*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: omar2345 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Con failed to state something that does not abide by physical laws which could have improved his case by providing an explanation of how nothing can come from nothing but that detail was not given. Even though the charcter limit was at 4k. Con only used 1942 characters in Round 1 which was more than enough to provide an explanation for his point of view. There was an instance where Con did state that the physical laws can be broken but did not say how this can mean God. Sure this debate could have had more characters but Con did accept the debate I am sure knowing full well the 4k character limit. Pro was not as Con was saying his conduct was which is why it is at a tie.
Everything else is also a tie.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote does not appear to weigh any counterarguments from Pro. In order to vote for Pro, the voter must also assess Pro's points, and cannot focus exclusively on Con. This relates to the need to survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in a debate. Pro can cast a sufficient vote by including an analysis of Pro's main points, and then weighing those points against Con's.
************************************************************************
I assumed it to be tongue-in-cheek. But, based on your comments in #61, it seems like a reasonable inference to conclude that you were not on DDO contemporaneously with much of my time there.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Chitty-Chitty // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con for arguments and sources
>Reason for Decision: As a believer in God, I argue for Con. I agree that God is not useless, and I can bear witness myself if necessary, because I've been believing for only eight months, and already I can feel the difference that He makes in my life.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter must base their decision on what happened in the debate, and not based on their own personal beliefs about the topic being debated. The voter must justify all points awarded. Site voting policy can be found here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
Continuity between DDO and DART, since much of DART's membership transferred from DDO. Using rules with which everyone was familiar minimized, I think, potential areas of confusion.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: vsp2019 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con for arguments, sources, and conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PythonCee // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct.
>Reason for Decision: Pro forfeited one round. The contender used better arguments.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to sufficiently justify the argument points they award. To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments 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. The voter completes none of these steps, when, in fact, they needed to complete each of them. The voter can cast a sufficient vote by completing each of these three steps. The voter can access site voting policy here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
>> Even though the law is prescriptive it is based what people value. Am I wrong?
All laws reflect someone's values. That doesn't mean we can't limit the range of discretion by prioritizing certain values and then generating prescriptive rules designed to protect them.
>> I would say those if's are not warranted because they will realise that this is the best debate platform around.
As I said before, this was tested on DDO and the concrete, harmful effects of onerous burdens were clear. DDO is only filled with spam and moderation now; you weren't there in its heyday.
To some extent, I think that's self-evident. It's the reason societies have laws: by setting out clearly what is or is not allowed, it becomes more difficult to act capriciously or arbitrarily. Of course, laws don't always have that effect, but few would argue that we would be better off without a system of laws than with one.
>> Why isn't that opposition not worth the hassle when creating the best debating platform?
The argument I made is not about limiting opposition. If voting burdens become onerous, people will simply stop voting. If people stop voting, people will stop debating.
I think there are scenarios in which moderation has more or less discretion and can act more or less capriciously. Prescriptive rules limit discretion because they are prescriptive. They cannot eliminate it, but "eliminate" =/= "limit."
>> That is relative.
Only in an absolute sense. Attempts at stricter voting standards on DDO met with overwhelming opposition, and judging from my interactions on the site, even Ralph's comment below, the same would likely happen on DART.
>> So are you denying that the rules were not made by what you value?
>> It's difficult sometimes because the debaters don't always structure their arguments in a way that's easy to vote on.
Yeah, I can sympathize with that. But that's something debaters can improve on. Comments on formatting and structure are always good feedback for debaters.
Some of the more oft-cited reasons include: limiting moderation discretion, not being overly burdensome to voters, and being reasonably interpretable.
>> The only difference is that you use rules to lay out the criteria to judge right or wrong votes but if there was no rules I would have to discuss about what you would consider a right or wrong vote. Do you understand where I am coming from?
Your argument here doesn't follow. I have already rejected the view that the site's voting policy reflects my individual opinion alone. Furthermore, my opinion of whether a vote conforms to those rules is not the same as my opinion of who one a given debate. Because the rules are fairly prescriptive and clear, my individual opinion is more contained in enforcing them than it would be if I were to moderate for accuracy, which would be wholly removed from any opinion-limiting guidelines. As I said earlier: "It is one thing to give me the power to apply a set of fairly prescriptive rules. Obviously, in their enforcement, I have some discretion, but I do not have nearly as much discretion as I would if I could eliminate any vote of my choosing for any reason, which would be the de facto consequence of your position on voting moderation."
>> So basically the reason why the rules are good because someone else used them and improved them for several of years?
No. The rules are good for other reasons. They're not perfect, by any reckoning, but they are good. But certainly, the rules were carefully chosen and selected, as they are conscientiously implemented.
>> What do you care more about fairness or not being problematic?
I'll refer you to something I said earlier. "You say that leaving the vote up is unfair. Ultimately, that depends on how you look at it. From my perspective, I am applying the same criteria to RM's vote as I would apply to any other--that consistency is fair. From another perspective, it might be said that leaving up inaccurate votes is unfair, but such a view raises a slew of other problems [for fairness]. Namely, it is not within my purview as a mod to decide if RM is right or wrong about his interpretation of the debate because, at that point, I would be functionally saying that only my opinion matters in picking winners and losers for debates on DART. That would mean that I could decide debates by fiat, which is," arguably, unfairly authoritarian and assumes, wrongly, that I am somehow capable of correctly adjudicating every debate. There is a fairness value in leaving room for dissent (and dissent implies that at least someone will be inaccurate). So, the simply answer to your question is that, yes, I care about fairness, but there are many facets of fairness to care about.
>> The site rules were based on what you value most.
I borrowed most of the voting rules from Airmax on DDO, who generated those standards through years of voting moderation and consultation with the DDO community. I did not simply pull the rules out of thin air to reflect my own personal views on voting.
>> The only thing you and Virtuoso have to do is make sure the person did not unfairly cherry-pick the quote while also seeing if their reasoning is valid.
See, the issue there is the word "unfairly." That again empowers the mod to rule on the accuracy of the voter's interpretation, which is problematic for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
>> Totally off the wall question. How would you feel about unmoderated voting? Me and Omar are having a conversation about if it's good or not and I thought I'd get your take on it since you probably know more about the subject than I.
I think moderated voting should always be the default. However, I am open to having some kind of optional system of unmoderated voting. It's worth considering for those who want it.
What it seems like you're asking me to do is to adjudicate the vote based on my opinion of it's accuracy and not based, instead, on my opinion of its conformity to the site's rules. The former opens up far more space for discretion and subjectivity, and opens up a veritable pandora's box of problems that are best not opened.
>> By saying we have some "objective" standard clearly misses what you value more than someone else like me.
This remark was ungrammatical and hard to interpret. I'd appreciate a clarification if I am to respond.
>> You do that anyway with the site rules. If people don't conform to your rules their vote will be taken off. Rules are opinions you elevated to be the standard of this site. That is bad argument justifying not having opinions influencing your decisions.
That misunderstands my point.
It is one thing to give me the power to apply a set of fairly prescriptive rules. Obviously, in their enforcement, I have some discretion, but I do not have nearly as much discretion as I would if I could eliminate any vote of my choosing for any reason, which would be the de facto consequence of your position on voting moderation.
>> The only thing that seemed off to me is that he's suppose to address the main arguments on each side in some length. I could just be missing it in context.
This was why the vote was borderline. BOP arguments, insofar as they can determine the value and/or topicality of all other arguments in the debate, could be construed as the only arguments which mattered. It seemed to me based on a plain reading of the text as if this was RM's thinking; that is, if Pro lost the BOP arguments, nothing else he said mattered. To the extent that "main" arguments could be viewed as "those arguments which mattered," RM could have been said to have reviewed the debate's main arguments. I think it's a stretch, but only a slight one. Given that it was borderline, it was ruled sufficient, which is the default position for borderline votes.
While each vote is unique and must be placed in its particular context, I do hope none of your votes have been removed for failing to survey the main arguments when in fact you had done so. If you wish to retrospectively examine any rulings which you felt were out of step with site policy, always feel free to ask myself or Virt about it.
I know you asked me not to reply, but I would add just one more thing that is not, I think, a rephrasing of my earlier remarks. Bad votes are not the same as removable votes. A vote could be terribly reasoned or reflect poor comprehension of the round but still meet the criteria for acceptability established by the site's voting policy.
When moderators are enforcing the voting policy, we are not evaluating the vote for its "accuracy" per se, but rather for its conformity to the site's established criteria. If I were to judge votes based on their accuracy, effectively only my opinion would matter in deciding debates, removing the value of having a voting system in the first place. Even if I were to evaluate votes on the basis of their "quality" more abstractly, the subjectivity involved would make the practice unsustainable, undesirable, and overly capricious. The established criteria, while imperfect, are fairly basic and prescriptive, keeping the exercise of voting from becoming too onerous on voters and allowing for a process of moderation review which is minimally subjective.
You say that leaving the vote up is unfair. Ultimately, that depends on how you look at it. From my perspective, I am applying the same criteria to RM's vote as I would apply to any other--that consistency is fair. From another perspective, it might be said that leaving up inaccurate votes is unfair, but such a view raises a slew of other problems. Namely, it is not within my purview as a mod to decide if RM is right or wrong about his interpretation of the debate because, at that point, I would be functionally saying that only my opinion matters in picking winners and losers for debates on DART. That would mean that I could decide debates by fiat, which is, obviously, wrong and counterproductive.
Moderation only looks at the content of the RFD itself when reaching its decision. It's not for us to judge the rightness or wrongness of the verdict reached. That means that interpretive differences (including what meanings can be deduced or inferred from the text) are not with the scope of reviewable content in a vote. Unless you're alleging a clear lie on the part of the voter (that is, a claim which is so unambiguously false that no other factors but deceit or illiteracy could possibly explain it), then my hands are tied. If you are alleging such a lie, what lie specifically are you alleging was made?
Please do not message or tag us in a comment every time you wish to report a vote. Simply click the flag icon, and we will attend to it as soon as we can.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: vsp2019 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con for arguments, sources, and conduct
>Reason for Decision: It is pro's responsibility to define his terms at the beginning so CON can come argue against them. As PRO did not define their terms, it slowed down the conversation. CON defined their terms and followed with reliable arguments to back their position. PRO misrepresented CON's position multiple times and got angry when CON pointed that out.
PRO has violated the Code of Conduct by advertising a youtube channel, by forfeiting a round and by being disrespectful towards CON the duration of the whole debate.
>Reason for Mod Action: First, the voter still has not completed any of the three steps necessary to award argument points. Second, there is no effort made to justify awarding sources points. These points must be justified. Third, the voter, while referencing specific cases of alleged poor conduct, fails to demonstrate how this poor conduct was "excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate." The voter also does not explicitly compare the debaters' conduct. The voter can re-cast a sufficient vote by completing all three steps for justifying argument, sources, and conduct points. The site voting policy can be accessed here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: K_Michael // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro for arguments and sources
>Reason for Decision: I personally agreed with Pro, but Con made several good points. Overall, I think Pro refuted most if not all. Neither was 100% clear and there seemed to be some misunderstanding, mostly on Con's part.
>Reason for Mod Action: First, the voter fails to sufficiently justify the argument points they award. To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments 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. The voter completes none of these steps, when, in fact, they needed to complete each of them. Second, the voter fails to sufficiently justify the sources points they award. There is no explanation in the RFD about why awarding the sources points was appropriate. The RFD must clearly justify each of the points it awards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Melcharaz // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro for S/G
>Reason for Decision: what is supersawwy? didn't find it in dictionary, i assume he meant supersavvy. Anyways, i don't care for either band so im leaving tie.
>Reason for Mod Action: In order 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 debater's S/G. The voter only does the first of these, and makes no attempt to complete the other two necessary steps.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Melcharaz // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro for arguments and sources
>Reason for Decision: Pro shows historical evidence of the existance of Jesus.
Con argues validity of it by assertion of "Which" Jesus or "What" Jesus and that it was after his death or that it was religious inspired.
History shows that jerusalem was attacked in 70 A.D. and that many documents were recovered afterwords, therefore not negating historical possibility.
The rest is semantic babble.
>Reason for Mod Action: First, the argument points are insufficiently justified. To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments 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. The voter completes none of these steps, when, in fact, they needed to complete each of them. Second, the sources points are not sufficiently justified. here is no explanation in the RFD about why awarding the sources points was indicated. The RFD must clearly justify each of the points it awards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pilot // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con for arguments, sources, and S/G
>Reason for Decision: Pro pointed out that reality is consistent, and that's where the bulk of pro's argument stemmed from. That is a good point in and of itself, but Con pointed out that we (or I) cannot truly know that we aren't in a simulation. Pro's only rebuttal to that point was to challenge Con to prove we (or I) are in a simulation. It's my belief that Con didn't need to prove that we (I) are actually in a simulation for that point to stick. The point of Cons argument was that I can only rely on my senses to obtain any information on whether I am or am not in a simulation, and since my senses themselves could be a product of the simulation, it automatically rules them out as being a reliable source of knowledge on said simulation. Outside of my senses, I have no other means of obtaining any information. I can only rely on my unreliable senses. Con also made a convincing argument about the difference between knowledge and truth. Throughout much of the discussion, it seemed like Pro was asserting that solipsism means that only one mind exists, and all other beings are just extensions of that one mind. I felt that Con did a good job dispelling that point of view by pointing out that solipsism means it can't be known whether one mind exists or not. That, to me seems like the true meaning of solipsism. Pro's idea of solipsism actually seems more like nihilism than anything. Nice job by both participants.
>Reason for Mod Action: The justification for argument points is sufficient; however, no justification is given for any of the other points awarded. A vote must justify clearly all those points it awards. The voter can cast a sufficient vote by explaining all the points they choose to award.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: vsp2019 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: PRO did not define the term "Fake news" in the opening statement. CON did a good job refuting PRO's arguments and CON just tapdanced around rather than respond.
>Reason for Mod Action: First, the voter fails to sufficiently justify the argument points they award. To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments 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. The voter completes none of these steps, when, in fact, they needed to complete each of them. Second, the voter fails to sufficiently justify the conduct points they award. There is no explanation in the RFD about why awarding the conduct points was appropriate. The RFD must clearly justify each of the points it awards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Melcharaz // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for sources and conduct
>Reason for Decision: I'm sorry, this is a mess even to me. We have pro not giving a definition of fake news in first round and con defines it. When Pro does try to bring in definitions neither one of them apply to the sources and arguments made.
The arguments are not founded therefore i will not specifically cover them.
Pro's links show "Negative" but not "Fake or false reporting" Con's link showed the suing of Washington post and not Cnn, therefore disproving pro's link. con actually gives helpful links to show Cnn's history and later on the fraudulent nature of the definition of "Fake news." I feel pro didn't show that Cnn is fake news, and that con didn't prove that Cnn is "Not fake" or truthful in its reports. therefore no points to argument. Con had more reliable sources in defining fake news and Cnn history.
Both had same S and G
Pro forfeited round 3 and introduced new information at last round.
>Reason for Mod Action: In order 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 was superior to the other's. I think we get some information regarding the first of these three steps, but we're clearly missing the next two steps. All three steps must be completed to award sources points. By updating the RFD with analysis covering these latter steps, the voter can cast a sufficient vote.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dustryder // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Pro forfeited round 3, regardless of the reasoning this is poor conduct on Pro's part.
>Reason for Mod Action: Per the site's voting policy: "a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points." Since the voter only awarded conduct points (and not also arguments) and since only 1 out of 4 rounds was forfeited, the voter is not entitled to award conduct points solely on the basis of the forfeit.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Speedrace // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments; 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was borderline. Borderline votes are, by default, considered sufficient.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-It-Ralph // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
We really cannot take anything that happens in the comments into our decision (except in certain, egregious cases). Our ruling needs to be based on the vote isolation.
That implies that I erred and then retrospectively managed to conceal said error. Since no error was made, I never covered myself.
>> So basically in order for it to be a public trial it would require a higher-up to intend on it with the approval of other staff like Virtuoso. Am I right?
No. If the people participating intended for it to be serious, that would be enough for me to consider it a trial, all other boxes being checked, even if a moderator were not in support of it.
A public trial is an organized effort to debate whether a member should be banned, not litigating the merits of one which has already transpired or expired. A trial would also need to be meant seriously, not as a trolling effort.
Debating the merits of a banning is not the same as a trial. Certainly, moderation decisions need to be open to scrutiny and criticism, and so these types of debates are allowed.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: omar2345 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Con failed to state something that does not abide by physical laws which could have improved his case by providing an explanation of how nothing can come from nothing but that detail was not given. Even though the charcter limit was at 4k. Con only used 1942 characters in Round 1 which was more than enough to provide an explanation for his point of view. There was an instance where Con did state that the physical laws can be broken but did not say how this can mean God. Sure this debate could have had more characters but Con did accept the debate I am sure knowing full well the 4k character limit. Pro was not as Con was saying his conduct was which is why it is at a tie.
Everything else is also a tie.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote does not appear to weigh any counterarguments from Pro. In order to vote for Pro, the voter must also assess Pro's points, and cannot focus exclusively on Con. This relates to the need to survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in a debate. Pro can cast a sufficient vote by including an analysis of Pro's main points, and then weighing those points against Con's.
************************************************************************
I assumed it to be tongue-in-cheek. But, based on your comments in #61, it seems like a reasonable inference to conclude that you were not on DDO contemporaneously with much of my time there.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Chitty-Chitty // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con for arguments and sources
>Reason for Decision: As a believer in God, I argue for Con. I agree that God is not useless, and I can bear witness myself if necessary, because I've been believing for only eight months, and already I can feel the difference that He makes in my life.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter must base their decision on what happened in the debate, and not based on their own personal beliefs about the topic being debated. The voter must justify all points awarded. Site voting policy can be found here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
>> Continual what?
Continuity between DDO and DART, since much of DART's membership transferred from DDO. Using rules with which everyone was familiar minimized, I think, potential areas of confusion.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: vsp2019 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con for arguments, sources, and conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PythonCee // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct.
>Reason for Decision: Pro forfeited one round. The contender used better arguments.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to sufficiently justify the argument points they award. To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments 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. The voter completes none of these steps, when, in fact, they needed to complete each of them. The voter can cast a sufficient vote by completing each of these three steps. The voter can access site voting policy here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
>> Even though the law is prescriptive it is based what people value. Am I wrong?
All laws reflect someone's values. That doesn't mean we can't limit the range of discretion by prioritizing certain values and then generating prescriptive rules designed to protect them.
>> I would say those if's are not warranted because they will realise that this is the best debate platform around.
As I said before, this was tested on DDO and the concrete, harmful effects of onerous burdens were clear. DDO is only filled with spam and moderation now; you weren't there in its heyday.
>> You valued Airmax voting rules on DDO.
I valued continuity.
>> How?
To some extent, I think that's self-evident. It's the reason societies have laws: by setting out clearly what is or is not allowed, it becomes more difficult to act capriciously or arbitrarily. Of course, laws don't always have that effect, but few would argue that we would be better off without a system of laws than with one.
>> Why isn't that opposition not worth the hassle when creating the best debating platform?
The argument I made is not about limiting opposition. If voting burdens become onerous, people will simply stop voting. If people stop voting, people will stop debating.
>> Can you quote where you did address that?
#49.
>> Wouldn't this be never met?
I think there are scenarios in which moderation has more or less discretion and can act more or less capriciously. Prescriptive rules limit discretion because they are prescriptive. They cannot eliminate it, but "eliminate" =/= "limit."
>> That is relative.
Only in an absolute sense. Attempts at stricter voting standards on DDO met with overwhelming opposition, and judging from my interactions on the site, even Ralph's comment below, the same would likely happen on DART.
>> So are you denying that the rules were not made by what you value?
I've answered this question already.
>> It's difficult sometimes because the debaters don't always structure their arguments in a way that's easy to vote on.
Yeah, I can sympathize with that. But that's something debaters can improve on. Comments on formatting and structure are always good feedback for debaters.
>> Tell me the most important reason.
Some of the more oft-cited reasons include: limiting moderation discretion, not being overly burdensome to voters, and being reasonably interpretable.
>> The only difference is that you use rules to lay out the criteria to judge right or wrong votes but if there was no rules I would have to discuss about what you would consider a right or wrong vote. Do you understand where I am coming from?
Your argument here doesn't follow. I have already rejected the view that the site's voting policy reflects my individual opinion alone. Furthermore, my opinion of whether a vote conforms to those rules is not the same as my opinion of who one a given debate. Because the rules are fairly prescriptive and clear, my individual opinion is more contained in enforcing them than it would be if I were to moderate for accuracy, which would be wholly removed from any opinion-limiting guidelines. As I said earlier: "It is one thing to give me the power to apply a set of fairly prescriptive rules. Obviously, in their enforcement, I have some discretion, but I do not have nearly as much discretion as I would if I could eliminate any vote of my choosing for any reason, which would be the de facto consequence of your position on voting moderation."
I got it
You want to change your vote? PM me about it.
>> So basically the reason why the rules are good because someone else used them and improved them for several of years?
No. The rules are good for other reasons. They're not perfect, by any reckoning, but they are good. But certainly, the rules were carefully chosen and selected, as they are conscientiously implemented.
>> What do you care more about fairness or not being problematic?
I'll refer you to something I said earlier. "You say that leaving the vote up is unfair. Ultimately, that depends on how you look at it. From my perspective, I am applying the same criteria to RM's vote as I would apply to any other--that consistency is fair. From another perspective, it might be said that leaving up inaccurate votes is unfair, but such a view raises a slew of other problems [for fairness]. Namely, it is not within my purview as a mod to decide if RM is right or wrong about his interpretation of the debate because, at that point, I would be functionally saying that only my opinion matters in picking winners and losers for debates on DART. That would mean that I could decide debates by fiat, which is," arguably, unfairly authoritarian and assumes, wrongly, that I am somehow capable of correctly adjudicating every debate. There is a fairness value in leaving room for dissent (and dissent implies that at least someone will be inaccurate). So, the simply answer to your question is that, yes, I care about fairness, but there are many facets of fairness to care about.
>> The site rules were based on what you value most.
I borrowed most of the voting rules from Airmax on DDO, who generated those standards through years of voting moderation and consultation with the DDO community. I did not simply pull the rules out of thin air to reflect my own personal views on voting.
>> The only thing you and Virtuoso have to do is make sure the person did not unfairly cherry-pick the quote while also seeing if their reasoning is valid.
See, the issue there is the word "unfairly." That again empowers the mod to rule on the accuracy of the voter's interpretation, which is problematic for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
>> Totally off the wall question. How would you feel about unmoderated voting? Me and Omar are having a conversation about if it's good or not and I thought I'd get your take on it since you probably know more about the subject than I.
I think moderated voting should always be the default. However, I am open to having some kind of optional system of unmoderated voting. It's worth considering for those who want it.
I will be logging off. If it is desired, I am happy to continue the conversation tomorrow.
>> How is this about discretion?
What it seems like you're asking me to do is to adjudicate the vote based on my opinion of it's accuracy and not based, instead, on my opinion of its conformity to the site's rules. The former opens up far more space for discretion and subjectivity, and opens up a veritable pandora's box of problems that are best not opened.
>> By saying we have some "objective" standard clearly misses what you value more than someone else like me.
This remark was ungrammatical and hard to interpret. I'd appreciate a clarification if I am to respond.
>> You do that anyway with the site rules. If people don't conform to your rules their vote will be taken off. Rules are opinions you elevated to be the standard of this site. That is bad argument justifying not having opinions influencing your decisions.
That misunderstands my point.
It is one thing to give me the power to apply a set of fairly prescriptive rules. Obviously, in their enforcement, I have some discretion, but I do not have nearly as much discretion as I would if I could eliminate any vote of my choosing for any reason, which would be the de facto consequence of your position on voting moderation.
>> The only thing that seemed off to me is that he's suppose to address the main arguments on each side in some length. I could just be missing it in context.
This was why the vote was borderline. BOP arguments, insofar as they can determine the value and/or topicality of all other arguments in the debate, could be construed as the only arguments which mattered. It seemed to me based on a plain reading of the text as if this was RM's thinking; that is, if Pro lost the BOP arguments, nothing else he said mattered. To the extent that "main" arguments could be viewed as "those arguments which mattered," RM could have been said to have reviewed the debate's main arguments. I think it's a stretch, but only a slight one. Given that it was borderline, it was ruled sufficient, which is the default position for borderline votes.
While each vote is unique and must be placed in its particular context, I do hope none of your votes have been removed for failing to survey the main arguments when in fact you had done so. If you wish to retrospectively examine any rulings which you felt were out of step with site policy, always feel free to ask myself or Virt about it.
I know you asked me not to reply, but I would add just one more thing that is not, I think, a rephrasing of my earlier remarks. Bad votes are not the same as removable votes. A vote could be terribly reasoned or reflect poor comprehension of the round but still meet the criteria for acceptability established by the site's voting policy.
When moderators are enforcing the voting policy, we are not evaluating the vote for its "accuracy" per se, but rather for its conformity to the site's established criteria. If I were to judge votes based on their accuracy, effectively only my opinion would matter in deciding debates, removing the value of having a voting system in the first place. Even if I were to evaluate votes on the basis of their "quality" more abstractly, the subjectivity involved would make the practice unsustainable, undesirable, and overly capricious. The established criteria, while imperfect, are fairly basic and prescriptive, keeping the exercise of voting from becoming too onerous on voters and allowing for a process of moderation review which is minimally subjective.
You say that leaving the vote up is unfair. Ultimately, that depends on how you look at it. From my perspective, I am applying the same criteria to RM's vote as I would apply to any other--that consistency is fair. From another perspective, it might be said that leaving up inaccurate votes is unfair, but such a view raises a slew of other problems. Namely, it is not within my purview as a mod to decide if RM is right or wrong about his interpretation of the debate because, at that point, I would be functionally saying that only my opinion matters in picking winners and losers for debates on DART. That would mean that I could decide debates by fiat, which is, obviously, wrong and counterproductive.
Moderation only looks at the content of the RFD itself when reaching its decision. It's not for us to judge the rightness or wrongness of the verdict reached. That means that interpretive differences (including what meanings can be deduced or inferred from the text) are not with the scope of reviewable content in a vote. Unless you're alleging a clear lie on the part of the voter (that is, a claim which is so unambiguously false that no other factors but deceit or illiteracy could possibly explain it), then my hands are tied. If you are alleging such a lie, what lie specifically are you alleging was made?
Please do not message or tag us in a comment every time you wish to report a vote. Simply click the flag icon, and we will attend to it as soon as we can.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: vsp2019 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con for arguments, sources, and conduct
>Reason for Decision: It is pro's responsibility to define his terms at the beginning so CON can come argue against them. As PRO did not define their terms, it slowed down the conversation. CON defined their terms and followed with reliable arguments to back their position. PRO misrepresented CON's position multiple times and got angry when CON pointed that out.
PRO has violated the Code of Conduct by advertising a youtube channel, by forfeiting a round and by being disrespectful towards CON the duration of the whole debate.
>Reason for Mod Action: First, the voter still has not completed any of the three steps necessary to award argument points. Second, there is no effort made to justify awarding sources points. These points must be justified. Third, the voter, while referencing specific cases of alleged poor conduct, fails to demonstrate how this poor conduct was "excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate." The voter also does not explicitly compare the debaters' conduct. The voter can re-cast a sufficient vote by completing all three steps for justifying argument, sources, and conduct points. The site voting policy can be accessed here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: K_Michael // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro for arguments and sources
>Reason for Decision: I personally agreed with Pro, but Con made several good points. Overall, I think Pro refuted most if not all. Neither was 100% clear and there seemed to be some misunderstanding, mostly on Con's part.
>Reason for Mod Action: First, the voter fails to sufficiently justify the argument points they award. To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments 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. The voter completes none of these steps, when, in fact, they needed to complete each of them. Second, the voter fails to sufficiently justify the sources points they award. There is no explanation in the RFD about why awarding the sources points was appropriate. The RFD must clearly justify each of the points it awards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Melcharaz // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro for S/G
>Reason for Decision: what is supersawwy? didn't find it in dictionary, i assume he meant supersavvy. Anyways, i don't care for either band so im leaving tie.
>Reason for Mod Action: In order 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 debater's S/G. The voter only does the first of these, and makes no attempt to complete the other two necessary steps.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Melcharaz // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro for arguments and sources
>Reason for Decision: Pro shows historical evidence of the existance of Jesus.
Con argues validity of it by assertion of "Which" Jesus or "What" Jesus and that it was after his death or that it was religious inspired.
History shows that jerusalem was attacked in 70 A.D. and that many documents were recovered afterwords, therefore not negating historical possibility.
The rest is semantic babble.
>Reason for Mod Action: First, the argument points are insufficiently justified. To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments 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. The voter completes none of these steps, when, in fact, they needed to complete each of them. Second, the sources points are not sufficiently justified. here is no explanation in the RFD about why awarding the sources points was indicated. The RFD must clearly justify each of the points it awards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pilot // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con for arguments, sources, and S/G
>Reason for Decision: Pro pointed out that reality is consistent, and that's where the bulk of pro's argument stemmed from. That is a good point in and of itself, but Con pointed out that we (or I) cannot truly know that we aren't in a simulation. Pro's only rebuttal to that point was to challenge Con to prove we (or I) are in a simulation. It's my belief that Con didn't need to prove that we (I) are actually in a simulation for that point to stick. The point of Cons argument was that I can only rely on my senses to obtain any information on whether I am or am not in a simulation, and since my senses themselves could be a product of the simulation, it automatically rules them out as being a reliable source of knowledge on said simulation. Outside of my senses, I have no other means of obtaining any information. I can only rely on my unreliable senses. Con also made a convincing argument about the difference between knowledge and truth. Throughout much of the discussion, it seemed like Pro was asserting that solipsism means that only one mind exists, and all other beings are just extensions of that one mind. I felt that Con did a good job dispelling that point of view by pointing out that solipsism means it can't be known whether one mind exists or not. That, to me seems like the true meaning of solipsism. Pro's idea of solipsism actually seems more like nihilism than anything. Nice job by both participants.
>Reason for Mod Action: The justification for argument points is sufficient; however, no justification is given for any of the other points awarded. A vote must justify clearly all those points it awards. The voter can cast a sufficient vote by explaining all the points they choose to award.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: vsp2019 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: PRO did not define the term "Fake news" in the opening statement. CON did a good job refuting PRO's arguments and CON just tapdanced around rather than respond.
>Reason for Mod Action: First, the voter fails to sufficiently justify the argument points they award. To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments 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. The voter completes none of these steps, when, in fact, they needed to complete each of them. Second, the voter fails to sufficiently justify the conduct points they award. There is no explanation in the RFD about why awarding the conduct points was appropriate. The RFD must clearly justify each of the points it awards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Melcharaz // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for sources and conduct
>Reason for Decision: I'm sorry, this is a mess even to me. We have pro not giving a definition of fake news in first round and con defines it. When Pro does try to bring in definitions neither one of them apply to the sources and arguments made.
The arguments are not founded therefore i will not specifically cover them.
Pro's links show "Negative" but not "Fake or false reporting" Con's link showed the suing of Washington post and not Cnn, therefore disproving pro's link. con actually gives helpful links to show Cnn's history and later on the fraudulent nature of the definition of "Fake news." I feel pro didn't show that Cnn is fake news, and that con didn't prove that Cnn is "Not fake" or truthful in its reports. therefore no points to argument. Con had more reliable sources in defining fake news and Cnn history.
Both had same S and G
Pro forfeited round 3 and introduced new information at last round.
>Reason for Mod Action: In order 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 was superior to the other's. I think we get some information regarding the first of these three steps, but we're clearly missing the next two steps. All three steps must be completed to award sources points. By updating the RFD with analysis covering these latter steps, the voter can cast a sufficient vote.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dustryder // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Pro forfeited round 3, regardless of the reasoning this is poor conduct on Pro's part.
>Reason for Mod Action: Per the site's voting policy: "a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points." Since the voter only awarded conduct points (and not also arguments) and since only 1 out of 4 rounds was forfeited, the voter is not entitled to award conduct points solely on the basis of the forfeit.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Speedrace // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments; 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was borderline. Borderline votes are, by default, considered sufficient.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-It-Ralph // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
Uh?
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
I will not disclose who reported what.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
It will be lifted shortly.
We really cannot take anything that happens in the comments into our decision (except in certain, egregious cases). Our ruling needs to be based on the vote isolation.
I see you've reported it, so it will be reviewed, most likely by Virt.
To my knowledge, a banned user cannot log into the site, and is therefore unable to perform any site functions.
A banned user cannot post arguments while banned. It's a great reason not to get banned.
Temp
DART still allows you to visit the pages of banned members. Type1 is currently banned.
>> So how about if the call-out thread rule was removed and the public trail rule was removed?
We're not going to engage in that kind of speculation.
>> Covered yourself really well there.
That implies that I erred and then retrospectively managed to conceal said error. Since no error was made, I never covered myself.
>> So basically in order for it to be a public trial it would require a higher-up to intend on it with the approval of other staff like Virtuoso. Am I right?
No. If the people participating intended for it to be serious, that would be enough for me to consider it a trial, all other boxes being checked, even if a moderator were not in support of it.
A public trial is an organized effort to debate whether a member should be banned, not litigating the merits of one which has already transpired or expired. A trial would also need to be meant seriously, not as a trolling effort.
Debating the merits of a banning is not the same as a trial. Certainly, moderation decisions need to be open to scrutiny and criticism, and so these types of debates are allowed.