The Instigator
9spaceking
Pro (for)
Losing
31 Points
The Contender
ArcTImes
Con (against)
Winning
36 Points

The Elo System Should be Changed in DDO

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 17 votes the winner is...
ArcTImes
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/10/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,113 times Debate No: 60255
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (62)
Votes (17)

 

9spaceking

Pro

Resolved: The DDO Elo system should be changed somehow.
Round one acceptance only. No semantic arguments. No trolling.
ArcTImes

Con

I accept.

Debate Round No. 1
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.

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.

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...
ArcTImes

Con


Introduction



I thank 9spaceking for creating this debate. This is an important topic for DDO. I see some people thinking like my opponent here. In this debate, I will show that the problems usually thought as being caused by the DDO Elo system, have other reasons.


The Burden of Proof


Because Pro is the one making the claim that "The DDO Elo system should be changed somehow", he is the one with the burden of proof.


The Elo system


The Elo system is a rating system created by Arpad Elo in the 50's to rate Chess players.
The rating works making predictions of the result of a game based on the ratings of each player, and giving new ratings based on the results compared to the prediction.



A simplification of the system would be: the player with more Elo is predicted to win a match, and the one with less Elo is predicted to lose. The system then tries to adjust the new results for future predictions. The new ratings depend on the other players.


How does it work?


The first things that need to be calculated are the predictions. Each player has a prediction (Expected score) that can be calculated with these formulas: [1]







R_A: Rating of A.

R_B: Rating of B.


After the expected scores are calculated, they need to be compared to the actual results that are 1 if there is a win, 1/2 if there is a tie and a 0 if there is a lose. If the prediction "matches the actual result", the adjust will be minimal (few points won, few points lost) but if it didn't match the actual result, the change is considerable. In other words, the lower rated player win a lot of points and the higher rated players, loses a lot of them. The match is never perfect, so they will always create changes in the ratings.

We take the difference between the expected result and the actual result and multiply it with a constant "K". Then add the result to the old rating to get the new rating. Something like this:




This constant may be different for DDO compared to the one used in chess. This last one usually being 16, and sometimes 32. The changes of the constant don't produce the problems presented by Pro in this debate and changing the constant, or any part of the algorithm is not going to solve the problems.


So in summary, we make predictions of the match (implying that the ratings are accurate). Then we adjust the ratings so they become more precise. If we were wrong in the predictions, the adjustment is considerable.


The DDO Elo system


Variations of the system are used in other games and competitions. DDO uses a variation of the system, but because we can't see the code or formula, we can only make guesses about it.
There is few things we can know. The important one for this debate is that the DDO Elo system is the rating system. Changing the system means that the code that contains the algorithm of the system should be changed. Anything that it's not part of the rating system is not part of this debate.

The reason a lot of times the problems are thought to be caused by the rating system is because people see the "Elo ranking" in the profiles, and think that everything is controlled by the rating system.


Rebuttals


Now that we understand how the Elo system work and that the variation of DDO works in a similar way, I can present the rebuttals.


1. It doesn't stop noob snipers


This is true. The Elo system doesn't stop noob snipers. But no rating system is going to stop noob snipers. This is because every system will treat you as noob the first time you debate.

Here Pro makes a claim: That noob snipers gain tons of Elo but the only evidence of that claim is the final Elo of the players.
Remember that the prediction depends on the ratings of the 2 players in the match. If "the noobs" start with 2000 Elo, every match that a noob sniper wins will give him less Elo.

In other words, the Elo system doesn't stop noob snipers but makes noob sniping less relevant with more matches. It would not surprise me if the Elo system was introduced in the site to discourage noob snipers.

Other problem with Pro's argument is that he is implying that only the Elo of the two players presented as "noob snipers" is not accurate. Maybe Pro's Elo isn't accurate either. Maybe he deserves more Elo. That would give the comparison more sense.


2. It does not accurately display your debating skills


This is also true, but again, this is not problem with the rating system. The Elo rating system, and I'm sure it happens with the DDO variation too, has been tested over the history and it is one of the most accurate rating systems in history [2]. It is used in chess tournaments, some sports like baseball, and even videogames.

This is because there is no order in matches. Everyone debates everyone, which is not bad, it's just doesn't help accuracy.


Arguments


I will present my arguments now with some solutions to try to solve Pro's presented problems.


1. The Elo rating system is accurate


As I stated in my last rebuttal, the Elo rating system is accepted as one of the most accurate rating systems in history [2] and is used in a lot of games and even movies. The picture I posted in my first round is from the movie "The Social Network" that tells the story of the creation of Facebook. In the image you can see the formula for predicting scores (the formula is wrong in the movie) which was used in a site that existed before Facebook. [3]



2. Pro needs to propose a new system


Or at least the changes that would improve the system and solve the problems


The resolution here is about a change on the DDO Elo system, but the system is not big. It's just an algorithm that predicts and controls the ratings. What does it need to be changed? And why that change is going to some the problem?
This was not explained in Pro's round and the point I'm placing this in 'Arguments" instead of "Rebuttals" is because I don't think he can find it. Every problem that he will find, is going to be shared with other rating systems.


3. Possible Solution


This is my proposed solution for the problems.

a. A matchmaking system

The problems can be solved with a matchmaking system. This is problematic (ironic) because debates tend to last days and the resolutions should be picked after the matching is done. This is a usual solution in games because of time and everything you need to play is already there. But it doesn't need to be automatic, just place limits to the possible matches.

b. Non rated debates

This will create the illusion of importance on the rating and debaters are not going to do "rap battles" all the time. One could create debates and choose if the debate is rated or not. Or maybe having the rated debates only in tournaments.
Having a tournament only rating can be also a solution of showing a more accurate rating because you can't avoid other participants.

This would also reduce the problems with people not willing to debate low rated debaters and people dodging high rated debaters.

c. Don't let the noobs debate!

Having 2 different groups of debates, new members should have the option of having non rated debates only, until they reach a considerable amount of debates (maybe 5 or 10). This way, "noobs" debate each other until they are prepared or have enough experience to debate "non-noobs".

And "non noobs" will debate other "non noobs" avoiding noob snipers to an extent.

d. Don't count forfeitures

Forfeitures are a problem. If we don't use the Elo rating system when there is an automatic forfeiture, it will not grant unnecessary points.

-------------------------------------------------------------


This is a solution that would need a couple of changes, but everything is made inside of this "non automatic matchmaking system". Nothing on this solution changes the Elo system.

Thanks. Vote CON.

Sources


1. http://www.glicko.net...
2. http://www.glicko.net...
3. The algorithm scene - The Social Network

Debate Round No. 2
9spaceking

Pro

My opponent analysis the chess elo system. Then, he compares it to the DDO elo system. Good job. The DDO elo formula actually is D=100* (w+9L)/10W, with a 25 point advatage to the instigator and 25 point discount from the contender, as calculated by many to be true [1], so that the voters will not be confused and neither will ArcTImes.

1. Stopping noob snipers
How do we know I really deserve more elo? Although I have defeated such high-elo, I am also defeated by those of not-so-high elo. I lost to Ajab in my speciality, School uniforms, and he only has 2,271 elo. [2][3] I'm also losing a serious debate against DannyC, who only has 2,320 elo. [4] In fact, once I even got defeated by lannan13, who has a lowly 1816 (in comparison to my elo of over 2,100). [5] As seen here my elo is probably only slightly low at the best. Maybe I deserve an elo of, say, 2150, but that's not a very big increase from my current elo. My elo pretty accurately displays my skills, but those noob-snipers, definitely not!

2. Accurately displaying debating skills
My opponent hasn't shown why inaccurate display of skills isn't a problem. Again, why is it NOT a problem? My opponent needs to show how if your elo is low while your debating skills are awesome, it ain't a problem. On the other hand, I have clearly shown that people would more likely ignore a debater with low elo, or that the particular debater would feel bad about their lowly elo.

REBUTTALS
1. It's accurate?
I'm not too sure about that. The elo formula is D=100* (w+9L)/10W, but is that really the best formula possible? As far as we're concerned, this has no "distribution model". However, even the top rating systems utilize distribution models. If DDO elo system had a logistic distrubution model-- the most effective model, then it would be much better and accurate. [6] In addition, 100 is too big, if 100 is the true number used. "If the K-factor coefficient is set too large, there will be too much sensitivity", source [7] states. Furthermore, if I am wrong and the actual formula is calculated 10* (W+9L)/W, that's still not the most accurate formula! "The chess statistician Jeff Sonas believes that the original K=10 value (for players rated above 2400) is inaccurate in Elo's work." source [7] says. This is supported by Sonas's own website, that suggests a K-factor of 24 has the most accuracy, rather than 10 or 100. [8]

2. New system
Oh yeah, I got a solution. I stated it above.
-Logistic distribution used for the DDO formula
-A K-factor of 24

This is new but it solves both of my problems a little bit. Noob snipers earn far less elo and those who instigate debates and win them against awesome people gain more points.
-Bigger advantage for the instigator, or bigger disadvatage for the contender, possibly increase 25 to 30 points

Possible solutions?
a. Matchmaking
This is an interesting idea, but it already exists. You can make a debate impossible to accept, as well as limit who can accept, or make only a certain person accept.

B. Non-rated debates
That's technically changing the elo system. It's destroying the advantages/disadvantages, and changes the elo to D=0* (0+0)/infinity

C. Don't let noobs debate
Uh-huh. That doesn't really turn out well. My point is, noobs might improve, but noobs might not improve. One good example is diarygirl4u2c. Regardless of having 470 debates [9], she still has terrible spelling and does not exactly learn from her mistakes. In fact, I defeated her with less than 150 words in total! [10]

D. Don't count ff's
Unfortunately, ff's always grant conduct point in the bias towards the non-forfeiter. We need this to keep noobs in check or teach experienced people to time their rounds carefully and look forward in their calendar.

Thus, I have shown that the elo system needs to change. Most noobies don't know how to set their debates to limit who can accept. And the formula currently used isn't right; the formula can't be consistent for everyone. There needs to be a distribution--and logistic is the best way.

Unto you, con.
[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://www.debate.org...
[3] Link to debate: http://www.debate.org...
[4] http://www.debate.org...
[5] http://www.debate.org...
[6] http://en.chessbase.com...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8] http://en.chessbase.com...-
[9] debate.org/dairygirl4u2c
[10] http://www.debate.org...
ArcTImes

Con

Introduction


I thank my opponent for his rebuttals. I will now present my own rebuttals and show that "The DDO Elo system should be changed somehow" can't be defended.


The DDO Elo system


In his last round, my opponent claimed that the formula for the DDO Elo system is " D=100* (w+9L)/10W" and presents a source of someone answering a thread in the main forum.

If you follow the link in the second post from the Pro's source (1), one can see another discussion. Here, the user Ore_Ele talks about how he was the one that created that formula, but he was not sure if it was coded like that. So there is uncertainty on how the system actually works in DDO.

But even if that was the formula and we knew every detail of how it works, the problems mentioned by Pro are not caused by the rating system.


Rebuttals


1. Stopping noob snipers


Pro claims that reducing the constant "K" to 24 would solve both of the problems "a little bit". There are some issues with that:

- The "100" in the formula is not the constant "K" from the Elo original formula. The formula presented by Pro follows the same principles of Elo, but it's not original Elo. There is no reason to think that the "100" was intended to be the constant from original Elo.

- The source I presented doesn't talk about the DDO system. Just a quick comparison that will make any argument of Pro invalid, and a comparison that we all can see and know is that in the original Elo system, players start with 1400 points and in DDO, we start with 2000 points. Everything has bigger numbers in the DDO Elo system. So not only Pro has zero reasons to ask a reduction of the constant (which is probably not 100 anyway), but the formula may require a bigger number because those are the numbers used from the start.

- The reason the source's claims are related to the difference of level between Chess grandmasters and non grandmasters. This has nothing to do with DDO so it can't be used as a reason to change the rating system.

Other thing that Pro claims is that reducing this "K" will make noob sniper less efficient because they will receive less point. The problem with this is that everyone would be receiving less points. That means that the numbers will get smaller but the problems will still exist.


2. Accurately displaying debating skills


Here pro claims that I did not explain why this is not a problem. I never said it was not a problem. I said that this was not caused by the Elo rating system because any other system would have the same problem.
The reason of this is that the system needs fairness, that doesn't exist because any debater can choose his opponents to an extent and the system is more accurate the more debates there are, and having 10 debates or 20 debates per debater would make everything less accurate, but the system would be the same.


3. Con's solution


I offered a solution, just to show some examples of things that can fix the problems Pro presented. I'm not advocating those solutions. Pro treated the different parts of my solution as little different solutions. The truth is that the parts of the solution are intended to work together.

a. Matchmaking system

My opponent claims that there is a matchmaking system because a debater has the option to limit and filter the challengers to get the opponents they want. But this is actually the problem. Different debaters debate with different groups of people. Of course the ratings will seem different, like they are not matching.
I was talking about something like, if I had X Elo points I would be able to play only against debaters from x - 200 to x + 200 Elo points. This is just an example of the idea.

b. Non rated debates

This is not changing the Elo system. It's like saying that not using a back account is changing the banking system.
There will be no change in the code of the site that controls the Elo rating system for DDO. It will just add the option of a debate at doesn't use that system. It is as simple as that.

c. Don't let noobs debate

Again, this is part of the whole solution. Of course not all the "noobs" are going to improve after some debates against other noobs, but this is giving experience to some of the new debaters and works as a filter for the rated debates. How? Simple. A lot of new users have only one debate where they forfeit all the rounds and never come back. This will not be part of rated debates anymore, and it will not affect the accuracy of the points.

d. Don't count the ff

What I meant here is that full forfeitures should not be counted. If 2 users are debating and one of them forfeits one round, of course it should be penalized with points of conduct for the debate, but if there is a all-rounds-forfeiture, then there is no reason to give points to the winner because it would affect accuracy also.


New argument


Changes in the code requires paid work


Because Pro is not able to show what should be changed and how it would affect the site, we should have to make a research and understand how to solve those problems and force the solutions in the rating system.
Then developers should write code that makes the system work in the site. Those developers should be payed for their work.
This is not a good method. Unless Pro is able to show exactly where the problem is and that we should necessarily change that thing, then we should not try to do it.


Conclusion


Pro was not able to present a compelling case for a change in the DDO Elo system.

All the problems he presented are caused by other parts of the site or behavior in the community.


No other rating system would exist without of those problems. Unless Pro is able to show a rating system that solve those problems and why, then the resolution is negated.


Thanks. Vote Con.


Source


1. http://www.debate.org...

Debate Round No. 3
9spaceking

Pro

I may have been a bit unclear. Since in chess the only difference is between non-grandmasters and grandmasters, certainly the elo system could improve with the top-debaters haveing a different formula from the rest of the debaters. Once again, the distribution might be a bit different due to the K-factor, but as far as we're concerned, the same exact formula is used for noobies as it is used for Mikal, which is a bit unfair for both those noobs as well as Mikal. The same problems won't exist because the research shows especially in chess that using different K-factors can be more accurate. As for the argument you say for more accrately displaying debating skills, the big problem is multiple accounts, every single time the guy decides to switch accounts for some reason, they go back to 2,000 elo. I think the elo calculation formula should give a boost or a disadvantage each time someone switches accounts, so if some dude was 1,000 elo and wanted the easy way out, we'd still give him 1,900, (10% of his original elo) something to work with, and a chance to get back up, while still hindering him a little bit to display his skills before he switched accounts.

Matchmaking system: this is an interesting idea. However this new system now prevents you from challenging a tough debater and getting a challenge. For example the two great debaters on this site, many people claim they are both the greatest on the website, however, their elo is massively apart. On one hand we have 4,386 elo Raisor [1], on the other hand we have the humongous 6,460 Bluesteel [2]. Based on your formula, these two amazing dudes can't challagenge each other for the ultimate challenge to see who's really the best. It also prevents other people from challenging top debaters. Although we know there is little chance for the challenger to win, the debate still increases your skills a lot, and you learn from the failure.

Non-rated debates: I forgot to tell you. This is actualy already possible. If you agree to tie the debate and hire a good judge or an inactive DDO user, then certainly nobody's elo would change.

Don't count full forfeits: Full forfeits are dumb. The noobs should be taught lessons about it, and the only way to do so is to have them lose the debate. It's the only way.

Requires paid work: I told you. Here's the problem: the K-factor is too static, it needs to change depending on the elo of the DDO user. Once again, another good suggestion is a bigger advantage or a bigger disadvantage, especially for the lower-elo users. These changes certainly will improve the elo-system and make it more accurate.

CONCLUSION
I've shown a better elo system than the current, and also shown the opponent's changes to be pretty much useless, as most of them already exist or fulfill a useful purpose.
This was a good debate ArcTimes. I hope I become the second person to beat you (after Fuzzy). :P

VOTE ME.
[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://www.debate.org...
ArcTImes

Con

Introduction


I thank Pro for the debate.
Pro has been making baseless assumptions about the system. It's true that everyone is able to gather information and make decision based on this information, or you can even ask administrator or developers about the system, but my opponent did not make anything of this.

I will present my last rebuttals and a summary in this round.


Rebuttals


1. The difference between Chess and DDO


Pro claims that the DDO rating system is unfair because the formula is the same for the "noobies" as it is for the highest rated debaters.
He is using my source to create an excuse for lack of fairness. This is completely absurd. The reason there is a difference is because Chess Grand Masters play in tournaments designed only for them and a little more accuracy can be used.
If you check any other rating system that is based on Elo for chess that it's not the one FIDE (World Chess Federation) uses, you will notice that it uses the same formula for everyone.
That's because the same formula for everyone is not unfair. That's the point of having a rating system, that it is able to rate everyone.


2. Noob sniping


My opponent didn't address this issue in his last round, so please extend.


3. Accurately displaying skills


Here my opponent presents a new problem. Users can create new accounts (change of account) "resetting" their stats.
Again Pro presents a problem that will exist in any rating system. This problem is less "problematic" using converging differential equations. This makes the system more accurate with more debates and it's exactly what the DDO rating system is using right now, and it's the same idea of the Elo rating system.

Then he presents a solution without explaining why it would solve the problem.
People have different reasons to change accounts, and users are still going to debate the same group of users they used to debate before the changing of account, so they will quickly get the same Elo they used to have. In other words, the solution presented by Pro will not work.


4. Con's proposed solution


I presented a solution in my second round just to give an idea of where the problem lies.
It was a solution that consisted in several parts that should be implemented at the same time.
Because Pro is attacking problems that would occur if each part was implemented separately I will not divide the solution anymore, for easy understanding.

First Pro claims that with my solution, they can't debate each other.
One part of my solution has non rated debates and rated debates, so you can challenge any user using unrated debates. I believe rated debates should have limits. If the 200 Elo difference only debates is too much because we are talking about debates that need preparation and people always want challenges, a reset of Elo and/or tournaments only Elo would be a great idea.

Or we can conserve the Elo as it is now and add tournament only Elo. The tournament only Elo would represent your skill more accurately because you would not dodge, noob snipe and you should debate people with similar skill. That's only for people that would like to challenge themselves against the best debaters, and know where they can place. Tournaments like Mikal's tier tournaments would benefit of this because the division would be more accurate and the same tournament would represent these changes in Elo necessary to make the system more accurate.

Having ties to make "unrated debates" is ridiculous. Debaters want other debaters judge their work and vote for them. They also want to win their debates. And the fact that the solution is just a workaround is a reason why people don't use it.
And again, this is just a part of the solution. The solution is complete.

Then Pro claims that not counting Full forfeits is a bad idea because "noobs" should be taught a lesson. This is true. What I meant is that full FF should not count to the side of the winner, because it would be giving Elo that the winner didn't won debating.
This would not be a problem if the full FF were uncommon, but sadly they are pretty common if you accept challenge of most of the debaters.


5. Paid work argument


Pro keeps assuming that the "100" in the formula he gave is the "K" in the Elo formula. He also assumes that the formula he gave is the one implemented in the site.
He didn't address the fact that the numbers are bigger in DDO and the K would also be bigger anyway.
In other words, Pro has no ground to make decisions related to the rating system or to know where the problems lies.


Summary


-Pro was not able to present a compelling case for a change on the DDO rating system. This change would require work and money if necessary.

-He presented some problems that will exist in every rating system and in the DDO system with any little or big change that he propose.

-He made a lot of assumptions but didn't prove anything, and even if his assumptions were true his solutions would have the same problems.

-I presented a solution that would solve his problems so his "change" is not necessary and the resolution can't be defended.

-For the resolution to be defended Pro's assumptions have to be true, his solutions have to work and he has to prove they work, and he has to prove that those changes are necessary, and only possible if these changes are in the DDO Elo system, and that those changes are worth the money, time and work invested.

-Sadly for Pro's case, he was not able to defend any of those points. Every point was rebutted.


Message to the voters


A change in the DDO rating system is a popular position. I ask to the voters that if you share this position and even if you have a good idea for a change, you need to take Pro's arguments and ideas into account in the voting.
Pro's arguments and assumptions were ungrounded and he was not able to prove that a change was needed or that it would solve the problems he presented.

Thanks for the debate. It was a fun debate. And thanks to the voters and readers.
Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 4
62 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by thett3 2 years ago
thett3
My confusion stems from the fact that I simply don't understand how giving unethical voters tools to increase their voting value makes things any better.

Fudging a vote under either system is incredibly easy. I vehemently disagree that the old ballot is any better at weeding out bad voters on a practical level--max has said all you need to do is provide a justification for all points awarded. Had I added "I think Cons sources were better and pros conduct was rude in my opinion" I would have doubled the value of my vote and Airmax would be powerless to stop me. If votebombing is so rampant under the new system we should see some evidence of it happening

Like I said, we should debate this.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
@thett:
It's not that one system is simply better, it's that there are trade-offs to using either one. Overall giving the instigator the options of 7point or WTA seems to be the best.
"gives bad voters a blank check to increase the value of their votes" what part of "makes it rather obvious which voters lack the mental integrity to obey DDO's voting standards" do you not understand? By making such obvious, those votes can be easily deleted, and the voters contacted to help them improve their future RFDs. What comparable mechanism does the WTA system use to identify people who do not know how to properly grade debates by the DDO standard?
Posted by thett3 2 years ago
thett3
Ragnar, I've never understood why a system that gives bad voters a blank check to increase the value of their votes is superior to one that doesn't. After debating two very good debaters on the subject and still not understanding the reasoning behind that position, I doubt I ever will. I would be willing to debate the old vs new voting system a third time if you want to
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
lol, why points on conduct?
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
@thett:
I can't speak for the instigator, but the 7point system makes it rather obvious which voters lack the mental integrity to obey DDO's voting standards. Thus your comment about how many will be certainly deleted, invalidates the premise of your question.
Posted by thett3 2 years ago
thett3
Lol the voting is so awful that whatever the score wen this voting period ends, the winner is still up in the air as some votes will certainly be deleted. Also, why are people still using the old 7 point ballot? It's a piece of shitt
Posted by debatability 2 years ago
debatability
lol, some of these votes are awful. I will note that I think it was a really close debate. Neither debater really seemed to fully understand how the DDO elo system worked. I think that, as con pointed out, no one does. Perhaps (and I see that thett touched on this below) if 9space had brought up a change of the elo system that allows DDO users to better understand how the formula works, I might have voted pro. Really, pro could have listed countless problems with the elo system, but if pro can't prove how his plan will actually fix such problems... or even prove that a change in general to the elo system will fix souch problems, he hasn't fufilled BoP (even under a shared BoP).
Posted by debatability 2 years ago
debatability
I'll go ahead and evaluate this argument by argument. I agree that pro should have the BoP since he is making the positive claim; note that he agrees with this in the first round. However, I will note that my decision would be the same even with a shared BoP.

Noob Snipers: So, pro starts out by talking about the problem of noob snipers. This argument is pretty flawed because he doesn't show certain debaters get high elo from solely debating noobs (though they often do, pro didn't point this out). Rather, pro showed that debaters with super high elo lose to debaters with super low elo because such high elo debaters are noob snipers. Con jumps in and says that the the current system actually discourages noob snipers. I don't really buy this as a voter, but pro barely addressed. Rather, pro explained that while his specific elo is accurate, noob snipers have an inaccurate elo.

Inaccuracy / Accuracy: Pro gives examples of several very underrated debaters, claiming that they should have a higher elo. Con points out that elo has been proven in history to be the most accurate system. However, as pro points out, con doesn't do much to address the idea of underrated / overrated debaters due to elo. The problem with pro's argument, is that YYW and Envisage's low elos would probably not be much better in comparison to others with a new elo system. Also, things besides debating skills affect elo. Examples being, who debaters choose to debate as well as how often debaters debate. Con didn't really address this, but I thought that was worth mentioning.

I feel like con wins on these points for several reasons. Firstly, pro does a horrible job of explaining how his adjusted elo formula will provide solvency for such issues. Secondly, con's counterplans (which I will evaluate soon) were poorly attacked by pro; con was able to show why they are genuinely more effective than con's elo system.
Posted by debatability 2 years ago
debatability
Possible solutions: Essentially, pro's response to the various solutions presented by pro were that they already exist and that such problems aren't going away. Con points out that they don't *really* exist, but can be utilized in an obscure way. The thing is, these solutions solve for most of the problems pro pointed out; con was also able to better explain the impact his solutions would have than pro was. Going back and evaluating pro's case, we can see that the whole problem of noob sniping is essentially solved by not counting FF's. This was not a huge point in the debate, but I will note that FF's really are the reason that noob snipers can have such a high elo. I can't buy pro's point about the importance of FF debates to be voted on in order to teach the noobs a lesson because generally noobs that FF leave the site without looking at the debate again. However, con didn't really say much about this so it didn't affect my decision. Looking at pro's second point pertaining to underrated / overrated debaters, con's points on the match making system and non rated debates also solve for this much better than pro's plan can. So, con's thorough explanation of possible solutions is really winning him the round.

Money / Paid Work: This argument really didn't carry much weight in the debate; I also thought con didn't word it very well, but I think I should evaluate it. This was essentially dropped by pro. If pro cannot specifically explain why it should be changed and how the change will positively impact DDO, pro has not filled BoP. Pro clearly does not understand ELO to the extent that a payed developer would, meaning he is unqualified to criticize the ELO system with his limited knowledge over it.
Posted by debatability 2 years ago
debatability
To conclude this RFD, I think it was a pretty clear win for con. Con was able to provide counterplans that were siginificanly better and more effective than changing the elo system. Con was also able to prove that the current elo system is as accurate as possible; thus, pro has not fufilled his BoP.
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
ShadowKingStudios
9spacekingArcTImesTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Good arguments. But Con's format was an eye sore. The format irked me from the beginning till end. In addition, appealing to the voters in rounds, unless done through a creative medium, always appears to me as a mild tactic of direct influence. Conduct to Pro his argument was better.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
9spacekingArcTImesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: I gained more from Pro's sources, though I tend to think Con has the better argument. I cannot see any reason for changing a system that is in place and has been working reasonably well for some time. It's like my own sport, where I disagree with the scoring system, but, since that system is used internationally I had to learn how to work around it, just as people have to learn how to work around DDO's ELO system. Moving the goals half way through a football match doesn't seem like a good decision. There will always be those who exploit loopholes in any system. It's a fact of dealing with human nature.
Vote Placed by creedhunt 2 years ago
creedhunt
9spacekingArcTImesTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I feel as though neither debater addressed the resolution very well. The "noob-sniping" is certainly a problem that should (and can) be addressed, however pro did not properly suggest solutions. Some grammatical errors on Con's behalf, and Pro's sources were better.
Vote Placed by Mr.Lincoln 2 years ago
Mr.Lincoln
9spacekingArcTImesTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Very good debate, Everything was tied except that I thought pro used better grammar. But I found Cons arguments a bit more convincing
Vote Placed by jh1234l 2 years ago
jh1234l
9spacekingArcTImesTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments: Pro had the BOP, but did not fulfill his BOP as he did not prove anything beyond subjective judgements of how high of an ELO certain people should get. Pro also assumes that just because the ELO shows the probability of winning, the person with the lower ELO point MUST lose and the system is flawed if the person does not. Pro's argument relies on his subjective judgement on how high of a ELO the people listed by him should get. ArcTimes made good arguments about the fact that all rating systems can be biased, and that changing the system has a cost, but that argument was inadequately addressed. Sources: Con used non-profile sources. Conduct: Pro called Teemo a "noob sniper" based on the aforementioned subjective judgement, which may be offensive to Teemo, S/G: THIS IS NOT FOR S/G, but rather because con assumed that new debaters never join when trying to refute point 1 in round 2.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
9spacekingArcTImesTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Should it be changed? Yeah. But I don't find Pro's reasoning too convincing. He didn't convince me that the specific change he put forward would work :\
Vote Placed by debatability 2 years ago
debatability
9spacekingArcTImesTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: comments; good debate guys
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
9spacekingArcTImesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This is a very, very hard resolution to negate. Con needs to show that the ELO system is either flawless (which he does not), or that its problems exist (in the same quantity and at the same scope) as all other potential systems. Con just doesn't meet his BOP here, which forces my hand. Pro wins the arguments. Good debate.
Vote Placed by TheRussian 2 years ago
TheRussian
9spacekingArcTImesTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I have changed my vote after reading through again and reconsidering. The problems that Pro discussed could be found in any voting system, not just Elo. The Elo system isn't the problem, it's the debaters themselves. It would be smarter to change the debating system instead of the scoring system. Con showed several solutions to the problems Pro presented that would be more effective than changing the scoring system, which would bring the same problems as the Elo scoring system. I apologize for the inconvenience.
Vote Placed by TheLastMan 2 years ago
TheLastMan
9spacekingArcTImesTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: A change in RFD. Given in comments.