MEEP: Voting Opt-In Discussion

Author: bsh1 ,

Topic's posts

Read-only
Posts in total: 89
  • bsh1
    bsh1 avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 2,589
    5
    5
    8
    bsh1 avatar
    bsh1
    Welcome to the very first MEEP (Moderation Engagement and Enactment Process)!

    About MEEPs

    MEEPs are official comment periods where moderation proposes and solicits feedback on various potential moderation policies. Moderation MEEPs should not be confused with other obviously common MEEP-expressions, such as "mediocre endive-eating porpoises," "marooned episodic echidnas and platypuses," "mad ecumenical equine prophets," "mesmerizingly enervated egregious parmesan," or even "mega-erotic emphysema patients." No, MEEP definitely means Moderation Engagement and Enactment Process, and is tons better than Max's silly DERP process. It's MEEP-tastic!

    Anyhow, as I said, MEEPs will be periodically instigated by moderation in order to gain community feedback on various policy options and to obtain the community's approval or disapproval of those policy options. This will ensure that the site usership will have the opportunity to democratically weigh in on moderation policies. In order to ensure that the result of any MEEP process reflects the will of a substantial number of community members, for a specific MEEP result to be binding, at least 10 users must have expressed a preference on the policy in question, and more than a majority of participants must be in agreement. That means, in a MEEP with 10 voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 7-3; similarly, a in MEEP with 19 voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 11-8. Again, this ensures that the outcome of the process reflects the consensus of a significant number of site users. If a MEEP result is not binding/valid, moderation will maintain the pre-MEEP status quo, whatever that happens to be. MEEP commentary periods will be open for feedback for at least two days, and may be switched a read-only mode shortly after that period in order to signal a clear end to the MEEP process. MEEPs will be broadcast using the site's announcement feature to ensure maximum awareness.

    This is the rough outline for the MEEP process we have developed with an eye to ensuring any result reflects a wide consensus of opinion. However, we will use this MEEP to kill two birds with one stone by asking you to provide feedback on the MEEP process itself. Should it be a simply majority? Should it have a participation threshold? Should its results be binding or advisory? Please let us know your thoughts.

    Voting Policy Discussion

    This MEEP is specifically about voting policy. The question moderation wants to put before the community is whether there should be a laxer opt-in standard that debaters can have applied to vote moderation on their debates. Such an opt-in would likely need to be agreed to explicitly by both debaters and would only impact the voting standards themselves, not other vote-related rules.

    A laxer alternative might look something like this:

    • To award argument points, the voter must (1) analyze the argument they found most important, (2) explain who is winning that argument and why.
    • To award sources points, the voter must (1) offer a comparative statement about the quality of each side's sources, or note that one side did not use sources while the other did, and (2) point to a specific good or bad source.
    • To award spelling and grammar points, the voter must (1) offer a comparative statement about the quality of each side's spelling and grammar and (2) point to a specific instance of poor spelling and grammar.
    • To award conduct points, the voter must (1) offer a comparative statement about the conduct of each side, and (2) point to a specific act of misconduct by a particular side
    This is just a loose sketch, and so in addition to asking whether such an opt-in should exist, moderation is also asking what such an opt-in should look like were it to exist. Also, what should debaters have to do to opt-in to the standards? Again, please let us know your thoughts.

    Select Winner

    Also, as a bit of a side-issue, there is now a select winner feature. Moderation is planning on just using the current "argument points" standards to moderate select winner votes. Does anyone feel that a standard unique for the select winner feature needs to be created? Please let us know your thoughts.

    Happy Holidays :)
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 283
    Forum posts: 8,651
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @bsh1
    No. In fact I am totally against you not moderating 'troll debates' just because they are more subjective. Anything that affects the same winrate and/or rating (especially rating) needs to be identically harshly moderated.
  • MagicAintReal
    MagicAintReal avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 258
    0
    3
    7
    MagicAintReal avatar
    MagicAintReal
    --> @bsh1
    Yes, these types of standards should just be the regular vote standards and if you DON'T want a real vote, i.e. one that analyzes the argument they found most important and explains who is winning that argument and why, then there could be an option that you select, like "fake vote" or whatever you guys are calling barely adequate rfds these days.
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 283
    Forum posts: 8,651
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    @Magicaintreal
    You actually agree with me
  • bsh1
    bsh1 avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 2,589
    5
    5
    8
    bsh1 avatar
    bsh1
    --> @MagicAintReal
    Those standards represent less strict standards than the ones that currently exist. Those standards do reflect what moderation considers "barely adequate."
  • MagicAintReal
    MagicAintReal avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 258
    0
    3
    7
    MagicAintReal avatar
    MagicAintReal
    --> @bsh1
    No we need stricter standards to be the regular, default option, and what you currently call regular should be the lax fake vote ones you're talking about, and there should be an option called "fake vote"

  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 283
    Forum posts: 8,651
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    I agree with magic on this 100%. I am anti-drafterman-movement on voting standards.
  • bsh1
    bsh1 avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 2,589
    5
    5
    8
    bsh1 avatar
    bsh1
    --> @MagicAintReal
    I see.
  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 2,335
    3
    3
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    --> @bsh1
    The point system is fine with me. What I don't like is when you use the "judicial vote" and a judge fails to accept or decline the invitation. It upsets and nullifies the whole debate before it is even started and you have to start over.

  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 283
    Forum posts: 8,651
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @PGA2.0
    Judge Debates are different and should be entitled to their own standards of voting. Not only is it unfair how it rigs the voting (which on DDO was an issue because it affected the same rating) but it's also unfair to enforce in something like an arranged off-kilter voting system such as this debate:


    ^ Here, the judge is there to serve a totally different voting system to normal.

    This is fine because judge debates don't affect rating and I wish they also didn't affect winrate but so be it. :)

  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,239
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    What is the point of debate?

    If truth is the intent of debate, the idea of voting for a winner seems contrary to that aim. What is it about, who sounds convincing? In that case, rhetoric is more valuable than reason.


    What I propose is instead of voting on who wins or loses a debate, we rate debates based on quality. 


    I don't think there should be a set period to vote either, I think voting should go on indefinitely.


    On that note, when people vote based on the quality of the debate, they certainly should be able to give their opinion on who they think won the debate.


    This, I believe, would encourage people to put a lot of effort into the debates.. the debate art would flourish. It would also distinguish this site from other debate sites that simply care about who wins a debate, as if we all didn't know that truth is the truth whether or not everyone in the world agrees with it or not.




    I am also aware that such a proposal, if actually put into action, would be like a revamping of the entire site, which might seem obnoxious.
  • TheHammer
    TheHammer avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 201
    0
    1
    4
    TheHammer avatar
    TheHammer
    Ditch the acronym
  • bsh1
    bsh1 avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 2,589
    5
    5
    8
    bsh1 avatar
    bsh1
    --> @TheHammer
    Ditch the acronym
    Nah, that's the best part!
  • ResurgetExFavilla
    ResurgetExFavilla avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 556
    2
    2
    7
    ResurgetExFavilla avatar
    ResurgetExFavilla
    --> @bsh1
    I think voting standards should be looser by default, with the stricter standards an option which debaters must both opt into beforehand. The ones that you posted seem fine to me. I don't think that S&G or sources should be separate points, I think that conduct should be, as someone can lose a debate while still having better conduct on a fairly regular basis. I don't think that it's very common to see someone win a debate with terribly worse sources or S&G so bad that it impacts the readability of the debate.
  • bsh1
    bsh1 avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 2,589
    5
    5
    8
    bsh1 avatar
    bsh1
    --> @ResurgetExFavilla
    I don't think that S&G or sources should be separate points,
    Thanks for the feedback. The above quote might be a bit out of my purview, because it would require coding changes, I imagine. That said, I will keep it in mind, and if people want to offer some comments on that notion, I'd be happy to listen.
  • BrutalTruth
    BrutalTruth avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 218
    0
    2
    6
    BrutalTruth avatar
    BrutalTruth
    --> @bsh1
    Considering that a person's vote which I recently reported to you on my recent debate was deemed adequate when the voter made false claims about my arguments and used those false claims as reasons for giving the argument vote to my opponent, I feel that the strictness of the RFD is entirely irrelevant to the problem this site is facing. The problem is, obviously, that bullshit votes are allowed in formal debates. I am brand new to this site, and because of that moderation decision, I am already seriously considering leaving it. Formal debate here is obviously useless if votes are not required to have factual merit. I am very disappointed, because I actually like this site a lot.
  • bsh1
    bsh1 avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 2,589
    5
    5
    8
    bsh1 avatar
    bsh1
    --> @BrutalTruth
    I am not sure if the vote in question was ever moderated. You reported the vote at a time of significant backlog in vote moderation. It may have been the case that no one got to the vote prior to the voting period closing.
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 283
    Forum posts: 8,651
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @bsh1
    Take note the that people asking for it to be stricter are legit debaters who give a shit and not forum trolls who don't care about debating on this website.
  • Raltar
    Raltar avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 155
    0
    5
    8
    Raltar avatar
    Raltar
    --> @DebateArt.com
    The actual problem with voting on this site is that whenever a debater sees a vote which was against them, they automatically jump to the conclusion that the vote was "unfair" and that the voter "lied" about something they said.

    They rarely consider the possibility that their argument may have been interpreted in a different way than they intended (possibly because they wrote it poorly or because it was simply a bad argument).

    And even after a moderator has evaluated a vote and deemed it appropriate, they merely insist the moderators must be "biased" or "corrupt" in some way. This often happens when atheists don't like votes which were cast by "Theists" (as they derisively call us). I always find this very ironic, because most of the moderators on this site are atheists themselves, so if they were biased, it certainly wouldn't be in favor of any "Theists" around here. 

    I also think moderation on this site is poor and many bad decisions have been made by the moderators. But the difference is that I don't throw a massive public hissy fit over it every time I witness it, nor do I start harassing people that voted against me. 

    Bottom line; Nobody around here has any tolerance for votes they merely disagree with, and there are no rules preventing debaters from arguing with or harassing voters they don't like. 


    My vote on this idea is NO. I don't even know how this idea was conceived, as it does nothing to address any actual problem that currently exists. 

    What you should implement is the suggestion that Drafterman made HERE


    Anything that affects the same winrate and/or rating (especially rating) needs to be identically harshly moderated.
    I also agree with what RM said here. If a debate is ruled a "troll" debate, then it should no longer count toward ratings. If something counts toward ratings, it should be required to abide by the same rules as every other rated debate. 

    We also need some sort of objective standard to determine which debates are "troll debates" and which aren't. It shouldn't just be a moderator's personal opinion.
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 283
    Forum posts: 8,651
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @Raltar
    I have never once blamed moderation on DarC for corruption neither in votes nor in site-moderating thus far. I have blamed them for incompetence that has actively cost me ranking by lowering me instead of raising me fairly significantly causing a chasm due to this debate where your vote was reported for over 1.5 weeks with no removal (you even admitted it should be removed to me, admit it) and where some lunatic came in at the last hour and voted me out of victory:


  • Raltar
    Raltar avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 155
    0
    5
    8
    Raltar avatar
    Raltar
    --> @RationalMadman
    I have never once blamed moderation on DarC for corruption neither in votes nor in site-moderating thus far.
    I didn't say you did. I was referring to a different situation. 

    As I did admit, I think the moderators on this site are doing a poor job overall, but that opinion is in relation to situations I have experienced. Not situations involving anyone else. 

  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 283
    Forum posts: 8,651
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @Raltar
    I agree with drafterman on that idea, you don't know the history when I say I am anti-drafterman-movement. He changed over time. He was a voting-policy-anarchist in his early days here.
  • Raltar
    Raltar avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 155
    0
    5
    8
    Raltar avatar
    Raltar
    --> @RationalMadman
    you don't know the history when I say I am anti-drafterman-movement.
    I admit I don't know the background on that. I also can't really offer an opinion on it. 

    However, his idea that I liked to was a good one. I believe it will help to address the poor decisions made by moderators and make both voters and debaters a lot happier about votes in the long run.

    If moderators can't just nuke votes without warning, but have to give the voter a chance to correct any shortcomings, then it makes life a lot easier for the voter and also gives the debater a chance to dispute anything specific about the vote they may have a legitimate reason to dispute. After the vote has been corrected and allowed to stand, no further (public) bickering over the vote should be allowed. 

  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 283
    Forum posts: 8,651
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @Raltar
    I was always of the idea that, like on DDO except not based on charming Airmax this time, there should be a default of inability to vote and voting licence be a privilege, not a right.
  • bsh1
    bsh1 avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 2,589
    5
    5
    8
    bsh1 avatar
    bsh1
    --> @Raltar
    I also think moderation on this site is poor and many bad decisions have been made by the moderators.
    Such as? Moderation cannot address concerns which are not brought to our attention.

    My vote on this idea is NO. I don't even know how this idea was conceived, as it does nothing to address any actual problem that currently exists. 

    What you should implement is the suggestion that Drafterman made HERE
    I should make clear that the proposal above is not being put forward to the exclusion of other ideas or proposals. I certainly have no objection to the proposal Drafterman made in that post; in fact, it's quite a nice idea. It would need to be put to a community vote through a MEEP process, but I would support that.

    The reason why this thread was posted has to do with people conceiving of vote moderation as too harsh. I disagree with that, but for those who do feel that way, an opt-in gives them a choice of the standard applied to votes on their debate. It gives users more freedom to chose.


    I also agree with what RM said here
    Troll debates are practically not moderatable given the rules available. In a rap battle, for example, there are no arguments or counterarguments to analyze, which makes it impossible to apply argument point standards to the debate. Troll debates are also not moderated because voting on them tends to be even more subjective then in non-troll debates, so the same kinds of standards don't make sense for both kinds of debates. When debaters choose to host troll debates, they choose to initiate debates which are not vote moderated, and so they bring the results of that decision upon themselves.