Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Voting Reform

Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 4:15:11 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
(Branched off from another thread, in part to avoid my stalker who has become active in it.)

It seems to me the biggest recurrent problem with vote moderation, is simply the issues that comes with uneven pairing of the quality of votes vs the quality of debates.

To begin a 500 character vote on an 80,000 character debate, is almost always going to be sub-par. Similarly an 80,000 character vote on a 500 character debate, is highly unwarranted to say the least.

I do not mean to simplify the problem to length, but there seems to be a strong correlation. When a 500 character vote is longer than the entirety of one side's case for example, it is almost certainly going to be fine. Cases where one side literally has not offered a case, I don't see that as actually better than a forfeit (save for it not affecting conduct), and we don't take time to meticulously analyze the deeper meaning to an FF; instead we call it what it is, and move on to something worth our time.

I know whiteflame (the current vote moderator) mentioned the idea of a two tiered system, but I think we may want to visualize a total of three tiers. There's the true ideal we want (1), then what's reasonable to expect (2), and junk debates where the content does not give voters the potential material to cast an exceptional vote (3).

For the first there might be a writeup of what would be perfect, but it's above the actual enforced standards; we use it as a pedestal to keep in mind things that would be great, but are not realistic to exact from the average vote on the average debate.

For the second, we make a solid standard, without distracting side detail and opinions in the main write up. Basically do X, don't do Y (footnotes could explain rationals, but reading those would not be required).

The third is to acknowledge the principle that a vote should never be held to a higher standard than the debate. I suspect it would be the hardest to write out, because it is about flexibility. A troll debate for example, having comedy in the vote is usually going to be a good thing (not to say a requirement). A rap or poetry challenge, is simply far more subjective than any normal debate topic. Then there's the debates that did not end in forfeit, but were clearly no contest; such as identified Gish Gallops instead of arguments, for these the voter should not be expected to lay out each part of the Gish Gollop at length. ... So yeah, I don't think we should ever have to explain why one side FFing mains they lost, nor why them doing no better than that means they lost.

Thoughts on the basic idea here, or related ones?
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...
lannan13
Posts: 23,111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 5:03:15 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I definately agree that a debate that long shouldn't have an RFD that short, but eliminating RFDs based on length itself doesn't seem reasonable. With it being that short I'm quite sure that there is some sort of lack of RFD occuring, so that would speak for itself.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-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...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 7:05:32 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 5:03:15 PM, lannan13 wrote:
I definately agree that a debate that long shouldn't have an RFD that short, but eliminating RFDs based on length itself doesn't seem reasonable. With it being that short I'm quite sure that there is some sort of lack of RFD occuring, so that would speak for itself.

As previously stated "I do not mean to simplify the problem to length, but there seems to be a strong correlation." I think there should still be RFD standards applied to all debates.

And to be even more clear, I don't believe length of RFD vs length of debate should be the standard. It comes up because the deletion of short (but adequate) votes on no contest debates, has been a big complaint about the standards as applied. Using extreme differences in characters, was a way to exemplify it. I'm quite aware that a low-context vote could take 1000 characters to explain what a high-context vote does in 100.

Do you have any suggestions for how to address the issue of debates which do not have enough quality to generate the minimum quality RFD we'd expect from a good debate?
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...
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 12:12:02 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 4:15:11 PM, Ragnar wrote:
(Branched off from another thread, in part to avoid my stalker who has become active in it.)

It seems to me the biggest recurrent problem with vote moderation, is simply the issues that comes with uneven pairing of the quality of votes vs the quality of debates.

To begin a 500 character vote on an 80,000 character debate, is almost always going to be sub-par. Similarly an 80,000 character vote on a 500 character debate, is highly unwarranted to say the least.

I do not mean to simplify the problem to length, but there seems to be a strong correlation. When a 500 character vote is longer than the entirety of one side's case for example, it is almost certainly going to be fine. Cases where one side literally has not offered a case, I don't see that as actually better than a forfeit (save for it not affecting conduct), and we don't take time to meticulously analyze the deeper meaning to an FF; instead we call it what it is, and move on to something worth our time.

I know whiteflame (the current vote moderator) mentioned the idea of a two tiered system, but I think we may want to visualize a total of three tiers. There's the true ideal we want (1), then what's reasonable to expect (2), and junk debates where the content does not give voters the potential material to cast an exceptional vote (3).

For the first there might be a writeup of what would be perfect, but it's above the actual enforced standards; we use it as a pedestal to keep in mind things that would be great, but are not realistic to exact from the average vote on the average debate.

For the second, we make a solid standard, without distracting side detail and opinions in the main write up. Basically do X, don't do Y (footnotes could explain rationals, but reading those would not be required).

The third is to acknowledge the principle that a vote should never be held to a higher standard than the debate. I suspect it would be the hardest to write out, because it is about flexibility. A troll debate for example, having comedy in the vote is usually going to be a good thing (not to say a requirement). A rap or poetry challenge, is simply far more subjective than any normal debate topic. Then there's the debates that did not end in forfeit, but were clearly no contest; such as identified Gish Gallops instead of arguments, for these the voter should not be expected to lay out each part of the Gish Gollop at length. ... So yeah, I don't think we should ever have to explain why one side FFing mains they lost, nor why them doing no better than that means they lost.

Thoughts on the basic idea here, or related ones?
I really like these ideas. I hope you find enough support to get them expanded on and implemented.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 12:14:25 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 5:03:15 PM, lannan13 wrote:
I definately agree that a debate that long shouldn't have an RFD that short, but eliminating RFDs based on length itself doesn't seem reasonable. With it being that short I'm quite sure that there is some sort of lack of RFD occuring, so that would speak for itself.

I think that asking for more length is a problem. If you can't fit the RFD on an index card, it is too long.
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 4:25:21 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 4:30:51 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Voting moderation should be scrapped altogether.
Tsar of DDO
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 4:53:12 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 4:25:21 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/26/2016 4:30:51 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Voting moderation should be scrapped altogether.

You keep saying "bad votes will always be countered by good ones" -- but there aren't many good voters around, are there? Name strong voters who're always there to vote on debates. Better a 0-0 tie than a loss to a terrible vote.
"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
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 4:55:45 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 4:53:12 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 4/27/2016 4:25:21 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/26/2016 4:30:51 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Voting moderation should be scrapped altogether.

You keep saying "bad votes will always be countered by good ones" -- but there aren't many good voters around, are there? Name strong voters who're always there to vote on debates. Better a 0-0 tie than a loss to a terrible vote.

I never said that a new form of voting moderation shouldn't be reconstructed... just without whiteflame.
Tsar of DDO
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 4:57:33 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 4:55:45 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/27/2016 4:53:12 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 4/27/2016 4:25:21 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/26/2016 4:30:51 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Voting moderation should be scrapped altogether.

You keep saying "bad votes will always be countered by good ones" -- but there aren't many good voters around, are there? Name strong voters who're always there to vote on debates. Better a 0-0 tie than a loss to a terrible vote.

I never said that a new form of voting moderation shouldn't be reconstructed... just without whiteflame.

The sentence "vote moderation should be scrapped altogether" means there shouldn't be any vote moderation... And even if it doesn't, you've expressed that viewpoint before.
"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
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 4:59:38 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 4:57:33 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 4/27/2016 4:55:45 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/27/2016 4:53:12 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 4/27/2016 4:25:21 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/26/2016 4:30:51 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Voting moderation should be scrapped altogether.

You keep saying "bad votes will always be countered by good ones" -- but there aren't many good voters around, are there? Name strong voters who're always there to vote on debates. Better a 0-0 tie than a loss to a terrible vote.

I never said that a new form of voting moderation shouldn't be reconstructed... just without whiteflame.

The sentence "vote moderation should be scrapped altogether" means there shouldn't be any vote moderation... And even if it doesn't, you've expressed that viewpoint before.

In its current form, yes. It should be scrapped all together. Then BoT should lead a new iteration of it later.

I'm not going to argue semantics with you, because that is stupid.
Tsar of DDO
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 2:19:00 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 4:53:12 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 4/27/2016 4:25:21 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/26/2016 4:30:51 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Voting moderation should be scrapped altogether.

You keep saying "bad votes will always be countered by good ones" -- but there aren't many good voters around, are there? Name strong voters who're always there to vote on debates. Better a 0-0 tie than a loss to a terrible vote.

2 years ago I raised a rather big stink about voting moderation. Yeah, I realize that I pretty much burnt up any communal goodwill I have and I'm currently generally dismissed as a crank, but I think it's an interesting case study (http://www.debate.org...).

At the time, there was a hole voting moderation board. And the primary point was just to deal with obvious vote bombs and spam. They really weren't in the business of policing non-bomb, non-spam votes.

The general consensus (at least as far as I perceived) was that, in that case atleast, it had fucked up. It made the wrong move as my vote was neither a bomb nor spam. Eve airmax agreed that the deletion was a mistake.

Now, if you look at the vote I gave (quoted in the first post of that thread), and compare that to today's voting standards. I can't help but just laugh at the state of things.

Basically, a whole board scrutinizing that vote was viewed (generally) as wrong, and the solution to that is to reduce the board to a single person who now runs every vote through a fine-toothed comb? It's like a smoker getting an early diagnosis of lung cancer and their solution is to smoke twice as much.

We're living in Bizzaro world here. You lament the lack of good voters so... raise the bar for voting? Make it harder for them to vote?

I voted yesterday. Not on a debate here. No. Like, in real life. I voted in my state's primary. It took 5 minutes. I filled in a couple of dots on a piece of paper. I didn't have to write a god damned 1,500 word essay on why I felt my candidate deserved to win. I didn't have to critically evaluate specific statements they made, or analyze the sources they've provided in their arguments.

I said who I wanted and that was it.

And that is for something, in real life, that will actually matter.

And then I see the voting requirements for a debate site on the internet and just laugh and laugh and laugh.
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 2:36:13 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 2:19:00 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
We're living in Bizzaro world here. You lament the lack of good voters so... raise the bar for voting? Make it harder for them to vote?

If I reduce the bar for voting, then even good voters can provide RFD's that are bad.

Any vote that doesn't meet the standards is extraordinarily horrible. There are many votes that do meet the standards that are objectively poor. But those that don't meet the current standards are bad beyond comparison. If a person is incapable of meeting the current standards, I'd never, ever want them to vote on any debate of mine -- even a full forfeit.
"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
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 2:36:52 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 2:19:00 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:

At the time, there was a hole voting moderation board. And the primary point was just to deal with obvious vote bombs and spam. They really weren't in the business of policing non-bomb, non-spam votes.

The general consensus (at least as far as I perceived) was that, in that case atleast, it had fucked up. It made the wrong move as my vote was neither a bomb nor spam. Eve airmax agreed that the deletion was a mistake.

Now, if you look at the vote I gave (quoted in the first post of that thread), and compare that to today's voting standards. I can't help but just laugh at the state of things.

Basically, a whole board scrutinizing that vote was viewed (generally) as wrong, and the solution to that is to reduce the board to a single person who now runs every vote through a fine-toothed comb? It's like a smoker getting an early diagnosis of lung cancer and their solution is to smoke twice as much.

We're living in Bizzaro world here. You lament the lack of good voters so... raise the bar for voting? Make it harder for them to vote?

I voted yesterday. Not on a debate here. No. Like, in real life. I voted in my state's primary. It took 5 minutes. I filled in a couple of dots on a piece of paper. I didn't have to write a god damned 1,500 word essay on why I felt my candidate deserved to win. I didn't have to critically evaluate specific statements they made, or analyze the sources they've provided in their arguments.

I said who I wanted and that was it.

And that is for something, in real life, that will actually matter.

And then I see the voting requirements for a debate site on the internet and just laugh and laugh and laugh.

Quoted for emphasis.
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...
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 2:42:24 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 2:19:00 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 4/27/2016 4:53:12 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 4/27/2016 4:25:21 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/26/2016 4:30:51 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Voting moderation should be scrapped altogether.

You keep saying "bad votes will always be countered by good ones" -- but there aren't many good voters around, are there? Name strong voters who're always there to vote on debates. Better a 0-0 tie than a loss to a terrible vote.

2 years ago I raised a rather big stink about voting moderation. Yeah, I realize that I pretty much burnt up any communal goodwill I have and I'm currently generally dismissed as a crank, but I think it's an interesting case study (http://www.debate.org...).

At the time, there was a hole voting moderation board. And the primary point was just to deal with obvious vote bombs and spam. They really weren't in the business of policing non-bomb, non-spam votes.

The general consensus (at least as far as I perceived) was that, in that case atleast, it had fucked up. It made the wrong move as my vote was neither a bomb nor spam. Eve airmax agreed that the deletion was a mistake.

Now, if you look at the vote I gave (quoted in the first post of that thread), and compare that to today's voting standards. I can't help but just laugh at the state of things.

Basically, a whole board scrutinizing that vote was viewed (generally) as wrong, and the solution to that is to reduce the board to a single person who now runs every vote through a fine-toothed comb? It's like a smoker getting an early diagnosis of lung cancer and their solution is to smoke twice as much.

We're living in Bizzaro world here. You lament the lack of good voters so... raise the bar for voting? Make it harder for them to vote?

I voted yesterday. Not on a debate here. No. Like, in real life. I voted in my state's primary. It took 5 minutes. I filled in a couple of dots on a piece of paper. I didn't have to write a god damned 1,500 word essay on why I felt my candidate deserved to win. I didn't have to critically evaluate specific statements they made, or analyze the sources they've provided in their arguments.

I said who I wanted and that was it.

And that is for something, in real life, that will actually matter.

And then I see the voting requirements for a debate site on the internet and just laugh and laugh and laugh.

LOL preach.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 3:05:05 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 2:36:13 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 4/27/2016 2:19:00 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
We're living in Bizzaro world here. You lament the lack of good voters so... raise the bar for voting? Make it harder for them to vote?

If I reduce the bar for voting, then even good voters can provide RFD's that are bad.

If they do that, then they aren't the "good voters" you are looking for.

Any vote that doesn't meet the standards is extraordinarily horrible. There are many votes that do meet the standards that are objectively poor.

So the standards are keeping out otherwise good voters who disagree that RFDs need to be that long and detailed and additionally aren't keeping out objectively poor votes? Then they've failed. That's the definition of failure. Scrap it. Get rid of them.

> But those that don't meet the current standards are bad beyond comparison. If a person is incapable of meeting the current standards, I'd never, ever want them to vote on any debate of mine -- even a full forfeit.

No, they aren't "bad beyond comparison." How do I know this? Because you can compare them to votes that are worse. You can look back before these ridiculous standards existed and make comparisons. Just dismissing them as "bad beyond comparison" is an excuse not to think critically about the situation.

Clearly you think the standards are good and that people should put more effort into voting whether poop has DNA than we do on who controls actual, real life nuclear weapons. Maybe you're in the majority on the site and the backlash is just a vocal minority.
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 3:12:06 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 2:19:00 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 4/27/2016 4:53:12 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 4/27/2016 4:25:21 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/26/2016 4:30:51 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Voting moderation should be scrapped altogether.

You keep saying "bad votes will always be countered by good ones" -- but there aren't many good voters around, are there? Name strong voters who're always there to vote on debates. Better a 0-0 tie than a loss to a terrible vote.

2 years ago I raised a rather big stink about voting moderation. Yeah, I realize that I pretty much burnt up any communal goodwill I have and I'm currently generally dismissed as a crank, but I think it's an interesting case study (http://www.debate.org...).

At the time, there was a hole voting moderation board. And the primary point was just to deal with obvious vote bombs and spam. They really weren't in the business of policing non-bomb, non-spam votes.

The general consensus (at least as far as I perceived) was that, in that case atleast, it had fucked up. It made the wrong move as my vote was neither a bomb nor spam. Eve airmax agreed that the deletion was a mistake.

Now, if you look at the vote I gave (quoted in the first post of that thread), and compare that to today's voting standards. I can't help but just laugh at the state of things.

Basically, a whole board scrutinizing that vote was viewed (generally) as wrong, and the solution to that is to reduce the board to a single person who now runs every vote through a fine-toothed comb? It's like a smoker getting an early diagnosis of lung cancer and their solution is to smoke twice as much.

We're living in Bizzaro world here. You lament the lack of good voters so... raise the bar for voting? Make it harder for them to vote?

I voted yesterday. Not on a debate here. No. Like, in real life. I voted in my state's primary. It took 5 minutes. I filled in a couple of dots on a piece of paper. I didn't have to write a god damned 1,500 word essay on why I felt my candidate deserved to win. I didn't have to critically evaluate specific statements they made, or analyze the sources they've provided in their arguments.

I said who I wanted and that was it.

And that is for something, in real life, that will actually matter.

And then I see the voting requirements for a debate site on the internet and just laugh and laugh and laugh.

Well said.
Tsar of DDO
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 4:28:29 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 4:30:51 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Voting moderation should be scrapped altogether.

In simple terms, along with a host of other terrible abuses of the system, we have people who make alt accounts to vote for themselves.

I view the issue as more or less a Laffer Curve (normally used for tax rates) for the number of meaningful good votes divided by the number of horrible ones. No vote moderation sets it near zero. Too much vote moderation, things also begin to approach zero.

Any vote moderation risks the removal or discouragement of some number of meaningful good votes. I am among those who see greater value in a smaller number of votes with active thought, as exemplified by someone like Bladerunner (http://www.debate.org...), than the very active moderation free voting we used to see (http://www.debate.org...).
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...
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 5:33:23 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 4:28:29 PM, Ragnar wrote:
At 4/26/2016 4:30:51 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Voting moderation should be scrapped altogether.

In simple terms, along with a host of other terrible abuses of the system, we have people who make alt accounts to vote for themselves.

That is not a voting issue, that is an account management issue. It's pretty clear in the Terms of Use that creating more than one account is disallowed for any reason. It's just never been enforced.

Now, to be fair, that rule (stated without exception) is pretty ridiculous. People get locked out of accounts, or may have other, legitimate reasons for needing to create a new account. Regardless, that rule has never been enforced for casual duplicate account creation. People have been free to regularly create new accounts (abandoning old ones) and even in some situations, maintaining more than one account concurrently, to the point of sharing accounts between users.

Point being, abuse of duplicate accounts has stemmed from lack of enforcement of this very basic rule. The solution should be obvious: enforce that rule. Creating a new rule to cover up poor execution of an existing one is foolish.

I view the issue as more or less a Laffer Curve (normally used for tax rates) for the number of meaningful good votes divided by the number of horrible ones. No vote moderation sets it near zero. Too much vote moderation, things also begin to approach zero.

If I interpret this correctly, then you're exaggerating. Good Votes (GV) divided by Bad Votes (BD) would only get "near" zero as BV approaches infinity (assuming GV >= 1). The debate with the highest number of votes (http://www.debate.org...) only has 105 votes. The worst ratio it could have is 0.0095 (again, assuming GV >= 1). With around 44,000 debates in the post-voting period, get a median-average of... 1 vote.

I'm not about to pull the data to do a mean-average, neither for votes or users (Out of 8078 voting users, your median-average is 4 votes per user), but it should be abundantly clear that the issue here is quantity, not quality of votes. I was going to try and apply Pareto Principles here, but I doubt it's even an 80-20 split.

You have a vast minority of members that even vote. A vast minority of voting members that vote frequently. And a vast minority of debates that get voted on.

Combat that.

Fix that.

Any vote moderation risks the removal or discouragement of some number of meaningful good votes. I am among those who see greater value in a smaller number of votes with active thought, as exemplified by someone like Bladerunner (http://www.debate.org...), than the very active moderation free voting we used to see (http://www.debate.org...).

And there are members who are the opposite. But here's the thing. Pro-moderation voters still vote, even under lax moderation. Anti-moderation voters don't vote, or vote less, under strong moderation.

So, between a method which allows both group to vote and a method that discourages one group from voting, you've chosen the path of discouragement.

When your primary problem is lack of voting.

That's insanity.
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 6:37:53 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 5:33:23 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 4/27/2016 4:28:29 PM, Ragnar wrote:
At 4/26/2016 4:30:51 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Voting moderation should be scrapped altogether.

In simple terms, along with a host of other terrible abuses of the system, we have people who make alt accounts to vote for themselves.

That is not a voting issue, that is an account management issue...

Except the moment they get far enough to cast a vote, it becomes a vote moderation issue. Due to use of different computers, often the alt-accounts are only detected based on their voting habits; to delete those accounts and leave their votes in place would be quite comical, but is what happens if vote moderation does nothing.

This does not even begin to address the host of other terrible abuses of the voting system. No moderation as you want, means nothing at all is done about blatant vote trading and blatant retaliatory voting.

I view the issue as more or less a Laffer Curve (normally used for tax rates) for the number of meaningful good votes divided by the number of horrible ones. No vote moderation sets it near zero. Too much vote moderation, things also begin to approach zero.

If I interpret this correctly, then you're exaggerating...

When you consider Vote Bombing Contest votes to be meaningful good votes for your calculation, I don't think our application of English is close enough for you to interpret it correctly.

Any vote moderation risks the removal or discouragement of some number of meaningful good votes. I am among those who see greater value in a smaller number of votes with active thought, as exemplified by someone like Bladerunner (http://www.debate.org...), than the very active moderation free voting we used to see (http://www.debate.org...).

And there are members who are the opposite. But here's the thing. Pro-moderation voters still vote, even under lax moderation. Anti-moderation voters don't vote, or vote less, under strong moderation.

So, between a method which allows both group to vote and a method that discourages one group from voting, you've chosen the path of discouragement.

When your primary problem is lack of voting.

That's insanity.

Again, without vote moderation this is what we had: http://www.debate.org...

I do not see the benefit in that type of active voting. But I am a vote snob, I'd rather people who are illiterate (or worse) simply not vote on this site.
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...
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 6:38:49 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 5:33:23 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
So, between a method which allows both group to vote and a method that discourages one group from voting, you've chosen the path of discouragement.

When your primary problem is lack of voting.

That's insanity.

Yeah, but I wouldn't want any of those votes on my debates that wouldn't pass moderation review. By wanting more votes, I think most people mean that they want more good votes.

Also, the analogy to voting the president is different from voting on debates. We aren't "voting" so much as judging the debate. We shouldn't be voting based on our opinion of the debater's positions but rather dissecting the debate to provide feedback. When voting for the POTUS, the endgoal is to put someone in office who we feel will best do their duty to the country. When judging debates, the endgoal is provide feedback that has educational value to the debater and show them how a neutral outsider viewed their debate and why this outsider thought that one debater's arguments were stronger.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 10:01:55 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 6:37:53 PM, Ragnar wrote:

Except the moment they get far enough to cast a vote, it becomes a vote moderation issue. Due to use of different computers, often the alt-accounts are only detected based on their voting habits; to delete those accounts and leave their votes in place would be quite comical, but is what happens if vote moderation does nothing.

Again, that's account management, not voting moderation. Find the illegal alt by whatever means, and delete the account and its presence (including votes) from the site. That's sensible. But that has nothing with requiring that people be Tolstoy to vote on a debate.

This does not even begin to address the host of other terrible abuses of the voting system. No moderation as you want, means nothing at all is done about blatant vote trading and blatant retaliatory voting.

The system now doesn't prevent that. It just means they have to be more eloquent in doing it. So rather than ridding the site of assholes, you're just making them more verbose.

I view the issue as more or less a Laffer Curve (normally used for tax rates) for the number of meaningful good votes divided by the number of horrible ones. No vote moderation sets it near zero. Too much vote moderation, things also begin to approach zero.

If I interpret this correctly, then you're exaggerating...

When you consider Vote Bombing Contest votes to be meaningful good votes for your calculation, I don't think our application of English is close enough for you to interpret it correctly.

Not sure what that has to do with my mathematical analysis of your conclusion.

Again, without vote moderation this is what we had: http://www.debate.org...

I see nothing wrong with that.

Meanwhile, you have stuff like thsi:

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

With arguments about why votes were removed, multiple comment RFD's spread across the comment sections. It's horrendous. You literally have to spend more time and effort reading and parsing the votes on the debate than the debate itself!

Go search google for actual debate judge ballots and look for samples and examples. And see if whether or not they'd meet the standards that are currently being employed on the site.

I do not see the benefit in that type of active voting. But I am a vote snob, I'd rather people who are illiterate (or worse) simply not vote on this site.

Again. Your solution to a voting shortage is to reduce the number of votes. Insanity.

You basically confirm what this vote moderation thing is all about. It's a circle jerk. You guys have gotten hold of the reigns and you're going to tighten them till only the small group of people you want in your club can participate in your club.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 10:03:40 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 6:38:49 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 4/27/2016 5:33:23 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
So, between a method which allows both group to vote and a method that discourages one group from voting, you've chosen the path of discouragement.

When your primary problem is lack of voting.

That's insanity.

Yeah, but I wouldn't want any of those votes on my debates that wouldn't pass moderation review. By wanting more votes, I think most people mean that they want more good votes.

Also, the analogy to voting the president is different from voting on debates. We aren't "voting" so much as judging the debate. We shouldn't be voting based on our opinion of the debater's positions but rather dissecting the debate to provide feedback. When voting for the POTUS, the endgoal is to put someone in office who we feel will best do their duty to the country. When judging debates, the endgoal is provide feedback that has educational value to the debater and show them how a neutral outsider viewed their debate and why this outsider thought that one debater's arguments were stronger.

Fair enough. So instead I've compared to to how actual debates are judged in real life, in professional, semi-professional forums. And I see much lower standards than are what are being complained about here.
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 10:36:32 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 10:01:55 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 4/27/2016 6:37:53 PM, Ragnar wrote:

Except the moment they get far enough to cast a vote, it becomes a vote moderation issue. Due to use of different computers, often the alt-accounts are only detected based on their voting habits; to delete those accounts and leave their votes in place would be quite comical, but is what happens if vote moderation does nothing.

Again, that's account management, not voting moderation. Find the illegal alt by whatever means, and delete the account and its presence (including votes) from the site. That's sensible. But that has nothing with requiring that people be Tolstoy to vote on a debate.

If you think deleting votes is not an act of vote moderation, I haven't a clue what you are trying to argue
.
This does not even begin to address the host of other terrible abuses of the voting system. No moderation as you want, means nothing at all is done about blatant vote trading and blatant retaliatory voting.

The system now doesn't prevent that. It just means they have to be more eloquent in doing it. So rather than ridding the site of assholes, you're just making them more verbose.

f you are correct, it causes the loss of only good members, and no "shole" members. Without naming names, we need only think of numerous short lived members in their early teens who were driven away by it, along with various religious fanatics who would not improve their votes on the basis of their chosen deity telling them to vote that way... But perhaps when you refer to the "aholes" you mean something while wholly excludes such easy examples?

I view the issue as more or less a Laffer Curve (normally used for tax rates) for the number of meaningful good votes divided by the number of horrible ones. No vote moderation sets it near zero. Too much vote moderation, things also begin to approach zero.

If I interpret this correctly, then you're exaggerating...

When you consider Vote Bombing Contest votes to be meaningful good votes for your calculation, I don't think our application of English is close enough for you to interpret it correctly.

Not sure what that has to do with my mathematical analysis of your conclusion.

Good for you.

Again, without vote moderation this is what we had: http://www.debate.org...

I see nothing wrong with that.

That speaks volumes about you, for starters the sheer number of votes on there which awarded sources to the side which did not use any (this is not complaining about any voter who simply did not award sources).

Meanwhile, you have stuff like thsi:

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

With arguments about why votes were removed, multiple comment RFD's spread across the comment sections. It's horrendous. You literally have to spend more time and effort reading and parsing the votes on the debate than the debate itself!

Go search google for actual debate judge ballots and look for samples and examples. And see if whether or not they'd meet the standards that are currently being employed on the site.

I do not see the benefit in that type of active voting. But I am a vote snob, I'd rather people who are illiterate (or worse) simply not vote on this site.

Again. Your solution to a voting shortage is to reduce the number of votes. Insanity.

You basically confirm what this vote moderation thing is all about. It's a circle jerk. You guys have gotten hold of the reigns and you're going to tighten them till only the small group of people you want in your club can participate in your club.

Ah more conspiracy theories from you, this time about an evil hemosexual cabal. But it's other people suffer "insanity."
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...
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 10:52:05 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 10:36:32 PM, Ragnar wrote:
At 4/27/2016 10:01:55 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 4/27/2016 6:37:53 PM, Ragnar wrote:

Except the moment they get far enough to cast a vote, it becomes a vote moderation issue. Due to use of different computers, often the alt-accounts are only detected based on their voting habits; to delete those accounts and leave their votes in place would be quite comical, but is what happens if vote moderation does nothing.

Again, that's account management, not voting moderation. Find the illegal alt by whatever means, and delete the account and its presence (including votes) from the site. That's sensible. But that has nothing with requiring that people be Tolstoy to vote on a debate.

If you think deleting votes is not an act of vote moderation, I haven't a clue what you are trying to argue

"Voting moderation" means that votes are the deliberate target of the act, not a mere consequence of some other act. If you don't see the difference between deleting the votes of a shill account and deleting the votes of a non-shill account, then I don't know what to say.

.
This does not even begin to address the host of other terrible abuses of the voting system. No moderation as you want, means nothing at all is done about blatant vote trading and blatant retaliatory voting.

The system now doesn't prevent that. It just means they have to be more eloquent in doing it. So rather than ridding the site of assholes, you're just making them more verbose.

f you are correct, it causes the loss of only good members, and no "shole" members. Without naming names, we need only think of numerous short lived members in their early teens who were driven away by it, along with various religious fanatics who would not improve their votes on the basis of their chosen deity telling them to vote that way... But perhaps when you refer to the "aholes" you mean something while wholly excludes such easy examples?

I have no idea what you are saying here.

Again, without vote moderation this is what we had: http://www.debate.org...

I see nothing wrong with that.

That speaks volumes about you, for starters the sheer number of votes on there which awarded sources to the side which did not use any (this is not complaining about any voter who simply did not award sources).

I think voting should just be a single number. I see no point in breaking it down based on different aspects of the vote.

Meanwhile, you have stuff like thsi:

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

With arguments about why votes were removed, multiple comment RFD's spread across the comment sections. It's horrendous. You literally have to spend more time and effort reading and parsing the votes on the debate than the debate itself!

Go search google for actual debate judge ballots and look for samples and examples. And see if whether or not they'd meet the standards that are currently being employed on the site.

I do not see the benefit in that type of active voting. But I am a vote snob, I'd rather people who are illiterate (or worse) simply not vote on this site.

Again. Your solution to a voting shortage is to reduce the number of votes. Insanity.

You basically confirm what this vote moderation thing is all about. It's a circle jerk. You guys have gotten hold of the reigns and you're going to tighten them till only the small group of people you want in your club can participate in your club.

Ah more conspiracy theories from you, this time about an evil hemosexual cabal. But it's other people suffer "insanity."

Conspiracy? You called yourself a vote snob who wishes that voting was limited to people who meet your own personal criteria for voting. I just restated that sentiment. Maybe you don't like the way I worded it, but that's a reflection on the odiousness of your view.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 10:54:06 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 10:52:05 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:

"Voting moderation" means that votes are the deliberate target of the act, not a mere consequence of some other act. If you don't see the difference between deleting the votes of a shill account as a consequence of deleting everything associated with that account and deleting the votes of a non-shill account, then I don't know what to say.

EDIT
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 5:10:06 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 4:30:51 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Voting moderation should be scrapped altogether.

Yes.
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 3:37:57 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 10:52:05 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 4/27/2016 10:36:32 PM, Ragnar wrote:
At 4/27/2016 10:01:55 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 4/27/2016 6:37:53 PM, Ragnar wrote:

Except the moment they get far enough to cast a vote, it becomes a vote moderation issue. Due to use of different computers, often the alt-accounts are only detected based on their voting habits; to delete those accounts and leave their votes in place would be quite comical, but is what happens if vote moderation does nothing.

Again, that's account management, not voting moderation. Find the illegal alt by whatever means, and delete the account and its presence (including votes) from the site. That's sensible. But that has nothing with requiring that people be Tolstoy to vote on a debate.

If you think deleting votes is not an act of vote moderation, I haven't a clue what you are trying to argue

"Voting moderation" means that votes are the deliberate target of the act, not a mere consequence of some other act. If you don't see the difference between deleting the votes of a shill account and deleting the votes of a non-shill account, then I don't know what to say.

As already stated "Due to use of different computers, often the alt-accounts are only detected based on their voting habits." In fact I'd bet money the reason they're not allowed to begin with, is voting issues. But yes, I do see the difference between difference types of horrible votes.

This does not even begin to address the host of other terrible abuses of the voting system. No moderation as you want, means nothing at all is done about blatant vote trading and blatant retaliatory voting.

The system now doesn't prevent that. It just means they have to be more eloquent in doing it. So rather than ridding the site of assholes, you're just making them more verbose.

f you are correct, it causes the loss of only good members, and no "shole" members. Without naming names, we need only think of numerous short lived members in their early teens who were driven away by it, along with various religious fanatics who would not improve their votes on the basis of their chosen deity telling them to vote that way... But perhaps when you refer to the "aholes" you mean something while wholly excludes such easy examples?

I have no idea what you are saying here.

Your claim that vote moderation has gotten rid of zero bad members, is obviously wrong.

Again, without vote moderation this is what we had: http://www.debate.org...

I see nothing wrong with that.

That speaks volumes about you, for starters the sheer number of votes on there which awarded sources to the side which did not use any (this is not complaining about any voter who simply did not award sources).

I think voting should just be a single number. I see no point in breaking it down based on different aspects of the vote.

Which addresses intentional abuse of the numbers how?

Meanwhile, you have stuff like thsi:

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

With arguments about why votes were removed, multiple comment RFD's spread across the comment sections. It's horrendous. You literally have to spend more time and effort reading and parsing the votes on the debate than the debate itself!

Go search google for actual debate judge ballots and look for samples and examples. And see if whether or not they'd meet the standards that are currently being employed on the site.

I do not see the benefit in that type of active voting. But I am a vote snob, I'd rather people who are illiterate (or worse) simply not vote on this site.

Again. Your solution to a voting shortage is to reduce the number of votes. Insanity.

You basically confirm what this vote moderation thing is all about. It's a circle jerk. You guys have gotten hold of the reigns and you're going to tighten them till only the small group of people you want in your club can participate in your club.

Ah more conspiracy theories from you, this time about an evil hemosexual cabal. But it's other people suffer "insanity."

Conspiracy? You called yourself a vote snob who wishes that voting was limited to people who meet your own personal criteria for voting. I just restated that sentiment. Maybe you don't like the way I worded it, but that's a reflection on the odiousness of your view.

Your utter failure at the English language is astounding. Shall we have a debate on basic definitions of words? If not, please go away.
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...
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 5:04:17 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 3:37:57 PM, Ragnar wrote:

The system now doesn't prevent that. It just means they have to be more eloquent in doing it. So rather than ridding the site of assholes, you're just making them more verbose.

f you are correct, it causes the loss of only good members, and no "shole" members. Without naming names, we need only think of numerous short lived members in their early teens who were driven away by it, along with various religious fanatics who would not improve their votes on the basis of their chosen deity telling them to vote that way... But perhaps when you refer to the "aholes" you mean something while wholly excludes such easy examples?

I have no idea what you are saying here.

Your claim that vote moderation has gotten rid of zero bad members, is obviously wrong.

I didn't say it got rid of zero.

That speaks volumes about you, for starters the sheer number of votes on there which awarded sources to the side which did not use any (this is not complaining about any voter who simply did not award sources).

I think voting should just be a single number. I see no point in breaking it down based on different aspects of the vote.

Which addresses intentional abuse of the numbers how?

If there is no number dedicated to sources then you cannot abuse a number dedicated to sources.

I do not see the benefit in that type of active voting. But I am a vote snob, I'd rather people who are illiterate (or worse) simply not vote on this site.

Again. Your solution to a voting shortage is to reduce the number of votes. Insanity.

You basically confirm what this vote moderation thing is all about. It's a circle jerk. You guys have gotten hold of the reigns and you're going to tighten them till only the small group of people you want in your club can participate in your club.

Ah more conspiracy theories from you, this time about an evil hemosexual cabal. But it's other people suffer "insanity."

Conspiracy? You called yourself a vote snob who wishes that voting was limited to people who meet your own personal criteria for voting. I just restated that sentiment. Maybe you don't like the way I worded it, but that's a reflection on the odiousness of your view.

Your utter failure at the English language is astounding. Shall we have a debate on basic definitions of words? If not, please go away.

So, when you were saying you didn't want illiterate people voting you were talking about people who literally cannot read or write? That's the target here of voting moderation?

See, as a normal person I read that as hyperbole. I did not believe you were talking about actually illiterate people. I interpreted it as you talking about people whose quality of writing was not up to a certain level or standard.

Am i wrong? Were you talking about people that literally cannot read or write? That you're worried (for some reason) that they are voting on debates they cannot read? That we have an outrageous voting moderation to combat this apparently monumental threat to the integrity of voting?

Please say yes.