Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

voting

16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 9:16:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is a question. Have you ever had a debate where your opponent has no sources but people say his are better? It pisses me off when that happens, and it happens to me all the time. Just wondering if its only me.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 9:38:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It pisses me off when someone votes six points to my opponent without giving a single reason. http://www.debate.org...
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 9:51:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I gave a reason now, but the reason was obvious. You are a pe pe hearted person.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 9:53:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 9:51:24 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I gave a reason now, but the reason was obvious. You are a pe pe hearted person.

Obvious joke debate but my opponent never used the argument you mentioned in your RFD for why you voted for him, meaning you voted from your own personal feelings, rather than on the content of the debate.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 9:57:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
yes he did, he talked about how its the rapist, not the victim in the second round. So your argument against me if false, so go away unless you have something constructive for this forum.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 9:59:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 9:57:41 PM, 16kadams wrote:
yes he did, he talked about how its the rapist, not the victim in the second round. So your argument against me if false, so go away unless you have something constructive for this forum.

You started this thread to complain about votebombing, then get mad when someone else does the same?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Godsconservativegirl
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 10:02:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 9:16:58 PM, 16kadams wrote:
This is a question. Have you ever had a debate where your opponent has no sources but people say his are better? It pisses me off when that happens, and it happens to me all the time. Just wondering if its only me.

Yes. that happened to me in one debate, I had proof and logic, but they voted for the other anyway. >:( but, one person voted to me, and it made me win :)
"John 3:16 For God so Loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth on him shall not perish, but shall have ever lasting life."

God'sconservativegirl :)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 10:45:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
How do you guys feel about eliminating all the points except "most convincing argument?" In high school and college debate, that's the only thing that matters.

Obviously, good grammar, sources ,and conduct go into making a compelling argument, but if they weren't separate categories, people couldn't vote bomb (except the type where they vote without reading).
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 11:19:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 10:45:27 PM, bluesteel wrote:
How do you guys feel about eliminating all the points except "most convincing argument?" In high school and college debate, that's the only thing that matters.

Obviously, good grammar, sources ,and conduct go into making a compelling argument, but if they weren't separate categories, people couldn't vote bomb (except the type where they vote without reading).

Agreed. The issue with the current voting system is that some people find really dumb reasons to vote on conduct or spelling.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 12:37:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 10:45:27 PM, bluesteel wrote:
How do you guys feel about eliminating all the points except "most convincing argument?" In high school and college debate, that's the only thing that matters.

Obviously, good grammar, sources ,and conduct go into making a compelling argument, but if they weren't separate categories, people couldn't vote bomb (except the type where they vote without reading).

No
http://www.debate.org...

I don't think DDO should base it's voting system because on the actions of the relatively few users who don't understand or don't care to use it properly. First of all members of this site are very good with countering votebombs so their effect is minimal. Also, having various categories to judge is part of what makes votebombers easy to spot. Since they normally don't care about judging fairly they will not likely restrain themselves to giving only 3 points for arguments.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 1:24:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/20/2011 12:37:32 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/19/2011 10:45:27 PM, bluesteel wrote:
How do you guys feel about eliminating all the points except "most convincing argument?" In high school and college debate, that's the only thing that matters.

Obviously, good grammar, sources ,and conduct go into making a compelling argument, but if they weren't separate categories, people couldn't vote bomb (except the type where they vote without reading).

No
http://www.debate.org...

I don't think DDO should base it's voting system because on the actions of the relatively few users who don't understand or don't care to use it properly. First of all members of this site are very good with countering votebombs so their effect is minimal. Also, having various categories to judge is part of what makes votebombers easy to spot. Since they normally don't care about judging fairly they will not likely restrain themselves to giving only 3 points for arguments.

I hope you don't mind me playing devil's advocate, but it's interesting. I'm reading this book called Switch and sometimes the easiest change is changing the environment so people can't even engage in the behavior you don't like anymore.

You make good points, but my issue is that many voters won't deign to counter a vote bomb. Personally, I don't think it's ever fair for me to vote all 7 points, if i don't believe that person won. So if it's easy to vote bomb and harder to find counter-vote bombers, that's not as useful.

Second, it's not always clear what a votebomb is. 16kadams didn't give much of an RFD on spinko's debate. he also changed his vote on my debate with innomen to give inno more points, since inno was losing but the "more points" put him back ahead. Was this vote bombing? 16k claims he 're-read' the debate and felt compelled to give inno more points. Some votebombers are getting smarter and trying to make their decisions seem objective.

You claim it's really easy to counter, but not really. In my debate with innomen, i have tons and tons of voters giving me 3 points, but it took forever to catch up to innomen bc half his voters gave him 5, 6 or 7 points, many with little to no RFD.

last, can't we solve this by requiring RFD's. i think it's fair, even if there was only 3 points to award, that if your debate "requires" an RFD and someone doesn't leave a real one, that you can request a counter-vote.

to me, the worst kind of vote bomb is the one that claims to be objective, but still votes your opponent 6 or 7 points. i just don't think there should be that option. like, as in, if you pressure that person to change their 6 point vote, they refuse because your opponent earned it, even if they can't point to specific sources or grammar.

i also think there should be a box that you have to check that says, "i swear, under penalty of perjury, that i have read this debate in full and am making my decision based on objective criteria." studies show checkboxes like this shame people out of cheating, even though you could easily fool the checkbox. but they do work, and it's simple.

if you're gonna get votebombed, wouldn't you rather it only count against you for 3 rather than 6. Yeah, 7 with no RFD is a clear votebomb that will be countered. But if only all votebombs were that clear.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
jm_notguilty
Posts: 683
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 1:33:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 10:45:27 PM, bluesteel wrote:
How do you guys feel about eliminating all the points except "most convincing argument?" In high school and college debate, that's the only thing that matters.

But.... but.... I like depriving conduct points to forfeiters :PPP
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 3:41:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/20/2011 1:24:45 AM, bluesteel wrote:
I hope you don't mind me playing devil's advocate, but it's interesting. I'm reading this book called Switch and sometimes the easiest change is changing the environment so people can't even engage in the behavior you don't like anymore.

You make good points, but my issue is that many voters won't deign to counter a vote bomb. Personally, I don't think it's ever fair for me to vote all 7 points, if i don't believe that person won. So if it's easy to vote bomb and harder to find counter-vote bombers, that's not as useful.

Second, it's not always clear what a votebomb is. 16kadams didn't give much of an RFD on spinko's debate. he also changed his vote on my debate with innomen to give inno more points, since inno was losing but the "more points" put him back ahead. Was this vote bombing? 16k claims he 're-read' the debate and felt compelled to give inno more points. Some votebombers are getting smarter and trying to make their decisions seem objective.

You claim it's really easy to counter, but not really. In my debate with innomen, i have tons and tons of voters giving me 3 points, but it took forever to catch up to innomen bc half his voters gave him 5, 6 or 7 points, many with little to no RFD.

last, can't we solve this by requiring RFD's. i think it's fair, even if there was only 3 points to award, that if your debate "requires" an RFD and someone doesn't leave a real one, that you can request a counter-vote.

to me, the worst kind of vote bomb is the one that claims to be objective, but still votes your opponent 6 or 7 points. i just don't think there should be that option. like, as in, if you pressure that person to change their 6 point vote, they refuse because your opponent earned it, even if they can't point to specific sources or grammar.

i also think there should be a box that you have to check that says, "i swear, under penalty of perjury, that i have read this debate in full and am making my decision based on objective criteria." studies show checkboxes like this shame people out of cheating, even though you could easily fool the checkbox. but they do work, and it's simple.

if you're gonna get votebombed, wouldn't you rather it only count against you for 3 rather than 6. Yeah, 7 with no RFD is a clear votebomb that will be countered. But if only all votebombs were that clear.

This is a debate site. Someone has to play devils advocate.

Yes some votebombs are harder to spot, and it really does suck when people find dumb reasons to tack points on to your opponent. However I still stick to my original points.

If we judge only arguments, then there is no reason to make it 3 points, it should only count for 1. Therefore the scores would look something like 2-1 (two people say for Pro, and one for Con). Some may find this appealing but if that is the only thing being judged then what motivation do debaters have to provide reliable sources, or watch their grammar or conduct? These things are all essential to having quality debates, yet an "argument only" system does nothing to encourage it. So once again, votebombers aside, the current range of categories is clearly (in my opinion) a superior system of judging then a simple majority vote. We shouldn't let the 16kadams of the world change that.

As far as some of your other points, I think part of the issues on this site is a growing intolerance of votes without long elaborate RFD's. Anyone who has seen enough of my RFD's knows that I value this, but just because someone provides little to no RFD does not mean that they didn't read the debate. It is very rare for anyone to believe that they lost a debate, so when this happens any vote against you seems like a votebomb. A site like this thrives on disagreement, we shouldn't be surprised when we have some.

Requiring RFD's is probably a good idea. I would suggest specifying it in the rules portion in round 1 to help deter those who have no interest in explaining their reasons, and give others a clear reason to counter.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 9:55:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 10:45:27 PM, bluesteel wrote:
How do you guys feel about eliminating all the points except "most convincing argument?" In high school and college debate, that's the only thing that matters.

Obviously, good grammar, sources ,and conduct go into making a compelling argument, but if they weren't separate categories, people couldn't vote bomb (except the type where they vote without reading).

That could be good. Best Sources gets misused all the time, and it's worth almost as much as Most Convincing.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 10:05:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Maybe we could bump Most Convincing up to four points.

And maybe we could change "Most Reliable Sources" to "Best Sources." Because so many people fixate on that word "most," and give a point because, "Pro had the most sources."
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 12:04:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
That's also an option - to make arguments worth 4 or 5 points.

Double R - by "requiring an RFD" I mean that you check the box when you create the debate that says "require RFD's." That means your debate requires an RFD. The problem is that people write: "agreed with pro" and then vote. That's not an RFD, but the programmers can only force your judges to write SOMETHING, it doesn't have to be a legitimate RFD. But if you checked a box when you made the debate that you wanted every judge to leave an RFD, it seems to circumvent that spirit if judges don't.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 12:13:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
No it should be only arguments and scources. So people know that you know what you are talking about, and arguments sgould be worth more though
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 2:43:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/20/2011 10:05:50 AM, wiploc wrote:
Maybe we could bump Most Convincing up to four points.

And maybe we could change "Most Reliable Sources" to "Best Sources." Because so many people fixate on that word "most," and give a point because, "Pro had the most sources."

Not a bad ideas, I'd support them. I don't know about "Best sources" though because "best" could mean anything. Perhaps the question "Whose sorces were more reliable?" or something to that effect.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 2:46:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
or "had THE more reliable sources" not "had more reliable sources". the "the" makes it clear it's not about quantity.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 2:47:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
err, nvm it says "the" now. I meant use "more" instead of "most." "the more" is clearly not about quantity.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 2:54:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/20/2011 12:04:49 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Double R - by "requiring an RFD" I mean that you check the box when you create the debate that says "require RFD's." That means your debate requires an RFD. The problem is that people write: "agreed with pro" and then vote. That's not an RFD, but the programmers can only force your judges to write SOMETHING, it doesn't have to be a legitimate RFD. But if you checked a box when you made the debate that you wanted every judge to leave an RFD, it seems to circumvent that spirit if judges don't.

I agree with that.

But just to play devils advocate; voting activity has not exactly been a strong point on this site lately. Asking people to do even more work then just reading the debate may deter a lot of voters from even bothering. I certainly agree with quality over quantity, but at some point quantity makes a big difference. Not many people feel motivated to take part in a serious 4 round 8,000 character per round debate if no one will bother judging it. Just another thought.