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

Thank you ThinkBig. Disclaimer to anyone else reading this debate: I already told this to ThinkBig, but Blade-of-Truth informed me that screenshotting and sharing PMs regarding moderation of the site is not permissible. Therefore, I am respecting this rule and will not be including his messages in the photo album being used for this debate. Defense of Vote Mod. causing lower voting rates -Homepage Four of the top 10 most voted upon debates happened in the past two years, not including the top all time, which was just a vote bombing contest. At this point, the homepage had already been changed. Of those four, only one was in the past year. This means that some other aspect was responsible for the more recent decrease in votes. -Number of debates At the first date referenced, the homepage had been remodeled, but was not yet what we have today. [1] It seemed to have been in a transition phase, somewhere between the old and the new. Regardless, I took data from seven points in time. I tried to keep the dates consistent, with two from each of the years 2013, 2014, and 2015, one from early-mid August, and one from late December, as well as what is on the voting page here and now, [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] (sources are in chronological order) and by looking at each date we can see a general slight downward trend in debates being in the voting period. I do not see the logic in Con’s argument that more debates in the challenge period has an effect on voting. After all, we’re voting on the ones in the voting period, not the challenge period. Instead, I argue that the fewer debates there are in the voting period, the more votes there should be on each. Therefore, it is unlikely that either of Con’s suppositions ring true. I maintain that vote removal and ensuing low vote counts are a cyclical reason for users leaving and not voting. Defense of Misidentification I cede that this is not a problem known to be widespread. However, I seriously doubt this is the only case where this has happened. It most definitely has happened before and will happen again. Though not a major harm, it still hurts innocent users’ voting privileges. Defense of Inadequate Standards -Initial Opinion Con argues “Bluesteel never stated…that if your ballot on a 7-point system mentions that you agreed with this person before and after the debate your vote will be removed.” But a direct quote from BlueSteel contradicts this. “If your RFD mentions that you voted for the side you agreed with before the debate, your vote will be removed.” Con’s interpretation, I assume, is that BlueSteel was imprecise in her language. Yet on the same thread (see link in Round 1) another user questions makes the same assumption and asks BlueSteel to clarify. It is very often the case, at least with me, that I will have an initial opinion on the topic of a debate. However, I don't see why it necessarily means that my vote would be biased and should be removed. I would still vote objectively, trying to meet the requirements of the RFD, and I could certainly vote for either position, as I would be taking into account reason and quality of the arguments, rather than opinion. Do you suggest that I should only vote for debates where I have no initial opinion at all? Because this would severely limit my participation in voting, because, as I have said, such debates are quite rare. Also removing such votes would be an incentive to act dishonestly and tick "Tied" options for opinion. BlueSteel responded that, indeed, your RFD should not contain any mention of initial opinions, regardless of your final vote. An RFD is a place to explain your "reason for decision." It's all the things that helped you decide. There's really no reason to mention that you voted for Pro and you happen to also agree with Pro, unless that formed part of your basis of decision. I'm not saying that you can only vote on debates you have no opinion on. Just be tabula rasa, and don't let your personal opinion enter into your RFD (including there's no reason to mention it in your RFD at all). It is clear that regardless of whether or not initial opinion affected your decision, including it in your RFD is unacceptable. -Objectively False Assertions Con and will have to agree to disagree here. I stand by previous knowledge of an objectively false claim should be able to refute the claim. Subjective claims are different, but Con’s 2+2=5 example should be able to be disproven by judges. I’m not saying voters should be researching hardcore against either side, but if common knowledge disproves a claim, it shouldn’t be weighed. I debated PF rather than LD, and never encountered such a scenario nor anything within the rules that was ever brought up on the issue. -Voting Thread Con cedes that this is inconsistent with the rules against reading comments and RFDs from other users. It is promoted by the moderators, but directly clashes with other aspects of the voting guide. Please remember this when voting on this issue. Defense of Mod. Action I’m not saying any of the votes displayed in my constructive are perfect. They all have flaws. However, they are adequate. Con’s vote on the previous debate is self-explanatory. When Con says that my previous opponent made outlandish claims without sources, while I properly used sources, it is implied that he found respected agencies and publications I used more reliable than my previous opponent’s own ideas, and he needn’t go into thorough analysis as to why. Moderator accidents occur, and cost users time they shouldn’t. Not the fault of the moderators. I agree, they are only human. However, it is still a harm. Cross apply earlier argument about misidentification. As my constructive has been defended, the resolution has been affirmed. I’d like to remind ThinkBig that this round is his last opportunity to bring up new arguments, as per the rules of this debate. Thank you! [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] https://web.archive.org... [3] https://web.archive.org... [4] https://web.archive.org... [5] https://web.archive.org... [6] https://web.archive.org... [7] https://web.archive.org... [8] https://web.archive.org... [9] http://www.debate.org...