Revising of voting policy | Forum

#1

I recommend a new stand and revision of voting policy for debatecraft, we arent DART, this is a new website, new leadership, new inspiration for debates due to recent death of charlie kirk. Doesnt matter if 90% are ddo or DART members.

This also should be discussed in discord.

I will list my PERSONAL recommendations to voting policy.

1: as of right now standard of sufficiency is not usable due to lack of ability to vote considering conduct, and categorical voting to weigh an arguement is more simplified by 3 choice mark. ASSUMING there will be conduct and other weights in the future: conduct should consider derogatory language more considerably than DART did, in both forums and debates. Too much favortism and time occupation hindered fair reviews. Utilization must be clearly referenced to bop in description of debate to weigh the necessary requirements to meet bop.

Sources are similar, but due to rise in ai and anti ai policy by this website, we have harder time verifying links are non ai associated, how do we know you didnt go to a website gemni referred? Or grok? Or chatgpt or others? We cannot. We have to compare language of ARGUMENTATION to what ai would say. I recommend decreasing future weight of links.

2: judicial decison. Same as conduct weigh, not applicable as of right now. But ASSUMING it will be introduced later: allow at minimum 1 week of membership and testing for judicial voting before affirming. I know a guy who simply had a guy to make an account on DART and within a few days would rule in favor of the person who asked them. Judical votes should be subject to vote removal and we should disallow lower standards for judical votes.

3:"outside" content must be clearly defined in weighing votes. If it is contained in link or argumentation of debate, it should NOT be considered outside content.

4: ASSUMING larger audience and volume of debates, there has to be a consideration to multiple mods to consider debates and vote content. There is nothing wrong with there being disagreement, infact it opens people up to alternative points of views. Seniority should be determined by merit, not by faithfulness to a former website.

That being aside, i still urge more comprehensive tests and revising of tests for topic posting and voting.

Edit comment

Mentions Text*

I recommend a new stand and revision of voting policy for debatecraft, we arent DART, this is a new website, new leadership, new inspiration for debates due to recent death of charlie kirk. Doesnt matter if 90% are ddo or DART members. This also should be discussed in discord. I will list my PERSONAL recommendations to voting policy.1: as of right now standard of sufficiency is not usable due to lack of ability to vote considering conduct, and categorical voting to weigh an arguement is more simplified by 3 choice mark. ASSUMING there will be conduct and other weights in the future: conduct should consider derogatory language more considerably than DART did, in both forums and debates. Too much favortism and time occupation hindered fair reviews. Utilization must be clearly referenced to bop in description of debate to weigh the necessary requirements to meet bop.Sources are similar, but due to rise in ai and anti ai policy by this website, we have harder time verifying links are non ai associated, how do we know you didnt go to a website gemni referred? Or grok? Or chatgpt or others? We cannot. We have to compare language of ARGUMENTATION to what ai would say. I recommend decreasing future weight of links. 2: judicial decison. Same as conduct weigh, not applicable as of right now. But ASSUMING it will be introduced later: allow at minimum 1 week of membership and testing for judicial voting before affirming. I know a guy who simply had a guy to make an account on DART and within a few days would rule in favor of the person who asked them. Judical votes should be subject to vote removal and we should disallow lower standards for judical votes. 3:"outside" content must be clearly defined in weighing votes. If it is contained in link or argumentation of debate, it should NOT be considered outside content. 4: ASSUMING larger audience and volume of debates, there has to be a consideration to multiple mods to consider debates and vote content. There is nothing wrong with there being disagreement, infact it opens people up to alternative points of views. Seniority should be determined by merit, not by faithfulness to a former website. That being aside, i still urge more comprehensive tests and revising of tests for topic posting and voting.

#2

Also, i recommend resetting of debates once all rules and policies are setup and initiated. New rules, new weights and new policies are undermined by debates won, lost or tied by previous ones. DART is DART. This is debatecraft, it is needful to be adaptable and reattain and prove the merits of debates. Wether earned under policies of DART and/or DDO. Or imputed because of it. This is necessary to be comporable with new debaters who will be effectively learning new policies, standards, weights and rules under a new leadership. We arent a echo chamber based on previous experiences on previous rules. But a new community under new rules and leadership.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#3

I recommend reset of previous debate wins, ties and losses under former website. There is new rules, new administration and new revisions of policies. There is no need to remember former victories under different rules. Cod mw2 doesnt carry over to cod mw3. (And other such examples, whoever thought this was a good idea, reinforces a cult like mentality to make an echo chamber of pervious interactions. New people wont care and merit doesnt matter under old rules and old game)

Here are examples:

https://www.debateart.com/members/whiteflame

https://www.debatecraft.com/users/whiteflame

https://www.debatecraft.com/users/fauxlaw

https://www.debateart.com/members/fauxlaw

https://www.debateart.com/members/Novice_II

https://www.debatecraft.com/users/Novice

Edit post

Mentions Text*

I recommend reset of previous debate wins, ties and losses under former website. There is new rules, new administration and new revisions of policies. There is no need to remember former victories under different rules. Cod mw2 doesnt carry over to cod mw3. (And other such examples, whoever thought this was a good idea, reinforces a cult like mentality to make an echo chamber of pervious interactions. New people wont care and merit doesnt matter under old rules and old game)Here are examples:<a href="https://www.debateart.com/members/whiteflame" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.debateart.com/members/whiteflame</a><a href="https://www.debatecraft.com/users/whiteflame" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.debatecraft.com/users/whiteflame</a> <a href="https://www.debatecraft.com/users/fauxlaw" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.debatecraft.com/users/fauxlaw</a><a href="https://www.debateart.com/members/fauxlaw" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.debateart.com/members/fauxlaw</a> <a href="https://www.debateart.com/members/Novice_II" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.debateart.com/members/Novice_II</a><a href="https://www.debatecraft.com/users/Novice" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.debatecraft.com/users/Novice</a>

#4

One ought to have some debate experience here, or DDO or DART to qualify to be a voter. That was in Debate Rules in DART, and I wholly agree with it.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

We tell God what to do and then blame Him for our errors.

- Dr. Pet Dragon of Sorbonne University

Conversation

Edit comment

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post