Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Voting proposal

bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2012 7:28:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What do you guys think of adopting a voting system like Yahoo Answers, where you get certain privileges at each level and points for certain actions?

For example, vote on a debate = 1 point. If one or both debaters like your RFD = 10 points. If both debaters dislike your RFD = -30 points.

Level 1 - no voting privileges
Level 2 - voting privileges, vote counts for 1 point
Level 3 - 2 points
Level 4 - 3 points
etc

Vote bombers could be bumped back down into non-voting privileges pretty easily if both debaters dislike their RFD. It could solve without the need for mod intervention. I said both debaters must dislike because people might hit dislike for RFD's that are against them.

It could include a component of other user's rating RFD's too, although I doubt most people would take the trouble.

It's an interesting idea, given Juggle is willing to work on new site additions. It makes sense too, given that some judges put forth much more effort in reading and writing an RFD. It would be fair if this was reflected in their voting privileges and it would provide an incentive to read more debates.

I don't know why, but I'm addicted to answering questions on Yahoo, even though most of them are stupid. The system works.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2012 7:33:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/23/2012 7:28:46 PM, bluesteel wrote:
What do you guys think of adopting a voting system like Yahoo Answers, where you get certain privileges at each level and points for certain actions?

For example, vote on a debate = 1 point. If one or both debaters like your RFD = 10 points. If both debaters dislike your RFD = -30 points.

Level 1 - no voting privileges
Level 2 - voting privileges, vote counts for 1 point
Level 3 - 2 points
Level 4 - 3 points
etc

Vote bombers could be bumped back down into non-voting privileges pretty easily if both debaters dislike their RFD. It could solve without the need for mod intervention. I said both debaters must dislike because people might hit dislike for RFD's that are against them.

It could include a component of other user's rating RFD's too, although I doubt most people would take the trouble.

It's an interesting idea, given Juggle is willing to work on new site additions. It makes sense too, given that some judges put forth much more effort in reading and writing an RFD. It would be fair if this was reflected in their voting privileges and it would provide an incentive to read more debates.

I don't know why, but I'm addicted to answering questions on Yahoo, even though most of them are stupid. The system works.

How would you get people out of level one? Five debates with no forfeits completed?
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2012 7:35:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes! YES!
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2012 7:38:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/23/2012 7:28:46 PM, bluesteel wrote:
What do you guys think of adopting a voting system like Yahoo Answers, where you get certain privileges at each level and points for certain actions?

For example, vote on a debate = 1 point. If one or both debaters like your RFD = 10 points. If both debaters dislike your RFD = -30 points.

Level 1 - no voting privileges
Level 2 - voting privileges, vote counts for 1 point
Level 3 - 2 points
Level 4 - 3 points
etc

Vote bombers could be bumped back down into non-voting privileges pretty easily if both debaters dislike their RFD. It could solve without the need for mod intervention. I said both debaters must dislike because people might hit dislike for RFD's that are against them.

It could include a component of other user's rating RFD's too, although I doubt most people would take the trouble.

It's an interesting idea, given Juggle is willing to work on new site additions. It makes sense too, given that some judges put forth much more effort in reading and writing an RFD. It would be fair if this was reflected in their voting privileges and it would provide an incentive to read more debates.

I don't know why, but I'm addicted to answering questions on Yahoo, even though most of them are stupid. The system works.

Do you think not allowing the participants in the debates rate such votes be permissible, or is that also covered in the voting system on Yahoo.com???
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2012 7:40:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/23/2012 7:38:51 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 6/23/2012 7:28:46 PM, bluesteel wrote:
What do you guys think of adopting a voting system like Yahoo Answers, where you get certain privileges at each level and points for certain actions?

For example, vote on a debate = 1 point. If one or both debaters like your RFD = 10 points. If both debaters dislike your RFD = -30 points.

Level 1 - no voting privileges
Level 2 - voting privileges, vote counts for 1 point
Level 3 - 2 points
Level 4 - 3 points
etc

Vote bombers could be bumped back down into non-voting privileges pretty easily if both debaters dislike their RFD. It could solve without the need for mod intervention. I said both debaters must dislike because people might hit dislike for RFD's that are against them.

It could include a component of other user's rating RFD's too, although I doubt most people would take the trouble.

It's an interesting idea, given Juggle is willing to work on new site additions. It makes sense too, given that some judges put forth much more effort in reading and writing an RFD. It would be fair if this was reflected in their voting privileges and it would provide an incentive to read more debates.

I don't know why, but I'm addicted to answering questions on Yahoo, even though most of them are stupid. The system works.

Do you think not allowing the participants in the debates rate such votes be permissible, or is that also covered in the voting system on Yahoo.com???

[as in the writer of the question can't rate the answers that he/she receives on Yahoo.com]
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2012 7:59:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/23/2012 7:28:46 PM, bluesteel wrote:
What do you guys think of adopting a voting system like Yahoo Answers, where you get certain privileges at each level and points for certain actions?

For example, vote on a debate = 1 point. If one or both debaters like your RFD = 10 points. If both debaters dislike your RFD = -30 points.

Level 1 - no voting privileges
Level 2 - voting privileges, vote counts for 1 point
Level 3 - 2 points
Level 4 - 3 points
etc

Vote bombers could be bumped back down into non-voting privileges pretty easily if both debaters dislike their RFD. It could solve without the need for mod intervention. I said both debaters must dislike because people might hit dislike for RFD's that are against them.

It could include a component of other user's rating RFD's too, although I doubt most people would take the trouble.

It's an interesting idea, given Juggle is willing to work on new site additions. It makes sense too, given that some judges put forth much more effort in reading and writing an RFD. It would be fair if this was reflected in their voting privileges and it would provide an incentive to read more debates.

I don't know why, but I'm addicted to answering questions on Yahoo, even though most of them are stupid. The system works.

This is interesting but a debater would have a bias when voting towards the debater who voted against him. Also if debaters had to vote on everyone who voted that would create a lot of work for them especially debates with hundreds of votes.

I think the point system should be based on the length of the RFD. If the RFD is a certain number of characters then you get points. you could respond back by saying length doesn't always mean quality but it usually does.
Hardcore.Pwnography
Posts: 4,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2012 8:25:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/23/2012 7:59:21 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:

This is interesting but a debater would have a bias when voting towards the debater who voted against him. Also if debaters had to vote on everyone who voted that would create a lot of work for them especially debates with hundreds of votes.

I think the point system should be based on the length of the RFD. If the RFD is a certain number of characters then you get points. you could respond back by saying length doesn't always mean quality but it usually does.

Doesn't work. They'll spam random characters to fill up the space.

@Bluesteel

I don't think the system will work. If a voter votes for you, then obviously the debater will like your RFD. And if the voter votes against you, he'll dislike your RFD. It works on Yahoo answers because there's only one party involved, and it doesn't create bias.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2012 9:00:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/23/2012 7:31:29 PM, vmpire321 wrote:
If you get stuck in level 1, how do you get out?

Level 2 could still be whatever it is now.

You could also award points for completing debates, posting in the forums, etc.

The point though is if you're bumped back down to level 1 by vote bombing, it's hard to get back out.
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
6/23/2012 9:02:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@MiG

Sure, the system can work however we want it to.

On Yahoo Answers, you get 10 points for getting your answer picked as best (either by the asker, or if the asker doesn't pick one, by getting the most up votes).

So bias on the part of the participants could mean they can't vote on RFD's.

The point is to reward standard behavior (voting) with some low # of points and being recognized as exception (a really good RFD) with a large number of points, but award this bonus less frequently.

At least from mouthwash's response, there seems to be some interest in this. I know it would induce me to vote more, personally.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2012 10:52:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
That sounds pretty nice, I was also on Yahoo Answers a lot at one point. If Juggle offered this up for consideration, I'd support it.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 12:02:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The problem here is that people you disagree with your RFD will vote against your vote.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 3:19:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/23/2012 9:00:03 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 6/23/2012 7:31:29 PM, vmpire321 wrote:
If you get stuck in level 1, how do you get out?

Level 2 could still be whatever it is now.

You could also award points for completing debates, posting in the forums, etc.

The point though is if you're bumped back down to level 1 by vote bombing, it's hard to get back out.

But that would mean that your could get away with vote bombing, simply by spamming the forums enough.

Granted, it would reduce vote bombing, because vote bombers would only be able to vote bomb so often, depending the debating and forum posting rates.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 3:21:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 12:02:37 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
The problem here is that people you disagree with your RFD will vote against your vote.

True, but only if BOTH debaters vote against your vote, will you get negative points. So the person that you voted for would have to do that as well.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 3:29:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yeah, forum posts could count for very little or nothing.

There's the idea in the abstract: have voting levels, based on some actions that the community sees as desirable. Higher levels have their votes count for more.

Then there's the specifics of how many points to award to each action (voting, forum posts, etc).

I don't claim I got all the specifics right, but I think the general idea is a good one.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 3:42:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You know I was thinking it would be a good idea for those ranked high in the Elo system to have my voting points. After all those who are the best debaters are more likely to give good RFDs until I realized that the 2nd and 3rd best ranked in the Elo system are/were votebombers.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 4:24:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 3:29:30 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Yeah, forum posts could count for very little or nothing.

There's the idea in the abstract: have voting levels, based on some actions that the community sees as desirable. Higher levels have their votes count for more.

Then there's the specifics of how many points to award to each action (voting, forum posts, etc).

I don't claim I got all the specifics right, but I think the general idea is a good one.

Or there could be something that debating and posts can only get you from Level 1 to Level 2, and only votes will get to level 3 and 4.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 4:43:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think some of the new members may be discouraged from voting if they feel their votes are worth less. Also, I don't see why votes from more experienced or long time DDOians should be worth more.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 5:11:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 4:43:06 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
I think some of the new members may be discouraged from voting if they feel their votes are worth less. Also, I don't see why votes from more experienced or long time DDOians should be worth more.

That's why, imo, non-votes should only be able to get you to level 2. So simply being a long lasting member will not get you higher voting powers, only being a good and well accepted voter will.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 5:25:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 5:11:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/24/2012 4:43:06 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
I think some of the new members may be discouraged from voting if they feel their votes are worth less. Also, I don't see why votes from more experienced or long time DDOians should be worth more.

That's why, imo, non-votes should only be able to get you to level 2. So simply being a long lasting member will not get you higher voting powers, only being a good and well accepted voter will.

Huh. I'll have to think about it more then. If it works like that, it sounds pretty good though.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 5:46:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
(it's probably been suggested but) I'd say doing it so you get points for forum posts and debates (and winning debates) it'd work quite well.
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...
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 12:47:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is highly interesting and might possibly work. The main problem I have with it however is that it creates inequality in voting. Some members votes will count for less than others. Such inequality will lessen the user experience and enjoyment on the site. I certainly won't enjoy the site for instance if I knew my vote counted for less than other's votes. So, in the long term, I feel that the current method of countering obvious votebombs is better.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 1:04:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It also has benefits other than countering votebombs though, namely, creating incentive to write good RFDs and to vote more in general.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 1:16:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
@F-16

I think the problem is that there's a huge range of votes between vote-bomber and perfect RFD, and many of those votes are also unfair but never get countered. This creates some accountability for voting without reading first. And the accountability is user-based.

You could have a max level that isn't *that* hard to get to, such that someone who has been here 5 months could easily achieve it. But fundamentally, I think it's better if the "established membership" of DDO have more voting power than the random n00bs who really screw up the vote tallies, both because they often don't read and because they vote the source, conduct, S&G points unfairly.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Joe0
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 2:49:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It seems like the primary purpose of this system is to limit vote bombing and remove the need for mod intervention.

I don't want to derail the topic, but I think there are better solutions to that problem, so I'll quickly describe one I find more reasonable...

Votes and points are hidden during the voting period.
Once that period ends, pro and con can contest individual votes, the reasoning must be specified.
There is a final, blind vote on the contented votes with simple keep/remove votes.
All contended votes with more 'remove' than 'keep' votes will be ignored when calculating the results of the debate.

This blind system will remove the need for 'counter votes' which allows more legitimate votes to be made and provides a system for vote bombs to be resolved. It would, theoretically, prevent vote bombing, but more importantly, provide a way to deal with it.

I realize this introduces another round of voting and a vote contention phase, but I would imagine that it will be rarely used once it is in place for a while.

I should note, that this is not mutually exclusive with the like/dislike system.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 3:02:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Is this Joe from Juggle? Kind of shocking to see someone with one post writing intelligently about DDO voting policy.

It's my understanding that the site once had blind voting, which led to more vote bombing because even established users didn't feel as accountable for their votes. There were huge flame wars between danielle and mongeese. I understand that there votes would eventually be revealed, but it's kind of hard to tell why you're losing as the voting is going on (if you are losing), it's hard to tell who has already voted (making it hard to ask people to vote, if they haven't, since you don't know how has already voted), and it decreases the incentive for people to vote since the debaters won't find out they did vote until much later.

I also see random users voting against votes simply because they disagree with them. The point of an RFD is increased accountability for your vote. Yet there would be no accountability for voting against someone else's vote.

I'd rather punish users who vote bomb, rather than going through a complicated process of removing vote bombs. At the very least, the site could still have "levels" for rating the quality of voters, even if there is no additional voting powers that come with those levels. That way, vote bombers would at least bear a stigma for having a negative level. So people give RFD's up or down votes and this would affect some sort of reputation system.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Joe0
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 4:11:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 3:02:28 AM, bluesteel wrote:
Is this Joe from Juggle? Kind of shocking to see someone with one post writing intelligently about DDO voting policy.
No, I've never heard of Juggle.

Also, I read quite a few debates on here and looked at the votes, and it's not very hard to see that there is a problem with it. I mean, there was a debate with 17 votes, it had 8 tactical votes (votes that were purely to counter another), while there were only 4 votes that were considered a vote bomb (by the tactical voters). Yes, I realize there were twice as many tactical as vote bombs; this is because they were countering tactical.
It's my understanding that the site once had blind voting, which led to more vote bombing because even established users didn't feel as accountable for their votes. There were huge flame wars between danielle and mongeese. I understand that there votes would eventually be revealed, but it's kind of hard to tell why you're losing as the voting is going on (if you are losing), it's hard to tell who has already voted (making it hard to ask people to vote, if they haven't, since you don't know how has already voted), and it decreases the incentive for people to vote since the debaters won't find out they did vote until much later.
Okay, for the sake of argument, if it does end up causing more vote bombing, then what's the issue? This provides a mechanism for easily removing such votes.

I can see what you mean by not knowing if people voted, but you can have it display the number of votes, that way people will know if no one is voting. This is safe to do, as it reveals no information about how the votes are going.

I don't see how knowing who voted, during the voting period, helps you determine if you need to ask people to vote. Now, if voter names were revealed, that leaves potential for people to predict what the current vote looks like and then adjust their vote accordingly; which is what I would consider tactical voting.

I also see random users voting against votes simply because they disagree with them. The point of an RFD is increased accountability for your vote. Yet there would be no accountability for voting against someone else's vote.
I never suggested that RFD should be removed. The whole point of the participants in the debate contending votes, is to prevent people from attempting to remove votes they don't like.

Now, if there is a debater that just marks all votes against him (even legitimate votes), then people should vote on the contended votes, as normal. If someone is continually doing this, and it becomes a problem, you can then report it to a mod. There could even be an automated system that detects people trying to abuse the system, and then generate a report automatically (I'd even be willing to help design and implement it).

Basically, it has two stages, to provide a simplistic checks and balances system.

I'd rather punish users who vote bomb, rather than going through a complicated process of removing vote bombs. At the very least, the site could still have "levels" for rating the quality of voters, even if there is no additional voting powers that come with those levels. That way, vote bombers would at least bear a stigma for having a negative level. So people give RFD's up or down votes and this would affect some sort of reputation system.
The system I proposed didn't even cover the topic of punishing vote bombers or levels, but it could easily be implemented. Even something as simple as removing the explicit dislike option, and moving the same functionality/behavior to votes that have been removed. This would solve the problem of an individual having direct control over the 'reputation' of someone else.