Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Increasing DDO voting on debates

RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 12:09:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've noticed that many of the new debaters on DDO have records with a majority of 0-0 ties. I try to vote on newbie debates, and the debaters appreciate it even when I vote against them. It's better than being ignored. With good debates by experienced debaters the voting is often so low that it amounts to a random outcome. With three votes, the result is more likely to be determined by the prejudices of the people who happened to vote.

I think the problem is serious. DDO is ultimately a social networking site for people interested in debate. 0-0 ties and random outcomes discourage use of the site.

I don't have a solution. Maybe this list of ideas will produce something:

1. Voter circles. A group of interested members post on a PM thread that points out debates the participants think worth attention. The voter circles I've joined do not work. Almost no one votes. Maybe if they were organized differently, perhaps by topic, they might work.

2. Send a more impressive voting notice. Have the site generate an impressive notice with animations and fireworks for debates on a members favorites list that enter voting.

3. Increase the default voting period from 3 days to 10 days. Three days is pathetic. I don't know why it hasn't been changed.

4. Pass out gold stars for voting. The number of votes cast has been added to profiles, which is a good step. Social networking sites often use more elaborate rewards for participation. DDO has little icons having to do with debate records; something could be added for voting records.

5. Require regular voting to keep debate privileges. This seems too harsh to me, but maybe it's better than a wasteland of 0-0 ties.

6. Hashtag debates. The idea is to create tags automatically by the level of experience of the debaters, the names of the debaters, and the category of debate. The Instigator could then add tags for more narrow topic selection: #presidents, #civil war, #cosmological argument, #naruto. Members could then automatically be notified when a debate on a favorite topic they have subscribed to enters voting. The subscriptions would be part of the members profile.

7. Supply an optional detailed voting form. A list of questions would be supplied to guide people through the voting process. Voters would click selections on the form. The form might include: Who made fewer spelling errors? Who best linked references to support specific arguments? Who dropped the most contentions? Was the resolution clear? {Pro, Con} Filling out the detailed form would then generate the vote and also the comments for the debate. No penalty for leaving out items on the form.

8. Put the best debates up for voting on the DDO home page. Selection could be made automatically based upon Elo scores of the participants and number of likes. Debates nominated by the DDO president/VP could also be featured.

============

So what do you think would work? Other ideas?
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 12:17:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 12:09:02 PM, RoyLatham wrote:

2. Send a more impressive voting notice. Have the site generate an impressive notice with animations and fireworks for debates on a members favorites list that enter voting.

3. Increase the default voting period from 3 days to 10 days. Three days is pathetic. I don't know why it hasn't been changed.

4. Pass out gold stars for voting. The number of votes cast has been added to profiles, which is a good step. Social networking sites often use more elaborate rewards for participation. DDO has little icons having to do with debate records; something could be added for voting records.

6. Hashtag debates. The idea is to create tags automatically by the level of experience of the debaters, the names of the debaters, and the category of debate. The Instigator could then add tags for more narrow topic selection: #presidents, #civil war, #cosmological argument, #naruto. Members could then automatically be notified when a debate on a favorite topic they have subscribed to enters voting. The subscriptions would be part of the members profile.


I completely agree that the site's lack of voting is an issue. Even with signature advertising and the unvoted thread, many members still need to resort to posting on profiles and making PM chains in a desperate effort to garner debate attention. I've turned down a number of debates recently because I've become frustrated with the system.

The suggestions above are my favorites. They are site-wide and reward participation rather than punish lack thereof. I think #6 is especially inspired. Despite my annoyance over the weak voting treads, I can't bring myself to vote on debates that are of no interest to me. If I could identify the topics or categories of most interest to me and then be notified whenever a debate fitting one of those categories enters the voting period, I would be much more inclined to participate.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 12:20:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You could start by allowing non-confirmed member to vote, don't know how many of you are from the US but people like myself don't have our phone provider listed on the site and complete at least 3 debates is a pain.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 12:31:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Take away the 3 day limit: I completely agree that this is ridiculous. A true vote requires effort. It takes about 1 hour or an hour and a half to judge a good debate well. The sheer quantity of material to evaluate is daunting. That is an hour or so that people must put aside in their schedule to vote. The alternative is to provide a less than stellar vote but do it more often. However, having a 1-2 week voting period is perfect.

I disagree however with having a requirement to vote on a certain number of debates. A member could vote on potentially 90 forfeited debates in the same hour/hour and half that it takes to evaluate a well argued debate. But do we really want to increase traffic on forfeited debates or on good ones?

What I think we should focus on are increasing the number of quality RFDs, not the number of total votes. Gold stars for voting will not solve this problem neither will the requirement for regular voting.

An optional detailed voting form is so far the best idea I've seen to help voters put more effort into voting. Another idea could be to encourage votes from members known to give detailed RFDs like Raisor and BlackVoid, i.e. create a DDO Elite voting group and inform this voting group of new debates that have finished.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 12:37:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 12:31:50 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Take away the 3 day limit: I completely agree that this is ridiculous. A true vote requires effort. It takes about 1 hour or an hour and a half to judge a good debate well. The sheer quantity of material to evaluate is daunting. That is an hour or so that people must put aside in their schedule to vote. The alternative is to provide a less than stellar vote but do it more often. However, having a 1-2 week voting period is perfect.

I disagree however with having a requirement to vote on a certain number of debates. A member could vote on potentially 90 forfeited debates in the same hour/hour and half that it takes to evaluate a well argued debate. But do we really want to increase traffic on forfeited debates or on good ones?

What I think we should focus on are increasing the number of quality RFDs, not the number of total votes. Gold stars for voting will not solve this problem neither will the requirement for regular voting.

An optional detailed voting form is so far the best idea I've seen to help voters put more effort into voting. Another idea could be to encourage votes from members known to give detailed RFDs like Raisor and BlackVoid, i.e. create a DDO Elite voting group and inform this voting group of new debates that have finished.

This could tie in with the 'thumbs up' suggestion for quality RFD's that I've seen in other threads. Membership in such a group could come with special badges or placement on a separate leaderboard.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 2:49:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 12:09:02 PM, RoyLatham wrote:

5. Require regular voting to keep debate privileges. This seems too harsh to me, but maybe it's better than a wasteland of 0-0 ties.

I don't think that's harsh. I think it's fair. When people first join, they have to participate in 3 debates before they can vote. I think it should be made to where for each debate you have, you must vote on two other debates. If you vote on several debates, you can build up a surplus so that you can continue to debate. But there should be a ratio of two votes to each debate.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 3:09:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Have votes rated in order to make a quality scale.. later on, have those votes worth more on a electoral type system atop popular votes.. ?
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 3:23:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 3:09:37 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Have votes rated in order to make a quality scale.. later on, have those votes worth more on a electoral type system atop popular votes.. ?

I dunno if that would be practical. We'd basically be voting on votes. Then somebody would come along and suggest that we vote on votes on votes because it's inevitable that if we start voting on votes that it's going to result in a lot of complaints of bias and unfairness. A lot of people already vote their bias. If people vote on votes, then they're just going to vote against every vote they disagree with. It would be redundant.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 3:23:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Have the "most helpful" Pro vote and the "most helpful" Con vote show up in the style of Amazon.com reviews. I agree with Maikuru's idea as well.

In this case, the best vote would be "thumbed up" by debaters and other voters. The thumbs up should work just like a vote - you can only thumb up one vote and you can change which vote you thumped up if new better votes are posted but the previous thumb-up disappears. Thumbs down is pointless since the worst votes are usually countered anyways. If you vote against a debater and they thumbed you up, that should count for extra.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 3:25:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 2:49:02 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/22/2013 12:09:02 PM, RoyLatham wrote:

5. Require regular voting to keep debate privileges. This seems too harsh to me, but maybe it's better than a wasteland of 0-0 ties.

I don't think that's harsh. I think it's fair. When people first join, they have to participate in 3 debates before they can vote. I think it should be made to where for each debate you have, you must vote on two other debates. If you vote on several debates, you can build up a surplus so that you can continue to debate. But there should be a ratio of two votes to each debate.

That only increases votes on easy to vote or forfeited debates, not on quality debates. Instead of my last 3 votes, I could probably have spent the time voting on I don't know... a hundred forfeited debates.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 3:32:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 3:23:03 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/22/2013 3:09:37 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Have votes rated in order to make a quality scale.. later on, have those votes worth more on a electoral type system atop popular votes.. ?

I dunno if that would be practical. We'd basically be voting on votes. Then somebody would come along and suggest that we vote on votes on votes because it's inevitable that if we start voting on votes that it's going to result in a lot of complaints of bias and unfairness. A lot of people already vote their bias. If people vote on votes, then they're just going to vote against every vote they disagree with. It would be redundant.

I know, it'd be awesome.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 3:36:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 3:25:21 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/22/2013 2:49:02 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/22/2013 12:09:02 PM, RoyLatham wrote:

5. Require regular voting to keep debate privileges. This seems too harsh to me, but maybe it's better than a wasteland of 0-0 ties.

I don't think that's harsh. I think it's fair. When people first join, they have to participate in 3 debates before they can vote. I think it should be made to where for each debate you have, you must vote on two other debates. If you vote on several debates, you can build up a surplus so that you can continue to debate. But there should be a ratio of two votes to each debate.

That only increases votes on easy to vote or forfeited debates, not on quality debates. Instead of my last 3 votes, I could probably have spent the time voting on I don't know... a hundred forfeited debates.

That is a good point.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 3:49:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 3:36:57 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/22/2013 3:25:21 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/22/2013 2:49:02 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/22/2013 12:09:02 PM, RoyLatham wrote:

5. Require regular voting to keep debate privileges. This seems too harsh to me, but maybe it's better than a wasteland of 0-0 ties.

I don't think that's harsh. I think it's fair. When people first join, they have to participate in 3 debates before they can vote. I think it should be made to where for each debate you have, you must vote on two other debates. If you vote on several debates, you can build up a surplus so that you can continue to debate. But there should be a ratio of two votes to each debate.

That only increases votes on easy to vote or forfeited debates, not on quality debates. Instead of my last 3 votes, I could probably have spent the time voting on I don't know... a hundred forfeited debates.

That is a good point.

What about round votes? ... then an automated total after? ... I think one single voter doesn't have to be committed to a full debate prior to voting?
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 3:51:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And I still think there should be a quality vote scale of sorts, For instance, I consider Jarlyn's votes to be worthless and yet he's voted on almost every one of my debates. RoyLatham's I consider worth much in criticism as well as proglib's and yours.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 3:53:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 3:23:15 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Have the "most helpful" Pro vote and the "most helpful" Con vote show up in the style of Amazon.com reviews. I agree with Maikuru's idea as well.

In this case, the best vote would be "thumbed up" by debaters and other voters. The thumbs up should work just like a vote - you can only thumb up one vote and you can change which vote you thumped up if new better votes are posted but the previous thumb-up disappears. Thumbs down is pointless since the worst votes are usually countered anyways. If you vote against a debater and they thumbed you up, that should count for extra.

I like the concept. I think I would do it as a simple "top vote" for each debate so there is always one winner, pretty much the way Yahoo answers picks it's best answer. I would put the emphasis on the debaters choosing the vote winner but allow other voters to contribute as well. The idea also creates an added incentive for people to vote on debates where no one has voted or where their are only crappy RFD's.

It might be a lot for DDO to undertake but it is still worth it if it will help increase voting. Bias will inevitably play a role but in the end it will still balance out.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 3:54:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My experience has been that voter circles, no matter how elite, do not generate many votes. Something more would have to added to make them work.
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 3:54:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 12:20:10 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
You could start by allowing non-confirmed member to vote, don't know how many of you are from the US but people like myself don't have our phone provider listed on the site and complete at least 3 debates is a pain.

Just contact Airmax, he'll take care of it.
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 3:57:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 3:54:14 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
My experience has been that voter circles, no matter how elite, do not generate many votes. Something more would have to added to make them work.

I think it should be like halo where more metals are offered for stuff, more customization options for ones profile, etc.
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 3:59:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Make a way to:

a) View debates in the voting period in order of when the voting period will end?
(Say I want to vote on debates that have less than 30 hours. Left in the voting period.)

b) View debates in the voting period by subject to make it easyer to find debates that one is interested in?
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 4:01:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 3:59:55 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
Make a way to:

a) View debates in the voting period in order of when the voting period will end?
(Say I want to vote on debates that have less than 30 hours. Left in the voting period.)

Yes, awesome- like a scheduled notification if you somehow favorite the debate.


b) View debates in the voting period by subject to make it easyer to find debates that one is interested in?

YES!
Yraelz
Posts: 4,056
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 7:36:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have two pieces of input.

First, I agree with Roy Lantham about the voting period. 3 days is not enough time to garner a representative sampling of votes. I doubt even if a week or two is. Considering how frequent debates are voted on, I'd say maybe the default should be expanded to a month or two.

Second, I'm airlifting this ideas straight from league of legends (LOL) because I think it has done wonders in containing their troll situation. After a round in LOL you have the option to award your fellow players with one of four things: 1. Honorable Opponent 2. Friendly 3. Helpful 4. Exhibited Teamwork. If you accumulate enough of these awards from your fellow players, over a time period, you gain a ribbon on your profile picture that everyone can see. For instance, if you treat your opponents well you will probably get a little red ribbon that reads "Honorable Opponent!" across your profile. In the future, people you play with will know that you are a good guy/lady.

I suggest a similar system for DDO but as applied to critics. After all, we already have a system that ranks debaters. Here could be the three awards:

1. Insightful Critic - Someone who offers analysis on the debate that you had not previously considered.
2. Helpful Critic - Someone who's analysis improves your debating style, or gives you ideas for future debates.
3. Thorough Critic - Someone who put a great deal of effort into evaluating the debate.

In order for this system to be advantageous a couple of limitations would help:

1. Repeat awards from one person should not be worth very much. This would incentivize debaters to vote well on debates from various debaters (not just their best friend). This also would make it arduous for trolls to rig the system by creating multiple accounts. A troll would need to create multiple accounts, and then have a debate, and then have their main profile vote on the debate, and then give one of the awards above to their main profile.
2. Awards should be time sensitive. For instance, if you were awarded 7 "insightful critics" in one month then you get the "insightful critic" banner on your profile picture. But if you are only awarded 1 "insightful critic" the next month (maybe you become bored with the site), then you will no longer have access to the banner. This encourages users to keep voting even after attaining a banner. It also gives an accurate reflection of users that are decent voters at any given time. It also discourages trolls further, to give yourself a banner you have to do all of the steps I mentioned above and then keep doing it on a per monthly basis.

The system is kind of self regulating and favors new debaters if you think about it. Debaters/debates that already get/have many votes are going to find it tedious to give each voter one of the above awards. However, new debaters who only get a few voters will be much more likely to respond kindly to their voters. If a critic is seeking one of the banners, then they probably would benefit more from targeting debates with fewer votes because it makes their vote stand out more.

I realize this is an incentivization that only has value in-so-far as the community values the banners. But I think it's a cool way to make your profile unique and stand out from others. I'm willing to bet that at least a few users on this site would like a little golden banner on their profile picture which proclaims, "Insightful Critic!".
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 7:54:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 7:36:38 PM, Yraelz wrote:
I have two pieces of input.

First, I agree with Roy Lantham about the voting period. 3 days is not enough time to garner a representative sampling of votes. I doubt even if a week or two is. Considering how frequent debates are voted on, I'd say maybe the default should be expanded to a month or two.

Second, I'm airlifting this ideas straight from league of legends (LOL) because I think it has done wonders in containing their troll situation. After a round in LOL you have the option to award your fellow players with one of four things: 1. Honorable Opponent 2. Friendly 3. Helpful 4. Exhibited Teamwork. If you accumulate enough of these awards from your fellow players, over a time period, you gain a ribbon on your profile picture that everyone can see. For instance, if you treat your opponents well you will probably get a little red ribbon that reads "Honorable Opponent!" across your profile. In the future, people you play with will know that you are a good guy/lady.

I suggest a similar system for DDO but as applied to critics. After all, we already have a system that ranks debaters. Here could be the three awards:

1. Insightful Critic - Someone who offers analysis on the debate that you had not previously considered.
2. Helpful Critic - Someone who's analysis improves your debating style, or gives you ideas for future debates.
3. Thorough Critic - Someone who put a great deal of effort into evaluating the debate.

In order for this system to be advantageous a couple of limitations would help:

1. Repeat awards from one person should not be worth very much. This would incentivize debaters to vote well on debates from various debaters (not just their best friend). This also would make it arduous for trolls to rig the system by creating multiple accounts. A troll would need to create multiple accounts, and then have a debate, and then have their main profile vote on the debate, and then give one of the awards above to their main profile.
2. Awards should be time sensitive. For instance, if you were awarded 7 "insightful critics" in one month then you get the "insightful critic" banner on your profile picture. But if you are only awarded 1 "insightful critic" the next month (maybe you become bored with the site), then you will no longer have access to the banner. This encourages users to keep voting even after attaining a banner. It also gives an accurate reflection of users that are decent voters at any given time. It also discourages trolls further, to give yourself a banner you have to do all of the steps I mentioned above and then keep doing it on a per monthly basis.

The system is kind of self regulating and favors new debaters if you think about it. Debaters/debates that already get/have many votes are going to find it tedious to give each voter one of the above awards. However, new debaters who only get a few voters will be much more likely to respond kindly to their voters. If a critic is seeking one of the banners, then they probably would benefit more from targeting debates with fewer votes because it makes their vote stand out more.

I realize this is an incentivization that only has value in-so-far as the community values the banners. But I think it's a cool way to make your profile unique and stand out from others. I'm willing to bet that at least a few users on this site would like a little golden banner on their profile picture which proclaims, "Insightful Critic!".

Yes, I would love this.
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 7:54:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I HAVE THE SOLUTION

Spam this video onto all of the forums:
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 10:22:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It won't work.

Half of this forum is serious. The other half is silly.

Half the time, people don't vote because they don't see an agreeable position. Maybe someone took an agreeable position, but it's argued awkwardly or by someone they don't like.

The other half of the time, people don't vote because neither side was entertaining.

You can't really improve voting in either scenario. Sometimes, people just don't see a side worthy of victory. Other times, people don't see a side worthy of attention.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 10:28:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 7:54:19 PM, imabench wrote:
I HAVE THE SOLUTION

Spam this video onto all of the forums:


NVR FGT
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 10:43:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There really has to be a scoreboard for votes. That would absolutely give an incentive to do so. It's been suggested that they function like Yahoo answers- votes themselves get voted on based on their quality, and consistently giving bad votes would harm your score.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 10:51:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 10:43:15 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
There really has to be a scoreboard for votes. That would absolutely give an incentive to do so. It's been suggested that they function like Yahoo answers- votes themselves get voted on based on their quality, and consistently giving bad votes would harm your score.

The problem is that's biased towards the establishment. It will create a reinforcing cycle of voting style.

Only those members who see this website as worthwhile will stick around, and voting weight will become skewed.

You're basically advocating people conforming to authority. That doesn't really facilitate people getting involved in debate.

One thing that might work, however, is corresponding how people vote versus the positions they take. For example, do people who argue "Pro" vote "Pro"? Do people who argue "Con" vote "Con".

People who argue for the opposite position of what they usually argue as would be weighted more for openmindedness.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 11:37:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 10:51:35 PM, Daktoria wrote:
At 3/22/2013 10:43:15 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
There really has to be a scoreboard for votes. That would absolutely give an incentive to do so. It's been suggested that they function like Yahoo answers- votes themselves get voted on based on their quality, and consistently giving bad votes would harm your score.

The problem is that's biased towards the establishment. It will create a reinforcing cycle of voting style.

Only those members who see this website as worthwhile will stick around, and voting weight will become skewed.

You're basically advocating people conforming to authority. That doesn't really facilitate people getting involved in debate.

One thing that might work, however, is corresponding how people vote versus the positions they take. For example, do people who argue "Pro" vote "Pro"? Do people who argue "Con" vote "Con".

People who argue for the opposite position of what they usually argue as would be weighted more for openmindedness.

But then how do you determine which way the voter would normally argue... by asking them? Then there is nothing to stop them from answering the opposite to give their vote more weight.

There will always be bias, trying to prevent it is counterproductive because it only makes things more complicated. There is plenty of bias in the current voter system, yet if you look at the top debaters according to ELO most would agree that it is pretty accurate. We can always find examples of some debate that was won/lost unfairly, but the system will always work overall as long as the members are reasonable overall.

Bias is not a reason to scrap the idea. One thing we know for sure is that a voting system will never increase voting if we don't implement one.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 11:42:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 11:37:59 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/22/2013 10:51:35 PM, Daktoria wrote:
At 3/22/2013 10:43:15 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
There really has to be a scoreboard for votes. That would absolutely give an incentive to do so. It's been suggested that they function like Yahoo answers- votes themselves get voted on based on their quality, and consistently giving bad votes would harm your score.

The problem is that's biased towards the establishment. It will create a reinforcing cycle of voting style.

Only those members who see this website as worthwhile will stick around, and voting weight will become skewed.

You're basically advocating people conforming to authority. That doesn't really facilitate people getting involved in debate.

One thing that might work, however, is corresponding how people vote versus the positions they take. For example, do people who argue "Pro" vote "Pro"? Do people who argue "Con" vote "Con".

People who argue for the opposite position of what they usually argue as would be weighted more for openmindedness.

But then how do you determine which way the voter would normally argue... by asking them? Then there is nothing to stop them from answering the opposite to give their vote more weight.

There will always be bias, trying to prevent it is counterproductive because it only makes things more complicated. There is plenty of bias in the current voter system, yet if you look at the top debaters according to ELO most would agree that it is pretty accurate. We can always find examples of some debate that was won/lost unfairly, but the system will always work overall as long as the members are reasonable overall.

Bias is not a reason to scrap the idea. One thing we know for sure is that a voting system will never increase voting if we don't implement one.

The server can keep count...

...if you're admitting to bias, then there's no reason to even debate. People would vote according to predisposed beliefs. The outcome would be indeterminate.

http://en.wikipedia.org...