Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Suggestion: vote bomb reduction

jh1234l
Posts: 580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 12:17:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My suggestion is that, if you vote, you will have to insert why you voted with an explanation for each point (e.g. spelling, arguments, etc.) Here is how it works:

Lets say that you voted like this:

Spelling: CON
Conduct: TIED
Arguments: PRO
Sources: CON

Then, the single RFD box will turn into these four boxes:

I vote con for spelling because:
I vote tied for conduct because:
I vote pro for arguments because:
I vote con for sources because:

This way, everyone will have to justify each point. It does not prevent vote bombs, but it does reduce them.

You will be able to report votes, so you do not have to counter the vote, just to appear like a vote bomber after the real vote bomber changes his vote. This also means that people like doubter cannot falsely claim that counter vote bombs are hate bombs.

Here is a sample vote:

Spelling: CON
Conduct: TIED
Arguments: PRO
Sources: CON

I vote con for spelling because: doushb.agdoub spelled "he" wrong and did not capitalize the letter "I"
I vote tied for conduct because: their conducts are equally good.
I vote pro for arguments because: doushb.agdoub has met his burden of proof, while miu.tedd just used fallacies, which were pointed out by doushb.agdoub.
I vote con for sources because: miu.tedd used excellent, unbiased sources, such as live science, while doushb.agdoub used wikipedia.
My political compass:
Economic Left/Right: -1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82
1 square right of Nelson Mandela, 2 squares down from Francois Hollande
DoubtingDave
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 12:20:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I like the idea. I also want the ability to have a "Report Vote" button.
The Great Wall of Fail

"I have doubts that anti-semitism even exists" -GeoLaureate8

"Evolutionists think that people evolved from rocks" -Scotty

"And whats so bad about a Holy war? By Holy war, I mean a war which would aim to subdue others under Islam." -Ahmed.M

"The free market didn't create the massive wealth in the country, WW2 did." -malcomxy

"Independant federal regulators make our capitalist society possible." -Erik_Erikson
Subutai
Posts: 3,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 12:23:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Great idea, especially with the ability to report votes. Then you don't have to rely on the mods to pick out votes.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 12:28:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 12:17:51 PM, jh1234l wrote:
My suggestion is that, if you vote, you will have to insert why you voted with an explanation for each point (e.g. spelling, arguments, etc.) Here is how it works:

Lets say that you voted like this:


Spelling: CON
Conduct: TIED
Arguments: PRO
Sources: CON

Then, the single RFD box will turn into these four boxes:

I vote con for spelling because:
I vote tied for conduct because:
I vote pro for arguments because:
I vote con for sources because:

This way, everyone will have to justify each point. It does not prevent vote bombs, but it does reduce them.

You will be able to report votes, so you do not have to counter the vote, just to appear like a vote bomber after the real vote bomber changes his vote. This also means that people like doubter cannot falsely claim that counter vote bombs are hate bombs.

Here is a sample vote:

Spelling: CON
Conduct: TIED
Arguments: PRO
Sources: CON

I vote con for spelling because: doushb.agdoub spelled "he" wrong and did not capitalize the letter "I"
I vote tied for conduct because: their conducts are equally good.
I vote pro for arguments because: doushb.agdoub has met his burden of proof, while miu.tedd just used fallacies, which were pointed out by doushb.agdoub.
I vote con for sources because: miu.tedd used excellent, unbiased sources, such as live science, while doushb.agdoub used wikipedia.

I'm not sure it would reduce VBing to simply have more boxes, though. The extra text might (VBers are, after all, generally lazy) I suppose, and it might make it more a bit more obvious.

I like the "report a vote" option, but if such a thing were implemented, I think perhaps there should be a "squad" of folks entrusted with the ability to neutralize votes (overseen, of course, so that should they abuse that discretion it can be fixed), if only because airmax can't be expected to respond to 100+ of these a day (though I don't know the actual numbers).
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 1:00:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What about removing the time limit on voting? It would give members an infinite amount of time to get votes countered...the risk is that a 2 year old debate could suddenly be VBd, but it seems like that could be trivially fixed with CVBs (though we all wish there were a better system).
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 1:07:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 1:00:55 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
What about removing the time limit on voting? It would give members an infinite amount of time to get votes countered...the risk is that a 2 year old debate could suddenly be VBd, but it seems like that could be trivially fixed with CVBs (though we all wish there were a better system).

I like a time limit better. It gives a sense of closure of a win or a loss. There was a debate I lost because it was votebombed and there was no time to counter but overall, I'll take time limits over unlimited any day.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 7:36:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 1:00:55 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
What about removing the time limit on voting? It would give members an infinite amount of time to get votes countered...the risk is that a 2 year old debate could suddenly be VBd, but it seems like that could be trivially fixed with CVBs (though we all wish there were a better system).

That would allow me to get some friends to votebomb on all my old losses where my opponent is no longer around to call for CVB.

I personally don't believe there is any way we can actively reduce vote bombing. The only thing we can do is increase non-vote bombing so that any individual vote bomb is less effective. Unless there has been a drastic change in the last several weeks, there are not that many vote bombs. But there are not that many votes period, so the vote bombs seem to be more prominent. If more people were to actually get involved and read and vote, the power of vote bombing would die off.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 9:33:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 7:36:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 5/21/2013 1:00:55 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
What about removing the time limit on voting? It would give members an infinite amount of time to get votes countered...the risk is that a 2 year old debate could suddenly be VBd, but it seems like that could be trivially fixed with CVBs (though we all wish there were a better system).

That would allow me to get some friends to votebomb on all my old losses where my opponent is no longer around to call for CVB.

I hadn't thought of people who've left the site's debates.


I personally don't believe there is any way we can actively reduce vote bombing. The only thing we can do is increase non-vote bombing so that any individual vote bomb is less effective. Unless there has been a drastic change in the last several weeks, there are not that many vote bombs. But there are not that many votes period, so the vote bombs seem to be more prominent. If more people were to actually get involved and read and vote, the power of vote bombing would die off.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
jh1234l
Posts: 580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 11:09:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 12:28:35 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I like the "report a vote" option, but if such a thing were implemented, I think perhaps there should be a "squad" of folks entrusted with the ability to neutralize votes (overseen, of course, so that should they abuse that discretion it can be fixed), if only because airmax can't be expected to respond to 100+ of these a day (though I don't know the actual numbers).

Maybe we can have a volunteering program to scan through all the votes that were reported and see what should or should not be removed. Maybe the majority people from the volunteering program should have to agree to remove a vote? Or maybe the volunteering would be moderator only so that we can trust that there is not much bias in the vote removal? But of course, there have to be someone who has to decide whether or not a vote is legit.
My political compass:
Economic Left/Right: -1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82
1 square right of Nelson Mandela, 2 squares down from Francois Hollande