Require people to state a reason to vote

So historically people have been strongly against this and wanted this to be super democratic with percentage thresholds and all. I don't agree with that being the right way forward...

For hub apps, sys admin apps and event host apps this policy is enforced (https://forum.totalfreedom.me/d/2549-hub-app…se-instructions) and to be honest I don't even read if they're vouchers or objects, I read the reasoning and allow that to enable me to form my own final judgment. I'm very keen we roll that out further if the community supports it.

↩ @'Ryan' We'll see if the community supports it, remember, alot of people may not want the system because they can easily change what goes on if they dont provide reasoning, it's basically allowing people to bias.

Vouch, a system like this, while more subjective than a number, would be better for application processes like unban appeals and admin applications.

In regards to those who object claiming that "for the reasons and above" would be a suitable way around it, I mentioned this on a similar suggestion before:

Quote

↩  videogamesm12 The way I see things, in systems where votes are evaluated based on reason, the number of votes become irrelevant as the weight of one’s argument becomes the deciding factor. In my rather subjective opinion, arguments that actually provide a different viewpoint carry more weight than votes “for the reasons above”. The reason why is simple: the former usually brings something new to the table, while the other is just like adding a single piece of paper on top of the original.

The thing is, if someone is stating facts known already repetitively trying to make a point, then they obviously arent gonna get counted with this new system. Which is good because People who state already known facts or opinions over and over again are likely biased, which is how this system could catch Bias.

I Vouch, but this would be quite suitable for applications that video described since adding arguments to your vote should strengthen your vote. For objections based upon 'for X-player's reasons above' that should be suitable, especially if they have a compelling reason to object such as evidence of severe wrongdoings, but if its just because they don't like the applicant, the vote weight should be severely reduced since the argument is quite weak.

Vouch!

↩  Alco_Rs11 "For reasons above!" would be restating facts already stated, not boosting the argument at all, which I think should not be counted. Quality Over Quantity

↩ @'billy7oblos' Your attempt to make an argument that would let you continue your trolling is simply illogical.

1.Nobody is gonna copy someone else's arguments if they don't support it.

2. Reasoning is what something being proven or disproven is for, your point contradicts itself!

↩  Akefu-Brewer Good point, but if you add your own argument while agreeing with someone else, I'm sure it should count since you also added to the argument.
Example:

Quote

I Object, Player X's reason states why. Also, this user has a history of breaking rules and recently bypassed their ban.

↩  Alco_Rs11 This is true, and if its 2 already repeated arguments, then it's discarded.

↩  Akefu-Brewer I would disagree; everyone should be given a right to vote and have their voice heard. I would say that the impact wouldn't be same as the original unless they bring something new to the table.

I vouch for this, I see too many "joke" votes while looking at applications or even suggestions/bug reports
That and people just don't provide reasoning for their vouch/object, they just say it like it doesn't really mean anything, when in reality it does.
And for that I'd say that if there is no reason behind the vote, that vote will be deleted with no other punishment...unless it keeps happening then that's up to the forum staff, I have no say on what they should do in terms of punishment.
For example: If someone were to say "Vouch, they're my friend" then that vote will be deleted.
And Ryan also gave a good example of using a different voting system with the Hub Mod, Sys Admin, and Event Host apps...which honestly should be used across the board.

↩  videogamesm12 All arguments repeated will be counted as just a single argument, but new stuff to the table will be counted as new.

↩  gamingto12 Yeah, I see people who clearly meant to break the rules get unbanned just because it was months ago.

Object. TF has an issue with trying to solve problems that do not actually exist.

1. This server has never promoted a "quality over quantity"

The original super admin rank was intended to be given to anyone who could operate a mouse. Mark would frequently give admin to those who DM'd him on twitter that the server was down. The role was literally designed for quantity over quality. When questioned about this, Mark would just say if the admin was not fit to have their role, they would just be demoted.

2. You will never, no matter how hard you try, get rid of bias. Its literally impossible.

We entrust our Executives and Owner to make the correct decision. The EAO has always held the right to accept/deny applications for whatever reason, whether or not the application is overwhelmingly positive or negative.

"Ask yourselves, when ya’ll unban players because of a high vouch count, do they really stay unbanned for long? No!"

I really do not even know what this means. Players being banned, then unbanned, then banned again isn't a problem?
Thats what the whole being an admin entails.. banning people. Every grief can be rolled back, every troll can be muted. Im just very confused on what your point is here. Even if we did give reasoning being every vote, they could just get banned for breaking rules again anyway.. This doesn't solve the problem that doesn't even exist.

To solve your problem (that doesn't exist) the solution is to just permaban everyone who breaks a rule. They will never get unbanned for "having a high vouch count."

To sum it up. Your problem (which doesn't actually exist) is not fixed by requiring reasoning.

A better attempt at trying to reach quality > quantity would be to not even allow vouches/objects at all.

In regards to admin applications, have the people commenting give their thoughts/critiques of a player. Thats it. They would not vouch/object. The EAO or whoever makes the final decision at the time would then read every reasoning and make the final call.

IMO this would lead to way more drama, and just end of wasting peoples time and brainpower.

IMO the current way we have it, while still awful, is the best. It allows for the most votes possible, which in my eyes is the best. Im really big on community engagement, the more people the merrier. Look at the current process for electing any politician in the united states, your vote doesnt get discarded just because a figure of authority thought your vote was biased. The system acknowledges thats how people are going to be, biased. Enough people vote for it to balance out, and if it was a bad choice.. there's systems in place to solve it. Our systems are the admins themselves being able to ban players, admin suspensions, etc.

Stop complicating a system that doesn't need to be complicated to fix a problem that doesnt actually exist because the solution is literally impossible because its not human nature and we are not robots.

↩  zeseryu It's not drama, it's a civil argument system. The super admin rank was made by an old owner, thus is irrelevant. This problem you say doesnt exist clearly exists, you just don't want your bias rights taken away.

↩  Akefu-Brewer

People critiquing other people will always lead to drama. If you can't see this you are... biased. LOL.

You don't have an understatement of how the rules or server has worked. This post and others above it shows me this.

You are trying to solve bias. There is NO way to solve bias. If you disagree, you are biased. Being biased is not inherently bad, a claim that you probably don't understand either.

"The super admin rank was made by an old owner, thus is irrelevant."

What? This doesn't even make sense.

I've told you how to remove the most possible bias from public applications, while keeping our "democratic" roots. Let me make it very clear it was not the solution you described in your post.

Here's how to completely remove the most possible bias. Notice I didn't say remove all bias because thats literally impossible.

Have Wild have completely authority over everything, nobody else would make decisions but him.

↩  zeseryu Solving bias is impossible, taking steps to prevent it is, being biased is liking or hating a certain individual or concept more than it should be to have a normal opinion. What your saying is bias is just disagreeing or agreeing, which is not true. Bias is favor, not reasoning. Reasoning is what we need so we can get rid of favor.