Oromagi's 100th debate: The MODERATION TEAM NEGLECTED their DUTY to FAIRLY SUPERVISE the FIRST DART PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION (@whiteflame)
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 2 votes and 6 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- One week
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
- Required rating
THBT: The MODERATION TEAM NEGLECTED their DUTY to FAIRLY SUPERVISE the FIRST DART PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
DEFINITIONS: Per MisterChris' retirement announcement of last year, the current Mod team is composed as follows:
Head mod: whiteflame
Deputy mod: SupaDudz
MODERATION TEAM shall be defined as "whiteflame and SupaDudz."
NEGLECT shall be defined as a verb meaning "To fail to care for or attend to something. To fail to do or carry out something due to oversight or carelessness."
DUTY shall be defined as a noun meaning "The state of being at work and responsible for or doing a particular task."
FAIRLY shall be defined as an adverb meaning "Honestly; properly."
SUPERVISE shall be defined as a verb meaning "To oversee or direct a task or organization."
The FIRST DART PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION is that election authorized by MisterChris's September of 2021 MEEP "MEEP: Reformed ban policy & DebateArt President" approved by the majority of DebateArt voters on Sept 29th, 2021.
BURDEN of PROOF
Burden of Proof is shared.
PRO must show that whiteflame and SupaDudz neglected their duties to oversee a free and fair election.
CON must show that whiteflame and SupaDudz carried out their election duties properly.
PRO is requesting sincere and friendly engagement on this subject.
No trolls or kritiks, please.
- RULES --
1. Forfeit=auto loss
2. Sources may be merely linked in debate as long as citations are listed in comments
3. For all relevant terms, PRO and CON should agree to commonplace understandings that fit within the rational context of this resolution and debate
P1: The moderation team committed in Sept. 2021 to "monitor and enforce the campaigning rules" as defined by the MEEP approving the First DART presidential election"P2: The moderation team failed to abide by those rules set out in that democratically authorized MEEPC1: Therefore, the moderation team neglected their duty to fairly supervise the election.
- Let's agree that DART's Moderation team is duty bound by their own published rules to enforce MEEPs as voted
- DART's MODERATON OVERVIEW states:
- "Mods have complete discretion in the enforcement and interpretation of the site rules, with all exceptions stated in these terms"
- One of those exceptions listed is the MEEP- Mods' submission of policy proposals, including Mod policies, to site-wide referenda
- "Moderation may submit questions and proposals regarding moderation policy, voting policy, and the code of conduct to Moderation Engagement and Enactment Processes (MEEPs). MEEPs are binding referenda"
- Since ordinary DART members are already bound by Moderator discretion, this statement primarily indicates the obligation by the Moderation team to honor these referenda.
- No Mod exemptions from these binding referenda are published in any rules on this site, although at least one Mod currently claims such an exemption.
- Therefore, the democratically voted MEEP: Reformed ban policy & DebateArt President of Sept 21 bound Mods to the conduct defined therein including (but not limited to) these election rules:
- The President shall be elected for a yearly term each December
- to be formally instated January 1st of the following year.
- The first three weeks of December will be dedicated to optional campaigning,
- the rest of the month will be dedicated to the election process,
- all of which will be overseen and managed by moderation.
- But the Moderation team violated four out of five of these obligations.
- The President was not elected in December but January
- The President was not instated on January 1st but 20 days later on Jan 21st
- The first 3 weeks of December were dedicated to optional campaigning with minimal participation from the Mod team, but
- The rest of the month (Dec 22nd- Dec 31st) was not dedicated to the election process
- Instead, on Dec 24th, two days after the moderation team was required to begin that voting process, the Moderation team published this announcement
DART Presidential ElectionGreetings DART!The presidential process will begin starting Dec 27th.From December 27th to January 16th, any user may nominate themselves. From that time, users may campaign for themselves following the regulation set.On January 17th, the preliminary voting stage will begin, where the top three candidates move on to the general electionOn January 20th, the final voting stage will begin, where a simple majority vote decides the presidentOn January 21st, the president is inauguratedFor more info on campaign rules, please read here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PIsh9UDic938MMM3YX-H1nn15H7OriOvfOSFigXXsX0/editHope everyone has a safe and happy holidaysGodspeed, SupaDudz
- That is- the voting period was moved by Moderators AFTER THE VOTING STARTED and from Dec 22-Dec31st to Jan 17th-Jan 21st
- That is- the voting period was reduced AFTER THE VOTING STARTED from nine days to 3+1 days
- And the moderation team did not oversee and manage the election as they were explicitly charged to do.
- Neither Mod makes any post to this site between Dec 30- Dec 03. It seems reasonable to conclude that both mods were generally absent at the time the MEEP required them to "oversee and manage" the start of the election.
- Whiteflame makes no posts between Dec 7th and Dec 19th- a 12 day gap
- SupaDudz confirms his awareness that the election is in progress and affirms his commitment to the Sept. '21 MEEP on Dec 6th with a statement "All rules relating to the president are in such document:" and then Supa links to the MEEP
- Sup then states that he plans to be busy and posts only once over the next two weeks.
- Supadudz confirms his negligence on Dec 24th
- "I will take responsibility for this issue. I was overburdened with my exam finals that the process simply fled my mind as it did with the whole moderation teams. It was a hectic December and I simply did not have time to balance my schedule to run a full process"
- I ask VOTERs for their best judgement here.
- Would you ever call an election free and fair if the governing body were to change the voting days and the amount of time allowed for voting after the campaigning was done and the voting was already required to have begun?
- Objectively, can't we agree that any election official guilty of such conduct must be considered negligent?
- Objectively, can't we agree that changing the election rules mid-election is never proper election conduct and therefore inherently UNFAIR according to this debate's definition of FAIRLY as "honestly, properly"?
- If we are in agreement here, then "NEGLECTED their DUTY to FAIRLY SUPERVISE" stands proven.
P1: Failure to challenge blatant election tampering is neglect of duty in any election supervisorP2: Mods failed to challenge blatant election tamperingC2: Therefore, the moderation team neglected their duty to fairly supervise the election
- ELECTION TAMPERING is defined by the Mod team as "recruiting people outside the site to vote for a certain candidate"
- "recruiting people outside the site to vote for a certain candidate" is the most charitable possible interpretation of the blatant appearance of two users during the voting period:
- who was quickly banned as a multi-account. Who's multi-account is not stated although the account name does indicate one possible clue.
- is created immediately after Airmaxfan2000
- is permitted to vote in the election with first post
- only posts 3 times, all endorsing the same candidate indicated by the username
- user never returns to this site for any other purpose
- no log of this ban appears in the Public Moderation Log.
- This username's vote is included, even in the final tally, in spite of blatant tampering and likely multi-accounting (DART's CODE of CONDUCT prohibits "Multi-accounting and any action indistinguishable from it."
- Since Airmaxfan2000's appearance was ruled as prohibited multi-accounting we should all agree that the immediate and subsequent appearance of Airmaxgoon1994 must at least qualify as prohibited by the standard of "indistinguishable from multi-accounting."
- Again, I appeal to the VOTER's good judgement,
- Objectively, can't we agree that Airmaxgoon1994 is a pretty blatant proof of election tampering as the moderation team itself defined ELECTION TAMPERING for the purposes of this election and that the Mod team failed to address this blatant election tampering?
- If we can agree that the Mod team failed to spot blatant election tampering, then "NEGLECTED their DUTY to FAIRLY SUPERVISE" stands proven.
P1: Introducing uncertainty into the election process is always improper behavior in the role of election supervisorP2: By overriding existing election law the Mod team has introduced uncertainty regarding the laws governing Presidential electionC3: Therefore, the moderation team neglected their duty to fairly supervise the election
- Let's agree that the purpose of election supervision is to improve confidence in the election and that any uncertainty works to undermine that purpose.
- By changing election law at will, the moderation team has left the rules governing future DART elections entirely uncertain.
- For example, will the 2022 election be held beginning Dec 1st, or will the election start time again depend on the personal satisfaction of the moderation team?
- If the latter, then hasn't the precedent been set that the moderation team possesses the power to call an election any time they please?
- Say that moderators are frustrated with the incumbent president- precedent suggests that mods now possess the authority move up the date of the election in order to shorten that president's term.
- Shall the current President's tenure be truncated to Dec 1st?
- Or is the MEEP now permanently incorrect?
- And if the moderation team's actions have made part of any MEEP permanently incorrect, doesn't the mod team have some urgent obligation to explain and correct the contradictory instructions?
- Will there be a new MEEP?
- Also for example, will voting be nine days as democratically defined in the MEEP on presidential voting or will voting be 3+1 days just because SupaDudz says so?
- Again, I ask VOTERs-
- Objectively, can't we agree that by unauthorized intervention, the moderation team introduced uncertainties into the established election process that remain unaddressed, uncorrected, and unexplained?
- If we agree that the DART community can't tell right now how next year's election will work because of Mod's irregular and unauthorized intervention mid-election, then "NEGLECTED their DUTY to FAIRLY SUPERVISE" stands proven once again.
- The moderation team can't accurately deny that they failed to "monitor and enforce the campaigning rules" as established by MisterChris in the Sept '21 MEEP and authorized by the majority of DART voters on Sept 29th.
- PROVED. The MEEP presented that clear course of action. Mods were bound to uphold those rules, and failing that, mods could have foreseen their scheduling conflicts and democratically requested a move, and failing that, Mods could have started the election on Dec 1st and warned that they would have to catch up on campaign infractions after Christmas and failing that, Mods could have just declared voting open on Dec 24th and allowed the vote to proceed according to the established rules.
- "fell some distance" is CON's equivocation.
- The MEEP is the bar or at least best effort to abide by that MEEP.
- Mods own claim that they are not bound by the MEEP disproves best effort easily enough and
- just the fact that no President was declared on Jan 1st as required by the MEEP demonstrates "below the bar."
- The MEEP was that clear course of action authorized by DART voters, whether there an "obviously better" choice in Mods' opinion should have been irrelevant to Mod's obligations. Mods ought not to feel at liberty to prefer their own choices to the expressed choices of the majority of DART voters
- Please document all instances where Mods claimed PROOF of CONCEPT prior to the election.
- Yet nothing before this suggests that Mods considers the results unofficial in spite of the irregularities.
- In fact, the election was written to "mimic the Hall of Fame process."
- And so PROOF of CONCEPT would seem both unwarranted and disproved
- Obviously, re-writing the election rules five sixths of the way through renders any election so untrustworthy as to override any considerations regarding participation.
- Let's agree Mods had a duty to consider participation before Dec 1st
- but by Dec 24th, it was too late for Mods to legitimately take action.
- There was no good reason why Mods could not have run the same campaign beginning Dec 1st. in keeping with the MEEP defined timeline.
The schedule set by the former head moderator would not have allowed for active moderator supervision during said election.
- Entirely foreseeable by Mods in Sept and yet unaddressed for 8 weeks.
- MisterChris stepped down on the same day as the MEEP was published. That was the time for responsible moderators to act.
- CON concedes that moderators were inactive in December due to scheduling conflicts, and therefore NEGLECT stands proven.
- False, the DART TERMS of SERVICE and the MEEPs as written and enforced by the Mod team set the standards against which Mods failed.
- False. MEEPs are not trends or self-imposed standard they are binding referenda according to DART's TERM of SERVICE
- CON can't claim that finals in December were unanticipated.
- The chief complexity was Mods' own lack of participation.
- It can't be fair for Mods to claim discretionary powers to solve a problem Mods themselves created
- Pro doesn’t establish that there was a duty to follow the cited MEEP to the letter....
- BINDING means " Imposing stipulations or requirements that must be honoured."
- BINDING is not distinct from "MEEPs must be followed." The law is BINDING regardless of changing circumstances.
- Mod's duty was well-established
- CON's claim here stands disproved.
He doesn’t establish that doing so would have even been preferable....
- Preferable in who's judgement? Mod's judgement, of course.
- The question is NOT whether members are happier with Airmax1227 over RationalMadman for president.
- The question is whether or not Mods disrespected the established, published judgement of DART membership and then decided that some other rules were "preferable."
- Mods personal preferences should never have entered into it.
- Post-facto confession is not a responsible substitute for an honest and proper execution of the MEEPs.
- SupaDudz honestly admits to screwing up but that should not be mistaken for an honest or proper execution of the MEEP, which duty he was bound to perform and he admits he failed negligently.
- SupaDudz's admission proves PRO's thesis- at least one Moderator admits they were paying no attention to the election in progress.
- I was overburdened with my exam finals that the process simply fled my mind as it did with the whole moderation teams. It was a hectic December and I simply did not have time to balance my schedule to run a full process
- We can empathize with Mods' hectic schedule all day without contradicting standard NEGLIGENCE.
- Let's agree that busy decembers are entirely predictable in academia, certainly by the end of September, schedules and syllabi are sufficiently established that any hectic December should have been easily predicted and corrected in October or November.
- Let's agree that waiting until AFTER the predictable rush of Finals was over, indeed on Dec 24th, well that was long past the correct and proper time to re-write the rules so DART might accommodate Mod's busy schedules.
- "The election fled Mod's minds" is negligence in a commonplace and familiar form.
- We can understand why a busy shopper might forget her dog in the summer-hot car but that doesn't make her any less negligent. She has neglected her bound duty as a pet owner. Yes or No?
- We can understand why a busy student might forget about writing a final paper but that doesn't make the student any less negligent. The student has failed his duty to complete the curriculum. Yes or No?
- SupaDudz admits NEGLECT and implicates the entire Mod team.
- If we believe SupaDudz here, neglect stand PROVEN.
Being two days later than the initially proposed start of the election doesn’t change that.
- But me and the most regular DART members had been campaigning for weeks!
- The more honest and fair interpretation of events is that Moderators didn't show up until the 24th day of what was promised to be a 31 day event.
Pro asks voters to fill in the blanks, requiring them to determine whether a MEEP is an absolute referendum that binds moderators to every word when it passes,
- ....As MODs clearly stated in the MODERATION OVERVIEW
and to determine whether mods best meets its duties and is at its most fair when it always treats referenda as absolute.
- Again, that's "best" as in Moderator's best judgement which Moderator's claim is superior to DART's best judgement and which Moderators claim may override established, voted MEEPs without any consultation or even notice.
- DART's best judgement had been expressed in September.
Pro has failed to argue that either is true,
- Quite false. ARG1:P1 clearly argues the former, that MEEPs are binding based on DART's published TERMS of SERVICE
- CON admits that Mods were so absent during the pre-established time of the election that their capacities to moderate were limited.
- If we believe CON here, NEGLIGENCE stands proven.
- The impact is voting fraud. Voting fraud does not need to overturn an election to be violative and anti-democratic.
- VOTERS aren't being asked to evaluate the outcome of the election, only whether or not Mods NEGLECTED their duties to keep voters honest.
- The standard set by Mods for FRAUD was " recruiting people outside the site to vote for a certain candidate."
- CON's own testimony confirms that at least one person came from outside the site, loudly declaring their intention to vote for a certain person, voted and left without further participation and CON did not find that his own standard for FRAUD had been satisfied.
- GOON means "a usually muscular henchman" hence recruited.
- In hockey, a GOON is a player recruited for fighting.
- Airmaxgoon1994 advertised his recruitment by Airmax in his username and Mods failed to challenge this obvious flaunting of their own rule they had written just days before.
- The fact that airmaxgoon1994 never returned after voting strongly supports the sole intention to vote for the candidate they were recruited by without any sincere intention to join our community or (importantly) share our interests.
- airmax1994 was obviously recruited outside the site to vote for a certain candidate.
- Mods clearly neglected to prevent VOTER FRAUD as defined by Mods just days before.
Pro excoriates mods for not having addressed a future concern.
- PRO excoriates mods for rewriting the rules of an election just days before that election was officially complete,
- thereby introducing uncertainty regarding whether MEEPs are binding or Mod's best judgement is the ultimate rule.
- If the latter, then Mods are not bound by the MEEPs governing their behavior in banning users or disqualify debate votes, either
- If Mods' best judgement can override MEEPs and Mods best judgement led them to suppose that rewriting the rules on the 24th day of a 31 day election might be objectively perceived as free and fair then Mods best judgement has been shown to be unsound and not to be trusted to moderate debate votes or elections or forum squabbles.
- Both of these are matters of immediate concern
Airmax1227 is set to remain in office for many more months
- Well, only a moderator would know as things stand now.
Pro also never impacts this point.
- The impact is the whiff of corruption.
- By changing the rules at the last second, Moderators stand undeniably open to the accusation that they didn't like the apparent candidate for the position and decided to change that result.
- Whether the accusation is true or false is irrelevant to the question of introducing that obvious uncertainty.
- Let's agree that any time an election official introduces uncertainty into an election over which they are empowered, that election official is NEGLIGENT in duty.
Pro concedes my burdens analysis and much of my overviews.
- CON has argued that the Mods (in the Mods own judgement) were conflicted by "competing duties" and that PRO somehow has a responsibility to offer CON a mechanism by which VOTERS may evaluate Mods conflict. No.
- PRO has clearly denied any such responsibility to CON.
- Look VOTERS, we aren't obligated to give a damn about what personal conflicts prevented Mods from fulfilling their binding obligations as we, the debaters of DebateArt empowered the Mods in the Sept. '21 MEEP
- The only question before us is whether the Mods failed to follow the binding rules as they set out and we authorized.
- Mods asked us in September to authorize an election that started on Dec 1st.
- If VOTERS agree that Mods made no effort to publicize or commence that election on Dec 1t, then neglect is established and VOTERS must find for PRO.
- Mods asked us in September to authorize an election that ran for three weeks.
- If VOTERS agree that Mods were inactive (the reasons are irrelevant) for the first three weeks of December, then neglect is established and VOTERS must find for PRO.
- CON has argued that it is not neglect so long as Mods tried to make up for their long absence with extended election times and delayed voting but that's false and those last minute remedial actions prove and concede the prior neglect.
- VOTERS, please note that we are not here to evaluate the quality or results of the Mod team's hastily contrived corrections but only establish the shortcomings that made those corrections necessary.
- Both Moderators have conceded that neglect:
- SupaDudz: "the process simply fled my mind as it did with the whole moderation teams. It was hectic December and I simply did not have time to balance my schedule to run a full process"
- VOTERS need only believe SupaDudz here and my thesis is 100% proved.
- Whiteflame: "The schedule set would not have allowed for active moderator supervision during said election."
- Whiteflame concedes that his schedule did not permit supervision.
- Again, the reasons are not important, we need only establish that Mods did not supervise the election during the first three weeks of December to prove neglect.
- The fact that neither Moderator attempted to communicate to the DART community that they were not moderating or that they intended some correction until Dec 24th compounds neglect.
- The fact that any remedy for Mods' absence was deemed necessary further proves neglect.
- If VOTERS agree that inactive Mods cannot have fulfilled their responsibilities to oversee and manage the election during those three weeks, then neglect is established and VOTERS must find for PRO.
- If VOTERS agree that Mods added an extra three weeks without any MEEP authorization
- and indeed without any prior consultation with the DebateArt community,
- and worse, without any prior notification
- then neglect is established and VOTERS must find for PRO.
- If VOTERS agree that on Dec 24th Mods changed the voting period from "the last week of December" to "January 17th, 12PM EST to January 19th, 12PM EST" then neglect is established and VOTERS must find for PRO.
- Mods created a new rule on the first day of VOTING stating that that ""recruiting people outside the site to vote for a certain candidate"
- If VOTERS agree that the sudden appearance of Airmaxfan2000 and Airmaxgoon1994 are strong evidence of that suddenly banned recruitment, then neglect is established and VOTERS must find for PRO.
- Mods changed the rules on the 24th day of the election and created more new rules on the first day of voting.
- CON has argued that there will be time in future to correct all question of authority and uncertainty with future MEEPS but this concedes that voters' authority was undermined and uncertainty was introduced.
- To the extent that undermining voter'authority and introducing election uncertainty proves neglect in any election oversight, CON concedes neglect.
- If VOTERS agree that creating new rules after an election has begun casts doubt on the legitimacy and authority of the agreed voting rules and creates uncertainty about the voting process going forward, neglect is established and VOTERS must find for PRO.
Even if Pro proves that moderation failed to uphold the MEEP, he has not met his burden.
- Totally false. The Mods have stated that MEEPS are "binding referenda." Binding means "requirements that must be honored." If the Mods failed to uphold the MEEP in any respect, then neglect is established.
- Let's recall that the thesis is NOT "did Mods fail to supervise the recent election", the thesis is that Mods failed to supervise the election as defined by the Sept 21 MEEP.
- The FIRST DART PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION is defined as the election authorized by the MEEP.
We’re arguing whether voters, not mods, should prefer (based on duty and fairness) a world in which mods had run the election on time.
- False. Whatever PRO or CON or Mods or VOTERS preference might be is irrelevant to the YES or NO question of whether Mods did the election as they were required to do by the MEEP or whether they did something different. Since PRO and CON and Mods and VOTERS all agree that Mods did something different than the MEEP, neglect is established and VOTERS must find for PRO.
both of which read as personal grievances.
- OBJECTION: PRO explained first and foremost that he has little investment in the election's outcome and PRO expects to be taken at his word regarding his own personal outlook.
The election was a proof of concept because it was the first on the site. It is, necessarily, a test/trial run
- Moderators need to make up their mind. Either MEEPS are binding referenda as stated in the MODERATION OVERVIEW or some MEEPs are merely rough drafts that Mods are at liberty to formalize as they run into problems.
- Whatever Mods decide in the future, VOTERS should note that only the "MEEPS are binding referenda" was in place at the time of the election and only that standard may fairly apply to Mods conduct.
- If Moderators decide that some concept are not proved and wish to make changes, then Mods are obligated to present those changes back to DebateArt and NOT create a last minute set of ad-hoc rules, particularly as a correction to Moderators' neglect in the application of those rules rather than any shortcoming found in the rules themselves.