Moderation and Tied Votes

Author: bsh1 ,

Posts

Read-only
Total: 39
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
Aloha!

Moderation's policy on tied votes (specifically, votes which award no points) has recently been that they are not moderatable. Let me explain briefly why that policy was implemented. Beginning of the argument, sources, spelling, and conduct clauses of the voting policy is the following phrase: "in order to award conduct points." I interpreted this text to mean that a vote must actually award points in order to be subject to these clauses. Put differently, "in order to award points" is not the same as "in order to award no points." I was not particularly pleased with the result of this reading of the voting policy, as it essentially allowed junk votes to be cast, possibly in order to inflate the voter's site statistics.

Recently, however, thanks both to Ramshutu and Virtuoso, my view on what the voting policy allows moderation to do with regard to tied votes has changed. There are two relevant portions of the voting policy and COC which are important in this new reading. First, the voting policy defines a "vote bomb" as "a vote cast without regard for the content of the debate." This implies that the voter must have at least examined the debate and its content prior to voting, and must root their vote in a consideration of that content. Second, the COC prohibits spam content, where "spam" refers to "any content which is nonsensical or excessively repetitive." Voters who cast the same tied vote with highly similar RFDs over and over again are spamming.

Therefore, there will be a change to moderation's approach to voting moderation with regard to tied votes. These changes will impact any votes cast on or after of 4:00pm, EST, today. This post is serving as a public notice of those changes in policy. This thread will be locked in 48 hours.

The first policy change is that voters must offer an explanation (which is related to the content of the debate) of why they chose to award no points. Simply saying "my opinion wasn't changed" or "I wasn't able to form an opinion" or "pink elephants smoke meth" will no longer be acceptable RFDs on tied debates. Voters need not meet the standard of sufficiency for awarding argument points, but they must clearly explain why, based on what transpired in the debate, they chose not to award points. The second change is that casting more than 5 tied (no points awarded) votes a day will be considered spam, and will result in all tied (no points awarded) votes in excess of the 5-vote limit being deleted.

I intend to submit these policies to a MEEP for further consideration and development. The MEEP will be held sometime in June or early July. My hope is that a clearer standard for tied votes can be developed, and that the spam cap can possibly be repealed or limited in scope. Until then, these stopgap measures, based on a careful consideration of the site's COC and voting policy, will be implemented as described. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Thank you.

-Bsh1, Chief Moderator
dave2242
dave2242's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 79
0
0
5
dave2242's avatar
dave2242
0
0
5
--> @bsh1
i honestly do not get the point of tie votes as they are mechanically equivalent as not voting at all. (idk where to put this but here)
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 1,824
6
8
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
8
10
--> @dave2242
i include them in forfeit debates because I’m a vote whore.

I have done it for non forfeit debates in cases where there is a legit tie. I’ve normally written a long RfD as a result, and include for the purposes of feedback and because also I am a vote whore.
dave2242
dave2242's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 79
0
0
5
dave2242's avatar
dave2242
0
0
5
--> @Ramshutu
i can see those reasons. but for example one of the votes on https://www.debateart.com/debates/741 are just saying that its to long and one is just RM saying kiss his ass. I do not see either as valid votes
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 1,824
6
8
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
8
10
--> @dave2242
yeah - this is exactly why I made the request to re-examine the policy.
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
--> @dave2242
Agreed. I was planning on changing the policy at some point, because it allowed terrible votes to stand. The question wasn't so much if the policy would change, but more so how and when.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
8
11
--> @bsh1
If I draw why would it reduce my win/loss ratio? 
I didn't lose or win so I don't see how that is the case. Can you do something about that if it is a win/draw/loss ratio? 
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 99
Posts: 4,955
7
9
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
7
9
11
Don’t be racist: All kinds of elephants smoke meth sometimes
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 1,824
6
8
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
8
10
--> @TheRealNihilist
The leaderboard ratio is a win ratio. Not a win/loss ratio. If it’s not a win, it’s not included in that ratio as a win.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
8
11
--> @Ramshutu

I thought a higher-up would know this.


TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
8
11
--> @David
Can you change the way it works?

So basically I want it to register wins and losses for the percentage not the ties.

Do you have a problem with changing that? 
David
David's avatar
Debates: 83
Posts: 1,203
4
7
10
David's avatar
David
4
7
10
--> @DebateArt.com @TheRealNihilist
That is beyond the scope of my abilities. This is something you will have to ask Mike. 
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 1,824
6
8
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
8
10
--> @TheRealNihilist
Tejeretics:

debates : 3. Won: 2.

win percentage is 66.67% correct 

dustyridee: 

debatea: 2. Won 1. Win percentage is 50% correct


The clue is that the column title and the title of the ratio in profiles is win percentage. Oddly, this strongly implies that the number is the percentage of debates won.

This is not the same as the number of debates you didn’t lose, or a win/loss percentage.

TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
8
11
--> @Ramshutu
I rather have it show the win/loss percentage. Guess I'll ask the Admin. 
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
8
11
--> @David
Thanks. 
David
David's avatar
Debates: 83
Posts: 1,203
4
7
10
David's avatar
David
4
7
10
--> @TheRealNihilist
No problem. 
Ragnar
Ragnar's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 1,886
5
8
10
Ragnar's avatar
Ragnar
5
8
10
Voters need not meet the standard of sufficiency for awarding argument points, but they must clearly explain why, based on what transpired in the debate, they chose not to award points.
I wholly agree with this change. Doubly so because spammers (intentionally or accidentally) are making debates in need of votes harder to find. Heck on my most recent debate the evidence I used was debates with zero votes.

Bare in mind, I'm someone who has long defended null votes (any vote which cancels itself out), but people going debate to debate to spam profanity... Intellectual dead weight.
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
--> @TheRealNihilist
It's not about win/loss ratio. It's about "site statistics," which may include such things as earning badges or accumulating large numbers of votes in order to inflate one's appearance of involvement and significance.
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
--> @oromagi
lol
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
8
11
--> @bsh1
It's not about win/loss ratio. It's about "site statistics," which may include such things as earning badges or accumulating large numbers of votes in order to inflate one's appearance of involvement and significance.
What is the significance in a tie if not diminishing the wins and losses a person has? If a tie didn't happen the win percentage if the person has received no losses and won 1 debate would be 100%. Now that there is a tie like with dustryder his percentage says 50%. Even though he hasn't lost a single debate. 

bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
--> @TheRealNihilist
Are you talking about ties as the outcome of the debate, or tied votes?
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
8
11
--> @bsh1
Are you talking about ties as the outcome of the debate, or tied votes?
Not tied votes. Tied debates. Tied votes if there are votes on the debate are the cause of it but my problem is specifically with the percentage having debate ties factor as their debate percentage. 

bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
--> @TheRealNihilist
Ah. Well, that's tangential to the thread. I can respond more fully later to that topic.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
8
11
--> @bsh1
Ah. Well, that's tangential to the thread. I can respond more fully later to that topic.
Okay I have a problem with tied votes then. If both sides are using the same logic and are on opposing sides of the question they both can't be right. This should reflect in the votes since at the end if both still think they are right using the same logic and being on the opposing sides of the question one is being logically inconsistent. 

bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
--> @TheRealNihilist
I believe that debates rarely tie. However, I do believe it is possible for debates to be tied, and usually that occurs, as the adage goes, when the debaters are like two ships passing in the night.