Total posts: 2,589
Posted in:
To answer the OP's question, I think the answer to the question is fairly self-evident. Derogatory words which apply to a specific class of people (as the n-word applies to black people) would generally fall into that category.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
Oh, the usual. Drama, hullabaloo, foul ups, and multis banned left and right. Just an average day in an online debate site.
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
Me, me, me... your inability to understand where i am coming from and take responsibility speaks volumes about your personality.
I think I acknowledged concerns along the lines you were making in this thread, but if that's incorrect, let me know. In post 109, for example, I acknowledged that I need to communicate the non-threatening nature of my posts better, to correctly apprise users that the outreach is informational, and not meant as a warning. I have apologized for deleting triangle's post and acknowledged that I could do better in being clear in my messages to users. Frankly, the effort at making this thread a character indictment is absurd, in light of those facts, and in light of the fact that I, as a moderator, have been open to wide, particularly harsh public criticism, and have respected users rights to say things to me that would not be tolerated towards other members. I am doing all I can to live up to my best standards, and irrespective of what others happen to think, I can take pride in the fact that I am striving to be the best mod I can.
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
Basically you're saying everyone needs to be like you
Insofar as everyone ought to be in control of their anger, then yes, I am. Rage is not an excuse for misconduct--ever. That said, I am not asking them to be respectful; I am asking them to give me notice.
You can't stop this from happening if it's going to happen. I would agree with you that a ban should ensue if someone does this.
If they state their intention to do it, in spite of a warning not to, then, depending on the severity of user rights in play, a moderator might justifiably preemptively ban a user intending to violate the privacy or safety rights of another user.
In this case, a bias one at that....there is def. a problem with this precedent.
I disagree that advising a user of the content of the COC to preempt potential future violations--which I deem likely to occur based on that users current and prior behavior--is in any way a bad precedent.
That I am a liberal does not mean that every time I take some action against a non-liberal that I am acting out of bias. I can live with appearances of bias (those will happen no matter what); I could not be content with actual bias.
Created:
-->
@DebateArt.com
What is the ELO equation?
Created:
-->
@Castin
In all sincerity, I've been reigning my lascivious self in a bit now that I am a mod. I want to be more professional and restrained, as becomes the position. That said, I don't mind loosening up a bit on occasion, and in certain situations. Besides, all that testosterone--Spacetime was clearly flirting with me.
Created:
-->
@Castin
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop? I'll never tell, but I've certainly got the juices flowing ;P
Created:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
LGBT people have always dealt with violence and persecution, and continue to deal with hate crimes today around the world, including in the US.
Amnesty International estimates that 5,000 gays and lesbians have been executed there since the 1979 Iranian revolution.
.
Nor has any action been taken to shut down groups that openly go after LGBT people, such as Occupy Pedophilia, a national network of Russians who torture gay men, and then post hugely popular videos of their acts online.
.
In Baghdad and the middle of Iraq the violence is actually more visible from groups supported by the government, who do killing campaigns. The latest one was in January – we knew several people who were killed but there were rumours there was a list of 100 names
.
The country threatens 14 year prison sentences for homosexual acts, and under a law passed in 2013, any Nigerian who belongs to a gay organisation can also be liable for a 10 year jail term. These laws, along with Sharia law in Muslim areas of the country mean it’s not safe to publicly identify as LGBT in many parts of Nigeria.
.
Beginning in 1933, gay organizations were banned, scholarly books about homosexuality, and sexuality in general...were burned, and homosexuals within the Nazi Party itself were murdered. The Gestapo compiled lists of homosexuals, who were compelled to sexually conform to the "German norm." Between 1933 and 1945, an estimated 100,000 men were arrested as homosexuals, of whom some 50,000 were officially sentenced. Most of these men served time in regular prisons, and an estimated 5,000 to 15,000 of those sentenced were incarcerated in Nazi concentration camps...scholar Rüdiger Lautmann believes that the death rate of homosexuals in concentration camps may have been as high as 60%.
.
More than 40 men have been arrested in Nigeria over the weekend for performing homosexual acts, police say.
.
Being physically harmed—whether by a sexual or romantic partner, a client of sex work, or a group of people on the street—is a risk many transgender people live with daily.
.
2,343 reported killings of trans and gender-diverse people in 69 countries worldwide between 2008 and 2016...The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights documented 770 killings and seriously violent attacks against LGBT persons between Jan. 1, 2013, and March 31, 2014, including 594 hate-related killings of LGBTI people in Brazil.
.
On June 12, 2016, Omar Mateen, a 29-year-old security guard, killed 49 people and wounded 53 others in a terrorist attack inside Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, United States.
.
news broke of a wave of terrifying, state-sponsored violence in Chechnya against men perceived to be gay or bisexual. In scenes that would not have been out of place in Nazi Germany, innocent men were rounded up and removed to illegal detention centres. Men like Maxim Lapunov, who spent 12 days in a blood-soaked cell just because he is gay...Men like the pop singer Zelim Bakaev, who disappeared last August during the round-ups and has not been seen since. Prisoners were held in appalling conditions: starved, humiliated, beaten and subjected to extreme torture. Some who were rounded up did not get out alive. The authorities also outed many of the men to their families, directly inciting relatives to carry out honour killings against their sons, brothers and fathers. Ramzan Kadyrov, the Chechen leader, has both denied the existence of LGBT people in his country and said that gay people should move to Canada “to purify our blood”
Created:
-->
@Castin
It's pon farr and the lube is flowing...I couldn't keep myself clenched up anymore...It just slipped out of me, ya' know?
Created:
You shouldn't have to think of a response
I am saying that the moderator should have a chance to gather data from what may be an extensive conversation to present coherently in reply to the public post. Furthermore, that was not even the most important reason, which you passed over entirely. That reason was: "to preempt the disclosure ONLY in the event that such a disclosure would jeopardize the safety or privacy rights of another user."
And now you are saying if someone is mad that they were treated unfairly it's on them... that's insensitive man.
That's obviously not what I am saying. I am saying that users--and people in general--should be able to control their anger. Rage is not an excuse for misconduct. Period.
I can't believe you aren't getting my whole point... it isn't just that, it will never come across as just that. For you to even have thought that sentence needs a warning has me concerned at this point bc it really looks like it personally offended you which is why you thought to say something. This is a precedent you think is okay to set?
I am getting your point. I don't think you're getting mine--in fact, you fundamentally misconstrued what I said regarding triangle. I was not warning triangle about that post, I was cautioning triangle to avoid making future posts like it which could naturally evolve into COC-violating hate speech. Moreover, no official warning was ever issued, precisely because I did not believe it necessary--as I have already said literally dozens of times. Have you read all my posts in this thread? I suggest you do, because I have answered most of your questions several times already, including this misconception you are continuing to hold on to despite my previous clarifications.
Created:
But to expect someone to give you a heads up once you've done something to offend them is a little too much...You shouldn't say anything that would embarrass you anyways.
The purpose of the rule to require notice is not to avoid my own embarrassment. As I said to Death earlier in this thread, "The purpose is to give a moderator time to marshal a response (which the user may also do themselves) or to preempt the disclosure ONLY in the event that such a disclosure would jeopardize the safety or privacy rights of another user." Additionally, if users can't control their anger enough to tell me in advance, that is, as far as I am concerned, on them.
In regards to your just giving him a heads up. You should know that you are a mod. You can punish people on this site for what they write. If you would have sent me that message, i would have thought it's serious even if it's not. That's the effect you have, it's your position. I don't want to tell you how to do your job, but i urge you to warn people when it is serious
By indicating that it wasn't an official warning, I believe I did just that. But, at the same time, I wanted the message to be taken seriously to the extent that if he continued down the trajectory of insulting classes of people, he would eventually violate the COC. I did also note several times already in this thread that I could be clearer about the purpose of such messages moving forward, however.
Created:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
what does 'dehumanize' even mean in this context?
The words have evolved beyond their historical roots. They have taken on more a meaning of the n-word towards those particular groups. I think that's sufficient grounds to preclude their use.
Created:
-->
@thett3
Whoops! Fixed.
@Bezos - my apologies.
Created:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
The words are prohibited because of how they are often used: as deeply offensive tools to dehumanize and mock whole swathes of people. These are just a few words, representing a minuscule fraction of words in the language, and they are fairly clearly understood. It's not like it's some kind of ambiguous group that I am just arbitrarily defining. I can't agree that it's absurd to ban their use.
Created:
-->
@Death23
Anyway, some users have pointed out that there should be some exceptions to the hate speech restrictions, and I think I agree with that. There are some topics that are inherently offensive (e.g. discussing racial IQ gaps is probably the most offensive one, but others as well like achievement gaps, standardized testing gaps, etc.). Occasionally facts themselves can be offensive. Then there may be policy debates surrounding those issues; You know, what should be done about these sorts of things. These are topics I sometimes would fancy discussing dispassionately. The CoC contains no explicit exception for those things. On DDO I talked to Airmax about that before and he said he would be lenient about it. Not sure what's going on over here though.
I have explained already--in several posts--that discussing and debate topics like the IQ gap are in no way prohibited. What is prohibited is using the n-word. Offensive facts are not hate speech either--facts are facts.
Created:
Both are eminently unreasonable. Your code of conduct is fucking insane.
Obviously, I disagree. Not all users are aware of the specific provisions contained within the COC, and cautionary notes like that can serve to inform users about the COC in order to facilitate their compliance with it. It is simply an attempt to promote understanding, not, as I understand it, a moderation action.
In terms of prohibiting hate speech, that is certainly not unreasonable. Any user can easily avoid using such deeply derogatory and dehumanizing language. Such rules exist on many sites, including DDO, and will be enforced.
It's a mistake that reflects very poorly upon your judgment as a moderator.
Perhaps, but it is only a mistake. I think it is more indicative of the fact that I am new to this kind of position, but only time will tell. In the interim, I will not be stepping down over this incident.
Created:
-->
@spacetime
go fuck yourself.
Dude, trust me, I already do--it's called a vibrator. Y'all straight men should try them sometime; they're hella fun.
Created:
-->
@Death23
The purpose is to give a moderator time to marshal a response (which the user may also do themselves) or to preempt the disclosure ONLY in the event that such a disclosure would jeopardize the safety or privacy rights of another user.
Created:
The objections against my moderation come down to three things:
- that I cautioned a user against going down a road which could eventually lead to a COC violation
- that I deleted a mildly offensive, but non-COC-violating comment which was reported
- that I am enforcing--strictly--the COC's prohibition against hate speech in the form of slurs
Neither the first nor the last of these are in any way unreasonable; indeed, they are, in terms of the COC, prudent and required, respectively. I would do either of those things again, and will continue to do so. The middle action was a mistake which I admitted to. The hubbub over these is incredible, and is not proportional to what actually transpired.
Created:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
I deleted it because it included an offensive slur, but, when Thett reposted it, I figured that it really ought to remain up insofar as it goes to moderation issues. I am on a hair-trigger in terms of those slurs due to the recurring use of them in this thread.
Created:
-->
@spacetime
Until you provide notice, as required, posts from our PM will be deleted. You were so informed. Posts containing slurs and which are not aimed at me will also be deleted.
Created:
-->
@thett3
No, you can't, and I don't think that's overbearing. Terms like that go beyond mere insult--they are extremely insulting and potentially dehumanizing. Restricting the use of a handful of words, less than 1/1000th of the English language, is not, IMO, unreasonable or overdemanding.
Created:
Let me be clear: knowing that revealing moderation PMs requires giving advanced notice and still posting moderation content without such notice is not permitted. User have every right to reveal those PMs, and so I do not view requiring such notice an unreasonable restriction.
But, more importantly, the use of hate speech slurs is never permitted. Period. Words like k*ke, *f**got, n**ger, ch**k, and tr**ny are not acceptable and will--upon repeated use and/or a use designed to harm another user--result in moderation action. The avoidance of these words is called for not just by common decency, but by the COC.
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
In fact, it's not geared towards the mod. The non-moderator is the one who holds the power to go public with the content of a moderation PM, not the moderator. The non-moderator is the only one with a choice regarding privacy vs. publicity. The privacy exists to safeguard users against having their private discussions and affairs made public against their will. But, as I noted in my post to you, moderation PMs are not like normal PMs. With or without the moderator's permission, a user can choose to take a moderation PM public, so long as they give the moderator notice and are not violating the rights of other non-moderators in the process.It is all stacked to give power to moderators that they do not deserve any more than any other user to be able to harass those they disagree with for non-problems.
You made a bad move warning the user for the subject sentence.
I disagree. I explained clearly that I was not taking a moderation action against triangle, and that I was merely informing him that future action along the trajectory he was taking might violate the COC. In other words, I was cautioning--as opposed to warning--him to be aware of the comments he was making and how they might, potentially, violate the COC. I have thoroughly explained my actions in this regard.
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
Does it say somewhere that we can't share our own PM's?
It does. From the COC: "Posting the contents, in part or in whole, of private messages (PMs) in a public venue without the consent of all parties to the PM is strictly prohibited." This rule also applies on DDO. Private messages are "private" for a reason.
Moderators are exceptions to the normal rules, however. That is why, in other threads, I have said the following: "(1) they may not quote directly from a PM with a moderator without first giving the moderator ample notice and (2) they may not quote directly from a PM with a moderator if the information they wish to reveal is likely to impinge on the privacy or safety rights of another user, moderators excluded. Users must also understand that by posting content from the PM in protest to a certain moderator decision, they waive their privacy rights for any and all discussions which pertained/pertain directly to the decision they are protesting. This is done to allow the moderator the chance to reply to the criticism, and to prevent selective release of information. This is all to say that users do have the right to waive their privacy rights in PMs with moderators, with only two reasonable restrictions on that right to waive."
Created:
-->
@spacetime
You should never have been appointed. Resign.
You are, of course, entitled to that opinion. I shall not, however, be resigning over this incident.
Created:
-->
@triangle.128k
You are conflating the message with the deletion. The message did and does not constitute moderation action. The deletion, on the other hand, did constitute moderation action, and I acknowledged it to be a mistake. The attempt to continue fault-finding beyond the mistake I acknowledged seems a bit silly at this point, to be honest.
Created:
Posted in:
I'll give this until Saturday before I decide what to do next.
Created:
-->
@Castin
Oh, to be free once more...
Created:
-->
@Death23
If the post was not moderatable according to the CoC, then no moderation action should have been taken.
Moderation action is any action taken to enforce the COC. I did not, and do not, conceive of gentle reminders that the COC exists, as enforcement actions. The entire purpose of the message was to notify the user that continuing down a specific trajectory might eventually lead him to violate the COC. It was informational, and not an attempt at enforcement.
Created:
-->
@Plisken
Unfortunately, Bsh1 may not address an insult directed at moderation, and shouldn't have to spend time reading that post.
That would be correct. In terms of actions against moderators, only those that violate their safety and privacy rights (e.g. doxxing) are moderatable.
Created:
-->
@Plisken
Are you able to further clarify if there is or is not standardization for what constitutes invective language, differentiating it from brazen noninvective language?
I would cite the example I gave to Triangle: "were you to say something like "gay people are f**king bastards who deserve to be sodomized at the stake," I would take that as invective. Invective is a degree of harshness above mere insult." Can I give you a precise brightline? No, but that is a perpetual problem in all rule-making. Ultimately, determining invective requires me to make a judgement call in each case.
As for marginalized groups, I am not so much referring to groups on this site, but to social groups which may be marginalized in society writ large.
Created:
-->
@triangle.128k
I can see the issue in that statement. However, what about this:
Your examples re: sodomy and "transgenderism" would not be prohibited, as they do not constitute invective, though you should be prepared to support them with arguments if challenged.
Attacking Islam as a theology would likely not constitute hate speech, as it is an ideology not a group of people. However, I will add the caveat that if you are attacking Islam in order to show that Muslims are, for instance, "f**king retards," then you might run afoul of the COC.
This isn't in the ToS at all?
Yes, it is. The extended code of conduct, as authored by Max, is a treatise defining the TOS. Insofar as that quote is used to define the TOS, it is part of the TOS. It certainly was enforceable on DDO, and was occasionally enforced.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
No, you can't. First, it's not invective. Second, such a mild violation would not be grounds for a ban unless you had a very long history of COC-violating conduct.
Created:
-->
@blamonkey
No, it's not your fault or anything. I think I will need to be clearer about those kinds of messages moving forward.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
+1
Moderation was promised wide latitude and autonomy in enforcing the rules. That is not the same as absolute autonomy.
Created:
-->
@blamonkey
The COC indicates that slurs and invective against a class of people would constitute as hate speech. This indicates that harsh, critical language when referring to a certain group would necessitate mod action. While the word "idiot" could be a form of invective, it does not seem too harsh.
See my posts above. I do not believe "idiot" rises to the level of invective. My post was not meant as an official warning or official moderator action. It was, as Mopac says, just asking him to be nicer about it. Put another, I was indicating that triangle might eventually violate the COC if he continued down the trajectory of insulting marginalized groups or classes of people.
Created:
This is quite obviously political in nature. The question of minority groups and their treatment is a controversial subject in itself, and is best left to political discourse.
I disagree. Basic respect for the human dignity of others is not a political issue, though it has become politicized.
And tell me, what counts as "invective?"
That's a good question, and something I can use this thread to more clearly explicate. As you'll note in my reply, I said "'idiot' likely does not rise to the threshold of 'invective.'" I take invective to mean particularly vicious criticism. Of course, that is itself open to interpretation, but were you to say something like "gay people are f**king bastards who deserve to be sodomized at the stake," I would take that as invective. Invective is a degree of harshness above mere insult, if that makes sense.
The old Debate.org rulebook had nothing against criticizing "marginalized" groups.
In fact, it did. Quoted from the site conduct policy on DDO: "Slurs against an entire class of people (such as racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or national groups) are mere insults. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse for mere insult. Mere insults are personal attacks. They are not tolerated."
Would it count as hate speech to advocate for sodomy laws and/or restrict LGBTQ+ rights?
No it would not. As I have said repeatedly to you in private and in public, it is not against the rules to argue that gender is binary. It is not the argument that was the problem, it was the inclusion of the term "idiot" to describe gender non-binary people. You are free to debate whether sodomy laws should be repealed, but you are not free to call gay people "f**gots. In this sense, it is not my goal or my intention to enforce political correctness; it is merely my goal to enforce the COC as it currently exists.
I believe in hindsight that I should not have deleted your post, insofar as it did not rise to the level of invective. For that, I apologize and agree that I was mistaken. I do not believe, however, my PM to you was uncalled for or inappropriate in anyway, and I stand by those remarks.
Created:
Posted in:
I refer to it as DART because DA feels to simple.
Created:
-->
@triangle.128k
In future, give moderation due notice that you are planning to disclose moderation PMs. This is non-negotiable.
Hate speech rules, in general, exist to protect historically disadvantaged and marginalized groups against invective or slurs; though, I don't see why invective against other groups cannot, in certain contexts, constitute hate speech. Your post was reported. Clearly, your post was not moderatable in the sense that it was not the case that you should be either warned or punished. That is because "idiot" likely does not rise to the threshold of "invective." I therefore reached out to you not to warn or punish, but to apprise you of the rules of the site in that regard and advise caution in the face of future actions which might conceivably and reasonably be construed as violating the COC.
I have deleted just two posts by users while moderating this site, to my recollection. Only one of those posts could be construed as political in nature. I leave posts up--even posts which I believe violate the COC--precisely because it is not my aim to censor content. I could have just as easily deleted this thread before anyone saw it and banned you from the site; which I haven't done on the grounds that it would be obviously wrong to do so. The accusation that I am censoring anyone based on their political views is incorrect and presumptuous, and certainly not rooted in fact.
As I said in my remark to you in our PM: "our comment would have been entirely non-problematic had you simply said: 'Just include an option called 'other' for those who can't align with the binary. There's only two genders lol.' I am only contacting you because you chose to transform your comment into an insult by including a disparaging term--i.e. idiot. And, as I said earlier, this is not an official warning. But it is a reminder that language like this is not looked kindly upon by moderation."
My comment there emphasized two things: (a) that you were free to express your political views, and (b) that I was not taking any kind of official action against you, but instead merely emphasizing that insulting groups of people wholesale could--potentially--run you afoul of the COC. You'll notice, of course, that in my message I used phrases such as "could constitute" and "the issue with your comment is not that you question whether that there are two or more genders."
In essence, I think you have overreacted here to my message. I neither concluded that you broke the rules nor took any moderation action against you. Rather, fearing that your future conduct might veer towards a COC violation if left unremarked upon, I attempted to gently remind you that a COC does exist and will be enforced if necessary. I also clearly explained my objection to your post, and it had nothing to do with the political content of the post, but rather everything to do with your own choice of words. Your objections are noted, and perhaps I could make the purpose of such messages more clear in the future, but your objections are each unfounded.
TLDR: No moderation action was ever taken. I never concluded that you broke the rules. I took preemptive steps to alert you to behavior which could metamorphose into actual COC violations in the future. No content was censored for political reasons; your post was only troublesome to the extent that your word choice was troublesome.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
I support have a "No RFD Required" option when setting up the debate (which would constitute a waiver of moderation). Debates with no RFD required would then not be moderated for votes.
Created:
Posted in:
What I would be endorsing is allowing mods to apply different standards in determining whether a vote violates the rules
How does that differ from what I understood your position to be?
Rock and a hard place comes with the job of being a mod. No matter what you do, you're going to piss somebody off and there will always be suspicions that you are corrupt and/or doing people favors...What really puts one between a rock and a hard place is the decision to continue doing debates while simultaneously having the ability to delete votes.
It certainly does come with the territory, but I think it is worth calling attention to the various demands and interests I am having to balance, so that the reasoning of moderation can be better understood. Moreover, I never adjudicate or remove votes on debates I participate in; those vote reports are always handed off to another moderator.
Any egregious mod action should be appealable to a mod/admin of higher rank
Your response does nothing to address my specific concern: your suggestion leads to unequal voting policy enforcement. That is an issue of fairness that appealing won't solve if the kind of moderation discretion you call for is exerciseable. It certainly doesn't address issues of moderator favoritism, and in fact makes it easier to accuse moderators of favoritism because their moderation would be less formulaic.
If the arguments in the comment section are indicative of the debate having been read and comprehended, what exactly is the issue here?
Again, this seems to miss the point. First, your analysis fails to address the concern that comments on voting logic often come only after a vote has been moderated. This means that voters who don't comment extensively in the comments will be disadvantaged relative to ones who do, and that doesn't seem fair to me. Second, moderators cannot be expected to read the debate in its entirety or the comments in their entirety in order to adjudicate the vote. In order to determine whether a debater really understood a debate, entire conversations might need to be read, adding greatly to the practical burden of moderation. Third, the comments are not the vote, unless the RFD was posted in the comments. It is the text of the vote which is up for moderation under the voting policy, and so it is not appropriate for the mods to make judgments external to the vote itself in determining the vote's sufficiency. Comments outside of the vote don't make the vote sufficient; only the content of the vote can make the vote sufficient.
Is it your position that no mod action ought to be taken against Type1's vote because his RFD was "valid?"
Of course that's not my position. But an admission of breaking the voting rules is altogether different from making inferences about comments which may or may not demonstrate that a voter understood the debate. Neither set of comments effect the sufficiency of the RFD itself, but the former demonstrates a different kind of voting policy violation altogether.
Scenario A) You pour 5 10k character rounds of your life into a debate and lose after a great and wide range of feedback/voting/discussion/interest from the voters/readers or Scenario B) You pour 5 10k character rounds of your life into a debate and see a tie as a result of not a single soul voting/reading.
This is a bogus scenario because you build in positive presuppositions which may or may not be the case. Of course, debaters want great votes as opposed to none at all, but that's not the issue here. Moderation doesn't remove great votes. The issue here is whether terrible (or even mediocre) votes are better than none at all. The answer to that, I explained thoroughly, is no. No votes and no readers are better than terrible votes with readers. As someone who has done hundreds of debates throughout the last decade, IRL and online, I can tell you I will always prefer a tie over an unjust loss. Unjust losses do just as much, if not more, to discourage debaters from continuing to debate as does a lack of votes.
It is worth repeating my analysis: "Your logic here proceeds from a mistaken paradigm. A tied debate, in theory, only injures the debater who ought to have one; yet, it injures them less than if they had unjustly lost. An unjust loss, therefore, is worse than a tied debate. While voting moderation is not about policing votes to ensure the "correct" decision, it does establish minimum standards of acceptability for votes in order to minimize unjust losses, given that better voting practices likely leads to better voting decisions. The notion, then, that non-voting is the ill we should be attempting most stridently to avoid is incorrect; rather, bad voting is the ill we should be attempting most stridently to avoid, because it inflicts the greatest injury. If maximizing votes is the goal, should voters be able to vote a particular way for any reason whatsoever?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Logical-Master
principle and practice are two very different beast!
The problem with this analysis is that you would essentially be endorsing allowing the mods to apply different standards to different votes. Drafterman ardently objects to moderator discretion, yet you're suggesting that moderation should use its discretion to make exceptions to the voting policy when it is clear that the debaters have read and comprehended the debate. That (a) puts moderation between a rock and a hard place, (b) leads to unequal voting policy enforcement, and (c) opens spaces for the appearance of moderator favoritism. I cannot agree that such use of discretion is wise.
Besides, your argument here kind of misses the point. The vote itself should demonstrate comprehension of the debate, and not the arguments in the comments. It is the former that is being examined, the later comes after the examination, and may not always even occur.
Finally, whether the mods know that a voter read and understood the debate is no replacement for weighing analysis. Let me repeat: "Suppose, for a moment, that I read an entire debate about whether vaccines should be compulsory, and I decided to cast a non-troll vote. Suppose I voted based on one argument made in the first round, which was never discussed again in the debate and which had little to do with the topic at hand. In such a case, a voter is cherry-picking rather than weighing, and that's problematic for a host of reasons, not the least of which is that such a voting style fails to appreciate the debate as a whole."
one of the fundamental problems with DDO and DART is the lack of voting on debates
Your logic here proceeds from a mistaken paradigm. A tied debate, in theory, only injures the debater who ought to have one; yet, it injures them less than if they had unjustly lost. An unjust loss, therefore, is worse than a tied debate. While voting moderation is not about policing votes to ensure the "correct" decision, it does establish minimum standards of acceptability for votes in order to minimize unjust losses, given that better voting practices likely leads to better voting decisions. The notion, then, that non-voting is the ill we should be attempting most stridently to avoid is incorrect; rather, bad voting is the ill we should be attempting most stridently to avoid, because it inflicts the greatest injury. If maximizing votes is the goal, should voters be able to vote a particular way for any reason whatsoever?
Regardless, I don't think moderation on the whole has been too strict on policing votes, though there might be individual exceptions users might identify. The rules are reasonable, and require voters only to do reasonable things, and so I don't find them problematic. As I said earlier, "Certainly, not everyone will agree on which votes ought to be removed or which votes ought to stand as-is (this goes to the so-termed 'legitimacy' of a vote). Nonetheless, moderation always strives to impartially and accurately apply the voting standards in all cases."
I won't address your comments to Tej, as they appear to be about a specific case in which he was involved. I will allow him to speak for himself if he so chooses.
Created:
Posted in:
The purpose of those options is to allow for "quickfire" debates, which did happen on DDO from time to time. I doubt that most users would use those options, but they are nice options to have.
Created:
Posted in:
Dudes and dudettes!
Please vote on this (first ever on DART) live debate!
Created:
Posted in:
Okay. We're gonna start, but feel free to join as long you keep your mics off! Thanks :)
Created:
Posted in:
The Link:
Debate should start in 5 minutes or so.
Created: