Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How To Break Debate Terms & Win

GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 6:53:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.debate.org...

I will first admit that I am not agreeing to all the terms and conditions. I am disagreeing with two of them. First, I will disagree with the condition that is, "If you accept this, you are agreeing to the terms and conditions."

He went on to win. I think this is hilarious.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 7:24:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 6:53:14 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

I will first admit that I am not agreeing to all the terms and conditions. I am disagreeing with two of them. First, I will disagree with the condition that is, "If you accept this, you are agreeing to the terms and conditions."

He went on to win. I think this is hilarious.

How thoroughly shameful; I can't believe such blatant disrespect can be ignored.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 7:24:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 7:24:11 PM, Zarroette wrote:
How thoroughly shameful; I can't believe such blatant disrespect can be ignored.

I think it's clever, lol.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 7:28:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 7:24:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:24:11 PM, Zarroette wrote:
How thoroughly shameful; I can't believe such blatant disrespect can be ignored.

I think it's clever, lol.

It isn't clever. He literally told everyone that he was going to break the rules, and then he did. This really shouldn't be accepted.
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 7:29:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 6:53:14 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

I will first admit that I am not agreeing to all the terms and conditions. I am disagreeing with two of them. First, I will disagree with the condition that is, "If you accept this, you are agreeing to the terms and conditions."

He went on to win. I think this is hilarious.

#lol
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 8:58:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 7:28:25 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:24:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:24:11 PM, Zarroette wrote:
How thoroughly shameful; I can't believe such blatant disrespect can be ignored.

I think it's clever, lol.

It isn't clever. He literally told everyone that he was going to break the rules, and then he did. This really shouldn't be accepted.

Why not? Since when did rules mean anything on DDO
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 10:03:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 8:58:32 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:28:25 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:24:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:24:11 PM, Zarroette wrote:
How thoroughly shameful; I can't believe such blatant disrespect can be ignored.

I think it's clever, lol.

It isn't clever. He literally told everyone that he was going to break the rules, and then he did. This really shouldn't be accepted.

Why not? Since when did rules mean anything on DDO

Sarcasm?
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 10:06:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 10:03:56 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/17/2014 8:58:32 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:28:25 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:24:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:24:11 PM, Zarroette wrote:
How thoroughly shameful; I can't believe such blatant disrespect can be ignored.

I think it's clever, lol.

It isn't clever. He literally told everyone that he was going to break the rules, and then he did. This really shouldn't be accepted.

Why not? Since when did rules mean anything on DDO

Sarcasm?

No, don't think so. Break a rule and see what happens. Pretty much nothing.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 10:11:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 10:06:37 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/17/2014 10:03:56 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/17/2014 8:58:32 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:28:25 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:24:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:24:11 PM, Zarroette wrote:
How thoroughly shameful; I can't believe such blatant disrespect can be ignored.

I think it's clever, lol.

It isn't clever. He literally told everyone that he was going to break the rules, and then he did. This really shouldn't be accepted.

Why not? Since when did rules mean anything on DDO

Sarcasm?

No, don't think so. Break a rule and see what happens. Pretty much nothing.

Your opinion isn't grounded in reality, sorry. Perhaps some rules can be broken with a low chance of punishment, but a fair few rules are enforced on this site. For example, hateful, personal attacks will most likely result in a firm warning/3-7 day suspension.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 10:16:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 7:24:11 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/17/2014 6:53:14 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

I will first admit that I am not agreeing to all the terms and conditions. I am disagreeing with two of them. First, I will disagree with the condition that is, "If you accept this, you are agreeing to the terms and conditions."

He went on to win. I think this is hilarious.

How thoroughly shameful; I can't believe such blatant disrespect can be ignored.

It doesn't have to be ignored, the voting period is still open. So vote on this debate when you have finished 3 debates.

Both sides did end up forfeiting their last two rounds though, and it doesn't appear as though Pro carries his BOP regardless since Con made the last arguments followed by Pro's FF. Granted, I didn't actually read the debate, but the interpretation of the significance of a broken rule here can be decided upon by the voters, and the voters still have an opportunity to do so.

As long as someone explains why they are giving conduct and arguments to Con they are free to do so in all cases, even (or especially) if it is because he broke some kind of rule.
Debate.org Moderator
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 10:17:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 10:11:29 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/17/2014 10:06:37 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/17/2014 10:03:56 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/17/2014 8:58:32 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:28:25 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:24:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:24:11 PM, Zarroette wrote:
How thoroughly shameful; I can't believe such blatant disrespect can be ignored.

I think it's clever, lol.

It isn't clever. He literally told everyone that he was going to break the rules, and then he did. This really shouldn't be accepted.

Why not? Since when did rules mean anything on DDO

Sarcasm?

No, don't think so. Break a rule and see what happens. Pretty much nothing.

Your opinion isn't grounded in reality, sorry. Perhaps some rules can be broken with a low chance of punishment, but a fair few rules are enforced on this site. For example, hateful, personal attacks will most likely result in a firm warning/3-7 day suspension.

Oh really, How many before a firm warning or a suspension
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 10:21:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 10:17:59 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/17/2014 10:11:29 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/17/2014 10:06:37 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/17/2014 10:03:56 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/17/2014 8:58:32 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:28:25 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:24:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:24:11 PM, Zarroette wrote:
How thoroughly shameful; I can't believe such blatant disrespect can be ignored.

I think it's clever, lol.

It isn't clever. He literally told everyone that he was going to break the rules, and then he did. This really shouldn't be accepted.

Why not? Since when did rules mean anything on DDO

Sarcasm?

No, don't think so. Break a rule and see what happens. Pretty much nothing.

Your opinion isn't grounded in reality, sorry. Perhaps some rules can be broken with a low chance of punishment, but a fair few rules are enforced on this site. For example, hateful, personal attacks will most likely result in a firm warning/3-7 day suspension.

Oh really, How many before a firm warning or a suspension

Alright, Sadolite. Try now and post 100s of hardcore racist, anti-gay and sexist comments, and then tell me that there aren't consequences for rule-breaking. Go and threaten one of the younger members on here with rape. Every time you log in, tell someone to commit suicide.

You'll be fine, there aren't consequences for rule-breaking on here.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 10:31:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 10:16:42 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:24:11 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/17/2014 6:53:14 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

I will first admit that I am not agreeing to all the terms and conditions. I am disagreeing with two of them. First, I will disagree with the condition that is, "If you accept this, you are agreeing to the terms and conditions."

He went on to win. I think this is hilarious.

How thoroughly shameful; I can't believe such blatant disrespect can be ignored.

It doesn't have to be ignored, the voting period is still open. So vote on this debate when you have finished 3 debates.

I tried to get voting privileges, and DDO doesn't have my provider...


Both sides did end up forfeiting their last two rounds though, and it doesn't appear as though Pro carries his BOP regardless since Con made the last arguments followed by Pro's FF. Granted, I didn't actually read the debate, but the interpretation of the significance of a broken rule here can be decided upon by the voters, and the voters still have an opportunity to do so.

If Con had a problem with the rules, he should have asked Pro before the debate whether it would be okay to change the rules. You can't turn up to a soccer game and play with your hands, because that's against the rules. It's ridiculous that you're even considering "the significance of the rule broken". If there was a problem with the rules, then that should have been sorted out beforehand, so as the debate would have been fair.


As long as someone explains why they are giving conduct and arguments to Con they are free to do so in all cases, even (or especially) if it is because he broke some kind of rule.

This is a huge flaw with the voting on this site: anyone can vote. You don't have to have a good reason, nor do you have to be knowledgeable or fair. No one evens has to read the rules of this site, let alone prove that he/she has understood them, before creating an account. Idiots, ignorants and brain-dead people are allowed to vote.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 10:37:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 10:31:57 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/17/2014 10:16:42 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:24:11 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/17/2014 6:53:14 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

I will first admit that I am not agreeing to all the terms and conditions. I am disagreeing with two of them. First, I will disagree with the condition that is, "If you accept this, you are agreeing to the terms and conditions."

He went on to win. I think this is hilarious.

How thoroughly shameful; I can't believe such blatant disrespect can be ignored.

It doesn't have to be ignored, the voting period is still open. So vote on this debate when you have finished 3 debates.

I tried to get voting privileges, and DDO doesn't have my provider...

It seems as though you have finished 3 debates. I will verify your account manually.


Both sides did end up forfeiting their last two rounds though, and it doesn't appear as though Pro carries his BOP regardless since Con made the last arguments followed by Pro's FF. Granted, I didn't actually read the debate, but the interpretation of the significance of a broken rule here can be decided upon by the voters, and the voters still have an opportunity to do so.

If Con had a problem with the rules, he should have asked Pro before the debate whether it would be okay to change the rules. You can't turn up to a soccer game and play with your hands, because that's against the rules. It's ridiculous that you're even considering "the significance of the rule broken". If there was a problem with the rules, then that should have been sorted out beforehand, so as the debate would have been fair.

I didn't read it so I can't interpret any of this. It's up to the debater to make this point and the voters to consider it accurate or not. Whether or not that is ideal is another issue.


As long as someone explains why they are giving conduct and arguments to Con they are free to do so in all cases, even (or especially) if it is because he broke some kind of rule.

This is a huge flaw with the voting on this site: anyone can vote. You don't have to have a good reason, nor do you have to be knowledgeable or fair. No one evens has to read the rules of this site, let alone prove that he/she has understood them, before creating an account. Idiots, ignorants and brain-dead people are allowed to vote.

Feel free to vote on this debate with the reasons you have provided. So long as a vote is given with an explanation for every point category awarded, it is a proper one.
Debate.org Moderator
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 10:40:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Can someone justify any RFD as long as it is rational in their mind and it still be considered a viable and acceptable vote?
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 10:50:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 10:40:51 PM, Mikal wrote:
Can someone justify any RFD as long as it is rational in their mind and it still be considered a viable and acceptable vote?

Yeah. I had a guy dock me conduct for something that my opponent did. I pointed this out to him and asked him to adjust his vote.

Instead of giving me the conduct point, he changed his RFD so it fit with his original point assigning.

I never saw something so blatantly dishonest in voting, lol.

I brought this up and nothing was done.

Actually, I agree with airmax now. It's the only way to prevent debate.org from becoming a dictatorship.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 10:53:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 10:40:51 PM, Mikal wrote:
Can someone justify any RFD as long as it is rational in their mind and it still be considered a viable and acceptable vote?

Pretty much.

But the key is minimizing lazy and ideological votes. We know what those are when we see them.

"I agree with Pro"

"God exists"

"Pro had better arguments", and similar types of RFDs with any number of unexplained point categories awarded.

If we insist upon the voter explaining each point category they award, it reduces the number of lazy and ideological votes inherently by the amount of time they have to spend giving thought to justify their vote.

Still, many voters vote their ideology and then justify their vote around it, but it is far less likely when they are forced to explain their reasoning for awarding argument points, and even more so for the random conduct point and sources points member used to just throw in as an unexplained bonus.

So it isn't ideal, and it isn't perfect, but it's currently the best way to encourage the highest quality voting, with the highest quantity of voting. The standard isn't particularly high, because we want people to vote. But it still prevents the very worst types of votes and encourages members to give thought to their votes.

I think we should encourage having this discussion forever on how to improve voting, but this has to be the starting point because there has to be some realistic standard applied.
Debate.org Moderator
Tophatdoc
Posts: 534
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 11:00:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 10:53:58 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 2/17/2014 10:40:51 PM, Mikal wrote:
Can someone justify any RFD as long as it is rational in their mind and it still be considered a viable and acceptable vote?

Pretty much.

But the key is minimizing lazy and ideological votes. We know what those are when we see them.

"I agree with Pro"

"God exists"

"Pro had better arguments", and similar types of RFDs with any number of unexplained point categories awarded.

If we insist upon the voter explaining each point category they award, it reduces the number of lazy and ideological votes inherently by the amount of time they have to spend giving thought to justify their vote.

Still, many voters vote their ideology and then justify their vote around it, but it is far less likely when they are forced to explain their reasoning for awarding argument points, and even more so for the random conduct point and sources points member used to just throw in as an unexplained bonus.

So it isn't ideal, and it isn't perfect, but it's currently the best way to encourage the highest quality voting, with the highest quantity of voting. The standard isn't particularly high, because we want people to vote. But it still prevents the very worst types of votes and encourages members to give thought to their votes.

I think we should encourage having this discussion forever on how to improve voting, but this has to be the starting point because there has to be some realistic standard applied.

I have an interesting solution. Except it is not my solution, I found something similar on a different debate site I frequent. Why not allow voters to be rated? Then extremely poor rated voters can have their votes thrown out in the long term due to an inadequate reputation of voting. They will have to rebuild their "rep" as a voter in order to gain their voting abilities back again.
"Don't click on my profile. Don't send me friend requests. Don't read my debates. There are many interesting people on DDO. Find one of them. Go find someone exciting and loquacious. Go click on their profile. Go send them friend requests. Go read their debates. Leave me alone." -Tophatdoc
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 11:07:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 11:00:15 PM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 2/17/2014 10:53:58 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 2/17/2014 10:40:51 PM, Mikal wrote:
Can someone justify any RFD as long as it is rational in their mind and it still be considered a viable and acceptable vote?

Pretty much.

But the key is minimizing lazy and ideological votes. We know what those are when we see them.

"I agree with Pro"

"God exists"

"Pro had better arguments", and similar types of RFDs with any number of unexplained point categories awarded.

If we insist upon the voter explaining each point category they award, it reduces the number of lazy and ideological votes inherently by the amount of time they have to spend giving thought to justify their vote.

Still, many voters vote their ideology and then justify their vote around it, but it is far less likely when they are forced to explain their reasoning for awarding argument points, and even more so for the random conduct point and sources points member used to just throw in as an unexplained bonus.

So it isn't ideal, and it isn't perfect, but it's currently the best way to encourage the highest quality voting, with the highest quantity of voting. The standard isn't particularly high, because we want people to vote. But it still prevents the very worst types of votes and encourages members to give thought to their votes.

I think we should encourage having this discussion forever on how to improve voting, but this has to be the starting point because there has to be some realistic standard applied.

I have an interesting solution. Except it is not my solution, I found something similar on a different debate site I frequent. Why not allow voters to be rated? Then extremely poor rated voters can have their votes thrown out in the long term due to an inadequate reputation of voting. They will have to rebuild their "rep" as a voter in order to gain their voting abilities back again.

Site coding options aren't a short term or immediate solution.

I actually like this idea though, and it has been considered for some time.

These things take some time though, and the first step to overhauling voting was getting rid of the blatant votebombing going on. We can now just delete those votes and remove those members voting privileges should they continue.

The next step was to encourage more voting, this involves a multiple step process that began with creating the voting leader board to encourage more voting, it also necessitated vote deletion (which was added at the same time) because of the inevitability of spam voting. Following this the other aspects are still on the table to implement, and these are essentially what you have described. A thumbs-up/thumbs down component that will encourage and reward better voters, and discourage and bring to the attention to moderators those voters who are regularly placing poor votes.

So I do like the idea you have suggested and it's actually something long-term that is being worked on. But it is a fairly significant update that requires some ironing out and a lot of work to implement.
Debate.org Moderator
Tophatdoc
Posts: 534
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 11:12:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 11:07:48 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 2/17/2014 11:00:15 PM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 2/17/2014 10:53:58 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 2/17/2014 10:40:51 PM, Mikal wrote:
Can someone justify any RFD as long as it is rational in their mind and it still be considered a viable and acceptable vote?

Pretty much.

But the key is minimizing lazy and ideological votes. We know what those are when we see them.

"I agree with Pro"

"God exists"

"Pro had better arguments", and similar types of RFDs with any number of unexplained point categories awarded.

If we insist upon the voter explaining each point category they award, it reduces the number of lazy and ideological votes inherently by the amount of time they have to spend giving thought to justify their vote.

Still, many voters vote their ideology and then justify their vote around it, but it is far less likely when they are forced to explain their reasoning for awarding argument points, and even more so for the random conduct point and sources points member used to just throw in as an unexplained bonus.

So it isn't ideal, and it isn't perfect, but it's currently the best way to encourage the highest quality voting, with the highest quantity of voting. The standard isn't particularly high, because we want people to vote. But it still prevents the very worst types of votes and encourages members to give thought to their votes.

I think we should encourage having this discussion forever on how to improve voting, but this has to be the starting point because there has to be some realistic standard applied.

I have an interesting solution. Except it is not my solution, I found something similar on a different debate site I frequent. Why not allow voters to be rated? Then extremely poor rated voters can have their votes thrown out in the long term due to an inadequate reputation of voting. They will have to rebuild their "rep" as a voter in order to gain their voting abilities back again.

Site coding options aren't a short term or immediate solution.

I actually like this idea though, and it has been considered for some time.

These things take some time though, and the first step to overhauling voting was getting rid of the blatant votebombing going on. We can now just delete those votes and remove those members voting privileges should they continue.

The next step was to encourage more voting, this involves a multiple step process that began with creating the voting leader board to encourage more voting, it also necessitated vote deletion (which was added at the same time) because of the inevitability of spam voting. Following this the other aspects are still on the table to implement, and these are essentially what you have described. A thumbs-up/thumbs down component that will encourage and reward better voters, and discourage and bring to the attention to moderators those voters who are regularly placing poor votes.

So I do like the idea you have suggested and it's actually something long-term that is being worked on. But it is a fairly significant update that requires some ironing out and a lot of work to implement.

I like this idea better then what I am referring to. A voting leader board would seem like a key in this process. It would give a better perception for moderators to pick up on low quality voters.
"Don't click on my profile. Don't send me friend requests. Don't read my debates. There are many interesting people on DDO. Find one of them. Go find someone exciting and loquacious. Go click on their profile. Go send them friend requests. Go read their debates. Leave me alone." -Tophatdoc
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 11:27:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 11:12:03 PM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 2/17/2014 11:07:48 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 2/17/2014 11:00:15 PM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 2/17/2014 10:53:58 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 2/17/2014 10:40:51 PM, Mikal wrote:
Can someone justify any RFD as long as it is rational in their mind and it still be considered a viable and acceptable vote?

Pretty much.

But the key is minimizing lazy and ideological votes. We know what those are when we see them.

"I agree with Pro"

"God exists"

"Pro had better arguments", and similar types of RFDs with any number of unexplained point categories awarded.

If we insist upon the voter explaining each point category they award, it reduces the number of lazy and ideological votes inherently by the amount of time they have to spend giving thought to justify their vote.

Still, many voters vote their ideology and then justify their vote around it, but it is far less likely when they are forced to explain their reasoning for awarding argument points, and even more so for the random conduct point and sources points member used to just throw in as an unexplained bonus.

So it isn't ideal, and it isn't perfect, but it's currently the best way to encourage the highest quality voting, with the highest quantity of voting. The standard isn't particularly high, because we want people to vote. But it still prevents the very worst types of votes and encourages members to give thought to their votes.

I think we should encourage having this discussion forever on how to improve voting, but this has to be the starting point because there has to be some realistic standard applied.

I have an interesting solution. Except it is not my solution, I found something similar on a different debate site I frequent. Why not allow voters to be rated? Then extremely poor rated voters can have their votes thrown out in the long term due to an inadequate reputation of voting. They will have to rebuild their "rep" as a voter in order to gain their voting abilities back again.

Site coding options aren't a short term or immediate solution.

I actually like this idea though, and it has been considered for some time.

These things take some time though, and the first step to overhauling voting was getting rid of the blatant votebombing going on. We can now just delete those votes and remove those members voting privileges should they continue.

The next step was to encourage more voting, this involves a multiple step process that began with creating the voting leader board to encourage more voting, it also necessitated vote deletion (which was added at the same time) because of the inevitability of spam voting. Following this the other aspects are still on the table to implement, and these are essentially what you have described. A thumbs-up/thumbs down component that will encourage and reward better voters, and discourage and bring to the attention to moderators those voters who are regularly placing poor votes.

So I do like the idea you have suggested and it's actually something long-term that is being worked on. But it is a fairly significant update that requires some ironing out and a lot of work to implement.

I like this idea better then what I am referring to. A voting leader board would seem like a key in this process. It would give a better perception for moderators to pick up on low quality voters.

Here's the vote leaderboard:

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

Just to get that implemented was difficult enough, and considering all of the other aspects of my proposal (which are more complex), I was just happy to see that come to fruition. But by itself, it doesn't achieve what it is meant to. We don't just want quantity, but quality as well. At the very least we don't want to just see vote spamming (which is encouraged by the leaderboard), though is somewhat minimized by the current voting standards that probably need to be more prominently displayed (something else currently being worked on).

But as you said, part of that goal was to be able to see the lowest rated voters in an easy way to be able to encourage them to vote better (both by their not wanting to be at the bottom of the list of good voters, and by me personally contacting them as I already do to explain proper voting). It's not just intended to be a method for easily reviewing the worst offenders and removing them from the voting pool though, but to allow us to have a greater number of quality voters. The high quantity of voters placing a high number of votes is what we want, and we'd like for these votes to be of as high a quality as possible.

There are still a number of issues with the idea, and it's not a simple thing to implement. So it will still take time and when it becomes a higher priority we'll want a lot of feedback on the entire remaining concept.
Debate.org Moderator
2-D
Posts: 226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 12:16:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 10:06:37 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/17/2014 10:03:56 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/17/2014 8:58:32 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:28:25 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:24:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:24:11 PM, Zarroette wrote:
How thoroughly shameful; I can't believe such blatant disrespect can be ignored.

I think it's clever, lol.

It isn't clever. He literally told everyone that he was going to break the rules, and then he did. This really shouldn't be accepted.

Why not? Since when did rules mean anything on DDO

Sarcasm?

No, don't think so. Break a rule and see what happens. Pretty much nothing.

I agree that enforcement pretty much dictates what the rules actually are and who doesn't like to push the boundaries? I found that in Connecticut you have to drive 19+ miles over the speed limit to get pulled over but only 9+ in the phoenix AZ area. Aggressive use of the report button is a great option for those that advocate more moderations. personally I try to live and let live. This is a great site imo.
Josh_b
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2014 10:13:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 10:53:58 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 2/17/2014 10:40:51 PM, Mikal wrote:
Can someone justify any RFD as long as it is rational in their mind and it still be considered a viable and acceptable vote?

Pretty much.

But the key is minimizing lazy and ideological votes. We know what those are when we see them.

"I agree with Pro"

"God exists"

"Pro had better arguments", and similar types of RFDs with any number of unexplained point categories awarded.

If we insist upon the voter explaining each point category they award, it reduces the number of lazy and ideological votes inherently by the amount of time they have to spend giving thought to justify their vote.

Still, many voters vote their ideology and then justify their vote around it, but it is far less likely when they are forced to explain their reasoning for awarding argument points, and even more so for the random conduct point and sources points member used to just throw in as an unexplained bonus.

So it isn't ideal, and it isn't perfect, but it's currently the best way to encourage the highest quality voting, with the highest quantity of voting. The standard isn't particularly high, because we want people to vote. But it still prevents the very worst types of votes and encourages members to give thought to their votes.

I think we should encourage having this discussion forever on how to improve voting, but this has to be the starting point because there has to be some realistic standard applied.

Best explanation for voting conduct ever. I don't always like it, but it's real.
Scrutiny Welcome

AMAA http://www.debate.org...
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,760
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2014 10:38:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 7:24:11 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/17/2014 6:53:14 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

I will first admit that I am not agreeing to all the terms and conditions. I am disagreeing with two of them. First, I will disagree with the condition that is, "If you accept this, you are agreeing to the terms and conditions."

He went on to win. I think this is hilarious.

How thoroughly shameful; I can't believe such blatant disrespect can be ignored.

It didn't make a difference worth crap.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9

http://www.debate.org...
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2014 2:44:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/6/2014 10:38:19 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:24:11 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/17/2014 6:53:14 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

I will first admit that I am not agreeing to all the terms and conditions. I am disagreeing with two of them. First, I will disagree with the condition that is, "If you accept this, you are agreeing to the terms and conditions."

He went on to win. I think this is hilarious.

How thoroughly shameful; I can't believe such blatant disrespect can be ignored.

It didn't make a difference worth crap.

It's the principle that counts, and that is worth "crap".
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2014 3:32:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/7/2014 2:44:09 AM, Zarroette wrote:

You do realize that the rule he broke was "the person who accepts should be a YEC" right? If that rule is literally so mandatory to uphold that it's worth a 7 point vote bomb, I mean...

You would've had to actually, like, read the first, like, line of the debate to, y'know, figure that out for yourself though. AND WHO ACTUALLY READS DEBATES ANYMORE AMIRITE!?!?!?
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2014 3:34:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/7/2014 3:32:30 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 3/7/2014 2:44:09 AM, Zarroette wrote:

You do realize that the rule he broke was "the person who accepts should be a YEC" right? If that rule is literally so mandatory to uphold that it's worth a 7 point vote bomb, I mean...

You would've had to actually, like, read the first, like, line of the debate to, y'know, figure that out for yourself though. AND WHO ACTUALLY READS DEBATES ANYMORE AMIRITE!?!?!?

I read a good portion of the debate, thank you. I refuse to allow such disrespect to go unpunished. If the opponent had a problem with the rules, it should have been discussed before acceptance, rather than after. This kind of conduct is unacceptable, and thus a full-forfeit was given to the instigator who suffered through this deplorable action.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2014 3:37:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/7/2014 3:34:51 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 3/7/2014 3:32:30 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 3/7/2014 2:44:09 AM, Zarroette wrote:

You do realize that the rule he broke was "the person who accepts should be a YEC" right? If that rule is literally so mandatory to uphold that it's worth a 7 point vote bomb, I mean...

You would've had to actually, like, read the first, like, line of the debate to, y'know, figure that out for yourself though. AND WHO ACTUALLY READS DEBATES ANYMORE AMIRITE!?!?!?

I read a good portion of the debate, thank you. I refuse to allow such disrespect to go unpunished. If the opponent had a problem with the rules, it should have been discussed before acceptance, rather than after. This kind of conduct is unacceptable, and thus a full-forfeit was given to the instigator who suffered through this deplorable action.

lmao. You seriously believe this?
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2014 3:39:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/7/2014 3:37:33 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 3/7/2014 3:34:51 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 3/7/2014 3:32:30 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 3/7/2014 2:44:09 AM, Zarroette wrote:

You do realize that the rule he broke was "the person who accepts should be a YEC" right? If that rule is literally so mandatory to uphold that it's worth a 7 point vote bomb, I mean...

You would've had to actually, like, read the first, like, line of the debate to, y'know, figure that out for yourself though. AND WHO ACTUALLY READS DEBATES ANYMORE AMIRITE!?!?!?

I read a good portion of the debate, thank you. I refuse to allow such disrespect to go unpunished. If the opponent had a problem with the rules, it should have been discussed before acceptance, rather than after. This kind of conduct is unacceptable, and thus a full-forfeit was given to the instigator who suffered through this deplorable action.

lmao. You seriously believe this?

If you have a problem with what I've said, just say it, instead of passive-aggressively mocking me.