Total posts: 3,773
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Well said!
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
My votes:
- 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). - Allow Kudos points within votes?
Yes. They would basically be the opposite of vote fluffing. - Update the debates information page in the help center?
Yes. I actually can't imagine any reason someone would oppose this. - 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.
Created:
Updating Tally
n=14
Voting Policy 0.86/0
Kudos 0.23/0.4
Help Center 0.71/0
RO 0.86/0
Voting Policy 0.86/0
Kudos 0.23/0.4
Help Center 0.71/0
RO 0.86/0
Created:
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 policy, extended 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?
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Do you actually have any refinements to suggest?Yes: cognizant moderators who are knowledgeable about the subject which they presume to regulate.
Thank you for your feedback. Ensuring the moderators are both knowledgeable and again knowledgeable about the site policies and enforcement thereof, is such a high priority it has already been preemptively taken care of for you. You're welcome.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I called it out the main place the issue was occuring, which is not to say only members using the religion forum are capable of any of the things mentioned in that post or the one which preceded it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
He just came off a restraining order, and immediately started following the person around into every thread they started to launch insult after insult (AKA, to harass them), no matter how many times he was asked to cease. Then of course lied to moderation, claiming he only ever initiated responses to other people in said threads (which was patently untrue).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
*facepalm*
Following someone around like a lost dog which hasn't been potty trained, when they've repeatedly asked you to cease, is a CoC violation under the Targeted Harassment rule. While usually it is too minor to warrant intervention, enough of it can cross the line (such as with clearly "obsessive attempts to derail unrelated topics with impertinent grudges").
We apply a “reasonable person” to reported posts, which is particularly damning when the users in question literally just came off a restraining order and it's several threads.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I said many times (and have told mods before, so this isn't new info) that having restraining orders on this site is a losing battle and to ban someone over them does more harm than good. If there should be a RO in place, it should more relax than others.
Glad my weekend got too busy to push ahead on the referendum (I'll probably do it Sunday or Monday). If you have an RO policy in mind, please post it in the Upcoming Referendum thread.
I just did a write-up on RO's for the religion forum, which may be a useful place to start.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I meant no ad hominem attacks specifically within the debate, although I would imagine ad hominem attacks should also be off-limits for the votes as well.
Not often, but we have had to delete votes for that exact reason.
I would imagine that a bare-minimum RFD should include at least one verbatim quote from each participant from each round of the debate.
I often include some quotes in mine, and experimented with making RFDs out of quotes. As a vote ultimately boils down to how the voter interprets what was said (or at least it should), their own words to describe it are usually fine. However, a major step the proposed policy has is making the readership responsibility explicit and early (that they present some evidence of having read the debate in question, as opposed to what some do of just giving their general opinion on the topic).
so tailoring your sources to your opponent's preference would seem to be a demonstration of tact.
I would have nothing against a RFD giving extra credit for that (even tipping the source point to someone's favor, when it otherwise might remain in the tied range).
Regarding your earlier comment that the rules should be established such that they "could be programmed into a computer"Due to the subjective nature of most debates and likewise their votes, I disagree.Ok, I thought the whole charade was that judges were supposed to be "objective".If you're going to flat-out acknowledge "the subjective nature of most debates" then why not throw the rules out and replace them with "moderator's discretion"?
I hope that is a rhetorical question, as humans are unlikely to be capable of perfect objectivity 100% of the time... But in case it's not a rhetorical question... We don't do that because it'd be blatetly and intentionally unfair (believe me, I once spent a few months on D&D site for which the rules were both constantly changing and only accessible by staff members). In my opinion, a voting policy should both give the expectations and help guide people in voting better. While votes are not expected to be flawless, they should at least strive to be fair with regards to the effort put in by each debater.
Should a debate be judged on how convincing the arguments are to the voters (OR) should a debate be judged on LOGICAL COHERENCE ALONE?
That's a bit of an ouroboros question. People who understand logic, are more likely to find a logical argument convincing. But then an argument which technically contains the right logic which would appeal to them, might be presented poorly causing the same voter to not find it convincing at all.
I think a snippet from the proposed outside content policy may be helpful:
"We do not vote in a perfect vacuum. Your background is assured to influence how easy to follow certain contentions were, and even bias you on source types. The idea is to ensure you are at least trying to vote fairly for the debate in question, as opposed to voting as an ideologue."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You really only need one rule.NO AD HOMINEM ATTACKS.
I think history has shown a need for way more than that, given that a vote which contains no insults can be horrific (such as ones which make zero references to the debate in question, or write their own arguments instead of grading the debate in question).
...
Regarding your earlier comment that the rules should be established such that they "could be programmed into a computer"
Due to the subjective nature of most debates and likewise their votes, I disagree. Certainly a set of boolean functions to look for vote length and keywords would be possible, but would be ripe for easy manipulation via copy/pasted word salad. Granted, if anyone put the work into designing a spreadsheet for it, I would gladly try it out, and probably at least incorporate it as an initial quality control check on more complicated votes.
Debates are usually pretty subjective territory, so moderation for them needs to be able to read context in a way computers can't (at or least would be extremely difficult). While mistakes will inevitably happen, we honestly try. That we're some of the most prolific voters ourselves, should lend some authority from experience on the matter. That our own votes are sometimes deleted does prove we are not perfect, but also shows that we strive to be fair.
Created:
Posted in:
Obviously the CoC can't (or at least shouldn't) be run as a computer script. Sure User A mentioned User B so many times, but what types of mentions were those and in what context? Instead we apply a “reasonable person” standard to it. Yes, mistakes will happen. I would rather have the occasional mistake, then abusers having utter free reign to manipulate the system.
While there is flexibility, and plenty of room for discussion of general refinements, restraining orders have come up a bit recently...
Restraining Orders:
First, I will not hand out restraining orders every time someone wants one. They are nearly a last resort.
If a restraining order is issued, they are always mutual. Repeated or severe violations from either side, will result in a ban (the last one was for the remaining length of the RO, anyone have any thoughts to what would be better?).
Users under a restraining order may not seek to provoke the other (and no, failing to mention them is not seeking to provoke them... and yes, there have been complaints about that very action being the epitome of bullying). Things that clearly are violations (context dependant):
- Trying to talk to them, be it on the forums, private messages, asking others to talk to them on your behalf, or otherwise.
- Publicly talking about them (yes, even if using an obvious code name), especially in a negative light. Something small like "I'm not interested in discussing so-and-so" is not a violation unless done in a bizzare repetitive manner (like spamming it across several threads to try to tell them how much you're still thinking about them).
- Interacting with their debates.
- Following them around like a stalker. ... Regarding this, many times people will be drawn to the same discussion and even engage with the same people, but this can be done without direct engagement with each other (and should still be treated with care). If a topic started by the other catches your attention, you can start your own thread on that topic and invite specific users (even quoting them from the previous thread).
If a user is bothering you to the point where you would like a restraining order, here's the steps I suggest (all steps assume they are being an intentional nuisance, and over a prolonged period):
- Ask them to cease and desist engaging with you (usually preceded by asking them to back off on the problematic type of engagement).
- Likewise, cease and desist yourself (this is usually critical).
- Repeat the request.
- Ask a moderator for help (usually this results in just a PM to them asking them to tone whatever down).
- Repeat the request.
- Ask a moderator again.
Of course, some things will warrant an RO faster, or even skipping to other sanctions. Other things are not problematic enough to ever warrant intervention.
After an RO ends, interaction with whomever it was should still be treated with care... Just imagine in real life an RO expires, and the person immediately shows up at the other's birthday party.
Created:
Posted in:
Date: 02/04/2020
Moderator: Ragnar
ethang5 has been banned for 30 days for wanton and repeated violation of the targeted harassment clause of the CoC. This is magnified by the timing of having only just come off a restraining order.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Do you actually have any refinements to suggest?
Created:
This seems as good of a place as any to address some recent reports made against Brother...
While to me Brother's dialog tactic is akin to beating a dead horse, he is up front about his modus operandi. This does not wholly excuse everything, but to use an analogy: If you go into a mosh pit at a rock concert, expect to get pushed around.
Further, I've got to give brother some credit for having thick skin. I can see multiple threads which would qualify as call-out threads made against him, and he has reported none, he merely joined in on the discussion within. Whereas others have reported his replies within callout threads made against him... 🤦🏻♂️
All that said, if he or anyone else truly crosses the line by making threats or some such, please inform us. Otherwise, if anyone wants to be left alone by another member: The first couple steps are asking them to stop, and ceasing engagement yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
When it comes to voting on debates, policy doesn't really matter, enforcement does.
The current moderation team could be replaced, and a new one should still be enforcing a policy everyone can access. For example, if User A abuses the report function when he spots someone he dislikes committing such imaginary crimes as not being nice enough to someone else (which the CoC does not mandate), I'd rather any moderation team enforce the CoC by generally ignoring the dozens and dozens of spam reports as opposed to banning the users who have committed no CoC violations at the behest of User A.
Whatever policy is written won't change much about the culture of junk-filled RFDs.
A policy affects which ones are eligible for deletion if reported, and further attempts to guide people in the right direction of having quality votes. With no policy, we'd have vote bomb wars (as was actually seen for awhile on a previous debate site).
Especially not when we get punished for reporting and have flagging option deleted from our accounts, rather than asking us why we reported them.
The CoC we democratically voted in clearly specifies "Revocation of abused privileges" as one consequence of wanton repeated abuse. I can count on one hand the number of users who have had the any of the quick flagging features revoked, and all are still allowed to write in to moderators about actual CoC violations... That it now takes a little of their time to do when requesting moderators make a much larger time investment in review of the reported content, seems a lot closer to fair.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The proposal specifically states "in most cases,"The bold MANDATORY seems to overshadow that somewhat.
Arguments must be reviewed to be determined as a tie (by a lower standard than if assigning the points), but can indeed be a tie. The mandatory thing is that there is a review.
As for the idea of forcing shared BoP: For many resolutions that would leave con being required to do the impossible of proving a negative.Unless the resolution is framed in the negative.
True, pro also sometimes gets the task of proving a negative.
I believe BoP is best left up to the debaters to frame and the voters to judge.Sure, but if that's the case, why bother writing down any rules at all or even mention "win by default"??
Because it holds true "in most cases," as the policy preludes that default statement.
Further, the proposed policy gives implicit advice on how to properly structure shared BoP if such is desired ("pre-agreed competing claims").
Created:
Posted in:
I just made a micro change to the proposed conduct policy:
Common examples are repeatedly using personal attacks instead of arguments,
The word repeatedly was added further emphasise that it should not be given lightly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
That seems directed at me, but I am stuck waiting on your actual point...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
ArgumentsMandatory! Three points.Goes to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.I'm not sure I agree with this.The debates I spent excessive amounts of time investigating involved two parties who were BOTH making bad arguments and utterly failing to address the resolution.In these cases I would NOT award points for arguments (conduct and sources could sway the outcome).I would hope the BOP would be shared, and neither party would be rewarded for their incompetence with a "win" by default.
I do not entirely understand your main disagreement. The proposal specifically states "in most cases," having already explained that arguments can be left a tie so long as some reason for that tie is given (it's explained a couple paragraphs above that, and then again later under vote removal). ... So yeah, you withholding arguments from both those sides, so long as you tell why, is fine.
As for the idea of forcing shared BoP: For many resolutions that would leave con being required to do the impossible of proving a negative. I believe BoP is best left up to the debaters to frame and the voters to judge.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
For context, a truisms are not moderated rule already applies under the current voting policy, merely called one category of "troll debate" as outlined in the extended policies document (I really do want to do away with reliance on said document).
However in direct response to the question, IMO the objectivity of morality can be argued by either side; in fact I've partaken in multiple debates on the subject. Sure, someone can leverage Hume's Guillotine, but that doesn't guarantee they will explain it well or that no defense will be offered.
If someone starts a debate: "Assuming morality is incompatible with objectivity, then morality is incompatible with objectivity." That would be a time this rule would come into play.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Fragrant misbehavior in the comment section,Flagrant
Good catch. Thank you!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I think the question ought to be relevant enough to inform voters that a vote offering source points when there is no sourcing, whether or not it is a full forfeit, amounts to fluff, sympathy voting. I don't buy it. Why be so condescending? What's wrong with taking a stand?
I would say if there is zero sourcing in a debate, an award for it is a fluff vote (except in cases like an FF, where it doesn't matter).
I'm not meaning to be condescending, I just don't care if FF's receive A+ quality votes. If you or anyone else cares about it, then by all means suggest a different forfeiture policy than the proposed one.
For ease of reference, here is relevant part of the proposed policy:
DisqualificationsThere exist special cases, which modify how rules are otherwise enforced. These all tie back to the spirit of fairness, to encourage good sportsmanship, and ultimately to be less wasteful of people’s time. In the following cases, it would be unfair to require voters to expend greater effort than the least of the two sides in a debate. As such, a voter may elect to vote citing one of the following labels decreasing or even eliminating the need for further analysis.Note: Calling these disqualifications may be a touch too harsh, but victory within them is exceedingly rare.ForfeituresForfeitures harm both arguments and conduct.A forfeiture occurs when either side in a debate is a true no show for a round, allowing the timer to expire. It is not to be confused with merely waiving a round, or having an abysmally poor argument (see Foregone Conclusions below).Any unexcused forfeited round merits an automatic conduct loss, but arguments must still be voted on or justified as a tie. Repeated forfeitures waives the need to consider arguments (you still may, but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant).Should either side forfeit every round or every round after their initial arguments (waiving is not an argument), the debate is considered a Full Forfeiture, and any majority votes against the absent side are not moderated (a vote may still be cast in their favor of the absentee, but is eligible for moderation to verify that it is justified via the normal voting standards).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Then there is the matter of a voter awarding source points, under the current policy, to an opponent with a full forfeit. Rationale, please, because it appears that could still be a valid vote, as well. At the very least, it appears that scenario should now be considered a fluff vote, but appears to still be a loophole.
Under a full forfeiture, what matters is the majority awardee. I don't understand what benefit there would be to moderation nitpicking those votes, so long as they make the balance be in favor of the side which showed up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
@fauxlaw
it appears possible that a participant who legitimately sources could still lose the points to an opponent who does not source at all.No they wouldn't. Not being awarded for being the only person to source is not the same as being docked points for it.
Rare, but possible.
From the proposed policy:
A side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case (such as if the other side called attention to the flaws, thereby engaging with sources in a more effective manner with impacts to arguments; thereby flipping the source and harming the opposing argument).
This would usually be just an on balance thing, wherein two sides each with each only a couple sources, one is able to attain the points via source stealing...
However, if only one side directly posts sources, but does a terrible job of it such that the other side is able to go through said sources and prove they say the opposite of what was indicated, voters would be wholly justified in giving the award to the side who did not technically post them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I want to be sure I understand the award points;Argument: 3 + pointsSources: 2 + pointsLegibility: 1 - pointConduct: 1 - point
Mechanically nothing has changed, so the single point categories are given in inverse (one side does horribly at them, the other side is awarded it). The maximum points to one side remains 7, but we acknowledge that 2 of those are only eligible if the other side errored greatly.
Also, it appears the decision was made to shelve the idea of "kudos" points for a particularly superlative argument.
Glad someone remembers that one... The above efforts are thematically not to overly change things (ironic I know, since I listed like a dozen major changes). Kudos could still be worked in, but would need to be a separate referendum question.
I consider this "policy improvement" as a failure to improve...
While I agree it does not fix every potential failure, I disagree with the statement that it does not improve things...
Created:
Posted in:
If anyone wants to do serious nitpicking on it (like 'here's 20 places the punctuation could be improved'), let me know and I'll send you a link to it as an editable Google Doc.
So at least one question (and probably sub-questions) will be on the above policy replacing both current as well as any extended policies documents on it (pretty sure there's more stashed around here somewhere).
One suggestion that came up before, is raising the value of arguments in categorical votes; anyone have any feedback on that?
Created:
Posted in:
Vote Removal
Any votes in violation of the above are eligible for deletion. Ones determined to be borderline will not, even if the moderation team is likely to provide feedback to improve future votes from the user in question. Borderline is a broad area, wherein moderation leaves a vote in place but has hesitation.
When reporting a vote, unless the problem is obvious, alerting a moderator to your core issue with the vote (either in the comment section, or as a direct message) is strongly suggested.
Moderators will publicly review reported votes in the comment section, and delete or not delete each vote in question. They may also reevaluate at their discretion. In a non-moderator capacity they may even choose to vote.
Sadly, moderators cannot modify score allotments for votes partly below the standard, so must delete it in whole. The moderation team mechanically can only delete votes within the voting window. For cases of suspected malicious voting patterns, votes may be reviewed up to one month after voting has concluded.
Voters with previously deleted votes, may revote so long as they refine their reason for decision; especially to factor in feedback from moderators. However, fixing just what a moderator pointed out does not guarantee it will pass reinspection (e.g., a vote deleted swiftly for failing to mention arguments, might be deleted again for an invalid legibility award, even if now mentioning the arguments).
Votes which in no way try to shift the outcome, are less less likely to be moderated. Again, moderators are volunteers, so please be conscientious of our time. On a related note, if reporting, do so fairly and promptly, instead of as a strategy.
The following at the most common reasons a vote will be deleted:
- Bias
- Tied Arguments
- Vote Bombs
- Fluff Votes
- Based on Outside Content
- Non-Sequitur.
Bias
In voting, from the outset of reading a debate there must be the strong possibility that a voter will vote for either side, if there’s not, then they should at least withhold any point allotments.
Three common ways this occurs are:
- Retaliation against one debater, such as they recently beat the voter in a debate or voted against them. Votes which would otherwise be ruled borderline but are suspect for this, will be deleted.
- Favor for one debater, such as vote trading.
- Overwhelming opinion on the topic. Very often seen in religious and political debates, wherein a voter refuses to even consider merits to the opposing argument… This is frankly demeaning to the side they wish to favor, pretending they are so weak as to need such fluffery.
Tied Arguments
While arguments may be determined as a tie, without that analysis or an exception, they must be weighted.
Whereas wholly tied votes are generally considered borderline and not removed, due to their lack of any meaningful impact on the outcome. Still, if they fail to be better than spam, they will be removed.
Vote Bombs (VB)
Vote Bombs are obviously bad votes, suffering lack of analysis and/or awarding too many points without justification.
Similarly, Counter Vote Bombs are considered vote bombs. Please just report the original vote bomb.
Fluff Votes (FV)
Fluff votes are votes which attempt to fluff up their preferred side with superfluous unmerited point allotments to help crown them the winner. This includes writing arguments against one side which were not present nor implied within the debate.
Awarding clearly in the inverse of the common sense weighing to assign extra points to your majority awardee (such as giving them conduct for them forfeiting), is such a clear example of vote fluffing, that it is grounds for immediate revocation of voting privileges. Similarly withholding points obviously against them (such as you want them to win so declare their repeated forfeitures shouldn’t cost conduct), is likewise suspect.
Based on Outside Content
Any awarded point(s) must be based on the content presented inside the debate rounds. Content from the comment section, other votes, forums, your personal experience, etcetera, is ineligible for point allotments.
This is not to prevent offering feedback, but you must vote based on the debate which occurred, never the arguments they should have made. If the determinant of a vote is dependent on analysis of things not in the proper debate, the vote is eligible for removal.
That said, we do not vote in a perfect vacuum. Your background is assured to influence how easy to follow certain contentions were, and even bias you on source types. The idea is to ensure you are at least trying to vote fairly for the debate in question, as opposed to voting as an ideologue.
If in doubt, the comment section is the ideal place for any commentary which is not part of the vote. It is also an acceptable place to expand the reasoning for your vote.
Non-Sequitur
The reason for the decision literally doesn’t make sense. … Jabberwacky!
Non-Moderated Debates
Some debates by their nature, or pre-agreement between the debaters, are not eligible for normal moderation. Of course, extreme abuse may warrant exceptions wherein moderation will intervene (such as someone voting solely for a dislike and/or like of either side).
For non-moderated debates, Winner Selection voting is strongly encouraged.
Examples of non-moderated debates include...
Subjective Competitions
Differentiated from normal debates, rap battles, poetry slams, talent shows, and the like, are too subjective to a different standard than what these rules are designed to enforce.
Comedy Debates
Debates primarily designed to be humorous or facetious, or containing primarily humorous or facetious content, are not eligible for normal moderation. That said, while not a requirement, voters on these are encouraged to judge arguments based on how funny they found each case.
Please do not join an obvious comedy debate with the intent of treating it in a wholly serious manner. Similarly, if it’s a serious topic, please don’t toxically try to turn it into a pure comedy debate (which is not to say excluding all jokes from normal debates).
Traps and Riddles
It is up to each voter if the trap was navigated or the riddle solved, and they usually lack impacts in the normal sense; therefore, they’re non-moderated.
Truisms and Tautology
The setup for a debate need not be wholly fair, but there should be grounds for either side to argue. A debate such as “the sun is hot”' are so overwhelmingly in favor of one side, that the other side is best off kritiking the setup and asking for voters to disregard the proofs. This makes it a time of voter discretion if the setup was cheating or not, so moderation is unlikely to intervene.
Further reading:
Vote Rigging
Vote rigging is any attempt to unduly influence voters on any debate. Votes determined to be based upon this, will of course be deleted. Most voters will not otherwise be penalized, as they are usually the victims rather than willing accomplices.
You may of course always request further detail from a voter, but it should not cross into clear harassment should people deign to vote against you (or not enough in your favor).
It is not vote rigging to ask for someone to cast a fair vote.
Vote trading may or may not be vote rigging, depending on whether the outcome of the traded votes is fixed or otherwise agreed upon before the debates are evaluated by the voters (intentionally withholding votes that would otherwise be against the person, is malicious vote trading).
Created:
Posted in:
Disqualifications
There exist special cases, which modify how rules are otherwise enforced. These all tie back to the spirit of fairness, to encourage good sportsmanship, and ultimately to be less wasteful of people’s time. In the following cases, it would be unfair to require voters to expend greater effort than the least of the two sides in a debate. As such, a voter may elect to vote citing one of the following labels decreasing or even eliminating the need for further analysis.
Note: Calling these disqualifications may be a touch too harsh, but victory within them is exceedingly rare.
Plagiarism
Plagiarism is passing off the intellectual property of another as your own. Plagiarism poisons the very spirit of debate. Plagiarism is such an extreme offense, that even if identified outside the debate it may be voted with prejudice against the offender in all categories. While there exist minor cases which do not necessitate such grave sanctions, the determination of the degree of it generally rests with each voter.
An argument dependent upon plagiarized material, lacks any leg to stand on once said material is dismissed.
If credit is given and the copy/pasted sections are properly marked, it is not plagiarism. It may however fail to be a meritable argument for lack of analysis from the debater, even while doing fantastic on the sourcing. An argument composed more than 50% of quotes is not assured to cross this line, but is in clear danger of it.
Forfeitures
Forfeitures harm both arguments and conduct.
A forfeiture occurs when either side in a debate is a true no show for a round, allowing the timer to expire. It is not to be confused with merely waiving a round, or having an abysmally poor argument (see Foregone Conclusions below).
Any unexcused forfeited round merits an automatic conduct loss, but arguments must still be voted on or justified as a tie. Repeated forfeitures waives the need to consider arguments (you still may, but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant).
Should either side forfeit every round or every round after their initial arguments (waiving is not an argument), the debate is considered a Full Forfeiture, and any majority votes against the absent side are not moderated (a vote may still be cast in their favor of the absentee, but is eligible for moderation to verify that it is justified via the normal voting standards).
Concessions
If either side explicitly conceded the debate, only votes which cast a majority allotment in favor of the conceder are eligible for moderation. That said, the voter may otherwise assign points as they wish; such as giving conduct to the conceding side as a reward for stellar sportsmanship (even while conduct is otherwise limited to a penalty).
This is invalid if the concession was not explicit, not intended, or not part of the debate proper (such as a debater in the comment section saying they would vote in favor of their opponent).
Foregone Conclusions
For debates which any reasonable person would know the argument outcome from barest of skimmings, they may rightly be declared a foregone conclusion and held to a somewhat lower standard when voting against the dolt. Effectively, if one side does not give enough of a topical argument to weigh, then there is no need to write a more detailed vote than their lack of a case.
While the sufficiency standard clearly points to appeals to quantity of arguments not being enough, someone with a single line assertion against a warranted case with sources, simply does not merit the same level of consideration. Similarly, someone who never advances their case beyond obvious non-sequiturs, or commits the not even wrong fallacy regarding the resolution, have also not earned detailed analysis beyond pointing that out. I.e., sufficiency goes both ways, a debater must first offer a sufficient argument for sufficient consideration to occur.
This should not be declared lightly, as it is ripe for challenge if both sides put real effort into the debate, and abuse of this declaration is a fast way to lose voting privileges. Someone conceding the resolution itself but insisting they won anyways because they are ultimately right, is a prime example of a forgone conclusion. However, even a case made of Gish Gallops should not render the debate a foregone conclusion without need to analyze the other side, but it exemplifies a time where no voter would be expected to read every line.
Cheating
People lacking in intellectual integrity will always devise more ways to cheat. If you spot some true rubbish which invalidates their argument or the spirit of debate, call it out with a vote against them on conduct (or more as warranted by the comparative arguments) and move on.
A few examples:
- Plagiarism. This is listed above with its own section, but is worth repeating.
- A final round blitzkrieg… This is when someone (usually a contender) intentionally and repeatedly withholds their argument until the end to deny the other side any chance to counter them. As this is contextually not a natural part of the debate, it can be dismissed as such. … Not to be confused with the mere act of having a final round.
- Absurd special rules. Whereas some clarifications in the description are conducive to the spirit of debate, others are clearly set to swindle someone out of having an actual debate. Obvious examples include: “no refutations,” “must waive all rounds,” etc. This tactic should never be rewarded. … Not to be confused with merely somewhat unfair ones, like setting favorable definitions (to which their opponent could have requested alterations prior to the start).
- Flagrant misbehavior in the comment section, such as threats, or voter manipulation (not to be confused with polite requests for more details, or encouraging more votes in general).
Kritiks can be annoying, but are not inherently cheating.
Created:
Posted in:
Casting Votes
The act of casting votes on DebateArt.com is not treated like common popular voting, but instead reasoned judgements. The offered reason for decision must be publicly accessible.
Each debate uses one of two point assignment systems: Categorical (the default), or Winner Selection. The core metric under either is the comparative strength of arguments, which must always be reviewed even if left a tie (in which case less detail is required, but some reason for said tie based on the debate content must still be comprehensible within the vote). Winner Selection requires no level of detail beyond arguments, as no other metrics are scored directly (they may still bolster or weaken arguments); whereas Categorical (AKA “four points”) debates use four metrics for comparative performance insights while awarding up to seven points.
To award any category, a voter must explicitly perform the following three steps:
- Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within said category.
- Weigh the impacts against each other, to include if any precluded others.
- Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate.
As an example: “Pro used rock, con used paper. While pro showed that rocks last longer than paper, which outweighs con’s appeal to novelty that paper is newer than rocks; within the game of Rock/Paper/Scissors that this debate was about, paper clearly wins against rock.” While more is usually better, a dissertation is never required.
Arguments
Mandatory! Three points.
Goes to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
All other point categories connect to arguments, ideally enhancing them, but may be weighted separately; particularly if the awardee for arguments nevertheless fell short in another area so as to mitigate their margin of victory.
Sources
Optional. Two points.
Goes to the side that (with a strong quality lead) better supported their case with relevant outside evidence and/or analysis thereof. If both sides have done their research due diligence, these points are usually tied.
A side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case (such as if the other side called attention to the flaws, thereby engaging with sources in a more effective manner with impacts to arguments; thereby flipping the source and harming the opposing argument).
Things not to award sources for (barring for exceptional cases):
- Common knowledge… E.g., that Wikipedia says JFK was the president of a country, is unlikely to enhance any impacts (unless the other side is denying that).
- The subject of the debate… E.g., in a biblical debate, preferring one side’s analysis of the bible itself already speaks directly to the argument points, not exceptional sourcing.
- A lead of only a couple sources, even if only one side had any. While quantity isn’t the standard, there is a minimal threshold for consideration.
- Source spam without relevant analysis by the presenter. Sources are awarded for quality, not mere quantity.
- The voter’s own research on the topic.
While a voter may choose to, there is no requirement to study any source beyond the precise part(s) quoted or paraphrased by either debater (and even then, within reason). Further, overly studying a source beyond what was presented, risks basing a vote upon the outside content of your own analysis instead of that offered by the debaters. If neither debater even alluded to details from a source a voter mentions, the vote has probably crossed this line. The one exception where it is acceptable to do this would be a situation in which the voter notices one side blatantly lying about what is present in their source (even if that criticism wasn’t brought up by the opponent). Note that this does not include implied warrants (For example, Debater A gives a statistic of rising temperatures and says “this source supports my argument that people will be eating more ice cream in the years to come”... The warrant here is implied, not explicitly stated. The voter should not use this as an excuse to say Debater A lied about the contents of the source).
Invalid if: No comparison of the two side’s source utilization is offered. No assessment of the impact on arguments from at least one source directly mentioned.
Legibility (formerly Spelling and Grammar)
Optional. One point.
Awarded as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, wherein sections of the debate become illegible or at least comparatively burdensome to decipher.
Examples:
- Unbroken walls of text, or similar formatting attempts to make an argument hard to follow.
- Terrible punctuation throughout.
- Overwhelming word confusion, or regularly distracting misspellings.
- Jarring font and/or formatting changes.
Good formatting to include simple to follow section headings are ideal, but if the other side was easily legible, the point may not be awarded. The goal isn’t to nitpick, the problem(s) should usually be obvious at a glance.
Invalid if: Awarded for minor errors, such as “during R3 pro wrote ‘of’ instead of ‘off,’” or even there/their/they’re type confusion.
Conduct
Optional. One point.
Awarded as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate. Common examples are repeatedly using personal attacks instead of arguments, committing plagiarism or otherwise cheating.
The disrespect of even a single forfeiture, necessitates this penalty unless there is reason to withhold it. Repeated forfeitures are grounds for casting conduct only votes without any consideration to arguments (continued in Forfeitures).
Invalid if: Both sides had similar types and/or magnitude of misbehavior, or it is too minor for a reasonable person to be significantly distracted from the topic. Further, a conduct penalty is not warranted for mere dislike for the topical contentions, or for weak argumentation.
Further notes
- Points neither awarded nor commented upon, are considered wholly ungraded. Generally this is fine, as is remarking on something but leaving it within the tied range even if leaning a certain way. However, exploitive withholding of any category overwhelmingly against your majority point awardee, is evidence of profuse bias, and is therefore subject to vote deletion (e.g., someone forfeits half the debate and receives a favorable argument vote unmitigated by conduct).
- With the exception of arguments, certain things are naturally implied by their absence of remarks...Such as: If only one side forfeited, the other side showing up warrants no comment as it is implied. If one side made an argument illegible, so long as the other side did ok, pointing out issues of just one side implies the other did not make the same mistakes.
- It is necessary to explain all awarded points, but a mitigating point against your primary point recipient need not be as detailed for the vote to remain if not good, at least borderline.
- A debate may have special rules specified within the description. These are not strictly enforced by moderation, but a voter may choose to abide. If a voter is choosing to and there was a challenge to said rules within the debate, some analysis of that challenge is highly suggested.
- With regards to the subjective nature of voting, often arguments are exceedingly close. A good voter might change who they would determine the winner of that metric week to week if they reevaluated the debate. However, if awarding other points, it should be for a clear and decisive margin of victory.
Created:
Posted in:
[NEW POLICY STARTS HERE]
Basics
- Strive to be fair.
- Understand that moderators are unpaid volunteers, as are voters.
Eligibility
By casting any vote, you agree to be bound by this Voting Policy. If not reading all of it, ensure you at least understand the Core Values and Casting Votes sections.
Shortly after completing the following two steps, voting privileges should automatically be enabled:
- Complete at least two rated debates which are eligible for moderation, each containing no more than a single forfeiture, using the open voting system (as opposed to judicial selection).ORMake 100 non-spam forum posts.
- Be registered at least three days.
Votes cast by ineligible accounts will generally be deleted.
Repeated poor voting without improvement, or any malevolent voting, may result in suspension of voting eligibility until improvement is demonstrated.
Core Values
While there are many valid voting paradigms, votes determined to be in violation of the following values will be deleted.
Sufficiency
A sufficient vote is one which explains why the voter regarded one debater as excelling beyond the other within any metric they award. It is not sufficient to merely state that “X had more/better arguments,” because nothing in that statement suggests why; it is merely a restatement of the chosen award.
A sufficient vote must explain all points awarded. Such as, if you award argument and conduct points, but explain only the former, your vote will be removed for being insufficient.
A sufficient vote must not merely reiterate who you agreed with, rather you should be able to vote against your preferred side should their case be inferior. Related to this, votes based on outside content are deemed insufficient; said content may still be commented upon if made clear it is not a determinant.
Readership Responsibility
Any vote must always indicate two things about the voter:
- That they personally read at least the main points, and
- That they are the voting based on the content inside the debate proper.
To be clear: pre-existing bias for or against either side, must never be a decisive factor in any point allotment.
Opening Voting vs. Judicial Decision
Each debate here uses one of two voter assignment systems: Open Voting (the default), or Judicial Decision. Under Open Voting any member eligible to vote, may do so freely within the voting period (from a minimum of one week, to a maximum of six months). Judicial Decision debates have pre-selected judges, and the voting period closes immediately upon their votes being cast.
Reported votes will be reviewed by the moderation team for either, but with the uncertain time window of Judicial Decision debates, as well as the pre-selection of specific voters (presumably with their habits known), their votes are naturally held to a slightly lower standard.
Created:
Posted in:
Major Changes to Voting Policy
- Specified Winner Selection as arguments only (I don’t think we’ve ever been firm on what it is). 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 BoP 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 (I’m not positive the wording is quite right on it, suggestions are very much welcome), 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.
Created:
Posted in:
To be voted on later...
Drafted questions:
- Ratify the new Voting Policy?Voting "yes" to this question will replace the current policy (including extended policies documents and interpretations), with a single document.
- 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. - Update the debates information page in the help center?
- SUBMIT YOUR PROPOSED QUESTION!
This process is open to additions, please submit any ideas below.
Created:
Posted in:
Been awhile since we had a referendum, but various issues with the voting policy have not gone unnoticed. So I've worked out a bunch of potential refinements; which I am hoping we can discuss, improve, and then formalize with a vote in the near future.
As I've had to say before, I am happy to break apart many of the changes, but I'm not going to do a line-by-line thousand question referendum.
Stuff not related to the voting policy is also welcome for the referendum. Just suggest it, and if there's explicit support and no good reason not to, it'll go in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@gugigor
There's at least a couple of my debates to which I would vote against myself.
The winning streak is definitely weird. When we started here, there were debates I took half intending to lose; but I was not going to just lay down once they got started...
A major factor is I now work full time (11.5 hour days), which makes it way easier for me to lose a debate, but also makes me less likely to engage in a debate to begin with. I mostly consider myself retired. I do impulsive ones on occasion, usually if someone strikes a nerve, or it's just too fun a topic (I will never cease loving troll debates)... But most opportunities for real ones that come up, I'd generally prefer to just talk to the person and understand where our differences come from, and see what we can learn from each other.
Created:
I suggest two directly connected ones: Ender’s Game, and Ender’s Shadow. Both by Orson Scott Card.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
"you're a gorgeous movie-star, therefore your political arguments and or views are invalid"
Not sure what the context is, but yes, that sounds like an Ad Hominem. An attack to the person. Not a particularly vile one, but certainly fallacious. An Ad Hominem is an attack against the person, instead of the actual argument they make. It's a little hard to never cross that line (I often do during debates, even while I hope the topic of the debate is still center of attention).
To show how fallacious it is, what is the magical person whose political arguments get to be valid? Heck, Ronald Reagan was a gorgeous movie star, were his political opinions therefore all invalid? ... Note: He later became president.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I speaking against legally forcing women to carry fetuses to termA women is not forces to carry, carrying is a biological necesity. The difference is that the government would not pay for the big abortion industry - if abortions were immoral.
Many do want to force women, and want the law to reflect their personal belief. As for abortion not being paid for under socialized medicine... That much seems fair (it's not even an expensive procedure)... So long as you're not talking about a general opposition to birth control (yeah, some ulta conservatives in the USA believe every sperm is sacred, and any time a woman isn't actively pregnant it is the exact same thing as her getting an abortion).
legally forcing them to have abortionsI am not sure this is possible even if it was written in the law.
#China
If human rights exist as you defined them, you are equally valuable to Joe Biden and Donald Trump.Am I not? I have the same human value to both of those people - neither of us should be murdered or enslaved.The verry idea of human rights is that no matter your oppinion about someone, they share the same value and rights as you do.Human rights will not work if one starts to rip certain groups of their rights because of a society's oppinion about them.
That all have some value, is not the same as equal value. Let's take a hypothetical: There's a burning building, trapped inside are Biden, Trump, and your daughter. You can only save one. Under your definition for human rights, so long as you believe in human rights, they are all of identical value so you would save whomever you reach first.
Similarly the situation of a daycare in a fertility clinic which catches fire, you would save the fertilized embryos instead of the children... At least if you're being consistent with your stated beliefs.
This includes the jews and unborn babies. Jews were considdered to be less valueable, but they were not - they were maybe a different culture and were called animals, but they had human DNA.
Nice Reductio ad Hitlerum: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Reductio-ad-Hitlerum
Honestly, I prefer a personhood standard of intellect. Take the movie Ted as an example. Laws focused on human DNA consider kidnaping, torturing, maiming, and even outright killing Ted to be a-okay, in spite of him clearly being a person by any reasonable standard. Heck, one day we might be transferring our minds to computers, yet going by a human DNA standard, those people would be wholly without rights. Whereas if a can of Pepsi had human DNA (I seem to recall a recent debate along those lines), it would have equal protections to any one of us.
Created:
Posted in:
In case it is unclear, I I speaking against legally forcing women to carry fetuses to term, or similarly legally forcing them to have abortions. In the US, constitutional amendments thankfully prohibit both.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Human rights: The idea that all humans are equally valuable regardless of their position, traits and views.
I disagree with this definition of human rights. If human rights exist as you defined them, you are equally valuable to Joe Biden and Donald Trump.
Still, even under said definition, women are human thus should not be enslaved by deranged people like Todd Adkins and his ilk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Three minor things I would love to see updated:
- Tied categorical votes no longer giving points to both sides (it's a little confusing to look at)
- Updating "Spelling and Grammar" to "Legibility" (we did a referendum awhile ago to allow other issues to penalize this point)
- Changing "Four points" to "Categorical" (four points is technically seven points across four categories)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jasmine
Here's the pending update for the information center:
By default debates use the open voting system, in which anyone may vote. If opting for a judicial decision, specific judges are invited. Similar to a direct challenge, if any decline judging, the debate will cease and automatically delete itself.
And from the draft of the upcoming voting policy update (to be voted on with a ton of other changes):
Opening Voting vs. Judicial DecisionEach debate here uses one of two voter assignment systems: Open Voting (the default), or Judicial Decision. Under Open Voting any member eligible to vote, may do so freely within the voting period (from a minimum of one week, to a maximum of six months). Judicial Decision debates have pre-selected judges, and the voting period closes immediately upon their votes being cast.Reported votes will be reviewed by the moderation team for either, but with the uncertain time window of Judicial Decision debates, as well as the pre-selection of specific voters (presumably with their habits known), their votes are naturally held to a slightly lower standard.To be clear, the act of casting votes on DebateArt.com is not treated like common popular voting, but instead reasoned judgements.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bullish
I need to get too much done this weekend, that I don't want to get buried in a game. Best of luck!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I hope you get through it ok. Best of luck to you.
Created: