence of my problem with the vote mod system. It distorts what we're doing. we're supposed to communicate with debaters, not with some vote judging panel. An rfd is not a performance or an assessment task. It shouldn't be.

The worst discussions I've had with mods are over my votes over semi-troll debates. My rfd was intelligible in the context of the debate, but not to someone who had never read the debate. If both debaters are okay with an rfd, why should there be an external mod standard applied?

So do you think only the participants in a debate should be allowed to report votes for moderation on that debate?

BOT, however, has demonstrated competence in an area that white flame has not, however. If you take a look at white flame's most recent RFD on a high profile debate (the one between bsh1 and Airmax), it's as if he read the debate with distortion goggles on. Raisor's RFD was also wrong (both ultimately and substantively), but he is not a mod... just a bad voter. In contrast, TUF's RFD was lucid; as was Tej's and mine.

Get rek m8, get dat rvd level to 99 so you can ghet more skill points
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 5:07:02 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 3:35:36 PM, Hoppi wrote:
I'm talking about situations where both debaters are okay with an rfd. What justifications is there for a third party moderation committee to seem it insufficient? In theory. Aren't the votes FOR debaters?

As far as know, mods only review votes that are reported. Most of the time, debaters are the ones that report these votes. Occasionally, third parties do it but then your vote needs to be reported by the debaters or a third party before the mods even consider removing it and I think that's pretty fair.

Mods don't go around removing votes that aren't reported. In fact, mods are discouraged from reporting votes so they can review them.
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 6:04:26 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 5:07:02 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/30/2016 3:35:36 PM, Hoppi wrote:
I'm talking about situations where both debaters are okay with an rfd. What justifications is there for a third party moderation committee to seem it insufficient? In theory. Aren't the votes FOR debaters?

As far as know, mods only review votes that are reported. Most of the time, debaters are the ones that report these votes. Occasionally, third parties do it but then your vote needs to be reported by the debaters or a third party before the mods even consider removing it and I think that's pretty fair.

Mods don't go around removing votes that aren't reported. In fact, mods are discouraged from reporting votes so they can review them.

Yeah it's the third party report that I'm taking issue with.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 6:34:41 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 6:04:26 PM, Hoppi wrote:
At 3/30/2016 5:07:02 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/30/2016 3:35:36 PM, Hoppi wrote:
I'm talking about situations where both debaters are okay with an rfd. What justifications is there for a third party moderation committee to seem it insufficient? In theory. Aren't the votes FOR debaters?

As far as know, mods only review votes that are reported. Most of the time, debaters are the ones that report these votes. Occasionally, third parties do it but then your vote needs to be reported by the debaters or a third party before the mods even consider removing it and I think that's pretty fair.

Mods don't go around removing votes that aren't reported. In fact, mods are discouraged from reporting votes so they can review them.

Yeah it's the third party report that I'm taking issue with.

Well, if a third party reports it, then it means that someone relatively neutral would have taken issue with the vote AND that the mods agreed that it wasn't sufficient.
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 6:41:12 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 6:34:41 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/30/2016 6:04:26 PM, Hoppi wrote:
At 3/30/2016 5:07:02 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/30/2016 3:35:36 PM, Hoppi wrote:
I'm talking about situations where both debaters are okay with an rfd. What justifications is there for a third party moderation committee to seem it insufficient? In theory. Aren't the votes FOR debaters?

As far as know, mods only review votes that are reported. Most of the time, debaters are the ones that report these votes. Occasionally, third parties do it but then your vote needs to be reported by the debaters or a third party before the mods even consider removing it and I think that's pretty fair.

Mods don't go around removing votes that aren't reported. In fact, mods are discouraged from reporting votes so they can review them.

Yeah it's the third party report that I'm taking issue with.

Well, if a third party reports it, then it means that someone relatively neutral would have taken issue with the vote AND that the mods agreed that it wasn't sufficient.

I know. But what's the justification for those third parties interfering? Keeping in mind that the actual debate might have been read by none of those people.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 6:50:00 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 6:41:12 PM, Hoppi wrote:
I know. But what's the justification for those third parties interfering? Keeping in mind that the actual debate might have been read by none of those people.

I think there is merit to the idea that only debaters should be able to report votes. However, sometimes debaters are new and don't know that they can report votes and sometimes blatant votebombs might be cast and the debaters don't report them.

With third party reports being possible, we can cut down on poor voting. I don't recall a time where good votes were removed. Just focus on casting a good vote that genuinely helps the debaters and explains all the points and moderation won't bug you.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 6:50:51 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 3:55:38 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 3/30/2016 8:36:46 AM, Hoppi wrote:
Lately I've been writing rfds to satisfy the mods. I used to write rfds to communicate with the debaters, but lately I've had that as a lower priority because I'm more likely to get in a discussion with a mod than I am with a debater over my vote.

That's the essence of my problem with the vote mod system. It distorts what we're doing. we're supposed to communicate with debaters, not with some vote judging panel. An rfd is not a performance or an assessment task. It shouldn't be.

The worst discussions I've had with mods are over my votes over semi-troll debates. My rfd was intelligible in the context of the debate, but not to someone who had never read the debate. If both debaters are okay with an rfd, why should there be an external mod standard applied?

So do you think only the participants in a debate should be allowed to report votes for moderation on that debate?

I really like this idea... this is something worth discussing.
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
3/30/2016 6:53:59 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Let debaters decide themselves if an rfd is sufficient. If they think it is, then it is. that's its purpose, to communicate with debaters.
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 6:56:39 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 6:50:00 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/30/2016 6:41:12 PM, Hoppi wrote:
I know. But what's the justification for those third parties interfering? Keeping in mind that the actual debate might have been read by none of those people.

I think there is merit to the idea that only debaters should be able to report votes. However, sometimes debaters are new and don't know that they can report votes and sometimes blatant votebombs might be cast and the debaters don't report them.

With third party reports being possible, we can cut down on poor voting. I don't recall a time where good votes were removed. Just focus on casting a good vote that genuinely helps the debaters and explains all the points and moderation won't bug you.

That's the point though. Lately I've been concentrating a lot more on what the mods will accept rather than the best way to explain my ideas to debaters. Which is counterproductive.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 7:00:29 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 6:56:39 PM, Hoppi wrote:
At 3/30/2016 6:50:00 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/30/2016 6:41:12 PM, Hoppi wrote:
I know. But what's the justification for those third parties interfering? Keeping in mind that the actual debate might have been read by none of those people.

I think there is merit to the idea that only debaters should be able to report votes. However, sometimes debaters are new and don't know that they can report votes and sometimes blatant votebombs might be cast and the debaters don't report them.

With third party reports being possible, we can cut down on poor voting. I don't recall a time where good votes were removed. Just focus on casting a good vote that genuinely helps the debaters and explains all the points and moderation won't bug you.

That's the point though. Lately I've been concentrating a lot more on what the mods will accept rather than the best way to explain my ideas to debaters. Which is counterproductive.

Yeah, but if you explain to the debaters as well as you can why one of them won, I doubt that the moderators would have a problem with it. I do think it's an idea worth discussing but at the same time, it will decrease the overall quality of votes on the site.