I think it should work like this
Every time a mod wants to remove a vote, they must treat it like a sudden death one round debate and make an argument against the vote
then at least 3 other mods or high level members should vote if you debunked the logical/empirical validity of my vote
Mods should be forced to debate me on my votes before they are allowed to remove them. If you can debunk what it said then you have grounds to remove it.
The voting system rewards baseless opinions and people who are charitable to the one who was incorrect more than people who go by who was on the right side of the proposition
If I operate like you want me to the side that was wrong as per the proposition wins every time they make an objectively false assertion without the opponent countering it. Con would say pro didn't meet BOP and he was right, he just didn't understand the scope of how badly pro missed the mark
its not my fault that I know more about the topic at hand than either debater. That is the issue with the whole system. You allow people who know nothing to give objectively false dogwater opinions to justify their votes because they only talked about what the debaters directly did, but then when someone comes in with more knowledge than the debaters they are penalized for it.
I see voting here is just as much a joke as it was on DA
