Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Speaker point Voting system proposal

bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 2:07:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is the system used in competitive debate. It's the straight win/loss system, with a small twist. The twist seems to answer many people's concerns about abolishing the point categories.

Here is the system:

The side that did the better debating was ____________ [Pro or Con]

Please rank the overall effectiveness of each debater on a scale of 1-10, taking into account the debater's skill at communicating, the debater's effective at using rebuttals, the debater's use of quality sources, and the debater's overall conduct.

Pro ______________ [1-10]
Con ______________ [1-10]

The first part -- which side did the better debating -- determines the winner and loser of the debate.

The second category helps determine how much of an ELO effect a win-loss has based on how well you did in the debate. If you win the debate and are awarded high speaker points (say, an average of "9"), you will get a bigger ELO boost than if you won the debate with an average speaker points of "6."

Likewise, if you lose but have high speaker points (say, an average of "9"), you will take less of a *loss* to your ELO than if you lost and had low speaker points (say, an average of "5").

If you want to dock someone for bad conduct, you give them lower speaker points. If someone uses bad sourcing, give them lower speaker points.

If someone has terrible spelling and grammar, give them low speaker points.

The good thing about this system is that (1) grammar, etc. no longer determines the winner of the debate [which eliminates strategic voting], (2) you still have a way to punish bad conduct, and (3) the other 3 categories are still accounted for in the way they should be -- as a subjective judgment call about "how good" a debater did overall.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 2:13:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This system still uses an open RFD field to explain the reason for the vote.

It should also be noted that with time, other updates can be added on top of this to increase effectiveness.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 2:52:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/29/2014 2:38:59 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://Ore-Ele.polldaddy.com...

If you like this proposed system or just generally want to see the voting system changed, please take this poll. It will help prove to Juggle that they should do this update.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Zaradi
Posts: 14,128
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 3:03:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/29/2014 2:58:12 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I think debaters choosing which ones they want is the best. It could be made mandatory instead of having a default option.

HE SPEAKS
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 11:35:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/29/2014 5:55:48 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
It still has a choose winner per debate basis which will always cause complications. My proposal is superior but nobody gives a damn about it(http://www.debate.org...).

Actually, it isn't superior, it just turns the debates into the opinion section and turns the ELO into a meaningless number. You'll end up with really bad debaters that think they are really good because they've done a ton of poor debates and received a few confirmationally biased votes. Since the ELO only goes up in your system, they can look like a debating champ just by being bad for a long enough time.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 12:00:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/29/2014 11:35:30 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 3/29/2014 5:55:48 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
It still has a choose winner per debate basis which will always cause complications. My proposal is superior but nobody gives a damn about it(http://www.debate.org...).

Actually, it isn't superior, it just turns the debates into the opinion section and turns the ELO into a meaningless number

That's utter nonsense. If debates are not declared to be won or lost by the server, that doesn't make them opinions that are voted on, provided that users will vote on user-basis and not on any opinions. You're simply strawmaning the whole thing. Moreover, ELO won't be a meaningless number, it still would determine good debaters from bad debaters.

You'll end up with really bad debaters that think they are really good because they've :done a ton of poor debates and received a few confirmationally biased votes.

If the votes are few, the ELO won't be high enough, but augmented by a few points. You don't seem how to understand how the Math formula I proposed works.

Since the ELO only goes up in your system, they can look like a debating champ just by :being bad for a long enough time.

Not at all. Those are here and have been good for a long enough time would have a superior ELO that could outdo the bad debaters in thousands of points. Moreover, I find it unreasonable that someone would do 100 debates and lose them all. If someone was to hang around for that long time, he would start winning debates, learning from his losses and deserving a higher ELO than users who just stepped in.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 12:11:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/29/2014 12:00:02 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 3/29/2014 11:35:30 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 3/29/2014 5:55:48 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
It still has a choose winner per debate basis which will always cause complications. My proposal is superior but nobody gives a damn about it(http://www.debate.org...).

Actually, it isn't superior, it just turns the debates into the opinion section and turns the ELO into a meaningless number

That's utter nonsense. If debates are not declared to be won or lost by the server, that doesn't make them opinions that are voted on, provided that users will vote on user-basis and not on any opinions. You're simply strawmaning the whole thing. Moreover, ELO won't be a meaningless number, it still would determine good debaters from bad debaters.

No, it will be just like the opinion section, except there will be a debate to go along with it. But all the voters will cast their vote on it and it will just be a chain of votes where no one lost so there is no harm in a bad vote. If there is no harm in a bad vote, there is no reason for the moderators to have any kind of enforcement on it and no reason for people to not cast bad votes, just like in the opinions section.

This is only opening the door for even greater confirmation bias.


You'll end up with really bad debaters that think they are really good because they've :done a ton of poor debates and received a few confirmationally biased votes.

If the votes are few, the ELO won't be high enough, but augmented by a few points. You don't seem how to understand how the Math formula I proposed works.

The formula you suggested only goes up. So while a bad debater may not get as many points as a good debater, if they keep at it enough, they will have a high ELO to show for their effort and that makes the ELO less accurate and meaningless.


Since the ELO only goes up in your system, they can look like a debating champ just by :being bad for a long enough time.

Not at all. Those are here and have been good for a long enough time would have a superior ELO that could outdo the bad debaters in thousands of points. Moreover, I find it unreasonable that someone would do 100 debates and lose them all. If someone was to hang around for that long time, he would start winning debates, learning from his losses and deserving a higher ELO than users who just stepped in.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 12:25:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/29/2014 11:35:30 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 3/29/2014 5:55:48 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
It still has a choose winner per debate basis which will always cause complications. My proposal is superior but nobody gives a damn about it(http://www.debate.org...).

Actually, it isn't superior, it just turns the debates into the opinion section and turns the ELO into a meaningless number. You'll end up with really bad debaters that think they are really good because they've done a ton of poor debates and received a few confirmationally biased votes. Since the ELO only goes up in your system, they can look like a debating champ just by being bad for a long enough time.

I would like to first critique what Bluesteel is offering, and then further defend my proposal.

First, he is only concerned with votebombs, because he wants to increase the power of in-friend voting. If votes don't count too much, then no matter the points, your friends can still make you win the debate if you have more friends. The current system annoys them because their friends give them a few points when they are herded from forums, while people who find the votes absurd, would give their opponents more points in retaliation.

If you check Bluesteel votes on Roy's debates, he always gives Roy's opponent(who happens to Bluesteel's friend) a 6-0, and his RFDs are ridiculous to the point where his RFD is built on strawmans that makes it look as if it was voted on another debate, since even those who voted for Roy's opponent ake opposite points to the ones he's making.

While Mikal's votes are the funniest. In the debate between Sargon and Chitarkah, Sargon copied and pasted arguments from a previous debate that were irrelevant to this one. In his current one, he had the burden of proof to prove the Aether exists, while in the previous one it was shared burden of proof and comparison between the Neo-lorenzentian and Minikowski(sp) interpretations. He even copied sentences which claim that his opponent had a shared burden of proof and had to prove the other interpretation(which contradicted his own opening statement), and Mikal voted on that basis oddly with a long RFD that showed he just skimmed over a debate he didn't understand. In short, Sargon won because most of the voters were his friends. The retaliation against this absurd voting was by Rross and Wrichriw. If we were to remove a power of retaliation that can give high number of points as an implicit form of counter-voting, Mikal and Bluesteel and all other DDO parasites who are popular will win debates they shouldn't have won.
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 12:31:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
No, it will be just like the opinion section, except there will be a debate to go along with it. But all the voters will cast their vote on it and it will just be a chain of votes where no one lost so there is no harm in a bad vote.

If people bothered with the harm of a bad vote, we wouldn't have votebombs in the first place. Your point is self-contradictory given that we have that "harm" and we still have votebombs.


If there is no harm in a bad vote, there is no reason for the moderators to have any kind of enforcement on it and no reason for people to not cast bad votes, just like in the opinions section.

There is, why wouldn't there be? Moderators can read the reviews and see which are false. The point is that the debate itself wouldn't be considered to be won or lost, but there still needs to be honest voting given that this is a method to allocate ELO points.

Moreover, you're making a false comparison fallacy by comparing this to a posted opinion. In the opinion section, you can see which side has more votes. In my proposal you don't, but yo u see reviews which choose the best debater without knowing how much points are being allocated.
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 12:45:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/29/2014 2:34:38 AM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
At 3/29/2014 2:23:12 AM, Zaradi wrote:
+1 to this
Tsar of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 1:41:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/29/2014 12:25:47 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 3/29/2014 11:35:30 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 3/29/2014 5:55:48 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
It still has a choose winner per debate basis which will always cause complications. My proposal is superior but nobody gives a damn about it(http://www.debate.org...).

Actually, it isn't superior, it just turns the debates into the opinion section and turns the ELO into a meaningless number. You'll end up with really bad debaters that think they are really good because they've done a ton of poor debates and received a few confirmationally biased votes. Since the ELO only goes up in your system, they can look like a debating champ just by being bad for a long enough time.

I would like to first critique what Bluesteel is offering, and then further defend my proposal.

First, he is only concerned with votebombs, because he wants to increase the power of in-friend voting.

This is clearly false, as will be shown below.

If votes don't count too much, then no matter the points, your friends can still make you win the debate if you have more friends. The current system annoys them because their friends give them a few points when they are herded from forums, while people who find the votes absurd, would give their opponents more points in retaliation.

This clearly makes no sense on several levels.

1) If he is only voting for friends and not the context of the debate, he'd be starting with 6-0 and 7-0, as most vote bombers do. In which case, others could not give "more" points in retaliation, only up to 7 so it would balance out the same as with the proposed system.

2) voting retaliation is still a form of vote bombing and against site rules. Any kind of vote bombing risks getting voting privileges removed.

3) This is not about Bluesteel or any single member. This is about when some members provide honest votes, that are not fully pressed to one side or the other, but outweighed by a minority of abusive votes.


If you check Bluesteel votes on Roy's debates, he always gives Roy's opponent(who happens to Bluesteel's friend) a 6-0, and his RFDs are ridiculous to the point where his RFD is built on strawmans that makes it look as if it was voted on another debate, since even those who voted for Roy's opponent ake opposite points to the ones he's making.

If we look at his vote from Roy vs Mikal, it was originally a 3 - 0 vote, as many others had offered. This was offset by two votes that shifted 13 - 0 (a 7-0 point vote bomb and a 6 - 0 vote bomb), causing those 2 votes to be more valuable than 4 honest votes. BS later shifted his vote in an attempt to offset these votes. That is the problem with the current system, the honest vote is usually worth less than half of the dishonest vote, thus driving people to vote dishonestly, just so their votes matter more.


While Mikal's votes are the funniest. In the debate between Sargon and Chitarkah, Sargon copied and pasted arguments from a previous debate that were irrelevant to this one. In his current one, he had the burden of proof to prove the Aether exists, while in the previous one it was shared burden of proof and comparison between the Neo-lorenzentian and Minikowski(sp) interpretations. He even copied sentences which claim that his opponent had a shared burden of proof and had to prove the other interpretation(which contradicted his own opening statement), and Mikal voted on that basis oddly with a long RFD that showed he just skimmed over a debate he didn't understand. In short, Sargon won because most of the voters were his friends. The retaliation against this absurd voting was by Rross and Wrichriw. If we were to remove a power of retaliation that can give high number of points as an implicit form of counter-voting, Mikal and Bluesteel and all other DDO parasites who are popular will win debates they shouldn't have won.

It seems pretty clear you have a personal grudge and are only trying to use the voting system as a tool to carry out your grudge.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 1:48:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/29/2014 12:31:37 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
No, it will be just like the opinion section, except there will be a debate to go along with it. But all the voters will cast their vote on it and it will just be a chain of votes where no one lost so there is no harm in a bad vote.

If people bothered with the harm of a bad vote, we wouldn't have votebombs in the first place. Your point is self-contradictory given that we have that "harm" and we still have votebombs.


You falsely assume that the harm puts vote bombing as a dichotomy of "if harm, then no vote bombing." The "harm" allows it to be identified and so minimized. Before when votes were private, the harm was done but could not be identified, and votebombing flourished. Some members even made accounts just for the purpose of casting additional vote bombs against members they didn't like.

You take the harm away (and with it, the natural desire of debaters to report that harm), then there is no motivation to stop members from creating multiple accounts to simply vote bomb for them (since it causes no harm to their opponent) and pad their ELO.

And since there is no harm to anyone, there is no motivation for moderators, other than a purely moral standpoint, to dedicate a bunch of work and effort keeping the votes clean.


If there is no harm in a bad vote, there is no reason for the moderators to have any kind of enforcement on it and no reason for people to not cast bad votes, just like in the opinions section.

There is, why wouldn't there be? Moderators can read the reviews and see which are false. The point is that the debate itself wouldn't be considered to be won or lost, but there still needs to be honest voting given that this is a method to allocate ELO points.

Why would moderators go through the effort?


Moreover, you're making a false comparison fallacy by comparing this to a posted opinion. In the opinion section, you can see which side has more votes. In my proposal you don't, but yo u see reviews which choose the best debater without knowing how much points are being allocated.

It isn't hard to put 2 and 2 together off the reviews.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 2:19:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It seems pretty clear you have a personal grudge and are only trying to use the voting :system as a tool to carry out your grudge.

I didn't tell you this, but Mikal and Bluesteel killed my pet dog Michaels, and so I carry this grudge against them. It was a very cute dog, why did they kill it? I can never know, I don't sleep nights because of that. But at least I'm friends with a blue alien called Jeopard who travels the cosmos with me when he is not busy plotting terrorist attacks.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 3:16:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
ITT:

3 people like the proposal

In other news, Niqash still hates me and Mikal.

And Niqash has an alternate proposal, which is so bad at ranking relative skill levels that it really can't even be called an "ELO system" anymore and would make it impossible to report votes because it would hide from even the debaters themselves who voted for and against them.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
SeventhProfessor
Posts: 5,097
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 3:23:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/29/2014 3:16:21 PM, bluesteel wrote:
ITT:

4 people like the proposal

In other news, Niqash still hates me and Mikal.

And Niqash has an alternate proposal, which is so bad at ranking relative skill levels that it really can't even be called an "ELO system" anymore and would make it impossible to report votes because it would hide from even the debaters themselves who voted for and against them.
#UnbanTheMadman

#StandWithBossy

#BetOnThett

"bossy r u like 85 years old and have lost ur mind"
~mysteriouscrystals

"I've honestly never seen seventh post anything that wasn't completely idiotic in a trying-to-be-funny way."
~F-16

https://docs.google.com...
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 4:22:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
And Niqash has an alternate proposal, which is so bad at ranking relative skill levels that it really can't even be called an "ELO system" anymore and would make it impossible to report votes because it would hide from even the debaters themselves who voted for and against them.

Lol. False on both accounts. If you actually read the proposal carefully, you would have read a paragraph that says that the reviews will be shown to everyone and that moderators would report reviews that lack sufficient reasons. (But I'm supposing you read proposals as you read the debates you vote on).

Moreover, I know Ore-Ele was behind the ELO system and all, but the fact that you're listed next to Roy is an adequate reason to declare it unreliable.
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 4:26:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/29/2014 3:16:21 PM, bluesteel wrote:
ITT:

3 people like the proposal

In other news, Niqash still hates me and Mikal.

Truthfully, I think that's probably a good thing if we look at a sample of the people he likes and contrast them with the people he doesn't... although my opinion might be biased because he hates me too. lol
Tsar of DDO
Subutai
Posts: 3,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 4:26:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/29/2014 12:45:16 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/29/2014 2:34:38 AM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
At 3/29/2014 2:23:12 AM, Zaradi wrote:
+1 to this
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 4:56:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/29/2014 4:26:19 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/29/2014 3:16:21 PM, bluesteel wrote:
ITT:

3 people like the proposal

In other news, Niqash still hates me and Mikal.

Truthfully, I think that's probably a good thing if we look at a sample of the people he likes and contrast them with the people he doesn't... although my opinion might be biased because he hates me too. lol

Who told you I hate you? I love your new posts about liberalism and conservatism . I'm not that acquainted with Western politics, so I'm having an intellectual boner each time I read one of them. I've read two so far.
Mikal
Posts: 11,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 6:00:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/29/2014 11:35:30 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 3/29/2014 5:55:48 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
It still has a choose winner per debate basis which will always cause complications. My proposal is superior but nobody gives a damn about it(http://www.debate.org...).

Actually, it isn't superior, it just turns the debates into the opinion section and turns the ELO into a meaningless number. You'll end up with really bad debaters that think they are really good because they've done a ton of poor debates and received a few confirmationally biased votes. Since the ELO only goes up in your system, they can look like a debating champ just by being bad for a long enough time.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 9:07:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I really like the OP proposal.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 5:42:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/29/2014 9:07:48 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
I really like the OP proposal.

Bumping this. And encouraging everyone that can to take the online poll in my signature.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 7:40:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 5:42:31 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 3/29/2014 9:07:48 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
I really like the OP proposal.

Bumping this. And encouraging everyone that can to take the online poll in my signature.

You should post the results so far.
Tsar of DDO