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

Thank you, ThinkBig. My opponent has requested links to debates and screenshots of messages referenced in Round 2. Those can be found here, listed in the order which they were referenced. Debate 1 (BLM): http://www.debate.org... Debate 2: http://www.debate.org... Debate 3: http://www.debate.org... Debate 4: http://www.debate.org... Screenshots of conversations: http://www.debate.org... I will add the rest of the screenshots pending permission to post screenshots of my conversations with Blade-of-Truth. These will be up as soon as possible. Point of Agreement Some level of voting standard is required to eliminate awful votes. Pro and Con differ in where that threshold lies. Remember, I am arguing against the current standards, not the general concept of having standards. Refutations of Quality > Quantity Undoubtedly, we all want quality votes on our debates. Nobody wants to be vote bombed and lose for that reason. However, the current system goes too far, throwing the baby out with the bath water. Vote bombs were often countered Con seems to admit this, by referencing the “counter-vote bombs.” Though surely, not every “vote bomb” was countered, it is obvious that the DDO community banded together so that the problem of vote bombs was not as rampant as it otherwise would have been. It’s not only bad votes that are removed In reading the RFDs on the debate Con linked, he is definitely correct in saying that, even of the non-“vote bomb” votes, many were insufficient. However, many other ones were good, or, at minimum, adequate. Let’s be extremely conservative and say only five of them were good votes. This is still 3-5 more votes than most debates have today. This leads me into my third response. Quantity is still important We can both agree we’d rather have a handful of good votes rather than dozens of bad ones. But this doesn’t mean I’d like to have only one or two votes (if I’m lucky) on a debate I’ve put a lot of time into. Pull through my constructive argument about vote removal both removing adequate votes and deterring good votes from coming in, as the users that would be voting are scare of having their voting privileges revoked. Users can take precautions to minimize bad votes This is going to be the major reason that my opponent’s quality over quantity argument falls, and why the voter(s) will be voting Pro in today’s debate. There are a few simple ways users themselves can prioritize quality over quantity. Setting an ELO minimum or appointing judges are both routes the Instigator can take during debate setup to prevent votes that would be more likely to be “bad” votes. If you really prefer just a few quality votes, you could have three judges appointed before the debate even begins. Refutations of Ease of Repeal This is interesting, as both ThinkBig and I have used the same example for our obviously opposing positions. The appeal is unnecessary ThinkBig’s vote was only disqualified because he was “required to explain how Con's sources were reliable (i.e. relevant to the debate)” which is ridiculous. In this other debate, my opponent made claims such as Islam is not a religion and Islam is essentially the same as Nazism, without ever using sources. I used The Atlantic, CNN, WSJ, NASA, Forbes, Business Insider, etc. to support every claim I made so that my opponent and voters knew these weren’t ridiculous ideas I made up, but rather my own synthesis of real events and expert opinions. ThinkBig shouldn’t have even had to appeal his vote removal. It needn’t be removed. Regaining voting privileges is vague If voting privileges are revoked, the process of regaining them is very vague and left to the discretion of the moderators. “You can gain privileges back at the moderators' discretion only when we become convinced that you have educated yourself about how to properly vote on the site. That includes, at a minimum, reading this guide and leaving a sufficient RFD in the comments section of a qualifying debate (a traditional debate, with 3 full rounds of at least 4,000 characters of arguments, and no forfeits).” The vote needs to be deemed sufficient by the moderators, who apparently believe simply reading the voting guide will produce better voters. Debaters can put a minimum on ELO limits or appoint judges. The debaters involved should be the ones that primarily keep bad votes off of their debates, rather than having to abide by these vague, strict rules. Mistakes are made The misidentification referenced in my constructive means that people are punished for, and have to take time to appeal, votes that they didn’t cast. Moderators are also prone to make mistakes. Since Round 2, a vote of mine on another debate of ThinkBig’s was removed. I discussed the issue with Blade-of-Truth, and, after five and a half hours and the moderators revisiting my vote, they concluded that it had, indeed, been sufficient, and was wrongfully removed. Cross-apply my impacts of voter deterrence, because I had put a lot of work into this particular RFD, and its removal made me begin to believe no RFD I constructed would be sufficient. Thank you. The resolution is affirmed. Back to ThinkBig.