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

whiteflame, please explain yourself

SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 12:36:34 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
A whiteflame moderation:

*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Heirio// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro was the only one who cited a source (in round two). Since Con did not cite a source, Pro gets the point for most reliable sources. Pro then stated that God's character changes throughout the Bible, something that should not happen if God was as powerful and all encompassing as people say. He notes how God was rather harsh in the Old Testament, but not so much in the New. This was a convincing argument for me, as most depictions of God (as all encompassing) conflict with this. Con didn't address this at all, and stated that God's character was shown through the Bible, despite the fact that Pro's previous argument refuted that. Pro get's the point for arguments.

[*Reason for removal*] Sources are insufficiently explained. Even if only one side cites sources, the voter still has to state how they were reliable by explaining how they contributed to the debate.
************************************************************************

It seems to me that this is whiteflame determining, in his opinion, that a source was insufficiently explained in the debate itself, so he disagreed with the reasons behind a vote.

If you want to express an opinion, vote for yourself. Your job of moderation is specifically to prevent abuse of the voting mechanism, not to arrogate yourself to the role of the lord of all wisdom.

If I misunderstood whiteflame's meaning, however, and he's getting on the voter for failing to explain why he voted the way he did, then an argument of 'insufficient explanation' is in fact an argument from ignorance.

When a person says that only one side presented sources, this is their primary motivation. Human beings do not explain all motivations in conversation, our brains are socially wired against this type of behavior. Conversations would be nearly impossible if we attempted to explain every nuance of the formation of our opinions in normal statements of reason. This is the whole reason for formal debate: to establish a protocol wherein persons give protracted explanation of multiple reasonings behind their positions.

A comment box on a vote is brief, not a dissertation. If only one side has sources, and those sources are at all relevant to the argument, then they tip the balance sufficient for the motivational call for a vote.

The voter did not say 'for this reason and this reason only', which means that you are PRESUMING your own argument from ignorance.

Essentially this boils down to placing a burden on voters that goes far beyond the voting rules and discourages voting on debates entirely.

This is good moderation:
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Sanders2k16// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: No argument will convince me otherwise!

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD. The voter clearly mistakes the role of his vote, which is not to profess his viewpoint, but to evaluate the debate he's presented with. If he cannot distance himself from his own views on this topic, the voter should not vote on this debate.
************************************************************************

This is not:

*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: DBPDX// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: I saw no compatibility between the two theorys when the debate started, the whole concept seemed to be dreamed up by pro.....Con actually quoted the bible as his source, citing an actual scripture, while it became apparent that pro was making things up as he went and avoiding the response.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter fails to evaluate any specific arguments made by either side, instead generalizing the points made by Pro to "theorys" and never pointing to a single argument made by Con.
************************************************************************

These are not Supreme Court bench opinions on rulings, they are votes. Expecting a legal opinion to be submitted with a vote is unreasonable and detrimental to the site.
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 12:48:06 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 12:36:34 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
A whiteflame moderation:

*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Heirio// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro was the only one who cited a source (in round two). Since Con did not cite a source, Pro gets the point for most reliable sources. Pro then stated that God's character changes throughout the Bible, something that should not happen if God was as powerful and all encompassing as people say. He notes how God was rather harsh in the Old Testament, but not so much in the New. This was a convincing argument for me, as most depictions of God (as all encompassing) conflict with this. Con didn't address this at all, and stated that God's character was shown through the Bible, despite the fact that Pro's previous argument refuted that. Pro get's the point for arguments.

[*Reason for removal*] Sources are insufficiently explained. Even if only one side cites sources, the voter still has to state how they were reliable by explaining how they contributed to the debate.
************************************************************************

It seems to me that this is whiteflame determining, in his opinion, that a source was insufficiently explained in the debate itself, so he disagreed with the reasons behind a vote.

If you want to express an opinion, vote for yourself. Your job of moderation is specifically to prevent abuse of the voting mechanism, not to arrogate yourself to the role of the lord of all wisdom.

If I misunderstood whiteflame's meaning, however, and he's getting on the voter for failing to explain why he voted the way he did, then an argument of 'insufficient explanation' is in fact an argument from ignorance.

When a person says that only one side presented sources, this is their primary motivation. Human beings do not explain all motivations in conversation, our brains are socially wired against this type of behavior. Conversations would be nearly impossible if we attempted to explain every nuance of the formation of our opinions in normal statements of reason. This is the whole reason for formal debate: to establish a protocol wherein persons give protracted explanation of multiple reasonings behind their positions.

A comment box on a vote is brief, not a dissertation. If only one side has sources, and those sources are at all relevant to the argument, then they tip the balance sufficient for the motivational call for a vote.

The voter did not say 'for this reason and this reason only', which means that you are PRESUMING your own argument from ignorance.

Essentially this boils down to placing a burden on voters that goes far beyond the voting rules and discourages voting on debates entirely.

This is good moderation:
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Sanders2k16// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: No argument will convince me otherwise!

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD. The voter clearly mistakes the role of his vote, which is not to profess his viewpoint, but to evaluate the debate he's presented with. If he cannot distance himself from his own views on this topic, the voter should not vote on this debate.
************************************************************************

This is not:

*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: DBPDX// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: I saw no compatibility between the two theorys when the debate started, the whole concept seemed to be dreamed up by pro.....Con actually quoted the bible as his source, citing an actual scripture, while it became apparent that pro was making things up as he went and avoiding the response.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter fails to evaluate any specific arguments made by either side, instead generalizing the points made by Pro to "theorys" and never pointing to a single argument made by Con.
************************************************************************

These are not Supreme Court bench opinions on rulings, they are votes. Expecting a legal opinion to be submitted with a vote is unreasonable and detrimental to the site.

Gotta admit, No sources vs a quoted source of any variety seems pretty common sense when awarding source points.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 1:51:21 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Inside with white flame. That vote sucked. Regardless, voters should never award source points, especially for merely not using sources. That's BS
SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 2:01:37 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 1:51:21 PM, Hayd wrote:
Inside with white flame. That vote sucked. Regardless, voters should never award source points, especially for merely not using sources. That's BS

Can you clarify this a bit? I think I get your first two statements, but the third throws the whole thing off axis.

'Voters should never award source points' - eeeh? Why is it an option on the vote then?

'for merely not using sources' - addressed by my argument already. This is presumption and thus argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy.
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 2:06:21 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 2:01:37 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
At 4/20/2016 1:51:21 PM, Hayd wrote:
Inside with white flame. That vote sucked. Regardless, voters should never award source points, especially for merely not using sources. That's BS

Can you clarify this a bit? I think I get your first two statements, but the third throws the whole thing off axis.

Sorry, I'm on my phone.

'Voters should never award source points' - eeeh? Why is it an option on the vote then?

Because juggle won't update the site. It basically just societal rule that you don't vote grammar and source points. Only arguments and sometimes conduct of the person forfeited.

'for merely not using sources' - addressed by my argument already. This is presumption and thus argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy.

Lol
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 2:16:45 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
The first vote shouldn't have been removed. But we all know whiteflame is remove-happy. Your other votes are problematic, though.

So, whiteflame's batting average is still lower than it should be... but he was not wrong with the others, at least in result.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 2:18:27 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I'll add this though...

There's a simple fix to problems caused by these votes. A quick PM to any one of the numerous good voters could have solved the problem, and they would have cast a better ballot.
Tsar of DDO
TUF
Posts: 21,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 2:20:15 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Was wondering when YYW would show up lol. Was less exciting then I'd anticipated haha.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 2:45:00 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 12:36:34 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
A whiteflame moderation:

*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Heirio// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro was the only one who cited a source (in round two). Since Con did not cite a source, Pro gets the point for most reliable sources.

So if one side cited Mein Kampf in a debate about My Little Pony, you'd automatically give them sources.

Voting isn't hard. If something left no impression on you (or not more than a vague one side might have had a link), don't award points for it.
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...
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 3:09:59 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 2:20:15 PM, TUF wrote:
Was wondering when YYW would show up lol. Was less exciting then I'd anticipated haha.

Contrary to the misguided views of some, I am perfectly fair.
Tsar of DDO
SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 3:16:19 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 2:45:00 PM, Ragnar wrote:
At 4/20/2016 12:36:34 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
A whiteflame moderation:

*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Heirio// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro was the only one who cited a source (in round two). Since Con did not cite a source, Pro gets the point for most reliable sources.

So if one side cited Mein Kampf in a debate about My Little Pony, you'd automatically give them sources.

Voting isn't hard. If something left no impression on you (or not more than a vague one side might have had a link), don't award points for it.

Agree with the second statement, but the first is annoying because it is Inductive Hyperbole. Inclusion of Mein Kampf in an argument has no bearing whatever on the discussion at hand, nor does any position in the OP make an attempt to say that inclusion of sources should trump the requirement that sources be relevant to the argument presented. An argument that cites Hitler as a source may be guilt-by-association, or it may be logically sound, or it may merely be an unsubstantiated claim entirely.

I clearly directed my opposition towards presumption on the moderator's part. If a voter is required to explain every single supporting reason behind their opinion, it places too heavy a burden on voting itself.

This is essentially supported by your argument in your second statement. I hold the position that attempting to over-regulate reasons for voting places too much burden on voters to fully explain all of their reasons.

If moderators presume that a reason stated is the only valid reason the burden falls on the voter to state all valid reasons. This is cumbersome to the voter and discourages voting entirely.
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...
Vaarka
Posts: 7,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 3:18:32 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 2:45:00 PM, Ragnar wrote:
At 4/20/2016 12:36:34 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
A whiteflame moderation:

*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Heirio// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro was the only one who cited a source (in round two). Since Con did not cite a source, Pro gets the point for most reliable sources.

So if one side cited Mein Kampf in a debate about My Little Pony, you'd automatically give them sources.
Well obviously! Have you not seen the hidden lines about 3/4 of the way through, where the great Adolf mentions his great love for the equine species, and later explains how Princess Luna is, in fact, the best pony?

Voting isn't hard. If something left no impression on you (or not more than a vague one side might have had a link), don't award points for it.
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
SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 3:36:59 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 3:18:32 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 4/20/2016 2:45:00 PM, Ragnar wrote:
At 4/20/2016 12:36:34 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
A whiteflame moderation:

*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Heirio// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro was the only one who cited a source (in round two). Since Con did not cite a source, Pro gets the point for most reliable sources.

So if one side cited Mein Kampf in a debate about My Little Pony, you'd automatically give them sources.
Well obviously! Have you not seen the hidden lines about 3/4 of the way through, where the great Adolf mentions his great love for the equine species, and later explains how Princess Luna is, in fact, the best pony?

Voting isn't hard. If something left no impression on you (or not more than a vague one side might have had a link), don't award points for it.

*gasp*
how dare you make such a claim!? MLP is obviously related to the overall theme of Mein Kamph through the argument of evolutionary mandate. The ponies are, after all, broken up into royal bloodlines which then compete based on genetic superiority.

Obviously in keeping with the Arian theme itself.

(disclaimer: this argument may imply correlation without causation)
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...
Vaarka
Posts: 7,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 3:37:43 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 3:36:59 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
At 4/20/2016 3:18:32 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 4/20/2016 2:45:00 PM, Ragnar wrote:
At 4/20/2016 12:36:34 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
A whiteflame moderation:

*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Heirio// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro was the only one who cited a source (in round two). Since Con did not cite a source, Pro gets the point for most reliable sources.

So if one side cited Mein Kampf in a debate about My Little Pony, you'd automatically give them sources.
Well obviously! Have you not seen the hidden lines about 3/4 of the way through, where the great Adolf mentions his great love for the equine species, and later explains how Princess Luna is, in fact, the best pony?

Voting isn't hard. If something left no impression on you (or not more than a vague one side might have had a link), don't award points for it.

*gasp*
how dare you make such a claim!? MLP is obviously related to the overall theme of Mein Kamph through the argument of evolutionary mandate. The ponies are, after all, broken up into royal bloodlines which then compete based on genetic superiority.

Obviously in keeping with the Arian theme itself.

(disclaimer: this argument may imply correlation without causation)

But you do not deny his explanation of Princess Luna being the best pony, correct?
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
SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 3:47:00 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 3:37:43 PM, Vaarka wrote:
<snipped>
But you do not deny his explanation of Princess Luna being the best pony, correct?

I cannot confirm or deny a quantitative and subjective conclusion made by another person. Value judgements are vector-based summations between qualitative sets. The formulae for quantification of a set of characteristics is a function of applicability to a stated premise.

A universal statement of 'best pony' requires that all ponies, fictional and nonfictional, be quantified along all possible valuations and contextual placements in order to be held as universally true.

This is beyond my technical capabilities and since I attempt to limit my own cognitive bias I avoid prejudicial bigotry.

*haughty sniff*
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 3:59:06 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 12:36:34 PM, SkyLeach wrote:

For future reference, it's better to contact me directly about these than it is to make a scene here in the forums. I know that that's commonly the response people take because they don't think there's anything to be gained by having a one-on-one conversation, but if all you're looking for is a more extensive reasoning for the removal of this vote, then you're better off contacting me directly.

[*Reason for removal*] Sources are insufficiently explained. Even if only one side cites sources, the voter still has to state how they were reliable by explaining how they contributed to the debate.

It seems to me that this is whiteflame determining, in his opinion, that a source was insufficiently explained in the debate itself, so he disagreed with the reasons behind a vote.

For the purposes of any removal explanation, everything I say that doesn't directly point to the debate has to do with the reasoning of the voter, not anything to do with the debate itself. That is the case here. I apologize if this was confusing, but the reason for removal had to do with the voter's explanation for why one side's sources were better than the other, not anything the debaters did.

If you want to express an opinion, vote for yourself. Your job of moderation is specifically to prevent abuse of the voting mechanism, not to arrogate yourself to the role of the lord of all wisdom.

I wasn't expressing an opinion. I was enforcing a standard that requires that a voter not only establish that one side had sources while the other didn't, but that those sources were relevant. The voter didn't do that, so the vote was removed. I don't view this as abuse of my role, nor do I regard myself as "lord of all wisdom." I simply enforce the standards as they are.

If I misunderstood whiteflame's meaning, however, and he's getting on the voter for failing to explain why he voted the way he did, then an argument of 'insufficient explanation' is in fact an argument from ignorance.

That's the correct interpretation, but it's not an argument from ignorance. The voter is required to meet a certain threshold when it comes to establishing why they've awarded the points they've chosen to award. In this case, he didn't meet that threshold, and so his vote was insufficient. I'm not trying to prove anything as a result.

When a person says that only one side presented sources, this is their primary motivation. Human beings do not explain all motivations in conversation, our brains are socially wired against this type of behavior. Conversations would be nearly impossible if we attempted to explain every nuance of the formation of our opinions in normal statements of reason. This is the whole reason for formal debate: to establish a protocol wherein persons give protracted explanation of multiple reasonings behind their positions.

It's not my goal to force him to explain every single thing he posts. However, if he chooses to award points as he did, then the voter is required to explain those points to a sufficient degree. Doing so for sources requires both showing that one side had sources and that those sources were relevant. It's not going into the realm of impossibility to get there.

A comment box on a vote is brief, not a dissertation. If only one side has sources, and those sources are at all relevant to the argument, then they tip the balance sufficient for the motivational call for a vote.

Yes, the RFD box is small. That doesn't mean that the voter cannot fill it with the information required to explain all of their point allocations. You're entirely right that if only one side has sources and those sources are relevant, that is enough to award that side points. The problem is that he showed the former, but not the latter.

The voter did not say 'for this reason and this reason only', which means that you are PRESUMING your own argument from ignorance.

I'm not presuming any argument. The voter didn't state the relevance of the sources given. That's the problem.

Essentially this boils down to placing a burden on voters that goes far beyond the voting rules and discourages voting on debates entirely.

That's often how it's perceived, and you're certainly buying into that mentality. Requiring that a voter produce a single extra line of text that states how the sources contributed to the debate isn't so onerous.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter fails to evaluate any specific arguments made by either side, instead generalizing the points made by Pro to "theorys" and never pointing to a single argument made by Con.

I'm unclear on what makes this bad moderation in your view. The voter is required to assess points made by both sides. Yes, that lengthens an RFD, but the debaters should expect to see some specifics in an RFD, some means for knowing what did and did not work among their arguments. Again, that doesn't seem to onerous.

These are not Supreme Court bench opinions on rulings, they are votes. Expecting a legal opinion to be submitted with a vote is unreasonable and detrimental to the site.

I'm not expecting a legal opinion. No one is. A vote can easily fit within the 1000 character RFD box and still be entirely sufficient, even if they're awarding numerous points. The standards don't require a treatise, they only require a very basic level of explanation that anyone can and should be able to manage. It sounds to me as though you're unclear on what those standards are, and likely you disagree with their content. I'd be happy to discuss them in more detail.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 4:02:23 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 3:59:06 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 4/20/2016 12:36:34 PM, SkyLeach wrote:

For future reference, it's better to contact me directly about these than it is to make a scene here in the forums. I know that that's commonly the response people take because they don't think there's anything to be gained by having a one-on-one conversation, but if all you're looking for is a more extensive reasoning for the removal of this vote, then you're better off contacting me directly.

No no no... far better to discuss these things in the open. The scene is socially useful, as it reminds you of the fact that people are watching.

There is no better disinfectant than sunlight.
Tsar of DDO
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 5:07:24 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 5:02:03 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
YYW is correct; that first vote should not have been removed.

The reasoning for argument points was good, but not the source vote. Voting mods dont have the ability to remove PART of a vote though, and so when some points are improperly awarded, you either have to let it stand (unacceptable to them), or remove the whole vote (the lesser of two evils)

Ive seen people have votes removed just because they improperly gave out conduct points, even though they explain perfectly why they allocated argument points the way they did.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

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
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 5:31:34 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 4:02:23 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/20/2016 3:59:06 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 4/20/2016 12:36:34 PM, SkyLeach wrote:

For future reference, it's better to contact me directly about these than it is to make a scene here in the forums. I know that that's commonly the response people take because they don't think there's anything to be gained by having a one-on-one conversation, but if all you're looking for is a more extensive reasoning for the removal of this vote, then you're better off contacting me directly.

No no no... far better to discuss these things in the open. The scene is socially useful, as it reminds you of the fact that people are watching.

There is no better disinfectant than sunlight.

http://www.slate.com...
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 5:32:27 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 5:31:34 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/20/2016 4:02:23 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/20/2016 3:59:06 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 4/20/2016 12:36:34 PM, SkyLeach wrote:

For future reference, it's better to contact me directly about these than it is to make a scene here in the forums. I know that that's commonly the response people take because they don't think there's anything to be gained by having a one-on-one conversation, but if all you're looking for is a more extensive reasoning for the removal of this vote, then you're better off contacting me directly.

No no no... far better to discuss these things in the open. The scene is socially useful, as it reminds you of the fact that people are watching.

There is no better disinfectant than sunlight.

http://www.slate.com...

lol it's just an expression
Tsar of DDO
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 5:50:27 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 5:32:27 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/20/2016 5:31:34 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/20/2016 4:02:23 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/20/2016 3:59:06 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 4/20/2016 12:36:34 PM, SkyLeach wrote:

For future reference, it's better to contact me directly about these than it is to make a scene here in the forums. I know that that's commonly the response people take because they don't think there's anything to be gained by having a one-on-one conversation, but if all you're looking for is a more extensive reasoning for the removal of this vote, then you're better off contacting me directly.

No no no... far better to discuss these things in the open. The scene is socially useful, as it reminds you of the fact that people are watching.

There is no better disinfectant than sunlight.

http://www.slate.com...

lol it's just an expression

*********************************************************************
>Reported comment of YYW. Mod action: Trolled<

[*Reason for trolling*] Quotation is insufficiently explained. Statement fails to meet current rules and standards for forum posting.

Just an expression is not an excuse for insufficient posting.
*********************************************************************
**Comment removed by sarcastic user**
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 5:50:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 5:50:27 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/20/2016 5:32:27 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/20/2016 5:31:34 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/20/2016 4:02:23 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/20/2016 3:59:06 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 4/20/2016 12:36:34 PM, SkyLeach wrote:

For future reference, it's better to contact me directly about these than it is to make a scene here in the forums. I know that that's commonly the response people take because they don't think there's anything to be gained by having a one-on-one conversation, but if all you're looking for is a more extensive reasoning for the removal of this vote, then you're better off contacting me directly.

No no no... far better to discuss these things in the open. The scene is socially useful, as it reminds you of the fact that people are watching.

There is no better disinfectant than sunlight.

http://www.slate.com...

lol it's just an expression

*********************************************************************
>Reported comment of YYW. Mod action: Trolled<

[*Reason for trolling*] Quotation is insufficiently explained. Statement fails to meet current rules and standards for forum posting.

Just an expression is not an excuse for insufficient posting.
*********************************************************************
**Comment removed by sarcastic user**

lol
Tsar of DDO
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 6:01:22 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 3:59:06 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 4/20/2016 12:36:34 PM, SkyLeach wrote:

For future reference, it's better to contact me directly about these than it is to make a scene here in the forums. I know that that's commonly the response people take because they don't think there's anything to be gained by having a one-on-one conversation, but if all you're looking for is a more extensive reasoning for the removal of this vote, then you're better off contacting me directly.


Why is it better to contact you directly?

This post brings more discussion to standards for source votes, which I think is one of the less clear points that can be awarded.

Also, the main forum is mostly social junk anyways, seems like we might as well dump voting issues here.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 6:01:29 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 12:36:34 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
A whiteflame moderation:

These are all good removals. Whiteflame us an excellent moderator. *******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Heirio// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro was the only one who cited a source (in round two). Since Con did not cite a source, Pro gets the point for most reliable sources. Pro then stated that God's character changes throughout the Bible, something that should not happen if God was as powerful and all encompassing as people say. He notes how God was rather harsh in the Old Testament, but not so much in the New. This was a convincing argument for me, as most depictions of God (as all encompassing) conflict with this. Con didn't address this at all, and stated that God's character was shown through the Bible, despite the fact that Pro's previous argument refuted that. Pro get's the point for arguments.

[*Reason for removal*] Sources are insufficiently explained. Even if only one side cites sources, the voter still has to state how they were reliable by explaining how they contributed to the debate.
************************************************************************

It seems to me that this is whiteflame determining, in his opinion, that a source was insufficiently explained in the debate itself, so he disagreed with the reasons behind a vote.

If you want to express an opinion, vote for yourself. Your job of moderation is specifically to prevent abuse of the voting mechanism, not to arrogate yourself to the role of the lord of all wisdom.

If I misunderstood whiteflame's meaning, however, and he's getting on the voter for failing to explain why he voted the way he did, then an argument of 'insufficient explanation' is in fact an argument from ignorance.

When a person says that only one side presented sources, this is their primary motivation. Human beings do not explain all motivations in conversation, our brains are socially wired against this type of behavior. Conversations would be nearly impossible if we attempted to explain every nuance of the formation of our opinions in normal statements of reason. This is the whole reason for formal debate: to establish a protocol wherein persons give protracted explanation of multiple reasonings behind their positions.

A comment box on a vote is brief, not a dissertation. If only one side has sources, and those sources are at all relevant to the argument, then they tip the balance sufficient for the motivational call for a vote.

The voter did not say 'for this reason and this reason only', which means that you are PRESUMING your own argument from ignorance.

Essentially this boils down to placing a burden on voters that goes far beyond the voting rules and discourages voting on debates entirely.

This is good moderation:
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Sanders2k16// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: No argument will convince me otherwise!

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD. The voter clearly mistakes the role of his vote, which is not to profess his viewpoint, but to evaluate the debate he's presented with. If he cannot distance himself from his own views on this topic, the voter should not vote on this debate.
************************************************************************

This is not:

*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: DBPDX// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: I saw no compatibility between the two theorys when the debate started, the whole concept seemed to be dreamed up by pro.....Con actually quoted the bible as his source, citing an actual scripture, while it became apparent that pro was making things up as he went and avoiding the response.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter fails to evaluate any specific arguments made by either side, instead generalizing the points made by Pro to "theorys" and never pointing to a single argument made by Con.
************************************************************************

These are not Supreme Court bench opinions on rulings, they are votes. Expecting a legal opinion to be submitted with a vote is unreasonable and detrimental to the site.
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
tejretics
Posts: 6,081
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 6:52:22 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
All those removals were justified. The vote standards are to enforce RFD's that give the debaters a sound reasoning for decision. Any vote that does not adhere to bluesteel's criteria for removing an RFD [http://www.debate.org...] can be removed. When debaters put so much effort into the debate, judges are required to evaluate each argument and explain why the debate was won.

Have you ever debated competitively in real life? No judge ballots are like the ones above.
"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: 6,081
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 6:54:16 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 2:16:45 PM, YYW wrote:
The first vote shouldn't have been removed. But we all know whiteflame is remove-happy. Your other votes are problematic, though.

This is wrong insofar as the standards are concerned. In fact, the mere phrasing of the question says: "Which side had more reliable sources?" How the sources were "more reliable" needs to be explained - at least, that's what the standards are. Bluesteel, F-16 and whiteflame have all removed such votes. Maybe you disagree with the standards, and you are free to, but the current standards do require further explanation than "one side had sources, the other didn't."
"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: 6,081
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 6:55:25 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
YYW, to further clarify, I don't care as to whether that vote "should have" been removed. All I know is that the vote didn't meet the standards.
"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
SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 7:01:09 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 3:59:06 PM, whiteflame wrote:
For the purposes of any removal explanation, everything I say that doesn't directly point to the debate has to do with the reasoning of the voter, not anything to do with the debate itself. That is the case here. I apologize if this was confusing, but the reason for removal had to do with the voter's explanation for why one side's sources were better than the other, not anything the debaters did.
It was a bit ambiguous. The voter recast his vote and kept the sources vote neutral the next time. I presume this was because he felt that you meant the sources were unsupported, but since he gave no reason for neutrality I grant that he may have another reason of which I am unaware.
I wasn't expressing an opinion. I was enforcing a standard that requires that a voter not only establish that one side had sources while the other didn't, but that those sources were relevant. The voter didn't do that, so the vote was removed. I don't view this as abuse of my role, nor do I regard myself as "lord of all wisdom." I simply enforce the standards as they are.
I am glad we agree on the role a moderator plays. :-)
That's the correct interpretation, but it's not an argument from ignorance. The voter is required to meet a certain threshold when it comes to establishing why they've awarded the points they've chosen to award. In this case, he didn't meet that threshold, and so his vote was insufficient. I'm not trying to prove anything as a result.
My concern is that the 'certain threshold' is unclear to voters, debaters, and observers.
It's not my goal to force him to explain every single thing he posts. However, if he chooses to award points as he did, then the voter is required to explain those points to a sufficient degree. Doing so for sources requires both showing that one side had sources and that those sources were relevant. It's not going into the realm of impossibility to get there.
Again, we are faced with a nonspecific 'sufficent degree' metric for qualification. I do not, in fact I cannot, argue that it is outside the realm of possibility to meet your standards. It is, rather, a matter of an unclear standard that varies widely between debates of varying quality. Again, I will attempt to summarize this further in my conclusion.
Yes, the RFD box is small. That doesn't mean that the voter cannot fill it with the information required to explain all of their point allocations. You're entirely right that if only one side has sources and those sources are relevant, that is enough to award that side points. The problem is that he showed the former, but not the latter.
Again I point towards a difference between what is possible, and what is reasonable to expect within a narrow role. (see Economy of Effort)
I'm not presuming any argument. The voter didn't state the relevance of the sources given. That's the problem.
It's not the job of a voter to state relevance. RFD should follow EOE, state what swung the vote. It is the responsibility of the debater to show relevance. Requiring that the voter explain things that didn't influence the vote is wasteful of effort. Requiring detailed examinations of what did swing the vote is also wasteful.
That's often how it's perceived [...] Requiring that a voter produce a single extra line of text [...] isn't so onerous.
It is perceived that way because it is ambiguous. Your quantification of LOE is highly assumptive as well. Your previous statements by no means limit the requirements to a single line, nor do your moderation decisions support this as an expectation.
I'm unclear on what makes this bad moderation in your view. [...] debaters should expect to see some specifics in an RFD [...]
With your nonspecific requirements, the complexity of explanation for an RFD is proportional to the complexity of the arguments presented. This is a core premise in my conclusion below.
I'm not expecting a legal opinion. No one is. A vote can easily fit [...] and still be entirely sufficient [...] they only require a very basic level of explanation that anyone can and should be able to manage[...]
Again, we are not discussing what is theoretically possible here. This discussion is meant to reach a consensus, or at the very least mutual understanding, of what is a reasonably average expectation for RFD. This does not in any way limit comment or PM-based requests for an expanded reason. I agree that debaters should have feedback. In point of fact I think that improving the quality of debate among members is a primary function of the site.

Conclusion:

DDO is a designed system. It is a website designed around encouraging high-quality debate with role-based authority for establishing a mechanism around a deterministic process of positive reinforcement of the stated goal.

In design, there is a central concept called the 'Economy of Effort'.

Usability First - http://www.usabilityfirst.com...
economy of effort

a principle of design process that says that design and production time should be in proportion to the value it produces in the quality of the final product serving users" needs.

Also, a principle of interaction design that says that the amount of user activity should be minimized for any given goal.

This principle was adopted in design from human psychology.

Psychology Dictionary - http://psychologydictionary.org...
What is ECONOMY OF EFFORT?
Written by Pam MS, NCSP | Fact checked by Psychology Dictionary staff

The tendency to act efficiently and to minimise energy expenditure. See elegant solution- Occam's razor.

You give only three indications of what you consider to be the obligations of a voting comment in order to meet the voting rules. In your responses to my concerns you explain the limits to your expectations as 'certain threshold' and 'sufficient degree' as well as 'some specifics'. These are not good boundaries because they are unclear and highly subjective. This changes the expectations from and expectation for 'giving a reson' for a vote decision to 'arguing for a reason' against a moderator.

This violates the Economy of Effort principle. The more complex a debate is, the more complex a voting decision must be. A one-line response may be sufficient to meet the requirements or not depending on the complexity of the arguments and the amount of summarization required to make the reason a brief statement of reason and not a full critique.

This is clearly indicated when you require far more than one line in your moderation of DBPDX's vote. You say he 'fails to evaluate any specific arguments [...] generalizing [...] Pro to "theorys" and never [singling out arguments] by Con' (I edited your quote for clarity and brevity in order condense this. I wasn't trying to change the meaning so if you think I did then please feel free to object).

He did, in fact, point out that Con based his argument in a cited source. He also pointed out that Pro was avoiding Con's arguments (avoiding the issue fallacy). Must he also privde quotes? Column and line references to the argument? Your boundaries are, by action in this moderation, more extensive than those in the rules.
Combined with your statements from before, your boundaries also seem to be inconsistent and subject to cognitive biases based on agreement with the vote rather than respecting the opinion of the voter.

This effectively 'moves the goalposts' of the voting requirement to an argument-by-argument evaluation of the voter. It seems almost as though you expect the voter to provide a class grade rather than an opinion here. The voting process is most definitely not meant as a point-by-point breakdown of the debate, and your apparent expectation that it be so is a heavy burden for voters.

excuse me editing your quotes. I was nearing 8k char and had to truncate.
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 7:41:14 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I will not be able to respond to this in the short term, as I want to dedicate the time to explain things in more detail. I'll get back to you later in the day when I have more time.

One thing I should note: I am not against having public discussions over vote moderation. I do, however, feel that individual instances where someone has a bone to pick with us over a specific vote removal should start as a one on one conversation so that the discussion that happens in the forums focuses on the standards and our enforcement of them. The main reason I say this is because chances are that many of the voters who have had their names posted in this forum probably didn't want to be publicly recognized for having a vote removed.