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

Voter support groups

F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 12:14:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Many voters rationalize their vote

I've mentioned this is private before but it is very easy to rationalize a vote. Given a competitive debate, a voter can vote whichever way he chooses to and many often vote for the side that they agree with. People will find reasons to award additional points to their side. They will write long paragraphs explaining why their side has won. This is surprisingly common in religious and political debates. If a conservative or a liberal, a theist or an atheist want to vote for the side they agree with and not make it look like a votebomb, they can write entire paragraphs rationalizing it. It is difficult to prove rationalizations as opposed to votebombs which are generally easy to prove. When rationalizing, voters will find convoluted, twisted reasoning to explain why their advocate's arguments were superior.

Some people rationalize consciously where others unconsciously. Some are merely ignorant of DDO and believe that the side they agree with is the side that they are to vote for. There is currently no surefire method to root out people who rationalize their vote. The desire to vote fairly must be an intrinsic quality of the voter and the best way to encourage this is to have support programs and threads designed to teach people how to vote. When someone gives a detailed vote on a debate and wants to discuss the vote, they should be able to post in these threads to get feedback from better voters

Support Thread

As a preliminary idea, I propose we have one voter support thread in the DDO forum. Perhaps we can extend this to other forums if the idea is positive received. In this thread, whenever someone casts a detailed vote in a contentious debate, they can link to their RFD and ask for feedback. Of course, doing this requires an element of humility from the voter and the knowledge that they can improve. I believe it should be open to members of all experience levels. Other voters would then critique the vote pointing out areas where the voter could be subconsciously biased. This is especially useful when the voters have voted for their side.

This requires that the voter utilize this support group in the hope of becoming a better voter in the long run. To encourage this, people who have an issue with the vote could refer the voter to this support group for feedback. If the voter comes out with stellar results with many people critiquing the vote positively, then issue of votebombing could be put to rest.

This serves as a polite, formal discourse thread where the merits of RFD's are to be discussed. To reduce "flame-wars," we need to institute a rule where the critiquers and the critiqued are not at the same level but the critiquers hold the "power" and the critiqued should not respond to the critiquers except to clarify their stance and thank them for their critiques. To be a critiquer, we should establish minimum qualifications and ensure that only a select group of members can critique votes.
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 12:20:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/5/2013 12:14:35 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Many voters rationalize their vote

I've mentioned this is private before but it is very easy to rationalize a vote. Given a competitive debate, a voter can vote whichever way he chooses to and many often vote for the side that they agree with. People will find reasons to award additional points to their side. They will write long paragraphs explaining why their side has won. This is surprisingly common in religious and political debates. If a conservative or a liberal, a theist or an atheist want to vote for the side they agree with and not make it look like a votebomb, they can write entire paragraphs rationalizing it. It is difficult to prove rationalizations as opposed to votebombs which are generally easy to prove. When rationalizing, voters will find convoluted, twisted reasoning to explain why their advocate's arguments were superior.

Some people rationalize consciously where others unconsciously. Some are merely ignorant of DDO and believe that the side they agree with is the side that they are to vote for. There is currently no surefire method to root out people who rationalize their vote. The desire to vote fairly must be an intrinsic quality of the voter and the best way to encourage this is to have support programs and threads designed to teach people how to vote. When someone gives a detailed vote on a debate and wants to discuss the vote, they should be able to post in these threads to get feedback from better voters

Regarding voting, I agree -but would go a step further. All (myself included) voters vote on the basis of their own intellectual prejudices, but some are better at making their opinions appear to be more objective than others. That's not even so much about votes and voters as it is about people. Our experiences color how we see the world, and everything in it.

Support Thread

As a preliminary idea, I propose we have one voter support thread in the DDO forum. Perhaps we can extend this to other forums if the idea is positive received. In this thread, whenever someone casts a detailed vote in a contentious debate, they can link to their RFD and ask for feedback. Of course, doing this requires an element of humility from the voter and the knowledge that they can improve. I believe it should be open to members of all experience levels. Other voters would then critique the vote pointing out areas where the voter could be subconsciously biased. This is especially useful when the voters have voted for their side.

This requires that the voter utilize this support group in the hope of becoming a better voter in the long run. To encourage this, people who have an issue with the vote could refer the voter to this support group for feedback. If the voter comes out with stellar results with many people critiquing the vote positively, then issue of votebombing could be put to rest.

This serves as a polite, formal discourse thread where the merits of RFD's are to be discussed. To reduce "flame-wars," we need to institute a rule where the critiquers and the critiqued are not at the same level but the critiquers hold the "power" and the critiqued should not respond to the critiquers except to clarify their stance and thank them for their critiques. To be a critiquer, we should establish minimum qualifications and ensure that only a select group of members can critique votes.

I think this is a good idea. It promotes voter accountability in good faith while not making voters the subject of 'attack'.
Tsar of DDO
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 12:30:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I proposed a sort of "jury" voting system option that takes into account how often a user is asked to be a part of a debate's jury. This way, since both parties have to agree upon the jury, you can root out random VBers, and since the amount of times you are included in a debate's jury is tracked, a competitive market is created for users known to give fair and balanced RFD's.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 12:31:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I agree that many voters vote based on what they know. It is impossible to not take your own experiences into account when forming an opinion on a debate. Your life experiences give you a unique perspective into the debate. Everyone views a debate differently. The best voters are as objective as possible, and try to keep their opinions out of their vote (although keeping their perspective out would be impossible). Mediocre voters often display their bias quite blatantly. If a liberal/conservative voter is going to vote for their side no matter what arguments put forth and can rationalize any argument into their side winning, it becomes a cause for concern. The major emphasis needs to be that a vote is a judgment on the skill of the debater and that it should focus solely on who showed better debating skill.
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 12:50:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/5/2013 12:31:14 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I agree that many voters vote based on what they know. It is impossible to not take your own experiences into account when forming an opinion on a debate. Your life experiences give you a unique perspective into the debate. Everyone views a debate differently. The best voters are as objective as possible, and try to keep their opinions out of their vote (although keeping their perspective out would be impossible). Mediocre voters often display their bias quite blatantly. If a liberal/conservative voter is going to vote for their side no matter what arguments put forth and can rationalize any argument into their side winning, it becomes a cause for concern. The major emphasis needs to be that a vote is a judgment on the skill of the debater and that it should focus solely on who showed better debating skill.

Indeed. I couldn't have said it better myself.
Tsar of DDO
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 9:55:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This might be a good idea, but the poblem is that analyzing such a vote could be time consuming for debates with short voting periods.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 10:18:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Many people do that, but everyone doesn't.

Many people have their political positions, for example, because of an underlying process.

That process is emulated in what they see in debate, and coincidentally yields the same result.

However, sometimes, people will argue for a position which doesn't uphold due process, even if it yields the same result.

It's important to call those people out because they believe in the right beliefs for the wrong reason. Wrong reasons yield unreliable support which means right beliefs won't necessarily continue into the future.

That said, sometimes, it's important to vote for right beliefs despite wrong reasons because the opposition is even worse in violating due process.

Perhaps this forum would benefit if we encourage process, rather than results, oriented thinking.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 10:26:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/5/2013 12:14:35 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Many voters rationalize their vote

I've mentioned this is private before but it is very easy to rationalize a vote. Given a competitive debate, a voter can vote whichever way he chooses to and many often vote for the side that they agree with. People will find reasons to award additional points to their side. They will write long paragraphs explaining why their side has won. This is surprisingly common in religious and political debates. If a conservative or a liberal, a theist or an atheist want to vote for the side they agree with and not make it look like a votebomb, they can write entire paragraphs rationalizing it. It is difficult to prove rationalizations as opposed to votebombs which are generally easy to prove. When rationalizing, voters will find convoluted, twisted reasoning to explain why their advocate's arguments were superior.

Some people rationalize consciously where others unconsciously. Some are merely ignorant of DDO and believe that the side they agree with is the side that they are to vote for. There is currently no surefire method to root out people who rationalize their vote. The desire to vote fairly must be an intrinsic quality of the voter and the best way to encourage this is to have support programs and threads designed to teach people how to vote. When someone gives a detailed vote on a debate and wants to discuss the vote, they should be able to post in these threads to get feedback from better voters

Support Thread

As a preliminary idea, I propose we have one voter support thread in the DDO forum. Perhaps we can extend this to other forums if the idea is positive received. In this thread, whenever someone casts a detailed vote in a contentious debate, they can link to their RFD and ask for feedback. Of course, doing this requires an element of humility from the voter and the knowledge that they can improve. I believe it should be open to members of all experience levels. Other voters would then critique the vote pointing out areas where the voter could be subconsciously biased. This is especially useful when the voters have voted for their side.

This requires that the voter utilize this support group in the hope of becoming a better voter in the long run. To encourage this, people who have an issue with the vote could refer the voter to this support group for feedback. If the voter comes out with stellar results with many people critiquing the vote positively, then issue of votebombing could be put to rest.

This serves as a polite, formal discourse thread where the merits of RFD's are to be discussed. To reduce "flame-wars," we need to institute a rule where the critiquers and the critiqued are not at the same level but the critiquers hold the "power" and the critiqued should not respond to the critiquers except to clarify their stance and thank them for their critiques. To be a critiquer, we should establish minimum qualifications and ensure that only a select group of members can critique votes.

FYI, in law, this can be summarized as the "indeterminancy" debate:

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