Total Posts:2|Showing Posts:1-2
Jump to topic:

Niqashian Propsal for Winner Selection

Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 4:15:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
ELO is important to many people, and so my proposal is ELO-based but rather weirdly ELO-based.

When Mr.X and Mr.Y challenge each other in a debate, they usually finish the debate and expect people to decide who won the debate. However, I'm going to argue here that the winner of the debate must never be chosen or declared by the server, but on the contrary, readers would be asked to fill a query on who they thought did a better job supplied with feedback, and each person chosen by the reviewers to be the winner would be awarded ELO points based on that, meanwhile the debate itself would not have an official winner, and no points would be shown indicating who got more ELO points out of the debate.

The reviews will be placed in a "reviews" section of the debate, and readers can read them and comment on them, and some of those reviews might declare Mr.X or Mr.Y to be the winner, but the debate itself will never be classified as "won" or "lost" by the server itself.

This procedure will also handle ties, which makes this very interesting and eliminates struggles about who won that particular debate, provided that the debaters will argue to get ELO points in a direct manner, and not argue to have debates listed in their "wins" section.

On the "getting more votes" problem

One problem is that popular members would get more reviews, and hence more ELO points from their debates. This is reduced by assigning a formula.

Added ELO = MINIMUM-OF(N,X) *4+ (R)

N: Number of supporting reviews you got from that single debate.

X: If you have a high average-number-of-reviewers-per-debate, X is decreased so that you don't have this as an advantage. For instance, if you got an average of more than 50 reviewers per debate, the server will assign X as 10, but for the new user who has 5 reviewers per debate, the server would assign X to be 40. This is just an example. There are countless procedures of how X can be determined which are too technical to go into.

R: The ratio of you and your opponent's ELO. This is to simply award you more if you go against a prominent member, and less if you go against an amateur.

Problems this will reduce

1- Less petty fights on who won or lost a debate, because such a concept wouldn't even exist.

2- Getting rid of debate categories which increase vote-bombing.

3- Having debaters not penalized with ELO or seeing their debates in the "losses" section", or in other words, encouraging positive reinforcement as opposed to negative reinforcement.

Take note that this would change the percentile nature of ELOs, which means that prominent debaters can achieve a 999,999 ELO if they want and even go higher than that.

As every other proposal, this could have some flaws, and perhaps severe flaws which I didn't take into consideration. If any are found, please let me know, I'm myself undecided on my own proposal. This also seems sensible and so I'd assume that people before me might have already proposed something similar

tl:dr, A proposal to award debaters based on reviews that will give them additional ELO points without the server deciding who won the debates.