Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Ban Voting

fire_wings
Posts: 5,563
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 5:59:28 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
Now I agree with 16k that we should ban voting.

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

My vote: Easy victory from CON. CON is the only one who provided arguments that went unchallenged because of PRO'S forfeits. CON rebuts PRO'S arguments by saying that there is no source to prove. Because CON'S arguments still stand, arguments to CON by default. Because of PRO'S double forfeits, conduct to CON too. Vote CON.

Why it was removed: The voter is required to do more than just state that Con was successful at rebutting something and still had a point standing. The voter still has to assess the applicability of that standing argument to the debate, and explain why the rebuttals were so effective.


C'mon. My RFD was around the same size as Pro's arguments. I can just write FF, but I at least did that. Voting sucks. Ban it.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 6:11:45 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
The RFD was bad because, unlike the context of 16k's vote, in this case, n7 grossly misstated the burden and *almost* failed to succeed in refuting Pro's argument -- only his argument from the lack of an existent past/present/future and Pro's sheer lack of explanation saved him. Sure, n7 objectively won, but in this context, arguments need to be referenced more specifically.
"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
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,860
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 6:15:11 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 5:59:28 AM, fire_wings wrote:
Now I agree with 16k that we should ban voting.

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

My vote: Easy victory from CON. CON is the only one who provided arguments that went unchallenged because of PRO'S forfeits. CON rebuts PRO'S arguments by saying that there is no source to prove. Because CON'S arguments still stand, arguments to CON by default. Because of PRO'S double forfeits, conduct to CON too. Vote CON.

Why it was removed: The voter is required to do more than just state that Con was successful at rebutting something and still had a point standing. The voter still has to assess the applicability of that standing argument to the debate, and explain why the rebuttals were so effective.


C'mon. My RFD was around the same size as Pro's arguments. I can just write FF, but I at least did that. Voting sucks. Ban it.

I find it immensely suspicious you have an axolotl profile picture, considering the elite sport that, and yet are questioning a vote removal.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
airmax1227
Posts: 13,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 6:48:18 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 5:59:28 AM, fire_wings wrote:
Now I agree with 16k that we should ban voting.

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

My vote: Easy victory from CON. CON is the only one who provided arguments that went unchallenged because of PRO'S forfeits. CON rebuts PRO'S arguments by saying that there is no source to prove. Because CON'S arguments still stand, arguments to CON by default. Because of PRO'S double forfeits, conduct to CON too. Vote CON.

Why it was removed: The voter is required to do more than just state that Con was successful at rebutting something and still had a point standing. The voter still has to assess the applicability of that standing argument to the debate, and explain why the rebuttals were so effective.


C'mon. My RFD was around the same size as Pro's arguments. I can just write FF, but I at least did that. Voting sucks. Ban it.

Tej mentioned and gave reasons why there is an issue with this RFD that would be applicable in other circumstances. However, the quality of the RFD is irrelevant since this was a full forfeited debate, and the vote should have been moderated. This was my mistake and I apologize.

I do think using this as an example of vote moderation overall, is a bit much though. Mistakes like this happen (though not very often) and the system is set up in the way it is specifically so that those mistakes can be caught quickly and fixed (the vote was removed, the member contacted, and this thread posted and replied to by me within 4 hours). This throwaway vote on this throwaway debate has very little consequence (none, actually), though I do realize that it still shouldn't happen regardless.

There will forever be issues we can point to when nibbling at the edges of vote moderation, and this is a decent example if we were talking about a debate that wasn't a full forfeit. But, since we are, and I simply overlooked the fact there were no other rounds posted in aside from the first, thus making it a full forfeited debate, it is therefore exempt from moderation, and it's therefore clear that I made an error here.

You can feel free to vote on the debate in any way you like.
Debate.org Moderator
airmax1227
Posts: 13,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 7:05:05 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
I don't think everyone needs to vote in such a way, but I certainly do think we should recognize those that do go above and beyond to place exemplary votes. As I mentioned in my previous post, this was a full forfeited debate, and voters can vote any way they like, but Tej still reads the single round of debate and breaks it down in one of the best RFDs you will ever see in this type of circumstance:

(1) Arguments. Pro has the BOP to show that time travel is possible, but Con's representation of Pro's BOP ("Pro must demonstrate that both travel to the future and to the past is possible. Demonstrating only one isn't enough.") is wrong -- Pro has to show that some form of time travel is possible. With regard to backwards time travel, Pro's "mini-star" is incoherent and Con shows that the sole link to the resolution is via forwards time travel. With respect to forwards time travel, Pro's claim that such an experiment was done is proven to be definitively false, and Con's argument that "past"/"future" distinctions are incoherent successfully negates to that end. Lacking temporal change, there is no such thing as time travel, per Con. Pro's forfeits cause them to drop these arguments, which negates the under-explained black hole example as well, so I vote Con. (2) Conduct. Pro forfeited two rounds.

*slow clap*

https://www.youtube.com...
Debate.org Moderator
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 7:06:56 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 7:05:05 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
I don't think everyone needs to vote in such a way, but I certainly do think we should recognize those that do go above and beyond to place exemplary votes. As I mentioned in my previous post, this was a full forfeited debate, and voters can vote any way they like, but Tej still reads the single round of debate and breaks it down in one of the best RFDs you will ever see in this type of circumstance:

(1) Arguments. Pro has the BOP to show that time travel is possible, but Con's representation of Pro's BOP ("Pro must demonstrate that both travel to the future and to the past is possible. Demonstrating only one isn't enough.") is wrong -- Pro has to show that some form of time travel is possible. With regard to backwards time travel, Pro's "mini-star" is incoherent and Con shows that the sole link to the resolution is via forwards time travel. With respect to forwards time travel, Pro's claim that such an experiment was done is proven to be definitively false, and Con's argument that "past"/"future" distinctions are incoherent successfully negates to that end. Lacking temporal change, there is no such thing as time travel, per Con. Pro's forfeits cause them to drop these arguments, which negates the under-explained black hole example as well, so I vote Con. (2) Conduct. Pro forfeited two rounds.

*slow clap*

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

thanks, lol
"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: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 7:13:55 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 6:48:18 AM, airmax1227 wrote:

For the record, I agreed with this vote removal, and disagreed with the removal of 16k's vote, and here's my reasoning:

With respect to this debate, an argument was actually provided. In fact, if n7 had only refuted only the black hole example and entirely dropped the other one *and* didn't bring up the argument that future/past distinctions are incoherent, I might have voted for the other side despite the forfeit -- which clearly means Pro's arguments actually had substance. But in the contrast of 16k's vote, the other side didn't even make any argument... they *de facto* forfeited, just didn't have the red letters saying "[insert name] has forfeited this round." So I think 16k's original vote shouldn't have been removed.

Added this because my opinion is the exact opposite of yours.
"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
airmax1227
Posts: 13,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 7:22:29 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 7:13:55 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/1/2016 6:48:18 AM, airmax1227 wrote:

For the record, I agreed with this vote removal, and disagreed with the removal of 16k's vote, and here's my reasoning:

With respect to this debate, an argument was actually provided. In fact, if n7 had only refuted only the black hole example and entirely dropped the other one *and* didn't bring up the argument that future/past distinctions are incoherent, I might have voted for the other side despite the forfeit -- which clearly means Pro's arguments actually had substance. But in the contrast of 16k's vote, the other side didn't even make any argument... they *de facto* forfeited, just didn't have the red letters saying "[insert name] has forfeited this round." So I think 16k's original vote shouldn't have been removed.

Added this because my opinion is the exact opposite of yours.

I don't disagree with you in principal, and I think your reasoning is well articulated and entirely reasonable, but the standards are what they are and this was a full forfeited debate. Certainly we can change those standards to better accommodate these particular situations (and I certainly want to do so), and I hope that you and I can discuss, both publicly and privately, how we should do so.
Debate.org Moderator
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 7:27:43 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 7:22:29 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/1/2016 7:13:55 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/1/2016 6:48:18 AM, airmax1227 wrote:

For the record, I agreed with this vote removal, and disagreed with the removal of 16k's vote, and here's my reasoning:

With respect to this debate, an argument was actually provided. In fact, if n7 had only refuted only the black hole example and entirely dropped the other one *and* didn't bring up the argument that future/past distinctions are incoherent, I might have voted for the other side despite the forfeit -- which clearly means Pro's arguments actually had substance. But in the contrast of 16k's vote, the other side didn't even make any argument... they *de facto* forfeited, just didn't have the red letters saying "[insert name] has forfeited this round." So I think 16k's original vote shouldn't have been removed.

Added this because my opinion is the exact opposite of yours.

I don't disagree with you in principal, and I think your reasoning is well articulated and entirely reasonable, but the standards are what they are and this was a full forfeited debate. Certainly we can change those standards to better accommodate these particular situations (and I certainly want to do so), and I hope that you and I can discuss, both publicly and privately, how we should do so.

I think a "full forfeit" debate ought to be defined as a "debate in which no substantive arguments were made by one side, and substantive arguments were made by another side." And a "substantive argument" is defined as "a clear reason to affirm or negate the resolution," with "clear reason" having two prerequisites for being called so: (1) clarity -- it should be apparently relevant to the topic, and (2) being a proper argument -- it shouldn't just be some irrelevant statement. In the debate on time travel, for instance, Pro's argument was "substantive" in that (1) it was clear, that "experiments prove time travel," and (2) it was a "proper argument," in that it clearly mentioned how the argument affirmed the Rez, that "experiments show that time travel is possible." In contrast, the debate in which 16k voted, there were substantive arguments to a certain extent ("true but the Bible says though shalt not murder and don't you think what that child has to go through"), and 16k showed that the arguments weren't sufficiently explained to be considered, and said that "Pro offered utilitarian reasons," which is more than sufficient in explaining why Pro won because there were utilitarian reasons within the debate- and those reasons are more than sufficient to affirm.
"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: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 7:29:21 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 7:22:29 AM, airmax1227 wrote:

Fundamentally, my reasoning for this not being a full forfeit debate is this: it is possible to provide a sufficient vote where the winner of the debate is Pro. It is unlikely and that's bound to be a poor vote, but it could still match sufficiency. In contrast, any vote that voted for the other side in the debate which 16k voted on would have been insufficient.
"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
airmax1227
Posts: 13,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 7:31:39 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 7:27:43 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/1/2016 7:22:29 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/1/2016 7:13:55 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/1/2016 6:48:18 AM, airmax1227 wrote:

For the record, I agreed with this vote removal, and disagreed with the removal of 16k's vote, and here's my reasoning:

With respect to this debate, an argument was actually provided. In fact, if n7 had only refuted only the black hole example and entirely dropped the other one *and* didn't bring up the argument that future/past distinctions are incoherent, I might have voted for the other side despite the forfeit -- which clearly means Pro's arguments actually had substance. But in the contrast of 16k's vote, the other side didn't even make any argument... they *de facto* forfeited, just didn't have the red letters saying "[insert name] has forfeited this round." So I think 16k's original vote shouldn't have been removed.

Added this because my opinion is the exact opposite of yours.

I don't disagree with you in principal, and I think your reasoning is well articulated and entirely reasonable, but the standards are what they are and this was a full forfeited debate. Certainly we can change those standards to better accommodate these particular situations (and I certainly want to do so), and I hope that you and I can discuss, both publicly and privately, how we should do so.

I think a "full forfeit" debate ought to be defined as a "debate in which no substantive arguments were made by one side, and substantive arguments were made by another side." And a "substantive argument" is defined as "a clear reason to affirm or negate the resolution," with "clear reason" having two prerequisites for being called so: (1) clarity -- it should be apparently relevant to the topic, and (2) being a proper argument -- it shouldn't just be some irrelevant statement. In the debate on time travel, for instance, Pro's argument was "substantive" in that (1) it was clear, that "experiments prove time travel," and (2) it was a "proper argument," in that it clearly mentioned how the argument affirmed the Rez, that "experiments show that time travel is possible." In contrast, the debate in which 16k voted, there were substantive arguments to a certain extent ("true but the Bible says though shalt not murder and don't you think what that child has to go through"), and 16k showed that the arguments weren't sufficiently explained to be considered, and said that "Pro offered utilitarian reasons," which is more than sufficient in explaining why Pro won because there were utilitarian reasons within the debate- and those reasons are more than sufficient to affirm.

I'm always reluctant to make things more complex, but this is a good starting point on finding a way to refine this area of the policies. I will certainly consider these suggestions and in the meantime you should post this to the policies discussion thread so that I can review all the feedback and engage those ideas when I have a chance.

http://www.debate.org...
Debate.org Moderator
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 7:37:04 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 7:31:39 AM, airmax1227 wrote:

Actually I'm okay with the current standard- I'm merely pointing out that a Pro vote is *possible* in this circumstance. But instead of making it differ by circumstance, I'll just go ahead and agree with you that we should apply the 80/20 Rule and just keep fire's vote, because there will always be exceptions to rules. That'll help overall utility, because then that means less bad votes as well.

But this is my fundamental problem. The vote standards say: When this is the case, these debates are considered full forfeit debates and are not moderated unless a voter votes for the forfeiting side. But here, it's possible for a sufficient vote to be given to the forfeiting side--but I take it that even if this is the case, such a vote won't be removed.
"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
airmax1227
Posts: 13,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 7:37:30 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 7:29:21 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/1/2016 7:22:29 AM, airmax1227 wrote:

Fundamentally, my reasoning for this not being a full forfeit debate is this: it is possible to provide a sufficient vote where the winner of the debate is Pro. It is unlikely and that's bound to be a poor vote, but it could still match sufficiency. In contrast, any vote that voted for the other side in the debate which 16k voted on would have been insufficient.

Again, I don't disagree, but the policies are such that determining this is based on actual forfeits. I'm happy to change this (and any of the policies) as clearly there are areas that aren't sufficiently addressed - and this is a great example, so you and I should focus on some ideas to reform this, and I very much appreciate the starting point you have provided.

Also, I'm not trying to be dismissive, but it's 230am here, and I'm going to go to bed in a minute, so I just can't engage this at length at the moment. But I am happy to do so once I have the opportunity. A bit over a week has passed in the vote policies discussion thread, so I think everyone has had a chance to opine, so I will in the near future engage the feedback, and this is another topic that I hope to address.
Debate.org Moderator
airmax1227
Posts: 13,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 7:44:50 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 7:37:04 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/1/2016 7:31:39 AM, airmax1227 wrote:

Actually I'm okay with the current standard- I'm merely pointing out that a Pro vote is *possible* in this circumstance. But instead of making it differ by circumstance, I'll just go ahead and agree with you that we should apply the 80/20 Rule and just keep fire's vote, because there will always be exceptions to rules. That'll help overall utility, because then that means less bad votes as well.

We aren't really disagreeing on much here, though Con would only be able to lose as a result of Pro forfeiting. He didn't post any more arguments because Pro just didn't show up the rest of the debate. Perhaps he should have made more arguments to make sure that a pro vote wasn't even possible, but I think it's pretty clear who won this in any case, even if we could (and I know we could) find a way that Pro held his BoP in some way.

But this is my fundamental problem. The vote standards say: When this is the case, these debates are considered full forfeit debates and are not moderated unless a voter votes for the forfeiting side. But here, it's possible for a sufficient vote to be given to the forfeiting side--but I take it that even if this is the case, such a vote won't be removed.

Yeah, it's really a unique issue given these circumstances, but I think it is a significantly rare case. It does expose a flaw, though given the simplicity of the standards we can probably find (or create) some instances where the spirit of the intent of the policies, doesn't work out for whom should intuitively actually win that particular debate.
Debate.org Moderator
VelCrow
Posts: 1,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 7:45:10 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 6:48:18 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/1/2016 5:59:28 AM, fire_wings wrote:
Now I agree with 16k that we should ban voting.

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

My vote: Easy victory from CON. CON is the only one who provided arguments that went unchallenged because of PRO'S forfeits. CON rebuts PRO'S arguments by saying that there is no source to prove. Because CON'S arguments still stand, arguments to CON by default. Because of PRO'S double forfeits, conduct to CON too. Vote CON.

Why it was removed: The voter is required to do more than just state that Con was successful at rebutting something and still had a point standing. The voter still has to assess the applicability of that standing argument to the debate, and explain why the rebuttals were so effective.


C'mon. My RFD was around the same size as Pro's arguments. I can just write FF, but I at least did that. Voting sucks. Ban it.

Tej mentioned and gave reasons why there is an issue with this RFD that would be applicable in other circumstances. However, the quality of the RFD is irrelevant since this was a full forfeited debate, and the vote should have been moderated. This was my mistake and I apologize.

I do think using this as an example of vote moderation overall, is a bit much though. Mistakes like this happen (though not very often) and the system is set up in the way it is specifically so that those mistakes can be caught quickly and fixed (the vote was removed, the member contacted, and this thread posted and replied to by me within 4 hours). This throwaway vote on this throwaway debate has very little consequence (none, actually), though I do realize that it still shouldn't happen regardless.

There will forever be issues we can point to when nibbling at the edges of vote moderation, and this is a decent example if we were talking about a debate that wasn't a full forfeit. But, since we are, and I simply overlooked the fact there were no other rounds posted in aside from the first, thus making it a full forfeited debate, it is therefore exempt from moderation, and it's therefore clear that I made an error here.

You can feel free to vote on the debate in any way you like.

No you cant.

I would assume that mods that reads the votes also read the debates.

I got 2 of my votes removed and this warning

Continual poor votes may result in having your voting privileges revoked. Please feel free to improve your voting by reading through the voting guidelines.

Like one of the votes I awarded the conduct point to Con simply because Pro included this like this in his debate.

"Grow up, mental midget."

I didnt think I need to quote that in the RFD.

Moving forward is there a way to implement it so that we can add to the RFD if mods think that the RFD is insufficient?
"Ah....So when god "Taught you" online, did he have a user name like "Darthmaulrules1337", and did he talk in all caps?" ~ Axonly

http://www.debate.org...
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 7:47:18 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 6:11:45 AM, tejretics wrote:
The RFD was bad because, unlike the context of 16k's vote, in this case, n7 grossly misstated the burden and *almost* failed to succeed in refuting Pro's argument -- only his argument from the lack of an existent past/present/future and Pro's sheer lack of explanation saved him. Sure, n7 objectively won, but in this context, arguments need to be referenced more specifically.

Tbh, I did feel a bit dirty claiming the Pro needed to prove both past and future time travel is possible to uphold the BOP. But, here was my reasoning.

Time travel was defined as "The ability to travel to the future (in an accelerated rate) and past". The definition went uncontested and as far as I have read in one of the beginner debate threads that entails it's accepted. "And" is used to denote one thing along with another. If I have sugar and cream in coffee, then I don't just have sugar. If I have only cream, then the proposition "I have sugar and cream in my coffee" is false. So, if the definition of time travel is traveling into the the future and the past, then it is wrong to claim time travel is possible when you only have one or the other.

Yeah, maybe it's a bit of a semantics ploy, which is why I ran the Ultimacy argument as backup.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 8:09:15 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 7:45:10 AM, VelCrow wrote:


No you cant.

I assume this was a response to "You can feel free to vote on the debate in any way you like.", correct me if I am wrong. On a full forfeited debate, the votes aren't moderated, so you can indeed vote any way you like, assuming you vote for the side that didn't full forfeit.

I would assume that mods that reads the votes also read the debates.

This would be a proper assumption, though sometimes things are missed, and though it is rare, we are obliged to admit when we are wrong, like I was in this situation. I missed the fact that this was a full forfeit debate, and my deletion of this vote was therefore wrong.

I got 2 of my votes removed and this warning

Continual poor votes may result in having your voting privileges revoked. Please feel free to improve your voting by reading through the voting guidelines.

It is indeed the case that enough votes removed may lead to your voting privileges being revoked. If one is an incompetent voter, it is likely they wont be able to vote for long. They can always gain their voting privileges back though. We don't want to just remove someone's voting privileges without making them aware that there are standards, so the above message is sent so that they can familiarize themselves with the site's voting standards.

Like one of the votes I awarded the conduct point to Con simply because Pro included this like this in his debate.

"Grow up, mental midget."

I didnt think I need to quote that in the RFD.

You do in fact need to explain why you awarded conduct (otherwise people could just give extra points at their whim). I don't recall the exact circumstances, but I'd be happy to go over it with you if you provide the example.

Moving forward is there a way to implement it so that we can add to the RFD if mods think that the RFD is insufficient?

No, this isn't practical. While we do make some exceptions in rare circumstances, it's not realistic for us to wait to process reported votes for many members to get back to us on whether or not they are going to update their vote. It also isn't necessary. We contact everyone (or attempt to if they have messages blocked via friend requests) within a very short period of time. If the vote is removed, the member can simply c/p the text of their RFD back into the vote again since it is copied to the debate comments. They can then, for all practical purposes, just update their vote without much hassle and all within (in almost every case) 24 hours of the vote being reported.

In other words, if your vote is reported because you didn't explain conduct and I delete it, you will be contacted shortly afterwards. All you have to do is c/p your rfd which is provided in the comments, and add in an explanation for conduct. This therefore doesn't burden vote moderation with delays waiting for members to responded to whether or not they are going to update their vote, and it's very easy for the voter to update their vote in this way anyway.

The only downside is when the voting period is over (or nearly over), and in those circumstances it is unfortunate that a substandard vote was placed.
Debate.org Moderator
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 8:16:18 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
The removal was bad because there is no chance it effects the outcome of this debate and it was a complete waste of time to remove. Time would be better spent removing actual harmful votes instead of stuff like this.

I had my vote removed on a debate that had 12 hpurs left in the voting period and where one side was winning by over 100 points.

If anyone thinks removing a vote in these types of circumstances are beneficial in any way, they are being petty.
VelCrow
Posts: 1,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 8:19:16 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 8:09:15 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/1/2016 7:45:10 AM, VelCrow wrote:


No you cant.

I assume this was a response to "You can feel free to vote on the debate in any way you like.", correct me if I am wrong. On a full forfeited debate, the votes aren't moderated, so you can indeed vote any way you like, assuming you vote for the side that didn't full forfeit.

I would assume that mods that reads the votes also read the debates.

This would be a proper assumption, though sometimes things are missed, and though it is rare, we are obliged to admit when we are wrong, like I was in this situation. I missed the fact that this was a full forfeit debate, and my deletion of this vote was therefore wrong.

I got 2 of my votes removed and this warning

Continual poor votes may result in having your voting privileges revoked. Please feel free to improve your voting by reading through the voting guidelines.

It is indeed the case that enough votes removed may lead to your voting privileges being revoked. If one is an incompetent voter, it is likely they wont be able to vote for long. They can always gain their voting privileges back though. We don't want to just remove someone's voting privileges without making them aware that there are standards, so the above message is sent so that they can familiarize themselves with the site's voting standards.

Like one of the votes I awarded the conduct point to Con simply because Pro included this like this in his debate.

"Grow up, mental midget."

I didnt think I need to quote that in the RFD.

You do in fact need to explain why you awarded conduct (otherwise people could just give extra points at their whim). I don't recall the exact circumstances, but I'd be happy to go over it with you if you provide the example.

Moving forward is there a way to implement it so that we can add to the RFD if mods think that the RFD is insufficient?

No, this isn't practical. While we do make some exceptions in rare circumstances, it's not realistic for us to wait to process reported votes for many members to get back to us on whether or not they are going to update their vote. It also isn't necessary. We contact everyone (or attempt to if they have messages blocked via friend requests) within a very short period of time. If the vote is removed, the member can simply c/p the text of their RFD back into the vote again since it is copied to the debate comments. They can then, for all practical purposes, just update their vote without much hassle and all within (in almost every case) 24 hours of the vote being reported.

In other words, if your vote is reported because you didn't explain conduct and I delete it, you will be contacted shortly afterwards. All you have to do is c/p your rfd which is provided in the comments, and add in an explanation for conduct. This therefore doesn't burden vote moderation with delays waiting for members to responded to whether or not they are going to update their vote, and it's very easy for the voter to update their vote in this way anyway.

The only downside is when the voting period is over (or nearly over), and in those circumstances it is unfortunate that a substandard vote was placed.

Owh well. the only reason i will concede is due to the fact i know ddo mods are under staff and the debate section has too many troll debates going on so kudos if u guys actually do read all of them debates.
"Ah....So when god "Taught you" online, did he have a user name like "Darthmaulrules1337", and did he talk in all caps?" ~ Axonly

http://www.debate.org...
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 2:54:01 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 6:48:18 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/1/2016 5:59:28 AM, fire_wings wrote:
Now I agree with 16k that we should ban voting.

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

My vote: Easy victory from CON. CON is the only one who provided arguments that went unchallenged because of PRO'S forfeits. CON rebuts PRO'S arguments by saying that there is no source to prove. Because CON'S arguments still stand, arguments to CON by default. Because of PRO'S double forfeits, conduct to CON too. Vote CON.

Why it was removed: The voter is required to do more than just state that Con was successful at rebutting something and still had a point standing. The voter still has to assess the applicability of that standing argument to the debate, and explain why the rebuttals were so effective.


C'mon. My RFD was around the same size as Pro's arguments. I can just write FF, but I at least did that. Voting sucks. Ban it.

Tej mentioned and gave reasons why there is an issue with this RFD that would be applicable in other circumstances. However, the quality of the RFD is irrelevant since this was a full forfeited debate, and the vote should have been moderated. This was my mistake and I apologize.

I do think using this as an example of vote moderation overall, is a bit much though. Mistakes like this happen (though not very often) and the system is set up in the way it is specifically so that those mistakes can be caught quickly and fixed (the vote was removed, the member contacted, and this thread posted and replied to by me within 4 hours). This throwaway vote on this throwaway debate has very little consequence (none, actually), though I do realize that it still shouldn't happen regardless.

There will forever be issues we can point to when nibbling at the edges of vote moderation, and this is a decent example if we were talking about a debate that wasn't a full forfeit. But, since we are, and I simply overlooked the fact there were no other rounds posted in aside from the first, thus making it a full forfeited debate, it is therefore exempt from moderation, and it's therefore clear that I made an error here.

You can feel free to vote on the debate in any way you like.

Full forfeit debates have been moderated in the past under the scenario where there exists substantial arguments in the first round, like with this vote removal for example.

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

*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: thett3// Mod action: Removed<

7 point to Con. Reasons for voting decision: ff

[*Reason for removal*] While this was a full forfeit debate, the opening round contained a substantial argument from Pro. The voter needs to do more to explain why he's giving S&G, arguments, and sources to Con than cite the forfeits.
************************************************************************

was this ruling changed with the most recent vote moderation policy?
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 3:38:55 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 2:54:01 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 6/1/2016 6:48:18 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/1/2016 5:59:28 AM, fire_wings wrote:
Now I agree with 16k that we should ban voting.

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

My vote: Easy victory from CON. CON is the only one who provided arguments that went unchallenged because of PRO'S forfeits. CON rebuts PRO'S arguments by saying that there is no source to prove. Because CON'S arguments still stand, arguments to CON by default. Because of PRO'S double forfeits, conduct to CON too. Vote CON.

Why it was removed: The voter is required to do more than just state that Con was successful at rebutting something and still had a point standing. The voter still has to assess the applicability of that standing argument to the debate, and explain why the rebuttals were so effective.


C'mon. My RFD was around the same size as Pro's arguments. I can just write FF, but I at least did that. Voting sucks. Ban it.

Tej mentioned and gave reasons why there is an issue with this RFD that would be applicable in other circumstances. However, the quality of the RFD is irrelevant since this was a full forfeited debate, and the vote should have been moderated. This was my mistake and I apologize.

I do think using this as an example of vote moderation overall, is a bit much though. Mistakes like this happen (though not very often) and the system is set up in the way it is specifically so that those mistakes can be caught quickly and fixed (the vote was removed, the member contacted, and this thread posted and replied to by me within 4 hours). This throwaway vote on this throwaway debate has very little consequence (none, actually), though I do realize that it still shouldn't happen regardless.

There will forever be issues we can point to when nibbling at the edges of vote moderation, and this is a decent example if we were talking about a debate that wasn't a full forfeit. But, since we are, and I simply overlooked the fact there were no other rounds posted in aside from the first, thus making it a full forfeited debate, it is therefore exempt from moderation, and it's therefore clear that I made an error here.

You can feel free to vote on the debate in any way you like.

Full forfeit debates have been moderated in the past under the scenario where there exists substantial arguments in the first round, like with this vote removal for example.

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

*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: thett3// Mod action: Removed<

7 point to Con. Reasons for voting decision: ff

[*Reason for removal*] While this was a full forfeit debate, the opening round contained a substantial argument from Pro. The voter needs to do more to explain why he's giving S&G, arguments, and sources to Con than cite the forfeits.
************************************************************************

was this ruling changed with the most recent vote moderation policy?

There was never a clearly established policy with regards to when full forfeit debates could be treated as normal debates based on the existence of an argument in the single round posted by the debater that forfeited. In this case, I used my discretion to make the decision. In the future, we will hold to the full forfeit = not moderated rule for all debates unless we can clearly define the point at which such debates are moderated. If people have suggestions as to where that line could be drawn, it would be great if you could provide them.
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 3:55:22 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 3:38:55 PM, whiteflame wrote:

I'd suggest ignoring them unless they're committing such asshattery as awarding conduct to the side that FFed. Might be an idea to when votes on FF debates are reported, instead of reviewing the individual ones, just make a general comment post reminding people on all normal debates to ensure the quality of their votes.
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...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 3:58:32 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
There was never a clearly established policy with regards to when full forfeit debates could be treated as normal debates based on the existence of an argument in the single round posted by the debater that forfeited. In this case, I used my discretion to make the decision. In the future, we will hold to the full forfeit = not moderated rule for all debates unless we can clearly define the point at which such debates are moderated. If people have suggestions as to where that line could be drawn, it would be great if you could provide them.

How about just using some common sense in certain situations, no need to draw a specific line, especially when that line will also have bad results if common sense is not used. No rules can make up for a lack of common sense. For example you knew for a fact removing that vote would have absolutely no impact on the result of the debate and would only serve to create hostility.

So maybe only remove votes if it serves a useful purpose, not to mention removing votes on debates like that means there will be less time spent on removing bad votes that actually impact the results of the debate.

I think when people called for these voting policies, they were calling for them with the understanding that common sense would ve used in enforcing them, and so far that has not been the case.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 4:30:10 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 3:58:32 PM, Wylted wrote:
There was never a clearly established policy with regards to when full forfeit debates could be treated as normal debates based on the existence of an argument in the single round posted by the debater that forfeited. In this case, I used my discretion to make the decision. In the future, we will hold to the full forfeit = not moderated rule for all debates unless we can clearly define the point at which such debates are moderated. If people have suggestions as to where that line could be drawn, it would be great if you could provide them.

How about just using some common sense in certain situations, no need to draw a specific line, especially when that line will also have bad results if common sense is not used. No rules can make up for a lack of common sense. For example you knew for a fact removing that vote would have absolutely no impact on the result of the debate and would only serve to create hostility.

"Common sense" is a difficult thing to nail down. The term assumes that there is something common and obvious that we can all use to come to the same conclusions, but what's common sense to me may not be common sense to you.

But the latter point seems somewhat more problematic. I get that this particular vote didn't have any outcome on the debate as a whole, but I don't think that's reason enough to ignore it if it doesn't meet the standards. If anything, removal of votes that don't affect the outcome of the debate in question actually produces far less hostility than in instances where it does affect the outcome, but that's besides the point. I think it's somewhat problematic to suggest that vote moderation should only act in instances where the removal of a vote directly affects the outcome. If we're going to enforce a standard at all, that standard shouldn't suddenly disappear if voters happen to agree with the overall decision.

So maybe only remove votes if it serves a useful purpose, not to mention removing votes on debates like that means there will be less time spent on removing bad votes that actually impact the results of the debate.

Again, I feel this is an issue of perspective. I see a useful purpose in removing these votes. You don't. Time spent removing votes a cost Airmax, BOT and I pay, and we pay it willingly for the sake of enforcing the standards as they are.

I think when people called for these voting policies, they were calling for them with the understanding that common sense would ve used in enforcing them, and so far that has not been the case.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 4:31:51 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 3:55:22 PM, Ragnar wrote:
At 6/1/2016 3:38:55 PM, whiteflame wrote:

I'd suggest ignoring them unless they're committing such asshattery as awarding conduct to the side that FFed. Might be an idea to when votes on FF debates are reported, instead of reviewing the individual ones, just make a general comment post reminding people on all normal debates to ensure the quality of their votes.

I'm not clear on what you mean by the content of that general comment, but that kind of policy towards full forfeits has been considered.
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 6:51:32 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 4:31:51 AM, whiteflame wrote:
At 6/1/2016 3:55:22 PM, Ragnar wrote:
At 6/1/2016 3:38:55 PM, whiteflame wrote:

I'd suggest ignoring them unless they're committing such asshattery as awarding conduct to the side that FFed. Might be an idea to when votes on FF debates are reported, instead of reviewing the individual ones, just make a general comment post reminding people on all normal debates to ensure the quality of their votes.

I'm not clear on what you mean by the content of that general comment, but that kind of policy towards full forfeits has been considered.

It's something I think we've all seen. Someone forfeits multiple rounds, and some idjit awards conduct in their favor (usually at least arguments as well... I've seen it plenty for someone who did not use sources getting the source points). There's a certain level of malice where mod activity is warranted even on normally non-modded debates.
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...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 9:02:39 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 4:30:10 AM, whiteflame wrote:
At 6/1/2016 3:58:32 PM, Wylted wrote:
There was never a clearly established policy with regards to when full forfeit debates could be treated as normal debates based on the existence of an argument in the single round posted by the debater that forfeited. In this case, I used my discretion to make the decision. In the future, we will hold to the full forfeit = not moderated rule for all debates unless we can clearly define the point at which such debates are moderated. If people have suggestions as to where that line could be drawn, it would be great if you could provide them.

How about just using some common sense in certain situations, no need to draw a specific line, especially when that line will also have bad results if common sense is not used. No rules can make up for a lack of common sense. For example you knew for a fact removing that vote would have absolutely no impact on the result of the debate and would only serve to create hostility.

"Common sense" is a difficult thing to nail down. The term assumes that there is something common and obvious that we can all use to come to the same conclusions, but what's common sense to me may not be common sense to you.

But the latter point seems somewhat more problematic. I get that this particular vote didn't have any outcome on the debate as a whole, but I don't think that's reason enough to ignore it if it doesn't meet the standards. If anything, removal of votes that don't affect the outcome of the debate in question actually produces far less hostility than in instances where it does affect the outcome,

The point is needless hostility, not understandable hostility. One situation is avoidable, the other one is not.

but that's besides the point. I think it's somewhat problematic to suggest that vote moderation should only act in instances where the removal of a vote directly affects the outcome. If we're going to enforce a standard at all, that standard shouldn't suddenly disappear if voters happen to agree with the overall decision.

This is not about whether voters agree with the overall decision. This is whether removing the votes has any benefit at all to any party, and ut doesn't.

Why? Why remove a vote on a debate where one side is winning by 100 points regardless of what side the vote comes on? That's the question you can't answer because there is really absolutely no reason to do it, other than to "uphold a standard"? Upholding a standard for what purpose? The lurpose to uphold the standard to start with is merely to do our best to make sure people are not losing debates that they should not lose.

It is the spirit in which the guidelines were created. So how does removing a vote that has no chance of effecting the outcome, adhere to the spirit of the reason these standards were developed?

They don't adhere to the spirit in which the rule was developed, so we have a sitiation where the best possible putcome is energy is wasted even removing the vote. No better out come can be hoped for, but a downside where we just make noobs and idiots angry and cause them to not enjoy their experience on the site.

So we have a situation where not touching those votes is still consistent with the spirit in which the rules were made. We also have a situation where removing them has absolutely no benefit and only downside. Do an impact analysis here. I assume you'll have no problem with that. My impacts which I just laid out, I think outweighs your impact of "rules are rules even if enforcing them is inconsistent with the spirit in which theu were created"

So maybe only remove votes if it serves a useful purpose, not to mention removing votes on debates like that means there will be less time spent on removing bad votes that actually impact the results of the debate.

Again, I feel this is an issue of perspective. I see a useful purpose in removing these votes. You don't. Time spent removing votes a cost Airmax, BOT and I pay, and we pay it willingly for the sake of enforcing the standards as they are.

Well you have yet to state a useful purpose. Other than to blindly uphold a standard without an ounce of consideration as to why those standards were created.


I think when people called for these voting policies, they were calling for them with the understanding that common sense would ve used in enforcing them, and so far that has not been the case.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 1:54:48 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
"Common sense" is a difficult thing to nail down. The term assumes that there is something common and obvious that we can all use to come to the same conclusions, but what's common sense to me may not be common sense to you.

But the latter point seems somewhat more problematic. I get that this particular vote didn't have any outcome on the debate as a whole, but I don't think that's reason enough to ignore it if it doesn't meet the standards. If anything, removal of votes that don't affect the outcome of the debate in question actually produces far less hostility than in instances where it does affect the outcome,

The point is needless hostility, not understandable hostility. One situation is avoidable, the other one is not.

Alright, I get that, though the "needless" part is what i contest.

but that's besides the point. I think it's somewhat problematic to suggest that vote moderation should only act in instances where the removal of a vote directly affects the outcome. If we're going to enforce a standard at all, that standard shouldn't suddenly disappear if voters happen to agree with the overall decision.

This is not about whether voters agree with the overall decision. This is whether removing the votes has any benefit at all to any party, and ut doesn't.

Why? Why remove a vote on a debate where one side is winning by 100 points regardless of what side the vote comes on? That's the question you can't answer because there is really absolutely no reason to do it, other than to "uphold a standard"? Upholding a standard for what purpose? The lurpose to uphold the standard to start with is merely to do our best to make sure people are not losing debates that they should not lose.

It is the spirit in which the guidelines were created. So how does removing a vote that has no chance of effecting the outcome, adhere to the spirit of the reason these standards were developed?

They don't adhere to the spirit in which the rule was developed, so we have a sitiation where the best possible putcome is energy is wasted even removing the vote. No better out come can be hoped for, but a downside where we just make noobs and idiots angry and cause them to not enjoy their experience on the site.

So we have a situation where not touching those votes is still consistent with the spirit in which the rules were made. We also have a situation where removing them has absolutely no benefit and only downside. Do an impact analysis here. I assume you'll have no problem with that. My impacts which I just laid out, I think outweighs your impact of "rules are rules even if enforcing them is inconsistent with the spirit in which theu were created"

So, I have a few reasons why I disagree with this. First of all, upholding the standard isn't merely for the purpose of preventing people from losing debates due to poor voting. There's importance to what the RFD says and not just what the points awarded are and to whom they are given. I appreciate that the main goal of that is to prevent random poor votes from swaying a debate's outcome, but it's hardly the sole purpose of having vote moderation. Voters are effectively required to give some form of feedback that is comprehensible to the debaters, and that's at least a large part of the same "spirit of the standards" you're talking about. Each vote matters regardless of the point total.

Second, it seems like this kind of policy change would incentivize a different kind of reporting structure. If the basis for any report being evaluated is whether or not it would change the outcome, then I could see debaters reporting every vote against them in an effort to get some votes removed. If the standard is that it must change the outcome in order for any report to be taken seriously, then reporters will make the amount of reports enough to make that change. Many do that now, but usually, those people are just upset about being voted against. In this case, anyone who's upset about a single vote on their debate would have incentive to report a great deal more than just that vote.

Third, even if there is no effect on the outcome of that debate, I think that there's some value in removal of votes and the ensuing discussion with the voters. This might not happen for a long time if someone continually produces votes that just agree with a majority of other voters on each debate. It sounds like you'd support delaying that interaction on the basis that we don't want to get new members of the site too upset too early, but I don't see how that benefits them or anyone else on the site.

Again, I feel this is an issue of perspective. I see a useful purpose in removing these votes. You don't. Time spent removing votes a cost Airmax, BOT and I pay, and we pay it willingly for the sake of enforcing the standards as they are.

Well you have yet to state a useful purpose. Other than to blindly uphold a standard without an ounce of consideration as to why those standards were created.

I think I have stated those purposes.