Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Vote reform

Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 1:20:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
So, basically anyone can create a new account and start voting. Its a potential source of problems for many reasons which I will not bother to go into here. What I want is to start a thread to generate some ideas/enthusiasm for better alternatives.

The current voting system can be kept in place, but it would be nice if the instigator could customize things a bit beyond "voting period".

1) Set a minimum account age for votes. Example: no one who joined 7 days before the debate started can vote.

2) Pre-set who can vote on the round. There's an obvious conflict of interest if the instigator can choose them all, so I'd propose letting pro and con both choose one judge, and letting those two judges pick a third judge they both trust.

It may seem a little cumbersome, but debaters might prefer it for very long, detailed, or ideologically charged debates.

3) Institute a judge-reputation system. Just a +/- next to their vote you can click on. If they votebomb, or don't give a reason for their vote, the negative rating could diminish their vote's weight. Similarly, judges who give reasonable and well thought out opinions might have heavier votes.

So you could put a coefficient in front of everyone's final vote points. The upper limit might be +20%, while the lower might be -80% (since there are a lot more lame voters).

Anyway, these are just rough ideas. As with any policies, there will be problems, but I hope this thread can get us thinking seriously about improving the voting system around here. Thanks.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 1:24:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 1:20:37 PM, Sieben wrote:
So, basically anyone can create a new account and start voting. Its a potential source of problems for many reasons which I will not bother to go into here. What I want is to start a thread to generate some ideas/enthusiasm for better alternatives.

The current voting system can be kept in place, but it would be nice if the instigator could customize things a bit beyond "voting period".

1) Set a minimum account age for votes. Example: no one who joined 7 days before the debate started can vote.

Maybe, maybe not.


2) Pre-set who can vote on the round. There's an obvious conflict of interest if the instigator can choose them all, so I'd propose letting pro and con both choose one judge, and letting those two judges pick a third judge they both trust.

That means members have an obligation to vote. Bad idea. What about n00bs who know no-one?


It may seem a little cumbersome, but debaters might prefer it for very long, detailed, or ideologically charged debates.

3) Institute a judge-reputation system. Just a +/- next to their vote you can click on. If they votebomb, or don't give a reason for their vote, the negative rating could diminish their vote's weight. Similarly, judges who give reasonable and well thought out opinions might have heavier votes.

So you could put a coefficient in front of everyone's final vote points. The upper limit might be +20%, while the lower might be -80% (since there are a lot more lame voters).

That just adds another dimension to vote bombing. Do not want. It just means DDO's cliques are more prevalent in voting.


Anyway, these are just rough ideas. As with any policies, there will be problems, but I hope this thread can get us thinking seriously about improving the voting system around here. Thanks.

Yeah. those ideas are bad, and not only that, even if they weren't, they would very be implemented, we had to work hard to get open voting to start with.

I think the phone registration is a decent if not anti-internationalism barrier at present. Easy to create multiple accounts, not so easy to have multiple phone numbers.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 2:11:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 1:24:18 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/16/2010 1:20:37 PM, Sieben wrote:
So, basically anyone can create a new account and start voting. Its a potential source of problems for many reasons which I will not bother to go into here. What I want is to start a thread to generate some ideas/enthusiasm for better alternatives.

The current voting system can be kept in place, but it would be nice if the instigator could customize things a bit beyond "voting period".

1) Set a minimum account age for votes. Example: no one who joined 7 days before the debate started can vote.

Maybe, maybe not.
Non response.


2) Pre-set who can vote on the round. There's an obvious conflict of interest if the instigator can choose them all, so I'd propose letting pro and con both choose one judge, and letting those two judges pick a third judge they both trust.

That means members have an obligation to vote.
Ideally you would have your judge consent to be picked.

Bad idea. What about n00bs who know no-one?
Its optional. The current voting system should be left as a "default" setting.

It may seem a little cumbersome, but debaters might prefer it for very long, detailed, or ideologically charged debates.

3) Institute a judge-reputation system. Just a +/- next to their vote you can click on. If they votebomb, or don't give a reason for their vote, the negative rating could diminish their vote's weight. Similarly, judges who give reasonable and well thought out opinions might have heavier votes.

So you could put a coefficient in front of everyone's final vote points. The upper limit might be +20%, while the lower might be -80% (since there are a lot more lame voters).


That just adds another dimension to vote bombing. Do not want. It just means DDO's cliques are more prevalent in voting.
You're worried people will vote bomb the judges? What? This is meant as a deterrent against votebombing and flippant voting... It's just a reputation mechanism.


Anyway, these are just rough ideas. As with any policies, there will be problems, but I hope this thread can get us thinking seriously about improving the voting system around here. Thanks.

Yeah. those ideas are bad,
You don't demonstrate enough comprehension of my post for me to take this seriously.

and not only that, even if they weren't, they would very be implemented, we had :to work hard to get open voting to start with.
They'd be hard to implement? Politically or technically?

I think the phone registration is a decent if not anti-internationalism barrier at present. Easy to create multiple accounts, not so easy to have multiple phone numbers.
This is good, but vote-quality can still be improved.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 2:21:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 2:11:55 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 9/16/2010 1:24:18 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/16/2010 1:20:37 PM, Sieben wrote:
So, basically anyone can create a new account and start voting. Its a potential source of problems for many reasons which I will not bother to go into here. What I want is to start a thread to generate some ideas/enthusiasm for better alternatives.

The current voting system can be kept in place, but it would be nice if the instigator could customize things a bit beyond "voting period".

1) Set a minimum account age for votes. Example: no one who joined 7 days before the debate started can vote.

Maybe, maybe not.
Non response.


2) Pre-set who can vote on the round. There's an obvious conflict of interest if the instigator can choose them all, so I'd propose letting pro and con both choose one judge, and letting those two judges pick a third judge they both trust.

That means members have an obligation to vote.
Ideally you would have your judge consent to be picked.

Ideally, but that just stalls debates for days until the judges are picked.


Bad idea. What about n00bs who know no-one?
Its optional. The current voting system should be left as a "default" setting.

Too much code for too little a reward.


It may seem a little cumbersome, but debaters might prefer it for very long, detailed, or ideologically charged debates.

3) Institute a judge-reputation system. Just a +/- next to their vote you can click on. If they votebomb, or don't give a reason for their vote, the negative rating could diminish their vote's weight. Similarly, judges who give reasonable and well thought out opinions might have heavier votes.

So you could put a coefficient in front of everyone's final vote points. The upper limit might be +20%, while the lower might be -80% (since there are a lot more lame voters).


That just adds another dimension to vote bombing. Do not want. It just means DDO's cliques are more prevalent in voting.
You're worried people will vote bomb the judges? What? This is meant as a deterrent against votebombing and flippant voting... It's just a reputation mechanism.

Yeah, people can keep voting down peoples vote so that they're to carries less a weight, ideal for a V-Bomber to vote up his own accounts so his own votes carry moar weight. Of course this is just an extension of popularity when it comes down to it, and will actually install elitism.



Anyway, these are just rough ideas. As with any policies, there will be problems, but I hope this thread can get us thinking seriously about improving the voting system around here. Thanks.

Yeah. those ideas are bad,
You don't demonstrate enough comprehension of my post for me to take this seriously

And you seriously didn't explain it well enough.


and not only that, even if they weren't, they would very be implemented, we had :to work hard to get open voting to start with.
They'd be hard to implement? Politically or technically?

Politically? Wut? Technically, obviously.


I think the phone registration is a decent if not anti-internationalism barrier at present. Easy to create multiple accounts, not so easy to have multiple phone numbers.
This is good, but vote-quality can still be improved.

Not by those means.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 2:40:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 2:21:21 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

That means members have an obligation to vote.
Ideally you would have your judge consent to be picked.

Ideally, but that just stalls debates for days until the judges are picked.
Choose them in advance? Again, its optional. If the instigator finds it inconvenient, they don't need to set it up this way. If the contender doesn't like the terms of the round, they don't need to join.

Bad idea. What about n00bs who know no-one?
Its optional. The current voting system should be left as a "default" setting.

Too much code for too little a reward.
Really? Its really short in pseudo code. It should be no problem for an experienced coder.

If votechoice==1, voteallow=1;

If votechoice==2, requiredprivileges=1;
if requiredprivileges==1 & myprivilege==1, voteallow=1;
else voteallow=0;

You're worried people will vote bomb the judges? What? This is meant as a deterrent against votebombing and flippant voting... It's just a reputation mechanism.

Yeah, people can keep voting down peoples vote so that they're to carries less a weight, ideal for a V-Bomber to vote up his own accounts so his own votes carry moar weight.
Even though a Vbomber can vote for himself, everyone else can vote against him too. You can also disallow voting for yourself, etc.

Of course this is just an extension of popularity when it comes down to it, and will actually install elitism.
Well, the "elitism" would be an extension of popularity at DDO. To deny my proposal on the grounds that it is "elite" is to deny that some votes ought to count more than others, and that popularity, the criterion by which rounds are already decided, is somehow a bad standard to rank judges.

Instead of rounds being decided on one-time popularity of the people following it, the reputation mechanism establishes a more general, long term popularity.



Anyway, these are just rough ideas. As with any policies, there will be problems, but I hope this thread can get us thinking seriously about improving the voting system around here. Thanks.

Yeah. those ideas are bad,
You don't demonstrate enough comprehension of my post for me to take this seriously

And you seriously didn't explain it well enough.
You're confused now? Why didn't you just ask me to clarify instead of critiquing my ideas?

and not only that, even if they weren't, they would very be implemented, we had :to work hard to get open voting to start with.
They'd be hard to implement? Politically or technically?

Politically? Wut? Technically, obviously.
As in, you might have a hard time getting the DDO community and admins to go along with it.

I think the phone registration is a decent if not anti-internationalism barrier at present. Easy to create multiple accounts, not so easy to have multiple phone numbers.
This is good, but vote-quality can still be improved.

Not by those means.
Because adding options on top of existing infrastructure always makes things worse? Sure...
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 4:38:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
What about:
Anyone who votes must leave a comment, similar to eBay's reputation system. I'm not a sore loser, but when I see a bunch of people leaving +7 points to my opponent and they don't leave a comment, I get upset. Also, voting for your own debates should be stopped.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 4:40:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Thanks for the feedback.

I agree that giving an RFD after your vote gives better closure on debates.

I'm not too concerned about voting for yourself though, since both debaters can do it. It's a little tacky tho :P
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 4:52:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 4:40:08 PM, Sieben wrote:
Thanks for the feedback.

I agree that giving an RFD after your vote gives better closure on debates.

I'm not too concerned about voting for yourself though, since both debaters can do it. It's a little tacky tho :P

I can't vote for myself.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 4:53:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 4:40:08 PM, Sieben wrote:
Thanks for the feedback.

I agree that giving an RFD after your vote gives better closure on debates.

I'm not too concerned about voting for yourself though, since both debaters can do it. It's a little tacky tho :P

The English cannot vote for themselves.
kfc
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 4:55:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
They mean that people from some countries can't vote at all. You can probably vote for yourself.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 7:43:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 5:03:36 PM, Sieben wrote:
really? Vote privileges are based on country?

Not exactly.
I'll let someone else explain it.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 7:53:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 7:43:35 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 9/16/2010 5:03:36 PM, Sieben wrote:
really? Vote privileges are based on country?

Not exactly.
I'll let someone else explain it.

In order to vote, you have to have a validation text sent to your phone. Problem is, it only works for American phone numbers.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2010 5:49:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Hmm, then user-selected voting would be able to get around this. You could allow foreign accounts to vote if they had been given permission by the debaters.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2010 11:42:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Only allowing selected users to vote on debates would significantly reduce actual voting on the site. Such a feature would discourage reading and voting on debates in general.

Sure there are a few abuses. However, with voting being public we can easily identify and apply social pressure on those who are abusing it. At the very least, we can get an explanation.

Also note that it is not as easy to vote as the OP claimed. You must have a cellphone in order to create a voting account.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2010 1:58:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/17/2010 11:42:46 AM, JBlake wrote:
Only allowing selected users to vote on debates would significantly reduce actual voting on the site. Such a feature would discourage reading and voting on debates in general.
This voting paradigm would be optional. The current one could be left as default.

Sure there are a few abuses. However, with voting being public we can easily identify and apply social pressure on those who are abusing it. At the very least, we can get an explanation.
You can't put social pressure on people who pass through the site temporarily. And some people just ignore it.
Also note that it is not as easy to vote as the OP claimed. You must have a cellphone in order to create a voting account.
There is still room for improvement.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...