Debate must be voted on basis of arguments ,not on basis of forfeiture.

> I strictly said to consult or ask me / fauxlaw before removing his vote second time , but you removed without asking us.
Why on earth would you be asked to clarify your writing of a vote cast by someone else?

> Clearly, I believed that jonrohith exceeded a minimum requirement, considering the volume of the citations given,
As has repeatedly been explained, three or more is the standard to begin considering sources (exceptions are allowed, but they need to be explained). That he insists outside the debate it was actually three, has no reliance on the content presented inside the debate which is what judges are supposed to grade.

> Those two citations consisted of much more than singular quotations of single sentences, which most references to sources amount to and are considered acceptable voting criteria.
You were given every opportunity to refine your vote to meet the standards for source allotments (or to withdraw giving bonus points for that), but you chose not to.

> I entirely disagree with a non-scoring range.
Irrelevant. While the rules for judging may be changed, until they are changed they are enforced as is. You (or anyone else) is more than welcome to initiate a referendum to refine the rules.

I informed you to consult fauxlaw before you removed his vote in second time in comment, I strictly said to consult or ask me / fauxlaw before removing his vote second time , but you removed without asking us. Why you gave power to vote, Do you think all people has preferences like you , or If you want to follow rules 100% , then you need robot, humans can't vote.

Clearly, I believed that jonrohith exceeded a minimum requirement, considering the volume of the citations given, as I said, more than just a citied sentence, and yet was twice removed. Those two citations consisted of much more than singular quotations of single sentences, which most references to sources amount to and are considered acceptable voting criteria. Two entire debates of multiple rounds of text, each, which needed to be absorbed, and I did, and considered them sufficient to meet a not-so clarified standard. What do you require, personally, the citation of a bible? You have made many votes of loss by forfeit, only, when the opposing winner had very poor quality of argument, let alone sourcing. No, I entirely disagree with a non-scoring range. Either you feel there is value to sourcing, or you do not. Apparently not. As I said, you've destroyed any value I see in making an effort of voting under any circumstance. Thanks a lot.
Edition: I addressed this to Barney, to whom was my first referenced recipient; David was the last, but ended up being primary recipient somehow.

Honestly, I think much of why we don’t want sources given lightly, is that they’re significantly over valued in the current setup.

We probably need a better term than tied range, maybe non-scoring range? Like admitting someone was better, and not giving them extra points for it because it’s not by enough.

Because of recent developments we might be able to get the code changed. I’ve started a thread for this discussion:
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/12859-categorical-votes-optimal-points

Having been on debate teams in high school, being its captain in senior year, and in university, the idea that sourcing is "optional" anytime is ignorant. But I even had a debate on the subject and lost it, here, so I get it: "debate" according to DA is bullshyte. I've offered suggestions before, but this old man is ignored. Yeah, I get it.

Ironically, had you given that analysis for sources in either of your votes they would have stood (likely with a "borderline" tag, but still stood). When you revoted, it was a blink and you miss it level of refinement; not enough to justify that those sources were so great to invoke the "barring for exceptional cases" clause.

As for your view that the "Things not to award sources for" section is misleading, I'd be glad to see your proposed refinements to avoid anyone else misunderstanding them.

It’s pretty clear that you don’t know what cheating is.

David, whiteflame, and I all reviewed the reported votes. We removed any which fell short of the standard, and advised improvements. Said improvements did not include switching sides, nor to magically vote for David, whiteflame, or myself (that would have been cheating).

Had RM hacked the site to delete votes against him, that too would have been cheating. But no, the removals were performed by David and I.

As far as I know there was no vote petitioning via PMs.

So all the obvious ways to cheat are ruled out. What method of cheating are you suggesting occurred?

…

And since voting is closed, I can now say this without risk of influencing votes to be against you: the resolution calls for the goalposts of “not on basis of forfeiture” and you conceded that you should be given points explicitly on the basis of forfeitures! Do you have any clue how damning that is to your case? And it’s not like you misspoke, since you did not report votes which gave you those points.

I find this double vote removal for sourcing to be absurd. The very first notice of judgment on sourcing is that, even for a multiple-criterion debate, the sourcing vote is OPTIONAL, but that contradicts the point by saying "Goes to the side that (with a strong quality lead) better supported their case with relevant outside evidence and/or analysis thereof." I felt that though Pro had but two sources, those sources were not, imo, mere quoted sentences from a source, but two entire debates which met the standard of "Better supporters their case." Conversely, Con's solitary source, a definition, was a chosen source that defined an irrelevancy of "forfeit;" a legal definition not having any relation to the debate subject at all, complying with "A side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case" from the voting policy.
I found the following statement directly contradictory as a vagary followed by a specific: "A lead of only a couple sources, even if only one side had any. While quantity isn’t the standard, there is a minimal threshold for consideration." I contend this is not sufficient to remove a vote, twice. Clean up the language of the policy, or stop making a point of discouraging voting. You have succeeded in the latter. You make no encouragement for membrfs to vote, which kind defeats the whole purpose of an entire section of the site.

pure cheating. removed votes that favoured me .

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Same as before: https://www.debateart.com/debates/6207/comments/65158

The voting policy section on source allotments may be viewed at: https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#sources

To quote instead of paraphrase the rule: "Things not to award sources for (barring for exceptional cases): ... A lead of only a couple sources, even if only one side had any. While quantity isn’t the standard, there is a minimal threshold for consideration."

Ergo, this debate does not have a significant enough use of sources for sources to be awarded.
**************************************************

---fauxlaw's second vote---
As worded by the instigator [Pro], the Resolution may have better served the Pro BoP had he phrased the Resolution exactly as worded in his Round [R] 1 : "Debate must be voted on basis of arguments, not on [the] basis of forfeiture, alone." This is a sound argument because of the addition of a single word; "alone." because many votes are cast by members, including Mods, who should know better considering the current working in voting rules concerning the incident of forfeiture. Even with multiple-criteria designated debates, requiring voting on four specific criteria [argument, sourcing, legibility, conduct] the vote is rendered as a win by one opponent for the forfeiture of the other opponent. There is question among the members and moods if this is appropriate voted consequence. Nevertheless, the added "alone" makes for a significant argument point that is never truly defeated. Further, Pro weakens his argument by closing R1 with two questions posed to Con. Posing a question on a point of potential argument is much better made as an argument to which Con is obligated to successfully rebut to defeat it. An open-ended question does not accomplish that. At best the question will receive an open-ended answer, which may or may not fail as a rebuttal.

Due to Con's forfeiture of Round 1 by response - which is perceived by this voter as an intended vehicle to argue the point of a clouded forfeiture voting rule, and perhaps instigated by Pro's ill-advised questions, still fails the strict definition of a proper argument. Further there is no provided source to substantiate the strategy as a merit of argument, but certainly fails the sourcing requirement. Since Pro offered no source either for R1, it's a moot point.
Pro begins and ends R2 with a repeat of his BoP, but that's all.
Con's R2 begins by defining forfeit, but uses a contractual legal definition having naught to do with this site’s debate protocol, and is therefore a useless argument. Con's R2 continues by sourcing the DA debate voting rules relative to forfeiture that, by its clouded discussion, appears to, and in practiced citing does result in a potential win for the fofeiter by loophole, as Pro later argues. But Con's R2 rebuttal does not display the strength to overwhelm Pro's R1 argument that forfeiture, alone, is not a valid argument and should be a loser, at least of conduct point.
Con's R2 ends with an ill-advised question of his own which would also have served him better stated as an argument rather than an open-ended question; ill-advised for the same reason as given to Pro.
Pro's R3 begins by an accusation that Pro asked voters to not penalize Con for his R1 forfeit, but Pro’s rebuttal that he did not ask voters to vote that way, but asked Con the direct question about voting on forfeitures. Pro invited such an accusation because any statements made in a debate are presumed to be addressed to the eventual voters, in a edition to the opponent, which is one reason why asking direct questions to the opponent may be construed to be posed to voters, but the ruse by Con is too transparent by the accusation, and falls flat. Pro's R3 then offers cited examples of debates which purposefully corrupt use of forfeiture for ulterior reasons, further showing the flaws in the current rules of voting on forfeitures, alone. Pro finished R3 with a convoluted answer to Con's R2 question, but it was not worded clearly, but clearly enough for what follows...
Con's R3 declares, based upon Pro's R3 answer to Con's R2 question, "Pro concedes the debate," and concludes with some descriptive justification. However, DA voting rules relative to concession say "If either side explicitly conceded the debate... [consequences discussed] ...This is invalid if the concession was not explicit" There is no "explicit" concession by Pro, and the rule declarers it cannot be called a concession if not explicitly expressed. It was not.
Therefore, the Vote;

Argument: Successful R1, R2 arguments by Pro. Po wins argument

Sources: Po offered better and more connected sources, such as offered in R3, to support his BoP as noted above. By contrast, Con’s only source was a dictionary definition of forfeit, but a definiton not related to a debate action of forfeit. Pro wins Sourcing

Legibility: Pro's R3 was a bit clouded, but Con's R2 was entirely illegible by forfeit. Tie

Conduct: Both Con's R1 forfeit, and R3 concession accusation, lose point.
Pro wins conduct

you need to read this debate fully , If my opponent forfeites all rounds and i also forfeited all round,then there is no debate at all , no winner , or no loser, no damage to anyone., i asked to consider" ok and blank " as forfeit , if opponent forfeites all rounds and i argued in only one round , then i am winner .

I've re-voted, noticing I omitted an important point I wanted to reference in regard to your round 3 cited sources of DA debates - a superb sourcing for this debate. Con did have a source, however, a definition. of "forfeit" in R2, but it was a legal definition, unrelated to the subject of debate forfeit, so I ignored it, though mentioned it.

I strongly object your act of removing fauxlaw's vote. Your reason was my sources are not strong, sources for each topic changes, and this topic is within this site , and no one can provide sources from external websites. I provided sources to support my argument in round 3. I provided links to expose that loophole, for this kind of debate I can't provide research papers, and con not gave any sources . As con is forfeited by rule , one conduct comes to me. As fauxlaw is a senior, high experienced voter, he will analyze his votes completely from round 1 to last. Removing his vote without prior asking him is worst. If you have any doubts about his vote anymore ,ask him or me before removing.
My sources are:
Check in round 3

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: pierree // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: Arguments (3) and legibility (1) to con; Sources (2) to PRO
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:

The voter fails to explain their vote according to the standards set forth in the code of conduct. @pierree please review the voting policy and you may recast your vote after sufficiently explaining all of your points.

it is nonsense to base the conduct of the debate only on arguments, forfeiting means to drop out the debate, it is not only about the arguments but it is about respecting someone who is dedicating its time for you and with so forfeiting literally means to do not express the own opinion about a point made. That's my point of view, case closed
**************************************************

Is Fauxlaw's sources point justified?

I WAS SAYING THE SAME THING
I HAVE SEEN SOOOOO MANY GOOD DEBATES GET VOTED OUT OF THE RIGHT PERSONS HAND BECAUSE OF FORFIETING 1 ROUND
its sad really but what if your opponent on this debate did forfiet every round but then everyone votes him ? then what you just lose and prove your point ig.

🫡🙏💪

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: vi_777 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to pro, 1 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:

If there was more time, I'd probably do a little back and forth with basic questions about the debate to estimate bias and to allow implicit expansions of the vote such, but we we do not have the luxury to both do that and give you the opportunity to vote again should removal be necessary.

I'll also say that the vote is right on the line of borderline (flawed but acceptable) or slightly less, so please don't feel anything bad, this is more of a couching moment than anything.

I'm going to use some boilerplates for parts of this (wish I could color code or something)...

In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention from each side (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading. ... To this, legibility is unexplained (and frankly, as neither committed any crimes against English, is almost guaranteed to deserve to be tied)

Arguments must always be reviewed even if left a tie (in which case less detail is required, but some reason for said tie based on the debate content must still be comprehensible within the vote).
Arguments go to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole. ... That last part is a touch of a problem for your vote, while it's not true that you made no mention of the contender's case, it was basically complete dismissal for an accused fallacy (which is sometimes enough, but his case had enough depth that something more should have been mentioned... perhaps how his side to the loopholes argument turned out or didn't turn out? There's more options that would work, that's just one I'd be curious to read).

Due to the above on arguments, I am sorry to say, but...
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:

Arguments and conduct are finely measured for judgement, but not so much for sources.

Sources are optional and if awarded require a strong quality lead. Sources go to the side that better supported their case with relevant outside evidence and/or analysis thereof. If both sides have done their research due diligence, these points are usually tied.
A side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case (such as if the other side called attention to the flaws, thereby engaging with sources in a more effective manner with impacts to arguments; thereby flipping the source and harming the opposing argument).

Things not to award sources for (barring for exceptional cases):
• Common knowledge… E.g., that Wikipedia says JFK was the president of a country, which is unlikely to enhance any impacts (unless the other side is denying that).
• The subject of the debate… E.g., in a biblical debate, preferring one side’s analysis of the bible itself already speaks directly to the argument points, not exceptional sourcing.
• A lead of only a couple sources, even if only one side had any. While quantity isn’t the standard, there is a minimal threshold for consideration.
• Source spam without relevant analysis by the presenter. Sources are awarded for quality, not mere quantity.
• The voter’s own research on the topic.
**************************************************

---vi_777's original vote---
Pro’s Victory:
Clear stance: Pro consistently argued that debates must be judged on argument quality, not just forfeitures.
Detailed examples: He cited cases to prove how unfair wins can occur when forfeits are the main basis of judgment.
Nuanced distinction: He introduced the idea of "indirect forfeiture" (e.g., saying just “ok” or giving blank arguments), which broadened the debate.
Con’s misread: Con wrongly claimed Pro was saying not to penalize forfeits, but Pro never argued that — he just emphasized that arguments should outweigh procedural flaws.

Con’s Loss:
Forfeited one full round.
Misunderstood Pro’s position and built part of his rebuttal on a strawman.
In Round 3, Con conceded that forfeits can be penalized — which Pro never disagreed with. This showed a partial alignment with Pro’s position.

---Fauxlaw's Original Vote (1 of 2)---
The timing of this debate could not be more fortuitous considering the changes to this site that are forthcoming with transfer of ownership, and the potential modifications of site function following the change. The issue of debate argument and the consequence of one or more rounds forfeited by one or both opponents and how such consequence should affect the voted outcome. The created Resolution by the instigator is the perfect foil, for its two opposing Burdens of Proof [BoP] affect the current rule attitude about the success of presentation of argument as the primary, current carrier of voted point value in a multiple criterion debate, or the singular criterion in a winner selection debate, countered by the effect of the clouded judgment of forfeiture by one or both opponents in whole or in part as the opposing BoP, and as portrayed by possible modification of debate rules and voting protocol.

As worded by the instigator [Pro], the Resolution may have better served the Pro BoP had he phrased the Resolution exactly as worded in his Round [R] 1 : "Debate must be voted on basis of arguments, not on [the] basis of forfeiture, alone." This is a sound argument because of the addition of a single word; "alone." because many votes area cast by members, including Mods, who should no better considering the current working in voting rules concerning the incident of forfeiture. Evewn with multiple-criteria designated debates, requiring voting on four specific criteria [argument, sourcing, legibility, conduct] the vote is rendered as a wion by one opponent for the forfeiture of the other opponent. There is question among the members and moods if this is appropriate voted consequence. Never the less, the added "alone" makes for a significant argument point that is never truly defeated. Further, Pro weakens his argument by closing R1 with two questions posed to Con. Posing a question on a point of potential argument is much better made as an argument to which Con is obligated to successfully rebut to defeat it. An open-ended question does not accomplish that. At best the question will receive an open-ended answer, which may or may not fail as a rebuttal.

---Fauxlaw's Original Vote (2 of 2)---
Due to Con's forfeiture of Round 1 by response - which is perceived by this voter as an intended vehicle to argue the point of a clouded forfeiture voting rule, and perhaps instigated by pro's ill-advised questions, still fails the strict definition of a proper argument. Further there is no provided source tor substantiate the strategy as a merit of argument, but certainly fails the sourcing requirement. Since Pro offered no source either for R1, it's a moot point.
Pro legions and ends R2 with a repeat of his BoP, burr that's all.

Con's R2 begins bay defining forfeit, Burt uses a contractual legal definition hang naught to do with this sites debate protocol, and is therefore a useless argument. Con's R2 continues by sourcing the DA debate voting rules relative to forfeiture that, by its clouded discussion, appears to, and in practiced citing does result in a potential win for the fofeiter by loophole, as Pro later argues. But Con's R2 rebuttal does not display the strength to overwhelm Pro's R1 argument that forfeiture, alone, is not a valid argument and should be a loser.
Con's R2 ends with an ill-advised question of his own which would also have served him better stated as an argument than an open-ended question; ill-advised for the same reason as given to Pro.

Pro's R3 begins by an accusation that Pro asked voters to not penalize Con for his R1 forfeit, but pro rightly reb its that he did not ask voters to v toe that way, but asked Con the direct question about voting on forfeitures. Pro invited such an accusation because any statements made in a debate are presumed to be addressed to the eventual voters, in a edition to the opponent, which is one reason why asking direct questions to the opponent may be construed to be posed to voters, but the ruse by Con is too transparent by the accusation, and falls flat. Pro's R3 then offers cited examples of debates which purposefully corrupt use of forfeiture for ulterior reasons, further showing the flaws in the current ruled of voting on forfeitures, alone. Pro finished R3 with a convoluted answer to Con's R2 question, but it was not worded clearly, but clearly enough for what follows...
Con's R3 declares, based upon pro's RT3 answer to Con's R2 question, "Pro concedes the debate," and concludes with some descriptive justification. However, DA voting rules relative to concession say "If either side explicitly conceded the debate... [consequences discussed] ...This is invalid if the concession was not explicit" There is no "explicit" concession by Pro, and the rule declarers it cannot be called a concession if not explicitrely expressed. It was not.

Therefore, the Vote;
Argument: Successful R1, R2 arguments by Pro. Po wins argument
Sources: pro offered better and mores connected sources tor supports his BoP as noted above. Pro wins Spurcing
Legibility: Pro's R3 was a bit clouded, but Con's R2 was entirely illegible by forfeit. Tie
Conduct: Both Con's R1 forfeit, and R3 concession accusation, lose point.
pro wins conduct

See my report below pls

I report fauxlaw for the sources poonts not beig justified.

i repirt vi_777 for barely exploring the debate and not at all mentioning my side.

I've literally been called "a tornado of change" at the office. I love change... That said, asking experienced people the why to aspects of rules, will help you both here and in your future professional life.

The timing of this debate could not be more fortuitous considering the changes to this site that are forthcoming with transfer of ownership, and the potential modifications of site function following the change. The issue of debate argument and the consequence of one or more rounds forfeited by one or both opponents and how such consequence should affect the voted outcome. The created Resolution by the instigator is the perfect foil, for its two opposing Burdens of Proof [BoP] affect the current rule attitude about the success of presentation of argument as the primary, current carrier of voted point value in a multiple criterion debate, or the singular criterion in a winner selection debate, countered by the effect of the clouded judgment of forfeiture by one or both opponents in whole or in part as the opposing BoP, and as portrayed by possible modification of debate rules and voting protocol.

I'm getting ready to head to a renaissance faire, but someone remind me and I'll vote.

I am quite interested to see if con caught that this debate is worded as the absolute "must" instead of the more ambiguous "ought" or "should." Which is to say this debate clearly wants to be a policy proposal, but is worded slightly off from that.

Also, while I don't think it would pass with how ingrained users are at this point, referendums can be launched to change rules.

round 2 is not modified by ai

The base essay is written by me and enriched by chatgpt for better understanding of all people.