Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Voting Bans

Ockham
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 12:06:52 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I just found out that I have been banned from voting. Are voting bans permanent?

I accept the decision of the moderators since it is their site, but I always tried to vote according to the rules and my best judgment. If there is a way to get my voting privileges reinstated then I would appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the site further.

Thanks in advance for any answers you can offer.
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 12:09:36 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/8/2016 12:06:52 PM, Ockham wrote:
I just found out that I have been banned from voting. Are voting bans permanent?

Read these guides [http://www.debate.org..., http://www.debate.org..., https://docs.google.com...] and post an RFD in the comments of a debate section which is sufficient explaining the decision you made (without actuall voting). Link that to Airmax1227, Whiteflame or Blade-of-Truth, and if the RFD is sufficient, you'll probably get your voting privileges back.
"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
6/8/2016 12:10:06 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
*actually
"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
Ockham
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 12:11:28 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/8/2016 12:09:36 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/8/2016 12:06:52 PM, Ockham wrote:
I just found out that I have been banned from voting. Are voting bans permanent?

Read these guides [http://www.debate.org..., http://www.debate.org..., https://docs.google.com...] and post an RFD in the comments of a debate section which is sufficient explaining the decision you made (without actuall voting). Link that to Airmax1227, Whiteflame or Blade-of-Truth, and if the RFD is sufficient, you'll probably get your voting privileges back.

Great, thanks!
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 12:57:37 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I've looked over your votes and I don't see anything wrong with them to the extent you should be banned.

This just demonstrates everything that is wrong with so called vote moderation.

It is utterly recockulous.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 2:09:42 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/8/2016 12:06:52 PM, Ockham wrote:
I just found out that I have been banned from voting. Are voting bans permanent?

I accept the decision of the moderators since it is their site, but I always tried to vote according to the rules and my best judgment. If there is a way to get my voting privileges reinstated then I would appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the site further.

Thanks in advance for any answers you can offer.

Everything tejretics said is correct. Voting privileges are re-instated pretty frequently for anyone who is actually trying to get them back. If you have any specific questions about the vote removals that have taken place thusfar, I would be happy to discuss them in more detail.
Ockham
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 2:15:22 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Everything tejretics said is correct. Voting privileges are re-instated pretty frequently for anyone who is actually trying to get them back.

Okay, thanks.

If you have any specific questions about the vote removals that have taken place thusfar, I would be happy to discuss them in more detail.

Actually, I think I will take you up on that offer. It would probably help me for someone who understands the voting rules to go over some bad votes I made and help me see how I could have done better.

I'll start with this one: http://www.debate.org...

This was my vote:

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con argued for the existence of God based on the existence of the universe, Pro argued that Con has not established that the universe exists and said only this debate exists, Con gave a definition and argued that it is obvious that the universe exists, Pro argued that we also have definitions for Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, etc., Con gave an argument inferring the existence of the universe from this debate. Pro did not respond to this last argument and instead introduced a new argument in the final round when Con could not respond to it, so the points for convincing arguments go to Con.

This was the reason for removing my vote:

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to assess specific points made by both debaters in the debate. In this case, the voter mentions several points made by both debaters, but only assesses a general argument made by Con and a lack of response from Pro. That is insufficient. If the voter wishes to mention all of these arguments, then it's worth his time to take the next step and examine them.

I'm a bit confused by this. From my point of view, I did examine the arguments given. Can you give me an example of how I could have done this better?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 2:17:01 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/8/2016 2:15:22 PM, Ockham wrote:
Everything tejretics said is correct. Voting privileges are re-instated pretty frequently for anyone who is actually trying to get them back.

Okay, thanks.

If you have any specific questions about the vote removals that have taken place thusfar, I would be happy to discuss them in more detail.

Actually, I think I will take you up on that offer. It would probably help me for someone who understands the voting rules to go over some bad votes I made and help me see how I could have done better.

I'll start with this one: http://www.debate.org...

This was my vote:

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con argued for the existence of God based on the existence of the universe, Pro argued that Con has not established that the universe exists and said only this debate exists, Con gave a definition and argued that it is obvious that the universe exists, Pro argued that we also have definitions for Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, etc., Con gave an argument inferring the existence of the universe from this debate. Pro did not respond to this last argument and instead introduced a new argument in the final round when Con could not respond to it, so the points for convincing arguments go to Con.

This was the reason for removing my vote:

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to assess specific points made by both debaters in the debate. In this case, the voter mentions several points made by both debaters, but only assesses a general argument made by Con and a lack of response from Pro. That is insufficient. If the voter wishes to mention all of these arguments, then it's worth his time to take the next step and examine them.

I'm a bit confused by this. From my point of view, I did examine the arguments given. Can you give me an example of how I could have done this better?

Vote for the other guy to avoid the vote being flagged. ;)
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 2:22:00 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/8/2016 2:15:22 PM, Ockham wrote:
Everything tejretics said is correct. Voting privileges are re-instated pretty frequently for anyone who is actually trying to get them back.

Okay, thanks.

If you have any specific questions about the vote removals that have taken place thusfar, I would be happy to discuss them in more detail.

Actually, I think I will take you up on that offer. It would probably help me for someone who understands the voting rules to go over some bad votes I made and help me see how I could have done better.

I'll start with this one: http://www.debate.org...

This was my vote:

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con argued for the existence of God based on the existence of the universe, Pro argued that Con has not established that the universe exists and said only this debate exists, Con gave a definition and argued that it is obvious that the universe exists, Pro argued that we also have definitions for Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, etc., Con gave an argument inferring the existence of the universe from this debate. Pro did not respond to this last argument and instead introduced a new argument in the final round when Con could not respond to it, so the points for convincing arguments go to Con.

This was the reason for removing my vote:

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to assess specific points made by both debaters in the debate. In this case, the voter mentions several points made by both debaters, but only assesses a general argument made by Con and a lack of response from Pro. That is insufficient. If the voter wishes to mention all of these arguments, then it's worth his time to take the next step and examine them.

I'm a bit confused by this. From my point of view, I did examine the arguments given. Can you give me an example of how I could have done this better?

You spent a good deal of space explaining what the arguments were, going through what each side stated. All of this:

"Con argued for the existence of God based on the existence of the universe, Pro argued that Con has not established that the universe exists and said only this debate exists, Con gave a definition and argued that it is obvious that the universe exists, Pro argued that we also have definitions for Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, etc.,"

just rehashes what happened in the debate, but none of it is analysis. I'm not seeing where you think individual points were successful or unsuccessful. Eventually, you get there, in stating this last portion:

"Con gave an argument inferring the existence of the universe from this debate."

But that really only states what you think Con did well. It's not an assessment of any argument given by Pro. You stated an argument given by Pro, yes, but I don't see any clear reason why it's either being well-taken or dismissed. That's what's missing: a reason why Pro is losing this debate. You're specifically referencing his arguments, but not explaining why they failed to uphold his side of the resolution.
Ockham
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 2:26:33 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
You spent a good deal of space explaining what the arguments were, going through what each side stated. All of this:

"Con argued for the existence of God based on the existence of the universe, Pro argued that Con has not established that the universe exists and said only this debate exists, Con gave a definition and argued that it is obvious that the universe exists, Pro argued that we also have definitions for Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, etc.,"

just rehashes what happened in the debate, but none of it is analysis. I'm not seeing where you think individual points were successful or unsuccessful. Eventually, you get there, in stating this last portion:

"Con gave an argument inferring the existence of the universe from this debate."

But that really only states what you think Con did well. It's not an assessment of any argument given by Pro. You stated an argument given by Pro, yes, but I don't see any clear reason why it's either being well-taken or dismissed. That's what's missing: a reason why Pro is losing this debate. You're specifically referencing his arguments, but not explaining why they failed to uphold his side of the resolution.

Okay, so would the vote have been acceptable if I had added something like "Con's argument for the existence of the universe starts with premises accepted by Pro, and Pro does not contest it, so it flows through?"
famousdebater
Posts: 3,934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 2:41:04 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/8/2016 12:57:37 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
I've looked over your votes and I don't see anything wrong with them to the extent you should be banned.

This just demonstrates everything that is wrong with so called vote moderation.

It is utterly recockulous.

You are banned from voting as a result of repetitively insufficient votes. Regardless of how close to sufficiency they are. He isn't permanently banned anyway, he can easily regain his privileges by casting good votes in the comments section of debates to prove that he can vote properly.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 2:46:50 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/8/2016 2:22:00 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:15:22 PM, Ockham wrote:
Everything tejretics said is correct. Voting privileges are re-instated pretty frequently for anyone who is actually trying to get them back.

Okay, thanks.

If you have any specific questions about the vote removals that have taken place thusfar, I would be happy to discuss them in more detail.

Actually, I think I will take you up on that offer. It would probably help me for someone who understands the voting rules to go over some bad votes I made and help me see how I could have done better.

I'll start with this one: http://www.debate.org...

This was my vote:

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con argued for the existence of God based on the existence of the universe, Pro argued that Con has not established that the universe exists and said only this debate exists, Con gave a definition and argued that it is obvious that the universe exists, Pro argued that we also have definitions for Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, etc., Con gave an argument inferring the existence of the universe from this debate. Pro did not respond to this last argument and instead introduced a new argument in the final round when Con could not respond to it, so the points for convincing arguments go to Con.

This was the reason for removing my vote:

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to assess specific points made by both debaters in the debate. In this case, the voter mentions several points made by both debaters, but only assesses a general argument made by Con and a lack of response from Pro. That is insufficient. If the voter wishes to mention all of these arguments, then it's worth his time to take the next step and examine them.

I'm a bit confused by this. From my point of view, I did examine the arguments given. Can you give me an example of how I could have done this better?

You spent a good deal of space explaining what the arguments were, going through what each side stated. All of this:

"Con argued for the existence of God based on the existence of the universe, Pro argued that Con has not established that the universe exists and said only this debate exists, Con gave a definition and argued that it is obvious that the universe exists, Pro argued that we also have definitions for Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, etc.,"

just rehashes what happened in the debate, but none of it is analysis. I'm not seeing where you think individual points were successful or unsuccessful. Eventually, you get there, in stating this last portion:

"Con gave an argument inferring the existence of the universe from this debate."

But that really only states what you think Con did well.

Con's only argument was that the universe did not exist and it was pretty much a bare assertion he just kept repeating. I understand you can't read through every debate where you remove votes, but con just made a single bare assertion repeatedly so there is not much to analyze there.

t's not an assessment of any argument given by Pro. You stated an argument given by Pro, yes, but I don't see any clear reason why it's either being well-taken or dismissed. That's what's missing: a reason why Pro is losing this debate. You're specifically referencing his arguments, but not explaining why they failed to uphold his side of the resolution.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 2:49:48 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/8/2016 2:41:04 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 6/8/2016 12:57:37 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
I've looked over your votes and I don't see anything wrong with them to the extent you should be banned.

This just demonstrates everything that is wrong with so called vote moderation.

It is utterly recockulous.

You are banned from voting as a result of repetitively insufficient votes.

There's nothing wrong with them. They are sufficient by any reasonable measure. I understand that they are insufficient by the current measures, which are objectively ridiculous and unreasonable. That's my point.

The measures are over the top, resulting in otherwise fine votes getting deleted, and voters getting banned for no good reason.

Look at his votes. Some of the votes he's cast are the only votes on the debates. Getting rid of this votes makes those debates voteless which is a worse scenario. We're not talking vote bombing here. We're not talking spam. We're not talking bias. We're talking votes that don't rival War and Peace for length.

The voting moderation here is basically cutting your hand off because you have a hang nail.

Regardless of how close to sufficiency they are. He isn't permanently banned anyway, he can easily regain his privileges by casting good votes in the comments section of debates to prove that he can vote properly.

He can vote properly. Moderators, however, cannot moderate properly. Do they get banned?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 2:52:37 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I agree with TG&P. This is why vote moderation will be scaled back after Bench is elected and we have a convention over it. A quicker route to getting your privilege back may be becoming a qualified voter and making sure that Bench wins
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 2:53:58 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I believe you only need 83 more votes to become a qualified voter if you are interested in that.
lannan13
Posts: 23,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 2:59:18 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/8/2016 12:06:52 PM, Ockham wrote:
I just found out that I have been banned from voting. Are voting bans permanent?

I accept the decision of the moderators since it is their site, but I always tried to vote according to the rules and my best judgment. If there is a way to get my voting privileges reinstated then I would appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the site further.

Thanks in advance for any answers you can offer.

It's not permanit. You just need to vote on 3 debates that are of quality (I think at min 4k characters a round with at least 3 rounds of argumentation.) in order to get your voting rights back.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 3:07:04 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I'll write your RFD's for you if you want. That way you can get your voting privileges back, you'll just have to deny I did it if asked about it. The mods if they have any honor have to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I'm honestly about to start making my debates non RFD also to help combat this mess.
Ockham
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 3:25:18 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/8/2016 3:07:04 PM, Wylted wrote:
I'll write your RFD's for you if you want. That way you can get your voting privileges back, you'll just have to deny I did it if asked about it. The mods if they have any honor have to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I'm honestly about to start making my debates non RFD also to help combat this mess.

That's okay, I'll do it myself. I appreciate the offer, though.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 3:27:01 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/8/2016 3:25:18 PM, Ockham wrote:
At 6/8/2016 3:07:04 PM, Wylted wrote:
I'll write your RFD's for you if you want. That way you can get your voting privileges back, you'll just have to deny I did it if asked about it. The mods if they have any honor have to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I'm honestly about to start making my debates non RFD also to help combat this mess.

That's okay, I'll do it myself. I appreciate the offer, though.

You're welcome, but also make sure you get 100 forum posts so you can vote for bench. If you can't earn back your voting that way you can atleast earn it back by voting for a system that will be more effective at removing the voting guidelines
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 3:58:39 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/8/2016 2:46:50 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:22:00 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:15:22 PM, Ockham wrote:
Everything tejretics said is correct. Voting privileges are re-instated pretty frequently for anyone who is actually trying to get them back.

Okay, thanks.

If you have any specific questions about the vote removals that have taken place thusfar, I would be happy to discuss them in more detail.

Actually, I think I will take you up on that offer. It would probably help me for someone who understands the voting rules to go over some bad votes I made and help me see how I could have done better.

I'll start with this one: http://www.debate.org...

This was my vote:

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con argued for the existence of God based on the existence of the universe, Pro argued that Con has not established that the universe exists and said only this debate exists, Con gave a definition and argued that it is obvious that the universe exists, Pro argued that we also have definitions for Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, etc., Con gave an argument inferring the existence of the universe from this debate. Pro did not respond to this last argument and instead introduced a new argument in the final round when Con could not respond to it, so the points for convincing arguments go to Con.

This was the reason for removing my vote:

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to assess specific points made by both debaters in the debate. In this case, the voter mentions several points made by both debaters, but only assesses a general argument made by Con and a lack of response from Pro. That is insufficient. If the voter wishes to mention all of these arguments, then it's worth his time to take the next step and examine them.

I'm a bit confused by this. From my point of view, I did examine the arguments given. Can you give me an example of how I could have done this better?

You spent a good deal of space explaining what the arguments were, going through what each side stated. All of this:

"Con argued for the existence of God based on the existence of the universe, Pro argued that Con has not established that the universe exists and said only this debate exists, Con gave a definition and argued that it is obvious that the universe exists, Pro argued that we also have definitions for Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, etc.,"

just rehashes what happened in the debate, but none of it is analysis. I'm not seeing where you think individual points were successful or unsuccessful. Eventually, you get there, in stating this last portion:

"Con gave an argument inferring the existence of the universe from this debate."

But that really only states what you think Con did well.

Con's only argument was that the universe did not exist and it was pretty much a bare assertion he just kept repeating. I understand you can't read through every debate where you remove votes, but con just made a single bare assertion repeatedly so there is not much to analyze there.

The statement that it was a bare assertion, and was therefore treated as lesser than arguments made with support, would have been sufficient for explaining why Pro's argument was unsuccessful. But that should have appeared in the RFD.

t's not an assessment of any argument given by Pro. You stated an argument given by Pro, yes, but I don't see any clear reason why it's either being well-taken or dismissed. That's what's missing: a reason why Pro is losing this debate. You're specifically referencing his arguments, but not explaining why they failed to uphold his side of the resolution.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 4:00:22 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/8/2016 2:26:33 PM, Ockham wrote:
You spent a good deal of space explaining what the arguments were, going through what each side stated. All of this:

"Con argued for the existence of God based on the existence of the universe, Pro argued that Con has not established that the universe exists and said only this debate exists, Con gave a definition and argued that it is obvious that the universe exists, Pro argued that we also have definitions for Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, etc.,"

just rehashes what happened in the debate, but none of it is analysis. I'm not seeing where you think individual points were successful or unsuccessful. Eventually, you get there, in stating this last portion:

"Con gave an argument inferring the existence of the universe from this debate."

But that really only states what you think Con did well. It's not an assessment of any argument given by Pro. You stated an argument given by Pro, yes, but I don't see any clear reason why it's either being well-taken or dismissed. That's what's missing: a reason why Pro is losing this debate. You're specifically referencing his arguments, but not explaining why they failed to uphold his side of the resolution.

Okay, so would the vote have been acceptable if I had added something like "Con's argument for the existence of the universe starts with premises accepted by Pro, and Pro does not contest it, so it flows through?"

As long as that's all it takes for Con to fulfill his burden of proof (which you'd have to establish in the RFD), then yes, it would be enough. If you don't want to focus on BoP, then you really just have to say why you find Pro's argument weak. Wylted did that by stating that it was unsupported, but that kind of thing does have to appear somewhere.
famousdebater
Posts: 3,934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 4:58:18 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/8/2016 2:49:48 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:41:04 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 6/8/2016 12:57:37 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
I've looked over your votes and I don't see anything wrong with them to the extent you should be banned.

This just demonstrates everything that is wrong with so called vote moderation.

It is utterly recockulous.

You are banned from voting as a result of repetitively insufficient votes.

There's nothing wrong with them. They are sufficient by any reasonable measure. I understand that they are insufficient by the current measures, which are objectively ridiculous and unreasonable. That's my point.

How are they objectively ridiculous and unreasonable??? Explain the objective part because ridiculous and unreasonable are definitely subjective terms.

The measures are over the top, resulting in otherwise fine votes getting deleted, and voters getting banned for no good reason.

In your SUBJECTIVE opinion.

Look at his votes. Some of the votes he's cast are the only votes on the debates. Getting rid of this votes makes those debates voteless which is a worse scenario. We're not talking vote bombing here. We're not talking spam. We're not talking bias. We're talking votes that don't rival War and Peace for length.

Nope. A debate without votes is far better than a debate with poor votes.

The voting moderation here is basically cutting your hand off because you have a hang nail.

This is a massive exaggeration. Most serious members on the site are able to construct sufficient RFDs here. This guy is a good user and is merely unfamiliar with the voting standards. Now that he's aware he'll most likely construct sufficient votes and the problem will be solved.

Regardless of how close to sufficiency they are. He isn't permanently banned anyway, he can easily regain his privileges by casting good votes in the comments section of debates to prove that he can vote properly.

He can vote properly. Moderators, however, cannot moderate properly. Do they get banned?

They are moderating correctly. If the moderators vote exactly by the standards are they do their job badly?
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 5:58:58 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/8/2016 4:58:18 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:49:48 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:41:04 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 6/8/2016 12:57:37 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
I've looked over your votes and I don't see anything wrong with them to the extent you should be banned.

This just demonstrates everything that is wrong with so called vote moderation.

It is utterly recockulous.

You are banned from voting as a result of repetitively insufficient votes.

There's nothing wrong with them. They are sufficient by any reasonable measure. I understand that they are insufficient by the current measures, which are objectively ridiculous and unreasonable. That's my point.

How are they objectively ridiculous and unreasonable??? Explain the objective part because ridiculous and unreasonable are definitely subjective terms.

They're objectively ridiculous and unreasonable because they result in satisfactory votes getting deleted and satisfactory voters getting vote-banned. If the overall objective is to improve debating and voting on the site, this is having the opposite effect. I'd say having the opposite effect than intended is objectively ridiculous and unreasonable.

The measures are over the top, resulting in otherwise fine votes getting deleted, and voters getting banned for no good reason.

In your SUBJECTIVE opinion.

Who else's subjective opinion would it be?

Look at his votes. Some of the votes he's cast are the only votes on the debates. Getting rid of this votes makes those debates voteless which is a worse scenario. We're not talking vote bombing here. We're not talking spam. We're not talking bias. We're talking votes that don't rival War and Peace for length.

Nope. A debate without votes is far better than a debate with poor votes.

No. The site has consistently been plagued by lack of voting. Hence all the threads people make imploring people to vote on their debates, hence the creation of voting pledges and voting tournaments.

The voting moderation here is basically cutting your hand off because you have a hang nail.

This is a massive exaggeration. Most serious members on the site are able to construct sufficient RFDs here. This guy is a good user and is merely unfamiliar with the voting standards. Now that he's aware he'll most likely construct sufficient votes and the problem will be solved.

His votes were fine to begin with and I disagree that this is the type of introduction to the site a new user should have. You want him to improve his voting? Fine. I'll agree they can improve. So take the initiative and address him proactively, work with him one-on-one. That's how you improve someone's voting.

No, instead he was just summarily vote-banned and had to come scrabbling to the forums to create a thread wondering what the hell happened. It's frustrating and humiliating and not how we should be treating people who are taking the time and effort to vote on debates to begin with.

Regardless of how close to sufficiency they are. He isn't permanently banned anyway, he can easily regain his privileges by casting good votes in the comments section of debates to prove that he can vote properly.

He can vote properly. Moderators, however, cannot moderate properly. Do they get banned?

They are moderating correctly. If the moderators vote exactly by the standards are they do their job badly?

They aren't.
famousdebater
Posts: 3,934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 6:05:30 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/8/2016 5:58:58 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/8/2016 4:58:18 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:49:48 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:41:04 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 6/8/2016 12:57:37 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
I've looked over your votes and I don't see anything wrong with them to the extent you should be banned.

This just demonstrates everything that is wrong with so called vote moderation.

It is utterly recockulous.

You are banned from voting as a result of repetitively insufficient votes.

There's nothing wrong with them. They are sufficient by any reasonable measure. I understand that they are insufficient by the current measures, which are objectively ridiculous and unreasonable. That's my point.

How are they objectively ridiculous and unreasonable??? Explain the objective part because ridiculous and unreasonable are definitely subjective terms.

They're objectively ridiculous and unreasonable because they result in satisfactory votes getting deleted and satisfactory voters getting vote-banned. If the overall objective is to improve debating and voting on the site, this is having the opposite effect. I'd say having the opposite effect than intended is objectively ridiculous and unreasonable.

Again, 'satisfactory' is also a subjective term. The two subjective factors lead to a subjective result. It's subjectively ridiculous and unreasonable. This is evident due to the fact that there are many people that view moderation as reasonable.

The measures are over the top, resulting in otherwise fine votes getting deleted, and voters getting banned for no good reason.

In your SUBJECTIVE opinion.

Who else's subjective opinion would it be?

You clearly misunderstand what the difference between subjective and objective mean. If you describe something as OVER THE TOP that is subjective.

Look at his votes. Some of the votes he's cast are the only votes on the debates. Getting rid of this votes makes those debates voteless which is a worse scenario. We're not talking vote bombing here. We're not talking spam. We're not talking bias. We're talking votes that don't rival War and Peace for length.

Nope. A debate without votes is far better than a debate with poor votes.

No. The site has consistently been plagued by lack of voting. Hence all the threads people make imploring people to vote on their debates, hence the creation of voting pledges and voting tournaments.

Indeed. Lack of voting is a problem but if all the votes were terrible and nobody gained anything from the feedback then I believe that the problem would be greater (this is subjective though if asked I'll provide objective data in support of it).

The voting moderation here is basically cutting your hand off because you have a hang nail.

This is a massive exaggeration. Most serious members on the site are able to construct sufficient RFDs here. This guy is a good user and is merely unfamiliar with the voting standards. Now that he's aware he'll most likely construct sufficient votes and the problem will be solved.

His votes were fine to begin with and I disagree that this is the type of introduction to the site a new user should have. You want him to improve his voting? Fine. I'll agree they can improve. So take the initiative and address him proactively, work with him one-on-one. That's how you improve someone's voting.

That's exactly what they're doing here. Whenever a vote is removed you receive a message from moderation and they welcome any questions regarding the vote removal and provide with many links in order for people to improve their voting.

No, instead he was just summarily vote-banned and had to come scrabbling to the forums to create a thread wondering what the hell happened. It's frustrating and humiliating and not how we should be treating people who are taking the time and effort to vote on debates to begin with.

He was vote banned after being warned many times via PM that his votes were constantly being reported and removed for insufficiency. It's not humiliating if nobody knows (it isn't made public unless the user in question decides to). The point is to allow users to improve their voting which the status quo does.

Regardless of how close to sufficiency they are. He isn't permanently banned anyway, he can easily regain his privileges by casting good votes in the comments section of debates to prove that he can vote properly.

He can vote properly. Moderators, however, cannot moderate properly. Do they get banned?

They are moderating correctly. If the moderators vote exactly by the standards are they do their job badly?

They aren't.

Please explain and respond to the above question. If they are following the standards exactly how it should be then how does that equate to do their job poorly?
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 6:13:17 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/8/2016 6:05:30 PM, famousdebater wrote:

They're objectively ridiculous and unreasonable because they result in satisfactory votes getting deleted and satisfactory voters getting vote-banned. If the overall objective is to improve debating and voting on the site, this is having the opposite effect. I'd say having the opposite effect than intended is objectively ridiculous and unreasonable.

Again, 'satisfactory' is also a subjective term. The two subjective factors lead to a subjective result. It's subjectively ridiculous and unreasonable. This is evident due to the fact that there are many people that view moderation as reasonable.

The objectivity of the failure of the voting policy is in the fact that it accomplishes the opposite goal as intended. Clear enough for you?

No. The site has consistently been plagued by lack of voting. Hence all the threads people make imploring people to vote on their debates, hence the creation of voting pledges and voting tournaments.

Indeed. Lack of voting is a problem but if all the votes were terrible and nobody gained anything from the feedback then I believe that the problem would be greater (this is subjective though if asked I'll provide objective data in support of it).

Ok. Fine. If and when we are in a state of affairs of "all the votes" being terrible and nobodying gaining anything from the feedback then we can address that problem. That is not the state of affairs. The state of affairs is a miserable quantity of votes on debates.

His votes were fine to begin with and I disagree that this is the type of introduction to the site a new user should have. You want him to improve his voting? Fine. I'll agree they can improve. So take the initiative and address him proactively, work with him one-on-one. That's how you improve someone's voting.

That's exactly what they're doing here. Whenever a vote is removed you receive a message from moderation and they welcome any questions regarding the vote removal and provide with many links in order for people to improve their voting.

Ok? That's "exactly" what they're doing here? Deleting a vote and giving a boilerplate message after the fact is not taking the initiative and is not working proactively. Proactive (in the sense I'm using it) is to work with them PRIOR to getting to the point of deleting their vote. Deleting a vote should be a measure of last resort. Even in cases where I agree with deleting a vote, I believe the user should be communicated with BEFORE deleting the vote.

No one worked on him one-on-one. His vote was deleted, he was given a standard spam "your-vote-was-deleted" message. That's impersonal and robotic and not working with someone one-on-one.

No, instead he was just summarily vote-banned and had to come scrabbling to the forums to create a thread wondering what the hell happened. It's frustrating and humiliating and not how we should be treating people who are taking the time and effort to vote on debates to begin with.

He was vote banned after being warned many times via PM that his votes were constantly being reported and removed for insufficiency. It's not humiliating if nobody knows (it isn't made public unless the user in question decides to). The point is to allow users to improve their voting which the status quo does.

His votes haven't improved. The're just gone. That's what deleting a vote does. It makes it go away.

Regardless of how close to sufficiency they are. He isn't permanently banned anyway, he can easily regain his privileges by casting good votes in the comments section of debates to prove that he can vote properly.

He can vote properly. Moderators, however, cannot moderate properly. Do they get banned?

They are moderating correctly. If the moderators vote exactly by the standards are they do their job badly?

They aren't.

Please explain and respond to the above question. If they are following the standards exactly how it should be then how does that equate to do their job poorly?

That's a loaded question. I'm not going to answer a loaded question. I disagree that moderators on this site are following the standards they should be following.
famousdebater
Posts: 3,934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 6:20:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/8/2016 6:13:17 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/8/2016 6:05:30 PM, famousdebater wrote:

They're objectively ridiculous and unreasonable because they result in satisfactory votes getting deleted and satisfactory voters getting vote-banned. If the overall objective is to improve debating and voting on the site, this is having the opposite effect. I'd say having the opposite effect than intended is objectively ridiculous and unreasonable.

Again, 'satisfactory' is also a subjective term. The two subjective factors lead to a subjective result. It's subjectively ridiculous and unreasonable. This is evident due to the fact that there are many people that view moderation as reasonable.

The objectivity of the failure of the voting policy is in the fact that it accomplishes the opposite goal as intended. Clear enough for you?

That interpretation is subjective. It is arguable that vote moderation does well in improving votes and showing people that if they vote properly, their votes will not be removed.

No. The site has consistently been plagued by lack of voting. Hence all the threads people make imploring people to vote on their debates, hence the creation of voting pledges and voting tournaments.

Indeed. Lack of voting is a problem but if all the votes were terrible and nobody gained anything from the feedback then I believe that the problem would be greater (this is subjective though if asked I'll provide objective data in support of it).

Ok. Fine. If and when we are in a state of affairs of "all the votes" being terrible and nobodying gaining anything from the feedback then we can address that problem. That is not the state of affairs. The state of affairs is a miserable quantity of votes on debates.

The whole reason voting standards were implemented were because most (if not all) of the votes were poor and many people stopped debating due to the sheer number of these "insufficient" votes that weren't being removed.

His votes were fine to begin with and I disagree that this is the type of introduction to the site a new user should have. You want him to improve his voting? Fine. I'll agree they can improve. So take the initiative and address him proactively, work with him one-on-one. That's how you improve someone's voting.

That's exactly what they're doing here. Whenever a vote is removed you receive a message from moderation and they welcome any questions regarding the vote removal and provide with many links in order for people to improve their voting.

Ok? That's "exactly" what they're doing here? Deleting a vote and giving a boilerplate message after the fact is not taking the initiative and is not working proactively. Proactive (in the sense I'm using it) is to work with them PRIOR to getting to the point of deleting their vote. Deleting a vote should be a measure of last resort. Even in cases where I agree with deleting a vote, I believe the user should be communicated with BEFORE deleting the vote.

That's a completely illogical system and is no different to contacting them afterwards. Their vote is removed and they are told why it is insufficient. Then the voter can easily look at this feedback and reinstate their vote with additions so that it is sufficient.

No one worked on him one-on-one. His vote was deleted, he was given a standard spam "your-vote-was-deleted" message. That's impersonal and robotic and not working with someone one-on-one.

Nope. They tell him his vote was deleted and encourage him to ask questions if he wants. If he does then they'll answer the questions thoroughly.

No, instead he was just summarily vote-banned and had to come scrabbling to the forums to create a thread wondering what the hell happened. It's frustrating and humiliating and not how we should be treating people who are taking the time and effort to vote on debates to begin with.

He was vote banned after being warned many times via PM that his votes were constantly being reported and removed for insufficiency. It's not humiliating if nobody knows (it isn't made public unless the user in question decides to). The point is to allow users to improve their voting which the status quo does.

His votes haven't improved. The're just gone. That's what deleting a vote does. It makes it go away.

They're gone and he's been given links to guides for voting from some of the best users in DDO history (such as bluesteel).

Regardless of how close to sufficiency they are. He isn't permanently banned anyway, he can easily regain his privileges by casting good votes in the comments section of debates to prove that he can vote properly.

He can vote properly. Moderators, however, cannot moderate properly. Do they get banned?

They are moderating correctly. If the moderators vote exactly by the standards are they do their job badly?

They aren't.

Please explain and respond to the above question. If they are following the standards exactly how it should be then how does that equate to do their job poorly?

That's a loaded question. I'm not going to answer a loaded question. I disagree that moderators on this site are following the standards they should be following.

Well that's subjective like I've been saying. They are following the standards that they have currently implemented which means that as far as you, or anybody else should be concerned, they are doing their job properly.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 6:26:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/8/2016 12:06:52 PM, Ockham wrote:
I just found out that I have been banned from voting. Are voting bans permanent?

I accept the decision of the moderators since it is their site, but I always tried to vote according to the rules and my best judgment. If there is a way to get my voting privileges reinstated then I would appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the site further.

Thanks in advance for any answers you can offer.

All the details are provided in the message I sent you. Please check it out and feel free to contact me at anytime in that same message once you are ready to go through the steps for regaining voting privileges.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 6:26:18 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/8/2016 6:20:11 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 6/8/2016 6:13:17 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/8/2016 6:05:30 PM, famousdebater wrote:

They're objectively ridiculous and unreasonable because they result in satisfactory votes getting deleted and satisfactory voters getting vote-banned. If the overall objective is to improve debating and voting on the site, this is having the opposite effect. I'd say having the opposite effect than intended is objectively ridiculous and unreasonable.

Again, 'satisfactory' is also a subjective term. The two subjective factors lead to a subjective result. It's subjectively ridiculous and unreasonable. This is evident due to the fact that there are many people that view moderation as reasonable.

The objectivity of the failure of the voting policy is in the fact that it accomplishes the opposite goal as intended. Clear enough for you?

That interpretation is subjective. It is arguable that vote moderation does well in improving votes and showing people that if they vote properly, their votes will not be removed.

Whether the policy suceeds or fails is objective. Either it is failing or it is succeeding. The fact that two individuals may disagree on which is actually the case does not magically make it subjective. I see it as failing, ergo I label it an objective failure. Just disagreeing doesn't wave a magic wand of subjectivity over things.

No. The site has consistently been plagued by lack of voting. Hence all the threads people make imploring people to vote on their debates, hence the creation of voting pledges and voting tournaments.

Indeed. Lack of voting is a problem but if all the votes were terrible and nobody gained anything from the feedback then I believe that the problem would be greater (this is subjective though if asked I'll provide objective data in support of it).

Ok. Fine. If and when we are in a state of affairs of "all the votes" being terrible and nobodying gaining anything from the feedback then we can address that problem. That is not the state of affairs. The state of affairs is a miserable quantity of votes on debates.

The whole reason voting standards were implemented were because most (if not all) of the votes were poor and many people stopped debating due to the sheer number of these "insufficient" votes that weren't being removed.

You didn't say most of the votes. You said all of the votes. When that's the situation, we'll come back to this point.

His votes were fine to begin with and I disagree that this is the type of introduction to the site a new user should have. You want him to improve his voting? Fine. I'll agree they can improve. So take the initiative and address him proactively, work with him one-on-one. That's how you improve someone's voting.

That's exactly what they're doing here. Whenever a vote is removed you receive a message from moderation and they welcome any questions regarding the vote removal and provide with many links in order for people to improve their voting.

Ok? That's "exactly" what they're doing here? Deleting a vote and giving a boilerplate message after the fact is not taking the initiative and is not working proactively. Proactive (in the sense I'm using it) is to work with them PRIOR to getting to the point of deleting their vote. Deleting a vote should be a measure of last resort. Even in cases where I agree with deleting a vote, I believe the user should be communicated with BEFORE deleting the vote.

That's a completely illogical system and is no different to contacting them afterwards.

There are plenty of differences:

1. It prevents cluttering up Debate comments with posts from the moderating saying a vote was removed and why.
2. It takes a more positive approach to helping voters improve their votes. Instead of just smacking their hand and sending them back to square one, you're treating them like a person and allowing them to fix an existing vote making it better. If you can't see the difference between that, I can't help you.

Their vote is removed and they are told why it is insufficient. Then the voter can easily look at this feedback and reinstate their vote with additions so that it is sufficient.

And they can be told that before the vote is removed too.

No one worked on him one-on-one. His vote was deleted, he was given a standard spam "your-vote-was-deleted" message. That's impersonal and robotic and not working with someone one-on-one.

Nope. They tell him his vote was deleted and encourage him to ask questions if he wants. If he does then they'll answer the questions thoroughly.

No, instead he was just summarily vote-banned and had to come scrabbling to the forums to create a thread wondering what the hell happened. It's frustrating and humiliating and not how we should be treating people who are taking the time and effort to vote on debates to begin with.

He was vote banned after being warned many times via PM that his votes were constantly being reported and removed for insufficiency. It's not humiliating if nobody knows (it isn't made public unless the user in question decides to). The point is to allow users to improve their voting which the status quo does.

His votes haven't improved. The're just gone. That's what deleting a vote does. It makes it go away.

They're gone and he's been given links to guides for voting from some of the best users in DDO history (such as bluesteel).

Regardless of how close to sufficiency they are. He isn't permanently banned anyway, he can easily regain his privileges by casting good votes in the comments section of debates to prove that he can vote properly.

He can vote properly. Moderators, however, cannot moderate properly. Do they get banned?

They are moderating correctly. If the moderators vote exactly by the standards are they do their job badly?

They aren't.

Please explain and respond to the above question. If they are following the standards exactly how it should be then how does that equate to do their job poorly?

That's a loaded question. I'm not going to answer a loaded question. I disagree that moderators on this site are following the standards they should be following.

Well that's subjective like I've been saying. They are following the standards that they have currently implemented which means that as far as you, or anybody else should be concerned, they are doing their job properly.

No, they aren't following the standards thare are implemented. That's what I'm saying. That state of affairs you say must exist for us to conclude that they are doing their job properly doesn't exist.
famousdebater
Posts: 3,934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 6:33:07 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/8/2016 6:26:18 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
They're objectively ridiculous and unreasonable because they result in satisfactory votes getting deleted and satisfactory voters getting vote-banned. If the overall objective is to improve debating and voting on the site, this is having the opposite effect. I'd say having the opposite effect than intended is objectively ridiculous and unreasonable.

Again, 'satisfactory' is also a subjective term. The two subjective factors lead to a subjective result. It's subjectively ridiculous and unreasonable. This is evident due to the fact that there are many people that view moderation as reasonable.

The objectivity of the failure of the voting policy is in the fact that it accomplishes the opposite goal as intended. Clear enough for you?

That interpretation is subjective. It is arguable that vote moderation does well in improving votes and showing people that if they vote properly, their votes will not be removed.

Whether the policy suceeds or fails is objective. Either it is failing or it is succeeding. The fact that two individuals may disagree on which is actually the case does not magically make it subjective. I see it as failing, ergo I label it an objective failure. Just disagreeing doesn't wave a magic wand of subjectivity over things.

Polls show that an overwhelming majority support the status quo showing that your belief is in the minority of the site.

No. The site has consistently been plagued by lack of voting. Hence all the threads people make imploring people to vote on their debates, hence the creation of voting pledges and voting tournaments.

Indeed. Lack of voting is a problem but if all the votes were terrible and nobody gained anything from the feedback then I believe that the problem would be greater (this is subjective though if asked I'll provide objective data in support of it).

Ok. Fine. If and when we are in a state of affairs of "all the votes" being terrible and nobodying gaining anything from the feedback then we can address that problem. That is not the state of affairs. The state of affairs is a miserable quantity of votes on debates.

The whole reason voting standards were implemented were because most (if not all) of the votes were poor and many people stopped debating due to the sheer number of these "insufficient" votes that weren't being removed.

You didn't say most of the votes. You said all of the votes. When that's the situation, we'll come back to this point.

That has been the situation with literally all votes. Read what DK said in the previous thread. The whole reason for vote moderation was because there was an extremely high level of dissatisfaction among users of the site. This is why your decision is NOT objectively correct and is also why people that support this notion are in the minority and are generally newer users to the site.

His votes were fine to begin with and I disagree that this is the type of introduction to the site a new user should have. You want him to improve his voting? Fine. I'll agree they can improve. So take the initiative and address him proactively, work with him one-on-one. That's how you improve someone's voting.

That's exactly what they're doing here. Whenever a vote is removed you receive a message from moderation and they welcome any questions regarding the vote removal and provide with many links in order for people to improve their voting.

Ok? That's "exactly" what they're doing here? Deleting a vote and giving a boilerplate message after the fact is not taking the initiative and is not working proactively. Proactive (in the sense I'm using it) is to work with them PRIOR to getting to the point of deleting their vote. Deleting a vote should be a measure of last resort. Even in cases where I agree with deleting a vote, I believe the user should be communicated with BEFORE deleting the vote.

That's a completely illogical system and is no different to contacting them afterwards.

There are plenty of differences:

1. It prevents cluttering up Debate comments with posts from the moderating saying a vote was removed and why.

Yeah, because 1 comment is really cluttering up the comments.

2. It takes a more positive approach to helping voters improve their votes. Instead of just smacking their hand and sending them back to square one, you're treating them like a person and allowing them to fix an existing vote making it better. If you can't see the difference between that, I can't help you.

And you believe that voters will expand upon and improve their votes. Your fantasizing dude. This will increase moderation's workload by A LOT and you also assume that users will comply with this system.

Their vote is removed and they are told why it is insufficient. Then the voter can easily look at this feedback and reinstate their vote with additions so that it is sufficient.

And they can be told that before the vote is removed too.

At what cost? What if they ignored the message? What if they constantly got their votes wrong?

No one worked on him one-on-one. His vote was deleted, he was given a standard spam "your-vote-was-deleted" message. That's impersonal and robotic and not working with someone one-on-one.

Nope. They tell him his vote was deleted and encourage him to ask questions if he wants. If he does then they'll answer the questions thoroughly.

No, instead he was just summarily vote-banned and had to come scrabbling to the forums to create a thread wondering what the hell happened. It's frustrating and humiliating and not how we should be treating people who are taking the time and effort to vote on debates to begin with.

He was vote banned after being warned many times via PM that his votes were constantly being reported and removed for insufficiency. It's not humiliating if nobody knows (it isn't made public unless the user in question decides to). The point is to allow users to improve their voting which the status quo does.

His votes haven't improved. The're just gone. That's what deleting a vote does. It makes it go away.

They're gone and he's been given links to guides for voting from some of the best users in DDO history (such as bluesteel).

Regardless of how close to sufficiency they are. He isn't permanently banned anyway, he can easily regain his privileges by casting good votes in the comments section of debates to prove that he can vote properly.

He can vote properly. Moderators, however, cannot moderate properly. Do they get banned?

They are moderating correctly. If the moderators vote exactly by the standards are they do their job badly?

They aren't.

Please explain and respond to the above question. If they are following the standards exactly how it should be then how does that equate to do their job poorly?

That's a loaded question. I'm not going to answer a loaded question. I disagree that moderators on this site are following the standards they should be following.

Well that's subjective like I've been saying. They are following the standards that they have currently implemented which means that as far as you, or anybody else should be concerned, they are doing their job properly.

No, they aren't following the standards thare are implemented. That's what I'm saying. That state of affairs you say must exist for us to conclude that they are doing their job properly doesn't exist.

Give me some examples of standard violations that moderation have made.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy