Total Posts:67|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Monument to Whiteflame's Failures

Rosalie
Posts: 4,612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 6:01:55 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
*sigh*

When will this end....
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump

Officially Mrs. 16Kadams 8-30-16
missbailey8
Posts: 1,881
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 6:38:55 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 6:01:55 AM, Rosalie wrote:
*sigh*

When will this end....
Never, I'm afraid.
~missbailey8~

Me: What is the weirdest thing I have ever done?
Solon: Agreeing to date me.

Skep: Bailey, you have sardonic written all over your face.
Annie: She has gorgeous written all over her face!

"[M]en are weak. All of us are weak."
-Fatihah

If you ever just want someone to vent, rant, or discuss anything troubling you, my PMs are always open. Have a fabulous day!

The Clown Queen of DDO
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 7:39:34 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 5:34:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Read ALL the comments in this debate

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

I read the comments and I'm still waiting for someone to tell me where anything is written on this website about removing votes after the voting period has ended.

It's ridiculous that Manke's vote was reported twice and it still stood , but the third time it was reported, it was removed after the voting period had expired. Whiteflame had already reviewed this twice, but somehow the third time he changes his mind? If it is that difficult for a moderator to read an RFD and not know whether or not it is sufficient, then why do members as voters get treated like their votes are less than intelligent evaluations of debates by moderators who clearly do not have objective standards themselves?

And Rosalie's comment here is equally part of the problem, and why I won't vote for her and Wylted: She obviously cares noting about the integrity involved in voting and voting decisions by moderators. Even though I am a very inexperienced debater, I care about these issues, because it is a DEBATE website with social media options, not a social media website with options to debate.
Peepette
Posts: 1,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 7:41:50 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 7:39:34 PM, Emmarie wrote:
At 4/16/2016 5:34:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Read ALL the comments in this debate

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

I read the comments and I'm still waiting for someone to tell me where anything is written on this website about removing votes after the voting period has ended.

It's ridiculous that Manke's vote was reported twice and it still stood , but the third time it was reported, it was removed after the voting period had expired. Whiteflame had already reviewed this twice, but somehow the third time he changes his mind? If it is that difficult for a moderator to read an RFD and not know whether or not it is sufficient, then why do members as voters get treated like their votes are less than intelligent evaluations of debates by moderators who clearly do not have objective standards themselves?

And Rosalie's comment here is equally part of the problem, and why I won't vote for her and Wylted: She obviously cares noting about the integrity involved in voting and voting decisions by moderators. Even though I am a very inexperienced debater, I care about these issues, because it is a DEBATE website with social media options, not a social media website with options to debate.

+1.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 8:26:45 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 7:39:34 PM, Emmarie wrote:
At 4/16/2016 5:34:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Read ALL the comments in this debate

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

I read the comments and I'm still waiting for someone to tell me where anything is written on this website about removing votes after the voting period has ended.

I'm not sure why you would believe this has to be specified, since a policy not allowing votes to be removed after the voting period has ended would be hugely problematic. If this were the case, voters could just wait until 10 minutes before the voting period ended, post some terrible vote, and if votes couldn't be removed after the voting period ended, it would remain due to this bad policy. Therefore, it should be obvious that votes can and will be removed after the voting period has ended.

It's ridiculous that Manke's vote was reported twice and it still stood , but the third time it was reported, it was removed after the voting period had expired.

None of the moderators believe they are correct 100% of the time. Members are always free to appeal any decision as much as they like, and that is what happened here. Whiteflame made an initial decision, and upon being asked to review it again, ultimately changed his mind. By far, the majority of votes fall into clearly sufficient or insufficient territory, not requiring very much thought as to whether they should be removed, however, a small number of votes, fall into a grayer area, that do require further review. Vote moderation errs to the side of allowing a vote to stand in these cases and so it was left to stand, but ultimately following further appeal and upon further review of this vote, it was determined to not be sufficient. This is very rare, and while I realize that it's inconvenient that the vote was removed after the voting period ended, vote moderation considers it more important that a debate is determined by votes that are sufficient, and this vote wasn't.

Whiteflame had already reviewed this twice, but somehow the third time he changes his mind?

I'm not sure what this question is intended to imply. Whiteflame conceded that he made the wrong call initially, and then, upon further review, determined that the vote was insufficient. Certainly it would have been less controversial if Whiteflame had just dug in and determined it to be sufficient again, but the goal is to ultimately come up with the correct determination, regardless of controversy. I certainly knew this would be controversial when I deleted it, and I'm sure Whiteflame knew so when he changed his review, but the intent isn't to avoid controversy, but be sure in the end that votes comply with the standards, and due to further appeal and review, Whiteflame determined that the vote was lacking.

If it is that difficult for a moderator to read an RFD and not know whether or not it is sufficient....

In nearly all cases it is simple enough and happens easily enough, but there are gray area cases that prove to be more difficult, and this is one of those rare cases.

...then why do members as voters get treated like their votes are less than intelligent evaluations of debates by moderators who clearly do not have objective standards themselves?

By far the majority of votes are easy to evaluate based on objective standards. In rare cases like this one, a vote falls into a grayer area that requires further analysis. I don't believe any vote moderator is treating any voter like their vote is a reflection of less than intelligent evaluation, but rather that it doesn't comply with the standards. I also don't believe this one case shows any lack of objectivity in vote evaluation, only that sometimes there are cases that are more difficult to assign a proper result. If you'd like to prove me wrong and provide some examples, I'd be more than happy to see those examples, and reevaluate my position on this.

And Rosalie's comment here is equally part of the problem, and why I won't vote for her and Wylted: She obviously cares noting about the integrity involved in voting and voting decisions by moderators. Even though I am a very inexperienced debater, I care about these issues, because it is a DEBATE website with social media options, not a social media website with options to debate.

I don't understand this, or know what it has to do with anything, so there's not much I can say about it.
Debate.org Moderator
famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 8:32:52 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 7:39:34 PM, Emmarie wrote:
And Rosalie's comment here is equally part of the problem, and why I won't vote for her and Wylted: She obviously cares noting about the integrity involved in voting and voting decisions by moderators. Even though I am a very inexperienced debater, I care about these issues, because it is a DEBATE website with social media options, not a social media website with options to debate.

Why on Earth does voting moderation affect Wyled's campaign. The president does not decide what the voting privileges are - the moderators do. At best the president can make suggestions to the moderators or possibly create new systems (ie. opt in [which Wylted's campaign will continue to run]). This is an issue outside of Wylted's campaign. Furthermore, even if it was there is literally nothing wrong with Rosalie's comment. Feel free to point out anything potentially wrong with it but there isn't anything wrong as far as I can see.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 8:35:10 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 8:26:45 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
I don't understand this, or know what it has to do with anything, so there's not much I can say about it.

She was referencing to Wylted's campaign for presidency. It's outside of the issue mentioned in the OP.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 8:47:55 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 8:32:52 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 4/16/2016 7:39:34 PM, Emmarie wrote:
And Rosalie's comment here is equally part of the problem, and why I won't vote for her and Wylted: She obviously cares noting about the integrity involved in voting and voting decisions by moderators. Even though I am a very inexperienced debater, I care about these issues, because it is a DEBATE website with social media options, not a social media website with options to debate.

Why on Earth does voting moderation affect Wyled's campaign. The president does not decide what the voting privileges are - the moderators do. At best the president can make suggestions to the moderators or possibly create new systems (ie. opt in [which Wylted's campaign will continue to run]). This is an issue outside of Wylted's campaign. Furthermore, even if it was there is literally nothing wrong with Rosalie's comment. Feel free to point out anything potentially wrong with it but there isn't anything wrong as far as I can see.

Ahh - cuz a President is supposed to represent members on a DEBATE website, and if they don't care about the integrity of the debaters and those who vote, then who or what do they represent?

Why do we need a president to oversee social interactions on the forums and create drama?

If I support a presidency at all, it is for a president to act on behalf of members concerning issues about debates, voting or voting moderation. Someone who is an experienced debater who is resourceful with directing members to specific information about issues like the issue this thread is about.
YYW
Posts: 36,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 9:19:11 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 6:01:55 AM, Rosalie wrote:
*sigh*

When will this end....

When whiteflame either resigns from his position, or when he does fewer stupid things.
Tsar of DDO
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 9:26:52 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 8:26:45 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 4/16/2016 7:39:34 PM, Emmarie wrote:
At 4/16/2016 5:34:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Read ALL the comments in this debate

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

I read the comments and I'm still waiting for someone to tell me where anything is written on this website about removing votes after the voting period has ended.

I'm not sure why you would believe this has to be specified, since a policy not allowing votes to be removed after the voting period has ended would be hugely problematic. If this were the case, voters could just wait until 10 minutes before the voting period ended, post some terrible vote, and if votes couldn't be removed after the voting period ended, it would remain due to this bad policy. Therefore, it should be obvious that votes can and will be removed after the voting period has ended.

That does make sense, thank you for responding, but that wasn't the issue in this instance.

It's ridiculous that Manke's vote was reported twice and it still stood , but the third time it was reported, it was removed after the voting period had expired.

None of the moderators believe they are correct 100% of the time. Members are always free to appeal any decision as much as they like, and that is what happened here. Whiteflame made an initial decision, and upon being asked to review it again, ultimately changed his mind. By far, the majority of votes fall into clearly sufficient or insufficient territory, not requiring very much thought as to whether they should be removed, however, a small number of votes, fall into a grayer area, that do require further review. Vote moderation errs to the side of allowing a vote to stand in these cases and so it was left to stand, but ultimately following further appeal and upon further review of this vote, it was determined to not be sufficient. This is very rare, and while I realize that it's inconvenient that the vote was removed after the voting period ended, vote moderation considers it more important that a debate is determined by votes that are sufficient, and this vote wasn't.

Why did it take him three tries, if indeed his final decision was the correct decision? You should admit it makes trusting voting moderators a challenge.

Whiteflame had already reviewed this twice, but somehow the third time he changes his mind?

It implies he didn't take enough time to read the RFD in the first place, duh?

I'm not sure what this question is intended to imply. Whiteflame conceded that he made the wrong call initially, and then, upon further review, determined that the vote was insufficient. Certainly it would have been less controversial if Whiteflame had just dug in and determined it to be sufficient again, but the goal is to ultimately come up with the correct determination, regardless of controversy. I certainly knew this would be controversial when I deleted it, and I'm sure Whiteflame knew so when he changed his review, but the intent isn't to avoid controversy, but be sure in the end that votes comply with the standards, anddue to further appeal and review, Whiteflame determined that the vote was lacking.
Again, why was further review needed? And what does further appeal even mean?

Does it mean that whoever reported the vote, didn't even know why the vote was inadequate in the first place? or that the mod didn't take enough time to read the RFD?

If it is that difficult for a moderator to read an RFD and not know whether or not it is sufficient....

In nearly all cases it is simple enough and happens easily enough, but there are gray area cases that prove to be more difficult, and this is one of those rare cases.
This is why I stated, on the comments on that debate, that voting standards are in need of clarification. Something that specifically cites what makes an RFD within the gray area would be great to see in writing .

...then why do members as voters get treated like their votes are less than intelligent evaluations of debates by moderators who clearly do not have objective standards themselves?

By far the majority of votes are easy to evaluate based on objective standards. In rare cases like this one, a vote falls into a grayer area that requires further analysis. I don't believe any vote moderator is treating any voter like their vote is a reflection of less than intelligent evaluation, but rather that it doesn't comply with the standards. I also don't believe this one case shows any lack of objectivity in vote evaluation, only that sometimes there are cases that are more difficult to assign a proper result. If you'd like to prove me wrong and provide some examples, I'd be more than happy to see those examples, and reevaluate my position on this.

No proof, just a vibe I guess I got from Bluesteel's voting guide and it's use of the word, "failure, failure, falilure, rather than providing specifics of what makes a good RFD in the first place, and what it MUST include to avoid being overruled my a mod.

And Rosalie's comment here is equally part of the problem, and why I won't vote for her and Wylted: She obviously cares noting about the integrity involved in voting and voting decisions by moderators. Even though I am a very inexperienced debater, I care about these issues, because it is a DEBATE website with social media options, not a social media website with options to debate.

I don't understand this, or know what it has to do with anything, so there's not much I can say about it.

Her comment here, "*sigh*"when will this end?" seems aloof to caring about the voting dispute on said debate. She is also on the same ticket as famousdebater, and I won't vote for a ticket that doesn't take the time to respond to real concerns about issues that actually matter on a DEBATE website - like this instance of voting moderation needing three times to make the correct decision. Her aloofness shows me that she cares little for debate and more about forum drama.
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 9:28:31 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 8:35:10 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 4/16/2016 8:26:45 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
I don't understand this, or know what it has to do with anything, so there's not much I can say about it.

She was referencing to Wylted's campaign for presidency. It's outside of the issue
mentioned in the OP.

So is her, "*sigh* when will this end," comment.
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 9:38:25 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 8:26:45 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 4/16/2016 7:39:34 PM, Emmarie wrote:

...then why do members as voters get treated like their votes are less than intelligent evaluations of debates by moderators who clearly do not have objective standards themselves?

By far the majority of votes are easy to evaluate based on objective standards. In rare cases like this one, a vote falls into a grayer area that requires further analysis. I don't believe any vote moderator is treating any voter like their vote is a reflection of less than intelligent evaluation, but rather that it doesn't comply with the standards. I also don't believe this one case shows any lack of objectivity in vote evaluation, only that sometimes there are cases that are more difficult to assign a proper result. If you'd like to prove me wrong and provide some examples, I'd be more than happy to see those examples, and reevaluate my position on this.

Here is an example of the attitude that voters are dumb, that I just found on BoT's post, "On the matter of Vote Moderation and Voting,"
[http://www.debate.org...]

BoT responded to another user, ": A majority of the complaints on this matter stem from users who place votes that are removed for reasons they are unaware of or have yet to fully understand. The aim of this OP is to inform those who are unaware of the simple measures one can take to avoid having their votes removed.

My bold emphasis on the words, simple measures, leads someone to think they are dumb if they don't find any measures simple on this website. The language and TONE, imply one is dumb if they don't agree that the voting standards are simple.
YYW
Posts: 36,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 9:40:22 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 9:26:52 PM, Emmarie wrote:
Why did it take him three tries, if indeed his final decision was the correct decision? You should admit it makes trusting voting moderators a challenge.

It took Whiteflame three times because he does not understand (1) the voting standards themselves, (2) how to apply the voting standards, and (3) how to explain how the standards apply.

This is evident by the consistently incompetent way that he moderates, but the best evidence of his categorical lack of understanding regarding "how voting works" is contained in more or less every RFD he has written in the last six months.
Tsar of DDO
famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 9:46:18 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 9:28:31 PM, Emmarie wrote:
At 4/16/2016 8:35:10 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 4/16/2016 8:26:45 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
I don't understand this, or know what it has to do with anything, so there's not much I can say about it.

She was referencing to Wylted's campaign for presidency. It's outside of the issue
mentioned in the OP.

So is her, "*sigh* when will this end," comment.

I think you really, really need to familiarise yourself with the site more. Some of your comments have been .... well .... baffling. You severely misinterpret the role of the presidency and you also seem to have completely misunderstood Rosalie's comment. She was referencing to YYW's complaints regarding whiteflame - not moderation of votes. That's an absurd interpretation of her post. I really don't understand where you're getting all of this stuff from.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 9:47:17 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 5:34:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Read ALL the comments in this debate

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

So maybe he had one bad day. Normally his decisions are above reproach.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 9:47:32 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 9:40:22 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/16/2016 9:26:52 PM, Emmarie wrote:
Why did it take him three tries, if indeed his final decision was the correct decision? You should admit it makes trusting voting moderators a challenge.

It took Whiteflame three times because he does not understand (1) the voting standards themselves, (2) how to apply the voting standards, and (3) how to explain how the standards apply.

This is evident by the consistently incompetent way that he moderates, but the best evidence of his categorical lack of understanding regarding "how voting works" is contained in more or less every RFD he has written in the last six months.

Thanks for responding and I don't understand, " (1) the voting standards themselves, (2) how to apply the voting standards, and (3) how to explain how the standards apply," because there is no voting guide that is clear to someone who is new to debate, and this instance of a vote being left to stand on two accounts and then finally being removed makes it especially confusing to me, and new member on DDO.
YYW
Posts: 36,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 9:48:26 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 9:47:17 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 4/16/2016 5:34:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Read ALL the comments in this debate

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

So maybe he had one bad day. Normally his decisions are above reproach.

Did he have three bad days in a row, and then a fourth and fifth over the course of trying to explain his inept reasoning? Hardly... the problem isn't having a "bad day." It's that he's stupid.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 9:51:04 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 9:47:32 PM, Emmarie wrote:
At 4/16/2016 9:40:22 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/16/2016 9:26:52 PM, Emmarie wrote:
Why did it take him three tries, if indeed his final decision was the correct decision? You should admit it makes trusting voting moderators a challenge.

It took Whiteflame three times because he does not understand (1) the voting standards themselves, (2) how to apply the voting standards, and (3) how to explain how the standards apply.

This is evident by the consistently incompetent way that he moderates, but the best evidence of his categorical lack of understanding regarding "how voting works" is contained in more or less every RFD he has written in the last six months.

Thanks for responding and I don't understand, " (1) the voting standards themselves, (2) how to apply the voting standards, and (3) how to explain how the standards apply," because there is no voting guide that is clear to someone who is new to debate, and this instance of a vote being left to stand on two accounts and then finally being removed makes it especially confusing to me, and new member on DDO.

This is how it works. Whiteflame will never explain this to you, because he doesn't understand it himself.

All votes must be sufficient to pass moderation standards. Votes which give reasons for why the winner won and the loser lost are sufficient. The reasons need not be comprehensive or accurate; they need only be specific enough that the vote could not be copied and pasted from debate to debate.

The standard is very low. The problem is that whiteflame doesn't understand the standard, mostly, because he is not an especially clever person. It's not that he's a bad guy, he's just slow.
Tsar of DDO
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 9:54:20 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 9:46:18 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 4/16/2016 9:28:31 PM, Emmarie wrote:
At 4/16/2016 8:35:10 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 4/16/2016 8:26:45 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
I don't understand this, or know what it has to do with anything, so there's not much I can say about it.

She was referencing to Wylted's campaign for presidency. It's outside of the issue
mentioned in the OP.

So is her, "*sigh* when will this end," comment.

I think you really, really need to familiarise yourself with the site more. Some of your comments have been .... well .... baffling. You severely misinterpret the role of the presidency and you also seem to have completely misunderstood Rosalie's comment. She was referencing to YYW's complaints regarding whiteflame - not moderation of votes. That's an absurd interpretation of her post. I really don't understand where you're getting all of this stuff from.

Don't undermine my experience on this website! My experience on this website is from reading!!

The presidency is as vaguely defined as voting standards are defined, but unlike voting standards that need to be clearly defined by the moderators, the presidency should be defined by the members; and as a member, I would like to see a President (if I support the presidency at all) who represents debaters on this website, instead of the drama on forums that some tickets represent to me.
famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 9:59:46 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 9:54:20 PM, Emmarie wrote:
At 4/16/2016 9:46:18 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 4/16/2016 9:28:31 PM, Emmarie wrote:
At 4/16/2016 8:35:10 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 4/16/2016 8:26:45 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
I don't understand this, or know what it has to do with anything, so there's not much I can say about it.

She was referencing to Wylted's campaign for presidency. It's outside of the issue
mentioned in the OP.

So is her, "*sigh* when will this end," comment.

I think you really, really need to familiarise yourself with the site more. Some of your comments have been .... well .... baffling. You severely misinterpret the role of the presidency and you also seem to have completely misunderstood Rosalie's comment. She was referencing to YYW's complaints regarding whiteflame - not moderation of votes. That's an absurd interpretation of her post. I really don't understand where you're getting all of this stuff from.

Don't undermine my experience on this website! My experience on this website is from reading!!!!

I'm not undermining your experience. You are making objectively incorrect claims regarding the site which blatantly tells me that you need to familiarise yourself with the site, the roles of members in the site, etc. There really is no way to refute an objectively true statement seriously which is what you appear to be doing. Regardless of how much reading you do to gain experience, that isn't going to help you in understanding how DDO operates.

The presidency is as vaguely defined as voting standards are defined, but unlike voting standards that need to be clearly defined by the moderators, the presidency should be defined by the members; and as a member, I would like to see a President (if I support the presidency at all) who represents debaters on this website, instead of the drama on forums that some tickets represent to me.

Fair enough. But, again, you fail to point out how ANYTHING that Rosalie had said puts you off of our ticket.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 10:00:02 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 9:51:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/16/2016 9:47:32 PM, Emmarie wrote:
At 4/16/2016 9:40:22 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/16/2016 9:26:52 PM, Emmarie wrote:
Why did it take him three tries, if indeed his final decision was the correct decision? You should admit it makes trusting voting moderators a challenge.

It took Whiteflame three times because he does not understand (1) the voting standards themselves, (2) how to apply the voting standards, and (3) how to explain how the standards apply.

This is evident by the consistently incompetent way that he moderates, but the best evidence of his categorical lack of understanding regarding "how voting works" is contained in more or less every RFD he has written in the last six months.

Thanks for responding and I don't understand, " (1) the voting standards themselves, (2) how to apply the voting standards, and (3) how to explain how the standards apply," because there is no voting guide that is clear to someone who is new to debate, and this instance of a vote being left to stand on two accounts and then finally being removed makes it especially confusing to me, and new member on DDO.



Votes which give reasons for why the winner won and the loser lost are sufficient. The reasons need not be comprehensive or accurate; they need only be specific enough that the vote could not be copied and pasted from debate to debate.

This is clearly not true according to what I have read. The reasons do need to be comprehensive and accurate, or voting means nothing. If that were true then Manke's vote wouldn't have been removed, since it couldn't have been copied and pasted to another debate.
YYW
Posts: 36,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 10:03:53 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 10:00:02 PM, Emmarie wrote:
At 4/16/2016 9:51:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/16/2016 9:47:32 PM, Emmarie wrote:
At 4/16/2016 9:40:22 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/16/2016 9:26:52 PM, Emmarie wrote:
Why did it take him three tries, if indeed his final decision was the correct decision? You should admit it makes trusting voting moderators a challenge.

It took Whiteflame three times because he does not understand (1) the voting standards themselves, (2) how to apply the voting standards, and (3) how to explain how the standards apply.

This is evident by the consistently incompetent way that he moderates, but the best evidence of his categorical lack of understanding regarding "how voting works" is contained in more or less every RFD he has written in the last six months.

Thanks for responding and I don't understand, " (1) the voting standards themselves, (2) how to apply the voting standards, and (3) how to explain how the standards apply," because there is no voting guide that is clear to someone who is new to debate, and this instance of a vote being left to stand on two accounts and then finally being removed makes it especially confusing to me, and new member on DDO.



Votes which give reasons for why the winner won and the loser lost are sufficient. The reasons need not be comprehensive or accurate; they need only be specific enough that the vote could not be copied and pasted from debate to debate.

This is clearly not true according to what I have read. The reasons do need to be comprehensive and accurate, or voting means nothing. If that were true then Manke's vote wouldn't have been removed, since it couldn't have been copied and pasted to another debate.

No no no...

David's vote was removed because whiteflame does not understand how to moderate, which is the issue. You are assuming whiteflame was correct, when it is empirically the case that whiteflame was not correct in removing that vote.
Tsar of DDO
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 10:05:35 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 9:59:46 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 4/16/2016 9:54:20 PM, Emmarie wrote:
At 4/16/2016 9:46:18 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 4/16/2016 9:28:31 PM, Emmarie wrote:
At 4/16/2016 8:35:10 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 4/16/2016 8:26:45 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
I don't understand this, or know what it has to do with anything, so there's not much I can say about it.

She was referencing to Wylted's campaign for presidency. It's outside of the issue
mentioned in the OP.

So is her, "*sigh* when will this end," comment.

I think you really, really need to familiarise yourself with the site more. Some of your comments have been .... well .... baffling. You severely misinterpret the role of the presidency and you also seem to have completely misunderstood Rosalie's comment. She was referencing to YYW's complaints regarding whiteflame - not moderation of votes. That's an absurd interpretation of her post. I really don't understand where you're getting all of this stuff from.

Don't undermine my experience on this website! My experience on this website is from reading!!!!

I'm not undermining your experience. You are making objectively incorrect claims regarding the site which blatantly tells me that you need to familiarise yourself with the site, the roles of members in the site, etc. There really is no way to refute an objectively true statement seriously which is what you appear to be doing. Regardless of how much reading you do to gain experience, that isn't going to help you in understanding how DDO operates.

What a contradiction: "familiarise yourself with the site more," and " Regardless of how much reading you do to gain experience, that isn't going to help you in understanding how DDO operates.

So how do you suggest I familiarize myself without reading?

Oh I know, maybe by joining an agreement committee and quit thinking for myself. Is that what you're getting at?
The presidency is as vaguely defined as voting standards are defined, but unlike voting standards that need to be clearly defined by the moderators, the presidency should be defined by the members; and as a member, I would like to see a President (if I support the presidency at all) who represents debaters on this website, instead of the drama on forums that some tickets represent to me.

Fair enough. But, again, you fail to point out how ANYTHING that Rosalie had said puts you off of our ticket.

I already did - READ
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 10:20:51 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 10:03:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/16/2016 10:00:02 PM, Emmarie wrote:
At 4/16/2016 9:51:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/16/2016 9:47:32 PM, Emmarie wrote:
At 4/16/2016 9:40:22 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/16/2016 9:26:52 PM, Emmarie wrote:
Why did it take him three tries, if indeed his final decision was the correct decision? You should admit it makes trusting voting moderators a challenge.

It took Whiteflame three times because he does not understand (1) the voting standards themselves, (2) how to apply the voting standards, and (3) how to explain how the standards apply.

This is evident by the consistently incompetent way that he moderates, but the best evidence of his categorical lack of understanding regarding "how voting works" is contained in more or less every RFD he has written in the last six months.

Thanks for responding and I don't understand, " (1) the voting standards themselves, (2) how to apply the voting standards, and (3) how to explain how the standards apply," because there is no voting guide that is clear to someone who is new to debate, and this instance of a vote being left to stand on two accounts and then finally being removed makes it especially confusing to me, and new member on DDO.



Votes which give reasons for why the winner won and the loser lost are sufficient. The reasons need not be comprehensive or accurate; they need only be specific enough that the vote could not be copied and pasted from debate to debate.

This is clearly not true according to what I have read. The reasons do need to be comprehensive and accurate, or voting means nothing. If that were true then Manke's vote wouldn't have been removed, since it couldn't have been copied and pasted to another debate.

No no no...

David's vote was removed because whiteflame does not understand how to moderate, which is the issue. You are assuming whiteflame was correct, when it is empirically the case that whiteflame was not correct in removing that vote.
Honestly YYW, your idea doesn't make sense either then. Anyone could cite specific points about a debate that can't be copied and pasted, but really don't address the arguments themselves and why one argument was more convincing. I don't agree with whiteflame in this instance, but I do agree that more is needed in an RFD than simply being able to reference the broad issues of the debate.

Your ideas about voting standards is too vague about what specific content needs to be addressed in RFD's concerning why one side one. Other's ideas about standards aren't specific enough about what constitutes a gray area of an RFD.

For someone who is genuinely trying to learn more about debating and voting (so I can present my ideas about topics of a controversial nature), it makes it nearly impossible to instigate a debate, or vote. I don't want to Instigate debates on topics that I'm passionate about, until I understand voting standards. Then I will feel that my ideas can be fairly assessed.

*off topic* but pertinent to others on this thread
This is why voting issues should be of importance to anyone who is running for president on DDO, because members need good voting standards in order to want to present their ideas in debates.
YYW
Posts: 36,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 10:22:04 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 10:20:51 PM, Emmarie wrote:
At 4/16/2016 10:03:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/16/2016 10:00:02 PM, Emmarie wrote:
At 4/16/2016 9:51:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/16/2016 9:47:32 PM, Emmarie wrote:
At 4/16/2016 9:40:22 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/16/2016 9:26:52 PM, Emmarie wrote:
Why did it take him three tries, if indeed his final decision was the correct decision? You should admit it makes trusting voting moderators a challenge.

It took Whiteflame three times because he does not understand (1) the voting standards themselves, (2) how to apply the voting standards, and (3) how to explain how the standards apply.

This is evident by the consistently incompetent way that he moderates, but the best evidence of his categorical lack of understanding regarding "how voting works" is contained in more or less every RFD he has written in the last six months.

Thanks for responding and I don't understand, " (1) the voting standards themselves, (2) how to apply the voting standards, and (3) how to explain how the standards apply," because there is no voting guide that is clear to someone who is new to debate, and this instance of a vote being left to stand on two accounts and then finally being removed makes it especially confusing to me, and new member on DDO.



Votes which give reasons for why the winner won and the loser lost are sufficient. The reasons need not be comprehensive or accurate; they need only be specific enough that the vote could not be copied and pasted from debate to debate.

This is clearly not true according to what I have read. The reasons do need to be comprehensive and accurate, or voting means nothing. If that were true then Manke's vote wouldn't have been removed, since it couldn't have been copied and pasted to another debate.

No no no...

David's vote was removed because whiteflame does not understand how to moderate, which is the issue. You are assuming whiteflame was correct, when it is empirically the case that whiteflame was not correct in removing that vote.
Honestly YYW, your idea doesn't make sense either then. Anyone could cite specific points about a debate that can't be copied and pasted, but really don't address the arguments themselves and why one argument was more convincing. I don't agree with whiteflame in this instance, but I do agree that more is needed in an RFD than simply being able to reference the broad issues of the debate.

Your ideas about voting standards is too vague about what specific content needs to be addressed in RFD's concerning why one side one. Other's ideas about standards aren't specific enough about what constitutes a gray area of an RFD.

For someone who is genuinely trying to learn more about debating and voting (so I can present my ideas about topics of a controversial nature), it makes it nearly impossible to instigate a debate, or vote. I don't want to Instigate debates on topics that I'm passionate about, until I understand voting standards. Then I will feel that my ideas can be fairly assessed.

*off topic* but pertinent to others on this thread
This is why voting issues should be of importance to anyone who is running for president on DDO, because members need good voting standards in order to want to present their ideas in debates.

Not really...

Sufficiency is the standard, and that is very simple.
Tsar of DDO
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 10:26:09 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 9:26:52 PM, Emmarie wrote:


That does make sense, thank you for responding, but that wasn't the issue in this instance.

It's an issue that you made part of your commentary here though, and I realize that it's not an ideal thing to happen - but sometimes it does and sometimes it is necessary. The only time limitation vote moderation takes into account is that votes should be reported within a month (or if the voting period is still open). After that, we don't review the votes since more than a sufficient amount of time was available to the debaters to bring it to vote moderation's attention. - and since we have to draw the line somewhere and we wont be reviewing votes from several years ago, or from before the current standards existed.

Why did it take him three tries, if indeed his final decision was the correct decision? You should admit it makes trusting voting moderators a challenge.

Whiteflame can better answer this question than I can, but I already explained this to some degree in my above post. If this was some sort of regular thing I would cede that, but as it is, very few examples of poor results are ever presented. So I have nothing to base this complaint on other than 1) rare controversial incidences that some understandably take issue with (but again are rare and not indicative of systemic issues) or 2) Personal beefs one has with Whiteflame, like is the case with YYW (and I don't believe anyone else), and nothing more than a personal problem he has.

If you don't trust the voting moderators, provide me reasons why that is the case, and show this is a systemic problem in need of being fixed. This is a completely transparent system, and as such (since we post every result, and contact every member whom has a vote/voting privileges removed) there is constantly going to be push back to those that disagree. That's the nature of such a system. So while I realize it will always have some public disagreement and controversy, I don't believe that is indicative of a lack of trust or a lack of faith in voting moderation (with the one exception cited above - though that's not really relevant to vote moderation)

Whiteflame had already reviewed this twice, but somehow the third time he changes his mind?

It implies he didn't take enough time to read the RFD in the first place, duh?

is that a question?

I don't know if it implies this though. I think he reviewed it, and considered it to be sufficient and may not have considered some aspects of it that were brought to his attention in the appeal. Hence the need for appeal, and why changing a result is sometimes a necessary thing.

Again, why was further review needed? And what does further appeal even mean?

Someone disagreed with the result. Moderation doesn't believe it's infallible, and so we expect sometimes that we'll need further feedback. In this case, someone disagreed with the result, and explained at length why the initial result was incorrect - and so it was altered.

Does it mean that whoever reported the vote, didn't even know why the vote was inadequate in the first place?

I assume that whomever reported the vote initially thought it was lacking.

or that the mod didn't take enough time to read the RFD?

Again, I assume that whomever appealed the review probably felt WF did read the RFD and did whatever he could to assess it, but that he probably didn't take into account some particular aspect, upon reconsideration of this aspect WF reconsidered his review of the vote.

This is why I stated, on the comments on that debate, that voting standards are in need of clarification. Something that specifically cites what makes an RFD within the gray area would be great to see in writing .

There are always going to be gray areas, and no matter how lengthy an explanation of voting guidelines and it's various areas we provide, these issues will always come up. Certainly having more explanations doesn't harm anything though.

No proof, just a vibe I guess I got from Bluesteel's voting guide and it's use of the word, "failure, failure, falilure, rather than providing specifics of what makes a good RFD in the first place, and what it MUST include to avoid being overruled my a mod.

That's fine, though I think that the majority of members understand what is meant in that guideline once they read it. I don't consider the language used in that guideline to be problematic. The greater problem is that the average member isn't going to read any of that before they start voting. However, having more guidelines with simpler and more "Encouraging" (if that's what you are asking for) language is something that you believe will be better, then I have no problem with the existence of that. I just don't think it will have a hugely significant impact.

Her comment here, "*sigh*"when will this end?" seems aloof to caring about the voting dispute on said debate.

I'm not Roaslie, so I'm not going to make assumptions about her intent. Though if I did read more into her post, I think it could be fairly assumed that she views this (correctly, I might add) as more about an ongoing feud between YYW and Whiteflame, rather than a genuine voting issue. Rosalie is encouraged to correct me if I am wrong.

If my assumption is correct, her statement is one of hoping that this issue between YYW and Whiteflame will end. I happen to agree with her, though the context YYW presents this in is one of voting moderation and therefore while I wont engage YYW on these issues (it's proven to be a waste of time and ridiculous) I will engage the discussion with others as it pertains to voting issues, because that is the important thing. But let me be absolutely clear here, this thread isn't a "voting issues" thread, it's a "YYW taking cheap shots at Whiteflame" thread. YYW will certainly disagree and reply to me and cite why that is wrong, and he will be ignored.

She is also on the same ticket as famousdebater, and I won't vote for a ticket that doesn't take the time to respond to real concerns about issues that actually matter on a DEBATE website - like this instance of voting moderation needing three times to make the correct decision. Her aloofness shows me that she cares little for debate and more about forum drama.

As I said above, this isn't about a real issue. This is about YYW and Rosalie (again, if I understand her post) recognizes that. I couldn't care any less about the political aspects of this and I'm not going to insert myself into all of that, but I do believe that an "eye roll" response, or "*sigh*"when will this end?" is a perfectly reasonable reaction to all of this as it pertains to YYW's agenda.

Now, since I'm always happy to engage issues on this site, I will ignore that the impetus for this that isn't genuine, and happily engage on any good faith discussions about vote moderation. I believe you are engaging in this discussion in good faith to rectify what you believe are some issues, and I'm happy to continue to discuss this with you.
Debate.org Moderator
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 10:28:36 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 10:22:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/16/2016 10:20:51 PM, Emmarie wrote:
At 4/16/2016 10:03:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/16/2016 10:00:02 PM, Emmarie wrote:
At 4/16/2016 9:51:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/16/2016 9:47:32 PM, Emmarie wrote:
At 4/16/2016 9:40:22 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/16/2016 9:26:52 PM, Emmarie wrote:
Why did it take him three tries, if indeed his final decision was the correct decision? You should admit it makes trusting voting moderators a challenge.

It took Whiteflame three times because he does not understand (1) the voting standards themselves, (2) how to apply the voting standards, and (3) how to explain how the standards apply.

This is evident by the consistently incompetent way that he moderates, but the best evidence of his categorical lack of understanding regarding "how voting works" is contained in more or less every RFD he has written in the last six months.

Thanks for responding and I don't understand, " (1) the voting standards themselves, (2) how to apply the voting standards, and (3) how to explain how the standards apply," because there is no voting guide that is clear to someone who is new to debate, and this instance of a vote being left to stand on two accounts and then finally being removed makes it especially confusing to me, and new member on DDO.



Votes which give reasons for why the winner won and the loser lost are sufficient. The reasons need not be comprehensive or accurate; they need only be specific enough that the vote could not be copied and pasted from debate to debate.

This is clearly not true according to what I have read. The reasons do need to be comprehensive and accurate, or voting means nothing. If that were true then Manke's vote wouldn't have been removed, since it couldn't have been copied and pasted to another debate.

No no no...

David's vote was removed because whiteflame does not understand how to moderate, which is the issue. You are assuming whiteflame was correct, when it is empirically the case that whiteflame was not correct in removing that vote.
Honestly YYW, your idea doesn't make sense either then. Anyone could cite specific points about a debate that can't be copied and pasted, but really don't address the arguments themselves and why one argument was more convincing. I don't agree with whiteflame in this instance, but I do agree that more is needed in an RFD than simply being able to reference the broad issues of the debate.

Your ideas about voting standards is too vague about what specific content needs to be addressed in RFD's concerning why one side one. Other's ideas about standards aren't specific enough about what constitutes a gray area of an RFD.

For someone who is genuinely trying to learn more about debating and voting (so I can present my ideas about topics of a controversial nature), it makes it nearly impossible to instigate a debate, or vote. I don't want to Instigate debates on topics that I'm passionate about, until I understand voting standards. Then I will feel that my ideas can be fairly assessed.

*off topic* but pertinent to others on this thread
This is why voting issues should be of importance to anyone who is running for president on DDO, because members need good voting standards in order to want to present their ideas in debates.

Not really...

Sufficiency is the standard, and that is very simple.

Sufficiency is an subjective term. Read my debate about voting standards (only 2 rounds), I corrected my equations the second round, but it actually makes sense on how to evaluate (equate) who has reached BoP requirements.
[http://www.debate.org...]

I'd appreciate your feedback, because even though I don't agree with you on most issues, you do make valuable contributions to DDO.
YYW
Posts: 36,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 10:34:44 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 10:28:36 PM, Emmarie wrote:
At 4/16/2016 10:22:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/16/2016 10:20:51 PM, Emmarie wrote:
At 4/16/2016 10:03:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/16/2016 10:00:02 PM, Emmarie wrote:
At 4/16/2016 9:51:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/16/2016 9:47:32 PM, Emmarie wrote:
At 4/16/2016 9:40:22 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/16/2016 9:26:52 PM, Emmarie wrote:
Why did it take him three tries, if indeed his final decision was the correct decision? You should admit it makes trusting voting moderators a challenge.

It took Whiteflame three times because he does not understand (1) the voting standards themselves, (2) how to apply the voting standards, and (3) how to explain how the standards apply.

This is evident by the consistently incompetent way that he moderates, but the best evidence of his categorical lack of understanding regarding "how voting works" is contained in more or less every RFD he has written in the last six months.

Thanks for responding and I don't understand, " (1) the voting standards themselves, (2) how to apply the voting standards, and (3) how to explain how the standards apply," because there is no voting guide that is clear to someone who is new to debate, and this instance of a vote being left to stand on two accounts and then finally being removed makes it especially confusing to me, and new member on DDO.



Votes which give reasons for why the winner won and the loser lost are sufficient. The reasons need not be comprehensive or accurate; they need only be specific enough that the vote could not be copied and pasted from debate to debate.

This is clearly not true according to what I have read. The reasons do need to be comprehensive and accurate, or voting means nothing. If that were true then Manke's vote wouldn't have been removed, since it couldn't have been copied and pasted to another debate.

No no no...

David's vote was removed because whiteflame does not understand how to moderate, which is the issue. You are assuming whiteflame was correct, when it is empirically the case that whiteflame was not correct in removing that vote.
Honestly YYW, your idea doesn't make sense either then. Anyone could cite specific points about a debate that can't be copied and pasted, but really don't address the arguments themselves and why one argument was more convincing. I don't agree with whiteflame in this instance, but I do agree that more is needed in an RFD than simply being able to reference the broad issues of the debate.

Your ideas about voting standards is too vague about what specific content needs to be addressed in RFD's concerning why one side one. Other's ideas about standards aren't specific enough about what constitutes a gray area of an RFD.

For someone who is genuinely trying to learn more about debating and voting (so I can present my ideas about topics of a controversial nature), it makes it nearly impossible to instigate a debate, or vote. I don't want to Instigate debates on topics that I'm passionate about, until I understand voting standards. Then I will feel that my ideas can be fairly assessed.

*off topic* but pertinent to others on this thread
This is why voting issues should be of importance to anyone who is running for president on DDO, because members need good voting standards in order to want to present their ideas in debates.

Not really...

Sufficiency is the standard, and that is very simple.

Sufficiency is an subjective term.

No, it's not.

Sufficiency in this context means the following:

Does the voter give reasons particular to the specific debate in question why the winner won and the loser lost? If yes, then the vote is sufficient. If not, then it's not. Simple as that.

Read my debate about voting standards (only 2 rounds), I corrected my equations the second round, but it actually makes sense on how to evaluate (equate) who has reached BoP requirements.
[http://www.debate.org...]

I'd appreciate your feedback, because even though I don't agree with you on most issues, you do make valuable contributions to DDO.
Tsar of DDO
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 10:37:11 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 9:38:25 PM, Emmarie wrote:
At 4/16/2016 8:26:45 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 4/16/2016 7:39:34 PM, Emmarie wrote:

...then why do members as voters get treated like their votes are less than intelligent evaluations of debates by moderators who clearly do not have objective standards themselves?

By far the majority of votes are easy to evaluate based on objective standards. In rare cases like this one, a vote falls into a grayer area that requires further analysis. I don't believe any vote moderator is treating any voter like their vote is a reflection of less than intelligent evaluation, but rather that it doesn't comply with the standards. I also don't believe this one case shows any lack of objectivity in vote evaluation, only that sometimes there are cases that are more difficult to assign a proper result. If you'd like to prove me wrong and provide some examples, I'd be more than happy to see those examples, and reevaluate my position on this.

Here is an example of the attitude that voters are dumb, that I just found on BoT's post, "On the matter of Vote Moderation and Voting,"
[http://www.debate.org...]

BoT responded to another user, ": A majority of the complaints on this matter stem from users who place votes that are removed for reasons they are unaware of or have yet to fully understand. The aim of this OP is to inform those who are unaware of the simple measures one can take to avoid having their votes removed.

My bold emphasis on the words, simple measures, leads someone to think they are dumb if they don't find any measures simple on this website. The language and TONE, imply one is dumb if they don't agree that the voting standards are simple.

I don't believe that's what BoT was saying, though he can certainly clarify that himself.

What I understand from his response is exactly what he said "It's a general response to the 'lack of awareness' of the voting standards and why votes are generally removed."

It's not that some who don't know of the "simple measures" are "dumb", it's just that they are unaware of them, and so we take great efforts to make them aware. We make efforts by posting a bunch of these guidelines and threads explaining them. I made a voting discussion thread to touch on all of these issues that was eventually trolled and spammed by the OP of this thread, and more importantly, we (as is the main purpose of BoT's deputy vote mod position) personally contact all relevant members so that we can personally inform them of issues relevant to them, and inform them, explain to them, and answer their questions about vote moderation.

If there is anything else we can do, accepting that most members really aren't going to read all this vote moderation stuff, and taking this "tone" issue as just a tangential issue which I doubt has much significance at all, then I will happily consider any suggestions that you may have. I want to do whatever it takes to make the system better and make it more easily understood and accessible for anyone, so if you have any suggestions for how to do so, I am always willing to listen and consider any option.
Debate.org Moderator