The Instigator
jh1234l
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
9spaceking
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

The ELO system should be changed on DDO

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
9spaceking
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/27/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 711 times Debate No: 60983
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

jh1234l

Con

This debate is about whether or not the ELO system should be changed. I would like to ask Pro to post his arguments in the first round. The BOP is on Pro. Pro is allowed to reuse arguments from his last debate. I challenge 9spaceking because I want to hear his opinion as a fellow debater rather than a reader, as a debater reads their opponent's case more thoroughly than a reader because they are obliged to respond to their opponent's points.
9spaceking

Pro

DDO is mainly about Debating skills. Other than the games in the forums and chatting with your friends, the crucial point in DDO is to get better and better at debating, by challenging other people. [SITUATION ONE] But, what if you want to challenge a good debater? What if you meet some guy with over 3,500 elo, only to find out he or she is an easy-to-beat-noob- sniper? That wouldn't be a good challenge. If you meet some dude with a big elo yet not-so-good debating skills, you definitely want the elo system to change to a somehow more accurate calculation, so that you know whether they're good or not just by looking at their elo rather than having to decide through reading their debates. [SITUATION TWO] On the other hand, lowly elo people might get ignored; you look at a guy with only 2222 elo, and you skip over him because he doesn't "look" intimidating, while in reality he might be amazing debater who just happens to have only 10 debates that don't boost his elo much. It's sad that way, and good debaters are smushed down with a bad elo.
Therefore....
The elo system must be changed if I prove either, or both of these situations to be true. (And with the proving of these two situations, my BoP is fulfilled)

1. It doesn't stop noob-snipers.
Noob-snipers still gain a ton of elo. Two good examples are Teemo and jh1234l. Teemo has a massive over-4,000 elo, [1] while jh1234l has more than 3,000 elo. [2] However, they both lost to me, a mere ~2100 elo debater. [3] This just shows how much of a noob-sniper both of them are, and the fact is that noob-snipers can't be stopped, they still gain a load of elo regardless of the point reduction of the contender. In fact, the most infamous noob-sniper is probably STALIN. [13] He is a debater--the 13th best, based on the leaderboard[14], but he is in fact terrible! Just taking a look at a bunch of random pages on his profile, you can tell he snipes noobs and noobs only. [15][16][17] In fact, he is so darn terrible that he even once failed a noob-snipe and lost! [19] Thus we can conclude these noob-snipers are very hard to stop and have over-bloated elo in our current elo system.

2. It does not accurately display your debating skills.
One good example is the under-rated debater Envisage. He's amazing!! He doesn't even have 2,500 elo [4], but he defeated a guy with over 4,500 elo [5], won against some person with almost 3,200 elo [6], and defeated some guy with over 3,400 elo [7]. This just shows how unfair the elo system is. As pointed out above when a good experienced guy defeats a noob they gain loads of elo, while Envisage, even with the instigator advantage, cannot gain a lot of elo from defeating all these uber-impressive dudes.
Another good example of an under-rated debater is YYW. That's right--although he has more than 3,900 elo [8], he is actually still under-rated. Similarly to Envisage, he defeated that same guy with over 4,500 elo [9]. He also defeated his love, bsh1, who has over 5,500 elo [10]. He even defeated the powerful moderator-debater, Ore Ele, who has more than 5,800 elo. [11] That's not even his most impressive feat--he crushed Danielle in a debate, and Danielle has over 7000 elo!! [12] This just demonstrates how under-rated YYW is.

3. Just a little tweek can solve both of these problems. As we know, there is an inherent instigator point advantage and a contender disadvantage. [18] If the advantage increases, or the disadvantage is even more, or both the advantage and the disadvantage had a wider range, then the noob-snipers would gain more elo while the brave challengers moved on to higher, more accurate elo that displays their skill better. Thus, this change to the elo system would greatly benefit everyone, especially the debaters shown in the two examples above.

Thus, I have shown:
-Some debaters with big elo but not-quite-so-good debating skills
-Some debaters with rather low-elo but amazing skills
-My BoP and how I fulfilled it

Onto you, con.

[1] debate.org/teemo
[2] debate.org/jh1234l
[3] debate.org/9spaceking
[4] debate.org/envisage
[5] http://www.debate.org...
[6] http://www.debate.org...
[7] http://www.debate.org...
[8] debate.org/yyw
[9] http://www.debate.org...
[10] http://www.debate.org...
[11] http://www.debate.org...
[12] http://www.debate.org...
[13] debate.org/STALIN
[14] http://www.debate.org...
[15] http://www.debate.org...
[16] http://www.debate.org...
[17] http://www.debate.org...
[18] http://ddo.wikia.com...
[19] http://www.debate.org...

Debate Round No. 1
jh1234l

Con

Thanks to 9spaceking for his timely and thoughtful response.
Rebuttals


1/2. Underrated and overrated debaters

Pro's argument is fallacious as the arguments rely on his subjective opinion. He asserts that certain debaters are overrated or underrated, but uses his own expectations of how high of an ELO these debaters should get as evidence. He also cherrypicks certain debates where a lower ELO user wins, even though ELO does not gurrantee a win for the higher ELO user. This is not evidence as it relies on his own subjective beliefs about the debating skills of users.

Pro makes the "anecdote" fallacy, in which he lists examples that conform to his rules and uses subjective judgement to argue that certain users are overrated or underrated. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

3. Pro's proposed solution

As we know, there is an inherent instigator point advantage and a contender disadvantage [18].If the advantage increases, or the disadvantage is even more, or both the advantage and the disadvantage had a wider range, then the noob-snipers would gain more elo while the brave challengers moved on to higher, more accurate elo that displays their skill better. Thus, this change to the elo system would greatly benefit everyone, especially the debaters shown in the two examples above.

This proposed solution would have corrected ELO values if new users created more debates than they accept, or if the overrated users accepted debates most of the time and the underrated debaters created debates most of the time. However, there is no such bias which makes overrated users be the contender most of the time and underrated users be the instigator most of the time.

Contentions

A. The current ELO system discourages noob sniping, while pro's solution does not

The ELO system already takes into consideration the ELO's of both users. http://ddo.wikia.com... Pro's solution would instead encourage noob-trapping, or creating debates that interest only new debaters, as people seek to abuse the instigator bias.

B. Changing an entire system because it disagrees with one user's subjective beliefs causes problems

Pro's proposal was backed by personal opinion rather than fact: while it's a fact that a certain user has a certain ELO, it's an opinion that the user was overrated or underrated. If people are allowed to modify the system based on subjective opinions, then biases may be induced into the system as people may want to lower the ELO of people whom they disagree with, or artificially boost their ELO.


9spaceking

Pro

Noob snipers are subjective beliefs???!
Incorrect. Look at STALIN's most recent debates posted above . [15][16][17] above all show STALIN winning against noobs. Let us take his most recent won debate: http://www.debate.org...
This debate has him winning against someone with only 1,781 elo. [20]
Now let's take the debate after that: http://www.debate.org...
He won against this dude whose only debate was the one won by STALIN[21], constituting the definition of "noob".
The below link shows another successful noob-snipe where the opponent ff'd each and every round.
http://www.debate.org...
Therefore we can definitely conclude this is objective and not subjective; noob-sniping is a problem, a big one indeed. This is not the anecdote fallacy, it is true that these noob-snipers are overrated.
As for those underrated debaters, I have already proven Envisage and YYW are vastly underrated when you compare their elo to their skill, especially who they defeated.

"there is no such bias which makes overrated users be the contender most of the time and underrated users be the instigator most of the time...." Yes, there is. That is why it's called "noob-sniping".
My system encourages noob-trapping? Noob-sniping is much easier than noob-trapping. Noob-trapping is nigh-impossible, very difficult. A skilled debater could ruin such trap, as well as a skilled troll. Noob-trapping is insanely hard, far far harder than noob-sniping, and you're better off challenging the top debaters. Thus your argument is invalid because with my change, it is harder to gain free easy elo.
My "opinions" are backed up by such evidence that they aren't subjective, they're pretty much facts: STALIN is an overrated noob sniper, no offense, and both Envisage and YYW have an elo that greatly undermines their skill.

NEW POINT: Other changes. As far as we know, both the noobs and Mikal use the same elo equation. This is not very accurate, and chess's elo system can help make their elo more accurate. In chess, two different systems are used for grandmasters than non-grandmasters. Therefore we can get DDO "Grandmasters" (above 3500, or 4,000 elo, depending on what can be considered a "Grandmaster") to use the different elo calculation and have people below using a different calculation, so that it can be more accurate. These systems are shown to be accurate since other systems use it and seem to more accurately display skills than a system without any change. [22][23] So, if we apply the different K-factors for debaters with different elo, a positive outcome will definitely come.
Back to you, con.

[20] http://www.debate.org...
[21] http://www.debate.org...
[22] http://www.fide.com...
[23] http://www.fide.com...
Debate Round No. 2
jh1234l

Con

1. Noob Sniping

Con strawmans my argument as "STALIN does not noob snipe". However, my argument remains unaddressed as I argued that it is subjective belief that STALIN, jh1234l and Teemo are overrated, and that YYW and Envisage are underrated. Also, pro cherry picks individual debates that fit with is arguments, and these debates ironically prove that the ELO system is NOT inaccurate, as they show a lower ELO debater losing against a higher ELO one.

2. Proposed Change

The problem is, the underrated users listed by pro do not necessarily contend more debates than underrated ones, by a significant amount.

jh1234l, one of the overrated debaters, instigated 29/68 of his debates,(http://www.debate.org...)

Teemo is overrated according to pro, and instigated 11/40 of his debates. (http://www.debate.org...)

YYW, the underrated one, instigated 19/58 of his debates. (http://www.debate.org...)

Envisage is also underrated according to pro, and instigated 8/31 of his debates. (http://www.debate.org...)

Average overrated debater: 10/27, or 0.37
Average underrated debater: 13.5/44.5, or 0.30

As you can see, there is no bias that makes overrated users instigate less, but rather it's the opposite. Therefore, adding an instigator/contender advantage/disadvantage will just make the overrated users more overrated as they actually instigate more.

3. New point

Adding different k factors is useless, as it is already very difficult for users with high ELOS to increase their ELO and too easy for users with low ELOS to raise their ELO. Adding different K-Factors will only make problems worse.

Also, Sonas was trying to address the issue of Grandmasters only tournaments, a different issue from the issue on DDO. (Source: ArcTimes debate with 9spaceking)





9spaceking

Pro

1. Noob sniping
The lower elo debater losing against a higher elo one--I was talking about noobs, those who make a debate and just quit it, disappearing off the site to never be seen again. These noobs are taken advantage of as seen definitely against by STALIN, especially since he debates those who only have one debate or very few debates. And he gets defeated by people with far far lower elo than him. On the other hand our underrated people win against very very high elo debaters, showing us they are definitely underrated.
Instigate/contender advantage.
"As you can see, there is no bias that makes overrated users instigate less, but rather it's the opposite. Therefore, adding an instigator/contender advantage/disadvantage will just make the overrated users more overrated as they actually instigate more."
Fine. Then if we give the advantage to the one with lower elo and the disadvantage to those with higher elo, the problem will be fixed with this change. And if the elo are exactly the same either it's decided by a coin toss or no one has the advantage/disadvantage. Then it will be fair.

2. The Sonas system
Then we should have a different system for different tournaments! :D Again, the elo system does not change, whether you're doing the noob tournament or top-tier tournament. I think the moderators should change the elo system depending on the situation, and use differen k-factors for the different tournaments.
Debate Round No. 3
jh1234l

Con

1. Noob sniping

The lower elo debater losing against a higher elo one--I was talking about noobs, those who make a debate and just quit it, disappearing off the site to never be seen again. These noobs are taken advantage of as seen definitely against by STALIN, especially since he debates those who only have one debate or very few debates. And he gets defeated by people with far far lower elo than him. On the other hand our underrated people win against very very high elo debaters, showing us they are definitely underrated.

Pro did not address my argument that he cherry picks specific debates that support his arguments to show that said users are underrated or overrated. Therefore he does not meet his BOP.

2. Proposed Change

Fine. Then if we give the advantage to the one with lower elo and the disadvantage to those with higher elo, the problem will be fixed with this change. And if the elo are exactly the same either it's decided by a coin toss or no one has the advantage/disadvantage. Then it will be fair.

The ELO system already does this, so no change is required.

3. Sonas

Then we should have a different system for different tournaments! :D Again, the elo system does not change, whether you're doing the noob tournament or top-tier tournament. I think the moderators should change the elo system depending on the situation, and use differen k-factors for the different tournaments.


The problem is, this type of change is costly and inefficient as there are only so many moderators that Juggle has the money to higher, and there will always be infinitely more debates to change the ELO system for than Moderators. Moderators may also uncounciously induce their bias into debates by doing this. Remember, this debate is about whether or not the system should be changed, so the feasability should also be considered. The moderators will not be able to individually tweak the ELO system for each individual debate and moderate at the same time.



9spaceking

Pro

FINAL ROUND
Cherry picking debates to show that users are underrated or overrated?
I did not cherry pick. Pretty much every page of STALIN's profile is against some noob.He only has a few even against remotely skilled debaters. It is up to my opponent to show that I in fact cherry-picked and show us that in reality STALIN really debates and wins against skilled debaters with elo similar to his. STALIN's won debates, almost every single page, shows him spamming and utilizing the current elo system the wrong way. [3][4][5] And keep in mind loads of his debates are "finish the sentence", which don't utilize debate skills at all! As for the underrated debaters, Envisage's profile shows him winning against debaters who otherwise are more skilled than him elo-wise [1][2]. YYW's debates show that he is amazing as well, [6][7][8] deserving more than his current elo. (The one against Larz shows how Larz is also underrated; in a debate about giving him the official title I mentioned he defeated mighty debaters with elo far far higher than him, so we know that Larz's skill is much higher than his elo gives, just another example to show how underrated users can be[9]. I didn't even mention that Larz managed to beat Zaradi, who has more than 1,000 elo more than him [10], he managed to beat some other guy with >1000 elo more than him [11], slayed another guy with over 4,000 elo [12].....he really should be called "beast slayer"!) I only highlight his most valiant and best victories for YYW/Envisage to note how strong they can be at their peak, I'm not cherry picking, you can access his profile to actually see for yourself who else he defeated that shows he deserves a higher elo.

2. Proposed change.
Incorrect. The current system seems to give an advantage to the instigator only and the disadvantage to the contender only, not advantage-low-rated disadvantage-high-rated distribution.

"The moderators will not be able to individually tweak the ELO system for each individual debate and moderate at the same time."
This change will only apply to future debates, they can just change the elo equation. How do you think they managed to create the elo system and keep track of all the users' elo?? The moderators definitely did not individually put an equation to each and every debate; they designed the code so that when a debate ended, the debaters' elo would change. Thus, it can be concluded that tweeking the elo is as easy as the start of the elo system, or even easier, since all the moderators have to do is to change a few numbers.

I have shown that the moderators need to increase the advantage and disadvantage, as well as make the advantage apply to the one with lower-elo while the disadvantage to the higher elo. That would help solve both problems listed above.
I think I have outdone myself and managed to strengthen my arguments from last time; and my opponent has failed to outdo ArcTimes.
VOTE ME.

[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://www.debate.org...
[3] http://www.debate.org...
[4] http://www.debate.org...
[5] http://www.debate.org...
[6] http://www.debate.org...
[7] http://www.debate.org...
[8] http://www.debate.org...
[9] http://www.debate.org...
[10] http://www.debate.org...
[11] http://www.debate.org...
[12] http://www.debate.org...

Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by jh1234l 3 years ago
jh1234l
OOPS, miscalculated: jh1234l/Teemo is around 0.35, YYW/Envisage is around 0.26.
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
eh. I misunderstood, but whatever.
Posted by ArcTImes 3 years ago
ArcTImes
" In chess, two different systems are used for grandmasters than non-grandmasters."

That is false. And I explained you this in our debate.
You are talking about the FIDE grandmasters tournament and the other tournaments. They not only use different formulas, but different complete rankings. Because it would not make a fudging sense to use two different formulas in the same ranking.

But there are also tournaments where both non grandmasters and grandmasters play together with the same formula.

So you totally misunderstood what Sonas tried to say.
He was talking about big or small changes and how slow or fast those "grandmasters only tournaments" were. So we are not even talking about the same accuracy problem than in DDO, which is not caused by the rating system. I don't even know if you could actually call it an accuracy problem in the case of FIDE grandmasters.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
jh1234l9spacekingTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I read the debate this was spawned off of (voted against spaceking), having foresight to pro's entire case, in addition to every well reasoned vote on it, the instigator on this one could still not formulate a strong case. Accusing pro of committing fallacies, then not proving they were fallacies only weakened pro's case even more. Trying to claim that the numerous Stalin debates laid out in a row was Cheery picked, and that it's subjective to use English definitions to describe his habitual behavior... Granted all this does not mean pro's changes would fix the problems prescribed, but his case is strong and the counter arguments are poorly executed. Sources were a true case of no contest.
Vote Placed by AlternativeDavid 3 years ago
AlternativeDavid
jh1234l9spacekingTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: For arguments, I do not believe that Con successfully refuted Pro's points about artificial inflation through noob sniping, STALIN wasn't used as a cherry pick, he was used as an example of artificially inflating your ELO ranking. For sources, the number of sources between Con and Pro was 6-35