Voting Reform

Thanks again to Wylted. First, I will address the topicality issue, and then I will rebut the remainder of Con's plan text.TOPICALITYCon says that one line he excerpted from my premise can somehow be contorted to suggest that voter harassment issues are not topical to this debate. I have myriad problems with this analysis, and will be offering three objections. Frankly, I am disappointed that Con did not ask for clarification on this matter before the debate began.Sure, this debate is about who is eligible to vote in DDO Presidential Elections, but it is ALSO about broader questions of voting reform, including rules against harassment. Con seems to believe that the line he is quoting says that this debate is "only" about eligibility requirements, but nowhere did I specify that this debate was solely about that issue. So, it is disingenuous to claim that this single line somehow precludes a discussion of anti-harassment provisos. Moreover, context clues in my OP strongly suggested that I had intended (and I truly did intend) for voting harassment issues to be topical. For instance, the title of this debate is not "Voter Eligibility Requirements," but rather it is "Voting Reform." Another example evidencing this fact is that I specifically included voting harassment related reforms as part of my proposal in the OP. This is a debate pitting two proposals against each other, and so that fact that this issue is found in the proposals indicates that it was meant to be debated.Finally, this line was placed under the debate's "Preface." A preface is an introductory statement, usually used to describe why I am having the debate and/or to engage in some niceties with my opponent. The actually rules and content are to follow. So, Con is extrapolating this rule from a part of the OP that was not meant to generate rules.CON's CASECon says that mine plan fails to consider various issues, whereas his does. I will address my plan and whatever supposed shortcomings it has next round, as this round is reserved to rebut Con's case.The Sticky FactorI am going to lump Con's "Sticky Factor," "Increasing the Sticky Factor," and "More Effort" headings together under this argument, as they all touch on a core theme of getting new members to linger on the site.The question of the sticky factor comes down to whether Con's plan is actually going to increase that factor in some significant way. Let's compare two worlds: one in which my plan used, and one in which Con's plan is used. In my world, votes are more informed and more conscientious. In Con's world, he gets one or two voters to "stick." In this case, Con's benefits don't seem to outweigh, because the benefits of one or two new users can be counterbalanced by broader increase in the quality, legitimacy, and fairness of the process on my side of the aisle.So, will Con's plan actually significantly increase the number of members who get glued to the site? The answer is, no. And there are four good reasons to believe that the answer is "no."1. Voting isn't meaningful or long-lasting engagement. Making One forum post in an election thread is not going to get you hooked on the site, nor is it necessarily even going to make you feel engaged. Let's say I am a noob. I get a PM asking me to vote, in fact, I get several PMs asking me to vote. The person asking me seems friendly and outgoing, and talks to me for awhile, and so I feel like there is no harm in voting. I go on to the forums just to vote. The problem is that I am not given a reason to return to post again. Elections are transient, once they pass, my reason for posting disappears, and so I am left unhooked. Alternatively, I might just vote in order to stop the barrage of PMs flooding my inbox--that kind of annoyance-motivated voting isn't going to get me engaged in the forums. It is more likely to just turn me off of the site in general.2. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that Wylted's hypothesis is correct. Wylted lists 8 members who he believes got "stuck" on the site as a result of the election. At this point, it seems important to define what a "noob" is. For simplicities sake, let's say it is any member who does not meet the criteria listed in my plan, since I believe that the members who would be eligible to vote in my world have enough investment (on balance) in the site to be able to vote. Of the people Con listed, 3 are not noobs by this definition (Atheist, Seb, Valkrin) and would have been able to vote in either system; another 2 (Kawaii and Geo) were already "stuck" on the site before the election (Kawaii via debates and Geo via mafia); and, of the other 1, there is little evidence to suggest the election helped them get "stuck," since most of Zylo's post predate his vote. As for Tabularasa, TVOT, and Kyle, I cannot find a record of there votes either on this tally just hours before the voting closed [http://www.debate.org...] or by scrolling through the records of their posts on their profiles.3. Campaigning isn't mentoring. Wylted seems to assert that campaigners will develop friendships with those the reach out too, but I feel this is not the case far more often than it is. It seems the campaigning is a blitz efforts that ends after the election closes (so links are not kept up or fostered), and that not all campaigners seek to cultivate personal connections, but rather to inform, propagandize, or convince in other ways. 4. Lack of uniqueness mitigates Con's impacts. Moreover, insofar as Wylted seems to agree that users like Atheist and SebUk are noobs in need of being "stuck", a lot of Wylted's arguments are non-unique, as those types of users can be "hooked" under either system.Just a TitleThe President does have importance in the community. This importance can be divided into two broad categories: (1) community leader, and (2) community advocate. Regarding (1), the President is often leading the charge--if not the driving force behind--programs that impact the whole community. For example, Bladerunner's Religion Forum Ambassador Program, or Mikal's New Member Outreach Initiative. In both cases, the Presidents have used their positions to lobby for, organize, and help to implement community-centered programs. Moreover, the President is often a point of contact for members in need of help or assistance, and is often a useful focal point when organizing things like tournaments, which require publicity and legitimacy if they are to work effectively. Presidential backing can certainly help make a tournament more successful that it would have otherwise been, because the President has a unique platform from which to operate. So, the President does have an important role as a community leader on DDO.Regarding (2), the President is the site's liaison with Juggle. Sure, individual members could contact Juggle if they had something they want to push for, but it is much easier for Juggle to have a single point of contact who they can work with over the long-term, and with whom they can develop a working relationship. Similarly, it is easier for members to express concerns to a President who is actively on the site (and so they know the President more than they could some faceless Juggle employee). And, while Juggle may have a strong profit-motive, they are not necessary as tuned in to site issues as a actual users. If they wanted to make updates to improve the usability of the site for advertising purposes, for instance, the site President can become a valuable font of information for them to reference. Ultimately then, while the President may not have as much power or authority as a Juggle employee or a moderator (inserting here a shout-out to the Airmax = Blade conspiracy), it is not accurate or fair to say, as Wylted has, that "the presidency isn't important." It is, for all the reasons I just mentioned.Thanks again to Con. I turn the floor back over to him...