Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

New voting Idea 1 person 1 vote

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 10:04:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I propose, 1 person 1 vote.

Consider this example between two people debating person A and person B

3 People give their votes. 2 of those people give person A 3 points and person B 0 points. The third person comes along and votes bomb for person B and gives 7 points.

Person B with one vote gets 7 points
Person A with 2 votes gets 6 points

Person B wins.

So how about an option where the debate points are awarded one person one vote. Also how about where the voteing shows BOTH systems, both who got the majority of votes and who has the most points. So in this example it would be shown as.......

Person A, 2 votes for a total of 6 points
Person B, 1 vote for a total of 7 points

Person A wins by majority, Person B wins on points ?

Well you get the idea, discuss.
"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
5/9/2011 10:15:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well I'd agree before, but since the RFD and 3 completed debates requirement was added, I've seen a dramatic drop in votebombs. I dont think its as necessary anymore.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 10:20:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It isn't, an actual problem is people voting for sides based on the argument they support. That being said it is interesting if one individual had 5 positive votes but less points than the other who had less votes. If the voting period was set to #votes and not time it would deal with that by simple averaging.
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 10:24:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I do like this idea, but generally i think people are more fair when required to judge things like spelling, conduct, and argument. One can be great at arguments and "win" the debate, but if you can't read it and they're a jerk, well sort of different. They deserve to be rewarded for their argument even if they screwed up the debate with poor sentence structure and bad conduct.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 10:27:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/9/2011 10:20:50 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
It isn't, an actual problem is people voting for sides based on the argument they support. That being said it is interesting if one individual had 5 positive votes but less points than the other who had less votes. If the voting period was set to #votes and not time it would deal with that by simple averaging.


That's an interesting idea, and one I think would improve this site.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 11:13:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Defeats the purpose of being able to say who had better arguments, sources, conduct, etc.

All it does is take options and flexibility away from the voters.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 11:16:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Starting to agree with bob and OreEle. If people cant spell or argue too aggressively, they should be punished even if they made good arguments.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 11:30:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/9/2011 11:13:37 PM, OreEle wrote:

All it does is take options and flexibility away from the voters.

All it does is make all votes equal. When you evaluate a debate no matter what criteria you use in the end you will end up with one person having a higher point count than the other. You can evaluate anything you want, give 1 pt to Pro because of clarity, 1 pt to Con for sources, 2 pts to Pro because of argument, etc. .

In the end you will end up with something like 5:2 or 3:1 etc. . However the point that is being made here, or the question rather is the following; if Pro has five people who felt he won (3 pt margin) and Con has only three people but they felt he "really won" (6 pt margin). Does it really make sense to give the victory to Con - which is what the current system does.

Again, you can evaluate anything, but in the end you decide on balance who won, a 1 pt system (I believe Lionheart mentioned this awhile back) simple ensures that all votes are counted equally from all members, i.e., no one can give a stronger vote than another. The only flexibility that is lost is for members to make stronger votes than other members - which is an arguable point as a good thing.