MEEP: Voting Policy, Part 2

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?

Unless one or the other combatants can establish something is a fact, or at least reasonable to believe, their argument is weak, just an opinion. Something that is a fact is objectively so, meaning it is the case.

If both sides agree on definitions, they are treated as facts for the sake of that particular argument.

It is just common sense.  (^8

What makes something a fact? 

If both sides agree on definitions, they are treated as facts for the sake of that particular argument.

If I told you, "FreeWill is just plain silly (absolutely insane) and is not rationally/logically justifiable" would you still consider me a reasonable person?

Explain free will. What does it mean? Then demonstrate you have it. 

This is not a discussion about the merits of free will.  This is a discussion about the merits of ridicule.

How do you measure the "objective truth" value of a particular statement if nobody agrees with your hypothetical?

Sometimes it is hard. 

No kidding.

For example, either Vishnu or Nanabozho or Pangu or YHWH is "real" to the exclusion of the other three options.  Does that logical conclusion support any one of the presented gods as "more likely" than any of the others?  I don't believe it does.

And I believe it does - YHWH. But we digress from the topic of the thread. 

But you don't believe this based solely on the mutual exclusivity of the other options.  You don't believe this based solely on logic.

There is no rush to close the voting--particularly when participation is low. It is not really as if any of the votes are razor thin and I am just waiting for that one vote to swing something my way. I am simply giving people as much of a chance to merely participate. But, as I said earlier, the voting will close soon.