Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Idea to fight against vote bombing

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2011 8:05:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
How about an option when setting up a debate, having the option of selecting who the voters will be. In other words not just anyone can vote.

?????
"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
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2011 8:12:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/6/2011 8:08:06 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Not the best idea.

If I were a jack@ss, I'd just choose who was more likely to vote in my favor.

This is what would happen.
kfc
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2011 8:17:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/6/2011 8:05:54 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
How about an option when setting up a debate, having the option of selecting who the voters will be. In other words not just anyone can vote.:

You want to get rid of voter bias by creating a bias for voters?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2011 8:21:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/6/2011 8:05:54 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
How about an option when setting up a debate, having the option of selecting who the voters will be. In other words not just anyone can vote.

?????

Good job for thinking outside the box and putting the effort into brainstorming, but that probably would have major issues. CWO and Cleaners and whatnots would form.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2011 8:24:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/6/2011 8:05:54 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
How about an option when setting up a debate, having the option of selecting who the voters will be. In other words not just anyone can vote.

?????

this. i would suggest setting a limit (ex must have at least x number of completed debates) but the voting on this site is sparse enough as it is. handpicking voters doesn't seem like it would solve the problem(s).
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2011 8:27:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/6/2011 8:08:06 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Not the best idea.

If I were a jack@ss, I'd just choose who was more likely to vote in my favor.

I had considered that, it would just be like the other options when a debate is set up (eg how much time to respond). If you don't agree with the option like how much time to respond or who gets to vote, you would not accept the debate.
"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
Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2011 8:28:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think having a minimum of 50 characters in the RFD would be a good start.

Also, I think that having a "report this vote" feature would help dramatically towards alerting the site moderators.

What else can we do?
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2011 8:29:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I should also mention, I don't expect this to be used as a common feature. I see it more as an option used by the best debaters who want a more professorial debate.
"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
Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2011 8:34:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What if there was a "VIP" class. After you have so many wins on your record, you could then be put up to a vote for initiation by the rest of the "VIP" class.

Then give "VIPs" the option to only have other "VIPs" vote on their debate.

Thoughts?
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2011 8:38:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/6/2011 8:34:56 PM, Lionheart wrote:
What if there was a "VIP" class. After you have so many wins on your record, you could then be put up to a vote for initiation by the rest of the "VIP" class.

Then give "VIPs" the option to only have other "VIPs" vote on their debate.

Thoughts?

elitist. lol.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2011 8:40:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/6/2011 8:38:59 PM, belle wrote:
At 5/6/2011 8:34:56 PM, Lionheart wrote:
What if there was a "VIP" class. After you have so many wins on your record, you could then be put up to a vote for initiation by the rest of the "VIP" class.

Then give "VIPs" the option to only have other "VIPs" vote on their debate.

Thoughts?

elitist. lol.

Who decides who the original eliti... I mean VIP's are?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2011 8:42:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/6/2011 8:40:51 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 5/6/2011 8:38:59 PM, belle wrote:
At 5/6/2011 8:34:56 PM, Lionheart wrote:
What if there was a "VIP" class. After you have so many wins on your record, you could then be put up to a vote for initiation by the rest of the "VIP" class.

Then give "VIPs" the option to only have other "VIPs" vote on their debate.

Thoughts?

elitist. lol.

Who decides who the original eliti... I mean VIP's are?

hey we're all equal right? just some are more equal than others :D
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2011 8:44:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/6/2011 8:05:54 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
How about an option when setting up a debate, having the option of selecting who the voters will be. In other words not just anyone can vote.

?????

A spin off of this could be a drop down box "only people with _____ debates completed may vote." And you could select 5 or 10 or 20 or 50, or whatever.

We already have the "only allow people in my percentile or higher accept this debate"
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2011 8:50:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
A spin off of this could be a drop down box "only people with _____ debates completed may vote." And you could select 5 or 10 or 20 or 50, or whatever.

We already have the "only allow people in my percentile or higher accept this debate"


Very good idea OreEle. I really like it.

I don't mean to be an elitist. It is just an idea. I'm just talking of giving a "VIP" status to members who have a certain amount of wins.

But I think OreEle's idea would be just as effective, if not more effective than my idea.
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2011 8:53:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/6/2011 8:34:56 PM, Lionheart wrote:
What if there was a "VIP" class. After you have so many wins on your record, you could then be put up to a vote for initiation by the rest of the "VIP" class.

Then give "VIPs" the option to only have other "VIPs" vote on their debate.

Thoughts?

In my suggestion, the potentials voters are agreed on between the two debating participants. Once the debate is over, then its back to being equal.

I mean this can already be done by the debaters, like in debate tourments. Its just that this agreement can't be enforced as anyone can come along and vote bomb even if two people have agreed.
"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
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2011 12:15:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
A better idea: rather than selecting people who can vote, you can select three people who CAN'T vote. I'm sure we all know a user or two who tends to vote against us a lot, or maybe some votebombers who just choose us to do it against.
Bob_Gneu
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2011 1:36:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/7/2011 12:15:45 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
A better idea: rather than selecting people who can vote, you can select three people who CAN'T vote. I'm sure we all know a user or two who tends to vote against us a lot, or maybe some votebombers who just choose us to do it against.

Yea, imagine that. Thanks for your thoughts on the faith healing debate. askbob absolutely has a point. Too bad its still wrong and unjustified.
chickenquiff
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2011 1:57:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/6/2011 8:44:59 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/6/2011 8:05:54 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
How about an option when setting up a debate, having the option of selecting who the voters will be. In other words not just anyone can vote.

?????

A spin off of this could be a drop down box "only people with _____ debates completed may vote." And you could select 5 or 10 or 20 or 50, or whatever.

We already have the "only allow people in my percentile or higher accept this debate"

Maybe you could have a ranking system? The more wins you have, the higher rank you will be.
Then you can pick from what rank you want you voters to be.
I guess newbie like me will have to cut their teeth to start voting.

I dont mind that.. its a challenge
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2011 2:23:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/7/2011 1:36:48 AM, Bob_Gneu wrote:
At 5/7/2011 12:15:45 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
A better idea: rather than selecting people who can vote, you can select three people who CAN'T vote. I'm sure we all know a user or two who tends to vote against us a lot, or maybe some votebombers who just choose us to do it against.

Yea, imagine that. Thanks for your thoughts on the faith healing debate. askbob absolutely has a point. Too bad its still wrong and unjustified.

How so?

But anyway, its just 5 points. You're still up seven, the debate is off the front page, and you made solid arguments. Unless you get some necro-votes in a month or two (and you tell me if that happens), you'll win.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2011 7:32:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/7/2011 1:36:48 AM, Bob_Gneu wrote:
At 5/7/2011 12:15:45 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
A better idea: rather than selecting people who can vote, you can select three people who CAN'T vote. I'm sure we all know a user or two who tends to vote against us a lot, or maybe some votebombers who just choose us to do it against.

Yea, imagine that. Thanks for your thoughts on the faith healing debate. askbob absolutely has a point. Too bad its still wrong and unjustified.

All debates have people like askbob who vote not on the merits but to achieve some kind of personal goal, and doing it in public gives him the attention he needs.

If you want to stop vote bombers then the solution is simple, when you see a vote that you feel is really unjustified (which is not a trivial thing to know) then report it and in the meantime simple vote more often.

The only reason why vote bombing is an issue is the extreme lack of voting on this site. When debates can get significantly influenced by 1 "biased" vote there is obviously a problem with membership apathy which should be addressed.
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2011 12:00:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I agree with cliff.stamp that increasing number of votes may automatically reduce the importance of vote-bombers.

Compulsory RFDs actually provide a incentive to not to vote and avoid spotlight + ugly cat-fights. We need some incentive for people to read the debates and vote. Any one for a top-voter list? (RFDs will still be a compulsion)
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2011 1:54:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The simplest way is to encourage direct participation, i.e., you have to vote on debates in order to create them. But again do you really want to force judges, that really rarely works well as people are not reading because they are interested and that is likely to create meaningless votes. I agree it is better to reward rather than punish.
BillBonJovi
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2011 6:49:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I got an idea...

how about debate.org adds a button on every vote (that was submitted on a debate), where users can mark the vote as "vote bomb" or something and then debate.org can delete the vote if it was marked by enough users?
Build a man a fire, and he will be warn for the rest of the evening.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2011 6:55:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It does not need to be deleted, simply have the effective vote equal to vote * rank, where rank is determined by +/- (thumbs up / down) by the membership. This then just needs to be renormalized from 0-7. It would be very trivial to code.