Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Proposal for a new moderation system for RFDs

bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 11:34:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
What follows is a proposal for new community standards for when an RFD will be removed by the moderator.

== Argument Point ==

First, judges are required to reference a specific argument from the debate that they found to merit a vote for either Pro or Con. For example, a judge might say, "I found Con's arguments more convincing because I think Con proved that it is too costly to enforce drug laws. Therefore, I was convinced we should decriminalize drugs."

The major policy change from the current system is the need for a "because" statement. Under the current system of moderation, all that is required is that you mention the point category in your RFD, i.e. it is sufficient under the current system to say, "Con had better arguments." If my proposed system were adopted, this RFD would be removed because it fails to explain *why* Con was more convincing. A "because" statement of some sort is necessary that makes specific reference to an argument made in the debate round.

This ensures -- at a basic level -- that judges have at least read enough of the debate to reference one of the arguments made and ensures that the very worst RFD's -- that provide zero actual reasoning for their decision -- are deleted. This change is consistent with the TOS because an RFD is required and "RFD" stands for "*reason* for decision." A "reason" requires a because statement, not a conclusory recitation of the point category ["e.g. I think Con had better arguments"].

Admittedly, this only gets rid of the *worst* forms of vote bombing, but you would be surprised how many votes on this site fail to live up to even these *very basic* standards for justifying a vote. This system at least gets rid of the very worst votes.

Second, RFD's that mention *any* reason for the decision that is not related to an argument made in the debate -- such as the debater's outside knowledge -- are automatically subject to removal. Debaters cannot vote on arguments not made in the debate, so any RFD which makes clear that a debater *did* consider outside factors is automatically subject to removal.

Third, a debater who has his or her vote removed is presumed not to have read the debate. After one infraction on a specific debate, a much more detailed RFD will be required. The level of detail required is that which is sufficient to convince a moderator with "reasonable certainty" that the judge has actually read the debate. Thus, debaters who simply add a few words to an RFD after it has been flagged once *will not* be able to bypass removal. There is too high a risk that -- after being informed of these rules by a moderator -- a debater who has votebombed will simply pick out one argument from the debate and put it in his or her RFD without reading. Therefore, the presumption is necessary once a suspect RFD has already been removed *once* from that voter.

^This is significantly different from the current system. Under the current system, the moderator PM's members who leave inadequate RFD's, presuming that they *did* read the debate. However, this is *not* an administrable system because (1) a lot of newer members are really inactive and don't respond in a timely fashion, and (2) I think it makes the presumption go the wrong way. Bad RFD's should be automatically removed, rather than sitting there as presumptively "valid" until a judge logs on, sees the moderator's PM, and has a chance to update the RFD. In fact, the current system *invites* people to simply make multiple attempts at fabricating a better RFD, even if they didn't read the debate because they are given multiple chances to update. The presumption that bad voters didn't read the debate is therefore necessary, and bad votes *should* be automatically suspect.

Fourth, voters who have three or more of their RFD's removed will have voting privileges temporarily revoked. These individuals can take this time -- while on suspension -- to review the community guidelines on RFD's and to review good examples of RFD's. The moderator will keep a compendium of at least three examples of good RFD's [agreed upon by the community] that others can use as a template.

Fifth, a voter who has five or more RFD's removed (and has thus returned from a suspension of voting privileges and continued to votebomb) will have voting privileges permanently revoked. The member can petition for reinstatement after one year, and the moderator has discretion to re-grant voting privileges, but the moderator is highly discouraged from doing so unless the voter has demonstrated significant improvement on the site in terms of the quality of their debates and/or the quality of their contributions on the forums.

== Source, conduct, and S&G points ==

The problem here is that there *is* no standard for these points. They are inherently left up to the absolute discretion of the judge. Under the argument point category, debaters *tell* judges how to vote on the argument point inside the debate, and it is unethical to award argument points for reasons that the *judge* makes up that were not within the debate itself.

In contrast, debaters almost *never* argue specifically for the S&G, sources, and conduct points, and even if they do, the judge is still *free* to award those points *for any reason.* These categories are inherently subjective because a debater does not need to *object* to sources, conduct, or S&G for the judge to award it. By giving *absolute* discretion to the judge to decide the rationale for these points, you remove *any* ability to moderate RFD's for these points -- even assuming we were to adopt a much stricter moderation system.

So let's assume we adopt the system that TUF has proposed (which I think is a good compromise) -- the instigator of a debate can choose whether to use a 7-point system (the current system) or a 3-point system (argument points only). If the debater chooses the "argument only" system, then the moderator will remove bad RFD's entirely. If the debater chooses the 7-point system, then the moderator will remove bad argument votes, but there is nothing a moderator can do about sources, S&G, and conduct because there is no requirement that the judge consider only arguments made inside the debate for those points. Under the current system, the judge need only mention the "sources, S&G, and conduct" categories in the RFD if awarding them. Under a new moderation system, it is not administrable to police RFD's for sources, conduct, and S&G because while "arguments" provide a clear system for the moderator -- read the debate, see if the RFD references an argument made in the debate -- the other categories provide no objective standard. Also, to
remove a vote entirely just because the explanation for "grammar" wasn't quite good enough is unfair it it fully justifies the other categories. So unfortunately, for these two reasons: (1) there is no objective standard to review the sufficient of the latter 3 categories and (2) it's unfair to remove an otherwise valid vote for a deficiency in only one of the point categories, it's not possible to adopt a stricter standard for conduct, S&G, and sources.

In fact, for sources we *encourage* people to vote on arguments not made in the debate, i.e. "I looked up Pro's source #6 and he misconstrues what is says slightly." Personally I would think this is an illegitimate reason, but for non-argument points, we can't use some objective measurement such as "that argument was never made in the debate." All we could really do is require an explanation of *any* sort, which is the current system, and why I have been arguing for a change.

This is my proposal. Read it over. Suggest changes. Pick it apart. Use it to convince yourself that the 7-point system sucks because we could have way better moderation under an "argument only" system. Or don't. Basically, do with this what you will.

--Bluesteel
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 11:41:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 11:34:54 PM, bluesteel wrote:
What follows is a proposal for new community standards for when an RFD will be removed by the moderator.

== Argument Point ==

First, judges are required to reference a specific argument from the debate that they found to merit a vote for either Pro or Con. For example, a judge might say, "I found Con's arguments more convincing because I think Con proved that it is too costly to enforce drug laws. Therefore, I was convinced we should decriminalize drugs."

The major policy change from the current system is the need for a "because" statement. Under the current system of moderation, all that is required is that you mention the point category in your RFD, i.e. it is sufficient under the current system to say, "Con had better arguments." If my proposed system were adopted, this RFD would be removed because it fails to explain *why* Con was more convincing. A "because" statement of some sort is necessary that makes specific reference to an argument made in the debate round.

This ensures -- at a basic level -- that judges have at least read enough of the debate to reference one of the arguments made and ensures that the very worst RFD's -- that provide zero actual reasoning for their decision -- are deleted. This change is consistent with the TOS because an RFD is required and "RFD" stands for "*reason* for decision." A "reason" requires a because statement, not a conclusory recitation of the point category ["e.g. I think Con had better arguments"].

Good ideas. I look over them in more detail soon, but this seems excellent.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 1:44:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 11:34:54 PM, bluesteel wrote:

I think during your absence you missed the Voting Review Board?

For a brief time, I would say they implemented a system very similar to the one you're advocating for (Full disclosure: I was a member of that board).

It was decried by many, reaching a point where some members started refusing to put complete RFDs on purpose or threatened to stop voting completely if their votes were subject to review.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 11:07:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 1:44:02 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 11:34:54 PM, bluesteel wrote:
It was decried by many, reaching a point where many threatened to stop voting completely if their votes were subject to review.

Sounds like a plan to me. Seeing as voting on debates does absolutely nothing positive for the purpose of this site I can't see one good reason to care.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 11:08:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 11:07:26 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:44:02 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 11:34:54 PM, bluesteel wrote:
It was decried by many, reaching a point where many threatened to stop voting completely if their votes were subject to review.

Sounds like a plan to me. Seeing as voting on debates does absolutely nothing positive for the purpose of this site I can't see one good reason to care.

You don't think that even in theory a system of finding the victor in a debate, on a debate site, does anything positive for the purpose of a debate site?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 11:10:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Bluesteel has votebombed Roy twice in a rather hateful and condensing manner. I don't feel like reading anything he has to say about votes, and many of us feel that way.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 11:31:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 11:08:23 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 11:07:26 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:44:02 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 11:34:54 PM, bluesteel wrote:
It was decried by many, reaching a point where many threatened to stop voting completely if their votes were subject to review.

Sounds like a plan to me. Seeing as voting on debates does absolutely nothing positive for the purpose of this site I can't see one good reason to care.

You don't think that even in theory a system of finding the victor in a debate, on a debate site, does anything positive for the purpose of a debate site?

In theory it's a great idea. When like Frankenstein, an informal fallacy is resurrected and made the system, it does nothing good.

It is positive when someone is called out in a formal way for using bad arguments, but it is better to make no claims at all if you permit bad arguments to be called good and vice versa.

No number of review boards or checks and balances can make voting a foolproof method of finding the best argument. The only people who should really be on debate sites are those who aren't happy just taking whatever a panel of 'experts' or the general population says at face value, people who demand reasons.

Debate is a contest of reason and evidence, any system intended to find the best argument or better debater must operate on those factors and those factors alone. If such a system cannot be constructed even in an incomplete form there should be no system at all.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 11:43:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 1:44:02 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 11:34:54 PM, bluesteel wrote:

I think during your absence you missed the Voting Review Board?

For a brief time, I would say they implemented a system very similar to the one you're advocating for (Full disclosure: I was a member of that board).

It was decried by many, reaching a point where some members started refusing to put complete RFDs on purpose or threatened to stop voting completely if their votes were subject to review.

^^^

While imperfect, without it the moderator is only deleting the most blatant fudge votes. "Strategic votes," were among the ones quickly identified and deleted.
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

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

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 11:48:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 11:31:22 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 3/27/2014 11:08:23 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 11:07:26 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:44:02 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 11:34:54 PM, bluesteel wrote:
It was decried by many, reaching a point where many threatened to stop voting completely if their votes were subject to review.

Sounds like a plan to me. Seeing as voting on debates does absolutely nothing positive for the purpose of this site I can't see one good reason to care.

You don't think that even in theory a system of finding the victor in a debate, on a debate site, does anything positive for the purpose of a debate site?

In theory it's a great idea. When like Frankenstein, an informal fallacy is resurrected and made the system, it does nothing good.

It is positive when someone is called out in a formal way for using bad arguments, but it is better to make no claims at all if you permit bad arguments to be called good and vice versa.

No number of review boards or checks and balances can make voting a foolproof method of finding the best argument. The only people who should really be on debate sites are those who aren't happy just taking whatever a panel of 'experts' or the general population says at face value, people who demand reasons.

So, things like a...reason for decision?

Debate is a contest of reason and evidence, any system intended to find the best argument or better debater must operate on those factors and those factors alone. If such a system cannot be constructed even in an incomplete form there should be no system at all.

Debate is also the use of effective rhetoric--if the way you present something muddies its impact, that does have an impact.

Further, I would argue even an imperfect system often helps debaters improve their arguments in the future.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 12:10:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 11:48:00 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 11:31:22 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
It is positive when someone is called out in a formal way for using bad arguments, but it is better to make no claims at all if you permit bad arguments to be called good and vice versa.

So, things like a...reason for decision?

No, an RFD is an excuse. It is a comment or a thread post given arbitrary and unfounded weight in the minds of uncritical site members via special presentation. It is an opinion printed in gold leaf yet rationally no better than any other opinion.

Debate is a contest of reason and evidence, any system intended to find the best argument or better debater must operate on those factors and those factors alone. If such a system cannot be constructed even in an incomplete form there should be no system at all.

Debate is also the use of effective rhetoric--if the way you present something muddies its impact, that does have an impact.

In other words if the voter is too stupid to understand (or often too lazy to read completely) they get to say "well it wasn't made clear to me."

Further, I would argue even an imperfect system often helps debaters improve their arguments in the future.

Bullsh!t. If someone has constructive advice they can offer it in comments, or another post to a thread easily enough. This imperfect system only serves to validate the already out of control tendency to assert and abort, to give one's opinion and then act like there is nothing more to be said.

The only thing I have learned from votes on my debates is that I am really a good deal better at logic and reading comprehension than most people here.

But people actually think it's a virtue to pretend that RFDs are sacred and inviolate. They consider challenging them immature, unsportsmanlike like, and petty. This is a perversion. The system has actually created an attitude on a debate site where unsupported and often absurd and contradictory opinions are considered unchallengeable. Where the sum of these unsupported, absurd, fallacious, and lazy opinions is considered the final word on a debate.

I scoff at the idea, and I scoff at anyone who thinks that attitude is anything but profanely irrational.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 12:24:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 11:34:54 PM, bluesteel wrote:
First, judges are required to reference a specific argument from the debate that they found to merit a vote for either Pro or Con. For example, a judge might say, "I found Con's arguments more convincing because... The major policy change from the current system is the need for a "because" statement. Under the current system of moderation, all that is required is that you mention the point category in your RFD, i.e. it is sufficient under the current system to say, "Con had better arguments." If my proposed system were adopted, this RFD would be removed because it fails to explain *why* Con was more convincing. A "because" statement of some sort is necessary that makes specific reference to an argument made in the debate round.

I completely agree.

Admittedly, this only gets rid of the *worst* forms of vote bombing, but you would be surprised how many votes on this site fail to live up to even these *very basic* standards for justifying a vote. This system at least gets rid of the very worst votes.

True.

Second, RFD's that mention *any* reason for the decision that is not related to an argument made in the debate -- such as the debater's outside knowledge -- are automatically subject to removal.

I completely agree.

Third, a debater who has his or her vote removed is presumed not to have read the debate.

I think that's definitely a possibility, but I think it's equally possible that even if someone read a debate, they didn't understand it, and therefore voted on something that went over their head. I think it's probably nicer to presume that someone failed to read a debate rather than to assume incompetence, even if the latter is more likely, so I'm ok with this too.

Fourth, voters who have three or more of their RFD's removed will have voting privileges temporarily revoked.

I think this is already in place, though I agree with this proposal as well.

Fifth, a voter who has five or more RFD's removed (and has thus returned from a suspension of voting privileges and continued to votebomb) will have voting privileges permanently revoked.

I completely agree.

== Source, conduct, and S&G points ==

The problem here is that there *is* no standard for these points. They are inherently left up to the absolute discretion of the judge. Under the argument point category, debaters *tell* judges how to vote on the argument point inside the debate, and it is unethical to award argument points for reasons that the *judge* makes up that were not within the debate itself.

I don't know that allowing judges to make subjective calls on S&G points is necessarily unethical, but I agree that the lack of a coherent standard is problematic.

So let's assume we adopt the system that TUF has proposed (which I think is a good compromise) -- the instigator of a debate can choose whether to use a 7-point system (the current system) or a 3-point system (argument points only).

On its face, I like the idea of letting the instigator choose between the 7 point or 3 point system, but you proposed in another thread to just have a win/loss ballot, and I think that's a better system. It's not going to make people any less likely to cast bad ballots, but it will reduce the potential for any one voter to cause a disproportionate amount of harm.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 12:27:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 1:44:02 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 11:34:54 PM, bluesteel wrote:

I think during your absence you missed the Voting Review Board?

For a brief time, I would say they implemented a system very similar to the one you're advocating for (Full disclosure: I was a member of that board).

It was decried by many, reaching a point where some members started refusing to put complete RFDs on purpose or threatened to stop voting completely if their votes were subject to review.

I don't like the idea of a board, as the board existed, because there was no discussion of chaining the ballot -only regulating whose ballots were good and whose were not by no objective criteria. What bluesteel is proposing here, though, is probably the best solution in that it mitigates the potential for any one voter to cause a disproportionate amount of harm relative to other voters. So, it fixes the things that can be fixed and does not, unlike the voting board, arbitrarily appoint members who I don't necessarily trust to be able to delineate a good vote from a bad one.
Tsar of DDO
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 1:05:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 12:10:53 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 3/27/2014 11:48:00 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 11:31:22 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
It is positive when someone is called out in a formal way for using bad arguments, but it is better to make no claims at all if you permit bad arguments to be called good and vice versa.

So, things like a...reason for decision?

No, an RFD is an excuse. It is a comment or a thread post given arbitrary and unfounded weight in the minds of uncritical site members via special presentation. It is an opinion printed in gold leaf yet rationally no better than any other opinion.

Please don't strip the context from what I said.

My comment was not inresponse to your first paragraph, but rather this one:

No number of review boards or checks and balances can make voting a foolproof method of finding the best argument. The only people who should really be on debate sites are those who aren't happy just taking whatever a panel of 'experts' or the general population says at face value, people who demand reasons.

Debate is also the use of effective rhetoric--if the way you present something muddies its impact, that does have an impact.

In other words if the voter is too stupid to understand (or often too lazy to read completely) they get to say "well it wasn't made clear to me."

I do not agree. There is a difference between presenting an argument well, and presenting it poorly, and immediately jumping to the assumption that your voters are "too stupid" means you're willfully ignoring the possibility that you just presented your arguments poorly.

Further, I would argue even an imperfect system often helps debaters improve their arguments in the future.

Bullsh!t.

So it doesn't help whatsoever?

If someone has constructive advice they can offer it in comments, or another post to a thread easily enough.

Perhaps. But that doesn't whatosever negate the possibility of benefit from votes. That merely points to other ways of offering constructive criticism.

There are some on this site who refuse to accept any criticism of their position or arguments whatsoever. That they lose a debate may serve to make them realize that, at the very least, they may be presenting their arguments in an ineffective manner.

This imperfect system only serves to validate the already out of control tendency to assert and abort, to give one's opinion and then act like there is nothing more to be said.

The only thing I have learned from votes on my debates is that I am really a good deal better at logic and reading comprehension than most people here.

It's your choice to ignore the people offering you criticism.

But people actually think it's a virtue to pretend that RFDs are sacred and inviolate. They consider challenging them immature, unsportsmanlike like, and petty.

I do not. I think there is a difference between questioning and accusing, however. Immediately jumping on a vote you don't agree with with an accusation of stupidity or vote-bombing ispetty and unsportsmanlike. One should give the person the opportunity to clarify their vote.

I always (unless I accidentally leave it out) explicitly say that I'm happy to clarify any of my RFDs. And I try to check to see if anyone has questioned me. If I've missed any questions regarding my RFDs, it's purely in error, and I at present honestly don't think I have.

This is a perversion. The system has actually created an attitude on a debate site where unsupported and often absurd and contradictory opinions are considered unchallengeable. Where the sum of these unsupported, absurd, fallacious, and lazy opinions is considered the final word on a debate.

I scoff at the idea, and I scoff at anyone who thinks that attitude is anything but profanely irrational.

Any debate is going to have to be judged by people. Computers simply aren't capable at present of adequately judging a debate. The debaters themselves will rarely agree on the victor. Appealing to theoretically unbiased 3rd parties seems to be most effective method of determining a victor. Do you have a better solution, or are you just committing the Nirvana Fallacy? ( http://en.wikipedia.org... )
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 1:11:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 12:27:11 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:44:02 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 11:34:54 PM, bluesteel wrote:

I think during your absence you missed the Voting Review Board?

For a brief time, I would say they implemented a system very similar to the one you're advocating for (Full disclosure: I was a member of that board).

It was decried by many, reaching a point where some members started refusing to put complete RFDs on purpose or threatened to stop voting completely if their votes were subject to review.

I don't like the idea of a board, as the board existed,

I wasn't advocating for the board, per se. And I would agree that the board system in place could have used improvement.

because there was no discussion of chaining the ballot

I'm not sure how the proposed system here would have any effect on chaining of the ballot.

-only regulating whose ballots were good and whose were not by no objective criteria.

I would disagree--in general the objective criteria was the requirement for the vote to explain all of its points, and have that explanation be at minimum sensical. There may have been some gray votes, but the overwhelming majority were that.

What bluesteel is proposing here, though, is probably the best solution in that it mitigates the potential for any one voter to cause a disproportionate amount of harm relative to other voters. So, it fixes the things that can be fixed and does not, unlike the voting board, arbitrarily appoint members who I don't necessarily trust to be able to delineate a good vote from a bad one.

I do not think it entirely fair that a debate wherein the arguments were essentially equal, but one party couldn't string together coherent sentences, will come down to the luck of the number of voters--I'm not sure it really fixes what can be fixed, but rather cuts out the areas seen as problematic entirely.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 1:15:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 12:27:11 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:44:02 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 11:34:54 PM, bluesteel wrote:

I think during your absence you missed the Voting Review Board?

For a brief time, I would say they implemented a system very similar to the one you're advocating for (Full disclosure: I was a member of that board).

It was decried by many, reaching a point where some members started refusing to put complete RFDs on purpose or threatened to stop voting completely if their votes were subject to review.

I don't like the idea of a board, as the board existed, because there was no discussion of chaining the ballot -only regulating whose ballots were good and whose were not by no objective criteria. What bluesteel is proposing here, though, is probably the best solution in that it mitigates the potential for any one voter to cause a disproportionate amount of harm relative to other voters. So, it fixes the things that can be fixed and does not, unlike the voting board, arbitrarily appoint members who I don't necessarily trust to be able to delineate a good vote from a bad one.

I love you.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 1:26:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 1:05:03 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 12:10:53 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 3/27/2014 11:48:00 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 11:31:22 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
It is positive when someone is called out in a formal way for using bad arguments, but it is better to make no claims at all if you permit bad arguments to be called good and vice versa.

So, things like a...reason for decision?

No, an RFD is an excuse. It is a comment or a thread post given arbitrary and unfounded weight in the minds of uncritical site members via special presentation. It is an opinion printed in gold leaf yet rationally no better than any other opinion.

Please don't strip the context from what I said.

My comment was not inresponse to your first paragraph, but rather this one:

No number of review boards or checks and balances can make voting a foolproof method of finding the best argument. The only people who should really be on debate sites are those who aren't happy just taking whatever a panel of 'experts' or the general population says at face value, people who demand reasons.

Then strip everything but the one you are responding to next time. Just because it's called an RFD doesn't mean the reasons given (if any) are sound or cogent.

Debate is also the use of effective rhetoric--if the way you present something muddies its impact, that does have an impact.

In other words if the voter is too stupid to understand (or often too lazy to read completely) they get to say "well it wasn't made clear to me."

I do not agree. There is a difference between presenting an argument well, and presenting it poorly, and immediately jumping to the assumption that your voters are "too stupid" means you're willfully ignoring the possibility that you just presented your arguments poorly.

It's not a possibility if you didn't present your arguments poorly. If you say you can't know that you presented it poorly because it's subjective then there is no possible excuse for putting it to a vote.

Further, I would argue even an imperfect system often helps debaters improve their arguments in the future.

Bullsh!t.

So it doesn't help whatsoever?

This system? not even in the tiniest degree. An imperfect system could describe a system that can't absolutely give you a winner or loser most of the time. This is not just an imperfect system, it is an incorrect system. It gives answers that are wrong.

If someone has constructive advice they can offer it in comments, or another post to a thread easily enough.

Perhaps. But that doesn't whatosever negate the possibility of benefit from votes. That merely points to other ways of offering constructive criticism.

It points to the fact that the benefit you just claimed has nothing to do with voting qua voting and could be had without voting so should not be seen as a benefit of voting.

There are some on this site who refuse to accept any criticism of their position or arguments whatsoever. That they lose a debate may serve to make them realize that, at the very least, they may be presenting their arguments in an ineffective manner.

There are far more on this site who refuse to accept that their arguments have been completely disassembled and defeated. That they 'win' a debate serves only to deepen that delusion in themselves and those who share it.

This imperfect system only serves to validate the already out of control tendency to assert and abort, to give one's opinion and then act like there is nothing more to be said.

The only thing I have learned from votes on my debates is that I am really a good deal better at logic and reading comprehension than most people here.

It's your choice to ignore the people offering you criticism.

It's their choice to ignore my criticism of their criticisms. This system makes them feel quite comfortable in that choice.

But people actually think it's a virtue to pretend that RFDs are sacred and inviolate. They consider challenging them immature, unsportsmanlike like, and petty.

I do not. I think there is a difference between questioning and accusing, however. Immediately jumping on a vote you don't agree with with an accusation of stupidity or vote-bombing ispetty and unsportsmanlike. One should give the person the opportunity to clarify their vote.

I have given people plenty of opportunities to defend their vote/RFD, they have universally been rejected. I have seen no one besides bluesteel here actually willing to accept responsibility for assertions made in RFDs.

Sometimes incompetence or sloth is the only explanation, and I mean the only explanation. To comment on that is no more offensive than the original disrespect of presuming to judge someone's argument when you lack the ability or initiative to do so properly.

I always (unless I accidentally leave it out) explicitly say that I'm happy to clarify any of my RFDs. And I try to check to see if anyone has questioned me. If I've missed any questions regarding my RFDs, it's purely in error, and I at present honestly don't think I have.

Good for you.

This is a perversion. The system has actually created an attitude on a debate site where unsupported and often absurd and contradictory opinions are considered unchallengeable. Where the sum of these unsupported, absurd, fallacious, and lazy opinions is considered the final word on a debate.

I scoff at the idea, and I scoff at anyone who thinks that attitude is anything but profanely irrational.

Any debate is going to have to be judged by people.

False.

Computers simply aren't capable at present of adequately judging a debate.

False.

The debaters themselves will rarely agree on the victor.

Irrelevant.

Appealing to theoretically unbiased 3rd parties seems to be most effective method of determining a victor.

It is ineffective, see this site.

Do you have a better solution, or are you just committing the Nirvana Fallacy? ( http://en.wikipedia.org... )

I gave you the better solution. Cut voting. The benefit is marginal even if they were an accurate method.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 1:29:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Juggle should just add the option to select which categories are open to voters.

Then there's no need for moderators to remove posts on "argument only" debates.

I would figure this would be an easy feature to add.
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 1:34:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 1:11:49 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 12:27:11 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:44:02 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 11:34:54 PM, bluesteel wrote:

I think during your absence you missed the Voting Review Board?

For a brief time, I would say they implemented a system very similar to the one you're advocating for (Full disclosure: I was a member of that board).

It was decried by many, reaching a point where some members started refusing to put complete RFDs on purpose or threatened to stop voting completely if their votes were subject to review.

I don't like the idea of a board, as the board existed,

I wasn't advocating for the board, per se. And I would agree that the board system in place could have used improvement.

because there was no discussion of chaining the ballot

I'm not sure how the proposed system here would have any effect on chaining of the ballot.

lol, I thought I typed changing, but I guess autocorrect made that not the case... or I mistyped. Idk...

-only regulating whose ballots were good and whose were not by no objective criteria.

I would disagree--in general the objective criteria was the requirement for the vote to explain all of its points, and have that explanation be at minimum sensical. There may have been some gray votes, but the overwhelming majority were that.

What bluesteel is proposing here, though, is probably the best solution in that it mitigates the potential for any one voter to cause a disproportionate amount of harm relative to other voters. So, it fixes the things that can be fixed and does not, unlike the voting board, arbitrarily appoint members who I don't necessarily trust to be able to delineate a good vote from a bad one.

I do not think it entirely fair that a debate wherein the arguments were essentially equal, but one party couldn't string together coherent sentences, will come down to the luck of the number of voters--I'm not sure it really fixes what can be fixed, but rather cuts out the areas seen as problematic entirely.

Explain.
Tsar of DDO
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 1:37:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 1:26:41 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:

Then strip everything but the one you are responding to next time. Just because it's called an RFD doesn't mean the reasons given (if any) are sound or cogent.

I never asserted that was the case. And while I reject the general requirement that you're trying to impose on the grounds that I don't feel that's an honest response to my request that you not strip out context, I have done so here.

It's not a possibility if you didn't present your arguments poorly. If you say you can't know that you presented it poorly because it's subjective then there is no possible excuse for putting it to a vote.

You could believe that you presented it well, and be wrong.

This system? not even in the tiniest degree. An imperfect system could describe a system that can't absolutely give you a winner or loser most of the time. This is not just an imperfect system, it is an incorrect system. It gives answers that are wrong.

But not every time. Which would make it an imperfect system.

Perhaps. But that doesn't whatosever negate the possibility of benefit from votes. That merely points to other ways of offering constructive criticism.

It points to the fact that the benefit you just claimed has nothing to do with voting qua voting and could be had without voting so should not be seen as a benefit of voting.

I explained why it should be seen as such below. Your rebuttal rests on an assertion I do not believe is sufficiently justified.

There are some on this site who refuse to accept any criticism of their position or arguments whatsoever. That they lose a debate may serve to make them realize that, at the very least, they may be presenting their arguments in an ineffective manner.

There are far more on this site who refuse to accept that their arguments have been completely disassembled and defeated. That they 'win' a debate serves only to deepen that delusion in themselves and those who share it.

Justify that, please, as I do not believe it to be the case.

But people actually think it's a virtue to pretend that RFDs are sacred and inviolate. They consider challenging them immature, unsportsmanlike like, and petty.

I do not. I think there is a difference between questioning and accusing, however. Immediately jumping on a vote you don't agree with with an accusation of stupidity or vote-bombing ispetty and unsportsmanlike. One should give the person the opportunity to clarify their vote.

I have given people plenty of opportunities to defend their vote/RFD, they have universally been rejected. I have seen no one besides bluesteel here actually willing to accept responsibility for assertions made in RFDs.

Then I presume you are looking at your debates alone? Because I am consistently willing to do so, but I just don't think I've happened to vote on yours.

Sometimes incompetence or sloth is the only explanation, and I mean the only explanation. To comment on that is no more offensive than the original disrespect of presuming to judge someone's argument when you lack the ability or initiative to do so properly.

You don't know it's the only explanation until you've done your due diligence to find out the explanation.

I always (unless I accidentally leave it out) explicitly say that I'm happy to clarify any of my RFDs. And I try to check to see if anyone has questioned me. If I've missed any questions regarding my RFDs, it's purely in error, and I at present honestly don't think I have.

Good for you.

This is a perversion. The system has actually created an attitude on a debate site where unsupported and often absurd and contradictory opinions are considered unchallengeable. Where the sum of these unsupported, absurd, fallacious, and lazy opinions is considered the final word on a debate.

I scoff at the idea, and I scoff at anyone who thinks that attitude is anything but profanely irrational.

Any debate is going to have to be judged by people.

False.

Justify.

Computers simply aren't capable at present of adequately judging a debate.

False.

Justify.

The debaters themselves will rarely agree on the victor.

Irrelevant.

If a victor is to be chosen, there must be a mechanism. I don't believe that computers are capable of adequately judging. I believe that there is a presumptive bias from the participants which would both preclude a victor (since there are only 2 participants) and is perfectly relevant to the discussion of deciding a victor.

Appealing to theoretically unbiased 3rd parties seems to be most effective method of determining a victor.

It is ineffective, see this site.

Some members would disagree. There are members who have realized that they lost a debate after the votes came in.

Do you have a better solution, or are you just committing the Nirvana Fallacy? ( http://en.wikipedia.org... )

I gave you the better solution. Cut voting. The benefit is marginal even if they were an accurate method.

Cutting voting means never deciding a victor. On a debate site.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 1:43:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 1:34:15 PM, YYW wrote:

lol, I thought I typed changing, but I guess autocorrect made that not the case... or I mistyped. Idk...

Gotcha.

I do not think it entirely fair that a debate wherein the arguments were essentially equal, but one party couldn't string together coherent sentences, will come down to the luck of the number of voters--I'm not sure it really fixes what can be fixed, but rather cuts out the areas seen as problematic entirely.

Explain.

I think one side can present arguments equally as good as the other, but do so in a poor manner. I think that side should (if we take for the moment the position that they are truly "equal" in terms of arguments, and that the side who presented poorly did so in as objectively a manner as possible) lose because of that--i.e., that it should be a tie-breaker. I think Conduct should, similarly, be a tie-breaker. In my opinion, the sources point is less important, but I can see the argument for it also being a tie-breaker. I personally think all those categories should be only 1 point, though, rather than having any that are more than one point (sources are at present worth 2 points).
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 1:54:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 1:37:03 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:26:41 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
Then strip everything but the one you are responding to next time. Just because it's called an RFD doesn't mean the reasons given (if any) are sound or cogent.

I never asserted that was the case.

Then RFDs as the last word do not qualify.

It's not a possibility if you didn't present your arguments poorly. If you say you can't know that you presented it poorly because it's subjective then there is no possible excuse for putting it to a vote.

You could believe that you presented it well, and be wrong.

They could believe I presented it badly, and be wrong.

This system? not even in the tiniest degree. An imperfect system could describe a system that can't absolutely give you a winner or loser most of the time. This is not just an imperfect system, it is an incorrect system. It gives answers that are wrong.

But not every time. Which would make it an imperfect system.

All incorrect systems are imperfect systems. Not all imperfect systems are incorrect systems.

Perhaps. But that doesn't whatosever negate the possibility of benefit from votes. That merely points to other ways of offering constructive criticism.

It points to the fact that the benefit you just claimed has nothing to do with voting qua voting and could be had without voting so should not be seen as a benefit of voting.

I explained why it should be seen as such below. Your rebuttal rests on an assertion I do not believe is sufficiently justified.

There are some on this site who refuse to accept any criticism of their position or arguments whatsoever. That they lose a debate may serve to make them realize that, at the very least, they may be presenting their arguments in an ineffective manner.

There are far more on this site who refuse to accept that their arguments have been completely disassembled and defeated. That they 'win' a debate serves only to deepen that delusion in themselves and those who share it.

Justify that, please, as I do not believe it to be the case.

It is the case, I have read many comments to that effect. From wrichcirw, legitdebator, imabench, citrakayah, raisor, logical-master and more.

But people actually think it's a virtue to pretend that RFDs are sacred and inviolate. They consider challenging them immature, unsportsmanlike like, and petty.

I do not. I think there is a difference between questioning and accusing, however. Immediately jumping on a vote you don't agree with with an accusation of stupidity or vote-bombing ispetty and unsportsmanlike. One should give the person the opportunity to clarify their vote.

I have given people plenty of opportunities to defend their vote/RFD, they have universally been rejected. I have seen no one besides bluesteel here actually willing to accept responsibility for assertions made in RFDs.

Then I presume you are looking at your debates alone? Because I am consistently willing to do so, but I just don't think I've happened to vote on yours.

Mostly mine and a few others.

Your behavior is irrelevant, the culture most certainly exists and is being fed by the system. Seventh Professor and Imabench have given ample proof of that. They could not even conceive of the idea that votes might not decide the winner and implied that anyone who didn't subscribe to the site's claims about victory and loss were (respectively) trolling or retarded.

Sometimes incompetence or sloth is the only explanation, and I mean the only explanation. To comment on that is no more offensive than the original disrespect of presuming to judge someone's argument when you lack the ability or initiative to do so properly.

You don't know it's the only explanation until you've done your due diligence to find out the explanation.

That makes no sense. If someone references something that did not exist in the debate or made a claim about something lacking from the debate when it was in fact there, there are only two possibilities. They don't know how to vote or they didn't read the debate.

Any debate is going to have to be judged by people.

False.

Justify.

Computers can perform logical analysis.

Computers simply aren't capable at present of adequately judging a debate.

False.

Justify.

Computers can perform logical analysis. Debate is logic and evidence. If both debaters agree on premises and use deductive arguments a computer can evaluate the winner of the debate with 100% accuracy.

The debaters themselves will rarely agree on the victor.

Irrelevant.

If a victor is to be chosen, there must be a mechanism.

Victors need not officially named and should not be when the system doesn't really know who the victor is.

Appealing to theoretically unbiased 3rd parties seems to be most effective method of determining a victor.

It is ineffective, see this site.

Some members would disagree.

They're wrong.

There are members who have realized that they lost a debate after the votes came in.

Perhaps they did lose the debate. That is irrelevant. A random system will produce correct answers 33% of the time when there are only three outcomes.

Do you have a better solution, or are you just committing the Nirvana Fallacy? ( http://en.wikipedia.org... )

I gave you the better solution. Cut voting. The benefit is marginal even if they were an accurate method.

Cutting voting means never deciding a victor. On a debate site.

It means the site never claims to know the winner. People can still decide for themselves.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 1:55:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 1:54:14 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:

I gave you the better solution. Cut voting. The benefit is marginal even if they were an accurate method.

Cutting voting means never deciding a victor. On a debate site.

It means the site never claims to know the winner. People can still decide for themselves.

So no more debate tournaments?
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 1:56:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 1:43:43 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:34:15 PM, YYW wrote:

lol, I thought I typed changing, but I guess autocorrect made that not the case... or I mistyped. Idk...

Gotcha.

I do not think it entirely fair that a debate wherein the arguments were essentially equal, but one party couldn't string together coherent sentences, will come down to the luck of the number of voters--I'm not sure it really fixes what can be fixed, but rather cuts out the areas seen as problematic entirely.

Explain.

I think one side can present arguments equally as good as the other, but do so in a poor manner. I think that side should (if we take for the moment the position that they are truly "equal" in terms of arguments, and that the side who presented poorly did so in as objectively a manner as possible) lose because of that--i.e., that it should be a tie-breaker. I think Conduct should, similarly, be a tie-breaker. In my opinion, the sources point is less important, but I can see the argument for it also being a tie-breaker. I personally think all those categories should be only 1 point, though, rather than having any that are more than one point (sources are at present worth 2 points).

Could you not factor all those into an individual decision for overall win/loss?
Tsar of DDO
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 2:23:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 1:55:32 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:54:14 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:

I gave you the better solution. Cut voting. The benefit is marginal even if they were an accurate method.

Cutting voting means never deciding a victor. On a debate site.

It means the site never claims to know the winner. People can still decide for themselves.

So no more debate tournaments?

Call them what they are. Argument popularity tournaments.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 4:36:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 2:23:25 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:55:32 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:54:14 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:

I gave you the better solution. Cut voting. The benefit is marginal even if they were an accurate method.

Cutting voting means never deciding a victor. On a debate site.

It means the site never claims to know the winner. People can still decide for themselves.

So no more debate tournaments?

Call them what they are. Argument popularity tournaments.

So no more debate tournaments?
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 4:37:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 4:36:21 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 3/27/2014 2:23:25 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:55:32 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:54:14 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:

I gave you the better solution. Cut voting. The benefit is marginal even if they were an accurate method.

Cutting voting means never deciding a victor. On a debate site.

It means the site never claims to know the winner. People can still decide for themselves.

So no more debate tournaments?

Call them what they are. Argument popularity tournaments.

So no more debate tournaments?

If you need to know the victor I reckon so.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 4:39:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 4:37:32 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 3/27/2014 4:36:21 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 3/27/2014 2:23:25 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:55:32 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:54:14 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:

I gave you the better solution. Cut voting. The benefit is marginal even if they were an accurate method.

Cutting voting means never deciding a victor. On a debate site.

It means the site never claims to know the winner. People can still decide for themselves.

So no more debate tournaments?

Call them what they are. Argument popularity tournaments.

So no more debate tournaments?

If you need to know the victor I reckon so.

So you want to render moot a popular activity of the site because....?
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 4:47:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 4:39:38 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 3/27/2014 4:37:32 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 3/27/2014 4:36:21 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 3/27/2014 2:23:25 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:55:32 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:54:14 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:

I gave you the better solution. Cut voting. The benefit is marginal even if they were an accurate method.

Cutting voting means never deciding a victor. On a debate site.

It means the site never claims to know the winner. People can still decide for themselves.

So no more debate tournaments?

Call them what they are. Argument popularity tournaments.

So no more debate tournaments?

If you need to know the victor I reckon so.

So you want to render moot a popular activity of the site because....?

Maybe you weren't listening. Pretending the victor is decided by votes validates an irrational culture which trusts ad populum regardless of what actually occurred in the debate. This culture and attitude is used as an excuse to evade supporting one's statements and undermines debate.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 4:58:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 4:47:11 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 3/27/2014 4:39:38 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 3/27/2014 4:37:32 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 3/27/2014 4:36:21 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 3/27/2014 2:23:25 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:55:32 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:54:14 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:

I gave you the better solution. Cut voting. The benefit is marginal even if they were an accurate method.

Cutting voting means never deciding a victor. On a debate site.

It means the site never claims to know the winner. People can still decide for themselves.

So no more debate tournaments?

Call them what they are. Argument popularity tournaments.

So no more debate tournaments?

If you need to know the victor I reckon so.

So you want to render moot a popular activity of the site because....?

Maybe you weren't listening. Pretending the victor is decided by votes validates an irrational culture which trusts ad populum regardless of what actually occurred in the debate. This culture and attitude is used as an excuse to evade supporting one's statements and undermines debate.

We aren't "pretending the victor is decided by votes", we're defining that to be the case. Since people are free to believe in a victor other than the one decided by the votes, then it doesn't support any notion of ad populum. Further more, ad populum is a statement of truth. Debates aren't about establishing truth, but presenting a convincing case.

The whole reason people attempt to support their statements as it is, is to gain votes. Many forum frequenters eschew debating precisely because they don't think they could get votes in an actual debate. And that's all you'd be doing by eliminating voting: making the debates a glorified forum.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 7:07:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 1:56:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:43:43 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:34:15 PM, YYW wrote:

lol, I thought I typed changing, but I guess autocorrect made that not the case... or I mistyped. Idk...

Gotcha.

I do not think it entirely fair that a debate wherein the arguments were essentially equal, but one party couldn't string together coherent sentences, will come down to the luck of the number of voters--I'm not sure it really fixes what can be fixed, but rather cuts out the areas seen as problematic entirely.

Explain.

I think one side can present arguments equally as good as the other, but do so in a poor manner. I think that side should (if we take for the moment the position that they are truly "equal" in terms of arguments, and that the side who presented poorly did so in as objectively a manner as possible) lose because of that--i.e., that it should be a tie-breaker. I think Conduct should, similarly, be a tie-breaker. In my opinion, the sources point is less important, but I can see the argument for it also being a tie-breaker. I personally think all those categories should be only 1 point, though, rather than having any that are more than one point (sources are at present worth 2 points).

Could you not factor all those into an individual decision for overall win/loss?

Perhaps. But then, you're factoring in things that don't directly relate to arguments into the arguments vote, something Bluesteel was trying, I think, to avoid.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!