Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Percentile

mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2009 1:55:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
This really should be changed. Right now, it just looks at wins and ignores win ration and loss rates. I think that it should be based on (wins^2+1)/(losses+1) instead. Any thoughts?
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2009 3:04:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I would like reform on here, too. It's just not going to happen this year. Sorry.

Lose hope now. The fall will be lesser.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2009 3:09:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/25/2009 1:55:18 PM, mongoose wrote:
This really should be changed. Right now, it just looks at wins and ignores win ration and loss rates. I think that it should be based on (wins^2+1)/(losses+1) instead. Any thoughts?

What does ^ stand for? And why the bracket?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2009 3:12:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/25/2009 3:09:52 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 4/25/2009 1:55:18 PM, mongoose wrote:
This really should be changed. Right now, it just looks at wins and ignores win ration and loss rates. I think that it should be based on (wins^2+1)/(losses+1) instead. Any thoughts?

What does ^ stand for? And why the bracket?

Exponent. Fraction.

Also, to the OP: You are among many who want reform. It's just not going to happen.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2009 4:23:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/25/2009 4:13:28 PM, mongeese wrote:
Why not? It's a formula that takes wins and losses into account. It works; it just also has flaws.

My wins = 18
My losses = 14
My percentile = 97-98%

Now, do out the sum and see what you get. I did it out, but I think I did it wrong.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2009 5:14:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/25/2009 1:55:18 PM, mongoose wrote:
This really should be changed. Right now, it just looks at wins and ignores win ration and loss rates. I think that it should be based on (wins^2+1)/(losses+1) instead. Any thoughts?

This is my record:

Wins - 63
Losses - 20

According to your formula, my win ratio will be approximately 189.05%

...doesn't work dude.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2009 5:33:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
What he's saying is that this formula should be to determine a value, which everyone is then ranked by to determine percentile.
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2009 6:13:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
If you have a look at the leader board, it's clear that your position is ENTIRELY dependent on your number of wins. Not number of debates, losses, ratio, nothing but number of wins.
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2009 9:10:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/25/2009 6:13:05 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
If you have a look at the leader board, it's clear that your position is ENTIRELY dependent on your number of wins. Not number of debates, losses, ratio, nothing but number of wins.

And therein lies the problem.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2009 10:22:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/25/2009 6:13:05 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
If you have a look at the leader board, it's clear that your position is ENTIRELY dependent on your number of wins. Not number of debates, losses, ratio, nothing but number of wins.

This statement is ENTIRELY false.

First, Phil claims there is a secret formula. Don't believe him? Well, fine, then second: What happens when there is a tie in wins? It typically happens that those with more debates (in general) get the higher ranking. Maybe Phil factors in many factors, but, not being a renowned statistician, sort of made it so that every other factor was largely negligible.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
burningpuppies101
Posts: 1,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2009 10:57:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
It being determined sole by wins explains why someone like Harlan, with 24 wins and 34 losses ranks higher than someone like SolaGratia, with 24 wins and only 3 losses.
Omnes te moriturum amant 

http://www.debate.org...
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2009 11:10:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/25/2009 10:57:06 PM, burningpuppies101 wrote:
It being determined sole by wins explains why someone like Harlan, with 24 wins and 34 losses ranks higher than someone like SolaGratia, with 24 wins and only 3 losses.

Maybe it's just who gets the most wins first? So if two people tie at 24 wins the person to get 24 wins first gets to be higher.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2009 1:34:30 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/26/2009 12:49:00 AM, Logical-Master wrote:
My opinion: Just take down the leader board. People will always be complaining about it regardless of how it is set up.

You have to admit, a large attraction from debating comes from winning and see your personal record climb. Whether this is a large part of the appeal for you, it certainly is for many others :)

On the side note, I don't really care about it either. Though I do get a kick out of it every then and now ;)
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2009 3:08:40 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I have a feeling your forfeits and views on debates have something to do with it, maybe your activity and amount of debates as well.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2010 7:02:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'd propose this system:
sum of [wins*(1+ percentile of opponent)^n]
------------------------------------------------------------
sum of [losses*(2-percentile of opponent)^n]
n >0.
That way not only do you factor in the win/loss ratio, but who your opponent is, so you don't just users who don't know how to debate.
I'd base n = 2 for both sides, but it can be pretty much anything. The larger n is, the more important differences in percentile of opponent is.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2010 8:11:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/26/2009 12:49:00 AM, Logical-Master wrote:
My opinion: Just take down the leader board. People will always be complaining about it regardless of how it is set up.

People are going to just construct their own leader board if the official one is taken down. The only way to truly eliminate the leader board is to eliminate winning itself.