Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Votebombing?!?!?

Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2009 12:59:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I have been on this site for less than a week and I have votebombed (against?) twice already.

Exhibit #1: In which my opponent has gotten voted for only 4 times, but at 7 points each time, adding up to 28 points. I have been voted for 8 times, adding up to 29 points.
http://www.debate.org...

Exhibit #2: In which my opponent forfeited the last 2 rounds and his only argument in the 1st round was incredibly weak. I am losing 14-7 after 3 votes. And my opponent hasn't even been online since the debate ended, so he couldn't have voted for himself.
http://www.debate.org...

I like the concept of this site, but I hate the votebombing. I want fun, fairly judged debates, but the votebombing has really hurt the "fairly judged" part. When will the ability to see the profile for the people who vote appear on the site? This will most likely cut down on the votebombing. Thanks for reading this, I appreciate it.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2009 1:04:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The voting on that second debate is ridiculous and there is clearly some shady activity going on. As for the first one, I wouldn't be so quick to blame malicious bombing. Seeing as both sides presented a single argument, members may just be awarding their points to their preferred side.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2009 1:30:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The second debate was clearly an instance of vote abuse. I voted in your favor because you were the clear victor (since your opponent forfeited 2/3 of the debate).

The first one, on the other hand, can be attributed to a legitimate loss on your part.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2009 3:45:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The term 'votebombing' implies a malicious attack against someone.

The first one may have just been a loss for you. Don't prematurely cry wolf.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2009 4:06:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/3/2009 3:45:03 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
The term 'votebombing' implies a malicious attack against someone.

The first one may have just been a loss for you. Don't prematurely cry wolf.

He got 4 votes for 28 points (5 for 31 now). How does he deserve conduct, S&G, and most reliable sources? Simply put, he doesn't.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2009 4:32:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Well, you have to realize that there are biased voters here :). Vote bombing, on the other hand, is more like a conscious group effort to vote against you for whatever reason.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2009 2:09:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/5/2009 1:40:24 PM, mongeese wrote:
I've always interpreted a vote bomb to be any vote that is completely biased in any way.

Same.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2009 2:18:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/5/2009 1:40:24 PM, mongeese wrote:
I've always interpreted a vote bomb to be any vote that is completely biased in any way.

Then there is no such thing as a non-bomb vote.
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.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2009 2:23:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/5/2009 2:18:00 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/5/2009 1:40:24 PM, mongeese wrote:
I've always interpreted a vote bomb to be any vote that is completely biased in any way.

Then there is no such thing as a non-bomb vote.

How so? I am not biased when voting. I vote based on who did the best, not who I agreed with.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2009 8:25:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'd say a single heavily-biased vote is just perhaps a 'bad' vote?

The term vote bomb denotes a concentrated group effort, thus the inclusion of the word "bomb".
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2009 8:28:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/5/2009 8:21:50 PM, mongeese wrote:
Actually, I know that you are biased against semantics.

No I'm not. I don't like them. But I do not vote against people just because they used semantics, except in the conduct section.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2009 7:27:17 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/5/2009 8:28:30 PM, Nags wrote:
At 6/5/2009 8:21:50 PM, mongeese wrote:
Actually, I know that you are biased against semantics.

No I'm not. I don't like them. But I do not vote against people just because they used semantics, except in the conduct section.

Exactly. You are biased against semantics in the conduct section. You also vote against successful semantics in the arguments section.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2009 12:17:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/6/2009 7:27:17 AM, mongeese wrote:
At 6/5/2009 8:28:30 PM, Nags wrote:
At 6/5/2009 8:21:50 PM, mongeese wrote:
Actually, I know that you are biased against semantics.

No I'm not. I don't like them. But I do not vote against people just because they used semantics, except in the conduct section.

Exactly. You are biased against semantics in the conduct section. You also vote against successful semantics in the arguments section.

I am not biased against semantics in the conduct section, I just believe that semantics are bad conduct.

I actually do vote for successful semantics in the arguments section.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2009 8:19:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I think it might be some idiot who goes through and votes for forfeiters.
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.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2009 8:29:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/5/2009 2:23:00 PM, Nags wrote:
At 6/5/2009 2:18:00 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/5/2009 1:40:24 PM, mongeese wrote:
I've always interpreted a vote bomb to be any vote that is completely biased in any way.

Then there is no such thing as a non-bomb vote.

How so? I am not biased when voting. I vote based on who did the best, not who I agreed with.

In order to think someone "did the best," you have to be biased in favor of a particular conception of what constitutes the best.

Everyone is biased in regard to everything they give a damn about. Bias doesn't have to be intentional, nor does it require that one be biased toward benefiting those one agrees with.
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.
brittwaller
Posts: 331
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2009 7:12:37 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Negative. Listen to, or read rather, what R_R is saying:

Vote-bombing is a concentrated group effort -- imagine (some won't have to use much imagination) thirty or so accounts, some single, some duplicate, triplicate, etc., running through ALL of your debates to make you the loser, no matter what side of a position you argued for or how well you argued it. From my experience, "vote-bombing" is done by a group, it is first of all personal, and second to that it is usually ideological.

Britt
Don't I take care of them all?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2009 9:22:43 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/7/2009 6:32:38 AM, mongeese wrote:
That's where the word "completely" comes into play when deciding if it is vote-bombing.

"Completeness" in regards to "bias" does not make sense as a concept. Bias does not have a cap.
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.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2009 9:34:02 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Indeed, bias isn't even purely quantitative.
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.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2009 11:24:01 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'm still a relative noob around here with only two months as a site user but thought I'd chip in my opinion anyway.

Firstly it's a made-up term only used on DDO so arguing about it's 'true' meaning doesn't make much sense although people who've been on here the longest probably have the most authority here.

I think in the history of the site the vote-bombing that has caused massive controversy has always involved groups of users and/or multiple account but I have certainly heard the term used to describe other kinds of 'bad' voting.

I think if people vote seven points regardless of the different categories because they feel strongly about a debate topic that's not really a vote bomb although it could still potentially be seen as vote abuse.

When I was targeted by one individual voting seven points against me in every single debate I had, I posted on the forum describing this as vote-bombing and several long-term users seemed to agree with me.

I think any proposed definition of the term should include targeted malice against an individual or group and as far as the 'mass' aspect goes, I think one person with one account voting on a large number of debates in a short time should fit this category as well as a group or multiple account effort.

Everyone is of course free to disagree and interpret their own way, at least until an official DDO dictionary is published lol.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2009 12:00:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/7/2009 11:24:01 AM, feverish wrote:
Firstly it's a made-up term only used on DDO so arguing about it's 'true' meaning doesn't make much sense although people who've been on here the longest probably have the most authority here.

Nuh uh. I brought the term here from the Newgrounds Audio Portal.

I think in the history of the site the vote-bombing that has caused massive controversy has always involved groups of users and/or multiple account but I have certainly heard the term used to describe other kinds of 'bad' voting.

Yes. You can read some of the archive DF news about i.

I think if people vote seven points regardless of the different categories because they feel strongly about a debate topic that's not really a vote bomb although it could still potentially be seen as vote abuse.

Exactly, correct. That is vote abuse, not vote bombing.

When I was targeted by one individual voting seven points against me in every single debate I had, I posted on the forum describing this as vote-bombing and several long-term users seemed to agree with me.

Yes. That would be personal, so that could be considered vote bombing.

I think any proposed definition of the term should include targeted malice against an individual or group and as far as the 'mass' aspect goes, I think one person with one account voting on a large number of debates in a short time should fit this category as well as a group or multiple account effort.

Yes.

Everyone is of course free to disagree and interpret their own way, at least until an official DDO dictionary is published lol.

If only such a DDO dictionary existed ... *cough* Debate Fans *cough*
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2009 7:06:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Thanks PoeJoe, glad a notable authority such as yourself agrees with most of my assumptions, my bad for not knowing much about newgrounds or debatefans.

I promise to check out debatefans someday!
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2009 8:32:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
http://www.Debate.org...

This debate of mine wasn't exactly votebombing, but I clearly won. The debate is three rounds, and my opponent forfeited rounds two and three, he didn't even make a sound argument when he posted something in round one. I just feel I deserve a clear win instead of a tie in this one, so I would appreciate if you vote on it if you have the chance. Thanks
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2009 4:06:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/7/2009 8:32:28 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
http://www.Debate.org...

This debate of mine wasn't exactly votebombing, but I clearly won. The debate is three rounds, and my opponent forfeited rounds two and three, he didn't even make a sound argument when he posted something in round one. I just feel I deserve a clear win instead of a tie in this one, so I would appreciate if you vote on it if you have the chance. Thanks

I voted for you.

I would also appreciate if someone could vote for me here. My opponent forfeited every round. It's tied 7-7 right now.
http://www.debate.org...