Voter: Sir.Lancelot
Vote: All 7 pts for CON
"Forfeiture."
Decision: Removed
Reasoning: Voter does not specify the clear reasons as to why the arguments, s&g, and sources for CON were better. From my perception as a moderator, if at least a significant attempt to have a debate, the voter must give a sufficient reasoning as to why the argument was better.
Voter: whiteflame
Vote: 3pts to CON for argument
"50% forfeit. Too bad, this one looked good."
Decision: Removed
Reasoning: Voter does not specify the clear reasons as to why the arguments for CON were better. From my perception as a moderator, if at least a significant attempt to have a debate, the voter must give a sufficient reasoning as to why the argument was better.
Based on the evidence provided, I, as within my rights, concluded that RM's vote was a retaliation and was not a genuine vote on the debate and should not count. I stand by the decision I made despite me not being available to take down the second vote
I am not going to sit here and argue for you when I have a life to live. I stand by my vote that your vote was a retaliation vote and is forbidden by the CoC and should not have been verified due to implicit bias with bad conduct and source points. I could give benefit of the doubt to arguments, but the majority evidence suggest you retaliated to oromagi, especially after the comments you left on your debate and the vote he made.
And the fact you think I am lying about my activity is shocking. If I had the time, I would've removed your second vote under the same clause and the others and if I had the chance, would still remove your current vote and other vote bombs
Vote: 3 for conduct, 2 for source,1 for conduct in favor of PRO
Status: Removed
Reasoning: Voter fails to provide a reason as to why the conduct presented in such statement should award the point to PRO, therefore, the justification of conduct point is not valid. Giving yourself an advantage by specific wordings DO NOT cause a conduct point. The voter also blatantly lies about sources used and purposefully avoids sources from oromagi for a bias toward the PRO. Therefore, due to the bias in regards to the vote, both of these are constitute under the retaliation vote, thus is against the rules
Vote in Question: Jeff_Goldblum
Vote: 3 points in arg for CON
Verdict: Removed
==================================
I do not believe this vote is sufficient enough in explaining the why in his vote. I believe more information could have been added to explain how this vote was off topical b explaining why he thought it was. There was a lack in sufficent information of the topicality issue that is presented, and lacking a why as to the information presented in this vote. Ultimately, he does not go much more in depth with the article presented. Thus the vote is not sufficient enough
Vote in Question: Whiteflame
Vote: 3 points in arg for CON
Verdict: NOT REMOVED
===================================
This was a borderline vote for me. I definitely think that whiteflame could have added more depth as to why the following rounds do not add any substantive information to which the debate can be proven topical, but I do believe the vote made was fair in the criticisms it gaved
1) It established reasoning as to what the judge was basing the vote on, topicality, which a valid way to grade the debate
2) The vote author explains as to why the debate was off topic by giving adequate information about each users arguments and such
This vote follows sufficiency and readers responsibility, thus the vote is valid and follows the guidelines
"FIrst you say in "no one was a legitimate candidate until the announcement was made and they made the official announcement and contacted with me" in POST #10"
now you say you wish somebody had carried on with this election in your absence."
Incorrect, they didn't have to PM me if they were interested, but I wanted to see if people were interested to do as such by PM'ing me so we can restructure the election. I NEVER stated that contacted me WAS a REQUIREMENT
I stated I wish someone had carried on because this situation could've been avoided, and avoiding situations like this is better than having to defend my actions over what I think is a clear overreaction and not a big deal
"FIrst you say in POST #10 "The process of delaying gave everyone the opportunity to see their was an opportunity to run for an election coming up, versus being blindsided"
now you say weren't dissatisfied with the way the legitimate campaign had been run.
You can't even keep your story straight in these comments."
Again, you are twisting my words. I am arguing that it would not be fair to leave others blindsided when they wanted to run because no announcement was made announcing as such.
I was not dissatisfied but had other commitments I had to commit to. The fact you want me to resign for having other commitments is a blatant overreaction and uncalled for. I'm assuming you went to university and know how finals go? You don't have time for all that stuff and need to put full focus in studies. It was made very clear on the 6th that I am going to work things out. I have to study, I have to put that first over anything. That's how life works. Maybe we MEEP the election dates so it is more adequate to my timing for the future. My absence for those days was informed and well needed.
My goal for election was free and fair. Anyone was allowed to vote and it didn't effect any of the free part.
"This is false. We did start the campaign on Dec 1st and were conducting that campaign in accordance with the rules set out by MIsterChris and were on the FINAL DAY of that correctly conducted campaign when you and mods decided with zero democratic consultation that you didn't like the results of our work during your absence and decided to wipe out those results with haste."
So your saying I published that announcement the last day of campaigning, but this is simply not true.
The MEEP states, "The first three weeks of December will be dedicated to optional campaigning"
That would mean the campaign schedule would be Nov 29-December 19th. When you did not see a thread to vote on the 20th, did you not make the assumption the election was delayed, given that the voting process was a whole week? Your argument that I delayed it on the last day is simply not true, because according to the MEEP, the voting period would be from December 20th-24th. When the announcement came on the last day of voting, you didn't assume that the election was delayed? You are a smart person oromagi, no doubt.
"SupaDudz's personal sense of dissatisfaction with the activity levels of the campaign overrule the lawful conduct of the many MEEP-abiding campaigners"
How can I be dissatisfied with activity levels when I was not even on the site. Oro, if you do not believe, I will literally send a screenshot of my finals schedule to prove to you that I was not dissatisfied with activity, but had other commitments that took priority
I don't want to throw anyone under the bus, that wasn't my intent to do as such when the process. I would've hoped that during my absence, someone would start the campaign right and help manage it while I was under finals, but that didn't occur and as a result, the times were changed. As Wylted said, IRL stuff occurs
"During the designated campaigning period, users may advocate election for themselves or others by doing any of the following:
Within any three day window, creating at most ONE non-spam campaign-related forum thread or debate. Offering non-spam contributions to the campaign-related forum threads or debates of others. Changing their profile picture or user biography."
"This brand new "check in with SupaDudz first" rule is not within the scope of the MEEP and is a new authority over the election asserted only by you. Why?"
The check in rule did not prohibit you from winning, I wanted to gage how many people were running so I can either make the adequate change OR keep the changes
I mean, to a degree, but you are acting like what I did was damaging, I would disagree. Example, If I were to make a statement to say, "Ok I'm gonna ban all people who doxxes someone," when the MEEP says its allowed, would you say that's beneficial?
I agree with you and frankily I have been very democratic as my time here, but like leaders in the past, even ones you look up to like Obama, have made executive orders to benefit the country, thus overstepping their technical power
In conclusion, I assess the decision to move the election on two standards
1. Did the decision promote fairness to a MAJORITY of people on DART? Yes
Reasoning: People were informed that they could run publicly at that time through the announcement and had adequate time to prepare a campaign
2. Did moderation act in a way to RIG a certain campaign? No
Reasoning: Everyone had the same amount of time as well
3. Did a mod commit a COC violation? No
In conclusion, the decision to move the time did not negatively effect the election
"If you thought there should be some kind of Mod Announcement to start the thing, then the established rule of law was that you were obligated to make that Mod Announcement on Dec. 1. The fact that you don't understand that is disqualifying.
You were already deep into the election and still re-affirming the timeline of that election as late as Dec 6th. Then you there are no posts from you from 9 days. Well, of course people get busy but you were clearly way beyond any reasonable point in the electoral process where you were should not feel constrained from re-writing the rules, especially re-writing rules enforced by democratic MEEPs. Any mod qualified to do the job would recognize your last-minute re-writes as a desperate violation of the democratic spirit of debate and of this website. We want mods who feel constrained by our MEEPs."
This goes back to the philosophical disagreement. Moderation discretion is used alongside the MEEP. The times of the OFFICIAL campaign were DELAYED, not EXTENDED, meaning no one was a legitimate candidate until the announcement was made and they made the official announcement and contacted with me. Everyone who did as such contacted me personally and had their names in until they dropped their name. No one was denied because of the date change, no one unfairly won because of the date change. Again, every MEEP is used for mods to be guided by, but MOD DISCRETION always prevails. Granted it rarely happens, but this is a case where it did. Our whole COC states that mod discretion is used for any case as such, period.
"On Dec 6th, when you re-published the rules of the election including the rule that the election began on Dec 1st, if you really believed then that some kind of announcement was needed to start the election than you should have noticed that you were publishing conflicting information when you re-asserted that the election began on Dec. 1st, right? This means that you changed your mind about when the election started sometime between Dec 6th and Dec 24th. You did not feel the need to make an announcement on Dec. 1st through Dec 6th.
"And then you didn't feel the need to post at all for nine days. Only on the last day of campaigning and just before voting began did you decide that the voting process needed a whole bunch of correction. Ask yourself objectively, isn't such a last second change inherently so subject to corrupt action that such a practice is avoided everywhere by everyone that cares that elections be free and fair? You could only make that last minute change because you did not care whether this election was free or fair. And that should be a disqualifying trait in any election official."
The following is what I said...
"All rules relating to the president are in such document: If candidates are interested in running please shoot a DM about it. I am currently in the midst of finals and also helping on the foundation/startup of an app. I will try to get it sorted once I am done with my semester.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PIsh9UDic938MMM3YX-H1nn15H7OriOvfOSFigXXsX0/edit"
Oro, I wasn't posting because I had more important things to attend to, like, my classes and finals. I didn't get off til the 17th. I didn't post because I had finals and was more focused on such. I am not going to throw my team under the bus, but they were very well aware of my absence in this time. People have other commits as well which they need to focus their time more into than other things.
Then I came home, where the process was finished and set up. However it was the holidays and I believed it would be better to start the campaign after Christmas time and such for FAIRNESS with activity.
"Ask yourself objectively, isn't such a last second change inherently so subject to corrupt action that such a practice is avoided everywhere by everyone that cares that elections be free and fair? You could only make that last minute change because you did not care whether this election was free or fair. And that should be a disqualifying trait in any election official."
Ultimately, it sucks the election had to be moved from the original date it was made, but was it corrupt. No. It was and would be just as fair as the regular election would be. Ultimately it would not have been fair if the site DID NOT know campaigning even existed and I randomly held a vote with only 2 candidates who wanted to run at the time, Pie and Wylted. People like RM, 3RU7AL, wouldn't have been able to run. The process of delaying gave everyone the opportunity to see their was an opportunity to run for an election coming up, versus being blindsided
I specifically stated that this is not the case. No official announcement was made to start campaigning, therefore NO ONE should have made that assumption. People were also allowed to early run, no one stopped anyone from doing as such. The COC and MEEP’s state all decision should be made under mod discretion. I believe the fact you are holding the MEEP more sacred that holy text is foolish IMO, as situations call for certain actions to be taken
I will not be voting on this debate. Granted it is Whiteflame's decision if he takes on this debate or not. I would like to see what case oromagi makes, because what he said to me personally feels like an overreaction to the highest degree
Yeah but technically speaking it’s based off an American production. studio with american writers and artists. It does take lots of elements from Japanese art
They ultimately mean the same thing is essence. This is simply a terminology debate where it's a losing argument for PRO. I would say a good debate is saying whether All Cops Are Bastards is a flawed statement because it inherently is.
Sorry I meant to tag you both
Voter: Sir.Lancelot
Vote: All 7 pts for CON
"Forfeiture."
Decision: Removed
Reasoning: Voter does not specify the clear reasons as to why the arguments, s&g, and sources for CON were better. From my perception as a moderator, if at least a significant attempt to have a debate, the voter must give a sufficient reasoning as to why the argument was better.
Voter: whiteflame
Vote: 3pts to CON for argument
"50% forfeit. Too bad, this one looked good."
Decision: Removed
Reasoning: Voter does not specify the clear reasons as to why the arguments for CON were better. From my perception as a moderator, if at least a significant attempt to have a debate, the voter must give a sufficient reasoning as to why the argument was better.
I know SupaDudz is stupid, so I was hoping you could help her
==================
And I know you are not a good debater
This is a spam debate, therefore it is unrated
This is a spam debate, therefore it is unrated
This is a spam debate, therefore it is unrated
" note to ban from voting are Barney, Oromagi"
self entitlement at it's finest because some people vote against you."
The simple answer is that RM's vote broke the guidelines of the CoC due to surmounting evidence being a retaliation vote
Based on the evidence provided, I, as within my rights, concluded that RM's vote was a retaliation and was not a genuine vote on the debate and should not count. I stand by the decision I made despite me not being available to take down the second vote
I am not going to sit here and argue for you when I have a life to live. I stand by my vote that your vote was a retaliation vote and is forbidden by the CoC and should not have been verified due to implicit bias with bad conduct and source points. I could give benefit of the doubt to arguments, but the majority evidence suggest you retaliated to oromagi, especially after the comments you left on your debate and the vote he made.
And the fact you think I am lying about my activity is shocking. If I had the time, I would've removed your second vote under the same clause and the others and if I had the chance, would still remove your current vote and other vote bombs
I am usually not in charge of votes so I do not know the format. Therefore if any other moderator wants to take charge of this case, feel free.
Voter: RationalMadman
Vote: 3 for conduct, 2 for source,1 for conduct in favor of PRO
Status: Removed
Reasoning: Voter fails to provide a reason as to why the conduct presented in such statement should award the point to PRO, therefore, the justification of conduct point is not valid. Giving yourself an advantage by specific wordings DO NOT cause a conduct point. The voter also blatantly lies about sources used and purposefully avoids sources from oromagi for a bias toward the PRO. Therefore, due to the bias in regards to the vote, both of these are constitute under the retaliation vote, thus is against the rules
I'm not
Vote in Question: Jeff_Goldblum
Vote: 3 points in arg for CON
Verdict: Removed
==================================
I do not believe this vote is sufficient enough in explaining the why in his vote. I believe more information could have been added to explain how this vote was off topical b explaining why he thought it was. There was a lack in sufficent information of the topicality issue that is presented, and lacking a why as to the information presented in this vote. Ultimately, he does not go much more in depth with the article presented. Thus the vote is not sufficient enough
Vote in Question: Whiteflame
Vote: 3 points in arg for CON
Verdict: NOT REMOVED
===================================
This was a borderline vote for me. I definitely think that whiteflame could have added more depth as to why the following rounds do not add any substantive information to which the debate can be proven topical, but I do believe the vote made was fair in the criticisms it gaved
1) It established reasoning as to what the judge was basing the vote on, topicality, which a valid way to grade the debate
2) The vote author explains as to why the debate was off topic by giving adequate information about each users arguments and such
This vote follows sufficiency and readers responsibility, thus the vote is valid and follows the guidelines
"FIrst you say in "no one was a legitimate candidate until the announcement was made and they made the official announcement and contacted with me" in POST #10"
now you say you wish somebody had carried on with this election in your absence."
Incorrect, they didn't have to PM me if they were interested, but I wanted to see if people were interested to do as such by PM'ing me so we can restructure the election. I NEVER stated that contacted me WAS a REQUIREMENT
I stated I wish someone had carried on because this situation could've been avoided, and avoiding situations like this is better than having to defend my actions over what I think is a clear overreaction and not a big deal
"FIrst you say in POST #10 "The process of delaying gave everyone the opportunity to see their was an opportunity to run for an election coming up, versus being blindsided"
now you say weren't dissatisfied with the way the legitimate campaign had been run.
You can't even keep your story straight in these comments."
Again, you are twisting my words. I am arguing that it would not be fair to leave others blindsided when they wanted to run because no announcement was made announcing as such.
I was not dissatisfied but had other commitments I had to commit to. The fact you want me to resign for having other commitments is a blatant overreaction and uncalled for. I'm assuming you went to university and know how finals go? You don't have time for all that stuff and need to put full focus in studies. It was made very clear on the 6th that I am going to work things out. I have to study, I have to put that first over anything. That's how life works. Maybe we MEEP the election dates so it is more adequate to my timing for the future. My absence for those days was informed and well needed.
My goal for election was free and fair. Anyone was allowed to vote and it didn't effect any of the free part.
"This is false. We did start the campaign on Dec 1st and were conducting that campaign in accordance with the rules set out by MIsterChris and were on the FINAL DAY of that correctly conducted campaign when you and mods decided with zero democratic consultation that you didn't like the results of our work during your absence and decided to wipe out those results with haste."
So your saying I published that announcement the last day of campaigning, but this is simply not true.
The MEEP states, "The first three weeks of December will be dedicated to optional campaigning"
That would mean the campaign schedule would be Nov 29-December 19th. When you did not see a thread to vote on the 20th, did you not make the assumption the election was delayed, given that the voting process was a whole week? Your argument that I delayed it on the last day is simply not true, because according to the MEEP, the voting period would be from December 20th-24th. When the announcement came on the last day of voting, you didn't assume that the election was delayed? You are a smart person oromagi, no doubt.
Might level a vote on this IF, I have time
"SupaDudz's personal sense of dissatisfaction with the activity levels of the campaign overrule the lawful conduct of the many MEEP-abiding campaigners"
How can I be dissatisfied with activity levels when I was not even on the site. Oro, if you do not believe, I will literally send a screenshot of my finals schedule to prove to you that I was not dissatisfied with activity, but had other commitments that took priority
I don't want to throw anyone under the bus, that wasn't my intent to do as such when the process. I would've hoped that during my absence, someone would start the campaign right and help manage it while I was under finals, but that didn't occur and as a result, the times were changed. As Wylted said, IRL stuff occurs
And it wasn't a rule. You still could run even if you do not check in
"During the designated campaigning period, users may advocate election for themselves or others by doing any of the following:
Within any three day window, creating at most ONE non-spam campaign-related forum thread or debate. Offering non-spam contributions to the campaign-related forum threads or debates of others. Changing their profile picture or user biography."
"This brand new "check in with SupaDudz first" rule is not within the scope of the MEEP and is a new authority over the election asserted only by you. Why?"
The check in rule did not prohibit you from winning, I wanted to gage how many people were running so I can either make the adequate change OR keep the changes
I mean, to a degree, but you are acting like what I did was damaging, I would disagree. Example, If I were to make a statement to say, "Ok I'm gonna ban all people who doxxes someone," when the MEEP says its allowed, would you say that's beneficial?
I agree with you and frankily I have been very democratic as my time here, but like leaders in the past, even ones you look up to like Obama, have made executive orders to benefit the country, thus overstepping their technical power
In conclusion, I assess the decision to move the election on two standards
1. Did the decision promote fairness to a MAJORITY of people on DART? Yes
Reasoning: People were informed that they could run publicly at that time through the announcement and had adequate time to prepare a campaign
2. Did moderation act in a way to RIG a certain campaign? No
Reasoning: Everyone had the same amount of time as well
3. Did a mod commit a COC violation? No
In conclusion, the decision to move the time did not negatively effect the election
"If you thought there should be some kind of Mod Announcement to start the thing, then the established rule of law was that you were obligated to make that Mod Announcement on Dec. 1. The fact that you don't understand that is disqualifying.
You were already deep into the election and still re-affirming the timeline of that election as late as Dec 6th. Then you there are no posts from you from 9 days. Well, of course people get busy but you were clearly way beyond any reasonable point in the electoral process where you were should not feel constrained from re-writing the rules, especially re-writing rules enforced by democratic MEEPs. Any mod qualified to do the job would recognize your last-minute re-writes as a desperate violation of the democratic spirit of debate and of this website. We want mods who feel constrained by our MEEPs."
This goes back to the philosophical disagreement. Moderation discretion is used alongside the MEEP. The times of the OFFICIAL campaign were DELAYED, not EXTENDED, meaning no one was a legitimate candidate until the announcement was made and they made the official announcement and contacted with me. Everyone who did as such contacted me personally and had their names in until they dropped their name. No one was denied because of the date change, no one unfairly won because of the date change. Again, every MEEP is used for mods to be guided by, but MOD DISCRETION always prevails. Granted it rarely happens, but this is a case where it did. Our whole COC states that mod discretion is used for any case as such, period.
"On Dec 6th, when you re-published the rules of the election including the rule that the election began on Dec 1st, if you really believed then that some kind of announcement was needed to start the election than you should have noticed that you were publishing conflicting information when you re-asserted that the election began on Dec. 1st, right? This means that you changed your mind about when the election started sometime between Dec 6th and Dec 24th. You did not feel the need to make an announcement on Dec. 1st through Dec 6th.
"And then you didn't feel the need to post at all for nine days. Only on the last day of campaigning and just before voting began did you decide that the voting process needed a whole bunch of correction. Ask yourself objectively, isn't such a last second change inherently so subject to corrupt action that such a practice is avoided everywhere by everyone that cares that elections be free and fair? You could only make that last minute change because you did not care whether this election was free or fair. And that should be a disqualifying trait in any election official."
The following is what I said...
"All rules relating to the president are in such document: If candidates are interested in running please shoot a DM about it. I am currently in the midst of finals and also helping on the foundation/startup of an app. I will try to get it sorted once I am done with my semester.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PIsh9UDic938MMM3YX-H1nn15H7OriOvfOSFigXXsX0/edit"
Oro, I wasn't posting because I had more important things to attend to, like, my classes and finals. I didn't get off til the 17th. I didn't post because I had finals and was more focused on such. I am not going to throw my team under the bus, but they were very well aware of my absence in this time. People have other commits as well which they need to focus their time more into than other things.
Then I came home, where the process was finished and set up. However it was the holidays and I believed it would be better to start the campaign after Christmas time and such for FAIRNESS with activity.
"Ask yourself objectively, isn't such a last second change inherently so subject to corrupt action that such a practice is avoided everywhere by everyone that cares that elections be free and fair? You could only make that last minute change because you did not care whether this election was free or fair. And that should be a disqualifying trait in any election official."
Ultimately, it sucks the election had to be moved from the original date it was made, but was it corrupt. No. It was and would be just as fair as the regular election would be. Ultimately it would not have been fair if the site DID NOT know campaigning even existed and I randomly held a vote with only 2 candidates who wanted to run at the time, Pie and Wylted. People like RM, 3RU7AL, wouldn't have been able to run. The process of delaying gave everyone the opportunity to see their was an opportunity to run for an election coming up, versus being blindsided
I specifically stated that this is not the case. No official announcement was made to start campaigning, therefore NO ONE should have made that assumption. People were also allowed to early run, no one stopped anyone from doing as such. The COC and MEEP’s state all decision should be made under mod discretion. I believe the fact you are holding the MEEP more sacred that holy text is foolish IMO, as situations call for certain actions to be taken
I will not be voting on this debate. Granted it is Whiteflame's decision if he takes on this debate or not. I would like to see what case oromagi makes, because what he said to me personally feels like an overreaction to the highest degree
Oh ok. I had to change the perms then. WF said he couldn't view it and I thought I accidentally shared Croc v Gugigor
Yeah but technically speaking it’s based off an American production. studio with american writers and artists. It does take lots of elements from Japanese art
Oops here link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RYR0veJ9_bVZIbugl8to-KCV6-uYtpzaEaLeRgzPcgU/edit?usp=sharing
Vote casted.
Will try to drop a vote tonight. If not then I can’t level one til Saturday
Thank you all for the votes
I'll make a challenge
I will do an anime opening battle with anyone as well if they want after this
I will leave a vote on this. Please ping
They ultimately mean the same thing is essence. This is simply a terminology debate where it's a losing argument for PRO. I would say a good debate is saying whether All Cops Are Bastards is a flawed statement because it inherently is.
Ah yes. Because a debate about defining the BoP results in personal opinion on a conduct vote. DART 2020
Looks like Danielle has now become the queen of DART Rap, overtaking RM
Lol. I didn't necessary use it from you, but the articles were there
I'm gonna try to crank out this argument tonight
Didn't read it
NO NO NO NO NO!
Tempted as well...
I’m rooting for intelligence because I want the bye lmao
The doctor is victorious!
Good debate! Wish you luck in your future debates
Argument should come tonight. I thank you for a great round
The fact that this was made in under 3 hours is so mindnumbing to me. Bleh.
Thanks for the debate. Why did you concede