The Instigator
jh1234l
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
RyuuKyuzo
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

The ELO ranking system is bad

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 2 votes the winner is...
RyuuKyuzo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/4/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,342 times Debate No: 30945
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

jh1234l

Pro


Hello!


This debate will be unique from most other ones. This will be pure logic and sources won’t be required.


Full Resolution: The ELO ranking system is, on balance, not beneficial to the DDO Community.


Definitions:


ELO: the ELO ranking system gives instigators a small bonus. It compares the ELO’s of both debaters and who won. A high-level debater who won against a low level debater won’t get much extra ELO, while a low level debater who beats a high level one will get lots of extra ELO, and visa-versa.


Rules:


No new arguments, only rebuttals in the last round


No semantics


No trolling


BOP lies on pro (me).


Arguments:


Case 1:


The ELO ranking system discourages new debaters from making new debates. Experienced debaters will likely avoid accepting these debates, because losing makes them lose a lot and winning only gives them little ELO. This causes many debates to be stuck in the challenge period.


Case 2:


The ELO ranking system can be unfair to users with extremely high or low ELO rankings. For example, people with low ELO get avoided due to reasons listed in my first point. People with high ELO rankings, however, do not get their ELO increased much.


Case 3:


The ELO ranking system contains a lot of loopholes. For example, it does not take into account of how people can deactivate their old account and set up a new one and get 0 ELO again, changing how they will be treated by the rules. It also does not take into account of vote bombing and unfair votes, allowing people to “gang up” against a strong debater to lower their ELO.


RyuuKyuzo

Con

I accept. Thank you to jh1234l for setting up this debate.

For the sake of clarification --

Bad: Of poor quality; inferior or defective

Let us begin.

Case 1:

Pro claims that the Elo system discourages new debaters from making debates, but a quick gander at the "challenge period" page shows that there are currently two pages of open debates, most of which are instigated by new members . This is the same as it was before the Elo score was introduced. I'm just going off of memory here, but as Pro stated, sources aren't required, and I'm sure the voters will recall that what I'm saying is true.

Pro claims that experienced debaters will avoid taking these debates due to the high risk one takes in debating noobs. TURN: This is true, but this the point of the Elo system -- it discourages noob-sniping. This is not a "bad" thing, in fact it was one of the main reasons why Elo was introduced in the first place.

Pro claims this causes many debates to be stuck in the challenge period. Firstly, there are currently two pages of debates in the challenge period. This isn't unusual, in fact it's pretty typical. What my opponent has failed to take into consideration is that after a week, if no-one takes the debate, the challenge expires -- so debates are constantly cycling through either way.

Case 2:

Pro states that the Elo system is unfair because high-Elo users avoid debating low-Elo users. Again, this is basically the point of Elo. It doesn't make things unfair. To the contrary, it discourages noob-sniping and drastically cuts the rewards of noob-sniping thereby evening out the Leader Board. That is to say, Elo makes things more fair, not less.

Pro states that Elo is unfair because people with already high Elo don't gain as many Elo points from winning a debate. This is true, but once again this is the point. Just as it is unimpressive for a pro-boxer to punch-out a four year old, so too is it unimpressive for someone with an Elo of 5000+ to beat a user with an Elo score <2000. The accomplishment is lesser, so the gain is lesser. This is the way it should be under a logical ranking system.

Case 3:

Pro states that the Elo system contains loopholes, such as users deactivating their old accounts and creating new accounts to start with a fresh-slate. This is not a loophole, because these users aren't getting away with anything. They remove all their old loses, but they also remove all their old wins, and since most of the active user-base has an Elo above 2000 (the default Elo after completing 1 debate), most users would actually be lowering their own Elo.

For users under an Elo of 2000, we must ask why they are so low. If they are that low because they are not good at debating, then likely they will have a similarly low Elo with their new account. If they are not a bad debater, then their old score was not representative of their ability and so creating a new account makes things more fair, not less.

Finally (and most importantly), closing your account has no effect on the Elo scores of those you've debated with your old account, so it makes literally no difference to the DDO community if one chooses to close their old account and open a new one.

Pro states that the Elo system doesn't take into account vote-bombing. This is a non-sequitur. Vote-bombing was an issue before the Elo update as well. Elo wasn't meant to solve vote-bombing. Vote-bombing is an issue distinct from the issues Elo was made to solve, and so Vote-bombing is irrelevant to this resolution.

Conclusion:

The disadvantages Pro points out in his argument are either non-existent, non-sequiturs, or actually reasons why the Elo system is advantageous. As such, Pro has no grounds to claim that the Elo system is bad. His burden of proof is unfulfilled and the resolution has been negated.

I look forward to Pro's response.
Debate Round No. 1
jh1234l

Pro

Thanks to RyuuKyuzo for accepting.

Con defined bad, but the full resolution was "The ELO ranking system is, on balance, not beneficial to the DDO Community. " as stated in the beginning of the debate."The elo system is bad" was only used because the full resolution didn't fit.

My opponent's quotes are in bold.

Point 1

This is true, but this the point of the Elo system -- it discourages noob-sniping. This is not a "bad" thing, in fact it was one of the main reasons why Elo was introduced in the first place.

However, this still does not refute the fact that it makes all debaters avoid newbies, not only n00b snipers. If debates from newbies are not accepted, then they will never be able to work their way up the ladder.

There are currently two pages of open debates, most of which are instigated by new members . This is the same as it was before the Elo score was introduced.

Actually, no. I am also going off memory, and when I joined (before ELO was introduced) there are only 3 open debates: Whether Frostedwits is better than DDO, Whether the benefits of individuals should be sacrificed for the benefit of the goup, and another debate I don't remember. Then, as ELO was introduced, the open debates rose to 5, then 10, then 12, then fluctuation between 5-10, then up to two and three pages right now.

What my opponent has failed to take into consideration is that after a week, if no-one takes the debate, the challenge expires -- so debates are constantly cycling through either way.

However, expired challenges can still be reinstated, and the challenge expiring won't help the newbies one bit.

Point 2

Pro states that Elo is unfair because people with already high Elo don't gain as many Elo points from winning a debate. This is true, but once again this is the point. Just as it is unimpressive for a pro-boxer to punch-out a four year old, so too is it unimpressive for someone with an Elo of 5000+ to beat a user with an Elo score <2000. The accomplishment is lesser, so the gain is lesser. This is the way it should be under a logical ranking system.

However, remember how the 5000+ debater avoids the 2000 one? The 5000 one is more likely to challenge a user with 4750 or so elo. The problem is, even though their debating skills are relatively similiar, the 4750 one is STILL going to get more even though there is only a small difference.

Pont 3

Pro states that the Elo system contains loopholes, such as users deactivating their old accounts and creating new accounts to start with a fresh-slate. This is not a loophole, because these users aren't getting away with anything. They remove all their old loses, but they also remove all their old wins, and since most of the active user-base has an Elo above 2000 (the default Elo after completing 1 debate), most users would actually be lowering their own Elo.

However, con ignores the fact that ELO will treat them as a "newbie", resulting in the "noob" to get more benefits from winning debates. Also, sorry I forgot to mention that if anyone completes their first debate, they will get 2000 elo. So they get benefits because the system treats them as "noobs".

Pro states that the Elo system doesn't take into account vote-bombing. This is a non-sequitur. Vote-bombing was an issue before the Elo update as well. Elo wasn't meant to solve vote-bombing. Vote-bombing is an issue distinct from the issues Elo was made to solve, and so Vote-bombing is irrelevant to this resolution.

Lets say there are debators A (5000 elo) and B (2000 elo) in a debate. If the vote bombers vote for one side, then the A debator will only get like
20 elo. However, if the vote bombers vote for B, then the B debator will get like 200 elo. This means that vote bombers can easily bring down strong debators who are against their opinions. If there was no elo, then vote bombers cannot bring down the strong debators easily through the benefit given to B.




RyuuKyuzo

Con

Con points out the the full resolution doesn't contain the word "bad". This is true, but "not beneficial" and "defective" are essentially the same thing for the purposes of this debate, so I'm not sure what his point is here.

Case 1:

My opponent insists that the Elo system causes everyone to avoid noob debates, not just noob-snipers, which makes it difficult for noobs to get debates. This is not true. Clicking over to the voting period page, we can see that most debates started by noobs were also accepted by noobs [1]. I know this debate isn't meant to be heavy on sources, but this is the sort of thing that is either true or false, and requires a source to prove one way or the other.

Pro asserts that the amount of debates in the challenge period have gone up significantly since he joined. There is still only two pages in the challenge section right now, but it's worth noting that the rate of debates in general has constantly been going up:


Clearly there is no lack of debating going on around here. We also have to take into account that since DDO is online and free to join, the user base is constantly expanding. Therefore, it is expected that the amount of open debates will gradually be increasing over time. This isn't a problem, this is expected.

Pro states that expired debates can be re-instated, which doesn't help noobs one bit. Actually, it does. The ability to re-issue a debate increases the chances of an interested party finding it and taking it. Once again, the rate of debating has gone up, not down. The problem Pro is mentioning doesn't exist.

Case 2:

Pro's point lacks impact. He states that a user with an Elo of >5000 would avoid a user with an Elo <2000. This is true, but it isn't a problem. He goes on to state that a user with an Elo of 4750 would receive slightly more Elo from beating a user >5000 than said user would get from beating the user with an Elo of 4750. This is true, but once again it isn't a problem. The user with the lower Elo score should gain more from winning. A higher risk gives a higher payoff and a lower risk gives a lower payoff. This is the point of a relative system.

Case 3:

Pro says that Elo gives preferential treatment to noobs by giving them a higher payoff for beating non-noobs. Pro has argued this same point over and over again in this debate. Look, We all know that low-Elo users will gain more from beating high-Elo users than vice-versa. This isn't a problem -- it's the entire purpose of Elo. This is the way it ought to be. The Elo system was meticulously formulated to do just this. Pro states that Elo gives preferential treatment to noobs by giving them 2000 Elo after their first debate. 2000 is the default Elo. You have to start some where. The exact point is arbitrary. It just so happens that for the DDO Elo formula, 2000 was chosen to be the default.
Every single new user got this default Elo after winning their first debate and every single old user had this factored into their current Elo score. Since everyone got this benefit, it can be said that everyone is getting preferential treatment, and if everyone is getting preferential treatment, no one is.

Pro gives an example of what could happen if vote-bombers vote for a user with lower Elo. This is a non-sequitur. It is still the case that vote-bombing is irrelevant to Elo. Vote-bombers vote in-line with their own beliefs on whatever the topic being debated was. This has nothing to do with Elo. Once again, it is true that a high-Elo user will lose more Elo against a low-Elo user than vice-versa, but (also once again) this is they way it's meant to be. Vote-bombs or not, the user with the higher chance of losing should stand to gain a higher amount of Elo. Yes, vote-bombing is awful, but it was awful pre-Elo too and removing the Elo system won't remove vote-bombing, so this point is moot.

Conclusion

Pro has failed to defend his original position in the face of my R1 counter argument. Most of his points have converged into a single argument -- low Elo users stand to gain more than high-Elo users; a point I turned in R1 and reiterated now in R2. As such, the resolution is still negated.

I turn the debate over to Pro.

1. http://debate.org...
Debate Round No. 2
jh1234l

Pro

jh1234l forfeited this round.
RyuuKyuzo

Con

Extending arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
jh1234l

Pro

Sorry, but I will be unable to post a response due to not having enough time.
RyuuKyuzo

Con

Pro has conceded. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
That's too bad, now I'm curious =/
Posted by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
damn, I typed up an excellent RDF, but then I accidently gave the points to Pro and not Con, and then when I fixed it, my RDF suddenly got deleted, since I can't be bothered typing it up again, Ill just say forfeit.
Posted by Hemanth_Nambiar 4 years ago
Hemanth_Nambiar
Personally speaking, my sympathies go to pro. I'd also like to state that Ryuukyuzo has, so far, not been able to alter my opinion. However, if I were to confine myself to the scope of this debate ,then I'd be forced to hand it to con, based on the fact that pro's arguments are seemingly inadequate. Pro, according to me, has scored on case 1. However, his arguments have fallen flat in every other case. Status: advantage con. Projected distribution as of now: 3-1 to con.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
jh1234lRyuuKyuzoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by Xerge 4 years ago
Xerge
jh1234lRyuuKyuzoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit, then concession