-->
@bsh1
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.
Which is why added the explanation part as well. If a person does not have evidence they can explain why something would work or fail.
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.
My question was directed to opt-out debates. Are those debates not going to have RFD's? Another way which I can read your statement here is that you guys have already implemented RFD's so why are you defending it as if I have a problem with? If I am wrong on both conclusion do tell.
I do have data, though. DDO has an opt-out system.
How do you even access that?
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.
Okay.
Have you seen how pissed people get when they report votes and those votes don't get removed?
Yes I have been mad.
Imagine that, but multiplied. So, no, most people are not going to opt-out.
My question would be why even have a vote on something that from prior knowledge from DDO barely anyone used?
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.
Surely if you or Virtuoso decide to make a poll about how many people actually read the restrictions of the debate. You would have data to support using colour to highlight key data or realise people for the most part from people who engaged with the pool actually read the restrictions.
Either you consented, and so you can't complain.
This doesn't make sense. If I have a problem lets say with my contract and would like a raise. Your answer would be "you consented" "so you can't complain". The problem here is that laws are put in place in order for unfair contracts not specifically asking for a raise but to a contract you consented to but did not know what the extent of the harm that contract can do to you when in the process of fulfilling the contract. Do you have something in place for that?
Or you failed to actually read the rules, and so you can't complain.
Yes people should be punished for not following the rules but if the majority of people who are new to this site do not even bother reading the rules. Shouldn't you or Virtuoso find a new way to highlight the rules of the site? Why not at the bottom of the page have "Rules and Code of Conduct" coloured differently to stand out and in order for the user to remove that colour they would have to click. I would also like you or Virutoso to add a lite version of the rules right at the start of it so that people would have less excuses for not reading it.
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
Flexibility comes at a cost. I much rather have everyone following the same rules of debating then having opt-out debates which can lead to not as heavily moderated un-fair voting.
