MEEP: Voting Policies 2

Author: bsh1

Posts

Archived
Read-only
Total: 103
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Ramshutu
Note:You also said B is the current state for (2) - I don’t think this is accurate as this isnt
currently what’s defined in the CoC, or matches the types of debates I’ve seen votes removed on.
It is currently the standard, but it has not be consistently enforced, which is problematic. After this MEEP, whatever standard is established will be enshrined in a voting policy guideline, and will be enforced consistently.
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@bsh1
It is currently the standard, but it has not be consistently enforced, which is problematic. After this MEEP, whatever standard is established will be enshrined in a voting policy guideline, and will be enforced consistently.

As there are a couple of debates that are currently being moderated as non troll debates that would become troll debates - is it possible not to apply this retroactively?
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Ramshutu
If the responding moderator erroneously treated a debate as a non-troll debate and deleted one or more votes on said debate, the moderator should continue to treat that debate as a non-troll debate to maintain consistency of moderation in the context of that specific debate. It's non-ideal, but it's the solution that will be used. Debates will not be retroactively classed as troll debates.

bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Alec
So far, 48 hours has been working more or less. The idea is to keep these processes, with all their annoying notifications, as short as possible.
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
Time Check

About 27.5 hours remain to vote! Please use this opportunity to help shape site policy!
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,430
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
C

A

No
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Vader
For question 2, please rank the options as requested in the OP.

Also, which questions are you voting "no" on?
Vaarka
Vaarka's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 696
2
1
5
Vaarka's avatar
Vaarka
2
1
5
-->
@bsh1
I wish I could do that. Unfortunately, I doubt many people would both sign up and active play. On top of that, I've lost a lot of motivation for mafia (both playing and modding). That's a big rip 
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,564
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
1C
2A
3No
4Yes
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Greyparrot
For question 2, please rank the options as requested in the OP.
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
Question 1

B - 2
C - 8

Question 2

A - 14
B - 11
C - 5

Question 3

Yes - 2
No - 6

Question 4

Yes - 8
No - 0

Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,003
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
Question 1: Plan C
Question 2: Plan C
Question 3: Yes
Question 4: Yes
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Swagnarok
For question 2, please rank the options as requested in the OP.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,356
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@bsh1
I vote yes to question 4 even though I have an alternate goal that would involve a no.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,356
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@bsh1
Since A is winning that troll debat equestion I hope to see you remod the vote on my trump debate where we rapped but didn't have a troll debate.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,356
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@bsh1
Most of your other wrongly modded 'troll debates' are finished so that's whatever.
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,003
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
1st--Plan C
2nd--Plan B
3rd--Plan A
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@RationalMadman
Since A is winning that troll debat equestion I hope to see you remod the vote on my trump debate where we rapped but didn't have a troll debate.
I won't be doing that, because, as you have previously argued, it would be wrong to apply rules retroactively.
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
Question 1

B - 2
C - 8

Question 2

A - 15
B - 13
C - 8

Question 3

Yes - 2
No - 6

Question 4

Yes - 8
No - 0

RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,356
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@bsh1
Totally different scenario, totally different concept. I already know there's no point reasoning with you, so I just smile at your dictatorship and work around the enforcement.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,356
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@bsh1
you never added my 'yes' to question 4.

Also change my question 2 to A>C>B
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@RationalMadman
I get the feeling that the latter is a strategic vote. I will count your re-vote, but not a third one. That, of course, goes for everyone.

bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
Question 1

B - 2
C - 8

Question 2

A - 15
B - 12
C - 9

Question 3

Yes - 2
No - 6

Question 4

Yes - 9
No - 0
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 49
Posts: 2,762
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
1. Plan C.
2. (3)Plan A, (2)Plan B, and (1) Plan C.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.

Regarding 2: Repeating myself, but this seems to be asking which debate types should not be moderated. Calling something a troll debate (at least in English how it's been used regularly), refers to the debate intent being comedic. ... Also (ignore this, it's just nitpicking, not really complaining) unsure why we aren't just voting on which clauses (a,b,c,etc.) individually, as opposed to the three plans which include an increasing number of them.

Regarding 3: As previously stated, "write 'troll debate' in the description, and it's already done."

Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 49
Posts: 2,762
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@RationalMadman
@bsh1
Also change my question 2 to A>C>B
I get the feeling that the latter is a strategic vote.
Gee, what gave it away? *lol*

I'll admit I considered the same thing.
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
Question 1

B - 2
C - 8

Question 2

A - 18
B - 14
C - 10

Question 3

Yes - 3
No - 6

Question 4

Yes - 9
No - 0 
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,564
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bsh1
@Barney
A<C<B.... hack the election!
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
Question 1

B - 2
C - 8

Question 2

A - 21
B - 15
C - 12

Question 3

Yes - 3
No - 6

Question 4

Yes - 9
No - 0  

TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@bsh1
vote rigging to climb the COC, which is probably more likely with an opt-out, but not much.
What is your explanation or evidence to support a claim like this?
still probably won't agree to take opt-out debates and because vote rigging would still be prohibited. 
I don't think you can say most people won't take the opt-out debates until you have data to support the claim. Do you have any or an explanation?
Isn't vote rigging a form of moderation? With this in mind even opt-out debates would still have moderation. So basically an opt-out debate would have less moderation not no moderation.
I think the most legitimate harm is that some users may inadvertently accept debates without realizing that those debates opted out of moderation.
Which I think will happen more often than not but I have anecdotes to support that is occurring right now when they didn't know the restrictions put in place by the instigator.
That's how I see the issue, but others may see it differently, which is why we have this democratic process.
I don't see why a less rules option is even being democratically voted on. From my eyes it just gives rise to mob voting and creating mobs. On the basis of there is a less moderation debate option that will give mobs less restrictions on who to vote against simply because they dislike the guy. A massive burden will be on the one to prove it but I have one person who is voting against me even though the instigator forfeited every single Round. Why wouldn't he simply vote against me because as you can see he can't stand me?

bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I think you're a bit too data-driven; where data is not present, logic suffices. The absence of data is not justification for suggesting we cannot make claims that are meaningful and weighty. That philosophical note aside, here are my replies, such as they are.

What is your explanation or evidence to support a claim like this?
Logic. If users do not have to write RFDs, it becomes easier for them to vote bomb (less effort involved) and harder for moderation to detect (sense we cannot draw inferences from their RFDs). Instead, moderation would need to rely more heavily on patterns of voting, which remains our chief tool in the status quo, to make those kinds of assessments.

I don't think you can say most people won't take the opt-out debates until you have data to support the claim.
I do have data, though. DDO has an opt-out system. No one used it. Like, literally no one. Besides, most people are going to want to be able to appeal to have obvious vote bombs and bad votes removed, because most people aren't really going to want those kinds of votes to stand on their debates. Have you seen how pissed people get when they report votes and those votes don't get removed? Imagine that, but multiplied. So, no, most people are not going to opt-out.

Which I think will happen more often than not but I have anecdotes to support that is occurring right now when they didn't know the restrictions put in place by the instigator.
I don't think it will happen "more often than not," but I do think it will happen "more." Of course, someone might say that it's a case of caveat emptor. If you accept a debate without reading the rules, someone (not me) might argue that you can't complain when the rules come back to bite you. It's a legitimate argument. Certainly, it's mitigating, but I don't think it totally defeats the argument you're making. 

I don't see why a less rules option is even being democratically voted on. From my eyes it just gives rise to mob voting and creating mobs.
It's one thing to have trials, which create systems of mob rule that can hurt users who never consented to those systems. But for opt-out debates, since both debaters presumably consented to the consequences of opting out, there is an argument to be made that there is no harm in the policy. Either you consented, and so you can't complain. Or you failed to actually read the rules, and so you can't complain. Either way, you can't complain. That would be the argument for the policy change. Mob rule implies tyranny of the majority, but that cannot exist where the minority consented, and, in the case of the opt out, the assumed minority (the debaters) would have consented.

I am trying to present arguments for both sides. As I said earlier: you're weighing the mitigated danger of users inadvertently accepting opt-out debates against the benefits of increased flexibility for that minority of users who wants it. That's really the choice that's out there.