Vote Moderation: Suggestion Box

Author: bsh1 ,

Posts

Read-only
Total: 27
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
Drafterman recently suggested that, in order to streamline the voting moderation process, moderators cease offering detailed notices for some removed votes. He wrote:

And let's not forget the real issue is in the overall moderation decision to craft bespoke moderation reports on every single vote that gets reported. That's what's eating up your time. You want that time back? Stop doing it.
I think this is an interesting suggestion. I want to use this thread to discuss this suggestion, as well as new voting policies I put in place yesterday, namely:

- Whenever something is borderline, default to considering it sufficient
- Whenever you remove a vote, explain, very briefly, how the voter could improve

Virt as also suggested that moderators "try to contact the user first to give them time to make a correction in the comment section." I think this suggestion might add more work for moderators and is perhaps redundant. Since moderators already @ people on voting notices, and since those notices will now include suggestions for improvement, it seems that the notices may suffice. I am also concerned that, if a vote on a debate with only 12 hours left in the voting period is insufficient, moderation would be unable to remove it because we would have to wait for the voter to make changes. The vote could then be left up despite being insufficient. That said, there is clearly merit in reaching out to voters on a 1-on-1 level. It is a deeply education-focused approach, which I like. With all that said, I am open to feedback on the new voting polices and on the following suggestions:

1. No longer post vote removal notices on FF or conceded debates
2. No longer post vote remove notices on FF, troll, or conceded debates
3. Contact voters individually to talk to them about how to improve an existing vote before removing the vote

Please feel free to comment and to make other constructive suggestions.

Tyrone
Tyrone's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 103
0
2
5
Tyrone's avatar
Tyrone
0
2
5
--> @bsh1
How about a suggestion box for forum moderation?
David
David's avatar
Debates: 85
Posts: 1,208
4
7
10
David's avatar
David
4
7
10
Personal opinion: No removal notice on FF, troll, or conceded debates is good (unless they voted for the forfeiting side). Part of me is inclided to just stop making public notices when votes are sufficeint, but that will possibly decrease transparency 
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
This thread is basically Virtuoso's thread, 24 minutes too late.

Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,034
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
What drafterman said. Virtuoso is the man. I love that guy
Tyrone
Tyrone's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 103
0
2
5
Tyrone's avatar
Tyrone
0
2
5
1. No longer post vote removal notices on FF or conceded debates
2. No longer post vote remove notices on FF, troll, or conceded debates
This was a ridiculous burden you imposed on yourself in the first place, so I'm not exactly impressed with your "openness" to undoing that.

bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
--> @Tyrone
Does this mean you don't endorse those suggested changes?
Logical-Master
Logical-Master's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 111
0
1
5
Logical-Master's avatar
Logical-Master
0
1
5
At some point, we'll need to have a very open conversation about the pink elephant in the room: Lack of voting participation (something I myself am guilty of tbh).
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
--> @Logical-Master
Agreed. Tonight, there's a lot going on, so perhaps it's not the best time to start that discussion. Maybe on Friday, after the election, I'll post a thread.
David
David's avatar
Debates: 85
Posts: 1,208
4
7
10
David's avatar
David
4
7
10
Also agreed. I think loosening up the standards may help encourage more voters.

(personal opinion here) 

RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 365
Posts: 11,834
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @ArgentTongue
He is speaking only about FF debates.

FF = Full Forfeit
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
Bump
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,344
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
--> @bsh1
For votes:

1.) Make it so that only the people in the debate can report a vote (and which part) - with reasons.

2.) if vote is not sufficient, it is removed, if the vote is sufficient (or the reasons given are obviously tenuous or trolling), the reporter suffers a point penalty in their debate. Thus discouraging vote punts and draftermanning.

3.) You need to lower the standards of vote criteria so that they’re achievable. Vote removal rate feels like it’s at 80-90%. Votes for arguments need to review the arguments made and use specifics and justifications as to why one was better than the other. The need for the specific detail like you have is to remove moderator bias from the decision to remove or not. You’ll never remove that bias - and you’ll never please everyone. As long as moderators aren’t removing votes they don’t like because they don’t like how they reached the conclusion.

4.) public open voting is always going to be problematic. Maybe there could be some form of committee (deliberates in private then posts a decision) where a few people deliberate on relative strengths. Maybe you can allow points to be awarded for good arguments and removed for bad ones - and people score that way. In my view your kinda hamstrung having copied do voting style, which was terrible.





drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
1.) Make it so that only the people in the debate can report a vote (and which part) - with reasons.
I like this idea. Because it basically says that if both debaters are fine with a vote, then there is no reason for it to be removed, whether or not it is "sufficient." It's basically tacit approval.

RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 365
Posts: 11,834
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
I explicitly am against that. If both debaters are fine with a bad vote, both debaters need to be educated.
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,344
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
--> @RationalMadman
Educating participants is not a moderation issue.
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,344
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
Basically the whole issue is trying to work out a fair system to determine who won a debate that isn’t subject to bias, personal preference, and anything other than which made the better argument.

An important aspect in addition to that, is actually constructive feedback, what people could have or should have done better: but that’s not a moderation issue.

the problem with da and ddo voting systems is that to try and remove bias from votes, they instituted such a officious set of criteria it takes you hours upon hours to do it. 

In my view it’s better to have a pool of trusted voters, to render a verdict. I don’t think anyone would conclude that there is bias if there were 10 whiteflames weighing in on a debate and picking a winner.


bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
--> @Ramshutu
@Drafter and Ram

This was something Virt and I had discussed. I am wondering though what happens when a debater is not online to make reports. How would you feel about restricting reports to the debaters and voters on a debate?
David
David's avatar
Debates: 85
Posts: 1,208
4
7
10
David's avatar
David
4
7
10
--> @bsh1
Personal opinion only

I can see the pros and cons of it. One big con I can see is debaters just spam reporting votes that don't agree with them. 
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 365
Posts: 11,834
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @bsh1
This is a VERY BAD suggestion please do not listen to drafterman about advice on how to moderate votes, he is the troll who spammed your entire team and clogged up your workload to have a laugh.

Ramshutu doesn't vote well either, he votes as minimialist as he can get away with. Neither are the type who still strive for the best vote-moderating system.
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
--> @David
Frankly, it would reduce the overall amount of spam reporting, and I don't mind *some* spam reports. 
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 365
Posts: 11,834
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @David
Not just that, it removes the ability of the debater to increase integrity of surrounding debates.
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
I will be collecting various ideas from all the "suggestion box" threads to put forward in a mega-thread sometime this week. 
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,344
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
--> @bsh1
If someone isn’t online to report, they don’t report and they lose the debate. If they aren’t online during a debate, they forfeit, and run the risk of losing the debate. As long as this is made clear to people they can either lengthen the period, or they deal with it.

The main issue, is that vote reporting is currently used as a tactic to try and win debates. That and people like RM who seem to believe that if you vote against them, that vote shouldn’t count.
ArgentTongue
ArgentTongue's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 124
0
1
5
ArgentTongue's avatar
ArgentTongue
0
1
5
--> @bsh1 @Ramshutu
Public open voting is always going to be problematic. Maybe there could be some form of committee (deliberates in private then posts a decision) where a few people deliberate on relative strengths. Maybe you can allow points to be awarded for good arguments and removed for bad ones - and people score that way. In my view your kinda hamstrung having copied do voting style, which was terrible.

I second this idea. It's already been made clear that public voting is going to be a considerable and contentious issue given the fact that a thread like this even exists. I suggest that a senate comprised of individuals given voting power be appointed by the moderators. This group should be populated based on a set of criteria that ensure it is composed of modest individuals of different views and backgrounds.