open voting on debate.org should be abolished or curtailed

But the fundamental question is, who would be the moderators? You mention them in your only two suggestions (moderators and progenitors choice). If it is to be fair then the debate.org staff would need to choose these moderators. They could not, however, be open members. This is giving people responsibility for an open and public site, in other words, making it mandatory. Anyone should have the ability to decide whether they want to get on this site at anytime. Myself, you, and everyone else on this site is not obliged to do anything. Should we choose, we can drop everything, not finish any debates and never come back here. If you place responsibility on a member you take that away, and are in a sense, forcing that person to come to read and judge debate after debate on abortion, gay rights, and the Iraq war, with some exceptions. Furthermore, they would be doing it for free, and not for petty cash (unlike the events you attend) because, once again, this is a public site, and the administrators have no obligation or rights to pay any member who joined for free and are doing something in their own time. They also may not have the credentials or general knowledge on other certain topics such as bio-fuels or individual Presidential candidates. To be a judge would require them to do their own research to determine who's facts are right/better, once again, on their own time. To summarize: this is a public site, with regular people, who have outside lives, and do not have an obligation to read or vote on any topic, no matter how good or bad they are at debating. We are all equals here, and this is exactly why there is open voting, so that any regular Joe, who even has the slightest passion for making, reading, and deciding debates can come and do just that. As I said before, most people on this site are mature enough to be able to make intelligent decisions on who they felt won, which is exactly what any judge would do. If moderators where to be chosen they would have to be staff of debate.org that the administrators chose and compensate for their time. They cannot be members of the site, but staff with an actual job. They may be less qualified then some members, or more so. But no member here can or should be held in higher regard than other members. Better scores or debates does not constitute ones ideas to be better than another. Only a totally impartial judge, with the specific duty to decide these debates can be the moderators, and this falls solely on the behalf of the debate.org staff, not on the public. The question of who would be the moderator is extremely important if your position includes saying there should be (and it does). I would not mention it otherwise. It is a definite factor in this debate, and must be addressed. I do agree that the progenitors should have the ability to decide whether or not they want their debate to be voted on or not. But, debating is a competition, and I find it unfair to the opponent (unless they too, consent) if there cannot be a determinable way for there to be a victor. This site is just for fun, and it is nice to win, even if it is not all the time. I'm glad you agree with the rationale box, and I see your point. With the rational box it is more than possible that people will put ridiculous reasons as to why they voted. But they do now already, and write it in the comment boxes (your second paragraph). I believe this is why you started this debate in the first place. Some people will write the exact reasons why they felt an argument is stronger or better (whether ridiculous or not), but you'll also notice that the votes are usually much higher than comments. This leaves a huge variation of people who's reasons go unchecked, save for the check in a box. A rationale box would cause everyone to give a reason why, and most will be legitimate. But for those who do write inconclusive reasons, the debaters should be able to do something about it. I think any reasonable person would not mind letting a vote go because "I voted for the one my church thinks, so there" or "SO and so had more words". But you are right, there is no way to make either voter relinquish a vote, because who doesn't want that extra point? But I do think that both sides should have the place of mind to decide if that voter made a decision for the right reason and whether it should count or not. I personally, would gladly see all my debates be losses because the voting was done right, rather than win on a technicality. I think this should be mindset of all peoples here, but that is another discussion for another day.