Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Um... Idk what to do here...

donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2013 11:32:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://www.debate.org...

The Pro used all 10,000 characters in one continuous paragraph, and than used four whole Comments in the Comment section to finish his argument, adding up to 15272 characters... His argument was well beyond the 10k character count, and poured into the Comments in mass...

I'm not sure how to handle this, especially since he'll likely do it for each round...
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2013 11:34:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You don't have to do anything except point out the massive cheating in your next round. People will vote for you like they voted for DakotaKrafick (who I would consult for advice).
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2013 11:36:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/9/2013 11:34:45 PM, Sargon wrote:
You don't have to do anything except point out the massive cheating in your next round. People will vote for you like they voted for DakotaKrafick (who I would consult for advice).

Ignore this.

The best thing to do is respond to the argument he posted, and ignore the comments.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2013 11:38:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's very poor conduct and voters will recognize that. Point it out in your next round and respond to as much as you can.
Debate.org Moderator
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2013 11:42:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Thank you.. I was concerned about if I could physically respond to that much with only 10k characters.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 1:33:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Organization is one of three things we are supposed to vote on. Hit some key points, ideally weaknesses to his case... Also point out his rat-bastard conduct.
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
Beginner
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 2:31:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Umm, the guy just joined 2 days ago and it's one of his first debates.. I don't think you should be so harsh on him. Just give him a heads up for future reference. He is, after all, putting a lot of effort into the debate. Ignoring his effort and derailing all his arguments due to his not knowing DDO conduct seems a rather crude way of dealing with this new user. It is also very likely to discourage him from conducting future debates on this site. I don't know, I'm just posting my thoughts.
Senpai has noticed you.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 6:32:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
When you accept a debate you have to agree to the setup including character limit. What heads up is needed?

I'd respond only to that which is actually in the debate and mention to voters that they should disregard anything in the comments.
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 8:32:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well that's what you get for leaving the character limit so high
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
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 1:31:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The character limit is given in the debate challenge. The largest limit is 8,000. So the person accepting should know it is a site rule. As people in the thread have said, point out the limit and ignore the arguments in comments.

There is a way to hack the entry to exceed the limit, and people have put pages of arguments into an image and included the image. Clever, but they still accepted the limit in the challenge, and so any means that violates it fails.
RocketEngineer
Posts: 553
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 6:57:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Okay so I have to post this here since I am being accused of abusing the character limit.

In this debate with OrangeMayhem: http://www.debate.org...

In his R4 he is saying that I breached the character limit. In my argument, I used around 7,500 characters.

I used a picture as a source (as I have seen many many people do before and NEVER get accused of cheating for), and he is saying that I breached the character with it. But it is not even my own argument, it is a quote from another site. I even posted this site as a reference in my sources...

So please give me your opinions.

Is this anything like what donald is talking about in this thread, as OrangeMayhem cited this as a reference?

What is the difference between a source, and a picture, since the picture isn't my own arguments?

Is it just me, or does this seem like a cheap way to ask the voters to not read the full situation so he can get a vote? I am appalled by this individuals conduct. This is not the first time he has done stuff like this either.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 7:15:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 6:57:59 AM, RocketEngineer wrote:
Okay so I have to post this here since I am being accused of abusing the character limit.

In this debate with OrangeMayhem: http://www.debate.org...

In his R4 he is saying that I breached the character limit. In my argument, I used around 7,500 characters.

I used a picture as a source (as I have seen many many people do before and NEVER get accused of cheating for), and he is saying that I breached the character with it. But it is not even my own argument, it is a quote from another site. I even posted this site as a reference in my sources...

So please give me your opinions.

Is this anything like what donald is talking about in this thread, as OrangeMayhem cited this as a reference?

What is the difference between a source, and a picture, since the picture isn't my own arguments?

Is it just me, or does this seem like a cheap way to ask the voters to not read the full situation so he can get a vote? I am appalled by this individuals conduct. This is not the first time he has done stuff like this either.

Without reading the debate, I will say this:

Sources aren't part of your argument. Rather, sources justify and legitimize your argument.

So, we have two scenarios:

1. You make a statement in your argument, and support that statement with a citation of a source that provides the justification and support - ACCEPTABLE

2. You provide an external link to information to use that information as if it was part of the argument that you presented in the debate itself - UNACCEPTABLE

Nothing in a source or external link should be considered part of the debate. Instead, the information in the source or external link should only be used to make a judgement as to the validity of a statement made in the debate proper.
RocketEngineer
Posts: 553
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 7:19:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 7:15:45 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 8/14/2013 6:57:59 AM, RocketEngineer wrote:
Okay so I have to post this here since I am being accused of abusing the character limit.

In this debate with OrangeMayhem: http://www.debate.org...

In his R4 he is saying that I breached the character limit. In my argument, I used around 7,500 characters.

I used a picture as a source (as I have seen many many people do before and NEVER get accused of cheating for), and he is saying that I breached the character with it. But it is not even my own argument, it is a quote from another site. I even posted this site as a reference in my sources...

So please give me your opinions.

Is this anything like what donald is talking about in this thread, as OrangeMayhem cited this as a reference?

What is the difference between a source, and a picture, since the picture isn't my own arguments?

Is it just me, or does this seem like a cheap way to ask the voters to not read the full situation so he can get a vote? I am appalled by this individuals conduct. This is not the first time he has done stuff like this either.

Without reading the debate, I will say this:

Sources aren't part of your argument. Rather, sources justify and legitimize your argument.

So, we have two scenarios:

1. You make a statement in your argument, and support that statement with a citation of a source that provides the justification and support - ACCEPTABLE

2. You provide an external link to information to use that information as if it was part of the argument that you presented in the debate itself - UNACCEPTABLE

I actually did post a the exact link of where I got that. The picture was taken directly from my source. Is this still the same as what you are talking about? The situation is context specific, so reading it might help you understand my anger at the accusation and the way he presented it.

Nothing in a source or external link should be considered part of the debate. Instead, the information in the source or external link should only be used to make a judgement as to the validity of a statement made in the debate proper.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 7:39:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 7:19:45 AM, RocketEngineer wrote:
At 8/14/2013 7:15:45 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 8/14/2013 6:57:59 AM, RocketEngineer wrote:
Okay so I have to post this here since I am being accused of abusing the character limit.

In this debate with OrangeMayhem: http://www.debate.org...

In his R4 he is saying that I breached the character limit. In my argument, I used around 7,500 characters.

I used a picture as a source (as I have seen many many people do before and NEVER get accused of cheating for), and he is saying that I breached the character with it. But it is not even my own argument, it is a quote from another site. I even posted this site as a reference in my sources...

So please give me your opinions.

Is this anything like what donald is talking about in this thread, as OrangeMayhem cited this as a reference?

What is the difference between a source, and a picture, since the picture isn't my own arguments?

Is it just me, or does this seem like a cheap way to ask the voters to not read the full situation so he can get a vote? I am appalled by this individuals conduct. This is not the first time he has done stuff like this either.

Without reading the debate, I will say this:

Sources aren't part of your argument. Rather, sources justify and legitimize your argument.

So, we have two scenarios:

1. You make a statement in your argument, and support that statement with a citation of a source that provides the justification and support - ACCEPTABLE

2. You provide an external link to information to use that information as if it was part of the argument that you presented in the debate itself - UNACCEPTABLE

I actually did post a the exact link of where I got that. The picture was taken directly from my source. Is this still the same as what you are talking about? The situation is context specific, so reading it might help you understand my anger at the accusation and the way he presented it.

Nothing in a source or external link should be considered part of the debate. Instead, the information in the source or external link should only be used to make a judgement as to the validity of a statement made in the debate proper.

Which round and which link?
RocketEngineer
Posts: 553
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 7:44:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 7:39:50 AM, drafterman wrote:
Which round and which link?

http://www.debate.org...

Round 4 at the start, in bold is where he made his accusation. He is referencing the picture I put in R3. The source number is (6).

www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3791608?uid=3739928&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102542454277
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 7:49:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 7:44:32 AM, RocketEngineer wrote:
At 8/14/2013 7:39:50 AM, drafterman wrote:
Which round and which link?

http://www.debate.org...

Round 4 at the start, in bold is where he made his accusation. He is referencing the picture I put in R3. The source number is (6).

www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3791608?uid=3739928&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102542454277

In that case, yes. I'd say you violated the character limit. It would have been more appropriate to write out the definition you were wishing to use, then link to the source. If you had tried to do that, you would have hit the character limit (since the words in the picture put you over). So you posted the picture to get around the character limit.

Sorry, but in all fairness I would ask that the picture simply be excluded from the debate.
RocketEngineer
Posts: 553
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 7:52:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 7:49:33 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 8/14/2013 7:44:32 AM, RocketEngineer wrote:
At 8/14/2013 7:39:50 AM, drafterman wrote:
Which round and which link?

http://www.debate.org...

Round 4 at the start, in bold is where he made his accusation. He is referencing the picture I put in R3. The source number is (6).

www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3791608?uid=3739928&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102542454277

In that case, yes. I'd say you violated the character limit. It would have been more appropriate to write out the definition you were wishing to use, then link to the source. If you had tried to do that, you would have hit the character limit (since the words in the picture put you over). So you posted the picture to get around the character limit.

Sorry, but in all fairness I would ask that the picture simply be excluded from the debate.

Are you kidding me? So you are saying every other debater who has used pictures as source references in the past through pictures are cheaters? Not only that but no one actually counted the characters in the pictures.

Please explain to me how providing visual references to my sources is cheating.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 7:58:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 7:52:52 AM, RocketEngineer wrote:
At 8/14/2013 7:49:33 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 8/14/2013 7:44:32 AM, RocketEngineer wrote:
At 8/14/2013 7:39:50 AM, drafterman wrote:
Which round and which link?

http://www.debate.org...

Round 4 at the start, in bold is where he made his accusation. He is referencing the picture I put in R3. The source number is (6).

www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3791608?uid=3739928&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102542454277

In that case, yes. I'd say you violated the character limit. It would have been more appropriate to write out the definition you were wishing to use, then link to the source. If you had tried to do that, you would have hit the character limit (since the words in the picture put you over). So you posted the picture to get around the character limit.

Sorry, but in all fairness I would ask that the picture simply be excluded from the debate.

Are you kidding me? So you are saying every other debater who has used pictures as source references in the past through pictures are cheaters? Not only that but no one actually counted the characters in the pictures.

Please explain to me how providing visual references to my sources is cheating.

Let's be fair here. What you posted wasn't a "picture" or a "visual reference." It was text. Yes, it was an image file, but it was text. Take what you did an simply extrapolate: if you made your entire argument 20,000 characters, but posted it as an image file as not to be rejected by the character limit, would that be appropriate?

I'd say "No," and that is basically what you did, simply in part. Again, I feel the proper course of action would have been to type out the definition, cite it, and provide a link to the source. This would have forced you to subtract from other portions of your argument to meet the character limit, but so be it.

And, yes, I feel that anyone else that does this is "cheating," if that's what you want to call it. I was trying to be diplomatic by avoiding the use of the term, and by suggesting a compromise, but if you want to get down to brass tacks, sure.

And no, this does not cover all "visual references." What you did wasn't a graph or a "picture" it was merely text in an image file format.
RocketEngineer
Posts: 553
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 8:05:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 7:58:14 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 8/14/2013 7:52:52 AM, RocketEngineer wrote:
At 8/14/2013 7:49:33 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 8/14/2013 7:44:32 AM, RocketEngineer wrote:
At 8/14/2013 7:39:50 AM, drafterman wrote:
Which round and which link?

http://www.debate.org...

Round 4 at the start, in bold is where he made his accusation. He is referencing the picture I put in R3. The source number is (6).

www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3791608?uid=3739928&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102542454277

In that case, yes. I'd say you violated the character limit. It would have been more appropriate to write out the definition you were wishing to use, then link to the source. If you had tried to do that, you would have hit the character limit (since the words in the picture put you over). So you posted the picture to get around the character limit.

Sorry, but in all fairness I would ask that the picture simply be excluded from the debate.

Are you kidding me? So you are saying every other debater who has used pictures as source references in the past through pictures are cheaters? Not only that but no one actually counted the characters in the pictures.

Please explain to me how providing visual references to my sources is cheating.

Let's be fair here. What you posted wasn't a "picture" or a "visual reference." It was text. Yes, it was an image file, but it was text. Take what you did an simply extrapolate: if you made your entire argument 20,000 characters, but posted it as an image file as not to be rejected by the character limit, would that be appropriate?

I'd say "No," and that is basically what you did, simply in part. Again, I feel the proper course of action would have been to type out the definition, cite it, and provide a link to the source. This would have forced you to subtract from other portions of your argument to meet the character limit, but so be it.

And, yes, I feel that anyone else that does this is "cheating," if that's what you want to call it. I was trying to be diplomatic by avoiding the use of the term, and by suggesting a compromise, but if you want to get down to brass tacks, sure.

And no, this does not cover all "visual references." What you did wasn't a graph or a "picture" it was merely text in an image file format.

Yes, but it was no different than the audience clicking on the link to view the source themselves. So if the click of their mouse could have revealed to them the same thing, what is the difference? Also in context to the debate, all I was basically saying was that the author of that post made a great post in which applied to a point I made on the subject. Again, we still don't even know if this even exceeds the character limit, so far we have all just assumed that it has, since no one has counted the characters in the text. All this aside, do you think it was apparent that I was trying to be unfair with this? The way my opponent had construed it as purposeful cheating, is also fairly exaggerated.

I will wait for more opinions on this, but if this is how the website behaves on a general basis, cheap attempts to win votes that the community accepts as "okay", then I no longer wish to be a member here. This is out of hand.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 8:14:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 8:05:45 AM, RocketEngineer wrote:
At 8/14/2013 7:58:14 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 8/14/2013 7:52:52 AM, RocketEngineer wrote:
At 8/14/2013 7:49:33 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 8/14/2013 7:44:32 AM, RocketEngineer wrote:
At 8/14/2013 7:39:50 AM, drafterman wrote:
Which round and which link?

http://www.debate.org...

Round 4 at the start, in bold is where he made his accusation. He is referencing the picture I put in R3. The source number is (6).

www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3791608?uid=3739928&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102542454277

In that case, yes. I'd say you violated the character limit. It would have been more appropriate to write out the definition you were wishing to use, then link to the source. If you had tried to do that, you would have hit the character limit (since the words in the picture put you over). So you posted the picture to get around the character limit.

Sorry, but in all fairness I would ask that the picture simply be excluded from the debate.

Are you kidding me? So you are saying every other debater who has used pictures as source references in the past through pictures are cheaters? Not only that but no one actually counted the characters in the pictures.

Please explain to me how providing visual references to my sources is cheating.

Let's be fair here. What you posted wasn't a "picture" or a "visual reference." It was text. Yes, it was an image file, but it was text. Take what you did an simply extrapolate: if you made your entire argument 20,000 characters, but posted it as an image file as not to be rejected by the character limit, would that be appropriate?

I'd say "No," and that is basically what you did, simply in part. Again, I feel the proper course of action would have been to type out the definition, cite it, and provide a link to the source. This would have forced you to subtract from other portions of your argument to meet the character limit, but so be it.

And, yes, I feel that anyone else that does this is "cheating," if that's what you want to call it. I was trying to be diplomatic by avoiding the use of the term, and by suggesting a compromise, but if you want to get down to brass tacks, sure.

And no, this does not cover all "visual references." What you did wasn't a graph or a "picture" it was merely text in an image file format.

Yes, but it was no different than the audience clicking on the link to view the source themselves. So if the click of their mouse could have revealed to them the same thing, what is the difference? Also in context to the debate, all I was basically saying was that the author of that post made a great post in which applied to a point I made on the subject. Again, we still don't even know if this even exceeds the character limit, so far we have all just assumed that it has, since no one has counted the characters in the text. All this aside, do you think it was apparent that I was trying to be unfair with this? The way my opponent had construed it as purposeful cheating, is also fairly exaggerated.

I will wait for more opinions on this, but if this is how the website behaves on a general basis, cheap attempts to win votes that the community accepts as "okay", then I no longer wish to be a member here. This is out of hand.

Talk to Apeiron. He'll completely agree.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 8:16:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 8:05:45 AM, RocketEngineer wrote:
At 8/14/2013 7:58:14 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 8/14/2013 7:52:52 AM, RocketEngineer wrote:
At 8/14/2013 7:49:33 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 8/14/2013 7:44:32 AM, RocketEngineer wrote:
At 8/14/2013 7:39:50 AM, drafterman wrote:
Which round and which link?

http://www.debate.org...

Round 4 at the start, in bold is where he made his accusation. He is referencing the picture I put in R3. The source number is (6).

www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3791608?uid=3739928&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102542454277

In that case, yes. I'd say you violated the character limit. It would have been more appropriate to write out the definition you were wishing to use, then link to the source. If you had tried to do that, you would have hit the character limit (since the words in the picture put you over). So you posted the picture to get around the character limit.

Sorry, but in all fairness I would ask that the picture simply be excluded from the debate.

Are you kidding me? So you are saying every other debater who has used pictures as source references in the past through pictures are cheaters? Not only that but no one actually counted the characters in the pictures.

Please explain to me how providing visual references to my sources is cheating.

Let's be fair here. What you posted wasn't a "picture" or a "visual reference." It was text. Yes, it was an image file, but it was text. Take what you did an simply extrapolate: if you made your entire argument 20,000 characters, but posted it as an image file as not to be rejected by the character limit, would that be appropriate?

I'd say "No," and that is basically what you did, simply in part. Again, I feel the proper course of action would have been to type out the definition, cite it, and provide a link to the source. This would have forced you to subtract from other portions of your argument to meet the character limit, but so be it.

And, yes, I feel that anyone else that does this is "cheating," if that's what you want to call it. I was trying to be diplomatic by avoiding the use of the term, and by suggesting a compromise, but if you want to get down to brass tacks, sure.

And no, this does not cover all "visual references." What you did wasn't a graph or a "picture" it was merely text in an image file format.

Yes, but it was no different than the audience clicking on the link to view the source themselves. So if the click of their mouse could have revealed to them the same thing, what is the difference?

Like I said, the sources shouldn't be part of your argument. The sources should merely support your argument. Otherwise you aren't making the argument any more, are you? Now, that isn't the case here as you were simply using a definition, which is perfectly fine; you just should have written it out yourself. Again, the source isn't part of the argument. Readers shouldn't be having to click on external links to get your argument. Everything necessary to read and understand your argument should be contained in the debate itself. Any external material is supplementary only, to be used to make judgement calls regarding the validity of things said in the argument.

Also in context to the debate, all I was basically saying was that the author of that post made a great post in which applied to a point I made on the subject.

Then paraphrase and/or quote it. The point of debating is for you to - you know - debate.

Again, we still don't even know if this even exceeds the character limit, so far we have all just assumed that it has, since no one has counted the characters in the text.

Your opponent claims that he has. Regardless, if it doesn't push you over, then the point is moot; you haven't exceeded the character limit. So I'm operating under the assumption that you have.

All this aside, do you think it was apparent that I was trying to be unfair with this?

No, which is why I never accused you of cheating and suggested a remedy rather than simply saying you cheated and should lose the debate.

The way my opponent had construed it as purposeful cheating, is also fairly exaggerated.

I agree.


I will wait for more opinions on this, but if this is how the website behaves on a general basis, cheap attempts to win votes that the community accepts as "okay", then I no longer wish to be a member here. This is out of hand.

The problem is, people have used tactics like yours maliciously, as a cheap attempt to win votes, hence the resistance towards it. Take the scenario I presented. If you posted a single picture of 20,000 characters, would that be "cheating?"
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 9:06:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 6:57:59 AM, RocketEngineer wrote:
Okay so I have to post this here since I am being accused of abusing the character limit.

You abused the character limit.

In this debate with OrangeMayhem: http://www.debate.org...

In his R4 he is saying that I breached the character limit. In my argument, I used around 7,500 characters.

Plus a bunch more characters in a picture.

I used a picture as a source (as I have seen many many people do before and NEVER get accused of cheating for), and he is saying that I breached the character with it.

Obviously.

But it is not even my own argument, it is a quote from another site. I even posted this site as a reference in my sources...

You said, "I think Arie W. Kruglanski gives a pretty good definition of this," inviting us to read the definition in the picture. The characters in the picture were part of the argument.

It would be different if you were arguing about the Vietnam war, and showed a picture of the Vietnam Veteren's memorial. You wouldn't be asking us to read all those names; you'd just be showing us the wall.

So please give me your opinions.

You cheated. You know you cheated. Your affected outrage at being caught does not excuse your crime. Just my opinion.

Is this anything like what donald is talking about in this thread, as OrangeMayhem cited this as a reference?

Yes, same thing. His argument ran over the character limit.

What is the difference between a source, and a picture, since the picture isn't my own arguments?

We don't read sources. They aren't part of the argument. If we do happen to read a source, we have to ignore what it says, because it isn't part of the argument.

Is it just me, or does this seem like a cheap way to ask the voters to not read the full situation so he can get a vote?

You cheated. He has a perfect right to point out that you cheated.

I am appalled by this individuals conduct.

That's rich.

This is not the first time he has done stuff like this either.

So quit going over the character limit.
orangemayhem
Posts: 333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 11:23:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
wiploc, drafterman, ClassicRobert - thanks for backing me up, guys. It means a lot to me. He tried to torch me for this in another forum, and it means a lot that you guys thought I did the right thing.
Cheers pals :)
I'm back (ish).
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 11:46:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Just for reference, the picture in question contained (charitably, if I leave off the title and author) 942 characters. The complaints that "no one has even counted" the characters can now be put to rest. Further, that you knew you had 500 characters left, yet took near twice that (more than twice that, if we choose to include the title/author info), demonstrates what appears to be a dishonesty. Did you really think there was any real chance that the text was under 500 characters, from looking at it? If not, why object that no one has counted?

The charge levied was "the text of the image exceeds the remaining c500 characters. This counts against conduct and is borderline cheating."

There is nothing inappropriate about that charge. It pretty obviously counts against conduct. "Cheating" is a loaded word, of course, but is softened by the "borderline". Unquestionably, you exceeded the character count by hundreds of characters. Unquestioningly, you posted an "image" that was nothing but text, so an argument that the text on the image clarified the image itself fails. Unquestioningly, you should know that using an image to get around a character limit is a no-no. So was this accidental, and therefore a "foul", versus intentional, therefore "cheating"? I think that, especially considering your vehement complaints about things that you shouldn't be complaining about ("you haven't proven it went over!" is not a valid complaint when you went over by a lot, it reads more like defensive posturing), calling it "borderline cheating" is appropriate, if harsh. I'm sure the harshness follows from a certain annoyance at the fact that you violated the rules.

For the reference of the class, I retyped it so anyone can do their own Copy/Paste/Character Count:


On Methods of Good Judgment and Good Methods of Judgment: Political Decisions and the Art of the Possible

Arie W. Kruglanski1

"Good" political judgment is discussed in light of relevant psychological considerations. The "dualism" between rational/normative and subrational/heuristic modes of judgment is reexamined. It is concluded that both represent different aspects (or cases) of the same process wehreby all judgments are rendered. By implication, no absolute method of good judgment is available and the same process mediates good(i.e., accurate) and bad(i.e., inaccurate) judgments. The notion of "good judgment" may be retained, nonetheless, in two separate senses: (1)by reference to agreed upon (even if tentative) reality criteria and (2) by reference to psychologically "englightened" conceptions of optimal information processing. From that perspective,a good method of judgment represents at best a necessary, not a sufficient condition for judgmental accuracy. The implications of this analysis for political judgment and decision-making are considered.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 11:03:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The rule is that you have to make an assertion in the text of the debate and you can then use a source to support your assertion. So had you given the definition, or a shorter version of it, in text then referenced the picture as where you got the definition then you could have been okay. However, the words in the picture don't just support an assertion, they make the assertion and argue why it is correct. That's a conduct violation.

However, conduct is only one point. The excess characters are ignored, but all the other debate categories are independent.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 6:45:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/9/2013 11:32:28 PM, donald.keller wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

The Pro used all 10,000 characters in one continuous paragraph, and than used four whole Comments in the Comment section to finish his argument, adding up to 15272 characters... His argument was well beyond the 10k character count, and poured into the Comments in mass...

I'm not sure how to handle this, especially since he'll likely do it for each round...

This is a violation of the DDO debate rules. Just point it out, and he gets a loss.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 6:45:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 2:31:08 AM, Beginner wrote:
Umm, the guy just joined 2 days ago and it's one of his first debates.. I don't think you should be so harsh on him. Just give him a heads up for future reference. He is, after all, putting a lot of effort into the debate. Ignoring his effort and derailing all his arguments due to his not knowing DDO conduct seems a rather crude way of dealing with this new user. It is also very likely to discourage him from conducting future debates on this site. I don't know, I'm just posting my thoughts.

I don't see why the time period in which he joined justifies cheating.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 9:11:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 6:45:54 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
I don't see why the time period in which he joined justifies cheating.

Suppose the guy doesn't really understand the difference between the debate area and the forum area. Maybe he'll go away if treated harshly, but be a productive member of the community if gently guided.

Being new doesn't justify cheating, but it could suggest that his cheating is out of ignorance rather than stubbornness.
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 4:39:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 8:14:27 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 8/14/2013 8:05:45 AM, RocketEngineer wrote:
At 8/14/2013 7:58:14 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 8/14/2013 7:52:52 AM, RocketEngineer wrote:
At 8/14/2013 7:49:33 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 8/14/2013 7:44:32 AM, RocketEngineer wrote:
At 8/14/2013 7:39:50 AM, drafterman wrote:
Which round and which link?

http://www.debate.org...

Round 4 at the start, in bold is where he made his accusation. He is referencing the picture I put in R3. The source number is (6).

www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3791608?uid=3739928&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102542454277

In that case, yes. I'd say you violated the character limit. It would have been more appropriate to write out the definition you were wishing to use, then link to the source. If you had tried to do that, you would have hit the character limit (since the words in the picture put you over). So you posted the picture to get around the character limit.

Sorry, but in all fairness I would ask that the picture simply be excluded from the debate.

Are you kidding me? So you are saying every other debater who has used pictures as source references in the past through pictures are cheaters? Not only that but no one actually counted the characters in the pictures.

Please explain to me how providing visual references to my sources is cheating.

Let's be fair here. What you posted wasn't a "picture" or a "visual reference." It was text. Yes, it was an image file, but it was text. Take what you did an simply extrapolate: if you made your entire argument 20,000 characters, but posted it as an image file as not to be rejected by the character limit, would that be appropriate?

I'd say "No," and that is basically what you did, simply in part. Again, I feel the proper course of action would have been to type out the definition, cite it, and provide a link to the source. This would have forced you to subtract from other portions of your argument to meet the character limit, but so be it.

And, yes, I feel that anyone else that does this is "cheating," if that's what you want to call it. I was trying to be diplomatic by avoiding the use of the term, and by suggesting a compromise, but if you want to get down to brass tacks, sure.

And no, this does not cover all "visual references." What you did wasn't a graph or a "picture" it was merely text in an image file format.

Yes, but it was no different than the audience clicking on the link to view the source themselves. So if the click of their mouse could have revealed to them the same thing, what is the difference? Also in context to the debate, all I was basically saying was that the author of that post made a great post in which applied to a point I made on the subject. Again, we still don't even know if this even exceeds the character limit, so far we have all just assumed that it has, since no one has counted the characters in the text. All this aside, do you think it was apparent that I was trying to be unfair with this? The way my opponent had construed it as purposeful cheating, is also fairly exaggerated.

I will wait for more opinions on this, but if this is how the website behaves on a general basis, cheap attempts to win votes that the community accepts as "okay", then I no longer wish to be a member here. This is out of hand.

Talk to Apeiron. He'll completely agree.

Haha, come on man. This is nothing like Apeiron. I agree that this was made into much larger of a deal than it had to have been though.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227