Total Posts:85|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Vote Moderation Policies Discussion 2.0

airmax1227
Posts: 13,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2016 1:00:38 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
We've had several discussions about this before, so to move this forward I'd like to keep this discussion mostly focused on the vote moderation policies themselves.

Previous recent discussions about voting can be viewed here:

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

Following this opening post, I am going to post the vote moderation policies as they currently exist. Once you read them, I would like you to post some variation of (but not limited to) any of the following statements:

A) You believe the following policies are fine, and should remain as they are.

B) The policies are mostly fine, but need to be adjusted in some way. Following which I would appreciate if you would please provide specific examples of what you think should be changed, and what specifically you believe we should change it with.

C) The policies are mostly flawed, and should be replaced entirely. Please provide examples of what you think may be good about the current policies, and what the rest should be replaced with.

D) You believe vote moderation needs to cease to exist entirely, and replaced with a system that insists that debaters opt into higher standards by choosing the opt-in voting system, or using the sites existing options. Any other suggestions for removal of vote moderation and what one believes should replace it (if anything at all) would be appreciated.

I believe that most opinions about whether or not vote moderation should exist at all have been mostly articulated at length (and the reasons for those having that view), so while I don't want to go into too much depth on that in this thread, I would still appreciate those that wish it to be done away with entirely, to still make a brief statement saying so. In other words, if you feel that vote moderation should be abolished entirely, that is a perfectly reasonable point of view, and I'd encourage you to make that statement. But to avoid rehashing the same debate that we've had elsewhere, I would like to avoid making this thread about that debate specifically, so that we can focus on the portion of the issue this thread is intended for. That debate (vote moderation removal) will likely be hosted by me again in another thread in the near future.

The goal here is to, assuming that we want to continue with vote moderation, maintain policies with specific language that reflect the desire of the community. The policy outline below reflects the current status quo based on my understanding of what the community generally expects from vote moderation, and I am taking this opportunity to adjust it accordingly based on the feedback provided here and in continued discussions. Once this process is complete, the final version of the vote moderation policies outline will be posted in a vote related stickied thread.

This thread is intended to state whether or not vote moderation should continue in any form, and if it does, whether or not the following policies should exist as they are described below. Since I would like this discussion to remain focused on that, please refrain from using this thread to discuss anything unrelated to what is described above.

Thank you.
Debate.org Moderator
airmax1227
Posts: 13,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2016 1:02:19 AM
Posted: 6 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, Conceded Debates


A full-forfeit debate is defined as a debate that has no argument presented by one side following the opening round. When this is the case, these debates are considered full forfeit debates and are not moderated unless a voter votes for the forfeiting side. Similarly, a conceded debate is any debate in which on side clearly concedes the debate to their opponent. These debates are considered conceded debates and are not moderated unless a voter votes for the side that concedes.

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
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2016 1:13:08 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/21/2016 1:02:19 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
**************************************************************************************
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, Conceded Debates


A full-forfeit debate is defined as a debate that has no argument presented by one side following the opening round. When this is the case, these debates are considered full forfeit debates and are not moderated unless a voter votes for the forfeiting side. Similarly, a conceded debate is any debate in which on side clearly concedes the debate to their opponent. These debates are considered conceded debates and are not moderated unless a voter votes for the side that concedes.

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.

**************************************************************************************
I think this is a clear and concise voting guide, and if it is stickied where it is easily accessible, it will help voters to write sufficient RFDs.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2016 1:19:13 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
I live the state of vote moderation. My only problem with it was the conduct point with the forfeiting, of which has been fixed.

I do have question though. Some people award conduct to the debater that conceded the debate, and then arguments to the other side. Argument allocation obviously makes sense, but would conduct allocation be justified?
airmax1227
Posts: 13,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2016 1:25:29 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/21/2016 1:19:13 AM, Hayd wrote:
I live the state of vote moderation. My only problem with it was the conduct point with the forfeiting, of which has been fixed.

I do have question though. Some people award conduct to the debater that conceded the debate, and then arguments to the other side. Argument allocation obviously makes sense, but would conduct allocation be justified?

Section 3: subsection A deals with Full-forfeit and Conceded Debates. In these cases, the votes on those debates aren't moderated. So, if a debater clearly concedes the debate, the voter can provide whatever points they like. If they however award points to the side that conceded, those votes will likely be removed. There isn't anything specific in the section about point splitting, but as long as the majority of points go to the side that didn't concede (thus ensuring that side the win) I do feel as though the issue is mostly handled for all practical purposes.

If there is a desire for us to make this a more strict policy though (precluding any points being awarded to the side that concedes), we can certainly have that discussion
Debate.org Moderator
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2016 1:27:24 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/21/2016 1:25:29 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/21/2016 1:19:13 AM, Hayd wrote:
I live the state of vote moderation. My only problem with it was the conduct point with the forfeiting, of which has been fixed.

I do have question though. Some people award conduct to the debater that conceded the debate, and then arguments to the other side. Argument allocation obviously makes sense, but would conduct allocation be justified?

Section 3: subsection A deals with Full-forfeit and Conceded Debates. In these cases, the votes on those debates aren't moderated. So, if a debater clearly concedes the debate, the voter can provide whatever points they like. If they however award points to the side that conceded, those votes will likely be removed. There isn't anything specific in the section about point splitting, but as long as the majority of points go to the side that didn't concede (thus ensuring that side the win) I do feel as though the issue is mostly handled for all practical purposes.

If there is a desire for us to make this a more strict policy though (precluding any points being awarded to the side that concedes), we can certainly have that discussion

Ok
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2016 1:48:04 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/21/2016 1:00:38 AM, airmax1227 wrote:

It's an interesting dilemma. I'm inclined to select A because, overall, the standards are perfectly fine. However, I'm also tempted to select B because the standards are sometimes overly strict and pander to people who complain, report votes out of bias, and results in votes being too often removed when they are sufficient to the outcome of the specific debate. This isn't the fault of moderators nor, in normative cases, is it the fault of moderation policy. The issue is, no pervasive set of standards can remedy this; there are simply far too many variables to consider for online debate with little structure.

I pity those who are in moderation positions, because far too many people fail to realize the difficulty in moderating hundreds of debates of varying degrees with one, specific, set of standards. They instantly blame the moderator for making the wrong choice. Sure, it has (and will continue) to happen, but no one other than human error is really to blame. I've tested it out myself, checking debates and trying to decide whether or not they are sufficient. For one, it's difficult because people interpret debates differently and simply because there are wide-ranging juxtapositions in debates themselves, making the pool far too complex to account for any single, pervasive set of standards.

TL;DR -- Vote moderation makes plenty of mistakes, but there is really nowhere to place the blame nor are there any feasible methods to fix the problem. On balance, however, vote moderation is successful in mediating in debates. Moderation is sometimes too stringent, but no proposed change can solve this.

Ergo, I choose B... though I can't provide any specifics for remediation. Sorry. :/
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2016 1:57:10 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
Just what me and Raisor always wanted... lol
-- 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 --
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2016 2:50:21 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/21/2016 1:19:13 AM, Hayd wrote:
I do have question though. Some people award conduct to the debater that conceded the debate, and then arguments to the other side. Argument allocation obviously makes sense, but would conduct allocation be justified?

Such votes used to be removed, but not anymore.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2016 2:52:11 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
Voting standards are good enough that my only problem is the new formatting used in vote removal comments; bluesteel's looked better. *

* (Just kidding, of course. I merely used this as a tool to provide my opinion that standards should stay where they are.)
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2016 10:16:10 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/21/2016 1:00:38 AM, airmax1227 wrote:

I have a question. I've heard that the statute of limitations for voting is 1 month. Does that mean, in a six-month debate voting period, votes are no longer moderated following 1 month? If that's the case, I propose that ~ insofar as the voting period ends at some point (i.e. 6 months or lower) ~ votes be moderated on debates until the voting period closes *or* after one month (whichever comes later).
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2016 10:18:20 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
I also believe that the opt-out system that YYW proposed (i.e. when "no RFD required" is set, but instigators urge counter-votes on seemingly insufficient RFDs or lack of RFD, with reasoning for the counter) should be publicized further, so people get to know about it.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2016 2:12:05 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/21/2016 10:16:10 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/21/2016 1:00:38 AM, airmax1227 wrote:

I have a question. I've heard that the statute of limitations for voting is 1 month. Does that mean, in a six-month debate voting period, votes are no longer moderated following 1 month? If that's the case, I propose that ~ insofar as the voting period ends at some point (i.e. 6 months or lower) ~ votes be moderated on debates until the voting period closes *or* after one month (whichever comes later).

The statute of limitations refers to when the voting period ends. As such, if the voting period is 6 months long, then the statute of limitations comes into effect after 7 months.
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 2:28:44 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/21/2016 1:48:04 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 5/21/2016 1:00:38 AM, airmax1227 wrote:

It's an interesting dilemma. I'm inclined to select A because, overall, the standards are perfectly fine. However, I'm also tempted to select B because the standards are sometimes overly strict and pander to people who complain, report votes out of bias, and results in votes being too often removed when they are sufficient to the outcome of the specific debate. This isn't the fault of moderators nor, in normative cases, is it the fault of moderation policy. The issue is, no pervasive set of standards can remedy this; there are simply far too many variables to consider for online debate with little structure.

I pity those who are in moderation positions, because far too many people fail to realize the difficulty in moderating hundreds of debates of varying degrees with one, specific, set of standards. They instantly blame the moderator for making the wrong choice. Sure, it has (and will continue) to happen, but no one other than human error is really to blame. I've tested it out myself, checking debates and trying to decide whether or not they are sufficient. For one, it's difficult because people interpret debates differently and simply because there are wide-ranging juxtapositions in debates themselves, making the pool far too complex to account for any single, pervasive set of standards.

TL;DR -- Vote moderation makes plenty of mistakes, but there is really nowhere to place the blame nor are there any feasible methods to fix the problem. On balance, however, vote moderation is successful in mediating in debates. Moderation is sometimes too stringent, but no proposed change can solve this.

Ergo, I choose B... though I can't provide any specifics for remediation. Sorry. :/

I mostly agree. No matter what rules are implemented, using objective standards without discretion. there will always be the occasional vote that counts as sufficient when it shouldn't or vice verca.

I originally was going to write a list of all the changes that would improve the voting standards, but the only significant change I would want is to allow some bias in opinion debates, since they are subjective.
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 3:04:10 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
Here is an idea to improve the voting standards dilemma: Implement a much less strict voting standard, and allow for counter vote bombs to deal with the borderline bad votes which meet the new less strict standard but not the current standard.

Although voting standards can recognize clearly bad votes and clearly good votes, it is bad at recognizing borderline votes. We need discretion to deal with these votes, which can be done with counter vote bombs, but not with one size fits all rules.
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 3:28:25 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/21/2016 2:12:05 PM, whiteflame wrote:
The statute of limitations refers to when the voting period ends. As such, if the voting period is 6 months long, then the statute of limitations comes into effect after 7 months.

Okay, thanks for the clarification.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 7:20:46 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 3:04:10 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
Here is an idea to improve the voting standards dilemma: Implement a much less strict voting standard, and allow for counter vote bombs to deal with the borderline bad votes which meet the new less strict standard but not the current standard.

Although voting standards can recognize clearly bad votes and clearly good votes, it is bad at recognizing borderline votes. We need discretion to deal with these votes, which can be done with counter vote bombs, but not with one size fits all rules.

Counter Vote bombs were often badly misused... such as someone giving the side they like 7 points, to generally counter votes they view as wrong (without stating whose votes were bad, or what was wrong other than the person they like losing).
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
Biodome
Posts: 138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 12:56:02 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
I think the current voting standards are fine, however, an option to opt-out of the voting process, so that two sides may have an unrated or troll debate, would be great as well.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 1:26:21 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 12:56:02 PM, Biodome wrote:
I think the current voting standards are fine, however, an option to opt-out of the voting process, so that two sides may have an unrated or troll debate, would be great as well.

I don't think we need to change any policy to achieve that. We just have to state that it's a no-vote debate. Tej has been doing it with his music battles, and one certain user has done that for a long time (though I won't name him because of his controversial nature).
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 1:27:59 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 12:56:02 PM, Biodome wrote:
I think the current voting standards are fine, however, an option to opt-out of the voting process, so that two sides may have an unrated or troll debate, would be great as well.

troll debates are already automatically excluded from the vote-moderation process.
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
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 1:28:55 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 1:27:59 PM, imabench wrote:
At 5/22/2016 12:56:02 PM, Biodome wrote:
I think the current voting standards are fine, however, an option to opt-out of the voting process, so that two sides may have an unrated or troll debate, would be great as well.

troll debates are already automatically excluded from the vote-moderation process.
I think he meant an opt-out from voting, not voting moderation.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 1:31:15 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 1:28:55 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 5/22/2016 1:27:59 PM, imabench wrote:
At 5/22/2016 12:56:02 PM, Biodome wrote:
I think the current voting standards are fine, however, an option to opt-out of the voting process, so that two sides may have an unrated or troll debate, would be great as well.

troll debates are already automatically excluded from the vote-moderation process.

I think he meant an opt-out from voting, not voting moderation.

Oh wow you are correct i completely misread that.

The only way you can have a debate without having it be voted on would be to make one person be the judge of the debate and have them not vote or not allocate points.
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
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 2:35:27 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 7:20:46 AM, Ragnar wrote:
At 5/22/2016 3:04:10 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
Here is an idea to improve the voting standards dilemma: Implement a much less strict voting standard, and allow for counter vote bombs to deal with the borderline bad votes which meet the new less strict standard but not the current standard.

Although voting standards can recognize clearly bad votes and clearly good votes, it is bad at recognizing borderline votes. We need discretion to deal with these votes, which can be done with counter vote bombs, but not with one size fits all rules.

Counter Vote bombs were often badly misused... such as someone giving the side they like 7 points, to generally counter votes they view as wrong (without stating whose votes were bad, or what was wrong other than the person they like losing).

With my proposal, you would have to mention which bad vote you are countering for it to be valid. There could be rules like no vote can have multiple vote bombs countering it, and you can't assign more points than enough to counteract the vote you are counter vote bombing. I think counter vote bombs being allowed but regulated might work.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,006
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 8:45:26 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/21/2016 1:00:38 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
We've had several discussions about this before, so to move this forward I'd like to keep this discussion mostly focused on the vote moderation policies themselves.

Previous recent discussions about voting can be viewed here:

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

Following this opening post, I am going to post the vote moderation policies as they currently exist. Once you read them, I would like you to post some variation of (but not limited to) any of the following statements:

A) You believe the following policies are fine, and should remain as they are.

B) The policies are mostly fine, but need to be adjusted in some way. Following which I would appreciate if you would please provide specific examples of what you think should be changed, and what specifically you believe we should change it with.

C) The policies are mostly flawed, and should be replaced entirely. Please provide examples of what you think may be good about the current policies, and what the rest should be replaced with.

D) You believe vote moderation needs to cease to exist entirely, and replaced with a system that insists that debaters opt into higher standards by choosing the opt-in voting system, or using the sites existing options. Any other suggestions for removal of vote moderation and what one believes should replace it (if anything at all) would be appreciated.

I believe that most opinions about whether or not vote moderation should exist at all have been mostly articulated at length (and the reasons for those having that view), so while I don't want to go into too much depth on that in this thread, I would still appreciate those that wish it to be done away with entirely, to still make a brief statement saying so. In other words, if you feel that vote moderation should be abolished entirely, that is a perfectly reasonable point of view, and I'd encourage you to make that statement. But to avoid rehashing the same debate that we've had elsewhere, I would like to avoid making this thread about that debate specifically, so that we can focus on the portion of the issue this thread is intended for. That debate (vote moderation removal) will likely be hosted by me again in another thread in the near future.

The goal here is to, assuming that we want to continue with vote moderation, maintain policies with specific language that reflect the desire of the community. The policy outline below reflects the current status quo based on my understanding of what the community generally expects from vote moderation, and I am taking this opportunity to adjust it accordingly based on the feedback provided here and in continued discussions. Once this process is complete, the final version of the vote moderation policies outline will be posted in a vote related stickied thread.

This thread is intended to state whether or not vote moderation should continue in any form, and if it does, whether or not the following policies should exist as they are described below. Since I would like this discussion to remain focused on that, please refrain from using this thread to discuss anything unrelated to what is described above.

Thank you.

A) You believe the following policies are fine, and should remain as they are.
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
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 9:03:37 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Disclaimer: I didn't read this thread. These are just my immediate thoughts on voting standards.

1. I think the Spelling and Grammar point ought to be swapped for Organization. I don't think a debater has alarmingly poor spelling and grammar (enough to warrant a point according to the proposed standards) more than 98 percent of the time. If a point exists to reward someone for their presentation -- since these debates are visual as opposed to verbal -- I think giving points based on who had better structure and/or organization is more relevant than spelling and grammar. Personally I can't stand when debaters use different size and style fonts in a single round to the point of illegibility, or when they have a cluttered assortment of bullets and numbers that looks disorganized. I mean... either that, or eliminate the S/G point entirely since it just seems to be a point of contention rather than real relevance.

2. While I think voting standards are really great, the nazi-type application seems unnecessary. Just as I am opposed to mandatory minimum sentences by judges in a court of law (ha) I am against the super strict standard applied to all debates. The vote police presumably have the wherewithal to determine which RFDs don't need to be AS thorough as others. For example, in a recent debate I voted on, the debater presented one sentence for R1, one sentence for R2, and then forfeited R3. My RFD was longer than the case presented by the debater, yet it was deleted for insufficient detail even though the instigator didn't even make a case! It was 2 dumb sentences and a clear win for the opposition. Now am I offended by my vote being removed? No. It took about 10 seconds to read that debate. But I think it's annoying for the person who put forth a case that had the debate end in a Tie (when they should have won), because my vote was deleted for silly reasons and nobody else voted on it. Sure my vote might have not met these standards 100 percent, but it was a fluff debate that nobody did/would take seriously. There was no need to delete my vote. In cases of obvious forfeits or trolls, the standards shouldn't be as strict. If there is any question about that then maybe 2 or more reported votes could warrant strict scrutiny. Otherwise the vote police should be given leeway to see where some RFDs don't have to be quite as thorough IMO.

3. I think debates that end in Ties without any votes at all should be able to be reopened for voting. I also think debates that request permission should be eligible for reopened voting, i.e. debates where BOTH debaters agree to allow that (or extended voting time) or debates where clear vote bombs influenced the outcome, etc. There have also been debaters where 1 person forfeited a round and the other would have been cool with extending time to their round, or reopening the debate for voting upon being edited or something. Perhaps this might be too difficult or complex to implement, but since this site is obsessed with self-appointed titles and unpaid responsibility then perhaps an ambutious committee would be dedicated to managing this :P Really though I just think debates that end in 0 votes should have the option of extended voting times. I dunno why people think 7-10 day voting periods is a good idea.
President of DDO
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 9:26:55 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
1. I believe that voters shouldn't always need to discuss individual arguments; if it is sufficient for the purposes of judging a specific debate, voters should be able to generalize entire cases, since it's going to be only marginally less helpful.

2. Voting standards should be enforced to their spirit, not their letter. If one side provided arguments and the other side provided "hurr durr I say its wrong becuz rainbow unicorns liek to fly so ur wron", then you shouldn't expect voters to provide a detailed analysis of the debate.
:) nac
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 2:39:28 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 9:26:55 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
1. I believe that voters shouldn't always need to discuss individual arguments; if it is sufficient for the purposes of judging a specific debate, voters should be able to generalize entire cases, since it's going to be only marginally less helpful.

2. Voting standards should be enforced to their spirit, not their letter. If one side provided arguments and the other side provided "hurr durr I say its wrong becuz rainbow unicorns liek to fly so ur wron", then you shouldn't expect voters to provide a detailed analysis of the debate.

I found myself fighting the urge to ask which debater said that, because it is so very close to actual arguments (and votes) I've seen.

I agree with you on the spirit of the standards, being above any actual standards as written. So many losers seek loopholes in the standards, claiming they so not forbid the specific abuse (even if they do the general category of abuse).
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 3:39:25 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
B) I'd like the standards as written, but I would amend them slightly.

1. I believe this was suggested already, but a longstanding opinion (which has not weighed into my votes) has been the S&G should cover general presentation, such as formatting of the arguments. For example, I might vote against someone, but note how easy to follow their arguments were thanks to labeling each contention and good use of embedded (instead of linked) photographs. Granted this might be something used almost strictly to decrease the impact when voting in someone's favor on arguments.

2. On conduct penalties for forfeiting half or more of the debate, I feel when first round is acceptance only it should not be included in the total (thus a five round debate, they dropped out of the final 2, their loss can be automatic without analysis).

3. Not a suggestion, but just emphasising that I really appreciate the clearness of votes being removed both for personal bias and outside influence. Combined there is no doubt it forbids my biggest pet peeve (vote trading).
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 3:54:40 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/21/2016 1:02:19 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
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, Conceded Debates

B) No reason is required for voting
C) Troll Debates
D) Stricter Opt-In Standards for Voting
E) Statute of Limitations

I'd like to suggest an additional special circumstance to avoid drama later, namely plagiarized arguments being treated as forfeiting the round (thus not needing to be evaluated). Otherwise the case will be made that voting against them is just personal bias.
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...