Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Voting Reform Idea

bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 11:04:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
INTRO

DK and Emil's debate illustrates that there is a fundamental problem with our voting system. But, what is that problem?

I think that the issue is less the 7-point system itself (despite its flaws re: strategic voting), and more the lack of sufficient justification for the assignment of posts. When used appropriately, the 7-point system is an acceptable, legitimate method of determining a victor. The problem is that it is often not used appropriately. Therefore, the problem, as I see it, is that the standards for what constitute a permissible RFD are too low.

Scrapping the 7-point system may help, but votebombs can still easily occur under the Select Winner system. In fact, I have seen RFDs in both systems that are scarce on logic and abundant with bluster. So, I propose that instead of eliminating the 7-point system (or, perhaps, in addition to doing so) that we reform the criteria for what makes a RFD allowable, because the only reason that votebombs so easily occur is not the 7-point system, but the low minimum for a justified RFD.

So, what constitutes a legitimate, justified RFD? Currently, as a long as all of the points that were allocated in a vote are explained, that is sufficient. Unfortunately, this standard makes it easy to invent justifications for points. For instance, "Con's sources seemed more relevant to her arguments," is a statement that explains the points awarded, but that is so easily invented as to be meaningless. It is not hard enough for people to ground their RFDs.

SUFFICIENCY

Consequently, I propose that the standard not merely be to explain why points were awarded, to but that the standard be to sufficiently explain why points were award. "Sufficient," in this case, entails three main themes: (1) comprehensiveness, (2) reasonableness, and (3) demonstrable analysis.

Any RFD that does not survey all or most of the main arguments in a debate is not a justified RFD. Simply singling out one or two points of a multifaceted debate and saying "they persuaded me" is not sufficient, because it does not demonstrated that the voter understood, evaluated, or even read the debate in its entirety. Any good RFD must be comprehensive. Any good RFD must also be reasonable. An RFD that assigns points for trivialities, interjects the judge's own arguments or prejudices into the debate, or otherwise unfairly discriminates against a debater is clearly not a legitimate RFD. And, finally, an RFD must contain demonstrable analysis. Merely saying, "I was persuaded by argument XYZ" does not show that you analyzed the debate. Analysis is part of comprehension, but it is more than that. Voters must weigh arguments, assess evidence, and engage with the material to truly cast an informed vote; votes that simply pick and choose which arguments they liked fail to do any of the above, and thus fail as RFDs.

At this point, I want to outline some of the standards that I think should be applied to each point section of the 7-point ballot. I think that these standards better reflect the values of a sufficient explanation, and so these standards, esp. the arguments standard, should supplant the current model for adjudicating what RFDs are permissible.

NEW STANDARDS

Spelling and Grammar

No debater is ever going to go through a debate with perfect spelling and grammar; I know that I certainly don't. The question here is asking how much should S/G effect the outcome of a debate.

Consider that, if all 7 points were awarded, S/G would be 1/7th of the total score, and if fewer points were given, it could become an even more substantial fraction of a ballot.

It is unreasonable (re: the second criterion of sufficiency) to give a debater such a sizable fraction of the ballot when both debaters' S/G were close. If I have 15 identifiable errors, and my adversary has 13 identifiable errors, our performance was so close as to not merit awarding those points.

Standard: S/G should only be awarded when the spelling, formatting, or grammar significantly and adversely impairs a voter's ability to understand the round and/or when it places a significant and unnecessary burden on the judge to decipher the debate or the meaning of what was said. A voter must also explain (to show demonstrable analysis) why this standard for S/G points was met.

Conduct

Oftentimes, voters have an inclination to assign conduct points for things that have nothing to do with conduct, and more to do with arguments. Conduct is not something that should be awarded based on the use of fallacies in debate or anything of that nature, as that would be unreasonable. Conduct, oddly enough, should be awarded for issues of debate etiquette and of fairness and civility.

Issues of conduct include forfeits, rudeness, unfair tactics, breach of debate rules, and violations of the TOS.

It is also true that every debater gets a little snarky now and again. And while that is not something that should go unremarked upon, many such snide comments are not worthy of a 1/7th of a ballot admonition. If a debater makes one mildly rude statement in an entire debate, they should not lose conduct.

Standard: Only when a debater engages in a severe breach of conduct and/or persists in a pattern of mild to severe conduct violations throughout a debate, should a debater lose conduct. However, a person who forfeits most should lose conduct (and I think a forfeit is a substantial violation of the etiquette of debate, though not all would agree).

Arguments

Firstly, it is important to note that no one should ever award argument points if no arguments were made. I have seen debates where one side fully forfeited, and so the other side never bothered to post arguments. The person who actually showed up and didn't forfeit clearly deserves conduct points, but they do not deserve argument points because they made no arguments. To award argument points in that case would be unreasonable.

Secondly, there are three things a sufficient explanation of the assignment of argument points should do. Standard:

1. It should explain what points won the day
2. It should explain why those points outweighed or out-impacted the other major arguments in the round
3. It should explain why the loser's refutations of those points failed and/or note that the loser made no refutations of those points

Points 1 and 2 are necessary for comprehensiveness, and points 2 and 3 are necessary for demonstrable analysis. Merely summarizing arguments is not a sufficient explanation. While mere summary does satisfy the comprehensiveness criterion, it does not satisfy the demonstrable analysis criterion; thus, mere summary is not sufficient for an RFD.

Sources

I often see points awarded for sources for odd reasons. It is important to note that sources are, at least, 2/7ths of the score, and usually greater. Like S/G points, it is no reasonable to assign sources points based on minor differences that didn't impact the round.

Standard: To assign justifiable sources points, one must illustrate that there was a significant different between the two sets of sources AND one must show that this significant impact had a substantial effect on the round or on the voter's ability to assess the round. A voter must also explain (to show demonstrable analysis) why this standard for sources points was met.

Oftentimes sources points are awarded based on quantity alone, but more bad sources is not a good thing. Quantity may inform a decision, but it should not be the only factor assessed. Relevance, credibility, and accessibility are all very important factors that go in to awarding sources points.

Exception

The exception to all of this is if the agreed rules of the debate say that certain points should be awarded under certain conditions.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


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

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

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

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 11:05:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Thats well thought out and all, but I still like the idea of an angry lynch mob better.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 11:05:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
CONCLUSION

So, "sufficient explanation" should be the overarching standard for a good, permissible RFD, with the individual standards I articulate being ways to measure whether any particular assignment of points met the overarching standard.

What are your thoughts?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


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

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

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

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 11:06:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
This was also the longest post I think I ever made without quoting someone else...
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


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

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

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

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 11:07:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
ALSO...

It is also worth noting that the onus should not be on the debater to report bad votes, but it should be on the voter to make sure their vote is not worthy of being reported.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


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

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

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

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
RevNge
Posts: 13,835
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 11:12:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 11:06:32 AM, bsh1 wrote:
This was also the longest post I think I ever made without quoting someone else...

I still want a lynch mob.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 11:13:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 11:12:54 AM, RevNge wrote:
At 2/4/2015 11:06:32 AM, bsh1 wrote:
This was also the longest post I think I ever made without quoting someone else...

I still want a lynch mob.

-_- Please don't derail a thread I just spent an hour typing up and thinking over...

Do you like the proposal?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


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

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

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

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 11:15:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is something nice to show to people who are unfamiliar with how to place proper votes as a starter guide but it's unenforceable and It should how's fly probably stay that way.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 11:15:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is something nice to show to people who are unfamiliar with how to place proper votes as a starter guide but it's unenforceable and It should probably stay that way.

Fixed
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 11:16:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 11:15:01 AM, Wylted wrote:
This is something nice to show to people who are unfamiliar with how to place proper votes as a starter guide but it's unenforceable and It should how's fly probably stay that way.

I disagree that it is unenforceable, and I cannot comprehend that last part of your sentence.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


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

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

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

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 11:18:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 11:15:59 AM, Wylted wrote:
This is something nice to show to people who are unfamiliar with how to place proper votes as a starter guide but it's unenforceable and It should probably stay that way.

Fixed

Ah, okay. I disagree, obviously, that it is unenforceable. All it is really asking voters to do is to explain why the points they awarded had a significant impact on the round, and why they awarded points to whomever they did.

At the very least, I think the three points of the "Arguments" sections should be implemented.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


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

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

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

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
RevNge
Posts: 13,835
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 11:19:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 11:13:59 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/4/2015 11:12:54 AM, RevNge wrote:
At 2/4/2015 11:06:32 AM, bsh1 wrote:
This was also the longest post I think I ever made without quoting someone else...

I still want a lynch mob.

-_- Please don't derail a thread I just spent an hour typing up and thinking over...

I thought it was constructive criticism. :3
Do you like the proposal?

Best one I've seen so far; I doubt we'll even be able to get the 7-point system removed, abolished, or even made obsolete by the members, so instead of eliminating it, it needs to be fixed.

One problem, though, might be the lack of specification of the requirements to award one side a point. For instance, how many grammar errors are too many? What conduct is too inappropriate? What sources are relevant or irrelevant?

Compared to the Arguments category, the other points could be grossly subjective (as seen in Emil and Donald's debate).
RevNge
Posts: 13,835
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 11:22:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'd also prefer if more points were given for arguments as well, but there's no solving that unless Juggle will do so...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 11:23:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 11:19:31 AM, RevNge wrote:
At 2/4/2015 11:13:59 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Do you like the proposal?

Best one I've seen so far; I doubt we'll even be able to get the 7-point system removed, abolished, or even made obsolete by the members, so instead of eliminating it, it needs to be fixed.

Thanks, and I agree. That's why I want to reform, not replace or deleted.

One problem, though, might be the lack of specification of the requirements to award one side a point. For instance, how many grammar errors are too many? What conduct is too inappropriate? What sources are relevant or irrelevant?

That is something that you're never going to be able to specify. It's too formulaic. Votes are always opinions, and as such contain elements of subjectivity. There is never such a thing as an "objective" win, since every vote requires a judge to subjectively assess things.

However, what I am proposing is that judges be forced, at the very least, to explain their reasoning behind their opinions, and to not merely state their opinions.

Compared to the Arguments category, the other points could be grossly subjective (as seen in Emil and Donald's debate).

Arguments are the one area where I think greater specificity is achievable, but even under my 3-point proposal there is a lot of room for subjectivity.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


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

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

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

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 11:23:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 11:18:03 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/4/2015 11:15:59 AM, Wylted wrote:
This is something nice to show to people who are unfamiliar with how to place proper votes as a starter guide but it's unenforceable and It should probably stay that way.

Fixed

Ah, okay. I disagree, obviously, that it is unenforceable. All it is really asking voters to do is to explain why the points they awarded had a significant impact on the round, and why they awarded points to whomever they did.

At the very least, I think the three points of the "Arguments" sections should be implemented.

I think it discourages new members from voting because they mostly don't do even that. You'd have to remove most votes and it would frustrate new members away from even attempting to vote if their first few votes are removed. I think it's far better to gently show them the proper way to meet the minimum standards of an acceptable vote. So basically just send them a PM with a link to this thread and they can keep this handy as a guide. When they have more practice, we can show them some of Bluesteel's threads.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 11:23:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 11:22:01 AM, RevNge wrote:
I'd also prefer if more points were given for arguments as well, but there's no solving that unless Juggle will do so...

Agreed on both counts.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


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

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

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

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 11:26:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 11:23:21 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/4/2015 11:18:03 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/4/2015 11:15:59 AM, Wylted wrote:
This is something nice to show to people who are unfamiliar with how to place proper votes as a starter guide but it's unenforceable and It should probably stay that way.

Fixed

Ah, okay. I disagree, obviously, that it is unenforceable. All it is really asking voters to do is to explain why the points they awarded had a significant impact on the round, and why they awarded points to whomever they did.

At the very least, I think the three points of the "Arguments" sections should be implemented.

I think it discourages new members from voting because they mostly don't do even that.

I don't think discouraging bad votes is a bad thing, Wylted. Sure, we want newbies to vote, but I would rather they not vote than vote poorly. Perhaps having some kind of voting tutor or mentor (upon request) would help solve that problem. But, ultimately, I am willing to sacrifice noob participation in voting for having better standards for what constitutes a valid vote.

I think it's far better to gently show them the proper way to meet the minimum standards of an acceptable vote.

And there are ways to do that within the system I proposed. For instance, having volunteers contact noobs about bad votes to educate them and to ask them to alter their votes accordingly rather than outright deleting the votes.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


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

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

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

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 11:33:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 11:26:52 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/4/2015 11:23:21 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/4/2015 11:18:03 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/4/2015 11:15:59 AM, Wylted wrote:
This is something nice to show to people who are unfamiliar with how to place proper votes as a starter guide but it's unenforceable and It should probably stay that way.

Fixed

Ah, okay. I disagree, obviously, that it is unenforceable. All it is really asking voters to do is to explain why the points they awarded had a significant impact on the round, and why they awarded points to whomever they did.

At the very least, I think the three points of the "Arguments" sections should be implemented.

I think it discourages new members from voting because they mostly don't do even that.

I don't think discouraging bad votes is a bad thing, Wylted. Sure, we want newbies to vote, but I would rather they not vote than vote poorly. Perhaps having some kind of voting tutor or mentor (upon request) would help solve that problem. But, ultimately, I am willing to sacrifice noob participation in voting for having better standards for what constitutes a valid vote.

I think it's far better to gently show them the proper way to meet the minimum standards of an acceptable vote.

And there are ways to do that within the system I proposed. For instance, having volunteers contact noobs about bad votes to educate them and to ask them to alter their votes accordingly rather than outright deleting the votes.

I think the effort needs to be on grooming new members. Asking them to change a standing vote is probably bad because there is too much room for abuse. I'd much prefer a few people just take it upon themselves to educate via prewritten material instead of doing anything official.

Doing things in a more unofficial capacity like this also helps in maintaining site membership. The more experience we can give people the better.

My belief is the stopping of shiity votes should be an extremely distant 2nd priority over grooming new members to vote better.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 11:36:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think the difference is I'm aiming for a solution that might not be visible for atheist a year and you want one that's immediately visible.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 11:36:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 11:33:10 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/4/2015 11:26:52 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/4/2015 11:23:21 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/4/2015 11:18:03 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/4/2015 11:15:59 AM, Wylted wrote:
This is something nice to show to people who are unfamiliar with how to place proper votes as a starter guide but it's unenforceable and It should probably stay that way.

Fixed

Ah, okay. I disagree, obviously, that it is unenforceable. All it is really asking voters to do is to explain why the points they awarded had a significant impact on the round, and why they awarded points to whomever they did.

At the very least, I think the three points of the "Arguments" sections should be implemented.

I think it discourages new members from voting because they mostly don't do even that.

I don't think discouraging bad votes is a bad thing, Wylted. Sure, we want newbies to vote, but I would rather they not vote than vote poorly. Perhaps having some kind of voting tutor or mentor (upon request) would help solve that problem. But, ultimately, I am willing to sacrifice noob participation in voting for having better standards for what constitutes a valid vote.

I think it's far better to gently show them the proper way to meet the minimum standards of an acceptable vote.

And there are ways to do that within the system I proposed. For instance, having volunteers contact noobs about bad votes to educate them and to ask them to alter their votes accordingly rather than outright deleting the votes.

I think the effort needs to be on grooming new members. Asking them to change a standing vote is probably bad because there is too much room for abuse. I'd much prefer a few people just take it upon themselves to educate via prewritten material instead of doing anything official.

Then let them self-educated by read this thread or other threads on the topic of good voting and RFD craftsmanship.

My belief is the stopping of shiity votes should be an extremely distant 2nd priority over grooming new members to vote better.

Then we just have vastly different priorities.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


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

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

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

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 11:44:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 11:36:45 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/4/2015 11:33:10 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/4/2015 11:26:52 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/4/2015 11:23:21 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/4/2015 11:18:03 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/4/2015 11:15:59 AM, Wylted wrote:
This is something nice to show to people who are unfamiliar with how to place proper votes as a starter guide but it's unenforceable and It should probably stay that way.

Fixed

Ah, okay. I disagree, obviously, that it is unenforceable. All it is really asking voters to do is to explain why the points they awarded had a significant impact on the round, and why they awarded points to whomever they did.

At the very least, I think the three points of the "Arguments" sections should be implemented.

I think it discourages new members from voting because they mostly don't do even that.

I don't think discouraging bad votes is a bad thing, Wylted. Sure, we want newbies to vote, but I would rather they not vote than vote poorly. Perhaps having some kind of voting tutor or mentor (upon request) would help solve that problem. But, ultimately, I am willing to sacrifice noob participation in voting for having better standards for what constitutes a valid vote.

I think it's far better to gently show them the proper way to meet the minimum standards of an acceptable vote.

And there are ways to do that within the system I proposed. For instance, having volunteers contact noobs about bad votes to educate them and to ask them to alter their votes accordingly rather than outright deleting the votes.

I think the effort needs to be on grooming new members. Asking them to change a standing vote is probably bad because there is too much room for abuse. I'd much prefer a few people just take it upon themselves to educate via prewritten material instead of doing anything official.

Then let them self-educated by read this thread or other threads on the topic of good voting and RFD craftsmanship.

My belief is the stopping of shiity votes should be an extremely distant 2nd priority over grooming new members to vote better.

Then we just have vastly different priorities.

You do realize doing this in an official capacity could negatively affect retention rate, right?

I think low retention rate is the prime reason for low quality debates and voting on this site.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 11:46:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 11:44:00 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/4/2015 11:36:45 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/4/2015 11:33:10 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/4/2015 11:26:52 AM, bsh1 wrote:
I don't think discouraging bad votes is a good thing, Wylted. Sure, we want newbies to vote, but I would rather they not vote than vote poorly. Perhaps having some kind of voting tutor or mentor (upon request) would help solve that problem. But, ultimately, I am willing to sacrifice noob participation in voting for having better standards for what constitutes a valid vote.

My belief is the stopping of shiity votes should be an extremely distant 2nd priority over grooming new members to vote better.

Then we just have vastly different priorities.

You do realize doing this in an official capacity could negatively affect retention rate, right?

I don't think that it would significantly effect retention. Maybe a little, yes, but not significantly.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


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

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

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

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
KhaosMage
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 11:47:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Perhaps we can sort of meld the two systems.
Debators should agree upon ONE judge, and that judge will vote, and that vote will count for 70 points.
This way, if the judge makes a bad decision, it can be overruled, and obnoxious overruled decisions will be obvious votebombs, keeping in mind it would take 10 of these.

This way, people can still vote, the voting can be judged by others, and numerous opinions can be delivered.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 12:38:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I like this idea. The current standards are so vague as to be useless, and how you define it would make it incredibly easy to judge whether a vote is valid. I think it could go very well hand-in-hand with a change in weight of votes - IMO arguments be worth 4 points, and sources, conduct, and S&G being worth 1 point each.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 1:33:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 12:38:54 PM, TN05 wrote:
I like this idea. The current standards are so vague as to be useless, and how you define it would make it incredibly easy to judge whether a vote is valid. I think it could go very well hand-in-hand with a change in weight of votes - IMO arguments be worth 4 points, and sources, conduct, and S&G being worth 1 point each.

Thanks! I am glad you like it!
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


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

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

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

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 2:13:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
MODERATION SOLUTION

It might also be useful to explicitly prohibit (rather than the strong implicit prohibition that I think currently exists), the following offense:

1. Soliciting a Votebomb

This could be defined as importuning or requesting users to vote on a debate in favor of a specific side. This offense could be committed by a debater, or by a third party like Mikal.

2. Orchestrating a Votebombing Campaign (Rigging a Debate)

This could be defined as importuning or requesting large numbers of users to vote on a debate in favor of a specific side in order to ensure that side's ultimate victory in the debate. A "large number" could constitute 10 or more people. This offense could be committed by a debater, or by a third party like Mikal.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


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

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

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

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 2:16:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I petition that the phrase "or by a third party like Mikal" be used to bookend all proclamations made on this site, whether they be created by senior members, newcomers, or by a third party like Mikal.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 2:19:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 2:16:30 PM, Maikuru wrote:
I petition that the phrase "or by a third party like Mikal" be used to bookend all proclamations made on this site, whether they be created by senior members, newcomers, or by a third party like Mikal.

Lol...okay, okay, I get it.

Seriously, though, what do you think of the substance of the proposals I've made?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


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

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

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

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 4:06:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I like this proposal. What may be a feasible solution (if we can get an update) would be for everyone to be able to vote, but to only allow votes to count towards deciding a winner if the voter has been approved by moderation (perhaps after being recommended by a certain number of prestigious members.) We may not even need an update, if moderation still has control over voting priveleges. Just require that new members post some substantial mock RFDs in comment sections before they are allowed to officially vote, instead of whatever the current threshold is. It would probably be much easier than having Airmax examine every single vote that is iffy from an uninformed community.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 4:16:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 11:04:47 AM, bsh1 wrote:


Sorry bsh1, I don't have time to read this in full right now (I'm pretty busy with writing a brief and I blocked DDO after a certain amount of time passes so I can force myself to stay focused).

But I wanted to hop on this issue while it still remains salient (since I probably won't be on again for a week), and I skimmed your post briefly. I endorse it. I trust you to write standards and I've always thought that RFDs on this site need to be held to a higher standard. And "sufficiency" seems a fair standard. This really isn't that hard; we all know a bullsh&t RFD when we see one. Anyone who argues those RFD's shouldn't be removed always has a clear agenda (either is one of the debaters so has a conflict of interest or is a notorious bad-RFD author who doesn't want to be held to a higher standard, e.g. sadolite).

I also endorse abolishing the 7-point system. I think it is *more* subject to abuse, see, e.g. the people who re-voted to give Emil more points and who gave bogus S&G, conduct, and sources votes. The select winner option is not free from abuse, but all the really bad controversies have been over the 7-point system (e.g. Mikal/Roy, Emilrose/donald), specifically in regards to strategic use of source, conduct, and S&G points.

Second, once we do establish more rigorous RFD moderation, if you have RFD's consistently removed, you lose your voting privileges. It's that simple. Learn to vote right, or don't vote at all. That's how it works de facto in the debate community. If you are consistently a sh&tty judge, you get "stricken" using a school's judge strikes at invitationals or the tournament director will just refuse to put you in the pool. Even at league tournaments, I've had the tournament give really bad judges our school code in the pairings software (when it wasn't our judge) so they couldn't be paneled to judge us. I don't see why someone who is a consistent problem (e.g. would get featured in TRW week after week) would be allowed to maintain their voting privileges.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)