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

Thank you ThinkBig. As I assumed, you have been a strong opponent and I appreciate your time put into this debate. I think it has been excellent discourse, and I hope you and the voters agree.I'd also like to remind anyone reading this debate to remember a few things. First, I am not advocating abandonment of all standards. Some level of regulation is required to make DDO an enjoyable site. This means that there are inherently some benefits to the current system. However, the second thing I'd like to remind you is that the resolution must be looked at on balance.With that, I will get to the key issues which I believe should determine the outcome of this debate, and why these issues prove that, on balance, the current voting moderation standards have been a net harm to DDO.Voting Issue 1: Mistakes/Moderator ErrorsBoth sides have agreed that this is an issue. The moderators have falsely attributed votes to the wrong people, and have taken down votes that deserved to be left standing. Once again, these votes are obviously not perfect. However, they were sufficient in analyzing the key issues presented in the debate, and the users gave enough explanation as to why points were awarded. More in-depth analysis could've occurred, but where the votes lacked explicit explanation, any rational observer could piece together what was implied.Con's argument last round that moderators could better the system with more help is irrelevant, as the debate is about the current state of the vote moderation standards, not what they could be.Voting Issue 2: Inconsistencies in GuideThere are two key pieces of information in the voting guide that should bewilder readers. The first is disallowing potential voters to read other RFDs and the comments section of the debate before casting a vote, even though there is a thread in the forums dedicated to individuals posting their unvoted debates. A debater involved in that particular debate contacting potential voters directly is far more likely to be influential to the voter than another RFD or a comment that may have been left. Con agrees on this matter. Promoting one method of swaying voters while outlawing another, less effective, indirect method is both confusing and inconsistent. Weigh this while considering the rules themselves.The second one is the proclamation that mention of initial position on a matter is grounds for removal. Con attempted to refute this by claiming I took BlueSteel's words out of context, but in Round 4 I proved otherwise. When asked to clarify, BlueSteel made it apparent that she meant what she said. If you mention your original opinion on an issue, your vote will be removed. This is an absurd notion, as most voters will have some sort of opinion on just about any issue up for debate, and whether or not they happen to mention what that opinion is/was doesn't invalidate their vote. As previously stated, if it becomes evident a vote was cast because of the voter's initial position, this should definitely be removed. But mention of personal opinion should not be.Voting Issue 3: Ease of AppealBoth Con and I can agree that appealing a vote is not incredibly difficult. However, as I have stated previously, it's no walk in the park either. It is time that voters shouldn't have to take, and a better system would prevent this harm from taking place. In Con's cost-benefit analysis, this was left off of the "Costs" list. Weigh it when voting.Additionally, Con dropped my argument that once voting privileges are taken away, the standards to regain them are not very specific and you are at the mercy of the moderators, who both sides agree are overworked and therefore prone to error.Voting Issue 4: Voter TurnoutI have disproved both of Con's theories regarding decrease in overall votes. Logic proves my own argument about discouraging voters and removing adequate votes at least somewhat responsible for this downward trend in voting.This is going to be the major reason you will vote Pro in this debate. ELO minimums and judge appointment are an individual's choice between quality and quantity. Setting restrictions may prevent some good voters from weighing in, but it also prevents bad ones. If the two debaters are so concerned about bad voters, this is their own decision which they are free to make. I am not contradicting myself here, as I am saying that individual debaters can decide quality vs. quantity on their own.Additionally, Con dropped the part about appointing judges. Should two debaters agree that they want to get only three votes, but votes of the highest possible quality, they can appoint judges. Therefore, in my opponent's debate with Amed, they could have appointed both lannan13 and famousdebater, in conjunction with a third well respected voter to assure quality votes. Con never addressed judge appointment, so this still stands.Ultimately, the responsibility to find the balance between quality and quantity should rest with the two participants of a debate. However, current vote moderation standards have caused it to become more difficult to allow for higher quantity, should the debaters prefer that.For all these reasons I urge the voters to go Pro in this debate. Thank you to the voters for your time and analysis, and to my opponent, ThinkBig, for a challenging but enjoyable exchange.