Conduct for comment section

Author: Ragnar ,

Posts

Total: 27
Ragnar
Ragnar's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 1,966
5
9
10
Ragnar's avatar
Ragnar
5
9
10
How much vote tampering need someone try in the comment section, before it overrides the usual separation to allow them to be penalized?

This isn't about any one particular debate, I've seen a growing trend here.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 11,307
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Ragnar
Ramshutu is the one vote tampering on my debate(s), I am countering it.
Ragnar
Ragnar's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 1,966
5
9
10
Ragnar's avatar
Ragnar
5
9
10
Note: It feels really weird to have someone who blocked me for not voting in his favor, constantly tag me in things...

...

Again, this isn't about any one particular debate or debater.

It was a frequent problem on DDO, when people could change their votes in response to harassment. Here people can still make it clear there will be a price to be paid if they don't vote exactly how one of the debaters wishes. I will not call out anyone else's debates specifically, but debates with too many comments are suspect: https://www.debateart.com/debates?category_id=&status=&order_type=comments_number

To give an example using a fairly recent debate of mine: Fetuses as a replacement for the USD
My opponent outright and repeatedly told Speedrace it was fine for him to view the debate as a joke, then about at the last day of voting complained the the admins that in no way was the debate a joke to get every vote against him taken down. ... This is a more minor example, to which I would not suggest conduct points being assigned; it does however showcase how people use the comment section to manipulate voting (yeah yeah, it's a troll debate, vote how you want... Admin help me, they voted as if this was a troll debate!).
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 11,307
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Ragnar
In the example you give, that should never be taken as a troll debate. It's a joke topic but not a troll debate.

troll debates are not extreme devil's advocate, this is a misconception that I am extremely happy was voted out in the MEEP where the most strict definition of 'troll debate' was voted on. The only thing that is a troll debate is something where there is no way to moderate it in the sense of vote moderation as is in the CoC. Talent battles are one example but also debates where there is a topic to debate but instead of debating it, it's about entertaining the audience.

It's true, there's been examples of them labelling as 'troll debate' what shouldn't be labelled as such. I am vehemently against that.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 11,307
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Ragnar
You removed me as a friend and became shady and buddies with Ramshutu, I am hardly going to not block you after you ditch me without explanation.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 11,307
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Ragnar
but since you are becoming a prominent member of the website who may help fight the corrupt agenda of pick-and-choose lenient-vs-strict vote moderating and the oligarchy of some in the comments sections of debates and the effect of that on votes, I'll unblock you as you asked nicely.
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,008
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
Hi shadey buddy.

This is all from my position and opinion as a voter -  not as a vote moderator.

There really 2.5 types of inherent vote influencing going on right now: I don’t think it’s inherently enough  to call it tampering,

Firstly there is voter solicitation. One person repeatedly tagging or PMing individuals to vote on their debates. While this seems innocent enough the “vote for me” part of the solicitation is often implicit. The important thing, is that people are not generally going to ping individuals they think may vote against them. Unless everyone does it, it means that one side can stuff the ballot box with sympathetic people and not inherently break conduct terms.

I don’t think there’s much you can really do about that one

Secondly, there is tactical exclusion and voter intimidation. This was effectively how MagicAintReal operated. With both excluding people he didn’t like from his debate, and harassing those who voted against him with multiple PMs, or angrily lashing out in debate comments. No one wanted to deal with the BS of voting against him - even if he lost.

This is a pretty toxic maneuver as it both poisons the debate environment by letting someone freely bias the votes in their favour, but is also shitty for the kids to deal with - I’m fairly convinced that a histrionic angry user like MagicAintReal was repeatedly PMing mods, and tagging them in multiple places to get his own way. While I have no idea of what private actions the mods did or not take - for sure their reluctance to want to deal with such angry rants from him were a conscious concern - as they are human.

As an aside: doing it in public, and publicly complaining about people’s votes repeatedly whilst a debate is in progress helps poison the well. If an individual is berating another individual for a vote - but is also launching objectively untrue personal attacks like MagicAintReal did: it has an effect of trying to garner a sympathy vote. If people didn’t know the context and just saw Magic ranting - they may be more likely to ne
sympathetic to his argument too.


Someone voting against you can be particularly frustrating; as all debaters are the people who understand their arguments best. Many examples of people lashing out or complaining are not based on an attempt to influence votes - but frustration. I think votes should be challengable - though there is a right way and wrong way of doing that. (Bsh is a great example of a right way of doing that)

Its tricky to find the line between understandable objection and flat out intimidation. Saying that though, given I have around 420 + votes, I’ve had maybe 6-7 people strongly object; one was ethang5 (who accused me of voting for virtuouso, liberals and atheists - which was (and is) objectively untrue, Wylted - which should speak for itself, MagicAintReal, and maybe 3/4 other users who I will not name.

Whether some actions are so extreme as to warrant action: pass, I think a case could be made for that. I think the reality is that those that spend every day trying to poisoning the well always end up getting pretty stuffed when they get thirsty. It always ends up counter productive, as while fear has a large impact - in the long term it turns to eye-rolling.





RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 11,307
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Ramshutu
Bsh is the chief moderator. It's easy to be calm when you get your buddies tejretics, ramshutu and virt to vote for you and can remove votes at your discretion via Virt who is your lapdog.
Don't come telling that bsh1 is a clear example of the right way to oppose votes, he's calm because he runs things.

Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,008
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
--> @Ragnar
This is pretty much case in point; and the issue I have. I vote on every debate, sans a few when I don’t have time over a period of a week: should I not vote - or change my vote simply because one individual is incessantly harrasing me, and making a series of unfounded assertions? 

This is kind of a quandry here and really the fundamental issue I have with point 2: as a consequence of this sort of behaviour exemplified by Magic, there is an implicit undertone of voter interference, effectively using the threat of more harassment in order to alter people’s votes.

As it doesn’t particularly bother me; I’m not going to try not to alter my vote - and my intent is to be open, careful and self explained: but it’s the harassment and attempt to Harrangue me into not voting, or voting for him is for the very fact that me not voting is why Magic did it in the first place.


Fortunately, as I vote most: this actually helps most other people by being the loss leader. People like Magic are more likely to become obsessed and angry at me than any other individual - and it gives a little bit of cover to others.






RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 11,307
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Ramshutu
You see yourself as a hero, but in reality you are a villain.
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,603
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @Ragnar
Yeah these could change debates..

Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,008
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
Mr Bond. You see yourself as a hero, but in reality you are a villain.
This is almost a verbatim quote of every Bond Villian 
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 933
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
Im not sure if it was on DDO or not, but Ive seen the idea of having debaters be unable to comment on their own debates once they entered the voting period (then be allowed again after voting ended) be floated in the past.... Would be tough to program is the thing, but it would allow those involved in the debate to clarify anything about the debates in the comments during the debating period itself, but then have them remain silent during the voting period to prevent against pressuring or tampering 
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 11,307
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Imabench
That is a BAD THING :) People SHOULD be able to discuss the debate and corrupt votes in the comments section!
Ragnar
Ragnar's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 1,966
5
9
10
Ragnar's avatar
Ragnar
5
9
10
--> @Imabench
There's a lot to be said in favor of that idea, particularly to the related problem of people trying to win arguments in the comment section. For the main problem under discussion, I suspect the problem people would spew their hate through PMs more than they do already.
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,008
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
--> @Ragnar
Clearly outline what voter intimidation is, and either ban people from debating if they do it too much, or simply assign them a forfeit and auto loss for the given debate.

Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,008
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
--> @Ragnar
I gaurantee that you’d have an epic blow up - followed by it never happening again if you made those on questions lose 3/4 debates when they’re trying to manipulate votes.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 11,307
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
The block button exists thanks to a big play by me very very early on in the site's history. That'll solve that issue.

Then you may argue the left-wing Progressive SJW argument of 'better out than in' meaning oppressing and suppressing urges will mean even if they have no way to scream AHHHHHHH YOU VOTERS ARE CORRUPT, they will vent it in other toxic ways and as a left-wing SJW Progressive, I'd have to agree.

Oh yes, I identify as SJW but oh no, I am not the type of SJW to go OMG DO NOT DARE TALK, rather I annihilate my opponent in a very right-wing calculating manner where they realise if you want to trigger me and others, don't be shocked when I do it to you better.

I have found that the people who most thrive on winding others up and relishing in their agony (typically right-wing in mentality) are those who least can resist it when it is done to them on their weak-points of tolerance and aggravation.

What is fascinating to me is that after I unblocked you, you blocked me. You perhaps didn't count on me doing that and thought you could just point me out to be some strange kind of hypocrite, it turns out you lost at that game? Not sure what that was.

If you want to oppress people screaming about their votes, you have to realise not only will their frustration vent elsewhere but more importantly; the fact that moderators aren't properly moderating votes is something that won't go away. People talk about having more lenient vote moderating and I am telling you that it's a joke (albeit a sophisticated one) as it is. People are right to scream about vote moderating, I have gotten away with some really lazy votes, why did I get away with it? Exactly, it is because they are too lenient. I will simply play the game if it insists on a broken meta.     
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,008
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
I have found that the people who most thrive on winding others up and relishing in their agony (typically right-wing in mentality) are those who least can resist it when it is done to them on their weak-points of tolerance and aggravation.
You rap like William Shatner sings.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 11,307
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Ramshutu
You trigger me like an obese person eating McDonald's. 

You can't help what you do, I know you can't help it but still it tingles me in a wrong way.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 11,307
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Ramshutu
So remind us why you've had the time to post all these forum posts, comments, votes and even debate Rounds but you had to drop out of the talent show the moment I posted my poem/rap. 

I guess you do have a talent.


It also is reflected in how you vote.

RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 11,307
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Ramshutu
Lucky you avoided that roast round eh? 
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,008
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
TBH, you’re the human equivalent of a big red button labelled do not push, and which makes loud fart noises when you do.

We all know you shouldn’t press the button, but it’s right there for everyone to see, and pressing the button is soooo irresistible because you know the loud fart noises that come out when the button is pushed is objectively hilarious.


RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 11,307
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
Mhmm, what are you then? The button that we press and it says 'sorry I can't process this information, but you are objectively saddening'?
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,008
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
Well, I think I’m a dial, that you think is a button; which you keep pushing, and hitting and shouting at, and then complaining that x and y happened because you pressed the button.