Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

The Vote Moderators Need Reform

logicinlife
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 1:50:49 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Check out the reasons for the removal of votes here; http://www.debate.org...

Absolutely ridiculous. By these standards will anyone be able to vote? I've expressed frustration with the moderators controlling nature. This site is garbage if it isn't run by the people. There are some instances where moderation is needed on votes, but I have yet to see moderators remove BS votes. Instead they remove decent votes because they aren't "professional" votes .

As one who would like to debate, I'm continuously getting annoyed and thus want to depart from debating. Sometimes all you get is a couple of votes, and you know what happens when these moderators do this crap? You end up with another tie in your ratio.

This reform should start with something like this:

(1) moderators can and should only remove votes that hold NO analysis of the debate. There are those people who say nothing of the debate, and they should be considered for removal.

(2) ALL removals must be reviewed by other another vote mod before allowing removal. They shouldn't be able to just take votes off of debates just because. And quite frankly, I question whether or not mods are being particularly bias because of my outspoken nature about their silly judgements.

If this were in place, the decent votes on my debate would remain. But now the efforts on this debate, and any other debate, are wasted because the only votes added are removed. What's the point of debating if they come up as draws because of incompetence or bias?

Basically, I'm just about ready to pack up and leave. What are some ideas for reform that you would add?

-LIL
tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 2:14:37 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Those votes were not "decent," and I have no idea why you consider them decent.

Anyhow, the majority of the site disagrees.
"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
NothingSpecial99
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 2:36:36 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
To be honest, I would also have removed them also if I was a moderator
"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
famousdebater
Posts: 3,938
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 2:54:20 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 2:36:36 PM, NothingSpecial99 wrote:
To be honest, I would also have removed them also if I was a moderator

Same here.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 2:56:36 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 1:50:49 PM, logicinlife wrote:
Check out the reasons for the removal of votes here; http://www.debate.org...

I posted the reasons for removal on both of them. I also responded to your comments on that debate, explaining why the system is in place as is, though we haven't actually discussed the substance of the standards themselves as of yet.

Absolutely ridiculous. By these standards will anyone be able to vote? I've expressed frustration with the moderators controlling nature. This site is garbage if it isn't run by the people. There are some instances where moderation is needed on votes, but I have yet to see moderators remove BS votes. Instead they remove decent votes because they aren't "professional" votes .

As one who would like to debate, I'm continuously getting annoyed and thus want to depart from debating. Sometimes all you get is a couple of votes, and you know what happens when these moderators do this crap? You end up with another tie in your ratio.

This reform should start with something like this:

(1) moderators can and should only remove votes that hold NO analysis of the debate. There are those people who say nothing of the debate, and they should be considered for removal.

I'm sure there are many people who agree with you on your views as to what moderation should and shouldn't do. You're certainly not the first to express views like this. However, from what I've seen from polling and general discussions on the issue, most would disagree with this kind of change. It allows a great deal of votes that many would find problematic with good reason, and not simply because they don't comply with the standards of academic debate. You're welcome to present your opinion on this and suggest changes, but chances are this is not something people would rally behind.

(2) ALL removals must be reviewed by other another vote mod before allowing removal. They shouldn't be able to just take votes off of debates just because. And quite frankly, I question whether or not mods are being particularly bias because of my outspoken nature about their silly judgements.

This is actually status quo. I go through the votes, Airmax reviews them, and BOT interacts with the voters on an individual basis following their removal. The process has tiers, and it's not simply left up to me.

But if you want to accuse me of bias, I'd ask that you do more than simply make the accusation. Present evidence of my bias. Show me where I specifically removed these votes for reasons that go beyond the basic standards.

If this were in place, the decent votes on my debate would remain. But now the efforts on this debate, and any other debate, are wasted because the only votes added are removed. What's the point of debating if they come up as draws because of incompetence or bias?

Basically, I'm just about ready to pack up and leave. What are some ideas for reform that you would add?

-LIL
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 2:58:00 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 1:50:49 PM, logicinlife wrote:
Check out the reasons for the removal of votes here; http://www.debate.org...

Absolutely ridiculous. By these standards will anyone be able to vote? I've expressed frustration with the moderators controlling nature. This site is garbage if it isn't run by the people. There are some instances where moderation is needed on votes, but I have yet to see moderators remove BS votes. Instead they remove decent votes because they aren't "professional" votes .

As one who would like to debate, I'm continuously getting annoyed and thus want to depart from debating. Sometimes all you get is a couple of votes, and you know what happens when these moderators do this crap? You end up with another tie in your ratio.

This reform should start with something like this:

(1) moderators can and should only remove votes that hold NO analysis of the debate. There are those people who say nothing of the debate, and they should be considered for removal.

(2) ALL removals must be reviewed by other another vote mod before allowing removal. They shouldn't be able to just take votes off of debates just because. And quite frankly, I question whether or not mods are being particularly bias because of my outspoken nature about their silly judgements.

If this were in place, the decent votes on my debate would remain. But now the efforts on this debate, and any other debate, are wasted because the only votes added are removed. What's the point of debating if they come up as draws because of incompetence or bias?

Basically, I'm just about ready to pack up and leave. What are some ideas for reform that you would add?

-LIL

I agree with the premise, but not the example. This debate sucked, and the votes looked bad.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 3:39:29 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
It's total BS that saying one's sides sources were more reputable and scholarly is sufficient justification for removal. That's valid reasoning on the 7 point scale.
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 3:41:30 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Not commenting on this specific example, but there does seem to be a lot of interest in having a community discussion about voting standards and removal.

A levelheaded discussion about what tweaks could be made to voting policy would be a good topic for a presidential platform.
SolonKR
Posts: 4,041
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 3:42:40 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 3:41:30 PM, Raisor wrote:
A levelheaded discussion about what tweaks could be made to voting policy would be a good topic for a presidential platform.

Raisor 2016?
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 3:58:13 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 1:50:49 PM, logicinlife wrote:
Check out the reasons for the removal of votes here; http://www.debate.org...

Absolutely ridiculous. By these standards will anyone be able to vote?

Yes, most people.

The standards even guided one of the voters in question to improving significantly, with probably less effort from him than the moderator put into reviewing and deciding to reject the original vote.
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...
tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 4:01:08 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 3:41:30 PM, Raisor wrote:
Not commenting on this specific example, but there does seem to be a lot of interest in having a community discussion about voting standards and removal.

A levelheaded discussion about what tweaks could be made to voting policy would be a good topic for a presidential platform.

I think voting policy is perfect as it is. That is agreed on by most people, from people like DK and myself who want standards to be as strict as possible, to people like dsjpk5 who want lenient standards. Most of bsh1's polls also seem to indicate a similar opinion.
"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
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 4:14:43 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 3:42:40 PM, SolonKR wrote:
At 3/31/2016 3:41:30 PM, Raisor wrote:
A levelheaded discussion about what tweaks could be made to voting policy would be a good topic for a presidential platform.

Raisor 2016?

The plot thickens.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 5:03:13 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 3:41:30 PM, Raisor wrote:
Not commenting on this specific example, but there does seem to be a lot of interest in having a community discussion about voting standards and removal.

A levelheaded discussion about what tweaks could be made to voting policy would be a good topic for a presidential platform.

An additional standard might be good.

So far we have:

1. No RFD required - anything goes, even a blank.

2. Regular standards enforced on all debates.

3. Bsh1 administration's optional standards

4. Judge voting - the very best

We could have an additional standard between #1 and #2. I think there would have been more support for this than for #3.

So, in standard #1.5, we could have only obvious votebombs and biased votes removed. We would allow votes where people voted sources for "more scholarly sources" or even "more sources." We could allow broad brush strokes for the arguments. Essentially, we'd be going back to the time before vote moderation where obvious votebombs were countered but less than decent votes would stand.

The regular standards would be the default.

The "bsh1 optional standards" would be a step up. The "Relaxed" standards would be a step-down for those who want it.
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 5:25:01 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 5:03:13 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/31/2016 3:41:30 PM, Raisor wrote:
Not commenting on this specific example, but there does seem to be a lot of interest in having a community discussion about voting standards and removal.

A levelheaded discussion about what tweaks could be made to voting policy would be a good topic for a presidential platform.

An additional standard might be good.

So far we have:

1. No RFD required - anything goes, even a blank.

2. Regular standards enforced on all debates.

3. Bsh1 administration's optional standards

4. Judge voting - the very best

We could have an additional standard between #1 and #2. I think there would have been more support for this than for #3.

So, in standard #1.5, we could have only obvious votebombs and biased votes removed. We would allow votes where people voted sources for "more scholarly sources" or even "more sources." We could allow broad brush strokes for the arguments. Essentially, we'd be going back to the time before vote moderation where obvious votebombs were countered but less than decent votes would stand.

The regular standards would be the default.

The "bsh1 optional standards" would be a step up. The "Relaxed" standards would be a step-down for those who want it.

I think a tiered system is smart, but these guidelines need to stay as simple as possible.

I would say a three tiered system is optimal. Wild West voting, default minimum standards voting, and pro level voting
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 5:36:15 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 5:25:01 PM, Raisor wrote:

I would say a three tiered system is optimal. Wild West voting, default minimum standards voting, and pro level voting

There's enough of an overlap between judge voting and pro-level voting. But no tier which addresses the multitude of people who make threads in the main forum complaining about voting standards but would still want the most obvious votebombs and biased votes removed.
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 5:43:23 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 5:36:15 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/31/2016 5:25:01 PM, Raisor wrote:

I would say a three tiered system is optimal. Wild West voting, default minimum standards voting, and pro level voting

There's enough of an overlap between judge voting and pro-level voting. But no tier which addresses the multitude of people who make threads in the main forum complaining about voting standards but would still want the most obvious votebombs and biased votes removed.

I have some ideas about how best to handle that, the issue is coming up with a simple policy. I think the answer is that those people should include their own votin standards?

What standard best describes the missing tier you are talking about? I feel like a developed clear standard for content winds up being the pro level and a clear standard that eliminates only votes that are bombs is a minimalist default standard.
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 5:49:46 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 4:01:08 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/31/2016 3:41:30 PM, Raisor wrote:
Not commenting on this specific example, but there does seem to be a lot of interest in having a community discussion about voting standards and removal.

A levelheaded discussion about what tweaks could be made to voting policy would be a good topic for a presidential platform.

I think voting policy is perfect as it is. That is agreed on by most people, from people like DK and myself who want standards to be as strict as possible, to people like dsjpk5 who want lenient standards. Most of bsh1's polls also seem to indicate a similar opinion.

I think we need a simple and clear statement of the policy, and the policy should make voting accessible to people who don't follow the forums.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 5:53:10 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 5:43:23 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 3/31/2016 5:36:15 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/31/2016 5:25:01 PM, Raisor wrote:

I would say a three tiered system is optimal. Wild West voting, default minimum standards voting, and pro level voting

There's enough of an overlap between judge voting and pro-level voting. But no tier which addresses the multitude of people who make threads in the main forum complaining about voting standards but would still want the most obvious votebombs and biased votes removed.

I have some ideas about how best to handle that, the issue is coming up with a simple policy. I think the answer is that those people should include their own votin standards?

What standard best describes the missing tier you are talking about? I feel like a developed clear standard for content winds up being the pro level and a clear standard that eliminates only votes that are bombs is a minimalist default standard.

I described the standard earlier but I guess I was too vague. The differences between the current default and this relaxed standard would be:

1. Voters may vote sources for having "more" or "more reputable" sources without going into an explanation about how they helped the arguments of the debater.
2. Voters can just glaze over arguments without having to explain why each side arguments were good or bad and which outweighed which. Overall, something like "Raisor had stronger arguments and his points on the uses of conventional bombers won it for him" would do but that's not okay under the default standards.
3. CiRrK-style voting where you ignore the categories and give someone a 3-2 win if you thought the debate was close.

Basically, the only difference between "no RFD required" debates and the relaxed standard would be that under the relaxed standard, you can't just vote with a blank field, or say "Raisor's avatar is great so he wins" or "I completely agree with Pro so he wins." The obvious biased votes and votebombs are gone but even a cursory glance over the debate and a mention of the winning argument should work.

Note that I actually would not use this standard myself nor vote with such a low bar. But I think it's something that a significant portion of the non-academic-debate-background community on DDO seems to want and would reduce the constant complaints about vote moderation that occur every couple of weeks.
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 7:23:23 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 1:50:49 PM, logicinlife wrote:
Check out the reasons for the removal of votes here; http://www.debate.org...

Absolutely ridiculous. By these standards will anyone be able to vote? I've expressed frustration with the moderators controlling nature. This site is garbage if it isn't run by the people. There are some instances where moderation is needed on votes, but I have yet to see moderators remove BS votes. Instead they remove decent votes because they aren't "professional" votes .

As one who would like to debate, I'm continuously getting annoyed and thus want to depart from debating. Sometimes all you get is a couple of votes, and you know what happens when these moderators do this crap? You end up with another tie in your ratio.

This reform should start with something like this:

(1) moderators can and should only remove votes that hold NO analysis of the debate. There are those people who say nothing of the debate, and they should be considered for removal.

(2) ALL removals must be reviewed by other another vote mod before allowing removal. They shouldn't be able to just take votes off of debates just because. And quite frankly, I question whether or not mods are being particularly bias because of my outspoken nature about their silly judgements.

If this were in place, the decent votes on my debate would remain. But now the efforts on this debate, and any other debate, are wasted because the only votes added are removed. What's the point of debating if they come up as draws because of incompetence or bias?

Basically, I'm just about ready to pack up and leave. What are some ideas for reform that you would add?

-LIL

I agree with 1 but not 2. We should be decreasing mod involvement, not adding to it

The other change I want is that only debaters should be able to report rfds for removal.
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 7:25:50 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 2:14:37 PM, tejretics wrote:
Those votes were not "decent," and I have no idea why you consider them decent.

There's no objective standard about what constitutes decency, you know. People are actually entitled to have their own standards.

Anyhow, the majority of the site disagrees.

There's absolutely no way you could know that and therefore it's untrue
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 7:32:59 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 3:41:30 PM, Raisor wrote:
Not commenting on this specific example, but there does seem to be a lot of interest in having a community discussion about voting standards and removal.

Yes, and it's disturbing how the administration shows so little interest in understanding the issues that people bring up. Every time, they get told that they're wrong, that they have no idea how to vote, unlike the administrators and the members of the voting board who feel entitled to insist on their own standards (but never explain the basis of that entitlement).

A levelheaded discussion about what tweaks could be made to voting policy would be a good topic for a presidential platform.

If it goes the way if the tuf/fft discussion, it will just make things worse. The only direction should be reduced moderator involvement.
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 7:35:00 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 5:03:13 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/31/2016 3:41:30 PM, Raisor wrote:
Not commenting on this specific example, but there does seem to be a lot of interest in having a community discussion about voting standards and removal.

A levelheaded discussion about what tweaks could be made to voting policy would be a good topic for a presidential platform.

An additional standard might be good.

So far we have:

1. No RFD required - anything goes, even a blank.

2. Regular standards enforced on all debates.

3. Bsh1 administration's optional standards

4. Judge voting - the very best

We could have an additional standard between #1 and #2. I think there would have been more support for this than for #3.

So, in standard #1.5, we could have only obvious votebombs and biased votes removed. We would allow votes where people voted sources for "more scholarly sources" or even "more sources." We could allow broad brush strokes for the arguments. Essentially, we'd be going back to the time before vote moderation where obvious votebombs were countered but less than decent votes would stand.

The regular standards would be the default.

The "bsh1 optional standards" would be a step up. The "Relaxed" standards would be a step-down for those who want it.

The relaxed standards should be the default. If people want anything more than that, they can opt in.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 1:55:09 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Based on what Famous is now saying, I think he was probably honest with Wylted, and that Wylted misrepresented (through exaggeration) what famous said. That kind of misrepresentation is dishonest.

Only an assumption though, since I don't know what was actually sai between them.

Anyway, I really will tear myself away from this thread and sleep now. Night.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


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

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

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

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 2:33:05 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 3/31/2016 1:50:49 PM, logicinlife wrote:
Check out the reasons for the removal of votes here; http://www.debate.org...

Absolutely ridiculous. By these standards will anyone be able to vote? I've expressed frustration with the moderators controlling nature. This site is garbage if it isn't run by the people. There are some instances where moderation is needed on votes, but I have yet to see moderators remove BS votes. Instead they remove decent votes because they aren't "professional" votes .

As one who would like to debate, I'm continuously getting annoyed and thus want to depart from debating. Sometimes all you get is a couple of votes, and you know what happens when these moderators do this crap? You end up with another tie in your ratio.

This reform should start with something like this:

(1) moderators can and should only remove votes that hold NO analysis of the debate. There are those people who say nothing of the debate, and they should be considered for removal.

(2) ALL removals must be reviewed by other another vote mod before allowing removal. They shouldn't be able to just take votes off of debates just because. And quite frankly, I question whether or not mods are being particularly bias because of my outspoken nature about their silly judgements.

If this were in place, the decent votes on my debate would remain. But now the efforts on this debate, and any other debate, are wasted because the only votes added are removed. What's the point of debating if they come up as draws because of incompetence or bias?

Basically, I'm just about ready to pack up and leave. What are some ideas for reform that you would add?

-LIL

Whiteflame correctly removed those votes due to the fact that sources weren't adequately explained. You could have asked those people to revote the same way, but for arguments only.
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