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

DDO Mandatory Voting

Actionsspeak
Posts: 185
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 7:53:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I've seen the new voting change and here is what i've said about it:
"The change to auto-choosing a winner with no points system involved is insignificant since the winner selection is typically dictated by convincing arguments anyways. In addition the peer-to-peer judging system gives the instigator an unfair advantage the only pro is it will increase voting outputs, however these outputs will likely have high bias, be unfair, and eventually unwanted by the DDO users."

From my view it has become evident that the points system isn't broken but instead the voter turnout has been killing the voter system so here is my suggestion:

DDO should implament a mandatory voting system, here is ane example:

2 point a day is the debt you receive each day you're online at some point.
1 point removed for each vote
If you go 10 points in debt you should lose mutliple Debate.org privilidges such as the ability to post on forums, the ability to create vote or comment on a poll, the ability to accept or decline debates, the ability to comment on debates, and the ability to argue your opinion in the opinion section.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,276
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 8:13:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 7:53:41 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
I've seen the new voting change and here is what i've said about it:
"The change to auto-choosing a winner with no points system involved is insignificant since the winner selection is typically dictated by convincing arguments anyways. In addition the peer-to-peer judging system gives the instigator an unfair advantage the only pro is it will increase voting outputs, however these outputs will likely have high bias, be unfair, and eventually unwanted by the DDO users."

From my view it has become evident that the points system isn't broken but instead the voter turnout has been killing the voter system so here is my suggestion:

DDO should implament a mandatory voting system, here is ane example:

2 point a day is the debt you receive each day you're online at some point.
1 point removed for each vote
If you go 10 points in debt you should lose mutliple Debate.org privilidges such as the ability to post on forums, the ability to create vote or comment on a poll, the ability to accept or decline debates, the ability to comment on debates, and the ability to argue your opinion in the opinion section.

Voter apathy is just that -apathy. The last thing you need are people voting for the sole fact that they must. People either realize that they have an obligation to vote in order to keep the site running, or they don't.

You don't want a bunch of 13 year olds voting on your debates because they have to in order to make another my little pony debate.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 8:28:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I agree with Geogeer. I'm sure there is some way to incentivize voting without requiring it. It just takes some creativity. Maybe a vote on quality of votes and having a voting ELO. That's just off the top of my head.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 10:16:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
When it comes to the voter apathy, punishment is not a sufficient way to increase the quantity of quality votes. We need to create an actual incentive, something that will help to make people want to give quality votes.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
larztheloser
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 11:20:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 8:13:25 AM, Geogeer wrote:
You don't want a bunch of 13 year olds voting on your debates because they have to in order to make another my little pony debate.

I disagree. My little pony is serious business.

Other than that I completely agree with emphasizing quantity over quality, but there are in fact things the site could do to improve both. Honestly, how hard can it be to give voters whose votes are consistently determined by other members to be excellent some sort of official site recognition? Not just forum recognition, but something on the site that identifies them as an excellent voter. Something to strive for. If there's a way to encourage good voting and to push more people to try to become better voters, it's that.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,276
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 11:27:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 11:20:34 AM, larztheloser wrote:
At 4/17/2014 8:13:25 AM, Geogeer wrote:
You don't want a bunch of 13 year olds voting on your debates because they have to in order to make another my little pony debate.

I disagree. My little pony is serious business.

Other than that I completely agree with emphasizing quantity over quality, but there are in fact things the site could do to improve both. Honestly, how hard can it be to give voters whose votes are consistently determined by other members to be excellent some sort of official site recognition? Not just forum recognition, but something on the site that identifies them as an excellent voter. Something to strive for. If there's a way to encourage good voting and to push more people to try to become better voters, it's that.

The issue with that is how do you determine who is an excellent voter? The person who is always on the winning side? The person who writes the long explanation? The person with the most votes? The person who other people vote is a good voter? It can all be gamed.
tylergraham95
Posts: 1,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 11:27:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 11:20:34 AM, larztheloser wrote:
At 4/17/2014 8:13:25 AM, Geogeer wrote:
You don't want a bunch of 13 year olds voting on your debates because they have to in order to make another my little pony debate.

I disagree. My little pony is serious business.

Other than that I completely agree with emphasizing quantity over quality, but there are in fact things the site could do to improve both. Honestly, how hard can it be to give voters whose votes are consistently determined by other members to be excellent some sort of official site recognition? Not just forum recognition, but something on the site that identifies them as an excellent voter. Something to strive for. If there's a way to encourage good voting and to push more people to try to become better voters, it's that.

I think something simple and superficial would be enough to encourage members to vote more often (and with high quality).

Perhaps a "badge" that appears on everything you post and on your profile?

You earn the badge if you cast enough votes per month (assuming the votes are given positive reviews).

A vote review system would be nice as well...

Edeb8 has something like that if I'm not mistaken?
"we dig" - Jeanette Runquist (1943 - 2015)
larztheloser
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 11:33:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
EDEB8 does. It was also the central component of my older DDO Dashboard project.

At 4/17/2014 11:27:05 AM, Geogeer wrote:
The issue with that is how do you determine who is an excellent voter? The person who is always on the winning side? The person who writes the long explanation? The person with the most votes? The person who other people vote is a good voter? It can all be gamed.

I let any member rate RFDs on a 5-point scale (VB, biased, good, exceptional, constructive). A user's average score is then fed into a leaderboard, calculated by score * number of votes. In practice I've always found it works really, really well. Because it's an average it's very hard to game.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,276
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 11:38:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 11:33:06 AM, larztheloser wrote:
EDEB8 does. It was also the central component of my older DDO Dashboard project.

At 4/17/2014 11:27:05 AM, Geogeer wrote:
The issue with that is how do you determine who is an excellent voter? The person who is always on the winning side? The person who writes the long explanation? The person with the most votes? The person who other people vote is a good voter? It can all be gamed.

I let any member rate RFDs on a 5-point scale (VB, biased, good, exceptional, constructive). A user's average score is then fed into a leaderboard, calculated by score * number of votes. In practice I've always found it works really, really well. Because it's an average it's very hard to game.

So in a system where you have a sizable chunk of debates go unvoted, you want people to take more time to rate votes? Those with the most popular opinions will obviously be rated higher by those of the same opinion. Somewhat the same as the debates themselves.

An easy way to game your system would be to go and write one exceptional vote on an important debate, then go and vote on all the forfeited debates. 5 rating for one multiplied by a billion of inconsequential.
tylergraham95
Posts: 1,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 11:48:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I say we have a system where at the end of each debate, a coin is flipped. Heads and pro wins, tails and con wins.

Zero bias.
"we dig" - Jeanette Runquist (1943 - 2015)
larztheloser
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 11:49:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 11:38:50 AM, Geogeer wrote:
So in a system where you have a sizable chunk of debates go unvoted, you want people to take more time to rate votes? Those with the most popular opinions will obviously be rated higher by those of the same opinion. Somewhat the same as the debates themselves.

An easy way to game your system would be to go and write one exceptional vote on an important debate, then go and vote on all the forfeited debates. 5 rating for one multiplied by a billion of inconsequential.

Except that unless people rated all of your forfeited debate votes really highly your average rating would still be low by a factor of a billion to one. This comes down to the default site assumptions about a vote's quality without feedback. In practice I haven't seen this happen, which I suspect is because the majority of raters don't want to see the system gamed. But I do monitor it carefully. I am aware my model is very simplistic.

You'll generally find that if you are decently specific about what the ratings mean then raters will follow those guidelines. For example, edeb8 has an explanatory note by each level. A good vote is one that is fair to both sides, not one that is necessarily accurate by popular perception. I earnestly believe that its better than a system where voters get no official recognition at all for doing well. The reason so many debates go unvoted is because there's little point to voting on a site like this. This is why in RL tournaments judges get to break and often get prizes too.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 11:49:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Archer meme

Do you want vote bombs?

Because that's how you get vote bombs.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 11:52:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I still think the gambling ring with DDO points would be a great way to incentivize voting.
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
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 11:53:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Honestly, the incentive structure for this proposal is just bad. You're incentivizing people:

(1) Not to log into their account, or not to use the site at all [to avoid accruing a voting-point-requirement deficit]/

(2) To read and vote on short low-quality debates simply to meet the quota, or

(3) Not to read at all before voting in order to quickly meet the quota.

The proposal also ignores the lack of *quality* voters on the site generally. I don't want the poll-monkeys voting on my debates. Period.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
SeventhProfessor
Posts: 5,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 11:54:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 11:53:36 AM, bluesteel wrote:
Honestly, the incentive structure for this proposal is just bad. You're incentivizing people:

(1) Not to log into their account, or not to use the site at all [to avoid accruing a voting-point-requirement deficit]/

(2) To read and vote on short low-quality debates simply to meet the quota, or

(3) Not to read at all before voting in order to quickly meet the quota.

The proposal also ignores the lack of *quality* voters on the site generally. I don't want the poll-monkeys voting on my debates. Period.

One from 9000.
#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...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 11:57:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 11:54:35 AM, SeventhProfessor wrote:
At 4/17/2014 11:53:36 AM, bluesteel wrote:
Honestly, the incentive structure for this proposal is just bad. You're incentivizing people:

(1) Not to log into their account, or not to use the site at all [to avoid accruing a voting-point-requirement deficit]/

(2) To read and vote on short low-quality debates simply to meet the quota, or

(3) Not to read at all before voting in order to quickly meet the quota.

The proposal also ignores the lack of *quality* voters on the site generally. I don't want the poll-monkeys voting on my debates. Period.

One from 9000.

9000

I feel like I should say something momentous and memorable to commemorate this occasion...

cum bubbles
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
SeventhProfessor
Posts: 5,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 12:00:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 11:57:02 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/17/2014 11:54:35 AM, SeventhProfessor wrote:
At 4/17/2014 11:53:36 AM, bluesteel wrote:
Honestly, the incentive structure for this proposal is just bad. You're incentivizing people:

(1) Not to log into their account, or not to use the site at all [to avoid accruing a voting-point-requirement deficit]/

(2) To read and vote on short low-quality debates simply to meet the quota, or

(3) Not to read at all before voting in order to quickly meet the quota.

The proposal also ignores the lack of *quality* voters on the site generally. I don't want the poll-monkeys voting on my debates. Period.

One from 9000.

9000

I feel like I should say something momentous and memorable to commemorate this occasion...

cum bubbles

Now yer almost https://www.google.com...
#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...
Geogeer
Posts: 4,276
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 12:04:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 11:49:42 AM, larztheloser wrote:

Except that unless people rated all of your forfeited debate votes really highly your average rating would still be low by a factor of a billion to one. This comes down to the default site assumptions about a vote's quality without feedback. In practice I haven't seen this happen, which I suspect is because the majority of raters don't want to see the system gamed. But I do monitor it carefully. I am aware my model is very simplistic.

So now I have a disincentive to vote on debates between noobs because by doing so I will destroy my "voter rating" because they wont give me a rating for my time.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 12:05:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 11:48:32 AM, tylergraham95 wrote:
I say we have a system where at the end of each debate, a coin is flipped. Heads and pro wins, tails and con wins.

Zero bias.

This isn't common knowledge, but coins are mathematically more likely to end up on tails. Tails is the heavier side of the coin and if the coin happens to spin at all after landing on the table than tails will occur more often, and coins will spin from time to time after landing.

This is why I always call tails.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 12:06:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 12:00:11 PM, SeventhProfessor wrote:
At 4/17/2014 11:57:02 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/17/2014 11:54:35 AM, SeventhProfessor wrote:
At 4/17/2014 11:53:36 AM, bluesteel wrote:
Honestly, the incentive structure for this proposal is just bad. You're incentivizing people:

(1) Not to log into their account, or not to use the site at all [to avoid accruing a voting-point-requirement deficit]/

(2) To read and vote on short low-quality debates simply to meet the quota, or

(3) Not to read at all before voting in order to quickly meet the quota.

The proposal also ignores the lack of *quality* voters on the site generally. I don't want the poll-monkeys voting on my debates. Period.

One from 9000.

9000

I feel like I should say something momentous and memorable to commemorate this occasion...

cum bubbles

Now yer almost https://www.google.com...

haha, nice reference
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
larztheloser
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 12:12:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 12:04:03 PM, Geogeer wrote:
So now I have a disincentive to vote on debates between noobs because by doing so I will destroy my "voter rating" because they wont give me a rating for my time.

Implying that the only people who look at votes are the debaters themselves. Voting is an art, in some ways tougher than debating.

I should note my model doesn't currently assume a default rating, I'm just saying a simple multiplication merely makes stuff straightforward and is better than no recognition at all. DDO Dashboard presented the details in a custom-sortable table, though I found few people made use of the sorting functions. Ultimately every system will have some flaws, but anything that brings recognition to votes that are well-liked for being useful to the debater is good in my view.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 12:15:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 11:33:06 AM, larztheloser wrote:
EDEB8 does. It was also the central component of my older DDO Dashboard project.

At 4/17/2014 11:27:05 AM, Geogeer wrote:
The issue with that is how do you determine who is an excellent voter? The person who is always on the winning side? The person who writes the long explanation? The person with the most votes? The person who other people vote is a good voter? It can all be gamed.

I let any member rate RFDs on a 5-point scale (VB, biased, good, exceptional, constructive). A user's average score is then fed into a leaderboard, calculated by score * number of votes. In practice I've always found it works really, really well. Because it's an average it's very hard to game.

It's an interesting feature, but here are my thoughts:

(1) Is "constructive" really a good label for something that is better than "exceptional"?

(2) Laziness on the part of the debaters leads to a selection bias. Only really good and really cr*ppy RFD's will get rated.

(3) It disincentivizes voting. If each vote you give requires an extensive RFD or it will hurt your overall voter rating, the "cost" of voting is higher, so people vote less often.

(4) It incentivizes only voting for your friends. They are the ones who are likeliest to rate your RFD and to give you a good rating. At the very least, it disincentivizes voting for unknown and relatively inactive members who are unlikely to rate votes.

(5) Things that work on edb8 -- which is a small community of very active users with only a small number of total debates -- do not necessarily scale to DDO. My best guestimate is that only 10-20% of the votes on here would receive a rating, which defeats the point of the system.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
larztheloser
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 12:26:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 12:15:28 PM, bluesteel wrote:
It's an interesting feature, but here are my thoughts:

(1) Is "constructive" really a good label for something that is better than "exceptional"?

(2) Laziness on the part of the debaters leads to a selection bias. Only really good and really cr*ppy RFD's will get rated.

(3) It disincentivizes voting. If each vote you give requires an extensive RFD or it will hurt your overall voter rating, the "cost" of voting is higher, so people vote less often.

(4) It incentivizes only voting for your friends. They are the ones who are likeliest to rate your RFD and to give you a good rating. At the very least, it disincentivizes voting for unknown and relatively inactive members who are unlikely to rate votes.

(5) Things that work on edb8 -- which is a small community of very active users with only a small number of total debates -- do not necessarily scale to DDO. My best guestimate is that only 10-20% of the votes on here would receive a rating, which defeats the point of the system.

First of all, I'm not necessarily suggesting DDO copy my system exactly. I'm just saying it should provide something to give good incentives for helpful votes.

1. Yes IMO because the #1 thing votes on DDO lack is feedback to both debaters on how to improve for next time. DDO voters can often only say why one side won and not how both sides could improve.

2. In practice I've not found that to be the case. The distribution is pretty flat.

3. I think it improves the profile of voting through recognition. Certainly it does encourage detailed voting, just like the presence of voting discourages debating because of the detail required in debate rounds to convince a judge. I don't see the harm in more higher-quality votes any more than higher-quality debates.

4. Again implying that debaters are the most likely to rate votes. I don't have the stats for this in front of me, but I know that on edeb8 most votes I see get more than 2 ratings.

5. Evidence from DDO Dashboard's beta indicates that among DDO users that are reasonably active, somewhere around 60% of the time such a user views a vote they will rate it. Marginally less than EDEB8 for sure, but still significant enough to get good ratings. And that's with a system not even integrated into the site!
tylergraham95
Posts: 1,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 12:27:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 12:05:53 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 4/17/2014 11:48:32 AM, tylergraham95 wrote:
I say we have a system where at the end of each debate, a coin is flipped. Heads and pro wins, tails and con wins.

Zero bias.

This isn't common knowledge, but coins are mathematically more likely to end up on tails. Tails is the heavier side of the coin and if the coin happens to spin at all after landing on the table than tails will occur more often, and coins will spin from time to time after landing.

This is why I always call tails.

Then you better try to get Con.
"we dig" - Jeanette Runquist (1943 - 2015)
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 12:37:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
7-point vote bombs disguised as RFDs are reason enough to end the point system. If I award just args and sources, but someone else awards all 7-points, their vote counts more than mine. And, with a carefully constructed (yet patently biased) RFD, voters can easily drop all 7-point on a person who doesn't deserve them.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
orangemayhem
Posts: 333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 12:47:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 8:13:25 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/17/2014 7:53:41 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
I've seen the new voting change and here is what i've said about it:
"The change to auto-choosing a winner with no points system involved is insignificant since the winner selection is typically dictated by convincing arguments anyways. In addition the peer-to-peer judging system gives the instigator an unfair advantage the only pro is it will increase voting outputs, however these outputs will likely have high bias, be unfair, and eventually unwanted by the DDO users."

From my view it has become evident that the points system isn't broken but instead the voter turnout has been killing the voter system so here is my suggestion:

DDO should implament a mandatory voting system, here is ane example:

2 point a day is the debt you receive each day you're online at some point.
1 point removed for each vote
If you go 10 points in debt you should lose mutliple Debate.org privilidges such as the ability to post on forums, the ability to create vote or comment on a poll, the ability to accept or decline debates, the ability to comment on debates, and the ability to argue your opinion in the opinion section.

Voter apathy is just that -apathy. The last thing you need are people voting for the sole fact that they must. People either realize that they have an obligation to vote in order to keep the site running, or they don't.

You don't want a bunch of 13 year olds voting on your debates because they have to in order to make another my little pony debate.

^^ this.

But seriously, it's an awful idea. People have no obligation to be on DDO and no obligation to take part in any particular aspect of it. Penalising not voting may lead to fewer high-quality contributions to debates and forums (not opinions or polls obvs)
I'm back (ish).
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 1:06:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 12:26:12 PM, larztheloser wrote:
At 4/17/2014 12:15:28 PM, bluesteel wrote:
It's an interesting feature, but here are my thoughts:

(1) Is "constructive" really a good label for something that is better than "exceptional"?

(2) Laziness on the part of the debaters leads to a selection bias. Only really good and really cr*ppy RFD's will get rated.

(3) It disincentivizes voting. If each vote you give requires an extensive RFD or it will hurt your overall voter rating, the "cost" of voting is higher, so people vote less often.

(4) It incentivizes only voting for your friends. They are the ones who are likeliest to rate your RFD and to give you a good rating. At the very least, it disincentivizes voting for unknown and relatively inactive members who are unlikely to rate votes.

(5) Things that work on edb8 -- which is a small community of very active users with only a small number of total debates -- do not necessarily scale to DDO. My best guestimate is that only 10-20% of the votes on here would receive a rating, which defeats the point of the system.

First of all, I'm not necessarily suggesting DDO copy my system exactly. I'm just saying it should provide something to give good incentives for helpful votes.

1. Yes IMO because the #1 thing votes on DDO lack is feedback to both debaters on how to improve for next time. DDO voters can often only say why one side won and not how both sides could improve.

The problem is that an "exceptional" RFD is usually also "constructive." One term is inclusive of the other. You need another label for a "5 star" RFD, with the understanding that both 4 star and 5 star RFD's should include constructive feedback.

2. In practice I've not found that to be the case. The distribution is pretty flat.

Edeb8 is a meaningless sample size, and the median edeb8 user is very different from the median DDO user, so even a good sample size is not cross-applicable.

3. I think it improves the profile of voting through recognition. Certainly it does encourage detailed voting, just like the presence of voting discourages debating because of the detail required in debate rounds to convince a judge. I don't see the harm in more higher-quality votes any more than higher-quality debates.

This isn't a remotely responsive answer. You never answered the issue which is that if a good voter has an incentive only to leave 5-star RFD's, then that good voter will vote less often because a 5-star RFD takes *a lot* more work than a 3-star RFD.

For *good judges*, you slightly improve the quality of their RFD's at the expense of quantity. Good debates deserve good RFD's. Bad debates don't deserve long and extensive RFD's. It's hard to give good feedback when the main problems are argument selection and the inability to speak in an articulate way. Under a rating system, good judges have a disincentive for voting on bad debates because it's not really possible to leave constructive feedback, and they don't want to hurt their overall rating.

4. Again implying that debaters are the most likely to rate votes. I don't have the stats for this in front of me, but I know that on edeb8 most votes I see get more than 2 ratings.

When you only get 2 or 3 new debates per week on the site, you're going to get more activity per debate than you will on a site with 100 new debates per week.

5. Evidence from DDO Dashboard's beta indicates that among DDO users that are reasonably active, somewhere around 60% of the time such a user views a vote they will rate it. Marginally less than EDEB8 for sure, but still significant enough to get good ratings. And that's with a system not even integrated into the site!

I don't know what DDO Dashboard is and I'm "reasonably active." You have massive selection bias in your sample. 60% is a really low number among a select group of people who care enough about DDO to be "early adopters." Do you think that a sample of video game beta testers is representative of gamers generally? Is a sample of Windows beta testers representative of all Winsows users? No, because it takes a certain type of person to be willing to beta test.

Honestly, if you implement a rating system, I can name the only 15 or so people whose debates I would ever vote on because I consider them "active" enough to rate my RFD. Whether you consider that a bad thing or not is up to you.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
larztheloser
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 1:27:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 1:06:06 PM, bluesteel wrote:
The problem is that an "exceptional" RFD is usually also "constructive." One term is inclusive of the other. You need another label for a "5 star" RFD, with the understanding that both 4 star and 5 star RFD's should include constructive feedback.

This sounds like a labelling issue. Exceptional here used to refer to exceptionally good analysis on why one side beat the other. What's important to me is that voters get recognition. Anything done to push votes to becoming more detailed through that framework is just icing on the cake.

Edeb8 is a meaningless sample size, and the median edeb8 user is very different from the median DDO user, so even a good sample size is not cross-applicable.

Not just going by edeb8 here. But honestly your whole argument is just conjecture, mine is evidence, however weak you may call it. I don't believe users are so lazy that they won't spend 2 seconds entering a rating into a select field. If they're active enough to read the vote, they're not lazy enough to do that.

This isn't a remotely responsive answer. You never answered the issue which is that if a good voter has an incentive only to leave 5-star RFD's, then that good voter will vote less often because a 5-star RFD takes *a lot* more work than a 3-star RFD.

For *good judges*, you slightly improve the quality of their RFD's at the expense of quantity. Good debates deserve good RFD's. Bad debates don't deserve long and extensive RFD's. It's hard to give good feedback when the main problems are argument selection and the inability to speak in an articulate way. Under a rating system, good judges have a disincentive for voting on bad debates because it's not really possible to leave constructive feedback, and they don't want to hurt their overall rating.

I believe I have. If a good debater has an incentive to leave only winning debates, they will debate less often because to actually win a debate is a lot more work than just posting some random text. Assuming people spend a fixed amount of time on DDO, I anticipate this will mean more time judging and less doing other stuff. I further consider that to be a good thing. When I first suggested increasing the character count limit for RFDs from 500 to 1000 people made much the same arguments - voters would feel pressurised to write double as many characters. In fact the change had very little impact on vote numbers at all.

When you only get 2 or 3 new debates per week on the site, you're going to get more activity per debate than you will on a site with 100 new debates per week.

There's that, but that's balanced by the fact that DDO has more than 100 times more active users. DDO users are simply less involved and engaged, and as I've said I think a big part of that is a lack of recognition for good community contributions.

I don't know what DDO Dashboard is and I'm "reasonably active." You have massive selection bias in your sample.

It was taken down by a certain mod who didn't want me to be involved with improving voting any more. Long story from about a year ago - I'm still very bitter about it.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 1:45:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 1:27:40 PM, larztheloser wrote:
At 4/17/2014 1:06:06 PM, bluesteel wrote:
The problem is that an "exceptional" RFD is usually also "constructive." One term is inclusive of the other. You need another label for a "5 star" RFD, with the understanding that both 4 star and 5 star RFD's should include constructive feedback.

This sounds like a labelling issue.

Yeah, that's all I was saying on this point. Labeling issue.

your whole argument is just conjecture, mine is evidence

A biased sample is no better than conjecture based on my actual experience on this site. There is a lot of apathy on here.

Assuming people spend a fixed amount of time on DDO, I anticipate this will mean more time judging and less doing other stuff.

This is a strange assumption. People spend more time on the site doing what is fun and less time doing things that feel like "work." Judging feels like work.

When I first suggested increasing the character count limit for RFDs from 500 to 1000 people made much the same arguments....

This isn't remotely analogous since people ignore the character limit, and I agree with you -- more space should be provided for judges who want it.

DDO users are simply less involved and engaged, and as I've said I think a big part of that is a lack of recognition for good community contributions.

No, it's because a lot of the userbase of DDO are "Juggle-o's" (stupid 12-year olds who mostly spam polls). Edeb8 has a more educated and debate-saavy median user. Things don't necessarily translate from one site to antoher.

It was taken down by a certain mod who didn't want me to be involved with improving voting any more. Long story from about a year ago - I'm still very bitter about it.

PM me the story... I'm interested.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
larztheloser
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 1:48:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 1:45:14 PM, bluesteel wrote:
This is a strange assumption. People spend more time on the site doing what is fun and less time doing things that feel like "work." Judging feels like work.

So can debating.

No, it's because a lot of the userbase of DDO are "Juggle-o's" (stupid 12-year olds who mostly spam polls).

Can it not be both?