Instigator / Pro
8
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Topic
#3305
Oromagi's 100th debate: The MODERATION TEAM NEGLECTED their DUTY to FAIRLY SUPERVISE the FIRST DART PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION (@whiteflame)
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
whiteflame
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
14
1724
rating
27
debates
88.89%
won
Description
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."
(Wiktionary)
DUTY shall be defined as a noun meaning "The state of being at work and responsible for or doing a particular task."
(Wiktionary)
FAIRLY shall be defined as an adverb meaning "Honestly; properly."
(Wiktionary)
SUPERVISE shall be defined as a verb meaning "To oversee or direct a task or organization."
(Wiktionary)
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.
(https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6725-meep-reformed-ban-policy-and-debateart-president?)
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
Round 1
Pro
#1
Thx, Whiteflame!
THBT: The MODERATION TEAM NEGLECTED their DUTY to FAIRLY SUPERVISE the FIRST DART PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
NOTE to VOTERS: please be advised that this debate is disinterested in the dramas and personalities of the FIRST DART PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. It's author voted against the MEEP that authorized that election and has little enough investment in that election's outcome. The question before us is: Didn't Moderators fail to enforce the election rules as written in the SEPT '21 MEEP and as Mods are bound to by DART's published Terms of Service?
ARG1:
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.
- P1
- 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.
- P2
- 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"
- C1
- 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.
ARG2:
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
- P1
- ELECTION TAMPERING is defined by the Mod team as "recruiting people outside the site to vote for a certain candidate"
- P2
- "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:
- Airmaxfan2000
- who was quickly banned as a multi-account. Who's multi-account is not stated although the account name does indicate one possible clue.
- Airmaxgoon1994
- 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."
- C2
- 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.
ARG3:
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
- P1
- 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.
- P2
- 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?
- C3
- 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.
CONCLUSION:
- 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.
I look forward to CON's round ONE reply.
Con
#2
Saying this up front: this is my long round. I will endeavor to keep future rounds short, but as I'm splitting this round between my case and rebuttal, there was a good deal to cover. Also, I don’t feel the need to introduce additional sources this round, as my opponent has been gracious enough to furnish the relevant ones. Also also, I'm going to avoid personalizing this, hence I'll stick to the third person when referencing moderation despite personally heading up moderation.
Burdens Analysis
The burdens in the description are agreed but lacking. To demonstrate that moderation "neglected their duties to oversee a free and fair election", Pro must show both of the following:
1) There was a clear course of action that both could have been followed and, if it had, would have upheld the duties of moderation (i.e. there must be a bar that moderation could feasibly have reached that would have ensured the mods were dutiful)
2) That moderation, in taking a distinct course of action, neglected their duties (i.e. the actions the mods took fell some distance below that bar)
By contrast, to show that moderation "carried out their election duties properly", my burden is to show that the actions moderation took upheld their duties. If voters should conclude that it is unclear what the best course of action was during the election, or that there was no obviously better choice, then moderation necessarily carried out their election duties properly.
Just one contention from me:
C1: Paramount Duties
As Pro correctly stated, this was the first DART presidential election and, thus, a proof of concept. The very fact of the MEEP shows that the rules and standards for said election were in flux, with the MEEP providing a baseline. The essential goals of any set of rules chosen were to ensure that the election was both representative of those who were actively interested in participating (both as voters and as candidates) and that the results of said election could be trusted.
In both respects, moderation upheld their duties. Candidates were given ample time (more time than initially promised) to build and defend their platforms in open discussions. Candidates actively used this extra time to engage in more extensive discussion with voters, compare themselves with other candidates, and, in some cases, end their campaigns. Voters were given ample time to see those platforms and ask questions of the candidates. The resulting election showcased extensive participation DA members, with 43 voters and a gap of 8 between the leading candidates, more than sufficient for all parties involved to accept the outcome.
Ensuring this would have been uncertain had the election run on time. The head mod in charge at the time of the MEEP, MisterChris, stepped down before the election, which was run by other moderators. The schedule set by the former head moderator in advance of the election, which necessarily was set without the ability to fully anticipate scheduling conflicts, would not have allowed for active moderator supervision during said election. Life doesn’t always conform to expectations. In a perfect world, there would be no conflict between time spent on the site and time spent off of it, but this is not a perfect world. If this is what resulted, that failure would have stood as the single greatest dereliction of duty for moderation, yielding an outcome that may have called the whole election into question for a substantial portion of active membership and shaking confidence both in the president and in moderation, thus neutering the capacity of the president to function as an intermediary between membership and moderation.
Onto rebuttals. I’ll start with an overview:
OV1
Pro does not set any standards for the key terms in the resolution, including what constitutes neglect of duty and what establishes a lack of fair supervision. The terms are defined, yet Pro does not define a brink to establish when moderators are no longer behaving responsibly (as his definition for “duty” requires), nor when proper/honest etiquette has not been met (as his definition for “fairly” requires). He also provides no mechanism for weighing duties against one another, and as such, provides no means by which to evaluate neglect across all the duties of moderation. Without this, at best, he can establish neglect of duty for individual duties, which would not satisfy the resolution, as the resolution requires a holistic evaluation of moderation's duties before, during and after this election and not simply cherry-picking individual onuses and evaluating them in a vacuum.
OV2
Pro’s arguments rely on the assumption that, if moderation changes acts in a way that bucks previous trends or self-imposed limitations/standards, then moderation has failed in their duty and have not acted fairly in those instances. Pro even cites established standards for moderator discretion, but then treats general exceptions to that discretion as absolute in all details. To him, any statements made by moderation and any elements of a MEEP are functionally immutable and must be implemented to the letter. Con disagrees. As with any referendum, circumstances change, whether they regard personal conflicts or recognition of deficits within the MEEP itself. Moderation necessarily must be able to implement changes to fulfill their duty to the site. Moderation aims to address deficits in their language and actions where they see them. Discretion exists largely for that purpose: to address unanticipated issues or those too complex to reasonably establish in writing. Any instance in which moderation recognizes those deficits and accounts for them is, in fact, upholding their duty and acting fairly, and failing to do so is neglectful.
Rebuttals
ARG1
Pro doesn’t establish that there was a duty to follow the cited MEEP to the letter – the quote that “MEEPs are binding referenda” is distinct from "every aspect of a MEEP must be followed regardless of changing circumstances." He doesn’t establish that doing so would have even been preferable, as this argument has no impact. This argument hardly even relates to the definitions of the central terms; Pro even cites the post where the changes were publicly stated, confirming that SupaDudz took responsibility for the delay in the process, both honestly and properly addressing it. Being two days later than the initially proposed start of the election doesn’t change that.
And yet, 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, and to determine whether moderation best meets its duties and is at its most fair when it always treats referenda as absolute. Pro has failed to argue that either is true, so even if you buy his arguments, he fails to affirm the resolution.
ARG2
On the point of preventing election tampering, turn this against Pro. He argues that moderation should have stuck to the specific timeframe of the MEEP, but this would have resigned moderation to limited capacities for supervise said election. As such, any mod intervention would have been delayed or absent if the timeframe was enforced.
On the vote in question, Pro establishes no impact to keeping this particular vote, and given the difference in vote totals (1 vote removal does not erase an 8 vote difference), there is none.
Pro calls the vote “election tampering,” but does not support that assessment. The Airmaxgoon1994 account and the Airmaxfan2000account share an IP address and a device, hence one was banned, and its vote not counted. Neither shares an IP address or device with another member. So, let’s read that rule again, in full:
"Election tampering (which is defined as recruiting people outside the site to vote for a certain candidate) is illegal and WILL result in the votes used by manipulation to be disqualified"
The vote cast to manipulate the outcome via multi-accounting (e.g. the banned account) were disqualified. Pro acknowledges and cites this. The other account was afforded a vote just like anyone else. Anyone was welcome to vote – as such, issues regarding the activity of said account before, during and after the election are irrelevant.
ARG3
Pro excoriates moderation for not having addressed a future concern. Clarification of these timeframes would be helpful, but as Airmax1227 is set to remain in office for many more months, Pro does not explain why moderation must already have clarified them. Further, Pro provides a solution to this problem that could occur any time before Airmax1227’s term ends: a future MEEP. Pro never establishes why that MEEP must already have been run for moderation to fulfill their duties. Pro also never impacts this point.
Finally, cross-apply my arguments about discretion, as they apply particularly well on points about what moderation should do in the future.
Back over to Pro.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Thx, Whiteflame!
BOP:
- 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
CON1:
- Please document all instances where Mods claimed PROOF of CONCEPT prior to the election.
- Necessarily, we will disregard any such claims during or after Dec 1st.
- PROOF itself means "test" or "trial" run, and therefore unofficial.
- PROOF OF CONCEPT is by definition incomplete, a pilot process and there unofficial.
- 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.
OV1
- False, the DART TERMS of SERVICE and the MEEPs as written and enforced by the Mod team set the standards against which Mods failed.
OV2
- 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
ARG1:
- Pro doesn’t establish that there was a duty to follow the cited MEEP to the letter....
- False
- 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
ARG2:
- 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.
ARG3:
Pro excoriates mods for not having addressed a future concern.
- False.
- 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.
I look forward to CON's round TWO reply
Con
#4
Thanks, Pro.
Pro has made two major errors and used semantics to avoid engaging in the central debate.
1. Burdens
Pro concedes my burdens analysis and much of my overviews. By setting the MEEP as his sole metric for affirming the resolution, he neglects the reality of competing duties, offering no mechanism by which to weigh them. Summarizing what I said in R1, Pro cannot affirm the resolution by cherry-picking individual onuses and evaluating them in a vacuum. Yes, that includes the MEEP. Pro has set an untenable bar, asserting that it is the sole set of duties that matter in this debate. Even if Pro proves that moderation failed to uphold the MEEP, he has not met his burden.
Pro also presents a set of “what if” scenarios that each come with false assumptions. Pro claims that the mods could have known every future conflict in advance, though he only addresses Supa’s finals. Pro believes that this is the sole source of moderations’ conflicts. Pro doesn’t support this, and it is false. Pro even quotes Supa saying that the whole moderation team had hectic schedules. He asserts that he knows every mod’s personal reasons why they did not initiate the election sooner, relying solely on Supa’s statements. Yet two of his scenarios rely on that personal knowledge: starting on the 24th and holding a MEEP beforehand (requiring careful writing, moderation of the voting process, and its own set of implementations). Pro also argues that mods could have held the election and moderated the votes later, though having an ongoing election where people see active instances of fraud and don’t see them addressed would likely have inflamed tensions, especially given the lack of a timeframe for correction, I don’t see how this would have been better.
2. Weighing Duties
Twice in the previous round, Pro questions why we would consider preference. I am referring to what voters should prefer. 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. Yet, Pro’s impact analysis showcases only the duties Pro prefers. Aside from voter fraud, Pro’s Arg 1 impact is that mods weren’t fair and honest, and Pro’s Arg 3 impact is “the whiff of corruption,” both of which read as personal grievances. The former isn’t an impact, since Pro doesn’t examine how it meaningfully affects site activity while simultaneously dismissing SupaDudz’s apology as evidence of fairness and honesty on the basis that it was sub-optimal. The latter is based entirely on potential abuses by moderation that could, maybe, possibly happen at some point in the future. His only present “impact” is uncertainty, which is neither an impact nor does it establish negligence. Mods also have the duty to fully analyze this election and to carefully write up and present MEEPs for future elections based on that analysis, yet Pro’s argument would implicate them as negligent for not immediately clarifying every element of the next election after this one ended.
All of Pro’s impacts are speculative and based entirely on potential abuses. Arg 2 relies on proving voter fraud occurred, but I never “confirm[ed] that at least one person came from outside the site”. I confirmed that the two voters in question were on the same IP address, and one of those voters was banned. Pro is speculating that the remaining voter was recruited off-site. He additionally speculates that the username of said voter gives him/her away, yet neither his definition of “goon” nor the voter’s activity demonstrate that. Pro also concedes that voting was open to anyone, regardless of their number of posts.
3. Semantics vs. The Actual Argument
Much of the rest of Pro’s argument is semantic in nature, and not the good kind.
The election was a proof of concept because it was the first on the site. It is, necessarily, a test/trial run. The fact that mods took some cues from the HoF process doesn’t make it any less so. Pro’s second link doesn’t work, but none of the definitions I can find set “proof of concept” as mutually exclusive from “official.” The election was official. As for binding, the question is whether binding mods to every word of the MEEP isn’t necessarily the most dutiful choice. Pro doesn’t support that.
This was the first time going through an election on this site. Changes would necessarily have to be made to the process to address deficits. Pro thinks it would have been more dutiful for the mods to do nothing in the moment and address any problems they saw with the MEEP’s implementation in future elections. Acting in the present to ensure active mod supervision was necessary to yield greater confidence in site leadership. The introduction of additional time for interactions between candidates and voters improved the process. Pro never challenges that these impacts affect the paramount duties of moderation, nor does he challenge discretion as a tool necessary to ensure those duties are met. He says that it’s unfair for mods to use discretion to address problems they created, which a) assumes that the mods have absolute control over their schedules, b) holds mods to a standard of perfection that is impossible to meet, and c) doesn’t weigh that loss of fairness against the benefits of said discretion. And for all he says that starting the election late “renders any election… untrustworthy”, Pro provides no indicators to assess that this was a concern or that it had any impact on voters/members going forward. His argument ranges from speculative to personal grievances, neither of which have any substantial impact on this debate.
Back to Pro for the final round.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Thx, Whiteflame!
BOP:
Pro concedes my burdens analysis and much of my overviews.
No, that's quite wrong.
- 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.
2. Weighing Duties
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.
3. Semantics vs. The Actual Argument
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.
CONCLUSION
The terms of this debate do not require any condemnation or remedial action. VOTERS evaluation of our Moderation as moderators has nothing to do with our question here. The ONLY question before us is: Didn't Moderators fail to enforce the election rules as written in the SEPT '21 MEEP and as Mods are bound to by DART's published Terms of Service?
Since everybody agrees the answer is yes, VOTERS must VOTE PRO.
Thanks to Whiteflame for agreeing to this debate and thanks to VOTERS for their kind consideration!
Con
#6
One last thank you to Oro. This isn't the debate I wanted us to have, but I've enjoyed it nonetheless. Also, thank you to any voters who put in the time and energy to read this far and consider both sides.
I’ve made a habit of asking questions in the final round as a means of organizing my thoughts. I’ll be consistent here, but my questions are simpler than usual.
What is the topic?
What are the burdens?
Yes. Seriously.
1. The Topic
The topic is: THBT the MODERATION TEAM NEGLECTED their DUTY to FAIRLY SUPERVISE the FIRST DART PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. While we are on the same page about most of these terms (more on that in the conclusion), Pro limits the debate to the MEEP on two bases: it is codified that MEEPs are binding referenda, and that his definition of “the FIRST DART PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION” states that the MEEP authorized the election. The former is not a reason to prefer his argument nor does it preclude arguments about other aspects of the election; being codified does not inherently make a duty more important.
As for the latter, first, this is a brand-new argument. I argued that Pro was cherry-picking onuses in R1, and this is his first response to that point. Second, Pro’s own definition designates the election itself and provides the MEEP as a distinguishing characteristic, not as a limiting principle for evaluation. Pointing out that it's part of the definition doesn't establish that this debate involves no other aspects of the election. Third, an election is more than just the processes that authorized it. I know this may come as a shock, but an election involves what occurred during the election. As such, the thesis of this debate cannot be solely defined by the MEEP. It was the thesis of Pro’s arguments, which he is trying to justify post hoc, but it is not and has never been the thesis of this debate, which encompasses the entire election.
2. Burdens
Pro’s only response to my burdens analysis has been dismissal based on restricting the debate to the MEEP, which I’ve already refuted. My burdens analysis stands unrefuted. Just to refresh your memory:
Pro must have shown that another possible course of action would have been preferable for upholding mod duties and that mods, in taking a distinct course of action, neglected their duties.
Con must have shown that the actions mods took upheld their duties. If voters should conclude that it is unclear what the best course of action was during the election, or that there was no clearly better choice, then mods necessarily carried out their election duties properly.
So, how well do we meet these?
Despite already having argued about the impetus behind mod choices in both prior rounds, Pro suddenly deems that point irrelevant. The reasons for action/inaction on the part of the mods are relevant. Pro’s case relies almost entirely on neglect as an impact, which implies that mods made the choice not to act. Pro had to show that mods both could and should have acted/reacted differently. Yet, Pro concedes that external factors played a role in mod availability and that some of those factors were unpredictable. Thus, he concedes that the alternative options he presented were not viable (external, unpredictable factors precluded mod choice), and thus fails to meet his burden.
Pro also concedes my weighing analysis. Pro’s framing of the debate as a “YES or NO question” is a black-or-white fallacy because the set of duties is wider than the MEEP. A “yes/no” answer to whether mods successfully upheld single duty cannot affirm or negate the resolution, so as long as neither side upholds every single mod duty, comparing the importance of mod duties is required. Yet, none of Pro’s advantages have substantial impact. He uses fluff terms like “whiff of corruption” and “uncertainty” that barely imply an impact, both relying on the strength of potential impacts that by definition have not happened yet, and puts it to the voters to accept completely unjustified impacts like voter fraud, which remains entirely speculative. That is why his impacts read as personal grievances: he never justifies why voters should care about them. Contrast that with my conceded impacts. Discretion as a tool for addressing problems before and during the election ensures greater confidence in both mod and presidential leadership. Extending the duration of the campaign process is entirely positive. These actual, tangible impacts outweigh Pro's potential and speculative impacts, or at the very least confound them enough to muddle a case that he needed to win outright.
Conclusion
I’ve emphasized Pro’s definitions of “duty” and “fairly” throughout this debate. It is responsible to recognize and address impediments to effective moderation. Addressing those limitations and their effects in a public statement is both honest and proper. Circumstances being sub-optimal does not make these responses less honest and proper. Pro’s interpretation of what would have been an optimal response would, if implemented, have yielded the very irresponsibility that he decries.
As for Pro’s definition of the election, I’ve already shown that it’s overly restrictive, but even if you buy that it restricts this debate to the MEEP and how well mods upheld it, the discretion mods use to implement the MEEP still matters. Pro believes codified rules that apply to mods are the only basis for establishing mod duties, and though he is wrong, I will humor him for a moment. He cited the Moderation Overview early in this debate, which has a section on MEEPs that ends with a statement about the tenability of MEEPs affecting their implementation. This codifies two truths about MEEPs: their implementation must be affected by external factors, and discretion must be used to evaluate tenability. Best laid plans can and will go wrong in unpredictable ways for unpredictable reasons. That is the reason why this election was a proof of concept: find kinks in the process and fix them for this and future elections. Whether or not it is codified, it is an inherent and paramount duty for mods to ensure confidence in the results of an election, without which the position of the president, and thus the MEEP itself, is meaningless.
Voters, this is a straightforward decision. If you conclude that a more dutiful mod is one who is absolutely tied to every detail of a MEEP because it exists in written form and results from a referendum, vote Pro. If you conclude that it is more dutiful to use mod discretion, a tool used by mods in every other facet of moderation, to address election issues that neither mods nor the MEEP can predict, or if you find it difficult to conclude definitively one way or the other, vote Con.
Citation:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
As I am not part of the defined mod team, nor am I mentioned in the debate, nor do I care that much about the election, I’ll try to review this… I’ll outright state that I would prefer to be voting in favor of pro on this (it’d be great optics), but I would have to grasp at a lot of straws to try to justify that outcome.
Pro did manage to demonstrate that a MEEP was not honored to the letter. Were the resolution MEEP centric, he probably would have won. As the resolution was election centric, with a focus on fairness highlighted in the resolution, ensuring a fair election becomes more important to consideration in this debate than fine print on a different document.
ARG1: election not carried out precisely as planned.
Pro shows that the election started late, with a shortage on communication, and a modified voting window.
Con counters this with his “paramount duties” contention. He argues that the goal was a representative election with a trusted outcome, and that rescheduling it allowed such to occur. He also implicitly passes blame onto a previous moderator who picked a time window which did not work for the ones supervising it, which defangs some potential argument lines. His main point here seems to be that the real neglect would have been in just letting the election just run itself on the timetable originally planned.
In R2 this starts to overlap with Burdens Analysis.
Pro dismisses if the delay improved the outcome, to repeats and repeats that the election did not occur precisely when originally planned. There’s something about one president over another due to moderation supervision (honestly not sure where he was going with this, as the demonstrated cheating was 1 vote; possibly 2 had an account not been banned), and a declaration that whiteflame and Supadudz disrespected everyone by delaying; and the delay was akin to killing a dog by locking it in a hot car…
Con points out that an unsupervised election might have been ripe with obviously bad votes and correcting them after the fact would leave massive damage to the confidence of the election as it was ongoing. His case is clearly that it was fairer to delay so as to supervise.
Pro insists the better outcome doesn’t matter; it should have just been done when originally scheduled. He repeats that a whole MEEP should have been done to authorize to the delay, and further blames mods for the very existence of the account that was banned.
ARG2: fake votes
Pro seems to infer that Airmax multi-accounted to vote for himself. He concludes that mod team is negligent for doing nothing about it (even allowing a vote from it to stand).
Con cites that it was only 1 questionable vote, with a weighted difference of 8 votes, making the one have no significant impact; and further demonstrates that moderators did ban a multi-account preventing more.
Pro misses that a multi-account was banned, and repeats that nothing was done.
ARG3: future slippery slope
Pro argued that the mod team committed an unauthorized intervention and are now empowered to change the length of presidencies at will, which is self-evidently unfair.
Con counters that a future referendum can handle this, which somewhat misses the main complaint that referendums are not honored to the letter.
Pro repeats his uncertainty point and accuses the moderation team of disliking the candidates so falsifying the election results (this really could have done with some support. If warranted, it would have easily won the debate).
Con denies that uncertainty is an impact (it is), and defends against the corruption citing pro’s own evidence of Supadudz apologizing which shows integrity (“honesty” being his direct word choice, likely due to the definitions in the debate description). He further reiterates that “greater confidence” was achieved the delay for supervision (which while admitting uncertainty is an impact, does refute it well).
Burdens Analysis
Con argues that pro must demonstrate what should have been done. Which he has already strongly; but it would be nice to have it clarified from pro for precisely what the election should have looked like.
Pro says that the election should have either done another MEEP to reschedule, or proceeded without moderation involvement until after the fact.
Con points out the existence of competing duties. Harming himself slightly he points out that only Supadudz’s reason for delay was cited, with whiteflame’s unknown… As he is whiteflame, this question of doubt falls against him.
With pro explicitly refusing to show how his desired course of action would have been better, it’s hard to weight the election outcome as favorable to his case.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
RDF In comments. Neither had bad sources, grammar nor conduct.
"FIrst you say in "no one was a legitimate candidate until the announcement was made and they made the official announcement and contacted with me" in POST #10"
now you say you wish somebody had carried on with this election in your absence."
Incorrect, they didn't have to PM me if they were interested, but I wanted to see if people were interested to do as such by PM'ing me so we can restructure the election. I NEVER stated that contacted me WAS a REQUIREMENT
I stated I wish someone had carried on because this situation could've been avoided, and avoiding situations like this is better than having to defend my actions over what I think is a clear overreaction and not a big deal
"FIrst you say in POST #10 "The process of delaying gave everyone the opportunity to see their was an opportunity to run for an election coming up, versus being blindsided"
now you say weren't dissatisfied with the way the legitimate campaign had been run.
You can't even keep your story straight in these comments."
Again, you are twisting my words. I am arguing that it would not be fair to leave others blindsided when they wanted to run because no announcement was made announcing as such.
I was not dissatisfied but had other commitments I had to commit to. The fact you want me to resign for having other commitments is a blatant overreaction and uncalled for. I'm assuming you went to university and know how finals go? You don't have time for all that stuff and need to put full focus in studies. It was made very clear on the 6th that I am going to work things out. I have to study, I have to put that first over anything. That's how life works. Maybe we MEEP the election dates so it is more adequate to my timing for the future. My absence for those days was informed and well needed.
My goal for election was free and fair. Anyone was allowed to vote and it didn't effect any of the free part.
"This is false. We did start the campaign on Dec 1st and were conducting that campaign in accordance with the rules set out by MIsterChris and were on the FINAL DAY of that correctly conducted campaign when you and mods decided with zero democratic consultation that you didn't like the results of our work during your absence and decided to wipe out those results with haste."
So your saying I published that announcement the last day of campaigning, but this is simply not true.
The MEEP states, "The first three weeks of December will be dedicated to optional campaigning"
That would mean the campaign schedule would be Nov 29-December 19th. When you did not see a thread to vote on the 20th, did you not make the assumption the election was delayed, given that the voting process was a whole week? Your argument that I delayed it on the last day is simply not true, because according to the MEEP, the voting period would be from December 20th-24th. When the announcement came on the last day of voting, you didn't assume that the election was delayed? You are a smart person oromagi, no doubt.
My experience is that whiteflame is a man of his word and he has already tentatively accepted, albeit with reservations.
"if you want to have this, we can do it, even if it isn't what I'd like to do. I won't be able to start yet (thanks for the 2 week acceptance period), but I should be able to accept next week."
whiteflame isn't gonna accept this, he's like you, skulking around afraid to lose rating.
Why is the max character per Round so low
Well, I'm just looking to establish election negligence as an objective fact regarding the First DART Presidential election. I think that can be done just using SupaDudz's own testimony and I don't think we need to dive deep into personalities or the semantics of fairness. I just want a chance to speak one truth to power: that the powers that be fucked up their responsibilities to oversee this election and their assertion that they can correct those fuckups by disregarding and indeed abusing the majority will of DART with the misuse of their authority as moderators is both moderation in bad faith and an offense to the democratic spirit necessary to any worthwhile debate site.
and is this debate only for Whiteflame?
Whiteflame reserved my 100th debate but I'd be happy to debate the topic with others in future, sure.
The bad guys have always followed the laws and the good guys decided they were better than the laws.
That's pretty child-like thinking. So Stephen Paddock must be a good guy because he broke the rules against machine-gunning down a musical festival.
Nazis followed the rules.
That's quite ignorant of history. The NAZIs tried to overthrow the established rule of law in the Beer Hall Putsch. When the NAZIs took over, they made their own rule of law, that stripped millions of humans of the right to life or liberty. Kristallnacht was a legal, government endorsed enterprise but was there any rational or constitutional basis? The NAZI's fucked the established rule of law in the neck after beheading it. The NAZI's trashed the Treaty of Versailles and every international agreement promised by Germany as a condition of ending WWI. The NAZI's reneged on billions of dollars of US loans, essentially making America the payer of Germany's war reparations. The truth is that NAZI Germany was probably the most outlaw state in Europe since the chaos of the 13th Century.
Picard was a bitch
You're entitled to your opinion but I'll assume you didn't really get much from the show if this is your take away.
The ideal is when I think of the "great man" in philosophical terms,
Yeah, I'm an American. Fuck your Great Man.
whiteflame asked to be my opponent for my 100th debate more than two years ago. Ramshutu asked to be my 101st. SupaDudz still owes me a debate on Roman mythology vs. Greek Mythology that he had to stop halfway through, but if Sup is willing to wait until those obligations are fulfilled I'd be happy to debate him on his conduct here. Obviously, I am not impressed with Dudz' conduct in this election or his sense of what constitutes a free and fair election. Free and fair elections never change the rules on the last day of the campaign, period.
How can I be dissatisfied with activity levels when I was not even on the site. Oro, if you do not believe, I will literally send a screenshot of my finals schedule to prove to you
Since your absence during the election is an important part of my argument that you neglected your duty to run that election, I will take those snapshots of evidence of your neglect, with thanks.
that I was not dissatisfied with activity, but had other commitments that took priority
FIrst you say in "no one was a legitimate candidate until the announcement was made and they made the official announcement and contacted with me" in POST #10"
now you say you wish somebody had carried on with this election in your absence.
FIrst you say in POST #10 "The process of delaying gave everyone the opportunity to see their was an opportunity to run for an election coming up, versus being blindsided"
now you say weren't dissatisfied with the way the legitimate campaign had been run.
You can't even keep your story straight in these comments.
I would've hoped that during my absence, someone would start the campaign right and help manage it while I was under finals, but that didn't occur and as a result, the times were changed.
This is false. We did start the campaign on Dec 1st and were conducting that campaign in accordance with the rules set out by MIsterChris and were on the FINAL DAY of that correctly conducted campaign when you and mods decided with zero democratic consultation that you didn't like the results of our work during your absence and decided to wipe out those results with haste.
Why is the max character per Round so low and is this debate only for Whiteflame?
Who tf cares lkl
The bad guys have always followed the laws and the good guys decided they were better than the laws. That's how the underground railroad worked. It's how The United States broke off from the persecution of the UK. All of our heros are rule breakers. Ghandi broke laws.
Nazis followed the rules. The killing fields occurred because people followed the rules of their leader. The people who break the laws of North Korea by helping It's citizens escape are heros.
You won't see people who are heroic as slaves to the laws.
Also Picard had this kantian view that just is stupid. The show was good because of showing how it dealt with great philosophical problems, but Picard was a bitch, and the show was worse when it lost lieutenant Yar.. he was brave when it came to dealing with existential threats to his and his crews existence, but to bow down to authority like that is unacceptable.
To be fair also, now that I used that example of Kirk, I am thinking of all kinds of times where Picard broke rules, and did disrespect authority. The ideal is when I think of the "great man" in philosophical terms, Kirk more easily fits it. Just as Ghandi more easily fits this great man. All heros do, and the world would lose heros if we decided that American laws were superior to American heros.
Why don't you two just debate - you've pretty much already had a miny one in the comment sections.
"SupaDudz's personal sense of dissatisfaction with the activity levels of the campaign overrule the lawful conduct of the many MEEP-abiding campaigners"
How can I be dissatisfied with activity levels when I was not even on the site. Oro, if you do not believe, I will literally send a screenshot of my finals schedule to prove to you that I was not dissatisfied with activity, but had other commitments that took priority
Kirk would have actually given a shit about the prime directive, he would have had very little positive impact.
Picard cared deeply about the Prime Directive and his galactic impact far outstripped Kirk’s.
I don't want to throw anyone under the bus, that wasn't my intent to do as such when the process. I would've hoped that during my absence, someone would start the campaign right and help manage it while I was under finals, but that didn't occur and as a result, the times were changed. As Wylted said, IRL stuff occurs
I get your position better now.
Asking people to please check in, to make your job easier, is different than commanding them to check in.
I have no reason to care whether candidates checked in with SupaDudz or not. He is using that process as one reason that the election had not yet legitimately started and as you say, that was a nothing requirement that people were free to ignore. Therefore, Supa may not use the lack of such action as a reason to re-write the election rules on the last day of campaigning.
"This goes back to the philosophical disagreement.
That's correct: democracy vs.autocracy. Is SupaDudz greater than DART or is DART greater than SupaDudz"
This is where the great man theory comes in. If kirk would have actually given a shit about the prime directive, he would have had very little positive impact.
"If candidates are interested in running please shoot a DM about it."
"This brand new "check in with SupaDudz first" rule is not within the scope of the MEEP and is a new authority over the election asserted only by you. Why?"
Asking people to please check in, to make your job easier, is different than commanding them to check in.
I just noticed the series of posts between you and Supa before I posted this (I've had the page up and just reloaded). I haven't read any of your back and forth, so this is just my response to the challenge and engages with the first few responses you received in the comments.
Honestly... this is the kind of debate I dislike the most.
Looking at the wording of it, we're going to be discussing what "duty" and "fairly" mean in this context for most of each round. Hell, I'd be surprised if we spend more than a single round discussing what actually happened, who did it and why, so this debate is going to be almost entirely semantic. Even with all the definitions accepted as is, the terminology is vague enough that we're going to be spending the vast majority of our time addressing what actions demonstrate responsibility or lack thereof and what constitutes what is proper.
Beyond that, as RM has already suggested in the comments, people have already made up their minds about how they view our duties and whether we met them. I had hoped that our debate would be more of an opportunity for us to engage on an issue that would be more than just a referendum on mod behaviors and would allow us to dig deep into a topic where the arguments weren't already blatantly obvious and the sides not pre-drawn.
All that being said, if you want to have this, we can do it, even if it isn't what I'd like to do. I won't be able to start yet (thanks for the 2 week acceptance period), but I should be able to accept next week. If you have ideas on ways to reduce how much of this debate will be semantic, I would be happy to discuss them.
Regular DARTers were totally aware that the election was in progress. We had voted on it in September, after all, and talked about it on Dec 1st and some of us even had announced candidacies and endorsements. You did not offer any correction to all of this activity (as we've established, you weren't around much) but let it all proceed without any amendment or explanation until the last day of campaigning, when the outcome of the election appeared to be essentially determined. Only the, a not during the quiet weeks of the entire campaign does SupaDudz's personal sense of dissatisfaction with the activity levels of the campaign overrule the lawful conduct of the many MEEP-abiding campaigners. I call stinky bullshit, SupaDudz. You missed weeks of opportunities to correct the activity levels of the campaign and neglected the responsibilities you suddenly assert on the final day of campaigning. You screwed up but that no reason to change the outcome of the election.
Supa may have thought we had to check in because I did. I did only to confirm my eligibility to run. The rules had some gray areas and I didn't know if I was eligible.
I can tell you, that the rules were not followed when it came to the election, on the parts of the mods.
I can tell you that it is not acceptable that the reasons are "for the better of the community". Reason being is you can do anything and cite that as the reason. Just like why we shouldn't let the government overstep the law for the good of the community in terms of covid19. If they haven't overstepped the law, than the bill of rights has let us down. I assume knowing oromagi's stance on covid mandates and his philosophically opposing stance on moderation, it will be I threshing to see his cognitive dissonance at play
With that said. The mods have a life hopefully and probably more important shit to do other than impose rules in a loose fashion.
And it wasn't a rule. You still could run even if you do not check in
"During the designated campaigning period, users may advocate election for themselves or others by doing any of the following:
Within any three day window, creating at most ONE non-spam campaign-related forum thread or debate. Offering non-spam contributions to the campaign-related forum threads or debates of others. Changing their profile picture or user biography."
"This brand new "check in with SupaDudz first" rule is not within the scope of the MEEP and is a new authority over the election asserted only by you. Why?"
The check in rule did not prohibit you from winning, I wanted to gage how many people were running so I can either make the adequate change OR keep the changes
I mean, to a degree, but you are acting like what I did was damaging, I would disagree. Example, If I were to make a statement to say, "Ok I'm gonna ban all people who doxxes someone," when the MEEP says its allowed, would you say that's beneficial?
I agree with you and frankily I have been very democratic as my time here, but like leaders in the past, even ones you look up to like Obama, have made executive orders to benefit the country, thus overstepping their technical power
If candidates are interested in running please shoot a DM about it.
Why? The MEEP said nothing about checking in with Mods
"During the designated campaigning period, users may advocate election for themselves or others by doing any of the following:
Within any three day window, creating at most ONE non-spam campaign-related forum thread or debate. Offering non-spam contributions to the campaign-related forum threads or debates of others. Changing their profile picture or user biography."
This brand new "check in with SupaDudz first" rule is not within the scope of the MEEP and is a new authority over the election asserted only by you. Why?
This goes back to the philosophical disagreement.
That's correct: democracy vs.autocracy. Is SupaDudz greater than DART or is DART greater than SupaDudz?
In conclusion, I assess the decision to move the election on two standards
1. Did the decision promote fairness to a MAJORITY of people on DART? Yes
Reasoning: People were informed that they could run publicly at that time through the announcement and had adequate time to prepare a campaign
2. Did moderation act in a way to RIG a certain campaign? No
Reasoning: Everyone had the same amount of time as well
3. Did a mod commit a COC violation? No
In conclusion, the decision to move the time did not negatively effect the election
"If you thought there should be some kind of Mod Announcement to start the thing, then the established rule of law was that you were obligated to make that Mod Announcement on Dec. 1. The fact that you don't understand that is disqualifying.
You were already deep into the election and still re-affirming the timeline of that election as late as Dec 6th. Then you there are no posts from you from 9 days. Well, of course people get busy but you were clearly way beyond any reasonable point in the electoral process where you were should not feel constrained from re-writing the rules, especially re-writing rules enforced by democratic MEEPs. Any mod qualified to do the job would recognize your last-minute re-writes as a desperate violation of the democratic spirit of debate and of this website. We want mods who feel constrained by our MEEPs."
This goes back to the philosophical disagreement. Moderation discretion is used alongside the MEEP. The times of the OFFICIAL campaign were DELAYED, not EXTENDED, meaning no one was a legitimate candidate until the announcement was made and they made the official announcement and contacted with me. Everyone who did as such contacted me personally and had their names in until they dropped their name. No one was denied because of the date change, no one unfairly won because of the date change. Again, every MEEP is used for mods to be guided by, but MOD DISCRETION always prevails. Granted it rarely happens, but this is a case where it did. Our whole COC states that mod discretion is used for any case as such, period.
"On Dec 6th, when you re-published the rules of the election including the rule that the election began on Dec 1st, if you really believed then that some kind of announcement was needed to start the election than you should have noticed that you were publishing conflicting information when you re-asserted that the election began on Dec. 1st, right? This means that you changed your mind about when the election started sometime between Dec 6th and Dec 24th. You did not feel the need to make an announcement on Dec. 1st through Dec 6th.
"And then you didn't feel the need to post at all for nine days. Only on the last day of campaigning and just before voting began did you decide that the voting process needed a whole bunch of correction. Ask yourself objectively, isn't such a last second change inherently so subject to corrupt action that such a practice is avoided everywhere by everyone that cares that elections be free and fair? You could only make that last minute change because you did not care whether this election was free or fair. And that should be a disqualifying trait in any election official."
The following is what I said...
"All rules relating to the president are in such document: If candidates are interested in running please shoot a DM about it. I am currently in the midst of finals and also helping on the foundation/startup of an app. I will try to get it sorted once I am done with my semester.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PIsh9UDic938MMM3YX-H1nn15H7OriOvfOSFigXXsX0/edit"
Oro, I wasn't posting because I had more important things to attend to, like, my classes and finals. I didn't get off til the 17th. I didn't post because I had finals and was more focused on such. I am not going to throw my team under the bus, but they were very well aware of my absence in this time. People have other commits as well which they need to focus their time more into than other things.
Then I came home, where the process was finished and set up. However it was the holidays and I believed it would be better to start the campaign after Christmas time and such for FAIRNESS with activity.
"Ask yourself objectively, isn't such a last second change inherently so subject to corrupt action that such a practice is avoided everywhere by everyone that cares that elections be free and fair? You could only make that last minute change because you did not care whether this election was free or fair. And that should be a disqualifying trait in any election official."
Ultimately, it sucks the election had to be moved from the original date it was made, but was it corrupt. No. It was and would be just as fair as the regular election would be. Ultimately it would not have been fair if the site DID NOT know campaigning even existed and I randomly held a vote with only 2 candidates who wanted to run at the time, Pie and Wylted. People like RM, 3RU7AL, wouldn't have been able to run. The process of delaying gave everyone the opportunity to see their was an opportunity to run for an election coming up, versus being blindsided
On Dec 6th, when you re-published the rules of the election including the rule that the election began on Dec 1st, if you really believed then that some kind of announcement was needed to start the election than you should have noticed that you were publishing conflicting information when you re-asserted that the election began on Dec. 1st, right? This means that you changed your mind about when the election started sometime between Dec 6th and Dec 24th. You did not feel the need to make an announcement on Dec. 1st through Dec 6th. And then you didn't feel the need to post at all for nine days. Only on the last day of campaigning and just before voting began did you decide that the voting process needed a whole bunch of correction. Ask yourself objectively, isn't such a last second change inherently so subject to corrupt action that such a practice is avoided everywhere by everyone that cares that elections be free and fair? You could only make that last minute change because you did not care whether this election was free or fair. And that should be a disqualifying trait in any election official.
"I specifically stated that this is not the case. No official announcement was made to start campaigning, therefore NO ONE should have made that assumption. "
Why? Why should I care that you made no official announcement? I don't care what announcement you wish to make because the MEEP did not specify that the start of the election was dependent on any mod activity. The MEEP did specify that the start of the election was Dec. 1st. You re-affirmed the start of the election as late as Dec 6th, when you republished the election rules including theses 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, and the rest of the month will be dedicated to the election process, all of which will be overseen and managed by moderation."
If you thought there should be some kind of Mod Announcement to start the thing, then the established rule of law was that you were obligated to make that Mod Announcement on Dec. 1. The fact that you don't understand that is disqualifying.
You were already deep into the election and still re-affirming the timeline of that election as late as Dec 6th. Then you there are no posts from you from 9 days. Well, of course people get busy but you were clearly way beyond any reasonable point in the electoral process where you were should not feel constrained from re-writing the rules, especially re-writing rules enforced by democratic MEEPs. Any mod qualified to do the job would recognize your last-minute re-writes as a desperate violation of the democratic spirit of debate and of this website. We want mods who feel constrained by our MEEPs.
"I believe the fact you are holding the MEEP more sacred that holy text is foolish IMO, as situations call for certain actions to be taken"
No, Supadudz, I'm just holding the MEEP as more sacred than you. The only situation on Dec 24th was that you returned from checking out for a couple of weeks and suddenly felt that the election needed more supervision by you and less voting time for us. But the Election MEEP does not specify how closely Mods must monitor the election (let's assume it would more closely than nine day gaps, considering that our home page boasts that "moderators work day and night.)" The MEEP does specify that voting takes place on the last week of December. Why didn't you feel constrained by DART to preserve the agreed upon time of voting? You are the one who checked out- it shouldn't be the folks who were following the rules for the whole campaign to pay the penalty for your neglect of duty.
I specifically stated that this is not the case. No official announcement was made to start campaigning, therefore NO ONE should have made that assumption. People were also allowed to early run, no one stopped anyone from doing as such. The COC and MEEP’s state all decision should be made under mod discretion. I believe the fact you are holding the MEEP more sacred that holy text is foolish IMO, as situations call for certain actions to be taken
Thx, RM. That's fix'd. If either of you feel I have any other facts wrong be sure to let me know. This an honest inquiry into whether or not the actions you took during this election as you describe them don't clearly qualify as neglect of your mod and electoral duties. Your actions as you describe them seem entirely unacceptable to me on a website that describes itself as "community driven" but then nullifies the well documented majority will of that community late in the electoral process- the last day of campaigning, if fact. I think you seem to not understand why that is neglect well demonstrated.
I will not be voting on this debate. Granted it is Whiteflame's decision if he takes on this debate or not. I would like to see what case oromagi makes, because what he said to me personally feels like an overreaction to the highest degree
The head mod is Whiteflame and the deputy is Supadudz btw, MC isn't a mod anymore technically.
I think there's ways you're technically wrong but non-technically, esp with voters who were brought in last-minute back from the dead and violate the spirit of certain rules, I agree with you entirely.
When the two best soccer players in physical education are put on opposite teams.
I finally found a subject about which we are likely to disagree. Please help me to complete my 100th debate on this site with this timely and relevant topic. Let me know if you'd like me to make any adjustments to the the terms of the debate. I look forward to your acceptance!