That logic is supremely flawed. If I say I believe something then you may believe without reasonable doubt that I believe it unless proven otherwise. The job isn't for me to prove I'm pro life but for my opponent to prove that I'm not when I say I am.
Hardly the truth. While slave labor did eventually become the main economic factor of the South, initially this was not so and the North operated mainly independent of slavery in most respects. At no point in time did poor or middle-class whites hold slaves at a large scale. It was mainly the rich, especially those who owned plantations. And if you argue that the rich built America, I think you missed the whole "American dream" thing.
This is a comment notifying the respective parties that the debate deletion request is denied.
Here is the debate deletion policy found in Subsection B1: Content Deletion of the Moderation Extended Policies and Interpretations document:
"Debates may not be deleted, barring certain exceptions.
Exceptions to PA.A2.SB.SbB1.PI are limited to:
- Cases in which both debaters consent to a debate’s deletion
- Cases in which the debate, either in its text or title, contains personal attacks against another user
- Cases in which the debate constitutes spam or advertising
- Cases in which the debate, either in its text or title, contains doxxing, PM-exposing, or seriously threatening content
- Cases in which the debate was created by an account impersonating DART staff
- Cases in which the debate was created by a multi-account of a user banned at the time of the debate’s creation"
As this debate did not fall under any of these categories, the debate shall remain.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:1; 1 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This vote is borderline. Borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
The voter's RFD, while perhaps too vague of a summary, is satisfactory enough for me to believe that he sufficiently weighed the arguments present. One thing to note as a rule of thumb: statements such as "I disagree/agree", "I do/do not believe", or "I think" should not be present in a vote. While I did not believe the voter was inappropriately biased, having those statements present can cast unnecessary doubt. A different mod may see those opinionated phrases and strike them down to their leisure. It is much better to say "I did/did not buy the debater's argument because ____" as it ensures a more objective approach.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:7; 7 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote was borderline. Borderline votes are automatically ruled as sufficient.
The voter successfully justified every voting category except the S/G category.
To award S/G points, the voter must:
(1) give specific examples of S/G errors,
(2) explain how these errors were excessive, and
(3) compare each debaters' S/G.
Voting S/G based on particularly impressive writing does not qualify as a valid use of the S/G point system when the opponent has no glaring mistakes. Otherwise, this vote was sufficient.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Intelligence_06 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1:3; 3 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote was borderline. Borderline votes are automatically ruled as sufficient.
While this vote could have been removed based on technicality, I did not deem it necessary. For future reference, please adhere to the following 3 steps to award argument points:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and
(3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
This vote did not touch on point 3 as much as it should have, but the overall vote was borderline.
Maybe it could use more, but any more than 10k characters and it becomes an arduous slog for me. I still like to semi-enjoy my debates, even if they are on serious topics
Good objection. The BLM we know was founded in 2013, so I suppose I can amend the definition to include most instances of the "racial justice" movement in the US from 2013 onward.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nikunj_sanghai // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:3; 3 points to CON.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote was borderline. Borderline votes are automatically ruled to be sufficient. For future reference, this vote seemed too vague. While the voter did technically weigh arguments, it was not in an adequate level of detail.
This debate has undue burden of proof, I think. We can't PROVE that there is a God, but how can we prove there isn't? We can present some arguments for or against but there is no tangible evidence in any of them. This is simply because God is an inherently intangible subject. We shouldn't be able to measure or experiment with him by definition.
**************************************************
>Reported Comment: Ragnar // Mod action: Not Removed
>Reason for Mod Action:
The reported comment contained no reportable content.
**************************************************
RFD: [Argument: This gets convoluted because the math presented by Con from a previous debate [is that legit?] has flaws, allowable only because of a game that both participants played. A constant is x = 0.999r. Formula offered is 0.999r / 3 = 0.333r = x. but. 0.999r / 3 = 0.333r which is not = to x. Further, he cites 3x = 3 * 0.3r = 1. No. 3x = 2.997, where as 3x0.333r = 0.999, not 1. In the 10x - x proof, Con states 9x/9 = 9/9. No. 9x = 8.991 and 8.991/9 = 0.999 [x], whereas 9/9 = 1. Therefore, 9x/9 is not = to 9/9. Only by rounding does 0.999r = 1, but the proposal does not allow for rounding. Pro's r1 arguments of infinite distribution between 0.999 and 1, point function, set theory, binary systems, quadratics and polynomials all hold against Co's flawed math due to assumption. The role of assumptions in math is extensive, and scholars argue the point excessively without valid conclusion. To award the argument point based on assumptions seems invalid in debate. Proof ought to have a firmer stand. Argument to Pro, only due to r1 details which were then conceded in round 2. On the basis of r1, alone, point to Pro.
Sources: Pro conceded on the basis of a limit proof he cited that indicates that 0.999 can, indeed, equal 1. However, that source effectively demonstrates a mathematics game in which receding limits of value are claimed, and we ASSUME, as a result of the reductive limitations, that the values between 0.999r and 1 do not exist, when, in fact, they still do, no matter how small they are. The operative word in the limit proof game is "ASSUME." Pro had a valid argument in r1, and gave it away. Con's source in r1 from purple math plays the same game of limit proof detailed above. Since neither participant has other sources than Con sourcing himself, which I discount as a source, these points are tied.
S&G Tie
Conduct. Pro conceded without necessity. Con forfeited the last round, Neither represented laudable conduct. Tie.]
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3:0; 3 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments
>Reason for Mod Decision: Two issues I see with this one. For one, the CON side conceded the debate fully. The judge can't simply ignore this, especially if both sides formally agree. The win must go to the remaining side. Second, under the voting guide, it states:
"You're only allowed to vote on things the debaters actually said. You shouldn't be using your own arguments to rebut something a debater said, or as a reason to vote for a particular side. Raising your own arguments means you are not being a tabula rasa judge. A tabula rasa judge is supposed to be an unbiased third party with no outside knowledge of the topic. If you make your own arguments, you are allowing your outside knowledge to sway you."
This vote relied heavily on outside knowledge. While you may be extremely knowledgeable on the topic, you need to play the fool for the voting role.
If the voter wishes to resubmit the vote, he must acknowledge the concession. Hope this helps!
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:5; 5 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision:
[See Comments]
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote seems to do more debating than judging. The voter has attempted to refute PRO's arguments using arguments that were not presented in-round. Outside content may be commented on, so long as it does not cross into being a determinant factor on the vote. Should the voter weigh things outside of what the debaters themselves presented inside the debate rounds, the vote is eligible for deletion (identified plagiarism is a notable exception).
If the voter wishes to resubmit this vote, they must remove outside content and judge solely based on the arguments presented.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: PressF4Respect // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7:0; 7 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision:
[GG Outplayed]
>Reason for Mod Action:
Full Forfeit debates are not moderated.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: zedvictor4 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:0; Tied.
>Reason for Decision: See Vote Tab
>Reason for Mod Action: This is a tied vote.
In tied votes which allot zero points, since they have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons. In this case, removal of the vote is not warranted.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: DrFranklin // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:0; Tied.
>Reason for Decision: See Vote Tab
>Reason for Mod Action: This is a tied vote.
In tied votes which allot zero points, since they have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons. In this case, removal of the vote is not warranted.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: VonKlempter // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:0; Tied.
>Reason for Decision: See Vote Tab
>Reason for Mod Action: This is a tied vote.
In tied votes which allot zero points, since they have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons. In this case, removal of VonKlempter's vote is not warranted.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Crocodile // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:3; 3 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Vote Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
Remember, to award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and
(3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
While this vote did hit (barely) on all the points above, it really needed to go more in-depth with its analysis. As-is, though, it scrapes by as acceptable.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: User_2006 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1:7; 7 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision:
[Arguments: I prefer Con's argument because he has disproved why we should have limits such as how many debates we can be accepted into. Con states that accepting too many debates is their own fault rather than their system's fault and the rules should be defined in person based on their own instead of letting the system define it for them. Points to Con.
Sources: Con used more outside sources, including arbitrary ones that actually make sense. Points to Con.
S&G: Tie, both sides presentable.
Conduct: Pro had used what has appeared to be a swear word in round 3. Pro also looks like he is struggling while Con is more natural.]
>Reason for Mod Action: To award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and
(3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
This vote does neither of the three.
To award sources points, the voter must:
(1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate,
(2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and
(3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall were notably superior to the other's.
This vote does one of the three.
To award conduct points, the voter must:
(1) identify specific instances of misconduct,
(2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and
(3) compare each debater's conduct.
Frankly, there was plenty in this debate to warrant conduct points being awarded/taken away from either side. While the voter did identify an instance of misconduct, he fails to hit all three points.
To summarize, the voter must add significant detail to this vote and resubmit.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Crocodile // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1:0; 1 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate has been deemed non-moderated. Therefore, no moderation action is appropriate for this vote.
Full Forfeitures, explicit concessions, subjective competitions, truisms, and comedy (even if facetious) are not eligible for moderation (barring certain exceptions). Considering this debate is dually forfeited, moderation has no role in this debate.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: K_Michael // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1:0; 1 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate has been deemed non-moderated. Therefore, no moderation action is appropriate for this vote.
Full Forfeitures, explicit concessions, subjective competitions, truisms, and comedy (even if facetious) are not eligible for moderation (barring certain exceptions). Considering this debate is dually forfeited, moderation has no role in this debate.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw// Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1:0; 1 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate has been deemed non-moderated. Therefore, no moderation action is appropriate for this vote.
Full Forfeitures, explicit concessions, subjective competitions, truisms, and comedy (even if facetious) are not eligible for moderation (barring certain exceptions). Considering this debate is dually forfeited, moderation has no role in this debate.
That logic is supremely flawed. If I say I believe something then you may believe without reasonable doubt that I believe it unless proven otherwise. The job isn't for me to prove I'm pro life but for my opponent to prove that I'm not when I say I am.
Not really. I simply asked PRO to make a pro choice argument and attack my position. Which I laid out to him in R2.
Mall and I could use a few more votes on this one.
That's an abusive criteria
I fulfilled my BoP. I demonstrated I fall under the category of Pro Life. You're simply voting out of a silly grudge
:))
You can go through as many individual buildings as you want to, but it doesn't represent the full picture.
"You guys need to lighten up and have a little fun."
Says the guy who just unironically argued for a lite version of ethnic cleansing
Hardly the truth. While slave labor did eventually become the main economic factor of the South, initially this was not so and the North operated mainly independent of slavery in most respects. At no point in time did poor or middle-class whites hold slaves at a large scale. It was mainly the rich, especially those who owned plantations. And if you argue that the rich built America, I think you missed the whole "American dream" thing.
This is a comment notifying the respective parties that the debate deletion request is denied.
Here is the debate deletion policy found in Subsection B1: Content Deletion of the Moderation Extended Policies and Interpretations document:
"Debates may not be deleted, barring certain exceptions.
Exceptions to PA.A2.SB.SbB1.PI are limited to:
- Cases in which both debaters consent to a debate’s deletion
- Cases in which the debate, either in its text or title, contains personal attacks against another user
- Cases in which the debate constitutes spam or advertising
- Cases in which the debate, either in its text or title, contains doxxing, PM-exposing, or seriously threatening content
- Cases in which the debate was created by an account impersonating DART staff
- Cases in which the debate was created by a multi-account of a user banned at the time of the debate’s creation"
As this debate did not fall under any of these categories, the debate shall remain.
No problem at all friend
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:1; 1 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This vote is borderline. Borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
The voter's RFD, while perhaps too vague of a summary, is satisfactory enough for me to believe that he sufficiently weighed the arguments present. One thing to note as a rule of thumb: statements such as "I disagree/agree", "I do/do not believe", or "I think" should not be present in a vote. While I did not believe the voter was inappropriately biased, having those statements present can cast unnecessary doubt. A different mod may see those opinionated phrases and strike them down to their leisure. It is much better to say "I did/did not buy the debater's argument because ____" as it ensures a more objective approach.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:7; 7 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote was borderline. Borderline votes are automatically ruled as sufficient.
The voter successfully justified every voting category except the S/G category.
To award S/G points, the voter must:
(1) give specific examples of S/G errors,
(2) explain how these errors were excessive, and
(3) compare each debaters' S/G.
Voting S/G based on particularly impressive writing does not qualify as a valid use of the S/G point system when the opponent has no glaring mistakes. Otherwise, this vote was sufficient.
noted, no problem
I look forward to your R1
I meant I'd delete the votes in favor of Death on this debate, obviously I was just kidding anyways.
i will delete all ur votes
I am extremely curious how you hope to pull this off. Also you still have time to delete that comment
As a mod I approve
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Intelligence_06 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1:3; 3 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote was borderline. Borderline votes are automatically ruled as sufficient.
While this vote could have been removed based on technicality, I did not deem it necessary. For future reference, please adhere to the following 3 steps to award argument points:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and
(3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
This vote did not touch on point 3 as much as it should have, but the overall vote was borderline.
Speaking from experience? (ಠ⌣ಠ)
I'd be genuinely surprised if anyone actually takes this one. I'm not sure we have any witches on DART
Maybe it could use more, but any more than 10k characters and it becomes an arduous slog for me. I still like to semi-enjoy my debates, even if they are on serious topics
suit yourself.
Understood. If it helps, I could increase the time for arguments
Good objection. The BLM we know was founded in 2013, so I suppose I can amend the definition to include most instances of the "racial justice" movement in the US from 2013 onward.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nikunj_sanghai // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:3; 3 points to CON.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote was borderline. Borderline votes are automatically ruled to be sufficient. For future reference, this vote seemed too vague. While the voter did technically weigh arguments, it was not in an adequate level of detail.
This debate has undue burden of proof, I think. We can't PROVE that there is a God, but how can we prove there isn't? We can present some arguments for or against but there is no tangible evidence in any of them. This is simply because God is an inherently intangible subject. We shouldn't be able to measure or experiment with him by definition.
I don't even have the power to delete comments but I just thought I'd take care of that one LOL
**************************************************
>Reported Comment: Ragnar // Mod action: Not Removed
>Reason for Mod Action:
The reported comment contained no reportable content.
**************************************************
If only the libertarians had more traction.
RFD: [Argument: This gets convoluted because the math presented by Con from a previous debate [is that legit?] has flaws, allowable only because of a game that both participants played. A constant is x = 0.999r. Formula offered is 0.999r / 3 = 0.333r = x. but. 0.999r / 3 = 0.333r which is not = to x. Further, he cites 3x = 3 * 0.3r = 1. No. 3x = 2.997, where as 3x0.333r = 0.999, not 1. In the 10x - x proof, Con states 9x/9 = 9/9. No. 9x = 8.991 and 8.991/9 = 0.999 [x], whereas 9/9 = 1. Therefore, 9x/9 is not = to 9/9. Only by rounding does 0.999r = 1, but the proposal does not allow for rounding. Pro's r1 arguments of infinite distribution between 0.999 and 1, point function, set theory, binary systems, quadratics and polynomials all hold against Co's flawed math due to assumption. The role of assumptions in math is extensive, and scholars argue the point excessively without valid conclusion. To award the argument point based on assumptions seems invalid in debate. Proof ought to have a firmer stand. Argument to Pro, only due to r1 details which were then conceded in round 2. On the basis of r1, alone, point to Pro.
Sources: Pro conceded on the basis of a limit proof he cited that indicates that 0.999 can, indeed, equal 1. However, that source effectively demonstrates a mathematics game in which receding limits of value are claimed, and we ASSUME, as a result of the reductive limitations, that the values between 0.999r and 1 do not exist, when, in fact, they still do, no matter how small they are. The operative word in the limit proof game is "ASSUME." Pro had a valid argument in r1, and gave it away. Con's source in r1 from purple math plays the same game of limit proof detailed above. Since neither participant has other sources than Con sourcing himself, which I discount as a source, these points are tied.
S&G Tie
Conduct. Pro conceded without necessity. Con forfeited the last round, Neither represented laudable conduct. Tie.]
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3:0; 3 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments
>Reason for Mod Decision: Two issues I see with this one. For one, the CON side conceded the debate fully. The judge can't simply ignore this, especially if both sides formally agree. The win must go to the remaining side. Second, under the voting guide, it states:
"You're only allowed to vote on things the debaters actually said. You shouldn't be using your own arguments to rebut something a debater said, or as a reason to vote for a particular side. Raising your own arguments means you are not being a tabula rasa judge. A tabula rasa judge is supposed to be an unbiased third party with no outside knowledge of the topic. If you make your own arguments, you are allowing your outside knowledge to sway you."
This vote relied heavily on outside knowledge. While you may be extremely knowledgeable on the topic, you need to play the fool for the voting role.
If the voter wishes to resubmit the vote, he must acknowledge the concession. Hope this helps!
This is an interesting topic but will probably be an arduous slog to vote for. Respect to whoever votes on this thing.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:5; 5 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision:
[See Comments]
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote seems to do more debating than judging. The voter has attempted to refute PRO's arguments using arguments that were not presented in-round. Outside content may be commented on, so long as it does not cross into being a determinant factor on the vote. Should the voter weigh things outside of what the debaters themselves presented inside the debate rounds, the vote is eligible for deletion (identified plagiarism is a notable exception).
If the voter wishes to resubmit this vote, they must remove outside content and judge solely based on the arguments presented.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: PressF4Respect // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7:0; 7 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision:
[GG Outplayed]
>Reason for Mod Action:
Full Forfeit debates are not moderated.
Agree wholeheartedly. That is why I am not very active on our forums.
how are we defining the "end of the pandemic?"
damn it
Who you gonna call?
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: zedvictor4 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:0; Tied.
>Reason for Decision: See Vote Tab
>Reason for Mod Action: This is a tied vote.
In tied votes which allot zero points, since they have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons. In this case, removal of the vote is not warranted.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: DrFranklin // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:0; Tied.
>Reason for Decision: See Vote Tab
>Reason for Mod Action: This is a tied vote.
In tied votes which allot zero points, since they have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons. In this case, removal of the vote is not warranted.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: VonKlempter // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:0; Tied.
>Reason for Decision: See Vote Tab
>Reason for Mod Action: This is a tied vote.
In tied votes which allot zero points, since they have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons. In this case, removal of VonKlempter's vote is not warranted.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Crocodile // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:3; 3 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Vote Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
Remember, to award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and
(3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
While this vote did hit (barely) on all the points above, it really needed to go more in-depth with its analysis. As-is, though, it scrapes by as acceptable.
No worries. Just add some detail and resubmit if you wish
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: User_2006 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1:7; 7 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision:
[Arguments: I prefer Con's argument because he has disproved why we should have limits such as how many debates we can be accepted into. Con states that accepting too many debates is their own fault rather than their system's fault and the rules should be defined in person based on their own instead of letting the system define it for them. Points to Con.
Sources: Con used more outside sources, including arbitrary ones that actually make sense. Points to Con.
S&G: Tie, both sides presentable.
Conduct: Pro had used what has appeared to be a swear word in round 3. Pro also looks like he is struggling while Con is more natural.]
>Reason for Mod Action: To award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and
(3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
This vote does neither of the three.
To award sources points, the voter must:
(1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate,
(2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and
(3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall were notably superior to the other's.
This vote does one of the three.
To award conduct points, the voter must:
(1) identify specific instances of misconduct,
(2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and
(3) compare each debater's conduct.
Frankly, there was plenty in this debate to warrant conduct points being awarded/taken away from either side. While the voter did identify an instance of misconduct, he fails to hit all three points.
To summarize, the voter must add significant detail to this vote and resubmit.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Crocodile // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1:0; 1 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate has been deemed non-moderated. Therefore, no moderation action is appropriate for this vote.
Full Forfeitures, explicit concessions, subjective competitions, truisms, and comedy (even if facetious) are not eligible for moderation (barring certain exceptions). Considering this debate is dually forfeited, moderation has no role in this debate.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: K_Michael // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1:0; 1 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate has been deemed non-moderated. Therefore, no moderation action is appropriate for this vote.
Full Forfeitures, explicit concessions, subjective competitions, truisms, and comedy (even if facetious) are not eligible for moderation (barring certain exceptions). Considering this debate is dually forfeited, moderation has no role in this debate.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw// Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1:0; 1 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate has been deemed non-moderated. Therefore, no moderation action is appropriate for this vote.
Full Forfeitures, explicit concessions, subjective competitions, truisms, and comedy (even if facetious) are not eligible for moderation (barring certain exceptions). Considering this debate is dually forfeited, moderation has no role in this debate.
I'm having fun with this so far. I like the 5G topics