Voting Discussion: Should people be allowed to "block" people from voting on their debates?

This has been an issue for quite some time. It has been the stare decisis of the voting team to not enforce "special rules" of the debate (i.e. the voters must vote for me or their votes will be removed by the mod team). This includes special rules such as "Virtuoso may not vote on this debate." This has led to some controversy and I want to open this up for discussion. If a person states "X may not vote on this debate" should we, the mod team, remove those votes even if they are otherwise sufficient?

Thanks for your cooperation! 

-Virt

Note: This is NOT an official MEEPs thread. 

No.

No.  It can cause only biased votes to be cast if I were to block every left winger on the site from voting on a debate I instigate.

No...

When it's in response to harassment, the specific rule against so and so, ends up empowering the harasser.

However...

Stalking behavior should count towards loss of voting privileges, to include the removal of otherwise sufficient votes.

This particular issue whips my sack more than most.

Voting: if a rule specific an individual should not vote, it should be ignored by moderation. Harrassment should be dealt with through moderation, and vote quality should be dealt with by vote removal. I also would go further and state that even if both debaters ask for a vote to be removed - this shouldn’t be enforced either other than if the vote is deemed insufficient or borderline.

 These are important enough issues not to be taken out of the moderators hands.

In terms of other special rules, I see these as no different from standard voter issues:

1.) If a debater makes a clear rule, the voters may award points on this basis - or not as they chose. At the very very worst you may request qvoter to justify why they are not following obvious rules, but I don’t think they should be enforced specifically by moderation - only moderated to the extent they are valid aspects to include in a voting decision.

2.) if a debater violates a rule intentionally, and provides an argument as to why that rule must be followed/ this becomes a primary argument and must be aurveyed by the voter to be sufficient imo. IE: if someone runs a kritik on a non-k debate, if the voter explains why the k should be allowed to stand - this is a primary argument that must be surveyed: voters can’t simply say “a kritik is in violation of the rules” any more.

i don’t thinm any of these are actually outside of what happens already.

This debate topic is brought to you by MagicAintReal(tm)

No.

There are exceptions to pretty much everything but I doubt you don't think generally no to allowing people to not vote on a debate because I think it would be an exception. If those exceptions are a problem then it can be added to rules which I think it is in a form of harassment so I don't see the need of adding allowing people to not allow people to vote on debates. 

No. In fact, this is how bad emperors ended their careers. They would execute any single person who disagrees with them, resulting in a law and order that is not even moral and fair.