Vote Moderation: Suggestion Box

- Whenever something is borderline, default to considering it sufficient

- Whenever you remove a vote, explain, very briefly, how the voter could improve

Virt as also suggested that moderators "try to contact the user first to give them time to make a correction in the comment section." I think this suggestion might add more work for moderators and is perhaps redundant. Since moderators already @ people on voting notices, and since those notices will now include suggestions for improvement, it seems that the notices may suffice. I am also concerned that, if a vote on a debate with only 12 hours left in the voting period is insufficient, moderation would be unable to remove it because we would have to wait for the voter to make changes. The vote could then be left up despite being insufficient. That said, there is clearly merit in reaching out to voters on a 1-on-1 level. It is a deeply education-focused approach, which I like. With all that said, I am open to feedback on the new voting polices and on the following suggestions:

1. No longer post vote removal notices on FF or conceded debates

2. No longer post vote remove notices on FF, troll, or conceded debates

3. Contact voters individually to talk to them about how to improve an existing vote before removing the vote

Please feel free to comment and to make other constructive suggestions.

For votes:

1.) Make it so that only the people in the debate can report a vote (and which part) - with reasons.

2.) if vote is not sufficient, it is removed, if the vote is sufficient (or the reasons given are obviously tenuous or trolling), the reporter suffers a point penalty in their debate. Thus discouraging vote punts and draftermanning.

3.) You need to lower the standards of vote criteria so that they’re achievable. Vote removal rate feels like it’s at 80-90%. Votes for arguments need to review the arguments made and use specifics and justifications as to why one was better than the other. The need for the specific detail like you have is to remove moderator bias from the decision to remove or not. You’ll never remove that bias - and you’ll never please everyone. As long as moderators aren’t removing votes they don’t like because they don’t like how they reached the conclusion.

4.) public open voting is always going to be problematic. Maybe there could be some form of committee (deliberates in private then posts a decision) where a few people deliberate on relative strengths. Maybe you can allow points to be awarded for good arguments and removed for bad ones - and people score that way. In my view your kinda hamstrung having copied do voting style, which was terrible.