Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Suggestions to Fix the Voting System

progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 4:21:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I've seen Mikal and others post topics discussing the flawed voting system, and I agree with him that votebombing is far too easy, relative weight is an issue, etc. However, I cannot personally back a 3-point system -- which I believe is the system the majority of people would advocate for. I think, to be perfectly honest, there are reasons to issue a 6 or 7 point vote, and provided that you can back it up substantially, rigorously, it ought to remain.

But, anyway, here are my suggestions:

1. We change the voting criteria to the following:

-Thorough, sourced, well-supported arguments (4 points)
-Adhered to site rules (3 points)
-Comprehensive rebuttals (3 points)

Essentially, source and arguments would be combined, conduct becomes more explicit, and rebuttals themselves are separated, thus placing more relative importance on the strength of one's arguments. S&G was removed because, honestly, does anyone actually vote on that criterion? I've only ever seen it used in extreme cases. If anything, it's an instrument of vote-bombing.

2. Separate vote systems per debater.

This one's a bit different. Instead of voting for which debater had the best arguments or the best sources, you'll vote on each debater separately, and award points from 0 to 3, with 3 being the best. The site rules could be modified to accommodate relative standards, but ultimately I think the system is objective enough in extremely close debates where, say, both debaters had thorough arguments, and thus both are awarded 3-4 in the first criterion, but one dropped a number of points, and thus only earns, let's say, 2 points in rebuttals while his opponent earns 3.

3. Expand the character limit for rfds -- in fact, require it.

I do not understand frankly, why rfds can only be 1000 characters. Honestly, I wouldn't even mind 1000-3000 characters of required explanation per criterion lest the vote doesn't count.

4. Have every vote for members under a certain experience level be monitored prior to counting.

I know this would place a lot of stress on airmax, and he already handles reports exceptionally well. Honestly, though, the monitoring could even be done by a variety of fairly high-level members, a certain number of which would need to sign off on a vote prior to it counting. That, or more people could fill the moderating role of approving votes, if that would be preferable.

5. Expand the voting requirements.

Instead of allowing voting after 3 debates -- which, in many cases, end up as silly troll debates -- I would increase that figure to, say, 5, mandate an application process where a moderator (again, I don't want to put too much stress on airmax, so this would need to be worked out in some way) would look over the person's past activity in order to weed out possible trolling, require a minimum ELO (we could even say 2500-3000), and have some type of probationary period, of three-strikes-you're-out rule, where every vote that is reported and removed counts as a strike. If you hit three strikes the first time, you lose your voting privileges for, let's say, a month, and need to re-apply. If it happens again, you lose them indefinitely, or even permanently.

Any thoughts?
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 5:40:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I agree that more characters should be allowed... However to suggest a minimum of 1000 characters, well please try voting on some unvoted debates
http://www.debate.org...

Top of the list right now is http://www.debate.org...
Anyone think this debate is worth even 50 characters per vote?
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...
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 6:08:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 5:40:50 PM, Ragnar wrote:
I agree that more characters should be allowed... However to suggest a minimum of 1000 characters, well please try voting on some unvoted debates
http://www.debate.org...

Top of the list right now is http://www.debate.org...
Anyone think this debate is worth even 50 characters per vote?

Yeah, that's a good point, especially when the server may have difficulty with so many characters.

How about a "void debate" option? It would be an easy way to disregard troll debates.
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 6:24:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think we should include Kierkegaard points(2 pts) to your framework. Like you would give the person you've disagreed with before the debate, 2 points, because you're obviously going to look upon his debate with confirmation biases, no matter how hard you tried to convince yourself that you're not suffering from the delusion of objective thinking(Hence, the philosophy of Kierkegaard).
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 5:20:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 6:08:28 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
How about a "void debate" option? It would be an easy way to disregard troll debates.

Many troll debates are well done (others resemble fudge), it would make little sense for us to officially engage in quite that level of snobbery about what topics are real debates, or which are beneath us.
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...
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 5:26:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 5:20:00 PM, Ragnar wrote:
At 3/27/2014 6:08:28 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
How about a "void debate" option? It would be an easy way to disregard troll debates.

Many troll debates are well done (others resemble fudge), it would make little sense for us to officially engage in quite that level of snobbery about what topics are real debates, or which are beneath us.

Fair point. But would you say that it's impossible to increase rfd requirements because of the threat of troll debates, though? I feel we could still address the problem in some way.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 5:28:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 4:21:22 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
I've seen Mikal and others post topics discussing the flawed voting system, and I agree with him that votebombing is far too easy, relative weight is an issue, etc. However, I cannot personally back a 3-point system -- which I believe is the system the majority of people would advocate for. I think, to be perfectly honest, there are reasons to issue a 6 or 7 point vote, and provided that you can back it up substantially, rigorously, it ought to remain.

But, anyway, here are my suggestions:

1. We change the voting criteria to the following:

-Thorough, sourced, well-supported arguments (4 points)
-Adhered to site rules (3 points)
-Comprehensive rebuttals (3 points)

Essentially, source and arguments would be combined, conduct becomes more explicit, and rebuttals themselves are separated, thus placing more relative importance on the strength of one's arguments. S&G was removed because, honestly, does anyone actually vote on that criterion? I've only ever seen it used in extreme cases. If anything, it's an instrument of vote-bombing.

2. Separate vote systems per debater.

This one's a bit different. Instead of voting for which debater had the best arguments or the best sources, you'll vote on each debater separately, and award points from 0 to 3, with 3 being the best. The site rules could be modified to accommodate relative standards, but ultimately I think the system is objective enough in extremely close debates where, say, both debaters had thorough arguments, and thus both are awarded 3-4 in the first criterion, but one dropped a number of points, and thus only earns, let's say, 2 points in rebuttals while his opponent earns 3.

3. Expand the character limit for rfds -- in fact, require it.

I do not understand frankly, why rfds can only be 1000 characters. Honestly, I wouldn't even mind 1000-3000 characters of required explanation per criterion lest the vote doesn't count.

4. Have every vote for members under a certain experience level be monitored prior to counting.

I know this would place a lot of stress on airmax, and he already handles reports exceptionally well. Honestly, though, the monitoring could even be done by a variety of fairly high-level members, a certain number of which would need to sign off on a vote prior to it counting. That, or more people could fill the moderating role of approving votes, if that would be preferable.

5. Expand the voting requirements.

Instead of allowing voting after 3 debates -- which, in many cases, end up as silly troll debates -- I would increase that figure to, say, 5, mandate an application process where a moderator (again, I don't want to put too much stress on airmax, so this would need to be worked out in some way) would look over the person's past activity in order to weed out possible trolling, require a minimum ELO (we could even say 2500-3000), and have some type of probationary period, of three-strikes-you're-out rule, where every vote that is reported and removed counts as a strike. If you hit three strikes the first time, you lose your voting privileges for, let's say, a month, and need to re-apply. If it happens again, you lose them indefinitely, or even permanently.



Any thoughts?

Its interesting, but I noticed a million flaws within the first two paragraphs.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 5:29:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 5:28:47 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 4:21:22 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
I've seen Mikal and others post topics discussing the flawed voting system, and I agree with him that votebombing is far too easy, relative weight is an issue, etc. However, I cannot personally back a 3-point system -- which I believe is the system the majority of people would advocate for. I think, to be perfectly honest, there are reasons to issue a 6 or 7 point vote, and provided that you can back it up substantially, rigorously, it ought to remain.

But, anyway, here are my suggestions:

1. We change the voting criteria to the following:

-Thorough, sourced, well-supported arguments (4 points)
-Adhered to site rules (3 points)
-Comprehensive rebuttals (3 points)

Essentially, source and arguments would be combined, conduct becomes more explicit, and rebuttals themselves are separated, thus placing more relative importance on the strength of one's arguments. S&G was removed because, honestly, does anyone actually vote on that criterion? I've only ever seen it used in extreme cases. If anything, it's an instrument of vote-bombing.

2. Separate vote systems per debater.

This one's a bit different. Instead of voting for which debater had the best arguments or the best sources, you'll vote on each debater separately, and award points from 0 to 3, with 3 being the best. The site rules could be modified to accommodate relative standards, but ultimately I think the system is objective enough in extremely close debates where, say, both debaters had thorough arguments, and thus both are awarded 3-4 in the first criterion, but one dropped a number of points, and thus only earns, let's say, 2 points in rebuttals while his opponent earns 3.

3. Expand the character limit for rfds -- in fact, require it.

I do not understand frankly, why rfds can only be 1000 characters. Honestly, I wouldn't even mind 1000-3000 characters of required explanation per criterion lest the vote doesn't count.

4. Have every vote for members under a certain experience level be monitored prior to counting.

I know this would place a lot of stress on airmax, and he already handles reports exceptionally well. Honestly, though, the monitoring could even be done by a variety of fairly high-level members, a certain number of which would need to sign off on a vote prior to it counting. That, or more people could fill the moderating role of approving votes, if that would be preferable.

5. Expand the voting requirements.

Instead of allowing voting after 3 debates -- which, in many cases, end up as silly troll debates -- I would increase that figure to, say, 5, mandate an application process where a moderator (again, I don't want to put too much stress on airmax, so this would need to be worked out in some way) would look over the person's past activity in order to weed out possible trolling, require a minimum ELO (we could even say 2500-3000), and have some type of probationary period, of three-strikes-you're-out rule, where every vote that is reported and removed counts as a strike. If you hit three strikes the first time, you lose your voting privileges for, let's say, a month, and need to re-apply. If it happens again, you lose them indefinitely, or even permanently.



Any thoughts?

Its interesting, but I noticed a million flaws within the first two paragraphs.

Enlighten me.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 5:30:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 5:29:20 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 3/30/2014 5:28:47 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 4:21:22 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
I've seen Mikal and others post topics discussing the flawed voting system, and I agree with him that votebombing is far too easy, relative weight is an issue, etc. However, I cannot personally back a 3-point system -- which I believe is the system the majority of people would advocate for. I think, to be perfectly honest, there are reasons to issue a 6 or 7 point vote, and provided that you can back it up substantially, rigorously, it ought to remain.

But, anyway, here are my suggestions:

1. We change the voting criteria to the following:

-Thorough, sourced, well-supported arguments (4 points)
-Adhered to site rules (3 points)
-Comprehensive rebuttals (3 points)

Essentially, source and arguments would be combined, conduct becomes more explicit, and rebuttals themselves are separated, thus placing more relative importance on the strength of one's arguments. S&G was removed because, honestly, does anyone actually vote on that criterion? I've only ever seen it used in extreme cases. If anything, it's an instrument of vote-bombing.

2. Separate vote systems per debater.

This one's a bit different. Instead of voting for which debater had the best arguments or the best sources, you'll vote on each debater separately, and award points from 0 to 3, with 3 being the best. The site rules could be modified to accommodate relative standards, but ultimately I think the system is objective enough in extremely close debates where, say, both debaters had thorough arguments, and thus both are awarded 3-4 in the first criterion, but one dropped a number of points, and thus only earns, let's say, 2 points in rebuttals while his opponent earns 3.

3. Expand the character limit for rfds -- in fact, require it.

I do not understand frankly, why rfds can only be 1000 characters. Honestly, I wouldn't even mind 1000-3000 characters of required explanation per criterion lest the vote doesn't count.

4. Have every vote for members under a certain experience level be monitored prior to counting.

I know this would place a lot of stress on airmax, and he already handles reports exceptionally well. Honestly, though, the monitoring could even be done by a variety of fairly high-level members, a certain number of which would need to sign off on a vote prior to it counting. That, or more people could fill the moderating role of approving votes, if that would be preferable.

5. Expand the voting requirements.

Instead of allowing voting after 3 debates -- which, in many cases, end up as silly troll debates -- I would increase that figure to, say, 5, mandate an application process where a moderator (again, I don't want to put too much stress on airmax, so this would need to be worked out in some way) would look over the person's past activity in order to weed out possible trolling, require a minimum ELO (we could even say 2500-3000), and have some type of probationary period, of three-strikes-you're-out rule, where every vote that is reported and removed counts as a strike. If you hit three strikes the first time, you lose your voting privileges for, let's say, a month, and need to re-apply. If it happens again, you lose them indefinitely, or even permanently.



Any thoughts?

Its interesting, but I noticed a million flaws within the first two paragraphs.


Enlighten me.

You want to complicate the voting system even more then it is. We already have enough problems, and i don't see how this fixes any of the core problems, like tactical voting. If anything, the simpler the better.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 5:33:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I posted this in TUF's voting thread.

The problem can be traced back to both the voters and the system.

What needs to be considered is how any change is going to affect good voting, poor voting, and malicious voting.

1) Malicious Voting

Voting that is either intended to harm a particular member, or a particular position/ideology (voting for a Liberal position to make sure that position wins, rather than who actually did best in the debate).

There are two ways to affect this, making it harder to get away with it and making it less effective at causing the desired effect.

a) Making it harder to get away with.

This should be clear. How does change X make it harder (or negatively, easier) for people to throw off debates with harmful votes. The biggest change we've had focusing on this cause was removing anonymous voting and requiring RFDs. While they do not fully stop the issue (no idea will 100% stop it, they do make it harder to get away with it).

b) Making it less effective.

By making it less effective, you remove some of the purpose and incentive for doing it. After all, decisions are made on a Risk/Reward structure, the 1-a focuses on maximizing the Risk, while this is for minimizing the reward.

2) Poor voting

This can be viewed as voting that is either lazy or uneducated/unguided. These votes are sometimes the hardest to fix, because many of them will simply not vote, rather than take the effort to become good voters.

a) Laziness

It is important that any change does not cause too much work for voters. This causes members to not vote at all, rather than go through the time to fulfill the voting requirements. The RFDs had a major effect on this.

b) Unguided

A lot of the time, poor voting can be attributed to new members not being familiar with proper voting etiquette, being familiar with a different site that does things a different way, or some other reason for them just not being aware of what they are supposed to do (we often see this with issues of poor RFDs). Any suggested changes should consider if they help guide or removing any guides for voters as well as (and this ties back to the laziness aspect) how difficult those guides are to use. A guide that is extremely long and tiresome to get through, or hard to find is just going to be skipped.

3) Good voting

This is something that little so far has been focused on in DDO, apart from RFDs and individual members trying to step it up. We all know what it is. It is a vote that takes into consideration only what has been presented within the debate. Not any outside factors and especially not any personal feelings on the topic at hand. A good vote is one which should accurately describe the outcome or result of the debate, free from bias.

Any change should be looked to see if it has an effect on creating or harming the incentive to do this.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 5:34:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 5:30:51 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 3/30/2014 5:29:20 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 3/30/2014 5:28:47 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 4:21:22 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
I've seen Mikal and others post topics discussing the flawed voting system, and I agree with him that votebombing is far too easy, relative weight is an issue, etc. However, I cannot personally back a 3-point system -- which I believe is the system the majority of people would advocate for. I think, to be perfectly honest, there are reasons to issue a 6 or 7 point vote, and provided that you can back it up substantially, rigorously, it ought to remain.

But, anyway, here are my suggestions:

1. We change the voting criteria to the following:

-Thorough, sourced, well-supported arguments (4 points)
-Adhered to site rules (3 points)
-Comprehensive rebuttals (3 points)

Essentially, source and arguments would be combined, conduct becomes more explicit, and rebuttals themselves are separated, thus placing more relative importance on the strength of one's arguments. S&G was removed because, honestly, does anyone actually vote on that criterion? I've only ever seen it used in extreme cases. If anything, it's an instrument of vote-bombing.

2. Separate vote systems per debater.

This one's a bit different. Instead of voting for which debater had the best arguments or the best sources, you'll vote on each debater separately, and award points from 0 to 3, with 3 being the best. The site rules could be modified to accommodate relative standards, but ultimately I think the system is objective enough in extremely close debates where, say, both debaters had thorough arguments, and thus both are awarded 3-4 in the first criterion, but one dropped a number of points, and thus only earns, let's say, 2 points in rebuttals while his opponent earns 3.

3. Expand the character limit for rfds -- in fact, require it.

I do not understand frankly, why rfds can only be 1000 characters. Honestly, I wouldn't even mind 1000-3000 characters of required explanation per criterion lest the vote doesn't count.

4. Have every vote for members under a certain experience level be monitored prior to counting.

I know this would place a lot of stress on airmax, and he already handles reports exceptionally well. Honestly, though, the monitoring could even be done by a variety of fairly high-level members, a certain number of which would need to sign off on a vote prior to it counting. That, or more people could fill the moderating role of approving votes, if that would be preferable.

5. Expand the voting requirements.

Instead of allowing voting after 3 debates -- which, in many cases, end up as silly troll debates -- I would increase that figure to, say, 5, mandate an application process where a moderator (again, I don't want to put too much stress on airmax, so this would need to be worked out in some way) would look over the person's past activity in order to weed out possible trolling, require a minimum ELO (we could even say 2500-3000), and have some type of probationary period, of three-strikes-you're-out rule, where every vote that is reported and removed counts as a strike. If you hit three strikes the first time, you lose your voting privileges for, let's say, a month, and need to re-apply. If it happens again, you lose them indefinitely, or even permanently.



Any thoughts?

Its interesting, but I noticed a million flaws within the first two paragraphs.


Enlighten me.

You want to complicate the voting system even more then it is. We already have enough problems, and i don't see how this fixes any of the core problems, like tactical voting. If anything, the simpler the better.

Ok, you've actually inadvertently proved my point. Under the current system, you could simply post as your rfd "Pro made a million errors in X argument, so points to Con" without having to back it up. My system would require that you back it up. When I asked you to do so, you couldn't find a "million errors." You simply pointed out that you disagree with making the system more complicated. By all means, you're entitled to feel that way, but I hardly made an error in suggesting that this is an effective means of reducing strategic voting.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 5:41:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
#1 does little to effect voting. It changes it from a 7 point to a 10 point system and gives them different categories. This will have no impact on abusive voting and may even make it worse, as it gives potentially more power to those that want to abuse their votes (10 points worth of power, vs 7 points).

#2 is just a variation of the Speakers Point system (shown here http://www.debate.org...), except that you dictate how much each category should be worth, thus making it less flexible as different voters weigh things differently. This is the only point that will make an improvement, but the Speakers Point system does it a lot better.

#3 has already been shown why it is faulty.

#4 would be a disaster, as it will only create a ton more work for the mods and drive away new voters.

#5 as well would have a negative impact on voting. This, along with #4 is only going to cause less votes per debate and thus make the voting less reliable.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2014 3:54:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 5:26:55 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Fair point. But would you say that it's impossible to increase rfd requirements because of the threat of troll debates, though?

I would not tie thr specific problem to any one type of debate, but better RFD are always a good thing. Better articulation of the standard already in place, would be a great place to start.
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...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2014 4:10:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Whatever the solution is, it should be built into the criteria required to attain voting privileges in the first place. Given the current criteria of "complete three debates and you get to vote", there's certainly a cognitive dissonance in regards to how to attain voting privileges, and whether or not that process has anything to do with voting quality.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?