Was Fraser Anning’s egg attack justified?

>>A bit like a crime of passion - you mostly glossed over this context and I felt this was important.

Next time I will dedicate more time on the time span of the comment and how irresponsible it was.

>>but I would have added that he is also a prominent public figure who has the ability to reach and convince others of his message in a way that regular people do not.

This is the one I already thought I could have improved on but glad someone else does agree that this was a place that I could have improved my approach.

>> This makes the issue more complex than simply two people disagreeing

I agree with this but never realised it in the debate. I realise how much better my side could have been if I spoke about how much more complex the situation was than what Brendo's reduction of it was.

>>asymettric influence, for which it’s not possible for one side to simply vocally disagree as his voice is not as loud, or as well heard.

Cool word. I think I will describe what the problem is instead of using the word. Will help get my point across and since I can have 30k characters in a debate I don't really have a need of needing a shorter way of saying both sides are not the same.

Thanks for the comments.

Thanks Omar.

In terms of potential improvement - there are two areas:

1.) I would have argued that the emotional impact of the terrorist attack, and the comment FA made in the context of being anti-Muslim, and dismissive of the deaths mere hours after the attack were a mitigating factor. A bit like a crime of passion - you mostly glossed over this context and I felt this was important.

2.) You focused on his senate role, which was good - but I would have added that he is also a prominent public figure who has the ability to reach and convince others of his message in a way that regular people do not. This makes the issue more complex than simply two people disagreeing - it is a case of asymettric influence, for which it’s not possible for one side to simply vocally disagree as his voice is not as loud, or as well heard.

"though he could have done more in several cases."
Can you show me areas I could have improved on? I would like to improve this stance I have.

Thanks for the vote.

Australia needs the 1st and 2nd amendments.

Thx. U 2.

You have answered my questions.

Have a nice life.

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.

Why didn't you answer the first question?

>> 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.

>>you weren't there in its heyday.

Hey how do you know?

>>I valued continuity.

Continual what?

>> 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.

>>but few would argue that we would be better off without a system of laws than with one.

Even though the law is prescriptive it is based what people value. Am I wrong?

>>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 would say those if's are not warranted because they will realise that this is the best debate platform around. DDO is filled with spam and no moderation. CD is a conservative cesspool when I looked at it today.

>>#49.
"I borrowed most of the voting rules from Airmax on DDO"

You valued Airmax voting rules on DDO. Am I wrong?

>> 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.

>>Prescriptive rules limit discretion because they are prescriptive.

How?

>>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.

Why isn't that opposition not worth the hassle when creating the best debating platform?
Is this an argument to limit opposition instead of creating the best debate site possible?

"I've answered this question already."
Can you quote where you did address that?

>> 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.

>>limiting moderation discretion

Wouldn't this be never met? I'll take Type1 as an example. Virtuoso took down the vote on "Ramshutu dishonestly votes against RM" and used the rules to do so. I can't imagine Type1 is happy with that so discretion as goal will never be met. Simple whenever a vote is taken down discretion will not be upheld.

>>not being overly burdensome to voters

That is relative. Yeah you ask more from users compared to other debating sites but to say having some sort of rule for a form of argument required as per the debate is not too much. Why not increase the arbitrary line of being burdensome to voters and debaters? Wrick-It-Ralph mentioned forms of arguments but I don't think you responded to it.

>>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.

So are you denying that the rules were not made by what you value?

>>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."

More of a repeat what I said earlier. Do you deny the standard you have created on this site is not based on what you value most?

>> 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."

Fair response. I know my opinion is not popular and is contingent on the assumption that the website gets sufficient traffic

I would actually say that if moderation is the ultimate goal, that the current system has to be pretty close to ideal then. I thought it was too rigid at first. But I'm noticing that it's possible to cast a passing vote without writing a thesis, lol. It's difficult sometimes because the debaters don't always structure their arguments in a way that's easy to vote on. But no system is perfect I suppose.

"The rules are good for other reasons."
Tell me the most important reason.

"From my perspective, I am applying the same criteria to RM's vote as I would apply to any other--that consistency is fair."
Then my problem is for the rule itself. For that to be considered a rule I would like to know what rule states that to be sufficient in what he is doing.

"would be functionally saying that only my opinion matters in picking winners and losers for debates on DART."
It is already the case. 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? I am basically saying you are still basing the criteria on your opinions since I am sure you did create the rules based on your opinion.

>> 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.

"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."
Okay then. Your rules were based off what Airmax came up with through the years. So basically the reason why the rules are good because someone else used them and improved them for several of years?

"That again empowers the mod to rule on the accuracy of the voter's interpretation, which is problematic for the reasons I mentioned earlier."
What do you care more about fairness or not being problematic?

>> 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.

That's interesting.

You could use the 5 forms of argument as the reasons for voting I suppose.

reductio ad absurdum
Induction
Abduction
Analogy
deduction.

There are others that can be added or assimilated into this depending on how people interpret an argument. But this would be a solid way to explain how you came to believe their argument using short hand. The problem isn't really in the explaining, but rather the length sometimes required for the explanation.

Just read that. See ya later man

"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."
If the rule says RM's vote was actually good enough then I would like the rules to be updated. It should be something like voters when voting must point out what they are using to vote on. This can be using speech marks to target what a person said in order to make sure people understand where he/she got this idea from. Then you can measure the vote based on that and see if it is unfair to get that kind of explanation from what was said. 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.

"This remark was ungrammatical and hard to interpret. I'd appreciate a clarification if I am to respond."
The site rules were based on what you value most. That should be easier to understand.

"I will be logging off. If it is desired, I am happy to continue the conversation tomorrow."
Do what you want.

I think it's superior and he thinks there needs to be at least some direct moderating involved. I think it can be handled indirectly by vetting alt accounts and promoting high population voting that will absorb troll votes due to their size.

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 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.

"Obviously, in their enforcement, I have some discretion, but I do not have nearly as much discretion has if I could eliminate any vote of my choosing for any reason"
How is this about discretion?

"which would be the de facto consequence of your position on voting moderation."
Which is a better way of voting and you would say this is a descriptive statement. The problem is at your fundamental you do things based on descriptive statements that were influenced by you making the site rules. By saying we have some "objective" standard clearly misses what you value more than someone else like me.

>> 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.

Seems legitimate.

No, I got removed my first day here, lol. After that, I learned how to vote better.

"I would be functionally saying that only my opinion matters in picking winners and losers for debates on DART."
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.

>> 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.

That's a claim of knowledge, you think knowledge is fallacious, so your claim is fallacious.

Bubble Time.

"But speaking from my own experience, if I wrote what RM wrote, I generally would get my vote removed."

It's like you trying to pull a dumb-yet-genius rap and music video combo like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuPMXS7dd9s

Some things only I can do, that is my supremacy.

according to what you just said, it seems like his assessment would qualify. 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. But speaking from my own experience, if I wrote what RM wrote, I generally would get my vote removed. I'm not prescribing anything here but rather just offering up what my experience has been on the website thus far.

Read Brendo's round 3, then read back to his Round 1. He played this perfectly.

I can't show you evidence of how he is a liar so all I am going to say is this is clearly unfair. He made up what was going on and went with something much more complex than what was actually said. He still can't justify his reasoning apart from he laid a "foundation" to it instead of actually showing me the part where he did the "sandwiching". Then afterwards he decides to bring in an entire paragraph that simply said Will should also be punished or maybe he should never have egged him since he never agreed with doing he was doing in the first place. I don't see how you don't see this but guess I am not in-charge and I can't do anything about it. That was the supposed "sandwiching". Don't comment back to me I don't see the point when I am sure it would be a paraphrased version of your last comment.

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?

I am aware that you didn't realise Brendo had done what he had done. This is why you fought it wrong. It was there though.

That has got to be a joke. He made things up. He implied a meaning that was not made clear in the debate.

The only rfd of mine that ever got removed is one I made before the rules had been written.

Even bsh1 knows.

*******************************************************************
>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.
************************************************************************

You don't know what you are talking about.
He simply stated if Fraser is going to be punished. Will should also be punished or maybe he should never have egged him since he never agreed with doing it in the first place. That is a bad argument and for you to make it more than that shows how little you understood with what was going on in the debate.

It forced you to fight your own case from the other angle to stop the other sandwich slice being true.