Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Isn't it time DDO has a place for RFD's?

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2015 2:18:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's just silly having to go the "comments" section of a debate to read a well thought out RFD... Often times being chopped up in awkward segments. It's hard to even find a particular voter's RFD if the debate is getting lots of comments. A decent vote on a high caliber debate requires a comprehensive summation of both sides and this simply cannot be done with the character limits in the voting section. I also feel like as a whole, mediocre votes are under increasingly higher scrutiny. DDO would benefit from having better place for RFD's because it would promote and encourage higher quality voting and analysis. Thoughts?
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2015 2:21:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think most would agree and I certainly do. I don't like RFDs being in comments, but it's necessary at the moment.

Significantly increasing the character limit in the RFD box is high on the list of updates. So it's recognized as an issue.
Debate.org Moderator
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2015 2:43:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Well I'm glad to hear that much. I feel like increasing the character space will certainly help but that alone wouldn't solve the problem. There should be an option when instigating a debate for choosing a voting system with more in-depth voting criteria. Criteria that has more fields such as: "In your own words, give a summary of PRO's main contentions" followed by another field "In your own words, give a summary of CON's main contentions" etc,. This way it forces a voter to more informed before they can even cast a vote on the debate. If they make stuff up their vote is immediately invalidated.

The OP was directed towards high caliber debates that could really use this option. I think others would agree that they'd appreciate an option for more rigorous voting criteria on debates that they've spent a lot of time and effort on.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2015 3:16:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The current RFD character limit is twice as much as it used to be, but I agree that it's not enough. I sometimes mention which comments my RFD can be found in so that others can find it more easily.

I think the voting criteria idea would help. Of course, users can make up their own criteria for voting as well and include it in R1. But there's always the downside that the more strict your criteria is, the less votes you're likely to get, and recently I've been having enormous trouble with getting votes on my debates.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
MyDinosaurHands
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2015 3:30:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/1/2015 3:16:19 PM, phantom wrote:
The current RFD character limit is twice as much as it used to be, but I agree that it's not enough. I sometimes mention which comments my RFD can be found in so that others can find it more easily.

I think the voting criteria idea would help. Of course, users can make up their own criteria for voting as well and include it in R1. But there's always the downside that the more strict your criteria is, the less votes you're likely to get, and recently I've been having enormous trouble with getting votes on my debates.

If you ever need a debate voted on, send it to BoT:
http://www.debate.org...
He's pretty much made it his mission to vote on as many debates as possible, and he does a very good job.
Guess what I used to type this..

Careful! Don't laugh too hard.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2015 3:36:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/1/2015 3:30:29 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
At 2/1/2015 3:16:19 PM, phantom wrote:
The current RFD character limit is twice as much as it used to be, but I agree that it's not enough. I sometimes mention which comments my RFD can be found in so that others can find it more easily.

I think the voting criteria idea would help. Of course, users can make up their own criteria for voting as well and include it in R1. But there's always the downside that the more strict your criteria is, the less votes you're likely to get, and recently I've been having enormous trouble with getting votes on my debates.

If you ever need a debate voted on, send it to BoT:
http://www.debate.org...
He's pretty much made it his mission to vote on as many debates as possible, and he does a very good job.

I ought to ask people more in general, but that used to not be necessary. BoT's voted on a few of my debates. He does indeed do a very good job.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2015 9:07:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/1/2015 2:18:22 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
It's just silly having to go the "comments" section of a debate to read a well thought out RFD... Often times being chopped up in awkward segments. It's hard to even find a particular voter's RFD if the debate is getting lots of comments. A decent vote on a high caliber debate requires a comprehensive summation of both sides and this simply cannot be done with the character limits in the voting section. I also feel like as a whole, mediocre votes are under increasingly higher scrutiny. DDO would benefit from having better place for RFD's because it would promote and encourage higher quality voting and analysis. Thoughts?

I believe the history here is:

(1) DDO Wilde Times

No RFDs were required at all.

(2) Juggle takes over the site, RFD limit is imposed

The character limit, however, was 500.

(3) A debate ensues

A debate ensues among members to raise the limit. Formal debaters like bluesteel and raisor are the only ones who want the limit raised much higher. What I will call the "sadolite element" thought that anything over a 1,000 character RFD was demanding too much, and merely allowing the space for it would place unreasonable expectations on DDO members. Members such as bluesteel argued that even a 1K character RFD will be woefully insufficient on complex debates, and the site should at least offer more options, but the "bluesteel element" was overwhelmed by the cacophony of non-formally trained debaters.

Now with more formal debaters on the site (e.g. whiteflame, thett, zaradi, debatability), the site culture has changed to be more welcoming of the rigors of formal debate. Hardworking and smart members like blade-of-truth have also started leaving in-depth RFD's and adopting formal debate methods of analysis. The site is changing for the better, and it is high time that the site functionality actually allowed full length RFD's to actually be placed in the "RFD" section.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 12:26:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/1/2015 2:21:54 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
I think most would agree and I certainly do. I don't like RFDs being in comments, but it's necessary at the moment.

Significantly increasing the character limit in the RFD box is high on the list of updates. So it's recognized as an issue.

You should make a minimum word count similar to the opinion sections too. Would probs almost totes solve VBing and short RFDs.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 10:55:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 12:26:39 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/1/2015 2:21:54 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
I think most would agree and I certainly do. I don't like RFDs being in comments, but it's necessary at the moment.

Significantly increasing the character limit in the RFD box is high on the list of updates. So it's recognized as an issue.

You should make a minimum word count similar to the opinion sections too. Would probs almost totes solve VBing and short RFDs.

Yeah, thats a good idea. It should be like 100 word minimum.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 11:48:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/1/2015 2:21:54 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
I think most would agree and I certainly do. I don't like RFDs being in comments, but it's necessary at the moment.

Significantly increasing the character limit in the RFD box is high on the list of updates. So it's recognized as an issue.

Why does there even have to be a "limit" in the first place? I feel like just having that in place prevents well fleshed out RFDs and stuff like that. Of course not all stupidly long RFDs are valid RFDs, but at least the length shows that they're putting a lot of effort into understanding the debate and understanding both side's points (or putting a lot of effort to make it look that way).

Why not just have a character minimum without a maximum amount required? We still encourage concise RFDs with a minimum--say, 1 or 2k characters? That's not that long or hard to do--while allowing for the necessary room in longer, more complex debates for the longer, whiteflame-esque RFDs that go into detail on each side's arguments.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Valkrin
Posts: 2,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 11:55:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 10:55:57 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/2/2015 12:26:39 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/1/2015 2:21:54 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
I think most would agree and I certainly do. I don't like RFDs being in comments, but it's necessary at the moment.

Significantly increasing the character limit in the RFD box is high on the list of updates. So it's recognized as an issue.

You should make a minimum word count similar to the opinion sections too. Would probs almost totes solve VBing and short RFDs.

Yeah, thats a good idea. It should be like 100 word minimum.

What if it's just a forfeit? Do we need to write an eloquent 100-word response about how someone forfeited?

Just messing with ya, but I think a minimum would be good. Probably a character amount would be more sufficient though.
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." - Vaarka
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 11:59:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 10:55:57 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/2/2015 12:26:39 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/1/2015 2:21:54 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
I think most would agree and I certainly do. I don't like RFDs being in comments, but it's necessary at the moment.

Significantly increasing the character limit in the RFD box is high on the list of updates. So it's recognized as an issue.
You should make a minimum word count similar to the opinion sections too. Would probs almost totes solve VBing and short RFDs.
Yeah, thats a good idea. It should be like 100 word minimum.
I hope that was sarcasm. My opinion in short, voters should never be required to put greater effort in than either debater. Expanded out...

First, there are forfeits. Granted with a little extra work put into the update (a small one like raising one variable from 1000, is taking how many months?) it would be possible to set it so that if either side forfeits, the character/word limit disappears.

Second, there are concessions, even early concessions. Imagine trying to write a RFD of even 50 words, when the debate consists of 'My opponent is right, vote for him/her' and 'Thank you for your concession,' followed by 'extend' to fill the remaining rounds.

Third, there are some very short debates that do not call for much of a RFD.

Forth, there are debates in which at least one side gave such a poor performance, that a long RFD isn't warranted.

And finally, there's the reporting system for a reason. Repeatedly bad RFDs cause loss of voting privileges. In effect quarantining the compromised members of the population; preventing their transmission onto at risk members (new people who are basing how to vote primarily off of seeing current votes), resulting in an overall much healthier voting population.
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 4:14:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 11:48:02 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/1/2015 2:21:54 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
I think most would agree and I certainly do. I don't like RFDs being in comments, but it's necessary at the moment.

Significantly increasing the character limit in the RFD box is high on the list of updates. So it's recognized as an issue.

Why does there even have to be a "limit" in the first place? I feel like just having that in place prevents well fleshed out RFDs and stuff like that. Of course not all stupidly long RFDs are valid RFDs, but at least the length shows that they're putting a lot of effort into understanding the debate and understanding both side's points (or putting a lot of effort to make it look that way).

Why not just have a character minimum without a maximum amount required? We still encourage concise RFDs with a minimum--say, 1 or 2k characters? That's not that long or hard to do--while allowing for the necessary room in longer, more complex debates for the longer, whiteflame-esque RFDs that go into detail on each side's arguments.

I don't think Juggle will ever remove a character limit entirely. Otherwise, why are there character limits on posts? They don't want a post that is so long it makes the page unreadable (I assume). GIven that, I'm hesitant to impose a character minimum. "RFD in comments" would be below whatever minimum you set. Mod-removal of RFD's is going to happen anyway for pretty much any RFD that is ridiculously short because those RFD's are unlikely to justify their decision at all. And a limit is easily circumvented by people posting additional fluff to get over the limit. Length requirements aren't really a replacement for substance requirements. I once proposed a more stringent mod-policy that would have set a higher requirement for RFD substance (or the RFD would face removal), but the proposal was met with a lot of backlash, so it went nowhere (in particular, Roy was staunchly opposed, which doesn't surprise me given I've seen entire RFD's of his that just make outside arguments, and one the criteria would have made referring to your own arguments as a reason for decision as being automatic grounds for removal, regardless of the rest of the RFD).
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 5:41:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I like how edeb8 weights votes according to the effort put into them. It's not perfect but it's preferable to this.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 3:19:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 11:59:00 AM, Ragnar wrote:
At 2/2/2015 10:55:57 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/2/2015 12:26:39 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/1/2015 2:21:54 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
I think most would agree and I certainly do. I don't like RFDs being in comments, but it's necessary at the moment.

Significantly increasing the character limit in the RFD box is high on the list of updates. So it's recognized as an issue.
You should make a minimum word count similar to the opinion sections too. Would probs almost totes solve VBing and short RFDs.
Yeah, thats a good idea. It should be like 100 word minimum.
I hope that was sarcasm. My opinion in short, voters should never be required to put greater effort in than either debater. Expanded out...
Congrats on 1k posts, the philosophy that voters should never be required to put greater effort in the either debater doesn't need to hold when we are talking about mere character limits.

First, there are forfeits. Granted with a little extra work put into the update (a small one like raising one variable from 1000, is taking how many months?) it would be possible to set it so that if either side forfeits, the character/word limit disappears.
In the cases of full forfeits, an added system would be useful to actually mark the debate as a forfeited debate. Remembering that forfeits are objective losses, we don't require the entire community to vote. Hence one vote of 50 'fluff' words min is perfectly ok in the absense of a check system to recognise forfeiture.

Second, there are concessions, even early concessions. Imagine trying to write a RFD of even 50 words, when the debate consists of 'My opponent is right, vote for him/her' and 'Thank you for your concession,' followed by 'extend' to fill the remaining rounds.
I would still expect feedback from people voting on a debate if that happened to me.

Third, there are some very short debates that do not call for much of a RFD.
They should still require some semblance of an RFD. a 50 word minimum is a very small number of words. "Pro/con had better arguments and thus won the debate" is what we are trying to stamp out. Short, useless RFD's for short useless debates don't need to be entertained. Voting is not a right, and just like the opinions section, it has a purpose, and that purpose is better served by a minimum word count.

Forth, there are debates in which at least one side gave such a poor performance, that a long RFD isn't warranted.
A minimum RFD count doesn't force a long RFD. It allows short RFD's but cuts out the votebombs.

And finally, there's the reporting system for a reason. Repeatedly bad RFDs cause loss of voting privileges. In effect quarantining the compromised members of the population; preventing their transmission onto at risk members (new people who are basing how to vote primarily off of seeing current votes), resulting in an overall much healthier voting population.
If we entertained that logic, why not use the reporting system to solve every issue on DDO? No, healthier voting population is best supported by forcing people to put a minimum effort into their work, a mere minimum is all that is asked for. I don't see any detriment possibly, and I doubt anyone could deny the obvious benefit of filtering out the unwanted, nonconstructive votes.

Why did you think this is sarcasm? Is your view so much more obviously correct than anyone elses?
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 3:21:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 11:48:02 AM, Zaradi wrote:
Why not just have a character minimum without a maximum amount required?
We can't, Ragnar said no.. :(
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 10:16:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 3:19:20 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/2/2015 11:59:00 AM, Ragnar wrote:
At 2/2/2015 10:55:57 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/2/2015 12:26:39 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/1/2015 2:21:54 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
I think most would agree and I certainly do. I don't like RFDs being in comments, but it's necessary at the moment.

Significantly increasing the character limit in the RFD box is high on the list of updates. So it's recognized as an issue.
You should make a minimum word count similar to the opinion sections too. Would probs almost totes solve VBing and short RFDs.
Yeah, thats a good idea. It should be like 100 word minimum.
I hope that was sarcasm. My opinion in short, voters should never be required to put greater effort in than either debater. Expanded out...
Congrats on 1k posts, the philosophy that voters should never be required to put greater effort in the either debater doesn't need to hold when we are talking about mere character limits.
Thanks.
Regarding the character limit, please consider Maikuru's vote on a recent debate of mine, admittedly 152 words, but only 991 characters. http://www.debate.org...
Yes he could write in 'blahblahblah' at the end, but how would such actually improve the vote?

First, there are forfeits. Granted with a little extra work put into the update (a small one like raising one variable from 1000, is taking how many months?) it would be possible to set it so that if either side forfeits, the character/word limit disappears.
In the cases of full forfeits, an added system would be useful to actually mark the debate as a forfeited debate. Remembering that forfeits are objective losses, we don't require the entire community to vote. Hence one vote of 50 'fluff' words min is perfectly ok in the absense of a check system to recognise forfeiture.
I mostly agree, but one vote isn't much of a safety net. We've occasionally had multi-round forfeitures win for arguments submitted in the final round.

Second, there are concessions, even early concessions. Imagine trying to write a RFD of even 50 words, when the debate consists of 'My opponent is right, vote for him/her' and 'Thank you for your concession,' followed by 'extend' to fill the remaining rounds.
I would still expect feedback from people voting on a debate if that happened to me.
I would like it too, as feedback is always nice. However when one side in a debate doesn't even use a total of 25 words, it seems obsessive to require more than that http://www.debate.org...

Third, there are some very short debates that do not call for much of a RFD.
They should still require some semblance of an RFD. a 50 word minimum is a very small number of words. "Pro/con had better arguments and thus won the debate" is what we are trying to stamp out. Short, useless RFD's for short useless debates don't need to be entertained. Voting is not a right, and just like the opinions section, it has a purpose, and that purpose is better served by a minimum word count.
Why should the same standard not apply to FFs? Most of those end up with "Short, useless RFD's for short useless debates." That was a rhetorical question, to highlight (in admittedly slippery slope form) the dangers of that kind of thinking. Yet it remains an insistence that voting standards should be raised so high as to give clear winners only a tie. Consider quick debates like http://www.debate.org...

Forth, there are debates in which at least one side gave such a poor performance, that a long RFD isn't warranted.
A minimum RFD count doesn't force a long RFD. It allows short RFD's but cuts out the votebombs.
This seems hazy, especially considering your statements above against short RFDs. What exact minimums are you advocating for?

And finally, there's the reporting system for a reason. Repeatedly bad RFDs cause loss of voting privileges. In effect quarantining the compromised members of the population; preventing their transmission onto at risk members (new people who are basing how to vote primarily off of seeing current votes), resulting in an overall much healthier voting population.
If we entertained that logic, why not use the reporting system to solve every issue on DDO? No, healthier voting population is best supported by forcing people to put a minimum effort into their work, a mere minimum is all that is asked for. I don't see any detriment possibly, and I doubt anyone could deny the obvious benefit of filtering out the unwanted, nonconstructive votes.
I fail to see the relationship between reporting votes, and various other site problems such as lack of site updates, vote shortages, polls section, etc.. Something useful for one problem on one section of the site, need not be the miracle to fix anything else. Just as the proposed minimums are only intended to address one problem on one section of the site, not "solve every issue on DDO." If you can explain how minimum character/word limits on votes solves every problem on DDO as you want the reporting system to do, than we should continue this discussion.

Why did you think this is sarcasm? Is your view so much more obviously correct than anyone elses?
I hoped a request for a 100 word minimum was sarcasm, because 50 words on the opinion section have been repeatedly shown to problematic, and we have debates like this: http://www.debate.org...
Even you initially dropped the word count idea, insisting "we are talking about mere character limits."
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 2:15:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"DDO Wilde Times" Man those were the good old days. It was like real life. You had to seem cool, seem like you knew what you were talking about and build alliances in the forums. Just like voting is in the real world.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 3:44:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/1/2015 2:21:54 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
I think most would agree and I certainly do. I don't like RFDs being in comments, but it's necessary at the moment.

Significantly increasing the character limit in the RFD box is high on the list of updates. So it's recognized as an issue.

I agree. Something like 20,000 characters seems more appropriate.