Referendum: Voting Policy and Restraining Orders

Author: Barney

Posts

Archived
Read-only
Total: 24
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 49
Posts: 2,767
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
In short, for about a week we'll have a few voting questions open for the community to decide things.
This referendum will run until around 10:00am PT (UTC-7), February 14th 2020. That being Valentine's Day, it's a pretty rough estimate.


About MEEP:
As seen in the moderation overview,
Moderation may submit questions and proposals regarding moderation policy, voting policy, and the code of conduct to Moderation Engagement and Enactment Processes (MEEPs). MEEPs are binding referenda and comment periods on the questions and proposals submitted. Moderation has full discretion on which questions and proposals are submitted to MEEPs, though no substantive change to the COC may be made without either the consent of the site owner(s) or ratification via a MEEP.

In order for a submitted question or proposal to be ratified, at least 10 users must have voted in the MEEP, and more than a majority of all those voting must have voted for the question or proposal. That means, in practice, that in a MEEP with 10 total voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 7 votes in favor of the proposal or question. If a MEEP fails to produce a binding result, moderation will maintain the pre-MEEP status quo, unless doing so is entirely untenable.


The Questions:
Below is an enumerated list of the content to be voted on. A brief explanation of each question is included as well. Please vote "yes" or "no" to each of these questions.

1. Ratify the new Voting Policy?
Voting "yes" to this question will replace the current voting policyextended policies, and various rulings, with a single new one.

tl;dr: While lengthening the policy to better explain to people why their votes were removed, this will generally allow us be less nitpicky.

Major changes:
  • Specified Winner Selection as arguments only (this came up in a previous referendum, but the policy was never updated to reflect it). Likewise clarified missing multiple rounds as allowing conduct only votes against them.
  • Changed S&G to “legibility,” which was already implicitly done by a previous referendum.
  • Allowed more things to be borderline to decrease exploitative reporting, and allowed some things to be implied (such as not listing “and the other side did not FF”).
  • Moved Sufficiency into a Core Value section, and added voter reading requirements.
  • A ton of exposition.
  • Made categorical votes all follow the same three steps (they kinda already did…).
  • Added Foregone Conclusions to the special circumstances, along with plagiarism, and cheating, plus renamed the area disqualifications.
  • Changed “Troll Debates” to general non-moderated, which includes comedy. Also added a clause to allow some minimal level of moderation intervention (such as someone voting just to harass someone they dislike).
  • No longer calling every bad vote a vote bomb (something can be garbage for other reasons).
  • Added a vote rigging section (I think I took a lot from the expanded policies doc).
  • Expanded and modified the forfeiture policy.
  • Clarified the Outside Content policy.
  • A lot of little things are just because I hate nitpicky complaints.


2. Allow Kudos points within votes?
Voting "yes" to this will further loosen voting standards with regards to mitigating points against the voter's majority allotment; wherein they may substitute lower scoring categories to decrease the margin of victory they assign. This is to serve as a favorable callout with respect to the other side's efforts. Votes using this to inverse the majority recipient, will be deleted. 

Note:  A long term ideal solution would be a direct modifier to the argument points. However, this referendum is focused on policy we can immediately implement; as opposed to future mechanics we can only request.


3. Update the debates information page in the help center?
Voting "yes" will replace the current help center page, with an update.


4. Switch to SupaDudz' suggested handling of Restraining Order violations?
Voting "yes" will switch from admittedly on the fly consequences, to a codified set.


Voting:
I'm not that attached to how people vote, so long as it's easy to understand. People may also change their votes, but please don't be a pain about it.

Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 49
Posts: 2,767
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
Updating Tally

n=14
Voting Policy 0.86/0
Kudos 0.23/0.4
Help Center 0.71/0
RO 0.86/0


Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 49
Posts: 2,767
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
    My votes:
    1. Ratify the new Voting Policy?
      Yes. A key benefit is it includes key clear-cut rules against the main two voting moderators main pet peeves (outside content from Chris, and fluff voting from me).
    2. Allow Kudos points within votes?
      Yes. They would basically be the opposite of vote fluffing.
    3. Update the debates information page in the help center?
      Yes. I actually can't imagine any reason someone would oppose this.
    4. Switch to SupaDudz' suggested handling of Restraining Order violations?
      Yes. While I'm sure it will require refinements in time, it seems to be an improvement over the status quo.

    RationalMadman
    RationalMadman's avatar
    Debates: 556
    Posts: 19,388
    10
    11
    11
    RationalMadman's avatar
    RationalMadman
    10
    11
    11
    No to question 2. Yes to 1 and 4, neutral/abstain on 3. 
    whiteflame
    whiteflame's avatar
    Debates: 27
    Posts: 3,006
    4
    6
    10
    whiteflame's avatar
    whiteflame
    4
    6
    10
    Yes on 1, 3 and 4, neutral on 2.
    ILikePie5
    ILikePie5's avatar
    Debates: 2
    Posts: 12,333
    3
    7
    10
    ILikePie5's avatar
    ILikePie5
    3
    7
    10
    1. Neutral
    2. Neutral
    3. Yes
    4. Yes
    MisterChris
    MisterChris's avatar
    Debates: 45
    Posts: 2,897
    5
    10
    11
    MisterChris's avatar
    MisterChris
    5
    10
    11
    1. Yes
    2. Abstaining on my vote for this for now
    3. Yes
    4. Yes
    3RU7AL
    3RU7AL's avatar
    Debates: 3
    Posts: 13,282
    3
    4
    9
    3RU7AL's avatar
    3RU7AL
    3
    4
    9
    -->
    @Barney
    My votes:
    1. Ratify the new Voting Policy?
      Yes.
    2. Allow Kudos points within votes?
      Yes.
    3. Update the debates information page in the help center?
      Yes.
    4. Switch to SupaDudz' suggested handling of Restraining Order violations?
      Yes.
    gugigor
    gugigor's avatar
    Debates: 40
    Posts: 51
    0
    1
    7
    gugigor's avatar
    gugigor
    0
    1
    7
    Yes to all four from me.
    fauxlaw
    fauxlaw's avatar
    Debates: 77
    Posts: 3,565
    4
    7
    10
    fauxlaw's avatar
    fauxlaw
    4
    7
    10
    1. Yes.
    2. No, this appears a negative mitigation, not a positive for exceptional argumentation.
    3. Yes.
    4. Yes.
    Tejretics
    Tejretics's avatar
    Debates: 7
    Posts: 497
    2
    4
    8
    Tejretics's avatar
    Tejretics
    2
    4
    8
    -->
    @Barney
    1. Yes
    2. No
    3. Abstain
    4. Abstain

    SirAnonymous
    SirAnonymous's avatar
    Debates: 3
    Posts: 4,140
    3
    7
    10
    SirAnonymous's avatar
    SirAnonymous
    3
    7
    10
    Yes to 1, 3, and 4. Neutral on 2.
    BearMan
    BearMan's avatar
    Debates: 16
    Posts: 1,067
    3
    4
    11
    BearMan's avatar
    BearMan
    3
    4
    11
    Yes to everything besides 2 (neutral)
    Undefeatable
    Undefeatable's avatar
    Debates: 64
    Posts: 126
    1
    6
    11
    Undefeatable's avatar
    Undefeatable
    1
    6
    11
    -->
    @Barney
    It seems ironic that Voting for number 2 does not allow for fluff points in the opposing direction (or in favor). If I could, I would give 0.65 points for No and 0.25 points for Yes. And 0.1 points for Abstain (You can begin to see how absurd this is.)
    Barney
    Barney's avatar
    Debates: 49
    Posts: 2,767
    5
    9
    10
    Barney's avatar
    Barney
    5
    9
    10
    -->
    @Undefeatable
    Kudos points were an idea I toyed with some months ago, which I did not initially plan to include but someone else raised during the pre-referendum discussion window.

    Due to certain bad voting habits, if it were implemented, it would have to be in a non-exploitable form. Otherwise we’d have a problem of people who think their votes should be worth more because reasons just tossing it on to their favored side.

    I don’t expect it to pass but had it passed, it would have allowed a point based way to acknowledge and celebrate the merit offered by the side we each ultimately vote against. I don’t know about you, but for me there’s been times when I truly preferred the argument which I ultimately voted against, or even just admiring the ingenuity it tried even if it failed (sometimes against something sound but boring).

    I really don’t understand how you think there’s irony to being unable to give it more than 1 point in the vote, when it would not have allowed increased points to the favored side whose quality is already noted in the initial argument points. 

    As for your stated desire to do a fractional point allotment: That’s quite easy to do.
    Discipulus_Didicit
    Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
    Debates: 9
    Posts: 5,294
    3
    4
    10
    Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
    Discipulus_Didicit
    3
    4
    10
    -->
    @Barney
    1) YES - I did not read all 11 pages but the summary given by Ragnar seems to be an improvement.
    2) NO - I love the idea of implementing this as a site feature but as Ragnar points out that is not the subject of this vote.
    3) ABSTAIN - I don't care enough about this to take a close enough look at the changes to make an informed vote.
    4) YES - Having read the post in question written b Supa Dudz I agree with Ragnar that this would be an improvement.
    Barney
    Barney's avatar
    Debates: 49
    Posts: 2,767
    5
    9
    10
    Barney's avatar
    Barney
    5
    9
    10
    -->
    @Discipulus_Didicit
    Well said!
    Barney
    Barney's avatar
    Debates: 49
    Posts: 2,767
    5
    9
    10
    Barney's avatar
    Barney
    5
    9
    10
    A couple days remain, but the presumptive outcome is as follows:
      • Ratify the new Voting Policy
        11 in favor, 0 against, 2 abstain
      • Switch to SupaDudz' suggested handling of Restraining Order violations
        11 in favor, 0 against, 2 abstain
      • Update the help center
        9 in favor, 0 against, 4 abstain
        (technically below that 10 threshold, but this didn't need a vote anyway; it was mainly offered in case anyone wanted further refinements)

      If anyone ever wants to do their own referendum, the administration around here will support most efforts. I suggest giving it a week for question suggestions and refinements, then a voting window of a week (while it won't make a real difference in voting, it gives people optimum opportunity to participate, which is much better than people whining later that their freedom of speech was mysteriously violated).
      Dr.Franklin
      Dr.Franklin's avatar
      Debates: 32
      Posts: 10,555
      4
      7
      11
      Dr.Franklin's avatar
      Dr.Franklin
      4
      7
      11
      1.Yes
      2.No
      3.Yes
      4.Yes
      Barney
      Barney's avatar
      Debates: 49
      Posts: 2,767
      5
      9
      10
      Barney's avatar
      Barney
      5
      9
      10
      Passed Measures:
      • Ratify the new Voting Policy
        12 (86%) in favor, 0 against, 2 abstain
      • Switch to SupaDudz' suggested handling of Restraining Order violations
        12 (86%) in favor, 0 against, 2 abstain
      • Update the help center debates page
        10 (71%) in favor, 0 against, 4 abstain
      Rejected Measures:
      • Allow Kudos points within votes?
        3.25 (23%) in favor, 5.65 (40%) against, 5.10 abstain.

      Regarding the two main updates, I do not know when we will be able to get them into the Help Center. However, I have provided links for them above.

      26 days later

      3RU7AL
      3RU7AL's avatar
      Debates: 3
      Posts: 13,282
      3
      4
      9
      3RU7AL's avatar
      3RU7AL
      3
      4
      9
      -->
      @Barney
      Have you considered making the "block" option also function to make both participants mutually invisible?
      Barney
      Barney's avatar
      Debates: 49
      Posts: 2,767
      5
      9
      10
      Barney's avatar
      Barney
      5
      9
      10
      -->
      @3RU7AL
      That would be a good suggestion for the platform development thread. It would probably solve a lot of problems. Sadly, I do not have access to the coding side of things.
      Undefeatable
      Undefeatable's avatar
      Debates: 64
      Posts: 126
      1
      6
      11
      Undefeatable's avatar
      Undefeatable
      1
      6
      11
      -->
      @Barney
      what a mad lad. Giving my actual points to the kudos points XD
      Vader
      Vader's avatar
      Debates: 30
      Posts: 14,430
      5
      8
      11
      Vader's avatar
      Vader
      5
      8
      11
      The new restraining order referendums have really improved this site