MEEP: Voting Policy, Part 2

Author: bsh1 ,

Topic's posts

Read-only
Posts in total: 83
  • bsh1
    bsh1 avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 2,589
    5
    5
    8
    bsh1 avatar
    bsh1
    Given that moderation did not emerge with a clear consensus on the questions posed in the previous MEEP, we will be hosting this second MEEP with an eye to acquiring a clearer picture of where the community stands. For more on what the MEEP process is, see the previous MEEP thread. For the purposes of this first vote alone, any particular result of this MEEP will be considered valid if at least 10 users have expressed a preference on the policy in question and more than a majority of those participants are in agreement. If the result is not valid, I will implement the proposals in Questions 1 and 3, because answers to these questions are necessary, but not the proposals in 2 and 4.

    Below, moderation will propose several changes to moderation policy. Please indicate whether you are a yea (or yay, if you're super excited) or a nay on the proposed policy. If their are tweaks you would like to make to said policies, please suggest them (esp. if you are a nay), but also, importantly, indicate your overall support for the policy proposed.

    1. Is the current MEEP process an acceptable framework for hosting these policy discussions? Generally, the reviews of MEEP seemed positive, but confirmation of that impression is important. The MEEP process is described below.

    MEEPs (Moderation Engagement and Enactment Processes) 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.
    2. Should an opt-in voting standard which is less stringent than the default be implemented for debaters? A potential such opt-in standard is described below.

    • 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
    3. Should moderation moderate select-winner votes using the argument standard currently applied to the 7-point system?

    4. Should moderation be able to suspend problematic votes prior to deleting the voting in order to give the voter to fix the vote before the vote is taken down?

    5. Should there be an opt-in for stricter moderation standards? If yes, what should those standards look like?
  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    --> @bsh1
    1.) yes

    2.) they’re optional - so that’s fine. (Please add a referenced link or pinned post so they’re easy to reference in debate - or perhaps add a selectable option), default should be regular CoC rules.

    3.) yes

    4.) YES

    5.) Maybe - to discuss in another thread.

  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,892
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @bsh1
    1. Is the current MEEP process an acceptable framework
    yea

    Seems pretty awesome to me.

    2. Should an opt-in voting standard which is less stringent
    yea

    Definitely should be an option, I would prefer the proposed "less stringent" standards be the new default and the current standard be the "opt in".

    3. Should moderation moderate select-winner votes
    nay

    If you use exactly the same standard, why bother having a "select-winner" option at all?

    4. Should moderation be able to suspend problematic 
    yea

    People should definitely have a chance to modify their vote - and the option to modify should automatically extend the voting period.  For example, if someone votes with 2 minutes to go in the voting period, their vote should be suspended and they should be given at least 24 hours to modify their vote.

    5. Should their be an opt-in for stricter moderation standards?
    nay

    Honestly I'm not against an opt-in for stricter moderation standards in principle, but without seeing any specific proposals, I'm against it.
  • bsh1
    bsh1 avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 2,589
    5
    5
    8
    bsh1 avatar
    bsh1
    To be clear: current moderation practices do allow voters to modify their votes and to then re-vote. Moderation currently, however, takes down insufficient votes, and voters can then tweak the removed votes and re-vote.
  • bsh1
    bsh1 avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 2,589
    5
    5
    8
    bsh1 avatar
    bsh1
    --> @3RU7AL
    If you use exactly the same standard, why bother having a "select-winner" option at all?
    Because many debaters, myself included, feel that sources, spelling, and conduct do not deserve separate point categories. 
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,892
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @bsh1
    Because many debaters, myself included, feel that sources, spelling, and conduct do not deserve separate point categories. 
    But do the point totals actually matter to ELO?

    Is someone indirectly penalized if they only get votes for "arguments" and the other categories are ignored?
  • bsh1
    bsh1 avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 2,589
    5
    5
    8
    bsh1 avatar
    bsh1
    --> @3RU7AL
    I'm not sure what you're asking.

    The reason I object to the 7-point system is that the non-argument categories are not particularly relevant to the activity of debate, and that these other concerns can be dispensed with internally within the arguments themselves. Moreover, any attempt to assign these categories discrete proportions is absurd. Just because someone has better sources and better spelling does not mean they should tie a debate with someone who had exceedingly better arguments.
  • Vaarka
    Vaarka avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 695
    2
    1
    5
    Vaarka avatar
    Vaarka
    can we get a tl;dr that isn't you telling me to just read it? I kinda missed the last thread
  • bsh1
    bsh1 avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 2,589
    5
    5
    8
    bsh1 avatar
    bsh1
    --> @Vaarka
    You don't need to read the whole last thread. Just read the OP of this thread.

  • Ragnar
    Ragnar avatar
    Debates: 35
    Forum posts: 1,846
    5
    8
    10
    Ragnar avatar
    Ragnar
    1. Is the current MEEP process an acceptable framework for hosting these policy discussions?
    Yea.
    If anyone comes up with a better framework, they should suggest it. Until such time, MEEP seems to be a coherent system with which to work.


    2. Should an opt-in voting standard which is less stringent than the default be implemented for debaters?
    Yea.
    I firmly believe debaters should be able to set the standards they wish for their debates.


    3. Should moderation moderate select-winner votes using the argument standard currently applied to the 7-point system?
    Yea.
    I stand by the categorical allotments (I've posted elsewhere about slightly better categories to be used), but I remember on DDO when the select winner system was written such that a vote under it would have been technically valid for just S&G so long as it did not address any other category. Arguments are the most important piece, so it makes sense to have an easy to access option which just focuses on that.


    4. Should moderation be able to suspend problematic votes prior to deleting the voting in order to give the voter to fix the vote before the vote is taken down?
    Yay!
    Actually I would prefer if votes are never outright deleted, but just have the scoring stricken from them.


    5. Should there be an opt-in for stricter moderation standards? If yes, what should those standards look like?
    Yea.
    Honestly whatever increased standard the debaters in said debate desire.

    Regarding voting... I firmly believe votes should never be held to a higher quality standard than the debates themselves. Meaning, a two paragraph debate does not warrant a full dissertation of a vote. There are times when little more than 'Pro did not address the topic, con did' are enough.
  • Vaarka
    Vaarka avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 695
    2
    1
    5
    Vaarka avatar
    Vaarka
    --> @bsh1
    I meant a tl;dr of what's happening so I don't have to read the OP ;3

    I guess I can read it
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,892
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @bsh1
    Just because someone has better sources and better spelling does not mean they should tie a debate with someone who had exceedingly better arguments.
    Well, it sounds like you're just duplicating effort and not solving what you consider to be "the problem".

    Ok, so when creating a debate you select "winner selection" under the "point system" menu.  Geez.

    I'd probably have called the two options, "detailed voting" and "winner take all voting" or better yet "ARGUMENTS ONLY VOTING".

    In that case, sure, use the same voting standards as the other one.

    I had no idea anyone had a problem with this.

    And as an aside, I do like the option to vote for conduct and or sources if the arguments themselves are (as they often are) of less than stellar quality (logically muddled) on both sides.
  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 2,931
    3
    4
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    --> @bsh1
    1. Is the current MEEP process an acceptable framework for hosting these policy discussions? Generally, the reviews of MEEP seemed positive, but confirmation of that impression is important. The MEEP process is described below.
    1. I like it, but there are other possibilities.

    You have a modified scoring system but it does not instruct the voter so much in what to look for. 

    I would like to see a voter score sheet checklist added so that the voter has access to go down a list in accessing the debate, something that is standard in judging a debate that is also fair. It would make the process of judging more consistent and level. Each section would have a comment section to justify the awarding of points.

    The decision on voter score sheet would need to be voted on before it became a standard for judging. I supply an example below:


    A few favorites of the ones looked at:

  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 2,931
    3
    4
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    --> @bsh1


    MEEPs (Moderation Engagement and Enactment Processes) 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.
    2. Should an opt-in voting standard which is less stringent than the default be implemented for debaters? A potential such opt-in standard is described below.
    2. I think the more criterion the better, so the point scoring system offered is adequate. It judges the debate in a number of ways. It has to be presented in a particular manner, which gives the debate the appearance of formality and scholarship rather than profanity and random thought. Perhaps it is debatable on whether the better argument deserves more points than currently given??? The heart of the debate is the quality of the argument. Spelling, grammar, language, and conduct are also important. 

    Wikihow has some suggestions as do other sites:

    "Typical categories for assessment ask you consider if the competitor:
    • Directly addressed the topic.
    • Understood the basic issue.
    • Clearly explained their position.
    • Made a convincing case, complete with specific evidence.
    • Explained the other side’s weaknesses.
    • Responded directly to the other side’s critique.
    • Was courteous to the other side."



    • 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
    3. Should moderation moderate select-winner votes using the argument standard currently applied to the 7-point system?
    3. What does 'moderation moderate' mean? Seven or nine points (3 or 5 for the central feature - the argument) is fine. 


    4. Should moderation be able to suspend problematic votes prior to deleting the voting in order to give the voter to fix the vote before the vote is taken down?
    4. Yes. I also think the voter should be able to amend his reasoning if his reasoning for awarding a vote is unclear. There should be good reasons for awarding one combattant the better argument. If there is a clear bias that is unwarranted that is also a problem. It just becomes a popularity contest then. 



    5. Should their be an opt-in for stricter moderation standards? If yes, what should those standards look like?

    5. In the case of extreme bias when the outcome is obvious or where the voter does not give adequate reasons for their choice.

    "Leave your opinions at the door. Even experienced judges benefit from reminding themselves that they are there to assess the delivery, structure
    and argumentation presented by different competitors, regardless of whether or not they agree with the content. Keep in mind that competitors may be asked to articulate and defend positions they may not personally agree with, either.
    • Remind yourself to focus on the ballot and use it, not personal beliefs, as a guide to assess the debate."                                                           https://www.wikihow.com/Judge-a-Debate


  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 2,931
    3
    4
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    --> @bsh1
     
    The reason I object to the 7-point system is that the non-argument categories are not particularly relevant to the activity of debate, and that these other concerns can be dispensed with internally within the arguments themselves. Moreover, any attempt to assign these categories discrete proportions is absurd. Just because someone has better sources and better spelling does not mean they should tie a debate with someone who had exceedingly better arguments.
    That is why the case for more points to the argument is valid. Having said that, these other criteria are good because it forces each debater to present a formal and neat presentation and the sources back up their lines of evidence (not just assertions). Too many spelling or grammar mistakes subtract from the overall presentation. They are a negative.

  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 5,659
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    1. Is the current MEEP process an acceptable framework for hosting these policy discussions?
    No.

    2. Should an opt-in voting standard which is less stringent than the default be implemented for debaters?
    Yes.

    3. Should moderation moderate select-winner votes using the argument standard currently applied to the 7-point system?
    No.

    4. Should moderation be able to suspend problematic votes prior to deleting the voting in order to give the voter to fix the vote before the vote is taken down?
    Yes.

    5. Should there be an opt-in for stricter moderation standards? If yes, what should those standards look like?
    Yes, the existing judged debates fits that purpose.
  • Raltar
    Raltar avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 155
    0
    5
    8
    Raltar avatar
    Raltar
    1. No.

    2. No. 

    3. No. 

    4. YES!

    5. No.

  • bsh1
    bsh1 avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 2,589
    5
    5
    8
    bsh1 avatar
    bsh1
    For those saying no to the MEEP process and applying argument voting standards to select-winner debates, please suggest changes or alternatives to the proposals.
  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 5,659
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    Simple majority, no minimum participation requirement, all user-impact changes submitted to MEEP before being established as status quo (e.g. report anonymity, mods being unblockable, the MEEP process itself)

    Mike backing MEEP results to make them binding to the mods.

  • ResurgetExFavilla
    ResurgetExFavilla avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 556
    2
    2
    7
    ResurgetExFavilla avatar
    ResurgetExFavilla
    --> @bsh1
    1. Is the current MEEP process an acceptable framework for hosting these policy discussions?
    Yeah, so long as it's binding and universal.

    2. Should an opt-in voting standard which is less stringent than the default be implemented for debaters?
    I would prefer the current standards to be opt in and the more lax ones to be the default. It doesn't make much sense to me to 'opt in' to a more basic level of oversight.

    3. Should moderation moderate select-winner votes using the argument standard currently applied to the 7-point system?
    Is this about a winner-take-all standard? I support that as the default over points voting.

    4. Should moderation be able to suspend problematic votes prior to deleting the voting in order to give the voter to fix the vote before the vote is taken down?
    This should be the default, and the closing of the voting period shouldn't affect any outstanding revisions.

    5. Should there be an opt-in for stricter moderation standards? If yes, what should those standards look like?
    I think that's the purpose that the custom judged debates fulfill.

  • bsh1
    bsh1 avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 2,589
    5
    5
    8
    bsh1 avatar
    bsh1
    --> @ResurgetExFavilla
    Is this about a winner-take-all standard?
    Yes.
  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 5,659
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    I don't think people realize how much of a barrier majority +1 with a minimum participation threshold is to enacting changes, especially when the mods can arbitrarily decide what is and is not subjected to this MEEP process. As is, it's pure lip service that doesn't bind the mods to anything nor presents the users with any realistic avenue for change.
  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 5,659
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    If this MEEP process is accepted as-is, this site is pretty much irrecoverable.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,892
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @PGA2.0
    This is an excellent suggestion.


  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 5,659
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @3RU7AL
    Can't view the entire thing without a subscription. But it only looks like 2 pages. DART votes need at least 5 pages of explanation to be valid.