Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

ELO Inflation

ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 5:08:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I could be making a longwinded thread about this, but at the same time, this really doesn't need much. Whether or not it's a result of people intentionally gaming the system or not, it's become so much more of an issue of how many debates an above average debater has done than a matter of how much skill the debaters have.

Now, I am no mathematician, I don't know how the elo formula could be changed specifically to combat this, but I have a few ideas.

One would be to change the formula to not reward debating low skills or new debaters as much by yielding less elo, and having it go up exponentially based on the how close the skill levels of the debaters are.

Another idea would be to use bluesteel's speaker points system for voting from implementation on out, where, in addition to the actual vote which affects the outcome of the debate, people rate the quality of the debating from 1-10, that rating doesn't effect the vote, but does effect the elo gains.

Any other ideas?
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
Intrepid
Posts: 372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 5:11:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 5:08:05 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
I could be making a longwinded thread about this, but at the same time, this really doesn't need much. Whether or not it's a result of people intentionally gaming the system or not, it's become so much more of an issue of how many debates an above average debater has done than a matter of how much skill the debaters have.

My account contradicts this. In 16 debates I hit 3610 ELO. This account was basically testing how the instigator bonus can affect ELO gained, and all I can say is that the man who instigates his debate will be gaining heaps upon heaps more ELO than a regular debate. Instigator bonus definitely needs to be tweaked. ELO from noob sniping either needs to go much lower, or stay the same and then have ELO gained from debating higher ELO members go up a lot more. This way noobsniping is deterred and debating higher ELO members is promoted.
Intrepid
Posts: 372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 5:12:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also, this is a little weird, but I am currently losing my debate with Rational Thinker and I lost a whopping 200 ELO. This is especially weird since RT has a higher ELO than me and I instigated the debate.

This may be another thing wrong with the current ELO system, because losing the debate should not negatively affect me this much.
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 5:18:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 5:08:05 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
I could be making a longwinded thread about this, but at the same time, this really doesn't need much. Whether or not it's a result of people intentionally gaming the system or not, it's become so much more of an issue of how many debates an above average debater has done than a matter of how much skill the debaters have.

Now, I am no mathematician, I don't know how the elo formula could be changed specifically to combat this, but I have a few ideas.

One would be to change the formula to not reward debating low skills or new debaters as much by yielding less elo, and having it go up exponentially based on the how close the skill levels of the debaters are.

Another idea would be to use bluesteel's speaker points system for voting from implementation on out, where, in addition to the actual vote which affects the outcome of the debate, people rate the quality of the debating from 1-10, that rating doesn't effect the vote, but does effect the elo gains.

Any other ideas?

It's not a bad method, but ultimately it will mean that people's skill level is only determined by the quality and accuracy of voters. In which case, low skilled debates may still get plenty of 10's which would make them seem more skilled than they really are.

I don't think there is a real full proof way to prove that someone is the best debater, or to rank actual skill, especially since it is really all just recognized by readers and certain attributes can be overlooked by some, or not prioritized. Some of the debating community has a pretty good handle on who some of the real threats are that aren't even on the top page of the leaderboard. But I don't think there is a flawless system that could be put in place.

Your idea could be a good one, but I also worry that some high level debates don't always get the proper voting they deserve which would also effect the results.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 5:34:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 5:08:05 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:

Another idea would be to use bluesteel's speaker points system for voting from implementation on out, where, in addition to the actual vote which affects the outcome of the debate, people rate the quality of the debating from 1-10, that rating doesn't effect the vote, but does effect the elo gains.

I actually proposed this to bluesteel, and I think it would be a good way to resolve the "noob-sniping" that leads to ELO inflation. Some noobs are going to be good, and some aren't. Facing a good noob should result in a different gain than from debating a total nincompoop of a noob.
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...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 5:36:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 5:08:05 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
I could be making a longwinded thread about this, but at the same time, this really doesn't need much. Whether or not it's a result of people intentionally gaming the system or not, it's become so much more of an issue of how many debates an above average debater has done than a matter of how much skill the debaters have.

Now, I am no mathematician, I don't know how the elo formula could be changed specifically to combat this, but I have a few ideas.

One would be to change the formula to not reward debating low skills or new debaters as much by yielding less elo, and having it go up exponentially based on the how close the skill levels of the debaters are.

Another idea would be to use bluesteel's speaker points system for voting from implementation on out, where, in addition to the actual vote which affects the outcome of the debate, people rate the quality of the debating from 1-10, that rating doesn't effect the vote, but does effect the elo gains.

Any other ideas?

There is definitely ELO inflation occurring on the site. As Intreoid pointed out, it's large based on the instigator bonus. If you delete the instigator bonus, it would be impossible to gain any ELO from n00b sniping once you hit a certain point. That's how it works in chess. If you're master level and beat a n00b, you're not gonna gain any more than negligible ELO from it. The ELO system (in general) is *designed* to prevent people from climbing to the top based on n00b sniping. But the very system that was designed (on DDO) to protect n00bs from getting sniped (by hurting someone who *contends* against a n00b) has made it easier to n00b snipe as an instigator.

If I were going to game the system, I would start a bunch of 3K character debates, on easy topics (that don't require me to research), and set the max ELO of the contender at 2500. I'd be guaranteed 25 points per debate (instigator bonus) against easy opponents, while requiring little work on my part.

What does this tell you? It tells you that if you want to stop people from gaming the system, you need to: (1) provide less ELO for shorter debates, (2) eliminate or modify the fixed 25-point instigator advantage [it should get smaller the higher your ELO], and (3) eliminate the option to set a *max* ELO, as opposed to a minimum ELO for the contender.

One way to modify the instigator benefit is... Instigator Benefit = 25 * (2000/ELO)

Where "ELO" is the instigator's ELO. A complete newby (ELO of 2000 when you start) gets the full benefit). But as you get really high in ELO (like 8000), you'll only be getting about 6 points per instigation.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 5:38:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 5:08:05 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
I could be making a longwinded thread about this, but at the same time, this really doesn't need much. Whether or not it's a result of people intentionally gaming the system or not, it's become so much more of an issue of how many debates an above average debater has done than a matter of how much skill the debaters have.

Now, I am no mathematician, I don't know how the elo formula could be changed specifically to combat this, but I have a few ideas.

One would be to change the formula to not reward debating low skills or new debaters as much by yielding less elo, and having it go up exponentially based on the how close the skill levels of the debaters are.

Another idea would be to use bluesteel's speaker points system for voting from implementation on out, where, in addition to the actual vote which affects the outcome of the debate, people rate the quality of the debating from 1-10, that rating doesn't effect the vote, but does effect the elo gains.

That'd be too manipulable.
Any other ideas?

Why not make it so that you only get elo for debating some with an elo a certain percent or more of yours. It wouldn't require a massive formula overhaul.
By doing this, you get nothing by debating someone so much worse than you, which is realistic, since defeating a noob doesn't really prove you're a better debater, so why should your elo increase at all?

It also sets elo caps relative to your actual skill... That way someone who is only 3,000 elo in skill, doesn't have an elo of 5,000 because he has 200+ debates? Instead, unless he gets better and can challenge stronger members, he will be stuck at 3,000 where his skill level is.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 5:40:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 5:34:22 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 5:08:05 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:

Another idea would be to use bluesteel's speaker points system for voting from implementation on out, where, in addition to the actual vote which affects the outcome of the debate, people rate the quality of the debating from 1-10, that rating doesn't effect the vote, but does effect the elo gains.

I actually proposed this to bluesteel, and I think it would be a good way to resolve the "noob-sniping" that leads to ELO inflation. Some noobs are going to be good, and some aren't. Facing a good noob should result in a different gain than from debating a total nincompoop of a noob.

Yeah the credit for this idea goes to bsh.

I think it would be hard to award more ELO points if the speaker points of both sides is closer. If anything, this is an incentive that when you debate a bad n00b to debate badly yourself so the speaker point difference is smaller. Then you get more of an ELO bump.

I had envisioned a speaker point system that awarded you for higher speaker points *independently* of what your opponent's speaker point ranking was. This was supposed to be an incentive for good conduct, sources, and grammar. It was not a system that was intended to stop ELO inflation.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 5:45:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 5:40:24 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/27/2014 5:34:22 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 5:08:05 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:

Another idea would be to use bluesteel's speaker points system for voting from implementation on out, where, in addition to the actual vote which affects the outcome of the debate, people rate the quality of the debating from 1-10, that rating doesn't effect the vote, but does effect the elo gains.

I actually proposed this to bluesteel, and I think it would be a good way to resolve the "noob-sniping" that leads to ELO inflation. Some noobs are going to be good, and some aren't. Facing a good noob should result in a different gain than from debating a total nincompoop of a noob.

Yeah the credit for this idea goes to bsh.

I think it would be hard to award more ELO points if the speaker points of both sides is closer. If anything, this is an incentive that when you debate a bad n00b to debate badly yourself so the speaker point difference is smaller. Then you get more of an ELO bump.

Good point.

I had envisioned a speaker point system that awarded you for higher speaker points *independently* of what your opponent's speaker point ranking was. This was supposed to be an incentive for good conduct, sources, and grammar. It was not a system that was intended to stop ELO inflation.

That was initially how I saw it as well. More so a means of indicating depth, breadth, and making symbolic points than affecting any results.
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...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 5:45:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
What is the ELO formula again?

change in ELO = 100 * (winner ELO + 9*loser ELO)/10*winner ELO?
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Intrepid
Posts: 372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 5:52:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 5:34:22 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 5:08:05 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:

Another idea would be to use bluesteel's speaker points system for voting from implementation on out, where, in addition to the actual vote which affects the outcome of the debate, people rate the quality of the debating from 1-10, that rating doesn't effect the vote, but does effect the elo gains.

I actually proposed this to bluesteel, and I think it would be a good way to resolve the "noob-sniping" that leads to ELO inflation. Some noobs are going to be good, and some aren't. Facing a good noob should result in a different gain than from debating a total nincompoop of a noob.

You also have to remember that a noob who is a great debate will likely move on to increase in ELO, say 3000 ELO. The current ELO system flows so if you lost to a debater with 2000 ELO, but then that debater gains 1000 ELO, the ELO you lost from the past debate when the debater was at 2000 ELO will go down, so in other words your ELO will go up because you wouldn't have lost as much.

I hope that made sense.
Intrepid
Posts: 372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 5:54:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 5:38:35 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 4/27/2014 5:08:05 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
I could be making a longwinded thread about this, but at the same time, this really doesn't need much. Whether or not it's a result of people intentionally gaming the system or not, it's become so much more of an issue of how many debates an above average debater has done than a matter of how much skill the debaters have.

Now, I am no mathematician, I don't know how the elo formula could be changed specifically to combat this, but I have a few ideas.

One would be to change the formula to not reward debating low skills or new debaters as much by yielding less elo, and having it go up exponentially based on the how close the skill levels of the debaters are.

Another idea would be to use bluesteel's speaker points system for voting from implementation on out, where, in addition to the actual vote which affects the outcome of the debate, people rate the quality of the debating from 1-10, that rating doesn't effect the vote, but does effect the elo gains.

That'd be too manipulable.
Any other ideas?

Why not make it so that you only get elo for debating some with an elo a certain percent or more of yours. It wouldn't require a massive formula overhaul.
By doing this, you get nothing by debating someone so much worse than you, which is realistic, since defeating a noob doesn't really prove you're a better debater, so why should your elo increase at all?

The problem here is that no one would debate because no one would debate against someone with less ELO than them and everyone would only debate against people with higher ELO than them. See the problem?

It also sets elo caps relative to your actual skill... That way someone who is only 3,000 elo in skill, doesn't have an elo of 5,000 because he has 200+ debates? Instead, unless he gets better and can challenge stronger members, he will be stuck at 3,000 where his skill level is.
Intrepid
Posts: 372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 5:58:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 5:45:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
When I get home I will be sooooo all over this!

I think its safe to say not that this account was built for ELO experimentation. The goal for the account was essentially to try to abuse them current system as much as possible, and from what I have seen it has worked pretty well.

The main thing here is that the instigator bonus is far too abusive. In a measly 16 debates I hit 3600 ELO just because I instigated every debate and won all of them.

Either make the the instigator bonus higher or lower depending on the ELO of the user instigating, or make the bonus lower so it cannot be abused as much.

I suggest keeping the ELO from noob sniping the same, but when you debate someone with as much ELO as you, or higher you get a substantially larger amount of ELO than normal, this way noob sniping is deterred and debates against members ranked as good as you will be promoted.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 5:59:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 5:45:22 PM, bluesteel wrote:
What is the ELO formula again?

change in ELO = 100 * (winner ELO + 9*loser ELO)/10*winner ELO?

@donald

I don't think your system is feasible (no ELO once you reach a certain cutoff), but you could make a person gain neglibile ELO once they hit a certain point and debate someone of low skill.

Just change the formula to: change in ELO of winner = 10* (1 + 9*(ELO loser/ELO winner)^X), where "X" is however punitive you want to be for large differences in ELO.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 6:02:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 5:54:50 PM, Intrepid wrote:
At 4/27/2014 5:38:35 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 4/27/2014 5:08:05 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
I could be making a longwinded thread about this, but at the same time, this really doesn't need much. Whether or not it's a result of people intentionally gaming the system or not, it's become so much more of an issue of how many debates an above average debater has done than a matter of how much skill the debaters have.

Now, I am no mathematician, I don't know how the elo formula could be changed specifically to combat this, but I have a few ideas.

One would be to change the formula to not reward debating low skills or new debaters as much by yielding less elo, and having it go up exponentially based on the how close the skill levels of the debaters are.

Another idea would be to use bluesteel's speaker points system for voting from implementation on out, where, in addition to the actual vote which affects the outcome of the debate, people rate the quality of the debating from 1-10, that rating doesn't effect the vote, but does effect the elo gains.

That'd be too manipulable.
Any other ideas?

Why not make it so that you only get elo for debating some with an elo a certain percent or more of yours. It wouldn't require a massive formula overhaul.
By doing this, you get nothing by debating someone so much worse than you, which is realistic, since defeating a noob doesn't really prove you're a better debater, so why should your elo increase at all?

The problem here is that no one would debate because no one would debate against someone with less ELO than them and everyone would only debate against people with higher ELO than them. See the problem?

No. My elo is 4915, so assume the limit is 1/3rd my elo. Debating anyone with an elo of 1,500 would be pointless because I'd now get no Elo. Anyone from 1501+ will still be worth debating. People could still, and would still, debate people under them, while you don't have so much noobsniping.

It also sets elo caps relative to your actual skill... That way someone who is only 3,000 elo in skill, doesn't have an elo of 5,000 because he has 200+ debates? Instead, unless he gets better and can challenge stronger members, he will be stuck at 3,000 where his skill level is.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Intrepid
Posts: 372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 6:04:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 6:02:40 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 4/27/2014 5:54:50 PM, Intrepid wrote:
At 4/27/2014 5:38:35 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 4/27/2014 5:08:05 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
I could be making a longwinded thread about this, but at the same time, this really doesn't need much. Whether or not it's a result of people intentionally gaming the system or not, it's become so much more of an issue of how many debates an above average debater has done than a matter of how much skill the debaters have.

Now, I am no mathematician, I don't know how the elo formula could be changed specifically to combat this, but I have a few ideas.

One would be to change the formula to not reward debating low skills or new debaters as much by yielding less elo, and having it go up exponentially based on the how close the skill levels of the debaters are.

Another idea would be to use bluesteel's speaker points system for voting from implementation on out, where, in addition to the actual vote which affects the outcome of the debate, people rate the quality of the debating from 1-10, that rating doesn't effect the vote, but does effect the elo gains.

That'd be too manipulable.
Any other ideas?

Why not make it so that you only get elo for debating some with an elo a certain percent or more of yours. It wouldn't require a massive formula overhaul.
By doing this, you get nothing by debating someone so much worse than you, which is realistic, since defeating a noob doesn't really prove you're a better debater, so why should your elo increase at all?

The problem here is that no one would debate because no one would debate against someone with less ELO than them and everyone would only debate against people with higher ELO than them. See the problem?

No. My elo is 4915, so assume the limit is 1/3rd my elo. Debating anyone with an elo of 1,500 would be pointless because I'd now get no Elo. Anyone from 1501+ will still be worth debating. People could still, and would still, debate people under them, while you don't have so much noobsniping.

Oh, yeah I agree with that system. I thought you meant that debating basically anyone with a lower ELO than you would give you next to no ELO.

It also sets elo caps relative to your actual skill... That way someone who is only 3,000 elo in skill, doesn't have an elo of 5,000 because he has 200+ debates? Instead, unless he gets better and can challenge stronger members, he will be stuck at 3,000 where his skill level is.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 6:04:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 5:58:57 PM, Intrepid wrote:
At 4/27/2014 5:45:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
When I get home I will be sooooo all over this!

I think its safe to say not that this account was built for ELO experimentation. The goal for the account was essentially to try to abuse them current system as much as possible, and from what I have seen it has worked pretty well.

The main thing here is that the instigator bonus is far too abusive. In a measly 16 debates I hit 3600 ELO just because I instigated every debate and won all of them.

Either make the the instigator bonus higher or lower depending on the ELO of the user instigating, or make the bonus lower so it cannot be abused as much.

I suggest keeping the ELO from noob sniping the same, but when you debate someone with as much ELO as you, or higher you get a substantially larger amount of ELO than normal, this way noob sniping is deterred and debates against members ranked as good as you will be promoted.

Basically, you want an ELO formula that gives you a premium for debating someone that is ranked high.

So basically the formula would be: change in ELO of winner = 10*(1+9*(Elo loser/Elo winner)^X + Y * (Elo loser/2000).

Y = some number greater than 1
Elo loser/2000 = a ratio expressing how much better the person you beat is compared to a complete n00b (2000).

Therefore the Y * (Elo loser/2000) term would give some bonus based on how difficult your opponent is in absolute terms.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Intrepid
Posts: 372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 6:08:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 6:04:50 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/27/2014 5:58:57 PM, Intrepid wrote:
At 4/27/2014 5:45:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
When I get home I will be sooooo all over this!

I think its safe to say not that this account was built for ELO experimentation. The goal for the account was essentially to try to abuse them current system as much as possible, and from what I have seen it has worked pretty well.

The main thing here is that the instigator bonus is far too abusive. In a measly 16 debates I hit 3600 ELO just because I instigated every debate and won all of them.

Either make the the instigator bonus higher or lower depending on the ELO of the user instigating, or make the bonus lower so it cannot be abused as much.

I suggest keeping the ELO from noob sniping the same, but when you debate someone with as much ELO as you, or higher you get a substantially larger amount of ELO than normal, this way noob sniping is deterred and debates against members ranked as good as you will be promoted.

Basically, you want an ELO formula that gives you a premium for debating someone that is ranked high.

So basically the formula would be: change in ELO of winner = 10*(1+9*(Elo loser/Elo winner)^X + Y * (Elo loser/2000).

Y = some number greater than 1
Elo loser/2000 = a ratio expressing how much better the person you beat is compared to a complete n00b (2000).

Therefore the Y * (Elo loser/2000) term would give some bonus based on how difficult your opponent is in absolute terms.

I won't pretend I can read your formulas and understand what they mean, but yes, I agree with the first sentence of your response. You may want to present those formulas to Ore_Ele. I wonder how all of the ELO's would change if such a thing was implemented.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 6:09:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 5:36:42 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/27/2014 5:08:05 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
I could be making a longwinded thread about this, but at the same time, this really doesn't need much. Whether or not it's a result of people intentionally gaming the system or not, it's become so much more of an issue of how many debates an above average debater has done than a matter of how much skill the debaters have.

Now, I am no mathematician, I don't know how the elo formula could be changed specifically to combat this, but I have a few ideas.

One would be to change the formula to not reward debating low skills or new debaters as much by yielding less elo, and having it go up exponentially based on the how close the skill levels of the debaters are.

Another idea would be to use bluesteel's speaker points system for voting from implementation on out, where, in addition to the actual vote which affects the outcome of the debate, people rate the quality of the debating from 1-10, that rating doesn't effect the vote, but does effect the elo gains.

Any other ideas?

There is definitely ELO inflation occurring on the site. As Intreoid pointed out, it's large based on the instigator bonus. If you delete the instigator bonus, it would be impossible to gain any ELO from n00b sniping once you hit a certain point.

This is false. If you remove the instigator bonus, and make no other changes, there would be no point at which you would lose points for a win against someone of any skill level.

That this does is makes it so you can only newb snipe as an instigator, not as a contender. In what Intrepid showed, he gained 1,610 ELO points in 16 debates. The instigator bonus accounted for 400 of those points (technically a little less, since in his later debates, he would have had a lower ELO, so would have gotten a little more for the win).

That's how it works in chess. If you're master level and beat a n00b, you're not gonna gain any more than negligible ELO from it. The ELO system (in general) is *designed* to prevent people from climbing to the top based on n00b sniping. But the very system that was designed (on DDO) to protect n00bs from getting sniped (by hurting someone who *contends* against a n00b) has made it easier to n00b snipe as an instigator.

While it is true that it has made it easier to do that theoretically, not nearly as many people actually do that. Though, with the beginning of instigators restricting members from accepting so they can choose (which, while possible, was unheard of when ELO was first created), that does create some issues to be addressed.


If I were going to game the system, I would start a bunch of 3K character debates, on easy topics (that don't require me to research), and set the max ELO of the contender at 2500. I'd be guaranteed 25 points per debate (instigator bonus) against easy opponents, while requiring little work on my part.

What does this tell you? It tells you that if you want to stop people from gaming the system, you need to: (1) provide less ELO for shorter debates, (2) eliminate or modify the fixed 25-point instigator advantage [it should get smaller the higher your ELO], and (3) eliminate the option to set a *max* ELO, as opposed to a minimum ELO for the contender.

One way to modify the instigator benefit is... Instigator Benefit = 25 * (2000/ELO)

Where "ELO" is the instigator's ELO. A complete newby (ELO of 2000 when you start) gets the full benefit). But as you get really high in ELO (like 8000), you'll only be getting about 6 points per instigation.

I like that, that would also be very simple for Juggle to implement.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 6:14:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 5:08:05 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
I could be making a longwinded thread about this, but at the same time, this really doesn't need much. Whether or not it's a result of people intentionally gaming the system or not, it's become so much more of an issue of how many debates an above average debater has done than a matter of how much skill the debaters have.

What you're talking about is changing the curvature of the ELO equation. Making it more steep means the difference in ELO score has a greater impact on the ELO change. There does need to be a balance to some extent, though I can agree that it can definitely be pushed further towards the skill level.


Now, I am no mathematician, I don't know how the elo formula could be changed specifically to combat this, but I have a few ideas.

One would be to change the formula to not reward debating low skills or new debaters as much by yielding less elo, and having it go up exponentially based on the how close the skill levels of the debaters are.

It already does this, but it can be pushed to make it more so.


Another idea would be to use bluesteel's speaker points system for voting from implementation on out, where, in addition to the actual vote which affects the outcome of the debate, people rate the quality of the debating from 1-10, that rating doesn't effect the vote, but does effect the elo gains.

Any other ideas?

The speaker point system is already something that I am playing with some theoretical equations, though the first step would be to get Juggle to implement it as a way of making more accurate RFDs (making it easier to spot vote bombs), once in, it is easier to just ad to the equation (likely with a piece-wise equation, rather than DiffEQ).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 6:27:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 5:58:57 PM, Intrepid wrote:
At 4/27/2014 5:45:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
When I get home I will be sooooo all over this!

I think its safe to say not that this account was built for ELO experimentation. The goal for the account was essentially to try to abuse them current system as much as possible, and from what I have seen it has worked pretty well.

The main thing here is that the instigator bonus is far too abusive. In a measly 16 debates I hit 3600 ELO just because I instigated every debate and won all of them.

Either make the the instigator bonus higher or lower depending on the ELO of the user instigating, or make the bonus lower so it cannot be abused as much.

I suggest keeping the ELO from noob sniping the same, but when you debate someone with as much ELO as you, or higher you get a substantially larger amount of ELO than normal, this way noob sniping is deterred and debates against members ranked as good as you will be promoted.

When I said "sooo all over this" I did not mean from a mod perspective. The issue, the more you add to the IB, the more you hurt newb sniping as a contender and the more you reward it as an instigator, but the more you back off the IB, the more you help newb sniping as a contender. There is little question to that. Though there is a question on how much is it really abused as an instigator? We can definitely show that it CAN be abused, but is it on a real widespread level?

I mean, instigators are not winning more often than they used to, so if people are trying to abuse it, they are not having as much luck.

One of the things that when I was talking with BS about this earlier (when he started a thread a few weeks ago, I think) was moving the IB from outside the equation, to inside the equation.

This will have a number of effects. First is to note that there are three types of debates when looking at the debaters (after all, at this time, ELO does not measure based on category or "seriousness" of debate). We have Type A, Low ELO vs Low ELO. Type B, Low ELO vs High ELO. And type C, High ELO vs High ELO.

When the IB is outside the equation, it effects all categories, but it hits Type B the most (which is the category that newb sniping falls under). It's effects also change wildly based on who the instigator is, as Intrepid has shown.

If the IB is inside the equation, Type A is still effected equally. Type B is still effected, but not nearly as much, and the massive swing based on who instigates is lost. And Type C is effected minimally (in fact, the greater the two ELOs, the less it will have an affect).

However, the downside is, that when it is inside the equation, it cannot create a cap on newb sniping (while on the outside, it only creates a cap on contender newb sniping).

However, I believe a variable, as opposed to a constant, IB on the outside would be the ideal situation.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 6:32:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 5:52:21 PM, Intrepid wrote:
At 4/27/2014 5:34:22 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 5:08:05 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:

Another idea would be to use bluesteel's speaker points system for voting from implementation on out, where, in addition to the actual vote which affects the outcome of the debate, people rate the quality of the debating from 1-10, that rating doesn't effect the vote, but does effect the elo gains.

I actually proposed this to bluesteel, and I think it would be a good way to resolve the "noob-sniping" that leads to ELO inflation. Some noobs are going to be good, and some aren't. Facing a good noob should result in a different gain than from debating a total nincompoop of a noob.

You also have to remember that a noob who is a great debate will likely move on to increase in ELO, say 3000 ELO. The current ELO system flows so if you lost to a debater with 2000 ELO, but then that debater gains 1000 ELO, the ELO you lost from the past debate when the debater was at 2000 ELO will go down, so in other words your ELO will go up because you wouldn't have lost as much.

I hope that made sense.

Not quite. The current system only takes into account the member's ELO at the time of the debate. If you are their first debate (so they are at 2,000) and you lose, your ELO goes down based on that 2,000, even if they go on to get to a 5,000 later down the road.

Where it fluctuates is when you are their 10th debate and lets say they are at 2,300 (like a 7-3 record). If you win, your ELO goes up based on that 2,300. However, if someone votes on one of their old debates, to change it from a loss to a win (so they are now 8-2 on debates before yours), their ELO at the time of your debate may be up to 2,500, so yours will be recalculated based on that 2,500.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 6:54:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
One reason that I really like the speaker points system is because it allows for a score based on your individual effort and not only as a comparison against your opponent. Right now, you are only measured against your opponent. Whether you both did a great job, one did a great job, or both completely sucked (you you just sucked a little bit less). As such, I think we can all agree that part of the ELO adjustment equation should be based on how well you did individually.

For example. I think that everyone can agree that if some new member came and did a debate against Bluesteel, and went toe to toe but just barely lost, that the new member's ELO should go up, not down. After all, despite losing, he has shown that he is a good debater and ELO's goal is ultimately to represent the skill of debaters.

The current equation I'm working on with speakers (I have a few others that I'm bouncing around) would be a piecewise function with speaker points on a 0-20 scale (I'm just not a fan of 0-10, I think because whatever grade you get out of it is going to be either a perfect or a minus. So either A+, A-, B-, C-, D-, or F, just don't like all those minuses).

If your ELO is 2000 or above than the equation is...

D = Delta (or change in ELO)
E = your current ELO (if over 5,000, E is set to 5,000)
S = your average speakers points awarded in the debate
P = The expected speakers points you should get for your skill

P = 10 + 6 * (E - 2000)/3000

D = 100 * (S - P) **(the "100" is arbitrary and if we change the slope of the current ELO equation, we can change that 100 to something else to balance them out).

This means that if your ELO is at or above 5,000 you are expected to always argue with a skill of 16/20. If you do better than that, you gain ELO, if you do worse than that, you lose ELO.

If your ELO is below 2000, the equation is (same variables).

P = 10 - 5 * (2000 - E)/1000

D = 100 * (S - P)
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 7:55:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 7:11:01 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
nothing?

We're all dumbfounded at what the f*ck you just said.
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 8:00:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 7:55:33 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 7:11:01 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
nothing?

We're all dumbfounded at what the f*ck you just said.

LMFAO...

This.
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...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 8:08:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 7:55:33 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 7:11:01 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
nothing?

We're all dumbfounded at what the f*ck you just said.

I am a little bit too. A good part of it was concocted while tipsy, but it seemed good after I sobered up.

Any particular part that needs more explanation?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 8:08:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm not sure the issue is the ELO formula as such as it is the site culture. Go look at the challenge section, noobs are the only ones making challenges anymore. Established members rarely debate except in tournaments, and since most noobs forfeit (probably more than in the old days, I'm not sure though) everyones win record is becoming inflated. ELO follows from that.
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