Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Easy way to change voting for the better?!

kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 10:23:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hey, I have a simple idea that could make voting customizable to the debates themselves.

Currently,
grammar 1 point
conduct 1 point
sources 2 points
arguments 3 points

What if voters could remove 1 point from one category and add it to another? For example, sometimes someone wins sources, but sources are not very important for the debate. Simply remove one point from sources' weight and put it on arguments:

grammar 1
conduct 1
sources 1*
arguments 4*

Or, what if conduct is extremely important because someone is being very, very rude? Take one from arguments and put it on sources:

grammar 1
conduct 2*
sources 2
arguments 2*

By only changing one point, we can make it so that the basic structure is the same so it won't bee abused. At the same time, this change allows improved flexibility and more relevant, meaningful scoring for the voters!
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 10:25:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Very good idea... However, I doubt it is high on DDO's or Juggle's to-do list.
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 10:27:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 10:25:20 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
Very good idea... However, I doubt it is high on DDO's or Juggle's to-do list.

Much appreciated! By the way, you don't happen to know who should see this in order to make the change, do you?
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 10:29:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 10:27:14 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:25:20 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
Very good idea... However, I doubt it is high on DDO's or Juggle's to-do list.


Much appreciated! By the way, you don't happen to know who should see this in order to make the change, do you?

It's an interesting idea and I'll take a look at it and make the appropriate suggestion to Juggle once I've considered it. TUF is the membership president and is generally the proper person to go to with site updates/changes like these.
Debate.org Moderator
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 10:30:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 10:27:14 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:25:20 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
Very good idea... However, I doubt it is high on DDO's or Juggle's to-do list.


Much appreciated! By the way, you don't happen to know who should see this in order to make the change, do you?

TUF, the president, has constant communications with Juggle, or at least knows what they're doing. Of course, Airmax also has some communications with Juggle, so ask either one of them and you should get a response.
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 10:30:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 10:29:10 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:27:14 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:25:20 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
Very good idea... However, I doubt it is high on DDO's or Juggle's to-do list.


Much appreciated! By the way, you don't happen to know who should see this in order to make the change, do you?

It's an interesting idea and I'll take a look at it and make the appropriate suggestion to Juggle once I've considered it. TUF is the membership president and is generally the proper person to go to with site updates/changes like these.

Thanks, airmax!
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 10:34:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 10:29:10 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:27:14 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:25:20 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
Very good idea... However, I doubt it is high on DDO's or Juggle's to-do list.


Much appreciated! By the way, you don't happen to know who should see this in order to make the change, do you?

It's an interesting idea and I'll take a look at it and make the appropriate suggestion to Juggle once I've considered it. TUF is the membership president and is generally the proper person to go to with site updates/changes like these.

If you do mention this to Juggle, you may need to consider the fact that it could be used in un-obvious votebombing, as you can take away one point from something that con obviously won, and give it to something that pro only very slightly won:

Conduct: 1 (pro)
S&G: 1 (pro)
Sources: 1 (con) (Won by a great amount)
Arguments 4 (pro) (Won by a very small amount)

Anyhow, it is a great idea that should seriously be taken into consideration.
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 10:39:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 10:34:35 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:29:10 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:27:14 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:25:20 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
Very good idea... However, I doubt it is high on DDO's or Juggle's to-do list.


Much appreciated! By the way, you don't happen to know who should see this in order to make the change, do you?

It's an interesting idea and I'll take a look at it and make the appropriate suggestion to Juggle once I've considered it. TUF is the membership president and is generally the proper person to go to with site updates/changes like these.

If you do mention this to Juggle, you may need to consider the fact that it could be used in un-obvious votebombing, as you can take away one point from something that con obviously won, and give it to something that pro only very slightly won:

Conduct: 1 (pro)
S&G: 1 (pro)
Sources: 1 (con) (Won by a great amount)
Arguments 4 (pro) (Won by a very small amount)

Anyhow, it is a great idea that should seriously be taken into consideration.

Yeah I think there could be several issues with it, but it's a very interesting idea. I'd have to consider several aspects of it and potential problems, but I like the basic concept. I'd naturally have to consider it at length before I suggested it to Juggle, as I'm sure TUF will do similarly.

As I said, I like this idea, and it's something worth considering.
Debate.org Moderator
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 10:41:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 10:34:35 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:29:10 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:27:14 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:25:20 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
Very good idea... However, I doubt it is high on DDO's or Juggle's to-do list.


Much appreciated! By the way, you don't happen to know who should see this in order to make the change, do you?

It's an interesting idea and I'll take a look at it and make the appropriate suggestion to Juggle once I've considered it. TUF is the membership president and is generally the proper person to go to with site updates/changes like these.

If you do mention this to Juggle, you may need to consider the fact that it could be used in un-obvious votebombing, as you can take away one point from something that con obviously won, and give it to something that pro only very slightly won:

Conduct: 1 (pro)
S&G: 1 (pro)
Sources: 1 (con) (Won by a great amount)
Arguments 4 (pro) (Won by a very small amount)

Anyhow, it is a great idea that should seriously be taken into consideration.

Quite true. I share your concern. In my experience, I find that people who are bad voters tend to be able so simply vote badly. They wouldn't need to be subtle really; as long as they give a long RFD bad voters can vote pretty much anything. Still, definitely something to consider. Hopefully having only one vote change will help.

I think that the benefits for those who want to debate appropriately rather than inappropriately (which I hope is the majority of voters!) would be able to debate much more easily.
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 10:44:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 10:41:19 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:34:35 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:29:10 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:27:14 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:25:20 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
Very good idea... However, I doubt it is high on DDO's or Juggle's to-do list.


Much appreciated! By the way, you don't happen to know who should see this in order to make the change, do you?

It's an interesting idea and I'll take a look at it and make the appropriate suggestion to Juggle once I've considered it. TUF is the membership president and is generally the proper person to go to with site updates/changes like these.

If you do mention this to Juggle, you may need to consider the fact that it could be used in un-obvious votebombing, as you can take away one point from something that con obviously won, and give it to something that pro only very slightly won:

Conduct: 1 (pro)
S&G: 1 (pro)
Sources: 1 (con) (Won by a great amount)
Arguments 4 (pro) (Won by a very small amount)

Anyhow, it is a great idea that should seriously be taken into consideration.


Quite true. I share your concern. In my experience, I find that people who are bad voters tend to be able so simply vote badly. They wouldn't need to be subtle really; as long as they give a long RFD bad voters can vote pretty much anything. Still, definitely something to consider. Hopefully having only one vote change will help.

I think that the benefits for those who want to debate appropriately rather than inappropriately (which I hope is the majority of voters!) would be able to debate much more easily.

Perhaps we should have a requirement to meet so only good, permanent members can have the privilege.
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 10:48:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 10:44:17 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:41:19 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:34:35 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:29:10 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:27:14 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:25:20 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
Very good idea... However, I doubt it is high on DDO's or Juggle's to-do list.


Much appreciated! By the way, you don't happen to know who should see this in order to make the change, do you?

It's an interesting idea and I'll take a look at it and make the appropriate suggestion to Juggle once I've considered it. TUF is the membership president and is generally the proper person to go to with site updates/changes like these.

If you do mention this to Juggle, you may need to consider the fact that it could be used in un-obvious votebombing, as you can take away one point from something that con obviously won, and give it to something that pro only very slightly won:

Conduct: 1 (pro)
S&G: 1 (pro)
Sources: 1 (con) (Won by a great amount)
Arguments 4 (pro) (Won by a very small amount)

Anyhow, it is a great idea that should seriously be taken into consideration.


Quite true. I share your concern. In my experience, I find that people who are bad voters tend to be able so simply vote badly. They wouldn't need to be subtle really; as long as they give a long RFD bad voters can vote pretty much anything. Still, definitely something to consider. Hopefully having only one vote change will help.

I think that the benefits for those who want to debate appropriately rather than inappropriately (which I hope is the majority of voters!) would be able to debate much more easily.

Perhaps we should have a requirement to meet so only good, permanent members can have the privilege.

I'm not sure how we could ever determine that someone was a "permanent" members. And there already is a standard that is pretty decent. Having to do 3 debates and verify the account works pretty well. It's obviously not perfect (and the amount of time I spend on it is good evidence) but if we make it even more strict we run the risk of shrinking the voting pool. There's a fine balance here that isn't easily resolved.
Debate.org Moderator
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 10:55:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 10:48:42 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:44:17 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:41:19 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:34:35 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:29:10 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:27:14 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:25:20 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
Very good idea... However, I doubt it is high on DDO's or Juggle's to-do list.


Much appreciated! By the way, you don't happen to know who should see this in order to make the change, do you?

It's an interesting idea and I'll take a look at it and make the appropriate suggestion to Juggle once I've considered it. TUF is the membership president and is generally the proper person to go to with site updates/changes like these.

If you do mention this to Juggle, you may need to consider the fact that it could be used in un-obvious votebombing, as you can take away one point from something that con obviously won, and give it to something that pro only very slightly won:

Conduct: 1 (pro)
S&G: 1 (pro)
Sources: 1 (con) (Won by a great amount)
Arguments 4 (pro) (Won by a very small amount)

Anyhow, it is a great idea that should seriously be taken into consideration.


Quite true. I share your concern. In my experience, I find that people who are bad voters tend to be able so simply vote badly. They wouldn't need to be subtle really; as long as they give a long RFD bad voters can vote pretty much anything. Still, definitely something to consider. Hopefully having only one vote change will help.

I think that the benefits for those who want to debate appropriately rather than inappropriately (which I hope is the majority of voters!) would be able to debate much more easily.

Perhaps we should have a requirement to meet so only good, permanent members can have the privilege.

I'm not sure how we could ever determine that someone was a "permanent" members. And there already is a standard that is pretty decent. Having to do 3 debates and verify the account works pretty well. It's obviously not perfect (and the amount of time I spend on it is good evidence) but if we make it even more strict we run the risk of shrinking the voting pool. There's a fine balance here that isn't easily resolved.

Wrong wording, I meant something like "long-time" member or "active" member. The requirement would have to be right in the middle, not too harsh and not too weak. Don't know if we could ever find that, though. I'm thinking 10 debates, but from the past, I can already tell that's too harsh.
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 10:59:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 10:48:42 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:44:17 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:41:19 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:34:35 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:29:10 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:27:14 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:25:20 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
Very good idea... However, I doubt it is high on DDO's or Juggle's to-do list.


Much appreciated! By the way, you don't happen to know who should see this in order to make the change, do you?

It's an interesting idea and I'll take a look at it and make the appropriate suggestion to Juggle once I've considered it. TUF is the membership president and is generally the proper person to go to with site updates/changes like these.

If you do mention this to Juggle, you may need to consider the fact that it could be used in un-obvious votebombing, as you can take away one point from something that con obviously won, and give it to something that pro only very slightly won:

Conduct: 1 (pro)
S&G: 1 (pro)
Sources: 1 (con) (Won by a great amount)
Arguments 4 (pro) (Won by a very small amount)

Anyhow, it is a great idea that should seriously be taken into consideration.


Quite true. I share your concern. In my experience, I find that people who are bad voters tend to be able so simply vote badly. They wouldn't need to be subtle really; as long as they give a long RFD bad voters can vote pretty much anything. Still, definitely something to consider. Hopefully having only one vote change will help.

I think that the benefits for those who want to debate appropriately rather than inappropriately (which I hope is the majority of voters!) would be able to debate much more easily.

Perhaps we should have a requirement to meet so only good, permanent members can have the privilege.

I'm not sure how we could ever determine that someone was a "permanent" members. And there already is a standard that is pretty decent. Having to do 3 debates and verify the account works pretty well. It's obviously not perfect (and the amount of time I spend on it is good evidence) but if we make it even more strict we run the risk of shrinking the voting pool. There's a fine balance here that isn't easily resolved.

I agree with airmax on that point. I do think though that only changing one vote would minimize the potential negative impact. Even if someone was deliberately being a bad voter, this has only the potential to have a net change of two points (which could be changed by bad voters anyway). The potential gains though would be enormous. Anyway, I'm glad ya'll are taking this seriously. I honestly thought of this day one on DDO, and have been wanting to bring it up since.

In real life debates there are often frameworks for how a debate should be weighted, but it is rarely followed strictly, but instead allows some flexibility for application. I think this small change would allow suture across the advantages of reasonable flexibility while keeping the structure of the DDO debate that we've grown to love essentially intact.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 10:59:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 10:55:40 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:48:42 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:44:17 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:41:19 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:34:35 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:29:10 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:27:14 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:25:20 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
Very good idea... However, I doubt it is high on DDO's or Juggle's to-do list.


Much appreciated! By the way, you don't happen to know who should see this in order to make the change, do you?

It's an interesting idea and I'll take a look at it and make the appropriate suggestion to Juggle once I've considered it. TUF is the membership president and is generally the proper person to go to with site updates/changes like these.

If you do mention this to Juggle, you may need to consider the fact that it could be used in un-obvious votebombing, as you can take away one point from something that con obviously won, and give it to something that pro only very slightly won:

Conduct: 1 (pro)
S&G: 1 (pro)
Sources: 1 (con) (Won by a great amount)
Arguments 4 (pro) (Won by a very small amount)

Anyhow, it is a great idea that should seriously be taken into consideration.


Quite true. I share your concern. In my experience, I find that people who are bad voters tend to be able so simply vote badly. They wouldn't need to be subtle really; as long as they give a long RFD bad voters can vote pretty much anything. Still, definitely something to consider. Hopefully having only one vote change will help.

I think that the benefits for those who want to debate appropriately rather than inappropriately (which I hope is the majority of voters!) would be able to debate much more easily.

Perhaps we should have a requirement to meet so only good, permanent members can have the privilege.

I'm not sure how we could ever determine that someone was a "permanent" members. And there already is a standard that is pretty decent. Having to do 3 debates and verify the account works pretty well. It's obviously not perfect (and the amount of time I spend on it is good evidence) but if we make it even more strict we run the risk of shrinking the voting pool. There's a fine balance here that isn't easily resolved.

Wrong wording, I meant something like "long-time" member or "active" member. The requirement would have to be right in the middle, not too harsh and not too weak. Don't know if we could ever find that, though. I'm thinking 10 debates, but from the past, I can already tell that's too harsh.

I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment because the idea is having a voter familiar enough with the sites and especially voting conventions. However, I think that by making it 10 debates, we would be shrinking the voting pool too much.

As I said, and I do believe you recognize, there is a fine balance here in wanting to encourage as much voting as possible, but also wanting those votes to be of a respectable quality. While I think having a minimum of 10 debates may make those voters more aware of proper voting, it does risk shrinking the amount of voters available. It would also greatly increase the amount of spammy debate members do just to reach that threshold.
Debate.org Moderator
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 11:03:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 10:59:56 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:55:40 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:48:42 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:44:17 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:41:19 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:34:35 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:29:10 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:27:14 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:25:20 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
Very good idea... However, I doubt it is high on DDO's or Juggle's to-do list.


Much appreciated! By the way, you don't happen to know who should see this in order to make the change, do you?

It's an interesting idea and I'll take a look at it and make the appropriate suggestion to Juggle once I've considered it. TUF is the membership president and is generally the proper person to go to with site updates/changes like these.

If you do mention this to Juggle, you may need to consider the fact that it could be used in un-obvious votebombing, as you can take away one point from something that con obviously won, and give it to something that pro only very slightly won:

Conduct: 1 (pro)
S&G: 1 (pro)
Sources: 1 (con) (Won by a great amount)
Arguments 4 (pro) (Won by a very small amount)

Anyhow, it is a great idea that should seriously be taken into consideration.


Quite true. I share your concern. In my experience, I find that people who are bad voters tend to be able so simply vote badly. They wouldn't need to be subtle really; as long as they give a long RFD bad voters can vote pretty much anything. Still, definitely something to consider. Hopefully having only one vote change will help.

I think that the benefits for those who want to debate appropriately rather than inappropriately (which I hope is the majority of voters!) would be able to debate much more easily.

Perhaps we should have a requirement to meet so only good, permanent members can have the privilege.

I'm not sure how we could ever determine that someone was a "permanent" members. And there already is a standard that is pretty decent. Having to do 3 debates and verify the account works pretty well. It's obviously not perfect (and the amount of time I spend on it is good evidence) but if we make it even more strict we run the risk of shrinking the voting pool. There's a fine balance here that isn't easily resolved.

Wrong wording, I meant something like "long-time" member or "active" member. The requirement would have to be right in the middle, not too harsh and not too weak. Don't know if we could ever find that, though. I'm thinking 10 debates, but from the past, I can already tell that's too harsh.

I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment because the idea is having a voter familiar enough with the sites and especially voting conventions. However, I think that by making it 10 debates, we would be shrinking the voting pool too much.

As I said, and I do believe you recognize, there is a fine balance here in wanting to encourage as much voting as possible, but also wanting those votes to be of a respectable quality. While I think having a minimum of 10 debates may make those voters more aware of proper voting, it does risk shrinking the amount of voters available. It would also greatly increase the amount of spammy debate members do just to reach that threshold.

I think we commented at the same time. Did you catch my reply?
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 11:04:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 10:59:56 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:55:40 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:48:42 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:44:17 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:41:19 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:34:35 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:29:10 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:27:14 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:25:20 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
Very good idea... However, I doubt it is high on DDO's or Juggle's to-do list.


Much appreciated! By the way, you don't happen to know who should see this in order to make the change, do you?

It's an interesting idea and I'll take a look at it and make the appropriate suggestion to Juggle once I've considered it. TUF is the membership president and is generally the proper person to go to with site updates/changes like these.

If you do mention this to Juggle, you may need to consider the fact that it could be used in un-obvious votebombing, as you can take away one point from something that con obviously won, and give it to something that pro only very slightly won:

Conduct: 1 (pro)
S&G: 1 (pro)
Sources: 1 (con) (Won by a great amount)
Arguments 4 (pro) (Won by a very small amount)

Anyhow, it is a great idea that should seriously be taken into consideration.


Quite true. I share your concern. In my experience, I find that people who are bad voters tend to be able so simply vote badly. They wouldn't need to be subtle really; as long as they give a long RFD bad voters can vote pretty much anything. Still, definitely something to consider. Hopefully having only one vote change will help.

I think that the benefits for those who want to debate appropriately rather than inappropriately (which I hope is the majority of voters!) would be able to debate much more easily.

Perhaps we should have a requirement to meet so only good, permanent members can have the privilege.

I'm not sure how we could ever determine that someone was a "permanent" members. And there already is a standard that is pretty decent. Having to do 3 debates and verify the account works pretty well. It's obviously not perfect (and the amount of time I spend on it is good evidence) but if we make it even more strict we run the risk of shrinking the voting pool. There's a fine balance here that isn't easily resolved.

Wrong wording, I meant something like "long-time" member or "active" member. The requirement would have to be right in the middle, not too harsh and not too weak. Don't know if we could ever find that, though. I'm thinking 10 debates, but from the past, I can already tell that's too harsh.

I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment because the idea is having a voter familiar enough with the sites and especially voting conventions. However, I think that by making it 10 debates, we would be shrinking the voting pool too much.

As I said, and I do believe you recognize, there is a fine balance here in wanting to encourage as much voting as possible, but also wanting those votes to be of a respectable quality. While I think having a minimum of 10 debates may make those voters more aware of proper voting, it does risk shrinking the amount of voters available. It would also greatly increase the amount of spammy debate members do just to reach that threshold.

True. I'm gonna let you take it from here.
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 11:04:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 11:03:39 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:59:56 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:55:40 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:48:42 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:44:17 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:41:19 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:34:35 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:29:10 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:27:14 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:25:20 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
Very good idea... However, I doubt it is high on DDO's or Juggle's to-do list.


Much appreciated! By the way, you don't happen to know who should see this in order to make the change, do you?

It's an interesting idea and I'll take a look at it and make the appropriate suggestion to Juggle once I've considered it. TUF is the membership president and is generally the proper person to go to with site updates/changes like these.

If you do mention this to Juggle, you may need to consider the fact that it could be used in un-obvious votebombing, as you can take away one point from something that con obviously won, and give it to something that pro only very slightly won:

Conduct: 1 (pro)
S&G: 1 (pro)
Sources: 1 (con) (Won by a great amount)
Arguments 4 (pro) (Won by a very small amount)

Anyhow, it is a great idea that should seriously be taken into consideration.


Quite true. I share your concern. In my experience, I find that people who are bad voters tend to be able so simply vote badly. They wouldn't need to be subtle really; as long as they give a long RFD bad voters can vote pretty much anything. Still, definitely something to consider. Hopefully having only one vote change will help.

I think that the benefits for those who want to debate appropriately rather than inappropriately (which I hope is the majority of voters!) would be able to debate much more easily.

Perhaps we should have a requirement to meet so only good, permanent members can have the privilege.

I'm not sure how we could ever determine that someone was a "permanent" members. And there already is a standard that is pretty decent. Having to do 3 debates and verify the account works pretty well. It's obviously not perfect (and the amount of time I spend on it is good evidence) but if we make it even more strict we run the risk of shrinking the voting pool. There's a fine balance here that isn't easily resolved.

Wrong wording, I meant something like "long-time" member or "active" member. The requirement would have to be right in the middle, not too harsh and not too weak. Don't know if we could ever find that, though. I'm thinking 10 debates, but from the past, I can already tell that's too harsh.

I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment because the idea is having a voter familiar enough with the sites and especially voting conventions. However, I think that by making it 10 debates, we would be shrinking the voting pool too much.

As I said, and I do believe you recognize, there is a fine balance here in wanting to encourage as much voting as possible, but also wanting those votes to be of a respectable quality. While I think having a minimum of 10 debates may make those voters more aware of proper voting, it does risk shrinking the amount of voters available. It would also greatly increase the amount of spammy debate members do just to reach that threshold.


I think we commented at the same time. Did you catch my reply?

I did. I'll reply to that in a moment.
Debate.org Moderator
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 11:09:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 10:59:45 PM, kbub wrote:
Perhaps we should have a requirement to meet so only good, permanent members can have the privilege.

I'm not sure how we could ever determine that someone was a "permanent" members. And there already is a standard that is pretty decent. Having to do 3 debates and verify the account works pretty well. It's obviously not perfect (and the amount of time I spend on it is good evidence) but if we make it even more strict we run the risk of shrinking the voting pool. There's a fine balance here that isn't easily resolved.

I agree with airmax on that point. I do think though that only changing one vote would minimize the potential negative impact. Even if someone was deliberately being a bad voter, this has only the potential to have a net change of two points (which could be changed by bad voters anyway). The potential gains though would be enormous. Anyway, I'm glad ya'll are taking this seriously. I honestly thought of this day one on DDO, and have been wanting to bring it up since.

I generally agree with this, and I think that for the most part the effect of bad voters has been greatly minimized from the way it was a year ago. Today our focus should be on making voting accessible and understandable, while also making it the fairest system possible. I think in many ways your suggestion does add this fairness.

In real life debates there are often frameworks for how a debate should be weighted, but it is rarely followed strictly, but instead allows some flexibility for application. I think this small change would allow suture across the advantages of reasonable flexibility while keeping the structure of the DDO debate that we've grown to love essentially intact.

I agree with this. I think that's the benefit of this system and why it's something worth considering.
Debate.org Moderator
Josh_b
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 11:39:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 10:23:13 PM, kbub wrote:
Hey, I have a simple idea that could make voting customizable to the debates themselves.

Currently,
grammar 1 point
conduct 1 point
sources 2 points
arguments 3 points

What if voters could remove 1 point from one category and add it to another? For example, sometimes someone wins sources, but sources are not very important for the debate. Simply remove one point from sources' weight and put it on arguments:

grammar 1
conduct 1
sources 1*
arguments 4*

Or, what if conduct is extremely important because someone is being very, very rude? Take one from arguments and put it on sources:

grammar 1
conduct 2*
sources 2
arguments 2*

By only changing one point, we can make it so that the basic structure is the same so it won't bee abused. At the same time, this change allows improved flexibility and more relevant, meaningful scoring for the voters!

I don't think I like it. Right now the votes are static and I do agree that sometimes that can be a problem, and I hate having to justify every point given. changing the voting structure from a static point count would not only require new site coding, but it would also complicate the justifications for voting to include specific points awarded.

I have thought at times that a 5 pt scale would beneficial. Up to two points could be given in each category. On one hand it would make the debates more complex and debaters would have fight for every single point. On the other hand it would be too complex to argue proper justification for giving a side only one point instead of two.

Ultimately, leave the voting system the way it is. ELO is definitely attached to the number of points you get in debates. Not just the number of wins you get from debates. The verbal justification is the most important part of the feedback. Even if I get a losing vote, more information is given in the verbal section than any point system can convey(if the voter is giving proper justifications, which is hard enough to do as it is.)
Scrutiny Welcome

AMAA http://www.debate.org...
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 11:41:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 11:39:20 PM, Josh_b wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:23:13 PM, kbub wrote:
Hey, I have a simple idea that could make voting customizable to the debates themselves.

Currently,
grammar 1 point
conduct 1 point
sources 2 points
arguments 3 points

What if voters could remove 1 point from one category and add it to another? For example, sometimes someone wins sources, but sources are not very important for the debate. Simply remove one point from sources' weight and put it on arguments:

grammar 1
conduct 1
sources 1*
arguments 4*

Or, what if conduct is extremely important because someone is being very, very rude? Take one from arguments and put it on sources:

grammar 1
conduct 2*
sources 2
arguments 2*

By only changing one point, we can make it so that the basic structure is the same so it won't bee abused. At the same time, this change allows improved flexibility and more relevant, meaningful scoring for the voters!

I don't think I like it. Right now the votes are static and I do agree that sometimes that can be a problem, and I hate having to justify every point given. changing the voting structure from a static point count would not only require new site coding, but it would also complicate the justifications for voting to include specific points awarded.

I have thought at times that a 5 pt scale would beneficial. Up to two points could be given in each category. On one hand it would make the debates more complex and debaters would have fight for every single point. On the other hand it would be too complex to argue proper justification for giving a side only one point instead of two.

Ultimately, leave the voting system the way it is. ELO is definitely attached to the number of points you get in debates. Not just the number of wins you get from debates. The verbal justification is the most important part of the feedback. Even if I get a losing vote, more information is given in the verbal section than any point system can convey(if the voter is giving proper justifications, which is hard enough to do as it is.)

I see, good point. What about just changing 1 point? The rest would be static still.
Josh_b
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 11:44:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 10:59:56 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:55:40 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:48:42 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:44:17 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:41:19 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:34:35 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:29:10 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:27:14 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:25:20 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
Very good idea... However, I doubt it is high on DDO's or Juggle's to-do list.


Much appreciated! By the way, you don't happen to know who should see this in order to make the change, do you?

It's an interesting idea and I'll take a look at it and make the appropriate suggestion to Juggle once I've considered it. TUF is the membership president and is generally the proper person to go to with site updates/changes like these.

If you do mention this to Juggle, you may need to consider the fact that it could be used in un-obvious votebombing, as you can take away one point from something that con obviously won, and give it to something that pro only very slightly won:

Conduct: 1 (pro)
S&G: 1 (pro)
Sources: 1 (con) (Won by a great amount)
Arguments 4 (pro) (Won by a very small amount)

Anyhow, it is a great idea that should seriously be taken into consideration.


Quite true. I share your concern. In my experience, I find that people who are bad voters tend to be able so simply vote badly. They wouldn't need to be subtle really; as long as they give a long RFD bad voters can vote pretty much anything. Still, definitely something to consider. Hopefully having only one vote change will help.

I think that the benefits for those who want to debate appropriately rather than inappropriately (which I hope is the majority of voters!) would be able to debate much more easily.

Perhaps we should have a requirement to meet so only good, permanent members can have the privilege.

I'm not sure how we could ever determine that someone was a "permanent" members. And there already is a standard that is pretty decent. Having to do 3 debates and verify the account works pretty well. It's obviously not perfect (and the amount of time I spend on it is good evidence) but if we make it even more strict we run the risk of shrinking the voting pool. There's a fine balance here that isn't easily resolved.

Wrong wording, I meant something like "long-time" member or "active" member. The requirement would have to be right in the middle, not too harsh and not too weak. Don't know if we could ever find that, though. I'm thinking 10 debates, but from the past, I can already tell that's too harsh.

I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment because the idea is having a voter familiar enough with the sites and especially voting conventions. However, I think that by making it 10 debates, we would be shrinking the voting pool too much.

As I said, and I do believe you recognize, there is a fine balance here in wanting to encourage as much voting as possible, but also wanting those votes to be of a respectable quality. While I think having a minimum of 10 debates may make those voters more aware of proper voting, it does risk shrinking the amount of voters available. It would also greatly increase the amount of spammy debate members do just to reach that threshold.

I would like to know if people really think that giving a justification for voting in any way relates to a person's ability to debate, or participate on the site. Except for forced content generation, I don't understand why there are any voting restrictions on the new people who sign up.
Scrutiny Welcome

AMAA http://www.debate.org...
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 11:50:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 11:44:17 PM, Josh_b wrote:
As I said, and I do believe you recognize, there is a fine balance here in wanting to encourage as much voting as possible, but also wanting those votes to be of a respectable quality. While I think having a minimum of 10 debates may make those voters more aware of proper voting, it does risk shrinking the amount of voters available. It would also greatly increase the amount of spammy debate members do just to reach that threshold.

I would like to know if people really think that giving a justification for voting in any way relates to a person's ability to debate, or participate on the site. Except for forced content generation, I don't understand why there are any voting restrictions on the new people who sign up.

The best way we can be sure that voters are voting fairly, and not just voting ideologically or lazily, is to insist that they are providing proper RFDs explaining every point that they award.

A lot of members just want to come to the site and start voting for "their side". By restricting voting to members who have done 3 debates we force them to become somewhat familiarized with the site and the voting process itself.

I wouldn't say that a votes justification has anything to do with that voters ability to debate, all it points to is their ability to vote fairly, or at least not specifically ideologically or lazily. Though this might be the case anyways, but forcing them to explain their vote makes it inherently not lazy, and it makes it more difficult for it to be ideological.

Vote RFDs have nothing to do with site content generation, and everything to do with the fairness of the voting system. It's not a system that is very demanding either, "Explain every point that you award". New members often have a hard time understand this, and just want to vote 7 points to the side that the agree with. Again, by forcing a member to familiarize themselves with the site by finishing 3 debates, these incidents are reduced.
Debate.org Moderator
Josh_b
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 12:12:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 11:41:05 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/26/2014 11:39:20 PM, Josh_b wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:23:13 PM, kbub wrote:
Hey, I have a simple idea that could make voting customizable to the debates themselves.

Currently,
grammar 1 point
conduct 1 point
sources 2 points
arguments 3 points

What if voters could remove 1 point from one category and add it to another? For example, sometimes someone wins sources, but sources are not very important for the debate. Simply remove one point from sources' weight and put it on arguments:

grammar 1
conduct 1
sources 1*
arguments 4*

Or, what if conduct is extremely important because someone is being very, very rude? Take one from arguments and put it on sources:

grammar 1
conduct 2*
sources 2
arguments 2*

By only changing one point, we can make it so that the basic structure is the same so it won't bee abused. At the same time, this change allows improved flexibility and more relevant, meaningful scoring for the voters!

I don't think I like it. Right now the votes are static and I do agree that sometimes that can be a problem, and I hate having to justify every point given. changing the voting structure from a static point count would not only require new site coding, but it would also complicate the justifications for voting to include specific points awarded.

I have thought at times that a 5 pt scale would beneficial. Up to two points could be given in each category. On one hand it would make the debates more complex and debaters would have fight for every single point. On the other hand it would be too complex to argue proper justification for giving a side only one point instead of two.

Ultimately, leave the voting system the way it is. ELO is definitely attached to the number of points you get in debates. Not just the number of wins you get from debates. The verbal justification is the most important part of the feedback. Even if I get a losing vote, more information is given in the verbal section than any point system can convey(if the voter is giving proper justifications, which is hard enough to do as it is.)


I see, good point. What about just changing 1 point? The rest would be static still.

Bringing the change forward would still take some very strong introspective suggestions on how people vote, or believe they vote based on the current system. I seriously think that the voting system is already complicated and that the three debate rule does nothing to encourage proper voting. I don't think proper voting is properly addressed for new users. My initial votes were rejected even after I met the debate rule and I got information from Airmax, Ore-ele, and janet sanders concerning ways I could do it better. I think a training system on proper voting and justification would be a better way to solve the issue rather than changing the system that is currently in place. --Devil's Advocate.
Scrutiny Welcome

AMAA http://www.debate.org...
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 12:45:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 12:12:23 AM, Josh_b wrote:
At 1/26/2014 11:41:05 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/26/2014 11:39:20 PM, Josh_b wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:23:13 PM, kbub wrote:
Hey, I have a simple idea that could make voting customizable to the debates themselves.

Currently,
grammar 1 point
conduct 1 point
sources 2 points
arguments 3 points

What if voters could remove 1 point from one category and add it to another? For example, sometimes someone wins sources, but sources are not very important for the debate. Simply remove one point from sources' weight and put it on arguments:

grammar 1
conduct 1
sources 1*
arguments 4*

Or, what if conduct is extremely important because someone is being very, very rude? Take one from arguments and put it on sources:

grammar 1
conduct 2*
sources 2
arguments 2*

By only changing one point, we can make it so that the basic structure is the same so it won't bee abused. At the same time, this change allows improved flexibility and more relevant, meaningful scoring for the voters!

I don't think I like it. Right now the votes are static and I do agree that sometimes that can be a problem, and I hate having to justify every point given. changing the voting structure from a static point count would not only require new site coding, but it would also complicate the justifications for voting to include specific points awarded.

I have thought at times that a 5 pt scale would beneficial. Up to two points could be given in each category. On one hand it would make the debates more complex and debaters would have fight for every single point. On the other hand it would be too complex to argue proper justification for giving a side only one point instead of two.

Ultimately, leave the voting system the way it is. ELO is definitely attached to the number of points you get in debates. Not just the number of wins you get from debates. The verbal justification is the most important part of the feedback. Even if I get a losing vote, more information is given in the verbal section than any point system can convey(if the voter is giving proper justifications, which is hard enough to do as it is.)


I see, good point. What about just changing 1 point? The rest would be static still.

Bringing the change forward would still take some very strong introspective suggestions on how people vote, or believe they vote based on the current system. I seriously think that the voting system is already complicated and that the three debate rule does nothing to encourage proper voting. I don't think proper voting is properly addressed for new users. My initial votes were rejected even after I met the debate rule and I got information from Airmax, Ore-ele, and janet sanders concerning ways I could do it better. I think a training system on proper voting and justification would be a better way to solve the issue rather than changing the system that is currently in place. --Devil's Advocate.

That's understandable. We'll definitely have to look into it. Maybe we should do both?
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 1:02:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 12:12:23 AM, Josh_b wrote:
At 1/26/2014 11:41:05 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/26/2014 11:39:20 PM, Josh_b wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:23:13 PM, kbub wrote:
Hey, I have a simple idea that could make voting customizable to the debates themselves.

Currently,
grammar 1 point
conduct 1 point
sources 2 points
arguments 3 points

What if voters could remove 1 point from one category and add it to another? For example, sometimes someone wins sources, but sources are not very important for the debate. Simply remove one point from sources' weight and put it on arguments:

grammar 1
conduct 1
sources 1*
arguments 4*

Or, what if conduct is extremely important because someone is being very, very rude? Take one from arguments and put it on sources:

grammar 1
conduct 2*
sources 2
arguments 2*

By only changing one point, we can make it so that the basic structure is the same so it won't bee abused. At the same time, this change allows improved flexibility and more relevant, meaningful scoring for the voters!

I don't think I like it. Right now the votes are static and I do agree that sometimes that can be a problem, and I hate having to justify every point given. changing the voting structure from a static point count would not only require new site coding, but it would also complicate the justifications for voting to include specific points awarded.

I have thought at times that a 5 pt scale would beneficial. Up to two points could be given in each category. On one hand it would make the debates more complex and debaters would have fight for every single point. On the other hand it would be too complex to argue proper justification for giving a side only one point instead of two.

Ultimately, leave the voting system the way it is. ELO is definitely attached to the number of points you get in debates. Not just the number of wins you get from debates. The verbal justification is the most important part of the feedback. Even if I get a losing vote, more information is given in the verbal section than any point system can convey(if the voter is giving proper justifications, which is hard enough to do as it is.)


I see, good point. What about just changing 1 point? The rest would be static still.

Bringing the change forward would still take some very strong introspective suggestions on how people vote, or believe they vote based on the current system. I seriously think that the voting system is already complicated and that the three debate rule does nothing to encourage proper voting. I don't think proper voting is properly addressed for new users. My initial votes were rejected even after I met the debate rule and I got information from Airmax, Ore-ele, and janet sanders concerning ways I could do it better. I think a training system on proper voting and justification would be a better way to solve the issue rather than changing the system that is currently in place. --Devil's Advocate.

I happen to agree with this for the most part, and a method for properly explaining voting will be in place long before any significant changes are made to the voting system.
Debate.org Moderator
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 8:04:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 1:02:40 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 1/27/2014 12:12:23 AM, Josh_b wrote:
At 1/26/2014 11:41:05 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/26/2014 11:39:20 PM, Josh_b wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:23:13 PM, kbub wrote:
Hey, I have a simple idea that could make voting customizable to the debates themselves.

Currently,
grammar 1 point
conduct 1 point
sources 2 points
arguments 3 points

What if voters could remove 1 point from one category and add it to another? For example, sometimes someone wins sources, but sources are not very important for the debate. Simply remove one point from sources' weight and put it on arguments:

grammar 1
conduct 1
sources 1*
arguments 4*

Or, what if conduct is extremely important because someone is being very, very rude? Take one from arguments and put it on sources:

grammar 1
conduct 2*
sources 2
arguments 2*

By only changing one point, we can make it so that the basic structure is the same so it won't bee abused. At the same time, this change allows improved flexibility and more relevant, meaningful scoring for the voters!

I don't think I like it. Right now the votes are static and I do agree that sometimes that can be a problem, and I hate having to justify every point given. changing the voting structure from a static point count would not only require new site coding, but it would also complicate the justifications for voting to include specific points awarded.

I have thought at times that a 5 pt scale would beneficial. Up to two points could be given in each category. On one hand it would make the debates more complex and debaters would have fight for every single point. On the other hand it would be too complex to argue proper justification for giving a side only one point instead of two.

Ultimately, leave the voting system the way it is. ELO is definitely attached to the number of points you get in debates. Not just the number of wins you get from debates. The verbal justification is the most important part of the feedback. Even if I get a losing vote, more information is given in the verbal section than any point system can convey(if the voter is giving proper justifications, which is hard enough to do as it is.)


I see, good point. What about just changing 1 point? The rest would be static still.

Bringing the change forward would still take some very strong introspective suggestions on how people vote, or believe they vote based on the current system. I seriously think that the voting system is already complicated and that the three debate rule does nothing to encourage proper voting. I don't think proper voting is properly addressed for new users. My initial votes were rejected even after I met the debate rule and I got information from Airmax, Ore-ele, and janet sanders concerning ways I could do it better. I think a training system on proper voting and justification would be a better way to solve the issue rather than changing the system that is currently in place. --Devil's Advocate.

I happen to agree with this for the most part, and a method for properly explaining voting will be in place long before any significant changes are made to the voting system.

Figured as much. Maybe we should debate this sometime?
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 8:07:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Don't let voters do it. Let the Instigator set up the voting scores as he fills will best match the debate.
-- 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 --
Josh_b
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 8:15:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 8:04:33 AM, kbub wrote:
At 1/27/2014 1:02:40 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 1/27/2014 12:12:23 AM, Josh_b wrote:
At 1/26/2014 11:41:05 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/26/2014 11:39:20 PM, Josh_b wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:23:13 PM, kbub wrote:
Hey, I have a simple idea that could make voting customizable to the debates themselves.

Currently,
grammar 1 point
conduct 1 point
sources 2 points
arguments 3 points

What if voters could remove 1 point from one category and add it to another? For example, sometimes someone wins sources, but sources are not very important for the debate. Simply remove one point from sources' weight and put it on arguments:

grammar 1
conduct 1
sources 1*
arguments 4*

Or, what if conduct is extremely important because someone is being very, very rude? Take one from arguments and put it on sources:

grammar 1
conduct 2*
sources 2
arguments 2*

By only changing one point, we can make it so that the basic structure is the same so it won't bee abused. At the same time, this change allows improved flexibility and more relevant, meaningful scoring for the voters!

I don't think I like it. Right now the votes are static and I do agree that sometimes that can be a problem, and I hate having to justify every point given. changing the voting structure from a static point count would not only require new site coding, but it would also complicate the justifications for voting to include specific points awarded.

I have thought at times that a 5 pt scale would beneficial. Up to two points could be given in each category. On one hand it would make the debates more complex and debaters would have fight for every single point. On the other hand it would be too complex to argue proper justification for giving a side only one point instead of two.

Ultimately, leave the voting system the way it is. ELO is definitely attached to the number of points you get in debates. Not just the number of wins you get from debates. The verbal justification is the most important part of the feedback. Even if I get a losing vote, more information is given in the verbal section than any point system can convey(if the voter is giving proper justifications, which is hard enough to do as it is.)


I see, good point. What about just changing 1 point? The rest would be static still.

Bringing the change forward would still take some very strong introspective suggestions on how people vote, or believe they vote based on the current system. I seriously think that the voting system is already complicated and that the three debate rule does nothing to encourage proper voting. I don't think proper voting is properly addressed for new users. My initial votes were rejected even after I met the debate rule and I got information from Airmax, Ore-ele, and janet sanders concerning ways I could do it better. I think a training system on proper voting and justification would be a better way to solve the issue rather than changing the system that is currently in place. --Devil's Advocate.

I happen to agree with this for the most part, and a method for properly explaining voting will be in place long before any significant changes are made to the voting system.

Figured as much. Maybe we should debate this sometime?

We just debated it. No points necessary. And now we can be friends who have considerable ideas and value each other. There is not a winner and loser here, just a couple of insightful individuals.
Scrutiny Welcome

AMAA http://www.debate.org...
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 8:18:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 8:07:30 AM, donald.keller wrote:
Don't let voters do it. Let the Instigator set up the voting scores as he fills will best match the debate.

Wow, that's a really interesting idea. Brilliant.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 10:12:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 1:02:40 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 1/27/2014 12:12:23 AM, Josh_b wrote:
At 1/26/2014 11:41:05 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/26/2014 11:39:20 PM, Josh_b wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:23:13 PM, kbub wrote:
Hey, I have a simple idea that could make voting customizable to the debates themselves.

Currently,
grammar 1 point
conduct 1 point
sources 2 points
arguments 3 points

What if voters could remove 1 point from one category and add it to another? For example, sometimes someone wins sources, but sources are not very important for the debate. Simply remove one point from sources' weight and put it on arguments:

grammar 1
conduct 1
sources 1*
arguments 4*

Or, what if conduct is extremely important because someone is being very, very rude? Take one from arguments and put it on sources:

grammar 1
conduct 2*
sources 2
arguments 2*

By only changing one point, we can make it so that the basic structure is the same so it won't bee abused. At the same time, this change allows improved flexibility and more relevant, meaningful scoring for the voters!

I don't think I like it. Right now the votes are static and I do agree that sometimes that can be a problem, and I hate having to justify every point given. changing the voting structure from a static point count would not only require new site coding, but it would also complicate the justifications for voting to include specific points awarded.

I have thought at times that a 5 pt scale would beneficial. Up to two points could be given in each category. On one hand it would make the debates more complex and debaters would have fight for every single point. On the other hand it would be too complex to argue proper justification for giving a side only one point instead of two.

Ultimately, leave the voting system the way it is. ELO is definitely attached to the number of points you get in debates. Not just the number of wins you get from debates. The verbal justification is the most important part of the feedback. Even if I get a losing vote, more information is given in the verbal section than any point system can convey(if the voter is giving proper justifications, which is hard enough to do as it is.)


I see, good point. What about just changing 1 point? The rest would be static still.

Bringing the change forward would still take some very strong introspective suggestions on how people vote, or believe they vote based on the current system. I seriously think that the voting system is already complicated and that the three debate rule does nothing to encourage proper voting. I don't think proper voting is properly addressed for new users. My initial votes were rejected even after I met the debate rule and I got information from Airmax, Ore-ele, and janet sanders concerning ways I could do it better. I think a training system on proper voting and justification would be a better way to solve the issue rather than changing the system that is currently in place. --Devil's Advocate.

I happen to agree with this for the most part, and a method for properly explaining voting will be in place long before any significant changes are made to the voting system.

Actually, I have wanted to debate with you for a while arimax; I think it would be fun if you are interested. Additionally, that would be a great way for me to express my position more thoroughly. Only if you are interested.