Total Posts:122|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Voting Standards are INSANE

16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 3:03:54 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
This is why voting is a WASTE OF TIME. The rules are CRAZY, DUMB, and STRINGENT AS HELL.

Now, this isn't the moderators fault. I know they take their jobs seriously and serve a valid function. But seriously, this is getting out of hand. The simple fact is, ever since my goons in the conservative voting block messed sh!t up, everyone has been pushing for more rules and regulations when it comes to voting.

Fine. We need to have a standard. But this is insane.

Here is the debate in question: http://www.debate.org...

Tl;DR of the debate: Pro offers valid arguments. Con offers this:

"true but the Bible says though shalt not murder and don't you think what that child has to go through"

And this:

"that child has the right to live and if a parent doesn't want kids don't have any"

That's it! IT ISN'T EVEN A REAL DEBATE! IT IS BALONEY!

Now, here is my vote: Con assumes the Bible has some authority (and it may very well have), but does not adequately explain (1) why it has authority and (2) whether or not its authority extends to legal matters. Pro offered various utilitarian reasons as to why abortion should remain legal. As Con simply offered short one-liners about religion, Pro wins the arguments points. Sources to pro because Con had none, whereas Pro cited multiple relevant articles, studies, and researchers to back up her case.

IT IS LONGER THAN CON'S ENTIRE FVCKING ARGUMENT IN THE DEBATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And it got REMOVED. SERIOUSLY? Here is why.

"[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter never assesses a specific argument made by Pro, merely stating that he made utilitarian points that he found convincing. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter has to do more than simply state that only one side had sources and they were relevant. It should be clear what at least one of those sources actually did."

(1) Screw that. Literally, why the hell would I have to waste my valuable time summarizing Pro's arguments when it is obvious she ACTUALLY PROVIDED SOMETHING. And that is what I said: she offered something, whereas con offered nothing. In a debate as low quality as this, THAT SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT. It is not like I am voting on RoyLatham vs Bluesteel in some epic showdown. Seriously, this is dumb. (2) Again, THIS IS DUMB. She ACTUALLY PROVIDED something, and all of the sources were valid. Academic sources, sources quoting experts, etc. Con cited the Bible. And even then, I explain why this is a bad source: even assuming its veracity, it may or may not be related to the application of the law. Not only does Con NOT show the relevance of the source, HE DOESN'T EVEN QUOTE IT. He doesn't cite a verse, either. He just ASSUMES the reader agrees with him that the Bible is anti abortion (and it is, but he doesn't SHOW the voter).

Literally, this IS NOT EVEN A DEBATE. Why do I have to write a freaking THESIS to vote on a debate by an intelligent debater versus a noob who WRITES TWO SENTENCES in the ENTIRE "debate?"

God, I am never voting again unless (1) I am really, really motivated that day or (2) there is an FF and my lazy butt can just write "FF."

/END RANT
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 3:04:39 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 3:03:54 AM, 16kadams wrote:

I adore you
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 3:06:39 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 3:04:39 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:03:54 AM, 16kadams wrote:

I adore you

I adore me, too
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 3:07:34 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Everything said here is the truth.

After the revolution this post will go down in history as an essential part of the DDO canon. Viva la resistance.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 3:07:49 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Also, I am not gonna say who the moderator was because I happen to like the moderator on a personal and intellectual level.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Subutai
Posts: 3,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 3:08:11 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Lol, I remember the conservative voting block. I was part of it. That was back when people thought that DDO was majority conservative/libertarian. The liberals took over a while ago though. That, and the fact that vote moderation has become much more strict, which causes biased votes to get deleted quickly.

Regardless, I do agree with you that the vote moderation that's been happening lately has been too strict, and it seems a lot of DDO agrees with you. We somehow jumped from too lax vote moderation to too strict vote moderation.

I both lament and loathe the old DDO.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 3:09:46 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 3:07:34 AM, thett3 wrote:
Everything said here is the truth.

After the revolution this post will go down in history as an essential part of the DDO canon. Viva la resistance.

I need to find the post where Jim and I invented the DDO elite. That is historical.

Someone find the first Koopin kfc reference.

And, of course, there is this gem that new users won't understand: https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 3:10:28 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 3:08:11 AM, Subutai wrote:
Lol, I remember the conservative voting block. I was part of it. That was back when people thought that DDO was majority conservative/libertarian. The liberals took over a while ago though. That, and the fact that vote moderation has become much more strict, which causes biased votes to get deleted quickly.

Regardless, I do agree with you that the vote moderation that's been happening lately has been too strict, and it seems a lot of DDO agrees with you. We somehow jumped from too lax vote moderation to too strict vote moderation.

I both lament and loathe the old DDO.

OMG, I LOVE IT. I was such a trouble maker, and it was AMAZING.

But I also prefer my new and improved spammer self
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 3:12:41 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 3:08:11 AM, Subutai wrote:
Lol, I remember the conservative voting block. I was part of it. That was back when people thought that DDO was majority conservative/libertarian. The liberals took over a while ago though. That, and the fact that vote moderation has become much more strict, which causes biased votes to get deleted quickly.

I have a solution for the new liberal majority.

PROPAGANDA:
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...

And, if that fails... https://www.youtube.com...


Regardless, I do agree with you that the vote moderation that's been happening lately has been too strict, and it seems a lot of DDO agrees with you. We somehow jumped from too lax vote moderation to too strict vote moderation.

I both lament and loathe the old DDO.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Subutai
Posts: 3,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 3:29:50 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 3:12:41 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:08:11 AM, Subutai wrote:
Lol, I remember the conservative voting block. I was part of it. That was back when people thought that DDO was majority conservative/libertarian. The liberals took over a while ago though. That, and the fact that vote moderation has become much more strict, which causes biased votes to get deleted quickly.

I have a solution for the new liberal majority.

PROPAGANDA:
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...

And, if that fails... https://www.youtube.com...


We need to bring Lordhnukle back then.

Regardless, I do agree with you that the vote moderation that's been happening lately has been too strict, and it seems a lot of DDO agrees with you. We somehow jumped from too lax vote moderation to too strict vote moderation.

I both lament and loathe the old DDO.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 3:32:31 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 3:07:49 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Also, I am not gonna say who the moderator was because I happen to like the moderator on a personal and intellectual level.

You know we can just look at the debate comments...right...?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 3:35:06 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 3:32:31 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:07:49 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Also, I am not gonna say who the moderator was because I happen to like the moderator on a personal and intellectual level.

You know we can just look at the debate comments...right...?

Free helicopter ride for you. We will listen to this as we ride over the ocean: https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 3:38:06 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 3:08:11 AM, Subutai wrote:
Lol, I remember the conservative voting block. I was part of it. That was back when people thought that DDO was majority conservative/libertarian. The liberals took over a while ago though. That, and the fact that vote moderation has become much more strict, which causes biased votes to get deleted quickly.

Regardless, I do agree with you that the vote moderation that's been happening lately has been too strict, and it seems a lot of DDO agrees with you. We somehow jumped from too lax vote moderation to too strict vote moderation.

I both lament and loathe the old DDO.

Tbh I don't really think the site has a liberal majority. It might not be as libertarian dominated, but I'd say it's relatively even by this point.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 3:46:38 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
lol So dumb.
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
jimtimmy10
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 3:52:03 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 3:03:54 AM, 16kadams wrote:
This is why voting is a WASTE OF TIME. The rules are CRAZY, DUMB, and STRINGENT AS HELL.

Now, this isn't the moderators fault. I know they take their jobs seriously and serve a valid function. But seriously, this is getting out of hand. The simple fact is, ever since my goons in the conservative voting block messed sh!t up, everyone has been pushing for more rules and regulations when it comes to voting.

Fine. We need to have a standard. But this is insane.

Here is the debate in question: http://www.debate.org...

Tl;DR of the debate: Pro offers valid arguments. Con offers this:

"true but the Bible says though shalt not murder and don't you think what that child has to go through"

And this:

"that child has the right to live and if a parent doesn't want kids don't have any"

That's it! IT ISN'T EVEN A REAL DEBATE! IT IS BALONEY!

Now, here is my vote: Con assumes the Bible has some authority (and it may very well have), but does not adequately explain (1) why it has authority and (2) whether or not its authority extends to legal matters. Pro offered various utilitarian reasons as to why abortion should remain legal. As Con simply offered short one-liners about religion, Pro wins the arguments points. Sources to pro because Con had none, whereas Pro cited multiple relevant articles, studies, and researchers to back up her case.

IT IS LONGER THAN CON'S ENTIRE FVCKING ARGUMENT IN THE DEBATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And it got REMOVED. SERIOUSLY? Here is why.

"[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter never assesses a specific argument made by Pro, merely stating that he made utilitarian points that he found convincing. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter has to do more than simply state that only one side had sources and they were relevant. It should be clear what at least one of those sources actually did."

(1) Screw that. Literally, why the hell would I have to waste my valuable time summarizing Pro's arguments when it is obvious she ACTUALLY PROVIDED SOMETHING. And that is what I said: she offered something, whereas con offered nothing. In a debate as low quality as this, THAT SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT. It is not like I am voting on RoyLatham vs Bluesteel in some epic showdown. Seriously, this is dumb. (2) Again, THIS IS DUMB. She ACTUALLY PROVIDED something, and all of the sources were valid. Academic sources, sources quoting experts, etc. Con cited the Bible. And even then, I explain why this is a bad source: even assuming its veracity, it may or may not be related to the application of the law. Not only does Con NOT show the relevance of the source, HE DOESN'T EVEN QUOTE IT. He doesn't cite a verse, either. He just ASSUMES the reader agrees with him that the Bible is anti abortion (and it is, but he doesn't SHOW the voter).

Literally, this IS NOT EVEN A DEBATE. Why do I have to write a freaking THESIS to vote on a debate by an intelligent debater versus a noob who WRITES TWO SENTENCES in the ENTIRE "debate?"

God, I am never voting again unless (1) I am really, really motivated that day or (2) there is an FF and my lazy butt can just write "FF."

/END RANT

Hello.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 4:00:08 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 3:52:03 AM, jimtimmy10 wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:03:54 AM, 16kadams wrote:
This is why voting is a WASTE OF TIME. The rules are CRAZY, DUMB, and STRINGENT AS HELL.

Now, this isn't the moderators fault. I know they take their jobs seriously and serve a valid function. But seriously, this is getting out of hand. The simple fact is, ever since my goons in the conservative voting block messed sh!t up, everyone has been pushing for more rules and regulations when it comes to voting.

Fine. We need to have a standard. But this is insane.

Here is the debate in question: http://www.debate.org...

Tl;DR of the debate: Pro offers valid arguments. Con offers this:

"true but the Bible says though shalt not murder and don't you think what that child has to go through"

And this:

"that child has the right to live and if a parent doesn't want kids don't have any"

That's it! IT ISN'T EVEN A REAL DEBATE! IT IS BALONEY!

Now, here is my vote: Con assumes the Bible has some authority (and it may very well have), but does not adequately explain (1) why it has authority and (2) whether or not its authority extends to legal matters. Pro offered various utilitarian reasons as to why abortion should remain legal. As Con simply offered short one-liners about religion, Pro wins the arguments points. Sources to pro because Con had none, whereas Pro cited multiple relevant articles, studies, and researchers to back up her case.

IT IS LONGER THAN CON'S ENTIRE FVCKING ARGUMENT IN THE DEBATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And it got REMOVED. SERIOUSLY? Here is why.

"[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter never assesses a specific argument made by Pro, merely stating that he made utilitarian points that he found convincing. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter has to do more than simply state that only one side had sources and they were relevant. It should be clear what at least one of those sources actually did."

(1) Screw that. Literally, why the hell would I have to waste my valuable time summarizing Pro's arguments when it is obvious she ACTUALLY PROVIDED SOMETHING. And that is what I said: she offered something, whereas con offered nothing. In a debate as low quality as this, THAT SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT. It is not like I am voting on RoyLatham vs Bluesteel in some epic showdown. Seriously, this is dumb. (2) Again, THIS IS DUMB. She ACTUALLY PROVIDED something, and all of the sources were valid. Academic sources, sources quoting experts, etc. Con cited the Bible. And even then, I explain why this is a bad source: even assuming its veracity, it may or may not be related to the application of the law. Not only does Con NOT show the relevance of the source, HE DOESN'T EVEN QUOTE IT. He doesn't cite a verse, either. He just ASSUMES the reader agrees with him that the Bible is anti abortion (and it is, but he doesn't SHOW the voter).

Literally, this IS NOT EVEN A DEBATE. Why do I have to write a freaking THESIS to vote on a debate by an intelligent debater versus a noob who WRITES TWO SENTENCES in the ENTIRE "debate?"

God, I am never voting again unless (1) I am really, really motivated that day or (2) there is an FF and my lazy butt can just write "FF."

/END RANT


Hello.

Hi m8
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
lannan13
Posts: 23,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 4:02:33 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 3:09:46 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:07:34 AM, thett3 wrote:
Everything said here is the truth.

After the revolution this post will go down in history as an essential part of the DDO canon. Viva la resistance.

I need to find the post where Jim and I invented the DDO elite. That is historical.

Someone find the first Koopin kfc reference.

And, of course, there is this gem that new users won't understand: https://www.youtube.com...

Ask Bossy, that guy's a freaking historian on this site.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-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...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 4:03:19 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 4:02:33 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:09:46 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:07:34 AM, thett3 wrote:
Everything said here is the truth.

After the revolution this post will go down in history as an essential part of the DDO canon. Viva la resistance.

I need to find the post where Jim and I invented the DDO elite. That is historical.

Someone find the first Koopin kfc reference.

And, of course, there is this gem that new users won't understand: https://www.youtube.com...

Ask Bossy, that guy's a freaking historian on this site.

Ok I will spam his FB if I ever need the info then
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
lannan13
Posts: 23,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 4:04:12 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 4:03:19 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/25/2016 4:02:33 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:09:46 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:07:34 AM, thett3 wrote:
Everything said here is the truth.

After the revolution this post will go down in history as an essential part of the DDO canon. Viva la resistance.

I need to find the post where Jim and I invented the DDO elite. That is historical.

Someone find the first Koopin kfc reference.

And, of course, there is this gem that new users won't understand: https://www.youtube.com...

Ask Bossy, that guy's a freaking historian on this site.

Ok I will spam his FB if I ever need the info then

I actually think he bump the thread a while back.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-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...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 4:05:15 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 4:02:33 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:09:46 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:07:34 AM, thett3 wrote:
Everything said here is the truth.

After the revolution this post will go down in history as an essential part of the DDO canon. Viva la resistance.

I need to find the post where Jim and I invented the DDO elite. That is historical.

Someone find the first Koopin kfc reference.

And, of course, there is this gem that new users won't understand: https://www.youtube.com...

Ask Bossy, that guy's a freaking historian on this site.

Oh I've found the first KFC post before. I'll dig it up sometime
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
lannan13
Posts: 23,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 4:06:01 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 4:05:15 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 4/25/2016 4:02:33 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:09:46 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:07:34 AM, thett3 wrote:
Everything said here is the truth.

After the revolution this post will go down in history as an essential part of the DDO canon. Viva la resistance.

I need to find the post where Jim and I invented the DDO elite. That is historical.

Someone find the first Koopin kfc reference.

And, of course, there is this gem that new users won't understand: https://www.youtube.com...

Ask Bossy, that guy's a freaking historian on this site.

Oh I've found the first KFC post before. I'll dig it up sometime

lol, I said that 50 seconds ago too XD
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-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...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 4:13:59 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
As far as I can tell, the main problem you have with the voting standards is that they're applied regardless of the quality of the debate. That's been a relatively common complaint, though addressing it becomes somewhat difficult. Should we base it on the length of arguments given by one or both sides? Should it be based on some measure of quality? I get that a debate like this would be simple enough to write off, since the posts of one side could barely even be characterized as arguments, but if we are going to implement a change of this type to the way we engage in vote moderation, then we need an objective standard that we can apply in our assessment of each debate. We'd also need to have a separate set of standards for debates that fit into this lower quality segment. I'm happy to have this discussion, but it should be concrete.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,276
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 4:18:42 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 3:03:54 AM, 16kadams wrote:
This is why voting is a WASTE OF TIME. The rules are CRAZY, DUMB, and STRINGENT AS HELL.

Now, this isn't the moderators fault. I know they take their jobs seriously and serve a valid function. But seriously, this is getting out of hand. The simple fact is, ever since my goons in the conservative voting block messed sh!t up, everyone has been pushing for more rules and regulations when it comes to voting.

Fine. We need to have a standard. But this is insane.

Here is the debate in question: http://www.debate.org...

Tl;DR of the debate: Pro offers valid arguments. Con offers this:

"true but the Bible says though shalt not murder and don't you think what that child has to go through"

And this:

"that child has the right to live and if a parent doesn't want kids don't have any"

That's it! IT ISN'T EVEN A REAL DEBATE! IT IS BALONEY!

Now, here is my vote: Con assumes the Bible has some authority (and it may very well have), but does not adequately explain (1) why it has authority and (2) whether or not its authority extends to legal matters. Pro offered various utilitarian reasons as to why abortion should remain legal. As Con simply offered short one-liners about religion, Pro wins the arguments points. Sources to pro because Con had none, whereas Pro cited multiple relevant articles, studies, and researchers to back up her case.

IT IS LONGER THAN CON'S ENTIRE FVCKING ARGUMENT IN THE DEBATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And it got REMOVED. SERIOUSLY? Here is why.

"[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter never assesses a specific argument made by Pro, merely stating that he made utilitarian points that he found convincing. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter has to do more than simply state that only one side had sources and they were relevant. It should be clear what at least one of those sources actually did."

(1) Screw that. Literally, why the hell would I have to waste my valuable time summarizing Pro's arguments when it is obvious she ACTUALLY PROVIDED SOMETHING. And that is what I said: she offered something, whereas con offered nothing. In a debate as low quality as this, THAT SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT. It is not like I am voting on RoyLatham vs Bluesteel in some epic showdown. Seriously, this is dumb. (2) Again, THIS IS DUMB. She ACTUALLY PROVIDED something, and all of the sources were valid. Academic sources, sources quoting experts, etc. Con cited the Bible. And even then, I explain why this is a bad source: even assuming its veracity, it may or may not be related to the application of the law. Not only does Con NOT show the relevance of the source, HE DOESN'T EVEN QUOTE IT. He doesn't cite a verse, either. He just ASSUMES the reader agrees with him that the Bible is anti abortion (and it is, but he doesn't SHOW the voter).

Literally, this IS NOT EVEN A DEBATE. Why do I have to write a freaking THESIS to vote on a debate by an intelligent debater versus a noob who WRITES TWO SENTENCES in the ENTIRE "debate?"

God, I am never voting again unless (1) I am really, really motivated that day or (2) there is an FF and my lazy butt can just write "FF."

/END RANT

And this is why I stopped voting. I have zero problem with your vote, even if the other side put in more effort. You clearly explained your reasons, nothing more should be needed.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 6:28:53 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 3:08:11 AM, Subutai wrote:
Lol, I remember the conservative voting block. I was part of it. That was back when people thought that DDO was majority conservative/libertarian. The liberals took over a while ago though. That, and the fact that vote moderation has become much more strict, which causes biased votes to get deleted quickly.

Regardless, I do agree with you that the vote moderation that's been happening lately has been too strict, and it seems a lot of DDO agrees with you. We somehow jumped from too lax vote moderation to too strict vote moderation.

I both lament and loathe the old DDO.

Luckily, the liberal bias has been taken over by the #TrumpTrain libertarians. The shift is real.

On a serious note, we are actively working on updating the voting standards. Stay tuned.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 2:26:53 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 3:03:54 AM, 16kadams wrote:
This is why voting is a WASTE OF TIME. The rules are CRAZY, DUMB, and STRINGENT AS HELL.

Now, this isn't the moderators fault. I know they take their jobs seriously and serve a valid function. But seriously, this is getting out of hand. The simple fact is, ever since my goons in the conservative voting block messed sh!t up, everyone has been pushing for more rules and regulations when it comes to voting.

Fine. We need to have a standard. But this is insane.

Here is the debate in question: http://www.debate.org...

Tl;DR of the debate: Pro offers valid arguments. Con offers this:

"true but the Bible says though shalt not murder and don't you think what that child has to go through"

And this:

"that child has the right to live and if a parent doesn't want kids don't have any"

That's it! IT ISN'T EVEN A REAL DEBATE! IT IS BALONEY!

Now, here is my vote: Con assumes the Bible has some authority (and it may very well have), but does not adequately explain (1) why it has authority and (2) whether or not its authority extends to legal matters. Pro offered various utilitarian reasons as to why abortion should remain legal. As Con simply offered short one-liners about religion, Pro wins the arguments points. Sources to pro because Con had none, whereas Pro cited multiple relevant articles, studies, and researchers to back up her case.

IT IS LONGER THAN CON'S ENTIRE FVCKING ARGUMENT IN THE DEBATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And it got REMOVED. SERIOUSLY? Here is why.

"[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter never assesses a specific argument made by Pro, merely stating that he made utilitarian points that he found convincing. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter has to do more than simply state that only one side had sources and they were relevant. It should be clear what at least one of those sources actually did."

(1) Screw that. Literally, why the hell would I have to waste my valuable time summarizing Pro's arguments when it is obvious she ACTUALLY PROVIDED SOMETHING. And that is what I said: she offered something, whereas con offered nothing. In a debate as low quality as this, THAT SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT. It is not like I am voting on RoyLatham vs Bluesteel in some epic showdown. Seriously, this is dumb. (2) Again, THIS IS DUMB. She ACTUALLY PROVIDED something, and all of the sources were valid. Academic sources, sources quoting experts, etc. Con cited the Bible. And even then, I explain why this is a bad source: even assuming its veracity, it may or may not be related to the application of the law. Not only does Con NOT show the relevance of the source, HE DOESN'T EVEN QUOTE IT. He doesn't cite a verse, either. He just ASSUMES the reader agrees with him that the Bible is anti abortion (and it is, but he doesn't SHOW the voter).

Literally, this IS NOT EVEN A DEBATE. Why do I have to write a freaking THESIS to vote on a debate by an intelligent debater versus a noob who WRITES TWO SENTENCES in the ENTIRE "debate?"

God, I am never voting again unless (1) I am really, really motivated that day or (2) there is an FF and my lazy butt can just write "FF."

/END RANT

I agree. The voting is past a problem at this point.
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 2:57:00 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 3:03:54 AM, 16kadams wrote:

I agree with your entire post, the voting standards are absurd. There shouldn't even be any standards for debates as you mentioned. For debates where one person types a novel and the other types a 3 liner, there should literally be no voting standards as long as the right person is voted for.
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 3:15:50 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Voting standards are high because of the sh*tty past standards of voting standards that allowed some people to run wild with voting in the past, as you yourself admit.... But even I agree that deletion in this scenario was completely retarded.

Idea to fix this:

An exception to voting moderation where if one side in a debate posts barely any arguments (<500 characters in every round), than the debate should be immune from voting moderation except when votes are clear votebombs for the losing side.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 3:16:47 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 2:57:00 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:03:54 AM, 16kadams wrote:

I agree with your entire post, the voting standards are absurd. There shouldn't even be any standards for debates as you mentioned. For debates where one person types a novel and the other types a 3 liner, there should literally be no voting standards as long as the right person is voted for.

Didnt see this when typing my response, but I essentially agree with it 100%
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 3:28:30 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 3:03:54 AM, 16kadams wrote:

Your sources allocation was unjustified. Just please don't vote for sources ever, its a BS category. Regardless, just because one side had sources doesn't mean you can award reliable sources, and you have to explain why the sources were relevent, which you didn't. You just said they were.

Your arguments allocation was borderline, but given the content of the debate, if I were a mod I would have let that one go. But mods are still justified in removing the entire vote because one category didnt meet standards. So I agree with Whiteflame on sources, not on arguments. If he docked you on arguments as well, meh, your explanation was borderline anyways. I'm just more easy going I guesss
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 4:05:50 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I agree that the vote removed in the OP of this thread was removed for absolutely ridiculous reasons. I am not sure if it"s vote moderation itself that is the problem, more just a moderator specific issue. That moderator made a very poor choice, and likely didn"t read the debate to know. But moderation has removed plenty of pretty horrible and sub-par votes, and I think overall serves a good purpose. I think the solution would be:

1.For Airmax to offer more mod positions to people passionate about good voting. With only 3 moderators (that I know of) and an influx of daily votes, it probably makes reading every debate to know if the RFD is bad or not a little tiresome and encourages lazy removals like the one in this OP. I am sure there are plenty of people who would be willing to Moderate that could be fair vote judges. With more mods I would expect BOT, airmax, and whiteflames job to be much easier as well, so it benefits them.

2.Airmax needs to be stricter on his moderators to moderate correctly.

I think more vote mods would definitely be a starting solution, but I don"t think mods should be able to get away with murder because they are well liked and respected in other areas of the site. We shouldn"t be promoting laziness with votes.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227