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
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

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.