Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Biased Voting

Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 2:07:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
About two weeks ago I suggested that we should implement a system against biased voting, though it wasn't discussed enough. The idea is simple: The instigator of a debate might choose to debate a topic that he fears might result in very biased voting against him. He can therefore choose an option which only enables some (10-15, anything of that sort) appointed members to vote on his debate. They would be notified of the debate through their news feed (Account Notifications under Home) once it is finished.

These members would be chosen by the community through voting. Their primary qualities would be to have a history of giving quality RFD's and unbiased votes. Some members said that this could make too many users enable the option, which would result in only the judges voting on debates. However, this can simply be solved by having the option to let judges vote only if you have a premium account. So, only the most active members would most likely even have such an option, and since most of them accept debates rather than instigate, I don't think there would be too many debates with the judges-only voting enabled whatsoever.

Sadly, this involves Juggle cooperation, which only happened over a year ago when they took over the site, but if we push toward a paid feature system, Juggle could actually earn some money by making all these implementations. Any objections?
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 2:14:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Paid features is my one thing I don't want to see. Some of us don't have the money to actually pay to participate in this site.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 2:14:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 2:14:12 PM, Zaradi wrote:
Paid features is my one thing I don't want to see. Some of us don't have the money to actually pay to participate in this site.

But besides this, it sounds like a good idea, provided we get Juggle to help us out.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 2:15:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 2:14:12 PM, Zaradi wrote:
Paid features is my one thing I don't want to see. Some of us don't have the money to actually pay to participate in this site.
You don't have to pay for anything that's existing now. Only additional, new features would be paid for. Why shouldn't people be able to pay in order to have better services at a website? Seems very backwards to me.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 2:21:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm not a fan of any element of this idea but considering this involves cooperation from the guys upstairs, I don't think I have to worry.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 2:26:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 2:21:59 PM, Maikuru wrote:
I'm not a fan of any element of this idea but considering this involves cooperation from the guys upstairs, I don't think I have to worry.

This. Also, if we agree the community at large is bias and then propose that the community selects the members of this judging pool, then it logically follows that bias voters will be elected to be judges. If we were to postulate that enough unbiased voters would be present to select impartial judges, well then we wouldn't need this system to begin with.
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.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 2:27:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This won't work so that voting becomes unbias, it will make voting MORE bias. A cell of zealots can easily make their voters just votebomb in favour, and then all problems solved.
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...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 2:33:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 2:27:06 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
This won't work so that voting becomes unbias, it will make voting MORE bias. A cell of zealots can easily make their voters just votebomb in favour, and then all problems solved.
No, only the judges would be able to vote if the option were enabled. Which voters are you even talking about then?
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 2:35:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 2:26:32 PM, Mestari wrote:
This. Also, if we agree the community at large is bias and then propose that the community selects the members of this judging pool, then it logically follows that bias voters will be elected to be judges.
No it doesn't. The biased voters tend to be ones who don't even post in forums, so they'd never be voted as judges.

If we were to postulate that enough unbiased voters would be present to select impartial judges, well then we wouldn't need this system to begin with.
The community would undergo discussions and voting where specific members would be appointed as judges (this happens once). The procedure itself would NOT be either biased or erroneous, since history of RFD's and voting would play the biggest roles in determining whether or not a member could become a permanent judge.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 2:37:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 2:35:43 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/17/2012 2:26:32 PM, Mestari wrote:
This. Also, if we agree the community at large is bias and then propose that the community selects the members of this judging pool, then it logically follows that bias voters will be elected to be judges.
No it doesn't. The biased voters tend to be ones who don't even post in forums, so they'd never be voted as judges.


They would vote for the judges who tend to vote most often with their views.

If we were to postulate that enough unbiased voters would be present to select impartial judges, well then we wouldn't need this system to begin with.
The community would undergo discussions and voting where specific members would be appointed as judges (this happens once). The procedure itself would NOT be either biased or erroneous, since history of RFD's and voting would play the biggest roles in determining whether or not a member could become a permanent judge.

Decided by who? It would be arbitrary to ban anybody from running to be a judge and biased voters will vote for biased judges.
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.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 2:58:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 2:37:38 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/17/2012 2:35:43 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/17/2012 2:26:32 PM, Mestari wrote:
They would vote for the judges who tend to vote most often with their views.
You're assuming that we would simply let people vote by writing the name of someone. If a member has few votes given, bad RFD's, clear signs of biased voting, then he would NOT be able to be voter for whatsoever.

Decided by who? It would be arbitrary to ban anybody from running to be a judge and biased voters will vote for biased judges.
We could take members with most votes and analyze them. There are many ways to make it work out. The problem is, you're attacking the way in which we'd appoint these judges, NOT whether or not the judge system is good in itself.

Also, the most biased voters would not be voted for for many reasons. First, most of the active members don't have anyone who constantly votes for them. Second, the majority of biased voters are inactive members (at least in the forums), so they would not be considered for voting at all.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 4:17:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No.

To everything.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 8:11:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 4:17:33 PM, OberHerr wrote:
No.

To everything.
Ok. Do you want to debate the implementation of a premium account system?
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 8:12:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 8:11:23 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/17/2012 4:17:33 PM, OberHerr wrote:
No.

To everything.
Ok. Do you want to debate the implementation of a premium account system?

No.

I'm not against paying necessarily, but the rest of the ideas, sorry, but their horrible.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 8:13:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 8:12:19 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 4/17/2012 8:11:23 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/17/2012 4:17:33 PM, OberHerr wrote:
No.

To everything.
Ok. Do you want to debate the implementation of a premium account system?

No.

I'm not against paying necessarily, but the rest of the ideas, sorry, but their horrible.
It would be good with constructive criticism or anything similar. So far, only objections were made to HOW the judge system would begin to work - not whether or not it's a good idea in theory.
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 11:56:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There are quite a few things about this site that have become shallow over the past few years, but nothing has changed all that drastically from the day I joined. There are still a lot of people who vote based on their own beliefs, rather than on the merits of the debate.

There's no democratic way around that; we lack an autarch to decide who has the right to vote and who hasn't, and are not particularly wanting one. Allowing people to choose their own judges just invites gaming the system to create "judging blocs" instead of "voting blocs."

Adding a pay-wall or making the better features of the site premium is a buzz-kill. The site is primarily high-school/college age, with little spending money; the day you ask them to pay for this site is the day you'll lose the rest of your better members. For one, I'd never come back, and I know I'm not alone in that.

The site is ad supported. Don't even think of changing that.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2012 12:06:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 11:56:22 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
There's no democratic way around that; we lack an autarch to decide who has the right to vote and who hasn't, and are not particularly wanting one. Allowing people to choose their own judges just invites gaming the system to create "judging blocs" instead of "voting blocs."
The judges would be the same. A member wouldn't be allowed to pick on his own.

Adding a pay-wall or making the better features of the site premium is a buzz-kill. The site is primarily high-school/college age, with little spending money; the day you ask them to pay for this site is the day you'll lose the rest of your better members. For one, I'd never come back, and I know I'm not alone in that.
You misunderstand. Nobody would pay for what there is NOW. It would only be for additional features, such as being able to moderate your own threads. Nobody would lose anything, but certain people would gain more out of the site (even Juggle, they would get paid). Also, I can't think of any reason why paying a few bucks isn't affordable. It's nothing compared to anything else teens spend money on. Nonetheless, nobody would pay to access the site and have anything that's here now.

It would only be a profit, not a loss.


The site is ad supported. Don't even think of changing that.

How is it ad supported?
larztheloser
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2012 1:07:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The site isn't ad-supported - but it should be. Indeed the About page clearly specifies that it is, and even gives a run-down of market demographics for potential advertisers. I'd be in favor of non-intrusive ads over premium features, but I'm not against premium users. I think of it a bit like chess.com, where I'm not a premium member but still can enjoy most of the key features of that site. This wouldn't be enough to convert me, though. I have enough trouble trying to get even one person to vote on most of my debates nowadays.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2012 3:06:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 2:14:12 PM, Zaradi wrote:
Paid features is my one thing I don't want to see. Some of us don't have the money to actually pay to participate in this site.

Exactly, and if some new thing that you have to pay for makes Zaradi leave, then I'm leaving too! Not that anyone cares if I leave, but still...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2012 10:02:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 11:56:22 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
The site is ad supported. Don't even think of changing that.

There are no ads on the site. That was tried for a while some time ago, but it soon disappeared. High school and college students do spend a lot of money on things -- sneakers and iPads are no problem for many. However, they are not going to pay for a web site.

Juggle is supporting the sit with zero income from it. I'm guessing that the business model is to grow he site to the point where ad revenues would be significant. I'm just guessing.
marcuscato
Posts: 738
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2012 10:09:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
You place too much emphasis on voting and being declared the winner.
As already pointed out, your system fails when the community at large is biased(resulting in selection of a biased jury).
It would be better to allow the instigator to choose the jury, the opponent is always free to decline the debate if he does not like the jury.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2012 10:13:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
There are two problems with official judges: no one you would trust would volunteer for the job, and no one is trusted enough by everyone to be accepted.

Forget about paid features. When computers first started to be sold for general by business -- we're talking "minicomputers" is 1970 -- everyone believed that software should be free. While hardware was expensive, the cost could be buried in the hardware price. About the only software available was assemblers and compilers. The Internet is not still at the stage where people believe everything should be free. That limits quality, but it's the way it is.

Now-departed ddo member Seiben wanted a system wherein each debater would select a judge and the two judges would then select a third. that seemed fine to me in theory, but a pain to organize. He never organized such a debate. Maybe something could be done along those lines.
DouggyFresh
Posts: 360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2012 12:41:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think it would be interesting to select a handful of voters at random from users that have been active in the last day, week, or month (depending on the length of the voting period). The site would message (or otherwise prompt) these individuals to vote on the debate. It would still be optional, but at least it would increase the likelihood of the debate receiving more unbiased voters. Anyone else would still be able to read and vote on the debate at will.

A possible addition to this would be some sort of filter when selecting voters, based on their position on certain topics to ensure a somewhat even distribution of backgrounds/beliefs. Obviously not everyone will have a position on the debate, or the topic might not be included in those listed (the list on everyone's profile), so this would be a limitation to that mechanism. However, I find that the most common debates that get biased voters are ones whose topics are listed in the choices on the profile page (politics, abortion, religion, law, etc.)

Thoughts?
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2012 12:56:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/18/2012 12:06:29 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/17/2012 11:56:22 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
There's no democratic way around that; we lack an autarch to decide who has the right to vote and who hasn't, and are not particularly wanting one. Allowing people to choose their own judges just invites gaming the system to create "judging blocs" instead of "voting blocs."
The judges would be the same. A member wouldn't be allowed to pick on his own.


What stops people from nominating or electing biased judges? Nothing. This would only allow a biased judge to vote-bomb multiple debates, instead of just one or two, where it can be easily countered.
Adding a pay-wall or making the better features of the site premium is a buzz-kill. The site is primarily high-school/college age, with little spending money; the day you ask them to pay for this site is the day you'll lose the rest of your better members. For one, I'd never come back, and I know I'm not alone in that.
You misunderstand. Nobody would pay for what there is NOW. It would only be for additional features, such as being able to moderate your own threads. Nobody would lose anything, but certain people would gain more out of the site (even Juggle, they would get paid). Also, I can't think of any reason why paying a few bucks isn't affordable. It's nothing compared to anything else teens spend money on. Nonetheless, nobody would pay to access the site and have anything that's here now.

Why would Juggle just want us to pay for things that they decide to add in new (assuming they even buy this idea and go with it at all)? Wouldn't it be in their better interest to just make access to the site in general a premium site? Or allow trial members access to one or two trial debates against other trial members, while leaving things like the forums a premium feature? Nothing.

It would only be a profit, not a loss.


The site is ad supported. Don't even think of changing that.

How is it ad supported?

It really isn't, but it would be a more viable alternative than for a premium site. Not only, most of the time, am I dirt-poor as a highschool student who lacks the age or transportation to get a job, but I also lack the means of actually paying for the site, supposing I actually had the disposable income to pay for a site like this. This can generally be extended out to all of the rest of the regular users who, for the majority part, are highschool and college aged as well, with little to no disposable income.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2012 2:21:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 2:07:44 PM, Mirza wrote:
About two weeks ago I suggested that we should implement a system against biased voting, though it wasn't discussed enough. The idea is simple: The instigator of a debate might choose to debate a topic that he fears might result in very biased voting against him. He can therefore choose an option which only enables some (10-15, anything of that sort) appointed members to vote on his debate. They would be notified of the debate through their news feed (Account Notifications under Home) once it is finished.

These members would be chosen by the community through voting. Their primary qualities would be to have a history of giving quality RFD's and unbiased votes. Some members said that this could make too many users enable the option, which would result in only the judges voting on debates. However, this can simply be solved by having the option to let judges vote only if you have a premium account. So, only the most active members would most likely even have such an option, and since most of them accept debates rather than instigate, I don't think there would be too many debates with the judges-only voting enabled whatsoever.

Sadly, this involves Juggle cooperation, which only happened over a year ago when they took over the site, but if we push toward a paid feature system, Juggle could actually earn some money by making all these implementations. Any objections?

This stomps on everything the site stands for...

then there really would be a DDO elite...
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2012 2:14:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/18/2012 10:02:44 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 4/17/2012 11:56:22 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
The site is ad supported. Don't even think of changing that.

There are no ads on the site. That was tried for a while some time ago, but it soon disappeared. High school and college students do spend a lot of money on things -- sneakers and iPads are no problem for many. However, they are not going to pay for a web site.

Juggle is supporting the sit with zero income from it. I'm guessing that the business model is to grow he site to the point where ad revenues would be significant. I'm just guessing.

Well, the site WAS ad supported. I assumed that was still the case, since there are still the spaces for the ads; I have since gotten a plugin that removes the ads, so I didn't notice them leave.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
1dustpelt
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 7:52:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 2:07:44 PM, Mirza wrote:
About two weeks ago I suggested that we should implement a system against biased voting, though it wasn't discussed enough. The idea is simple: The instigator of a debate might choose to debate a topic that he fears might result in very biased voting against him. He can therefore choose an option which only enables some (10-15, anything of that sort) appointed members to vote on his debate. They would be notified of the debate through their news feed (Account Notifications under Home) once it is finished.

These members would be chosen by the community through voting. Their primary qualities would be to have a history of giving quality RFD's and unbiased votes. Some members said that this could make too many users enable the option, which would result in only the judges voting on debates. However, this can simply be solved by having the option to let judges vote only if you have a premium account. So, only the most active members would most likely even have such an option, and since most of them accept debates rather than instigate, I don't think there would be too many debates with the judges-only voting enabled whatsoever.

Sadly, this involves Juggle cooperation, which only happened over a year ago when they took over the site, but if we push toward a paid feature system, Juggle could actually earn some money by making all these implementations. Any objections?

What if they pay people that will vote for them with bias?
Wall of LOL
"Infanticide is justified as long as the infants are below two" ~ RoyalPaladin
"Promoting female superiority is the only way to establish equality." ~ RoyalPaladin
"Jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives." ~ RoyalPaladin after the Zimmerman Trial.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 4:14:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Closing up: Thanks for the input. Although I agree that setting up the system would be very difficult, I still think that if that were to be done, then everything could work pretty well. As for the payment system, my disagreements with others remain. The judge system would not involve anymore bias than now - ever. If we were successful in selecting judges, then one could enable them to vote only (and not necessarily all - they'd just be notified of the debate being finished), and at least one would give his vote. With regards to the payment system, I can't think of any significant negatives about this. Yes, software should be free, but that's far from reality, and every developer wants money. I have never, ever seen anyone leave a game or a site because he has to pay for ADDITIONAL features. It's a rare sight. MMO games are increasingly popular, yet a lot of their content relies on users who pay to have it. Even casual games on consoles now have extra features for download. This creates new options for those willing to pay, but doesn't take away anything from those who don't / can't.

If Juggle will give us additional features because a fraction of members pay for them, I see nothing wrong with this. I don't understand how anyone interprets this to members wanting to leave. That's just fantasy. I'd never leave if I couldn't pay for say, moderating my own threads. It's additional, and doesn't take away my current abilities on the site.

Nonetheless, thanks or the input.