Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Debaters complaining about voting

F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 2:00:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
A lot of debaters complain when other members vote against them in their debates. I am not talking about asking for feedback and further clarifications on how to improve - that is always welcome. The problem comes when debaters flat-out accuse people of votebombing for no reason and call into question the integrity of the voters. It just makes people less inclined to vote on their debates if they can expect a slew of complaints to even a well-thought out RFD which takes a lot of time and analysis to compose. If a vote is an obvious votebomb, get someone else to counter. If it is not obvious, ask other people to vote and hopefully the deciding factor in who wins will be the legitimate votes that a player got. I never complained about a vote before and it worked just fine. I believe it actually encourages voting if you know the debater will receive the feedback positively.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 2:01:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 2:00:25 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
A lot of debaters complain when other members vote against them in their debates. I am not talking about asking for feedback and further clarifications on how to improve - that is always welcome. The problem comes when debaters flat-out accuse people of votebombing for no reason and call into question the integrity of the voters. It just makes people less inclined to vote on their debates if they can expect a slew of complaints to even a well-thought out RFD which takes a lot of time and analysis to compose. If a vote is an obvious votebomb, get someone else to counter. If it is not obvious, ask other people to vote and hopefully the deciding factor in who wins will be the legitimate votes that a member got. I never complained about a vote before and it worked just fine. I believe it actually encourages voting if you know the debater will receive the feedback positively.

Fixed. I am so into mafia nowadays, I said "player" instead of member/debater.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 2:08:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I hope this isn't in reaction to the thread I made. I don't see how one can justify a one sentence RFD saying "I agree with ____." as a legitimate vote. Debaters spend hours researching and writing out those arguments, the least you could do is reciprocate the effort and give an honest, well thought out decision.

If someone complains that a vote was unjustified, even though it was well explained and elaborated, and honest, then I can see why you'd be annoyed by that. Otherwise, no. Voting is a reflection on the quality and ability of the 2 sides, and its unfair to have some bias individuals running around skimming debates and providing vague one-sentence RFDs in support of those they agreed with.
"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
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 2:16:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 2:08:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
I hope this isn't in reaction to the thread I made. I don't see how one can justify a one sentence RFD saying "I agree with ____." as a legitimate vote. Debaters spend hours researching and writing out those arguments, the least you could do is reciprocate the effort and give an honest, well thought out decision.

If someone complains that a vote was unjustified, even though it was well explained and elaborated, and honest, then I can see why you'd be annoyed by that. Otherwise, no. Voting is a reflection on the quality and ability of the 2 sides, and its unfair to have some bias individuals running around skimming debates and providing vague one-sentence RFDs in support of those they agreed with.

It wasn't a reaction to your posts. I have seen plenty of instances where I spent time reading debates twice or maybe even three times, and had enough analysis to give that it wouldn't fit into a single comment. People still complain and say that their argument was better. Well, maybe it seemed that way to them but obviouslt didn't for a voter. There are also members who argue with every single voter that voted against them and point out excuses for why said votes are supposedly biased.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 2:23:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Most people say "I'm countering a vote-bomb" which becomes entirely problematic. I've done several debates in which something like 12/20 votes were "counter" vote-bombs. At that point people are just voting straight 7's to whichever side they agree with and aren't countering anything at all. That's the problem with simply getting someone else to counter.

Here's an example ( http://www.debate.org... ). This debate had 61 votes, with 20 blatant vote-bombs. The last 2 people v-bombed against me, claiming they were "countering" ... but my opponent has 2 more "counter" vote bombs in his favor, meaning the last 2 people weren't countering anything and simply continuing the bad voting practice.

Of course, I don't care too much about winning or this debate in particular. I actually debated against anarchy here despite being an anarchist. However, for the record, there was voter controversy on this debate because my opponent had about 2 dozen anarchists register to vote on DDO from a different anarchist website (mises.org) simply to vote on this debate and this debate only. Obviously recruiting people just to vote in your favor on one debate is a shady practice, but whatever.

The point is that people should actually make sure they are "countering" if that's what they're claiming to do. With other votes, I think people complain because the RFD section isn't utilized properly. I can't tell you how many times people have said in the RFD box "Pro made better points." Um, the whole point of an RFD is to explain why. But yeah - voting will never be perfect.
President of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 2:32:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 2:23:45 PM, Danielle wrote:
Most people say "I'm countering a vote-bomb" which becomes entirely problematic. I've done several debates in which something like 12/20 votes were "counter" vote-bombs. At that point people are just voting straight 7's to whichever side they agree with and aren't countering anything at all. That's the problem with simply getting someone else to counter.

Here's an example ( http://www.debate.org... ). This debate had 61 votes, with 20 blatant vote-bombs. The last 2 people v-bombed against me, claiming they were "countering" ... but my opponent has 2 more "counter" vote bombs in his favor, meaning the last 2 people weren't countering anything and simply continuing the bad voting practice.

Of course, I don't care too much about winning or this debate in particular. I actually debated against anarchy here despite being an anarchist. However, for the record, there was voter controversy on this debate because my opponent had about 2 dozen anarchists register to vote on DDO from a different anarchist website (mises.org) simply to vote on this debate and this debate only. Obviously recruiting people just to vote in your favor on one debate is a shady practice, but whatever.

The point is that people should actually make sure they are "countering" if that's what they're claiming to do. With other votes, I think people complain because the RFD section isn't utilized properly. I can't tell you how many times people have said in the RFD box "Pro made better points." Um, the whole point of an RFD is to explain why. But yeah - voting will never be perfect.

In your opinion, if someone gave 2 points to a side for sources on the claim that his opponent relied on wikipedia too much, and then another voter "counters" that vote claiming that wikipedia is a vaild source,...would that counter be justified?
"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
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 2:42:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 2:32:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
In your opinion, if someone gave 2 points to a side for sources on the claim that his opponent relied on wikipedia too much, and then another voter "counters" that vote claiming that wikipedia is a vaild source,...would that counter be justified?

That's a tough question. I want to say yes, because I personally think Wikipedia is a legitimate source. However this would probably just lead to all "counter-votes" which becomes problematic. Then again I think voting on Sources at all is pretty silly. I'm pretty sure if the Source vote given isn't tied, that one would just vote along with the side they picked who won arguments. I'm sure Ore_Ele can find statistics that prove this. Overall I would say it's justified though I'm not extremely strong in that conviction.
President of DDO
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 3:16:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 2:42:50 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 2/16/2012 2:32:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
In your opinion, if someone gave 2 points to a side for sources on the claim that his opponent relied on wikipedia too much, and then another voter "counters" that vote claiming that wikipedia is a vaild source,...would that counter be justified?

That's a tough question. I want to say yes, because I personally think Wikipedia is a legitimate source. However this would probably just lead to all "counter-votes" which becomes problematic. Then again I think voting on Sources at all is pretty silly. I'm pretty sure if the Source vote given isn't tied, that one would just vote along with the side they picked who won arguments. I'm sure Ore_Ele can find statistics that prove this. Overall I would say it's justified though I'm not extremely strong in that conviction.

See, 000ike?
"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."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 3:19:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 3:16:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/16/2012 2:42:50 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 2/16/2012 2:32:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
In your opinion, if someone gave 2 points to a side for sources on the claim that his opponent relied on wikipedia too much, and then another voter "counters" that vote claiming that wikipedia is a vaild source,...would that counter be justified?

That's a tough question. I want to say yes, because I personally think Wikipedia is a legitimate source. However this would probably just lead to all "counter-votes" which becomes problematic. Then again I think voting on Sources at all is pretty silly. I'm pretty sure if the Source vote given isn't tied, that one would just vote along with the side they picked who won arguments. I'm sure Ore_Ele can find statistics that prove this. Overall I would say it's justified though I'm not extremely strong in that conviction.

See, 000ike?

I think wikipedia is a valid source. I do however, also think a vote is an assessment of opinion. You can't decide someone's opinion is inferior to yours, and annul the vote on that basis.
"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
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 3:21:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 3:19:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/16/2012 3:16:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/16/2012 2:42:50 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 2/16/2012 2:32:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
In your opinion, if someone gave 2 points to a side for sources on the claim that his opponent relied on wikipedia too much, and then another voter "counters" that vote claiming that wikipedia is a vaild source,...would that counter be justified?

That's a tough question. I want to say yes, because I personally think Wikipedia is a legitimate source. However this would probably just lead to all "counter-votes" which becomes problematic. Then again I think voting on Sources at all is pretty silly. I'm pretty sure if the Source vote given isn't tied, that one would just vote along with the side they picked who won arguments. I'm sure Ore_Ele can find statistics that prove this. Overall I would say it's justified though I'm not extremely strong in that conviction.

See, 000ike?

I think wikipedia is a valid source. I do however, also think a vote is an assessment of opinion. You can't decide someone's opinion is inferior to yours, and annul the vote on that basis.

It's not a matter of my own opinion, but of fact. The other people blatantly vote bombed in your favour under the false pre tense of Wiki not being valid.
"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."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 3:24:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 3:21:54 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/16/2012 3:19:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/16/2012 3:16:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/16/2012 2:42:50 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 2/16/2012 2:32:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
In your opinion, if someone gave 2 points to a side for sources on the claim that his opponent relied on wikipedia too much, and then another voter "counters" that vote claiming that wikipedia is a vaild source,...would that counter be justified?

That's a tough question. I want to say yes, because I personally think Wikipedia is a legitimate source. However this would probably just lead to all "counter-votes" which becomes problematic. Then again I think voting on Sources at all is pretty silly. I'm pretty sure if the Source vote given isn't tied, that one would just vote along with the side they picked who won arguments. I'm sure Ore_Ele can find statistics that prove this. Overall I would say it's justified though I'm not extremely strong in that conviction.

See, 000ike?

I think wikipedia is a valid source. I do however, also think a vote is an assessment of opinion. You can't decide someone's opinion is inferior to yours, and annul the vote on that basis.

It's not a matter of my own opinion, but of fact. The other people blatantly vote bombed in your favour under the false pre tense of Wiki not being valid.

regardless, if you drop the wikipedia point, I still had near double my opponent's quantity of sources. Not that I think having more sources earns one source points, but you have no right to counter a vote like that.
"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
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 3:25:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 2:32:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/16/2012 2:23:45 PM, Danielle wrote:
Most people say "I'm countering a vote-bomb" which becomes entirely problematic. I've done several debates in which something like 12/20 votes were "counter" vote-bombs. At that point people are just voting straight 7's to whichever side they agree with and aren't countering anything at all. That's the problem with simply getting someone else to counter.

Here's an example ( http://www.debate.org... ). This debate had 61 votes, with 20 blatant vote-bombs. The last 2 people v-bombed against me, claiming they were "countering" ... but my opponent has 2 more "counter" vote bombs in his favor, meaning the last 2 people weren't countering anything and simply continuing the bad voting practice.

Of course, I don't care too much about winning or this debate in particular. I actually debated against anarchy here despite being an anarchist. However, for the record, there was voter controversy on this debate because my opponent had about 2 dozen anarchists register to vote on DDO from a different anarchist website (mises.org) simply to vote on this debate and this debate only. Obviously recruiting people just to vote in your favor on one debate is a shady practice, but whatever.

The point is that people should actually make sure they are "countering" if that's what they're claiming to do. With other votes, I think people complain because the RFD section isn't utilized properly. I can't tell you how many times people have said in the RFD box "Pro made better points." Um, the whole point of an RFD is to explain why. But yeah - voting will never be perfect.

In your opinion, if someone gave 2 points to a side for sources on the claim that his opponent relied on wikipedia too much, and then another voter "counters" that vote claiming that wikipedia is a vaild source,...would that counter be justified?

In a way, yes. I am no ideal voter but to speak practically, countering votes on issues of sources, especially given the weight of arguments, organization/spelling and grammar, and even conduct, is, in my opinion, not a vote bomb but a misdirected effort....

Sources are not the only factor and to counter a vote solely, on the basis of sources seems ridiculous. Yes, I'd agree that sometimes sources can help determine the validity (but not necessarily quality, though that depends more--as I am generalizing--on how the debater uses and selects sources) of one's arguments, but quality is more important, and the mere fact that a voter has to factor in conduct, grammar and spelling, and so forth (along with sources) makes the decision of picking out on sources out of all factors, including more important ones, odd and in my mostly unjustified....
"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
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 3:26:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 3:25:31 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 2/16/2012 2:32:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/16/2012 2:23:45 PM, Danielle wrote:
Most people say "I'm countering a vote-bomb" which becomes entirely problematic. I've done several debates in which something like 12/20 votes were "counter" vote-bombs. At that point people are just voting straight 7's to whichever side they agree with and aren't countering anything at all. That's the problem with simply getting someone else to counter.

Here's an example ( http://www.debate.org... ). This debate had 61 votes, with 20 blatant vote-bombs. The last 2 people v-bombed against me, claiming they were "countering" ... but my opponent has 2 more "counter" vote bombs in his favor, meaning the last 2 people weren't countering anything and simply continuing the bad voting practice.

Of course, I don't care too much about winning or this debate in particular. I actually debated against anarchy here despite being an anarchist. However, for the record, there was voter controversy on this debate because my opponent had about 2 dozen anarchists register to vote on DDO from a different anarchist website (mises.org) simply to vote on this debate and this debate only. Obviously recruiting people just to vote in your favor on one debate is a shady practice, but whatever.

The point is that people should actually make sure they are "countering" if that's what they're claiming to do. With other votes, I think people complain because the RFD section isn't utilized properly. I can't tell you how many times people have said in the RFD box "Pro made better points." Um, the whole point of an RFD is to explain why. But yeah - voting will never be perfect.

In your opinion, if someone gave 2 points to a side for sources on the claim that his opponent relied on wikipedia too much, and then another voter "counters" that vote claiming that wikipedia is a vaild source,...would that counter be justified?

In a way, no. I am no ideal voter but to speak practically, countering votes on issues of sources, especially given the weight of arguments, organization/spelling and grammar, and even conduct, is, in my opinion, not a vote bomb but a misdirected effort....

Sources are not the only factor and to counter a vote solely, on the basis of sources seems ridiculous. Yes, I'd agree that sometimes sources can help determine the validity (but not necessarily quality, though that depends more--as I am generalizing--on how the debater uses and selects sources) of one's arguments, but quality is more important, and the mere fact that a voter has to factor in conduct, grammar and spelling, and so forth (along with sources) makes the decision of picking out on sources out of all factors, including more important ones, odd and in my mostly unjustified....
"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
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 3:58:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Invalidating 2 points because of you not liking the source is like invalidating 3 points because you don't like the argument. We need specific voting guidelines so people know what the debate standards are...
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 4:27:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 2:08:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
I hope this isn't in reaction to the thread I made. I don't see how one can justify a one sentence RFD saying "I agree with ____." as a legitimate vote. Debaters spend hours researching and writing out those arguments, the least you could do is reciprocate the effort and give an honest, well thought out decision.

If someone complains that a vote was unjustified, even though it was well explained and elaborated, and honest, then I can see why you'd be annoyed by that. Otherwise, no. Voting is a reflection on the quality and ability of the 2 sides, and its unfair to have some bias individuals running around skimming debates and providing vague one-sentence RFDs in support of those they agreed with.

+1
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 4:48:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
They really need to get rid of this absurd point system. Each vote should count for one point, winner takes all. That's how actual debate works
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 4:56:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 4:48:23 PM, thett3 wrote:
They really need to get rid of this absurd point system. Each vote should count for one point, winner takes all. That's how actual debate works

Not how debates where I come from work.

British Parliamentary debates work on a sway of voting (how many people's minds are changed, as opposed to who debated better).

ESU Mace is done by 3 judges combining their "points" to each team.

Actual debate works that you vote for who you agree with, not who argued better. This is a major problem of debates. We'll always have problems when we don't have a written codified statement of how to classify voting.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 4:56:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 4:48:23 PM, thett3 wrote:
They really need to get rid of this absurd point system. Each vote should count for one point, winner takes all. That's how actual debate works

That won't fix anything. People would still vote for who they agree with, and they'd still give skimpy RFDs, except when you employ the winner take all system, people have a lesser inclination to actually fully justify their vote.

The best thing we can do to combat VBs like 16k, LK, and Ron-Paul, like I think Roylathem once said before, is vote fairly and objectively ourselves, and promote a spirit of unbiased and unmotivated decision making. The more of us that vote fairly, the more balanced the voting decisions will be.
"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
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 5:01:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 4:56:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/16/2012 4:48:23 PM, thett3 wrote:
They really need to get rid of this absurd point system. Each vote should count for one point, winner takes all. That's how actual debate works

That won't fix anything. People would still vote for who they agree with, and they'd still give skimpy RFDs, except when you employ the winner take all system, people have a lesser inclination to actually fully justify their vote.

The best thing we can do to combat VBs like 16k, LK, and Ron-Paul, like I think Roylathem once said before, is vote fairly and objectively ourselves, and promote a spirit of unbiased and unmotivated decision making. The more of us that vote fairly, the more balanced the voting decisions will be.

Right, but people like Lk, Ron-paul, and 16k in particular have a strong tendency to vote on sources, conduct, or grammar to help boost their side. They'll say "arguments were tied, but con had more sources so he gets that" or something similar. And to me, that's even more annoying but I dont view sources, conduct, or grammar as legitimate voters. If someone has the more convincing arguments, they deserve to win, grammar be damned. Debate is about argumentative strategy, so arguments should be the only factor you vote on--and if we have to have other voters, at least dont let them outweigh the arguments. Right now, I could win the most convincing arguments and still lose on the over all vote. That's absurd.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 5:02:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 4:56:00 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/16/2012 4:48:23 PM, thett3 wrote:
They really need to get rid of this absurd point system. Each vote should count for one point, winner takes all. That's how actual debate works

Not how debates where I come from work.

British Parliamentary debates work on a sway of voting (how many people's minds are changed, as opposed to who debated better).

ESU Mace is done by 3 judges combining their "points" to each team.

Actual debate works that you vote for who you agree with, not who argued better. This is a major problem of debates. We'll always have problems when we don't have a written codified statement of how to classify voting.

My bad. That is how PFD, LD, and CX work.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 5:08:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 4:56:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/16/2012 4:48:23 PM, thett3 wrote:
They really need to get rid of this absurd point system. Each vote should count for one point, winner takes all. That's how actual debate works

That won't fix anything. People would still vote for who they agree with, and they'd still give skimpy RFDs, except when you employ the winner take all system, people have a lesser inclination to actually fully justify their vote.

The best thing we can do to combat VBs like 16k, LK, and Ron-Paul, like I think Roylathem once said before, is vote fairly and objectively ourselves, and promote a spirit of unbiased and unmotivated decision making. The more of us that vote fairly, the more balanced the voting decisions will be.

Blablabla. You have no basis for calling me a vote-bomber. Are you still mad about my counter on your debate?
"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."
Ricky_Zahnd
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 6:31:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 2:00:25 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
A lot of debaters complain when other members vote against them in their debates. I am not talking about asking for feedback and further clarifications on how to improve - that is always welcome. The problem comes when debaters flat-out accuse people of votebombing for no reason and call into question the integrity of the voters. It just makes people less inclined to vote on their debates if they can expect a slew of complaints to even a well-thought out RFD which takes a lot of time and analysis to compose. If a vote is an obvious votebomb, get someone else to counter. If it is not obvious, ask other people to vote and hopefully the deciding factor in who wins will be the legitimate votes that a player got. I never complained about a vote before and it worked just fine. I believe it actually encourages voting if you know the debater will receive the feedback positively.

This drives me crazy - one DDo member I debated has posted our debates on the vote bomb thread after votes came in against him - which were definitely legitimate. Hes also done that in other debates where people vote against him. It seems like a standard tactic for any whiny as5 who cant cope with losing a debate.
"My argument was that by believing in God, it causes many people to live better lives than if they didn't believe in atheists which, then, would also cause them to be better citizens."

-keytarhero
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 6:37:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm definitely guilty of complaining about votes , but I only do so if the votes in question are clearly suspect. I've just recently finished a debate

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

where the 2 votes against me are clearly ridiculous, given the history of the voters (16kadams recently voting for an opponent of mine who forfeited 3 rounds), and the way the debate went.

Given the amount of time (as ike said) spent on doing debates, it is particularly annoying to be voted against by folks who have clearly no interest in judging the debate on its merit, especially when it's so clear cut. If voters have a clear pattern of voting a certain way, and if the debate is obviously tilted, I really don't see a problem in complaining. In fact, I would prefer it if there were a way to flag up persistent offenders of silly voting.

There have been instances where I haven't agreed with RFDs and have said so, while simultaneously acknowledging the voter was fair in their analysis (quarterexchange and J.Kenyon being 2 examples), and discussing an RFD brought more clarity, even if we ended it by still disagreeing on the outcome of the debate, and this again is productive.

Even the voters who provide detailed and fair RFDs (Cliff Stamp was one of the best examples) will be willing to defend their vote if pressed on it most of the time. If the extent of a complaint is that they don't like losing, then obviously this is frivolous, but trust me, F-16, when you debate an issue and it becomes a straw poll on the issue and not the debate, it does make you pretty apathetic about wanting to debate.
Ricky_Zahnd
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 6:38:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 3:58:00 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Invalidating 2 points because of you not liking the source is like invalidating 3 points because you don't like the argument. We need specific voting guidelines so people know what the debate standards are...

yup
"My argument was that by believing in God, it causes many people to live better lives than if they didn't believe in atheists which, then, would also cause them to be better citizens."

-keytarhero
Ricky_Zahnd
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 6:54:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I also think we should consider eliminating the "vote bombed debates" forum completely. It seems as though it is more often used to create vote bombs than to resolve them.
"My argument was that by believing in God, it causes many people to live better lives than if they didn't believe in atheists which, then, would also cause them to be better citizens."

-keytarhero