Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Official NOTA Campaign

Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2016 5:50:46 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
I will not discuss this platform with any of the other Candidates in this thread. I believe it to be inappropriate and tacky. I have refrained from critiquing other platforms in their own threads and ask for the same respect in return. I am willing and open to a debate with any and all candidates on our relative platforms.

I will otherwise reply to questions posed.

Preamble

I'm old enough to be a father to a significant portion of the people reading this. And a desire to be DDO president is not a priority for me. However, I sense that the DDO presidency is at a junction. Being an engineer, one thing that I hate is bad design. The DDO presidency is now a bad design and the current plan to abolish the presidency is a bad and lazy design.

Before listing my platform, I'm presenting some of the reasoning behind it.

There are 2 aspects to consider, what is debate.org and what is the presidency?

Debate.org is a website that people come to as a leisure activity in order to debate, partake in intellectual discussions and to be active in an online social community.

The presidency is a titular position whose role is supposed be a liaison between the members and Juggle. In addition, it is a community based governance body that aids in community building.

The biggest problem is that Juggle has disengaged from the site with a resulting effect that the primary purpose of the presidency has ceased to exist. And while attempts to keep the presidency effective have been made, the office holds no real power and there is too much social angst intermingled with the positive social aspects.

It is my opinion that the presidency has become a net negative to the site and is too easily abused. Yet, I also know that it is easy to criticize and simply throw something away without offering a better alternative. If everything is merely thrown away once problems are found with it, you will end up with nothing in the end.

All of the pro presidential campaigns are really about what people are personally going to do to make the site better. The abolitionist platform on the other hand lazily discards it and replaces it only with voting conventions.

The problem is that both the pro-presidency and strict abolitionist platforms are the wrong solutions; what is needed is a third way.

I believe that a titular head to the site is useful, and that through creation the right conditions, participation and much of the governance site issues will resolve themselves. A laissez-faire DDO so to speak.

The Platform

My platform seeks to replace the presidency with something that provides:

Governance
Community Building
Participation
Usefulness
Creates conditions that will lead to increased debate and voting participation
Reduces bureaucracy on the site.
Merit based system
Fun

While there are many ways to present this concept I have intentionally chosen a fun name (maybe ridiculously so) to set it up under - the community can easily change this going forward if so desired.

Thus, I propose to abolish the DDO Presidency and replace it with a Monarchy! However, it is not a monarchy in the sense of ruling, but more as a titular head who serves the community, with very limited powers.

The duties of the Monarch are simple

1) To rule with the wisdom of Solomon. Debates that end in a tie can be appealed to the monarch for a victor to be declared. The Monarch must do so for a minimum of 4 such appeals made every month. The Monarch may choose which ones to judge, but must do so for every tournament debate put forth to him/her. If the Monarch has already voted in a debate that ends in a tie, his/her vote shall be considered the deciding factor.

- There is nobody that can or does perform this task currently. It won't show as an official result, but it will settle the issue for the debaters.

2) To be active in the community. The Monarch must partake in a minimum of 6 rounds of debating (not including acceptance or forfeited rounds) every month.

- The top debaters should be found debating on the site. The position of the Monarch is essentially a prestige position akin to the highest tournament position on the site. 2 good debates a month is not much to ask for.

The remainder of the Monarchy works on a tick tock system.

3) The tick is that every "even" month the monarch defends his/her crown from the most prominent challenger (warrior-king). All would be challengers put forth their claims to challenge, with the most prestigious challenger having the right to debate the monarch in a trial by arms for the crown.

- This system encourages active debating and voting as these are the only means of being able to challenge for the title of Monarch. See below for proposed formula.

4) The tock is that every "odd" month the monarch puts forth legislation to be voted on. The people put forward petitions on which laws to enact. The most popular of which must be put to a vote. The monarch may also choose one additional piece of legislation to put forward for a vote.

- This enable up to 12 governance changes to be made to the site every year - which should be plenty. It also allows for a slow change with a limited number of changes to be made at once. Thus each change can be thoroughly discussed and then evaluated prior to making the next change.

How to be dethroned:

If the Monarch fails to judge the debates (s)he is obligated to judge, or fails to participate in the number of debates (s)he is supposed to, then the Monarch is said to have abdicated the throne. The two most prominent challengers then debate to determine who will wear the crown.

The Monarch may choose not to contest the foremost challenger and thus cede the crown. If the Monarch accepts the challenge and is defeated, (s)he loses the crown.

The reigning Monarch must step down after 6 months.

Any Monarch who is dethroned, must wait 6 months prior to challenging for the throne again.

The people may vote to overthrow a monarch with a 60% vote. The two most prominent challengers then debate to determine who will wear the crown.

How to become the Monarch:

Be the top challenger and win the challenge debate against the reigning Monarch.

Why?

It is hokey? A little, but only if you view it in that manner. If one views it as the top tournament system, it becomes fun and useful addition to the site because, it serves a purpose and would add an element of friendly competition to the site. It would build community, reduce drama, reduce bureaucracy, enable measured direct governance of the site, and reward those who put in the most time to the site. Finally, it removes the current presidential popularity contest and becomes a fun aspect of the site to participate in.

Under this new system the office of Monarch can be adjusted as need be, but has no effective executive power except the ability to propose one governance item every voting period.

How does it get implemented?

Everybody else is running to be president, even imabench and his abolitionist campaign. By voting NOTA (None of the Above), the site will signal a revolution against the office of the President. The revolution would abolish the presidency and institute the DDO Monarchy. Being the head of the revolution, I would become the first DDO Monarch (or Absolute Debater, or whatever fun title the site would eventually settle on).
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2016 5:50:58 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Contender formula

So how do you become the top contender? Site participation. I have what I believe to be a fair formula that focuses on current activity while taking account previous site activity. Merit becomes your right to participate.

(Dr/6 + Vr/24) * (T)^0.33 * (Dt/10 + Vt/100 + Ft/1000)^0.25

Dr = Actual rounds of debate (acceptance and forfeit rounds not included) in the last 2 months.

Vr = Actual round of debates voted on (acceptance and forfeit rounds not included) in the last 2 months.

T = Time you've been on DDO in years

Dt = Total Debates

Vt = Total Votes

Ft = Total Forum Posts

So let's take a purely hypothetical condition where we have 3 people who want to become monarch.

imabench - 4 debate rounds and 12 rounds of votes in the last 2 months.
geogeer - 9 debate rounds and 6 rounds of votes in the last 2 months.
tejretics - 12 debates rounds and 20 rounds of votes in the last 2 months.

imabench - (4/6 + 12/24) * (4)^0.33 * (600/10 + 1352/100 + 19655/1000)^0.25 = 5.75
geogeer - (9/6 + 6/24) *(2)^0.33 * (30/10 + 312/100 + 3392/1000)^0.25 = 3.87
tejretics - (12/6 + 20/24) * (1)^0.33 * (114/10 + 643/100 + 4339/1000)^0.25 = 6.14

So under this hypothetical circumstance tejretics would win the right to challenge.

Miscellaneous Items

Not that it matters much for my campaign, but just so that the voter have an idea about me I'll list off a couple of personal opinions.

Voting Moderation

I believe that debates should be able to specify 3 levels of voting moderation.

None - Yee-haw cowboy
Moderate - Enough to weed out vote bomb. Voter must make minimal effort to explain why the vote went to either side
Full - The current vote moderation

Debates should be subject to moderate voting standards by default and only be subject to a different standard if listed in Round 1 of the debate by the instigator of the debate.

Getting Juggle to pay more attention to the site

- There is only one way to make Juggle care more about the site.
- That is for Juggle to make more money off of the site.
- The way that Juggle currently makes money off of the site is by advertising.
- The site can generate more money by people clicking on adds.
- We can strongly encourage people to click on adds by making add clicking mandatory in order to get other users to vote on their debates.
- Let Juggle know you are doing this in advance so that they know you control the flow of money.
- Make both debaters click on 1 add per round debated and paste the travelled links as proof in the commentaries.

I don't know if this is a path people want to travel, but it is the only way to get noticed by Juggle. If it generates enough money, Juggle may pour some resources back into the site.

Thank-you and the floor is open for questions.
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2016 6:41:27 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/10/2016 5:50:46 AM, Geogeer wrote:

Thus, I propose to abolish the DDO Presidency and replace it with a Monarchy!

Platform is a troll. Case closed.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

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

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2016 7:00:11 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/10/2016 6:41:27 AM, imabench wrote:
At 5/10/2016 5:50:46 AM, Geogeer wrote:

Thus, I propose to abolish the DDO Presidency and replace it with a Monarchy!

Platform is a troll. Case closed.

http://www.debate.org...
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2016 3:51:57 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Peepette asked several questions on my Campaign headquarters, and I'm going to repost the answers here just so that I don't have to answer them again

At 5/10/2016 2:05:03 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 5/10/2016 5:50:46 AM, Geogeer wrote:

1) To rule with the wisdom of Solomon. Debates that end in a tie can be appealed to the monarch for a victor to be declared. The Monarch must do so for a minimum of 4 such appeals made every month. The Monarch may choose which ones to judge, but must do so for every tournament debate put forth to him/her. If the Monarch has already voted in a debate that ends in a tie, his/her vote shall be considered the deciding factor.

- There is nobody that can or does perform this task currently. It won't show as an official result, but it will settle the issue for the debaters.


This has a lot of appeal. It eliminates the frustration of tie debates especially in tournaments. You might be getting appeals for many short, low quality or troll debates. Is there going to be a minimum criteria for a debate before an monarch vote appeal can be made, other than those in tournaments?

Any debate that has or is going to shortly end in a tie can be appealed for judging. However, there are a multitude of such debates. As such the duty is to vote on every tournament debate that is so appealed and to choose from other debates that are so appealed, with a minimum of 4 completed per month. One person cannot judge every debate, but it would be a means for good debates that slipped through the cracks to at least get some finality and to resolve tournament debates that end in a draw.

2) To be active in the community. The Monarch must partake in a minimum of 6 rounds of debating (not including acceptance or forfeited rounds) every month.

- The top debaters should be found debating on the site. The position of the Monarch is essentially a prestige position akin to the highest tournament position on the site. 2 good debates a month is not much to ask for.


Does every debate the Monarch participates in a challenge debate for the throne, or just a mandatory participation rule to be an active site member? Not to diminish the contributions made by the more vocal members and elites; this would certainly get a few who no longer debate or debate rarely back in the game for the ability to make changes as well as contribute in upping the quality of debates on the site which has been an issue.

Only the debate that forms the official challenge at the beginning of even months can cause a change in the Monarchy. The purpose of this is that the person who holds the top debating position on the site has to be out there debating and actively participating in the life of the site.

If you want the fun of being Monarch (or whatever title is ultimately chosen) you have to participate.

The remainder of the Monarchy works on a tick tock system.

3) The tick is that every "even" month the monarch defends his/her crown from the most prominent challenger (warrior-king). All would be challengers put forth their claims to challenge, with the most prestigious challenger having the right to debate the monarch in a trial by arms for the crown.

Will these challenges be made public? An announcement of contenders for the duel of sorts? How are these debates going to be voted, by select judges, elo minimum or open voting?

That is to be agreed upon by the participants. Personally I would be in favour of open voting by the entire community. The entire program is meant to be a community building exercise, and thus it is important that the whole community be able to partake in it.

If the community feels excluded they can vote to overthrow. It is a self correcting system.

- This system encourages active debating and voting as these are the only means of being able to challenge for the title of Monarch. See below for proposed formula.

The voting aspect in being able to challenge is pivotal to create well rounded participation on the site. The ability for an individual to become Monarch is no longer a popularity contest but of the most adept and dedicated.

Debate.org

4) The tock is that every "odd" month the monarch puts forth legislation to be voted on. The people put forward petitions on which laws to enact. The most popular of which must be put to a vote. The monarch may also choose one additional piece of legislation to put forward for a vote.


How would the petition system work? As well as how would the membership be aware on what petitions are in cue? If everything was put out, there"d be an endless stream of controversy.

About a week prior to the beginning of the month, a thread would be started wherein people list the item they believe needs the most attention with a small description of what they want implemented (most active people on the site will have already discussed these issues at length and be prepared when the time comes).

Example

Voting Moderation Reform

Implement Geogeer's proposed 3-tier voting reform - because the current one disincentivises participation by new voters.

One goes through the list chooses the one with the highest number of petitions, makes sure that people are happy with the wording (to the extent possible) as there could be many permutations to the same question. That question is put to a vote. If there is another idea that needs to be addressed the Monarch can choose to bring that to a vote as well.

How to be dethroned:

If the Monarch fails to judge the debates (s)he is obligated to judge, or fails to participate in the number of debates (s)he is supposed to, then the Monarch is said to have abdicated the throne. The two most prominent challengers then debate to determine who will wear the crown.

How is this to be determined "prominent challengers? Meeting the formula criteria below? If there is no major challenge made during a 2 month period by competent debaters, what is keeping the nobbs from challenging?

I have given seasoned debaters a significant advantage over noobs. Noobs are members too, if the seasoned debaters cannot be bothered to put in the effort, then the spoils will go to those who do put in the effort.

The community may easily choose to amend the challenge criteria, if they find it does not work.

The reigning Monarch must step down after 6 months.

(in effect a term limit) Then how is a new Monarch chosen?

The top 2 contenders debate for the throne.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2016 3:59:01 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
One more question posted in the other forum...

At 5/10/2016 2:07:03 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 5/10/2016 5:50:46 AM, Geogeer wrote:

Everybody else is running to be president, even imabench and his abolitionist campaign. By voting NOTA (None of the Above), the site will signal a revolution against the office of the President. The revolution would abolish the presidency and institute the DDO Monarchy. Being the head of the revolution, I would become the first DDO Monarch (or Absolute Debater, or whatever fun title the site would eventually settle on).


You could be ousted as Monarch within two months if challenged, if I understand this correctly.

Yup. No cushy seat on this throne; this is a debating website.
SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2016 6:59:08 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I don't like your platform, but I will watch with interest.

Good luck living with this bug-ridden site as an engineer though. Perhaps it's a bit slippery-slope, but I have a hunch that the specious arguments, juvenile antics and general lack of technical capacity for policy enforcement will strip your idealism and result in yet another presidential abdication of power.
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2016 7:16:14 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/10/2016 6:59:08 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
I don't like your platform, but I will watch with interest.

Anything in particular?

Good luck living with this bug-ridden site as an engineer though. Perhaps it's a bit slippery-slope, but I have a hunch that the specious arguments, juvenile antics and general lack of technical capacity for policy enforcement will strip your idealism and result in yet another presidential abdication of power.

lol. I've been on here for over 2.5 years - much of it in the religious forum. While there are things that I wish were different, I can live with them. What I dislike are things that can be changed for the better and aren't.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 3:00:22 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/10/2016 5:50:46 AM, Geogeer wrote:
I will not discuss this platform with any of the other Candidates in this thread. I believe it to be inappropriate and tacky. I have refrained from critiquing other platforms in their own threads and ask for the same respect in return. I am willing and open to a debate with any and all candidates on our relative platforms.

I will otherwise reply to questions posed.


Preamble

I'm old enough to be a father to a significant portion of the people reading this. And a desire to be DDO president is not a priority for me. However, I sense that the DDO presidency is at a junction. Being an engineer, one thing that I hate is bad design. The DDO presidency is now a bad design and the current plan to abolish the presidency is a bad and lazy design.

Before listing my platform, I'm presenting some of the reasoning behind it.

There are 2 aspects to consider, what is debate.org and what is the presidency?

Debate.org is a website that people come to as a leisure activity in order to debate, partake in intellectual discussions and to be active in an online social community.

The presidency is a titular position whose role is supposed be a liaison between the members and Juggle. In addition, it is a community based governance body that aids in community building.

The biggest problem is that Juggle has disengaged from the site with a resulting effect that the primary purpose of the presidency has ceased to exist. And while attempts to keep the presidency effective have been made, the office holds no real power and there is too much social angst intermingled with the positive social aspects.

It is my opinion that the presidency has become a net negative to the site and is too easily abused. Yet, I also know that it is easy to criticize and simply throw something away without offering a better alternative. If everything is merely thrown away once problems are found with it, you will end up with nothing in the end.

All of the pro presidential campaigns are really about what people are personally going to do to make the site better. The abolitionist platform on the other hand lazily discards it and replaces it only with voting conventions.

The problem is that both the pro-presidency and strict abolitionist platforms are the wrong solutions; what is needed is a third way.

I believe that a titular head to the site is useful, and that through creation the right conditions, participation and much of the governance site issues will resolve themselves. A laissez-faire DDO so to speak.


The Platform

My platform seeks to replace the presidency with something that provides:

Governance
Community Building
Participation
Usefulness
Creates conditions that will lead to increased debate and voting participation
Reduces bureaucracy on the site.
Merit based system
Fun


While there are many ways to present this concept I have intentionally chosen a fun name (maybe ridiculously so) to set it up under - the community can easily change this going forward if so desired.

Thus, I propose to abolish the DDO Presidency and replace it with a Monarchy! However, it is not a monarchy in the sense of ruling, but more as a titular head who serves the community, with very limited powers.

The duties of the Monarch are simple

1) To rule with the wisdom of Solomon. Debates that end in a tie can be appealed to the monarch for a victor to be declared. The Monarch must do so for a minimum of 4 such appeals made every month. The Monarch may choose which ones to judge, but must do so for every tournament debate put forth to him/her. If the Monarch has already voted in a debate that ends in a tie, his/her vote shall be considered the deciding factor.

- There is nobody that can or does perform this task currently. It won't show as an official result, but it will settle the issue for the debaters.

2) To be active in the community. The Monarch must partake in a minimum of 6 rounds of debating (not including acceptance or forfeited rounds) every month.

- The top debaters should be found debating on the site. The position of the Monarch is essentially a prestige position akin to the highest tournament position on the site. 2 good debates a month is not much to ask for.

The remainder of the Monarchy works on a tick tock system.

3) The tick is that every "even" month the monarch defends his/her crown from the most prominent challenger (warrior-king). All would be challengers put forth their claims to challenge, with the most prestigious challenger having the right to debate the monarch in a trial by arms for the crown.

- This system encourages active debating and voting as these are the only means of being able to challenge for the title of Monarch. See below for proposed formula.

4) The tock is that every "odd" month the monarch puts forth legislation to be voted on. The people put forward petitions on which laws to enact. The most popular of which must be put to a vote. The monarch may also choose one additional piece of legislation to put forward for a vote.

- This enable up to 12 governance changes to be made to the site every year - which should be plenty. It also allows for a slow change with a limited number of changes to be made at once. Thus each change can be thoroughly discussed and then evaluated prior to making the next change.


How to be dethroned:

If the Monarch fails to judge the debates (s)he is obligated to judge, or fails to participate in the number of debates (s)he is supposed to, then the Monarch is said to have abdicated the throne. The two most prominent challengers then debate to determine who will wear the crown.

The Monarch may choose not to contest the foremost challenger and thus cede the crown. If the Monarch accepts the challenge and is defeated, (s)he loses the crown.

The reigning Monarch must step down after 6 months.

Any Monarch who is dethroned, must wait 6 months prior to challenging for the throne again.

The people may vote to overthrow a monarch with a 60% vote. The two most prominent challengers then debate to determine who will wear the crown.


How to become the Monarch:

Be the top challenger and win the challenge debate against the reigning Monarch.



Why?

It is hokey? A little, but only if you view it in that manner. If one views it as the top tournament system, it becomes fun and useful addition to the site because, it serves a purpose and would add an element of friendly competition to the site. It would build community, reduce drama, reduce bureaucracy, enable measured direct governance of the site, and reward those who put in the most time to the site. Finally, it removes the current presidential popularity contest and becomes a fun aspect of the site to participate in.

Under this new system the office of Monarch can be adjusted as need be, but has no effective executive power except the ability to propose one governance item every voting period.


How does it get implemented?

Everybody else is running to be president, even imabench and his abolitionist campaign. By voting NOTA (None of the Above), the site will signal a revolution against the office of the President. The revolution would abolish the presidency and institute the DDO Monarchy. Being the head of the revolution, I would become the first DDO Monarch (or Absolute Debater, or whatever fun title the site would eventually settle on).

This is quite the bold proposition! With the right people involved, I definitely see how this could lead to a steep increase in participation.
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
Dragon_of_Christ
Posts: 1,293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 10:11:01 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/10/2016 5:50:46 AM, Geogeer wrote:
I will not discuss this platform with any of the other Candidates in this thread. I believe it to be inappropriate and tacky. I have refrained from critiquing other platforms in their own threads and ask for the same respect in return. I am willing and open to a debate with any and all candidates on our relative platforms.

I will otherwise reply to questions posed.


Preamble

I'm old enough to be a father to a significant portion of the people reading this. And a desire to be DDO president is not a priority for me. However, I sense that the DDO presidency is at a junction. Being an engineer, one thing that I hate is bad design. The DDO presidency is now a bad design and the current plan to abolish the presidency is a bad and lazy design.

Before listing my platform, I'm presenting some of the reasoning behind it.

There are 2 aspects to consider, what is debate.org and what is the presidency?

Debate.org is a website that people come to as a leisure activity in order to debate, partake in intellectual discussions and to be active in an online social community.

The presidency is a titular position whose role is supposed be a liaison between the members and Juggle. In addition, it is a community based governance body that aids in community building.

The biggest problem is that Juggle has disengaged from the site with a resulting effect that the primary purpose of the presidency has ceased to exist. And while attempts to keep the presidency effective have been made, the office holds no real power and there is too much social angst intermingled with the positive social aspects.

It is my opinion that the presidency has become a net negative to the site and is too easily abused. Yet, I also know that it is easy to criticize and simply throw something away without offering a better alternative. If everything is merely thrown away once problems are found with it, you will end up with nothing in the end.

All of the pro presidential campaigns are really about what people are personally going to do to make the site better. The abolitionist platform on the other hand lazily discards it and replaces it only with voting conventions.

The problem is that both the pro-presidency and strict abolitionist platforms are the wrong solutions; what is needed is a third way.

I believe that a titular head to the site is useful, and that through creation the right conditions, participation and much of the governance site issues will resolve themselves. A laissez-faire DDO so to speak.


The Platform

My platform seeks to replace the presidency with something that provides:

Governance
Community Building
Participation
Usefulness
Creates conditions that will lead to increased debate and voting participation
Reduces bureaucracy on the site.
Merit based system
Fun <<< *note, never in the history of man have "fun" and "authority" been able to be attributed to the same governing entity.*


While there are many ways to present this concept I have intentionally chosen a fun name (maybe ridiculously so) to set it up under - the community can easily change this going forward if so desired.

Thus, I propose to abolish the DDO Presidency and replace it with a Monarchy! However, it is not a monarchy in the sense of ruling, but more as a titular head who serves the community, with very limited powers.

The duties of the Monarch are simple

1) To rule with the wisdom of Solomon. Debates that end in a tie can be appealed to the monarch for a victor to be declared. The Monarch must do so for a minimum of 4 such appeals made every month. The Monarch may choose which ones to judge, but must do so for every tournament debate put forth to him/her. If the Monarch has already voted in a debate that ends in a tie, his/her vote shall be considered the deciding factor.

- There is nobody that can or does perform this task currently. It won't show as an official result, but it will settle the issue for the debaters.

2) To be active in the community. The Monarch must partake in a minimum of 6 rounds of debating (not including acceptance or forfeited rounds) every month.

- The top debaters should be found debating on the site. The position of the Monarch is essentially a prestige position akin to the highest tournament position on the site. 2 good debates a month is not much to ask for.

The remainder of the Monarchy works on a tick tock system.

3) The tick is that every "even" month the monarch defends his/her crown from the most prominent challenger (warrior-king). All would be challengers put forth their claims to challenge, with the most prestigious challenger having the right to debate the monarch in a trial by arms for the crown.

- This system encourages active debating and voting as these are the only means of being able to challenge for the title of Monarch. See below for proposed formula.

4) The tock is that every "odd" month the monarch puts forth legislation to be voted on. The people put forward petitions on which laws to enact. The most popular of which must be put to a vote. The monarch may also choose one additional piece of legislation to put forward for a vote.

- This enable up to 12 governance changes to be made to the site every year - which should be plenty. It also allows for a slow change with a limited number of changes to be made at once. Thus each change can be thoroughly discussed and then evaluated prior to making the next change.


How to be dethroned:

If the Monarch fails to judge the debates (s)he is obligated to judge, or fails to participate in the number of debates (s)he is supposed to, then the Monarch is said to have abdicated the throne. The two most prominent challengers then debate to determine who will wear the crown.

The Monarch may choose not to contest the foremost challenger and thus cede the crown. If the Monarch accepts the challenge and is defeated, (s)he loses the crown.

The reigning Monarch must step down after 6 months.

Any Monarch who is dethroned, must wait 6 months prior to challenging for the throne again.

The people may vote to overthrow a monarch with a 60% vote. The two most prominent challengers then debate to determine who will wear the crown.


How to become the Monarch:

Be the top challenger and win the challenge debate against the reigning Monarch.



Why?

It is hokey? A little, but only if you view it in that manner. If one views it as the top tournament system, it becomes fun and useful addition to the site because, it serves a purpose and would add an element of friendly competition to the site. It would build community, reduce drama, reduce bureaucracy, enable measured direct governance of the site, and reward those who put in the most time to the site. Finally, it removes the current presidential popularity contest and becomes a fun aspect of the site to participate in.

Under this new system the office of Monarch can be adjusted as need be, but has no effective executive power except the ability to propose one governance item every voting period.


How does it get implemented?

Everybody else is running to be president, even imabench and his abolitionist campaign. By voting NOTA (None of the Above), the site will signal a revolution against the office of the President. The revolution would abolish the presidency and institute the DDO Monarchy. Being the head of the revolution, I would become the first DDO Monarch (or Absolute Debater, or whatever fun title the site would eventually settle on).

So you want an absolute ruler over DDO and not less freedom and power in the hands of the people, regular average
Jesus loves you.

////////////

-Funny Links-
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...

Stupid atheist remarks #: 6
Dragon_of_Christ
Posts: 1,293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 10:13:16 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/10/2016 5:50:58 AM, Geogeer wrote:
Contender formula

So how do you become the top contender? Site participation. I have what I believe to be a fair formula that focuses on current activity while taking account previous site activity. Merit becomes your right to participate.

(Dr/6 + Vr/24) * (T)^0.33 * (Dt/10 + Vt/100 + Ft/1000)^0.25

Dr = Actual rounds of debate (acceptance and forfeit rounds not included) in the last 2 months.

Vr = Actual round of debates voted on (acceptance and forfeit rounds not included) in the last 2 months.

T = Time you've been on DDO in years

Dt = Total Debates

Vt = Total Votes

Ft = Total Forum Posts


So let's take a purely hypothetical condition where we have 3 people who want to become monarch.

imabench - 4 debate rounds and 12 rounds of votes in the last 2 months.
geogeer - 9 debate rounds and 6 rounds of votes in the last 2 months.
tejretics - 12 debates rounds and 20 rounds of votes in the last 2 months.

imabench - (4/6 + 12/24) * (4)^0.33 * (600/10 + 1352/100 + 19655/1000)^0.25 = 5.75
geogeer - (9/6 + 6/24) *(2)^0.33 * (30/10 + 312/100 + 3392/1000)^0.25 = 3.87
tejretics - (12/6 + 20/24) * (1)^0.33 * (114/10 + 643/100 + 4339/1000)^0.25 = 6.14


So under this hypothetical circumstance tejretics would win the right to challenge.


Miscellaneous Items

Not that it matters much for my campaign, but just so that the voter have an idea about me I'll list off a couple of personal opinions.

Voting Moderation

I believe that debates should be able to specify 3 levels of voting moderation.

None - Yee-haw cowboy
Moderate - Enough to weed out vote bomb. Voter must make minimal effort to explain why the vote went to either side
Full - The current vote moderation

Debates should be subject to moderate voting standards by default and only be subject to a different standard if listed in Round 1 of the debate by the instigator of the debate.


Getting Juggle to pay more attention to the site

- There is only one way to make Juggle care more about the site.
- That is for Juggle to make more money off of the site.
- The way that Juggle currently makes money off of the site is by advertising.
- The site can generate more money by people clicking on adds.
- We can strongly encourage people to click on adds by making add clicking mandatory in order to get other users to vote on their debates.
- Let Juggle know you are doing this in advance so that they know you control the flow of money.
- Make both debaters click on 1 add per round debated and paste the travelled links as proof in the commentaries.

I don't know if this is a path people want to travel, but it is the only way to get noticed by Juggle. If it generates enough money, Juggle may pour some resources back into the site.


Thank-you and the floor is open for questions.

This is the perfect kind of thing to start a spam war.

#NOTAchance
Jesus loves you.

////////////

-Funny Links-
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...

Stupid atheist remarks #: 6
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 10:24:02 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
How are you guys doing? (referring to the fires)
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 6:15:12 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/10/2016 5:50:58 AM, Geogeer wrote:
Voting Moderation

I believe that debates should be able to specify 3 levels of voting moderation.

None - Yee-haw cowboy
Moderate - Enough to weed out vote bomb. Voter must make minimal effort to explain why the vote went to either side
Full - The current vote moderation

I do like this idea.

Getting Juggle to pay more attention to the site

- There is only one way to make Juggle care more about the site.
- That is for Juggle to make more money off of the site.
- The way that Juggle currently makes money off of the site is by advertising.
- The site can generate more money by people clicking on adds.
- We can strongly encourage people to click on adds by making add clicking mandatory in order to get other users to vote on their debates.
- Let Juggle know you are doing this in advance so that they know you control the flow of money.
- Make both debaters click on 1 add per round debated and paste the travelled links as proof in the commentaries.

This is the idea that I'm not sure about. Juggle own many other sites so are already making a LOT more money off of those. If people click on more adds, who's to say that Juggle won't just collect the additional revenue and continue to do nothing?
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2016 3:23:33 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/15/2016 6:15:12 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 5/10/2016 5:50:58 AM, Geogeer wrote:
Voting Moderation

I believe that debates should be able to specify 3 levels of voting moderation.

None - Yee-haw cowboy
Moderate - Enough to weed out vote bomb. Voter must make minimal effort to explain why the vote went to either side
Full - The current vote moderation

I do like this idea.

Getting Juggle to pay more attention to the site

- There is only one way to make Juggle care more about the site.
- That is for Juggle to make more money off of the site.
- The way that Juggle currently makes money off of the site is by advertising.
- The site can generate more money by people clicking on adds.
- We can strongly encourage people to click on adds by making add clicking mandatory in order to get other users to vote on their debates.
- Let Juggle know you are doing this in advance so that they know you control the flow of money.
- Make both debaters click on 1 add per round debated and paste the travelled links as proof in the commentaries.

This is the idea that I'm not sure about. Juggle own many other sites so are already making a LOT more money off of those. If people click on more adds, who's to say that Juggle won't just collect the additional revenue and continue to do nothing?

I'll post more later, been a very hectic weekend for me...

This isn't actually part of the campaign. It can be implemented by any campaign. You let Juggle know what you are doing. You do it for several months, then you contact them again. If they are willing to talk you've done enough to pique their interest. If not then there is no real harm done and you can discontinue.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2016 8:38:16 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 10:24:02 PM, donald.keller wrote:
How are you guys doing? (referring to the fires)

It is out of the town now. There were about 1600 structures burned down.
Peepette
Posts: 1,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 7:19:21 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/16/2016 8:38:16 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/13/2016 10:24:02 PM, donald.keller wrote:
How are you guys doing? (referring to the fires)

It is out of the town now. There were about 1600 structures burned down.

1600 gone. I feel for these people.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 7:22:39 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/17/2016 7:19:21 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 5/16/2016 8:38:16 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/13/2016 10:24:02 PM, donald.keller wrote:
How are you guys doing? (referring to the fires)

It is out of the town now. There were about 1600 structures burned down.


1600 gone. I feel for these people.

Yeah, and it still isn't over a home exploded last night, damaging several other homes. And the fire still isn't out and work camps in the area (we sound like North Korea...) have been evacuated.

http://globalnews.ca...
Peepette
Posts: 1,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 7:24:49 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/17/2016 7:22:39 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/17/2016 7:19:21 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 5/16/2016 8:38:16 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/13/2016 10:24:02 PM, donald.keller wrote:
How are you guys doing? (referring to the fires)

It is out of the town now. There were about 1600 structures burned down.


1600 gone. I feel for these people.

Yeah, and it still isn't over a home exploded last night, damaging several other homes. And the fire still isn't out and work camps in the area (we sound like North Korea...) have been evacuated.

http://globalnews.ca...

What are we looking at, almost two weeks now? I hope more help is on it's way or a few days or torrential rain.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 7:32:17 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/17/2016 7:24:49 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 5/17/2016 7:22:39 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/17/2016 7:19:21 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 5/16/2016 8:38:16 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/13/2016 10:24:02 PM, donald.keller wrote:
How are you guys doing? (referring to the fires)

It is out of the town now. There were about 1600 structures burned down.


1600 gone. I feel for these people.

Yeah, and it still isn't over a home exploded last night, damaging several other homes. And the fire still isn't out and work camps in the area (we sound like North Korea...) have been evacuated.

http://globalnews.ca...

What are we looking at, almost two weeks now? I hope more help is on it's way or a few days or torrential rain.

El Nino year... dry, dry, dry.
Peepette
Posts: 1,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 7:34:55 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/17/2016 7:32:17 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/17/2016 7:24:49 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 5/17/2016 7:22:39 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/17/2016 7:19:21 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 5/16/2016 8:38:16 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/13/2016 10:24:02 PM, donald.keller wrote:
How are you guys doing? (referring to the fires)

It is out of the town now. There were about 1600 structures burned down.


1600 gone. I feel for these people.

Yeah, and it still isn't over a home exploded last night, damaging several other homes. And the fire still isn't out and work camps in the area (we sound like North Korea...) have been evacuated.

http://globalnews.ca...

What are we looking at, almost two weeks now? I hope more help is on it's way or a few days or torrential rain.

El Nino year... dry, dry, dry.

I'll say a little prayer.
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2016 6:21:15 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/10/2016 5:50:46 AM, Geogeer wrote:

I have refrained from critiquing other platforms in their own threads and ask for the same respect in return.

You criticized my platform in your thread so you shall not be granted that respect. You dont get to criticize or dismiss other candidates platforms in your own thread and then ban them from defending their platforms, while at the same time refusing to allow them to criticize your platform as well. To do so is extremely hypocritical and dishonerable of you.

Preamble

The DDO presidency is now a bad design and the current plan to abolish the presidency is a bad and lazy design.

Simply saying its bad doesnt make it true. Explain why its bad and Ill happily blow apart your arguments.

All of the pro presidential campaigns are really about what people are personally going to do to make the site better. The abolitionist platform on the other hand lazily discards it and replaces it only with voting conventions.

The problem is that both the pro-presidency and strict abolitionist platforms are the wrong solutions; what is needed is a third way.

You have failed to even cite a single reason why a third way is needed and why the other solutions are somehow 'wrong'.

The Platform

Thus, I propose to abolish the DDO Presidency and replace it with a Monarchy! However, it is not a monarchy in the sense of ruling, but more as a titular head who serves the community, with very limited powers.

Then that doesnt make them a monarch, since monarchs rule over communities rather then try to serve them, and very rarely have any checks on their authority which is wide sweeping.

The duties of the Monarch are simple

1) Debates that end in a tie can be appealed to the monarch for a victor to be declared.

This serves no purpose to the site whatsoever and the monarch's opinion holds no sway in deciding who is the official winner of the debate.

It won't show as an official result, but it will settle the issue for the debaters.

Unless the monarch is suddenly no longer the monarch. Any pointless 'ruling' they give on a debate will lose any authority it has behind it when someone else becomes the monarch.

2) To be active in the community. The Monarch must partake in a minimum of 6 rounds of debating (not including acceptance or forfeited rounds) every month.

This allows for spam debates to be allowed, and in fact encouraged.

The remainder of the Monarchy works on a tick tock system.

3) The tick is that every "even" month the monarch defends his/her crown from the most prominent challenger (warrior-king). All would be challengers put forth their claims to challenge, with the most prestigious challenger having the right to debate the monarch in a trial by arms for the crown.

lol, and how is the 'most prestigious' challenger selected? You provide no means of selecting who this challenger would be, and the person who might be the most 'prestigious' may not even be interested in being the monarch...

- This system encourages active debating and voting as these are the only means of being able to challenge for the title of Monarch.

In other words it encourages spam debates and voting blocs. Both of which extremely bad for the site

4) The tock is that every "odd" month the monarch puts forth legislation to be voted on. The people put forward petitions on which laws to enact. The most popular of which must be put to a vote. The monarch may also choose one additional piece of legislation to put forward for a vote.

- This enable up to 12 governance changes to be made to the site every year - which should be plenty. It also allows for a slow change with a limited number of changes to be made at once. Thus each change can be thoroughly discussed and then evaluated prior to making the next change.

12 governance changes in an entire year would be the exact opposite of a 'slow change', where each change debated once under one monarch could be debated all over again under a new monarch one month later, essentially throwing open the doors to chaos to take over the site

How to be dethroned:

If the Monarch fails to judge the debates (s)he is obligated to judge, or fails to participate in the number of debates (s)he is supposed to, then the Monarch is said to have abdicated the throne. The two most prominent challengers then debate to determine who will wear the crown.

Again, no means for selecting who is the most 'prominent' is listed. By the time these 2 are even selected and debate, the next monarch selection would be 2 weeks away, since debates themselves can easily last two weeks longs depending on the number of rounds and response time that is allowed.

The people may vote to overthrow a monarch with a 60% vote. The two most prominent challengers then debate to determine who will wear the crown.

Once again, no means of selecting who is the most 'prominent'

It would build community, reduce drama, reduce bureaucracy, enable measured direct governance of the site,

It would certainly NOT reduce drama since you risk having new leadership once a month with members pushing for legislation changes around the clock. It is also not direct governance of the site since the Monarch gets to veto whatever they want

and reward those who put in the most time to the site.

aka those who spam the most.

How does it get implemented?

By voting NOTA (None of the Above), the site will signal a revolution against the office of the President. The revolution would abolish the presidency and institute the DDO Monarchy.

Merely winning the election would not implement the monarchy. You wold need the full support of the mods to implement the monarchy and not host any more presidency threads, while also convincing the DDO population that they now live under authority of a king rather than a president instead, which wont go over very well since most people on DDO are americans who hate the idea of living under a monarchy.

Your platform is completely un-implementable, would only unleash a tsunami of drama on the site, and cause far more problems than it would solve. Its arguable that this system wouldnt solve ANY problem the site currently faces.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

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

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2016 8:31:13 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/17/2016 7:34:55 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 5/17/2016 7:32:17 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/17/2016 7:24:49 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 5/17/2016 7:22:39 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/17/2016 7:19:21 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 5/16/2016 8:38:16 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/13/2016 10:24:02 PM, donald.keller wrote:
How are you guys doing? (referring to the fires)

It is out of the town now. There were about 1600 structures burned down.


1600 gone. I feel for these people.

Yeah, and it still isn't over a home exploded last night, damaging several other homes. And the fire still isn't out and work camps in the area (we sound like North Korea...) have been evacuated.

http://globalnews.ca...

What are we looking at, almost two weeks now? I hope more help is on it's way or a few days or torrential rain.

El Nino year... dry, dry, dry.

I'll say a little prayer.
+1 me too! and bump
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 7:21:05 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
Moved to the challenge thread.

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

At 5/18/2016 6:21:15 PM, imabench wrote:
At 5/10/2016 5:50:46 AM, Geogeer wrote:

I have refrained from critiquing other platforms in their own threads and ask for the same respect in return.

You criticized my platform in your thread so you shall not be granted that respect. You dont get to criticize or dismiss other candidates platforms in your own thread and then ban them from defending their platforms, while at the same time refusing to allow them to criticize your platform as well. To do so is extremely hypocritical and dishonerable of you.

Preamble

The DDO presidency is now a bad design and the current plan to abolish the presidency is a bad and lazy design.

Simply saying its bad doesnt make it true. Explain why its bad and Ill happily blow apart your arguments.

All of the pro presidential campaigns are really about what people are personally going to do to make the site better. The abolitionist platform on the other hand lazily discards it and replaces it only with voting conventions.

The problem is that both the pro-presidency and strict abolitionist platforms are the wrong solutions; what is needed is a third way.

You have failed to even cite a single reason why a third way is needed and why the other solutions are somehow 'wrong'.

The Platform

Thus, I propose to abolish the DDO Presidency and replace it with a Monarchy! However, it is not a monarchy in the sense of ruling, but more as a titular head who serves the community, with very limited powers.

Then that doesnt make them a monarch, since monarchs rule over communities rather then try to serve them, and very rarely have any checks on their authority which is wide sweeping.

The duties of the Monarch are simple

1) Debates that end in a tie can be appealed to the monarch for a victor to be declared.

This serves no purpose to the site whatsoever and the monarch's opinion holds no sway in deciding who is the official winner of the debate.

It won't show as an official result, but it will settle the issue for the debaters.

Unless the monarch is suddenly no longer the monarch. Any pointless 'ruling' they give on a debate will lose any authority it has behind it when someone else becomes the monarch.

2) To be active in the community. The Monarch must partake in a minimum of 6 rounds of debating (not including acceptance or forfeited rounds) every month.

This allows for spam debates to be allowed, and in fact encouraged.

The remainder of the Monarchy works on a tick tock system.

3) The tick is that every "even" month the monarch defends his/her crown from the most prominent challenger (warrior-king). All would be challengers put forth their claims to challenge, with the most prestigious challenger having the right to debate the monarch in a trial by arms for the crown.

lol, and how is the 'most prestigious' challenger selected? You provide no means of selecting who this challenger would be, and the person who might be the most 'prestigious' may not even be interested in being the monarch...

- This system encourages active debating and voting as these are the only means of being able to challenge for the title of Monarch.

In other words it encourages spam debates and voting blocs. Both of which extremely bad for the site

4) The tock is that every "odd" month the monarch puts forth legislation to be voted on. The people put forward petitions on which laws to enact. The most popular of which must be put to a vote. The monarch may also choose one additional piece of legislation to put forward for a vote.

- This enable up to 12 governance changes to be made to the site every year - which should be plenty. It also allows for a slow change with a limited number of changes to be made at once. Thus each change can be thoroughly discussed and then evaluated prior to making the next change.

12 governance changes in an entire year would be the exact opposite of a 'slow change', where each change debated once under one monarch could be debated all over again under a new monarch one month later, essentially throwing open the doors to chaos to take over the site

How to be dethroned:

If the Monarch fails to judge the debates (s)he is obligated to judge, or fails to participate in the number of debates (s)he is supposed to, then the Monarch is said to have abdicated the throne. The two most prominent challengers then debate to determine who will wear the crown.

Again, no means for selecting who is the most 'prominent' is listed. By the time these 2 are even selected and debate, the next monarch selection would be 2 weeks away, since debates themselves can easily last two weeks longs depending on the number of rounds and response time that is allowed.

The people may vote to overthrow a monarch with a 60% vote. The two most prominent challengers then debate to determine who will wear the crown.

Once again, no means of selecting who is the most 'prominent'

It would build community, reduce drama, reduce bureaucracy, enable measured direct governance of the site,

It would certainly NOT reduce drama since you risk having new leadership once a month with members pushing for legislation changes around the clock. It is also not direct governance of the site since the Monarch gets to veto whatever they want

and reward those who put in the most time to the site.

aka those who spam the most.

How does it get implemented?

By voting NOTA (None of the Above), the site will signal a revolution against the office of the President. The revolution would abolish the presidency and institute the DDO Monarchy.

Merely winning the election would not implement the monarchy. You wold need the full support of the mods to implement the monarchy and not host any more presidency threads, while also convincing the DDO population that they now live under authority of a king rather than a president instead, which wont go over very well since most people on DDO are americans who hate the idea of living under a monarchy.

Your platform is completely un-implementable, would only unleash a tsunami of drama on the site, and cause far more problems than it would solve. Its arguable that this system wouldnt solve ANY problem the site currently faces.
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 3:29:50 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Moved back into this thread so that voters are aware of how terrible your platform really is.

At 5/24/2016 7:19:16 AM, Geogeer wrote:
My apologies for taking so long to get back to you. Real life had demands.

You were gone for 12 days without any sort of heads up beforehand, Its obvious you just dont care that much about running or about the site. Weddings and funerals barely chew up a week of a persons time, you were gone for nearly twice that.

At 5/18/2016 6:21:15 PM, imabench wrote:
At 5/10/2016 5:50:46 AM, Geogeer wrote:

I have refrained from critiquing other platforms in their own threads and ask for the same respect in return.

You criticized my platform in your thread so you shall not be granted that respect.

I did not critique your platform - I shared my general opinion of it - a distinct difference.

Your opinion of it was critical of it without any explanation or reason. Only shows how much of a coward you are by wanting a safe space to express your views and be immune to any counter-criticism.

Your abolitionist campaign is lazy because it merely adopts a direct democracy element to the site.

Thats not laziness, its increasing the effectiveness, and an entire new system had to be created from scratch in order to make such a transition possible. The idea that that is somehow lazy shows that the only thing that rivals your cowardice is your ignorance

And without Juggle present there is no real limitations as to what would be implemented with the exception of Airmax's personal decision to not permit certain things from being done

You literally just listed the main limitation preventing mob rule while trying to argue that there are no real limitations....

This is why I limit the number of changes

You freely admit that your system would stifle the voice of the people. Thank you.

You have to get people to agree on the wording of each resolution in each corresponding thread, with no interrelationship between the ideas being proposed. As such you could end up with 2 different resolutions, pushed by different "camps" both being passed with contradictory measures in them.

Resolutions need 60% approval to be passed and Airmax holds the power to veto any duplicate proposal he feels more poorly addresses the issue at hand. Your fear is irrational and not based on reality.

You have failed to even cite a single reason why a third way is needed and why the other solutions are somehow 'wrong'.

Both solutions are geared directly to popularity contests on the site and do nothing to actually increase the amount of debating and voting being completed - the whole reason for the site to exist.

The forums are where the site gets its life and blood. There's a reason why the site has almost 2 and a half million posts whil there have only been about 90,000 debates.

Thus, I propose to abolish the DDO Presidency and replace it with a Monarchy! However, it is not a monarchy in the sense of ruling, but more as a titular head who serves the community, with very limited powers.

Then that doesnt make them a monarch, since monarchs rule over communities rather then try to serve them, and very rarely have any checks on their authority which is wide sweeping.

Lol. You are seriously making this argument? I noted that the monarch title was for fun in the campaign, and that the community could decide on the title after the election.

Now you are the one being lazy since you cant even sink time into coming up with a proper title of who would rule in your system.

1) Debates that end in a tie can be appealed to the monarch for a victor to be declared.

This serves no purpose to the site whatsoever and the monarch's opinion holds no sway in deciding who is the official winner of the debate.

feedback on drawn debates can also be highly valuable for the debaters.

You can do that without making someone king or queen. Any member who reads a debate can offer advice on it if someone seeks out advice.

It won't show as an official result, but it will settle the issue for the debaters.

Unless the monarch is suddenly no longer the monarch. Any pointless 'ruling' they give on a debate will lose any authority it has behind it when someone else becomes the monarch.

Many people want the feedback even if it never shows in the win/loss column.

If one monarch believes one side did the best, and then the next monarch says the other side did the best, then youre only spreading misinformation and not helping those involved in the debate.

2) To be active in the community. The Monarch must partake in a minimum of 6 rounds of debating (not including acceptance or forfeited rounds) every month.

This allows for spam debates to be allowed, and in fact encouraged.

I have faith in this community, and that people's personal integrity would result in the monarch drawing interest in more total and more quality debates.

Faith and integrity have nothing to do with making quality debates and the monarchy would not encourage people to make debates. In fact it would only encourage those who want to be king to spam as many terrible debates as possible to boost their score in the equation you give.

You apparently lack trust in the members of this site.

The entire site lacks trust in the members of this site. How many threads have been made bemoaning the low-quality of debates on the site over the years? Simple observation of the challenge section shows that debates are stale and not very good. You yourself have only debated 3 times in the past year, none of which were voted on, which shows how little people consider debates to be.

Anyone, who wanted to challenge would enter their name and show list the 6 criteria.

e.g.
Geogeer
9 debate rounds - last 2 months
6 debate rounds voted - last 2 months
2 years on site
30 total debates
312 total votes
3392 forum posts

Challenge score: 3.87

The challenger with the best score would win the right to challenge.

Your score though doesnt choose the 'most prestigious' challenger though, it only chooses the person who spams the most debates and the most votes on debates. ViSpex would probably have the highest score of anyone due to how much he spams debates, yet no one except your equation would consider him to be a 'prestigious challenger'

- This system encourages active debating and voting as these are the only means of being able to challenge for the title of Monarch.

In other words it encourages spam debates and voting blocs. Both of which extremely bad for the site.

That would make you an ideal challenger - having completed 600 debates!

You completely dodged the point and concede that your system encourages spam debates and voting blocs
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

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

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 3:29:57 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 7:19:47 AM, Geogeer wrote:

However, it would enable quicker decisions on items like vote moderation to be tweaked more quickly than the prolonged discussions taking place right now.

If you really prefer that people should react on instinct to pass reforms and that prolonged discussions about possible reforms are a bad thing then it shows how unfit you and your platform are in terms of site governance.

How to be dethroned:

If the Monarch fails to judge the debates (s)he is obligated to judge, or fails to participate in the number of debates (s)he is supposed to, then the Monarch is said to have abdicated the throne. The two most prominent challengers then debate to determine who will wear the crown.

Again, no means for selecting who is the most 'prominent' is listed. By the time these 2 are even selected and debate, the next monarch selection would be 2 weeks away, since debates themselves can easily last two weeks longs depending on the number of rounds and response time that is allowed.

My environment was that their requirements were the average of the 2 months they were in. Stuff comes up, so if you cannot get all the debates you need to do in one month, you can do extra in your second month.

Except you freely admit that a new monarch could be selected every month, so your statement right here is a blatant lie.

I can only see the members voting him out if tournaments cannot be resolved because (s)he refuses to decide the winner in a draw or he is someone who spammed their way in and the members want them out.

Here you admit that members could simply spam their way into power and become monarch on the site. How much drama do you think that would cause on the site exactly? Your platform has gigantic holes in it and a litany of problems you refuse to address when you even acknowledge a problem exists in the first place

It would build community, reduce drama, reduce bureaucracy, enable measured direct governance of the site,

It would certainly NOT reduce drama since you risk having new leadership once a month with members pushing for legislation changes around the clock. It is also not direct governance of the site since the Monarch gets to veto whatever they want

Funny, under my platform there is no veto power for the monarch. Could you please describe where you read that the monarch had veto power?

"The tock is that every "odd" month the monarch puts forth legislation to be voted on"

The monarch is the one who puts forth legislation to be voted on, members of the site only get to petition for what legislation they believe the monarch should put up for a vote, meaning that the monarch can effectively not put certain proposals up for a vote at their own pleasure.

And what is funny is that under your system there is the possibility of literally dozens of changes proposed every 6 months at the conventions.

Because there shouldnt be any restraint on member ideas for proposed changes to the site. You admit your system restrains proposed reforms and argues that stifling the voice of the people is somehow one of the strengths of your platform

How does it get implemented?

By voting NOTA (None of the Above), the site will signal a revolution against the office of the President. The revolution would abolish the presidency and institute the DDO Monarchy.

Merely winning the election would not implement the monarchy. You wold need the full support of the mods to implement the monarchy and not host any more presidency threads, while also convincing the DDO population that they now live under authority of a king rather than a president instead, which wont go over very well since most people on DDO are americans who hate the idea of living under a monarchy.

Lol. You are really hung up on the king thing. Airmax has told me he would work with me to implement it if won.

Quote where he said so in the forums then.

If people wanted the presidency back, they could vote on it - simple enough.

No they cant, they can only petition to bring the presidency back and hope that the monarch puts it up to a formal vote.

The monarch acts as a judge to help debaters, as a competitor for members,a and as a chairman for self governance. If you want to call the position chairman - I really don"t care. Besides it is way more fun to compete to be king!

Your entire platform is built around exploiting popularity contests, which are what abolitionists are voting AGAINST.

Your platform is completely un-implementable, would only unleash a tsunami of drama on the site, and cause far more problems than it would solve. Its arguable that this system wouldnt solve ANY problem the site currently faces.

No platform can solve the problems on this site alone.

You freely admit that people could spam their way into power, that the position is basically a popularity contest just by using the phrase 'King' to bait people into running for it, and that proposed reforms are limited and stifled under your system..... Your platform not only fails to solve any problems the site has, it only creates more of them.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

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

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 3:53:16 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
5 days not 12, misread the dates
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

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

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 2:43:24 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
Bump.

Because every campaign deserves to be seen
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 6:46:00 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 7:19:16 AM, Geogeer wrote:
My apologies for taking so long to get back to you. Real life had demands.

You were gone for 12 days without any sort of heads up beforehand, Its obvious you just dont care that much about running or about the site. Weddings and funerals barely chew up a week of a persons time, you were gone for nearly twice that.

As you later noted, it was only 5 days not, 12. I am a husband, father, business partner and engineer with responsibilities to the public. I work 7 days a week. When there are time demands I have to put real life ahead of DDO. You may realize that once you are out of university.

Given all that happened during those 5 days, I really didn't miss much.

As for running DDO, I have no desire to do so. My platform does not require me to do so. No conflict no hypocrisy.

Just so you know I will be out of town in a remote community until Sunday night supervising a project.

At 5/18/2016 6:21:15 PM, imabench wrote:
At 5/10/2016 5:50:46 AM, Geogeer wrote:

I have refrained from critiquing other platforms in their own threads and ask for the same respect in return.

You criticized my platform in your thread so you shall not be granted that respect.

I did not critique your platform - I shared my general opinion of it - a distinct difference.

Your opinion of it was critical of it without any explanation or reason. Only shows how much of a coward you are by wanting a safe space to express your views and be immune to any counter-criticism.

Lol. You think I'm actually afraid? I moved it into a separate thread to keep the discussion free from intervening conversation. I'm quite happy for everyone to see it.

Your abolitionist campaign is lazy because it merely adopts a direct democracy element to the site.

Thats not laziness, its increasing the effectiveness, and an entire new system had to be created from scratch in order to make such a transition possible. The idea that that is somehow lazy shows that the only thing that rivals your cowardice is your ignorance

No because it replaces a site building position that also effects governance with merely a governance position. The complexity of your platform:

1 - Direct democracy every 6 months.

Wow that was such an innovative creation. Who could have ever conceived it?

And without Juggle present there is no real limitations as to what would be implemented with the exception of Airmax's personal decision to not permit certain things from being done

You literally just listed the main limitation preventing mob rule while trying to argue that there are no real limitations....

It is mob rule once you start allowing people to vote to ban users. Besides any system implemented should not be dependent on the fine job that Airmax does on this site. If he should tire of his role, we should have a system that works well with any future moderator

This is why I limit the number of changes

You freely admit that your system would stifle the voice of the people. Thank you.

You just finished complaining that allowing 12 changes a year will turn the site into a jurisdictional madhouse, and now you claim that it stifles the voice of the people. It is evident that you are simply irrational in your attacks on my campaign.

You have to get people to agree on the wording of each resolution in each corresponding thread, with no interrelationship between the ideas being proposed. As such you could end up with 2 different resolutions, pushed by different "camps" both being passed with contradictory measures in them.

Resolutions need 60% approval to be passed and Airmax holds the power to veto any duplicate proposal he feels more poorly addresses the issue at hand. Your fear is irrational and not based on reality.

So your answer to the shortcomings in your platform is that Airmax has to decide the outcome if more the one vote were to pass in which conflicting resolutions were passed. Doesn't seem democratic to me.

You have failed to even cite a single reason why a third way is needed and why the other solutions are somehow 'wrong'.

Both solutions are geared directly to popularity contests on the site and do nothing to actually increase the amount of debating and voting being completed - the whole reason for the site to exist.

The forums are where the site gets its life and blood. There's a reason why the site has almost 2 and a half million posts whil there have only been about 90,000 debates.

The forums is where the majority of the time is spent, but it is debate that is the purpose of the site. Strong participation is debate drives the site (except for the religion forum). I believe that the lack of those in the forums not debating is the source of the sense of malaise that people feel.

Thus, I propose to abolish the DDO Presidency and replace it with a Monarchy! However, it is not a monarchy in the sense of ruling, but more as a titular head who serves the community, with very limited powers.

Then that doesnt make them a monarch, since monarchs rule over communities rather then try to serve them, and very rarely have any checks on their authority which is wide sweeping.

Lol. You are seriously making this argument? I noted that the monarch title was for fun in the campaign, and that the community could decide on the title after the election.

Now you are the one being lazy since you cant even sink time into coming up with a proper title of who would rule in your system.

I'm calling it a monarch. If people want to change it, you only have to wait 2 months to the first election to do so. It is the system, and not the title that matters.

1) Debates that end in a tie can be appealed to the monarch for a victor to be declared.

This serves no purpose to the site whatsoever and the monarch's opinion holds no sway in deciding who is the official winner of the debate.

feedback on drawn debates can also be highly valuable for the debaters.

You can do that without making someone king or queen. Any member who reads a debate can offer advice on it if someone seeks out advice.

Yet none of those can decide who moves forward in a tourney. Additionally this person has an obligation - it is tough to get votes these days...

Many people want the feedback even if it never shows in the win/loss column.

If one monarch believes one side did the best, and then the next monarch says the other side did the best, then youre only spreading misinformation and not helping those involved in the debate.

Well considering that you only appeal the tie once there is no reason that the next monarch would say anything. Besides more feedback is always good. It shows different viewpoints on the debate.

2) To be active in the community. The Monarch must partake in a minimum of 6 rounds of debating (not including acceptance or forfeited rounds) every month.

This allows for spam debates to be allowed, and in fact encouraged.

I have faith in this community, and that people's personal integrity would result in the monarch drawing interest in more total and more quality debates.

Faith and integrity have nothing to do with making quality debates and the monarchy would not encourage people to make debates. In fact it would only encourage those who want to be king to spam as many terrible debates as possible to boost their score in the equation you give.

And yet senior members could thwart this simply by doing far fewer debates and votes - this is the type of behaviour that people grow out of - put a min time on site. Additionally, it is possible to have lots of rounds and still have good debates. If the system gets abused the formula can be amended - whi
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 6:46:06 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 3:29:50 PM, imabench wrote:
At 5/24/2016 7:19:16 AM, Geogeer wrote:

You apparently lack trust in the members of this site.

The entire site lacks trust in the members of this site. How many threads have been made bemoaning the low-quality of debates on the site over the years? Simple observation of the challenge section shows that debates are stale and not very good. You yourself have only debated 3 times in the past year, none of which were voted on, which shows how little people consider debates to be.

You see. I'm older with a Job and a family. I have never had much time for debating. This program isn't for me. I have only done 3 debates in the past year because my wife gave birth to our 3rd child 18 months ago and our company was forced to move out our old location. This put severe demands on my time such that I never felt that I would have the time to enter formal debates.

The fact that the debates weren't voted on shows the site wide apathy that is setting in. I believe part of that is the new voting rules. People don't want to spend the time to go through long debates and then have to spend even longer writing out a protracted RFD in order to vote. I firmly believe that the new voting rules are killing debating.

Anyone, who wanted to challenge would enter their name and show list the 6 criteria.

e.g.
Geogeer
9 debate rounds - last 2 months
6 debate rounds voted - last 2 months
2 years on site
30 total debates
312 total votes
3392 forum posts

Challenge score: 3.87

The challenger with the best score would win the right to challenge.

Your score though doesnt choose the 'most prestigious' challenger though, it only chooses the person who spams the most debates and the most votes on debates. ViSpex would probably have the highest score of anyone due to how much he spams debates, yet no one except your equation would consider him to be a 'prestigious challenger'

It shows the person who has made the effort to make the challenge. If Vi_Spex wants to challenge, then let him. He can do so once every 6 months - he is participating and putting in the time. Which is more than many these days. He would have to win the debates to become the monarch - which according to his ELO wouldn't likely happen.

The formula could even be modified to include ELO as a factor. It was something I avoided doing initially, but the site members could change that to give an even bigger advantage to these debaters.

- This system encourages active debating and voting as these are the only means of being able to challenge for the title of Monarch.

In other words it encourages spam debates and voting blocs. Both of which extremely bad for the site.

That would make you an ideal challenger - having completed 600 debates!

You completely dodged the point and concede that your system encourages spam debates and voting blocs

Sorry I misunderstood what you were trying to get at with voting blocks - i.e. that a voting block could be used in the challenge debate. Sorry, I originally misunderstood the first time.

Sure these things could happen. Voting blocks can also happen in the regular tournaments, they get so few votes that it would be easy. My hope would be that this "tourney" would encourage more regular people to vote and thus engaging them. One again the whole qualification system can be easily modified to modify these concerns.

Being a new system, there are bugs that will have to be ironed out. I have no doubt about that. I also have no doubt that this new system will add value to the site.
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 2:01:13 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 6:46:00 AM, Geogeer wrote:

As for running DDO, I have no desire to do so. My platform does not require me to do so.

Your platform states you would be the first king of people voted for it (which they won't). That does mean your platform requires you to rule, and you're statement that you don't want to run DDO while still wanting to name yourself king of it shows you have no real concern for the site and only want fame and attention

The complexity of your platform:

1 - Direct democracy every 6 months.

Wow that was such an innovative creation. Who could have ever conceived it?

You must be a terrible engineer if you think that simplicity is somehow a bad thing when it comes to solving a problem XD

Meanwhile your system is full of bugs and needlessly complicated that arguably wouldn't even be implemented by the mods in the first place, so my simple system is still vastly superior to yours. And the votes reflect that.

And without Juggle present there is no real limitations as to what would be implemented with the exception of Airmax's personal decision to not permit certain things from being done

You literally just listed the main limitation preventing mob rule while trying to argue that there are no real limitations....

It is mob rule once you start allowing people to vote to ban users.

Except it isn't, since there are fail-safes built in to prevent exactly that. Your entire claim that it's mob rule is based on a completely hypothetical scenario rather than reality itself.

This is why I limit the number of changes

You freely admit that your system would stifle the voice of the people. Thank you.

You just finished complaining that allowing 12 changes a year will turn the site into a jurisdictional madhouse, and now you claim that it stifles the voice of the people.

It does both, showing how terrible of a system it is.

So your answer to the shortcomings in your platform is that Airmax has to decide the outcome if more the one vote were to pass in which conflicting resolutions were passed. Doesn't seem democratic to me.

Says the guy running to turn DDO into a monarchy and make himself king.... I can't tell if you're trolling now or if you are actually that f*cking stupid....

The forums is where the majority of the time is spent, but it is debate that is the purpose of the site. Strong participation is debate drives the site (except for the religion forum).

Debate creation on the site has never been higher, so your entire platform is meant to fix a problem that doesn't exist and instead creates dozens more problems you simply brush off or deny being outcomes

I'm calling it a monarch. If people want to change it, you only have to wait 2 months to the first election to do so. It is the system, and not the title that matters.

But your system is a complete mess that would only make the site worse and stifle the voice of regular people to push for reform

Yet none of those can decide who moves forward in a tourney.

The person missing the tournament can decide what to do. This only further shows you don't know how the site works or functions and why your system is needlessly complex and horrendously designed

Faith and integrity have nothing to do with making quality debates and the monarchy would not encourage people to make debates. In fact it would only encourage those who want to be king to spam as many terrible debates as possible to boost their score in the equation you give.

And yet senior members could thwart this simply by doing far fewer debates and votes

That would literally only make it easier for people to spam their way to be king
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

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

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015