I'm hoping to post a MEEP soon. MEEP stands for Moderation Engagement and Enactment Process, it is a referendum on site policies.
This one will focus this on on refining the voting policies. Please submit any ideas for changes, addendums, etc.
Current questions which have been raised (will be updated as this thread progresses):
- Should waiving rounds count as poor conduct equal to forfeitures?
- Should Full Forfeits be broadened to missing every round after their first argument?
Such as someone forfeits the first round, shows up in the second or third, and forfeits the remainder.
- Allow implicit justifications for lesser points?
I need better wording for this, but in essence not needing the spell out the absence of things. Such as one side having a dozen .gov and .edu sources, sure their impact needs to be mentioned if giving sources, but the other side having none and not challenging them is self evident at a glance.
- Less stringent justification for counter points?
This may be a weird one, I don't know if it will make the cut into the referendum... So let's say someone gives you arguments and sources but gives the other side conduct and doesn't dot the i's and cross the t's on that part; with this change, the vote would not be removed so long as the primary points are justified to the standard... And yes, I have seen tactical vote reporting along these lines, wherein someone waits until near the end of the voting window to report such a vote against them.