Vote Removal
Any votes in violation of the above are eligible for deletion. Ones determined to be borderline will not, even if the moderation team is likely to provide feedback to improve future votes from the user in question. Borderline is a broad area, wherein moderation leaves a vote in place but has hesitation.
When reporting a vote, unless the problem is obvious, alerting a moderator to your core issue with the vote (either in the comment section, or as a direct message) is strongly suggested.
Moderators will publicly review reported votes in the comment section, and delete or not delete each vote in question. They may also reevaluate at their discretion. In a non-moderator capacity they may even choose to vote.
Sadly, moderators cannot modify score allotments for votes partly below the standard, so must delete it in whole. The moderation team mechanically can only delete votes within the voting window. For cases of suspected malicious voting patterns, votes may be reviewed up to one month after voting has concluded.
Voters with previously deleted votes, may revote so long as they refine their reason for decision; especially to factor in feedback from moderators. However, fixing just what a moderator pointed out does not guarantee it will pass reinspection (e.g., a vote deleted swiftly for failing to mention arguments, might be deleted again for an invalid legibility award, even if now mentioning the arguments).
Votes which in no way try to shift the outcome, are less less likely to be moderated. Again, moderators are volunteers, so please be conscientious of our time. On a related note, if reporting, do so fairly and promptly, instead of as a strategy.
The following at the most common reasons a vote will be deleted:
- Bias
- Tied Arguments
- Vote Bombs
- Fluff Votes
- Based on Outside Content
- Non-Sequitur.
Bias
In voting, from the outset of reading a debate there must be the strong possibility that a voter will vote for either side, if there’s not, then they should at least withhold any point allotments.
Three common ways this occurs are:
- Retaliation against one debater, such as they recently beat the voter in a debate or voted against them. Votes which would otherwise be ruled borderline but are suspect for this, will be deleted.
- Favor for one debater, such as vote trading.
- Overwhelming opinion on the topic. Very often seen in religious and political debates, wherein a voter refuses to even consider merits to the opposing argument… This is frankly demeaning to the side they wish to favor, pretending they are so weak as to need such fluffery.
Tied Arguments
While arguments may be determined as a tie, without that analysis or an exception, they must be weighted.
Whereas wholly tied votes are generally considered borderline and not removed, due to their lack of any meaningful impact on the outcome. Still, if they fail to be better than spam, they will be removed.
Vote Bombs (VB)
Vote Bombs are obviously bad votes, suffering lack of analysis and/or awarding too many points without justification.
Similarly, Counter Vote Bombs are considered vote bombs. Please just report the original vote bomb.
Fluff Votes (FV)
Fluff votes are votes which attempt to fluff up their preferred side with superfluous unmerited point allotments to help crown them the winner. This includes writing arguments against one side which were not present nor implied within the debate.
Awarding clearly in the inverse of the common sense weighing to assign extra points to your majority awardee (such as giving them conduct for them forfeiting), is such a clear example of vote fluffing, that it is grounds for immediate revocation of voting privileges. Similarly withholding points obviously against them (such as you want them to win so declare their repeated forfeitures shouldn’t cost conduct), is likewise suspect.
Based on Outside Content
Any awarded point(s) must be based on the content presented inside the debate rounds. Content from the comment section, other votes, forums, your personal experience, etcetera, is ineligible for point allotments.
This is not to prevent offering feedback, but you must vote based on the debate which occurred, never the arguments they should have made. If the determinant of a vote is dependent on analysis of things not in the proper debate, the vote is eligible for removal.
That said, we do not vote in a perfect vacuum. Your background is assured to influence how easy to follow certain contentions were, and even bias you on source types. The idea is to ensure you are at least trying to vote fairly for the debate in question, as opposed to voting as an ideologue.
If in doubt, the comment section is the ideal place for any commentary which is not part of the vote. It is also an acceptable place to expand the reasoning for your vote.
Non-Sequitur
The reason for the decision literally doesn’t make sense. … Jabberwacky!
Non-Moderated Debates
Some debates by their nature, or pre-agreement between the debaters, are not eligible for normal moderation. Of course, extreme abuse may warrant exceptions wherein moderation will intervene (such as someone voting solely for a dislike and/or like of either side).
For non-moderated debates, Winner Selection voting is strongly encouraged.
Examples of non-moderated debates include...
Subjective Competitions
Differentiated from normal debates, rap battles, poetry slams, talent shows, and the like, are too subjective to a different standard than what these rules are designed to enforce.
Comedy Debates
Debates primarily designed to be humorous or facetious, or containing primarily humorous or facetious content, are not eligible for normal moderation. That said, while not a requirement, voters on these are encouraged to judge arguments based on how funny they found each case.
Please do not join an obvious comedy debate with the intent of treating it in a wholly serious manner. Similarly, if it’s a serious topic, please don’t toxically try to turn it into a pure comedy debate (which is not to say excluding all jokes from normal debates).
Traps and Riddles
It is up to each voter if the trap was navigated or the riddle solved, and they usually lack impacts in the normal sense; therefore, they’re non-moderated.
Truisms and Tautology
The setup for a debate need not be wholly fair, but there should be grounds for either side to argue. A debate such as “the sun is hot”' are so overwhelmingly in favor of one side, that the other side is best off kritiking the setup and asking for voters to disregard the proofs. This makes it a time of voter discretion if the setup was cheating or not, so moderation is unlikely to intervene.
Further reading:
Vote Rigging
Vote rigging is any attempt to unduly influence voters on any debate. Votes determined to be based upon this, will of course be deleted. Most voters will not otherwise be penalized, as they are usually the victims rather than willing accomplices.
You may of course always request further detail from a voter, but it should not cross into clear harassment should people deign to vote against you (or not enough in your favor).
It is not vote rigging to ask for someone to cast a fair vote.
Vote trading may or may not be vote rigging, depending on whether the outcome of the traded votes is fixed or otherwise agreed upon before the debates are evaluated by the voters (intentionally withholding votes that would otherwise be against the person, is malicious vote trading).
