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

Point Reform

bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2012 6:14:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't like the point system. In debate, there is a winner and a loser. You should vote for either a winner or loser.

Like in a Presidential debate, high school/college debate, or debate between two friends, proficiency with the English language, civility, and the use of credible sources will all affect whether you persuade someone of your side, but they are not "scored separately."

Pros to having everyone vote 1 point to either side: vote bombing has less of an impact on the outcome. There is no differential voting - everyone's vote counts the same. You can't award someone the sources point because you really want him to win. This latter issue is more problematic.

Cons: vote bombing is harder to prove (no RFD will be the only indicator).

I don't really care what the site does, but from now on, I'm voting all the points I'm able to the person who won. So beware before you ask me to judge from now on - I will award all 7 points to the winner (whoever I think that was).
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2012 6:17:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
^^this supposedly forces others to follow suit, to avoid their votes counting less, thus effectively accomplishing what I want
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2012 6:21:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I agree with your ideas Bluesteel, but you shouldn't use all your points to the winner. Most other people do not vote that way and thus it would give your vote more weight. I would just vote on arguments.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2012 6:21:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/14/2012 6:17:28 PM, bluesteel wrote:
^^this supposedly forces others to follow suit, to avoid their votes counting less, thus effectively accomplishing what I want

http://www.google.com...
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2012 6:24:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/14/2012 6:21:27 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
I agree with your ideas Bluesteel, but you shouldn't use all your points to the winner. Most other people do not vote that way and thus it would give your vote more weight. I would just vote on arguments.

That's the point. Others would have to react by doing the same.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2012 6:37:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/14/2012 6:24:40 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/14/2012 6:21:27 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
I agree with your ideas Bluesteel, but you shouldn't use all your points to the winner. Most other people do not vote that way and thus it would give your vote more weight. I would just vote on arguments.

That's the point. Others would have to react by doing the same.

Or the people debating will just ask that others counter points of your vote.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2012 9:25:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/14/2012 6:24:40 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/14/2012 6:21:27 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
I agree with your ideas Bluesteel, but you shouldn't use all your points to the winner. Most other people do not vote that way and thus it would give your vote more weight. I would just vote on arguments.

That's the point. Others would have to react by doing the same.

It will just be countered, or at least everything but arguments. Some people will even start thinking of you as a V-bomber. No-one will follow suit except maybe a few and that would only make it worse. You can't get a whole site to do it.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2012 9:31:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's not a vote-bomb if I read the debate, I can apportion my points however I choose.

I've seen people give RFD's that end in "close debate, 4:3 aff" and then they split their vote total up arbitrarily.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2012 9:39:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is definetely something I could get behind. In a debate, while having credible sources, good grammar and speech, good manners, and sound arguments are all crucial to a win, none of those independently are worthy of giving someone a win or not. It's takes a combination of all, or at least most, to persuade an audience that you are right and your opponent is wrong. Maybe we could just do, instead of giving options for arguments, S/G, sources, etc., we could just do a button for who you believe won, and that person would receive a point. RFDs would have to be mandatory in every debate (to be able to discern votebombs from legitimate votes), but the system seems overall better than the one we have currently.

What I don't agree with is bluesteel's method of trying to enact the reform (voting every debate the full 7 points). All that's going to do, as a few people have already pointed out, is get some (or all) of your points countered, and you're back at square one. I think the way to enact this change isn't to always vote seven points, but to vote one point. You're not going to get countered that way, and even though it might have a smaller impact, you're still going to be giving the same quality of RFDs as the people who vute in the current manner.

But in all honesty, the only way we could really get this enacted permanently is with Juggle help, and I don't know if we can get that.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2012 9:47:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/14/2012 9:31:57 PM, bluesteel wrote:
It's not a vote-bomb if I read the debate, I can apportion my points however I choose.

Regardless, people will view it as a v-bomb. And I hold the view that every voting point given should be adressed in your RFD. Giving one side sources, conduct and grammar without reason as to why they had better sources, conduct and grammar would be viewed as a vote-bomb even if your reason for the argument points were well justified.


I've seen people give RFD's that end in "close debate, 4:3 aff" and then they split their vote total up arbitrarily.

Yeah, cliff used to do that all the time. But usually it's a close total and less than three points so people don't care.

I'm not saying I'm against the idea, just against you yourself doing it, by yourself.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2012 10:49:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I agree with BlueSteel. Not about the "I'm doing it anyway" part, but the part where there is only one vote, who won, pro or con. As in academic debate, this can be supplemented by individual scores on the all-things-considered performance of each debater, but these would not actually have any effect other than bragging rights.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2012 10:52:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think the point system is a good idea. Essentially, without a point system a person can just be as big of a d!ck as he/she wants and not lose points over it. It also gives a basis on how one should judge as well.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2012 10:54:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just to warn you BS, your gonna be countered.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

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

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2012 11:08:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am flip-flopping a bit on whether this is a good idea but I am sure you won't mind me playing devil's advocate.

Why do we need to change the current system at all? The important point to consider is whether there is anything wrong with the current system. Sure, a debate has a winner and a loser but that is how most voters award points on DDO. A 3 point vote for the winner and none for the loser.

Let's take an example. Take two debaters: Pro and Con. Pro had the better arguments but poor conduct. Overall, he was able to convince me that he had the better arguments. So, I vote arguments for Pro and conduct to Con. 3-1.

Then let's say SocialPinko comes along (just picking random names out of people who posted in this thread). He thinks that Con had the better arguments. He also thinks that Pro was rude to Con so docks conduct points from Pro as well 0-4.

Now the total points would be 3-5 to Con. Even though one voter thought that Pro did better and the other voter thought that Con did better. It is fair because the degree to which Pro did better than Con matters too. If I thought Pro won narrowly and Spinko thought that Con absolutely destroyed Pro, wouldn't it be fair for Con to take the win? To take this a bit further, let's say that Bluesteel agreed with me that Pro won narrowly and Zaradi agreed with Spinko that it was a total whitewash of Pro by Con, now we have two judges who believed that Con rocked the debate and two who believed that Pro had a very slight edge. Is it not fair for Con to win since he swayed the opinions of the judges a lot more?

Sure, you can think that Pro won narrowly and give him 7 points, but would it then accurately reflect how instrumental he was in swaying the judges and how thoroughly he convinced them?

Not all competitions have a winner and a loser. Some have point systems where each judge gives a specific number of points to each competitor and the points are tallied up. That is the essence of the system that we currently have.
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2012 11:44:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/14/2012 10:52:46 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I think the point system is a good idea. Essentially, without a point system a person can just be as big of a d!ck as he/she wants and not lose points over it. It also gives a basis on how one should judge as well.

Actually, in academic debate you're required to maintain quite a high standard of conduct or you forfeit. *cough*
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2012 11:46:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/14/2012 11:44:31 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 5/14/2012 10:52:46 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I think the point system is a good idea. Essentially, without a point system a person can just be as big of a d!ck as he/she wants and not lose points over it. It also gives a basis on how one should judge as well.

Actually, in academic debate you're required to maintain quite a high standard of conduct or you forfeit. *cough*

Actually, I would call the majority of this site academic in nature.
*sneeze*
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2012 11:47:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/14/2012 11:46:19 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 5/14/2012 11:44:31 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 5/14/2012 10:52:46 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I think the point system is a good idea. Essentially, without a point system a person can just be as big of a d!ck as he/she wants and not lose points over it. It also gives a basis on how one should judge as well.

Actually, in academic debate you're required to maintain quite a high standard of conduct or you forfeit. *cough*

Actually, I would call the majority of this site academic in nature.
*sneeze*

Define academic.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2012 11:51:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/14/2012 11:47:53 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 5/14/2012 11:46:19 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 5/14/2012 11:44:31 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 5/14/2012 10:52:46 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I think the point system is a good idea. Essentially, without a point system a person can just be as big of a d!ck as he/she wants and not lose points over it. It also gives a basis on how one should judge as well.

Actually, in academic debate you're required to maintain quite a high standard of conduct or you forfeit. *cough*

Actually, I would call the majority of this site academic in nature.
*sneeze*

Define academic.

High school and college. That's the type of debate I believe the OP was referring to when he talked about there being only one vote, pro or con, in a debate. (I've judged those debates in the past.) I didn't mean academic as in intelligent or educated -- of course we all try to be that here. :-)
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2012 12:08:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/14/2012 11:51:00 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 5/14/2012 11:47:53 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 5/14/2012 11:46:19 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 5/14/2012 11:44:31 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 5/14/2012 10:52:46 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I think the point system is a good idea. Essentially, without a point system a person can just be as big of a d!ck as he/she wants and not lose points over it. It also gives a basis on how one should judge as well.

Actually, in academic debate you're required to maintain quite a high standard of conduct or you forfeit. *cough*

Actually, I would call the majority of this site academic in nature.
*sneeze*

Define academic.

High school and college. That's the type of debate I believe the OP was referring to

I'm pretty sure he was just referring to debates on here in general, not a specific sort.

when he talked about there being only one vote, pro or con, in a debate. (I've judged those debates in the past.) I didn't mean academic as in intelligent or educated -- of course we all try to be that here. :-)

LOL!
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2012 12:50:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/15/2012 12:08:11 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 5/14/2012 11:51:00 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 5/14/2012 11:47:53 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 5/14/2012 11:46:19 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 5/14/2012 11:44:31 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 5/14/2012 10:52:46 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I think the point system is a good idea. Essentially, without a point system a person can just be as big of a d!ck as he/she wants and not lose points over it. It also gives a basis on how one should judge as well.

Actually, in academic debate you're required to maintain quite a high standard of conduct or you forfeit. *cough*

Actually, I would call the majority of this site academic in nature.
*sneeze*

Define academic.

High school and college. That's the type of debate I believe the OP was referring to

I'm pretty sure he was just referring to debates on here in general, not a specific sort.

Okay, I thought he meant academic forensics. Never mind, then.

when he talked about there being only one vote, pro or con, in a debate. (I've judged those debates in the past.) I didn't mean academic as in intelligent or educated -- of course we all try to be that here. :-)

LOL!

Well, some more than others. ;-)
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2012 1:18:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I agree with what other people said in favor of this, but to add further...

Consider this scenario: Voter 1 votes for Pro and gives him the (reference+conduct) point. This is (2+1). V1 gives Con the argument point. This is 3-3 between Pro and Con. Voter 2 gives Pro the reference/conduct point, but votes tie on arguments. This is 6-3 to Pro. Voter 3 gives pro the conduct point only, but arguments to Con. This is 7-4 to Pro.

In this case, Pro would be the winner of the debate (and around three voters is very common) simply because he had arguably better sources and conduct, even though Con lost no vote on arguments. Now, this might not be a too common way of voting, but it could happen - in which case I think bluesteel's idea seems good.

However, a problem would be that old debates could fall under the new system, and obviously if votes only go to arguments, then people who strived to get conduct/reference points would just have done it for nothing. So it should apply to new debates if anything.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2012 12:20:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/14/2012 10:52:46 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I think the point system is a good idea. Essentially, without a point system a person can just be as big of a d!ck as he/she wants and not lose points over it. It also gives a basis on how one should judge as well.

If anything, under a 1 point system, there's more of a disincentive. If I think I can beat my opponent under the current system, I'm guaranteed 5 points from each judge (arguments and sources), so I can be as huge a douche as I want because I'm only risking one point.

If all points are equal, if I'm a huge douche, I'm risking that some judges will vote against me just for that. It happens in high school debate all the time, where someone loses because of atrocious conduct.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2012 12:21:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/14/2012 10:54:03 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Just to warn you BS, your gonna be countered.

Any counter to my choice of how to apportion my points is a vote-bomb in itself. I.e. the problem that others users have brought up where people counter back and forth, ad infinitum, arguing over whether certain votes were vote-bombs.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2012 12:31:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/14/2012 11:08:27 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:

Why do we need to change the current system at all? The important point to consider is whether there is anything wrong with the current system. Sure, a debate has a winner and a loser but that is how most voters award points on DDO. A 3 point vote for the winner and none for the loser.

Status quo bias isn't a good thing. The status quo isn't better just because it currently is what happens.

Also, 3 points is the typical award. That's the problem. I'm not still mad about it, but I lost my debate to innomen because my voters who were mostly DDO regulars (Roy, danielle, thett, maikuru) all voted 3 points whereas innoomen's voters mostly gave him 5 or 6. I won more voters, but lost the debate. It's unfair because some people's votes counted more than others, which is nonsensical since many of the people who vote 3 are some of the most respected judges on the site.


Let's take an example. Take two debaters: Pro and Con. Pro had the better arguments but poor conduct. Overall, he was able to convince me that he had the better arguments. So, I vote arguments for Pro and conduct to Con. 3-1.

Then let's say SocialPinko comes along (just picking random names out of people who posted in this thread). He thinks that Con had the better arguments. He also thinks that Pro was rude to Con so docks conduct points from Pro as well 0-4.

Now the total points would be 3-5 to Con. Even though one voter thought that Pro did better and the other voter thought that Con did better. It is fair because the degree to which Pro did better than Con matters too. If I thought Pro won narrowly and Spinko thought that Con absolutely destroyed Pro, wouldn't it be fair for Con to take the win? To take this a bit further, let's say that Bluesteel agreed with me that Pro won narrowly and Zaradi agreed with Spinko that it was a total whitewash of Pro by Con, now we have two judges who believed that Con rocked the debate and two who believed that Pro had a very slight edge. Is it not fair for Con to win since he swayed the opinions of the judges a lot more?

If Con was far more persuasive, he should win more total voters. If only 3 people vote, is it fair that spinko can go back and alter the outcome by deciding that one person's spelling was actually slightly better?

In high school/college debate, in a final round, there might be 13 judges. Each gets one ballot. There are still 7-6 decisions, but it seems more fair that everyone's vote counts the same.


Sure, you can think that Pro won narrowly and give him 7 points, but would it then accurately reflect how instrumental he was in swaying the judges and how thoroughly he convinced them?

If people consider me a better judge than the typical voter, then maybe my decision should count more. At the least, it shouldn't count LESS than someone who somewhat dishonestly rewards 5 points to the side he likes, rather than just 3.


Not all competitions have a winner and a loser. Some have point systems where each judge gives a specific number of points to each competitor and the points are tallied up. That is the essence of the system that we currently have.

Yes, but each judge can apportion his points however he chooses. You don't have people telling judges in the Olympics: no, you can't award all 10 points, that's not allowed. And regardless, you're arguing we should model our system on the real world; debate should mimic how DEBATE is judged in the real world, not how GYMNASTICS is judged in the real world.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2012 12:33:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@Mirza

It would not be retroactive. I don't think Juggle has the capability to even do that.

The RFD's were not retroactive - old debates still don't have RFD's.

Supposedly Juggle could allow you to choose how you wanted people to vote on your debate (when you instigated) - whether you want a 7 point or 1 point system.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2012 12:35:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I agree with this concept, but you ought not to do the 7-point voting thing. It'll just make you look like a votebomber.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2012 12:38:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well, if there's consensus to do this through Juggle rather than as a grassroots movement, then I'm happy to do it that way.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2012 3:01:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There is a compromise method between all-or-nothing points and the current system.

Assume for the moment that each voter is given seven points to distribute as he pleases.

The OPs system would be such that the answer to the question "Who won the debate: A or B?" determines whether seven or zero points are distributed to a debater.

Consider, instead, a scenario where the voter is given the following choices: "Did A win the debate conclusively? Did A win the debate somewhat? Did A barely beat B? Did A win by some semantic Loophole?"

That is, how strongly you feel someone has won a debate determines how many of seven points you give them.

For instance, if A kicks B's @ss hands down, give all seven. If B puts up a good fight, maybe lower it to five points. If you begrudingly say A wins because B completely dropped the ball, lower it to one point.

This way you express preference without having lopsided representation. Just because one side finds a loophole, doesn't mean they need a huge boost.

In practice, all this means is that you ignore the criteria under which points are given and simply consider the total number of points you award to the person you think has won.