Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Lost faith in the voting system

Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 2:00:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I used to do many debates here on DDO, but nowadays I feel a lot less inclined too largely because of the voting system.

Gone are the days where debates would get many votes - most of the time we have to specifically ask people to vote on our debates, which in turn heavily influences them to vote in your favour (since you asked them to vote). So how you do in a debate now seems largely determined by how popular you are and how many PMs you're willing to send.

This all stems down to the problem that people won't generally bother to vote off their own backs anymore, which could be down to multiple reasons:

1. There is no incentive - most people don't do things if they don't get something out of it, which would explain why most people don't take the time to vote.

2. The requirements for what the moderators call a 'good' RFD is too damn high. What I've found is that anything short of a multi-part in-depth dissection of the debate is deemed a poor RFD and promptly removed. An RFD is just that, a reason for decision - it need not be detailed so long as it clearly isn't taking the p*ss. Furthermore, when a good RFD is made by you, and then it is removed by an over-zealous moderator, it seriously damages your motivation to vote. You feel like you are being punished and held to account for doing something that is essentially altruistic (the voter gains nothing).

So I propose one or more of the following:

1. Create incentives to vote

2. Lower the voting standards to the point where only the very poor ones are removed (such as single sentence RFDs), instead of what it is now where only the very good ones aren't removed.
Varrack
Posts: 2,411
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 2:13:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
So I propose one or more of the following:

1. Create incentives to vote

I think users should gan elo for every vote they cast.

2. Lower the voting standards to the point where only the very poor ones are removed (such as single sentence RFDs), instead of what it is now where only the very good ones aren't removed.

Actually I think the current voting standards are pretty laid back. All you need for a passable vote is 1) explain the points you awarded and 2) don't be too general.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 2:40:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think there's more than a few things we disagree on here and I'm more than willing to have this discussion since this is definitely angled to be a positive discussion about DDO voting standards.

At 6/18/2015 2:00:32 AM, Philocat wrote:


1. There is no incentive - most people don't do things if they don't get something out of it, which would explain why most people don't take the time to vote.

I don't think this is really actually the issue. Rather, the main issue that isn't solvable is that there's a lack of high-quality-non-forfeit debates so that people don't want to actually read debates. Chances are if you're reading a debate, there's going to be a forfeit involved. This removes people's desires to even bother reading it. This also opens up the potential to fix two things with one stone: getting higher quality debates and improving the voting turn-out.

2. The requirements for what the moderators call a 'good' RFD is too damn high. What I've found is that anything short of a multi-part in-depth dissection of the debate is deemed a poor RFD and promptly removed. An RFD is just that, a reason for decision - it need not be detailed so long as it clearly isn't taking the p*ss. Furthermore, when a good RFD is made by you, and then it is removed by an over-zealous moderator, it seriously damages your motivation to vote. You feel like you are being punished and held to account for doing something that is essentially altruistic (the voter gains nothing).

This is where we're going to disagree the most and, to be honest and blunt, this is where you're just plain wrong on multiple levels.

First, I think you have an incorrect perception of the purpose of voting on a debate. The entire reason we leave RFDs isn't so people just know that we were actually conscious for the debate (well, that's partly it, but it's not the bulk of the reason). The reason RFDs are even a thing is that debaters can receive feedback on their performances and draw tips and advice from which to improve their future debates. RFDs are meant to serve the debaters, rather than the voters themselves. Trying to make voting standards lower as a convenience to the voters, therefore, doesn't really make much sense because that just intentionally gives lower-quality feedback for really no reason.

Second, voting standards on this site really aren't that high. Varrack is correct in saying that all you need to do to not have a vote removed is give some kind of justification for where the points you assign go, and not make a general statement like "pro was more convincing" as the basis for your vote. That's massively relaxed.

Third, your analysis of the voting moderation makes trying to put effort into judging a debate and giving high-quality feedback to be a thing that we ought not be trying to do. If this site is supposed to be about the exchanging of ideas and theories and the discussion of such things, shouldn't we be inherently wanting to examine debates in depth to begin with and provide that analysis to the debaters, rather than look for excuses to be lazier with our analysis? This gives credence for *raising* the voting standards, not lowering them.

But let's move past the theoretical problems here. Let's move to the practical.

So I propose one or more of the following:

1. Create incentives to vote

Do you have any ideas or suggestions? I'm more than willing to hear out any ideas that you may have.

2. Lower the voting standards to the point where only the very poor ones are removed (such as single sentence RFDs), instead of what it is now where only the very good ones aren't removed.

The problem is that this is a very subjective thing to ask us to do. Very poor ones in my opinions are ones that may pass under your perception. Unless we set out clearer guidelines than "just very poor ones", then it's impossible to make any kind of change.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 7:33:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I've very explicitly brought up the issues of voting on this website both to moderators as well as to real life cohorts.

The moderators had no willingness to reform their standards, and my cohorts very explicitly acknowledged that the moderators here are remarkably biased.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 7:35:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
All of this said, the moderation on this website is rather typical for internet forums. Moderators are very biased in general, and if you don't share their specific interpretation of the general ideas they associate with, then they tolerate people screwing around with you.

DDO is a very childish community, but the internet is childish in general. Unfortunately, DDO has no interest in rising above and beyond. It's just gets stuck in the muck.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 7:38:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 2:13:52 AM, Varrack wrote:
So I propose one or more of the following:

1. Create incentives to vote

I think users should gan elo for every vote they cast.

2. Lower the voting standards to the point where only the very poor ones are removed (such as single sentence RFDs), instead of what it is now where only the very good ones aren't removed.

Actually I think the current voting standards are pretty laid back. All you need for a passable vote is 1) explain the points you awarded and 2) don't be too general.

Point 2 is exactly the problem with voting here.

If anything, votes should be general. That way, you're not biased to the context at stake of the debate. A good RFD applies a principle that can be potentially identified in any debate.

The problem is moderation here has things completely backwards. It basically WANTS you to pick and choose when principles apply. It's expecting you to be biased.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 7:47:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 2:40:59 AM, Zaradi wrote:
This is where we're going to disagree the most and, to be honest and blunt, this is where you're just plain wrong on multiple levels.

Someone can't be wrong if they're expressing their experiences and feelings. Philocat thinks the standard for RfDs is too high and it takes away his motivation to vote. You have a different experience with the standards, but that doesn't make his wrong.

The problem is that this is a very subjective thing to ask us to do. Very poor ones in my opinions are ones that may pass under your perception. Unless we set out clearer guidelines than "just very poor ones", then it's impossible to make any kind of change.

Actually, that's what Airmax used to do - just remove the obvious votebombs. So it's definitely possible.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 7:51:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 7:38:20 AM, Daktoria wrote:
The problem is moderation here has things completely backwards. It basically WANTS you to pick and choose when principles apply. It's expecting you to be biased.

Of course. To vote one way it other is to express a bias. I think the point is that it should be a bias based on certain aspects (quality of arguments) and not others, and the RFD is evidence of that?
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 7:52:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 2:40:59 AM, Zaradi wrote:
I think there's more than a few things we disagree on here and I'm more than willing to have this discussion since this is definitely angled to be a positive discussion about DDO voting standards.

At 6/18/2015 2:00:32 AM, Philocat wrote:


1. There is no incentive - most people don't do things if they don't get something out of it, which would explain why most people don't take the time to vote.

I don't think this is really actually the issue. Rather, the main issue that isn't solvable is that there's a lack of high-quality-non-forfeit debates so that people don't want to actually read debates. Chances are if you're reading a debate, there's going to be a forfeit involved. This removes people's desires to even bother reading it. This also opens up the potential to fix two things with one stone: getting higher quality debates and improving the voting turn-out.

2. The requirements for what the moderators call a 'good' RFD is too damn high. What I've found is that anything short of a multi-part in-depth dissection of the debate is deemed a poor RFD and promptly removed. An RFD is just that, a reason for decision - it need not be detailed so long as it clearly isn't taking the p*ss. Furthermore, when a good RFD is made by you, and then it is removed by an over-zealous moderator, it seriously damages your motivation to vote. You feel like you are being punished and held to account for doing something that is essentially altruistic (the voter gains nothing).

This is where we're going to disagree the most and, to be honest and blunt, this is where you're just plain wrong on multiple levels.

First, I think you have an incorrect perception of the purpose of voting on a debate. The entire reason we leave RFDs isn't so people just know that we were actually conscious for the debate (well, that's partly it, but it's not the bulk of the reason). The reason RFDs are even a thing is that debaters can receive feedback on their performances and draw tips and advice from which to improve their future debates. RFDs are meant to serve the debaters, rather than the voters themselves. Trying to make voting standards lower as a convenience to the voters, therefore, doesn't really make much sense because that just intentionally gives lower-quality feedback for really no reason.

Second, voting standards on this site really aren't that high. Varrack is correct in saying that all you need to do to not have a vote removed is give some kind of justification for where the points you assign go, and not make a general statement like "pro was more convincing" as the basis for your vote. That's massively relaxed.

Third, your analysis of the voting moderation makes trying to put effort into judging a debate and giving high-quality feedback to be a thing that we ought not be trying to do. If this site is supposed to be about the exchanging of ideas and theories and the discussion of such things, shouldn't we be inherently wanting to examine debates in depth to begin with and provide that analysis to the debaters, rather than look for excuses to be lazier with our analysis? This gives credence for *raising* the voting standards, not lowering them.

But let's move past the theoretical problems here. Let's move to the practical.

So I propose one or more of the following:

1. Create incentives to vote

Do you have any ideas or suggestions? I'm more than willing to hear out any ideas that you may have.

2. Lower the voting standards to the point where only the very poor ones are removed (such as single sentence RFDs), instead of what it is now where only the very good ones aren't removed.

The problem is that this is a very subjective thing to ask us to do. Very poor ones in my opinions are ones that may pass under your perception. Unless we set out clearer guidelines than "just very poor ones", then it's impossible to make any kind of change.

Why do you believe everything's a matter of opinion?

Are you saying that we can't analyze the universal values of language in order to come to common standards?

The real problem at stake is that the moderators seem to believe everything's a matter of opinion, and want the votes at stake to represent a popularity contest where likable positions get voted for, and nonliked positions do not. Then, they expect people to disguise their votes as reasonably through artistic license where people simply lie in their RFDs.

The OP doesn't seem to be arguing that the standards for RFDs are really too high. Instead, he seems to be frustrated with the amount of lying in RFDs today, and wants that lying brought down.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 8:00:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 2:40:59 AM, Zaradi wrote:
I think there's more than a few things we disagree on here and I'm more than willing to have this discussion since this is definitely angled to be a positive discussion about DDO voting standards.

At 6/18/2015 2:00:32 AM, Philocat wrote:


1. There is no incentive - most people don't do things if they don't get something out of it, which would explain why most people don't take the time to vote.

I don't think this is really actually the issue. Rather, the main issue that isn't solvable is that there's a lack of high-quality-non-forfeit debates so that people don't want to actually read debates. Chances are if you're reading a debate, there's going to be a forfeit involved. This removes people's desires to even bother reading it. This also opens up the potential to fix two things with one stone: getting higher quality debates and improving the voting turn-out.

2. The requirements for what the moderators call a 'good' RFD is too damn high. What I've found is that anything short of a multi-part in-depth dissection of the debate is deemed a poor RFD and promptly removed. An RFD is just that, a reason for decision - it need not be detailed so long as it clearly isn't taking the p*ss. Furthermore, when a good RFD is made by you, and then it is removed by an over-zealous moderator, it seriously damages your motivation to vote. You feel like you are being punished and held to account for doing something that is essentially altruistic (the voter gains nothing).

This is where we're going to disagree the most and, to be honest and blunt, this is where you're just plain wrong on multiple levels.

First, I think you have an incorrect perception of the purpose of voting on a debate. The entire reason we leave RFDs isn't so people just know that we were actually conscious for the debate (well, that's partly it, but it's not the bulk of the reason). The reason RFDs are even a thing is that debaters can receive feedback on their performances and draw tips and advice from which to improve their future debates. RFDs are meant to serve the debaters, rather than the voters themselves. Trying to make voting standards lower as a convenience to the voters, therefore, doesn't really make much sense because that just intentionally gives lower-quality feedback for really no reason.

Second, voting standards on this site really aren't that high. Varrack is correct in saying that all you need to do to not have a vote removed is give some kind of justification for where the points you assign go, and not make a general statement like "pro was more convincing" as the basis for your vote. That's massively relaxed.

Third, your analysis of the voting moderation makes trying to put effort into judging a debate and giving high-quality feedback to be a thing that we ought not be trying to do. If this site is supposed to be about the exchanging of ideas and theories and the discussion of such things, shouldn't we be inherently wanting to examine debates in depth to begin with and provide that analysis to the debaters, rather than look for excuses to be lazier with our analysis? This gives credence for *raising* the voting standards, not lowering them.

But let's move past the theoretical problems here. Let's move to the practical.

So I propose one or more of the following:

1. Create incentives to vote

Do you have any ideas or suggestions? I'm more than willing to hear out any ideas that you may have.

2. Lower the voting standards to the point where only the very poor ones are removed (such as single sentence RFDs), instead of what it is now where only the very good ones aren't removed.

The problem is that this is a very subjective thing to ask us to do. Very poor ones in my opinions are ones that may pass under your perception. Unless we set out clearer guidelines than "just very poor ones", then it's impossible to make any kind of change.

I agree that providing in-depth analysis of debates is good - all I advocate is not making it compulsory to do so. If someone wants to do an in-depth RFD then that's great, but if it becomes a voting requirement (as it seems nowadays) then the outcome will be that most debates will go unvoted. Multi-part RFDs eat up a lot of time and energy that most people simply cannot provide - especially as they gain nothing from doing so.

Your point about votes being about debater-feedback actually highlights my point. If it's about feedback, then surely the voter should be allowed to give the level of feedback he deems necessary? Whilst in-depth feedback is better than more general feedback, it doesn't mean that the latter should be removed.
Subutai
Posts: 3,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 8:10:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Your first point makes sense. There is indeed no incentive to vote, save a vote count on your profile page. I'm not sure what the best way to remedy this.

However, your second point is just wrong. I'd rather have two very good votes on my debate than 100 bad votes. There are several reasons why seemingly good votes are removed. One, if the voting system is 7-point, they may fail to explain why they for S&G, for example. No matter how good they're RFD on arguments is, it's not going to fix that that vote is a votebomb. I suppose the moderation could be a bit more forthcoming to that voter, though. Two, votes may be too general. Something like "While I agreed with X's points, Y presenting a good rebuttal" is not acceptable, even on a broader scale. And three, and most importantly, you can't control for inherent voter bias. I'd say that voter bias is a much worse problem than the moderation deleting a few votes.

Overall, I think you're overreacting. Maybe if you took the time to provide better votes, you wouldn't be having a problem.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 8:18:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 2:00:32 AM, Philocat wrote:
I used to do many debates here on DDO, but nowadays I feel a lot less inclined too largely because of the voting system.

Gone are the days where debates would get many votes - most of the time we have to specifically ask people to vote on our debates, which in turn heavily influences them to vote in your favour (since you asked them to vote). So how you do in a debate now seems largely determined by how popular you are and how many PMs you're willing to send.

This all stems down to the problem that people won't generally bother to vote off their own backs anymore, which could be down to multiple reasons:

1. There is no incentive - most people don't do things if they don't get something out of it, which would explain why most people don't take the time to vote.
Actually, some people have quite an incentive to vote: To climb on the voting leaderboard...
2. The requirements for what the moderators call a 'good' RFD is too damn high. What I've found is that anything short of a multi-part in-depth dissection of the debate is deemed a poor RFD and promptly removed. An RFD is just that, a reason for decision - it need not be detailed so long as it clearly isn't taking the p*ss. Furthermore, when a good RFD is made by you, and then it is removed by an over-zealous moderator, it seriously damages your motivation to vote. You feel like you are being punished and held to account for doing something that is essentially altruistic (the voter gains nothing).
The mods always give the reasons for removal. If it's a good RFD, then it was probably removed for minor reasons, like 'fails to explain sources point'. Then you can easily C/P your RFD back, add the reason for the sources point, and re-vote. It isn't that hard...
So I propose one or more of the following:

1. Create incentives to vote

2. Lower the voting standards to the point where only the very poor ones are removed (such as single sentence RFDs), instead of what it is now where only the very good ones aren't removed.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Varrack
Posts: 2,411
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 10:25:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 7:38:20 AM, Daktoria wrote:
At 6/18/2015 2:13:52 AM, Varrack wrote:
So I propose one or more of the following:

1. Create incentives to vote

I think users should gan elo for every vote they cast.

2. Lower the voting standards to the point where only the very poor ones are removed (such as single sentence RFDs), instead of what it is now where only the very good ones aren't removed.

Actually I think the current voting standards are pretty laid back. All you need for a passable vote is 1) explain the points you awarded and 2) don't be too general.

Point 2 is exactly the problem with voting here.

If anything, votes should be general. That way, you're not biased to the context at stake of the debate. A good RFD applies a principle that can be potentially identified in any debate.

The problem is moderation here has things completely backwards. It basically WANTS you to pick and choose when principles apply. It's expecting you to be biased.

If RFDs were general, then that would be no proof that you actually read the debate. You can just say "pro had better arguments" when in reality you didn't read the debate at all and are just biased toward the Pro side. Also, the purpose of an RFD is to help debaters. If I am specific about an RFD, then I can show the two debaters what area they need help in and what they could have done better. If I'm general, then they have no idea what they did wrong. So no, general votes should def be removed at once.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 10:37:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 2:13:52 AM, Varrack wrote:
So I propose one or more of the following:

1. Create incentives to vote

I think users should gan elo for every vote they cast.

that would benefit me and all of my VB's a year ago, lol. Hardly seems fair.


2. Lower the voting standards to the point where only the very poor ones are removed (such as single sentence RFDs), instead of what it is now where only the very good ones aren't removed.

Actually I think the current voting standards are pretty laid back. All you need for a passable vote is 1) explain the points you awarded and 2) don't be too general.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Varrack
Posts: 2,411
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 10:44:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 10:37:46 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/18/2015 2:13:52 AM, Varrack wrote:
So I propose one or more of the following:

1. Create incentives to vote

I think users should gan elo for every vote they cast.

that would benefit me and all of my VB's a year ago, lol. Hardly seems fair.

More votes = more VB's = privileges taken away faster = happiness

2. Lower the voting standards to the point where only the very poor ones are removed (such as single sentence RFDs), instead of what it is now where only the very good ones aren't removed.

Actually I think the current voting standards are pretty laid back. All you need for a passable vote is 1) explain the points you awarded and 2) don't be too general.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 10:45:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 10:44:26 AM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/18/2015 10:37:46 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/18/2015 2:13:52 AM, Varrack wrote:
So I propose one or more of the following:

1. Create incentives to vote

I think users should gan elo for every vote they cast.

that would benefit me and all of my VB's a year ago, lol. Hardly seems fair.

More votes = more VB's = privileges taken away faster = happiness


I would just vote on FF'd debates, lol

2. Lower the voting standards to the point where only the very poor ones are removed (such as single sentence RFDs), instead of what it is now where only the very good ones aren't removed.

Actually I think the current voting standards are pretty laid back. All you need for a passable vote is 1) explain the points you awarded and 2) don't be too general.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 11:00:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 8:18:50 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/18/2015 2:00:32 AM, Philocat wrote:
I used to do many debates here on DDO, but nowadays I feel a lot less inclined too largely because of the voting system.

Gone are the days where debates would get many votes - most of the time we have to specifically ask people to vote on our debates, which in turn heavily influences them to vote in your favour (since you asked them to vote). So how you do in a debate now seems largely determined by how popular you are and how many PMs you're willing to send.

This all stems down to the problem that people won't generally bother to vote off their own backs anymore, which could be down to multiple reasons:

1. There is no incentive - most people don't do things if they don't get something out of it, which would explain why most people don't take the time to vote.
Actually, some people have quite an incentive to vote: To climb on the voting leaderboard...

Which anyone pays attention too?

At 6/18/2015 8:10:21 AM, Subutai wrote:
Your first point makes sense. There is indeed no incentive to vote, save a vote count on your profile page. I'm not sure what the best way to remedy this.

However, your second point is just wrong. I'd rather have two very good votes on my debate than 100 bad votes. There are several reasons why seemingly good votes are removed. One, if the voting system is 7-point, they may fail to explain why they for S&G, for example. No matter how good they're RFD on arguments is, it's not going to fix that that vote is a votebomb. I suppose the moderation could be a bit more forthcoming to that voter, though. Two, votes may be too general. Something like "While I agreed with X's points, Y presenting a good rebuttal" is not acceptable, even on a broader scale. And three, and most importantly, you can't control for inherent voter bias. I'd say that voter bias is a much worse problem than the moderation deleting a few votes.

Overall, I think you're overreacting. Maybe if you took the time to provide better votes, you wouldn't be having a problem.

This is the thing, if it was a problem with the quality of my votes I wouldn't be annoyed. The reason I made this thread was to call for less of what I call 'voting-elitism', where only the most in-depth votes are allowed.

I would like to clarify that I do NOT advocate poor votes, what I advocate is the right to make votes that don't require the voter to spend half an hour trawling through arguments and then reviewing them. An RFD is not a review of the argument, all it is is a justified explanation for why you voted in the way you did.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 11:08:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 8:00:23 AM, Philocat wrote:

I agree that providing in-depth analysis of debates is good - all I advocate is not making it compulsory to do so. If someone wants to do an in-depth RFD then that's great, but if it becomes a voting requirement (as it seems nowadays) then the outcome will be that most debates will go unvoted. Multi-part RFDs eat up a lot of time and energy that most people simply cannot provide - especially as they gain nothing from doing so.

Your point about votes being about debater-feedback actually highlights my point. If it's about feedback, then surely the voter should be allowed to give the level of feedback he deems necessary? Whilst in-depth feedback is better than more general feedback, it doesn't mean that the latter should be removed.

The problem is that what you consider to be less-energy intensive votes aren't actually removed in the status quo. All you have to do is highlight the reason for each point you spend in a vote and your vote is considered legitimate. The following RFD under the current system is technically legal:

"Conduct: Tie, no blatant conduct violations
S/G: Pro, con talked in text speech the entire debate
Args: Pro's argument about how minimum wage increases crime rates goes unresponded to through the entire debate and he extends it off with enough impacts to make me want to vote off of it.
Sources: Pro, con didn't site any while pro had multiple"

I literally took a minute to type that up and under the current system that's a valid RFD. Is that a "good" rfd? Imo, no because there could've been a lot more that transpired in the debate that, as a debater, I would like feedback on so I can know what to improve on, especially if I was the losing debater in this RFD. So while I would encourage more high-quality votes, the votes you're complaining about being removed aren't...actually being removed...
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Zaradi
Posts: 14,127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 11:10:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Also, if you have ideas on how to increase voter incentive, feel free to PM me. I would actually be interested in hearing out what you are thinking.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 11:15:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 11:00:07 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 6/18/2015 8:18:50 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/18/2015 2:00:32 AM, Philocat wrote:
I used to do many debates here on DDO, but nowadays I feel a lot less inclined too largely because of the voting system.

Gone are the days where debates would get many votes - most of the time we have to specifically ask people to vote on our debates, which in turn heavily influences them to vote in your favour (since you asked them to vote). So how you do in a debate now seems largely determined by how popular you are and how many PMs you're willing to send.

This all stems down to the problem that people won't generally bother to vote off their own backs anymore, which could be down to multiple reasons:

1. There is no incentive - most people don't do things if they don't get something out of it, which would explain why most people don't take the time to vote.
Actually, some people have quite an incentive to vote: To climb on the voting leaderboard...

Which anyone pays attention too?

At 6/18/2015 8:10:21 AM, Subutai wrote:
Your first point makes sense. There is indeed no incentive to vote, save a vote count on your profile page. I'm not sure what the best way to remedy this.

However, your second point is just wrong. I'd rather have two very good votes on my debate than 100 bad votes. There are several reasons why seemingly good votes are removed. One, if the voting system is 7-point, they may fail to explain why they for S&G, for example. No matter how good they're RFD on arguments is, it's not going to fix that that vote is a votebomb. I suppose the moderation could be a bit more forthcoming to that voter, though. Two, votes may be too general. Something like "While I agreed with X's points, Y presenting a good rebuttal" is not acceptable, even on a broader scale. And three, and most importantly, you can't control for inherent voter bias. I'd say that voter bias is a much worse problem than the moderation deleting a few votes.

Overall, I think you're overreacting. Maybe if you took the time to provide better votes, you wouldn't be having a problem.

This is the thing, if it was a problem with the quality of my votes I wouldn't be annoyed. The reason I made this thread was to call for less of what I call 'voting-elitism', where only the most in-depth votes are allowed.

I would like to clarify that I do NOT advocate poor votes, what I advocate is the right to make votes that don't require the voter to spend half an hour trawling through arguments and then reviewing them. An RFD is not a review of the argument, all it is is a justified explanation for why you voted in the way you did.

I disagree. While an RFD doesn't have to review all of the arguments, it does require that you stipulate which arguments swayed your vote, which ones didn't, and why. It's not enough to say what your overall view of the debate was because an RFD isn't solely meant to show how you saw the debate - it's also meant to inform the debaters. If all you're managing to do is explain your vote to the bare minimum extent in extremely vague terms, then you're not being clear enough to be understood. You don't have to spend a half an hour on a vote, but you do have to show that you respect the debaters who may have spent hours on their arguments enough to explain why won/lost. If that's unclear, then the debaters learn nothing, and the vote creates more questions than answers.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 11:43:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 10:37:46 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/18/2015 2:13:52 AM, Varrack wrote:
So I propose one or more of the following:

1. Create incentives to vote

I think users should gan elo for every vote they cast.

that would benefit me and all of my VB's a year ago, lol. Hardly seems fair.
I agree with 16k. If we get elo for votes, people will be voting on FF'd debates, and will also gain from votebombs before voting policy turned stricter.

Frankly, I feel that the whole idea of elo for voting treats elo as EXP in an RPG. Elo is not EXP, noobsniping isn't grinding (getting small amounts of EXP repeatedly), and bsh1 and whiteflame aren't bosses that give excellent EXP gains upon defeat. Elo is intended to be a numeric representation of your debate prowess; elo boosts should serve as incentive to increase one's debating ability, and we shouldn't encourage grinding.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 11:49:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 11:00:07 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 6/18/2015 8:18:50 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/18/2015 2:00:32 AM, Philocat wrote:
I used to do many debates here on DDO, but nowadays I feel a lot less inclined too largely because of the voting system.

Gone are the days where debates would get many votes - most of the time we have to specifically ask people to vote on our debates, which in turn heavily influences them to vote in your favour (since you asked them to vote). So how you do in a debate now seems largely determined by how popular you are and how many PMs you're willing to send.

This all stems down to the problem that people won't generally bother to vote off their own backs anymore, which could be down to multiple reasons:

1. There is no incentive - most people don't do things if they don't get something out of it, which would explain why most people don't take the time to vote.
Actually, some people have quite an incentive to vote: To climb on the voting leaderboard...

Which anyone pays attention too?
It doesn't matter if many people are paying attention to the leaderboard. What matters is that there are people who value their positions on the board. Quite a few users have climbing the voter leaderboard as a goal, such as Lannan and Zarroette.
At 6/18/2015 8:10:21 AM, Subutai wrote:
Your first point makes sense. There is indeed no incentive to vote, save a vote count on your profile page. I'm not sure what the best way to remedy this.

However, your second point is just wrong. I'd rather have two very good votes on my debate than 100 bad votes. There are several reasons why seemingly good votes are removed. One, if the voting system is 7-point, they may fail to explain why they for S&G, for example. No matter how good they're RFD on arguments is, it's not going to fix that that vote is a votebomb. I suppose the moderation could be a bit more forthcoming to that voter, though. Two, votes may be too general. Something like "While I agreed with X's points, Y presenting a good rebuttal" is not acceptable, even on a broader scale. And three, and most importantly, you can't control for inherent voter bias. I'd say that voter bias is a much worse problem than the moderation deleting a few votes.

Overall, I think you're overreacting. Maybe if you took the time to provide better votes, you wouldn't be having a problem.

This is the thing, if it was a problem with the quality of my votes I wouldn't be annoyed. The reason I made this thread was to call for less of what I call 'voting-elitism', where only the most in-depth votes are allowed.

I would like to clarify that I do NOT advocate poor votes, what I advocate is the right to make votes that don't require the voter to spend half an hour trawling through arguments and then reviewing them. An RFD is not a review of the argument, all it is is a justified explanation for why you voted in the way you did.
If you don't show that you have understood the arguments well enough to give a good vote, though, then how is the vote valuable? You could have skimmed through the debate, selected a winner based on gut feeling, and wrote a vague reason explaining the gut feeling. However, our gut feelings are often erroneous.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 9:56:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 7:51:22 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 6/18/2015 7:38:20 AM, Daktoria wrote:
The problem is moderation here has things completely backwards. It basically WANTS you to pick and choose when principles apply. It's expecting you to be biased.

Of course. To vote one way it other is to express a bias. I think the point is that it should be a bias based on certain aspects (quality of arguments) and not others, and the RFD is evidence of that?

No...

Bias is when your vote is predisposed by some opinion outside of the debate. You're supposed to vote based on indifference.

The problem is the mods here don't like indifference. They want you to be biased, and they want you to be biased in the way they're biased...

...but again, that's how the internet works in general. DDO doesn't rise above it all. It succumbs to being average.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 9:58:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 10:25:05 AM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/18/2015 7:38:20 AM, Daktoria wrote:
At 6/18/2015 2:13:52 AM, Varrack wrote:
So I propose one or more of the following:

1. Create incentives to vote

I think users should gan elo for every vote they cast.

2. Lower the voting standards to the point where only the very poor ones are removed (such as single sentence RFDs), instead of what it is now where only the very good ones aren't removed.

Actually I think the current voting standards are pretty laid back. All you need for a passable vote is 1) explain the points you awarded and 2) don't be too general.

Point 2 is exactly the problem with voting here.

If anything, votes should be general. That way, you're not biased to the context at stake of the debate. A good RFD applies a principle that can be potentially identified in any debate.

The problem is moderation here has things completely backwards. It basically WANTS you to pick and choose when principles apply. It's expecting you to be biased.

If RFDs were general, then that would be no proof that you actually read the debate. You can just say "pro had better arguments" when in reality you didn't read the debate at all and are just biased toward the Pro side. Also, the purpose of an RFD is to help debaters. If I am specific about an RFD, then I can show the two debaters what area they need help in and what they could have done better. If I'm general, then they have no idea what they did wrong. So no, general votes should def be removed at once.

You're getting generalness confused with vagueness.

Generalness is when you recognize a principle that applies regardless of context. Applying a general RFD does show that you read the debate because it shows that you recognized a principle that applies.

The problem is moderators here don't care for principles. Their entire point is to create an unprincipled debate environment.
Varrack
Posts: 2,411
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 10:01:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 9:58:53 AM, Daktoria wrote:
At 6/18/2015 10:25:05 AM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/18/2015 7:38:20 AM, Daktoria wrote:
At 6/18/2015 2:13:52 AM, Varrack wrote:
So I propose one or more of the following:

1. Create incentives to vote

I think users should gan elo for every vote they cast.

2. Lower the voting standards to the point where only the very poor ones are removed (such as single sentence RFDs), instead of what it is now where only the very good ones aren't removed.

Actually I think the current voting standards are pretty laid back. All you need for a passable vote is 1) explain the points you awarded and 2) don't be too general.

Point 2 is exactly the problem with voting here.

If anything, votes should be general. That way, you're not biased to the context at stake of the debate. A good RFD applies a principle that can be potentially identified in any debate.

The problem is moderation here has things completely backwards. It basically WANTS you to pick and choose when principles apply. It's expecting you to be biased.

If RFDs were general, then that would be no proof that you actually read the debate. You can just say "pro had better arguments" when in reality you didn't read the debate at all and are just biased toward the Pro side. Also, the purpose of an RFD is to help debaters. If I am specific about an RFD, then I can show the two debaters what area they need help in and what they could have done better. If I'm general, then they have no idea what they did wrong. So no, general votes should def be removed at once.

You're getting generalness confused with vagueness.

Generalness is when you recognize a principle that applies regardless of context. Applying a general RFD does show that you read the debate because it shows that you recognized a principle that applies.

The problem is moderators here don't care for principles. Their entire point is to create an unprincipled debate environment.

"Pro had better arguments" = General = What the mods will remove
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 10:03:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I mean that's the real problem at stake.

DDO, like the rest of the internet, confuses opinions with principles. Both are intuitive, but all intuitions aren't the same. There's a difference between intuitive emotions and intuitive thoughts. Emotions are biased, thoughts are indifferent.

The problem is DDO, like the rest of the internet, is a highly emotional place. It has no interest in rising above the popularity contest of who likes who and who likes what.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 10:03:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 10:01:45 AM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/19/2015 9:58:53 AM, Daktoria wrote:
At 6/18/2015 10:25:05 AM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/18/2015 7:38:20 AM, Daktoria wrote:
At 6/18/2015 2:13:52 AM, Varrack wrote:
So I propose one or more of the following:

1. Create incentives to vote

I think users should gan elo for every vote they cast.

2. Lower the voting standards to the point where only the very poor ones are removed (such as single sentence RFDs), instead of what it is now where only the very good ones aren't removed.

Actually I think the current voting standards are pretty laid back. All you need for a passable vote is 1) explain the points you awarded and 2) don't be too general.

Point 2 is exactly the problem with voting here.

If anything, votes should be general. That way, you're not biased to the context at stake of the debate. A good RFD applies a principle that can be potentially identified in any debate.

The problem is moderation here has things completely backwards. It basically WANTS you to pick and choose when principles apply. It's expecting you to be biased.

If RFDs were general, then that would be no proof that you actually read the debate. You can just say "pro had better arguments" when in reality you didn't read the debate at all and are just biased toward the Pro side. Also, the purpose of an RFD is to help debaters. If I am specific about an RFD, then I can show the two debaters what area they need help in and what they could have done better. If I'm general, then they have no idea what they did wrong. So no, general votes should def be removed at once.

You're getting generalness confused with vagueness.

Generalness is when you recognize a principle that applies regardless of context. Applying a general RFD does show that you read the debate because it shows that you recognized a principle that applies.

The problem is moderators here don't care for principles. Their entire point is to create an unprincipled debate environment.

"Pro had better arguments" = General = What the mods will remove

No... Pro had better arguments = vague.

Likewise, the mods remove more than just that.
Varrack
Posts: 2,411
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 10:05:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 10:03:35 AM, Daktoria wrote:
At 6/19/2015 10:01:45 AM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/19/2015 9:58:53 AM, Daktoria wrote:
At 6/18/2015 10:25:05 AM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/18/2015 7:38:20 AM, Daktoria wrote:
At 6/18/2015 2:13:52 AM, Varrack wrote:
So I propose one or more of the following:

1. Create incentives to vote

I think users should gan elo for every vote they cast.

2. Lower the voting standards to the point where only the very poor ones are removed (such as single sentence RFDs), instead of what it is now where only the very good ones aren't removed.

Actually I think the current voting standards are pretty laid back. All you need for a passable vote is 1) explain the points you awarded and 2) don't be too general.

Point 2 is exactly the problem with voting here.

If anything, votes should be general. That way, you're not biased to the context at stake of the debate. A good RFD applies a principle that can be potentially identified in any debate.

The problem is moderation here has things completely backwards. It basically WANTS you to pick and choose when principles apply. It's expecting you to be biased.

If RFDs were general, then that would be no proof that you actually read the debate. You can just say "pro had better arguments" when in reality you didn't read the debate at all and are just biased toward the Pro side. Also, the purpose of an RFD is to help debaters. If I am specific about an RFD, then I can show the two debaters what area they need help in and what they could have done better. If I'm general, then they have no idea what they did wrong. So no, general votes should def be removed at once.

You're getting generalness confused with vagueness.

Generalness is when you recognize a principle that applies regardless of context. Applying a general RFD does show that you read the debate because it shows that you recognized a principle that applies.

The problem is moderators here don't care for principles. Their entire point is to create an unprincipled debate environment.

"Pro had better arguments" = General = What the mods will remove

No... Pro had better arguments = vague.

Likewise, the mods remove more than just that.

Ok thrn, give me an example of a vote that shouldn't be removed but would be by the mods.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 10:09:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 10:05:02 AM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/19/2015 10:03:35 AM, Daktoria wrote:
At 6/19/2015 10:01:45 AM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/19/2015 9:58:53 AM, Daktoria wrote:
At 6/18/2015 10:25:05 AM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/18/2015 7:38:20 AM, Daktoria wrote:
At 6/18/2015 2:13:52 AM, Varrack wrote:
So I propose one or more of the following:

1. Create incentives to vote

I think users should gan elo for every vote they cast.

2. Lower the voting standards to the point where only the very poor ones are removed (such as single sentence RFDs), instead of what it is now where only the very good ones aren't removed.

Actually I think the current voting standards are pretty laid back. All you need for a passable vote is 1) explain the points you awarded and 2) don't be too general.

Point 2 is exactly the problem with voting here.

If anything, votes should be general. That way, you're not biased to the context at stake of the debate. A good RFD applies a principle that can be potentially identified in any debate.

The problem is moderation here has things completely backwards. It basically WANTS you to pick and choose when principles apply. It's expecting you to be biased.

If RFDs were general, then that would be no proof that you actually read the debate. You can just say "pro had better arguments" when in reality you didn't read the debate at all and are just biased toward the Pro side. Also, the purpose of an RFD is to help debaters. If I am specific about an RFD, then I can show the two debaters what area they need help in and what they could have done better. If I'm general, then they have no idea what they did wrong. So no, general votes should def be removed at once.

You're getting generalness confused with vagueness.

Generalness is when you recognize a principle that applies regardless of context. Applying a general RFD does show that you read the debate because it shows that you recognized a principle that applies.

The problem is moderators here don't care for principles. Their entire point is to create an unprincipled debate environment.

"Pro had better arguments" = General = What the mods will remove

No... Pro had better arguments = vague.

Likewise, the mods remove more than just that.

Ok thrn, give me an example of a vote that shouldn't be removed but would be by the mods.

Mods often remove votes about logical fallacies and definitions of words that can be applied regardless of context behind the excuse that such votes are general.

For example, "Pro equated correlation to causation" is general, and mods will remove that vote even if it's true and valid that Pro equated correlation to causation.
kasmic
Posts: 1,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 11:00:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 2:00:32 AM, Philocat wrote:
I used to do many debates here on DDO, but nowadays I feel a lot less inclined too largely because of the voting system.

Personally, I am surprised how many people care about voting. I mean, I enjoy getting good feedback, but I am not overly concerned with winning or losing. Even if there was no voting, I would still enjoy debating.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...