Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Panel Voting

salam.morcos
Posts: 51
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 9:58:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
TJ and I were critiquing each other's RFD's and an idea came up in my head. The idea is to allow Panel Voting on debates. This means that two (or more) voters would prepare the RFD's jointly and hash each others ideas and thoughts.

This of course has to be agreed upon by the debaters in R1. And the best combination of judges would be ones that have opposite view to the resolution. This would reduce bias.

In some cases, the two judges might not agree on certain points/contentions. That would be noted in the RFD. And if the final decision is also not agreed upon by both RFD's, they either award a tie, or provide separate RFD's.

Thoughts?
Preston
Posts: 1,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 10:14:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 9:58:14 AM, salam.morcos wrote:
TJ and I were critiquing each other's RFD's and an idea came up in my head. The idea is to allow Panel Voting on debates. This means that two (or more) voters would prepare the RFD's jointly and hash each others ideas and thoughts.

This of course has to be agreed upon by the debaters in R1. And the best combination of judges would be ones that have opposite view to the resolution. This would reduce bias.

In some cases, the two judges might not agree on certain points/contentions. That would be noted in the RFD. And if the final decision is also not agreed upon by both RFD's, they either award a tie, or provide separate RFD's.

Thoughts?

It seems interesting, I think we need a panel of judges who can be contacted so that debates stop tying because no one is voting.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." - George Carlin
salam.morcos
Posts: 51
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 10:23:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It seems interesting, I think we need a panel of judges who can be contacted so that debates stop tying because no one is voting.

You can have a panel of judges today. But they still prepare their votes individually. This one is different. This is about judges actually collaborating together to reach a decision.
Preston
Posts: 1,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 10:24:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 10:23:11 AM, salam.morcos wrote:
It seems interesting, I think we need a panel of judges who can be contacted so that debates stop tying because no one is voting.

You can have a panel of judges today. But they still prepare their votes individually. This one is different. This is about judges actually collaborating together to reach a decision.

You should get people on board and open a PM, and your group colabs on completed debates.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." - George Carlin
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 10:31:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 9:58:14 AM, salam.morcos wrote:
TJ and I were critiquing each other's RFD's and an idea came up in my head. The idea is to allow Panel Voting on debates. This means that two (or more) voters would prepare the RFD's jointly and hash each others ideas and thoughts.

This of course has to be agreed upon by the debaters in R1. And the best combination of judges would be ones that have opposite view to the resolution. This would reduce bias.

In some cases, the two judges might not agree on certain points/contentions. That would be noted in the RFD. And if the final decision is also not agreed upon by both RFD's, they either award a tie, or provide separate RFD's.

Thoughts?

Well, that's how British Parliamentary/Worlds debate tournaments do it, except it's usually 3 or more judges per panel. A problem you'll run into with this system is that the judges would come to different decisions and they'll be at an impasse, no matter how much they try to persuade the other. You could assign one of them a chair position that allows a sort of veto power, but that means that their skew on the debate will usually be paramount.

The other problem I foresee is that this expands on the time and energy required to judge a debate. Judges would have to get together in some manner, whether it's through Google +, using PMs, or some other means, to go through how they perceived the debate. This might require each of them writing up a separate RFD ahead of time. Then they discuss, which might take a while, and presumably come to a decision. Once that decision is reached, they will both want their ideas in the final RFD, so one or both of them will have to edit the RFDs to include the ideas of each judge.

Personally, I think individual voting just makes more sense in this setting. If we were all in the same room listening to people giving speeches and then going through what we'd written down, having a panel of judges would ensure that less is missed and bias is less of an issue. But that's if we're all in the same room, and we presumably respect each other. I wouldn't say that for all of DDO, especially for those that hold opposing opinions on contentious issues. Debaters would have to be very careful in judge selection, and the judges would have to be willing to go the extra mile by taking time out of their schedules to manage it. At a debate tournament, the time's set aside, and we can address what we saw immediately. It's not quite as simple for online debates.

Still, it might be worth having this as an option. It's not something I would choose, but if people are interested and judges are willing, it's worth pursuing.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 10:35:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 9:58:14 AM, salam.morcos wrote:
TJ and I were critiquing each other's RFD's and an idea came up in my head. The idea is to allow Panel Voting on debates. This means that two (or more) voters would prepare the RFD's jointly and hash each others ideas and thoughts.

This of course has to be agreed upon by the debaters in R1. And the best combination of judges would be ones that have opposite view to the resolution. This would reduce bias.

In some cases, the two judges might not agree on certain points/contentions. That would be noted in the RFD. And if the final decision is also not agreed upon by both RFD's, they either award a tie, or provide separate RFD's.

Thoughts?

Sounds like a cool idea. You should try it out, an experimental debate to see how well it works.
salam.morcos
Posts: 51
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 11:21:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 10:31:34 AM, whiteflame wrote:

Well, that's how British Parliamentary/Worlds debate tournaments do it, except it's usually 3 or more judges per panel. A problem you'll run into with this system is that the judges would come to different decisions and they'll be at an impasse, no matter how much they try to persuade the other. You could assign one of them a chair position that allows a sort of veto power, but that means that their skew on the debate will usually be paramount.

The other problem I foresee is that this expands on the time and energy required to judge a debate. Judges would have to get together in some manner, whether it's through Google +, using PMs, or some other means, to go through how they perceived the debate. This might require each of them writing up a separate RFD ahead of time. Then they discuss, which might take a while, and presumably come to a decision. Once that decision is reached, they will both want their ideas in the final RFD, so one or both of them will have to edit the RFDs to include the ideas of each judge.

Personally, I think individual voting just makes more sense in this setting. If we were all in the same room listening to people giving speeches and then going through what we'd written down, having a panel of judges would ensure that less is missed and bias is less of an issue. But that's if we're all in the same room, and we presumably respect each other. I wouldn't say that for all of DDO, especially for those that hold opposing opinions on contentious issues. Debaters would have to be very careful in judge selection, and the judges would have to be willing to go the extra mile by taking time out of their schedules to manage it. At a debate tournament, the time's set aside, and we can address what we saw immediately. It's not quite as simple for online debates.

Still, it might be worth having this as an option. It's not something I would choose, but if people are interested and judges are willing, it's worth pursuing.

Your points are very valid. There are a couple of approaches that can handle some of these issues. But there is no perfect science.

One approach would be that each debater would prepare their RFD first, and then share it with the other. They can discuss their differences and each will post their RFD separately, but only after receiving feedback from the other judge. This would help identify any errors they made in the evaluation, but they won't necessarily agree on all points. There will be little time impact.

Another way is for the two debaters to talk about the vote for a bit, and then each prepare their RFD separately. This how "reality shows" do their voting. They chat, but each comes to their conclusion.

I like the first approach better, because it would still be my analysis and work, but could be improved based on feedback from the other judge. I also argue that this can help make the judge a better voter.

I also agree that this can only happen if the two judges have a good relationship and are usually unbiased. Judge selection is important here or it will be an impasse on every item, and a debate on the debate.

And if I ever do this, it better be a great debate worth the effort. (Like the great ones of mine, and not the terrible ones of yours :P - Kidding of course)
salam.morcos
Posts: 51
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 11:22:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 10:35:37 AM, Hayd wrote:

Sounds like a cool idea. You should try it out, an experimental debate to see how well it works.

May be I will!
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 11:37:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
While it goes against the How To Vote article, if the debaters themselves agree to allow it, I think it could be really cool. Also I think it would be a great way to teach new members how to vote (by having them take part in one, with one or two experienced voters).
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

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

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 1:04:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 9:58:14 AM, salam.morcos wrote:
TJ and I were critiquing each other's RFD's and an idea came up in my head. The idea is to allow Panel Voting on debates. This means that two (or more) voters would prepare the RFD's jointly and hash each others ideas and thoughts.

This of course has to be agreed upon by the debaters in R1. And the best combination of judges would be ones that have opposite view to the resolution. This would reduce bias.

In some cases, the two judges might not agree on certain points/contentions. That would be noted in the RFD. And if the final decision is also not agreed upon by both RFD's, they either award a tie, or provide separate RFD's.

Thoughts?

I don't see this option as preferable to having 3 independent judges who simply agree to judge the debate, however, it becomes a lot more economical to use your method when there are only 2 available judges, for a debate. You method would ensure that a winner was chosen in such a case, but again simply having 3 independent voters would be preferable to say 4 coupled-voters in your method. What's good about your method is that it not only makes the ability to chose a winner require less voters, but it does so in a way that makes the debaters think about RDF further and allows for a reduction in bias. Its a great idea, you should try it out. The only thing I would cut out is the ability for the voters to say 'screw this I disagree so I'm leaving'. If you do this you should go all the way, you know what I mean.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 1:22:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 11:21:36 AM, salam.morcos wrote:
At 7/8/2015 10:31:34 AM, whiteflame wrote:

Well, that's how British Parliamentary/Worlds debate tournaments do it, except it's usually 3 or more judges per panel. A problem you'll run into with this system is that the judges would come to different decisions and they'll be at an impasse, no matter how much they try to persuade the other. You could assign one of them a chair position that allows a sort of veto power, but that means that their skew on the debate will usually be paramount.

The other problem I foresee is that this expands on the time and energy required to judge a debate. Judges would have to get together in some manner, whether it's through Google +, using PMs, or some other means, to go through how they perceived the debate. This might require each of them writing up a separate RFD ahead of time. Then they discuss, which might take a while, and presumably come to a decision. Once that decision is reached, they will both want their ideas in the final RFD, so one or both of them will have to edit the RFDs to include the ideas of each judge.

Personally, I think individual voting just makes more sense in this setting. If we were all in the same room listening to people giving speeches and then going through what we'd written down, having a panel of judges would ensure that less is missed and bias is less of an issue. But that's if we're all in the same room, and we presumably respect each other. I wouldn't say that for all of DDO, especially for those that hold opposing opinions on contentious issues. Debaters would have to be very careful in judge selection, and the judges would have to be willing to go the extra mile by taking time out of their schedules to manage it. At a debate tournament, the time's set aside, and we can address what we saw immediately. It's not quite as simple for online debates.

Still, it might be worth having this as an option. It's not something I would choose, but if people are interested and judges are willing, it's worth pursuing.

Your points are very valid. There are a couple of approaches that can handle some of these issues. But there is no perfect science.

One approach would be that each debater would prepare their RFD first, and then share it with the other. They can discuss their differences and each will post their RFD separately, but only after receiving feedback from the other judge. This would help identify any errors they made in the evaluation, but they won't necessarily agree on all points. There will be little time impact.

Another way is for the two debaters to talk about the vote for a bit, and then each prepare their RFD separately. This how "reality shows" do their voting. They chat, but each comes to their conclusion.

I like the first approach better, because it would still be my analysis and work, but could be improved based on feedback from the other judge. I also argue that this can help make the judge a better voter.

I also agree that this can only happen if the two judges have a good relationship and are usually unbiased. Judge selection is important here or it will be an impasse on every item, and a debate on the debate.

And if I ever do this, it better be a great debate worth the effort. (Like the great ones of mine, and not the terrible ones of yours :P - Kidding of course)

I agree, I like the first idea better. The only concern I'd have would be with reputation affecting the outcome. The reality is that if I'm judging with someone who's relatively new, they may have some reason to defer to me. That doesn't mean I'm right (I've been wrong before), and it can result in a skewed decision that essentially means that I would have two votes and their vote is effectively eliminated. Just something to think on - perhaps put a mediator in on those PMs or live chats, someone to ensure that both sides are expressing a voice in the decision? Not sure on that one.