Total Posts:125|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

okay, i've had enough

bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 7:53:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
of the current voting system. The recent Roy/Mikal debate exhibits *everything* I hate about the current system.

It is currently a 10-6 vote in favor of Mikal (in terms of total judges who thought mikal had the better argument). And yet Roy is winning.

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

We need two reforms: (1) a straight winner-loser vote ["this person won the debate"]; no more BS multi-point categories, and (2) a clarification of the TOS that an RFD means stating more than "X was more convincing" - that an RFD requires a *plausible* explanation, i.e. the word "because" followed by a specific reason the argument was more convincing.

I'm tired of my vote counting less than people who choose to vote in clearly strategic ways. In the above debate, you have people double penalizing Con by throwing out argument that were made too late (so awarding arguments to Pro) and also awarding conduct *for the same infraction.* And you have other people who are awarding 6 points with little to no explanation.

I could have easily awarded 6 points initially. I voted for arguments that were sourced (racism and cost), which ultimately means I was voting for those pieces of evidence being more convincing, and I *was* bothered by Roy's conduct of arguing in the comments section. But I followed what has been site protocol for a long time in debates like this and only awarded arguments. But I'm done. I'm announcing a new tit-for-tat [game theory] strategy that as soon as someone else in a debate awards more than 3 points, I will also award more than 3 points as long as I think it is remotely justified to do so. I'm *not* saying I'm going to make up reasons for points, which means in some cases my vote will remain unchanged. But if I think that one side won even by a tiny *modicum* on sources, S&G, or conduct, I'm awarding more points as soon as someone else does. It devalues me as a voter and my time to say that someone else's vote counts for 6 points while mine counts for only 3, even though I type out a 6,000 character RFD and someone else types "Pro had better sources, and Con was a bit rude."

Enough is enough.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 7:56:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There were two votebombs on the debate that will most likely be deleted and give Mikal a double digit lead, just take it easy and relax
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 7:59:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 7:56:31 PM, imabench wrote:
There were two votebombs on the debate that will most likely be deleted and give Mikal a double digit lead, just take it easy and relax

I'd be surprised if airmax removes the 6 point one. It claims to explain each point.

But this isn't a post just about this debate. This is a post about how my vote is being constantly under-valued on this site, and I'm sick of it.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 8:01:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 7:53:49 PM, bluesteel wrote:
of the current voting system. The recent Roy/Mikal debate exhibits *everything* I hate about the current system.

It is currently a 10-6 vote in favor of Mikal (in terms of total judges who thought mikal had the better argument). And yet Roy is winning.

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

We need two reforms: (1) a straight winner-loser vote ["this person won the debate"]; no more BS multi-point categories, and (2) a clarification of the TOS that an RFD means stating more than "X was more convincing" - that an RFD requires a *plausible* explanation, i.e. the word "because" followed by a specific reason the argument was more convincing.

I'm tired of my vote counting less than people who choose to vote in clearly strategic ways. In the above debate, you have people double penalizing Con by throwing out argument that were made too late (so awarding arguments to Pro) and also awarding conduct *for the same infraction.* And you have other people who are awarding 6 points with little to no explanation.

I could have easily awarded 6 points initially. I voted for arguments that were sourced (racism and cost), which ultimately means I was voting for those pieces of evidence being more convincing, and I *was* bothered by Roy's conduct of arguing in the comments section. But I followed what has been site protocol for a long time in debates like this and only awarded arguments. But I'm done. I'm announcing a new tit-for-tat [game theory] strategy that as soon as someone else in a debate awards more than 3 points, I will also award more than 3 points as long as I think it is remotely justified to do so. I'm *not* saying I'm going to make up reasons for points, which means in some cases my vote will remain unchanged. But if I think that one side won even by a tiny *modicum* on sources, S&G, or conduct, I'm awarding more points as soon as someone else does. It devalues me as a voter and my time to say that someone else's vote counts for 6 points while mine counts for only 3, even though I type out a 6,000 character RFD and someone else types "Pro had better sources, and Con was a bit rude."

Enough is enough.

Dude, chill out. The vote bombs are going to get removed, as they always are. The problem is not with the system, either. The problem is with those who vote. Changing the system isn't going to make people less stupid.
Tsar of DDO
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 8:03:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 7:56:31 PM, imabench wrote:
There were two votebombs on the debate that will most likely be deleted and give Mikal a double digit lead, just take it easy and relax

I am not one to complain, but that GWL vote was pretty pointless in itself. His RFD and vote had no relevance to anything in the debate at all, and was based on his own personal thoughts and arguments that he would present and nothing that was actually in the debate.

I already messaged max and he is in the process of deleting them. I just lol at the GWL thing because he preaches about conformation bias and then exemplified the epitome of what that actually entails.
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 8:04:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 8:01:08 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/25/2014 7:53:49 PM, bluesteel wrote:
of the current voting system. The recent Roy/Mikal debate exhibits *everything* I hate about the current system.

It is currently a 10-6 vote in favor of Mikal (in terms of total judges who thought mikal had the better argument). And yet Roy is winning.

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

We need two reforms: (1) a straight winner-loser vote ["this person won the debate"]; no more BS multi-point categories, and (2) a clarification of the TOS that an RFD means stating more than "X was more convincing" - that an RFD requires a *plausible* explanation, i.e. the word "because" followed by a specific reason the argument was more convincing.

I'm tired of my vote counting less than people who choose to vote in clearly strategic ways. In the above debate, you have people double penalizing Con by throwing out argument that were made too late (so awarding arguments to Pro) and also awarding conduct *for the same infraction.* And you have other people who are awarding 6 points with little to no explanation.

I could have easily awarded 6 points initially. I voted for arguments that were sourced (racism and cost), which ultimately means I was voting for those pieces of evidence being more convincing, and I *was* bothered by Roy's conduct of arguing in the comments section. But I followed what has been site protocol for a long time in debates like this and only awarded arguments. But I'm done. I'm announcing a new tit-for-tat [game theory] strategy that as soon as someone else in a debate awards more than 3 points, I will also award more than 3 points as long as I think it is remotely justified to do so. I'm *not* saying I'm going to make up reasons for points, which means in some cases my vote will remain unchanged. But if I think that one side won even by a tiny *modicum* on sources, S&G, or conduct, I'm awarding more points as soon as someone else does. It devalues me as a voter and my time to say that someone else's vote counts for 6 points while mine counts for only 3, even though I type out a 6,000 character RFD and someone else types "Pro had better sources, and Con was a bit rude."

Enough is enough.

Dude, chill out. The vote bombs are going to get removed, as they always are. The problem is not with the system, either. The problem is with those who vote. Changing the system isn't going to make people less stupid.

Well Max can't delete GWL's vote by his own standards as it explains every point it awarded and that's all that's needed to be considered a valid vote...it's a perfect example of what's wrong with the voting system
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 8:04:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
On this case in particular I am going to be spending a fair amount of time reviewing each and every vote (and I have gone through the 50 reports of the dozen times each vote was reported already). Messages have already been sent to several members to update their votes and the obvious VBs will be deleted.

On voting more generally, a guideline is being worked on to explain exactly what is required of voters to make the system work better. The basics should already be known (explain every point awarded) but it's clear that further explanation is need to add legitimacy to the system. This guideline will be added to the next update of the "Post debates here" thread (which should be happening soon) and will likely be added to other places on the site.

If anyone would like to help with this project let me know.
Debate.org Moderator
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 8:07:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 8:01:08 PM, YYW wrote:

Dude, chill out. The vote bombs are going to get removed, as they always are. The problem is not with the system, either. The problem is with those who vote. Changing the system isn't going to make people less stupid.

I agree with this 100%. "You can't fix stupid." - Ron White

But my point is if there are always going to be stupid voters on here, why should their tendency to award 6 points mean that their vote counts twice as much as mine?

Again, this isn't about this debate - this debate has simply reminded me, once again, why I hate the point system here. But I have been advocating for a change to the point system for a long time. See my debate on it here: http://www.debate.org...
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 8:07:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 8:04:59 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
On this case in particular I am going to be spending a fair amount of time reviewing each and every vote (and I have gone through the 50 reports of the dozen times each vote was reported already). Messages have already been sent to several members to update their votes and the obvious VBs will be deleted.

On voting more generally, a guideline is being worked on to explain exactly what is required of voters to make the system work better. The basics should already be known (explain every point awarded) but it's clear that further explanation is need to add legitimacy to the system. This guideline will be added to the next update of the "Post debates here" thread (which should be happening soon) and will likely be added to other places on the site.

If anyone would like to help with this project let me know.

(1) mikal
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 8:08:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 8:04:59 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
On this case in particular I am going to be spending a fair amount of time reviewing each and every vote (and I have gone through the 50 reports of the dozen times each vote was reported already). Messages have already been sent to several members to update their votes and the obvious VBs will be deleted.

On voting more generally, a guideline is being worked on to explain exactly what is required of voters to make the system work better. The basics should already be known (explain every point awarded) but it's clear that further explanation is need to add legitimacy to the system. This guideline will be added to the next update of the "Post debates here" thread (which should be happening soon) and will likely be added to other places on the site.

If anyone would like to help with this project let me know.

The only way to cut down on this kind of thing is to make it a one judge, one vote system. The current system gives bad voters a blank check because it's so subjective and there's no clear explanation as to when to vote for each category. By the standards you've laid out before (they have to explain each point they awarded) GWL's vote is perfectly valid..but we all know it isn't. And this isn't your fault, it's a problem with the system. No matter what standard you set up biased voters are going to add unjustified points to their votes because the system incentives them to do so.

Maybe, finally, we can get rid of the absurd template we have now
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 8:10:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 8:04:03 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:01:08 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/25/2014 7:53:49 PM, bluesteel wrote:
of the current voting system. The recent Roy/Mikal debate exhibits *everything* I hate about the current system.

It is currently a 10-6 vote in favor of Mikal (in terms of total judges who thought mikal had the better argument). And yet Roy is winning.

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

We need two reforms: (1) a straight winner-loser vote ["this person won the debate"]; no more BS multi-point categories, and (2) a clarification of the TOS that an RFD means stating more than "X was more convincing" - that an RFD requires a *plausible* explanation, i.e. the word "because" followed by a specific reason the argument was more convincing.

I'm tired of my vote counting less than people who choose to vote in clearly strategic ways. In the above debate, you have people double penalizing Con by throwing out argument that were made too late (so awarding arguments to Pro) and also awarding conduct *for the same infraction.* And you have other people who are awarding 6 points with little to no explanation.

I could have easily awarded 6 points initially. I voted for arguments that were sourced (racism and cost), which ultimately means I was voting for those pieces of evidence being more convincing, and I *was* bothered by Roy's conduct of arguing in the comments section. But I followed what has been site protocol for a long time in debates like this and only awarded arguments. But I'm done. I'm announcing a new tit-for-tat [game theory] strategy that as soon as someone else in a debate awards more than 3 points, I will also award more than 3 points as long as I think it is remotely justified to do so. I'm *not* saying I'm going to make up reasons for points, which means in some cases my vote will remain unchanged. But if I think that one side won even by a tiny *modicum* on sources, S&G, or conduct, I'm awarding more points as soon as someone else does. It devalues me as a voter and my time to say that someone else's vote counts for 6 points while mine counts for only 3, even though I type out a 6,000 character RFD and someone else types "Pro had better sources, and Con was a bit rude."

Enough is enough.

Dude, chill out. The vote bombs are going to get removed, as they always are. The problem is not with the system, either. The problem is with those who vote. Changing the system isn't going to make people less stupid.

Well Max can't delete GWL's vote by his own standards as it explains every point it awarded and that's all that's needed to be considered a valid vote...it's a perfect example of what's wrong with the voting system

I'm not sure that sufficiently captures the standard, but once more, the fact that there are idiots who vote on the site, just as there are idiots who post in the forums, and idiots who debate idiotic subjects isn't mitigated by changing the medium by which idiots act like idiots. The only options to reduce idiocy are to purge idiots, or get more people who are not idiots to drown them out.

The best answer to a bad vote is to get more votes, thett. Sometimes that doesn't work out, but sometimes it does. However, I think that some people's voting privileges ought to be suspended based on the votes they cast on Mikil's debate. But that's just my view, and I'm sure that it makes me a fascist pig for even having the audacity to say that.
Tsar of DDO
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 8:12:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 8:10:05 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:04:03 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:01:08 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/25/2014 7:53:49 PM, bluesteel wrote:
of the current voting system. The recent Roy/Mikal debate exhibits *everything* I hate about the current system.

It is currently a 10-6 vote in favor of Mikal (in terms of total judges who thought mikal had the better argument). And yet Roy is winning.

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

We need two reforms: (1) a straight winner-loser vote ["this person won the debate"]; no more BS multi-point categories, and (2) a clarification of the TOS that an RFD means stating more than "X was more convincing" - that an RFD requires a *plausible* explanation, i.e. the word "because" followed by a specific reason the argument was more convincing.

I'm tired of my vote counting less than people who choose to vote in clearly strategic ways. In the above debate, you have people double penalizing Con by throwing out argument that were made too late (so awarding arguments to Pro) and also awarding conduct *for the same infraction.* And you have other people who are awarding 6 points with little to no explanation.

I could have easily awarded 6 points initially. I voted for arguments that were sourced (racism and cost), which ultimately means I was voting for those pieces of evidence being more convincing, and I *was* bothered by Roy's conduct of arguing in the comments section. But I followed what has been site protocol for a long time in debates like this and only awarded arguments. But I'm done. I'm announcing a new tit-for-tat [game theory] strategy that as soon as someone else in a debate awards more than 3 points, I will also award more than 3 points as long as I think it is remotely justified to do so. I'm *not* saying I'm going to make up reasons for points, which means in some cases my vote will remain unchanged. But if I think that one side won even by a tiny *modicum* on sources, S&G, or conduct, I'm awarding more points as soon as someone else does. It devalues me as a voter and my time to say that someone else's vote counts for 6 points while mine counts for only 3, even though I type out a 6,000 character RFD and someone else types "Pro had better sources, and Con was a bit rude."

Enough is enough.

Dude, chill out. The vote bombs are going to get removed, as they always are. The problem is not with the system, either. The problem is with those who vote. Changing the system isn't going to make people less stupid.

Well Max can't delete GWL's vote by his own standards as it explains every point it awarded and that's all that's needed to be considered a valid vote...it's a perfect example of what's wrong with the voting system

I'm not sure that sufficiently captures the standard, but once more, the fact that there are idiots who vote on the site, just as there are idiots who post in the forums, and idiots who debate idiotic subjects isn't mitigated by changing the medium by which idiots act like idiots. The only options to reduce idiocy are to purge idiots, or get more people who are not idiots to drown them out.

It's not the only option though...right now GWL's vote is worth the same as two members who left multi-thousand character RFDs voting only on arguments. A one judge one vote system makes it worth only one

The best answer to a bad vote is to get more votes, thett. Sometimes that doesn't work out, but sometimes it does. However, I think that some people's voting privileges ought to be suspended based on the votes they cast on Mikil's debate. But that's just my view, and I'm sure that it makes me a fascist pig for even having the audacity to say that.

Agreed...GWL should just be outright banned, actually. He contributes literally nothing to the site
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 8:12:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 8:07:25 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:01:08 PM, YYW wrote:

Dude, chill out. The vote bombs are going to get removed, as they always are. The problem is not with the system, either. The problem is with those who vote. Changing the system isn't going to make people less stupid.

I agree with this 100%. "You can't fix stupid." - Ron White

But my point is if there are always going to be stupid voters on here, why should their tendency to award 6 points mean that their vote counts twice as much as mine?

You could have cast a 6 point vote bomb, but you didn't, because you know that it's the wrong thing to do and everyone would judge you if you did. I grant you that the way points break down is stupid, but the more immediate remedy to that is to just get more people who are not idiots to vote.

Again, this isn't about this debate - this debate has simply reminded me, once again, why I hate the point system here. But I have been advocating for a change to the point system for a long time. See my debate on it here: http://www.debate.org...

That might mitigate the damage that some idiots cause, but it might also have more effects beyond mitigating idiocy. I'm not saying the system is perfect, either. I'm saying that the cause of this problem is not the voting system's inadequacy, but voter's idiocy.
Tsar of DDO
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 8:13:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 8:12:44 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:07:25 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:01:08 PM, YYW wrote:

Dude, chill out. The vote bombs are going to get removed, as they always are. The problem is not with the system, either. The problem is with those who vote. Changing the system isn't going to make people less stupid.

I agree with this 100%. "You can't fix stupid." - Ron White

But my point is if there are always going to be stupid voters on here, why should their tendency to award 6 points mean that their vote counts twice as much as mine?

You could have cast a 6 point vote bomb, but you didn't, because you know that it's the wrong thing to do and everyone would judge you if you did. I grant you that the way points break down is stupid, but the more immediate remedy to that is to just get more people who are not idiots to vote.

Again, this isn't about this debate - this debate has simply reminded me, once again, why I hate the point system here. But I have been advocating for a change to the point system for a long time. See my debate on it here: http://www.debate.org...

That might mitigate the damage that some idiots cause, but it might also have more effects beyond mitigating idiocy. I'm not saying the system is perfect, either. I'm saying that the cause of this problem is not the voting system's inadequacy, but voter's idiocy.

Did you read the GWL vote? Just want your thoughts on it.
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 8:16:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 8:12:02 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:10:05 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:04:03 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:01:08 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/25/2014 7:53:49 PM, bluesteel wrote:
of the current voting system. The recent Roy/Mikal debate exhibits *everything* I hate about the current system.

It is currently a 10-6 vote in favor of Mikal (in terms of total judges who thought mikal had the better argument). And yet Roy is winning.

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

We need two reforms: (1) a straight winner-loser vote ["this person won the debate"]; no more BS multi-point categories, and (2) a clarification of the TOS that an RFD means stating more than "X was more convincing" - that an RFD requires a *plausible* explanation, i.e. the word "because" followed by a specific reason the argument was more convincing.

I'm tired of my vote counting less than people who choose to vote in clearly strategic ways. In the above debate, you have people double penalizing Con by throwing out argument that were made too late (so awarding arguments to Pro) and also awarding conduct *for the same infraction.* And you have other people who are awarding 6 points with little to no explanation.

I could have easily awarded 6 points initially. I voted for arguments that were sourced (racism and cost), which ultimately means I was voting for those pieces of evidence being more convincing, and I *was* bothered by Roy's conduct of arguing in the comments section. But I followed what has been site protocol for a long time in debates like this and only awarded arguments. But I'm done. I'm announcing a new tit-for-tat [game theory] strategy that as soon as someone else in a debate awards more than 3 points, I will also award more than 3 points as long as I think it is remotely justified to do so. I'm *not* saying I'm going to make up reasons for points, which means in some cases my vote will remain unchanged. But if I think that one side won even by a tiny *modicum* on sources, S&G, or conduct, I'm awarding more points as soon as someone else does. It devalues me as a voter and my time to say that someone else's vote counts for 6 points while mine counts for only 3, even though I type out a 6,000 character RFD and someone else types "Pro had better sources, and Con was a bit rude."

Enough is enough.

Dude, chill out. The vote bombs are going to get removed, as they always are. The problem is not with the system, either. The problem is with those who vote. Changing the system isn't going to make people less stupid.

Well Max can't delete GWL's vote by his own standards as it explains every point it awarded and that's all that's needed to be considered a valid vote...it's a perfect example of what's wrong with the voting system

I'm not sure that sufficiently captures the standard, but once more, the fact that there are idiots who vote on the site, just as there are idiots who post in the forums, and idiots who debate idiotic subjects isn't mitigated by changing the medium by which idiots act like idiots. The only options to reduce idiocy are to purge idiots, or get more people who are not idiots to drown them out.

It's not the only option though...right now GWL's vote is worth the same as two members who left multi-thousand character RFDs voting only on arguments. A one judge one vote system makes it worth only one

As I told bluesteel, you and he both had the option to cast shitty ballots. You didn't because you both know that it is the wrong thing to do, that it's a disservice to the exercise of debate and that everyone would judge you if you did. What one fuckwit does doesn't make other votes any less worthwhile. There are always going to be bad votes, too. Changing the system doesn't make shitty votes any less likely to occur.


The best answer to a bad vote is to get more votes, thett. Sometimes that doesn't work out, but sometimes it does. However, I think that some people's voting privileges ought to be suspended based on the votes they cast on Mikil's debate. But that's just my view, and I'm sure that it makes me a fascist pig for even having the audacity to say that.

Agreed...GWL should just be outright banned, actually. He contributes literally nothing to the site

I just don't care about him. He's a pain, but not a significant issue. If he casts a stupid ballot, the answer is to get more people to vote to nullify his tomfoolery.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 8:18:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 8:13:40 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:12:44 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:07:25 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:01:08 PM, YYW wrote:

Dude, chill out. The vote bombs are going to get removed, as they always are. The problem is not with the system, either. The problem is with those who vote. Changing the system isn't going to make people less stupid.

I agree with this 100%. "You can't fix stupid." - Ron White

But my point is if there are always going to be stupid voters on here, why should their tendency to award 6 points mean that their vote counts twice as much as mine?

You could have cast a 6 point vote bomb, but you didn't, because you know that it's the wrong thing to do and everyone would judge you if you did. I grant you that the way points break down is stupid, but the more immediate remedy to that is to just get more people who are not idiots to vote.

Again, this isn't about this debate - this debate has simply reminded me, once again, why I hate the point system here. But I have been advocating for a change to the point system for a long time. See my debate on it here: http://www.debate.org...

That might mitigate the damage that some idiots cause, but it might also have more effects beyond mitigating idiocy. I'm not saying the system is perfect, either. I'm saying that the cause of this problem is not the voting system's inadequacy, but voter's idiocy.



Did you read the GWL vote? Just want your thoughts on it.

I think it's stupid, but because he's a terrible voter, as so many others are. Changing the system won't make him any less stupid.
Tsar of DDO
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 8:20:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 8:18:00 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:13:40 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:12:44 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:07:25 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:01:08 PM, YYW wrote:

Dude, chill out. The vote bombs are going to get removed, as they always are. The problem is not with the system, either. The problem is with those who vote. Changing the system isn't going to make people less stupid.

I agree with this 100%. "You can't fix stupid." - Ron White

But my point is if there are always going to be stupid voters on here, why should their tendency to award 6 points mean that their vote counts twice as much as mine?

You could have cast a 6 point vote bomb, but you didn't, because you know that it's the wrong thing to do and everyone would judge you if you did. I grant you that the way points break down is stupid, but the more immediate remedy to that is to just get more people who are not idiots to vote.

Again, this isn't about this debate - this debate has simply reminded me, once again, why I hate the point system here. But I have been advocating for a change to the point system for a long time. See my debate on it here: http://www.debate.org...

That might mitigate the damage that some idiots cause, but it might also have more effects beyond mitigating idiocy. I'm not saying the system is perfect, either. I'm saying that the cause of this problem is not the voting system's inadequacy, but voter's idiocy.



Did you read the GWL vote? Just want your thoughts on it.

I think it's stupid, but because he's a terrible voter, as so many others are. Changing the system won't make him any less stupid.

I entirely agree, but do you think it could mitigate strategic voting? Like even if he is stupid, awarding him 3 points to vote will limit the amount of damage he can cause to the debate.

Like that debate was 10 to 6 in favor of me and I was loosing by like 3 points. That exemplifies strategic voting. Granted there is no way to fix stupid other that removing privileges for being exceptionally stupid, but it could mitigate the fall out.
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 8:20:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 8:16:40 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:12:02 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:10:05 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:04:03 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:01:08 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/25/2014 7:53:49 PM, bluesteel wrote:
of the current voting system. The recent Roy/Mikal debate exhibits *everything* I hate about the current system.

It is currently a 10-6 vote in favor of Mikal (in terms of total judges who thought mikal had the better argument). And yet Roy is winning.

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

We need two reforms: (1) a straight winner-loser vote ["this person won the debate"]; no more BS multi-point categories, and (2) a clarification of the TOS that an RFD means stating more than "X was more convincing" - that an RFD requires a *plausible* explanation, i.e. the word "because" followed by a specific reason the argument was more convincing.

I'm tired of my vote counting less than people who choose to vote in clearly strategic ways. In the above debate, you have people double penalizing Con by throwing out argument that were made too late (so awarding arguments to Pro) and also awarding conduct *for the same infraction.* And you have other people who are awarding 6 points with little to no explanation.

I could have easily awarded 6 points initially. I voted for arguments that were sourced (racism and cost), which ultimately means I was voting for those pieces of evidence being more convincing, and I *was* bothered by Roy's conduct of arguing in the comments section. But I followed what has been site protocol for a long time in debates like this and only awarded arguments. But I'm done. I'm announcing a new tit-for-tat [game theory] strategy that as soon as someone else in a debate awards more than 3 points, I will also award more than 3 points as long as I think it is remotely justified to do so. I'm *not* saying I'm going to make up reasons for points, which means in some cases my vote will remain unchanged. But if I think that one side won even by a tiny *modicum* on sources, S&G, or conduct, I'm awarding more points as soon as someone else does. It devalues me as a voter and my time to say that someone else's vote counts for 6 points while mine counts for only 3, even though I type out a 6,000 character RFD and someone else types "Pro had better sources, and Con was a bit rude."

Enough is enough.

Dude, chill out. The vote bombs are going to get removed, as they always are. The problem is not with the system, either. The problem is with those who vote. Changing the system isn't going to make people less stupid.

Well Max can't delete GWL's vote by his own standards as it explains every point it awarded and that's all that's needed to be considered a valid vote...it's a perfect example of what's wrong with the voting system

I'm not sure that sufficiently captures the standard, but once more, the fact that there are idiots who vote on the site, just as there are idiots who post in the forums, and idiots who debate idiotic subjects isn't mitigated by changing the medium by which idiots act like idiots. The only options to reduce idiocy are to purge idiots, or get more people who are not idiots to drown them out.

It's not the only option though...right now GWL's vote is worth the same as two members who left multi-thousand character RFDs voting only on arguments. A one judge one vote system makes it worth only one

As I told bluesteel, you and he both had the option to cast shitty ballots. You didn't because you both know that it is the wrong thing to do, that it's a disservice to the exercise of debate and that everyone would judge you if you did. What one fuckwit does doesn't make other votes any less worthwhile. There are always going to be bad votes, too. Changing the system doesn't make shitty votes any less likely to occur.

But changing the system makes his ballot worth *less*. Instead of having it counter two good judges, it only counters one. The changes I want mitigate the effect of shittty voters. I mean can you imagine the nats final using this system "Okay, it's a 10-6 vote for Con and the winner is PRO!"


The best answer to a bad vote is to get more votes, thett. Sometimes that doesn't work out, but sometimes it does. However, I think that some people's voting privileges ought to be suspended based on the votes they cast on Mikil's debate. But that's just my view, and I'm sure that it makes me a fascist pig for even having the audacity to say that.

Agreed...GWL should just be outright banned, actually. He contributes literally nothing to the site

I just don't care about him. He's a pain, but not a significant issue. If he casts a stupid ballot, the answer is to get more people to vote to nullify his tomfoolery.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 8:21:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 8:04:59 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
On this case in particular I am going to be spending a fair amount of time reviewing each and every vote (and I have gone through the 50 reports of the dozen times each vote was reported already). Messages have already been sent to several members to update their votes and the obvious VBs will be deleted.

On voting more generally, a guideline is being worked on to explain exactly what is required of voters to make the system work better. The basics should already be known (explain every point awarded) but it's clear that further explanation is need to add legitimacy to the system. This guideline will be added to the next update of the "Post debates here" thread (which should be happening soon) and will likely be added to other places on the site.

If anyone would like to help with this project let me know.

I'd like to be involved, but I think it's hard to define what a "legitimate" vote is for S&G, conduct, or sources since those are so subjective.

For S&G, does the person have to pick out the specific spelling error? Is that even legitimate, to vote a full point off one error? If not, it's just an assertion in the RFD that one side was better.

For conduct, this is completely subjective. One side was "ruder." That depends entirely on what the listener things is appropriate, or on the specific unique rules established in Round 1 of the debate.

Source. You either vote on quality (which is a subjective feeling) or quantity (which is often a stupid measurement - Pro cited one more source than Con). The only objective way to justify a source vote is to uncover evidence of plagiarism, misquoting, or outright fabrication. But these are such rare exceptions that if this were the standard, a sources vote would almost never be justified. So you either make it an objective measurement or simply "give up" and allow subjective assertions of quality.

At least for arguments you can make people point to specific contentions and rebuttals that were made in the debate as to why they thought one side was more convincing.

So basically I'd like to help draft a new policy, but I think it's really hard to do so under the current point system.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 8:21:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 7:53:49 PM, bluesteel wrote:
of the current voting system. The recent Roy/Mikal debate exhibits *everything* I hate about the current system.

^
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 8:22:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
On Mikil and Roy's debate, at minimum the following people's votes are just bad:

GWL-CPA
Hello83433
RebelRebelDixieDixie01
subgenius
Linkish1O2
Actionsspeak
Tsar of DDO
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 8:24:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 8:20:50 PM, thett3 wrote:

As I told bluesteel, you and he both had the option to cast shitty ballots. You didn't because you both know that it is the wrong thing to do, that it's a disservice to the exercise of debate and that everyone would judge you if you did. What one fuckwit does doesn't make other votes any less worthwhile. There are always going to be bad votes, too. Changing the system doesn't make shitty votes any less likely to occur.

But changing the system makes his ballot worth *less*. Instead of having it counter two good judges, it only counters one. The changes I want mitigate the effect of shittty voters. I mean can you imagine the nats final using this system "Okay, it's a 10-6 vote for Con and the winner is PRO!"

lol yeah, this exactly. You can't tell me the "solution" is that I have the option to cast a s**tty 6-point vote too, and then tell me with your next breath that I'll be derided by the community for doing so because it's unethical. That's not a solution to one person's 6-point vote counting twice as much as mine. If anything, it shows why there is no option available to me to even the score and make my vote count as much as the next guy's. At least not an option that is very legitimate.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 8:24:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 8:08:03 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:04:59 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
On this case in particular I am going to be spending a fair amount of time reviewing each and every vote (and I have gone through the 50 reports of the dozen times each vote was reported already). Messages have already been sent to several members to update their votes and the obvious VBs will be deleted.

On voting more generally, a guideline is being worked on to explain exactly what is required of voters to make the system work better. The basics should already be known (explain every point awarded) but it's clear that further explanation is need to add legitimacy to the system. This guideline will be added to the next update of the "Post debates here" thread (which should be happening soon) and will likely be added to other places on the site.

If anyone would like to help with this project let me know.

The only way to cut down on this kind of thing is to make it a one judge, one vote system. The current system gives bad voters a blank check because it's so subjective and there's no clear explanation as to when to vote for each category. By the standards you've laid out before (they have to explain each point they awarded) GWL's vote is perfectly valid..but we all know it isn't. And this isn't your fault, it's a problem with the system. No matter what standard you set up biased voters are going to add unjustified points to their votes because the system incentives them to do so.

Maybe, finally, we can get rid of the absurd template we have now

I don't want to comment on any particular vote, but I will say that several of them leave enough to be desired. In each of these cases those members are being (or have already been) contacted to improve their vote. Whether this is because they didn't explain certain points, because they didn't relate their explanation to the debate itself, or they simply failed to explain their vote altogether (among other reasons), it is often easily recognizable when a vote is lacking for more than failure to just explain each point awarded, as i consider the basic standard. In those cases, members are often willing to update their vote when prompted to do so, and I am hopeful that will be the case for several of the votes here.

As for the broader issue of changing the system entirely, I imagine I'll be having that conversation at length in the near future. For now, I want to make work as well as it can, what I currently have to work with.
Debate.org Moderator
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 8:24:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 8:20:43 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:18:00 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:13:40 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:12:44 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:07:25 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:01:08 PM, YYW wrote:

Dude, chill out. The vote bombs are going to get removed, as they always are. The problem is not with the system, either. The problem is with those who vote. Changing the system isn't going to make people less stupid.

I agree with this 100%. "You can't fix stupid." - Ron White

But my point is if there are always going to be stupid voters on here, why should their tendency to award 6 points mean that their vote counts twice as much as mine?

You could have cast a 6 point vote bomb, but you didn't, because you know that it's the wrong thing to do and everyone would judge you if you did. I grant you that the way points break down is stupid, but the more immediate remedy to that is to just get more people who are not idiots to vote.

Again, this isn't about this debate - this debate has simply reminded me, once again, why I hate the point system here. But I have been advocating for a change to the point system for a long time. See my debate on it here: http://www.debate.org...

That might mitigate the damage that some idiots cause, but it might also have more effects beyond mitigating idiocy. I'm not saying the system is perfect, either. I'm saying that the cause of this problem is not the voting system's inadequacy, but voter's idiocy.



Did you read the GWL vote? Just want your thoughts on it.

I think it's stupid, but because he's a terrible voter, as so many others are. Changing the system won't make him any less stupid.

I entirely agree, but do you think it could mitigate strategic voting? Like even if he is stupid, awarding him 3 points to vote will limit the amount of damage he can cause to the debate.

There isn't really any damage by the fact that the system permits idiots to cast outlandish ballots, and even if there was, there is an easier fix than changing the system. Really, this is one of those don't blame the game, blame the bad players type situations.

Like that debate was 10 to 6 in favor of me and I was loosing by like 3 points. That exemplifies strategic voting. Granted there is no way to fix stupid other that removing privileges for being exceptionally stupid, but it could mitigate the fall out.

I hear what you're saying, but there is a more immediate remedy.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 8:26:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 8:20:50 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:16:40 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:12:02 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:10:05 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:04:03 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:01:08 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/25/2014 7:53:49 PM, bluesteel wrote:
of the current voting system. The recent Roy/Mikal debate exhibits *everything* I hate about the current system.

It is currently a 10-6 vote in favor of Mikal (in terms of total judges who thought mikal had the better argument). And yet Roy is winning.

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

We need two reforms: (1) a straight winner-loser vote ["this person won the debate"]; no more BS multi-point categories, and (2) a clarification of the TOS that an RFD means stating more than "X was more convincing" - that an RFD requires a *plausible* explanation, i.e. the word "because" followed by a specific reason the argument was more convincing.

I'm tired of my vote counting less than people who choose to vote in clearly strategic ways. In the above debate, you have people double penalizing Con by throwing out argument that were made too late (so awarding arguments to Pro) and also awarding conduct *for the same infraction.* And you have other people who are awarding 6 points with little to no explanation.

I could have easily awarded 6 points initially. I voted for arguments that were sourced (racism and cost), which ultimately means I was voting for those pieces of evidence being more convincing, and I *was* bothered by Roy's conduct of arguing in the comments section. But I followed what has been site protocol for a long time in debates like this and only awarded arguments. But I'm done. I'm announcing a new tit-for-tat [game theory] strategy that as soon as someone else in a debate awards more than 3 points, I will also award more than 3 points as long as I think it is remotely justified to do so. I'm *not* saying I'm going to make up reasons for points, which means in some cases my vote will remain unchanged. But if I think that one side won even by a tiny *modicum* on sources, S&G, or conduct, I'm awarding more points as soon as someone else does. It devalues me as a voter and my time to say that someone else's vote counts for 6 points while mine counts for only 3, even though I type out a 6,000 character RFD and someone else types "Pro had better sources, and Con was a bit rude."

Enough is enough.

Dude, chill out. The vote bombs are going to get removed, as they always are. The problem is not with the system, either. The problem is with those who vote. Changing the system isn't going to make people less stupid.

Well Max can't delete GWL's vote by his own standards as it explains every point it awarded and that's all that's needed to be considered a valid vote...it's a perfect example of what's wrong with the voting system

I'm not sure that sufficiently captures the standard, but once more, the fact that there are idiots who vote on the site, just as there are idiots who post in the forums, and idiots who debate idiotic subjects isn't mitigated by changing the medium by which idiots act like idiots. The only options to reduce idiocy are to purge idiots, or get more people who are not idiots to drown them out.

It's not the only option though...right now GWL's vote is worth the same as two members who left multi-thousand character RFDs voting only on arguments. A one judge one vote system makes it worth only one

As I told bluesteel, you and he both had the option to cast shitty ballots. You didn't because you both know that it is the wrong thing to do, that it's a disservice to the exercise of debate and that everyone would judge you if you did. What one fuckwit does doesn't make other votes any less worthwhile. There are always going to be bad votes, too. Changing the system doesn't make shitty votes any less likely to occur.

But changing the system makes his ballot worth *less*.

It also makes all ballots worth less, and removes the potentiality for anyone to punish someone who actually used bad sources or grammar. The issue is not with the system, it's with the people who vote.

Instead of having it counter two good judges, it only counters one. The changes I want mitigate the effect of shittty voters. I mean can you imagine the nats final using this system "Okay, it's a 10-6 vote for Con and the winner is PRO!"

There is a reason the NFL doesn't use DDO's judging criteria.



The best answer to a bad vote is to get more votes, thett. Sometimes that doesn't work out, but sometimes it does. However, I think that some people's voting privileges ought to be suspended based on the votes they cast on Mikil's debate. But that's just my view, and I'm sure that it makes me a fascist pig for even having the audacity to say that.

Agreed...GWL should just be outright banned, actually. He contributes literally nothing to the site

I just don't care about him. He's a pain, but not a significant issue. If he casts a stupid ballot, the answer is to get more people to vote to nullify his tomfoolery.
Tsar of DDO
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 8:26:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 8:24:27 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:20:43 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:18:00 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:13:40 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:12:44 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:07:25 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:01:08 PM, YYW wrote:

Dude, chill out. The vote bombs are going to get removed, as they always are. The problem is not with the system, either. The problem is with those who vote. Changing the system isn't going to make people less stupid.

I agree with this 100%. "You can't fix stupid." - Ron White

But my point is if there are always going to be stupid voters on here, why should their tendency to award 6 points mean that their vote counts twice as much as mine?

You could have cast a 6 point vote bomb, but you didn't, because you know that it's the wrong thing to do and everyone would judge you if you did. I grant you that the way points break down is stupid, but the more immediate remedy to that is to just get more people who are not idiots to vote.

Again, this isn't about this debate - this debate has simply reminded me, once again, why I hate the point system here. But I have been advocating for a change to the point system for a long time. See my debate on it here: http://www.debate.org...

That might mitigate the damage that some idiots cause, but it might also have more effects beyond mitigating idiocy. I'm not saying the system is perfect, either. I'm saying that the cause of this problem is not the voting system's inadequacy, but voter's idiocy.



Did you read the GWL vote? Just want your thoughts on it.

I think it's stupid, but because he's a terrible voter, as so many others are. Changing the system won't make him any less stupid.

I entirely agree, but do you think it could mitigate strategic voting? Like even if he is stupid, awarding him 3 points to vote will limit the amount of damage he can cause to the debate.

There isn't really any damage by the fact that the system permits idiots to cast outlandish ballots, and even if there was, there is an easier fix than changing the system. Really, this is one of those don't blame the game, blame the bad players type situations.

Like that debate was 10 to 6 in favor of me and I was loosing by like 3 points. That exemplifies strategic voting. Granted there is no way to fix stupid other that removing privileges for being exceptionally stupid, but it could mitigate the fall out.

I hear what you're saying, but there is a more immediate remedy.

ban?
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 8:27:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 8:26:15 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:24:27 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:20:43 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:18:00 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:13:40 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:12:44 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:07:25 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:01:08 PM, YYW wrote:

Dude, chill out. The vote bombs are going to get removed, as they always are. The problem is not with the system, either. The problem is with those who vote. Changing the system isn't going to make people less stupid.

I agree with this 100%. "You can't fix stupid." - Ron White

But my point is if there are always going to be stupid voters on here, why should their tendency to award 6 points mean that their vote counts twice as much as mine?

You could have cast a 6 point vote bomb, but you didn't, because you know that it's the wrong thing to do and everyone would judge you if you did. I grant you that the way points break down is stupid, but the more immediate remedy to that is to just get more people who are not idiots to vote.

Again, this isn't about this debate - this debate has simply reminded me, once again, why I hate the point system here. But I have been advocating for a change to the point system for a long time. See my debate on it here: http://www.debate.org...

That might mitigate the damage that some idiots cause, but it might also have more effects beyond mitigating idiocy. I'm not saying the system is perfect, either. I'm saying that the cause of this problem is not the voting system's inadequacy, but voter's idiocy.



Did you read the GWL vote? Just want your thoughts on it.

I think it's stupid, but because he's a terrible voter, as so many others are. Changing the system won't make him any less stupid.

I entirely agree, but do you think it could mitigate strategic voting? Like even if he is stupid, awarding him 3 points to vote will limit the amount of damage he can cause to the debate.

There isn't really any damage by the fact that the system permits idiots to cast outlandish ballots, and even if there was, there is an easier fix than changing the system. Really, this is one of those don't blame the game, blame the bad players type situations.

Like that debate was 10 to 6 in favor of me and I was loosing by like 3 points. That exemplifies strategic voting. Granted there is no way to fix stupid other that removing privileges for being exceptionally stupid, but it could mitigate the fall out.

I hear what you're saying, but there is a more immediate remedy.

ban?

I mean, that would achieve the end I'm going for here, but the more immediate remedy is to suspend voting privileges. But I won't talk about banning because that makes some people uncomfortable, lol
Tsar of DDO
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 8:27:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 8:21:49 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:04:59 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
On this case in particular I am going to be spending a fair amount of time reviewing each and every vote (and I have gone through the 50 reports of the dozen times each vote was reported already). Messages have already been sent to several members to update their votes and the obvious VBs will be deleted.

On voting more generally, a guideline is being worked on to explain exactly what is required of voters to make the system work better. The basics should already be known (explain every point awarded) but it's clear that further explanation is need to add legitimacy to the system. This guideline will be added to the next update of the "Post debates here" thread (which should be happening soon) and will likely be added to other places on the site.

If anyone would like to help with this project let me know.

I'd like to be involved, but I think it's hard to define what a "legitimate" vote is for S&G, conduct, or sources since those are so subjective.

For S&G, does the person have to pick out the specific spelling error? Is that even legitimate, to vote a full point off one error? If not, it's just an assertion in the RFD that one side was better.

For conduct, this is completely subjective. One side was "ruder." That depends entirely on what the listener things is appropriate, or on the specific unique rules established in Round 1 of the debate.

Source. You either vote on quality (which is a subjective feeling) or quantity (which is often a stupid measurement - Pro cited one more source than Con). The only objective way to justify a source vote is to uncover evidence of plagiarism, misquoting, or outright fabrication. But these are such rare exceptions that if this were the standard, a sources vote would almost never be justified. So you either make it an objective measurement or simply "give up" and allow subjective assertions of quality.

At least for arguments you can make people point to specific contentions and rebuttals that were made in the debate as to why they thought one side was more convincing.

So basically I'd like to help draft a new policy, but I think it's really hard to do so under the current point system.

I appreciate your help. I don't disagree that the current system is flawed and leads to many of the problems already described. I think for right now we need a well stated policy and we can also continue to work towards a more long-term change as well that will take into account all the aspects of this issue.
Debate.org Moderator
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 8:28:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 8:26:15 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:20:50 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:16:40 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:12:02 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:10:05 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:04:03 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:01:08 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/25/2014 7:53:49 PM, bluesteel wrote:
of the current voting system. The recent Roy/Mikal debate exhibits *everything* I hate about the current system.

It is currently a 10-6 vote in favor of Mikal (in terms of total judges who thought mikal had the better argument). And yet Roy is winning.

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

We need two reforms: (1) a straight winner-loser vote ["this person won the debate"]; no more BS multi-point categories, and (2) a clarification of the TOS that an RFD means stating more than "X was more convincing" - that an RFD requires a *plausible* explanation, i.e. the word "because" followed by a specific reason the argument was more convincing.

I'm tired of my vote counting less than people who choose to vote in clearly strategic ways. In the above debate, you have people double penalizing Con by throwing out argument that were made too late (so awarding arguments to Pro) and also awarding conduct *for the same infraction.* And you have other people who are awarding 6 points with little to no explanation.

I could have easily awarded 6 points initially. I voted for arguments that were sourced (racism and cost), which ultimately means I was voting for those pieces of evidence being more convincing, and I *was* bothered by Roy's conduct of arguing in the comments section. But I followed what has been site protocol for a long time in debates like this and only awarded arguments. But I'm done. I'm announcing a new tit-for-tat [game theory] strategy that as soon as someone else in a debate awards more than 3 points, I will also award more than 3 points as long as I think it is remotely justified to do so. I'm *not* saying I'm going to make up reasons for points, which means in some cases my vote will remain unchanged. But if I think that one side won even by a tiny *modicum* on sources, S&G, or conduct, I'm awarding more points as soon as someone else does. It devalues me as a voter and my time to say that someone else's vote counts for 6 points while mine counts for only 3, even though I type out a 6,000 character RFD and someone else types "Pro had better sources, and Con was a bit rude."

Enough is enough.

Dude, chill out. The vote bombs are going to get removed, as they always are. The problem is not with the system, either. The problem is with those who vote. Changing the system isn't going to make people less stupid.

Well Max can't delete GWL's vote by his own standards as it explains every point it awarded and that's all that's needed to be considered a valid vote...it's a perfect example of what's wrong with the voting system

I'm not sure that sufficiently captures the standard, but once more, the fact that there are idiots who vote on the site, just as there are idiots who post in the forums, and idiots who debate idiotic subjects isn't mitigated by changing the medium by which idiots act like idiots. The only options to reduce idiocy are to purge idiots, or get more people who are not idiots to drown them out.

It's not the only option though...right now GWL's vote is worth the same as two members who left multi-thousand character RFDs voting only on arguments. A one judge one vote system makes it worth only one

As I told bluesteel, you and he both had the option to cast shitty ballots. You didn't because you both know that it is the wrong thing to do, that it's a disservice to the exercise of debate and that everyone would judge you if you did. What one fuckwit does doesn't make other votes any less worthwhile. There are always going to be bad votes, too. Changing the system doesn't make shitty votes any less likely to occur.

But changing the system makes his ballot worth *less*.

It also makes all ballots worth less, and removes the potentiality for anyone to punish someone who actually used bad sources or grammar. The issue is not with the system, it's with the people who vote.

No it doesn't do either of those things. YYW you have judged real world debate, you know that things like conduct and sources factor into the decision...the system is bad because it gives poor voters a blank check

Instead of having it counter two good judges, it only counters one. The changes I want mitigate the effect of shittty voters. I mean can you imagine the nats final using this system "Okay, it's a 10-6 vote for Con and the winner is PRO!"

There is a reason the NFL doesn't use DDO's judging criteria.

Because DDO's judging criteria is bad



The best answer to a bad vote is to get more votes, thett. Sometimes that doesn't work out, but sometimes it does. However, I think that some people's voting privileges ought to be suspended based on the votes they cast on Mikil's debate. But that's just my view, and I'm sure that it makes me a fascist pig for even having the audacity to say that.

Agreed...GWL should just be outright banned, actually. He contributes literally nothing to the site

I just don't care about him. He's a pain, but not a significant issue. If he casts a stupid ballot, the answer is to get more people to vote to nullify his tomfoolery.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right