Total Posts:86|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Vote Moderation Discussion 3.0

airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 9:10:28 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
To this point we've obviously had many discussions on vote moderation, including two recent discussions that I hosted. The first was about vote moderation broadly, and the second was about the specific standards, and the communities general feelings about them.

In those discussions, I took the approach of explaining, and justifying, why things are done the way they are, and how they benefit the site in a pro vote-moderation way. In this discussion, I am going to take a decidedly anti vote-moderation approach, and explain why, while I believe that vote moderation is well intended and a good thing in many ways, is problematic given several factors of the site as it exists now.

The fact is, the site is overwhelmingly populated by members who simply do not have the ability or desire to meet the voting standards of the site as they are now. We can explain it to them, walk them through it step by step, and offer them endless amounts of tutoring and help with it, but there's simply an impossible gap at this point between the average member, and their willingness or ability to meet any rigid set of standards.

While I believe that vote moderation has done everything it can to bridge the technical gaps, and to encourage voting to the degree that makes them more meaningful, there does need to be a consideration for certain realities of the site. The stats show that the site gains tons of new members daily, and more debates are started than ever before, but the amount of voting has shrunk to the point that its becoming more of a novelty.

The spirit of vote moderation and reasonable standards, and what it has accomplished are all laudable in my view, but the fact remains that we are looking at a scenario where very few actually vote, and a large percentage of the votes remaining are simply ones that don't get reported, but would be otherwise. In other words, we are traveling closer and closer to a "voting singularity" where (if we assumed every "bad" vote was removed) only an extremely small percentage of the site would be contributing anything to the site in terms of voting - having their votes remain, or worse, even considering attempting to when they realize it requires the degree of effort required.

I have always personally agreed with the side that says one quality vote is better than several mediocre or bad ones, but from a purely business perspective, site activity as it relates to this is hugely problematic - to the extent that something has to be done - and I don't believe that any organizational thing is going to do the trick. Unfortunately, I believe it may come down to accepting that the base of the site is in itself incapable of meeting the standards described in the previous vote moderation discussion thread, and therefore the site must accommodate the low standards of this that its membership can better comply with.

There is also the argument that new members shouldn't be forsaken simply for not knowing that there's a better voting alternative, and while I agree with this to some degree, the only solution I can think of to really change the trend is to have them get burned using the default system, which then encourages them to use the better judge voting and/or up/down vote systems. This does mean new members will become frustrated very quickly, but then can be directed to the alternatives.

Part of the irony of this discussion may be the fact that the majority of people who offer their opinions on this, know about the other systems and exclusively use them. I wont personally ever use open voting on the 7-point system, and I doubt many people who are invested in the site enough to offer their thoughts on this are very likely to instigate that type of debate either. To me, that reflects the reality that the 7 point system is so broken that something has to be done about it (negating it for the most part), and to this point that has justified vote moderation generally. But it also reflects the fact that there is a huge amount of activity that is discouraged, and ultimately disallowed, simply because that system is broken, and many members aren't going to vote in a good faith manner in any case.

So ultimately, vote moderation, as well intended and necessary as I believe it is, needs to be evaluated in the context of where this site currently is. Given the cost-benefit analysis of making the 7 point system more legitimate, versus reducing a significant amount of activity and alienating many members, I believe we need to reevaluate our approach here entirely.

I'd like us to envision the scenario I am suggesting here. Votes on open 7-point debates are going to be largely arbitrary, purely ideological, and filled with RFDs that essentially say nothing. Debates are sometimes going to be won and lost based on the luck of the voting draw, the ethics of the debaters not to vote lobby their friends, and likely the general agreement voters have with the resolution itself. Votebombs and counters and counters to counters will again be the norm, and this will be the scenario we saw a few years ago on steroids, because now there is a voting leaderboard that inherently will encourage the very worst voting habits imaginable.

And yes, I'm saying that we should recognize that, and accept it as part of a reality of the site. Activity will increase dramatically, in terms of votes, drama related to votes, and it will create a "voting fun" dynamic that will appeal greatly to many of our members - even though it does mean spamming votes for stats. This will encourage more member retention, and some of these members may eventually become exceptional voters as long as we do still have a culture that recognizes exceptional voting as they quickest way to earn respect on Debate.org.

Most of the people reading this wont have to worry about the situation I described above, since most of us, even with vote moderation in place, still use the better systems. Those members frustrated by the above (and they will be enraged some of the time to be sure), will also segue to the better systems. We can come up with ways to make that more realistic for new members, by creating lists of exceptional voters for them to choose from for their judge-voting debates that is presented in a sticky thread. We can also consider other ways to reward good voters with recognition, and make them known and available to those who only want good voters on their debates. I hope we can also come up with other ideas, but I want to be clear that "bad voting" on default debates is just going to be the reality, unless we want voting in general to eventually become a very exclusive element of the site.

Ultimately, this comes down to allowing the vast number of new members gained by the site daily to actually vote as freely as possible, thus increasing activity, while also recognizing the realities of what that will mean - and make no mistake, it means a deluge of bad votes. But at this point, I do believe that we may have to accept the reality of this, and do our best to accommodate other options as best as possible, rather than strictly enforcing a standard that may be beneficial to the quality of votes, but cause problems in other areas, including decreasing activity and frustrating new members.

We can certainly maintain vote moderation in some way even if we accept much of what I have said, but what I am suggesting above is a massive change from the status quo.

I appreciate your consideration for what I have stated above, and any thoughts you have on this matter.
Debate.org Moderator
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 9:32:41 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
This is a good decision.. Vote moderation wasn't really working the way it was intended.

That doesn't mean nothing will work, though. It's just that the psychology involved is more subtle than thinking punishment will motivate people. It's an interesting problem, how to encourage good voting and handle dishonest voting.

I don't think vote moderation has been for nothing. There's been a lot of ddiscussion about standards and motivation to vote which is good in itself.

Also, for what it's worth, I thought whiteflame was very impressive as moderator, even though the system itself was flawed.
Biodome
Posts: 138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 1:49:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I agree with the OP, not because I enjoy seeing bad votes, but because I recognize that the complete absence of votes on most debates makes this unappealing choice a necessity.

I think that the amount of legitimate votes is going down overall because new voters are discouraged by the stringent voting standards, while the amount of experienced voters is steadily dwindling. If we make it so that by default votes on debates are unmoderated, this might revitalize the voting aspects of the site. Meanwhile, I think we can still keep an opt-in system for debaters who want good votes with good RFDs on their debates, which would be moderated.
Udel
Posts: 103
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 2:38:34 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
My vote would be to keep voting moderation, but with less strict standards. There is value in having standards but some debates don't call for them since there is a clear winner. I think it is more discouraging for voters to have their votes removed when they put in more effort to the rfd than the debaters did in the debate yet their votes are removed anyway based on a technicality.
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 3:44:52 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I think just drastically reducing the voting standards would work.

For example, instead of having to explain all points awarded, only require explaining over half of the points awarded to the winning side. For sources, let having more sources, or having more scholarly sources be sufficient. For arguments, let referencing a specific argument without explaining why, or giving a general analysis why one side did better without referencing a specific argument be sufficient. Allow conduct to be awarded without reference to the specific misconduct. Allow S&G for any referenced S&G error. Also allow counter vote bombs under the condition they explain why the vote they are countering is bad.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 4:00:23 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 9:32:41 AM, rross wrote:
This is a good decision.. Vote moderation wasn't really working the way it was intended.

I disagree with that. What it was intended for was to give members recourse for bad votes on their debates, and a clear objective standard which could be applied. In that way it worked perfectly, and while obviously it has flaws, there's a 100% success rate of obviously bad votes (in terms of the standards) being removed from debates when they are reported. In other words, in direct contrast to times prior, for those aware of vote moderation, none of their debates need to be decided by a votebomb - and I'd consider that being exactly what it was intended for.

That doesn't mean nothing will work, though. It's just that the psychology involved is more subtle than thinking punishment will motivate people. It's an interesting problem, how to encourage good voting and handle dishonest voting.

Yeah, it's not an easy thing, and I talk about this problem in the OP a bit. I'm ultimately concerned that any manner of voting standards though is going to be problematic on some level.
Debate.org Moderator
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 4:00:27 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
As an outspoken defender of the 7point system, I'm actually open to the experiment. Most incompetent voters can be avoided with even a 3000 ELO requirement. Plus the instigator in R1 can (and perhaps should) remind people of the voting standards and their intent.
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...
lannan13
Posts: 23,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 4:27:17 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 4:00:27 PM, Ragnar wrote:
As an outspoken defender of the 7point system, I'm actually open to the experiment. Most incompetent voters can be avoided with even a 3000 ELO requirement. Plus the instigator in R1 can (and perhaps should) remind people of the voting standards and their intent.

And then there's me at 1861 ELO.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-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...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 4:35:31 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 4:00:27 PM, Ragnar wrote:
As an outspoken defender of the 7point system, I'm actually open to the experiment. Most incompetent voters can be avoided with even a 3000 ELO requirement.

There's only like 250 people on the entire site who have an ELO that high to begin with.... A number which drops to maybe 50 when factoring out those who have left the site a long time ago or dont even vote/dont vote regularly to begin with.....

Plus the instigator in R1 can (and perhaps should) remind people of the voting standards and their intent.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

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

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
lannan13
Posts: 23,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 4:55:01 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Just make the Opt-in voting standards the norm and call it good.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-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...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
ThinkBig
Posts: 1,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 6:47:14 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 9:10:28 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
To this point we've obviously had many discussions on vote moderation, including two recent discussions that I hosted. The first was about vote moderation broadly, and the second was about the specific standards, and the communities general feelings about them.

In those discussions, I took the approach of explaining, and justifying, why things are done the way they are, and how they benefit the site in a pro vote-moderation way. In this discussion, I am going to take a decidedly anti vote-moderation approach, and explain why, while I believe that vote moderation is well intended and a good thing in many ways, is problematic given several factors of the site as it exists now.

The fact is, the site is overwhelmingly populated by members who simply do not have the ability or desire to meet the voting standards of the site as they are now. We can explain it to them, walk them through it step by step, and offer them endless amounts of tutoring and help with it, but there's simply an impossible gap at this point between the average member, and their willingness or ability to meet any rigid set of standards.

While I believe that vote moderation has done everything it can to bridge the technical gaps, and to encourage voting to the degree that makes them more meaningful, there does need to be a consideration for certain realities of the site. The stats show that the site gains tons of new members daily, and more debates are started than ever before, but the amount of voting has shrunk to the point that its becoming more of a novelty.

The spirit of vote moderation and reasonable standards, and what it has accomplished are all laudable in my view, but the fact remains that we are looking at a scenario where very few actually vote, and a large percentage of the votes remaining are simply ones that don't get reported, but would be otherwise. In other words, we are traveling closer and closer to a "voting singularity" where (if we assumed every "bad" vote was removed) only an extremely small percentage of the site would be contributing anything to the site in terms of voting - having their votes remain, or worse, even considering attempting to when they realize it requires the degree of effort required.

I have always personally agreed with the side that says one quality vote is better than several mediocre or bad ones, but from a purely business perspective, site activity as it relates to this is hugely problematic - to the extent that something has to be done - and I don't believe that any organizational thing is going to do the trick. Unfortunately, I believe it may come down to accepting that the base of the site is in itself incapable of meeting the standards described in the previous vote moderation discussion thread, and therefore the site must accommodate the low standards of this that its membership can better comply with.

There is also the argument that new members shouldn't be forsaken simply for not knowing that there's a better voting alternative, and while I agree with this to some degree, the only solution I can think of to really change the trend is to have them get burned using the default system, which then encourages them to use the better judge voting and/or up/down vote systems. This does mean new members will become frustrated very quickly, but then can be directed to the alternatives.

Part of the irony of this discussion may be the fact that the majority of people who offer their opinions on this, know about the other systems and exclusively use them. I wont personally ever use open voting on the 7-point system, and I doubt many people who are invested in the site enough to offer their thoughts on this are very likely to instigate that type of debate either. To me, that reflects the reality that the 7 point system is so broken that something has to be done about it (negating it for the most part), and to this point that has justified vote moderation generally. But it also reflects the fact that there is a huge amount of activity that is discouraged, and ultimately disallowed, simply because that system is broken, and many members aren't going to vote in a good faith manner in any case.

So ultimately, vote moderation, as well intended and necessary as I believe it is, needs to be evaluated in the context of where this site currently is. Given the cost-benefit analysis of making the 7 point system more legitimate, versus reducing a significant amount of activity and alienating many members, I believe we need to reevaluate our approach here entirely.

I'd like us to envision the scenario I am suggesting here. Votes on open 7-point debates are going to be largely arbitrary, purely ideological, and filled with RFDs that essentially say nothing. Debates are sometimes going to be won and lost based on the luck of the voting draw, the ethics of the debaters not to vote lobby their friends, and likely the general agreement voters have with the resolution itself. Votebombs and counters and counters to counters will again be the norm, and this will be the scenario we saw a few years ago on steroids, because now there is a voting leaderboard that inherently will encourage the very worst voting habits imaginable.

And yes, I'm saying that we should recognize that, and accept it as part of a reality of the site. Activity will increase dramatically, in terms of votes, drama related to votes, and it will create a "voting fun" dynamic that will appeal greatly to many of our members - even though it does mean spamming votes for stats. This will encourage more member retention, and some of these members may eventually become exceptional voters as long as we do still have a culture that recognizes exceptional voting as they quickest way to earn respect on Debate.org.


I like the vote moderation standards as it forces people to actually read the debate and give quality feedback.

However, I will say that I think there should be an opt out option if both debaters agree, but still want to require an RFD.

I will also say that I noticed some people who have lost their voting rights due to improper RFDs. I would like to argue that there should be a way to gain back the right to vote, if they demonstrate that they can improve their voting.
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!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 11:50:32 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 4:00:23 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 9:32:41 AM, rross wrote:
This is a good decision.. Vote moderation wasn't really working the way it was intended.

I disagree with that. What it was intended for was to give members recourse for bad votes on their debates, and a clear objective standard which could be applied. In that way it worked perfectly, and while obviously it has flaws, there's a 100% success rate of obviously bad votes (in terms of the standards) being removed from debates when they are reported. In other words, in direct contrast to times prior, for those aware of vote moderation, none of their debates need to be decided by a votebomb - and I'd consider that being exactly what it was intended for.

Oh okay. I had the wrong idea then.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 12:20:42 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
I suppose I've never really been on board with this idea of "bad votes" which is where I'm not understanding the purpose.

To me, a bad vote is a dishonest vote, or possibly a very careless vote. Those votes are "bad" in the sense that they are the only ones that should be deleted. In theory, in an ideal world - obviously there are problems identifying them.

Good votes with insufficient RFD, in contrast, should not be deleted, in theory. The debater could always just ask for more feedback if they want it. It's not that the vote itself is flawed.

I understand that this is not the mainstream opinion. It's my opinion. The mainstream opinion is that an insufficient rfd is of itself bad and as such should be deleted.

This perspective is confusing to me because I thought that the rfd method worked as a rough screen to detect dishonest votes. Not that the rfd standards were themselves so totally desirable. This latter idea is kinda depressing somehow, and a different concept from "obvious votebombs" which you also mention. Actually, I don't see how anyone could avoid confusion on this unless they conflate the idea of dishonest voting with that of insufficient RFDs. But that makes no sense, because what's the justification of defining a standard of rfd sufficiency if not to screen against dishonest votes?
Peepette
Posts: 1,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 1:01:04 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 1:49:11 PM, Biodome wrote:
I agree with the OP, not because I enjoy seeing bad votes, but because I recognize that the complete absence of votes on most debates makes this unappealing choice a necessity.

I think that the amount of legitimate votes is going down overall because new voters are discouraged by the stringent voting standards, while the amount of experienced voters is steadily dwindling. If we make it so that by default votes on debates are unmoderated, this might revitalize the voting aspects of the site. Meanwhile, I think we can still keep an opt-in system for debaters who want good votes with good RFDs on their debates, which would be moderated.

+1. Those who put in the time to conduct quality debates should still have the option for quality votes and moderation. Without it, quality debates will dwindle to nothingness due to lack of standards and spam voting. Good debates are few in number as it is. All else, especially with the new members need to be loosened up so they can get the time they need to become good debaters and voters without the frustration.
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 1:22:40 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 9:10:28 AM, airmax1227 wrote:

I appreciate your consideration for what I have stated above, and any thoughts you have on this matter.

I'm on the fence on this issue Max, as I can see both sides of this issue. While I think the voting standards, as defined here: [http://www.debate.org...] are excellent, and should be implemented, I realize that more should be done to encourage voting in general. Why haven't you stickied the post, "Vote Moderation Policy Guide," I provided in the link? Most new members are probably still reading BlueSteele's confusing guide. The one composed by BoT and approved by you is much more clear and concise. Maybe it wasn't promoted enough to be read by the voters who still don't understand the standard expected for voting.
ThinkBig
Posts: 1,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 1:42:49 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/12/2016 1:22:40 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 7/11/2016 9:10:28 AM, airmax1227 wrote:

I appreciate your consideration for what I have stated above, and any thoughts you have on this matter.

I'm on the fence on this issue Max, as I can see both sides of this issue. While I think the voting standards, as defined here: [http://www.debate.org...] are excellent, and should be implemented, I realize that more should be done to encourage voting in general. Why haven't you stickied the post, "Vote Moderation Policy Guide," I provided in the link? Most new members are probably still reading BlueSteele's confusing guide. The one composed by BoT and approved by you is much more clear and concise. Maybe it wasn't promoted enough to be read by the voters who still don't understand the standard expected for voting.

I totally 100% agree that the thread should be stickied.
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!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 2:21:42 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/12/2016 1:42:49 AM, ThinkBig wrote:
At 7/12/2016 1:22:40 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 7/11/2016 9:10:28 AM, airmax1227 wrote:

I appreciate your consideration for what I have stated above, and any thoughts you have on this matter.

I'm on the fence on this issue Max, as I can see both sides of this issue. While I think the voting standards, as defined here: [http://www.debate.org...] are excellent, and should be implemented, I realize that more should be done to encourage voting in general. Why haven't you stickied the post, "Vote Moderation Policy Guide," I provided in the link? Most new members are probably still reading BlueSteele's confusing guide. The one composed by BoT and approved by you is much more clear and concise. Maybe it wasn't promoted enough to be read by the voters who still don't understand the standard expected for voting.

I totally 100% agree that the thread should be stickied.
The voting standard is actually #4 post on the thread. Only this post should be copied and pasted to a new thread that should be stickied, or it may further confuse voters. I like this voting standard because it shows simply what constitutes a sufficient vote. Votes don't need to be long dissertations to be sufficient.
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 2:57:29 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/11/2016 4:27:17 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 4:00:27 PM, Ragnar wrote:
... Most incompetent voters can be avoided with even a 3000 ELO requirement. ...

And then there's me at 1861 ELO.

You are an extreme outlier.
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...
lannan13
Posts: 23,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 2:58:05 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 2:57:29 AM, Ragnar wrote:
At 7/11/2016 4:27:17 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 4:00:27 PM, Ragnar wrote:
... Most incompetent voters can be avoided with even a 3000 ELO requirement. ...

And then there's me at 1861 ELO.

You are an extreme outlier.

That's good to hear.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-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...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 3:45:02 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/11/2016 4:35:31 PM, imabench wrote:
At 7/11/2016 4:00:27 PM, Ragnar wrote:
... Most incompetent voters can be avoided with even a 3000 ELO requirement. ...

There's only like 250 people on the entire site who have an ELO that high to begin with.... A number which drops to maybe 50 when factoring out those who have left the site a long time ago or dont even vote/dont vote regularly to begin with.....

It's a tradeoff. 2500 may be more ideal as rules out brand new voters, but is reasonably attainable.
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...
YYW
Posts: 36,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 4:58:49 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
While the finer points on this are ones I don't agree with this, I am encouraged by the new thinking demonstrated by this OP. Well done.
Tsar of DDO
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 10:06:24 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
So, basically, you're proposing non-moderation of the 7-point system? Or am I misunderstanding your proposal?

Will the opt-in be effected? So if someone uses the opt-in standards on a 7-point system debate, will the opt-in standards continue to be enforced?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
tejretics
Posts: 6,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 10:34:59 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
Is your proposal to eliminate vote moderation entirely on 7-point debates?

I support that.
"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: 6,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 10:35:50 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
I think, right now, Airmax is the most astute commentator on vote moderation.
"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: 6,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 10:39:48 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/11/2016 7:02:55 PM, Bob13 wrote:
Do you think a template would help newer members learn how to vote?

No, it wouldn't.

There are too many members who ceaselessly vote on debates despite the fact that they know the effect they have is overwhelmingly negative.
"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
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 7:40:00 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
I think there is a way simpler fix

At the start of R1 type *opt in* to engage into that standard. Otherwise all votes will have reduced moderation standards.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 8:14:01 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 10:34:59 AM, tejretics wrote:
Is your proposal to eliminate vote moderation entirely on 7-point debates?

I support that.

I might support a probationary period for a significant reduction in moderation of 7-point debates, so long as people could still choose to have the opt-in standards enforced even on 7-point debates.

My concern is that, because the 7-point system is the default, a lot of newer members on the site use it without knowing how bad it is. This is problematic insofar as (a) they don't deserve to be screwed like that, and (b) just as much as over-moderation is a turnoff to new users, so too is under-moderation; I don't want people leaving the site just because they get frustrated by a bunch of vote bombs on their first debates.

There ought to be some moderation even on the 7-point system, even if that moderation is minimal.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 8:23:47 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 8:14:01 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 7/12/2016 10:34:59 AM, tejretics wrote:
Is your proposal to eliminate vote moderation entirely on 7-point debates?

I support that.

I might support a probationary period for a significant reduction in moderation of 7-point debates, so long as people could still choose to have the opt-in standards enforced even on 7-point debates.

My concern is that, because the 7-point system is the default, a lot of newer members on the site use it without knowing how bad it is. This is problematic insofar as (a) they don't deserve to be screwed like that, and (b) just as much as over-moderation is a turnoff to new users, so too is under-moderation; I don't want people leaving the site just because they get frustrated by a bunch of vote bombs on their first debates.

There ought to be some moderation even on the 7-point system, even if that moderation is minimal.

+1