Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Voting Initiative

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 4:55:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
We are currently experiencing a drought in votes on our debates. The measures taken by Juggle to reduce vote-bombing were absolutely needed but they have had an unintended side-effect.

Until Juggle sets up something that can fix this, I have a plan to fix it ourselves.

Clearly, people are lacking incentive, so here's some incentive. A leader-board will be displayed in this thread that will measure:
1. How much you are voting.
2. How fairly you are voting.

Votes will be counted and fairness will be decided by a panel of judges who will volunteer and all must be of differing view-points on common debating issues like religion and politics. Judges must have completed at least 10 debates and have a win ratio of at least 75%. Judges must read the debate that they are judging a vote on.

To make this more manageable:
1. You should sign-up for being on this leader-board.
2. The people signed-up should be voting on the same debates. A debate will be posted to this thread by the judges and people signed-up will give it a "voting-wave" until it has reached a set amount of votes, then move onto another. Preferably, we would do at least one debate a day or more. By all means, you should still vote on debates that are not posted here but it may or may not be included in your score.

The initiative will commence when we have at least 5 judges.

Sign-ups:
1. Freedo (judge)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 4:59:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This might be a good idea actually So kudos
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 5:03:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'd do this, but I get tired of religious debates, and so cannot promise to read through and vote on every single one of those.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 6:22:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The fairness aspect of this proposition can and will dismantle it. If the issue is gathering interested and involved readers, it won't be solved by expecting a group of users to read a slew of debates they may otherwise find uninteresting. This is in addition to the obvious faults in assigning a panel to judge the quality of another member's opinions.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 6:31:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Surely you mean DDO percentile, rather than win ratio. Mine isn't even 50%. o.O;
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 6:36:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 6:31:01 PM, tvellalott wrote:
Surely you mean DDO percentile, rather than win ratio. Mine isn't even 50%. o.O;

Since it only takes 2 wins to reach the 75th percentile, I think he means win%.

I agree that the win% is a poor standard.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
ccstate4peat
Posts: 2,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 10:28:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
We're over complicating the voting process. People voted all the time before ddo added bullshît to get quality votes. How would adding this extra step possibly help get more votes?

Back when voting was anonymous and didn't require RFDs, 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.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 10:38:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I like some other people, are more than happy to vote, yet can't get confirmed. How about addressing 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
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 10:49:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I agree that there was more voting when it was private. But if it was you still you could forget winning a debate on anarchy if you opposed it right now.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 10:57:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'd like to be an active judge, I certainly have the time for it, but some of the debates here are so boring that I'd hate being required to look over them. I don't like religious debates especially.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
ccstate4peat
Posts: 2,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 10:59:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 10:49:28 PM, jharry wrote:
I agree that there was more voting when it was private. But if it was you still you could forget winning a debate on anarchy if you opposed it right now.

But now you're lucky if five people vote on your debate. Three of those people could oppose out of spite and leave RFDs that say "Pro had better arguments". If you add this approval thing, you might lose one or two of the bad votes, but you may lose one of the good votes too and now you're stuck with barely any votes for your debate. Would you rather hope to get lucky and have three quality votes that may not be a good indication of how people vote or have way more votes that may be bad, but are a better representation of how people think.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 11:08:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 10:59:40 PM, ccstate4peat wrote:
At 6/1/2011 10:49:28 PM, jharry wrote:
I agree that there was more voting when it was private. But if it was you still you could forget winning a debate on anarchy if you opposed it right now.

But now you're lucky if five people vote on your debate. Three of those people could oppose out of spite and leave RFDs that say "Pro had better arguments". If you add this approval thing, you might lose one or two of the bad votes, but you may lose one of the good votes too and now you're stuck with barely any votes for your debate. Would you rather hope to get lucky and have three quality votes that may not be a good indication of how people vote or have way more votes that may be bad, but are a better representation of how people think.

If you get vote blocked you won't have any idea what people think, except the large amount of a certain opposing ideology thinks you lost no matter how good you did.

That still happens but it doesnt happen in the numbers it used to.

It's not perfect but it's better then never winning a debate against certain perspectives.

I don't think dropping the RFD and three debate rule would be that bad. If someone votes unfairly at least you can ask them why with open voting. Open voting is an all around good, votebombing and voting blocs use to be hell here. All the other junk has only slowed down debates and voting.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
ccstate4peat
Posts: 2,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 11:16:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 11:08:06 PM, jharry wrote:
At 6/1/2011 10:59:40 PM, ccstate4peat wrote:
At 6/1/2011 10:49:28 PM, jharry wrote:
I agree that there was more voting when it was private. But if it was you still you could forget winning a debate on anarchy if you opposed it right now.

But now you're lucky if five people vote on your debate. Three of those people could oppose out of spite and leave RFDs that say "Pro had better arguments". If you add this approval thing, you might lose one or two of the bad votes, but you may lose one of the good votes too and now you're stuck with barely any votes for your debate. Would you rather hope to get lucky and have three quality votes that may not be a good indication of how people vote or have way more votes that may be bad, but are a better representation of how people think.

If you get vote blocked you won't have any idea what people think, except the large amount of a certain opposing ideology thinks you lost no matter how good you did.

That still happens but it doesnt happen in the numbers it used to.

It's not perfect but it's better then never winning a debate against certain perspectives.

I don't think dropping the RFD and three debate rule would be that bad. If someone votes unfairly at least you can ask them why with open voting. Open voting is an all around good, votebombing and voting blocs use to be hell here. All the other junk has only slowed down debates and voting.

I'll try to find debates in between the times where votes were made open and RFDs were put in place, but I'm pretty sure open voting slowed it down more than RFDs
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 11:26:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 11:16:32 PM, ccstate4peat wrote:
At 6/1/2011 11:08:06 PM, jharry wrote:
At 6/1/2011 10:59:40 PM, ccstate4peat wrote:
At 6/1/2011 10:49:28 PM, jharry wrote:
I agree that there was more voting when it was private. But if it was you still you could forget winning a debate on anarchy if you opposed it right now.

But now you're lucky if five people vote on your debate. Three of those people could oppose out of spite and leave RFDs that say "Pro had better arguments". If you add this approval thing, you might lose one or two of the bad votes, but you may lose one of the good votes too and now you're stuck with barely any votes for your debate. Would you rather hope to get lucky and have three quality votes that may not be a good indication of how people vote or have way more votes that may be bad, but are a better representation of how people think.

If you get vote blocked you won't have any idea what people think, except the large amount of a certain opposing ideology thinks you lost no matter how good you did.

That still happens but it doesnt happen in the numbers it used to.

It's not perfect but it's better then never winning a debate against certain perspectives.

I don't think dropping the RFD and three debate rule would be that bad. If someone votes unfairly at least you can ask them why with open voting. Open voting is an all around good, votebombing and voting blocs use to be hell here. All the other junk has only slowed down debates and voting.

I'll try to find debates in between the times where votes were made open and RFDs were put in place, but I'm pretty sure open voting slowed it down more than RFDs

Really? I see it the other way around. I agree both have slowed votes but I would consider writing a RFD a bigger deterrent.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
ccstate4peat
Posts: 2,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 11:46:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 11:26:39 PM, jharry wrote:
At 6/1/2011 11:16:32 PM, ccstate4peat wrote:
At 6/1/2011 11:08:06 PM, jharry wrote:
At 6/1/2011 10:59:40 PM, ccstate4peat wrote:
At 6/1/2011 10:49:28 PM, jharry wrote:
I agree that there was more voting when it was private. But if it was you still you could forget winning a debate on anarchy if you opposed it right now.

But now you're lucky if five people vote on your debate. Three of those people could oppose out of spite and leave RFDs that say "Pro had better arguments". If you add this approval thing, you might lose one or two of the bad votes, but you may lose one of the good votes too and now you're stuck with barely any votes for your debate. Would you rather hope to get lucky and have three quality votes that may not be a good indication of how people vote or have way more votes that may be bad, but are a better representation of how people think.

If you get vote blocked you won't have any idea what people think, except the large amount of a certain opposing ideology thinks you lost no matter how good you did.

That still happens but it doesnt happen in the numbers it used to.

It's not perfect but it's better then never winning a debate against certain perspectives.

I don't think dropping the RFD and three debate rule would be that bad. If someone votes unfairly at least you can ask them why with open voting. Open voting is an all around good, votebombing and voting blocs use to be hell here. All the other junk has only slowed down debates and voting.

I'll try to find debates in between the times where votes were made open and RFDs were put in place, but I'm pretty sure open voting slowed it down more than RFDs

Really? I see it the other way around. I agree both have slowed votes but I would consider writing a RFD a bigger deterrent.

I see plenty of people write RFDs that say "Pro had better arguments" and vote for a side for everything. The act of writing an RFD doesn't actually do anything to stop them, but the fact that everybody can see their vote makes them not give pro a 7 pointer
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 12:09:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 11:46:50 PM, ccstate4peat wrote:
At 6/1/2011 11:26:39 PM, jharry wrote:
At 6/1/2011 11:16:32 PM, ccstate4peat wrote:
At 6/1/2011 11:08:06 PM, jharry wrote:
At 6/1/2011 10:59:40 PM, ccstate4peat wrote:
At 6/1/2011 10:49:28 PM, jharry wrote:
I agree that there was more voting when it was private. But if it was you still you could forget winning a debate on anarchy if you opposed it right now.

But now you're lucky if five people vote on your debate. Three of those people could oppose out of spite and leave RFDs that say "Pro had better arguments". If you add this approval thing, you might lose one or two of the bad votes, but you may lose one of the good votes too and now you're stuck with barely any votes for your debate. Would you rather hope to get lucky and have three quality votes that may not be a good indication of how people vote or have way more votes that may be bad, but are a better representation of how people think.

If you get vote blocked you won't have any idea what people think, except the large amount of a certain opposing ideology thinks you lost no matter how good you did.

That still happens but it doesnt happen in the numbers it used to.

It's not perfect but it's better then never winning a debate against certain perspectives.

I don't think dropping the RFD and three debate rule would be that bad. If someone votes unfairly at least you can ask them why with open voting. Open voting is an all around good, votebombing and voting blocs use to be hell here. All the other junk has only slowed down debates and voting.

I'll try to find debates in between the times where votes were made open and RFDs were put in place, but I'm pretty sure open voting slowed it down more than RFDs

Really? I see it the other way around. I agree both have slowed votes but I would consider writing a RFD a bigger deterrent.

I see plenty of people write RFDs that say "Pro had better arguments" and vote for a side for everything. The act of writing an RFD doesn't actually do anything to stop them, but the fact that everybody can see their vote makes them not give pro a 7 pointer

I don't see the problem with given seven points, if they deserve it. It's almost treated as taboo or something.

I see more conflict, vote blocs and votebombing if the vote go
private again. Just me opinion.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 12:52:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I see now that the win ratio prerequisite is a little high. Perhaps win ratio shouldn't be the factor on which we find reliable judges. Perhaps we could vote for the judges.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 1:38:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 12:59:44 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
I suggest 98+ percentile. That includes every vet, plus the good debaters who aren't at 99 yet.

I'm barely hanging on.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 11:59:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 1:38:37 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 6/2/2011 12:59:44 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
I suggest 98+ percentile. That includes every vet, plus the good debaters who aren't at 99 yet.

I'm barely hanging on.

See? So it works.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 12:24:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 12:59:44 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
I suggest 98+ percentile. That includes every vet, plus the good debaters who aren't at 99 yet.

29 wins to get to 99th percentile. (55 members)
17 wins to get to 98th percentile. (104 members)
12 to get to the 97th percentile. (161 members)

Really, any of those could be the arbitrary number set
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 12:26:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 12:24:18 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 12:59:44 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
I suggest 98+ percentile. That includes every vet, plus the good debaters who aren't at 99 yet.

29 wins to get to 99th percentile. (55 members)
17 wins to get to 98th percentile. (104 members)
12 to get to the 97th percentile. (161 members)

Really, any of those could be the arbitrary number set

I vote for the 97th percentile
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 12:40:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It is far better to put this into practice and work the kinks out than squabble over numbers. Reduce the number of judges to 2 and the number of total voters to 5 and get this started immediately. Five decent votes is far more than the bulk of debates get. I will be a voter/judge as required. As needed refine the process while it is in progress. Experiments are never idealized, just put them in place and work the kinks out as they are being performed.
Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 2:39:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 12:40:03 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
It is far better to put this into practice and work the kinks out than squabble over numbers. Reduce the number of judges to 2 and the number of total voters to 5 and get this started immediately. Five decent votes is far more than the bulk of debates get. I will be a voter/judge as required. As needed refine the process while it is in progress. Experiments are never idealized, just put them in place and work the kinks out as they are being performed.

Elitist Republic?

Hmmmm.... So everyone's votes are only deemed worthy if your panel says so?

What is with the people on this site???

If this becomes to controlling or becomes biased, I will start a counter-movement of freedom fighters.
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -