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

Vote-Bomb Police

Buckethead31594
Posts: 363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 5:14:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What if there where people who created accounts but didn't debate; having admin privileges, their sole-purpose would be to counter VB's and prosecute trolls? I find the idea rather interesting.
"By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher." - Socrates
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 5:25:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
can't people do that on their own accounts anyways?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 5:48:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/7/2011 5:14:33 PM, Buckethead31594 wrote:
What if there where people who created accounts but didn't debate; having admin privileges, their sole-purpose would be to counter VB's and prosecute trolls? I find the idea rather interesting.

That would be the Cleaners, didn't go over so well, since what one person calls a "vote bomb" many others many not agree with. When it comes to obvious vote bombs we had a thread for posting vote bombed debates, where vote bombs would be countered, and since then, vote bombing has gone down significantly (it use to be that most votes were vote bombs back in the day).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 6:19:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/7/2011 5:48:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/7/2011 5:14:33 PM, Buckethead31594 wrote:
What if there where people who created accounts but didn't debate; having admin privileges, their sole-purpose would be to counter VB's and prosecute trolls? I find the idea rather interesting.

That would be the Cleaners, didn't go over so well, since what one person calls a "vote bomb" many others many not agree with. When it comes to obvious vote bombs we had a thread for posting vote bombed debates, where vote bombs would be countered, and since then, vote bombing has gone down significantly (it use to be that most votes were vote bombs back in the day).

Like how when punishment raises or there is no benefit than that act goes down, I WILL NOT GESTURE THE DEATH PENALTY
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
12/7/2011 11:31:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Protecting debates against votebombs is crucial, but I question whether we are going to far at this point. While votebombing has gone way down, so has voting, probably mostly for the same reason. And many of the votes now are just countering another one.

Counter votebombing seems to have turned into countering every voter who provided a one sentence RFD, or an RFD they don't agree with. I think it is to the point where many members do not even want to vote anymore because they don't feel like dealing with it. I haven't read any debates in the last few days, but here is the last one I did read:
http://www.debate.org...
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 11:36:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/7/2011 11:31:22 PM, Double_R wrote:
Protecting debates against votebombs is crucial, but I question whether we are going to far at this point. While votebombing has gone way down, so has voting, probably mostly for the same reason. And many of the votes now are just countering another one.

Counter votebombing seems to have turned into countering every voter who provided a one sentence RFD, or an RFD they don't agree with. I think it is to the point where many members do not even want to vote anymore because they don't feel like dealing with it. I haven't read any debates in the last few days, but here is the last one I did read:
http://www.debate.org...

The voting there is ridiculous. Countering a counter's counter? Give me a break.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 9:35:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/7/2011 11:31:22 PM, Double_R wrote:
Protecting debates against votebombs is crucial, but I question whether we are going to far at this point. While votebombing has gone way down, so has voting, probably mostly for the same reason. And many of the votes now are just countering another one.

Counter votebombing seems to have turned into countering every voter who provided a one sentence RFD, or an RFD they don't agree with. I think it is to the point where many members do not even want to vote anymore because they don't feel like dealing with it. I haven't read any debates in the last few days, but here is the last one I did read:
http://www.debate.org...

But you also have to wonder in the past, how many people actually read the debates before voting and how many voted along political lines?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 10:28:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think it is better now than before because in the past when no RFD's were required, the number of votes were high but the benefit to the debaters would be low. For instance, I would rather have two votes with detailed RFD's that would help me improve my debating skills and provide constructive criticism as opposed to 20 votes with no RFDs regardless of who won or lost.

I also think part of the problem lies with the debaters. Many debaters argue with judges and complain about the voting which further discourages voting on their debates. If you really want people to vote on your debates, then don't complain about those votes and accept whatever constructive criticism you get. Note that asking for clarifications on the vote is different than flat-out accusing the voter of voting unfairly.

I haven't debated much in the past month or so when many of these so called votebombers such as the ones mentioned in the debate Double_R posted joined the site, but it does seem like the quality of voting has been declining in the past month. In my opinion, voting quality was at its peak a couple months ago. I'd like to see what the older members think of this.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 1:27:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/8/2011 9:35:45 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
But you also have to wonder in the past, how many people actually read the debates before voting and how many voted along political lines?

I am not suggesting that we return to the old days where a voters identity was hidden and debaters could vote for themselves. I am just saying that we are going too far. Countering someone because they leave an RFD like "Pro's argument was better", is basically saying "I disapprove of this persons competence to vote in this debate, so I will remove their right to do so". Instead of bothering, the person should just read the debate and give their own vote, but it seems lately that we are more focused on countering votebombs then giving real votes.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 1:30:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/8/2011 10:28:29 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I think it is better now than before because in the past when no RFD's were required, the number of votes were high but the benefit to the debaters would be low. For instance, I would rather have two votes with detailed RFD's that would help me improve my debating skills and provide constructive criticism as opposed to 20 votes with no RFDs regardless of who won or lost.

I also think part of the problem lies with the debaters. Many debaters argue with judges and complain about the voting which further discourages voting on their debates. If you really want people to vote on your debates, then don't complain about those votes and accept whatever constructive criticism you get. Note that asking for clarifications on the vote is different than flat-out accusing the voter of voting unfairly.

I haven't debated much in the past month or so when many of these so called votebombers such as the ones mentioned in the debate Double_R posted joined the site, but it does seem like the quality of voting has been declining in the past month. In my opinion, voting quality was at its peak a couple months ago. I'd like to see what the older members think of this.

I would agree. I know I haven't voted as much lately, but I think most of the quality voters have been busy getting lynched.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 8:44:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2011 5:14:33 PM, Buckethead31594 wrote:
What if there where people who created accounts but didn't debate; having admin privileges, their sole-purpose would be to counter VB's and prosecute trolls? I find the idea rather interesting.

I know, i hate open voting because people vote unfairly and they're heavily biased. They pick the opposite side just because they like them more or because they're friends with someone who didn't even try and ignore the other person who put alot of work into their stuff, winning fairly. This is why i hate politics because people don't think, they are just mindless sheep following what's in their instincts.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2014 1:01:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also, necro posting just so you can take a shot at Mikal? Talk about a waste of time.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
NiamC
Posts: 905
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2014 1:01:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/3/2014 1:00:31 AM, Zaradi wrote:
Holy necro posting. Please.

Fvck the vote-bomb police!
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Niam est amor, vita Niam
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2014 2:59:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/3/2014 1:01:27 AM, NiamC wrote:
Fvck the vote-bomb police!
Not a surprising opinion from someone whose RFDs include words like "Oh , hot shizzle dizzle." And awarding conduct any against anyone who questions any sources.
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
NiamC
Posts: 905
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2014 3:05:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/3/2014 2:59:07 AM, Ragnar wrote:
At 8/3/2014 1:01:27 AM, NiamC wrote:
Fvck the vote-bomb police!
Not a surprising opinion from someone whose RFDs include words like "Oh , hot shizzle dizzle." And awarding conduct any against anyone who questions any sources.

... it was a joke...
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Niam est amor, vita Niam
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
9spaceking
Posts: 4,213
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2014 6:40:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/3/2014 2:59:07 AM, Ragnar wrote:
At 8/3/2014 1:01:27 AM, NiamC wrote:
Fvck the vote-bomb police!
Not a surprising opinion from someone whose RFDs include words like "Oh , hot shizzle dizzle." And awarding conduct any against anyone who questions any sources.

lol hilarious
Equestrian election
http://www.debate.org...

This House would impose democracy
http://www.debate.org...

Reign of Terror is unjustified
http://www.debate.org...

Raise min. wage to $10.10
http://www.debate.org...
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2014 4:45:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 8:44:53 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 12/7/2011 5:14:33 PM, Buckethead31594 wrote:
What if there where people who created accounts but didn't debate; having admin privileges, their sole-purpose would be to counter VB's and prosecute trolls? I find the idea rather interesting.

I know, i hate open voting because people vote unfairly and they're heavily biased. They pick the opposite side just because they like them more or because they're friends with someone who didn't even try and ignore the other person who put alot of work into their stuff, winning fairly. This is why i hate politics because people don't think, they are just mindless sheep following what's in their instincts.

Um dude notice when this was posted? This is called Necroposting.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
birdlandmemories
Posts: 4,140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 1:12:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/3/2014 3:05:33 AM, NiamC wrote:
At 8/3/2014 2:59:07 AM, Ragnar wrote:
At 8/3/2014 1:01:27 AM, NiamC wrote:
Fvck the vote-bomb police!
Not a surprising opinion from someone whose RFDs include words like "Oh , hot shizzle dizzle." And awarding conduct any against anyone who questions any sources.

... it was a joke...

And a biased vote. You only voted for SJ14 because you both are friends.
Ashton
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 5:23:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 8:44:53 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 12/7/2011 5:14:33 PM, Buckethead31594 wrote:
What if there where people who created accounts but didn't debate; having admin privileges, their sole-purpose would be to counter VB's and prosecute trolls? I find the idea rather interesting.

I know, i hate open voting because people vote unfairly and they're heavily biased. They pick the opposite side just because they like them more or because they're friends with someone who didn't even try and ignore the other person who put alot of work into their stuff, winning fairly. This is why i hate politics because people don't think, they are just mindless sheep following what's in their instincts.

Baah! Baah!
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...