On balance, the current voting moderation standards have been a net harm to DDO.

Thank you ThinkBig Intro: DDO is facing a voter turnout crisis that makes American midterm elections look good. This is due to a variety of reasons. However, one of the major factors is the inadequate set of guidelines in place as to what constitutes a “good” vote. I will prove why the vote moderation standards are both inadequate and harmful to the DDO community. Please remember that the resolution applies to the current standards. I am not advocating complete abandonment of standards. I. Voting standards are inadequate. Taking a glance at BlueSteel’s guide, it seems simple. In essence, as long as you explain your vote and it’s sound and coherent, it constitutes a good vote. However, there are some points where the guide seems to have some issues. “If your RFD mentions that you voted for the side you agreed with before the debate, your vote will be removed.” This should not be reason enough to remove a vote. I many times have voted for the side I agreed with before the debate, just as I have oftentimes voted against that side. I believe many other DDO members would agree that they too, have done this. If the reason for voting for a particular side is because you agreed with their stance before the debate began, it makes perfect sense that such a vote would be removed. However, as it stands, mere mention of your initial thoughts on a topic are grounds for removal. “You’re only allowed to vote on things the debaters actually said. You shouldn't be using your own arguments to rebut something a debater said, or as a reason to vote for a particular side.” The vast majority of the time this is a legitimate rule. However, when one debater makes statements which are objectively false, I think that previous knowledge of an issue can and should be utilized. For example, in a debate over BLM, one debater posed the question: “Why then are we not seeing people with no criminal history being killed by police?” This question should surprise anyone who pays attention to America’s instances of police brutality. Though many suspects shot by the police are guilty, many others are innocent. My previous knowledge proved the debater’s rhetoric of absolute guilt false, but now I was put in a difficult position. Though the debater was objectively incorrect, I knew that I was not supposed to use previous knowledge to shape my decision. I eventually did decide to include it in my RFD, though it was supplemented by other arguments made by the opposition. “You can read other RFDs after you have already reached a decision, but not before. You should only be reading the debate before making a decision -- you should not read comments, RFDs, or anything else that might sway you.” This too, is a problem. There is a popular thread in the DDO category for unvoted debates. Users can post debates, along with a short synopsis or comment. This can be used to sway potential voters and is not only legal but promoted by moderators. Disallowing voters to read other RFDs or the comment section but promoting the habit of one of the debaters themselves soliciting votes is absurd, as the latter is the seemingly more egregious of the pair. II. Interpretation and implementation by moderators A. Adequate votes are removed. The first two examples are votes of mine that have been removed, the third is one from my opponent on another of my debates. Part of RFD that caused removal: Con wins sources as they were properly utilized, while Pro's side was devoid of sources, but abundant in claims that should have used them. Reason for removal: “Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter has to establish that the sources used by Con were reliable, and not just that they were the only one to use sources at all.” I will be the first to admit that this was not my best RFD. However, it was not horrid to the point where it should’ve been axed. I went on to analyze arguments, and awarded points there, and apparently that analysis was sufficient, as it did not appear in the message. I’d contest that my sources part of the RFD is also adequate. Con used strong sources to supplement her stance, while Pro simply made claims without evidence when evidence was needed. Obviously I made this slightly more in depth than my RFD, but my idea was clear. Part of RFD that caused removal: Pro calling Con's distinctions "arbitrary" repeatedly weren't sufficient, and that alone would give Con the win, but additionally he set up a framework as to the legality. Even if Pro had won the moral argument, morality doesn't necessarily equate to legality. Sources: Con. Consistently using YouTube isn't sufficient. Reason for removal: (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter has to specifically assess points made by both sides. In this case, the voter does somewhat assess Pro's point, apparently preferring legal interpretations to moral ones, but fails to assess any specific points made by Con. The distinctions and legal framework hint at that, but none of that analysis explains why the voter found these points convincing. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter isn't required to find value in the usage of Youtube, but if they wish to vote on the basis that it is used, then it should be clear why that was so damaging. The debater used other sources, so even if the voter discards the Youtube videos, he's still required to assess the other sources presented and compare them between the two sides if he wishes to award these points. (1)In this debate, the Pro case hinged upon the idea of something being lawful if it was moral, and unlawful if immoral. Con quickly set up that morality and legality are not always aligned, which went unrefuted. One argument debunked all of the Pro case, which was why I felt only one argument warranted analysis. Additionally, I pointed out how instead of refuting many Con arguments, Pro simply called them “arbitrary.” (2)This reason is more justified. Pro did use other sources. However, of the six sources used, three were YouTube videos, which I see as a cop-out for real research and is usually anecdotal, which rang true in this debate. Two of the other three were also unreliable, but I understand that was not addressed. Part of RFD that caused removal: “SOURCES - I give con an edge in sources as pro made several claims that were presented without evidence. For example, pro claimed that Clinton is a war criminal, Stein is a liberal doctor that doesn't believe in the constitution, and Sanders is a communist that wants to tax us to death. Because pro never provided proof for his claims, sources go to con.” Reason for removal: While arguments are sufficiently examined, sources are not. The voter bases their decision here solely on the absence of sources from Pro's argument, but is required to explain how Con's sources were reliable (i.e. relevant to the debate) in order to award these points to him. This is like my first example. Just because he omitted that he deemed my sources reliable, ThinkBig’s vote was removed. It is implied that he deemed them reliable, and the vote was otherwise a good one. (PS Thank you for re-voting!) B. Misidentification Though I cannot attest to how widespread this issue is, I have had a vote removed that I did not even cast. I contacted the debater voted against and apologized, as I thought my account had been compromised, but one of the debaters, bballcrook, responded to my message saying a it was a different user who posted that vote. III. Impacts Voter turnout is decreasing. Debates from years ago would get hundreds of votes. Now, we are hard pressed to get any. Though this is not caused only by vote removal, the decrease is facilitated by removing many adequate votes. Users are also deterred from voting, afraid that their votes will not meet the inconsistent standards of the moderators, and in turn jeopardizing their right to vote. Misidentification hurts innocent individuals’ right to vote, as they are penalized for an act they didn't commit. Thank you, over to ThinkBig.