Content-Manager, Administrators
203
edits
Difference between revisions of "Structure of a Shell"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→RVIs/No RVIs
CheeseMeese (talk | contribs) |
CheeseMeese (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
==== RVIs/No RVIs ==== | ==== RVIs/No RVIs ==== | ||
RVIs, also known as reverse voting issues, are a reason why proving your norm is good means that you win the round. | |||
Usually, theory functions in a way where the person who runs theory can win the round off that argument, but the person who defends against theory cannot win the round off that argument. Responding to conditionality bad and winning it, for example, does not mean that you win – it means that you are allowed to run your conditional advocacy. This is under the no RVIs model. However, granting or winning that you get an RVI means that proving that your norm is best means that you can win the round of theory. With the earlier example, winning that conditional advocacies are good means that you can get a route to the ballot using theory. | |||
'''Common Justifications''' | |||
RVIs – reciprocity – if they can win on a shell, I should also be able to win on it. | |||
RVIs – time skew – RVIs compensate for the time I spend responding to your shells. Otherwise, you can infinitely uplayer. | |||
RVIs – prevents frivolous theory – if you know you can’t lose, then you’re less likely to run frivolous shells that you could lose on. Allows us to focus on substance. | |||
No RVIs – RVIs chill theory because people will be too afraid to report abuse if they believe they can be punished for it. | |||
No RVIs – it’s illogical – you shouldn’t win the round for being fair. | |||
No RVIs – topic ed – if there’s no RVI, we can go back to substance which outweighs since we only have two months to discuss the topic, but if there are RVIs then we’ll always have theory debates. | |||
==== Impact Calc (Fairness, Education, etc.) ==== | ==== Impact Calc (Fairness, Education, etc.) ==== | ||