Total posts: 3,465
Posted in:
Originally posted at WordPress, and copy/pasting it here by request (divided into the first two posts on this topic). The bracketed text was originally footnotes, which displays great on paper, but not so well online.
---
Dilemmas are what define most people, and politically there is perhaps none greater than abortion. Whichever side of the divisive line you stand, you should be against Pro-Abortion politicians. Agree or disagree, please keep reading.
The sides to take are as follows:
- Pro-Life: This is really the anti-abortion group, they are not anti-choice, but bodily autonomy is a lower priority.
- Pro-Choice: This is not the pro-abortion group, they simply believe abortion is an option due to bodily autonomy taking a higher priority.
- Pro-Abortion: Whatever other ambitions lay at the heart of it, they intentionally cause more abortions and consider this if not good, than at least an acceptable price to pay for those other goals.
Confused yet? Context is coming…
Pro-Abortion in Action
In Colorado public funding for contraceptives saved the state a massive $5.85 per $1 spent, this equaled about $79 million saved in just two years (this figure is excluding decreased welfare spending). Further, this decreased teen abortions by 50%! This is a win/win scenario; for Pro-Life there are less abortions, for Pro-Choice women are in greater control of their bodies, and for people who don’t care either way there’s less government spending. However, Pro-Abortion politicians tried to stop this program. They pretended to be Pro-Lifers to get conservative support, and made a mockery of Pro-Life beliefs, top among their claims was that not getting pregnant is the same as an abortion (the only counter case I’ve heard, calls for every sperm to be sacred, and all men to be genocidal monsters for not freezing them for later use), and further that family values call for increasing the number of abortions so long as there’s technically a few extra babies born (other trades to gain these abortions include: an increased percentage of teenagers with STDs, increased poverty, less education, and these problems affect girls more than boys… Of course, an argument could be made for any one of these things being the true goal, and the rest merely being acceptable collateral damage along the way; for any real Pro-Lifer, acceptable collateral damage will never include anything at an abortion clinic).
Texas has a number of politicians who seek to get teenage girls pregnant (where I’m from, if someone plots to get underage girls pregnant, we call them a pedophile), who use such measures as abstinence only education, under the claim about family values, but it’s been shown time and again to cause more pregnancies and accompanying abortions. To give them the benefit of the doubt that it’s not motivated by dishonorable intentions towards those underage girls, the logical conclusion seems to be they’re the means to the end of upping the abortion rate.
Reasons for this oddity could be mused easily enough. I do not assume anything which requires wearing a tinfoil hat, rather I assume it boils down to the badge of victim-hood.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Speaking of reports, any chance of adding a text box for us to give details on why we’re making the report?
Created:
Posted in:
Small refinement:
Vote removal should also trigger the time reset; assuring that last minute deleted votes have opportunity to be refined and recast.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
With how medal obsessed some users are, I think he'd lose it in not too long.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
I propose adding a gold modal for becoming the lowest ranked user.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Additional item suggestion: Changing the default debate character limit. Right now it's at 10k (down from 30k), but that is way too much for most voters if a debate even approaches that. Additionally, it leaves new members vulnerable to people trying to overwhelm them so as to drive them off the site to win by FF.
---
Apparently I "climbed by preying on Sparrow/Type1" to get where I am...
I debated each of them twice, back when they were active users on this site fully engaging in debates (making some good traps even). I fail to see how debating active users in good faith is damning or even related.
During previous spouts of open spam debates, I have ignored them because free wins are without value.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
I also believe in that fix. They are not mutually exclusive.
Regarding if votes are deleted post voting period: It would be a worthwhile change, even if ratings are not recalculated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I think the two can be implemented side-by-side. In fact this thread was started due to while suggesting them both, the admin requested I start this thread for feedback on the countdown piece (pretty sure vote deletions are coming...).
Granted on vote deletion, I would want the votes held to a much lower standard after voting ends (people already do try to change the outcome by delaying reports until the last day). So probably delete intentionally malicious votes, but leave almost all others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I'd call it only a small issue. While it risks disenfranchising members should major abuse happen again, it occurs with very low frequency.
It is mainly about closing a loophole before it becomes a source of annoyance again...
An extra bonus is that no one would need feel bad about casting a last minute vote (I can't speak for everyone else, but I've been writing votes and decided to withhold when I noticed the clock...), therefore the system would encourage a few more votes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
36 hours is my gut feel on it. I assume the precise number would be decided on by a MEEP.
My thinking goes to the steps of removing bad votes, and the fact that moderators sleep and otherwise go through periods of lower activity (as do the users who report bad votes). Assuming a normal distribution, if a bad vote usually takes 8 hours for removal give or take 3 hour, 68% of votes are handled within 12 hours, 95% within 15, and 99% within 18.
However this is not accounting for sleep time, nor cries about fairness in outlier cases.
I figure assume anything can be fixed within a day, but add a 12 hour buffer for sleep and whatnot. Ideally this would lead to the least drama, while not leaving debates in the voting period quite forever (again, there's certain users who will troll it, but enough infractions and their voting privileges can be revoked... probably a bonus to the system now that I put it like that).
Created:
Posted in:
This idea is to address the problems associated with last minute votes.
How it would work is quite simply if a vote is cast within the final hours of a debate, the voting period is extended back to that cutoff, this is repeated as needed until no new votes are cast within that time.
Of course certain users will childishly try to keep certain debates artificially in the voting period, but this is only a minor nuisance.
From a coding standpoint it would be easy to implement, probably adding a mere single line of code along the lines of:
IF((countdown<36hrs)=TRUE) THEN SET(countdown)=36hrs ELSE nothing;
Thoughts?
Created:
Posted in:
Very short debate, with over 50% of my opponent's material plagiarized.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Regarding the problem of last minute vote bombs, I thought of two workarounds...
First, would be giving admin the power to delete the votes anyway, even if the debater scores are not adjusted. Regarding if scores were also adjusted, I would not worry about perfection, executing the score adjustment formula again and ignoring that the scores have shifted would correct all but marginal cheated gains.
Second, what about adjusting the countdown clock when votes are cast at the last minute? It'd be short logic check along the lines of IF(countdown<36hrs, 1,0) THEN SET(countdown)=36hrs ELSE nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I'd say when the parents are dedicating enough resources to give the child a more than average shot at an enjoyable life.On the other end of the spectrum, some parents today still have kids for the express purpose of cheap labor (AKA slaves).More than average in the US or across the world?Do you have a percentage on how many do you think have a shot at an enjoyable life?Do you know a shot doesn't actually mean they will take it?
1. Localized averages. Parents in the USA cannot compete with parents in Luxembourg, and it would not be a fair to expectation.
2. I have not written any doctoral thesis papers on the topic.
3. Yup.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The inherent default is procreation.That's why to be celibate is to be an onanist.
The inherent default is women expecting to die from complications related to birthing. Today we do better (as much as such advancements might make southern politicians cry themselves to sleep).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
By defaulting to a negative, I mean it can become a positive. We mostly just shouldn't create new people out of boredom.Do you have an example where a negative can become a positive?
I'd say when the parents are dedicating enough resources to give the child a more than average shot at an enjoyable life.
On the other end of the spectrum, some parents today still have kids for the express purpose of cheap labor (AKA slaves).
Created:
Posted in:
So lots of plagiarism, and lying about what sources say; if this plus the length makes arguments non-judgeable, a quick conduct only vote for the plagiarism should be warranted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I'd say it defaults to a negative, but is not assured to be immoral (that depends on the motivations of the parents).Could the negative become a positive?Should we create life?
By defaulting to a negative, I mean it can become a positive. We mostly just shouldn't create new people out of boredom.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
It seems that debates issued as direct challenges, do not allow comments to be posted while pending (either waiting for the second person, and it seems waiting on judges... https://www.debateart.com/debates/1125). Feedback on setup is important, so I suggest removing this restriction. However, I don't know why it's there, so there might be a valid reason.
Anyway, thanks for your time, and for for this site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Long story short, people should ensure they can assure their children a good life before having any.Do you consider the act of bringing a life into the world as immoral or a negative?
I'd say it defaults to a negative, but is not assured to be immoral (that depends on the motivations of the parents).
Created:
Posted in:
I've studied it a bit. It's something every parent should keep in mind (particularly if they believe their children owe them something...).
A problem is that if any society became so enlightened that it sought to not have children, their resources would inevitably just be used by less enlightened societies.
Long story short, people should ensure they can assure their children a good life before having any.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
@Ramshutu
Perhaps add medals for ranking? Like silver at 1600, gold at 1700? (Maybe 1750? Tagged the current king of the hill for feedback)
I would say gold at 1800, but that might encourage the wrong behaviors.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Stop violating our sense of hetero-normalcy! You might be undoing years of conversation therapy!
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Nothing is stopping you from posting poems.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
No biggie, the contest is canceled anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
@K_Michael
@Speedrace
In case anyone is curious, here's the base scores I recorded for the air-MAXI.
They were graded a 1-5 scale, which could have been multiplied to match any other scale, but they were intended mainly for me to record first impressions to use when conferring with the main judge Bsh1.
K_Michael:4.5, deeply enjoyableSpeedrace:4.5, solid (+1 for relevance)oromagi:3.5, I enjoyed the photos (-0.5 for accessibility, next time please put them into an album).RationalMadman:3.5, kept pulling me out of any flow with the eye rolling (+1 for relevance)
With grades from the mini applied for tie-breaking, this gives an order of K_Michael, Speedrace, oromagi, and RationalMadman.
Of course this does not account for Bsh1's scoring, which to my understanding was to be done strictly holistically. Were he to have come to the same order conclusion, that likely would have been the outcome, but such is not known.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
@Ramshutu
@oromagi
@K_Michael
@Speedrace
I've graded the mini's on a loose 1-10 scale. To be clear, the score modifiers are already accounted for in in the grade, they were to help me grade more fairly (I also moved everything into a word file without names, and waited a couple days before reading).
Initial reaction: Wall of text.
Story: 7 (didn’t bore me...)
Style 4 (-1 for site instead of sight)
Entry10
460 words.Initial reaction: Wall of text.
Story: 7 (didn’t bore me...)
Style 4 (-1 for site instead of sight)
So the horse race. Not a bad time to pull the present tense. I sadly never got invested in the characters, it felt a given that the million to one chance of a pony in a horse race would win. A better ending might have been no miracle (or if there was, mention of doping), or even the loser beating the odds by coming in second or third place, but not caring because it's playing the game that it enjoys.
Entry11
227 words. Initial reaction: The quote sets a high standard for it to live up to.
Story: 8 (held my attention, made good use of first person, but that ending wasjust so cliché)
Style: 8 (+1 from quote)
The fencing training. Not much to be said. I enjoyed the way the battle was written, felt the fluid motion and determination of the first person narrator... But again, that ending was so cliche. Yeah it's awesome to once get the upper hand, but the shock and awe from everyone... It made it feel like the guy was outright retiring, due to 1 out of a 1000 duels to this person he'd lose, never mind the remaining 999 times.
Entry12
142 words.
Entry16
460 words
Entry17
434words.
Initialreaction: Second best formatting.
Story: 6 (I did not come to care about the characters, and the over emphasis onexplaining details of what the guy did wrong felt incredibly inorganic.)
Style: 6 (-1 from “realizing their grave mistake their grave mistake,” and -1from double quotations inside an ongoing quote (there are single quotationmarks for that, and/or italics)).
Initial reaction: Very short.
Story: 5 (nothing progressed)
Style: 5 (wall of text)
Man brushes teeth and strokes his ego.460 words
Initial reaction: Nice formatting.
Story: 9 (outright entertained me, and a +1 from the switch)
Style: 8 (-1 from line break between simply and stood, +1 for use of cretinous, -1 for peace instead of piece of paper)
Boring debate discussions... holy shit they're criminal gladiators about to die! I once got forced to watch Meet The Spartans, and this was already better (that's not meant as an insult, that movie was actually sent to theaters).
Entry17
434words.
Initialreaction: Second best formatting.
Story: 6 (I did not come to care about the characters, and the over emphasis onexplaining details of what the guy did wrong felt incredibly inorganic.)
Style: 6 (-1 from “realizing their grave mistake their grave mistake,” and -1from double quotations inside an ongoing quote (there are single quotationmarks for that, and/or italics)).
Kid manipulates parents, and they instantly change their ways. I feel this wanted to be big and important, but for that to work the audience has to have some reason to care. Maybe were it first person from the kid, and in the end he doesn't get his way?
Entry 26
347words
Initialreaction: Am I seeing references to debaters and maybe the FSM?
Story: 8 (+1 for making me laugh).
Style: 6 (-0.5 from non-capital name of Richter scale (it was named for aperson, it gets the cap.), -1 for repeatedly starting sentences with And.
347words
Initialreaction: Am I seeing references to debaters and maybe the FSM?
Story: 8 (+1 for making me laugh).
Style: 6 (-0.5 from non-capital name of Richter scale (it was named for aperson, it gets the cap.), -1 for repeatedly starting sentences with And.
This was not high art, but it did not want to be. It's like The Predator, it knows what it is, and makes no apologies ('yeehaw! We're going to put on this armor and shoot global warming!').
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
@Vader
@Ramshutu
Are your entries coming? (If I missed them, just point me to the post #)
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
There's a lot to be said in favor of that idea, particularly to the related problem of people trying to win arguments in the comment section. For the main problem under discussion, I suspect the problem people would spew their hate through PMs more than they do already.
Created:
Posted in:
Note: It feels really weird to have someone who blocked me for not voting in his favor, constantly tag me in things...
...
Again, this isn't about any one particular debate or debater.
It was a frequent problem on DDO, when people could change their votes in response to harassment. Here people can still make it clear there will be a price to be paid if they don't vote exactly how one of the debaters wishes. I will not call out anyone else's debates specifically, but debates with too many comments are suspect: https://www.debateart.com/debates?category_id=&status=&order_type=comments_number
To give an example using a fairly recent debate of mine: Fetuses as a replacement for the USD
My opponent outright and repeatedly told Speedrace it was fine for him to view the debate as a joke, then about at the last day of voting complained the the admins that in no way was the debate a joke to get every vote against him taken down. ... This is a more minor example, to which I would not suggest conduct points being assigned; it does however showcase how people use the comment section to manipulate voting (yeah yeah, it's a troll debate, vote how you want... Admin help me, they voted as if this was a troll debate!).
Created:
Posted in:
How much vote tampering need someone try in the comment section, before it overrides the usual separation to allow them to be penalized?
This isn't about any one particular debate, I've seen a growing trend here.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
If you want to challenge me to a rematch for him, by all means issue the challenge. If you want to actually discuss why divine command theory fails to be the only possible source of human morals, stop acting like someone using Poe's Law.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
If you want to challenge me to a rematch for him, by all means issue the challenge. If you want to actually discuss why divine command theory fails to be the only possible source of human morals, stop acting like someone using Poe's Law.
Created:
Posted in:
Plagiarism and worse: The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is God
FYI, it's a long one, to which I haven't even read all of (got into the biblical passages enough to prove that my opponent was directly editing them, but otherwise there was way too many...)
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I take it potatoes are a metaphor for supposed God-given morals since others can get their cultural moral preferences at the market (the smorgasbord).I take it that your reference to murdering the locals is the purge God commanded Israel to do when...Got to the point of your over-analysis of the potato...I was not sure if the potato analogy was something new you were bringing into the conversation or a playoff of some analogy I made since you did not provide a context.
I could keep adding to that quotation, but you brought up potatos in your first post. Later you tried to turn them into something magical and possibly connected to Israel.
...
Someone started a debate "Morals Cannot Exist Without God." So I soundly defeated their arguments. They could not even challenge the counter argument on the FSM as a possible (even if unlikely) source. ... That I did not reinvent morality, because I did not need to.
If you want to challenge me to a rematch for him, by all means issue the challenge. If you want to actually discuss why divine command theory fails to be the only possible source of human morals, stop acting like someone using Poe's Law.
If you want to challenge me to a rematch for him, by all means issue the challenge. If you want to actually discuss why divine command theory fails to be the only possible source of human morals, stop acting like someone using Poe's Law.
...
Also I should point out that you've copy/pasted material related to the wrong website; the amount of is that is irrelevant (such as how to post pictures there) should have clued you in.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Got to the point of your over-analysis of the potato... Not sure if you're using Poe's Law for trolling, or if you're just thinking too hard about these things to make connections where none are intended nor needed.
If the first: Well done! I indeed fell for it.
If the second: Let me know and I'll find some information for you to better teach the theories than I could hope to.
Created:
Posted in:
Post request:
Right now when we go to post something, we occasionally get the message: "The value must contain from 3 to 5000 characters"
Please change this to: "Post must contain between 3 and 5000 characters; of which you had X characters." with X being the character count.
Created:
III. Third Post
Theocracy
I used religious motivation in the hypothetical murder, to showcase how stupid theocracy is. Sharia Law is a form of it we're familiar with, but if Christians instituted similar systems,it would not be assured to be any better than what we see from Islam.
The murder victim in this case could have committed any number of sins the bible outright demands death for,regardless, I showcased in context that her killer believes God commanded the death, which is the important thing for divine command theory. Christian divine command theory has massive long term subjectivity to it anyway.
"HOW does a non-thinking process decide why things are moral?"
It doesn't. Human beings have thought, and we apply this ability to better our lives.
"What is wrong with that if your evolutionary group wins the day? Nothing"
How many groups were reportedly made extinct in the bible? Stones and glass houses.
"Human history is littered with examples of people deviating from what you consider the 'absolute'"
Same with theology. Did you know some evil people want to baptize slaves? The horror, the horror.
"Wars are fought over the very question."
Wars have been thought over religion too. Complaining that another value source hasn't lead to perfect results, does not correct the very subjective flaws with your own.
IV. Forth Post
Apologies that I am replying to less and less, there's a lot of material to cover, and I do have other things to do.
unless you have an unchanging measure and reference point,
How is the Spanish Inquisition going?
China
I showed that under the theories I was using, China';s actions were immoral. I do not understand your disagreement.
More FSM
Relevance of this appeal to tradition? There are religions older than Christianity, if age makes right, why would morals come from that instead of an older one?
Relevance of the appeal to popularity? The world's most popular religion will likely soon be Islam due to breeding habits, would that suddenly make theirs the correct objective (but yet changing) standard to follow?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
The debate in question: https://www.debateart.com/debates/949
First off, thanks for taking the time to read my debate. I of course welcome discussion, and outside the debate I will not be trying to win...
Before anything else, I should point out that as with the case of stoning people to teach for saying God no longer being a thing, Christian Divine Command Theory is proven to be subjective to the time and place, rather than an objective truth to be obeyed forever.
I. First Post
Baby Eating
This point was in challenge to my opponent, who represented people in general as only refraining from truly horrible such actions when/if God directly commands them not to (by making that claim about all people, he is representing his own people as specifically having a hard time with such moral dilemmas). It's the problem with thinking morals can only stem from divine command theory, and directly excluding reason and compassion as a possibility.
Outside the debate I would say God Strictly condemns such actions. Abraham trying to kill his own son for example,was a lesson that God doesn't want us doing that shit even if we think God does(interpreted this way instead of God changing his mind, this is also a lesson against divine command theory, that we should think for ourselves...).
Theft
I would have been delighted were my opponent to raise this criticism.
Skipping a few back-and-forths ahead in this discussion: Groups supports and protects their own, and the making yourself an Other has too many disadvantages to be generally worth it for short term gain. This of course does not protect members of other groups, we still get examples of this today with cases like someone saying people should go riotin the suburbs instead of just not rioting (a rather simplistic review of a complex case).
So yeah, the morals we interpret will not always be correct for everyone else.
altruists
It's good because it supports thegroup, creating more good than harm: Utilitarianism.
Within man made morals, Joe can runa strictly potato farm, and if he's not murdering all the other farmers people can get their preferences in the market. Blindly obeying divine command theory,Joe might believe potatoes are the divine and thus only allowed food, and go around inflicting this on everyone else. (within consequentialism, he might still try to inflict potatoes on everyone, but will more likely do so through subtle means, much like diamonds on engagement rings).
History
How many of those examples cited divine command theory as justification? Plus the long term cost for this groups, discourages future such groups. Under divine command theory, people inthe USA today still try to enslave women (mostly southern states, changing their education systems to try to maximize teen pregnancy, and then preventing them from ending said pregnancies, all with the government officials not paying child support for intentionally knocking those girls up)
II. Second Post
No Absolute Value
My burden was to show that morality can exist outside divine command theory (specifically Christian divine command theory), not that they are unchanging.
The absolute I referred to was my opponent's argument that morals "cannot" exist without God, it was notthat my counters needed to be absolute universals (I've got another debate which kinda touches on those).
"how do you ever get to good or right if your standard is always shifting and EVOLVING?"
Generally, by caring about the well-being of my fellow human beings. Bare in mind, I served as a combat medic,so my money is where my mouth is.
FSM
Always glad to talk about his noodliness...
First, I should mention that I did not need to prove the FSM exists any more than my opponent needed to prove God Exists. The FSM was one possible source of morals, to refute that morals could only come from my opponent's single insisted source.
Second, I do suggest checking out The Gospel from your local library. It's theory of Unintelligent Design does a far better job predicting things than both Creationism and Intelligent Design combined. For Example, it explains where those ancient seeming dinosaur bones come from (the FSM is pranking us, first planting fake bones when we dig, then changing the results of carbon dating to be older than the YAC universe).
Created:
-->
@Alec
Hate to say it, but I've already been expressing my desire to pull back from debating (I only got so active recently to distract myself from some personal drama). This was only made worse with a lengthy biblical debate, while also letting myself get sucked into building and refining that guide.
If I have any big disagreements with any of them that can't be talked out normally, then I'd gladly issue a challenge (I've done this with a few of the top people over the years). I'll also gladly admit that either of them are superior debaters than I.
One thing I would say, is that this idea would be a lot more meaningful when the voter population increases and gains some skill.
One thing I would say, is that this idea would be a lot more meaningful when the voter population increases and gains some skill.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PsychometricBrain
I took your advice and put in three types of debates at the end (I could be missing some, but I'd bet >90% fall into those).
Created:
-->
@David
@bsh1
@Ramshutu
How would the moderation feel about a "moderation lite" option on debates? I do not mean the mechanical aspects, but vote removal.
I would view this as along the lines of voter BoP still being required, while the trinity paradigm is optional... Basically actual shit votes can still be deleted, but a vote falling short of specifying one side being polite or not having sources are fine.
Created:
Posted in:
Regarding Loki:
Loki is a trickster god, so he is hard to classify in such normative terms. Heck he's also father of at least one of Odin's children...
Mythology
A sample from the Wiki entry on him: "By the stallion Svaðilfari, Loki is the mother—giving birth in the form of a mare—to the eight-legged horse Sleipnir. In addition, Loki is referred to as the father of Váli in Prose Edda, though this source also refers to Odin as the father..."
Marvel comics
The comics have outright explained that Asgardian men laugh at our restrictive notions of sexuality and caring about gender norms (which is also ironic given their sexism... one way for the ladies, every way for the men). They live thousands of years, so do what they please when they please.
Marvel movies:
He pokes men with his scepter, to make them his slave...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
To the original topic... I've updated my avatar picture for at least the month.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
With the new inclusion of the moderation options when creating debates, it would be fantastic if there was a "Moderation lite" option.
I view this as along the lines of voter BoP still being required, while the trinity paradigm is optional... Basically actual shit votes can still be deleted, but a vote falling short of specifying one side being polite or not having sources is fine.
The specifics would need to be agreed upon by the moderators as something they're willing to do, with a MEEP for verification with the general population.
...
I was going to suggest a "Moderation extreme" option, but at that point people should just decide what judges they'll tolerate votes from. Regarding elected judges, I hold the opinion that unless their votes prove to be utter shit, they should be moderated (so moderation ultra-lite) by virtue of the debaters pre-screening them.
Created: