Conduct for comment section

How much vote tampering need someone try in the comment section, before it overrides the usual separation to allow them to be penalized?

This isn't about any one particular debate, I've seen a growing trend here.

Ramshutu is the one vote tampering on my debate(s), I am countering it.

Note: It feels really weird to have someone who blocked me for not voting in his favor, constantly tag me in things...

...

Again, this isn't about any one particular debate or debater.

It was a frequent problem on DDO, when people could change their votes in response to harassment. Here people can still make it clear there will be a price to be paid if they don't vote exactly how one of the debaters wishes. I will not call out anyone else's debates specifically, but debates with too many comments are suspect: https://www.debateart.com/debates?category_id=&status=&order_type=comments_number

To give an example using a fairly recent debate of mine: Fetuses as a replacement for the USD

My opponent outright and repeatedly told Speedrace it was fine for him to view the debate as a joke, then about at the last day of voting complained the the admins that in no way was the debate a joke to get every vote against him taken down. ... This is a more minor example, to which I would not suggest conduct points being assigned; it does however showcase how people use the comment section to manipulate voting (yeah yeah, it's a troll debate, vote how you want... Admin help me, they voted as if this was a troll debate!).

In the example you give, that should never be taken as a troll debate. It's a joke topic but not a troll debate.

troll debates are not extreme devil's advocate, this is a misconception that I am extremely happy was voted out in the MEEP where the most strict definition of 'troll debate' was voted on. The only thing that is a troll debate is something where there is no way to moderate it in the sense of vote moderation as is in the CoC. Talent battles are one example but also debates where there is a topic to debate but instead of debating it, it's about entertaining the audience.

It's true, there's been examples of them labelling as 'troll debate' what shouldn't be labelled as such. I am vehemently against that.

You removed me as a friend and became shady and buddies with Ramshutu, I am hardly going to not block you after you ditch me without explanation.

but since you are becoming a prominent member of the website who may help fight the corrupt agenda of pick-and-choose lenient-vs-strict vote moderating and the oligarchy of some in the comments sections of debates and the effect of that on votes, I'll unblock you as you asked nicely.

Hi shadey buddy.

This is all from my position and opinion as a voter -  not as a vote moderator.

There really 2.5 types of inherent vote influencing going on right now: I don’t think it’s inherently enough  to call it tampering,

Firstly there is voter solicitation. One person repeatedly tagging or PMing individuals to vote on their debates. While this seems innocent enough the “vote for me” part of the solicitation is often implicit. The important thing, is that people are not generally going to ping individuals they think may vote against them. Unless everyone does it, it means that one side can stuff the ballot box with sympathetic people and not inherently break conduct terms.

I don’t think there’s much you can really do about that one

Secondly, there is tactical exclusion and voter intimidation. This was effectively how MagicAintReal operated. With both excluding people he didn’t like from his debate, and harassing those who voted against him with multiple PMs, or angrily lashing out in debate comments. No one wanted to deal with the BS of voting against him - even if he lost.

This is a pretty toxic maneuver as it both poisons the debate environment by letting someone freely bias the votes in their favour, but is also shitty for the kids to deal with - I’m fairly convinced that a histrionic angry user like MagicAintReal was repeatedly PMing mods, and tagging them in multiple places to get his own way. While I have no idea of what private actions the mods did or not take - for sure their reluctance to want to deal with such angry rants from him were a conscious concern - as they are human.

As an aside: doing it in public, and publicly complaining about people’s votes repeatedly whilst a debate is in progress helps poison the well. If an individual is berating another individual for a vote - but is also launching objectively untrue personal attacks like MagicAintReal did: it has an effect of trying to garner a sympathy vote. If people didn’t know the context and just saw Magic ranting - they may be more likely to ne

sympathetic to his argument too.

Someone voting against you can be particularly frustrating; as all debaters are the people who understand their arguments best. Many examples of people lashing out or complaining are not based on an attempt to influence votes - but frustration. I think votes should be challengable - though there is a right way and wrong way of doing that. (Bsh is a great example of a right way of doing that)

Its tricky to find the line between understandable objection and flat out intimidation. Saying that though, given I have around 420 + votes, I’ve had maybe 6-7 people strongly object; one was ethang5 (who accused me of voting for virtuouso, liberals and atheists - which was (and is) objectively untrue, Wylted - which should speak for itself, MagicAintReal, and maybe 3/4 other users who I will not name.

Whether some actions are so extreme as to warrant action: pass, I think a case could be made for that. I think the reality is that those that spend every day trying to poisoning the well always end up getting pretty stuffed when they get thirsty. It always ends up counter productive, as while fear has a large impact - in the long term it turns to eye-rolling.

Bsh is the chief moderator. It's easy to be calm when you get your buddies tejretics, ramshutu and virt to vote for you and can remove votes at your discretion via Virt who is your lapdog.

Don't come telling that bsh1 is a clear example of the right way to oppose votes, he's calm because he runs things.

This is pretty much case in point; and the issue I have. I vote on every debate, sans a few when I don’t have time over a period of a week: should I not vote - or change my vote simply because one individual is incessantly harrasing me, and making a series of unfounded assertions? 

This is kind of a quandry here and really the fundamental issue I have with point 2: as a consequence of this sort of behaviour exemplified by Magic, there is an implicit undertone of voter interference, effectively using the threat of more harassment in order to alter people’s votes.

As it doesn’t particularly bother me; I’m not going to try not to alter my vote - and my intent is to be open, careful and self explained: but it’s the harassment and attempt to Harrangue me into not voting, or voting for him is for the very fact that me not voting is why Magic did it in the first place.

Fortunately, as I vote most: this actually helps most other people by being the loss leader. People like Magic are more likely to become obsessed and angry at me than any other individual - and it gives a little bit of cover to others.

You see yourself as a hero, but in reality you are a villain.

Yeah these could change debates..

This is almost a verbatim quote of every Bond Villian 

Im not sure if it was on DDO or not, but Ive seen the idea of having debaters be unable to comment on their own debates once they entered the voting period (then be allowed again after voting ended) be floated in the past.... Would be tough to program is the thing, but it would allow those involved in the debate to clarify anything about the debates in the comments during the debating period itself, but then have them remain silent during the voting period to prevent against pressuring or tampering 

That is a BAD THING :) People SHOULD be able to discuss the debate and corrupt votes in the comments section!

There's a lot to be said in favor of that idea, particularly to the related problem of people trying to win arguments in the comment section. For the main problem under discussion, I suspect the problem people would spew their hate through PMs more than they do already.

Clearly outline what voter intimidation is, and either ban people from debating if they do it too much, or simply assign them a forfeit and auto loss for the given debate.

I gaurantee that you’d have an epic blow up - followed by it never happening again if you made those on questions lose 3/4 debates when they’re trying to manipulate votes.

The block button exists thanks to a big play by me very very early on in the site's history. That'll solve that issue.

Then you may argue the left-wing Progressive SJW argument of 'better out than in' meaning oppressing and suppressing urges will mean even if they have no way to scream AHHHHHHH YOU VOTERS ARE CORRUPT, they will vent it in other toxic ways and as a left-wing SJW Progressive, I'd have to agree.

Oh yes, I identify as SJW but oh no, I am not the type of SJW to go OMG DO NOT DARE TALK, rather I annihilate my opponent in a very right-wing calculating manner where they realise if you want to trigger me and others, don't be shocked when I do it to you better.

I have found that the people who most thrive on winding others up and relishing in their agony (typically right-wing in mentality) are those who least can resist it when it is done to them on their weak-points of tolerance and aggravation.

What is fascinating to me is that after I unblocked you, you blocked me. You perhaps didn't count on me doing that and thought you could just point me out to be some strange kind of hypocrite, it turns out you lost at that game? Not sure what that was.

If you want to oppress people screaming about their votes, you have to realise not only will their frustration vent elsewhere but more importantly; the fact that moderators aren't properly moderating votes is something that won't go away. People talk about having more lenient vote moderating and I am telling you that it's a joke (albeit a sophisticated one) as it is. People are right to scream about vote moderating, I have gotten away with some really lazy votes, why did I get away with it? Exactly, it is because they are too lenient. I will simply play the game if it insists on a broken meta.     

You rap like William Shatner sings.

You trigger me like an obese person eating McDonald's. 

You can't help what you do, I know you can't help it but still it tingles me in a wrong way.

So remind us why you've had the time to post all these forum posts, comments, votes and even debate Rounds but you had to drop out of the talent show the moment I posted my poem/rap. 

I guess you do have a talent.

Lucky you avoided that roast round eh? 

TBH, you’re the human equivalent of a big red button labelled do not push, and which makes loud fart noises when you do.

We all know you shouldn’t press the button, but it’s right there for everyone to see, and pressing the button is soooo irresistible because you know the loud fart noises that come out when the button is pushed is objectively hilarious.

Mhmm, what are you then? The button that we press and it says 'sorry I can't process this information, but you are objectively saddening'?

Well, I think I’m a dial, that you think is a button; which you keep pushing, and hitting and shouting at, and then complaining that x and y happened because you pressed the button.

Do you really think that? That's amazing!

Oh there will always be lunatics who fly into an unhinged rage the moment you do something that offends the version of reality they desperately want to live in... With limits to the comment section during debates though, that gives voters another shield/defense against self-centered debaters who contest any vote that goes against them. People can choose to not accept PM's, block a person after theyve explained their vote, or at least keep the convo out of the comments section entirely