Total Posts:319|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Election and Referendum

airmax1227
Posts: 13,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 8:04:10 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
While the election officially has a few hours left, pending any significant changes, which I believe are very unlikely, I think we can go ahead and call it a day.

So (pending anything significant changing) the election has all but ended. Congrats to Wylted for winning.

So there is a decent amount that I could say, especially to clarify a lot of the messages and questions that I have received in the last few days, but I don't think it's really necessary.

To give some background, I have realized for awhile that there is a very real concern about the value of the presidency, and that a decent number of members feel that it should be altered significantly, or not exist at all. I'm not ignorant of this and both sides certainly have valid points of view. I thought that we could resolve that issue through the election itself. To those ends, it was convenient (from my perspective) that for a long time the election appeared to likely wind up being between a pro-presidency versus anti-presidency dynamic, and the community would pretty much vote their opinion on the matter. To make it even more clear to me, Imabench agreed to, or specifically advanced on his own, candidate campaign and election conduct agreements (which were in the end specifically taken advantage of), that would prevent shenanigans, to make it clear (especially, and specifically, to me) where people stood. I realize this wasn't ideal, but I thought it would provide a decent indication of where people stood.

Unfortunately, I now realize in retrospect that, for many reasons, this was a flawed way to go about this. There's obviously going to be people that voted for Bench, but not necessarily because of abolition.... and there's going to be people who vote against him, who might be for abolition... and any other combination of issues where this was clearly not a reasonable way to gauge actual public opinion on the matter. When we add in the fact that an unscrupulous member can manipulate completely apathetic or clueless members into voting for them, and win in that manner, then it obviously means that the results have no bearing on this issue, nor indication of opinion on it, in the least.

To that end, I do believe a straight up or down vote on abolishing the presidency is prudent. I have always been on the side that believes the presidency has value, and that one can do great things for the site as president if they feel they have an obligation to do so, but this issue will be endlessly pervasive if we do nothing, and either way it goes, we will require reasonable reforms to prevent and stop what I do believe is potentially damaging to the site.

There have been several ideas suggested, but I believe "yay or nay" on abolition is simple enough (and simple is necessary), and should be how we go about any referendum. Depending on the results we can consider whatever reforms, or replacement mechanisms, are deemed appropriate by the community.

Initially, plans are to have the referendum take place on Wednesday July 13th, this should give enough time for both sides to state their opinions, but I would like to hear when other people think the referendum should be held, if held at all. Furthermore, if you have suggestions for what criteria, if any, should qualify a member to vote on this, your feedback would be appreciated.

Thank you.
Debate.org Moderator
ThinkBig
Posts: 1,569
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 8:06:08 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/10/2016 8:04:10 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
While the election officially has a few hours left, pending any significant changes, which I believe are very unlikely, I think we can go ahead and call it a day.

So (pending anything significant changing) the election has all but ended. Congrats to Wylted for winning.

So there is a decent amount that I could say, especially to clarify a lot of the messages and questions that I have received in the last few days, but I don't think it's really necessary.

To give some background, I have realized for awhile that there is a very real concern about the value of the presidency, and that a decent number of members feel that it should be altered significantly, or not exist at all. I'm not ignorant of this and both sides certainly have valid points of view. I thought that we could resolve that issue through the election itself. To those ends, it was convenient (from my perspective) that for a long time the election appeared to likely wind up being between a pro-presidency versus anti-presidency dynamic, and the community would pretty much vote their opinion on the matter. To make it even more clear to me, Imabench agreed to, or specifically advanced on his own, candidate campaign and election conduct agreements (which were in the end specifically taken advantage of), that would prevent shenanigans, to make it clear (especially, and specifically, to me) where people stood. I realize this wasn't ideal, but I thought it would provide a decent indication of where people stood.

Unfortunately, I now realize in retrospect that, for many reasons, this was a flawed way to go about this. There's obviously going to be people that voted for Bench, but not necessarily because of abolition.... and there's going to be people who vote against him, who might be for abolition... and any other combination of issues where this was clearly not a reasonable way to gauge actual public opinion on the matter. When we add in the fact that an unscrupulous member can manipulate completely apathetic or clueless members into voting for them, and win in that manner, then it obviously means that the results have no bearing on this issue, nor indication of opinion on it, in the least.

To that end, I do believe a straight up or down vote on abolishing the presidency is prudent. I have always been on the side that believes the presidency has value, and that one can do great things for the site as president if they feel they have an obligation to do so, but this issue will be endlessly pervasive if we do nothing, and either way it goes, we will require reasonable reforms to prevent and stop what I do believe is potentially damaging to the site.

There have been several ideas suggested, but I believe "yay or nay" on abolition is simple enough (and simple is necessary), and should be how we go about any referendum. Depending on the results we can consider whatever reforms, or replacement mechanisms, are deemed appropriate by the community.

Initially, plans are to have the referendum take place on Wednesday July 13th, this should give enough time for both sides to state their opinions, but I would like to hear when other people think the referendum should be held, if held at all. Furthermore, if you have suggestions for what criteria, if any, should qualify a member to vote on this, your feedback would be appreciated.

Thank you.

I feel that the referendum should have happened the week before the election rather than the week after the election.

July 13th works for me.
ThinkBig
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Notable Notes and Quotable Quotes
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I GOT SIG'D"
"WELL FVCK ME IN THE A$SHOLE AND CALL ME A CUCK I GOT SIG'D AGAIN"
-Kiri
If anyone's getting modkilled, it's kiri. Just for his sig.
-7th
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge or vote? Nominate me!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 8:07:44 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/10/2016 8:04:10 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
While the election officially has a few hours left, pending any significant changes, which I believe are very unlikely, I think we can go ahead and call it a day.

So (pending anything significant changing) the election has all but ended. Congrats to Wylted for winning.

So there is a decent amount that I could say, especially to clarify a lot of the messages and questions that I have received in the last few days, but I don't think it's really necessary.

To give some background, I have realized for awhile that there is a very real concern about the value of the presidency, and that a decent number of members feel that it should be altered significantly, or not exist at all. I'm not ignorant of this and both sides certainly have valid points of view. I thought that we could resolve that issue through the election itself. To those ends, it was convenient (from my perspective) that for a long time the election appeared to likely wind up being between a pro-presidency versus anti-presidency dynamic, and the community would pretty much vote their opinion on the matter. To make it even more clear to me, Imabench agreed to, or specifically advanced on his own, candidate campaign and election conduct agreements (which were in the end specifically taken advantage of), that would prevent shenanigans, to make it clear (especially, and specifically, to me) where people stood. I realize this wasn't ideal, but I thought it would provide a decent indication of where people stood.

Unfortunately, I now realize in retrospect that, for many reasons, this was a flawed way to go about this. There's obviously going to be people that voted for Bench, but not necessarily because of abolition.... and there's going to be people who vote against him, who might be for abolition... and any other combination of issues where this was clearly not a reasonable way to gauge actual public opinion on the matter. When we add in the fact that an unscrupulous member can manipulate completely apathetic or clueless members into voting for them, and win in that manner, then it obviously means that the results have no bearing on this issue, nor indication of opinion on it, in the least.

To that end, I do believe a straight up or down vote on abolishing the presidency is prudent. I have always been on the side that believes the presidency has value, and that one can do great things for the site as president if they feel they have an obligation to do so, but this issue will be endlessly pervasive if we do nothing, and either way it goes, we will require reasonable reforms to prevent and stop what I do believe is potentially damaging to the site.

There have been several ideas suggested, but I believe "yay or nay" on abolition is simple enough (and simple is necessary), and should be how we go about any referendum. Depending on the results we can consider whatever reforms, or replacement mechanisms, are deemed appropriate by the community.

Initially, plans are to have the referendum take place on Wednesday July 13th, this should give enough time for both sides to state their opinions, but I would like to hear when other people think the referendum should be held, if held at all. Furthermore, if you have suggestions for what criteria, if any, should qualify a member to vote on this, your feedback would be appreciated.

Thank you.

Excellent.
Mikal
Posts: 11,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 8:14:27 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
I think Wednesday is a perfect time

Also options I think should be implemented

A) 1 week voting time
B) Increased criteria to vote to stop wylted from being as you say " unscrupulous" during this vote as well

With this being the single biggest decision the site has voted on in quite a fair bit of time, the voting should be limited to those who regular it frequently

I would say something like meet one of the following bullet points

2k forum posts
50 finished debates
200 polls

This is obviously subject to change, but cutting down on the mess that I started with voter fraud is a necessity for this.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 8:15:03 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Yes. We should have a vote after the election of Yay or Nay abolition. Then there is pure abolition (just...nothing) And Imabench's version of conventions. So if the vote ends up being preserving the presidency, we should have a new election thread electing which president (DK or Harder probably), or if it becomes abolition, that would be tricky. I guess we would allow people to run as well, have the standard pure abolition, and also let others run for a modified version (Ima for conventions, Geo for...whatever it was, etc.)

That seems best...but then there's the issue of what the old election thread meant, like do we just completely forget about it? Since Wylted fvcked it up?
Mikal
Posts: 11,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 8:16:26 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
I would also like to reiterate that pro presidency proponents should consider abolishing this as well. This is in response to Wylted doing what he did. The way this is shifting, if pro presidency people vote abolition, then you could knock it out cold for the time being with the hopes of reforming it under a new ideal in the future under a convention system.

Help preserve the site, and come together in order to achieve a common goal which is the betterment of the site
YYW
Posts: 36,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 8:18:42 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/10/2016 8:14:27 PM, Mikal wrote:
I think Wednesday is a perfect time

Also options I think should be implemented

A) 1 week voting time
B) Increased criteria to vote to stop wylted from being as you say " unscrupulous" during this vote as well

With this being the single biggest decision the site has voted on in quite a fair bit of time, the voting should be limited to those who regular it frequently

I would say something like meet one of the following bullet points

2k forum posts
50 finished debates
200 polls

This is obviously subject to change, but cutting down on the mess that I started with voter fraud is a necessity for this.

Why not have a lower standard? This is the kind of thing that will impact the site, perhaps forever. Don't you think even newer members or less active members should be able to participate?
YYW
Posts: 36,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 8:18:42 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/10/2016 8:14:27 PM, Mikal wrote:
I think Wednesday is a perfect time

Also options I think should be implemented

A) 1 week voting time
B) Increased criteria to vote to stop wylted from being as you say " unscrupulous" during this vote as well

With this being the single biggest decision the site has voted on in quite a fair bit of time, the voting should be limited to those who regular it frequently

I would say something like meet one of the following bullet points

2k forum posts
50 finished debates
200 polls

This is obviously subject to change, but cutting down on the mess that I started with voter fraud is a necessity for this.

Why not have a lower standard? This is the kind of thing that will impact the site, perhaps forever. Don't you think even newer members or less active members should be able to participate?
Mikal
Posts: 11,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 8:18:43 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/10/2016 8:15:03 PM, Hayd wrote:
Yes. We should have a vote after the election of Yay or Nay abolition. Then there is pure abolition (just...nothing) And Imabench's version of conventions. So if the vote ends up being preserving the presidency, we should have a new election thread electing which president (DK or Harder probably), or if it becomes abolition, that would be tricky. I guess we would allow people to run as well, have the standard pure abolition, and also let others run for a modified version (Ima for conventions, Geo for...whatever it was, etc.)

That seems best...but then there's the issue of what the old election thread meant, like do we just completely forget about it? Since Wylted fvcked it up?

I think the entire purpose of this is to preserve the well being of the site, which now even the moderator agrees is an issue due to wylted being wylted
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 8:19:05 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/10/2016 8:14:27 PM, Mikal wrote:
I think Wednesday is a perfect time

Also options I think should be implemented

A) 1 week voting time
B) Increased criteria to vote to stop wylted from being as you say " unscrupulous" during this vote as well

With this being the single biggest decision the site has voted on in quite a fair bit of time, the voting should be limited to those who regular it frequently

I would say something like meet one of the following bullet points

: 2k forum posts
50 finished debates
200 polls
:
This is obviously subject to change, but cutting down on the mess that I started with voter fraud is a necessity for this.

Agreed
Mikal
Posts: 11,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 8:20:45 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/10/2016 8:18:42 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/10/2016 8:14:27 PM, Mikal wrote:
I think Wednesday is a perfect time

Also options I think should be implemented

A) 1 week voting time
B) Increased criteria to vote to stop wylted from being as you say " unscrupulous" during this vote as well

With this being the single biggest decision the site has voted on in quite a fair bit of time, the voting should be limited to those who regular it frequently

I would say something like meet one of the following bullet points

2k forum posts
50 finished debates
200 polls

This is obviously subject to change, but cutting down on the mess that I started with voter fraud is a necessity for this.

Why not have a lower standard? This is the kind of thing that will impact the site, perhaps forever. Don't you think even newer members or less active members should be able to participate?

I concur that newer members should have a say in some sense but it's way more tricky than that. You want people to voice their thoughts when they understand the situation(which most new members don't). The unethical spamming will continue , because wylted will spam in favor of keeping the office to preserve his position.

you will see a repeat of the election, there has to be a way to open it up for people to interact and have input while getting a realistic outcome that is not altered by a lack of ethics
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,630
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 8:25:50 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
If there's going to be a referendum for abolitionism, there should be referendums for other aspects of the website. (Unless the tyrants that run this site refuse because the members would vote against them.)

To start, there should be a referendum on voting policy reform. (Thank you for ruining voting whitelame)
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,630
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 8:25:50 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
If there's going to be a referendum for abolitionism, there should be referendums for other aspects of the website. (Unless the tyrants that run this site refuse because the members would vote against them.)

To start, there should be a referendum on voting policy reform. (Thank you for ruining voting whitelame)
Mikal
Posts: 11,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 8:30:31 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/10/2016 8:25:50 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
If there's going to be a referendum for abolitionism, there should be referendums for other aspects of the website. (Unless the tyrants that run this site refuse because the members would vote against them.)

To start, there should be a referendum on voting policy reform. (Thank you for ruining voting whitelame)

There is a dichotomy between voting changes and the way this election has played out. The election at this point is a net detriment to the site, requiring people to post comprehensive RDS and give rationale behind their votes is not. Voting standards basically require you to have common sense, that does not need an added referendum. It requires you take 5 extra minuets on a RFD to explain why you voted in the way you did.
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 8:31:16 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
I suggest a short survey of different yes/no questions, to get better meaning from the answers. For example...

Should the community have elected positions?
Should the community vote on issues convention style?

Would you accept official leadership from Wylted?
Would you accept official leadership from Imabench?
Would you accept official leadership from Donald.Keller?

Should RFD's require [insert voting issue here]?
Should extreme thread necromancy (five months or greater) be banned?
Should [blah blah blah]?

This type of thing would give far better insight into the answers, than yay/nay on one part of one issue. If someone currently does not think a certain user should be president, does not mean they are wholly opposed to the idea of a presidency, when the original question forces them to choose an answer that likely does not even try to represent the complexities of their opinion.
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...
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 8:32:00 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/10/2016 8:14:27 PM, Mikal wrote:
2k forum posts
50 finished debates
200 polls

I have 139 poll votes, and I've spent a collective 3 hours at most in that entire section of the site. I'd make it 400.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
airmax1227
Posts: 13,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 8:34:03 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/10/2016 8:25:50 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
If there's going to be a referendum for abolitionism, there should be referendums for other aspects of the website. (Unless the tyrants that run this site refuse because the members would vote against them.)

To start, there should be a referendum on voting policy reform. (Thank you for ruining voting whitelame)

There actually will be another discussion on voting moderation in the very near future. It would have happened sooner, but with the election and all this, I figured it could wait. But I may post it today, or later in the week.

And just as a point of reference, there was a referendum related to vote moderation, and members overwhelmingly voted to make the standards more strict (Which I personally was surprised by, and didn't agree with - but it is what it is). Also for the record, if anyone can individually be blamed for ruining voting, that would be me, not Whiteflame.
Debate.org Moderator
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 8:34:36 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/10/2016 8:15:03 PM, Hayd wrote:
So if the vote ends up being preserving the presidency, we should have a new election thread electing which president (DK or Harder probably)

Sh!t are you guys about to throw me back out there like that?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
YYW
Posts: 36,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 8:34:38 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/10/2016 8:20:45 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 7/10/2016 8:18:42 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/10/2016 8:14:27 PM, Mikal wrote:
I think Wednesday is a perfect time

Also options I think should be implemented

A) 1 week voting time
B) Increased criteria to vote to stop wylted from being as you say " unscrupulous" during this vote as well

With this being the single biggest decision the site has voted on in quite a fair bit of time, the voting should be limited to those who regular it frequently

I would say something like meet one of the following bullet points

2k forum posts
50 finished debates
200 polls

This is obviously subject to change, but cutting down on the mess that I started with voter fraud is a necessity for this.

Why not have a lower standard? This is the kind of thing that will impact the site, perhaps forever. Don't you think even newer members or less active members should be able to participate?

I concur that newer members should have a say in some sense but it's way more tricky than that. You want people to voice their thoughts when they understand the situation(which most new members don't). The unethical spamming will continue , because wylted will spam in favor of keeping the office to preserve his position.

And I'm concerned about that too... As Max indicated, election "racketeering" (it's not technically racketeering, but that's close enough) is a very real real concern, but I'm not sure where the balance falls between wanting to keep votes legitimate versus excluding people. Have you done any polling on this behind the scenes among established members?

you will see a repeat of the election, there has to be a way to open it up for people to interact and have input while getting a realistic outcome that is not altered by a lack of ethics

Yes, and I agree that is something we want to avoid.
YYW
Posts: 36,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 8:39:03 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Here is another question:

Which aspect of site participation is most important, in terms of who gets to vote?

Forum posts? Debates? I think forum posts probably dominate, because the presidency's activities or non-activities are primarily concerned with what goes on in the forums.

So, should we just have a hard and fast limit as to forum posts, and nothing else? What is the right limit?
Mikal
Posts: 11,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 8:46:18 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/10/2016 8:34:38 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/10/2016 8:20:45 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 7/10/2016 8:18:42 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/10/2016 8:14:27 PM, Mikal wrote:
I think Wednesday is a perfect time

Also options I think should be implemented

A) 1 week voting time
B) Increased criteria to vote to stop wylted from being as you say " unscrupulous" during this vote as well

With this being the single biggest decision the site has voted on in quite a fair bit of time, the voting should be limited to those who regular it frequently

I would say something like meet one of the following bullet points

2k forum posts
50 finished debates
200 polls

This is obviously subject to change, but cutting down on the mess that I started with voter fraud is a necessity for this.

Why not have a lower standard? This is the kind of thing that will impact the site, perhaps forever. Don't you think even newer members or less active members should be able to participate?

I concur that newer members should have a say in some sense but it's way more tricky than that. You want people to voice their thoughts when they understand the situation(which most new members don't). The unethical spamming will continue , because wylted will spam in favor of keeping the office to preserve his position.

And I'm concerned about that too... As Max indicated, election "racketeering" (it's not technically racketeering, but that's close enough) is a very real real concern, but I'm not sure where the balance falls between wanting to keep votes legitimate versus excluding people. Have you done any polling on this behind the scenes among established members?

you will see a repeat of the election, there has to be a way to open it up for people to interact and have input while getting a realistic outcome that is not altered by a lack of ethics

Yes, and I agree that is something we want to avoid.

If you have a suggestion throw it out. I pushed for this thread for a reason. I want the community to decide.

The only other way to make a viable alternative would be to screen people who vote , but that would even be more detrimental in some aspects. I think the only 2 viable options are free vote, or up the standards to avoid unethical voting.
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,630
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 8:47:36 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/10/2016 8:34:03 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 7/10/2016 8:25:50 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
If there's going to be a referendum for abolitionism, there should be referendums for other aspects of the website. (Unless the tyrants that run this site refuse because the members would vote against them.)

To start, there should be a referendum on voting policy reform. (Thank you for ruining voting whitelame)

There actually will be another discussion on voting moderation in the very near future. It would have happened sooner, but with the election and all this, I figured it could wait. But I may post it today, or later in the week.

And just as a point of reference, there was a referendum related to vote moderation, and members overwhelmingly voted to make the standards more strict (Which I personally was surprised by, and didn't agree with - but it is what it is). Also for the record, if anyone can individually be blamed for ruining voting, that would be me, not Whiteflame.

Fair enough, but what about other aspects of the website such as censorship policies?
YYW
Posts: 36,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 8:52:52 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/10/2016 8:46:18 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 7/10/2016 8:34:38 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/10/2016 8:20:45 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 7/10/2016 8:18:42 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/10/2016 8:14:27 PM, Mikal wrote:
I think Wednesday is a perfect time

Also options I think should be implemented

A) 1 week voting time
B) Increased criteria to vote to stop wylted from being as you say " unscrupulous" during this vote as well

With this being the single biggest decision the site has voted on in quite a fair bit of time, the voting should be limited to those who regular it frequently

I would say something like meet one of the following bullet points

2k forum posts
50 finished debates
200 polls

This is obviously subject to change, but cutting down on the mess that I started with voter fraud is a necessity for this.

Why not have a lower standard? This is the kind of thing that will impact the site, perhaps forever. Don't you think even newer members or less active members should be able to participate?

I concur that newer members should have a say in some sense but it's way more tricky than that. You want people to voice their thoughts when they understand the situation(which most new members don't). The unethical spamming will continue , because wylted will spam in favor of keeping the office to preserve his position.

And I'm concerned about that too... As Max indicated, election "racketeering" (it's not technically racketeering, but that's close enough) is a very real real concern, but I'm not sure where the balance falls between wanting to keep votes legitimate versus excluding people. Have you done any polling on this behind the scenes among established members?

you will see a repeat of the election, there has to be a way to open it up for people to interact and have input while getting a realistic outcome that is not altered by a lack of ethics

Yes, and I agree that is something we want to avoid.

If you have a suggestion throw it out. I pushed for this thread for a reason. I want the community to decide.

The only other way to make a viable alternative would be to screen people who vote , but that would even be more detrimental in some aspects. I think the only 2 viable options are free vote, or up the standards to avoid unethical voting.

How about fifteen hundred forums posts, and six months of membership on the site, and that's it?
airmax1227
Posts: 13,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 8:55:49 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/10/2016 8:47:36 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 7/10/2016 8:34:03 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 7/10/2016 8:25:50 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
If there's going to be a referendum for abolitionism, there should be referendums for other aspects of the website. (Unless the tyrants that run this site refuse because the members would vote against them.)

To start, there should be a referendum on voting policy reform. (Thank you for ruining voting whitelame)

There actually will be another discussion on voting moderation in the very near future. It would have happened sooner, but with the election and all this, I figured it could wait. But I may post it today, or later in the week.

And just as a point of reference, there was a referendum related to vote moderation, and members overwhelmingly voted to make the standards more strict (Which I personally was surprised by, and didn't agree with - but it is what it is). Also for the record, if anyone can individually be blamed for ruining voting, that would be me, not Whiteflame.

Fair enough, but what about other aspects of the website such as censorship policies?

We can certainly have a discussion about that at some point.
Debate.org Moderator
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 8:59:09 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/10/2016 8:20:45 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 7/10/2016 8:18:42 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/10/2016 8:14:27 PM, Mikal wrote:
I think Wednesday is a perfect time

Also options I think should be implemented

A) 1 week voting time
B) Increased criteria to vote to stop wylted from being as you say " unscrupulous" during this vote as well

With this being the single biggest decision the site has voted on in quite a fair bit of time, the voting should be limited to those who regular it frequently

I would say something like meet one of the following bullet points

2k forum posts
50 finished debates
200 polls

This is obviously subject to change, but cutting down on the mess that I started with voter fraud is a necessity for this.

Why not have a lower standard? This is the kind of thing that will impact the site, perhaps forever. Don't you think even newer members or less active members should be able to participate?

I concur that newer members should have a say in some sense but it's way more tricky than that. You want people to voice their thoughts when they understand the situation(which most new members don't). The unethical spamming will continue , because wylted will spam in favor of keeping the office to preserve his position.

you will see a repeat of the election, there has to be a way to open it up for people to interact and have input while getting a realistic outcome that is not altered by a lack of ethics

You know... We could have people "register" to vote. Then open the registry to all. Both sides can insure that information makes it to ALL registered.
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,630
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 9:02:43 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/10/2016 8:55:49 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 7/10/2016 8:47:36 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 7/10/2016 8:34:03 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 7/10/2016 8:25:50 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
If there's going to be a referendum for abolitionism, there should be referendums for other aspects of the website. (Unless the tyrants that run this site refuse because the members would vote against them.)

To start, there should be a referendum on voting policy reform. (Thank you for ruining voting whitelame)

There actually will be another discussion on voting moderation in the very near future. It would have happened sooner, but with the election and all this, I figured it could wait. But I may post it today, or later in the week.

And just as a point of reference, there was a referendum related to vote moderation, and members overwhelmingly voted to make the standards more strict (Which I personally was surprised by, and didn't agree with - but it is what it is). Also for the record, if anyone can individually be blamed for ruining voting, that would be me, not Whiteflame.

Fair enough, but what about other aspects of the website such as censorship policies?

We can certainly have a discussion about that at some point.

Fair enough
imabench
Posts: 21,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 9:03:30 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/10/2016 8:59:09 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/10/2016 8:20:45 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 7/10/2016 8:18:42 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/10/2016 8:14:27 PM, Mikal wrote:
I think Wednesday is a perfect time

Also options I think should be implemented

A) 1 week voting time
B) Increased criteria to vote to stop wylted from being as you say " unscrupulous" during this vote as well

With this being the single biggest decision the site has voted on in quite a fair bit of time, the voting should be limited to those who regular it frequently

I would say something like meet one of the following bullet points

2k forum posts
50 finished debates
200 polls

This is obviously subject to change, but cutting down on the mess that I started with voter fraud is a necessity for this.

Why not have a lower standard? This is the kind of thing that will impact the site, perhaps forever. Don't you think even newer members or less active members should be able to participate?

I concur that newer members should have a say in some sense but it's way more tricky than that. You want people to voice their thoughts when they understand the situation(which most new members don't). The unethical spamming will continue , because wylted will spam in favor of keeping the office to preserve his position.

you will see a repeat of the election, there has to be a way to open it up for people to interact and have input while getting a realistic outcome that is not altered by a lack of ethics

You know... We could have people "register" to vote. Then open the registry to all. Both sides can insure that information makes it to ALL registered.

Some prominent members might not be able to vote since the election itself o it was open for two days or so. It hightail turntable but think it's too risky and more likely to disenfranchise good votes then prevent bad votes
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

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

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