Voting Issues Discussion

Author: David

Posts

Total: 19
Topic's author
#1
David
David's avatar
Debates: 92
Posts: 1,218
4
7
10
David's avatar
David
4
7
10
Over the past few weeks, there have been some voting issues that have come up and I want to leave it open for discussion. This is not an official MEEPS, but it may be MEEP'd later. 

The Questions

1. If a user is ineligible to vote but votes on a debate that will otherwise not be moderated, should we allow this vote to stand?

There have been cases where voters who are not eligible have voted on troll or FF debates that are not moderated. The way we handle this in the past has been to allow those votes to stand but revoke their voting permission and send them a friendly reminder. Since multiple votes like this has been reported, I want to open this to discussion. What should the moderation team do with such votes? 

2. How much (or how little) should we enforce "special rules" of debates. 

Our voting policy has always been that we ignore special rules of debates; however, I am seeing that this isn't always entirely workable. If the debate rules say "forfeiting is an automatic loss," should we permit votes who do not necessarily vote that way to stand? Furthermore, if a debate rule said "Person X cannot vote on this debate," should the moderation team remove that vote? 

#2
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
1. Yes, dspjk5 needs to be here.
2.No
#3
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@David
Honestly, we need to waste less of the moderators time on what I'll dub Fixed Outcome debates... I include myself in this statement; as an example, I've been enough of a bastard to report votes from peoples alt accounts even after they've been countered and the account suspended.

To both questions, I say the answer is context dependent...

  1. Ineligible Voters
    For FFs and concessions, it doesn't matter so long as they're not trying to sway the outcome, so let it stand.
    For troll debates, I would maintain the current policy due to the continued problem of alt accounts. I want to say base it on the quality of the vote, but we've probably all seen votes literally written by the objective loser... 

  2. Special Rules
    I'm torn on what would be an ideal policy on this.

    I'll outright admit I've been on every side to this...
    (A) I've had someone deny agreeing to their BoP as outlined in the description, and call the expectation that they would follow it "bad faith arguing."
    (B) I've cried foul about someone having a No K Rule and then running their affirmative argument as a K on their own topic.
    (C) And of course I've subjectively alternated between voting in enforcement of the rules, or when I deemed them employed as a way to avoid debate rejected their application (well I penalize conduct for intentional rule violation, but that is not the automatic win for which people hope).

    I've provided those examples as they run the gambit of the issue to aid others in discussion.

#4
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@David
1.) I could go either way. It doesn’t do any harm.

2.) Rules shouldn’t be enforced, but people should be allowed to write an RFD that considers them (or not).

IE: if there is a no forfeit rule, a voter shouldn’t be able to award all 7 points for the forfeit, but should be able to specify that the agreed rule states that the forfeit warrants a loss - ONLY if mentioned by one side or the other as an argument. It is after all, a single argument that is weighted against all the others in order to make a decision.

Likewise, if the debate contains a discussion of the rule (like Omar vs Speedrace), this must be referenced in the RfD if applied (or not), as rule discussion is itself an argument.

Moderation should NOT enforce the rules in a way that overrides the content of the debate (so cant treat a debate as unmoderated if no one mentions the forfeit rule).

Anti-Voter rules should never be enforced.



#5
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@David
The second question will not be MEEPed. Voting moderators should never enforce the special rules of debates; if the voters want to enforce those rules using their votes, they may, but moderators will not remove votes which do not conform to those special rules.

This is longstanding precedent.
#6
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
People not being eligible to vote when the system allows them to vote is absurd. Enforcing that is just going to confuse and piss off new users, driving them off
#7
Cogent_Cognizer
Cogent_Cognizer's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 365
0
2
7
Cogent_Cognizer's avatar
Cogent_Cognizer
0
2
7
I agree with both bsh1 and Wylted


I don't think the mods should be the one to enforce special rules. This is coming from someone whom, every debate I've had, I list special rules. The voters ought to decide that.

With Wylted's point, I might suggest something where a warning message pops up to new users if they try to vote if you don't like the idea of outright banning new users from doing so until they meet the requirements.

#8
Cogent_Cognizer
Cogent_Cognizer's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 365
0
2
7
Cogent_Cognizer's avatar
Cogent_Cognizer
0
2
7
Also, yeah, I'm not sure it makes sense to punish them for voting on unrated debates. TBH, I have one unrated debate I'd like to get any votes I possibly can due to that I was doing it for mere practice and to help get criticism of it. It's a position I'm not sure I hold which I argued for. I'd like some more feedback in addition to what my contender pointed out, and certainly being lax with enforcing that rule on unrated debates could help encourage more feedback. But certainly, for the rated ones, since they matter, they shouldn't be allowed.

#9
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
My true answer is 'no' to 1 and 'yes, strongly' to 2 but I know the rules of the street around here and will answer 'no' to both.
#10
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@bsh1
Why was I blackballed by mods to not accept speedrace's debates and other people who ruled me out in their description?

Don't worry man, you can just ignore this and keep your mouth shut, the problem will run away and people will call me a lunatic. :)
#11
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@David
1. It doesn't affect anything, so yes.
2. No.

#12
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
Shouldn't two be an obvious yes? If a potential Challenger doesn't like a certain rule they can simply not accept the debate...
#13
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Conversely if the instigator is not able to defend the validity and fairness of the rule, should it be allowed to stand? 
#14
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Ramshutu
They shouldn't have to defend it's validity. If you think it has no validity then don't accept the debate.
#15
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
One great reason to accept a debate is to challenge the validity of your opponents position. Rules are every bit as fair game as the resolution. After all, everything should boil down to who has the better argument - not who can make the sneakiest rules.
#16
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Ramshutu
One great reason to accept a debate is to challenge the validity of your opponents position.

Most people that get into debates on this site are looking to test their debating skills. The only reason debates have topics in the first place is to provide structure to the format, special rules agreed upon by both parties are merely another way to provide such structure.

not who can make the sneakiest rules.

Is that actually a thing that happens often? people making 'sneaky rules' to try winning by default? That has not been my experience but admittedly I have not really been on the debate scene since DDO turned into DART. Even if this is the case I still am not seeing how that is a problem, again I point out that nobody is forcing anyone to accept any debates.
#17
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@David
@Ramshutu
@Discipulus_Didicit
Shouldn't two be an obvious yes?
Moderation exists to enforce site rules. We are not hired muscle who enforce whatever rules individual users want to impose on their debates. Special rules for debates are not site rules, and so not subject to moderation enforcement. 

The appropriate enforcers of a debate's special rules are the voters. A voter may cite a debate's special rules as the primary or sole basis for their voting decision; moderation will generally not remove such a vote. However, neither will we remove a vote which ignores those special rules, but is otherwise sufficient.
#18
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11

1. If a user is ineligible to vote but votes on a debate that will otherwise not be moderated, should we allow this vote to stand? 

Makes little difference and has the advantage of engaging new debaters.  So Yes/don't care much.

2. How much (or how little) should we enforce "special rules" of debates. 

As lightly as possible within the realm of civil conduct.

I like it when we collectively reward superior persuasion and creativity but punish harassment.  If somebody makes a good case for ignoring the rules I want the capacity to reward the case.  I also want the freedom to say, "nope, contender violated rules and forfeits debate" as I see fit. All legit voters should be able to exercise that vote in any debate or the vote is corrupted.  I think requests that some people not accept debates encourages new debaters to instigate without having to face the same challengers over and over.  If debaters are just voting or taking debates vindictively or as part of a feud or whatever- the community should be the first to discourage, then mod warning, etc.  IF mods feel that zapping a few vindictive votes might serve as an effective punishment without actually banning the user- then I think mods should feel empowered to try that technique.


#19
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Sneaky rules or sneaky interpretation of rules happens almost as often the rules are challenged by arguments: primarily because most times rules are used, the contender agrees to the rules. They happen exactly as often as the rules are successfully overturned by one side.

The examples where the rules have been challenged that I am aware of are:

a.) An accidental forfeit, and apology in conjunction with a “good sportsmanship” Rule was argued. (won)

b.) An attempt at noon sniping with trick definitions, and rules deliberately tailored to make it impossible for the instigator to lose in a way that wasn’t necessarily obvious to the contender.(Won)

c.) Another attempt at trick definitions, where someone accepted a debate in good faith; but found the opponent had chosen trick debate definitions that rendered the debate a near truism. (Tie)

d.) Obnoxious attempt to argue an irrelevant and trolling kritik on a reasonable debate resolution (did not win)