Given that moderation did not emerge with a clear consensus on the questions posed in the previous MEEP, we will be hosting this second MEEP with an eye to acquiring a clearer picture of where the community stands. For more on what the MEEP process is, see the previous MEEP thread. For the purposes of this first vote alone, any particular result of this MEEP will be considered valid if at least 10 users have expressed a preference on the policy in question and more than a majority of those participants are in agreement. If the result is not valid, I will implement the proposals in Questions 1 and 3, because answers to these questions are necessary, but not the proposals in 2 and 4.
Below, moderation will propose several changes to moderation policy. Please indicate whether you are a yea (or yay, if you're super excited) or a nay on the proposed policy. If their are tweaks you would like to make to said policies, please suggest them (esp. if you are a nay), but also, importantly, indicate your overall support for the policy proposed.
1. Is the current MEEP process an acceptable framework for hosting these policy discussions? Generally, the reviews of MEEP seemed positive, but confirmation of that impression is important. The MEEP process is described below.
MEEPs (Moderation Engagement and Enactment Processes) will be periodically instigated by moderation in order to gain community feedback on various policy options and to obtain the community's approval or disapproval of those policy options. This will ensure that the site usership will have the opportunity to democratically weigh in on moderation policies. In order to ensure that the result of any MEEP process reflects the will of a substantial number of community members, for a specific MEEP result to be binding, at least 10 users must have expressed a preference on the policy in question, and more than a majority of participants must be in agreement. That means, in a MEEP with 10 voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 7-3; similarly, a in MEEP with 19 voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 11-8. Again, this ensures that the outcome of the process reflects the consensus of a significant number of site users. If a MEEP result is not binding/valid, moderation will maintain the pre-MEEP status quo, whatever that happens to be. MEEP commentary periods will be open for feedback for at least two days, and may be switched a read-only mode shortly after that period in order to signal a clear end to the MEEP process. MEEPs will be broadcast using the site's announcement feature to ensure maximum awareness.
2. Should an opt-in voting standard which is less stringent than the default be implemented for debaters? A potential such opt-in standard is described below.
- To award argument points, the voter must (1) analyze the argument they found most important, (2) explain who is winning that argument and why.
- To award sources points, the voter must (1) offer a comparative statement about the quality of each side's sources, or note that one side did not use sources while the other did, and (2) point to a specific good or bad source.
- To award spelling and grammar points, the voter must (1) offer a comparative statement about the quality of each side's spelling and grammar and (2) point to a specific instance of poor spelling and grammar.
- To award conduct points, the voter must (1) offer a comparative statement about the conduct of each side, and (2) point to a specific act of misconduct by a particular side
3. Should moderation moderate select-winner votes using the argument standard currently applied to the 7-point system?
4. Should moderation be able to suspend problematic votes prior to deleting the voting in order to give the voter to fix the vote before the vote is taken down?
5. Should there be an opt-in for stricter moderation standards? If yes, what should those standards look like?
