Instigator / Pro
12
1476
rating
4
debates
25.0%
won
Topic
#667

Which voting moderation technique scales better, crowd sourcing or manual administration?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
0
2

After 2 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

MrMaestro
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
12,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
8
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

My belief is that the current voting moderation system - manual review - does not scale well. I recently proposed that crowd-sourced initiatives were the solution. RM has chosen to defend the current structure.

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1563?page=1&post_number=22

Resolution: Crowd-sourced voting moderation features scale better than manual administrative voting moderation techniques.

--Pro will be forced to argue using crowd-sourced solutions alone, as agreed.
--Con will be forced to argue using manual, human-labor solutions alone, as agreed.

Definitions:
*Merit: Each idea is to be judged on its ability to handle increased traffic with regard to vote moderation capabilities.

*Crowd-sourced: In this context means computer algorithms that make use of feedback from the general Dart population as opposed to feedback from specific mods.

*Scale: Meaning the ability to handle a growing amount of work (votes needing moderation) in a capable, labor efficient manner.

-->
@Ramshutu

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed

>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments, 1 point to Con for conduct

>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************

-->
@Ramshutu

Please vote here.

-->
@RationalMadman

Sorry to vote vs you, RM. As I said, you've clearly got a lot of info on the subject. I just don't think you played by Mr's rules.

-->
@oromagi

Genuinely have no clue how you read it that way but alright. This one I played near perfect in my eyes.

-->
@PsychometricBrain
@oromagi

nice one to vote on.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

It's alright. Just keep it in mind.

-->
@bsh1

Oh aright makes sense. Sorry.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

What I am saying is that you cannot cast votes based only on someone forfeiting a minority of a debate's rounds. It has nothing to do with which category the points come from.

-->
@bsh1

So what your stating is that I have to move the vote to the argument category and not the conduct if the person didn't ff half of the rounds?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Omar2345 // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct

>Reason for Decision: The instigator forfeited the last Round. The contender did not forfeit any Round which is why the contender wins the conduct point.

>Reason for Mod Action: Per the site's voting policy: "a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points." Since the voter only awarded conduct points (and not also arguments) and since only 1 out of 4 rounds was forfeited, the voter is not entitled to award conduct points solely on the basis of the forfeit.
************************************************************************

-->
@Pinkfreud08

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct

>Reason for Decision: Pro ff the last round, this is poor conduct

>Reason for Mod Action: Per the site's voting policy: "a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points." Since the voter only awarded conduct points (and not also arguments) and since only 1 out of 4 rounds was forfeited, the voter is not entitled to award conduct points solely on the basis of the forfeit.
************************************************************************

I think only thing that should be moderated in voting should be to stop alt accounts as much as possible.

Realistically, with enough people voting, the pool will be too saturated for any one voter to troll a win out.

Even if a voter makes a bunch of alt accounts and gets away with it, there will always be a counter voter who does the opposite to them.

Votes are necessarily opinions since these are debates and nobody agree on everything.

Moderation is nice but has too many downfalls. It can lead to censorship and it can lower the amount of voters to the point where one troll can tip the scales.

More voters = Better Results.