Total Posts:148|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Vote Moderation Options

airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 2:33:43 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
Over the past several months a few discussions about vote moderation have been held, and I'd like to move that discussion along now.

There has been a lot of details discussed and many suggestions, and I will post those discussions and provide a summery of them:

https://www.debate.org...

The above thread is about the current voting standards used. While the discussion does veer off in voting moderation broadly, it's important to familiarize yourself with these standards, as they will be referenced as the sites standard-standards when it comes to moderating votes.

Given the many discussions I've had on this both publicly and privately, I believe it would be fair for me to conclude that for those who don't disagree with the existence of vote moderation entirely, that these standards are generally agreed upon, and they that accomplish their purpose - that being, that these standards create a mechanism by which we can enforce a bare minimum for what can be considered a sufficient vote. In short, these standards demand a bare minimum of explanation for the reasons a voter voted the way they did, and prevent voters from awarding extra points for insufficiently explained reasons, or for gratuitous reasons (ex. con had one misspelling).

Furthermore, I believe that it can be established that these standards really are the bare minimum of any kinds of standards we can use for this purpose. Some have suggested that we should just make these standards more lax, and that would resolve some of these issues. However, I believe that given the way these standards are structured and designed, there really isn't any way we could make them more lax, without creating standards that explicitly allow people to place poor votes. In other words, these standards hone in on specifics aspects of problematic voting, and specifically mitigate the potential for that type of behavior. If we were to water down any aspect of that, then we intentionally allow poor voting, thus defeating the purpose. The specifics of this can be found in the discussions above and the discussions that follow.

In any case, the point of the discussion, the purpose of my explaining it here, is so that readers have an understanding of what the current standards are since they will be referenced and discussed.

The standards can be found here: (Post #4)

https://www.debate.org...

Just for the sake of being thorough, a broad explanation of the "past, present and future" of voting can be viewed here:

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

This thread is worth familiarizing yourself with, if only for an understanding of a lot of the details of this issue.

Vote moderation discussion 2.0:

https://www.debate.org...

This thread mostly focuses on where people stand on vote moderation specifically as a feature of the site. As you can see there is a variance of opinion in favor and against.

In any case, there are obviously opinions on both sides of the issue.

Finally, Vote Moderation Discussion 3.0, which generally reflects my current thinking on the issue:

https://www.debate.org...

A quick summery of this is that while I believe that vote moderation is a good thing, weighing it's pros and cons in the current context of the site, makes me believe we should take a new approach....

...And that new approach is the purpose of this thread.

Please familiarize yourselves with those threads by at least skimming the content. I think you will find that most of your questions and concerns are contained or addressed somewhere.

Having participated in those discussions, and read and reread them again, I believe we have a couple of pretty simple options:

Option A: Status Quo

Vote moderation operates effectively and does what it is supposed to do. If a member feels like a vote is substandard, they report the vote and generally within 24 hours it is removed, or an explanation for why it isn't is provided in the comments of that debate.

The most important aspect of vote moderation is that debaters have recourse for poor votes on their debates, and I don't believe it is debatable that at the very least, vote moderation provides this by using the standards described above.

However, it is undeniable that having any standard is going to decrease the number of votes and discourage voters from placing votes. This is simply the reality of any standard, and I believe that we are at a state where this must be recognized.

With that in mind, for your consideration, option B:

Option B: Vote moderation becomes opt-in only

In the opening of the debate a member will have to opt into standard voting moderation standards. This will mean that their debate only is moderated at any level, if they specifically request it to be. Currently, we actually have a variation this option, since debaters have always had the ability to opt-into the stricter voting standards, to opt-out of voting standards all together, or to create whatever method of voting moderation they wanted, as long as they made it clear in their opening round. Option B however, will make all voting anarchic by default, and only have moderation standards (or any other standards) if explicitly requested.

If feedback provided here by the community convinces me that option B is how we should proceed, then vote moderation will still deal with every reported vote in the way it currently does (contacting members and by making comments on debates - and in this case saying essentially that X vote isn't moderated since no moderation was requested), but its main focuses will shift to reviewing mod opt-in votes and dealing with inevitable voting relating issues that come up.

While you think about which option you prefer, consider that most, if not everyone, who reads and opines on this issue is not whom will be negatively effected by option B. Part of the benefit of vote moderation is that it protects new members from the inevitable deluge of bad votes on their debates. They will not be aware of opting into vote moderation (though vote moderation will make awareness part of its goal if option B is instituted), and so while I have endorsed option B in the vote moderation discussion 3.0 thread, I made it very clear that as a matter of reality, new members are going to inevitably be negatively effected by awful votes.

So please review all of the content here carefully. It really does exhaustively go over all of the issues, and explain in depth anything you may not be clear about. Feel free though to ask any questions you may have.

Once you feel comfortable with offering an informed opinion, please state which option you think we should go with (option A, or option B) and then offer any thoughts or suggestions that you may have.

Thank you
Debate.org Moderator
ThinkBig
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 2:39:30 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
I strongly support option a with the choice to opt out. If you're not willing to put minimum effort into your vote, then you shouldn't vote to begin with.
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!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 2:41:15 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
Vote:

OPTION B.


Should have been titled "Plan B," though. That would have been more appropriate.
Tsar of DDO
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 2:47:25 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 2:39:30 AM, ThinkBig wrote:
I strongly support option a with the choice to opt out.

The opt-out (and any standard anyone wants to make clear in their debate's opening) currently exists... Though perhaps we should make that more clear.

If you're not willing to put minimum effort into your vote, then you shouldn't vote to begin with.

I couldn't agree more. The fact is that good voters comply with the vote moderation standards anyway, even if they didn't exist - and even if they didn't know about them. The standards really are very easy to comply with, and they really do reflect the lowest possible expectation of voters that I feel we can expect.

The problem is though, that while I don't think the standards are difficult to comply with, I feel that anything discouraging voting is a problem.

No one is more pro vote-moderation than I am, and I have a dozen reasons for why that is, but perhaps it's because I'm more cynical or realistic (however you want to put it) but I do believe that we may have to accept that just allowing people to vote badly is the way to go, since it creates activity and enjoyment on the site(for the voter, at least). Hopefully more members will then use judge and up/down voting.

So I don't know... Opinions on this go both ways... and I understand both sides and respect them.
Debate.org Moderator
ThinkBig
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 2:51:14 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
Before we actually scrap the standards, I remember how it was before the standards were put into place. Everyone was fighting against everyone and begging for some standards for 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!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 2:59:06 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 2:51:14 AM, ThinkBig wrote:
Before we actually scrap the standards, I remember how it was before the standards were put into place. Everyone was fighting against everyone and begging for some standards for voting.

You and I (and anyone who has been around for a few years) certainly remembers those days, but I don't think that argument necessarily refutes the viability of option B.

Vote moderation exists to provide potential recourse for debaters, so while new members will get burned, they absolutely will still have the option for creating a scenario where the standard and recourse does exist. This is in contrast to those old days, where it was just a free for all and you couldn't do anything. The structure of vote moderation exists, and even if the community decides to go with option B, it still will exist.

To be fair though, I'm not trying to make an argument for option B. I certainly know what to expect when the default is a free for all, and that is not something I'm looking forward to. But I think it's important that this is discussed and that these options are presented for consideration. There are important issues here that I feel are best addressed with these two options.
Debate.org Moderator
ThinkBig
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 3:00:19 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 2:59:06 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 2:51:14 AM, ThinkBig wrote:
Before we actually scrap the standards, I remember how it was before the standards were put into place. Everyone was fighting against everyone and begging for some standards for voting.

You and I (and anyone who has been around for a few years) certainly remembers those days, but I don't think that argument necessarily refutes the viability of option B.

Vote moderation exists to provide potential recourse for debaters, so while new members will get burned, they absolutely will still have the option for creating a scenario where the standard and recourse does exist. This is in contrast to those old days, where it was just a free for all and you couldn't do anything. The structure of vote moderation exists, and even if the community decides to go with option B, it still will exist.

To be fair though, I'm not trying to make an argument for option B. I certainly know what to expect when the default is a free for all, and that is not something I'm looking forward to. But I think it's important that this is discussed and that these options are presented for consideration. There are important issues here that I feel are best addressed with these two options.

If we do choose option b, how can we make sure that new members are aware of the standards so they can choose to opt in?
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!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tree_of_Death
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 3:03:06 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 3:00:19 AM, ThinkBig wrote:
At 11/6/2016 2:59:06 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 2:51:14 AM, ThinkBig wrote:
Before we actually scrap the standards, I remember how it was before the standards were put into place. Everyone was fighting against everyone and begging for some standards for voting.

You and I (and anyone who has been around for a few years) certainly remembers those days, but I don't think that argument necessarily refutes the viability of option B.

Vote moderation exists to provide potential recourse for debaters, so while new members will get burned, they absolutely will still have the option for creating a scenario where the standard and recourse does exist. This is in contrast to those old days, where it was just a free for all and you couldn't do anything. The structure of vote moderation exists, and even if the community decides to go with option B, it still will exist.

To be fair though, I'm not trying to make an argument for option B. I certainly know what to expect when the default is a free for all, and that is not something I'm looking forward to. But I think it's important that this is discussed and that these options are presented for consideration. There are important issues here that I feel are best addressed with these two options.

If we do choose option b, how can we make sure that new members are aware of the standards so they can choose to opt in?

Hayd could include it in his welcome PM.
"If life were easy, it wouldn't be difficult."--Kermit the Frog

#Treebrokethechurchbells--DD

"I am after all the purveyor of intellectually dishonest propaganda." --YYW
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 3:04:08 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 3:00:19 AM, ThinkBig wrote:
At 11/6/2016 2:59:06 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 2:51:14 AM, ThinkBig wrote:
Before we actually scrap the standards, I remember how it was before the standards were put into place. Everyone was fighting against everyone and begging for some standards for voting.

You and I (and anyone who has been around for a few years) certainly remembers those days, but I don't think that argument necessarily refutes the viability of option B.

Vote moderation exists to provide potential recourse for debaters, so while new members will get burned, they absolutely will still have the option for creating a scenario where the standard and recourse does exist. This is in contrast to those old days, where it was just a free for all and you couldn't do anything. The structure of vote moderation exists, and even if the community decides to go with option B, it still will exist.

To be fair though, I'm not trying to make an argument for option B. I certainly know what to expect when the default is a free for all, and that is not something I'm looking forward to. But I think it's important that this is discussed and that these options are presented for consideration. There are important issues here that I feel are best addressed with these two options.

If we do choose option b, how can we make sure that new members are aware of the standards so they can choose to opt in?

All of these discussions above, and the current one, recognize the technical limitations currently and ignore them as an option, so it's worth keeping that in mind until that is an option. So that being the case, there is no way we can make sure new members are aware of the standards, or that they can opt-in.

However, if option B is instituted, the standard opt-in standards will be included in the new voting thread (they will in any case in the near future when I update the thread), with a very clear explanation about how members can opt into vote moderation standards. Furthermore, vote moderation will make it part of their responsibilities to reach out to members and explain how vote moderation works, and encourage them to consider that when creating a debate.
Debate.org Moderator
Tree_of_Death
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 3:04:20 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
Vote Option B

Awareness here is the only issue, but I think that Hayd could solve the problem by including info about the opt-in standards in his new member PM.
"If life were easy, it wouldn't be difficult."--Kermit the Frog

#Treebrokethechurchbells--DD

"I am after all the purveyor of intellectually dishonest propaganda." --YYW
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 3:05:32 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 3:03:06 AM, Tree_of_Death wrote:
At 11/6/2016 3:00:19 AM, ThinkBig wrote:
At 11/6/2016 2:59:06 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 2:51:14 AM, ThinkBig wrote:
Before we actually scrap the standards, I remember how it was before the standards were put into place. Everyone was fighting against everyone and begging for some standards for voting.

You and I (and anyone who has been around for a few years) certainly remembers those days, but I don't think that argument necessarily refutes the viability of option B.

Vote moderation exists to provide potential recourse for debaters, so while new members will get burned, they absolutely will still have the option for creating a scenario where the standard and recourse does exist. This is in contrast to those old days, where it was just a free for all and you couldn't do anything. The structure of vote moderation exists, and even if the community decides to go with option B, it still will exist.

To be fair though, I'm not trying to make an argument for option B. I certainly know what to expect when the default is a free for all, and that is not something I'm looking forward to. But I think it's important that this is discussed and that these options are presented for consideration. There are important issues here that I feel are best addressed with these two options.

If we do choose option b, how can we make sure that new members are aware of the standards so they can choose to opt in?

Hayd could include it in his welcome PM.

Right, that would be one way in which we encourage knowledge of the new policy.
Debate.org Moderator
ThinkBig
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 3:06:31 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 3:04:08 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 3:00:19 AM, ThinkBig wrote:
At 11/6/2016 2:59:06 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 2:51:14 AM, ThinkBig wrote:
Before we actually scrap the standards, I remember how it was before the standards were put into place. Everyone was fighting against everyone and begging for some standards for voting.

You and I (and anyone who has been around for a few years) certainly remembers those days, but I don't think that argument necessarily refutes the viability of option B.

Vote moderation exists to provide potential recourse for debaters, so while new members will get burned, they absolutely will still have the option for creating a scenario where the standard and recourse does exist. This is in contrast to those old days, where it was just a free for all and you couldn't do anything. The structure of vote moderation exists, and even if the community decides to go with option B, it still will exist.

To be fair though, I'm not trying to make an argument for option B. I certainly know what to expect when the default is a free for all, and that is not something I'm looking forward to. But I think it's important that this is discussed and that these options are presented for consideration. There are important issues here that I feel are best addressed with these two options.

If we do choose option b, how can we make sure that new members are aware of the standards so they can choose to opt in?

All of these discussions above, and the current one, recognize the technical limitations currently and ignore them as an option, so it's worth keeping that in mind until that is an option. So that being the case, there is no way we can make sure new members are aware of the standards, or that they can opt-in.

However, if option B is instituted, the standard opt-in standards will be included in the new voting thread (they will in any case in the near future when I update the thread), with a very clear explanation about how members can opt into vote moderation standards. Furthermore, vote moderation will make it part of their responsibilities to reach out to members and explain how vote moderation works, and encourage them to consider that when creating a debate.

Hopefully if we ever get the ability to make changes to the site and add features, one feature I'd like to add is being able to select the standards you want in place for your debate. But we still have a while for that.

I'd also like to add a system in which votes can be scored and rated by other members
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!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 3:10:11 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 3:04:20 AM, Tree_of_Death wrote:
Vote Option B

Awareness here is the only issue, but I think that Hayd could solve the problem by including info about the opt-in standards in his new member PM.

As I stated in the OP of this thread, and in several other discussions, awareness is a key issue. But regardless of how we approach that, and to whatever degree, we do need to recognize that new members are going to have lots of bad votes on their debates no matter what we do.

The key to this is to mitigate that to whatever degree, but to present it as a learning opportunity and to encourage new members to use the other options. New members will complain, and then they can use the opt in and the other debate options, but there's no way that bad voting will be prevented or that new members will in large percentages avoid using default debating options.
Debate.org Moderator
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 3:11:47 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 3:06:31 AM, ThinkBig wrote:
At 11/6/2016 3:04:08 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 3:00:19 AM, ThinkBig wrote:
At 11/6/2016 2:59:06 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 2:51:14 AM, ThinkBig wrote:
Before we actually scrap the standards, I remember how it was before the standards were put into place. Everyone was fighting against everyone and begging for some standards for voting.

You and I (and anyone who has been around for a few years) certainly remembers those days, but I don't think that argument necessarily refutes the viability of option B.

Vote moderation exists to provide potential recourse for debaters, so while new members will get burned, they absolutely will still have the option for creating a scenario where the standard and recourse does exist. This is in contrast to those old days, where it was just a free for all and you couldn't do anything. The structure of vote moderation exists, and even if the community decides to go with option B, it still will exist.

To be fair though, I'm not trying to make an argument for option B. I certainly know what to expect when the default is a free for all, and that is not something I'm looking forward to. But I think it's important that this is discussed and that these options are presented for consideration. There are important issues here that I feel are best addressed with these two options.

If we do choose option b, how can we make sure that new members are aware of the standards so they can choose to opt in?

All of these discussions above, and the current one, recognize the technical limitations currently and ignore them as an option, so it's worth keeping that in mind until that is an option. So that being the case, there is no way we can make sure new members are aware of the standards, or that they can opt-in.

However, if option B is instituted, the standard opt-in standards will be included in the new voting thread (they will in any case in the near future when I update the thread), with a very clear explanation about how members can opt into vote moderation standards. Furthermore, vote moderation will make it part of their responsibilities to reach out to members and explain how vote moderation works, and encourage them to consider that when creating a debate.

Hopefully if we ever get the ability to make changes to the site and add features, one feature I'd like to add is being able to select the standards you want in place for your debate. But we still have a while for that.

I'd also like to add a system in which votes can be scored and rated by other members

I have a detailed plan for all of this (including a vote rating system). If technical limitations weren't an issue, then every one of these discussions (including vote moderation in general) wouldn't be necessary.
Debate.org Moderator
Tree_of_Death
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 3:14:56 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 3:10:11 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 3:04:20 AM, Tree_of_Death wrote:
Vote Option B

Awareness here is the only issue, but I think that Hayd could solve the problem by including info about the opt-in standards in his new member PM.

As I stated in the OP of this thread, and in several other discussions, awareness is a key issue. But regardless of how we approach that, and to whatever degree, we do need to recognize that new members are going to have lots of bad votes on their debates no matter what we do.

The key to this is to mitigate that to whatever degree, but to present it as a learning opportunity and to encourage new members to use the other options. New members will complain, and then they can use the opt in and the other debate options, but there's no way that bad voting will be prevented or that new members will in large percentages avoid using default debating options.

That's true...I personally think it's worth the cost, but will it decrease new member retention?
"If life were easy, it wouldn't be difficult."--Kermit the Frog

#Treebrokethechurchbells--DD

"I am after all the purveyor of intellectually dishonest propaganda." --YYW
SeventhProfessor
Posts: 5,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 3:22:15 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
privatize vote moderation
#UnbanTheMadman

#StandWithBossy

#BetOnThett

"bossy r u like 85 years old and have lost ur mind"
~mysteriouscrystals

"I've honestly never seen seventh post anything that wasn't completely idiotic in a trying-to-be-funny way."
~F-16

https://docs.google.com...
ThinkBig
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 3:22:34 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 3:22:15 AM, SeventhProfessor wrote:
privatize vote moderation

How will that work?
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!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SeventhProfessor
Posts: 5,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 3:25:01 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 3:22:34 AM, ThinkBig wrote:
At 11/6/2016 3:22:15 AM, SeventhProfessor wrote:
privatize vote moderation

How will that work?

Within the website, various groups will organize within their own moderation standards. If you want moderation on the debate you've instigated, you pay one of these organizations in Raisor rubles. They will review all votes on the relevant debate to make sure they're all up to snuff, delete the bad ones, and all vote moderation problems are solved.
#UnbanTheMadman

#StandWithBossy

#BetOnThett

"bossy r u like 85 years old and have lost ur mind"
~mysteriouscrystals

"I've honestly never seen seventh post anything that wasn't completely idiotic in a trying-to-be-funny way."
~F-16

https://docs.google.com...
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 3:27:44 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 3:14:56 AM, Tree_of_Death wrote:
At 11/6/2016 3:10:11 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 3:04:20 AM, Tree_of_Death wrote:
Vote Option B

Awareness here is the only issue, but I think that Hayd could solve the problem by including info about the opt-in standards in his new member PM.

As I stated in the OP of this thread, and in several other discussions, awareness is a key issue. But regardless of how we approach that, and to whatever degree, we do need to recognize that new members are going to have lots of bad votes on their debates no matter what we do.

The key to this is to mitigate that to whatever degree, but to present it as a learning opportunity and to encourage new members to use the other options. New members will complain, and then they can use the opt in and the other debate options, but there's no way that bad voting will be prevented or that new members will in large percentages avoid using default debating options.

That's true...I personally think it's worth the cost, but will it decrease new member retention?

Well that's the pro-con math I'm considering here. I believe new members will get frustrated, but I'm banking on them quickly learning about the debate set up options and the opt in option. I'm hoping that will mitigate their frustration quickly, and that their ability to vote more freely will cause them to have more fun with the site generally and keep them around for longer.

There is certainly a counter intuitive construct I'm relying on. On the one hand new members getting away from the defaults, while them also being able to take advantage of it - new members using the defaults so that they can have more fun voting. I'm hoping a proper balance will be found, but that more importantly, the existence of freer activity, only mitigated by the choices of other members, will create a more fun atmosphere - or at least the perception of it. In other words, the bottom line is that the circumstances are all created due to the choices of members, and not some third party. In this way a members awareness of options is the only thing preventing them from finding an ideal for their preferences, instead of a type of moderation which naturally has to be more rigid and universally applied.
Debate.org Moderator
Tree_of_Death
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 3:34:30 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 3:25:01 AM, SeventhProfessor wrote:
At 11/6/2016 3:22:34 AM, ThinkBig wrote:
At 11/6/2016 3:22:15 AM, SeventhProfessor wrote:
privatize vote moderation

How will that work?

Within the website, various groups will organize within their own moderation standards. If you want moderation on the debate you've instigated, you pay one of these organizations in Raisor rubles. They will review all votes on the relevant debate to make sure they're all up to snuff, delete the bad ones, and all vote moderation problems are solved.

And how might one acquire Raisor rubles?
"If life were easy, it wouldn't be difficult."--Kermit the Frog

#Treebrokethechurchbells--DD

"I am after all the purveyor of intellectually dishonest propaganda." --YYW
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 3:35:07 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 3:25:01 AM, SeventhProfessor wrote:
At 11/6/2016 3:22:34 AM, ThinkBig wrote:
At 11/6/2016 3:22:15 AM, SeventhProfessor wrote:
privatize vote moderation

How will that work?

Within the website, various groups will organize within their own moderation standards. If you want moderation on the debate you've instigated, you pay one of these organizations in Raisor rubles. They will review all votes on the relevant debate to make sure they're all up to snuff, delete the bad ones, and all vote moderation problems are solved.

The problem with this is then the massive government bureaucracy I've created, with all of its perks, powers and money, would then be dismantled. Not to mention, a bunch of public sector employees, and their influential unions, would also be put out of work.

So yes, in theory, privatization would be far more efficient and productive, but then my cronies and I would all actually have to work for a living - and that isn't going to happen.

In the meantime, you can just be thankful that I've kept the interest rates on Raisor rubles at an historic low. You're welcome.
Debate.org Moderator
Tree_of_Death
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 3:50:16 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 3:27:44 AM, airmax1227 wrote:

I'm still quite new here--how did it work when vote moderation was more relaxed and the community countered bad votes rather than moderators? Was it a failure or did it work well?
"If life were easy, it wouldn't be difficult."--Kermit the Frog

#Treebrokethechurchbells--DD

"I am after all the purveyor of intellectually dishonest propaganda." --YYW
SeventhProfessor
Posts: 5,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 3:51:08 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 3:34:30 AM, Tree_of_Death wrote:
At 11/6/2016 3:25:01 AM, SeventhProfessor wrote:
At 11/6/2016 3:22:34 AM, ThinkBig wrote:
At 11/6/2016 3:22:15 AM, SeventhProfessor wrote:
privatize vote moderation

How will that work?

Within the website, various groups will organize within their own moderation standards. If you want moderation on the debate you've instigated, you pay one of these organizations in Raisor rubles. They will review all votes on the relevant debate to make sure they're all up to snuff, delete the bad ones, and all vote moderation problems are solved.

And how might one acquire Raisor rubles?

Full details here: http://www.debate.org...

Skepsikyma, the fat cunt, has agreed to implement the system.
#UnbanTheMadman

#StandWithBossy

#BetOnThett

"bossy r u like 85 years old and have lost ur mind"
~mysteriouscrystals

"I've honestly never seen seventh post anything that wasn't completely idiotic in a trying-to-be-funny way."
~F-16

https://docs.google.com...
SeventhProfessor
Posts: 5,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 3:52:09 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 3:50:16 AM, Tree_of_Death wrote:
At 11/6/2016 3:27:44 AM, airmax1227 wrote:

I'm still quite new here--how did it work when vote moderation was more relaxed and the community countered bad votes rather than moderators? Was it a failure or did it work well?

It worked fairly well. When vote moderation first started it was good, but naturally went downhill with the introduction of whiteflame.
#UnbanTheMadman

#StandWithBossy

#BetOnThett

"bossy r u like 85 years old and have lost ur mind"
~mysteriouscrystals

"I've honestly never seen seventh post anything that wasn't completely idiotic in a trying-to-be-funny way."
~F-16

https://docs.google.com...
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 4:06:27 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 3:50:16 AM, Tree_of_Death wrote:
At 11/6/2016 3:27:44 AM, airmax1227 wrote:

I'm still quite new here--how did it work when vote moderation was more relaxed and the community countered bad votes rather than moderators? Was it a failure or did it work well?

Voting was largely anarchic, terrible and arbitrary (especially in the anonymous voting days). 7 point votes with just "con won" was to be expected. Counter votes mitigated some of that, but it was a back and forth with counter-counters sometimes driven by ideology rather than fairness. There is an argument to be made that "truth" could be found in large numbers. In other words, that the volume of votes would tend to go the way of the person that probably won the debate, and there is some truth to that. But that creates a problem when someone debates a very controversial resolution (since voters often just vote on the resolution), or is playing devils advocate on some unorthodox topic.

I do believe that more often than not, debates with large numbers of votes would tend to favor the side that probably did win (so the best debaters would still be statistically recognized in the long run across many debates), but if you do a debate and get only three votes, all of which are objectively terrible, then it's obviously not a result you'd like to see, even if it goes your way, since part of the result of voting, should be feedback on the debate itself and the arguments therein.

Voting was also a main source of drama back then, leading to all the worst aspects of conduct and related issues that can be imagined. I'm confident that wont be an issue this time around, but it's worth keeping in mind.

So was it a failure? I don't know if I'd say that, though it certainly wasn't ideal. I wouldn't say it worked well either, but it was what was available.

The important difference between now and then though (which is why it's not really comparable) is that at that time there were no choices. Now, with either of the options we go with (A or B), member's do have choices to best fit their preference for whatever level of permissiveness or strictness that they want in voting. Even if vote moderation doesn't exist at all, there's the up/down voting and judge voting, and those things didn't exist at all then - at that time voting was such that an all-7 point vote really was the default (versus now that we can easily come to a consensus on that kind of vote being poor conduct). So it's really night and day between then and now. We'll never truly be back to the anarchic voting days - which were really the anarchic days of the site at every level.
Debate.org Moderator
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 4:12:35 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
Option One

Option one is effectively an opt-out, since any person could select "no RFD required," and thus not have their debates moderated at all. I would not even be opposed to allowing people to say "we opt out of the voting standards" while still requiring an RFD from voters.

The problems with option two are threefold:

(1) People who are not aware of the opt-in will get screwed. Its really not fair to blindside people who reasonably expect that their debates will receive vote moderation to find out only once their debate concludes that--"sorry! but hey, we totally won't remove those vote bombs."

(2) It will deter many members from staying on the site. I know that many members may be turned off by harsher standards (those standards have already been relaxed), but I also think that members will be turned on by having no moderation by default. All it would take would be a few horrid vote bombs for a member to just get so fed up with the situation that he or she would leave. They may not even find out about the voting moderation policy.

(3) Sheer fairness is an issue with option B. It is not fair to allow obvious vote bombs, which could be strategically cast at the last-minute, to decide the outcome of the debate. Some moderation is necessary, even if you don't like the current level of moderation.
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...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 4:15:03 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 2:51:14 AM, ThinkBig wrote:
Before we actually scrap the standards, I remember how it was before the standards were put into place. Everyone was fighting against everyone and begging for some standards for voting.

THIS. So much this.

All those people who voted against the Presidency because it caused "drama" are being hypocritical if they support Option B. Namely, because creating "drama" and opportunities for harmful flamewars is EXACTLY what B will do.
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...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 4:15:58 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
There is no practical way to inform every debater is aware of the moderation policies. None whatsoever.

Vote Option B.
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...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 4:17:19 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 4:15:58 AM, bsh1 wrote:
There is no practical way to inform every debater is aware of the moderation policies. None whatsoever.

Vote Option B.

Correction: A. Sorry--I made it clear in all my posts I support Option A.
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...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 4:23:48 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
People should support Option A to:

- Avoid Drama (spurred from arguments over strategic votebombing, from counter-votebombing wars, etc.)
- Promote Fairness
- Promote Member Retention
- Not Harming those not Aware of the Policy
- Option A harms fewer people and has an-opt-out (explained below)

There are already ways to opt-out of vote moderation as-is, and more could be added, so there is no reason to switch the default to an opt-in. All the opt-in does is screw over those not in-the-know, which the status quo would not. Many of the problems with the status quo could simply be addressed by better informing people of the existing opt-out.

There are really only disadvantages to voting for B and against A.
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...