Total Posts:111|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Case Study: Whiteflame's Inept Moderation

YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 9:26:04 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Let us explore together why Whiteflame's moderation is incompetent with a helpful case study.

The Debate: http://www.debate.org...

The RFD at Issue:

Typically in debate we vote for the best case or arguments. In this case I have to vote against the worst case or arguments. Both were very bad cases though. I explain this below.

RFD: Affirmative ballot, Neg makes more egregious errors in structure and logic, and Aff answers them. The example of "tied to tracks," as presented is absurd, and identifies this.

Negative shifts on advocacy and on definitions.

While framework/criterion not agreed to prior (as Aff claims), Neg more aggressively shifts on his advocacy by trying to apply the modes of utility to his train track example (without stating it), and Aff answers it in second constructive. The original neg advocacy was for libertarianism. Neg never provides a link allowing for the modes of utility to be permutated by his original advocacy, libertarianism. Neg in 2nd constructive shifts from individualism, as defined from the onset of the debate, to Ayn Rand"s "objectivism" when responding to Aff"s, "Collectivism is the objective version of individualism"

This was a very poorly structured debate, and I have provided more detail on my RFD in the comments, along with critiques/feedback for both cases.

This is a value debate, though the resolution is framed more like a policy topic ("ought," typically asks for a policy related to the topic). Intuitively though, this is about the competing values of collectivism (though it runs like quality of life) versus individualism (which should run as freedom or quality of life but is not consistent at either).

None of this even came up. No one stated specifically that this is what the debate was about. What makes it worse is the "framework" issue that devolved.

The, "framework" either side advocates are essentially voting criteria or, weighing mechanisms for a judge to use to evaluate which value is better upheld, quality of life or freedom or something else). Since both sides try to offer unique criteria for a debate with competing values at the same time, it gets messy very quickly.

There are three commonly recognized modalities for value debate. None of which are present on either side.

1) Competing over the same value: Utilitarianism best upholds the value of quality of life versus Libertarianism best upholds quality of life.
2) Competing over the same mechanism: Utilitarianism prioritizes safety versus Utilitarianism prioritizes freedom.

3) What case best achieves its core value: The value of quality of life should be prioritized above freedom, and this claim should be weighed through the lens of utilitarianism, versus; the value of freedom should be prioritized above quality of life and this claim should be weighed though the lens of libertarianism. https://www.whitman.edu......

This debate is a sloppy version of either the first example or the third example, but so sloppy that we can"t clearly tell which, and both cases make this error.

Both cases are rampant with fallacies. And there were a few fabrications too. If you want examples just ask and I will provide comments identifying those in each case.

The Issue:

Was that vote sufficient?
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 9:33:45 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Whiteflame's First Action:

*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: DavidMancke// Mod action: NOT Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Very poor debate on both sides. RFD is provided in comments, along with critiques/feedback on both cases. https://www.whitman.edu......

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter sufficiently explains the decision, at least analyzing some of the points made by each side, though the voter should be explaining why the answers provided by given sides to given issues were effective, and why the examples he cites as problematic are not. It's unclear from this RFD exactly why the points the voter cites are actually good or bad, though it is at least clear why the voter is voting based chiefly on shifts, poor structure, and frameworks, which makes it sufficient.
************************************************************************

Whiteflame's Second Action:

*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: DavidMancke// Mod action: NOT Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Very poor debate on both sides. RFD is provided in comments, along with critiques/feedback on both cases. https://www.whitman.edu.........

[*Reason for non-removal*] Again, the voter sufficiently explains the decision. Contrary to the reporter's concerns, the voter does point to arguments from Aff, even if very little time is spent here.
**********************************

BUT WAIT!!!!!!

Whiteflame's THIRD EFFORT to get it right:

*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: DavidMancke// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Very poor debate on both sides. RFD is provided in comments, along with critiques/feedback on both cases. https://www.whitman.edu......

[*Reason for removal*] After repeat consideration, the vote has been found to be insufficient. The voter failed to assess any arguments made by Pro in his decision, instead choosing to focus on the various problems with Con's points. While these may be important to the overall decision, they cannot be the sole explanation for an RFD that awards points, particularly on a select winner debate. While it is appreciated that the voter gave extensive feedback, the RFD itself needs to be complete, and this is lacking.
************************************************************************

Chaos ensues, because of whiteflame's incompetent analysis... David is concerned.... Whiteflame "takes it from the top:"

DavidMancke, alright, let's start from the top.

With regards to my upholding the vote in previous iterations, I did so because, despite multiple people telling me otherwise, I did perceive that you had covered at least some specific aspects of Pro's case. I cover a lot of votes in a given night, and am somewhat restricted when it comes to reading in great detail, particularly when it comes to longer RFDs like yours. It wasn't immediately clear that there was a problem, and I tend to give voters the benefit of the doubt when I'm uncertain. Famousdebater established the issue, and made it clear why it failed to meet the standards. That made me certain. I am never so certain that I am right that I would ignore all evidence posted to the contrary. I spent quite some time reviewing the case before I made my decision.

In terms of the standard you failed to uphold, I had thought I'd made that clear, but I'll clarify. The standard is that you're required to examine at least one argument made by both sides in the debate. Merely stating the title of a point, especially one that was apparently conceded, is not sufficient. Neither is a generalized statement that you think both sides did poorly. I get that you voted for the side that did less badly, but that still insinuates that he was at least somewhat successful in his argumentation. You're required to state where and why that is the case. However poorly one or both debaters performed, if one performed worse in your estimation, then you are still required to explain why the other performed better.

As for expanding on your RFD, while it is commonly recommended that I contact debaters, explain the problem, and then monitor the RFD until it meets the standards, this is not something I do for good reason - it's extremely time consuming. I'm doing this on what little free time I have as a volunteer. Keeping in contact with the dozens of voters who get reported in a given week would increase my burden exponentially.

...

It would certainly be well beyond the point that I could handle in a given night. Much as that idealized system would be nice, it's simply not feasible.

Lastly, with regards to you throwing down the experience card, I have a similarly lengthy experience in debate on the college level, including coaching. I competed in NPDA and BP, and I know how the standards for judging are upheld in those circumstances. This site is not meant to mimic them. We don't regard our standards as better (though I can certainly gripe about many of the judges I've had, particularly in NPDA), just different. These are written words, and judges are expected to meet a minimum standard for posting RFDs. It has nothing to do with the side you've taken, and I do not assess your logic. I only determine whether or not you've done the bare minimum to show that you've read the debate and given each debater the little that they are due. Your vote was almost there, and in many ways it went above and beyond what was necessary. It's as simple as that. Whether your vote would have been sufficient in competitive, live debate is really not relevant to the issue at hand here. If you're unaware of the standards, I'll be happy to send them to you. If you are aware and find them problematic, we can discuss them. If you think your vote met the standards, then we can discuss that as well.

...

A note: mentioning that one side had an effective rebuttal that knocked out the argument of the other doesn't explain why that side is winning. It tells me why that argument is no longer in contention, but unless you're extending a turn on that point, it's not an issue that shows why Pro is winning the debate.

...

So, I'm unclear on where you perceive the problem. Sometimes, votes are reported after the voting period ends. Sometimes, votes go through repeat consideration. If that diminishes your interest in voting, I'd like to know why.

...

David, I investigated all 3 times. I did not perceive a problem because I didn't also read the debate, and because I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. It was incomplete, to be sure, but I could not reasonably read through every debate on which a vote is reported. If that is a failure, then it's a failure I cannot reasonably correct.

I've made the reason for removal as clear as I possibly can at this point. If it's still unclear, then indicate where the lack of clarity exists and I will attempt to further clarify. However, none of the standards I apply to any debate has anything to do with my feelings on a given day. They're objective, and they're applied across the board, to every vote that is reported. And your continued infantalizing of famousdebater won't make it any less so. Again, if you feel that the standards are poor, we can discuss that. If you feel they were incorrectly applied, we can discuss that as well. So far, you've done neither.

The craziness continues!
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 9:37:50 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Whiteflame says more stupid stuff....

[NOTE: I have omitted non-Whiteflame content here because he's the only person I care about in this case.]

I haven't seen an explanation of why the standards themselves are poor, but you're welcome to restate it.

You mentioned that Pro rebutted it and in which round he'd done so. You did not state what that rebuttal was, why it was effective, or how it improved Pro's argument. I didn't dismiss your vote because it spoke to rebuttal rather than constructive. I removed your vote for two reasons: you never specifically assessed any points made by Pro (even in rebuttal), and because you never explained why Pro was winning, only why Con was not.

If I read every single debate on which a vote is reported, this would be a full time job. I'm not paid to do this.

I don't see this as an issue of ethics. The standards are clear on the site. They're a part of the expectations that everyone who joins the site signs onto if they plan on voting. Moderation makes is possible to enforce those standards. The view that we're somehow "the only real voters" based on the fact that we remove some votes doesn't really tell me how that's the case. You've asserted multiple times that we can abuse our power to remove votes that we personally disagree with, but that doesn't show that it's happening. Nor do I see how this is a "mod only ballot system".

I've explained the problems with your vote. Your responses have mainly focused on discrediting me in my role, and you haven't really addressed the key problems I've explained.

As for treating Famous like a baby, it doesn't show much in the way of maturity on your part. It doesn't produce reasonable conversation. Just enmity.

I haven't admitted to harming academic standards. Not following the standards that academic debate sets up doesn't mean that we're actively against reasonable academic standards. Different types of debate have very different standards, so by your view, any choice we make would reject academic standards. Frankly, not all the academic standards are good to begin with, but that's a different story.

...

It's become clear to me that you don't want to have a conversation about this. I've explained the basis for my decision, and you've practically ignored it, as well as efforts to better inform you of what the standards are and why you didn't meet them. If you don't think that those standards meet your view of what voting on academic debate should look like, then you're welcome to continue being upset with it. I know many people who find NPDA judging to, for the most part, be a mockery of academic learning, and from some of the judging I've seen, there's some merit to that view. Any judging standard has its pros and cons, whether it's that of NPDA or DDO.

I won't defend everything that's happened on this site, but I can say that members have left for a variety of reasons. Stating that they're all the result of problems with moderation is overgeneralizing to a large degree. As for Juggle's view of the site, I can say with near certainty that they care little for what happens here as long as the traffic remains high. They certainly don't care about academic involvement, otherwise they'd spend more time working with academic institutions and be more responsive to site coding issues. They aren't. This site, much like other debate sites, has built its own community with its own rules. Juggle does not care much for how we set them.

So feel free to keep calling me Walter Whiteflame and disparaging me as a moderator. You're hardly alone in your opinions of me as a moderator or a person. Clearly, I can't get across the reasons for my actions in a way you're willing to engage with, as you've already reached your conclusions about me and my motivations, but if you want to actually discuss something, feel free to send me a PM instead. I'm always happy to have a reasonable discussion about how to change the standards and how they're applied, but it has to be a discussion. Not a tirade.

...

As someone who has been a part of NPDA for the last 12 years to one degree or another, I can honestly say that it has numerous problems. That's the reason I stopped actually debating in that style, and the reason I transitioned to BP. NPDA has become far more technical and speed-focused than it was when I started, and the judging ranges from amazing to amazingly bad. Honestly, if you think it's so far above the site that they're incomparable, then your experience and mine must differ greatly.

I've defended my actions and explained them in extensive detail. Your response so far has been to attack me and pull out only the most general bits of explanation I've provided. I've repeated and expanded on the reasoning I gave, at your request, and so far, you've done more to manipulate my words than you have to respond to them. I'm not repeating myself in an effort to convince you - I'm repeating myself in order to be understood and have you address my points. Frankly, the fact that you think that my not reading the debate initially was just out of sheer laziness reveals more about your willingness to read what I'm writing than anything else.

As Famous said, I can no more moderate the forums than you can, nor can I remove questionable debates. I'm advising Airmax and informing decisions chiefly related to voting. Very little of what I do has to do with conduct on the general site.

...

It seems like those forums show that most people at least have a partial understanding of the standards. They often think they are far more onerous than is the reality, and I'll admit that we've had trouble dealing with that view despite efforts to address it.

As for the link, it's an internal standard for vote moderation. Votes can be removed at any point between the start of the voting period and one month after it ends. I can supply a forum with Airmax stating as much, though I'd have to dig to find it.
Tsar of DDO
FortisAnimi
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 9:38:59 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 9:26:04 PM, YYW wrote:
Let us explore together why Whiteflame's moderation is incompetent with a helpful case study.

The Debate: http://www.debate.org...

The RFD at Issue:

Typically in debate we vote for the best case or arguments. In this case I have to vote against the worst case or arguments. Both were very bad cases though. I explain this below.

RFD: Affirmative ballot, Neg makes more egregious errors in structure and logic, and Aff answers them. The example of "tied to tracks," as presented is absurd, and identifies this.

Negative shifts on advocacy and on definitions.

While framework/criterion not agreed to prior (as Aff claims), Neg more aggressively shifts on his advocacy by trying to apply the modes of utility to his train track example (without stating it), and Aff answers it in second constructive. The original neg advocacy was for libertarianism. Neg never provides a link allowing for the modes of utility to be permutated by his original advocacy, libertarianism. Neg in 2nd constructive shifts from individualism, as defined from the onset of the debate, to Ayn Rand"s "objectivism" when responding to Aff"s, "Collectivism is the objective version of individualism"

This was a very poorly structured debate, and I have provided more detail on my RFD in the comments, along with critiques/feedback for both cases.

This is a value debate, though the resolution is framed more like a policy topic ("ought," typically asks for a policy related to the topic). Intuitively though, this is about the competing values of collectivism (though it runs like quality of life) versus individualism (which should run as freedom or quality of life but is not consistent at either).

None of this even came up. No one stated specifically that this is what the debate was about. What makes it worse is the "framework" issue that devolved.

The, "framework" either side advocates are essentially voting criteria or, weighing mechanisms for a judge to use to evaluate which value is better upheld, quality of life or freedom or something else). Since both sides try to offer unique criteria for a debate with competing values at the same time, it gets messy very quickly.

There are three commonly recognized modalities for value debate. None of which are present on either side.

1) Competing over the same value: Utilitarianism best upholds the value of quality of life versus Libertarianism best upholds quality of life.
2) Competing over the same mechanism: Utilitarianism prioritizes safety versus Utilitarianism prioritizes freedom.

3) What case best achieves its core value: The value of quality of life should be prioritized above freedom, and this claim should be weighed through the lens of utilitarianism, versus; the value of freedom should be prioritized above quality of life and this claim should be weighed though the lens of libertarianism. https://www.whitman.edu......

This debate is a sloppy version of either the first example or the third example, but so sloppy that we can"t clearly tell which, and both cases make this error.

Both cases are rampant with fallacies. And there were a few fabrications too. If you want examples just ask and I will provide comments identifying those in each case.

The Issue:

Was that vote sufficient?

Inspiring intellectual thought. Truly stimulating, will rethink opinion of moderation. DWWF, down with whiteflame?
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 9:41:08 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 9:38:59 PM, FortisAnimi wrote:
At 4/16/2016 9:26:04 PM, YYW wrote:
Let us explore together why Whiteflame's moderation is incompetent with a helpful case study.

The Debate: http://www.debate.org...

The RFD at Issue:

Typically in debate we vote for the best case or arguments. In this case I have to vote against the worst case or arguments. Both were very bad cases though. I explain this below.

RFD: Affirmative ballot, Neg makes more egregious errors in structure and logic, and Aff answers them. The example of "tied to tracks," as presented is absurd, and identifies this.

Negative shifts on advocacy and on definitions.

While framework/criterion not agreed to prior (as Aff claims), Neg more aggressively shifts on his advocacy by trying to apply the modes of utility to his train track example (without stating it), and Aff answers it in second constructive. The original neg advocacy was for libertarianism. Neg never provides a link allowing for the modes of utility to be permutated by his original advocacy, libertarianism. Neg in 2nd constructive shifts from individualism, as defined from the onset of the debate, to Ayn Rand"s "objectivism" when responding to Aff"s, "Collectivism is the objective version of individualism"

This was a very poorly structured debate, and I have provided more detail on my RFD in the comments, along with critiques/feedback for both cases.

This is a value debate, though the resolution is framed more like a policy topic ("ought," typically asks for a policy related to the topic). Intuitively though, this is about the competing values of collectivism (though it runs like quality of life) versus individualism (which should run as freedom or quality of life but is not consistent at either).

None of this even came up. No one stated specifically that this is what the debate was about. What makes it worse is the "framework" issue that devolved.

The, "framework" either side advocates are essentially voting criteria or, weighing mechanisms for a judge to use to evaluate which value is better upheld, quality of life or freedom or something else). Since both sides try to offer unique criteria for a debate with competing values at the same time, it gets messy very quickly.

There are three commonly recognized modalities for value debate. None of which are present on either side.

1) Competing over the same value: Utilitarianism best upholds the value of quality of life versus Libertarianism best upholds quality of life.
2) Competing over the same mechanism: Utilitarianism prioritizes safety versus Utilitarianism prioritizes freedom.

3) What case best achieves its core value: The value of quality of life should be prioritized above freedom, and this claim should be weighed through the lens of utilitarianism, versus; the value of freedom should be prioritized above quality of life and this claim should be weighed though the lens of libertarianism. https://www.whitman.edu......

This debate is a sloppy version of either the first example or the third example, but so sloppy that we can"t clearly tell which, and both cases make this error.

Both cases are rampant with fallacies. And there were a few fabrications too. If you want examples just ask and I will provide comments identifying those in each case.

The Issue:

Was that vote sufficient?

Inspiring intellectual thought. Truly stimulating, will rethink opinion of moderation. DWWF, down with whiteflame?

Whiteflame should resign, yes, and reconsider his activities on DDO, generally.
Tsar of DDO
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 9:52:59 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
A vote moderator cannot read all debates before deciding whether or not to remove a vote. I say this as a former vote moderator, they get about 8-10 reports every day. A normal human can't read that many debates to evaluate the quality of votes. The only way vote moderation can possibly work efficiently is if the vote moderator reads just the RFDs and makes decisions based off of that. These are the facts.

Clearly, when whiteflame initially got a report, he made a decision without reading the debate which is perfectly reasonable. When pressed on it, he realized that there were further details to consider and decided to read the debate and came up with a different opinion. I find all this perfectly reasonable.

Instead of complaining about a mistake anybody could make, how about suggesting ways to improve it? Do you recommend that vote moderators read ten to twelve whole debates every night? That doesn't seem reasonable. What is a reasonable solution?
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 10:02:47 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 9:52:59 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
A vote moderator cannot read all debates before deciding whether or not to remove a vote.

To apply the standard, you shouldn't have to read the debate. The standard is objective, not subjective. The whole problem is that whiteflame IS reading debates and then forming his own opinions about those debates (almost always an incorrect one, and always for the wrong reasons), before moderating votes.

I say this as a former vote moderator, they get about 8-10 reports every day. A normal human can't read that many debates to evaluate the quality of votes. The only way vote moderation can possibly work efficiently is if the vote moderator reads just the RFDs and makes decisions based off of that. These are the facts.

I agree with you, completely.

Clearly, when whiteflame initially got a report, he made a decision without reading the debate which is perfectly reasonable. When pressed on it, he realized that there were further details to consider and decided to read the debate and came up with a different opinion. I find all this perfectly reasonable.

Wrong. A vote is sufficient or it isn't, and that call is made without reading the debate.

The issue of whether a vote is objectively bad is DIFFERENT than the issue of whether a vote is sufficient. I agree that plenty of bad votes get through the sufficiency standard, and they should, because the remedy is to get MORE votes, not to remove votes that other people cast because they were poorly articulated.

Instead of complaining about a mistake anybody could make, how about suggesting ways to improve it? Do you recommend that vote moderators read ten to twelve whole debates every night? That doesn't seem reasonable. What is a reasonable solution?

Only stupid people make the kinds of mistakes that whiteflame made there, and most people aren't stupid, so I disagree with your conclusion that anyone could have made the mistake he did. That digression aside, my suggestion is very simple:

Get rid of whiteflame and get someone in who will correctly apply the standard.
Tsar of DDO
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 10:11:51 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 10:02:47 PM, YYW wrote:
To apply the standard, you shouldn't have to read the debate. The standard is objective, not subjective. The whole problem is that whiteflame IS reading debates and then forming his own opinions about those debates (almost always an incorrect one, and always for the wrong reasons), before moderating votes.

Do you disagree that a vote can look like it makes sense from the perspective of someone who didn't read the debate but when you actually look at the debate, you realize that the voter used arguments not in the debate?
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 10:17:48 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 10:11:51 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 4/16/2016 10:02:47 PM, YYW wrote:
To apply the standard, you shouldn't have to read the debate. The standard is objective, not subjective. The whole problem is that whiteflame IS reading debates and then forming his own opinions about those debates (almost always an incorrect one, and always for the wrong reasons), before moderating votes.

Do you disagree that a vote can look like it makes sense from the perspective of someone who didn't read the debate but when you actually look at the debate, you realize that the voter used arguments not in the debate?

Let's stick to the standards, here. Sufficiency is the issue, not whether "a vote can look like it makes sense."

If the vote is sufficient, then leave it alone. Simple as that. If debaters don't like the vote, then their remedy get more people to vote on their debate.

The problem is that whiteflame does not understand what "sufficient" means.
Tsar of DDO
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 10:20:05 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 10:17:48 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/16/2016 10:11:51 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 4/16/2016 10:02:47 PM, YYW wrote:
To apply the standard, you shouldn't have to read the debate. The standard is objective, not subjective. The whole problem is that whiteflame IS reading debates and then forming his own opinions about those debates (almost always an incorrect one, and always for the wrong reasons), before moderating votes.

Do you disagree that a vote can look like it makes sense from the perspective of someone who didn't read the debate but when you actually look at the debate, you realize that the voter used arguments not in the debate?

Let's stick to the standards, here. Sufficiency is the issue, not whether "a vote can look like it makes sense."

If the vote is sufficient, then leave it alone. Simple as that. If debaters don't like the vote, then their remedy get more people to vote on their debate.

The problem is that whiteflame does not understand what "sufficient" means.

The point is whether its always possible to evaluate sufficiency without reading the debate.

Do you disagree that a vote that uses arguments not in the debate is insufficient?
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 10:36:19 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 10:20:05 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 4/16/2016 10:17:48 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/16/2016 10:11:51 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 4/16/2016 10:02:47 PM, YYW wrote:
To apply the standard, you shouldn't have to read the debate. The standard is objective, not subjective. The whole problem is that whiteflame IS reading debates and then forming his own opinions about those debates (almost always an incorrect one, and always for the wrong reasons), before moderating votes.

Do you disagree that a vote can look like it makes sense from the perspective of someone who didn't read the debate but when you actually look at the debate, you realize that the voter used arguments not in the debate?

Let's stick to the standards, here. Sufficiency is the issue, not whether "a vote can look like it makes sense."

If the vote is sufficient, then leave it alone. Simple as that. If debaters don't like the vote, then their remedy get more people to vote on their debate.

The problem is that whiteflame does not understand what "sufficient" means.

The point is whether its always possible to evaluate sufficiency without reading the debate.

Do you disagree that a vote that uses arguments not in the debate is insufficient?

That was not well worded on your part, but I do understand what you're saying. To answer what you meant to ask me, yes, a sufficient vote could be biased.
Tsar of DDO
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 10:40:18 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 10:36:19 PM, YYW wrote:
The point is whether its always possible to evaluate sufficiency without reading the debate.

Do you disagree that a vote that uses arguments not in the debate is insufficient?

That was not well worded on your part, but I do understand what you're saying. To answer what you meant to ask me, yes, a sufficient vote could be biased.

No, the wording is exactly as I intended it: if a vote uses arguments never mentioned in the debate to make a judgement, should it be removed.
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 11:14:10 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 10:40:18 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 4/16/2016 10:36:19 PM, YYW wrote:
The point is whether its always possible to evaluate sufficiency without reading the debate.

Do you disagree that a vote that uses arguments not in the debate is insufficient?

That was not well worded on your part, but I do understand what you're saying. To answer what you meant to ask me, yes, a sufficient vote could be biased.

No, the wording is exactly as I intended it: if a vote uses arguments never mentioned in the debate to make a judgement, should it be removed.

If a vote uses arguments which are not contained in the debate, but the vote is otherwise sufficient (meaning it gave reasons why the winner won, and the loser lost), then it should not be removed.

A voter can wax philosophical if they want; but that's not relevant to whether a vote is sufficient.
Tsar of DDO
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 11:21:03 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 11:14:10 PM, YYW wrote:

If a vote uses arguments which are not contained in the debate, but the vote is otherwise sufficient (meaning it gave reasons why the winner won, and the loser lost), then it should not be removed.

A voter can wax philosophical if they want; but that's not relevant to whether a vote is sufficient.

I'm talking about waxing philosophical. I'm taking about the voter using his own arguments to make a judgement as opposed to ones presented in the debate. Isn't that unfair for the debaters?
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 11:32:36 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 11:21:03 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 4/16/2016 11:14:10 PM, YYW wrote:

If a vote uses arguments which are not contained in the debate, but the vote is otherwise sufficient (meaning it gave reasons why the winner won, and the loser lost), then it should not be removed.

A voter can wax philosophical if they want; but that's not relevant to whether a vote is sufficient.

I'm talking about waxing philosophical. I'm taking about the voter using his own arguments to make a judgement as opposed to ones presented in the debate. Isn't that unfair for the debaters?

Of course it's unfair, but if the vote is otherwise sufficient it shouldn't be removed.
Tsar of DDO
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 11:38:13 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 11:32:36 PM, YYW wrote:
Of course it's unfair, but if the vote is otherwise sufficient it shouldn't be removed.

No, it isn't sufficient if it uses arguments not in the debate: http://www.debate.org...

6) Referencing arguments not made in the debate

You"re only allowed to vote on things the debaters actually said. You shouldn"t be using your own arguments to rebut something a debater said, or as a reason to vote for a particular side. Raising your own arguments means you are not being a tabula rasa judge. A tabula rasa judge is supposed to be an unbiased third party with no outside knowledge of the topic. If you make your own arguments, you are allowing your outside knowledge to sway you.
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 11:40:13 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 11:38:13 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 4/16/2016 11:32:36 PM, YYW wrote:
Of course it's unfair, but if the vote is otherwise sufficient it shouldn't be removed.

No, it isn't sufficient if it uses arguments not in the debate: http://www.debate.org...

6) Referencing arguments not made in the debate

You"re only allowed to vote on things the debaters actually said. You shouldn"t be using your own arguments to rebut something a debater said, or as a reason to vote for a particular side. Raising your own arguments means you are not being a tabula rasa judge. A tabula rasa judge is supposed to be an unbiased third party with no outside knowledge of the topic. If you make your own arguments, you are allowing your outside knowledge to sway you.

I understand your point, but that doesn't really get at "sufficiency." It's about bias.
Tsar of DDO
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 11:40:57 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 11:40:13 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/16/2016 11:38:13 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 4/16/2016 11:32:36 PM, YYW wrote:
Of course it's unfair, but if the vote is otherwise sufficient it shouldn't be removed.

No, it isn't sufficient if it uses arguments not in the debate: http://www.debate.org...

6) Referencing arguments not made in the debate

You"re only allowed to vote on things the debaters actually said. You shouldn"t be using your own arguments to rebut something a debater said, or as a reason to vote for a particular side. Raising your own arguments means you are not being a tabula rasa judge. A tabula rasa judge is supposed to be an unbiased third party with no outside knowledge of the topic. If you make your own arguments, you are allowing your outside knowledge to sway you.

I understand your point, but that doesn't really get at "sufficiency." It's about bias.

So, you disagree with this standard?
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2016 12:01:06 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 11:40:57 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 4/16/2016 11:40:13 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/16/2016 11:38:13 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 4/16/2016 11:32:36 PM, YYW wrote:
Of course it's unfair, but if the vote is otherwise sufficient it shouldn't be removed.

No, it isn't sufficient if it uses arguments not in the debate: http://www.debate.org...

6) Referencing arguments not made in the debate

You"re only allowed to vote on things the debaters actually said. You shouldn"t be using your own arguments to rebut something a debater said, or as a reason to vote for a particular side. Raising your own arguments means you are not being a tabula rasa judge. A tabula rasa judge is supposed to be an unbiased third party with no outside knowledge of the topic. If you make your own arguments, you are allowing your outside knowledge to sway you.

I understand your point, but that doesn't really get at "sufficiency." It's about bias.

So, you disagree with this standard?

I didn't say I disagreed with it. I said it was about bias, not sufficiency.
Tsar of DDO
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2016 12:03:38 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Cybertron on me: "jack sparrow's homosexual cousin"
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2016 12:04:06 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 12:03:38 AM, thett3 wrote:
Cybertron on me: "jack sparrow's homosexual cousin"

Lol I didn't mean to actually post this, I meant to just do a sig change. Carry on with the fight gentlemen
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2016 12:10:53 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 12:04:06 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/17/2016 12:03:38 AM, thett3 wrote:
Cybertron on me: "jack sparrow's homosexual cousin"

Lol I didn't mean to actually post this, I meant to just do a sig change. Carry on with the fight gentlemen

lol
Tsar of DDO
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2016 12:17:27 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 12:01:06 AM, YYW wrote:
I didn't say I disagreed with it. I said it was about bias, not sufficiency.

So, should votes that don't meet the criteria outlined above be removed? Or not?
Rosalie
Posts: 4,612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2016 12:18:58 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
OMG, stopppppp
" 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
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2016 12:21:56 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 12:17:27 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 4/17/2016 12:01:06 AM, YYW wrote:
I didn't say I disagreed with it. I said it was about bias, not sufficiency.

So, should votes that don't meet the criteria outlined above be removed? Or not?

Whether a biased vote should be removed or not is a tough call. As a rule, unless it is clear that the only reason a voter cast their vote was to punish someone else for disagreeing with them, the vote should not be removed; but, if that was the case, then the vote wouldn't be sufficient, because they wouldn't have given a reason why the winner won, and why the loser lost.

So here and again, while I agree that voters should try to be as unbiased as they can, the sufficiency standard still is the best way to evaluate things.

You follow?
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2016 12:23:07 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
It is worth mentioning that I don't think whiteflame is a "bad guy" per se; because he's not, by any reasonable measure, a bad guy. He's just dumb.
Tsar of DDO
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2016 12:25:59 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 12:21:56 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/17/2016 12:17:27 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 4/17/2016 12:01:06 AM, YYW wrote:
I didn't say I disagreed with it. I said it was about bias, not sufficiency.

So, should votes that don't meet the criteria outlined above be removed? Or not?

Whether a biased vote should be removed or not is a tough call. As a rule, unless it is clear that the only reason a voter cast their vote was to punish someone else for disagreeing with them, the vote should not be removed; but, if that was the case, then the vote wouldn't be sufficient, because they wouldn't have given a reason why the winner won, and why the loser lost.

So here and again, while I agree that voters should try to be as unbiased as they can, the sufficiency standard still is the best way to evaluate things.

You follow?

I'm not talking about cases where voters vote to "punish" people. I'm talking about case outlined in this rule:
Should we apply the rule as is or not? That's my question.


6) Referencing arguments not made in the debate


You"re only allowed to vote on things the debaters actually said. You shouldn"t be using your own arguments to rebut something a debater said, or as a reason to vote for a particular side. Raising your own arguments means you are not being a tabula rasa judge. A tabula rasa judge is supposed to be an unbiased third party with no outside knowledge of the topic. If you make your own arguments, you are allowing your outside knowledge to sway you.