Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Voting Drought

ccstate4peat
Posts: 2,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 4:03:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think we brought this upon ourselves. I was looking over older debates and checked the votes section to see what people voted like before you could see who it was and how they voted. There were tons of 7 pointers, but that's not what surprised me, it's how many votes there were. When people could vote anonymously, they did it all the time. Now, many if not most debates have mandatory RFDs and everyone can see them. With no voter anonymity, we consider 6 votes on a debate a lot and feel lucky if more than 2 people vote on our debate. I don't know how much voting decreased from the time we could see how people voted to requiring RFDs because I was gone or just didn't care about debates. With that having been said, I'm sure there was a decrease in votes after voter anonymity was abolished and another smaller drop when RFDs were included with voting. It's been pretty obvious that people want quality over quantity by making RFDs mandatory and wanting to know how people voted, but is it really higher quality when only 2 or 3 people are deciding the outcome of a debate? It feels like 15 people all giving 7 point votes for whomever they think won is better than 3 people giving 3 point votes. With the 15 people dropping 7 bombs, it's like someone wins 9-6. Is that worse than someone winning 4-2? With more people voting, you get a more accurate spread of what the majority thinks. When 3 people vote, you might just get stuck with 2 people voting for the side they agreed with before the debate even though they lost. Sure they have to leave RFDs, but they will see that their side had more convincing arguments among other things and give them the win. With all this recent bitching about lack of voter participation, think about whether you'd like quantity or quality. We can't have both here as we've seen so think about which you think is a more practical solution. I personally don't care what the system is. I'm just not interested in debates anymore so I don't vote. I'm just sick of hearing about how your debates aren't getting any votes and how we all need to vote on it. I don't want to read 5 round, 8,000 character debates. I don't want to write about why I voted the way I did. I would probably vote more if I could click five times and be done with it. Then again I don't read debates unless I see one that I'm really interested in and that's about as rare as me doing a serious debate (never happened, never will) so I'm not advocating for the old system. I'm just saying that it's not as bad as you think it was and that you can't have quality and quantity. Pick one.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 4:06:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I suppose the question is, do we want more votes by going back to the way things were, or find a path moving forward?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
ccstate4peat
Posts: 2,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 4:07:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 4:05:38 PM, OreEle wrote:
Hey, voting drought was my phrase, lol.

And it's a good one. That's why I used it.

At 3/23/2011 4:06:09 PM, OreEle wrote:
I suppose the question is, do we want more votes by going back to the way things were, or find a path moving forward?

I think it's better to rethink it as a whole, but if I contribute to it, I may have to vote...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 4:28:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's very interesting that OreEle brings up this point when he was the one being bitchy to me last week as I pointed out inevitable discrepancies with the leader board (winning).

Let's agree that not a lot of people vote. Looking at my last few (non-tournament) debates, the number of voters was 2, 3 and 2. Now because people usually award S/G and Sources as a tie, that means debates are essentially being decided by 2 people or 3 on a lucky day. Apparently I'm not the only debater who sees this. So suppose a Christianity debate is done, and the atheist blows the Christian away, but the 2 people who just so happen to (allegedly) read the debate are Christian, vote Christian and thus the Christian wins. In that way the "drought" becomes evidently problematic. People usually read debates that interest them, and that brings a lot of bias to the very few votes that a debate even gets.

So yes, this in addition to my other point about forfeits and quality of opponents among other things pretty much affirms my case about an inevitably inaccurate leader board but I digress :)
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 4:31:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 4:28:05 PM, Danielle wrote:
It's very interesting that OreEle brings up this point when he was the one being bitchy to me last week as I pointed out inevitable discrepancies with the leader board (winning).

Let's agree that not a lot of people vote. Looking at my last few (non-tournament) debates, the number of voters was 2, 3 and 2. Now because people usually award S/G and Sources as a tie, that means debates are essentially being decided by arguments alone by 2 people or 3 on a lucky day.

Typo edit.
President of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 4:32:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 4:28:05 PM, Danielle wrote:
It's very interesting that OreEle brings up this point when he was the one being bitchy to me last week as I pointed out inevitable discrepancies with the leader board (winning).

Let's agree that not a lot of people vote. Looking at my last few (non-tournament) debates, the number of voters was 2, 3 and 2. Now because people usually award S/G and Sources as a tie, that means debates are essentially being decided by 2 people or 3 on a lucky day. Apparently I'm not the only debater who sees this. So suppose a Christianity debate is done, and the atheist blows the Christian away, but the 2 people who just so happen to (allegedly) read the debate are Christian, vote Christian and thus the Christian wins. In that way the "drought" becomes evidently problematic. People usually read debates that interest them, and that brings a lot of bias to the very few votes that a debate even gets.

So yes, this in addition to my other point about forfeits and quality of opponents among other things pretty much affirms my case about an inevitably inaccurate leader board but I digress :)

Way to twist this into a leader board issue. On a side note, you thought that was bitchy? Me pointing out your complaining?

So do you have anything to say about the drought, like any solutions or is the apethetic party leader clueless still?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 4:33:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I've talked to the owners and they said that some updates were suppose to be on their way, but no news on what the updates were, nor when they would actually come.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 4:38:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 4:32:02 PM, OreEle wrote:
Way to twist this into a leader board issue. On a side note, you thought that was bitchy? Me pointing out your complaining?

Also I wasn't complaining - just pointing out how/why you were wrong (to which of course you had no response to my contentions, just like you don't now). It's okay -- I see you're just bitter that I embarrassed you by turning your own arguments against you.

So do you have anything to say about the drought, like any solutions or is the apethetic party leader clueless still?

Is there any particular reason why you're calling me names or are you just a little bitch in general?
President of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 4:45:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 4:38:30 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 3/23/2011 4:32:02 PM, OreEle wrote:
Way to twist this into a leader board issue. On a side note, you thought that was bitchy? Me pointing out your complaining?

Also I wasn't complaining - just pointing out how/why you were wrong (to which of course you had no response to my contentions, just like you don't now). It's okay -- I see you're just bitter that I embarrassed you by turning your own arguments against you.

No, you were complaining. Your opening post was a rant agianst the notion of a leader board, not an argument, and you didn't do anything about my argument, because I didn't make one, I proposed ideas for a new forumla, not make an argument for the need of a new one.


So do you have anything to say about the drought, like any solutions or is the apethetic party leader clueless still?

Is there any particular reason why you're calling me names or are you just a little bitch in general?

never called you a name. In case you forgot, you were the leader of the apethetic party.

Personally, I find emotional rants rather comical. But I'd also ask that you stop derailing this thread. If you want to have a hissy fit about the leader board, you are free to go back to that one and post more in it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 4:46:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 4:43:43 PM, mongeese wrote:
I'd rather see three honest votes with feedback than twelve votes with no accountability.

I'd agree with that. Though it would be nice to maximize the quantity of quality votes.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
ccstate4peat
Posts: 2,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 4:52:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 4:46:56 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/23/2011 4:43:43 PM, mongeese wrote:
I'd rather see three honest votes with feedback than twelve votes with no accountability.

I'd agree with that. Though it would be nice to maximize the quantity of quality votes.

But that's not happening...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 4:53:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 4:45:38 PM, OreEle wrote:
No, you were complaining. Your opening post was a rant agianst the notion of a leader board, not an argument,

I said the leader board is not an accurate representation of the better debaters on this site, therefore making it completely irrelevant. That's an argument. Saying the leader board needs to be fixed or removed is a complaint, neither of which I did.

never called you a name. In case you forgot, you were the leader of the apethetic party.

I did forget lol that's how apathetic I am. But in fairness you are pretty bitchy to me sometimes.

Personally, I find emotional rants rather comical. But I'd also ask that you stop derailing this thread. If you want to have a hissy fit about the leader board, you are free to go back to that one and post more in it.

First, I didn't rant. You might wanna look up the word "rant." Second, I didn't have a hissy fit, nor was I emotional, nor am I trying to derail this thread. What I'm saying is perfectly pertinent. The OP is complaining about the lack of voting, and I'm making the connection that this is problematic because it results in biased voting thus biased winning. If you disagree then I'd love to hear it. If you don't then stop complaining just to bitch at me because what I'm saying makes perfect sense and that's obvious.

But no, I don't have a solution. Do you? A formula or something mayhaps?
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 4:56:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
People ask me to vote all the time. If it's a n00b in a mass PM complaining that they're losing then I'll ignore it, but if a regular or someone is asking me to vote because nobody's reading or they want a thorough RFD, then I pretty much always say yes. I don't look at the "Recently Ended" debate tabs and only vote if I come across a topic that interests me by noticing others commenting on it.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 4:58:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
But again this brings up the problem that if only those specifically asked are voting, there will inevitably be a lot of bias :P
President of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 5:00:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 4:52:20 PM, ccstate4peat wrote:
At 3/23/2011 4:46:56 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/23/2011 4:43:43 PM, mongeese wrote:
I'd rather see three honest votes with feedback than twelve votes with no accountability.

I'd agree with that. Though it would be nice to maximize the quantity of quality votes.

But that's not happening...

true, but what to do to achieve that. Is it fair to say that that is the final goal that everyone would like (or at least most people).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 5:04:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
OreEle do you not agree that asking people to vote is the only way to really solve this problem?

I don't know if mandatory voting is a good idea. I feel like that would drive people away from the site, or encourage shoddy voting because people would just be doing it to get it over with.
President of DDO
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 5:06:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 5:04:53 PM, Danielle wrote:
OreEle do you not agree that asking people to vote is the only way to really solve this problem?

I don't know if mandatory voting is a good idea. I feel like that would drive people away from the site, or encourage shoddy voting because people would just be doing it to get it over with.

i agree? :)
signature
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 5:07:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 4:58:14 PM, Danielle wrote:
But again this brings up the problem that if only those specifically asked are voting, there will inevitably be a lot of bias :P

True. You'll end up with voting blocks forming naturally. There was some christian PM that went out several months ago that included me on it. I ended the subscription or whatever the button in the lower right hand corner, so I don't know if any voting block was formed, or if it was used to try to get more christians voting on christian debates, but you can see how that method benefits those that try to load the voting in their favor.

That is why I suggested before a system that would attempt to reward people (with simple recognition) who vote more often, and reward people who provide more useful RFDs (the thumbs up). While those can still be manipulated by a voting block to a degree, it would be less suseptible than a voting system with no features (as we saw before with all the "vote bombing" when votes were private).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 5:08:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 5:04:53 PM, Danielle wrote:
OreEle do you not agree that asking people to vote is the only way to really solve this problem?

I don't know if mandatory voting is a good idea. I feel like that would drive people away from the site, or encourage shoddy voting because people would just be doing it to get it over with.

I don't support mandatory voting because of the reason's you just listed.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 5:13:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 4:53:36 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 3/23/2011 4:45:38 PM, OreEle wrote:
No, you were complaining. Your opening post was a rant agianst the notion of a leader board, not an argument,

I said the leader board is not an accurate representation of the better debaters on this site, therefore making it completely irrelevant. That's an argument. Saying the leader board needs to be fixed or removed is a complaint, neither of which I did.

And it will never be 100% accurate. No one ever claimed that it could, only that we can make it more accurate. There is a reason that at the end of the year we do a vote on who we believe is the best debater, rather than simply turning to the leader board.


never called you a name. In case you forgot, you were the leader of the apethetic party.

I did forget lol that's how apathetic I am. But in fairness you are pretty bitchy to me sometimes.

I can get bitchy to anyone sometimes. It's my right as an emotionally sensitive man.


Personally, I find emotional rants rather comical. But I'd also ask that you stop derailing this thread. If you want to have a hissy fit about the leader board, you are free to go back to that one and post more in it.

First, I didn't rant. You might wanna look up the word "rant." Second, I didn't have a hissy fit, nor was I emotional, nor am I trying to derail this thread. What I'm saying is perfectly pertinent. The OP is complaining about the lack of voting, and I'm making the connection that this is problematic because it results in biased voting thus biased winning. If you disagree then I'd love to hear it. If you don't then stop complaining just to bitch at me because what I'm saying makes perfect sense and that's obvious.

But no, I don't have a solution. Do you? A formula or something mayhaps?

I don't believe there is any way that we can proactively solve bad voting. The only way would be to encourage a lot of voting, then retroactively to "correct" obvious voting frauds on a case by case basis. I know that will likely never get support, so I usually don't bother mentioning it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 5:28:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 5:07:29 PM, OreEle wrote:
That is why I suggested before a system that would attempt to reward people (with simple recognition) who vote more often, and reward people who provide more useful RFDs (the thumbs up). While those can still be manipulated by a voting block to a degree, it would be less suseptible than a voting system with no features (as we saw before with all the "vote bombing" when votes were private).

Whoops - I forgot about this proposal. Okay so here are my proposed solutions:

1. Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down

People besides the debaters can rate if an RFD is good or bad. Even if you disagree with the person's vote, if their analysis is thorough and seemingly unbiased then it should get a thumbs up. On a person's profile it can show how many thumbs up they have. In addition to gaining recognition as a good judge, you also get recognition for taking the time to vote at all. More importantly, I think the community would feel a sense of reciprocation. If I am doing 300 debates but only have 3 thumbs up (meaning I'm not voting well or not voting at all), then people will have an incentive not to judge my debates. I'm sure we'll get a feel for how much the average person judges to see who's not helping out. People will be hesitant to judge their debates in return.

2. Profile Section

Just how our profile displays debates we've recently debates on, it can list the debates we recently voted on. It doesn't have to show how we vote but just the date and/or resolution, so once again to see who never votes. If I go to your profile and see the last time you voted was a year ago, then I might not vote on your debate.

3. Vote Minimum Requirements

We now have the option to mandate RFDs for voters. Instigators of a debate also have the option to set voting time limits, such as a week, month, etc. Well what if the instigator can implement a specific voting requirement (possibly along with the time limit)? For instance even if the 1 month period has past, if only 2 votes have been cast and you want 10 then you can set the minimum to 10 and extend the time. If a debate is in the voting period for a long time and people get anxious, I'm sure they'll start asking people to read it or posting it in their signature or whatever.

All of these suggestions are problematic but meh.

Proposal #2 is my favorite.
President of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 5:46:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 5:28:44 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 3/23/2011 5:07:29 PM, OreEle wrote:
That is why I suggested before a system that would attempt to reward people (with simple recognition) who vote more often, and reward people who provide more useful RFDs (the thumbs up). While those can still be manipulated by a voting block to a degree, it would be less suseptible than a voting system with no features (as we saw before with all the "vote bombing" when votes were private).

Whoops - I forgot about this proposal. Okay so here are my proposed solutions:

1. Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down

People besides the debaters can rate if an RFD is good or bad. Even if you disagree with the person's vote, if their analysis is thorough and seemingly unbiased then it should get a thumbs up. On a person's profile it can show how many thumbs up they have. In addition to gaining recognition as a good judge, you also get recognition for taking the time to vote at all. More importantly, I think the community would feel a sense of reciprocation. If I am doing 300 debates but only have 3 thumbs up (meaning I'm not voting well or not voting at all), then people will have an incentive not to judge my debates. I'm sure we'll get a feel for how much the average person judges to see who's not helping out. People will be hesitant to judge their debates in return.

2. Profile Section

Just how our profile displays debates we've recently debates on, it can list the debates we recently voted on. It doesn't have to show how we vote but just the date and/or resolution, so once again to see who never votes. If I go to your profile and see the last time you voted was a year ago, then I might not vote on your debate.

3. Vote Minimum Requirements

We now have the option to mandate RFDs for voters. Instigators of a debate also have the option to set voting time limits, such as a week, month, etc. Well what if the instigator can implement a specific voting requirement (possibly along with the time limit)? For instance even if the 1 month period has past, if only 2 votes have been cast and you want 10 then you can set the minimum to 10 and extend the time. If a debate is in the voting period for a long time and people get anxious, I'm sure they'll start asking people to read it or posting it in their signature or whatever.

All of these suggestions are problematic but meh.

Proposal #2 is my favorite.

this is funny, lol (not in a bitchy way, just an ironic way).

Proposal 3 is basically already in effect, there are voting requirements. We can argue as to what should and should not be a particular requirement, but that is seperate to the notion that there should be requirements (I agree that there should be requirements of some kind).

I do like the idea of making a flexible voting requirement that you mentioned (the debate starter has the option of selecting what requirements s/he would like and would not like (like a simple check list), this way, we could drop the standard requirements and leave it entirely up to the creators of debates.

#2 is an extention of a vote count (after we get a vote counter, like the post counter), we can then push for it to be tied to a way to actually view the votes that they've done. I would also like to see this for posts, to make it easier to seach through someone's past forum posts, but that is a different matter.

#1 Already been brought up (though the site prefered only doing a thumbs up, feeling that thumbs down could be abused).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 5:55:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 5:46:47 PM, OreEle wrote:
this is funny, lol (not in a bitchy way, just an ironic way).

Okay... You must have an interesting sense of humor :)

we could drop the standard requirements and leave it entirely up to the creators of debates.

Basically, yeah.

#2 is an extention of a vote count (after we get a vote counter, like the post counter), we can then push for it to be tied to a way to actually view the votes that they've done. I would also like to see this for posts, to make it easier to seach through someone's past forum posts, but that is a different matter.

The forum thing sounds kinda creepy. I'm already disturbed by the habitual stalking that occurs on this site, let alone a feature that would facilitate it. Anyway yeah I don't think it should take up a big portion (that would be ugly), but just a little box on the side by photo albums with the links to recently voted on debates and a thing that shows when ya voted I s'pose.

#1 Already been brought up (though the site prefered only doing a thumbs up, feeling that thumbs down could be abused).

Yeah, though after thinking about it it's kinda my least favorite. I really hate the favoritism BS and "waaah this person has more thumbs up then me" or "waaah my RFD deserved a thumbs up but didn't get it." I guess there's pros and cons to everything though. Option 2's still my fave.
President of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 6:03:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 5:55:24 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 3/23/2011 5:46:47 PM, OreEle wrote:
this is funny, lol (not in a bitchy way, just an ironic way).

Okay... You must have an interesting sense of humor :)

I love british comedy, so probably.


we could drop the standard requirements and leave it entirely up to the creators of debates.

Basically, yeah.

#2 is an extention of a vote count (after we get a vote counter, like the post counter), we can then push for it to be tied to a way to actually view the votes that they've done. I would also like to see this for posts, to make it easier to seach through someone's past forum posts, but that is a different matter.

The forum thing sounds kinda creepy.

Just makes it faster when someone says "I never said XYZ" to go back, find the post that they made 2 months ago and post a link saying "yes you did."

I'm already disturbed by the habitual stalking that occurs on this site, let alone a feature that would facilitate it. Anyway yeah I don't think it should take up a big portion (that would be ugly), but just a little box on the side by photo albums with the links to recently voted on debates and a thing that shows when ya voted I s'pose.

A box would be nice for recent votes (like all votes in the last 168 hours or something), but also a link next to a vote counter which would show all votes (again, showing off my stalker side). That way it is small and discreet.


#1 Already been brought up (though the site prefered only doing a thumbs up, feeling that thumbs down could be abused).

Yeah, though after thinking about it it's kinda my least favorite. I really hate the favoritism BS and "waaah this person has more thumbs up then me" or "waaah my RFD deserved a thumbs up but didn't get it." I guess there's pros and cons to everything though. Option 2's still my fave.

True, likely going to happen whenever you allow people to put their opinion on something.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2011 3:33:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 4:43:43 PM, mongeese wrote:
I'd rather see three honest votes with feedback than twelve votes with no accountability.

I second that.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12