MEEPs (Moderation Engagement and Enactment Processes) are official comment periods where moderation proposes and solicits feedback on various potential moderation policies. MEEPs allow moderation to pose questions about moderation policy to the site usership and empower the site usership to either ratify or reject moderation's proposals. In order for a moderation proposal to be ratified, at least 10 users must have expressed a preference on the policy in question, and more than a majority of those expressing a preference must be in agreement. That means, in a MEEP with 10 voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 7-3; similarly, in a MEEP with 19 voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 11-8. This ensures that the outcome of the process reflects the consensus of a significant number of site users. If a MEEP result is not binding/valid, moderation will maintain the pre-MEEP status quo, whatever that happens to be.
This MEEP will be open for user votes until 11:45pm, EST, on 3/16/19. This voting period may be extended by up to twelve hours if there are fewer than 10 votes on any of the specific questions put to the usership. Any extension will apply to all questions. Votes cast after the deadline will not be considered.
Below is an enumerated list of the content to be voted on. A brief explanation of the proposal is included below each proposal as well.
1. Should there be additional criteria that a debater voter needs to meet in order to be eligible to vote on a debate?
In light of recent problems regarding illegitimate voting, vote bombing, and self-voting, it may be the case that it is not prudent to give every account the power to vote. This question is asking whether there should be eligibility requirements imposed on accounts in order for them to vote. Users who vote without being eligible to do so would have their wrongful votes removed from the debate, and would receive a warning. Further attempts to cast votes while ineligible could be met with additional sanctions from moderation. If you vote "no" to this proposal, you are voting against the imposition of additional eligibility requirements (and, while unnecessary, you may still rank the plans). If you vote "yes," please rank the five plans for additional eligibility requirements, which are listed below, in order of preference (with 1 being your first choice of implementation):
- Plan A - Super Light: Accounts must have read the site's COC (which includes the site's voting policies)
- Plan B - Light: Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 1 non-troll debate without forfeiting OR posted 50 forum posts
- Plan C - Medium: Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts
- Plan D - Heavy: Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 3 debates non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 200 forum posts
- Plan E - Super Heavy: Accounts must have read the site's COC AND passed a competency review conducted by moderation AND completed at least 3 debates non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 200 forum posts
2. Should the COC (Site Rules) Section 1, Subsection 3, Part 10 be repealed?
This section of the COC prohibits the use of profanity without asterisks. This portion of the COC is not enforced unless the profanity is being used as a personal attack, in which case it falls under a different section of the COC. While I.3.10 is not enforced, profanity is treated as an aggravating factor when determining punishment in more serious cases. A "yes" vote would repeal this section of the COC, while a "no" vote would maintain the status quo.
3. Should COC (Voting Policy) Section 1, Subsection A be replaced with a different text?
A "yes" vote would replace the current voting standard for argument points with the following text: "In order to award argument points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate, (b) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and (c) explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole." A "no" vote would retain the current phrasing of the text.
4. Should COC (Voting Policy) Section 1, Subsection B be replaced with a different text?
A "yes" vote would replace the current voting standard for sources points with the following text: "In order to award sources points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate, (b) directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support, and (c) must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's. Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points." A "no" vote would retain the current phrasing of the text.