-->
@coal
Now, here's an example of a terrible debate topic:
Do you have any suggestions for "good" debate topics?
Reasons I Do Not Vote on Debates
Posts
Total:
94
-->
@3RU7AL
I agree with you, but don't you think 99.5% of the time, each person would simply vote for themselves?
What's wrong with a weighted vote?
Coal with the quality justification for laziness. We appreciate your many word of saying 'I'm too lazy to vote and want to throw a tantrum because I don't like the topics being debated.' How about you lead by example? :)
-->
@ethang5
I agree with you, but don't you think 99.5% of the time, each person would simply vote for themselves?
A lot of ties would just make the wins more valuable.
You would know that whoever was sitting at the top of the rankings can actually make convincing arguments and is not just a newb-sniping bully with a lot of friends who vote for them (with awesome RFDs).
What's wrong with a weighted vote?
What if someone doesn't consider themselves a conservative (OR) a liberal?
It's a false-dichotomy also known as the black-and-white-fallacy.
And as long as you had two friends for every one enemy vote, you could still bulldoze your way to the top of the charts.
True, but slagging through the ties would be boring and probably not increase voting.A lot of ties would just make the wins more valuable.
Any position is OK. Not just those 2.What if someone doesn't consider themselves a conservative (OR) a liberal?
And as long as you had two friends for every one enemy vote, you could still bulldoze your way to the top of the charts.
But it would be much harder to do. Right now, all you need is one friend.
For me, the fact that the clique hates it is reason enough to think it has merit.
-->
@ethang5
A lot of ties would just make the wins more valuable.True, but slagging through the ties would be boring and probably not increase voting.
Every debate would be voted on.
The mods wouldn't have to be bothered with voting complaints.
Slagging through the ties would be great practice for people to learn how to formulate compelling arguments and listening to their opponent instead of mindlessly slinging insults and trotting out old red-meat for their allies in the audience.
It would be more competitive and more interesting and more civil.
-->
@ethang5
What if someone doesn't consider themselves a conservative (OR) a liberal?Any position is OK. Not just those 2.
So if someone had "Christian" selected in their profile and then got a vote from any member with any non-Christian religion selected on their profile page, then it would count for 2 points?
What about if it was a Christian liberal voted for an Atheist conservative?
Would that count as 4 points?
And would the profile perhaps need to be semi-perma-locked before you were allowed to begin voting?
What if I was an Atheist and I put Christian on my profile page just so I could boost all my Atheist pals to-the-moon!!
Would other members (or mods) perhaps need to verify (audit) my profile selections?
-->
@3RU7AL
It would be more competitive and more interesting and more civil.
I strongly disagree. It would be exactly like the forums,unending bickering.
So if someone had "Christian" selected in their profile...
No, only political positions. As for the rest of your questions, I addressed them in my post on page 1.
-->
@ethang5
It would be more competitive and more interesting and more civil.I strongly disagree. It would be exactly like the forums,unending bickering.
It wouldn't be endless because there are a set number of rounds.
It wouldn't be bickering because you can't win if you alienate your opponent.
-->
@ethang5
One weakness would be the people who never debate, but mis-designate themselves and vote.The solution to that is having the 2 tiered voting system apply only for members who have a certain number debates themselves in a certain time period.And if ones debate topics consistently contradict ones requested designation, mods will catch it and refuse that designation.
I'm not sure this would do anything to stop vote bombs.
Another option would be to have both debaters nominate voters in round one with each side having veto power over all nominated voters.
Kinda like jury selection.
1.your vote will be removed if you vote for the consverative
-->
@Dr.Franklin
That is simply not true
-->
@Vader
That is simply not true
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I am a conservative and my RFDs have been approved my mods and have been considered quality, it is just about putting full explanations for your votes
-->
@Vader
Casue ur mod
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I am not a DART Mod, I am a Discord Mod. Big difference. I do not have a crown on my head. I also wasn't truly recognized til about June 2019 and still my votes were not being taken down
-->
@3RU7AL
It would make them harder to do, and easier to diffuse.I'm not sure this would do anything to stop vote bombs.
It wouldn't be bickering because you can't win if you alienate your opponent.
It would be endless bickering after the inevitable tie vote. And people would stop looking at debates because the will know they will all result in ties.
Another option would be to have both debaters nominate voters in round one with each side having veto power over all nominated voters.
That is an option, but I fear often we won't have enough voters for debates and it is even more complicated than a simple weighted voting system.
-->
@RationalMadman
He seems like the type who doesn't want to lead, but still thinks everyone should follow him.How about you lead by example? :)
-->
@Vader
I am not a DART Mod, I am a Discord Mod.
Doesn't matter. You were picked by the clique.
Big difference. I do not have a crown on my head.
You mean the crown avatar? Really? That's the big difference?
Do you think they thought about only when the discord mod position came up? You were in their sights from the time they learned you were young, white, and male.I also wasn't truly recognized til about June 2019 and still my votes were not being taken down
Please.
-->
@ethang5
I wasn’t elected by them, I was elected by the owner of the server, and I was chosen to be in.
and what does me white have anything to do with this? lmao. I was picked as a Discord Mod. I wasn’t groomed.
you have no idea I’m white in the first place, that’s a false assumption
-->
@ethang5
Race has nothing to do with moderation once so ever. Sad you think that way, must be Harikrish getting to you
-->
@Vader
OK SupaDudz, we can't tell that you're young, white and male. My bad.
Apologies.
-->
@Vader
Race SHOULD HAVE nothing to do with moderation what so ever.
I was stating what was, not what I wanted.
-->
@ethang5
Well it doesn't
-->
@Vader
doesnt matter what "mod" you are
-->
@Dr.Franklin
It doesn't matter. I was not fully recognized as a moderator til this Summer. bsh1 and Virtuoso never contacted me once. We were unofficially supported by the Moderation team and therefore did not have the same rights as them. It was also from (Jan-April) that bsh1 did not inherently liked me since we did not meet eye to eye. It was only in May/June where relationships improved drastically due to the whole situation with Wylted's suicide attempt and RM's keto explosion where we realized Discord needs to be a part of Moderation. In June, I was recognized as a Liasion, and in August during the HoF Season, we realized the need of Discord--->DART Communications due to Wylted violation of campaigning for the HoF on Discord, evading his DART ban. I was not in the Moderation Team and "advisor" til the transition of power.
No RFD's that were fair and just have been taken down. I can remember 2, and one was reinstated due to it being borderline and it counting. It comes down to putting quality into your effort. This isn't some capitalist system where to leaders rule everything. This is the farthest thing from it. You can call out Moderators and criticize their actions, and they will get back to you in a timely manner and respond to concerns.
You do not put quality into your RFD's.
This would not have been reported if you did not take time. All of these anyone can do
This is a quality RFD
Mods do not take down your posts because you are inferior. They take them down because they are insufficent to the CoC
-->
@ethang5
You can live in your fantasy land of rainbow sprinkles and your own distorted victim card reality. I am just stating the pure facts, and you are msiguided. The moderation team is extremely diverse from middle age to teenagers from gay to straight. We have good variety. From military service to creative, a variety of sides makes our moderation team work efficiently.
Abraham Lincoln did this with his campaign in the 1860s. He did not surround himself with yes man, but he surrounded himself with men who were smart and disagreed with his views, but they were smart
Abraham Lincoln did this with his campaign in the 1860s. He did not surround himself with yes man, but he surrounded himself with men who were smart and disagreed with his views, but they were smart
-->
@Vader
Mods do not take down your posts because you are inferior. They take them down because they are insufficent to the CoC
Really? Why does Imabench's votes stands when they are ALL unsufiicent
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Which link?
-->
@Vader
Abraham Lincoln did this with his campaign in the 1860s.
Abraham Lincoln had homosexuals in his mod team??
The moderation team is extremely diverse from middle age to teenagers from gay to straight. We have good variety. From military service to creative, a variety of sides makes our moderation team work efficiently.
Any women? Any conservatives? Any African Americans? Any Christians? 30's is middle aged?
Who's the straight mod?