Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

RFD Voting Moderation and Standards/Net Harm

Peepette
Posts: 1,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2016 12:40:36 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
RFD for debate http://www.debate.org...

On Balance, the current voting moderation standards have a net harm to DDO

Singular arguments examined:

Home Page/Number of Debates:
CON contends that the newer homepage design in part is responsible for low voting, debates to be voted on are difficult to find. Secondly, although the number of debates in the voting period has been consistent, those in the challenge period have risen. PRO aptly dismissed these claims; 4 of the top 10 voted on debates occurred after the homepage change and challenge period debates have no bearing on debates in cue for votes. He also points through data analysis that in voting debates have declined over time.

Inadequate/Inconsistencies in Voting Standards
PRO states that mentioning in your RFD that you sided with one side other is grounds for vote removal per the guide. CON rebuts that statements were taken out of context. In defense PRO provides additional proof to make his point. Here is where CON fails to counter rebut; drops the point altogether. Upon reading the presented material, only if mentioned in RFD that the voter initially sided with one side or the other and voted accordingly that the vote be removed. "RFD should not contain any mention of initial opinions, regardless of your final vote." To make such as statement would indicate a bias vote and justifiably should be removed. Although PRO does concedes that biased votes should be removed, by CON letting this point dangle weakens his stance.

Objectively False Assertions
PRO states if a debater makes an obviously false statement common knowledge should used and applied in voting. CON rebuts the voter is not the debater, if the false statement is not pickup on by the opposing side it should stand. CON makes the stronger point. Injecting a voter"s common knowledge is not objective when voting on the skill of argument presentation or rebuttal in which debates should be judged.

Voting Thread
PRO voters are not permitted to read comments or other votes prior to writing an RFD due to possible creation of bias. The solicitation of votes in the voting thread is contradictory to this policy. CON concedes to the contradiction, but asserts the voting thread is necessary due to the difficult nature of finding debates that are in the voting. Point to PRO due to contradiction. CON"s difficulty argument does not weigh in since PRO negated his home page argument. CON could have made a stronger issue of difficulty by pointing out via the interface, searching through a multitude of low quality or troll debates to find debates worthy of votes is arduous. Those who put debates in the thread, for the most part, have put some effort into their debates and want feedback. The voting thread typically has the better quality debates that would be otherwise be unnoticed or buried using the interface function.
Peepette
Posts: 1,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2016 12:43:08 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
Adequate votes are removed:
PRO contends that adequate RFD"s are removed due to lack of explicate explanation of sources. CON rebuts source point can only be awarded if overall quality and debate impact can be explained. If bad votes are not removed debate outcomes are changed. I don"t" feel either side"s argument has greater impact; more on this later.

Mistakes/Moderator Errors:
Both sides agree that mistakes are made, though infrequent. PRO asserts these errors are a deterrent to voting. CON points out these errors are quickly corrected. As this pertains to the voting standards causing harm, lack of frequency and quick mitigation negates PRO"s premise as inconsequential.

Quality over Quantity
CON provides an example of a debate receiving 54 votes, 17 vote bombs with counters, and claims the remaining votes lacked proof of the debate being read or analysis of points argued; this resulted in a good debater leaving. Prior to standards vote quality was lacking, bad votes change debate outcomes. PRO agrees on the point of vote quality, but adds that having adequate votes removed deters good votes from being cast. He points to the 3-5 votes of CON"s exampled debate as good votes, which are more good votes per debate that are currently being cast. I find PRO"s logic does not follow. PRO rationalizes, although no one wants vote bombed debates that result in loss, and admits that bombs concurred, these were often mitigated by the community instigating counter bombs. He does not qualify how bombs and counter bombs are preferable over current standards that he deems harmful. CON gets the point with TUFs quote; effort to create good debates will not occur if vote bombing is feared. If there"s no quality in voting, there will be no quality debates. Looking further into to PRO"s rational; eliminating the 17 vote bombs and counters, 37 other votes were cast. If only 3-5 votes were of adequate or good quality; is the impact of the other 35-32 votes on the debate inconsequential; a flaw in logic that CON could have used to also affirm negative debate outcomes.

Minimizing Bad Votes:
PRO asserts that debaters can set ELO limits or assign to prioritize quality over quantity of votes. CON rebuts ELO limits locks out good voters resulting in fewer votes which is contradictory to PRO"s assertion of more moves are needed. PRO defends although this is might cause fewer votes, it eliminates bad votes and puts the responsibility of quality over quantity on the debaters themselves. Vote moderation standards inhibit higher quality votes should the debaters prefer. Although I find both sides of the argument of equal weight, I fail to see how standards and moderation inhibit quality votes if debaters set ELO limits or assign judges; as written PRO does not make the connection.
Peepette
Posts: 1,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2016 12:47:12 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
As pertains to the title "On balance, the current voting moderation standards have been a net harm to DDO."

Although several items were brought up in this debate impact points are Inadequate Voting Standards-the interpretation of bias on RFD"s, Adequate Votes Removed- serving as a deterrent to voting and Quality vs Quantity. CON fell short on his theory of causation attributing to the low number votes as well as well as the Voting Thread argument; but these points are of lesser value in the scope of the debate. Regarding a more pertinent argument on interpretation of bias according to standards, CON fell short yet again. He won the Objectively False Statements argument, but again a point with lesser debate impact. PRO"s Adequate Votes Removed argument focused more on vote removal due to lack of source explanation than descriptors on what an adequate vote entails. A single example does not put into focus what is deemed adequate in a more encompassing context. In isolation this argument came up as a wash, but in context with Quality over Quantity which is the most pertinent argument of the debate, PRO"s logic falls short. Moving on to Minimizing Bad Votes, PRO makes the assertion that the debaters themselves should determine how their debates are voted by appointing judges or restricting ELO. But he does not tie in how moderation and standards are keeping this from occurring as he claims.

Summary: Both sides agree that prior to standards and moderation there were bad votes, and occurrences of vote bombing; quality votes are preferred. The premise that 3-5 votes per debate pre-standards being preferred amidst multiple bad votes, over the now 1 or 2 votes that are presently awarded doesn"t quite pan out. The number of bad votes and bombs affect outcomes and respectively reduce the quality of debates has greater weight. Vote removal and, standards interpretation on bias being causal to inducing a fear of a voter"s loosing privileges therefore reducing votes as has not been establish. Debate to CON on balance current voting moderation does not cause net harm.
ThinkBig
Posts: 1,572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2016 1:20:30 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/26/2016 12:40:36 AM, Peepette wrote:
RFD for debate http://www.debate.org...

On Balance, the current voting moderation standards have a net harm to DDO



Singular arguments examined:

Home Page/Number of Debates:
CON contends that the newer homepage design in part is responsible for low voting, debates to be voted on are difficult to find. Secondly, although the number of debates in the voting period has been consistent, those in the challenge period have risen. PRO aptly dismissed these claims; 4 of the top 10 voted on debates occurred after the homepage change and challenge period debates have no bearing on debates in cue for votes. He also points through data analysis that in voting debates have declined over time.

Inadequate/Inconsistencies in Voting Standards
PRO states that mentioning in your RFD that you sided with one side other is grounds for vote removal per the guide. CON rebuts that statements were taken out of context. In defense PRO provides additional proof to make his point. Here is where CON fails to counter rebut; drops the point altogether. Upon reading the presented material, only if mentioned in RFD that the voter initially sided with one side or the other and voted accordingly that the vote be removed. "RFD should not contain any mention of initial opinions, regardless of your final vote." To make such as statement would indicate a bias vote and justifiably should be removed. Although PRO does concedes that biased votes should be removed, by CON letting this point dangle weakens his stance.

Objectively False Assertions
PRO states if a debater makes an obviously false statement common knowledge should used and applied in voting. CON rebuts the voter is not the debater, if the false statement is not pickup on by the opposing side it should stand. CON makes the stronger point. Injecting a voter"s common knowledge is not objective when voting on the skill of argument presentation or rebuttal in which debates should be judged.

Voting Thread
PRO voters are not permitted to read comments or other votes prior to writing an RFD due to possible creation of bias. The solicitation of votes in the voting thread is contradictory to this policy. CON concedes to the contradiction, but asserts the voting thread is necessary due to the difficult nature of finding debates that are in the voting. Point to PRO due to contradiction. CON"s difficulty argument does not weigh in since PRO negated his home page argument. CON could have made a stronger issue of difficulty by pointing out via the interface, searching through a multitude of low quality or troll debates to find debates worthy of votes is arduous. Those who put debates in the thread, for the most part, have put some effort into their debates and want feedback. The voting thread typically has the better quality debates that would be otherwise be unnoticed or buried using the interface function.

Thanks for voting and for a thorough analysis!
ThinkBig
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Notable Notes and Quotable Quotes
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I GOT SIG'D"
"WELL FVCK ME IN THE A$SHOLE AND CALL ME A CUCK I GOT SIG'D AGAIN"
-Kiri
If anyone's getting modkilled, it's kiri. Just for his sig.
-7th
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge or vote? Nominate me!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~