Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

How about "voting circles"?

RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 12:40:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm going to follow Newt Gingrich's method and throw out a half cooked idea for consideration.

The problem is that serious debates are getting almost no votes. I think the main reason is that good debates take work to read and analyze, and no matter how you vote the debater you didn't choose is going to give you flak. That's because good debaters who work on serious debates almost always think. Also, the site has so many debates that the debates quickly scroll by on the Recently Ended pages.

So the idea is to form voluntary circles of ddo members who agree to vote on each others debates. Let's say that a "circle" comprises eight members. Joining the circle mans that you agree to vote on all the debates submitted by other circle members. However, members are only allowed to submit one debate per month to the circle and any debate submitted must have a voting period of at least one month. That means that each person will have to vote on at most seven debates per month.

One problem is that circles could end up as friends just agreeing to vote for each other. To mitigate that the solicitation to join a circle can be made in a forum thread, and four of the members would have to be libertarians or conservatives and the other four liberals or socialists. This doesn't fully accommodate people who are deeply confused, so maybe it should be 3, 3, and two others. Sign-ups for the slots could be like signing up for a tournament.

A PM thread would be used to post debates to be voted on to the circle.

I think that circles should have only people who have won at least ten debates, who agree to judge on the merits of he debate, and who agree to give useful RFDs. However, anybody could make their own eligibility criteria. We have some thoughtful members who rarely debate.

So, it this a good idea? Is there a better way to improve voting?
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 12:43:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I second the idea; though I can't vote yet
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 12:47:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The problem I see is that you are right, debaters hate to lose. I think members would be careful of voting against other debaters in the circle out of fear that those members will vote against them, since they know for a fact that these people will be voting on their debates. It's different when you vote on a debate that you happen to be following as you are not forced by any means to vote on that debate and genuinely wanted to read it. When obligation becomes a factor, so do expectations. Just as other members feel you are obligated to vote on your debate, they will begin to expect you to vote in a certain manner as well. After all, if they didn't expect you to vote for them, they wouldn't have asked. To argue otherwise is to reject the simple fact that debaters hate to lose.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 12:54:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 12:47:56 PM, Mestari wrote:
... To argue otherwise is to reject the simple fact that debaters hate to lose.

I agree it's problem. The challenge is to try to figure out ways to prevent that psychology from dominating. Possibly having more detailed requirements for the RFD would help, or maybe even a form for RFDs like academic debate judges use.

Is it better to have most serious debates go unvoted?
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 1:03:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 12:54:37 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 4/17/2012 12:47:56 PM, Mestari wrote:
... To argue otherwise is to reject the simple fact that debaters hate to lose.

I agree it's problem. The challenge is to try to figure out ways to prevent that psychology from dominating. Possibly having more detailed requirements for the RFD would help, or maybe even a form for RFDs like academic debate judges use.


It is to my knowledge that require more extensive justifications for voting decisions is just asking the judge to fabricate more reasons to protect their ego and/or credibility.

Is it better to have most serious debates go unvoted?

I think quality debates deserve votes, but that the detriment of bias voting outweighs the lack of voter participation.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 1:06:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Not to be a drag, but DDO is a joke right now. Real debates get no attention, while joke debates get tons of votes. The same goes for the forums.
kfc
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 1:07:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 1:03:37 PM, Mestari wrote:
I think quality debates deserve votes, but that the detriment of bias voting outweighs the lack of voter participation.

What is your solution? I think it is important because a debate site without serious debates is likely to fail.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 1:12:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Definitely a good idea in its concept, but I am very skeptical that it would actually work. Still the idea of serious debates continuing to go un voted is not very pleasant either so overall probably a good idea.

The key is to stress objectivity. Serious Debaters sure do hate to lose, but anyone intelligent enough to participate in serious debates should be able to realize the importance of their role in protecting objectivity: to accept being voted against.

The voters should also make a great effort to provide thoughtful RFD's. If these two things are stressed I think it would work.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 1:12:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 1:07:20 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 4/17/2012 1:03:37 PM, Mestari wrote:
I think quality debates deserve votes, but that the detriment of bias voting outweighs the lack of voter participation.

What is your solution? I think it is important because a debate site without serious debates is likely to fail.

I think the purest solution is an increase in voluntary voter participation. However, it is quite clear that this is not going to happen without external support. I was actually considering starting a thread in the Religion forum to post Religious debates in order to receive votes, but know that many of the active participants of the forum are partial to their beliefs. Thoughts?
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 1:17:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 12:54:37 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 4/17/2012 12:47:56 PM, Mestari wrote:
... To argue otherwise is to reject the simple fact that debaters hate to lose.

I agree it's problem. The challenge is to try to figure out ways to prevent that psychology from dominating. Possibly having more detailed requirements for the RFD would help, or maybe even a form for RFDs like academic debate judges use.

Is it better to have most serious debates go unvoted?

Maybe to counteract that problem, the voting could go in a chain.

Person A posts their debate, Person B votes, person B posts their debate, Person C votes, etc.

You could even do it like this:

Person A posts debate, Person B & C vote, Person B posts theirs, Person C & D vote, Person C Posts theirs, person D & E vote, etc. Extend that to three or 4 people if the group agrees on it.

Once everyone has voted, shuffle and repeat.

People would still have a bit of a bias, but if you all agree to be as objective in voting habits as you can, the issue should be diminished.
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
Jon1
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 1:26:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You have "debate tournament",why not have "RFD tournament"? Or, make an extensive RFD on 1 or 2 debates to be a requirement for joining a certain debate tournament?

That's my two cents. Also, I like the "voting circle" idea, though I doubt it will work in practice.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 1:39:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 12:40:10 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
So, it this a good idea? Is there a better way to improve voting?
It's a good idea, but biased voting is more of a problem than lack of votes.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 2:04:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's a good idea. Reciprocity is a strong motivating tool.

You also can't complain about biased judging if you choose your voting circle.

It sounds more like a book club than a voting bloc and would stay that way as long as people felt strongly that they were free to vote any way they thought was right.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Logic_on_rails
Posts: 2,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 5:38:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think that one way to aid the lack of voting is to get voters from countries like the UK, Australia (ie. non-US countries) to be able to vote. Obviously, that won't happen on a widespread basis, so if there was a public, well known number of proxy voters who legitimate voters could get votes from then this problem could be partially fixed.

That said, I think voting circles are a good idea, even though I can't properly vote.
"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it
DouggyFresh
Posts: 360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 6:36:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am with you on this. I have posted quite a few serious debates only to have them come down to 1 person voting and the debate ends with little or no audience to the issues being discussed.

I like the discussion generated by debates, and the feedback that multiple readers give back to those conducting the debates.
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 7:24:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think that some people are going to use this nobly, and to good effect. Voting and knowledgeable consideration of debates would go up. However, it could easily turn into a major VBing scandal, or drama could easily outpour from it, with "Unfair votes" being the center of it.

It has a lot of potential to be good, and a lot of potential to be bad, in short.
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 11:46:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Two words: Voting blocks.

Perhaps not at first, but this would quickly degenerate into little groups who vote up their own debates. Want to destroy a community? Break it up into tribes and let them compete.

I can only think of one worse way to ruin this site, and that is to add a pay-wall.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 11:50:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 11:46:25 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
Two words: Voting blocks.

Perhaps not at first, but this would quickly degenerate into little groups who vote up their own debates. Want to destroy a community? Break it up into tribes and let them compete.

I can only think of one worse way to ruin this site, and that is to add a pay-wall.

Exactly.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 11:58:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It depends on how much people are willing to be honest and how high their level of integrity is. I don't see any problem with PMing people to vote on your debates, this is just a way of formalizing it. I remember SocialPinko started a group like this a while back but voting was voluntary so it never took off. Most people never voted on each other's debates and it turned into a "you vote on mine, I'll vote on yours" type thread although no one ever votebombed based on personal opinions - this happenned much before Conservative Voting Coalition joined the site.