Total Posts:89|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

This new voting system is stupid

Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 10:46:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's been oversimplified to the point where voting is bordering on worthless. With the new voting system, you don't get to vote on specific components of the arguments. It's the overall feel towards the debate that you're for. Sure, winning sources and grammar should not garner the same points as winning arguments, but that doesn't mean they could be reworked, rather than deleted.

I don't care how debates are run in real life. They are not worth anyone's time if all that is considered is 'who you felt won'. What is far more important is why a person won, and to try and collaborate several points of a strong argument into one 'win or lose' vote, is to oversimplify an argument. The debate needs to be broken down, and then brought back together to summarise. This new voting system encourages skipping the first step.

Also, getting rid of sources, S&G points etc. means that people, overall, will care less about them, and it will lower the quality of the debate.

This is just silly.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 10:49:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So don't use the new system. It's optional.

That being said, Thett3 made a very convincing case for the new voting system in his debate with Roy

http://www.debate.org...
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
5/24/2014 10:51:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 10:46:41 PM, Zarroette wrote:
It's been oversimplified to the point where voting is bordering on worthless. With the new voting system, you don't get to vote on specific components of the arguments. It's the overall feel towards the debate that you're for. Sure, winning sources and grammar should not garner the same points as winning arguments, but that doesn't mean they could be reworked, rather than deleted.

I don't care how debates are run in real life. They are not worth anyone's time if all that is considered is 'who you felt won'. What is far more important is why a person won, and to try and collaborate several points of a strong argument into one 'win or lose' vote, is to oversimplify an argument. The debate needs to be broken down, and then brought back together to summarise. This new voting system encourages skipping the first step.

Also, getting rid of sources, S&G points etc. means that people, overall, will care less about them, and it will lower the quality of the debate.

This is just silly.

It's improved voting on the debates I've seen so far, but mostly because people are setting high ELO floors or hand picking good judges who will leave long RFD's and do precisely what you said -- go through the debate argument by argument and pick each apart.

Any system will be bad if you have bad judges. The aspects that allow you to limit who can vote on your debate are arguably more important.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 10:55:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 10:49:52 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
So don't use the new system. It's optional.

I suspect that it will be slowly implemented into the site, so that the alternatives will be erased. Besides, the one we have atm isn't all that good, and could do with some work, if Juggle had the free time.


That being said, Thett3 made a very convincing case for the new voting system in his debate with Roy

http://www.debate.org...

I'll have a look at this. Thank you, Robert.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 11:00:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 10:51:35 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/24/2014 10:46:41 PM, Zarroette wrote:
It's been oversimplified to the point where voting is bordering on worthless. With the new voting system, you don't get to vote on specific components of the arguments. It's the overall feel towards the debate that you're for. Sure, winning sources and grammar should not garner the same points as winning arguments, but that doesn't mean they could be reworked, rather than deleted.

I don't care how debates are run in real life. They are not worth anyone's time if all that is considered is 'who you felt won'. What is far more important is why a person won, and to try and collaborate several points of a strong argument into one 'win or lose' vote, is to oversimplify an argument. The debate needs to be broken down, and then brought back together to summarise. This new voting system encourages skipping the first step.

Also, getting rid of sources, S&G points etc. means that people, overall, will care less about them, and it will lower the quality of the debate.

This is just silly.

It's improved voting on the debates I've seen so far, but mostly because people are setting high ELO floors or hand picking good judges who will leave long RFD's and do precisely what you said -- go through the debate argument by argument and pick each apart.


Any system will be bad if you have bad judges. The aspects that allow you to limit who can vote on your debate are arguably more important.

I wasn't talking about setting stricter limits on who can vote. I was talking about the voting point system itself. Sure, restricting the people who can vote is a good idea, you're right. Unless I've missed something, how does simplifying the point scoring system increase the likelihood of good votes?
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 11:04:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 10:55:25 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 5/24/2014 10:49:52 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
So don't use the new system. It's optional.

I suspect that it will be slowly implemented into the site, so that the alternatives will be erased. Besides, the one we have atm isn't all that good, and could do with some work, if Juggle had the free time.


The goal is to have more options, not an entirely new system. There always have been problem without any easy solutions, so the update allows some choices in the hopes that it could improve some of the issues. While there is still a lot of work to do on voting in general, there is no intention of having the new options entirely replace the old system.

Many debaters like the 7 point system and they will continue to use that. Many debaters however find the 7 point system frustrating and simply wanted an option for a "Pro or Con" type vote. The judge voting and ELO options further give more options for debaters to customize how they feel voting would be best done on their debate. But none of these systems is going to replace any other, and there is no intention to remove the old system.
Debate.org Moderator
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 11:12:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 11:04:34 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/24/2014 10:55:25 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 5/24/2014 10:49:52 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
So don't use the new system. It's optional.

I suspect that it will be slowly implemented into the site, so that the alternatives will be erased. Besides, the one we have atm isn't all that good, and could do with some work, if Juggle had the free time.


The goal is to have more options, not an entirely new system. There always have been problem without any easy solutions, so the update allows some choices in the hopes that it could improve some of the issues. While there is still a lot of work to do on voting in general, there is no intention of having the new options entirely replace the old system.

I don't understand why anyone would want the option of a 'win or lose' vote. The other features are fine and an improvement, but the vote itself has been oversimplified. Who are the people in favour of this simple voting system?


Many debaters like the 7 point system and they will continue to use that. Many debaters however find the 7 point system frustrating and simply wanted an option for a "Pro or Con" type vote.

Sure, they're allowed to cry for that kind of system, but I'm going to tell them that want is stupid, and give reasons for why a simpler voting system is not better.

The judge voting and ELO options further give more options for debaters to customize how they feel voting would be best done on their debate.

I didn't realise that these features were added. These aren't really what I'm complaining about, and they seem to be good ideas.

But none of these systems is going to replace any other, and there is no intention to remove the old system.

I hope not, because you'll hear about it in the forums if it is ever removed.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 11:12:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 11:00:15 PM, Zarroette wrote:

I wasn't talking about setting stricter limits on who can vote. I was talking about the voting point system itself. Sure, restricting the people who can vote is a good idea, you're right. Unless I've missed something, how does simplifying the point scoring system increase the likelihood of good votes?

It's supposed to focus judges on who advanced the better arguments, not one stupid factors like spelling and counting who had more sources. Juggle worded it badly -- "who won" -- or something like that, but it's supposed to be an "argument only" point system essentially. It should really be worded -- "the better debating was done by __________." I personally don't want my debates decided on spelling mistakes, counting who cussed more often, or counting who cited more sources. That's why I advocated for this new system.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 11:17:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 10:46:41 PM, Zarroette wrote:
It's been oversimplified to the point where voting is bordering on worthless. With the new voting system, you don't get to vote on specific components of the arguments. It's the overall feel towards the debate that you're for. Sure, winning sources and grammar should not garner the same points as winning arguments, but that doesn't mean they could be reworked, rather than deleted.

I don't care how debates are run in real life. They are not worth anyone's time if all that is considered is 'who you felt won'. What is far more important is why a person won, and to try and collaborate several points of a strong argument into one 'win or lose' vote, is to oversimplify an argument. The debate needs to be broken down, and then brought back together to summarise. This new voting system encourages skipping the first step.

Also, getting rid of sources, S&G points etc. means that people, overall, will care less about them, and it will lower the quality of the debate.

This is just silly.

Agreed, but that's why I just don't partake in them. The fact that there is still a choice really makes all the difference for me. It allows users who would prefer the new voting system to partake in such debates, and still allows for users who would prefer the old method to still have that as well.

It's like having half-the community desire chocolate cake because we only offered vanilla. Let em have it. You can still do your category voting standards, just as I will, and worst case you want to accept a debate but it's not the voting type you like then just send them a challenge with your voting standards in place.

I do agree with you, but there are hardcore "argument only" judges who prefer this new standard. Just let it be and do what you want :)
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 11:21:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 11:17:14 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/24/2014 10:46:41 PM, Zarroette wrote:
It's been oversimplified to the point where voting is bordering on worthless. With the new voting system, you don't get to vote on specific components of the arguments. It's the overall feel towards the debate that you're for. Sure, winning sources and grammar should not garner the same points as winning arguments, but that doesn't mean they could be reworked, rather than deleted.

I don't care how debates are run in real life. They are not worth anyone's time if all that is considered is 'who you felt won'. What is far more important is why a person won, and to try and collaborate several points of a strong argument into one 'win or lose' vote, is to oversimplify an argument. The debate needs to be broken down, and then brought back together to summarise. This new voting system encourages skipping the first step.

Also, getting rid of sources, S&G points etc. means that people, overall, will care less about them, and it will lower the quality of the debate.

This is just silly.

Agreed, but that's why I just don't partake in them. The fact that there is still a choice really makes all the difference for me. It allows users who would prefer the new voting system to partake in such debates, and still allows for users who would prefer the old method to still have that as well.

It's like having half-the community desire chocolate cake because we only offered vanilla. Let em have it. You can still do your category voting standards, just as I will, and worst case you want to accept a debate but it's not the voting type you like then just send them a challenge with your voting standards in place.

I do agree with you, but there are hardcore "argument only" judges who prefer this new standard. Just let it be and do what you want :)

It's less to do with hardcore and more to do with mitigating fluff votes. In the voting system with 7 points you can just toss points here for there and find ways to justify it to make the debate closer if you want (x) person to win. voting only eliminates that.

In the old system one bad vote could outweight two good votes.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 11:26:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 11:12:10 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:04:34 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/24/2014 10:55:25 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 5/24/2014 10:49:52 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
So don't use the new system. It's optional.

I suspect that it will be slowly implemented into the site, so that the alternatives will be erased. Besides, the one we have atm isn't all that good, and could do with some work, if Juggle had the free time.


The goal is to have more options, not an entirely new system. There always have been problem without any easy solutions, so the update allows some choices in the hopes that it could improve some of the issues. While there is still a lot of work to do on voting in general, there is no intention of having the new options entirely replace the old system.

I don't understand why anyone would want the option of a 'win or lose' vote. The other features are fine and an improvement, but the vote itself has been oversimplified. Who are the people in favour of this simple voting system?

The primary reason people want this is to limit the effect that bad voters have on the outcome of the debate. If you think about it, the high quality judges don't tend to offer more than three or four points, while the lower quality judges tend to offer more points. This means that under the 7 point system, lower quality judges have a higher effect on who wins than the higher quality judges (which is obviously not something that should happen), thus making the "win-lose" option desirable, as it equalizes that out.
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
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 11:26:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 11:17:14 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/24/2014 10:46:41 PM, Zarroette wrote:
It's been oversimplified to the point where voting is bordering on worthless. With the new voting system, you don't get to vote on specific components of the arguments. It's the overall feel towards the debate that you're for. Sure, winning sources and grammar should not garner the same points as winning arguments, but that doesn't mean they could be reworked, rather than deleted.

I don't care how debates are run in real life. They are not worth anyone's time if all that is considered is 'who you felt won'. What is far more important is why a person won, and to try and collaborate several points of a strong argument into one 'win or lose' vote, is to oversimplify an argument. The debate needs to be broken down, and then brought back together to summarise. This new voting system encourages skipping the first step.

Also, getting rid of sources, S&G points etc. means that people, overall, will care less about them, and it will lower the quality of the debate.

This is just silly.

Agreed, but that's why I just don't partake in them. The fact that there is still a choice really makes all the difference for me. It allows users who would prefer the new voting system to partake in such debates, and still allows for users who would prefer the old method to still have that as well.


It's like having half-the community desire chocolate cake because we only offered vanilla. Let em have it. You can still do your category voting standards, just as I will, and worst case you want to accept a debate but it's not the voting type you like then just send them a challenge with your voting standards in place.

I do agree with you, but there are hardcore "argument only" judges who prefer this new standard. Just let it be and do what you want :)

My complaint was only that the system is stupid, not that I felt coerced into using it. Sure, at the end of the day, having the option of the other system doesn't affect me. It's just that it's stupid and deserves criticism.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 11:34:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 11:26:02 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:12:10 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:04:34 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/24/2014 10:55:25 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 5/24/2014 10:49:52 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
So don't use the new system. It's optional.

I suspect that it will be slowly implemented into the site, so that the alternatives will be erased. Besides, the one we have atm isn't all that good, and could do with some work, if Juggle had the free time.


The goal is to have more options, not an entirely new system. There always have been problem without any easy solutions, so the update allows some choices in the hopes that it could improve some of the issues. While there is still a lot of work to do on voting in general, there is no intention of having the new options entirely replace the old system.

I don't understand why anyone would want the option of a 'win or lose' vote. The other features are fine and an improvement, but the vote itself has been oversimplified. Who are the people in favour of this simple voting system?

The primary reason people want this is to limit the effect that bad voters have on the outcome of the debate. If you think about it, the high quality judges don't tend to offer more than three or four points, while the lower quality judges tend to offer more points. This means that under the 7 point system, lower quality judges have a higher effect on who wins than the higher quality judges (which is obviously not something that should happen), thus making the "win-lose" option desirable, as it equalizes that out.

If a person's vote is of low enough quality, it will be removed. If the quality of the vote isn't low enough to be removed, even if you think that it is poor, then isn't that a legitimate vote? While some votes will be better than others, as long as the vote is not a vote-bomb, then why should it not count?

Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 11:37:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 11:21:02 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:17:14 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/24/2014 10:46:41 PM, Zarroette wrote:
It's been oversimplified to the point where voting is bordering on worthless. With the new voting system, you don't get to vote on specific components of the arguments. It's the overall feel towards the debate that you're for. Sure, winning sources and grammar should not garner the same points as winning arguments, but that doesn't mean they could be reworked, rather than deleted.

I don't care how debates are run in real life. They are not worth anyone's time if all that is considered is 'who you felt won'. What is far more important is why a person won, and to try and collaborate several points of a strong argument into one 'win or lose' vote, is to oversimplify an argument. The debate needs to be broken down, and then brought back together to summarise. This new voting system encourages skipping the first step.

Also, getting rid of sources, S&G points etc. means that people, overall, will care less about them, and it will lower the quality of the debate.

This is just silly.

Agreed, but that's why I just don't partake in them. The fact that there is still a choice really makes all the difference for me. It allows users who would prefer the new voting system to partake in such debates, and still allows for users who would prefer the old method to still have that as well.

It's like having half-the community desire chocolate cake because we only offered vanilla. Let em have it. You can still do your category voting standards, just as I will, and worst case you want to accept a debate but it's not the voting type you like then just send them a challenge with your voting standards in place.

I do agree with you, but there are hardcore "argument only" judges who prefer this new standard. Just let it be and do what you want :)

It's less to do with hardcore and more to do with mitigating fluff votes. In the voting system with 7 points you can just toss points here for there and find ways to justify it to make the debate closer if you want (x) person to win. voting only eliminates that.

In the old system one bad vote could outweight two good votes.

Yeah, I see what you are saying and have definitely seen the type of votes you are talking about. I just remember talking to Zaradi about it and he was all about Arguments being the only thing that should count in these debates and I agreed but only to the extent that it's a verbal debate. I personally have always held S&G and Sources as vital to text-based debates. But users like Zaradi don't agree.

When I said that, it was just based off of our conversation and him saying that alot of people agreed with his position. I take what he said in that conversation as honest and didn't think it was like that before having that conversation with him. So for me, it kinda allowed me to see why some people prefer the new voting system. Which was really the only reason I made that statement about arguments only.

I do feel like people could just as easily fluff vote on the new standards though and have already seen that as well. Neither voting system eliminates that issue, imo.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 11:39:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 11:26:44 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:17:14 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/24/2014 10:46:41 PM, Zarroette wrote:
It's been oversimplified to the point where voting is bordering on worthless. With the new voting system, you don't get to vote on specific components of the arguments. It's the overall feel towards the debate that you're for. Sure, winning sources and grammar should not garner the same points as winning arguments, but that doesn't mean they could be reworked, rather than deleted.

I don't care how debates are run in real life. They are not worth anyone's time if all that is considered is 'who you felt won'. What is far more important is why a person won, and to try and collaborate several points of a strong argument into one 'win or lose' vote, is to oversimplify an argument. The debate needs to be broken down, and then brought back together to summarise. This new voting system encourages skipping the first step.

Also, getting rid of sources, S&G points etc. means that people, overall, will care less about them, and it will lower the quality of the debate.

This is just silly.

Agreed, but that's why I just don't partake in them. The fact that there is still a choice really makes all the difference for me. It allows users who would prefer the new voting system to partake in such debates, and still allows for users who would prefer the old method to still have that as well.


It's like having half-the community desire chocolate cake because we only offered vanilla. Let em have it. You can still do your category voting standards, just as I will, and worst case you want to accept a debate but it's not the voting type you like then just send them a challenge with your voting standards in place.

I do agree with you, but there are hardcore "argument only" judges who prefer this new standard. Just let it be and do what you want :)

My complaint was only that the system is stupid, not that I felt coerced into using it. Sure, at the end of the day, having the option of the other system doesn't affect me. It's just that it's stupid and deserves criticism.

Oh alright. Well then yes, it's certainly received its share of criticism when first released and might very well receive some more in this thread. I get that you've just returned so I'll leave it at that :) Have a goodnight.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 11:42:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 11:34:00 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:26:02 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:12:10 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:04:34 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/24/2014 10:55:25 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 5/24/2014 10:49:52 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
So don't use the new system. It's optional.

I suspect that it will be slowly implemented into the site, so that the alternatives will be erased. Besides, the one we have atm isn't all that good, and could do with some work, if Juggle had the free time.


The goal is to have more options, not an entirely new system. There always have been problem without any easy solutions, so the update allows some choices in the hopes that it could improve some of the issues. While there is still a lot of work to do on voting in general, there is no intention of having the new options entirely replace the old system.

I don't understand why anyone would want the option of a 'win or lose' vote. The other features are fine and an improvement, but the vote itself has been oversimplified. Who are the people in favour of this simple voting system?

The primary reason people want this is to limit the effect that bad voters have on the outcome of the debate. If you think about it, the high quality judges don't tend to offer more than three or four points, while the lower quality judges tend to offer more points. This means that under the 7 point system, lower quality judges have a higher effect on who wins than the higher quality judges (which is obviously not something that should happen), thus making the "win-lose" option desirable, as it equalizes that out.

If a person's vote is of low enough quality, it will be removed. If the quality of the vote isn't low enough to be removed, even if you think that it is poor, then isn't that a legitimate vote? While some votes will be better than others, as long as the vote is not a vote-bomb, then why should it not count?



This isn't to say that those votes shouldn't count- under this system, it still counts. It's just that a lower quality voter should not be worth more to the outcome of the debate than a higher quality voter.
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
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 11:46:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 11:39:54 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:26:44 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:17:14 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/24/2014 10:46:41 PM, Zarroette wrote:
It's been oversimplified to the point where voting is bordering on worthless. With the new voting system, you don't get to vote on specific components of the arguments. It's the overall feel towards the debate that you're for. Sure, winning sources and grammar should not garner the same points as winning arguments, but that doesn't mean they could be reworked, rather than deleted.

I don't care how debates are run in real life. They are not worth anyone's time if all that is considered is 'who you felt won'. What is far more important is why a person won, and to try and collaborate several points of a strong argument into one 'win or lose' vote, is to oversimplify an argument. The debate needs to be broken down, and then brought back together to summarise. This new voting system encourages skipping the first step.

Also, getting rid of sources, S&G points etc. means that people, overall, will care less about them, and it will lower the quality of the debate.

This is just silly.

Agreed, but that's why I just don't partake in them. The fact that there is still a choice really makes all the difference for me. It allows users who would prefer the new voting system to partake in such debates, and still allows for users who would prefer the old method to still have that as well.


It's like having half-the community desire chocolate cake because we only offered vanilla. Let em have it. You can still do your category voting standards, just as I will, and worst case you want to accept a debate but it's not the voting type you like then just send them a challenge with your voting standards in place.

I do agree with you, but there are hardcore "argument only" judges who prefer this new standard. Just let it be and do what you want :)

My complaint was only that the system is stupid, not that I felt coerced into using it. Sure, at the end of the day, having the option of the other system doesn't affect me. It's just that it's stupid and deserves criticism.

Oh alright. Well then yes, it's certainly received its share of criticism when first released and might very well receive some more in this thread. I get that you've just returned so I'll leave it at that :) Have a goodnight.

lets debate it blade speed rounds
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 11:50:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 11:42:38 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:34:00 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:26:02 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:12:10 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:04:34 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/24/2014 10:55:25 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 5/24/2014 10:49:52 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
So don't use the new system. It's optional.

I suspect that it will be slowly implemented into the site, so that the alternatives will be erased. Besides, the one we have atm isn't all that good, and could do with some work, if Juggle had the free time.


The goal is to have more options, not an entirely new system. There always have been problem without any easy solutions, so the update allows some choices in the hopes that it could improve some of the issues. While there is still a lot of work to do on voting in general, there is no intention of having the new options entirely replace the old system.

I don't understand why anyone would want the option of a 'win or lose' vote. The other features are fine and an improvement, but the vote itself has been oversimplified. Who are the people in favour of this simple voting system?

The primary reason people want this is to limit the effect that bad voters have on the outcome of the debate. If you think about it, the high quality judges don't tend to offer more than three or four points, while the lower quality judges tend to offer more points. This means that under the 7 point system, lower quality judges have a higher effect on who wins than the higher quality judges (which is obviously not something that should happen), thus making the "win-lose" option desirable, as it equalizes that out.

If a person's vote is of low enough quality, it will be removed. If the quality of the vote isn't low enough to be removed, even if you think that it is poor, then isn't that a legitimate vote? While some votes will be better than others, as long as the vote is not a vote-bomb, then why should it not count?



This isn't to say that those votes shouldn't count- under this system, it still counts. It's just that a lower quality voter should not be worth more to the outcome of the debate than a higher quality voter.

Then the multi-faceted point system should be restructured, not removed. Removing it also lowers the value of the higher-quality votes, because they have less factors to vary on. Making it more complex, with more point categories, gives better voters more to differentiate on, and hence create better votes. It would also make poorer votes easier to detect, due to incorrect point allocation.

Fine, oversimplifying the voting lessens the impact poorer votes can have, but it severely limits the quality of ALL votes, overall.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2014 12:00:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 11:50:45 PM, Zarroette wrote:

Then the multi-faceted point system should be restructured, not removed. Removing it also lowers the value of the higher-quality votes, because they have less factors to vary on. Making it more complex, with more point categories, gives better voters more to differentiate on, and hence create better votes. It would also make poorer votes easier to detect, due to incorrect point allocation.

Fine, oversimplifying the voting lessens the impact poorer votes can have, but it severely limits the quality of ALL votes, overall.

Not true. The "missing" factors are S&G, conduct, and sources -- all categories that were frequently abused by bad voters in order to strategically vote so their votes counted for more than everyone else's. These categories add very little to the "quality" of a vote. What makes an argument compelling is not the impeccableness of its use of commas, or its obsequious niceness, or its over-reliance on sources to cover all possible bases. An argument is compelling due to its appeals to logos and pathos -- logical and emotional appeals.

If you feel strongly about it, you're certainly entitled to keep instigating with those categories, but you bear the risk that people will use them to strategically vote more points to your opponent.

If I were choosing the top three categories for what makes me vote for someone, it would be argument choice, rebuttals, and word economy -- not the 4 categories Phil (the site's founder) chose back in the day. So I don't really understand the argument that judge's not using these 4 categories anymore reduces the quality of their votes. The vote's quality is judged solely by its RFD, not by the point categories. Someone who is dumb enough to think the "choose winner" option is similar to the Polls section was never going to be a good voter and never going to leave a detailed RFD, regardless of the system.

If you couple the choose winner option with another feature to limit judges to only good judges, I guarantee you that you will get better and fairer decisions than under any alternative system. If you do an ELO limit and still use the old system, you're risking strategic voting.
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
5/25/2014 12:03:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 11:50:45 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:42:38 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:34:00 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:26:02 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:12:10 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:04:34 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/24/2014 10:55:25 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 5/24/2014 10:49:52 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
So don't use the new system. It's optional.

I suspect that it will be slowly implemented into the site, so that the alternatives will be erased. Besides, the one we have atm isn't all that good, and could do with some work, if Juggle had the free time.


The goal is to have more options, not an entirely new system. There always have been problem without any easy solutions, so the update allows some choices in the hopes that it could improve some of the issues. While there is still a lot of work to do on voting in general, there is no intention of having the new options entirely replace the old system.

I don't understand why anyone would want the option of a 'win or lose' vote. The other features are fine and an improvement, but the vote itself has been oversimplified. Who are the people in favour of this simple voting system?

The primary reason people want this is to limit the effect that bad voters have on the outcome of the debate. If you think about it, the high quality judges don't tend to offer more than three or four points, while the lower quality judges tend to offer more points. This means that under the 7 point system, lower quality judges have a higher effect on who wins than the higher quality judges (which is obviously not something that should happen), thus making the "win-lose" option desirable, as it equalizes that out.

If a person's vote is of low enough quality, it will be removed. If the quality of the vote isn't low enough to be removed, even if you think that it is poor, then isn't that a legitimate vote? While some votes will be better than others, as long as the vote is not a vote-bomb, then why should it not count?



This isn't to say that those votes shouldn't count- under this system, it still counts. It's just that a lower quality voter should not be worth more to the outcome of the debate than a higher quality voter.

Then the multi-faceted point system should be restructured, not removed. Removing it also lowers the value of the higher-quality votes, because they have less factors to vary on. Making it more complex, with more point categories, gives better voters more to differentiate on, and hence create better votes. It would also make poorer votes easier to detect, due to incorrect point allocation.

Fine, oversimplifying the voting lessens the impact poorer votes can have, but it severely limits the quality of ALL votes, overall.

Higher quality voters really don't tend to place their votes based on categories, but based on the arguments, which is apparent in any of their RFD's. Now, we've agreed that they tend to allocate less points and that low quality voters tend to allocate more points. So it would seem to be apparent that equalizing the power of the votes would generally raise up the impact of the high quality voters while reducing the impact of the lower quality voters, thus creating a net positive. Fundamentally, the RFD should be what decides the debate, not arbitrarily decided categories.

I really don't understand why you think it lowers the quality of votes to remove the categories. Conduct and S&G obviously shouldn't be deciding debates. Sources are good, but most people don't seem to understand that some arguments don't need sources or that the point isn't based on quantity, thus making those moot as a deciding factor (or at least something that needs to be mitigated from bad voters). Arguments is really the only thing that actually matters for who won a debate, so I don't see the harm to quality by simplifying it down to that.
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
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2014 12:04:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 11:46:43 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:39:54 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:26:44 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:17:14 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/24/2014 10:46:41 PM, Zarroette wrote:
It's been oversimplified to the point where voting is bordering on worthless. With the new voting system, you don't get to vote on specific components of the arguments. It's the overall feel towards the debate that you're for. Sure, winning sources and grammar should not garner the same points as winning arguments, but that doesn't mean they could be reworked, rather than deleted.

I don't care how debates are run in real life. They are not worth anyone's time if all that is considered is 'who you felt won'. What is far more important is why a person won, and to try and collaborate several points of a strong argument into one 'win or lose' vote, is to oversimplify an argument. The debate needs to be broken down, and then brought back together to summarise. This new voting system encourages skipping the first step.

Also, getting rid of sources, S&G points etc. means that people, overall, will care less about them, and it will lower the quality of the debate.

This is just silly.

Agreed, but that's why I just don't partake in them. The fact that there is still a choice really makes all the difference for me. It allows users who would prefer the new voting system to partake in such debates, and still allows for users who would prefer the old method to still have that as well.


It's like having half-the community desire chocolate cake because we only offered vanilla. Let em have it. You can still do your category voting standards, just as I will, and worst case you want to accept a debate but it's not the voting type you like then just send them a challenge with your voting standards in place.

I do agree with you, but there are hardcore "argument only" judges who prefer this new standard. Just let it be and do what you want :)

My complaint was only that the system is stupid, not that I felt coerced into using it. Sure, at the end of the day, having the option of the other system doesn't affect me. It's just that it's stupid and deserves criticism.

Oh alright. Well then yes, it's certainly received its share of criticism when first released and might very well receive some more in this thread. I get that you've just returned so I'll leave it at that :) Have a goodnight.

lets debate it blade speed rounds

Lol, debate what? That the new voting system eliminates fluff votes?
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2014 12:12:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/25/2014 12:04:58 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:46:43 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:39:54 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:26:44 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:17:14 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/24/2014 10:46:41 PM, Zarroette wrote:
It's been oversimplified to the point where voting is bordering on worthless. With the new voting system, you don't get to vote on specific components of the arguments. It's the overall feel towards the debate that you're for. Sure, winning sources and grammar should not garner the same points as winning arguments, but that doesn't mean they could be reworked, rather than deleted.

I don't care how debates are run in real life. They are not worth anyone's time if all that is considered is 'who you felt won'. What is far more important is why a person won, and to try and collaborate several points of a strong argument into one 'win or lose' vote, is to oversimplify an argument. The debate needs to be broken down, and then brought back together to summarise. This new voting system encourages skipping the first step.

Also, getting rid of sources, S&G points etc. means that people, overall, will care less about them, and it will lower the quality of the debate.

This is just silly.

Agreed, but that's why I just don't partake in them. The fact that there is still a choice really makes all the difference for me. It allows users who would prefer the new voting system to partake in such debates, and still allows for users who would prefer the old method to still have that as well.


It's like having half-the community desire chocolate cake because we only offered vanilla. Let em have it. You can still do your category voting standards, just as I will, and worst case you want to accept a debate but it's not the voting type you like then just send them a challenge with your voting standards in place.

I do agree with you, but there are hardcore "argument only" judges who prefer this new standard. Just let it be and do what you want :)

My complaint was only that the system is stupid, not that I felt coerced into using it. Sure, at the end of the day, having the option of the other system doesn't affect me. It's just that it's stupid and deserves criticism.

Oh alright. Well then yes, it's certainly received its share of criticism when first released and might very well receive some more in this thread. I get that you've just returned so I'll leave it at that :) Have a goodnight.

lets debate it blade speed rounds

Lol, debate what? That the new voting system eliminates fluff votes?

which is generally better
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2014 12:15:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/25/2014 12:00:14 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:50:45 PM, Zarroette wrote:

Then the multi-faceted point system should be restructured, not removed. Removing it also lowers the value of the higher-quality votes, because they have less factors to vary on. Making it more complex, with more point categories, gives better voters more to differentiate on, and hence create better votes. It would also make poorer votes easier to detect, due to incorrect point allocation.

Fine, oversimplifying the voting lessens the impact poorer votes can have, but it severely limits the quality of ALL votes, overall.

Not true. The "missing" factors are S&G, conduct, and sources -- all categories that were frequently abused by bad voters in order to strategically vote so their votes counted for more than everyone else's.

Voting illegitimately like this will result in the vote being removed. You should know this...

These categories add very little to the "quality" of a vote. What makes an argument compelling is not the impeccableness of its use of commas, or its obsequious niceness, or its over-reliance on sources to cover all possible bases. An argument is compelling due to its appeals to logos and pathos -- logical and emotional appeals.

Improving the "quality" of the vote is not the purpose of the point allocation. Rather, the purpose is to: 1) incentivise correct spelling and grammar, and 2) increase the quality of the debate. I understand that for the current multi-faceted model, there is a far too heavy weighting delegated to a relatively unimportant category. But the category isn't entirely irrelevant, as it virtually is under the new voting system. Are you saying that S&G has no relevancy to a debate? Should there no be incentive to ensure its presence?

If you feel strongly about it, you're certainly entitled to keep instigating with those categories, but you bear the risk that people will use them to strategically vote more points to your opponent.

You're presuming that people would firstly want to do that against me, and then that the alternative is any better.


If I were choosing the top three categories for what makes me vote for someone, it would be argument choice, rebuttals, and word economy -- not the 4 categories Phil (the site's founder) chose back in the day. So I don't really understand the argument that judge's not using these 4 categories anymore reduces the quality of their votes.

It gives better voters more to differentiate debates on. I'd argue that there are not enough categories; that there should be a point or two for layout and presentation, as well as further divisions for arguments. Also, since everyone seems so worried about it, it gives an easier sight to shonky voters, because their point delegation will be inaccurate. It is far more difficult to detect a dodgy vote, when all there is a 7-point category.

The vote's quality is judged solely by its RFD, not by the point categories. Someone who is dumb enough to think the "choose winner" option is similar to the Polls section was never going to be a good voter and never going to leave a detailed RFD, regardless of the system.

There is no greater obligation to leave a detailed RFD in the new system; I cannot see how you've created a reason for distinction.


If you couple the choose winner option with another feature to limit judges to only good judges, I guarantee you that you will get better and fairer decisions than under any alternative system. If you do an ELO limit and still use the old system, you're risking strategic voting.

Yes, the old system could do with work (but that's easier said than done). I never argued that it didn't.

I don't care what you can guarantee. Limiting the judges is a good idea, I gave you that, but the new scoring system is garbage, as I've explained earlier.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2014 12:28:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/25/2014 12:03:54 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:50:45 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:42:38 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:34:00 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:26:02 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:12:10 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:04:34 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/24/2014 10:55:25 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 5/24/2014 10:49:52 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
So don't use the new system. It's optional.

I suspect that it will be slowly implemented into the site, so that the alternatives will be erased. Besides, the one we have atm isn't all that good, and could do with some work, if Juggle had the free time.


The goal is to have more options, not an entirely new system. There always have been problem without any easy solutions, so the update allows some choices in the hopes that it could improve some of the issues. While there is still a lot of work to do on voting in general, there is no intention of having the new options entirely replace the old system.

I don't understand why anyone would want the option of a 'win or lose' vote. The other features are fine and an improvement, but the vote itself has been oversimplified. Who are the people in favour of this simple voting system?

The primary reason people want this is to limit the effect that bad voters have on the outcome of the debate. If you think about it, the high quality judges don't tend to offer more than three or four points, while the lower quality judges tend to offer more points. This means that under the 7 point system, lower quality judges have a higher effect on who wins than the higher quality judges (which is obviously not something that should happen), thus making the "win-lose" option desirable, as it equalizes that out.

If a person's vote is of low enough quality, it will be removed. If the quality of the vote isn't low enough to be removed, even if you think that it is poor, then isn't that a legitimate vote? While some votes will be better than others, as long as the vote is not a vote-bomb, then why should it not count?



This isn't to say that those votes shouldn't count- under this system, it still counts. It's just that a lower quality voter should not be worth more to the outcome of the debate than a higher quality voter.

Then the multi-faceted point system should be restructured, not removed. Removing it also lowers the value of the higher-quality votes, because they have less factors to vary on. Making it more complex, with more point categories, gives better voters more to differentiate on, and hence create better votes. It would also make poorer votes easier to detect, due to incorrect point allocation.

Fine, oversimplifying the voting lessens the impact poorer votes can have, but it severely limits the quality of ALL votes, overall.

Higher quality voters really don't tend to place their votes based on categories, but based on the arguments, which is apparent in any of their RFD's.

Yes, so there should be more points allocated to arguments, as well as categories within arguments, so a more thorough vote can be given.

Now, we've agreed that they tend to allocate less points and that low quality voters tend to allocate more points. So it would seem to be apparent that equalizing the power of the votes would generally raise up the impact of the high quality voters while reducing the impact of the lower quality voters, thus creating a net positive.

You're undermining the power of the better votes. You're basically giving the better votes equal strength to the weaker votes, at best. In this regard, this is better than the old system, but the best it can do is give equal strength to the poor and good votes. I'm saying that if you give more categories to the vote, re-weighting the points too, the vote quality will be much better, and it will be easier to detect the poorer votes.

Fundamentally, the RFD should be what decides the debate, not arbitrarily decided categories.

The categories are not arbitrary at all. The use of high-quality sources is very relevant to a debate. The use of proper S&G less so, but would you not say that it is important, to a lesser extent, too?


I really don't understand why you think it lowers the quality of votes to remove the categories.

Because there is less delineation between the poor and good votes -- it's really as simple as that.

Conduct and S&G obviously shouldn't be deciding debates.

FFS, I didn't say this. I said multiple times that S&G is too heavily weighted. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU SHOULD GET RID OF IT ALTOGETHER!!!! Having good spelling and grammar adds to a debate, does it not?-, even if only slightly. Don't you think????

Sources are good, but most people don't seem to understand that some arguments don't need sources or that the point isn't based on quantity, thus making those moot as a deciding factor (or at least something that needs to be mitigated from bad voters).

Then make this voting category clearer. Having a tool-tip explain how and when to vote on sources. Again, don't you think sources can be important in a debate?

Arguments is really the only thing that actually matters for who won a debate, so I don't see the harm to quality by simplifying it down to that.

There are many internal parts to an argument, that to reduce it to such a grossly oversimplified whole not only makes it very tough to vote, but lowers the overall vote quality, as I've explained earlier.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2014 12:29:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/25/2014 12:15:56 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 5/25/2014 12:00:14 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:50:45 PM, Zarroette wrote:

Then the multi-faceted point system should be restructured, not removed. Removing it also lowers the value of the higher-quality votes, because they have less factors to vary on. Making it more complex, with more point categories, gives better voters more to differentiate on, and hence create better votes. It would also make poorer votes easier to detect, due to incorrect point allocation.

Fine, oversimplifying the voting lessens the impact poorer votes can have, but it severely limits the quality of ALL votes, overall.

Not true. The "missing" factors are S&G, conduct, and sources -- all categories that were frequently abused by bad voters in order to strategically vote so their votes counted for more than everyone else's.

Voting illegitimately like this will result in the vote being removed. You should know this...

There is a broad spectrum from completely and obviously illegitimate to completely and obviously legitimate. Many sketchy members have learned how to skirt that line by justifying their S&G, conduct, and sources votes just enough. Saying "X person had *more* sources" is enough of a reason to give them *two whole points,* which is almost equivalent to winning best arguments. I always thought that was absurd.


These categories add very little to the "quality" of a vote. What makes an argument compelling is not the impeccableness of its use of commas, or its obsequious niceness, or its over-reliance on sources to cover all possible bases. An argument is compelling due to its appeals to logos and pathos -- logical and emotional appeals.

Improving the "quality" of the vote is not the purpose of the point allocation. Rather, the purpose is to: 1) incentivise correct spelling and grammar, and 2) increase the quality of the debate. I understand that for the current multi-faceted model, there is a far too heavy weighting delegated to a relatively unimportant category. But the category isn't entirely irrelevant, as it virtually is under the new voting system. Are you saying that S&G has no relevancy to a debate? Should there no be incentive to ensure its presence?

Anyone is free if they want to purposely spell everything badly and ignore the basic rules of grammar. But if you want to win a debate, you need to proof read it enough so that you're not impairing readability. People won't award you best argument if your points are completely unreadable due to bad spelling and grammar.


If you feel strongly about it, you're certainly entitled to keep instigating with those categories, but you bear the risk that people will use them to strategically vote more points to your opponent.

You're presuming that people would firstly want to do that against me, and then that the alternative is any better.

You missed all the horrible strategic voting on the mikal/roy debate. It was ridiculous. I've seen so much strategic voting on this site -- especially on religious debates -- it's crazy. People do want to do it. And the alternative ensures that everyone's vote counts equally. One person, one vote.



If I were choosing the top three categories for what makes me vote for someone, it would be argument choice, rebuttals, and word economy -- not the 4 categories Phil (the site's founder) chose back in the day. So I don't really understand the argument that judge's not using these 4 categories anymore reduces the quality of their votes.

It gives better voters more to differentiate debates on. I'd argue that there are not enough categories; that there should be a point or two for layout and presentation, as well as further divisions for arguments. Also, since everyone seems so worried about it, it gives an easier sight to shonky voters, because their point delegation will be inaccurate. It is far more difficult to detect a dodgy vote, when all there is a 7-point category.

Either way, the only way to detect a sketchy vote is to read the RFD and see if it makes sense. It's *easier* to justify a wonky S&G, conduct, or sources vote. Example: Con had a few grammatical issues in his rounds ==> enough to justify S&G. Con was a bit rude for my tastes ==> enough to justify conduct. Con had more sources ==> enough to justify a sources vote.

In contrast, to vote on arguments, you actually have to go into the substance of the arguments in your RFD. That's why it's a superior point -- it requires more out of voters to justify it.

Airmax has basically admitted the above in terms of S&G< Conduct & Sources votes being really hard to remove as long as they assert that one side did better on these metrics. The moderator isn't going to go through the whole debate and count the spelling errors...


The vote's quality is judged solely by its RFD, not by the point categories. Someone who is dumb enough to think the "choose winner" option is similar to the Polls section was never going to be a good voter and never going to leave a detailed RFD, regardless of the system.

There is no greater obligation to leave a detailed RFD in the new system; I cannot see how you've created a reason for distinction.

More of an RFD is required to justify an argument vote because it presumes you read the whole debate and have to logically justify your vote. The other categories just require bare assertions that you think one side did better on that metric.



If you couple the choose winner option with another feature to limit judges to only good judges, I guarantee you that you will get better and fairer decisions than under any alternative system. If you do an ELO limit and still use the old system, you're risking strategic voting.

Yes, the old system could do with work (but that's easier said than done). I never argued that it didn't.

I don't care what you can guarantee. Limiting the judges is a good idea, I gave you that, but the new scoring system is garbage, as I've explained earlier.

Then don't use it for your debates. There are a lot of people who prefer the new system.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2014 12:30:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/25/2014 12:12:23 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 5/25/2014 12:04:58 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:46:43 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:39:54 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:26:44 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:17:14 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/24/2014 10:46:41 PM, Zarroette wrote:
It's been oversimplified to the point where voting is bordering on worthless. With the new voting system, you don't get to vote on specific components of the arguments. It's the overall feel towards the debate that you're for. Sure, winning sources and grammar should not garner the same points as winning arguments, but that doesn't mean they could be reworked, rather than deleted.

I don't care how debates are run in real life. They are not worth anyone's time if all that is considered is 'who you felt won'. What is far more important is why a person won, and to try and collaborate several points of a strong argument into one 'win or lose' vote, is to oversimplify an argument. The debate needs to be broken down, and then brought back together to summarise. This new voting system encourages skipping the first step.

Also, getting rid of sources, S&G points etc. means that people, overall, will care less about them, and it will lower the quality of the debate.

This is just silly.

Agreed, but that's why I just don't partake in them. The fact that there is still a choice really makes all the difference for me. It allows users who would prefer the new voting system to partake in such debates, and still allows for users who would prefer the old method to still have that as well.


It's like having half-the community desire chocolate cake because we only offered vanilla. Let em have it. You can still do your category voting standards, just as I will, and worst case you want to accept a debate but it's not the voting type you like then just send them a challenge with your voting standards in place.

I do agree with you, but there are hardcore "argument only" judges who prefer this new standard. Just let it be and do what you want :)

My complaint was only that the system is stupid, not that I felt coerced into using it. Sure, at the end of the day, having the option of the other system doesn't affect me. It's just that it's stupid and deserves criticism.

Oh alright. Well then yes, it's certainly received its share of criticism when first released and might very well receive some more in this thread. I get that you've just returned so I'll leave it at that :) Have a goodnight.

lets debate it blade speed rounds

Lol, debate what? That the new voting system eliminates fluff votes?

which is generally better

I'm game. But I have a few requests -

1) I want to debate Ragnar first. I think I can get up to 50 - 0 and would really like having a show-down with Ragnar over our perfect records since we are both noob-snipers for the most part.

2) I would want a panel of judges we both agree on.

3) None of that "last round - no round" nonsense. No instigator challenge. You take Pro for the new "choose winner" voting and I'll be Con with the old system of voting.

Mostly just #1. I told the same thing to ClassicRobert. I need to take on Ragnar. It's the next obstacle for me after beating Brian E. You are someone I want to challenge at some point... but fvck man, your asking me to skip 2nd and 3rd base.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2014 12:57:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/25/2014 12:29:55 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/25/2014 12:15:56 AM, Zarroette wrote:

Voting illegitimately like this will result in the vote being removed. You should know this...

There is a broad spectrum from completely and obviously illegitimate to completely and obviously legitimate. Many sketchy members have learned how to skirt that line by justifying their S&G, conduct, and sources votes just enough. Saying "X person had *more* sources" is enough of a reason to give them *two whole points,* which is almost equivalent to winning best arguments. I always thought that was absurd.

The tool-tip on the voting section specified what counted towards each category. Something along the lines of 'integrating sources' was one of the qualifiers for source points. Quantity is not a qualifier. Therefore, these votes are illegitimate, and should have been removed.




Improving the "quality" of the vote is not the purpose of the point allocation. Rather, the purpose is to: 1) incentivise correct spelling and grammar, and 2) increase the quality of the debate. I understand that for the current multi-faceted model, there is a far too heavy weighting delegated to a relatively unimportant category. But the category isn't entirely irrelevant, as it virtually is under the new voting system. Are you saying that S&G has no relevancy to a debate? Should there no be incentive to ensure its presence?

Anyone is free if they want to purposely spell everything badly and ignore the basic rules of grammar. But if you want to win a debate, you need to proof read it enough so that you're not impairing readability. People won't award you best argument if your points are completely unreadable due to bad spelling and grammar.

I now don't see a lot of difference between having points for S&G and not having it. However, I think a positive reward system is better than a negative incentive system, don't you?




You're presuming that people would firstly want to do that against me, and then that the alternative is any better.

You missed all the horrible strategic voting on the mikal/roy debate. It was ridiculous. I've seen so much strategic voting on this site -- especially on religious debates -- it's crazy. People do want to do it. And the alternative ensures that everyone's vote counts equally. One person, one vote.

Strategic votes shouldn't be counted if the fail to abide by the voting rules. Otherwise, they're fine.





It gives better voters more to differentiate debates on. I'd argue that there are not enough categories; that there should be a point or two for layout and presentation, as well as further divisions for arguments. Also, since everyone seems so worried about it, it gives an easier sight to shonky voters, because their point delegation will be inaccurate. It is far more difficult to detect a dodgy vote, when all there is a 7-point category.

Either way, the only way to detect a sketchy vote is to read the RFD and see if it makes sense. It's *easier* to justify a wonky S&G, conduct, or sources vote. Example: Con had a few grammatical issues in his rounds ==> enough to justify S&G. Con was a bit rude for my tastes ==> enough to justify conduct. Con had more sources ==> enough to justify a sources vote.

Again, there are qualifiers for each voting section. 'Con had more sources' is not a qualifier for a sources vote.


In contrast, to vote on arguments, you actually have to go into the substance of the arguments in your RFD. That's why it's a superior point -- it requires more out of voters to justify it.

You're voting on arguments, regardless.


Airmax has basically admitted the above in terms of S&G< Conduct & Sources votes being really hard to remove as long as they assert that one side did better on these metrics. The moderator isn't going to go through the whole debate and count the spelling errors...

Why not require voters to give examples where S&G is poor?




There is no greater obligation to leave a detailed RFD in the new system; I cannot see how you've created a reason for distinction.

More of an RFD is required to justify an argument vote because it presumes you read the whole debate and have to logically justify your vote. The other categories just require bare assertions that you think one side did better on that metric.

Make it a requirement to provide examples of where poor S&G has occurred -- easy fix.




Yes, the old system could do with work (but that's easier said than done). I never argued that it didn't.

I don't care what you can guarantee. Limiting the judges is a good idea, I gave you that, but the new scoring system is garbage, as I've explained earlier.

Then don't use it for your debates. There are a lot of people who prefer the new system.

Yeah, and so a lot of people are stupid. Don't agree with me? Then don't argue. I'm not forcing you to say that they're stupid! What a silly thing to say...
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2014 2:17:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/25/2014 12:30:15 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/25/2014 12:12:23 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 5/25/2014 12:04:58 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:46:43 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:39:54 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:26:44 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:17:14 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/24/2014 10:46:41 PM, Zarroette wrote:
It's been oversimplified to the point where voting is bordering on worthless. With the new voting system, you don't get to vote on specific components of the arguments. It's the overall feel towards the debate that you're for. Sure, winning sources and grammar should not garner the same points as winning arguments, but that doesn't mean they could be reworked, rather than deleted.

I don't care how debates are run in real life. They are not worth anyone's time if all that is considered is 'who you felt won'. What is far more important is why a person won, and to try and collaborate several points of a strong argument into one 'win or lose' vote, is to oversimplify an argument. The debate needs to be broken down, and then brought back together to summarise. This new voting system encourages skipping the first step.

Also, getting rid of sources, S&G points etc. means that people, overall, will care less about them, and it will lower the quality of the debate.

This is just silly.

Agreed, but that's why I just don't partake in them. The fact that there is still a choice really makes all the difference for me. It allows users who would prefer the new voting system to partake in such debates, and still allows for users who would prefer the old method to still have that as well.


It's like having half-the community desire chocolate cake because we only offered vanilla. Let em have it. You can still do your category voting standards, just as I will, and worst case you want to accept a debate but it's not the voting type you like then just send them a challenge with your voting standards in place.

I do agree with you, but there are hardcore "argument only" judges who prefer this new standard. Just let it be and do what you want :)

My complaint was only that the system is stupid, not that I felt coerced into using it. Sure, at the end of the day, having the option of the other system doesn't affect me. It's just that it's stupid and deserves criticism.

Oh alright. Well then yes, it's certainly received its share of criticism when first released and might very well receive some more in this thread. I get that you've just returned so I'll leave it at that :) Have a goodnight.

lets debate it blade speed rounds

Lol, debate what? That the new voting system eliminates fluff votes?

which is generally better

I'm game. But I have a few requests -

1) I want to debate Ragnar first. I think I can get up to 50 - 0 and would really like having a show-down with Ragnar over our perfect records since we are both noob-snipers for the most part.

2) I would want a panel of judges we both agree on.

3) None of that "last round - no round" nonsense. No instigator challenge. You take Pro for the new "choose winner" voting and I'll be Con with the old system of voting.

Mostly just #1. I told the same thing to ClassicRobert. I need to take on Ragnar. It's the next obstacle for me after beating Brian E. You are someone I want to challenge at some point... but fvck man, your asking me to skip 2nd and 3rd base.

i just really want to debate teh voting change. It would be fun
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2014 2:35:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/25/2014 2:17:36 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 5/25/2014 12:30:15 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/25/2014 12:12:23 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 5/25/2014 12:04:58 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:46:43 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:39:54 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:26:44 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 5/24/2014 11:17:14 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/24/2014 10:46:41 PM, Zarroette wrote:
It's been oversimplified to the point where voting is bordering on worthless. With the new voting system, you don't get to vote on specific components of the arguments. It's the overall feel towards the debate that you're for. Sure, winning sources and grammar should not garner the same points as winning arguments, but that doesn't mean they could be reworked, rather than deleted.

I don't care how debates are run in real life. They are not worth anyone's time if all that is considered is 'who you felt won'. What is far more important is why a person won, and to try and collaborate several points of a strong argument into one 'win or lose' vote, is to oversimplify an argument. The debate needs to be broken down, and then brought back together to summarise. This new voting system encourages skipping the first step.

Also, getting rid of sources, S&G points etc. means that people, overall, will care less about them, and it will lower the quality of the debate.

This is just silly.

Agreed, but that's why I just don't partake in them. The fact that there is still a choice really makes all the difference for me. It allows users who would prefer the new voting system to partake in such debates, and still allows for users who would prefer the old method to still have that as well.


It's like having half-the community desire chocolate cake because we only offered vanilla. Let em have it. You can still do your category voting standards, just as I will, and worst case you want to accept a debate but it's not the voting type you like then just send them a challenge with your voting standards in place.

I do agree with you, but there are hardcore "argument only" judges who prefer this new standard. Just let it be and do what you want :)

My complaint was only that the system is stupid, not that I felt coerced into using it. Sure, at the end of the day, having the option of the other system doesn't affect me. It's just that it's stupid and deserves criticism.

Oh alright. Well then yes, it's certainly received its share of criticism when first released and might very well receive some more in this thread. I get that you've just returned so I'll leave it at that :) Have a goodnight.

lets debate it blade speed rounds

Lol, debate what? That the new voting system eliminates fluff votes?

which is generally better

I'm game. But I have a few requests -

1) I want to debate Ragnar first. I think I can get up to 50 - 0 and would really like having a show-down with Ragnar over our perfect records since we are both noob-snipers for the most part.

2) I would want a panel of judges we both agree on.

3) None of that "last round - no round" nonsense. No instigator challenge. You take Pro for the new "choose winner" voting and I'll be Con with the old system of voting.

Mostly just #1. I told the same thing to ClassicRobert. I need to take on Ragnar. It's the next obstacle for me after beating Brian E. You are someone I want to challenge at some point... but fvck man, your asking me to skip 2nd and 3rd base.

i just really want to debate teh voting change. It would be fun

Then instigate the debate and let someone accept it, lol. I already told you I would, I just have some things to accomplish before I would allow myself to do so. Don't let my cocky remarks in other threads fool you into thinking I'm not extremely shrewd when it comes to knowing my own abilities.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
thett3
Posts: 14,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2014 10:36:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/25/2014 12:57:08 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 5/25/2014 12:29:55 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/25/2014 12:15:56 AM, Zarroette wrote:

Voting illegitimately like this will result in the vote being removed. You should know this...

There is a broad spectrum from completely and obviously illegitimate to completely and obviously legitimate. Many sketchy members have learned how to skirt that line by justifying their S&G, conduct, and sources votes just enough. Saying "X person had *more* sources" is enough of a reason to give them *two whole points,* which is almost equivalent to winning best arguments. I always thought that was absurd.

The tool-tip on the voting section specified what counted towards each category. Something along the lines of 'integrating sources' was one of the qualifiers for source points. Quantity is not a qualifier. Therefore, these votes are illegitimate, and should have been removed.

It is though. Airmax has said all you need to do is to justify each point you give on your ballot. You may not agree with letting those votes stand (I know I don't) but the current moderation policy allows them too and I don't see it changing. Thus even if the old system is better on paper, in the status quo it isn't.




Improving the "quality" of the vote is not the purpose of the point allocation. Rather, the purpose is to: 1) incentivise correct spelling and grammar, and 2) increase the quality of the debate. I understand that for the current multi-faceted model, there is a far too heavy weighting delegated to a relatively unimportant category. But the category isn't entirely irrelevant, as it virtually is under the new voting system. Are you saying that S&G has no relevancy to a debate? Should there no be incentive to ensure its presence?

Anyone is free if they want to purposely spell everything badly and ignore the basic rules of grammar. But if you want to win a debate, you need to proof read it enough so that you're not impairing readability. People won't award you best argument if your points are completely unreadable due to bad spelling and grammar.

I now don't see a lot of difference between having points for S&G and not having it. However, I think a positive reward system is better than a negative incentive system, don't you?




You're presuming that people would firstly want to do that against me, and then that the alternative is any better.

You missed all the horrible strategic voting on the mikal/roy debate. It was ridiculous. I've seen so much strategic voting on this site -- especially on religious debates -- it's crazy. People do want to do it. And the alternative ensures that everyone's vote counts equally. One person, one vote.

Strategic votes shouldn't be counted if the fail to abide by the voting rules. Otherwise, they're fine.

That's blues point. You can't stop strategic voting when judges have as much discretion as they do in the old system. It's better to idiot proof the system by eliminating a huge subset of unfair voting.





It gives better voters more to differentiate debates on. I'd argue that there are not enough categories; that there should be a point or two for layout and presentation, as well as further divisions for arguments. Also, since everyone seems so worried about it, it gives an easier sight to shonky voters, because their point delegation will be inaccurate. It is far more difficult to detect a dodgy vote, when all there is a 7-point category.

Either way, the only way to detect a sketchy vote is to read the RFD and see if it makes sense. It's *easier* to justify a wonky S&G, conduct, or sources vote. Example: Con had a few grammatical issues in his rounds ==> enough to justify S&G. Con was a bit rude for my tastes ==> enough to justify conduct. Con had more sources ==> enough to justify a sources vote.

Again, there are qualifiers for each voting section. 'Con had more sources' is not a qualifier for a sources vote.


In contrast, to vote on arguments, you actually have to go into the substance of the arguments in your RFD. That's why it's a superior point -- it requires more out of voters to justify it.

You're voting on arguments, regardless.


Airmax has basically admitted the above in terms of S&G< Conduct & Sources votes being really hard to remove as long as they assert that one side did better on these metrics. The moderator isn't going to go through the whole debate and count the spelling errors...

Why not require voters to give examples where S&G is poor?

It's still really easy to strategically vote like that though. I could award an entire point, 33% of the value of the *arguments* point based off of skimming the debate and seeing a side use the wrong "there".




There is no greater obligation to leave a detailed RFD in the new system; I cannot see how you've created a reason for distinction.

More of an RFD is required to justify an argument vote because it presumes you read the whole debate and have to logically justify your vote. The other categories just require bare assertions that you think one side did better on that metric.

Make it a requirement to provide examples of where poor S&G has occurred -- easy fix.




Yes, the old system could do with work (but that's easier said than done). I never argued that it didn't.

I don't care what you can guarantee. Limiting the judges is a good idea, I gave you that, but the new scoring system is garbage, as I've explained earlier.

Then don't use it for your debates. There are a lot of people who prefer the new system.

Yeah, and so a lot of people are stupid. Don't agree with me? Then don't argue. I'm not forcing you to say that they're stupid! What a silly thing to say...

This isn't meant as a snarky comment but it's strange to me how some DDO members actually liked the old system. One of the reasons I was so keen to debate Roy on it was because I was shocked that he would support what I viewed as such an incredibly silly system. I kind of thought it was universally disliked.
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