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

Did DDO have a change of voting system?

F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 10:36:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I've noticed a lot of the older debates have a different kind of voting than the current debates.
1) Many votes then, as opposed to fewer votes now
2) No RFDs as opposed to current debates which all have RFDs
3) Debaters voted for themselves but not anymore
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 10:44:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 10:36:39 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I've noticed a lot of the older debates have a different kind of voting than the current debates.
1) Many votes then, as opposed to fewer votes now
2) No RFDs as opposed to current debates which all have RFDs
3) Debaters voted for themselves but not anymore

Yes, and thank god they did. People could vote for themselves, and voting was completely anonymous. That was a major change we pushed for years to achieve, against the tyrannical Phil.
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 11:02:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 10:44:46 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 8/28/2011 10:36:39 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I've noticed a lot of the older debates have a different kind of voting than the current debates.
1) Many votes then, as opposed to fewer votes now
2) No RFDs as opposed to current debates which all have RFDs
3) Debaters voted for themselves but not anymore

Yes, and thank god they did. People could vote for themselves, and voting was completely anonymous. That was a major change we pushed for years to achieve, against the tyrannical Phil.

Voting was anonymous? Is that why people voted for themselves? Did they change it so that we can retroactively see how the voting occurred? If so, that was one major red-handed capture of all the self-voters who never knew that their votes were going to show!
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 11:09:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 11:02:42 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 8/28/2011 10:44:46 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 8/28/2011 10:36:39 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I've noticed a lot of the older debates have a different kind of voting than the current debates.
1) Many votes then, as opposed to fewer votes now
2) No RFDs as opposed to current debates which all have RFDs
3) Debaters voted for themselves but not anymore

Yes, and thank god they did. People could vote for themselves, and voting was completely anonymous. That was a major change we pushed for years to achieve, against the tyrannical Phil.

Voting was anonymous? Is that why people voted for themselves? Did they change it so that we can retroactively see how the voting occurred? If so, that was one major red-handed capture of all the self-voters who never knew that their votes were going to show!

Well, self-voting wasn't considered much of a problem, because everybody could vote (regardless of # of debates completed). The problem is when people would multi-account or make groups to vote bomb for or against a certain person.
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 11:18:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Yeah I am so glad they took away voting for yourself. I'm not going to name any names, but there were a lot of members, including a few on the leaderboard, who would votebomb themselves just about every debate.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 11:24:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 11:18:16 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
Yeah I am so glad they took away voting for yourself. I'm not going to name any names, but there were a lot of members, including a few on the leaderboard, who would votebomb themselves just about every debate.

lol how do you think they got there?
"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
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 11:52:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 11:24:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/28/2011 11:18:16 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
Yeah I am so glad they took away voting for yourself. I'm not going to name any names, but there were a lot of members, including a few on the leaderboard, who would votebomb themselves just about every debate.

lol how do you think they got there?

Lol good point.

Really, you can look at any old debate with a leaderboard member; at least 70% of the votes are straight sevens.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 12:29:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 11:18:16 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
Yeah I am so glad they took away voting for yourself. I'm not going to name any names, but there were a lot of members, including a few on the leaderboard, who would votebomb themselves just about every debate.

That is so true! To learn from the best debaters, I went to the leaderboard, clicked on the members and read their debates. That's how I found out that most of the leaderboard members votebombed themselves. I also won't name any names (though it is very tempting, I don't want to upset anyone), but one of the leaderboard members actually complained that the debates they lost were votebombed. Now, I respect their debate skills and all, but it is quite hypocritical for someone to complain about votebombs when they votebombed themselves without exception on every single debate.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 12:39:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Voting=/= votebombing.

Votebombing consists of multiple accounts.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 12:48:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/29/2011 12:39:54 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Voting=/= votebombing.

Votebombing consists of multiple accounts.

Since votebombing is a word that we invented here at DDO, so there is no dictionary to refer to, only popular usage......and the popular usage of the term is to irrationally give all points in the ballots to one specific side when it is undeserved, in an effort to support one's own view of the issue or give oneself the victory. Your interpretation is only recognized by yourself.
"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
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 2:26:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/29/2011 12:48:20 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/29/2011 12:39:54 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Voting=/= votebombing.

Votebombing consists of multiple accounts.

Since votebombing is a word that we invented here at DDO
I believe folks brought it from newgrounds.

and the popular usage of the term is to irrationally give all points in the ballots to one specific side when it is undeserved
Is it? It certainly hasn't always been that way if so, at least on DDO.

http://www.debate.org...

"The term vote bomb denotes a concentrated group effort, thus the inclusion of the word "bomb"."
It's a disputed issue.

Sorry, Ike, but you've been here for about a month. If you go around making assumptions about the site's lexical history, prepare to be wrong quite often.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 2:52:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 10:36:39 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I've noticed a lot of the older debates have a different kind of voting than the current debates.
1) Many votes then, as opposed to fewer votes now
2) No RFDs as opposed to current debates which all have RFDs
3) Debaters voted for themselves but not anymore

I think RFD's probably had a lot to do with it. It's easy to put check marks in a box, its not so easy to explain why. To do that you actually have to read the debate, although we still have some who don't seem to. Someone said that votes used to be anonymous. That would also explain it.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 1:15:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 10:36:39 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I've noticed a lot of the older debates have a different kind of voting than the current debates.
1) Many votes then, as opposed to fewer votes now

Up until late 2009, the voting was completely hidden (meaning no one could see how anyone voted). This means that people could vote without fear of being asked to explain their votes (so there was a lot more bias voting).

2) No RFDs as opposed to current debates which all have RFDs

RFD's weren't an option until they were added in late 2010 (by Juggle, I believe).

3) Debaters voted for themselves but not anymore

That was also allowed until the late 2010 update, done by Juggle. There was actually a massive witch hunt in the 2009, when the voting tab because visable, and everyone that had votebombed was exposed. We see that some people had the integrety to not vote for themselves, but their opponent did, gave just enough to take the win.

It was one of the most drama filled times for DDO (IMO).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 1:17:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/29/2011 12:39:54 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Voting=/= votebombing.

Votebombing consists of multiple accounts.

Votebombing does not have a universally accepted definition on DDO yet.

Though I think there ought to be a recognizition between the multi-account votes (IMO, votebombing) and vote abuse.

It is generally accepted that if someone votes for or against another person for nothing but person or ideaological reasons (as in they didn't read the debate), it is considered a votebomb, regardless if they are only 1 account or 5.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 2:07:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/29/2011 1:15:11 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/28/2011 10:36:39 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I've noticed a lot of the older debates have a different kind of voting than the current debates.
1) Many votes then, as opposed to fewer votes now

Up until late 2009, the voting was completely hidden (meaning no one could see how anyone voted). This means that people could vote without fear of being asked to explain their votes (so there was a lot more bias voting).

2) No RFDs as opposed to current debates which all have RFDs

RFD's weren't an option until they were added in late 2010 (by Juggle, I believe).

3) Debaters voted for themselves but not anymore

That was also allowed until the late 2010 update, done by Juggle. There was actually a massive witch hunt in the 2009, when the voting tab because visable, and everyone that had votebombed was exposed. We see that some people had the integrety to not vote for themselves, but their opponent did, gave just enough to take the win.

It was one of the most drama filled times for DDO (IMO).

Wow! Just wow! Must have been really controversial. Especially how many people would vote for themselves without fail every single debate whereas other didn't. Notice how some members on the leaderboard who always voted for themselves are higher ranked than those that didn't even though some of the top debaters are widely considered to better than those ranked higher.

What was the "witch hunt" about? What happened?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 2:10:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/29/2011 2:07:49 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 8/29/2011 1:15:11 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/28/2011 10:36:39 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I've noticed a lot of the older debates have a different kind of voting than the current debates.
1) Many votes then, as opposed to fewer votes now

Up until late 2009, the voting was completely hidden (meaning no one could see how anyone voted). This means that people could vote without fear of being asked to explain their votes (so there was a lot more bias voting).

2) No RFDs as opposed to current debates which all have RFDs

RFD's weren't an option until they were added in late 2010 (by Juggle, I believe).

3) Debaters voted for themselves but not anymore

That was also allowed until the late 2010 update, done by Juggle. There was actually a massive witch hunt in the 2009, when the voting tab because visable, and everyone that had votebombed was exposed. We see that some people had the integrety to not vote for themselves, but their opponent did, gave just enough to take the win.

It was one of the most drama filled times for DDO (IMO).

Wow! Just wow! Must have been really controversial. Especially how many people would vote for themselves without fail every single debate whereas other didn't. Notice how some members on the leaderboard who always voted for themselves are higher ranked than those that didn't even though some of the top debaters are widely considered to better than those ranked higher.

What was the "witch hunt" about? What happened?

I'll tell you in PM, no point in bring up bad blood again in the forums.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 2:14:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/29/2011 2:10:08 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/29/2011 2:07:49 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 8/29/2011 1:15:11 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/28/2011 10:36:39 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I've noticed a lot of the older debates have a different kind of voting than the current debates.
1) Many votes then, as opposed to fewer votes now

Up until late 2009, the voting was completely hidden (meaning no one could see how anyone voted). This means that people could vote without fear of being asked to explain their votes (so there was a lot more bias voting).

2) No RFDs as opposed to current debates which all have RFDs

RFD's weren't an option until they were added in late 2010 (by Juggle, I believe).

3) Debaters voted for themselves but not anymore

That was also allowed until the late 2010 update, done by Juggle. There was actually a massive witch hunt in the 2009, when the voting tab because visable, and everyone that had votebombed was exposed. We see that some people had the integrety to not vote for themselves, but their opponent did, gave just enough to take the win.

It was one of the most drama filled times for DDO (IMO).

Wow! Just wow! Must have been really controversial. Especially how many people would vote for themselves without fail every single debate whereas other didn't. Notice how some members on the leaderboard who always voted for themselves are higher ranked than those that didn't even though some of the top debaters are widely considered to better than those ranked higher.

What was the "witch hunt" about? What happened?

I'll tell you in PM, no point in bring up bad blood again in the forums.

It seems interesting as well...Do you mind explaining it to me as well in a PM, Ore_Ele?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 2:19:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/29/2011 2:10:08 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

I'll tell you in PM, no point in bring up bad blood again in the forums.

I would love to hear about it. I find DDO's history to be very interesting as well.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 2:32:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/29/2011 2:19:56 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 8/29/2011 2:10:08 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

I'll tell you in PM, no point in bring up bad blood again in the forums.

I would love to hear about it. I find DDO's history to be very interesting as well.

So do I. I've tried to record it as much as possible, but with Wikis keep coming up and going down (and with the new one not likely to stay up too long), I've stopped doing it.

Though I might create an achieve for my own records. I don't know when I'd have the time though.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 3:02:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If voting is anonymous and a person can vote for himself, it's reasonable to assume that you opponent will give himself. Well, maybe it's unreasonable, but checking old debates, Pro and Con almost always each gave themselves seven points. Often, seven points would be scored within seconds of a debate concluding, so you knew that was happening. The opponents votes just cancelled, so it was as if neither had voted.

What was unfair was if one of the participants wasn't authenticated by phone and couldn't vote. It's much better just to have no self-voting to avoid the dance.

I don't think RFDs did much to discourage voting. There are lots of one-word or one sentence RFDs, so saying something is not a problem. I think what discourages voting is aversion to complaints and retribution. Sometimes one of the debaters thinks you voted unfairly, so he harasses you, demanding a brief suitable for a Supreme Court ruling, and ultimately votes against you forever in retribution. I vote on a lot of debates, so I have a short list of those, maybe a half dozen.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 3:03:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/29/2011 3:02:23 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
If voting is anonymous and a person can vote for himself, it's reasonable to assume that you opponent will give himself. Well, maybe it's unreasonable, but checking old debates, Pro and Con almost always each gave themselves seven points. Often, seven points would be scored within seconds of a debate concluding, so you knew that was happening. The opponents votes just cancelled, so it was as if neither had voted.

What was unfair was if one of the participants wasn't authenticated by phone and couldn't vote. It's much better just to have no self-voting to avoid the dance.

I don't think RFDs did much to discourage voting. There are lots of one-word or one sentence RFDs, so saying something is not a problem. I think what discourages voting is aversion to complaints and retribution. Sometimes one of the debaters thinks you voted unfairly, so he harasses you, demanding a brief suitable for a Supreme Court ruling, and ultimately votes against you forever in retribution. I vote on a lot of debates, so I have a short list of those, maybe a half dozen.

That reminds me of the Askbob/Rogue incident
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 4:17:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/29/2011 3:02:23 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
If voting is anonymous and a person can vote for himself, it's reasonable to assume that you opponent will give himself. Well, maybe it's unreasonable, but checking old debates, Pro and Con almost always each gave themselves seven points. Often, seven points would be scored within seconds of a debate concluding, so you knew that was happening. The opponents votes just cancelled, so it was as if neither had voted.

What was unfair was if one of the participants wasn't authenticated by phone and couldn't vote. It's much better just to have no self-voting to avoid the dance.

I don't think RFDs did much to discourage voting. There are lots of one-word or one sentence RFDs, so saying something is not a problem. I think what discourages voting is aversion to complaints and retribution. Sometimes one of the debaters thinks you voted unfairly, so he harasses you, demanding a brief suitable for a Supreme Court ruling, and ultimately votes against you forever in retribution. I vote on a lot of debates, so I have a short list of those, maybe a half dozen.

I don't know if harrassment was the only factor. There were literally hundreds of points worth of votes in the old debates whereas in current debates, we would be lucky to get 10-20 points. If a person never complained or took revenge on people who voted against them, how does that explain why people don't vote on their debates as frequently as the old ones?
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 5:06:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/29/2011 4:17:48 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I don't know if harrassment was the only factor. There were literally hundreds of points worth of votes in the old debates whereas in current debates, we would be lucky to get 10-20 points. If a person never complained or took revenge on people who voted against them, how does that explain why people don't vote on their debates as frequently as the old ones?

It's not that people don't vote as a consequence of having been harassed, it's that they don't want to be identified as voting against someone for fear of future problems. It's the "I just don't want to get involved" syndrome. The fewer times you put yourself out there, the less the chance of criticism or retribution. It's "Why ask for trouble?" There is no benefit to voting, only potential problems.

i don't really know, I'm just speculating. It might be something else, or a combination of factors. Maybe somehow the DDO membership characteristics have changed to having more people who don't like to read debates.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 5:20:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
There don't seem to be less members (as of writing nearly fifty members are online) so I dunno why less people are voting. I think we need some kind of incentive system.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 5:22:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/29/2011 5:20:57 PM, Kinesis wrote:
There don't seem to be less members (as of writing nearly fifty members are online) so I dunno why less people are voting. I think we need some kind of incentive system.

There's 33 online at the moment, the ticket under the "people" section is off.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 6:00:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't think self-voting is necessarily a problem as those would normally balance out. However, as RoyLatham said, the problem came about when one side could not vote due to phone issues.

Like I said though, the main problem was people would vote bomb using multi-accounts. I know one very prominent member (and there were probably more, although I don't remember) who was proven to have done this, although he/she has since changed his/her ways.
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes