The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

An experienced veteran should decide which user-generated questions in Triviador go into the game.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/9/2013 Category: Games
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,091 times Debate No: 38697
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




As an experienced Triviador verteran myself, I maintain that the current system of question voting and popularity to determine which questions go into the game should be abolished. An experienced Triviador veteran who is open to new challenging questions in a variety of subjects--even those unfamiliar to himself--should have the authority to decide which user-generated questions go into the game.

The popular voting method of ratification is faulty because:

1) We have seen that a majority of questions that have entered are very easy in nature and often are common knowledge. Most marginal fans of the game are in it to win it and not to seek extra knowledge so they vote for questions that they can answer so as to win. For example, when the Triv Guy revealed, a few months ago, two questions that won a contest in popularity, there were many complaints in the comments on the fanpage that the questions were very basic and unexciting.

2) Most people who truly love this game will say (you can take a look at some of the Triviador player salutes for examples) that this game opened new vistas of knowledge to them and expanded their horizons. It taught them things that they unexpectedly found useful in other contexts. Saluted players also commonly say that at first the game proved a challenged to them--especially the questions that were unfamiliar--but through perseverance and responding to the challenge, they came through. The popular voting method systemically discourages arcane questions from getting in because for most people the desire to win is greater than the desire to learn; only after struggling for some time do people change their minds on this and realize the benefit these new challenges pose.

3) As per the comments from some players, it has been found that questions having to do with countries with low populations like Armenia are unable to get a lot of questions through simply because most people are not Armenian and would deem such questions either too country-specific (while thinking questions from their own country not to be--like the birthplace of Clinton) or challenging. If we are going to use a user-generated question factory, it makes sense that we accept the contributions from all countries and cultures, especially those who, although small, are very dedicated to this game.

4) There have been several complaints from mid-level players who are familiar with this game but do not yet possess the second-nature knowledge of many of the common questions to compete fairly with 100+ level players that this game has an undue bias towards the experienced people because of the question repetition. I would maintain that because people of all levels are wont to approve questions that they have seen before and also create new questions similar to those already in the game (I have seen questions in the question factory already in the game that merely reword the original questions) we need to entrust question ratification to an expert who knows what questions are already in the game and who works towards putting many new questions in on a regular basis that will not be instantly known to high level players. While this doesn't erase the advantage 100+ players have (as the questions already in the game will still be there), it does make the situation better for everyone--even the vets who mostly appreciate learning new factoids.

5. Not enough questions manage to get through under the current procedure. As the Triv Guy recently pointed out, there are only about 13000 questions in the original Triviador version yet that is nothing compared to the total number of questions submitted into the factory. Most people I have talked to have said that only a small percentage of their questions have made their way into the game. Yes, there will be some questions that clearly do not belong in the game (i.e. because of error, repetition, too-specific, inappropriate) yet I don't think that most experienced players only create questions where 2 percent are worthy to advance. A change is needed.


I would argue that excluding less seasoned players would only serve to alienate many players from having a say in the question factory. This is a Trivia game, not Mastermind. Surely, it is for the enjoyment of all players, not just a select few. I suggest that 20% of rejected questions should go to Triviador for final adjudication. This would give valid questions a second chance to be entered into the game.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you, Mazzy, for engaging in this debate.

I agree with you when you say "excluding less seasoned players would only serve to alienate many players" and I think we need to look to ways to help keep the marginal fan interested. However, anyone already has the right to participate by submitting questions and I don't believe this aspect should be abrogated. The veteran player also could be elected by a popular vote to increase involvement from the less-seasoned players.

More importantly, I think that sometimes people often vote against their own interests. When less-seasoned players vote for questions that are easy and/or repeats, they only serve to increase the challenges posed against them by the more experienced veteran players. This goes into point 4 that I originally made; I think that an arbiter who is knowledgeable of what would really be beneficial to the less experienced would better help their interests than they can for themselves. Keep in mind that an experienced vet also knows the types of questions that are unknown to most vets and, if honest, knows what questions he/she would not be able to get in less than a second. Most people don't have enough time or enough interest in the game to make fully-informed decisions about what questions should be in the game.

I would also argue that most novice players would not even know or care if this change were made as many never come to the fanpage and never comment on changes that have been made in the past. Also, many people just turn the question voting option off to get right into playing a game.

But yes, in the end, I would prefer your suggestion of 20% of questions going back into a second round of adjudication to no change at all.


I appreciate the opportunity to debate this, Jo.
Firstly; voting a veteran in as adjudicator would not be fair to other players. This would give that player an advantage over his/her peers.
Secondly; the question factory has two elements (setting a question & voting on a question), to deny players one element is unfair. This game must not only be fair to all, it must be seen to be fair.
Thirdly; I'm not sure how you arrived at the supposition that players vote in detriment to their own interests? I would argue that the vets would balance this supposed shortcoming. I am a mere beginner compared to the vets of this game, but have the intelligence to vote a question in or out for valid reasons. So your suggestion that novice players would not know or care is an unproven assumption on your part. We don't know if players view the fanpage & choose not to respond.
In conclusion I would not ask a single player (no matter how experienced) to make judgement's in the question factory. This job should be done by Triviador ( a non-player).
Debate Round No. 2


This time, I will respond to all four of your points.

1) Yes, it is true that one player (a veteran) having the position as an adjudicator while everyone else not having that position is, in a certain way, unfair and an advantage. However, by this logic all modern countries/companies/organizations should abolish their leadership structure in favor of one similar to that of Classical Athens where everyone had a vote on every issue in theory to make things more fair. Does not the prime minister of any one country have an advantage over the other citizens because of access to the legislative process that no one else has? To make things more efficient, I think, we need to delegate authority to a given player that can also be taken away if that power is abused. This ties into what I said earlier when I talked about not everyone having the time or means to devote to this; one player can dedicate the time to doing a comprehensive job on question selection. Power delegation in this way should be seen as making the game more efficient and not primarily as a way to give too much advantage to one player.

2) Yes, the question factory does have two elements...however, why not have one left to popularity and one left to expert descretion? I think that the advantages poised by implementing this change outweigh the disadvantages that would happen due to the mild erosion of popular control. Furthermore, yes, many people do enjoy being able to vote in questions...however, sometimes the popular option might be to delegate this to an authority. Do we know if most people would not like having that part taken away from them? In politics some positions might be elected while others might be appointed. Sometimes the public prefers to delegate authority. We should investigate before we make a claim about what seems fair to everyone.

3) The proof I have for my assumption is mainly what so many have already observed and what should be known a priori. Experience in the game enables players to answer questions quicker and sometimes with the ability of answering them in fractions of a second after only scanning keywords. Novice players are not any less qualified at things non-Triviador related (they may know much more than any other Triviador player) but can't possibly have a deep understanding of what questions are in the game and what are not simply due to lack of experience. Therefore, when other players submit questions that are repeats and/or similar to things they already know from the game, a novice player would not know this while an expert would. This is not to demean anyone; it just means novice players can't give full consent to all these things just as a jury can't give a fully-informed verdict without first hearing all the facts about the case.

4) It has been proven that some people can be trusted with authority. Sonia and many other moderators have competently executed their duties entrusted to them and most people are fine with their performance. If there is abuse, the player can be replaced.


Reply 1. An interesting comparison, but a digression. This is a game, not a corporation or a political forum. But I also think our resolve is not too far apart. We agree, that at the very least, that maybe 20% of rejected questions could go to an adjudicator, but we disagree on who that should be. I stand by my suggestion that it should be Triviador.
Reply 2. The question factory should be left as it is. Everyone that plays this must have their opinion respected & no one should be denied the opportunity to vote, it's part of the overall fun.
Reply 3. Certainly, a vet will know more questions than a novice, but so what? If a question is repeated, eventually it will be weeded out. If the question has a slightly different angle but the same answer, I see no problem with that, either. This game should not become an elitist club for the select few.
Reply 4. A mediator is just that. They mediate between player & Triviador, no more, no less. They do not make decisions concerning the question factory as far as I am aware.
Debate Round No. 3


It is somewhat of a digression but not very. I was trying to generalize my point beyond political entities and will say here that for any organized group or event like Triviador, there is some semblance of authority. Even Wikipedia which prides itself on trying to be devoid of experts and authority, has authority figures like the founder who place announcements at the top of each page occasionally to steer the site in a certain direction for a certain agenda.

I think we should be debating the merits of popular voting in question selection alone. For you would have to admit that in this status quo, not every aspect of the game is in popular hands (like the developing of new graphics, new versions, selection of events posted on the fanpage wall, etc.). All I am saying is that I don't see the popular question selection as an essential element in making this game inclusive for all. In fact, I think that people who have different backgrounds would have more luck with question selection vested in one person than in the current model.

The reason is because I think that the vet will be instructed to include most questions except those violating certain provisions (i.e. bad grammar, incorrect, too obscure, repeat, etc.). I have submitted hundreds of questions into the game yet I only have one that made into gameplay. I do not think that all my questions are objectionable and I think that I, like many others, could get many more into the game if we had a proactive adjudicator rather than a faceless majority making decisions.


I appreciate what you are saying, but to give one individual the advantage of knowing the answers to a number of questions amounts to letting the the quiz master play the game as well. I maintain that the adjudicator should be impartial & have no part in the game. For those that wish to take part in the question factory, should continue to do so. To me, it's part of the game & gives involvement to those who wish to take part.

The basic structure should remain, but, valid rejected questions should be given a second chance. I think we both agree on that point. The question for me, is who should have the job of deciding this. From my understanding, Triv Man already does this if he feels a question is valid. I suggest that this be made official, so that a player may send his/her rejected question to an arbitration box to get a final decision & that decision should be final.

To conclude; the "faceless majority" is what makes this game what it is today. FUN! As for an authority figure, that is the developers of the game. They have the final say in what is implemented. They are kind enough to allow us to take part in the question factory & they listen to our gripes & try hard to solve problems, which cannot always be easy for them.
Everyone wants to see a level playing field in the game from the developers standpoint. Each players abilities is the factor which changes that dynamic, so the basis of the game must start with 'all things being equal' therefore, the player makes the difference. To give one player the answers should not be made possible.
Triviador should be the adjudicator, not a player.
Debate Round No. 4


What I would say in response to "to give one player the answers should not be made possible" is that it is already in existence. I will not say who (they haven't given me permission to disclose this information) but there are already a select few players (not in working relationships with THX Games) who have been given the privilege of looking at all the questions (and I am not talking about Sonia). Even if that were not true, though, the developers, the triv guy, and other people who are commonly known to have access to all the information also play on different accounts and there has not been that much complaining about that.

One individual veteran I know who has access to the questions (although he does not actively take part in putting questions into the game) is very good but is still beatable. We may not want to give this privilege to a player who would spend all his/her time using this privilege as a way to become unbeatable but like many others, I do know that there is more to this game than possessing the answers. Skill is needed to skim questions, to answer them quickly on the spot, and to strategize for a maximum chance of winning. Plus, it would be just one player and many players would welcome (albeit with some complaint) the chance of playing against a player who would possess this advantage. The point is that some players already have access and it has not ruined the game so I don't see why creating this post for one or more veteran experts would change much other than letting everyone know who precisely has this information rather than keeping people guessing.

I mainly disagree with you here, though, in terms of who you would want to oversee second chances for questions. I do like the Triv Guy and we are friends, however, he has not always been cooperative in getting high quality questions into the game. He is prone to making excuses like when he told Armen that the question about Armenia establishing Christianity first was inaccurate (citing google {Ethiopia potentially being earlier}) without realizing that the question was multiple choice and was only asking about "which of these." He also has not played the game as much as say, Garisson or Ferry, and does not intimately know all the questions in the game (even though he has access to them). I would maintain that someone else should have this role. I am not asking to put in a lot of obscure questions; I am asking for a moderator who would put in a lot of questions on important topics that are still not yet in the game. And I don't think there is any prominent individual who is arguing that Triviador is already saturated with all important topics and that there isn't any left to cover. I think the Triv Guy has failed in addressing this. A moderator need only go to the database of rejected questions (thousands and thousands) and peruse them for more interesting and important topics to include in the game. This is something the Triv Guy will not do.


Your statement that there are already some players that are privy to the answers, is a revelation. For any player to have access to answers is madness ( other than the question factory). This goes against the integrity of the game & is certainly not a level playing field for those battling against such players. If these privileged players would like to play under a 'handicap' system depending on the level they are playing against, that would level the playing field, but I digress.....

This also confirms for me that NO player should have answer access other than the question factory, which is open to all players. For you to say that having access has not ruined the game, is debatable.
Maybe an independent body can be set up?

You stated that there is more to the game than just the answers & I agree, but the answers are a fundamental part of the game. In light of your revelation I certainly would argue against players having access to answers.

Thank you, Jo, for this opportunity to debate with you. I have enjoyed it.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Arceus 3 years ago
*in the past (no that)

and yes, maybe the quota of questions could be raised to 20% but I still feel that a lot of the interesting questions won't make it in simply because of the popular process
Posted by Arceus 3 years ago
true, but maybe there could be a compromise, I have suggested that in the past that we could allow the popular ratification process to continue with the stipulation that an experienced vet can override some of the decisions...this met with little enthusiasm
Posted by Mazzy 3 years ago
I appreciate your view on the question factory, but to exclude less seasoned players from having a say in which questions should see the light of day is not only unfair to all players, but smacks of arrogance. It would be better ( I feel) if a percentage of the question are allowed in by Triviador, maybe 20%? This way, we all still feel part of the process.
No votes have been placed for this debate.