Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Current Voting Deficiencies - Revisited

Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 8:29:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
There has been a lot of discussion as of late in the area of voting. Roy has started a topic proposing that we create voting circles to increase voting activity, and Mirza wants to implement a judge system to reduce bias voting. I have voiced my opinion of both topics. While I agree that both are significant issues, I do not believe either solution is adequate.

I propose a third option. I like the idea of public accountability that exists within Mirza's plan, and also take interest in making voting an obligatory act, as proposed by Roy. I once read in an economics book - I believe it was The Return of Depression Economics - about a system used within a community for babysitting. Everybody starts out with x amount of the groups currency, let's say it's voting tickets, and let's propose the number of tickets you start out with is 5. Now, let's also postulate that 5 members are in the group, including myself and Roy. Assume I have just finished a very close debate and I would like there to be votes on it. I could offer y amount of tickets. Maybe I think 2 votes are adequate. I would offer 2 tickets and then 2 members could accept the tickets and vote on my debate. If Roy were one of them, his ticket count would be raised to 6. I see this system solving current problems with voter activities because you would have to vote in order to request others vote on your debates. I also believe that this would be best done in an open system, i.e. anybody can join. I think an open group would solve for the voter bias that I believe arises from having a set group of a few members as I voiced in Roy's thread. As for voter bias, I believe a majority vote among active group members should be sufficient to remove another member from the group. This holds voters accountable.

Opinions? This is just a spur-of-the-moment idea so there are likely to be some flaws.
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.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 8:44:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The problem I have with this being an open system is that there would be no accountability. Suppose I give Roy all of my tickets and he votes. What happens when he sends me a ticket and I refuse to vote? Now I have forced him to vote in my debates and I am refusing to give him anything in return. I see this being a particular problem with n00bs and newer members. I often receive requests for debate votes, but I doubt that those members would actually vote in return if I requested them to. I think that restricting membership is the best route to take.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 8:48:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 8:44:04 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
The problem I have with this being an open system is that there would be no accountability. Suppose I give Roy all of my tickets and he votes. What happens when he sends me a ticket and I refuse to vote? Now I have forced him to vote in my debates and I am refusing to give him anything in return. I see this being a particular problem with n00bs and newer members. I often receive requests for debate votes, but I doubt that those members would actually vote in return if I requested them to. I think that restricting membership is the best route to take.

Well that's simple. You would choose to accept the tickets so I think most reasonable people would not take a ticket from somebody with 1 or 2 debates. If Roy offered a ticket, I wouldn't hesitate to vote as I know he will contribute when his turn comes about. If somebody who just joined the site offers one, I might wait.

If we were to restrict membership, how would that be accomplished? Should we pick certain people to be in the original group and for anybody to join they must acquire tickets through voting? I could see this causing a problem of scarcity, but perhaps they would just have to vote on 3 debates or so in which tickets are being offered without actually accepting the tickets, and then they would be awarded with a static amount of starting tickets.
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.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 8:54:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 8:48:19 AM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/20/2012 8:44:04 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
The problem I have with this being an open system is that there would be no accountability. Suppose I give Roy all of my tickets and he votes. What happens when he sends me a ticket and I refuse to vote? Now I have forced him to vote in my debates and I am refusing to give him anything in return. I see this being a particular problem with n00bs and newer members. I often receive requests for debate votes, but I doubt that those members would actually vote in return if I requested them to. I think that restricting membership is the best route to take.

Well that's simple. You would choose to accept the tickets so I think most reasonable people would not take a ticket from somebody with 1 or 2 debates. If Roy offered a ticket, I wouldn't hesitate to vote as I know he will contribute when his turn comes about. If somebody who just joined the site offers one, I might wait.

Ok, so you are functionally restricting membership anyways. The only difference between what I am advocating and what you are advocating is that I am formalizing it while you are using de facto means to restrict voting.
If we were to restrict membership, how would that be accomplished? Should we pick certain people to be in the original group and for anybody to join they must acquire tickets through voting? I could see this causing a problem of scarcity, but perhaps they would just have to vote on 3 debates or so in which tickets are being offered without actually accepting the tickets, and then they would be awarded with a static amount of starting tickets.

I think that membership should be semi-open. In order to join, users have to have won ten debates and have to have voted on at least fifteen. Once the guidelines are met, he receives his entry tickets.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 8:55:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 8:54:19 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/20/2012 8:48:19 AM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/20/2012 8:44:04 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
The problem I have with this being an open system is that there would be no accountability. Suppose I give Roy all of my tickets and he votes. What happens when he sends me a ticket and I refuse to vote? Now I have forced him to vote in my debates and I am refusing to give him anything in return. I see this being a particular problem with n00bs and newer members. I often receive requests for debate votes, but I doubt that those members would actually vote in return if I requested them to. I think that restricting membership is the best route to take.

Well that's simple. You would choose to accept the tickets so I think most reasonable people would not take a ticket from somebody with 1 or 2 debates. If Roy offered a ticket, I wouldn't hesitate to vote as I know he will contribute when his turn comes about. If somebody who just joined the site offers one, I might wait.

Ok, so you are functionally restricting membership anyways. The only difference between what I am advocating and what you are advocating is that I am formalizing it while you are using de facto means to restrict voting.

Fair enough.

If we were to restrict membership, how would that be accomplished? Should we pick certain people to be in the original group and for anybody to join they must acquire tickets through voting? I could see this causing a problem of scarcity, but perhaps they would just have to vote on 3 debates or so in which tickets are being offered without actually accepting the tickets, and then they would be awarded with a static amount of starting tickets.

I think that membership should be semi-open. In order to join, users have to have won ten debates and have to have voted on at least fifteen. Once the guidelines are met, he receives his entry tickets.

This sounds reasonable. How many tickets do you think we should start out 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.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 8:57:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 8:55:54 AM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/20/2012 8:54:19 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/20/2012 8:48:19 AM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/20/2012 8:44:04 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
The problem I have with this being an open system is that there would be no accountability. Suppose I give Roy all of my tickets and he votes. What happens when he sends me a ticket and I refuse to vote? Now I have forced him to vote in my debates and I am refusing to give him anything in return. I see this being a particular problem with n00bs and newer members. I often receive requests for debate votes, but I doubt that those members would actually vote in return if I requested them to. I think that restricting membership is the best route to take.

Well that's simple. You would choose to accept the tickets so I think most reasonable people would not take a ticket from somebody with 1 or 2 debates. If Roy offered a ticket, I wouldn't hesitate to vote as I know he will contribute when his turn comes about. If somebody who just joined the site offers one, I might wait.

Ok, so you are functionally restricting membership anyways. The only difference between what I am advocating and what you are advocating is that I am formalizing it while you are using de facto means to restrict voting.

Fair enough.

If we were to restrict membership, how would that be accomplished? Should we pick certain people to be in the original group and for anybody to join they must acquire tickets through voting? I could see this causing a problem of scarcity, but perhaps they would just have to vote on 3 debates or so in which tickets are being offered without actually accepting the tickets, and then they would be awarded with a static amount of starting tickets.

I think that membership should be semi-open. In order to join, users have to have won ten debates and have to have voted on at least fifteen. Once the guidelines are met, he receives his entry tickets.

This sounds reasonable. How many tickets do you think we should start out with?

Three sounds fair.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 9:02:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Okay, so far so good. I'm going to wait for the input of other active voters such as Roy and F-16.
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.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 11:23:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Utilitarian bump.
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
4/22/2012 7:46:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't see how the proposed system provides any incentive to vote at all, but maybe I don't understand ow it works.

The system is voluntary and it's up to each person in the group to keep track of how many tickets they have, right?

So if I vote on a debate, I can do so while worrying abut ticket counts or not worrying about ticket counts. Keeping track of tickets is a pain, so why would I want to do it?
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 8:03:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 7:46:53 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
I don't see how the proposed system provides any incentive to vote at all, but maybe I don't understand ow it works.

The system is voluntary and it's up to each person in the group to keep track of how many tickets they have, right?

So if I vote on a debate, I can do so while worrying abut ticket counts or not worrying about ticket counts. Keeping track of tickets is a pain, so why would I want to do it?

The idea is that the members of the group would want other people to vote on their debates. If you don't want to vote on anybody's debates that's fine, but you won't have any tickets to get people to vote on your debates. Imagine if it were a group of families in need of babysitting. You don't have to babysit for other people, but you are going to eventually need somebody to babysit for you, so if you have no tickets you are screwed. Of course you could all babysit for each other without keeping track of tickets, but what happens when some people don't pull their weight? The point of keeping track of tickets is to incentivize people to vote in order to accumulate more, so that when they need votes they can acquire them. The alternative is to force everybody to vote x amount of times within y period of time, which doesn't seem reasonable to me. If there are 3 debates on the Hungarian government, I would not want to be forced to vote on them, nor would it be fair to the debaters for me to be forced to vote on the debates due to my lack of knowledge in the area. By making voting voluntary, you allow people to pick and choose the debates they want to vote on, in turn alleviating the problem of having to vote on topics you are uncomfortable or knowingly biased in.
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.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 9:59:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 9:02:35 AM, Mestari wrote:
Okay, so far so good. I'm going to wait for the input of other active voters such as Roy and F-16.

I think it is a pretty good idea. I'll respond in more detail in a little bit.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 10:28:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 9:59:51 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 4/20/2012 9:02:35 AM, Mestari wrote:
Okay, so far so good. I'm going to wait for the input of other active voters such as Roy and F-16.

I think it is a pretty good idea. I'll respond in more detail in a little bit.

I look forward to it.
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.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 10:52:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think the idea is sound and is one that is worthy of a test run. Let's do it for a while a check it out to see if it works. A problem already brought up of course is that people may use up all their currency and disappear which is easily solved by implementing minimum requirements on who can participate.

Another potential issue that I see with this is that people who take tickets by voting may not put their full effort into a vote. Sure, some debates are easy to give RFDs to, but some are so close that they require members to read, think about it, and come back and re-read again and vote. Also, many quality debates deserve quality votes. All this system does is increase votes but how are we going to get an increase in detailed RFDs? That is mostly at the discretion of the member. I think we should test drive it and try to figure out a way to incorporate that into the system.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 11:07:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 10:52:10 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I think the idea is sound and is one that is worthy of a test run. Let's do it for a while a check it out to see if it works. A problem already brought up of course is that people may use up all their currency and disappear which is easily solved by implementing minimum requirements on who can participate.

Another potential issue that I see with this is that people who take tickets by voting may not put their full effort into a vote. Sure, some debates are easy to give RFDs to, but some are so close that they require members to read, think about it, and come back and re-read again and vote. Also, many quality debates deserve quality votes. All this system does is increase votes but how are we going to get an increase in detailed RFDs? That is mostly at the discretion of the member. I think we should test drive it and try to figure out a way to incorporate that into the system.

I think quality really comes with who is in the group and what prerequisites we set.

I think winning at least 10 debates is sufficient, and you start with 3 tickets. 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.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 10:17:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 11:07:23 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/22/2012 10:52:10 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I think the idea is sound and is one that is worthy of a test run. Let's do it for a while a check it out to see if it works. A problem already brought up of course is that people may use up all their currency and disappear which is easily solved by implementing minimum requirements on who can participate.

Another potential issue that I see with this is that people who take tickets by voting may not put their full effort into a vote. Sure, some debates are easy to give RFDs to, but some are so close that they require members to read, think about it, and come back and re-read again and vote. Also, many quality debates deserve quality votes. All this system does is increase votes but how are we going to get an increase in detailed RFDs? That is mostly at the discretion of the member. I think we should test drive it and try to figure out a way to incorporate that into the system.

I think quality really comes with who is in the group and what prerequisites we set.

I think winning at least 10 debates is sufficient, and you start with 3 tickets. Thoughts?

Yeah, let's do it. I barely have any time but I am free tomorrow. Maybe we can start it off then?
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 5:28:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/23/2012 10:17:07 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 4/22/2012 11:07:23 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/22/2012 10:52:10 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I think the idea is sound and is one that is worthy of a test run. Let's do it for a while a check it out to see if it works. A problem already brought up of course is that people may use up all their currency and disappear which is easily solved by implementing minimum requirements on who can participate.

Another potential issue that I see with this is that people who take tickets by voting may not put their full effort into a vote. Sure, some debates are easy to give RFDs to, but some are so close that they require members to read, think about it, and come back and re-read again and vote. Also, many quality debates deserve quality votes. All this system does is increase votes but how are we going to get an increase in detailed RFDs? That is mostly at the discretion of the member. I think we should test drive it and try to figure out a way to incorporate that into the system.

I think quality really comes with who is in the group and what prerequisites we set.

I think winning at least 10 debates is sufficient, and you start with 3 tickets. Thoughts?

Yeah, let's do it. I barely have any time but I am free tomorrow. Maybe we can start it off then?

Sure thing. We'll have to get a few other people who are good voters to join us though.
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.