Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Voting Update -- *Proposed fixes* thread

bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 8:00:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The voting update is definitely cool. However, it also has a few problems that I've notices and was wondering your guys' thoughts and whether you noticed other problems.

#1: Biggest problem; RFD wording

The "choose winner" option's wording is a problem. When you leave your RFD, it says, "Who did you believe won the debate?" This is a problem for three reasons. (1) "Believe" seems to beg for an *opinion.* It is too close to "which side do you believe is right?" Debates have an objective winner. Someone objectively did a better job debating. The judge's job is to recognize who did a better job based on objective metrics. (2) "[W]on the debate" implies that you're supposed to vote for the side that you think is "right." The prompt should be "Who do you think did the better *debating*?" Debating is a skill. You're judging a skill. You're not judging which side in the debate you think is the winning side. You're judging which debater exhibited more skill in selecting and making arguments. (3) "Did" implies that it's you past opinion, not current opinion. Who *did* you believe won could mean who did you think won before the debate even started. It's really not that hard Juggle.... I've said this phrasing in literally every thread I made on the topic -- "The better debating was done by.... Pro/Con."

#2 1,000 character limit on RFD's

This limit is just absurd. Honestly, I would support a 1,000 character minimum if the site was willing to aspire to it. Juggle should stop forcing any who wants to leave a serious RFD to post it in the comments section. Delete the character limit on RFD's. If you're concerned about how it would look, make the RFD's auto minimized unless you click on a plus sign (or something).

#3 This is just a question

What happens if someone nominates 8 judges and none accept? Does the debate start anyway? Does that mean that no one is eligible to vote on it? If only one accepts, does the debate start anyway?
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
4/25/2014 8:10:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Additional proposed fix: Elo floors for judges being a fill in the blank type thing, rather than increments of 500.
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
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 8:12:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also, the "winner chosen" metric on the judging leaderboard is odd and encourages bandwagoning. A fix for this would have users being able to rate votes by judges, which would presumably provide a better metric of quality voting than the status quo.
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
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 8:17:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 8:12:47 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Also, the "winner chosen" metric on the judging leaderboard is odd and encourages bandwagoning. A fix for this would have users being able to rate votes by judges, which would presumably provide a better metric of quality voting than the status quo.

I agree with everything that's been said so far, but this most of all. Rating the quality of a judge based off of their ability to choose a winner is a poor metric. I think a rating system would be far more effective.
YYW
Posts: 36,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 9:48:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 8:10:18 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Additional proposed fix: Elo floors for judges being a fill in the blank type thing, rather than increments of 500.

This. Totally this.
Tsar of DDO
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 10:04:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 8:00:16 PM, bluesteel wrote:
The voting update is definitely cool. However, it also has a few problems that I've notices and was wondering your guys' thoughts and whether you noticed other problems.

#1: Biggest problem; RFD wording

The "choose winner" option's wording is a problem. When you leave your RFD, it says, "Who did you believe won the debate?" This is a problem for three reasons. (1) "Believe" seems to beg for an *opinion.* It is too close to "which side do you believe is right?" Debates have an objective winner. Someone objectively did a better job debating. The judge's job is to recognize who did a better job based on objective metrics. (2) "[W]on the debate" implies that you're supposed to vote for the side that you think is "right." The prompt should be "Who do you think did the better *debating*?" Debating is a skill. You're judging a skill. You're not judging which side in the debate you think is the winning side. You're judging which debater exhibited more skill in selecting and making arguments. (3) "Did" implies that it's you past opinion, not current opinion. Who *did* you believe won could mean who did you think won before the debate even started. It's really not that hard Juggle.... I've said this phrasing in literally every thread I made on the topic -- "The better debating was done by.... Pro/Con."

Maybe... But I doubt many people would take advantage of such wording choice to give dishonest votes.


#2 1,000 character limit on RFD's

This limit is just absurd. Honestly, I would support a 1,000 character minimum if the site was willing to aspire to it. Juggle should stop forcing any who wants to leave a serious RFD to post it in the comments section. Delete the character limit on RFD's. If you're concerned about how it would look, make the RFD's auto minimized unless you click on a plus sign (or something).

This is definitely true; a 500 character minimum on RFDs would solve the vast majority of problems with the voting system.


#3 This is just a question

What happens if someone nominates 8 judges and none accept? Does the debate start anyway? Does that mean that no one is eligible to vote on it? If only one accepts, does the debate start anyway?

Idk...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 10:10:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 10:04:06 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 4/25/2014 8:00:16 PM, bluesteel wrote:
The voting update is definitely cool. However, it also has a few problems that I've notices and was wondering your guys' thoughts and whether you noticed other problems.

#1: Biggest problem; RFD wording

The "choose winner" option's wording is a problem. When you leave your RFD, it says, "Who did you believe won the debate?" This is a problem for three reasons. (1) "Believe" seems to beg for an *opinion.* It is too close to "which side do you believe is right?" Debates have an objective winner. Someone objectively did a better job debating. The judge's job is to recognize who did a better job based on objective metrics. (2) "[W]on the debate" implies that you're supposed to vote for the side that you think is "right." The prompt should be "Who do you think did the better *debating*?" Debating is a skill. You're judging a skill. You're not judging which side in the debate you think is the winning side. You're judging which debater exhibited more skill in selecting and making arguments. (3) "Did" implies that it's you past opinion, not current opinion. Who *did* you believe won could mean who did you think won before the debate even started. It's really not that hard Juggle.... I've said this phrasing in literally every thread I made on the topic -- "The better debating was done by.... Pro/Con."

Maybe... But I doubt many people would take advantage of such wording choice to give dishonest votes.

My issue is for people who are new to the site. The wording sends the wrong message.



#2 1,000 character limit on RFD's

This limit is just absurd. Honestly, I would support a 1,000 character minimum if the site was willing to aspire to it. Juggle should stop forcing any who wants to leave a serious RFD to post it in the comments section. Delete the character limit on RFD's. If you're concerned about how it would look, make the RFD's auto minimized unless you click on a plus sign (or something).

This is definitely true; a 500 character minimum on RFDs would solve the vast majority of problems with the voting system.

Here here.



#3 This is just a question

What happens if someone nominates 8 judges and none accept? Does the debate start anyway? Does that mean that no one is eligible to vote on it? If only one accepts, does the debate start anyway?

Idk...

I think the answer is that the debate starts prior to judges accepting, which means you could end up with zero judges.

I honestly don't see what the point of requiring judges to accept nominations is. It's just annoying as a judge to get all these nominations all the time and have to accept. Just *auto-accept* for the judge and send the judge a notification when the debate finishes. Under the current system, even if you accept, there's no *obligation* to vote. It's not like it hurts your ELO or something to accept an invite to be a judge and then to not vote. It's a completely unnecessary process.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 11:20:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
One problem I've immediately noticed is that a user (nonprophet) is gaming the system to make it impossible for anyone to vote on his debates. Probably needs to be some way to fix the ELO floor so that can't happen.
SeventhProfessor
Posts: 5,081
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 11:56:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
#2 1,000 character limit on RFD's

This limit is just absurd. Honestly, I would support a 1,000 character minimum if the site was willing to aspire to it. Juggle should stop forcing any who wants to leave a serious RFD to post it in the comments section. Delete the character limit on RFD's. If you're concerned about how it would look, make the RFD's auto minimized unless you click on a plus sign (or something).

I agree with everything you said, but mostly this.
#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
4/26/2014 12:06:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 11:20:59 AM, TN05 wrote:
One problem I've immediately noticed is that a user (nonprophet) is gaming the system to make it impossible for anyone to vote on his debates. Probably needs to be some way to fix the ELO floor so that can't happen.

Yeah it's an annoying way that n00bs can ensure they always beat other n00bs; make their 2 friends on the site the only two judges.

I'd be concerned, but it'd be hard to reach 3,000 ELO (or any serious ELO number) that way.

That said, I'm not very fond of the "nominate judges" feature. Whoever asked for it clearly only had really unique debates in mind (like tournaments). It's useful for tournaments, but annoying for pretty much everything else on the site.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
TUF
Posts: 21,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 1:30:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 8:00:16 PM, bluesteel wrote:
The voting update is definitely cool. However, it also has a few problems that I've notices and was wondering your guys' thoughts and whether you noticed other problems.

#1: Biggest problem; RFD wording

The "choose winner" option's wording is a problem. When you leave your RFD, it says, "Who did you believe won the debate?" This is a problem for three reasons. (1) "Believe" seems to beg for an *opinion.* It is too close to "which side do you believe is right?" Debates have an objective winner. Someone objectively did a better job debating. The judge's job is to recognize who did a better job based on objective metrics. (2) "[W]on the debate" implies that you're supposed to vote for the side that you think is "right." The prompt should be "Who do you think did the better *debating*?" Debating is a skill. You're judging a skill. You're not judging which side in the debate you think is the winning side. You're judging which debater exhibited more skill in selecting and making arguments. (3) "Did" implies that it's you past opinion, not current opinion. Who *did* you believe won could mean who did you think won before the debate even started. It's really not that hard Juggle.... I've said this phrasing in literally every thread I made on the topic -- "The better debating was done by.... Pro/Con."

I think voting is completely more of a subjective thing. Even if someone votes for an objective winner they are voting through subjective opinions so technically the wording it really just calling it out how it really is. I don't think the wording is necessarily harmful or will encourage worse voting than what already exists to the point where it is an essential change, though I might have worded it the way you imagined if it were me who made this.

#2 1,000 character limit on RFD's

This limit is just absurd. Honestly, I would support a 1,000 character minimum if the site was willing to aspire to it. Juggle should stop forcing any who wants to leave a serious RFD to post it in the comments section. Delete the character limit on RFD's. If you're concerned about how it would look, make the RFD's auto minimized unless you click on a plus sign (or something).

I was thinking about this just yesterday actually, funny you should bring this up. The problem would be though if someone forfeited or something, you would basically have to either spam out the rest of the characters or write about a bunch of fluff which seems redudant. The character minimum was also an annoying feature the opinions had as well.

#3 This is just a question

What happens if someone nominates 8 judges and none accept? Does the debate start anyway? Does that mean that no one is eligible to vote on it? If only one accepts, does the debate start anyway?

I agree with this one, I was thinking this could potentially be a problem especially because you can't edit them after the debate is accepted...
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
TUF
Posts: 21,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 3:43:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ignore my comments on #2. I thought that was about debate arguments. I agree the rfd section could use a limit, maybe 500 would be better though
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
TUF
Posts: 21,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 3:50:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 12:06:05 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/26/2014 11:20:59 AM, TN05 wrote:
One problem I've immediately noticed is that a user (nonprophet) is gaming the system to make it impossible for anyone to vote on his debates. Probably needs to be some way to fix the ELO floor so that can't happen.

Yeah it's an annoying way that n00bs can ensure they always beat other n00bs; make their 2 friends on the site the only two judges.

I'd be concerned, but it'd be hard to reach 3,000 ELO (or any serious ELO number) that way.

That said, I'm not very fond of the "nominate judges" feature. Whoever asked for it clearly only had really unique debates in mind (like tournaments). It's useful for tournaments, but annoying for pretty much everything else on the site.

I believe there were several people that wanted this I just can remember off the top of my head who they were. I wasn't opposed to it, as I saw a way to prevent vote bombing which I know members like you and mikal for example have had problems with. I am quite surprised you are not happy about another safeguard to unfair voting actually....

Well whether limiting voting to a select few favorite voters is fair or not is another debate. But I guess if the opposition agrees to it, it is not that bad.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 4:01:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 3:50:03 PM, TUF wrote:
At 4/26/2014 12:06:05 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/26/2014 11:20:59 AM, TN05 wrote:
One problem I've immediately noticed is that a user (nonprophet) is gaming the system to make it impossible for anyone to vote on his debates. Probably needs to be some way to fix the ELO floor so that can't happen.

Yeah it's an annoying way that n00bs can ensure they always beat other n00bs; make their 2 friends on the site the only two judges.

I'd be concerned, but it'd be hard to reach 3,000 ELO (or any serious ELO number) that way.

That said, I'm not very fond of the "nominate judges" feature. Whoever asked for it clearly only had really unique debates in mind (like tournaments). It's useful for tournaments, but annoying for pretty much everything else on the site.

I believe there were several people that wanted this I just can remember off the top of my head who they were. I wasn't opposed to it, as I saw a way to prevent vote bombing which I know members like you and mikal for example have had problems with. I am quite surprised you are not happy about another safeguard to unfair voting actually....

Well whether limiting voting to a select few favorite voters is fair or not is another debate. But I guess if the opposition agrees to it, it is not that bad.

My dislike of the system stems from (1) people who will abuse the system to only allow their friends to vote; they often debate other n00bs who just auto-accept the debate regardless of parameters; (2) the inconvenience of having random people nominating you to vote all the time; i get enough "plz vote" spam already -- Juggle is just creating an official system that makes it easier to spam people to vote; (3) the way the process works. The debate starts before any judges even accept. I personally wouldn't be very happy if I nominated 10 people, none accepted with 24 hours (but the debate had already started), and then the debate ended without *anyone* capable of voting on it. Sure, you could say this is the "risk" you take by nominating judges, but it's a problem with the procedure that Juggle has set up where someone has to accept the nomination in order to vote. Why not just skip that step? If I choose not to vote on a debate that I'm nominated in, then that's the same as rejecting an official invite.

I think people wanted this system for the rare instances where they were in a tournament and only wanted the official judges to be able to vote. It's great for that. But I have concerns about how it will be used on a more regular basis.

It's silly to characterize me as having to endorse every "voting improvement" Juggle tries to roll out. I *like* the "choose winner" option and the ELO floor. That doesn't mean I have to like the nomination system. I can imagine being annoyed both from getting nominated too much for debates I don't want to vote on and being not capable of voting on a debate I read and do want to vote on.

I'm glad the functionality exists, but I wish there was a way to limit the judge nomination system so it was only used in tournaments.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 8:23:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Bluesteel, I appreciate this, but we can't be d!cks and keep asking for more. We got what we pleaded for, so we should sit down and shut up. Nothing will ever be flawless with DDO.
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 11:44:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 8:23:41 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
Bluesteel, I appreciate this, but we can't be d!cks and keep asking for more. We got what we pleaded for, so we should sit down and shut up. Nothing will ever be flawless with DDO.

"The pursuit of perfection is always worthwhile when it is worthwhile"
-a great mean
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 11:46:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So...did they make the leaderboard for who voted "correctly" the most? Yeah, I know it's a dumb metric but I'm still pretty interested to see the results
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 11:46:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 8:23:41 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
Nothing will ever be flawless with DDO.

Don't be ridiculous. I am here.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 12:50:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 11:46:52 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/26/2014 8:23:41 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
Nothing will ever be flawless with DDO.

Don't be ridiculous. I am here.

Ok fine. You're perfect. But nothing else!
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite