Total posts: 2,589
Just one more volunteer is needed to reach the competition minimum!!!
Created:
== Sign-Ups ==
1. Speed
2. Virt
3. Ram (tent)
4. Supa
5. RM
6. Oro
7. KM
8.
9.
10.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
Pray to Lord Jesus that the angels of good looks my descend upon thee, and guide you to the promised land of plastic surgery. Hallelujah!
Created:
-->
@Speedrace
Asterisks indicate those rounds that may be cut if there are fewer than 10 participants.
Created:
-->
@Vaarka
To do one you have to do all. Sorry...But I could have you as a guest judge if that's all you were interested in.
Created:
-->
@Vaarka
Not really. Challenges will be explained in more detail when they happen.
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
You would never be required to videorecord, nor penalized for refusing to videorecord. Their may be challenges where that is an option, but never a requirement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
While you feel able to justify using something other than the strength of arguments to judge a debate - I’m not: especially somewhere like here.
The precise opposite of your claim seems closer to the truth. It is important to see debate as more than just about arguments--especially somewhere like here--because this site establishes debate as competition. That there are time limits, character limits, rules of fair play ("fair play" implying a game), votes, winners, losers, ELO, leaderboards, tournaments, etc. all function to establish debate as primarily a competitive exercise more so than an argumentative one. As such, debate is about more than arguments. As I said before: "As a dynamic and competitive event, it is also about strategy, execution, sportsmanship, and gamesmanship."
In reality discounting a good argument based on a technicality is just as much of an intervention as the reverse.
Not really, if the technicality actually played out and the good argument faded away. Importantly, you're erroneously using "technicality" here as a pejorative to describe something far more consequential. What is really at stake here isn't "technicalities," but rather the flow or argumentation. By dismissing alleged technicalities, which are actually really turning points in the flow/course of the debate, you are permitting yourself to reconstruct the debate as it never happened, and would therefore be voting on a falsehood.
that being said, as I pointed out, I do consider the flow, and how a debate pans out
That's good (IMO).
Not everyone will agree with me, and that’s fair. I never had a background in formal debate; more public speech and political and philosophical discussion - which tends to be what informs the things I value most of my analysis.
Agreed, as I noted in post 8. And, of course, different traditions will yield different viewpoints, and that adds a useful diversity to the site. But, that is of course not to begrudge voters the right to contest those viewpoints in the forums ;)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Ram is not a bad voter; he is precisely the opposite: an excellent, dedicated voter who cares about ensuring that his votes are fair and well-reasoned.
There are legitimate disagreements to be had about what the ideal judging paradigm is. That two people disagree, even vehemently and vociferously, about those paradigms is not cause to label one or the other a bad voter. Rather, disagreement in paradigms is largely a subjective issue which should be left to the individual voters to decide for themselves. My disagreement with Ram is thus on a voter-to-voter basis, not on a moderator-to-voter basis.
More than that, however, is the fact that there are strong arguments to be made against my position; while I personally do not believe in those reasons (and passionately reject them), I recognize that people can legitimately and reasonably hold opposing views. It's like a "Democrat" or "Republican" thing; if anything, having Ram on our moderation team adds a beneficial diversity of perspectives and representation to voting moderation.
Ultimately, the only objective marks of a good voter are that they take the time to understand what transpired in the debate, avoid prejudging the debate, arrive at their decision conscientiously, and explain their decision thoroughly. In my view, Ram is an objectively excellent voter, and he is certainly one of the better voters on this site as whole. There are few voters here I would praise more highly.
Beyond that, however, judging paradigms are not related to vote moderation. You could have the worst paradigm on earth and still make a good voting moderator so long as you applied the rules in the COC as they are written. Ram is certainly doing that, and I have no objections to or reservations in his performance as a vote moderator whatsoever. I have full confidence in him to continue to perform capably and fairly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
if arguments would have won the debate, and the primary reason to award the win the other way is missing out some debate formality, or detail outside the logic of the argumentation, the arguments mean more.
As you know, this is precisely the kind of interventionist judging I strongly object to. While I do not wish to rehash that debate, I feel far too strongly about this not to raise an objection. This is a bad voting paradigm.
Debaters have an equal opportunity to control the flow of the debate. If one debater loses control of the flow, that's on them. The judge should not simply ignore the debate as it actually unfurled and vote on an argument which, if the flow had gone differently, would've won the debate for the losing debater. That judge's RFD will not reflect the actual debate, but instead the judge's fantasy of how the debate transpired. There is the debate as it actually happened, and then there is the mirage the voter has conjured to align with what they believe ought to have happened.
Voting up debaters based on dropped arguments is denying the reality of the flow of the debate in order to assert some falsehood about how the round transpired ("it was so good I should just ignore that it was dropped"--the "ignore" here is the reshaping of reality, the lie by omission).
Moreover, this mirage-based voting fails to account for the fact that debate is not just (or even primarily) about arguments. As a dynamic and competitive event, it is also about strategy, execution, sportsmanship, and gamesmanship. To vote based on argument quality alone is to flatten the activity to a single dimension and to thus diminish the activity itself. Debate is such a rich event that it is appalling to me that it might be oversimplified in this way.
Suppose, for example, that I faced an opponent with an argument I could not figure out how to beat. Instead of trying to beat it (which I believe would suck up too much character space or research time), I make a strategic decision to focus on destroying every other part of my opponents case in the hopes that I can cause him to drop his own argument. If my opponent drops the argument, but the judge gives them the win anyway on the basis of that argument, the judge is essentially saying that strategic choices do not matter, and thus flattens that debate to a single dimension: argument.
It also irks me deeply that you're only considering fairness from a single point of view. Is it fair to deny a win to a debater who successfully out-strategized an opponent, or who did a better job at controlling the debate? Yes, it seems superficially bothersome to deny a loss to someone on the basis of them not extending an argument, but arguably it was their job to do so. That's what debating is! If you put out arguments, defend them and extend them. Your job as a debater is not to rest on your laurels, but to play the game. On a deeper level then, what you're saying is that it is "unfair" to award losses to debaters who failed to do their jobs, who are lazy or inept or careless or arrogant or erred, etc. Isn't it at least as unfair to the other debater, who controlled the course of the debate better, to award them the loss in spite of the fact that they controlled the course of the debate better?
Your position makes zero sense to me. It's harmfully meddlesome and damaging to the activity, with little to no upside at all.
Created:
-->
@David
It's not a bad idea, but the old-fashioned way just feels...more normal, I guess.
Created:
== Sign-Ups ==
1. Speed
2. Virt
3. Ram (tent)
4. Supa
5. RM
6. Oro
7.
8.
9.
10.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
The failure to extend constitutes a drop. It is possible to drop your own arguments. If you drop it, it ceases to be offense for you, and is unweighable. That is why you should always extend dropped points.
Pro wins in that situation.
Created:
== Sign-Ups ==
1. Speed
2. Virt
3. Ram (tent)
4. Supa
5. RM
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Created:
== Sign-Ups ==
1. Speedrace
2. Virtuoso
3. Ramshutu (tent)
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Created:
== Sign-Ups ==
1. Speedrace
2. Virtuoso
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Created:
-->
@Alec
@Pinkfreud08
Just pinging some potential recruits...
Created:
-->
@David
@Vaarka
@blamonkey
@Our_Boat_is_Right
@Speedrace
Just pinging some potential recruits...
Created:
-->
@Vader
@Ramshutu
@TheRealNihilist
@oromagi
@Discipulus_Didicit
Just pinging some potential recruits...
Created:
Who is the ultimate DARTer?! This competition aims to find out. Inspired by the format of RuPaul's Drag Race, this competition will involved a gauntlet of contests that will test your strengths in a variety of skills, formats, and abilities that are frequently in-demand on DART and related websites. If you survive the trials, you will be crowned the reigning DART All Star, the ultimate user! Keep reading for more information.
== Participation ==
I am seeking between 8 and 10 participants for this competition. The structure listed below is based on there being 10 participants. Asterisks indicate those rounds that may be cut if there are fewer than 10 participants. If fewer than 8 people sign up, the competition will not run.
== Format ==
Each round of competition will involve a different challenge. Four rounds will begin with a "mini-challenge" and all rounds will contain a "maxi-challenge." The mini- and maxi-challenges will not be scored separately, but will instead be considered together, with an emphasis placed on the maxi-challenge.
I will judge every round. It is my hope to get guest judges (who may also be eliminated contestants) for at least four of the rounds. In cases where there is a guest judge, we will confer holistically to identify a round winner and two round losers. The guest judge and I must concur on those decisions. These decisions are not point-based, but rather are based on the judges' deliberations, analysis, and impressions.
The two losers will then "rap battle for their lives," after being given certain parameters for their raps. These parameters will change each round. Only the bottom two will rap battle, and only they will be at risk of elimination. The guest judge and I will each handicap the two bottom constants with points out of 10 (with fewer points being worse for the contestant) prior to the rap. The contestants raps will then be judged and scored out of 20 (again, with fewer points being worse for the contestant). The contestant with the highest points after the rap battle will be saved, and the other will be eliminated. Ties will be decided exclusively by me. As you can see, the rap battle is more valuable than the handicap.
Mini-challenge wins may convey maxi-challenge advantages, and some mini- or maxi-challenges may require contestants to work in teams. The Finale will have a special maxi-challenge and rap battle. The format will be explained at the time the round begins.
To preview the rounds, here is a schedule of what the competition structure will look like:
R1: Talent Show w/ Mini-ChallengeR2: Quickfire Mafia*R3: Speed DebatingR4: Voting Bonanza w/ Mini-ChallengeR5: DART Roast w/ Mini-ChallengeR6: Brain GamesR7: Fan Fic Fun*R8: Finale w/ Mini-Challenge
This structure is purposefully left vague in order to keep the details of the challenges secret, while still giving you an idea of what the competition will entail. As you can see, it's fairly wide-ranging, and the hope is to give you a lot of flexibility in the content you choose to produce as part of the competition. Also, for those who are curious, it will not be overtly RuPaul's Drag Race-themed; I am just using the show's structure for this competition.
== Sign-Ups ==
Before you sign up, keep in mind that this competition may take up to two months to complete overall, though my hope is that you will not need to spend much time on it on a weekly basis. Still, you should be able to log-on at least every other day for a couple of hours for the duration of your time in the competition. The competition will not begin until at least the first week in June, and no later than the second week in June. If you have questions, feel free to ask! There are no prerequisites to signing-up, so please feel welcome to participate no matter your skill level!
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Thank you for signing-up, and I am looking forward to an exhilarating race!
Created:
Posted in:
All the pinned threads in the main forum have been updated completely. All of them have had changes made, some more extensive than others. Lemme know what you think! Anything missing? Anything worth adding?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Wanted to move it above the read-only threads...
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
lol
Created:
I'm willing to debate anyone once June roles around. Given that everyone seems to be throwing down gauntlets, just thought I'd toss my hat into the ring too (mixing metaphors ftw).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Sorry. It's spring cleaning, and we have to declutter.
Created:
-->
@Alec
We're not going to publicly speculate about that beyond those statements we already made.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Okay. So, unless further evidence arises regarding the utility of keeping this pinned, I am going to unpin this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Maybe.
Is that on this hangout link? How many people regularly attend?
Created:
Posted in:
Russian is, I've heard, hard to learn. Cases and declensions are horrid in any language. Best of luck.
Created:
Posted in:
Добър ден! Как си?
(I know no Russian, so Bulgarian is as close as I can get, linguistically...)
Created:
-->
@Castin
Such terrible behavior.
lol...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
Okay. I'll wait to get more feedback, but if that's the case, I will likely unpin this thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dave2242
It might be possible to mention it in some of the pinned threads.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
I'll do one with you if we can pick the judges. I'll pick two, you can pick two, and we can agree on a fifth.
Created:
Posted in:
Alrighty. I am going to unlock it now. Please remember: unique posts. Thanks!
Created:
Posted in:
Alrighty. I am going to unlock it now. Please remember: unique posts. Thanks!
Created:
Posted in:
This is a catalog of all Moderation Engagement and Enactment Processes (MEEPs) held on the site which are currently informing or dictating site policy. This is not an exhaustive list of site referenda, only site MEEPs. The MEEPs are listed chronologically with topical headings listed adjacent to them. This thread serves as a useful reference page for both the usership and moderation.
==========
MEEP No. 8 - Voting Policy
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SamStevens
@blamonkey
@Uther-Penguin
@Discipulus_Didicit
How many people use the hangout? Does this need to be pinned still?
Created:
Posted in:
[Disclaimer 1: This guide is not exhaustive. Users often seem to find new and creative ways to vote in manners that are unfair, inadequate, or strategic. Just because your vote doesn't fall into one of the eight categories listed above does not necessarily mean it will not be removed. But if you generally vote in a good faith effort to provide legitimate and specific feedback to the debaters and you vote honestly - without fudging a point here and there to try to make your vote count for more - then you should be fine.]
[Disclaimer 2: This is not an official document of DART moderation, and is therefore not authoritative regarding DART moderation practices.]
Created: