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

Voting For Oneself Should Be Allowed on DDO

wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 6:20:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.debate.org...

It seems there was a lot of miscommunication due to the constricting 3,000 characters.

I think my ideas are clear enough, regardless here's a thread to discuss and get clarification.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
STALIN
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 10:03:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/20/2014 6:20:00 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

It seems there was a lot of miscommunication due to the constricting 3,000 characters.

I think my ideas are clear enough, regardless here's a thread to discuss and get clarification.

nope
STALIN
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 10:04:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/20/2014 6:20:00 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

It seems there was a lot of miscommunication due to the constricting 3,000 characters.

I think my ideas are clear enough, regardless here's a thread to discuss and get clarification.

nope...
yay842
Posts: 5,680
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 10:08:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
who is going to vote for their opponent? everyone will vote for themselves and their votes end up becoming pointless because in the end, its up to others to decide
30 Important Life Lessons
http://www.debate.org...
20 Terrifying Two-Sentence Horrors
http://www.debate.org...
20 Jokes That Only Geniuses Will Understand
http://www.debate.org...
Name One Song That Can't Match This GIF
http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 3:48:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/20/2014 10:08:29 PM, yay842 wrote:
who is going to vote for their opponent? everyone will vote for themselves and their votes end up becoming pointless because in the end, its up to others to decide

Before I address this, did you read the debate?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 4:14:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
You have yet to point out the problem of the current system that would warrant such a change. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." ~saying.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 4:42:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/21/2014 4:14:28 AM, Smithereens wrote:
You have yet to point out the problem of the current system that would warrant such a change. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." ~saying.

It's all in the debate.

Precluding bias precludes amalgamating a statistically significant sample of vote for any debate, rendering any score meaningless. Meaningless scores => meaningless statistics => problem.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 4:55:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/21/2014 4:42:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/21/2014 4:14:28 AM, Smithereens wrote:
You have yet to point out the problem of the current system that would warrant such a change. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." ~saying.

It's all in the debate.

Precluding bias precludes amalgamating a statistically significant sample of vote for any debate, rendering any score meaningless. Meaningless scores => meaningless statistics => problem.

I did read the debate, the most I took from it was that biased votes could be fixed by adding more biased votes to have an abundance of biased votes that would somehow negate the bias. I like your idea of SSS, but typically most debates get very few votes or are simply not voted on. Active forum members seem to get more votes than others and well known debaters or advertised debates will also get more votes. SSS is thus probably too idealistic as votes are simply too scarce to create a minimum standard from.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 6:04:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/21/2014 4:55:15 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 1/21/2014 4:42:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/21/2014 4:14:28 AM, Smithereens wrote:
You have yet to point out the problem of the current system that would warrant such a change. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." ~saying.

It's all in the debate.

Precluding bias precludes amalgamating a statistically significant sample of vote for any debate, rendering any score meaningless. Meaningless scores => meaningless statistics => problem.

I did read the debate, the most I took from it was that biased votes could be fixed by adding more biased votes to have an abundance of biased votes that would somehow negate the bias. I like your idea of SSS, but typically most debates get very few votes or are simply not voted on. Active forum members seem to get more votes than others and well known debaters or advertised debates will also get more votes. SSS is thus probably too idealistic as votes are simply too scarce to create a minimum standard from.

lol, the problem is not bias. The problem is BANNING bias. Remove the ban on bias, and then voting for oneself should be allowed on DDO. The idea is not to "negate the bias" but to let bias flourish.

Any and all polls, elections, etc, are all based upon bias. That's what makes them valuable. You simply want to ensure that the bias is representative of a statistically significant population, which is where the SSS comes into play.

As it is, thanks for recognizing and approving of the SSS. The idea is that by eliminating the ban on bias, some of the debaters here would then be less inhibited about soliciting votes. Agree that initially it will prove to be a problem with scarcity of votes, but if people start yanking in facebook lists and stuff, that problem may ameliorate itself. Furthermore, from Juggle's perspective, this would be a win/win - it would result in more traffic and more reputable debate results. There will still be problems, I will not deny that...but it would be a step in the "right" direction, IMHO.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 7:14:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I understand that bias is at some level unavoidable, but - and this reminds me again of our exchanges regarding violence - simply because there exist instances of bias which in passing are so small that avoiding them in every moment is unrealistic, this doesn't mean we should simply throw our hands in the air, declaring "life is bias" and give up altogether on avoiding it. Bias denotes some sort of irrational, undesirable or unfair prejudice; it's not the same thing as 'opinion' or 'position' as this seems to imply. Isn't it desirable to encourage voters to approach a debate with the most open minded disposition possible?

In terms of the "1 + 1" example, I think you are conflating bias in regard to content with variance in the form of communication; for instance if I were in a verbal debate with someone it would not seem reasonable to state "My opponent is subject to bias due to having an American accent" if the topic were abortion - because it has no bearing on the subject matter, only on the method by which they communicate their opinion. (It might, however, if the topic was "what is the best accent?")
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 8:38:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The OP has is a basic misunderstanding of statistical significance. Suppose we suspect that a coin is weighed so that heads appears more times than tails. (Or that A really should be judged to win a debate much more often than B.) We flip the coin five times in a row, and it comes up heads all five times. What is the level of certainty that heads is preferred more often than tails? If the coin is really fair (heads is 0.5 probability) then there is one chance in 32 (about 3%) that heads would appear five times in a row. If ten flips come up in a row, then we are to the point where there is only one chance in a thousand that the outcome was the result of chance with a fair coin. In that case, statistical significant is achieved fairly quickly.

In debate voting, the idea is that one side should win, but voting bias interferes with knowing which side that is. Actually, bias is just one random factor. Another factor is a particular judge's ability to determine who the winner is. The judge may be unbiased but make random errors in analysis that favor neither side. If judging error dominates, then one side or the other will always win solely by chance. In that case having 100 votes on a debate won't help. The more votes accumulated, the closer the outcome will be to a tie, and statistical significance cannot be achieved with any number of votes.

If we had a perfectly reliable judge, then only one vote is needed to be statistically significant. If the judging is completely random, then no number of votes will ever achieve significance. This agrees with common sense. If A thoroughly trounces B in the debate, then judging error is less likely to prevail, so A is likely to win even with only one vote. If the debate is very close, then it will take many votes to accurately determine the outcome. This means that debaters do well by winning by large margins (duh). If the judges are trained to vote more reliably, then fewer voters will be needed to get the correct result.

Another error in the OP analysis is to assume that bias is random. In practice, there is more bias in favor of popular opinions than unpopular ones. So with a large number of votes, all other things equal, the vote will converge to the more common bias. This can only be overcome by the unpopular side winning by a greater margin, and by training judges to vote with less bias.

Lets suppose that a debater is good enough that he should win 75% of his debates. If bias is randomly distributed, then his track record won't show in just a few debates having a small number votes in each. But if he keeps debating, his record will nonetheless converge to a 75% win ratio.

The idea of having a test for statistical significance before scoring a debate is dead wrong, because the only way to know what is significant is to know the judges unbiased accuracy and the amount of bias on the topic. The way to improve judging is to better train the judges. I've proposed using a scoring template like that used in subjective sports (like the system used in figure skating or diving) to improve quality of judging.

Back in the old dates on DDO, five years ago (which is nearly eleven centuries in internet years) voting for oneself was allowed. Voting was also secret, but verification of identity was required to obtain voting rights. You had to vote for yourself to counter the expectation that your opponent would vote for himself. But sometimes your opponent did not have voting privileges, and that was grossly unfair. Now it's even harder to get voting privileges, and voting is open. It's best to avoid the whole mess by prohibiting voting for oneself.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 2:51:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/21/2014 7:14:30 AM, sdavio wrote:
I understand that bias is at some level unavoidable, but - and this reminds me again of our exchanges regarding violence - simply because there exist instances of bias which in passing are so small that avoiding them in every moment is unrealistic, this doesn't mean we should simply throw our hands in the air, declaring "life is bias" and give up altogether on avoiding it. Bias denotes some sort of irrational, undesirable or unfair prejudice; it's not the same thing as 'opinion' or 'position' as this seems to imply. Isn't it desirable to encourage voters to approach a debate with the most open minded disposition possible?

I agree with your reasoning which is why I advocate for the SSS, i.e. regulation on bias. Currently we have a ban on bias, which would be synonymous to banning violence. The current situation is even more unrealistic than what you are alluding to, IMHO.

If you take the judgment of "fair" out of your description of "bias", we would be in agreement on how the word is defined. So, my question for you would be "can you, or anyone else, determine what is "fair"? If you can't, then we shouldn't ban votes just because we consider them to be "unfair". Now, to a certain extent we can...right? If we have proof that someone is setting up multiple accounts to vote for their own side, that's clearly "unfair" and we take measures to stop such practices. But outside of something like that, it's IMHO extremely difficult to say whether or not one vote is "fair" or "unfair". So, IMHO the best remedy is to lessen the impact of one vote (and currently many debates are decided by one or two votes), and the best way to do that is implementing an SSS requirement.

In terms of the "1 + 1" example, I think you are conflating bias in regard to content with variance in the form of communication; for instance if I were in a verbal debate with someone it would not seem reasonable to state "My opponent is subject to bias due to having an American accent" if the topic were abortion - because it has no bearing on the subject matter, only on the method by which they communicate their opinion. (It might, however, if the topic was "what is the best accent?")

Your analogy isn't sound. Your analogy implies that both people reach the same conclusion despite the accent. My 1+1 example implies that both people reach very different conclusions.

Basically, your analogy implies that maybe someone saw "1" as "carrots" and another person saw "1" as a chopstick, yet both were able to conclude "1+1=2" in the mathematical sense. That's bias, but one that does not lead to any material differences in how they "vote" on a matter. That's very different from what I stated in the debate...in the debate, one person, due to significant bias, voted differently from everyone else. IMHO such a vote should still be seen as valid, even though currently people would scream "BIAS" and "VOTEBOMB!".
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 3:05:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/21/2014 8:38:09 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
The OP has is a basic misunderstanding of statistical significance. Suppose we suspect that a coin is weighed so that heads appears more times than tails. (Or that A really should be judged to win a debate much more often than B.) We flip the coin five times in a row, and it comes up heads all five times. What is the level of certainty that heads is preferred more often than tails? If the coin is really fair (heads is 0.5 probability) then there is one chance in 32 (about 3%) that heads would appear five times in a row. If ten flips come up in a row, then we are to the point where there is only one chance in a thousand that the outcome was the result of chance with a fair coin. In that case, statistical significant is achieved fairly quickly.

The idea is that every coin is weighed in one way or another. Every person has bias. It's impossible to think that people can somehow be "unbiased" in how they view any matter. So, we should not prohibit bias.

On statistical significance, that's the entire point of implementing a threshold on number of votes necessary to determine a victor - essentially, more coin tosses on one debate.

In debate voting, the idea is that one side should win, but voting bias interferes with knowing which side that is. Actually, bias is just one random factor. Another factor is a particular judge's ability to determine who the winner is. The judge may be unbiased but make random errors in analysis that favor neither side. If judging error dominates, then one side or the other will always win solely by chance. In that case having 100 votes on a debate won't help. The more votes accumulated, the closer the outcome will be to a tie, and statistical significance cannot be achieved with any number of votes.

I disagree with the underlined. Voting bias is exactly how we determine who wins. The real question is whether or not those votes are statistically significant...they currently are not.

I agree that judgment errors are another significant problem, but that's outside the scope of my advocacy. That would point to problems in determining eligibility to vote.

If we had a perfectly reliable judge, then only one vote is needed to be statistically significant. If the judging is completely random, then no number of votes will ever achieve significance. This agrees with common sense. If A thoroughly trounces B in the debate, then judging error is less likely to prevail, so A is likely to win even with only one vote. If the debate is very close, then it will take many votes to accurately determine the outcome. This means that debaters do well by winning by large margins (duh). If the judges are trained to vote more reliably, then fewer voters will be needed to get the correct result.

I fully agree that only "qualified" judge would be necessary to determine a victor, if such a judge existed. That would be like holding an expert commentator's opinion to a much higher weight than a random Pew poll on the subject, which occurs routinely.

However, Pew polls are indeed completely random, and they are statistically significant...so I disagree with the underlined.

Another error in the OP analysis is to assume that bias is random. In practice, there is more bias in favor of popular opinions than unpopular ones. So with a large number of votes, all other things equal, the vote will converge to the more common bias. This can only be overcome by the unpopular side winning by a greater margin, and by training judges to vote with less bias.

I do not assume that bias is random, at least I don't remember making that assumption. I fully agree there is a very strong popularity bias. In the end, that's exactly what matters, right? Whether or not you were convinced to switch sides? If you were not, you would still be convinced by the popular side, and vote on that side. That's already currently how voting criteria for scoring arguments is supposed to work (although people would deny that they have such a bias)...my proposal would not change that specific aspect.

Lets suppose that a debater is good enough that he should win 75% of his debates. If bias is randomly distributed, then his track record won't show in just a few debates having a small number votes in each. But if he keeps debating, his record will nonetheless converge to a 75% win ratio.

Agree. That's a statistically significant sample of debates.

The idea of having a test for statistical significance before scoring a debate is dead wrong, because the only way to know what is significant is to know the judges unbiased accuracy and the amount of bias on the topic. The way to improve judging is to better train the judges. I've proposed using a scoring template like that used in subjective sports (like the system used in figure skating or diving) to improve quality of judging.

I fully disagree with the underlined. All judges, even expert witnesses and what not, are biased. You simply cannot eliminate bias, that would be akin to the Church attempting to eradicate sin in the world. You'd have to eradicate everyone.

I agree that judges can use more training, but IMHO that's a separate issue.

Back in the old dates on DDO, five years ago (which is nearly eleven centuries in internet years) voting for oneself was allowed. Voting was also secret, but verification of identity was required to obtain voting rights. You had to vote for yourself to counter the expectation that your opponent would vote for himself. But sometimes your opponent did not have voting privileges, and that was grossly unfair. Now it's even harder to get voting privileges, and voting is open. It's best to avoid the whole mess by prohibiting voting for oneself.

IMHO I agree it's a problem...the best solution to this problem is implementing SSS requirements on # of votes to determine a victor in a debate.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 3:19:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/21/2014 7:14:30 AM, sdavio wrote:
I understand that bias is at some level unavoidable, but - and this reminds me again of our exchanges regarding violence - simply because there exist instances of bias which in passing are so small that avoiding them in every moment is unrealistic, this doesn't mean we should simply throw our hands in the air, declaring "life is bias" and give up altogether on avoiding it. Bias denotes some sort of irrational, undesirable or unfair prejudice; it's not the same thing as 'opinion' or 'position' as this seems to imply. Isn't it desirable to encourage voters to approach a debate with the most open minded disposition possible?

I just also want to add and elaborate that philosophically, you've yet to justify "avoiding violence". What makes violence intrinsically "bad"? The pacifism debate I had used this as a central argument, since my opponent completely dropped any moral justification for pacifism.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 5:35:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 3:05:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
On statistical significance, that's the entire point of implementing a threshold on number of votes necessary to determine a victor - essentially, more coin tosses on one debate.

If your model of judging is correct, then you should be able to compute the number of votes need to achieve significance. Suppose A beats B by a wide margin, which is to say that A makes sound arguments and B does not respond to any of the arguments. How many votes will it take to achieve statistical significance?

Now suppose that the topic is so obscure that none of the judges can understand what is really going on. How many votes will be required to achieve statisitical significance?

So what number of votes will be used in practice for significance on a debate? Why?
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 6:38:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 3:19:01 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/21/2014 7:14:30 AM, sdavio wrote:
I understand that bias is at some level unavoidable, but - and this reminds me again of our exchanges regarding violence - simply because there exist instances of bias which in passing are so small that avoiding them in every moment is unrealistic, this doesn't mean we should simply throw our hands in the air, declaring "life is bias" and give up altogether on avoiding it. Bias denotes some sort of irrational, undesirable or unfair prejudice; it's not the same thing as 'opinion' or 'position' as this seems to imply. Isn't it desirable to encourage voters to approach a debate with the most open minded disposition possible?

I just also want to add and elaborate that philosophically, you've yet to justify "avoiding violence". What makes violence intrinsically "bad"? The pacifism debate I had used this as a central argument, since my opponent completely dropped any moral justification for pacifism.

I have read that debate, and I agree Cermank dropped or didn't attempt a moral justification. I feel I can defend violence being bad on a moral level, but I'm not sure how far you want to derail this thread..
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 7:04:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 2:51:15 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/21/2014 7:14:30 AM, sdavio wrote:
I understand that bias is at some level unavoidable, but - and this reminds me again of our exchanges regarding violence - simply because there exist instances of bias which in passing are so small that avoiding them in every moment is unrealistic, this doesn't mean we should simply throw our hands in the air, declaring "life is bias" and give up altogether on avoiding it. Bias denotes some sort of irrational, undesirable or unfair prejudice; it's not the same thing as 'opinion' or 'position' as this seems to imply. Isn't it desirable to encourage voters to approach a debate with the most open minded disposition possible?

I agree with your reasoning which is why I advocate for the SSS, i.e. regulation on bias. Currently we have a ban on bias, which would be synonymous to banning violence. The current situation is even more unrealistic than what you are alluding to, IMHO.

If you take the judgment of "fair" out of your description of "bias", we would be in agreement on how the word is defined. So, my question for you would be "can you, or anyone else, determine what is "fair"? If you can't, then we shouldn't ban votes just because we consider them to be "unfair". Now, to a certain extent we can...right? If we have proof that someone is setting up multiple accounts to vote for their own side, that's clearly "unfair" and we take measures to stop such practices. But outside of something like that, it's IMHO extremely difficult to say whether or not one vote is "fair" or "unfair". So, IMHO the best remedy is to lessen the impact of one vote (and currently many debates are decided by one or two votes), and the best way to do that is implementing an SSS requirement.

It is not a banning of any particular vote, but a type of vote. It's funny how much this is reminding me of the NAP debate.. I'll appropriate this common line from gun control advocates; why would someone need to vote for themselves unless they were planning on enacting an inordinate amount of bias? That is, voting for yourself is an action whose only function practically is bias, whereas other votes might also have facets stemming from logical thought about the issue, etc.

In terms of the "1 + 1" example, I think you are conflating bias in regard to content with variance in the form of communication; for instance if I were in a verbal debate with someone it would not seem reasonable to state "My opponent is subject to bias due to having an American accent" if the topic were abortion - because it has no bearing on the subject matter, only on the method by which they communicate their opinion. (It might, however, if the topic was "what is the best accent?")

Your analogy isn't sound. Your analogy implies that both people reach the same conclusion despite the accent. My 1+1 example implies that both people reach very different conclusions.

Their conclusions about the topic are not necessarily different, it is just that they aren't talking about the same topic. The guy who thinks 'one' means 'carrots' might indeed agree - although he'd phrase it differently - that a thing and another thing are (whatever his word for two) things. The problem in the debate therefore lies, not in bias in approaching the subject matter, but in communication, which is a separate issue.

Basically, your analogy implies that maybe someone saw "1" as "carrots" and another person saw "1" as a chopstick, yet both were able to conclude "1+1=2" in the mathematical sense. That's bias, but one that does not lead to any material differences in how they "vote" on a matter. That's very different from what I stated in the debate...in the debate, one person, due to significant bias, voted differently from everyone else. IMHO such a vote should still be seen as valid, even though currently people would scream "BIAS" and "VOTEBOMB!".

I disagree that the vote should be considered valid. A part of voting is understanding the language, comprehending the concepts involved etc. If we all had private languages and did not attempt to communicate in the same words there'd be no possibility for debate in the first place.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 7:12:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 5:35:56 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 1/22/2014 3:05:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
On statistical significance, that's the entire point of implementing a threshold on number of votes necessary to determine a victor - essentially, more coin tosses on one debate.

If your model of judging is correct, then you should be able to compute the number of votes need to achieve significance. Suppose A beats B by a wide margin, which is to say that A makes sound arguments and B does not respond to any of the arguments. How many votes will it take to achieve statistical significance?

Now suppose that the topic is so obscure that none of the judges can understand what is really going on. How many votes will be required to achieve statisitical significance?

Obscurity of the topic is irrelevant to achieving an SSS. The only relevance to achieving an SSS is whether or not the population of the sample is "representative" (http://en.wikipedia.org...). I want to note that the term "unbiased sample" from the wiki link is a semantics curveball here, because the way to achieve an "unbiased" sample is to have a sample that is representative of the opinions (i.e. bias) of the population.

For example, if we wanted to know whether or not the majority of the US approves of Obama, we could ask every single person in the US that question - that would be a "complete sample". This is typically extremely impractical, so instead we take "representative samples" to determine the opinion/bias the US population has on Obama. This representative sample tends to be much, much smaller than the complete sample, and would ostensibly account for the potential of having the sample being skewed in such a way as to no longer be representative. IMHO the debates we have here automatically account for such skewing, as both debaters can just bring in as many votes to their side as they can, and there would still be a pool of voters that neither debater knows that would vote for a debate. So, skewing wouldn't be a problem if we implement SSS.

To apply this to the Obama poll, it would be similar to polls that include Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, as opposed to just asking Republicans what they thought about Obama and extrapolating that to the rest of the US. Each and every debate here already has a "red side" and a "blue side" so there's no real need to be afraid of this kind of outcome.

So what number of votes will be used in practice for significance on a debate? Why?

First, I should probably clarify that I don't have a model yet. I'm only proposing the basic, skeletal structure of a model (the SSS), but I don't have an actual model as of yet.

Exactly how many votes would it take to achieve an SSS is very, very debatable. That would probably require getting statistics on how many active users on average use this website, and then pulling out a number that would meet the requisite size for a representative sample. Here's a link that goes into sample size determination (http://en.wikipedia.org...). I'm not a statistician, so exactly what the model should be is outside my realm of experience.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 7:35:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 7:04:25 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/22/2014 2:51:15 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/21/2014 7:14:30 AM, sdavio wrote:
I understand that bias is at some level unavoidable, but - and this reminds me again of our exchanges regarding violence - simply because there exist instances of bias which in passing are so small that avoiding them in every moment is unrealistic, this doesn't mean we should simply throw our hands in the air, declaring "life is bias" and give up altogether on avoiding it. Bias denotes some sort of irrational, undesirable or unfair prejudice; it's not the same thing as 'opinion' or 'position' as this seems to imply. Isn't it desirable to encourage voters to approach a debate with the most open minded disposition possible?

I agree with your reasoning which is why I advocate for the SSS, i.e. regulation on bias. Currently we have a ban on bias, which would be synonymous to banning violence. The current situation is even more unrealistic than what you are alluding to, IMHO.

If you take the judgment of "fair" out of your description of "bias", we would be in agreement on how the word is defined. So, my question for you would be "can you, or anyone else, determine what is "fair"? If you can't, then we shouldn't ban votes just because we consider them to be "unfair". Now, to a certain extent we can...right? If we have proof that someone is setting up multiple accounts to vote for their own side, that's clearly "unfair" and we take measures to stop such practices. But outside of something like that, it's IMHO extremely difficult to say whether or not one vote is "fair" or "unfair". So, IMHO the best remedy is to lessen the impact of one vote (and currently many debates are decided by one or two votes), and the best way to do that is implementing an SSS requirement.

It is not a banning of any particular vote, but a type of vote. It's funny how much this is reminding me of the NAP debate.. I'll appropriate this common line from gun control advocates; why would someone need to vote for themselves unless they were planning on enacting an inordinate amount of bias? That is, voting for yourself is an action whose only function practically is bias, whereas other votes might also have facets stemming from logical thought about the issue, etc.

Again, voting of any sort is the expression of bias. Why is one's own vote an "inordinate amount" of bias when one's own vote counts just as much as someone else's?

All logical thought and reason has bias too. At some level, "1+1=2" must be recognized as a biased statement. This becomes clearer once you begin to ask questions like "why does the equal sign consist of two horizontal lines?" According to the wiki:

"" to avoid the tedious repetition of these words: "is equal to", I will set (as I do often in work use) a pair of parallels, or Gemowe lines, of one length (thus =), because no two things can be more equal."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Why two parallel lines as opposed to two dots? Why horizontal and not vertical? Why impute this bias upon something that ostensibly should have no bias (i.e. mathematics)? It's because in the end, we are all biased...we all have our own subjectivity that we inject into everything.

In terms of the "1 + 1" example, I think you are conflating bias in regard to content with variance in the form of communication; for instance if I were in a verbal debate with someone it would not seem reasonable to state "My opponent is subject to bias due to having an American accent" if the topic were abortion - because it has no bearing on the subject matter, only on the method by which they communicate their opinion. (It might, however, if the topic was "what is the best accent?")

Your analogy isn't sound. Your analogy implies that both people reach the same conclusion despite the accent. My 1+1 example implies that both people reach very different conclusions.

Their conclusions about the topic are not necessarily different, it is just that they aren't talking about the same topic. The guy who thinks 'one' means 'carrots' might indeed agree - although he'd phrase it differently - that a thing and another thing are (whatever his word for two) things. The problem in the debate therefore lies, not in bias in approaching the subject matter, but in communication, which is a separate issue.

But see, they ARE talking about the same topic...the meaning of the expression "1+1=2". Their interpretations are different; that difference is attributed to bias. In the debate, the person who disagreed did not see the number "2" as representing two things...he saw it representing Satan.

My example is obviously exaggerated, lol, but there are some real life parallels, too. A lot of buildings in the West don't have 13th floors. In Asia, they don't have 4th floors (4 sounds like "death"). Bias.

When it comes to difficulty in communication, well, all debates involve communication, which many assume to involve the tools of English, math, etc. However, that is an assumption, isn't it? That's a bias towards English, math (as we symbolically express it today), etc...

Basically, your analogy implies that maybe someone saw "1" as "carrots" and another person saw "1" as a chopstick, yet both were able to conclude "1+1=2" in the mathematical sense. That's bias, but one that does not lead to any material differences in how they "vote" on a matter. That's very different from what I stated in the debate...in the debate, one person, due to significant bias, voted differently from everyone else. IMHO such a vote should still be seen as valid, even though currently people would scream "BIAS" and "VOTEBOMB!".

I disagree that the vote should be considered valid. A part of voting is understanding the language, comprehending the concepts involved etc. If we all had private languages and did not attempt to communicate in the same words there'd be no possibility for debate in the first place.

Can you say that we all have "same" conceptions of language? That's IMHO an extremely difficult thing to prove, and I would take the opposite position. One person more than likely conceptualizes "blue" very, very differently than another.

Furthermore, it's almost unquestionable that someone who is multi-lingual will see two words in different languages that mean the same thing in very, very different contexts. There's a massive amount of subjectivity there, and there's not much reason to think that just because we have things like "Hooked on Phonics" that we all somehow magically view the words in the English language in the same way.

An example of this is how I learned Korean. In Korean, there are two vowels - ~28; ~24;- that sound exactly the same (lol, take my word for it, it's not coming up properly). I don't know how Koreans learn the difference, but in our classes the way we learned the difference was "negative eleven, and "H"". That's an extremely fundamental bias that we as Americans inject to facilitate our own interpretation of the Korean written language. It colors our interpretation of just about every single aspect of Korean written script.

Then, there's poetic expression, poetic license, etc...all of this serves to color our interpretation of specific words.

Bottom line, bias is unavoidable.

---

At 1/22/2014 6:38:16 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/22/2014 3:19:01 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

I have read that debate, and I agree Cermank dropped or didn't attempt a moral justification. I feel I can defend violence being bad on a moral level, but I'm not sure how far you want to derail this thread..

I'd be willing to debate you on the resolution "Violence is Wrong" and I'd take CON.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 7:07:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Related to bias voters, I just read the most funny statement about such:
"Its not that I'm not winning the debates , Its just the voters are extremely biased or stupid ." -http://www.debate.org...
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...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 12:44:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 7:12:58 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Now suppose that the topic is so obscure that none of the judges can understand what is really going on. How many votes will be required to achieve statisitical significance?

Obscurity of the topic is irrelevant to achieving an SSS. The only relevance to achieving an SSS is whether or not the population of the sample is "representative" (http://en.wikipedia.org...). I want to note that the term "unbiased sample" from the wiki link is a semantics curveball here, because the way to achieve an "unbiased" sample is to have a sample that is representative of the opinions (i.e. bias) of the population.

Statistical significance depends upon the dispersion of the data, and the disersion of the data in turn depends upon the topic. What we are trying to determine is "Did A really win the debate over B, or was the win just chance?" If A gets all the votes we can answer that with many fewer votes than f the votes are nearly evenly split. also, if the topic attracts highly qualified voters, then fewer votes will required to achieve significance.

First, I should probably clarify that I don't have a model yet. I'm only proposing the basic, skeletal structure of a model (the SSS), but I don't have an actual model as of yet.

I have a degree in statistics and a lot of experience building statistical models. I like the idea of building a statistical model of voting behavior. I think it could be useful.

What I'm saying is that it is way more complicated than what you have outlined. Any model must agree with certain cases: if there were a perfect judge it would only take one vote; people are biased, but a sufficient number of good arguments will convince all but the most biased people -- at least for voting the debate; close debates and poor judging takes a lot more debates for a given confidence level; etc.

I think bias is important in voting, but many debate topics on DDO have about equal numbers of members on the two sides, some topics are things people have not thought about, and a very good case will sway many voters, not all, to vote against their bias on the debate.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 10:45:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 12:44:51 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 1/22/2014 7:12:58 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Now suppose that the topic is so obscure that none of the judges can understand what is really going on. How many votes will be required to achieve statisitical significance?

Obscurity of the topic is irrelevant to achieving an SSS. The only relevance to achieving an SSS is whether or not the population of the sample is "representative" (http://en.wikipedia.org...). I want to note that the term "unbiased sample" from the wiki link is a semantics curveball here, because the way to achieve an "unbiased" sample is to have a sample that is representative of the opinions (i.e. bias) of the population.

Statistical significance depends upon the dispersion of the data, and the disersion of the data in turn depends upon the topic. What we are trying to determine is "Did A really win the debate over B, or was the win just chance?" If A gets all the votes we can answer that with many fewer votes than f the votes are nearly evenly split. also, if the topic attracts highly qualified voters, then fewer votes will required to achieve significance.

I disagree with this. If the sample is too small, it could very well be (and most likely occurs often) that people just get a handful of friends to vote for them, thus leading to "unanimity".

First, I should probably clarify that I don't have a model yet. I'm only proposing the basic, skeletal structure of a model (the SSS), but I don't have an actual model as of yet.

I have a degree in statistics and a lot of experience building statistical models. I like the idea of building a statistical model of voting behavior. I think it could be useful.

What I'm saying is that it is way more complicated than what you have outlined. Any model must agree with certain cases: if there were a perfect judge it would only take one vote; people are biased, but a sufficient number of good arguments will convince all but the most biased people -- at least for voting the debate; close debates and poor judging takes a lot more debates for a given confidence level; etc.

1) Agree with your point about a perfect judge.

2) Agree it is much more complicated than how I am outlining it at the moment.

3) Agree it can be very useful if successfully implemented.

I think bias is important in voting, but many debate topics on DDO have about equal numbers of members on the two sides, some topics are things people have not thought about, and a very good case will sway many voters, not all, to vote against their bias on the debate.

This part again I almost fully disagree with. The winner for most debates here is determined by less than 5 votes. It's impossible to make any statement about how many people is on what side, and whether or not those who have been swayed are representative of anything.

I agree that a very good case will sway voters from a bias they held in the opposite direction.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 9:22:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 7:35:55 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Their conclusions about the topic are not necessarily different, it is just that they aren't talking about the same topic. The guy who thinks 'one' means 'carrots' might indeed agree - although he'd phrase it differently - that a thing and another thing are (whatever his word for two) things. The problem in the debate therefore lies, not in bias in approaching the subject matter, but in communication, which is a separate issue.

But see, they ARE talking about the same topic...the meaning of the expression "1+1=2". Their interpretations are different; that difference is attributed to bias. In the debate, the person who disagreed did not see the number "2" as representing two things...he saw it representing Satan.

My example is obviously exaggerated, lol, but there are some real life parallels, too. A lot of buildings in the West don't have 13th floors. In Asia, they don't have 4th floors (4 sounds like "death"). Bias.

When it comes to difficulty in communication, well, all debates involve communication, which many assume to involve the tools of English, math, etc. However, that is an assumption, isn't it? That's a bias towards English, math (as we symbolically express it today), etc...

A conscious being must take similar things and form them into concepts. The slight differences in manifestations of that concept (the letter 'A' in different fonts, etc,) do not make a difference to the concept itself. They are form, while the concept itself would be the content. In a debate, or even just a conversation, each player would have a 'projected meaning' and an 'intended meaning'. In your '1 + 1' example, both players would presumably agree on each others intended meaning, so the problem is with their form, not with the concepts which that form is trying to communicate.

For intended meaning (concepts) to be accurate, they should correspond (as closely as possible) to the pre-conceptualized parts of reality to which they point. For projected meaning (form) to be accurate, it should correspond to the concepts in the audience's mind. There is no 'bias' in form, because bias refers essentially to emotions clouding a person's relationship with reality. I'd look at form as more like a skill. For instance, if I cannot speak someone's language to communicate with them, we wouldn't say I was 'too biased', we would say if anything that I'm not skilled enough at that language to 'project my intended meaning'.

I disagree that the vote should be considered valid. A part of voting is understanding the language, comprehending the concepts involved etc. If we all had private languages and did not attempt to communicate in the same words there'd be no possibility for debate in the first place.

Can you say that we all have "same" conceptions of language? That's IMHO an extremely difficult thing to prove, and I would take the opposite position. One person more than likely conceptualizes "blue" very, very differently than another.

Example: Someone tells me "There's a blue chair in that room." I walk into the room, and there's indeed a blue chair. Through things like that, we can be confident there is at least some overlap in our understandings. The goal, in my mind, would be to maximize that overlap and thereby maximize the information which is communicated.

Furthermore, it's almost unquestionable that someone who is multi-lingual will see two words in different languages that mean the same thing in very, very different contexts. There's a massive amount of subjectivity there, and there's not much reason to think that just because we have things like "Hooked on Phonics" that we all somehow magically view the words in the English language in the same way.

An example of this is how I learned Korean. In Korean, there are two vowels - ~28; ~24;- that sound exactly the same (lol, take my word for it, it's not coming up properly). I don't know how Koreans learn the difference, but in our classes the way we learned the difference was "negative eleven, and "H"". That's an extremely fundamental bias that we as Americans inject to facilitate our own interpretation of the Korean written language. It colors our interpretation of just about every single aspect of Korean written script.

Then, there's poetic expression, poetic license, etc...all of this serves to color our interpretation of specific words.

Bottom line, bias is unavoidable.

I'll accept that it's unavoidable, but it's not the totality of communication. It's an undesirable aspect; which we should attempt to reduce as much as possible.

---

At 1/22/2014 6:38:16 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/22/2014 3:19:01 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

I have read that debate, and I agree Cermank dropped or didn't attempt a moral justification. I feel I can defend violence being bad on a moral level, but I'm not sure how far you want to derail this thread..

I'd be willing to debate you on the resolution "Violence is Wrong" and I'd take CON.

Sounds good!
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 10:35:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 9:22:14 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/22/2014 7:35:55 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Their conclusions about the topic are not necessarily different, it is just that they aren't talking about the same topic. The guy who thinks 'one' means 'carrots' might indeed agree - although he'd phrase it differently - that a thing and another thing are (whatever his word for two) things. The problem in the debate therefore lies, not in bias in approaching the subject matter, but in communication, which is a separate issue.

But see, they ARE talking about the same topic...the meaning of the expression "1+1=2". Their interpretations are different; that difference is attributed to bias. In the debate, the person who disagreed did not see the number "2" as representing two things...he saw it representing Satan.

My example is obviously exaggerated, lol, but there are some real life parallels, too. A lot of buildings in the West don't have 13th floors. In Asia, they don't have 4th floors (4 sounds like "death"). Bias.

When it comes to difficulty in communication, well, all debates involve communication, which many assume to involve the tools of English, math, etc. However, that is an assumption, isn't it? That's a bias towards English, math (as we symbolically express it today), etc...

A conscious being must take similar things and form them into concepts. The slight differences in manifestations of that concept (the letter 'A' in different fonts, etc,) do not make a difference to the concept itself.

No, but it may lead to a difference in interpretation of that concept. What if the letter "A" was larger than the letter "O" for some people? That may lead to a differing interpretation down the road.

They are form, while the concept itself would be the content. In a debate, or even just a conversation, each player would have a 'projected meaning' and an 'intended meaning'. In your '1 + 1' example, both players would presumably agree on each others intended meaning, so the problem is with their form, not with the concepts which that form is trying to communicate.

Here's the problem though. People interpret words differently...most debates do not concern themselves with mathematical equations where room for interpretation is extremely slight. There are innumerable instances where there could be a differing semantics interpretation that would lead two people who have the same grasp of the technicalities of the English language to come to starkly differing conclusions.

For intended meaning (concepts) to be accurate, they should correspond (as closely as possible) to the pre-conceptualized parts of reality to which they point. For projected meaning (form) to be accurate, it should correspond to the concepts in the audience's mind. There is no 'bias' in form, because bias refers essentially to emotions clouding a person's relationship with reality. I'd look at form as more like a skill. For instance, if I cannot speak someone's language to communicate with them, we wouldn't say I was 'too biased', we would say if anything that I'm not skilled enough at that language to 'project my intended meaning'.

I disagree with the underlined. Bias could simply be a result of subjective experiences that would allow two equally reasonable people to reach different conclusions. All perspectives are going to have a subjective element to them, so it is impossible for two people to conceive of "form" in the exact same manner.

On learning a language, we wouldn't say they are too biased...because it is painfully obvious that they are. =)

I disagree that the vote should be considered valid. A part of voting is understanding the language, comprehending the concepts involved etc. If we all had private languages and did not attempt to communicate in the same words there'd be no possibility for debate in the first place.

Can you say that we all have "same" conceptions of language? That's IMHO an extremely difficult thing to prove, and I would take the opposite position. One person more than likely conceptualizes "blue" very, very differently than another.

Example: Someone tells me "There's a blue chair in that room." I walk into the room, and there's indeed a blue chair. Through things like that, we can be confident there is at least some overlap in our understandings. The goal, in my mind, would be to maximize that overlap and thereby maximize the information which is communicated.

Counter-example: The color red. In China, the color red is what the color purple meant in ancient Rome - it symbolized the emperor and was seen as the color of royalty - most good luck charms are colored red. In America, we see red as blood, violence, hell, and communism. Same color, wholly different bias. Wholly different interpretation and wholly different conceptualization.

I guess it's harder to use blue as an example. =)

Bottom line, bias is unavoidable.

I'll accept that it's unavoidable, but it's not the totality of communication. It's an undesirable aspect; which we should attempt to reduce as much as possible.

And my point is that you cannot reduce it by banning it. The only way you can mitigate the effect of bias is by gathering as large or as representative a sample as possible...the amalgam of biases would then "drown out" the effects of any one person's bias.

This is similar to tossing a coin 10 times and getting heads each time. Without enough coin tosses, one might develop a bias of expecting a coin to land heads much more often than not. With enough coin tosses, this bias disappears.

---

At 1/22/2014 6:38:16 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/22/2014 3:19:01 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

I have read that debate, and I agree Cermank dropped or didn't attempt a moral justification. I feel I can defend violence being bad on a moral level, but I'm not sure how far you want to derail this thread..

I'd be willing to debate you on the resolution "Violence is Wrong" and I'd take CON.

Sounds good!

Ok...I have another debate going on about the "right to life is a negative right" and it's enough to take up too much of my attention. Maybe after that debate winds down...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
larztheloser
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 11:04:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
My biggest issue with this proposal has always been that it's unfair to new members who can't vote. I'm surprised this didn't come up in the debate. For the entire time that voting for yourself was allowed on DDO and I was a DDO member, I lost debates simply because they had the right to vote for themselves and I didn't (this was before the 3-debates rule was invented).
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2014 7:36:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 11:04:50 PM, larztheloser wrote:
My biggest issue with this proposal has always been that it's unfair to new members who can't vote. I'm surprised this didn't come up in the debate. For the entire time that voting for yourself was allowed on DDO and I was a DDO member, I lost debates simply because they had the right to vote for themselves and I didn't (this was before the 3-debates rule was invented).

Right...the SSS would ameliorate this concern too. Basically, even if you can't vote for yourself yet, that's not going to be catastrophic or even a mild concern, if it takes 20+ votes (or more) on your debate for it to even count.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
larztheloser
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2014 7:49:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/24/2014 7:36:56 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/23/2014 11:04:50 PM, larztheloser wrote:
My biggest issue with this proposal has always been that it's unfair to new members who can't vote. I'm surprised this didn't come up in the debate. For the entire time that voting for yourself was allowed on DDO and I was a DDO member, I lost debates simply because they had the right to vote for themselves and I didn't (this was before the 3-debates rule was invented).

Right...the SSS would ameliorate this concern too. Basically, even if you can't vote for yourself yet, that's not going to be catastrophic or even a mild concern, if it takes 20+ votes (or more) on your debate for it to even count.

Even with a large pool of votes, many good debates on this site have only a few points between them. If your proposal has any significant impact, then it's a bad thing to tie that to an excludable process. And if the impact of voting for yourself is always negligible (though I strongly doubt this would ALWAYS be the case), it doesn't overcome your stated problem.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2014 8:04:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/24/2014 7:49:23 AM, larztheloser wrote:
At 1/24/2014 7:36:56 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/23/2014 11:04:50 PM, larztheloser wrote:
My biggest issue with this proposal has always been that it's unfair to new members who can't vote. I'm surprised this didn't come up in the debate. For the entire time that voting for yourself was allowed on DDO and I was a DDO member, I lost debates simply because they had the right to vote for themselves and I didn't (this was before the 3-debates rule was invented).

Right...the SSS would ameliorate this concern too. Basically, even if you can't vote for yourself yet, that's not going to be catastrophic or even a mild concern, if it takes 20+ votes (or more) on your debate for it to even count.

Even with a large pool of votes, many good debates on this site have only a few points between them. If your proposal has any significant impact, then it's a bad thing to tie that to an excludable process. And if the impact of voting for yourself is always negligible (though I strongly doubt this would ALWAYS be the case), it doesn't overcome your stated problem.

On "good debates" I'll just simply say that people who talk about "good debates" (and a lot of people have brought this up) are talking about something that is wholly subjective, lol. What may seem "good" to someone may seem "terrible" to someone else. =)

If by "excludable process" you mean the inability for someone to vote, that's at most very temporary, since it only takes 3 debates to get voting privileges.

I don't understand what you mean by "overcome your stated problem".
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
larztheloser
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2014 3:22:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/24/2014 8:04:21 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/24/2014 7:49:23 AM, larztheloser wrote:
At 1/24/2014 7:36:56 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/23/2014 11:04:50 PM, larztheloser wrote:
My biggest issue with this proposal has always been that it's unfair to new members who can't vote. I'm surprised this didn't come up in the debate. For the entire time that voting for yourself was allowed on DDO and I was a DDO member, I lost debates simply because they had the right to vote for themselves and I didn't (this was before the 3-debates rule was invented).

Right...the SSS would ameliorate this concern too. Basically, even if you can't vote for yourself yet, that's not going to be catastrophic or even a mild concern, if it takes 20+ votes (or more) on your debate for it to even count.

Even with a large pool of votes, many good debates on this site have only a few points between them. If your proposal has any significant impact, then it's a bad thing to tie that to an excludable process. And if the impact of voting for yourself is always negligible (though I strongly doubt this would ALWAYS be the case), it doesn't overcome your stated problem.

On "good debates" I'll just simply say that people who talk about "good debates" (and a lot of people have brought this up) are talking about something that is wholly subjective, lol. What may seem "good" to someone may seem "terrible" to someone else. =)

If by "excludable process" you mean the inability for someone to vote, that's at most very temporary, since it only takes 3 debates to get voting privileges.

I don't understand what you mean by "overcome your stated problem".

Sorry I should have clarified. I meant debates with a good number of votes going either way. I'm not making an assessment of the quality of those debates.

A temporary problem is still a problem. If even a single debate would be awarded unfairly because of a system then the system is not worth supporting. What's more, a lot of new members who don't visit the forums (and I include my early DDO self in that) don't know about the 3 debates thing. I learned about it really late.

I thought the impetus for this change was to overcome bias? That's how you made it sound in the debate. Otherwise, why are you doing this?