Upcoming MEEP: Voting Policy

Author: Barney
Voting
Crowdsourcing
MEEP
Voting Policy

Posts

Total: 8
Topic's author
#1
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,460
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
Hey DART. 

I'm hoping to post a MEEP soon. MEEP stands for Moderation Engagement and Enactment Process, it is a referendum on site policies.

This one will focus this on on refining the voting policies. Please submit any ideas for changes, addendums, etc.


Current questions which have been raised (will be updated as this thread progresses):
  1. Should waiving rounds count as poor conduct equal to forfeitures?
  2. Should Full Forfeits be broadened to missing every round after their first argument?
    Such as someone forfeits the first round, shows up in the second or third, and forfeits the remainder.
  3. Allow implicit justifications for lesser points?
    I need better wording for this, but in essence not needing the spell out the absence of things. Such as one side having a dozen .gov and .edu sources, sure their impact needs to be mentioned if giving sources, but the other side having none and not challenging them is self evident at a glance.
  4. Less stringent justification for counter points?
    This may be a weird one, I don't know if it will make the cut into the referendum... So let's say someone gives you arguments and sources but gives the other side conduct and doesn't dot the i's and cross the t's on that part; with this change, the vote would not be removed so long as the primary points are justified to the standard... And yes, I have seen tactical vote reporting along these lines, wherein someone waits until near the end of the voting window to report such a vote against them.
#2
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Barney
  1. No to #1 in fact I don't even understand why forfeits are bad conduct, I just accept it. If you forfeit, you give the opponent a free win.

#3
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Barney
3. is a 'no'. That will defy the very basis on which you judge an RFD as valid.
#4
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Barney
4. Tactical vote reporting is morally correct, slamming 5-7 points against one side just to be a dick and get away with is because you have 'law' in your username is not some kind of acceptable practise that should be encouraged.
#5
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Barney
Should Full Forfeits be broadened to missing every round after their first argument?
I support the opposite to this. Showing up at all means you didn't FF.
Topic's author
#6
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,460
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Any questions you would like added?


1. Should waiving rounds count as poor conduct equal to forfeitures?
No to #1 in fact I don't even understand why forfeits are bad conduct, I just accept it. If you forfeit, you give the opponent a free win.
IMO forfeiting is a disrespectful waste of the other persons time. Plus, someone voting for the forfeiting side without mitigating the vote with a conduct penalty, is a strong indicator of overwhelming bias. Still, I'd be open to adding a question to make forfeitures no longer negative conduct? ... Related thing: we could codify a list of debate conduct harms.


2. Should Full Forfeits be broadened to missing every round after their first argument?
I support the opposite to this. Showing up at all means you didn't FF.
I admittedly have never liked calling every round after the first a "full" forfeiture. I think it leaves the debate basically a foregone conclusion, but not quite the same thing.
I think on this we could separate it into options for what level of forfeiture should make the moderation one sided (only moderated if voting against the presumptive winner).


3. Allow implicit justifications for lesser points?
3. is a 'no'. That will defy the very basis on which you judge an RFD as valid.
I've got this one in here in the first draft largely for discussion. We basically already use it to a lesser extent, as seen every time we rule 50% forfeiture votes okay in spite of the voter not explicitly stating that the side they're voting in favor of did not forfeit. If it should be tightened up, is also a possibility.


4. Less stringent justification for counter points?
4. Tactical vote reporting is morally correct, slamming 5-7 points against one side just to be a dick and get away with is because you have 'law' in your username is not some kind of acceptable practise that should be encouraged.
This would apply only when decreasing the margin of victory. The points in favor of the chosen winner would still be held to the same standard, but counter point against them would not. So a 5 points mitigated to 4 points, would not be deleted for the act of mitigation.
Topic's author
#7
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,460
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
I'll try to get some refinement work on this during the weekend.

Two things I plan to touch on (and would of course appreciate ideas toward): Clarifying what counts as outside content, particularly as regards to outside opinions (this can be a fine line to walk, as feedback is good and we're not voting in a knowledge-less vacuum; but we're also not one of the debaters trying to defeat an argument), and of course clarifying the full forfeiture policy.

Crap, another thing: We don't need to call non-moderated debates "troll" debates.
#8
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
1. No. If an athlete has the energy and everything and is present to the event but decided to give the win to the opponent upon agreement, then that shouldn't be the same as being absent. If he just stopped trying then it is poor conduct but waiving is not as strong as a poor conduct as ff.

2. No. I believe over 50% is FF, but if you just miss 1 round after the first, that is not ff.

3. No. It will overcomplicate the entire thing and probably no one except for a group of few will use it anyway.

4. Yes. As long as it is clear it is good. You don't need to use up all 15000 characters in a debate round.