Total Posts:106|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Vote Moderation Policy Discussion

airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 1:44:44 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
We have had several discussions about vote moderation broadly, and as it pertains to specifics votes. Today, I'd like to have a discussion about the most important aspect of vote moderation, and that is pertaining to the current vote moderation policies.

There are a few things I'd like to mention before we get to that, as we have had several discussions since the last one that I posted, and several issues have been brought up since then.

1) Vote moderation policies can not possibly cover every conceivable scenario.


One of the best examples of this is the recent discussion about how to deal with debates in which both debaters post arguments, but one of the debaters forfeits a round. Until recently, voters were allowed to award a single conduct point for that forfeit, and ignore everything else in the debate. A couple members felt this did a disservice to the rest of the debate, a community vote was taken to address this issue, and vote moderation adjusted the standards accordingly.

Another, more recent example, saw a vote removed from a debate in which a voter voted for the side that provided lengthy arguments that weren't sufficiently replied to. In other words, one side provided quality arguments that made their point, while the other side posted single sentences that hardly provided any content at all.

While it may be obvious to most which side won, vote moderation standards do not have a specific policy for dealing with this issue. The standards are what they are, and they do not become moot because of the length of arguments. Until a change is made to the standards, it is impossible for vote moderation to ignore those standards, even in cases like this where it may be obvious which side won.

Concerned members should consider what they would like vote moderation to do in these types of situations. We can either abide by the objective nature of the standards that require a voter to explain each awarded point sufficiently and touch on the relevant arguments, or we can simply ignore those standards in some cases, which would require a discretionary policy that allows vote moderation to make these types of judgement calls .

I would caution everyone from supporting that second option though, since while it may have been obvious who won in the above example, it is only a matter of time until we are regularly looking at debates that fall into grayer areas with such a policy in mind. So while in the above case it may have been preferable to some to simply dismiss the report as it has little to no impact (and the winner was obvious), it's the goal of vote moderation to review debates with the most objective criteria possible, lest vote moderation have to subjectively determine debate winners to determine the validity of a vote.

Ultimately, there are always going to be scenarios that vote moderation policies don't consider. These situations will make a vote removal seem unnecessary and annoying, but to maintain an objective standard, votes will have to abide by those standards across the board, unless we devise a reasonable alternative. I maintain that asking vote moderation to use more and more discretion in these cases, is far from ideal, and instead these rare annoyances (like the case above) are a reasonable cost for having a universal standard.

If we would like to come up with a policy to address that situation, as we did with regards to forfeited debates, I'm more than happy to lead a discussion on how to deal with that. But until that time, there's no way vote moderation can ignore the standards, simply because it's obvious which side one the debate (or other criteria relevant here). If you'd like to see a change to that (or make a policy suggestion) please post your thoughts in this thread.

2) Vote moderation manpower


This is mostly a continuation from the above discussion. I'd like to briefly mention that the removal of the vote being referred to above, contrary to a few suggestions, has nothing to do with vote moderation having insufficient manpower to deal with reported votes. Even if we had 10 vote moderators, the vote in question would be reviewed for removal 10 times, if each vote moderator in this scenario reviewed it and evaluated it based on the standards.

So again, it's not a question of manpower, but a question of how to make vote moderation standards address every conceivable situation. I think it's fair to say that the vote in question shouldn't be removed, but I do believe that it must be conceded that removing it is compliant with the current standards. If we want to make an exception to those standards for debates of that sort, that is perfectly fine - but it's not an issue of manpower. Rather what it is, as I've mentioned, is that the current policies do not address every possible debate scenario, which creates some circumstances in which a vote for the side that obviously won, is removed due to those standards.

We can certainly change those standards, and that is the purpose of this thread, but I have no interest in humoring discussions in which vote moderation is being asked to simply ignore those standards in yet to be determined (and perhaps arbitrary) circumstances. If we want to define those circumstances, or if the community genuinely would like vote moderation to use greater discretion in more scenarios (again, something which I think is problematic) then that is perfectly fine. But until then, the standards are what they are, and they are sufficiently enforced by the individuals tasked with doing so.

To reiterate, this isn't an issue of insufficient manpower to review votes, but an issue of standards that don't (and likely never will) address every possible exception that most would consider reasonable. We can certainly make new policies (or a singular broad policy) to deal with those rare cases, and that is what this thread is intended for.

3) Vote moderator incompetence

This is an assertion that, to my knowledge, has only been asserted (and is only believed) by one individual. Since it would seem to be the case that there isn't any genuine belief in the community that vote moderation issues and problems stem from vote moderator incompetence, I'd like those issues to be discussed elsewhere. As I naturally believe it to be true that assertions with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence (and that's what I will continue to do until the state of the assertion has changed), I believe it is perfectly reasonable for me to insist that no space in this thread be used for that agenda. This thread is intended to discuss the vote moderation policies as they currently exist (and some other issues stated), and posts regarding the incompetence of vote moderators should be placed elsewhere.

I want to preemptively address accusations of censorship now. This thread is intended to spell out the current policies, to discuss those policies, and to come up with alterations to those policies as the community deems necessary. If you have an issue with vote moderation's competence, and/or specifically with a vote moderator, create a thread for that, and you can complain about them and insult them until your heart is content.

What you should NOT do, is use this thread to pursue your specific agenda, and in so doing distract from the purpose of this thread. While that might seem harsh, I unfortunately believe it may be necessary to point this out as the previous attempt I made at a vote moderation discussion was trolled and then spammed and I very much do not want to see that occur this time. I very much want to resolve the issues with vote moderation, and to do so, I am going to insist that the discussion stay on track. If you want to discuss something else, do it somewhere else.
Debate.org Moderator
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 1:44:58 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
4) My personal beliefs

I'm going to touch on this because I want to dispel any notion that vote moderation policies are something I have a stake in on a personal level (beyond what I believe is best for the site and in compliance with my desire to do what the community has expressed). I also believe that by touching on this I can possibly provide some insight into why certain things are the way they are, and how I feel about certain changes and the state of things.

Much of the explanations for how vote moderation came to be was stated in the previous discussion thread. In that thread I explained that the 7-point system is inherently flawed, and if left unchecked, abused in a majority of cases. These abuses are mostly due to lazy and ideological voting, something that the 7-point system easily allows. It's easy enough to award arguments to one side with almost no explanation, and then throw in some extra points on top of that to give "your side" the edge.

I go into depth on this in the previous thread, so I wont do that here. Suffice it to say that some standards in the 7-point system are necessary to maintain"Fair" voting, and striking a balance between accessible voting (making it simple and easy enough so that people will do it), and fairness, has always been the goal.

To achieve that goal, the main purpose has always been to give debaters the opportunity to seek recourse for things entirely unfair and out of their control. For example, forcing voters to explain S&G or Conduct points being awarded, is a simple and fair standard for vote moderation to enforce, and inherently discourages lazy and ideological voting. Debaters are justified in being upset by seeing someone "juice" their vote with these categories, and having a mechanism of recourse for these situations is first and foremost what vote moderation is intended for.

Conversely, a forfeited round is entirely within a debaters control, and that is why I strongly disagree with the new policy that doesn't allow them to be penalized exclusively for that. In principal, it would be great if every voter always explained arguments in their vote, but this is not the main goal of vote moderation as described above, and it is certainly not unfair for a debater that forfeited a round to be penalized for it. However, the community feels differently about this, many discussions were had about it, and ultimately a new policy was instituted, and that is perfectly fine.

As vote moderation has become more formal, more and more scenarios have to be addressed, and more specific policies have to be instituted in some form or another. This is the natural evolution to these types of things, and it creates a new set of challenges. I'll touch on this a bit later, but I think it's important to note this when it comes to the awarding of argument points.

While vote moderation used to merely insist that voters "Explain all points awarded", it has evolved to become more specific about what it means to "explain". Where it may have been sufficient at one point to simply say "Pro's X argument was never rebutted", it has become apparent that such a standard as that, allows for continued abuse, and so the standards have made it a requirement that voters address arguments by both side in a more comprehensive manner.

This certainly has the effect of discouraging voters. Any standard that requires more thought and time naturally will, so the question I ask myself is if these standards are conducive to the balance as described above, and I hope that anyone reading this will offer their thoughts on that and offer suggestions for ways to better encourage more voting, that is also good and fair voting.

I think it's important to be reluctant to make things more complex and more strict, and I find that we are at a point in which we need to consider where we are, and how we will move forward.

To that end, I am of two minds on this.

1) The more liberal thought process I have on this is that debaters have tons of options for how they set up voting. They can use the up/down, judge voting system and have all their votes be of high quality. They can use the opt-in voting system and have the standards be even higher. They can use the NO RFD system and then mostly not have to worry at all about votes being removed - solving both the problem of over and under moderation.

So, a part of me believes that vote moderation is an unnecessary mechanism to police a system in which there is already an alternative. In other words, if someone chooses open 7-point voting, they have specifically chosen the easily abused lesser quality system and we should abide by their choice.

2) The problem with the thinking above is that the 7-point system isn't something that the average new member chooses with any knowledge of what they are actually choosing. They just go with the default and they think it will be nice to see how they debated based on the feedback of the 7-point system. In an anarchic voting system (no voting moderation) they would essentially be choosing the system that tends towards abuse and arbitrary awarding of points. While there is a valid argument that by allowing more people to more easily vote on these debates, the numbers would balance the abuse out, the problem still exists that debaters are beholden to which side is going to acquire more votes that are abused (more "juiced" votes), more counter votes based often enough on subjective means and ideology, and ultimately the basic wild west voting mechanisms.

While the older members (I hit 5 years on DDO yesterday, and anyone with 3 or more years) should remember Wild West voting and the pros and cons of that, it's worth mentioning that once that gate is opened, it will be far worse than it was in past years, as the voting leaderboard now encourages as much lazy voting as possible.

There are pros and cons of anarchic wild west voting, and we certainly should consider that, but the conclusions I have drawn from above is that noobs aren't choosing the 7-point system because they understand what it is and want anarchic easily abused style voting, but because they don't know what it is. That is why vote moderation was designed to mitigate the effects of the abundance of improper votes, and create a means to discourage the methods in which the 7-point system is abused.

I believe that noobs will only grow discouraged if we dismantle the means to seek recourse for unfair voting, and that is what vote moderation is intended for.

With that said, it is worthwhile to discuss what a return to wild west voting would mean and look like. I'm not trying to frame any discussion about vote moderation as the status quo versus anarchy (we can certainly formulate a middle ground between those), but anarchic style voting is something that in all fairness should be considered.

The discussion intended in this thread though is mostly for discussing what the current standards are, and how they can be adjusted to better address the goal I described above. We want voting to be fair, but we don't want to over moderate and discourage voting. Are there policies that can better address this? Can we discourage ideological and lazy voting with other policies that don't make voting too difficult?

I'd like you to consider those questions as you read the vote moderation policies as they are presented below. Consider why each policy exists, and consider an alternative that keeps that policy in mind.
Debate.org Moderator
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 1:45:37 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
5) Public vote moderation adjudication PM

This is an idea that was suggested recently, and I'm not really sure what issue it was meant to address by being suggested. In my belief, the crux of the matter of vote moderation is coming to a consensus on what those policies should be, thus the creation of this thread. The fact that the vote moderation PM is private, doesn't to my understanding, lead to any of the issues stated lately. The votes people disagree with being removed would still be removed because of the current standards. If we want to change that, then we should do so, and change the policies that will be presented shortly.

So again, I'm not sure what having the PM being open to everyone will achieve as it pertains to the issues being brought up lately, so the benefit of it is something that needs to be provided before seriously being considered.

Even without that information, I'll address this anyway. There are some downsides to this idea. Firstly, I don't want anyone to be discouraged from reporting votes, so I'd have to exclude that from the vote report submission, since the reporter might be unfairly hassled for reporting a particular vote. While that might be rare, it is something I'm concerned about. While I certainly can exclude that information, the vote moderator that is reviewing the vote may not know why the vote is being reported, and without having the reported contact information, might not get some extra insight. It's not a huge thing, but it's a minor adjustment that would have an effect.

I often use the vote moderation PM to keep records of potential multi-accounts since that often manifests itself as self-voting. Those posts are preliminary investigative reports that are posted merely for record keeping since the votes were reported. I then go back to those and investigate the issue, but let vote moderation know that a vote is being removed outside of regular vote moderation standards. This cross moderation scenario would have to be dealt with entirely differently as I don't want that type of record keeping public. Members under investigation for multi accounting have this investigation kept private so that assumptions of their guilt aren't spread publicly. While I do make comments to debates stating that I have removed a vote for reasons I don't specify (so that it's fair from a vote moderation perspective and on record publicly to some degree), this open vote moderation PM would create a scenario that those investigations would be more difficult and become public more quickly and likely lead to further accusation against potentially innocent members. The fix here isn't difficult, I'd just have to keep records elsewhere, but it would create an inevitable vote report record keeping gap.

Vote moderation has a general policy of removing voting privileges at certain points, but makes discretionary calls in some cases, and discusses whether or not to remove members voting privileges based on the voting conduct displayed so far. These discussions aren't something in some cases that I'd want to be public because we are discussing a member's past votes and their ability to vote properly in the future. These discussions can easily be misinterpreted, or even be viewed as insulting to some members (that's never the intent though), and therefore I do feel it is best if those discussions are kept private.

Some other issues that would be involved is unnecessary discussion and spammy content in the PM. Right now, the PM is very straight forward. I post the reports, the head VM posts their recommendation, and the deputy posts an update on contacting the voters. Any other issues are discussed in a very straight forward way, with a minimum of side conversation. If the PM is open to everyone, it increases the chances of things being buried and things being missed.

So those are just a few of the issues, and I'm not sure what is solved by making the PM public.

If however it is suggested that some of the vote moderation issues could be resolved (issues that I believe are entirely related to the current standards themselves) then there would be no reason to just have an open PM. Instead, I could just post all of the vote reports to a thread in the misc forum, and have the vote moderator posts the recommendations there. This, of course, creates the same problems as the above, but this idea of an open vote moderation review process, doesn't even require the existence of a PM to begin with.

I suppose we could just do the reviews in this thread, and all other side moderation stuff could be done privately in a PM. The problem with this is that it is more convenient to do in a PM since a notification is given, and all of the information is in the same place.

I don't have any issue with having this being public, but I do need some compelling reason for why this should happen in terms of what benefits it could create, for pursuing this frankly far less convenient method. I understand this is an inherently more transparent method, though the system is already very transparent. Every removal/non removal is already made public, so some compelling explanation for how this change will address and resolve a specific problem is needed so that the process can be made far less convenient for vote moderation.

6) The purpose of this thread


The purpose of this thread is to present the current draft of vote moderation policies. What you will find below is the simplest explanation yet for how vote moderation moderates votes, and the standards that it applies. My intent here is to 1) Finalize this draft as acceptable in explaining clearly what the standards are, and 2) Finalize this draft as reflecting the standards that the community actually wants.

We have had these discussions many times and this current draft does reflect what those discussions and needs have culminated in. But it is important to take a step back, look at what all of that has manifested in, and ask ourselves if this is really what we want the standards to be.

Please keep in mind that the goal of vote moderation is to pursue the fairest system possible that encourages the most voting. Finding that balance is paramount, so while we could make things more strict, I do believe the current standards address most of the issues with unfair voting. Similarly, consider what making the standards more lax would mean. It would be nice if voting is easy and only takes a short time to do, but consider what the resulting votes would look like. Recognize that voters will take advantage of whatever allowances are given to them, and that if we allow voters to be lax in any area, then votes will be lax in that area. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, it's just worth keeping in mind what the goal is here, and how we define policies to reach that goal.

These policies have been considered and tried and reconsidered over several years, so it's not as if this was just thrown together without the necessary consideration for the outcome. But as I mentioned, it is worth taking a look at where we are currently, and how we can better approach vote moderation entirely to better meet the needs of the site, and the preferences of everyone.

Thank you.

I'd like to thank BoT and Whiteflame for their work on the following draft.
Debate.org Moderator
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 1:47:40 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
**************************************************************************************
Vote Moderation Policy Guide

The purpose of this guide is to explain the vote moderation policies here on Debate.org. This includes the standards to be used when placing a sufficient vote and the key reasons why a vote will be removed or deemed insufficient. In essence, this guide covers our general course of action when dealing with reported votes.

Section I. What is a Sufficient Vote/Reason for Decision


Vote Moderation defines a sufficient vote as one that explains *why* you thought one side had better arguments, higher quality sources, superior spelling and/or grammar, or superior conduct. If those respective standards are upheld within a vote that awards points for any of those four sections, then the vote will be deemed sufficient by Vote Moderation.

A) Which side had better Arguments


There are two key requirements to placing a sufficient reason for decision when deciding which side had better arguments:

The first is that the voter needs to reference specific arguments and/or counter-arguments from *both* sides that impacted their reason for favoring one side over the other. The second necessity is that the voter needs to explain *how* those arguments impacted the outcome that the voter arrived at in the end.

B) Which side had higher quality Sources

The key to placing a sufficient reason for awarding sources is an emphasis on quality, not quantity. This means that the voter needs to explain how the sources were relevant to the debate. This requires that the voter explain how the sources impacted the debate, directly assessing the strength of at least one source, and explaining how it either strengthened or weakened the argument it was utilized for. Even if one side does not present a source, the voter must at least establish the relevance of the other side's sources.

C) Which side had superior Spelling and/or Grammar


The key to placing a sufficient reason for awarding spelling and/or grammar starts by giving specific references to the mistakes made by one side or the other. More importantly though, these spelling and/or grammatical mistakes need to be excessive. A good rule of thumb is that if the spelling or grammar render the arguments incoherent or incomprehensible, the coherent side is awarded these points. While this can be somewhat subjective, it should be clear from the vote why a given argument is difficult to read, and not just how many errors a given side has made.

D) Which side had better Conduct

When voting for which side had better conduct, the voter must provide specific references to the instances of poor conduct in their vote. Furthermore, there are two main factors necessary for an acceptable reason:

The first is if one side was excessively rude, profane, used unfair tactics, broke the debate rules, or forfeited one or more rounds in the debate without reasonable and given cause. The second pertains specifically to awarding conduct *solely* for forfeited rounds. If this is the case, then the voter must also explain arguments, unless the debate is forfeited by half or more of its rounds. Then and only then would a vote that awards only conduct points be acceptable.

Section II. Reasons why a vote would be removed or deemed insufficient.

Vote Moderation will remove any reported vote that is deemed insufficient. In Section I., we covered what would make a vote sufficient in accordance with site voting standards. In this section we will cover reasons that would make a vote insufficient.

A) Failing to explain every single point you award


If you award conduct and argument points and explain why you awarded arguments, but fail to explain why you awarded conduct, then your vote will be removed.

B) Failing to explain *why* you awarded a point

If you say, "Con had better arguments," but fail to explain *why* Con had better arguments, then your vote will be removed. The reasoning must be specific and relate solely to the debate being judged. This also applies to Conduct, S&G, and Sources.

C) Voting based on personal bias

While it is recognized that personal bias will factor into decisions as a matter of course, your RFD must be as objective as possible. This means that if a voter employs clearly biased reasoning (e.g. "I voted for Con because I liked his argument more", "I voted for Pro because ______ is wrong", "I voted for Con because of I know that Pro is wrong", and "I voted for Pro because I don't like Con) as the reason for their awarding points, then that vote will be removed.

D) Voting based on outside influence

The voter must assess the content of the debate and *only* the debate, any reasoning based on arguments made or information given outside of the debate rounds is unacceptable. This includes reasoning that stems from already-placed votes, comment sections, and separate forums. If this is evident in your vote, the vote will be removed.

E) Voting based on nonsensical, objectively false, or contradictory reasons.

If your reason for voting just doesn't make any sense, claims that Pro or Con did something that they did not actually do, or says that Pro had better arguments but you accidentally voted Con, then your vote will be removed.

Section III. Special Circumstances

There are special circumstances that could determine whether a vote will be removed or not. In this section we will review these circumstances.

A) Full-forfeit Debates


A full-forfeit debate is defined as a debate that has no argument presented by one side and more than half of its rounds are forfeited. When this is the case, these debates are considered full forfeit debates and are not moderated unless a voter votes for the forfeiting side.

B) No reason is required for voting

Some debaters opt to require no reason for decision when placing a vote. This is part of the options for how a debate can be structured, and thus is established upon instigating the debate. These debates are not moderated.

C) Troll Debates

If a debate is publicly designated as a troll debate, or if both sides present arguments that are done for the sake of trolling, then the debate is not moderated.

D) Stricter Opt-In Standards for Voting

Some debaters might prefer the stricter opt-in standards for voting. When these standards are applied, *every* argument and rebuttal must be significantly addressed by the judge. To be clear, this does not require that the voter specifically reference every single argument, but that it is clear through their RFD that they factored in any points of substance. Failure to do so will result in the vote being removed.

E) Statute of Limitations

When voting on a debate has already been completed for over the period of 1 month, we deem it as being past the statute of limitations and therefore do not moderate those votes.

**************************************************************************************
Debate.org Moderator
imabench
Posts: 21,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 2:20:32 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Id ask for a 'TLDR' version, but knowing you I think that this IS the TLDR version XD
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

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

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 2:25:54 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
The very fact that it took 4 full posts to address what should be the simplest function on this site is, itself, a demonstration of why it should be scrapped.

Voting should be low effort. RFD's in actual, real, debates, are not a measure by which votes themselves are judged to be legit, but rather meant as constructive feedback for the debaters, at the discretion of the judge.

What exists now on this site is nothing short of a monstrosity.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 2:27:36 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 2:20:32 AM, imabench wrote:
Id ask for a 'TLDR' version, but knowing you I think that this IS the TLDR version XD

Post #4 is the current vote moderation policies... state whatever agreement or disagreement you have with them
Debate.org Moderator
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 2:29:05 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
I very long, however, I will respond in just a few words.

Vote moderation is overly strict. Keep the vote bombs to a minimum, otherwise let people vote.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 2:29:09 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 2:20:32 AM, imabench wrote:
Id ask for a 'TLDR' version, but knowing you I think that this IS the TLDR version XD

This is the only thing that matters:

"The more liberal thought process I have on this is that debaters have tons of options for how they set up voting. They can use the up/down, judge voting system and have all their votes be of high quality. They can use the opt-in voting system and have the standards be even higher. They can use the NO RFD system and then mostly not have to worry at all about votes being removed - solving both the problem of over and under moderation.

So, a part of me believes that vote moderation is an unnecessary mechanism to police a system in which there is already an alternative. In other words, if someone chooses open 7-point voting, they have specifically chosen the easily abused lesser quality system and we should abide by their choice."


That's it. That's the end of the discussion. That should be the beginning and end of the discussion here.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 2:29:47 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 2:25:54 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
The very fact that it took 4 full posts to address what should be the simplest function on this site is, itself, a demonstration of why it should be scrapped.

Fair enough, though I like to be thorough, and I don't posts these discussions threads too often, so I wanted to touch on each of the issues brought up recently.

They are mostly tangential to the issue of addressing the policies stated on post #4.

Voting should be low effort. RFD's in actual, real, debates, are not a measure by which votes themselves are judged to be legit, but rather meant as constructive feedback for the debaters, at the discretion of the judge.

What exists now on this site is nothing short of a monstrosity.

That's what I want to be discussed. Surely there is a reasonable middle ground between votes that are too high effort and votes that simply state "Pro won".
Debate.org Moderator
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 2:30:15 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
I should also say, I have been less inclined recently to even bother reading complete debates because I know I am not going to the trouble of voting.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 2:32:23 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 2:29:09 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 5/1/2016 2:20:32 AM, imabench wrote:
Id ask for a 'TLDR' version, but knowing you I think that this IS the TLDR version XD

This is the only thing that matters:

"The more liberal thought process I have on this is that debaters have tons of options for how they set up voting. They can use the up/down, judge voting system and have all their votes be of high quality. They can use the opt-in voting system and have the standards be even higher. They can use the NO RFD system and then mostly not have to worry at all about votes being removed - solving both the problem of over and under moderation.

So, a part of me believes that vote moderation is an unnecessary mechanism to police a system in which there is already an alternative. In other words, if someone chooses open 7-point voting, they have specifically chosen the easily abused lesser quality system and we should abide by their choice."


That's it. That's the end of the discussion. That should be the beginning and end of the discussion here.

While I did address part of the problem with this, that's the thinking I have and I don't have a problem with it. Members will complain that their debates are constantly vote bombed though, but I suppose just telling them to use other voting settings is the solution to that.

The issue is though, creating a reasonable standard for the 7-point default... if people want it to be a free for all considering that we have other options, then I believe that is perfectly fine.
Debate.org Moderator
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 2:32:57 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 2:29:47 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/1/2016 2:25:54 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
The very fact that it took 4 full posts to address what should be the simplest function on this site is, itself, a demonstration of why it should be scrapped.

Fair enough, though I like to be thorough, and I don't posts these discussions threads too often, so I wanted to touch on each of the issues brought up recently.

They are mostly tangential to the issue of addressing the policies stated on post #4.

Voting should be low effort. RFD's in actual, real, debates, are not a measure by which votes themselves are judged to be legit, but rather meant as constructive feedback for the debaters, at the discretion of the judge.

What exists now on this site is nothing short of a monstrosity.

That's what I want to be discussed. Surely there is a reasonable middle ground between votes that are too high effort and votes that simply state "Pro won".

Just because there are two diametric sides to an issue doesn't mean there is a "reasonable" middle ground. It's like the whole creation/evolution "teach the controversy" nonsense. The existence of two sides to an issue doesn't mean each are equally right/wrong with the best choice being a compromise. It's possible for one to be right and another to be wrong.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 2:34:18 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 2:29:05 AM, TBR wrote:
I very long, however, I will respond in just a few words.

Vote moderation is overly strict. Keep the vote bombs to a minimum, otherwise let people vote.

I agree that vote moderation is strict, because it insists on specific criteria to make a vote valid and some don't want to spend the time to meet those standards.

If we don't have standards, how do we keep vote bombs to a minimum? You have to define vote bomb, and then define standards to mitigate that... I'm happy to hear your suggestions for just keeping vote bombs to a minimum
Debate.org Moderator
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 2:37:08 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 2:32:23 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/1/2016 2:29:09 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 5/1/2016 2:20:32 AM, imabench wrote:
Id ask for a 'TLDR' version, but knowing you I think that this IS the TLDR version XD

This is the only thing that matters:

"The more liberal thought process I have on this is that debaters have tons of options for how they set up voting. They can use the up/down, judge voting system and have all their votes be of high quality. They can use the opt-in voting system and have the standards be even higher. They can use the NO RFD system and then mostly not have to worry at all about votes being removed - solving both the problem of over and under moderation.

So, a part of me believes that vote moderation is an unnecessary mechanism to police a system in which there is already an alternative. In other words, if someone chooses open 7-point voting, they have specifically chosen the easily abused lesser quality system and we should abide by their choice."


That's it. That's the end of the discussion. That should be the beginning and end of the discussion here.

While I did address part of the problem with this, that's the thinking I have and I don't have a problem with it. Members will complain that their debates are constantly vote bombed though, but I suppose just telling them to use other voting settings is the solution to that.

What else would be the solution? If a member created a 2-round debate with a 1,000 character limit, then complained to you that the debate have enough room/rounds to make his point, what would your response be?

The issue is though, creating a reasonable standard for the 7-point default... if people want it to be a free for all considering that we have other options, then I believe that is perfectly fine.

Having guidelines is fine. Guidelines are great. But saying you have to follow them or you can't vote at all is another. Votes have (and should have) a subjective component. And any adequate voting guide will therefore necessarily have an interpretive element.

Having a person or a board using their interpretation to judge another person's interpretation is inherently problematic. Again, the point of providing an RFD is a bonus to the debaters, not as an elaborate CAPTCHA.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 2:38:01 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 2:34:18 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/1/2016 2:29:05 AM, TBR wrote:
I very long, however, I will respond in just a few words.

Vote moderation is overly strict. Keep the vote bombs to a minimum, otherwise let people vote.

I agree that vote moderation is strict, because it insists on specific criteria to make a vote valid and some don't want to spend the time to meet those standards.

If we don't have standards, how do we keep vote bombs to a minimum? You have to define vote bomb, and then define standards to mitigate that... I'm happy to hear your suggestions for just keeping vote bombs to a minimum

I agree finding this balance is very tough. First question is, are the current polices to strict and having a negative effect. I think the answer to this question is yes. So, somewhere less strict than now, right?

A vote bomb to me is like a vote on one of my first debates. All points went to my opponent with a RFD of something like "LOL". I think that counts, so somewhere above that?
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 2:38:11 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 2:32:57 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 5/1/2016 2:29:47 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/1/2016 2:25:54 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
The very fact that it took 4 full posts to address what should be the simplest function on this site is, itself, a demonstration of why it should be scrapped.

Fair enough, though I like to be thorough, and I don't posts these discussions threads too often, so I wanted to touch on each of the issues brought up recently.

They are mostly tangential to the issue of addressing the policies stated on post #4.

Voting should be low effort. RFD's in actual, real, debates, are not a measure by which votes themselves are judged to be legit, but rather meant as constructive feedback for the debaters, at the discretion of the judge.

What exists now on this site is nothing short of a monstrosity.

That's what I want to be discussed. Surely there is a reasonable middle ground between votes that are too high effort and votes that simply state "Pro won".

Just because there are two diametric sides to an issue doesn't mean there is a "reasonable" middle ground. It's like the whole creation/evolution "teach the controversy" nonsense.

I realize this. There's no middle ground between fact and fiction.

The existence of two sides to an issue doesn't mean each are equally right/wrong with the best choice being a compromise. It's possible for one to be right and another to be wrong.

A poster in this thread already suggested that vote moderation is too strict and that it should just be focused on eliminating vote bombs. I think that is perfectly reasonable, though the suggestion doesn't suggest any way to do that. If we just get rid of the very worst votes, we have to determine what the very worst votes are and enforce that standard.

I offered the two thoughts on vote moderation that you referenced, because I do believe that the first line of thinking is reasonable and you seem to agree that it is the preferred way to proceed here. I do believe though that there are plenty who will disagree with that, and would like to see vote moderation become more lax, but still moderate votes to some degree.
Debate.org Moderator
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 2:41:43 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
You know... I don't want to spend time on this now, but I have been thinking about the topic some. One thing I keep coming back to is, what is MY part on the debates. I come to this.

1) I have no interest in doing homework assignments to be graded.
2) I have no interest in being "taught" how to grade a debate.
3) I would LIKE to vote more on the debates, and what would make me to that.

So... Take that for whatever its worth.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 2:44:51 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 2:38:11 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/1/2016 2:32:57 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 5/1/2016 2:29:47 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/1/2016 2:25:54 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
The very fact that it took 4 full posts to address what should be the simplest function on this site is, itself, a demonstration of why it should be scrapped.

Fair enough, though I like to be thorough, and I don't posts these discussions threads too often, so I wanted to touch on each of the issues brought up recently.

They are mostly tangential to the issue of addressing the policies stated on post #4.

Voting should be low effort. RFD's in actual, real, debates, are not a measure by which votes themselves are judged to be legit, but rather meant as constructive feedback for the debaters, at the discretion of the judge.

What exists now on this site is nothing short of a monstrosity.

That's what I want to be discussed. Surely there is a reasonable middle ground between votes that are too high effort and votes that simply state "Pro won".

Just because there are two diametric sides to an issue doesn't mean there is a "reasonable" middle ground. It's like the whole creation/evolution "teach the controversy" nonsense.

I realize this. There's no middle ground between fact and fiction.

The existence of two sides to an issue doesn't mean each are equally right/wrong with the best choice being a compromise. It's possible for one to be right and another to be wrong.

A poster in this thread already suggested that vote moderation is too strict and that it should just be focused on eliminating vote bombs. I think that is perfectly reasonable, though the suggestion doesn't suggest any way to do that. If we just get rid of the very worst votes, we have to determine what the very worst votes are and enforce that standard.

I offered the two thoughts on vote moderation that you referenced, because I do believe that the first line of thinking is reasonable and you seem to agree that it is the preferred way to proceed here. I do believe though that there are plenty who will disagree with that, and would like to see vote moderation become more lax, but still moderate votes to some degree.

I got into this discussion with Ragnar. Do I think that no votes should ever be deleted? No. But I don't think that any act which results in a vote deletion is "vote moderation."

"Vote Moderation" is a policy in which voting in general is controlled and mediated. Votes are parsed and judged and held to a standard. The standard of voting in general is the goal here.

Deleting vote bombs or voting fraud (via alternate accounts) is merely part of other areas of site-wide moderation (dealing with spam, enforcing the TOS) that just sometimes happens to involve getting rid of a vote. And that's how it should be presented.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 2:46:49 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 2:37:08 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 5/1/2016 2:32:23 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/1/2016 2:29:09 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 5/1/2016 2:20:32 AM, imabench wrote:
Id ask for a 'TLDR' version, but knowing you I think that this IS the TLDR version XD

This is the only thing that matters:

"The more liberal thought process I have on this is that debaters have tons of options for how they set up voting. They can use the up/down, judge voting system and have all their votes be of high quality. They can use the opt-in voting system and have the standards be even higher. They can use the NO RFD system and then mostly not have to worry at all about votes being removed - solving both the problem of over and under moderation.

So, a part of me believes that vote moderation is an unnecessary mechanism to police a system in which there is already an alternative. In other words, if someone chooses open 7-point voting, they have specifically chosen the easily abused lesser quality system and we should abide by their choice."


That's it. That's the end of the discussion. That should be the beginning and end of the discussion here.

While I did address part of the problem with this, that's the thinking I have and I don't have a problem with it. Members will complain that their debates are constantly vote bombed though, but I suppose just telling them to use other voting settings is the solution to that.

What else would be the solution? If a member created a 2-round debate with a 1,000 character limit, then complained to you that the debate have enough room/rounds to make his point, what would your response be?

I assume you that you mean that "the debate *didn't" have enough room to make his point"... correct me if I'm mistaken. And your point is correct (assuming my assumption is correct) that I'd just tell them to create more character space for their next debate. These aren't equivalent things though as new members understand character limitations, but don't recognize that the 7-point system is inherently flawed and will generate terrible and arbitrary votes on their debate. But again, they'll live and learn and choose something else the next time, so I don't necessarily disagree with you in principal on this. I brought the issue up because I think it's a valid point, and I brought up the counter argument because I believe it has some merit. In any case, I think there is a need to discuss this and consider it as the way to move forward, and I said so in the above posts

The issue is though, creating a reasonable standard for the 7-point default... if people want it to be a free for all considering that we have other options, then I believe that is perfectly fine.

Having guidelines is fine. Guidelines are great. But saying you have to follow them or you can't vote at all is another. Votes have (and should have) a subjective component. And any adequate voting guide will therefore necessarily have an interpretive element.

Having a person or a board using their interpretation to judge another person's interpretation is inherently problematic. Again, the point of providing an RFD is a bonus to the debaters, not as an elaborate CAPTCHA.

I understand this, and it's why this and all previous discussions have taken place. There is a desire from some in the community to see that votes have some minimum standard, and there is also a desire from some that voting be easy and simple enough to do. I merely apply feedback into action and the current status is what that feedback has brought us to.

I'm hoping that this discussion will better focus on all of this and perhaps change things to better reflect whatever the current community thinking is.
Debate.org Moderator
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 2:53:57 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 1:44:44 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
We have had several discussions about vote moderation broadly, and as it pertains to specifics votes. Today, I'd like to have a discussion about the most important aspect of vote moderation, and that is pertaining to the current vote moderation policies.

There are a few things I'd like to mention before we get to that, as we have had several discussions since the last one that I posted, and several issues have been brought up since then.

1) Vote moderation policies can not possibly cover every conceivable scenario.


One of the best examples of this is the recent discussion about how to deal with debates in which both debaters post arguments, but one of the debaters forfeits a round. Until recently, voters were allowed to award a single conduct point for that forfeit, and ignore everything else in the debate. A couple members felt this did a disservice to the rest of the debate, a community vote was taken to address this issue, and vote moderation adjusted the standards accordingly.

Another, more recent example, saw a vote removed from a debate in which a voter voted for the side that provided lengthy arguments that weren't sufficiently replied to. In other words, one side provided quality arguments that made their point, while the other side posted single sentences that hardly provided any content at all.

While it may be obvious to most which side won, vote moderation standards do not have a specific policy for dealing with this issue. The standards are what they are, and they do not become moot because of the length of arguments. Until a change is made to the standards, it is impossible for vote moderation to ignore those standards, even in cases like this where it may be obvious which side won.

Concerned members should consider what they would like vote moderation to do in these types of situations. We can either abide by the objective nature of the standards that require a voter to explain each awarded point sufficiently and touch on the relevant arguments, or we can simply ignore those standards in some cases, which would require a discretionary policy that allows vote moderation to make these types of judgement calls .

I would caution everyone from supporting that second option though, since while it may have been obvious who won in the above example, it is only a matter of time until we are regularly looking at debates that fall into grayer areas with such a policy in mind. So while in the above case it may have been preferable to some to simply dismiss the report as it has little to no impact (and the winner was obvious), it's the goal of vote moderation to review debates with the most objective criteria possible, lest vote moderation have to subjectively determine debate winners to determine the validity of a vote.

Ultimately, there are always going to be scenarios that vote moderation policies don't consider. These situations will make a vote removal seem unnecessary and annoying, but to maintain an objective standard, votes will have to abide by those standards across the board, unless we devise a reasonable alternative. I maintain that asking vote moderation to use more and more discretion in these cases, is far from ideal, and instead these rare annoyances (like the case above) are a reasonable cost for having a universal standard.

If we would like to come up with a policy to address that situation, as we did with regards to forfeited debates, I'm more than happy to lead a discussion on how to deal with that. But until that time, there's no way vote moderation can ignore the standards, simply because it's obvious which side one the debate (or other criteria relevant here). If you'd like to see a change to that (or make a policy suggestion) please post your thoughts in this thread.

2) Vote moderation manpower

problems stem from vote moderator incompetence, I'd like those issues to be discussed elsewhere. As I naturally believe it to be true that assertions with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence (and that's what I will continue to do until the state of the assertion has changed), I believe it is perfectly reasonable for me to insist that no space in this thread be used for that agenda. This thread is intended to discuss the vote moderation policies as they currently exist (and some other issues stated), and posts regarding the incompetence of vote moderators should be placed elsewhere.

I want to preemptively address accusations of censorship now. This thread is intended to spell out the current policies, to discuss those policies, and to come up with alterations to those policies as the community deems necessary. If you have an issue with vote moderation's competence, and/or specifically with a vote moderator, create a thread for that, and you can complain about them and insult them until your heart is content.

What you should NOT do, is use this thread to pursue your specific agenda, and in so doing distract from the purpose of this thread. While that might seem harsh, I unfortunately believe it may be necessary to point this out as the previous attempt I made at a vote moderation discussion was trolled and then spammed and I very much do not want to see that occur this time. I very much want to resolve the issues with vote moderation, and to do so, I am going to insist that the discussion stay on track. If you want to discuss something else, do it somewhere else.

I vote for NO CHANGES whatsoever.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 2:54:22 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 2:44:51 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 5/1/2016 2:38:11 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/1/2016 2:32:57 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 5/1/2016 2:29:47 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/1/2016 2:25:54 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
The very fact that it took 4 full posts to address what should be the simplest function on this site is, itself, a demonstration of why it should be scrapped.

Fair enough, though I like to be thorough, and I don't posts these discussions threads too often, so I wanted to touch on each of the issues brought up recently.

They are mostly tangential to the issue of addressing the policies stated on post #4.

Voting should be low effort. RFD's in actual, real, debates, are not a measure by which votes themselves are judged to be legit, but rather meant as constructive feedback for the debaters, at the discretion of the judge.

What exists now on this site is nothing short of a monstrosity.

That's what I want to be discussed. Surely there is a reasonable middle ground between votes that are too high effort and votes that simply state "Pro won".

Just because there are two diametric sides to an issue doesn't mean there is a "reasonable" middle ground. It's like the whole creation/evolution "teach the controversy" nonsense.

I realize this. There's no middle ground between fact and fiction.

The existence of two sides to an issue doesn't mean each are equally right/wrong with the best choice being a compromise. It's possible for one to be right and another to be wrong.

A poster in this thread already suggested that vote moderation is too strict and that it should just be focused on eliminating vote bombs. I think that is perfectly reasonable, though the suggestion doesn't suggest any way to do that. If we just get rid of the very worst votes, we have to determine what the very worst votes are and enforce that standard.

I offered the two thoughts on vote moderation that you referenced, because I do believe that the first line of thinking is reasonable and you seem to agree that it is the preferred way to proceed here. I do believe though that there are plenty who will disagree with that, and would like to see vote moderation become more lax, but still moderate votes to some degree.

I got into this discussion with Ragnar. Do I think that no votes should ever be deleted? No. But I don't think that any act which results in a vote deletion is "vote moderation."

Agreed.

"Vote Moderation" is a policy in which voting in general is controlled and mediated. Votes are parsed and judged and held to a standard. The standard of voting in general is the goal here.

I mostly agree, and that's the purpose of this discussion.

Deleting vote bombs or voting fraud (via alternate accounts) is merely part of other areas of site-wide moderation (dealing with spam, enforcing the TOS) that just sometimes happens to involve getting rid of a vote. And that's how it should be presented.

I agree. "Voting fraud" (multi accounts, self-voting etc) isn't a vote moderation issue in a strict sense, so it doesn't need to be involved in this discussion. I dealt with those things long before any formal "vote moderation" and will continue to do so regardless of any vote moderation changes.
Debate.org Moderator
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 2:55:11 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 2:41:43 AM, TBR wrote:
You know... I don't want to spend time on this now, but I have been thinking about the topic some. One thing I keep coming back to is, what is MY part on the debates. I come to this.

1) I have no interest in doing homework assignments to be graded.
2) I have no interest in being "taught" how to grade a debate.
3) I would LIKE to vote more on the debates, and what would make me to that.

So... Take that for whatever its worth.

Voting is done to benefit the debaters, not the voters. While you may want to offer your services to the debaters, you should also recognize that the debaters put considerable time, energy, research, and hours of effort into their debate, and that they want their debates to be given a high level of consideration. It's possible they are unwilling to accept a vote where the voter is just winging it and only skimmed the debate and offered vague points. If that's the case, why force them to accept your service?

You can always provide the feedback in the comments without voting. That way, the endgoal of educating the debaters is still furthered. If your desire is to award points so you feel like you have been instrumental in deciding a debate, that's not a reasonable desire at all. And you shouldn't be imposing your decision onto people who want their work taken more seriously. (Most of the time it's the debaters who report votes)
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 3:00:53 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 2:38:01 AM, TBR wrote:
At 5/1/2016 2:34:18 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/1/2016 2:29:05 AM, TBR wrote:
I very long, however, I will respond in just a few words.

Vote moderation is overly strict. Keep the vote bombs to a minimum, otherwise let people vote.

I agree that vote moderation is strict, because it insists on specific criteria to make a vote valid and some don't want to spend the time to meet those standards.

If we don't have standards, how do we keep vote bombs to a minimum? You have to define vote bomb, and then define standards to mitigate that... I'm happy to hear your suggestions for just keeping vote bombs to a minimum

I agree finding this balance is very tough. First question is, are the current polices to strict and having a negative effect. I think the answer to this question is yes. So, somewhere less strict than now, right?

It depends who you ask. Some will say that having fewer votes means that it is intrinsically bad. Some will say that it's good because the votes they do get, will mostly be good, and for any vote they have an issue with, there is a mechanism for recourse.

A vote bomb to me is like a vote on one of my first debates. All points went to my opponent with a RFD of something like "LOL". I think that counts, so somewhere above that?

I think the vote you described can fairly be called a votebomb. So the standards you envision in this short conversation we have had so far, pretty much only necessitate the removal of obviously bad votes (7 point, no explanation), but don't address the grayer areas. If we adopt that, we should just concede that any vote that explains argument points, can also just throw in conduct or S&G without any explanation - and that's perfectly fine if that's the standard that you want. But do expect that to be the reality of votes using the 7-point system.
Debate.org Moderator
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 3:02:29 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 2:25:54 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
The very fact that it took 4 full posts to address what should be the simplest function on this site is, itself, a demonstration of why it should be scrapped.

Voting should be low effort. RFD's in actual, real, debates, are not a measure by which votes themselves are judged to be legit, but rather meant as constructive feedback for the debaters, at the discretion of the judge.

What exists now on this site is nothing short of a monstrosity.

It's not really at the discretion of the judge. If I spend ten hours writing a debate, a couple of short vague sentences as a vote is completely unacceptable to me. At that point, I would suggest that the voters either provide specific feedback or just don't bother.

In any case, all of this is left up to the debater anyways. Debaters have the option to choose wild west voting (no RFD required), they have the option to leave it as the default (with normal vote moderation), they have the option for higher standards. They have the option for judge voting. Why not leave it up to the debaters? If Wild West voting is what they want, sure voters can knock themselves out with low effort votes. If debaters want better votes, leave it to the voters who put more effort in to judge the debate.

If you are arguing that the default should be set to no RFD required, that's reasonable but I don't think that's what the majority of debaters want.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 3:03:43 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 2:55:11 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 5/1/2016 2:41:43 AM, TBR wrote:
You know... I don't want to spend time on this now, but I have been thinking about the topic some. One thing I keep coming back to is, what is MY part on the debates. I come to this.

1) I have no interest in doing homework assignments to be graded.
2) I have no interest in being "taught" how to grade a debate.
3) I would LIKE to vote more on the debates, and what would make me to that.

So... Take that for whatever its worth.

Voting is done to benefit the debaters, not the voters. While you may want to offer your services to the debaters, you should also recognize that the debaters put considerable time, energy, research, and hours of effort into their debate, and that they want their debates to be given a high level of consideration. It's possible they are unwilling to accept a vote where the voter is just winging it and only skimmed the debate and offered vague points. If that's the case, why force them to accept your service?

While I am not suggesting that voters "skim" a debate, I think it is there debate, not the voters. That is, I respect the effort, we should all recognize that reading and voting is not some chore that should require the same level of commitment to that debate.

"Force"? They have offered a debate, and to be judged. There is no force.


You can always provide the feedback in the comments without voting. That way, the endgoal of educating the debaters is still furthered. If your desire is to award points so you feel like you have been instrumental in deciding a debate, that's not a reasonable desire at all. And you shouldn't be imposing your decision onto people who want their work taken more seriously. (Most of the time it's the debaters who report votes)

Do you think that there are enough voters right now? Do you think the pool is dwindling? Are people begging for votes? If there is no problem, if I am wrong, then leave it as it is. I have no need to vote, but as it sits now, I have expressed my thoughts - the standard is off.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 3:09:22 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 3:00:53 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/1/2016 2:38:01 AM, TBR wrote:
At 5/1/2016 2:34:18 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/1/2016 2:29:05 AM, TBR wrote:
I very long, however, I will respond in just a few words.

Vote moderation is overly strict. Keep the vote bombs to a minimum, otherwise let people vote.

I agree that vote moderation is strict, because it insists on specific criteria to make a vote valid and some don't want to spend the time to meet those standards.

If we don't have standards, how do we keep vote bombs to a minimum? You have to define vote bomb, and then define standards to mitigate that... I'm happy to hear your suggestions for just keeping vote bombs to a minimum

I agree finding this balance is very tough. First question is, are the current polices to strict and having a negative effect. I think the answer to this question is yes. So, somewhere less strict than now, right?

It depends who you ask. Some will say that having fewer votes means that it is intrinsically bad. Some will say that it's good because the votes they do get, will mostly be good, and for any vote they have an issue with, there is a mechanism for recourse.

A vote bomb to me is like a vote on one of my first debates. All points went to my opponent with a RFD of something like "LOL". I think that counts, so somewhere above that?

I think the vote you described can fairly be called a votebomb. So the standards you envision in this short conversation we have had so far, pretty much only necessitate the removal of obviously bad votes (7 point, no explanation), but don't address the grayer areas. If we adopt that, we should just concede that any vote that explains argument points, can also just throw in conduct or S&G without any explanation - and that's perfectly fine if that's the standard that you want. But do expect that to be the reality of votes using the 7-point system.

Yea, you know... I do.

Lets say I am giving a presentation (I do this often enough). People are judging me, my performance, my tie. They are not required to explain exactly why my bow-tie made them think of Paul Simon, and they hated Paul Simon. If I get ANY level of feedback on my presentation I am overjoyed.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 3:10:22 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 3:02:29 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 5/1/2016 2:25:54 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
The very fact that it took 4 full posts to address what should be the simplest function on this site is, itself, a demonstration of why it should be scrapped.

Voting should be low effort. RFD's in actual, real, debates, are not a measure by which votes themselves are judged to be legit, but rather meant as constructive feedback for the debaters, at the discretion of the judge.

What exists now on this site is nothing short of a monstrosity.

It's not really at the discretion of the judge. If I spend ten hours writing a debate, a couple of short vague sentences as a vote is completely unacceptable to me. At that point, I would suggest that the voters either provide specific feedback or just don't bother.

In any case, all of this is left up to the debater anyways. Debaters have the option to choose wild west voting (no RFD required), they have the option to leave it as the default (with normal vote moderation), they have the option for higher standards. They have the option for judge voting. Why not leave it up to the debaters? If Wild West voting is what they want, sure voters can knock themselves out with low effort votes. If debaters want better votes, leave it to the voters who put more effort in to judge the debate.

If you are arguing that the default should be set to no RFD required, that's reasonable but I don't think that's what the majority of debaters want.

I'm all for leaving it up for the debaters. I'm against it being in the hands of some third-party voting moderators.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 3:10:46 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 2:55:11 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 5/1/2016 2:41:43 AM, TBR wrote:
You know... I don't want to spend time on this now, but I have been thinking about the topic some. One thing I keep coming back to is, what is MY part on the debates. I come to this.

1) I have no interest in doing homework assignments to be graded.
2) I have no interest in being "taught" how to grade a debate.
3) I would LIKE to vote more on the debates, and what would make me to that.

So... Take that for whatever its worth.

Voting is done to benefit the debaters, not the voters. While you may want to offer your services to the debaters, you should also recognize that the debaters put considerable time, energy, research, and hours of effort into their debate, and that they want their debates to be given a high level of consideration. It's possible they are unwilling to accept a vote where the voter is just winging it and only skimmed the debate and offered vague points. If that's the case, why force them to accept your service?

^This

C'mon, the counterargument here to vote moderation is so bad. It is literally saying: I want the power to vote on any debate with *no* responsibility to the debaters to provide more than the most cursory feedback. Give me power, but no responsibility!!

I think this line of argument only appeals to the youngest members of the site, who apparently are not Spiderman fans.

I'm not vote moderating anymore, nor am I debating anymore, so I have no dog in this fight. But you guys would be INSANE to get rid of a top-quality moderation service because you're too lazy to provide even minimally sufficient feedback.

Yes, that's right. Moderators apply the community-accepted standard of "minimally sufficient feedback." They don't require the best RFD. Just a minimally sufficient one.

Anyone who comes on here and says, "I demand the right to be less than minimally sufficient, but to still sway debates," is just arguing an absurd position.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 3:12:19 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Actually, I just had an idea.

The issue really isn't too much moderation. It's too little. I don't mean the vote moderators should be too strict. I just thing their actions should be moderated too.

After all, votes judge the quality of the debate.

Vote moderation judges the quality of the above votes.

But as voting moderation came about because we were unsatisfied with the quality of votes on debate we now need another level of moderation because we are unsatisfied with the quality of vote moderation.

So we clearly need a vote moderation moderator.