Total Posts:1|Showing Posts:1-1
Lack of motive to be good debater.
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 11:14:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The model of DDO is one in which no one can selfishly thrive unless a series of people are so selfless that they make that person so good at debating that there no longer remains selfish motive to debate against them other than massive Elo gain which means that only rather irrational impulsive people would go for such a win and likely be a bad debater over all albeit they could fluke in one debate vs a pro.
The voting and any leaderboard other than the Elo are based on more=better and this is not at all rewarding as the person can never feel progress for quality and is likely to gradually lower their quality and increase their rate of gaining quantity as they grow bored of the actual act (such as voting) but have only the leaderboard place to look forward to in order to continue.
Additionally, due to lack of anonymity in voting, there slowly comes an issue with friends helping friends win and popularity being a major factor in who wins debates. Whether or not you agree with this in cases where an obvious domination was made by a far less popular debater, what you cannot deny is that if you see a close debate with your friend and another and you think they won, and they ask you to vote then you'll vote for them but if you see one that's close and you think they lost, you'd avoid voting on it at best. If it is a clear win for them you will 100% vote even if you're feeling lazy.
The issue with this is that the opposite also is true. Enemies LOVE voting against anyone they dislike and will dislike to be seen voting for someone they dislike even if they think they won.
The only real selfish motive in DDo seems to be to be popular and/or lack many enemies which is inherently biased towards people who prefer to be diplomatic and agreeable rather than aggressive and argumentative (which is the opposite of what debaters are).
If this community slowly began to allow certain levels of toxicity and accept verbal abuse to degrees what weren't having lasting impact on the victim, they would slowly build a reputation similar to Reddit but even more respectable since it would be 1v1 styled rather than everyone-throws-their-ideas-in. Making others angry and/or sad are very effective way to intimidate people into dropping a debate and such debaters get wiped out either by ban or hate-voting on this site.
The only times exceptions are for trolls whose victims are not themselves popular and only furthers the selfish motive to be popular which is the core problem to begin with.
Who is more terrifying; the one who is correct and successfully proves the liar wrong or the liar who successfully proves the correct one wrong?