Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

IDea: Weighting votes by quality

Thrasymachus
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 5:34:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Voting on this site is currently a joke. As soon as a topic becomes suitably controversial or popular, the votes each debater gets is *strongly* predicted by the ideological beliefs of the voters. My favourite case of this (cos I follow it) is the SSM debates by contradiction: with perhaps 2 exceptions over the debate between him and freeman and him and WriterDave, all voters who were atheists/libs gave more points to contradictions opponent, and all voters who were Christian/conservative gave more points to contradiction. Similar things apply in most hot button issue debates I've seen.

Exacerbating the effect is that better voters often do 4;3s or other split pointing, and generally don't give massive points either way in closely fought debates (eg. "X had more footnotes than Y, so I'll give him sources"). The problem is not so good partisans will happily give 5 or 6 pointers for generally pretty poor reasons ("I thought Con's arguments were persuasive [because I agree with them], and I thought Con's sources were more reliable [because I agree with them]. 0-5"). So the archipelago of voters who judge in a vaguely virtuous manner are swamped by unvirtuous partisans.

The problem is that when voting becomes like this, that saps incentive. I'm much more hesitant to participate knowing a) very few people will vote on the sort of niche-ish subjects I like, and b) if a topic does become popular, my fate will be almost uncorrelated to my performance, but strongly predicted by the prior beliefs of the voters.

So a mechanism to reward and put good voting at a premium is needed. I suggest we have a 'voting review' system where people can like or dislikes of RFDs etc, and then use some weighted average of the number of likes per vote made to give a multiplier to the number of points the voter gives. So someone who gives good votes (Double_R, say), will hopefully be recognised, and as the likes pile-up his vote counts for more, so getting 1 more point from him might be worth the 5 point pseudo-bombs of many partisans.

Advantages:

1) This system will better track who deserves to win - I'd far take the word of a decent judge saying "I'd just give it to X" rather than the sum of the partisans. So putting these weights will help.

2) It obviates the whole VB, counter VB dynamic, which rapidly becomes endless counters and people losing track of which votes 'need to be neutralized' (and also just encourages people to put token RFDs that just pass muster and giving 5-6 points instead of 7, which is almost as bad). Instead, you just downvote the votebomb, and so the user who does it never has any great effect on the outcome of proceedings.

3) It provides some reward for 'good judging'.

Disadvantages:

1) It means the 'total votes' of each candidate will no longer be whole numbers.

2) Of necessity, new visitors and people who seldom vote will unlikely get any great weight to their votes, risking more clique/ingroupness.

3) It could get meta with people just 'metabombing' likes on posters known to be on 'their side' to increase their weight (and dislikes on opposing posters). (That said, it is likely that widely recognised 'good voters' should get upvoted by 'both sides', and the metabombing between partisans should usually cancel, and generally adding layers of meta dilutes the effects of trying to game the system).
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 5:36:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
who chooses the quality?
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
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 5:37:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There's no doubt that you're right and the idea is good, but it's a matter of execution and organization. There are dozens of similar voting plans tucked away in the forums that were never realized.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 6:21:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There is problem with voting on the site, mainly that too few people read debates and vote on them. I doubt that voting for voters would help much. People would tend to vote for whoever thinks like they do, so the likely outcome is that the prejudice would just be transferred to the favored voter.

As a practical matter, the best a debater can do is to avoid debating topics where there is little chance of the vote being more than an opinion poll. Debates on drugs, SSM, and abortion are mostly going to be determined by who happens to see the debate. There are many topics that are no so involved with passionate viewpoints.

Other than that, any scheme to improve voting probably cannot involve the site owners because implementing software changes is too expensive for a site that produces zero revenue.

I had the idea of a "voter circle" where people joining a circle would agree to vote on one debate a month that was nominated by each member. It seemed to me that if the members were carefully selected to balance opinions, it could get at least some debates judged well. Reaction on the Forum was that it would end up with everyone voting for each other anyway. I'm not sure. Maybe a variation on how debates were selected, even excluding debates from circle members, might work.

Another idea was to make a test that would assess a debaters ability to judge debates, and hopefully improve the quality of judging in process. I found a quiz site, and banged out a rough quiz, but I didn't like the result. the quiz had severe character limitations and quizzes cannot be edited to fix mistakes. I only scored 18/20 on my own quiz and I don't know why! It doesn't tell which questions I got wrong, and doesn't allow explaining why right answers were claimed to be right.

If anybody wants to play with it, you can see what I was after by taking the quiz at http://www.makeaquiz.net... As I said, there are issues, so don't take it too seriously.

If anyone knows of a better quiz making tool, I'd like to know of it. Funtrivia has a great quiz making tool, but you have to join the site to take a quiz, and that seems like too much to ask.
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 4:00:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is my idea. Groups of five would vote. It works like this:

Each debater would choose 2 people to vote for them. Those four who then choose 1 person together to make the last vote. This is one group and so on so forth.

Debater 1--------> Voter 1, Voter 2
Debater 2--------> Voter 3, Voter 4

then

Voter 1,Voter 2, Voter 3, Voter 4 -----------> Voter 5
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 4:11:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 4:00:39 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
This is my idea. Groups of five would vote. It works like this:

Each debater would choose 2 people to vote for them. Those four who then choose 1 person together to make the last vote. This is one group and so on so forth.

Debater 1--------> Voter 1, Voter 2
Debater 2--------> Voter 3, Voter 4

then

Voter 1,Voter 2, Voter 3, Voter 4 -----------> Voter 5

thats easily corruptible
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
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 4:13:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 6:21:17 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
There is problem with voting on the site, mainly that too few people read debates and vote on them. I doubt that voting for voters would help much. People would tend to vote for whoever thinks like they do, so the likely outcome is that the prejudice would just be transferred to the favored voter.

As a practical matter, the best a debater can do is to avoid debating topics where there is little chance of the vote being more than an opinion poll. Debates on drugs, SSM, and abortion are mostly going to be determined by who happens to see the debate. There are many topics that are no so involved with passionate viewpoints.

Other than that, any scheme to improve voting probably cannot involve the site owners because implementing software changes is too expensive for a site that produces zero revenue.

I had the idea of a "voter circle" where people joining a circle would agree to vote on one debate a month that was nominated by each member. It seemed to me that if the members were carefully selected to balance opinions, it could get at least some debates judged well. Reaction on the Forum was that it would end up with everyone voting for each other anyway. I'm not sure. Maybe a variation on how debates were selected, even excluding debates from circle members, might work.

Another idea was to make a test that would assess a debaters ability to judge debates, and hopefully improve the quality of judging in process. I found a quiz site, and banged out a rough quiz, but I didn't like the result. the quiz had severe character limitations and quizzes cannot be edited to fix mistakes. I only scored 18/20 on my own quiz and I don't know why! It doesn't tell which questions I got wrong, and doesn't allow explaining why right answers were claimed to be right.

If anybody wants to play with it, you can see what I was after by taking the quiz at http://www.makeaquiz.net... As I said, there are issues, so don't take it too seriously.

If anyone knows of a better quiz making tool, I'd like to know of it. Funtrivia has a great quiz making tool, but you have to join the site to take a quiz, and that seems like too much to ask.

I have a question on your question about attacking the character of the person rather than the argument. I got that wrong, and that's not what an ad hom is, although I could be wrong, but I was taught that an ad hom is devaluing the argument due to the character of the source. You're a racist, therefore you're wrong. Just saying "you're a racist" isn't an ad hom for debate without the part where you then say 'you are therefore wrong'.
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 4:14:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 4:11:01 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/1/2012 4:00:39 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
This is my idea. Groups of three would vote. It works like this:

Each debater would choose 1 person to vote for them. Those two who then choose 1 person together to make the last vote. This is one group and so on so forth.

Debater 1--------> Voter 1
Debater 2--------> Voter 2
then

Voter 1,Voter 2 -----------> Voter 3

If you cut it down by half like this then it is more secure. Now it is groups of three.