Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Idea for increasing voting

InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 4:21:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I was recently thinking about a way that would increase the amount of votes that an average debate gets (therein mostly increasing the desire to debate in the first place).

What if there was something like a point system, where for every vote a person makes on a debate they receive 1 point. In order to either participate or create your own debate, you would need a total of 3 points. This means that for every debate that is either issued or accepted, there would be at least 6 votes on other debates -- 3 from the person issuing and 3 from the person accepting.

Of course, the first three debates for new users would be free, given that they require three completed debates before being allotted the privilege of voting.

Does this system make any sense? And is it good?
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 4:25:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I like this idea. My concern is that some people may be inconsiderate and randomly vote without reading the debate to build up points.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 4:27:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Basically a false-scarcity system. Like copy-right. I would see a lot more spam votes popping up that way.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 4:30:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 4:27:50 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Basically a false-scarcity system. Like copy-right. I would see a lot more spam votes popping up that way.

Yep. It's better to have a way to vote up or down member RFDs that causes points. These points would appear on the profile and within each vote in the voting tab.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 4:31:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 4:25:25 PM, Mestari wrote:
I like this idea. My concern is that some people may be inconsiderate and randomly vote without reading the debate to build up points.

Top debaters typically do far more debating than they do voting. Among this crowd, I don't think there is any real risk of the type of voting you mention. My proposed system would require that these people vote at least 3x more often than they debate. Moreover, we have already put numerous impediments to prevent illegitimate voting, so I don't think the integrity of voting would be altered much by the voting incentive that I propose.
VocMusTcrMaloy
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 7:45:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
My second debate was against ReformedArsenal. It was a long hard fought 5 rounds with lots of heavy, theological language. Only two people voted on it. I learned my lesson and am debating no more than 4 rounds when I instigate. Short and simple equals read and voted.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 7:53:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 7:45:21 PM, VocMusTcrMaloy wrote:
My second debate was against ReformedArsenal. It was a long hard fought 5 rounds with lots of heavy, theological language. Only two people voted on it. I learned my lesson and am debating no more than 4 rounds when I instigate. Short and simple equals read and voted.

That was the first lesson I learned about this website. Even though this is a site of intellectuals, we are still human, and we have attention spans.

I created a new thread for unvoted debates that would ensure that everyone gets at least 1 vote. People are ignoring it and still posting in the old one, where the debate vote requests are just being ignored.

What pisses me off even more are the people who complain that people shouldn't ask for votes when that is the essence of the entire website.

This is not the first, and certainly not last of the threads addressing this voting issue, but the problem goes unsolved. The administrators don't seem to have an active role in the forums, so suggestions such as these are unseen (and there are many).
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 8:25:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 4:30:56 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/8/2011 4:27:50 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Basically a false-scarcity system. Like copy-right. I would see a lot more spam votes popping up that way.

Yep. It's better to have a way to vote up or down member RFDs that causes points. These points would appear on the profile and within each vote in the voting tab.

This is the best idea. We should have a like/dislike system for each RFD. Everytime you get a like you get a point, everytime you get a dislike, you lose a point. Members should always put a dislike for votebombs and where RFD is blank. Everytime you start a debate, you lose 10 points and everytime you accept a debate you lose 5 points. "Points" here are just a way to keep track that if you want to debate and have it read and voted on, you must do the same for your fellow members. They in no way show how good you are. For instance frequent deabters who are good would usually have close to 0 points. So to debate, you must not only have voted but also must have given reasonable, logical, "like"able RFDs. Also, to reward people who vote on debates that really need them, the first vote on a debate gets three points for every "like."
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2011 2:29:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 4:31:51 PM, InquireTruth wrote:

Top debaters typically do far more debating than they do voting. Among this crowd, I don't think there is any real risk of the type of voting you mention. My proposed system would require that these people vote at least 3x more often than they debate. Moreover, we have already put numerous impediments to prevent illegitimate voting, so I don't think the integrity of voting would be altered much by the voting incentive that I propose.

I strongly disagree. If you force debaters to involuntarily vote on debates, then I don't know how you conclude that they will voluntarily take the time to give an honest vote. You can make someone do something, but you can not make them take it seriously. That must be their choice.
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2011 3:42:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/9/2011 2:29:42 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/8/2011 4:31:51 PM, InquireTruth wrote:

Top debaters typically do far more debating than they do voting. Among this crowd, I don't think there is any real risk of the type of voting you mention. My proposed system would require that these people vote at least 3x more often than they debate. Moreover, we have already put numerous impediments to prevent illegitimate voting, so I don't think the integrity of voting would be altered much by the voting incentive that I propose.

I strongly disagree. If you force debaters to involuntarily vote on debates, then I don't know how you conclude that they will voluntarily take the time to give an honest vote. You can make someone do something, but you can not make them take it seriously. That must be their choice.

I'm not sure where you got that I was suggesting a system of involuntary voting. It's voluntary to vote just like it's voluntary to debate. It's tantamount to saying that required RFD's ensures that voters will not take them seriously because they are required.