MEEP: Voting Opt-In Discussion

Author: bsh1

Posts

Archived
Read-only
Total: 89
#61
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
There is a 'coherence' view of truth and a 'correspondence' view of truth.
Both criteria can be met if debate opponents can explicitly find common ground by clearly defining "the facts of the case".

In the same way the prosecution and defense in a court of law can agree on "the facts of the case".

At that point, either conclusions follow logically or they don't.
#62
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@bsh1
Should it be a simply majority?
I am in favor of a 2/3 majority rule.

Should it have a participation threshold?
I am in favor of a 2/3 (of members active within the last 30 days) participation threshold.

Should its results be binding or advisory?
Binding until challenged by a counter proposal that meets the 2/3 majority threshold.
#63
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
As this is a thread about debating rather than truth I won't post any more here.  I look forward to a thread on 'What is truth?' in the Philosophy forum sometime soon!


#64
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Nothing will ever get changed. When I did my mega poll, I barely got half of all the users active within 7 days.
#65
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@drafterman
Nothing will ever get changed. When I did my mega poll, I barely got half of all the users active within 7 days.
Then perhaps we can get users to "opt in" for site policy votes.

2/3 of users active in the past 7 days who have opted in for site policy votes would need to vote for a proposal in order for a change to be implemented.

#66
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@3RU7AL
So basically set up a bicameral legislature
#67
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@RationalMadman
"Alright. Out of curiosity what is your attitude to competition in general?"
I like it and I am very competitive. I also like a fair competition. I like a competition to be judged as fairly as humanly possible. I don't like it when judges judge along partisan lines. I hate what is happening in USA politics largely by the Democrats. There is no justice there. Values they once shared have been turned upside down and propaganda is being used to influence the hearts and minds of the gullible, IMO. Policies they once fought for they now fight against just because of who is suggesting these policies. It is nothing but a dishonest power game and not for the good of the American people. That is my outside perspective since I am Canadian.  

Competition should be judged as fairly as possible or else the victory is not morally won, but dishonestly. 
#68
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Competition should be judged as fairly as possible or else the victory is meaningless.
Topic's author
#69
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
I am in favor of a 2/3 (of members active within the last 30 days) participation threshold.
Not sure how I would measure that. A simple participation threshold would be easier to measure, but I'll cogitate a bit on your suggestion and maybe talk to Mike to see if it could be done.
#70
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@bsh1
Not sure how I would measure that.
Also,


#71
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Don't forget that bsh1 doesn't know how the site works. He's expressed confusion at the leader board before, when it clearly shows you when the last time a person logged in was. It is easy enough to use that to get a list of people who have last logged in since a certain period of time.
Topic's author
#72
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
On your analysis of the rules, I don't think it is accurate at all. If you look at many of the RFDs moderation has upheld, you will find that they don't require nearly as much work as you seem to think. Basically, the rules require a thoughtful, written reply that assigns points for how things interacted in the debate space and not based on superficial evaluations. When I write an RFD, I put in about 20 minutes, tops. I am sure you could do it in less time than that, depending on how quickly you type and process the arguments in your head.
Topic's author
#73
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
Drafter, I don't think you know how the site works. The leaderboard shows the registration date (i.e. the date they created their account), not the date someone was last active.
#74
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
bsh1:

You dumbass:


You can even sort by it.

Topic's author
#75
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
The last post is not the same as last time active, or, as you put it "the last time a person logged in." And the name-calling is just childish.
#76
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@DebateArt.com
@bsh1
The issue here is that really any attempt to modify or change vote moderation is - to a greater or lesser extent - mostly missing the point and simply polishing the deck chairs on the titanic. The issue with votes is less about the moderation and more about the way the system works - a knock off of the already poor public voting system from DDO.

While not quite as bad - these type of public systems are part of the reason why “Hitler did nothing wrong” was voted as the next flavour of Mountain Dew.

It’s not about moderation, though given the current set up I think it’s necessary to make tactical voting as hard as possible, it’s about inherent trust in the capacity of voters to make an unbiased decision. That’s not going to change - the issues are always going to remain regardless of whether voting is easy or hard.

There are two people in this thread (or another closely related one - I forgot), both complaining about different votes on the same debate going different ways. This he-said she-said sort of bollocks that is the whole thing votes are attempting to block out. It’s because there seems to be an inability for people to be able cope with people voting against them, even if those people are voting in good faith.


The real solution in my view - is a much more complex implementation for voters, that actually allows voters to be fairly ranked and weighted on a given debate based on past votes.

If you only ever vote for a theist position, or a conservative position - then your vote shouldn’t count as much as someone who votes both ways regularly. A first time voter shouldn’t count as much as someone with 1000 votes, and someone who frequently gets votes removed gets ranked lower than ones who don’t.  If someone you vote against thinks your vote is fair - you’re future votes could be weighted more.


The big problems and issue with voting in my view - is that the inherent approach taken is flawed, and lends itself to people thinking that all voting is tactical and not based on who actually did better in the debate.

Talking about short term tweaks like this, in my view has to go hand in hand with thinking about the long term strategy to remove key problems inherent in the approach taken.







Is this the best solution? Is there issues that would have to be worked or? meh: who knows right now. I just feel that talking about moderation policy in this way seems to run under the assumption that the system implementation won’t substantially change - and thinking that way substantially hamstrings everyone’s thinking about how to actually improve and elevate the website beyond a mere clone of a 8 year old concept that was never really substantially maintained or improved after its sale.


















#77
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@bsh1
On your analysis of the rules, I don't think it is accurate at all. If you look at many of the RFDs moderation has upheld, you will find that they don't require nearly as much work as you seem to think. Basically, the rules require a thoughtful, written reply that assigns points for how things interacted in the debate space and not based on superficial evaluations. When I write an RFD, I put in about 20 minutes, tops. I am sure you could do it in less time than that, depending on how quickly you type and process the arguments in your head.
The point is that the rules, as they are stated, are unclear (too subjective) and enforcement appears to be arbitrary.

I've noticed that if I give detailed reasons (focusing on formal logic) for what I believe are the key arguments (statements that related directly to The Debate Resolution Itself) I am invariably accused of citing outside sources or loading the RFD with personal opinion.

And when I quote specific arguments and counter arguments which I believe speak for themselves, I am invariably accused of not adequately explaining my "reasons".

And if I mention a specific logical fallacy, I am invariably accused again of citing outside sources.

Rule number one, "This survey must be comprehensive, which is to say that it must survey all or most of the main arguments in the debate" - this is particularly unreasonable.

I've seen many RFDs that are left standing that do not meet these requirements and many that are struck down. 

There doesn't seem to be any consistency one way or another.  Even the mods seem to inject personal opinion into their decisions to remove a particular vote and then let another similar vote stand.
Topic's author
#78
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
Right now, I am not really getting much feedback on the MEEP process itself, though some have commented on the thresholds included in it. Should I interpret this relative silence as an endorsement of MEEP as written, or what?

I am also getting the sense that there is support out there for the opt-in standards, but that, generally, people feel that other solutions need to be implemented to address voting more broadly. I like the suggest from Drafter, reiterated by Raltar, of putting votes on hold first. Is that something people generally like? 

Again, please comment on the OP and clearly indicate what your thoughts are. Thank you.
Topic's author
#79
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
I am not going to comment on specific cases without links to get the whole picture of those cases. But, I disagree that the voting policy rules are too subjective. In fact, they are quite stepwise and direct with what they require from voters, though perhaps that could be expressed more clearly. That's probably a discussion for a later date. The comprehensiveness requirement simply requires you analyze the "main" arguments, of which there are usually 2 to 5 in a debate. I don't think requiring debaters to analyze those main arguments is unreasonable.

But, I think there may be something in what you're saying here, and I'll revisit the issue of the extant standards sometime after Christmas.

#80
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@bsh1
Right now, I am not really getting much feedback on the MEEP process itself,
This is 100% better than no MEEP process.

Thank you for your fair and reasonable consideration.

#81
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@bsh1
I am also getting the sense that there is support out there for the opt-in standards, but that, generally, people feel that other solutions need to be implemented to address voting more broadly. I like the suggest from Drafter, reiterated by Raltar, of putting votes on hold first. Is that something people generally like? 

Yeah the votes on hold is a good idea, and stricter standards ought to be opt-in. MEEP seems like a no-brainer to me.

#82
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Competition should be judged as fairly as possible or else the victory is meaningless.
Too true!

#83
Raltar
Raltar's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 155
0
5
8
Raltar's avatar
Raltar
0
5
8
-->
@Ramshutu
@3RU7AL
The issue here is that really any attempt to modify or change vote moderation is - to a greater or lesser extent - mostly missing the point and simply polishing the deck chairs on the titanic.
Agreed.



...there seems to be an inability for people to be able cope with people voting against them, even if those people are voting in good faith.
Agreed.



The point is that the rules, as they are stated, are unclear (too subjective) and enforcement appears to be arbitrary.

[...]

I've seen many RFDs that are left standing that do not meet these requirements and many that are struck down.  

There doesn't seem to be any consistency one way or another.  Even the mods seem to inject personal opinion into their decisions to remove a particular vote and then let another similar vote stand.
Agreed.
Topic's author
#84
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
I am still not sure I've got a clear idea of what the usership is feeling on these issues. I may simply post another thread to vote on some specific proposals, if no one has any objection. 

This thread will be open for commentary for another 3 or so hours. It will then be switched to read-only.
#85
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@bsh1
I think it would be fair to say that MEEP in general is a good idea - until people raise objections to it, it seems everyone has argued assuming that it’s a great way to go.

The problem with open voting discussions right now, is that you’re just trying to tweak the system. Everyone’s going to have a big opinion when the first votes start coming in one way or another. I don’t think you’ll get a good agreement either way.

I would suggest this: go for the laxer vote moderation as an opt-in and review it after a few debates that use it with public feedback if it’s not selected by default, it doesn’t hurt anyone.

but it’s pretty clear that there’s a lot of issues people have with the voting system. I see no harm in gathering people’s thoughts and ideas in a constructive forum - what are the perceived issues, how does it affect debates, ideas for improvement etc. Just as a period of intelligence gathering so we can get a wide set of thoughts and ideas before thinking about increments changes.



#86
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@bsh1
oops, sorry: I forgot to add, you suck, you were rude to my grandmother and I’m pretty sure I saw you eat spiders.
#87
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@bsh1
No, it was indeed moderated. Virtuoso is who moderated it.

Raltar gave Mopac the better arguments vote, and his reasons stated were: #1 I had a burden of proof that I didn't prove(he took that one back and admitted later that I in fact did not have a burden of proof, being that I never made a claim), and #2 that I did not effectively rebuttal Mopac's argument, when in fact I did, VERY clearly, in my final argument, by showing that Mopac's entire premise and argument commits argumentum ad dictionarium, which obviously completely refutes his argument. Anyone with an IQ above 90, the ability to read and comprehend the English language, and a very basic understanding of debate and how logical fallacies work can easily see how my final argument refuted everything Mopac argued. So, in light of that, I ask: Why, then, did Virtuoso say that Raltar's vote was adequate? There are only three possible reasons I can think of: #1 he didn't even read his RFD, #2 he's biased(agrees with Mopac), or #3 he has no idea what he's doing.

Go read it all for yourself, and you'll see what I'm talking about. www.debateart.com/debates/309
#88
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
@Raltar

No dude. I'm not Mopac. I don't call everyone who disagrees with me a liar. I'm not cognitively dissonant. I'm not uninterested in being correct. If your vote were based on facts of our debate, I wouldn't have a problem with it. You claimed I did not effectively rebuttal Mopac's argument, and that is simply a load of bullshit, and you know it. You're not an idiot dude. I can always tell when someone is an idiot. So, I know you understand that when someone in a debate shows that their opponent's entire premise and argument commits a logical fallacy, they have then refuted their opponent's argument, which is the most effective rebuttal anyone can ask for. I refuted Mopac's entire argument, yet you said I didn't. That is a bold faced lie on your part, and that's why I have a problem with your vote. I hate people like you who sit there and lie their faces off because they're too proud to admit that they're wrong. People like that have no place on debate sites.
Topic's author
#89
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@BrutalTruth
I'll take a look at it, but there's nothing I can do to change anything at this point, even if I determined a change was appropriate.