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

Some Possible Solutions on Voting, and etc.

YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 6:41:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Several proposals have been offered by various members for voting reform on DDO. Common themes have emerged. I'll explore a few below:

Voting

It is interesting to me how some (only a select few, not to worry) members who have vote bombed themselves in the past now -presumably after having matured- call for reform. (I don't cast many votes at all because I have had occasion to have faced voter retaliation, but that is another point in and of itself.) The problem is either (a) incompetent judges or (b) judges who are unwilling to exercise due restraint in levying points. This seems to commonly upset people.

There seems to be a few ways one could remedy this situation, none are necessarily mutually exclusive:

Option 1) Restrict voting to people in the 90%+ percentile on DDO, or only allow individuals in an equal or greater percentile than the highest debater to vote. This would be appealing, but for people who are in the 90%+ percentile who themselves have no idea how to recognize the conceptual relationship of premises to conclusions, gauge their respective strength or weigh their weakness in kind. While -for some of us- recognizing conceptual relationships isn't difficult, we all have various levels of experience. For example, some of us could have taught logic classes, have IQs in the 140s and scored among the top percentiles on various standardized tests for grad and law school entrance but would still be labeled trolls or have debates misjudged by those who do not share that background. Or, some of us may have debated in certain ways which are unfamiliar to judges who -despite their fundamental inompitence- still occasion themselves to vote on debate formats that they admittedly do not understand. As maddening as this is, not everyone shares a common base of knowledge, which is problematic, because it is unreasonable to expect someone to know something that they don't know or are otherwise incapable of knowing.

Option 2) Allow vote-blocking. There are some members which, perhaps, we have all encountered which we wouldn't want to vote on debates. We do this in the National Forensics League. Judges who consistently demonstrate various undesirable traits are "blackballed." While this may not be in keeping with the spirit of what many cherish on DDO, it would resolve many problems. Naturally, some parameters might need to be established for this practice. However, where a consistency of voter bias is recognized by either debater, it seems proper that such debater should be allowed to bar a given judge from casting a vote.

Option 3) Allow vote negating/challenging. This really already goes on with the counter-bomb practice, but is contingent upon another individual taking mercy on someone who was, in fact, vote bombed, for remedy. While this may be the most difficult to implement, in the case where a vote is clearly unfair or irrationally cast, it seems like there should be some sort of recourse.

Option 4) Reform the point system. Personally, I am in favor of a win-loss AND speaker point system like on the National Forensics League LD ballots, although a 1-10 point range I think may be most appropriate. Here's why: because even if a judge thinks that one side advanced a better argument than the other, but acted like a jerk, they can give what is called a low-point win. In that rite, win/loss would exist in tandem with speaker point total which would reflect both the skill and character of any given outcome. While personally I think it's monstrously idiotic to give a person a loss because of being "rude" I recognize that others think being nice is just as important as arguing well. The speaker points, similarly, can and do function as a way to rank the quality of the argument itself. For example, an argument between Danielle and Contradiction might (theoretically) be scored 10-9, where ten points were awarded by a given judge to Danielle and 9 were awarded to Contradiction. However, a debate between a new member and a member of the 70th percentile might score something more or less like a 3-5. In that regard, not only is the win/loss determined, but the quality of the argument itself is subject to evaluation. Percentiles could be determined by taking the average number of speaker points against the ratio of wins or losses (because this would have profound statistical implications). Up to ten points could be awarded to either side, btw.

And a Brief Mention of Trolls/Banning...

Now, as mentioned above, "troll" accusations are REMARKABLY overused. I was called a troll recently, which got me thinking... is anyone who doesn't frequently speak up on the forums, but on occasion makes a controversial claim a troll? What a preposterous metric for trollhood. As best I can tell, there isn't any real way to reform troll behavior other than to ignore it. As for banning though, unless there is OVERWHELMING evidence that a person has causes SUBSTANTIVE harm to another, I see no reason to ban anyone. There has ben an incredibly high drama level on this site lately and it is our collective faults. I would venture to guess this is because people on here take themselves entirely too seriously, which while understandable, can have some negative implications if left unchecked. I think we all recognize this.
Tsar of DDO
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 7:09:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 6:50:48 AM, drafterman wrote:
Eliminate voting. Outcome of debates determined by duels.

With lemons.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

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

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 12:53:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 7:09:04 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 5/16/2012 6:50:48 AM, drafterman wrote:
Eliminate voting. Outcome of debates determined by duels.

With lemons.

And roman candles.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 12:58:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
But on a serious note...

At 5/16/2012 6:41:56 AM, YYW wrote:
Several proposals have been offered by various members for voting reform on DDO. Common themes have emerged. I'll explore a few below:

Voting

It is interesting to me how some (only a select few, not to worry) members who have vote bombed themselves in the past now -presumably after having matured- call for reform. (I don't cast many votes at all because I have had occasion to have faced voter retaliation, but that is another point in and of itself.) The problem is either (a) incompetent judges or (b) judges who are unwilling to exercise due restraint in levying points. This seems to commonly upset people.

There seems to be a few ways one could remedy this situation, none are necessarily mutually exclusive:

Option 1) Restrict voting to people in the 90%+ percentile on DDO, or only allow individuals in an equal or greater percentile than the highest debater to vote. This would be appealing, but for people who are in the 90%+ percentile who themselves have no idea how to recognize the conceptual relationship of premises to conclusions, gauge their respective strength or weigh their weakness in kind. While -for some of us- recognizing conceptual relationships isn't difficult, we all have various levels of experience. For example, some of us could have taught logic classes, have IQs in the 140s and scored among the top percentiles on various standardized tests for grad and law school entrance but would still be labeled trolls or have debates misjudged by those who do not share that background. Or, some of us may have debated in certain ways which are unfamiliar to judges who -despite their fundamental inompitence- still occasion themselves to vote on debate formats that they admittedly do not understand. As maddening as this is, not everyone shares a common base of knowledge, which is problematic, because it is unreasonable to expect someone to know something that they don't know or are otherwise incapable of knowing.

This I have a hard time seeing ever really working. Not only is the percentile system screwed over majorly (people getting on here, debating once or twice, and then leaving. If you win five or so debates, you're already in the 80th percentile or something like that. It's ridiculous.), but it would be entirely arbitrary to get around and not prevent anything. All it would take for me to get past it is to make a multi, spam a few pointless debates until my percentile was in the 90's, close the multi account and start VBing away. While all systems will have some sort of inherent flaw, I feel that this system would be no significant change from the former.

Option 2) Allow vote-blocking. There are some members which, perhaps, we have all encountered which we wouldn't want to vote on debates. We do this in the National Forensics League. Judges who consistently demonstrate various undesirable traits are "blackballed." While this may not be in keeping with the spirit of what many cherish on DDO, it would resolve many problems. Naturally, some parameters might need to be established for this practice. However, where a consistency of voter bias is recognized by either debater, it seems proper that such debater should be allowed to bar a given judge from casting a vote.

Block a person. They can't debate with you or judge your debates (I think).

Option 3) Allow vote negating/challenging. This really already goes on with the counter-bomb practice, but is contingent upon another individual taking mercy on someone who was, in fact, vote bombed, for remedy. While this may be the most difficult to implement, in the case where a vote is clearly unfair or irrationally cast, it seems like there should be some sort of recourse.

I agree, but it would still depend upon someone feeling sorry for the poor sap and countering the vote themselves. We have an entire thread devoted to the countering of VBs, and it works fairly well, but there's always controversy over what is and what isn't a VB, especially when someone gives what looks like sound reasoning that may not always be in line with the debate.

Option 4) Reform the point system. Personally, I am in favor of a win-loss AND speaker point system like on the National Forensics League LD ballots

You does LD?! :D WOOO HOOO! WE GOT ANOTHER ONE!

, although a 1-10 point range I think may be most appropriate. Here's why: because even if a judge thinks that one side advanced a better argument than the other, but acted like a jerk, they can give what is called a low-point win. In that rite, win/loss would exist in tandem with speaker point total which would reflect both the skill and character of any given outcome. While personally I think it's monstrously idiotic to give a person a loss because of being "rude" I recognize that others think being nice is just as important as arguing well. The speaker points, similarly, can and do function as a way to rank the quality of the argument itself. For example, an argument between Danielle and Contradiction might (theoretically) be scored 10-9, where ten points were awarded by a given judge to Danielle and 9 were awarded to Contradiction. However, a debate between a new member and a member of the 70th percentile might score something more or less like a 3-5. In that regard, not only is the win/loss determined, but the quality of the argument itself is subject to evaluation. Percentiles could be determined by taking the average number of speaker points against the ratio of wins or losses (because this would have profound statistical implications). Up to ten points could be awarded to either side, btw.

Agree. The amount of points one gets should not determine who wins a debate. The actual outcome of the debate should determine who wins the debate. The point system is arbitrary for deciding a winner.

Gah. I'll finish up responding to this later.


And a Brief Mention of Trolls/Banning...

Now, as mentioned above, "troll" accusations are REMARKABLY overused. I was called a troll recently, which got me thinking... is anyone who doesn't frequently speak up on the forums, but on occasion makes a controversial claim a troll? What a preposterous metric for trollhood. As best I can tell, there isn't any real way to reform troll behavior other than to ignore it. As for banning though, unless there is OVERWHELMING evidence that a person has causes SUBSTANTIVE harm to another, I see no reason to ban anyone. There has ben an incredibly high drama level on this site lately and it is our collective faults. I would venture to guess this is because people on here take themselves entirely too seriously, which while understandable, can have some negative implications if left unchecked. I think we all recognize this.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 1:26:58 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 (in reality, this will just be the points you give on a debate, except you ignore the rationale for each set of points).

The "Point Reform" strategy 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.
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 1:52:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 6:41:56 AM, YYW wrote:

For example, some of us could have taught logic classes, have IQs in the 140s and scored among the top percentiles on various standardized tests for grad and law school entrance but would still be labeled trolls or have debates misjudged by those who do not share that background

Can I get an Amen!

Option 4) Reform the point system. Personally, I am in favor of a win-loss AND speaker point system like on the National Forensics League LD ballots, although a 1-10 point range I think may be most appropriate. Here's why: because even if a judge thinks that one side advanced a better argument than the other, but acted like a jerk, they can give what is called a low-point win. In that rite, win/loss would exist in tandem with speaker point total which would reflect both the skill and character of any given outcome. While personally I think it's monstrously idiotic to give a person a loss because of being "rude" I recognize that others think being nice is just as important as arguing well. The speaker points, similarly, can and do function as a way to rank the quality of the argument itself. For example, an argument between Danielle and Contradiction might (theoretically) be scored 10-9, where ten points were awarded by a given judge to Danielle and 9 were awarded to Contradiction. However, a debate between a new member and a member of the 70th percentile might score something more or less like a 3-5. In that regard, not only is the win/loss determined, but the quality of the argument itself is subject to evaluation. Percentiles could be determined by taking the average number of speaker points against the ratio of wins or losses (because this would have profound statistical implications). Up to ten points could be awarded to either side, btw.

This is what I favor as well, although there should be SOME mechanism for punishing poor conduct in a debate without necessarily affecting win/loss.
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
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 2:11:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Other than optional scoreless debates, which I advocate, another option I'd like to propose is a jury system. I believe this is already done with "trials," which is a stupid idea, but the jury system might carry over.

Prior to the debate, the debaters agree on 4-6 people who would be willing and capable to serve as a jury for the debate. The system would then only allow those people to vote on the debate, using either the current points system or a reformed points-based system.

(As with scoreless debates, this can be done today simply by asking people not to vote on the debate -- but that doesn't prevent last-minute VBs and innomen mentioned he doesn't have the power to remove votes or change the outcome of debates.)
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
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 2:32:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 2:11:08 PM, WriterDave wrote:
Other than optional scoreless debates, which I advocate, another option I'd like to propose is a jury system. I believe this is already done with "trials," which is a stupid idea, but the jury system might carry over.

Prior to the debate, the debaters agree on 4-6 people who would be willing and capable to serve as a jury for the debate. The system would then only allow those people to vote on the debate, using either the current points system or a reformed points-based system.

(As with scoreless debates, this can be done today simply by asking people not to vote on the debate -- but that doesn't prevent last-minute VBs and innomen mentioned he doesn't have the power to remove votes or change the outcome of debates.)

The jury system is interesting, and one method which might merit further consideration. Perhaps before the commencement of a debate, each person could select three individuals who would judge the debate? I mean, of course there are flaws which we can all anticipate, but it may be something to consider.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 4:11:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 1:52:49 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 5/16/2012 6:41:56 AM, YYW wrote:

For example, some of us could have taught logic classes, have IQs in the 140s and scored among the top percentiles on various standardized tests for grad and law school entrance but would still be labeled trolls or have debates misjudged by those who do not share that background

Can I get an Amen!

Amen. *Has baptist revival moment*
Tsar of DDO
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 5:05:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 7:09:04 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 5/16/2012 6:50:48 AM, drafterman wrote:
Eliminate voting. Outcome of debates determined by duels.

With lemons.

Explosive lemons.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 5:20:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't know why this hasn't been said before, but I would like a system where one could "report" a vote that is suspected of being a vote-bomb. You would click on the little flag with the 'report vote' thing, and it would be sent to the moderator (or a mod) to discern if it was a vote bomb or not. Of course this is going to take up a big amount of time that Innomen probably doesn't have, and people are going to report posts that are against their views, etc. And there's the problem of having people report the votes on their own debates. It's not perfect, but it's a step up from having counter-vote-bombs.
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 5:29:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 4:19:01 PM, anit-Royal wrote:
you know what I hate is when the debate that is pretty good or a noob gets a tie 0-0

Perhaps you should duel them with an explosive lemon, as others have proposed.
Tsar of DDO
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 6:48:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 5:20:05 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
I don't know why this hasn't been said before, but I would like a system where one could "report" a vote that is suspected of being a vote-bomb. You would click on the little flag with the 'report vote' thing, and it would be sent to the moderator (or a mod) to discern if it was a vote bomb or not. Of course this is going to take up a big amount of time that Innomen probably doesn't have, and people are going to report posts that are against their views, etc. And there's the problem of having people report the votes on their own debates. It's not perfect, but it's a step up from having counter-vote-bombs.

That was a thought I had as well. The problem I had with it, beyond putting extra work on the mod, is the issue of subjectivity. At this point, I would not trust innomen to come within a nautical mile of any of my debate posts -- and I'm sure a lot of people here would say the same about me.
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