Total posts: 2,589
Posted in:
-->
@Debaticus
Could you rank the options for question 2 please?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@spacetime
Nice to see you around again.
And, notifications will be sent out as deemed appropriate by moderation. If you dislike the notifications, I am sorry. But they are hardly an onerous burden to bear. I've said this to you before, and posting in all caps is not going to change my answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Don't see how this is disingenuous
Disingenuous in the sense that it implied that I would somehow treat any issue any individual users raised as serious, which was, even without my subsequent reply, a ridiculous implication.
That being said, I it seems like I've answered your questions? Hopefully my responses were helpful.
Created:
Posted in:
Question 1
B - 2
C - 10
Question 2
A - 26
B - 20
C - 14
Question 3
Yes - 5
No - 6
Question 4
Yes - 10
No - 1
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Can you rank the choices for question 2?
Created:
Posted in:
Time Check
About 11 hours and 45 minutes remain to cast your votes!
Created:
Posted in:
Question 1
B - 2
C - 9
Question 2
A - 24
B - 17
C - 13
Question 3
Yes - 4
No - 6
Question 4
Yes - 9
No - 1
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
1) It takes one person for you to take something seriously? 2) By prioritising the minority the majority would have to wait until what they want is heard through a democratic vote.
That's disingenuous, and I think you know that. Clearly, if a user makes a reasonable argument for a policy change, I, as the moderator have a responsibility to ask whether that policy change should be adopted or put to the community vote. If I believe that there are users who would desire the policy shift or might benefit from it, and I believe the policy to be feasible and reasonable, then I am generally inclined to entertain it. There is no harm in bringing such a policy to the community to garner the community's feedback. In short, I take serious ideas seriously, irrespective of the volume of people who express it. Ideas should be judged on their merits, and not on the number of people espousing them.
The second point you raise is not really coherent. If anything, democratic fora such as this prioritize the majority, and since there is no way of knowing what the majority wants until you put it to a vote, interpreting your remark as prior to the democratic process makes no sense either.
No it isn't if you have found something that changed your idea of initially allowing me to reach a verdict.
Then it would never be possible to finally arbitrate anything. The whole notion of consent is that you accept the risks. If I consent to accept your decision, irrespective of how you reached it, there is no possible grounds for me to legitimately complain, because I have accepted the risk that you could act in a wholly capricious manner.
Someone who opts out is doing just that: accepting the risk that any voter could vote in anyway for any reason. Accepting that risk means that no outcome could be legitimately objected to on the part of the accepting parties.
Why not find a better way of presenting the rules in order to mitigate it even less by first finding out if this is a common problem with people on this site?
That's a wholly separate and tangential issue, and is not germane to answering the question at hand.
I know but I wouldn't deem most of the people wanting a yes to number 3 being reasonable.
I am not going to judge the specific users, but I think the argument for the policy change is extremely reasonable. Just as there's a reasonable argument to be made for the status quo.
Would troll debates counts towards the leader-boards?
Yes. But that has nothing to do with the opt-out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
My question was directed to opt-out debates. Are those debates not going to have RFD's?
RFDs are effectively optional on unmoderated debates, precisely because the votes on such debates are not subject to review.
My question would be why even have a vote on something that from prior knowledge from DDO barely anyone used?
Because there is always a small minority that would like the option. I had at least one user ask for this kind of functionality already on DART. Just because it is the desire of a minority does not mean it is unworthy of community discussion and analysis.
This doesn't make sense. If I have a problem lets say with my contract and would like a raise.
That's not really analogous. It's a two-party relationship, not a decision-making framework, and understood to be open to renegotiation in a way that debates are not.
Imagine a situation where I have a dispute with Whiteflame. So, I ask you, Virt, and RM to decide which of us--I or Whiteflame--was right. I agree to abide by your decision, no matter how you reach it. It would be intensely unfair of me if, after the three of you reach a verdict, to then complain about it. This example is far more analogous, because it's actually parallel to what is going on.
Yes people should be punished for not following the rules but if the majority of people who are new to this site do not even bother reading the rules.
And that is why the argument that "you failed to actually read the rules, and so you can't complain" is only mitigating.
Flexibility comes at a cost.
Right, which is why each voter in this MEEP needs to make a decision as to which is more important to them: the mitigated danger of users inadvertently accepting opt-out debates against the benefits of increased flexibility for that minority of users who wants it.
I think, also, that you're misconstruing my comments here as arguing for or against any particular policy. I am not. You asked what the arguments of one side of this debate may be, and I am furnishing them. That doesn't imply agreement with those argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Please rank A, B, and C. If you don't care about B or C, just come up with some ranking arbitrarily.
Created:
Posted in:
Question 1
B - 2
C - 9
Question 2
A - 21
B - 15
C - 12
Question 3
Yes - 4
No - 6
Question 4
Yes - 9
No - 1
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I think you're a bit too data-driven; where data is not present, logic suffices. The absence of data is not justification for suggesting we cannot make claims that are meaningful and weighty. That philosophical note aside, here are my replies, such as they are.
What is your explanation or evidence to support a claim like this?
Logic. If users do not have to write RFDs, it becomes easier for them to vote bomb (less effort involved) and harder for moderation to detect (sense we cannot draw inferences from their RFDs). Instead, moderation would need to rely more heavily on patterns of voting, which remains our chief tool in the status quo, to make those kinds of assessments.
I don't think you can say most people won't take the opt-out debates until you have data to support the claim.
I do have data, though. DDO has an opt-out system. No one used it. Like, literally no one. Besides, most people are going to want to be able to appeal to have obvious vote bombs and bad votes removed, because most people aren't really going to want those kinds of votes to stand on their debates. Have you seen how pissed people get when they report votes and those votes don't get removed? Imagine that, but multiplied. So, no, most people are not going to opt-out.
Which I think will happen more often than not but I have anecdotes to support that is occurring right now when they didn't know the restrictions put in place by the instigator.
I don't think it will happen "more often than not," but I do think it will happen "more." Of course, someone might say that it's a case of caveat emptor. If you accept a debate without reading the rules, someone (not me) might argue that you can't complain when the rules come back to bite you. It's a legitimate argument. Certainly, it's mitigating, but I don't think it totally defeats the argument you're making.
I don't see why a less rules option is even being democratically voted on. From my eyes it just gives rise to mob voting and creating mobs.
It's one thing to have trials, which create systems of mob rule that can hurt users who never consented to those systems. But for opt-out debates, since both debaters presumably consented to the consequences of opting out, there is an argument to be made that there is no harm in the policy. Either you consented, and so you can't complain. Or you failed to actually read the rules, and so you can't complain. Either way, you can't complain. That would be the argument for the policy change. Mob rule implies tyranny of the majority, but that cannot exist where the minority consented, and, in the case of the opt out, the assumed minority (the debaters) would have consented.
I am trying to present arguments for both sides. As I said earlier: you're weighing the mitigated danger of users inadvertently accepting opt-out debates against the benefits of increased flexibility for that minority of users who wants it. That's really the choice that's out there.
Created:
Posted in:
Question 1
B - 2
C - 8
Question 2
A - 21
B - 15
C - 12
Question 3
Yes - 3
No - 6
Question 4
Yes - 9
No - 0
Created:
Posted in:
Question 1
B - 2
C - 8
Question 2
A - 18
B - 14
C - 10
Question 3
Yes - 3
No - 6
Question 4
Yes - 9
No - 0
Created:
Posted in:
Question 1
B - 2
C - 8
Question 2
A - 15
B - 12
C - 9
Question 3
Yes - 2
No - 6
Question 4
Yes - 9
No - 0
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I get the feeling that the latter is a strategic vote. I will count your re-vote, but not a third one. That, of course, goes for everyone.
Created:
Posted in:
Question 1
B - 2
C - 8
Question 2
A - 15
B - 13
C - 8
Question 3
Yes - 2
No - 6
Question 4
Yes - 8
No - 0
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Since A is winning that troll debat equestion I hope to see you remod the vote on my trump debate where we rapped but didn't have a troll debate.
I won't be doing that, because, as you have previously argued, it would be wrong to apply rules retroactively.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
For question 2, please rank the options as requested in the OP.
Created:
Posted in:
Question 1
B - 2
C - 8
Question 2
A - 14
B - 11
C - 5
Question 3
Yes - 2
No - 6
Question 4
Yes - 8
No - 0
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
For question 2, please rank the options as requested in the OP.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
For question 2, please rank the options as requested in the OP.
Also, which questions are you voting "no" on?
Created:
Posted in:
Time Check
About 27.5 hours remain to vote! Please use this opportunity to help shape site policy!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
So far, 48 hours has been working more or less. The idea is to keep these processes, with all their annoying notifications, as short as possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
If the responding moderator erroneously treated a debate as a non-troll debate and deleted one or more votes on said debate, the moderator should continue to treat that debate as a non-troll debate to maintain consistency of moderation in the context of that specific debate. It's non-ideal, but it's the solution that will be used. Debates will not be retroactively classed as troll debates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Note:You also said B is the current state for (2) - I don’t think this is accurate as this isntcurrently what’s defined in the CoC, or matches the types of debates I’ve seen votes removed on.
It is currently the standard, but it has not be consistently enforced, which is problematic. After this MEEP, whatever standard is established will be enshrined in a voting policy guideline, and will be enforced consistently.
Created:
Posted in:
Question 1
B - 2
C - 6
Question 2
A - 14
B - 11
C - 5
Question 3
Yes - 2
No - 4
Question 4
Yes - 6
No - 0
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
What are the benefits of question 3 apart from less work for you and Virtuoso to do?
First, question 3 would eliminate only the most common kind of vote moderation. Vote rigging would still be disallowed.
Not all users agree with moderation standards, and would like to have looser standards applied to their debates. Sometimes this is in protest to moderation, sometimes this is to encourage users to vote on their debate (since less effort is required to vote), sometimes this is because they genuinely believe votes shouldn't be policed. Really, the benefits of 3 are that it gives users more options in how they want the votes on their debates to be moderated.
The risks, of course, are more unfair votes. Debaters would be aware of this possibility if they opt out of moderation anyway, though. But RM raises the issue of vote rigging to climb the COC, which is probably more likely with an opt-out, but not much. It's not much more likely because most users still probably won't agree to take opt-out debates and because vote rigging would still be prohibited. I think the most legitimate harm is that some users may inadvertently accept debates without realizing that those debates opted out of moderation. So, you're weighing that danger against the increased flexibility.
That's how I see the issue, but others may see it differently, which is why we have this democratic process.
Created:
Posted in:
Question 1
B - 1
C - 5
Question 2
A - 8
B - 7
C - 3
Question 3
Yes - 2
No - 3
Question 4
Yes - 6
No - 0
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
When people start playing again, I guess. It's a bit out of my hands. But you could always try to organize something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
For the last question, I was unclear as to whether you were voting yes or no. Please clarify your vote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
For question 1, there is no option A. Please clarify your vote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@Barney
@Ramshutu
@Speedrace
Could all of you please re-vote for question 2 by ranking the options, as requested in the OP.
Also, RM and Ragnar, could you please revote for question 3, as the text of the question was changed.
Created:
Posted in:
Question 1
B - 1
C - 5
Question 2
A - 6
B - 4
C - 2
Question 3
Yes - 2
No - 3
Question 4
Yes - 5
No - 0
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Do you have a yes/no vote to cast?
- This style of voting should only be used for question 2's debates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
after someone has accepted.
That is fair enough. I will amend the original text to remove that. As amended, would it gain your vote?
Created:
Posted in:
4. What should count as a sufficient vote in the choose-winner voting system?
There is currently no comprehensive standard for the choose winner voting system. Currently, the point system standard for argument points is being cross-applied to the choose winner system, but this temporary stopgap is not a permanent solution. It cannot capture the "differentness" of the two voting systems. The following two paragraphs constitute a proposed standard of sufficiency for the choose winner system, and reflect a combination of both the point system's argument and conduct standards. Do you wish to adopt this standard of sufficiency for the choose winner system? A vote against this standard will maintain the current stopgap policy by default. Please answer "yes" or "no."
"To cast a sufficient vote in the choose winner system, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate, (b) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and (c) explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
The voter may also consider conduct which makes the debate space extremely toxic and breaches of the mutually agreed rules of the debate in their analysis. A voter who awards points on the basis of toxic alone behavior must (1) provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate (2) explain why the conduct made the debate space intensely hostile, and (3) compare each debater's conduct from the debate. A voter may choose to exclude or reduce the weight of certain arguments on the basis of rules breaches, but must explain which rules were breached and why those breaches justify the exclusion or minimization of the arguments in question. A voter who awards points on the basis of rule breaches alone must (1) provide specific references to the breaches which occurred in the debate (2) explain why those breaches were serious enough to merit a loss by explaining how the rules either mandate a loss for rule-breakers or how the breach made the debate unfair, ND (3) compare each debater's conformity to the debate rules."
Thank you for your participation in this MEEP process!
Created:
Posted in:
About MEEP
MEEPs (Moderation Engagement and Enactment Processes) are official comment periods where moderation proposes and solicits feedback on various potential moderation policies. MEEPs allow moderation to pose questions about moderation policy to the site usership and empower the site usership to either ratify or reject moderation's proposals. In order for a moderation proposal to be ratified, at least 10 users must have expressed a preference on the policy in question, and more than a majority of those expressing a preference must be in agreement. That means, in a MEEP with 10 voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 7-3; similarly, in a MEEP with 19 voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 11-8. This ensures that the outcome of the process reflects the consensus of a significant number of site users. If a MEEP result is not binding/valid, moderation will maintain the pre-MEEP status quo, whatever that happens to be.
This MEEP will be open for user votes until 11:30pm, EST, on 4/23/19. This voting period may be extended by up to twelve hours if there are fewer than 10 votes on any of the specific questions put to the usership. Any extension will apply to all questions. Votes cast after the deadline will not be considered.
The Questions
Below is an enumerated list of the content to be voted on. A brief explanation of each question is included as well.
1. Voting Criteria Run-off: Should Plan B or Plan C be adopted?
The last MEEP process asked the site's usership whether their should be criteria that must be satisfied in order to be eligible to vote on debates. The usership answered that question with a clear "yes," but was unable to clearly decide which proposed set of criteria should be adopted. This question asks which of the two finalist plans from the last MEEP should be implemented. Please answer by indicating clearly a preference for Plan B or Plan C.
- Plan B: Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 1 non-troll debate without any forfeits OR posted 50 forum posts
- Plan C: Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts
2. How should a "troll debate" be defined?
Currently, it is the case that troll debates are not-moderated. This is done for numerous reasons, including the increased subjectivity which is often involved and the generally more lighthearted nature of the debates. However, this question is not asking whether troll debates should be moderated. Instead, it is asking how troll debates ought to be defined. Please rank the following three options from 1-3, with 3 indicating your most preferred choice. Plan B represents the definition currently in use by moderation. Failure to make a choice will result in Plan B continuing to be used.
- Plan A - A troll debate is any (a) competition-style debate (e.g. rap battle, talent show, poetry competition), (b) debate primarily designed to be humorous or facetious or containing primarily humorous or facetious content, and (c) debate on a truism (e.g. "a bachelor is someone who is unmarried").
- Plan B - A troll debate is any (a) competition-style debate (e.g. rap battle, talent show, poetry competition), (b) debate primarily designed to be humorous or facetious or containing primarily humorous or facetious content, (c) debate on a truism (e.g. "a bachelor is someone who is unmarried"), and (d) debate in which one of the debaters is a subject (e.g. "Bsh1 is gay").
- Plan C - A troll debate is any (a) competition-style debate (e.g. rap battle, talent show, poetry competition), (b) debate primarily designed to be humorous or facetious or containing primarily humorous or facetious content, (c) debate on a truism (e.g. "a bachelor is someone who is unmarried"), (d) debate in which one of the debaters is a subject (e.g. "Bsh1 is gay"), and (e) debate in which another dart user is the subject.
3. Should there be a voting moderation opt-out possibility on debates?
Not every user wants moderation on debates. While moderation should, in my view, always be the default (in order to protect users from the worst and most capricious voting practices), there may be cases where debaters would like to opt-out of voting moderation. Therefore, should debaters be allowed to opt-out of voting moderation on their debates if the instigator clearly and obviously opts out of moderation in the full description of the debate? Please answer "yes" or "no."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
That's a beautiful setting :) Nice choice.thank you! It was at this plantation house that is randomly in the middle of Dallas, she really loves old houses. Friends and family cake after...it was very wholesome. I was nervous af
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
YAY!
Congrats, man :)
Any details you can share?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
my fiance got a 9 which is epic
You're engaged?!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Why did you bump a troll thread literally 152 days after the last post in it?
Created:
-->
@Vaarka
Lol. Different relationship roles might explain that.
Created:
-->
@Vaarka
This thread is super cute.
I don't personally find it nice when guys wear my clothes, but I like to wear theirs.
Created: