Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

intrinsic motivation and voting

Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 4:02:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There's this study where they got subjects to do puzzles, and some of them "failed" the puzzle and some of them got an aversive buzzer every time they made a mistake. Both those events, unsurprisingly, led to a drop in intrinsic motivation.

http://eric.ed.gov...

I suggest that getting a vote removed counts as a fail or as an aversive buzzer. It seems obvious to me that this sort of atmosphere takes all the fun out of voting. Further, the need to write paragraphs of RFD is boring. It used to be that people would write long RFDs sometimes, and it was great when they did, but now it's almost a requirement and it's tedious.

For example, consider this debate where (in my opinion) Con obviously won, and 3 votes for Con were removed:

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

Yes, the votes seemed brief, but it just seems so unfun to slap people down like that when they're voting in good faith. I think the votes should have stayed. They're not votebombs and Pro could have asked for clarification.

Especially, I don't like the way logical-master's vote was removed. He interpreted Pro's agreement as a concession, and the voting mod disagreed that it was. I also disagree that it was, but so what? Each voter should be allowed to interpret the debate as seems right to them. It shouldn't be that people's votes get removed because their judgments are different.

Anyway. The point is, I think this emphasis on quality and completeness of voting, and how voting is a privilege not a right etc., is damaging to everyone's intrinsic motivation to vote. Voting should be fun and it should be uncensored, short of the most obvious votebombs etc. Yes, it was always unfair and outrageous, but it's better that people are talking and voting rather than not, and people are free to choose judges anyway.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 4:25:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You should be able to give more than a sentence.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 4:30:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/9/2015 4:02:24 PM, Garbanza wrote:
There's this study where they got subjects to do puzzles, and some of them "failed" the puzzle and some of them got an aversive buzzer every time they made a mistake. Both those events, unsurprisingly, led to a drop in intrinsic motivation.

http://eric.ed.gov...

I suggest that getting a vote removed counts as a fail or as an aversive buzzer. It seems obvious to me that this sort of atmosphere takes all the fun out of voting. Further, the need to write paragraphs of RFD is boring. It used to be that people would write long RFDs sometimes, and it was great when they did, but now it's almost a requirement and it's tedious.

For example, consider this debate where (in my opinion) Con obviously won, and 3 votes for Con were removed:

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

Yes, the votes seemed brief, but it just seems so unfun to slap people down like that when they're voting in good faith. I think the votes should have stayed. They're not votebombs and Pro could have asked for clarification.

Especially, I don't like the way logical-master's vote was removed. He interpreted Pro's agreement as a concession, and the voting mod disagreed that it was. I also disagree that it was, but so what? Each voter should be allowed to interpret the debate as seems right to them. It shouldn't be that people's votes get removed because their judgments are different.

Anyway. The point is, I think this emphasis on quality and completeness of voting, and how voting is a privilege not a right etc., is damaging to everyone's intrinsic motivation to vote. Voting should be fun and it should be uncensored, short of the most obvious votebombs etc. Yes, it was always unfair and outrageous, but it's better that people are talking and voting rather than not, and people are free to choose judges anyway.

I won't comment on specific vote removals, as I don't think that's the point of having this conversation. The question is should we seek quantity or quality, and there are a lot of varied viewpoints on this. You're not alone in your opinion, as I've talked to many who share it. I've also talked to many who disagree.

My view is that the debaters put a lot of effort into their arguments, and the voters should be required to put substantial effort into theirs. I disagree that you have to write paragraphs in order to vote (though length difference may constitute the difference between a "good" vote and a "sufficient" vote), as many votes have passed moderation, even on very complex debates, on the basis that they sufficiently analyzed a couple of key issues and came to a clear decision. The thousand characters allocated for RFDs is more than enough to provide a basic assessment of the voter's reasoning.

Frankly, I don't think it's reasonable to resign debaters to accepting clearly insufficient RFDs. Even if they didn't assign a judging panel (and let's face it, if they did do that more often, then that would also reduce voter involvement), especially new debaters to the site shouldn't be faced with votes that state "I disagreed with you, and you had fewer sources, so your opponent gets 5 points." I think a debate site should be held to a higher standard than that.

But, again, this is a matter of opinion. What each of us wants for the site will differ. The rules we have are the ones I enforce, not my own opinion on what makes for a sufficient vote. We can always discuss those rules, and I think having a conversation about the standards we have in place is and whether to shift them around is appropriate. No matter where we set it, though, there will always be a quantity vs. quality issue.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 4:48:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/9/2015 4:30:37 PM, whiteflame wrote:
Frankly, I don't think it's reasonable to resign debaters to accepting clearly insufficient RFDs.

Yeah, but asking voters for an explanation would be a better first step.

Even if they didn't assign a judging panel (and let's face it, if they did do that more often, then that would also reduce voter involvement),

Yeah. Actually, I've always disliked the choosing judge option. It just seems so precious.

especially new debaters to the site shouldn't be faced with votes that state "I disagreed with you, and you had fewer sources, so your opponent gets 5 points." I think a debate site should be held to a higher standard than that.

Sure. I agree that that's not a great vote. But what to do about it is the thing. It's like, people shouldn't be rude, but that's not reason enough to slap them when they are.

No matter where we set it, though, there will always be a quantity vs. quality issue.

I don't agree that quantity and quality are at opposite ends of a linear dimension. Just watching other people get punished reduces the cooperative behavior of people who have never been punished themselves:

https://ideas.repec.org...

I think that seeing vote removal is enough to discourage people from voting, and that's a reduction of quantity AND quality.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 4:56:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/9/2015 4:48:44 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/9/2015 4:30:37 PM, whiteflame wrote:
Frankly, I don't think it's reasonable to resign debaters to accepting clearly insufficient RFDs.

Yeah, but asking voters for an explanation would be a better first step.

And that process would require an exponential increase to the amount of time I spend addressing votes on a nightly basis. Since I'm essentially working alone these days, that's not feasible.

Even if they didn't assign a judging panel (and let's face it, if they did do that more often, then that would also reduce voter involvement),

Yeah. Actually, I've always disliked the choosing judge option. It just seems so precious.

It's got its benefits and problems. Personally, Iike to leave judging open as well.

especially new debaters to the site shouldn't be faced with votes that state "I disagreed with you, and you had fewer sources, so your opponent gets 5 points." I think a debate site should be held to a higher standard than that.

Sure. I agree that that's not a great vote. But what to do about it is the thing. It's like, people shouldn't be rude, but that's not reason enough to slap them when they are.

I think sending a PM might seem less rude, but a) as I pointed out earlier, it requires more time on my part, b) the removal of a vote doesn't constitute a blanket statement that they cannot vote again, which seems to be the way a lot of people view it, c) voters can always contact me if they feel a vote was removed in error or if they'd like clarification on why it was removed, and d) having actually contacted some people due to borderline votes before removal, some actually view that process as more intrusive and rude.

No matter where we set it, though, there will always be a quantity vs. quality issue.

I don't agree that quantity and quality are at opposite ends of a linear dimension. Just watching other people get punished reduces the cooperative behavior of people who have never been punished themselves:

https://ideas.repec.org...

I think that seeing vote removal is enough to discourage people from voting, and that's a reduction of quantity AND quality.

I disagree, though I do realize that many are discouraged from voting (mainly due to misconceptions such as those you've presented in this thread about length). Part of the problem is that I think it is viewed as a punishment, which would be the same if I contacted someone for clarification and required that they give further details before responding to the problem. The only difference there is when they're allowed to respond: before or after the vote is removed. In both cases, however, their vote remains accessible to them (that's why we post them in the comments), and they have the ability to modify and re-post. If people view it as a punishment, they would in both cases, and that's not something I can control for. I don't think that allowing all votes, which is really the only option that doesn't include any perception of punishment, is a reasonable alternative.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 5:10:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/9/2015 4:56:54 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 11/9/2015 4:48:44 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/9/2015 4:30:37 PM, whiteflame wrote:
Frankly, I don't think it's reasonable to resign debaters to accepting clearly insufficient RFDs.

Yeah, but asking voters for an explanation would be a better first step.

And that process would require an exponential increase to the amount of time I spend addressing votes on a nightly basis. Since I'm essentially working alone these days, that's not feasible.

Of course! No, I meant that the debaters themselves could ask the voter for an explanation.

I think sending a PM might seem less rude, but a) as I pointed out earlier, it requires more time on my part, b) the removal of a vote doesn't constitute a blanket statement that they cannot vote again, which seems to be the way a lot of people view it, c) voters can always contact me if they feel a vote was removed in error or if they'd like clarification on why it was removed, and d) having actually contacted some people due to borderline votes before removal, some actually view that process as more intrusive and rude.

okay. Although, you'd need to contact people after votes were removed without discussion to compare, I suppose.

I disagree, though I do realize that many are discouraged from voting (mainly due to misconceptions such as those you've presented in this thread about length). Part of the problem is that I think it is viewed as a punishment, which would be the same if I contacted someone for clarification and required that they give further details before responding to the problem.

Yes, that's true. It shouldn't be you doing the contacting.

The only difference there is when they're allowed to respond: before or after the vote is removed. In both cases, however, their vote remains accessible to them (that's why we post them in the comments), and they have the ability to modify and re-post. If people view it as a punishment, they would in both cases, and that's not something I can control for. I don't think that allowing all votes, which is really the only option that doesn't include any perception of punishment, is a reasonable alternative.

Yeah. I suppose for me it doesn't seem so terrible that votes made in good faith should remain, even if they're not expressed particularly well.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 4:00:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/9/2015 5:10:01 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/9/2015 4:56:54 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 11/9/2015 4:48:44 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/9/2015 4:30:37 PM, whiteflame wrote:
Frankly, I don't think it's reasonable to resign debaters to accepting clearly insufficient RFDs.

Yeah, but asking voters for an explanation would be a better first step.

And that process would require an exponential increase to the amount of time I spend addressing votes on a nightly basis. Since I'm essentially working alone these days, that's not feasible.

Of course! No, I meant that the debaters themselves could ask the voter for an explanation.

That certainly has its benefits. If the voters want, they could actually contact the voter rather than reporting the vote. I'd say that's probably the better route, it's just not particularly enforceable. Even if it was, though, it does depend on the willingness of the voter to engage. My experience has been that most voters are willing, but I've run into a few.

I think sending a PM might seem less rude, but a) as I pointed out earlier, it requires more time on my part, b) the removal of a vote doesn't constitute a blanket statement that they cannot vote again, which seems to be the way a lot of people view it, c) voters can always contact me if they feel a vote was removed in error or if they'd like clarification on why it was removed, and d) having actually contacted some people due to borderline votes before removal, some actually view that process as more intrusive and rude.

okay. Although, you'd need to contact people after votes were removed without discussion to compare, I suppose.

We do actually contact people after a vote is removed, that's part of the process.

I disagree, though I do realize that many are discouraged from voting (mainly due to misconceptions such as those you've presented in this thread about length). Part of the problem is that I think it is viewed as a punishment, which would be the same if I contacted someone for clarification and required that they give further details before responding to the problem.

Yes, that's true. It shouldn't be you doing the contacting.

The only difference there is when they're allowed to respond: before or after the vote is removed. In both cases, however, their vote remains accessible to them (that's why we post them in the comments), and they have the ability to modify and re-post. If people view it as a punishment, they would in both cases, and that's not something I can control for. I don't think that allowing all votes, which is really the only option that doesn't include any perception of punishment, is a reasonable alternative.

Yeah. I suppose for me it doesn't seem so terrible that votes made in good faith should remain, even if they're not expressed particularly well.

Part of the problem, I suppose, is that we can't know what votes were made in good faith. Another part is that I think it pays to inform people as to what a good vote looks like, and try to get them to improve. I agree that there may be better ways to do that than by removing their votes, unfortunately there are few ways to get people to want to change and provide more feedback with their votes. I'd like it to be organic if it could, though, and I'm open to suggestions if you have any.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 4:39:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
now it's almost a requirement and it's tedious.

+1
Like
Share
Subscribed
Tweeded
Check my status
Commented
Discussing
Hashtaged

I really hate voting now. I mean I never really liked it, but I did it. Now I pretty much refuse to vote on anything unless I really want to read the debate and think about it because the topic interests me. I mean seriously, my time is better served reading what an expert in their field thinks about something than what a random person thinks about something, and then write a book report rather than an RFD.

I mean, seriously, if I have to write a 2 page RFD and still have it be removed because people cried about it. I mean, come on son. I obviously read the debate, and if you don't trust my judgment, then leave me alone meanie
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
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 5:05:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 4:39:34 AM, 16kadams wrote:
now it's almost a requirement and it's tedious.

+1
Like
Share
Subscribed
Tweeded
Check my status
Commented
Discussing
Hashtaged

I really hate voting now. I mean I never really liked it, but I did it. Now I pretty much refuse to vote on anything unless I really want to read the debate and think about it because the topic interests me. I mean seriously, my time is better served reading what an expert in their field thinks about something than what a random person thinks about something, and then write a book report rather than an RFD.

I mean, seriously, if I have to write a 2 page RFD and still have it be removed because people cried about it. I mean, come on son. I obviously read the debate, and if you don't trust my judgment, then leave me alone meanie

16k, I've posted in response to these kinds of statements before and I'll do it again: no one is requiring that you have a 2 page RFD for any debate whatsoever. I happen to know that I've removed none of your votes despite past reports because your votes, no matter how short, were always sufficient. I'm not sure why you've taken to the view that you have to write insanely long RFDs when your own experience shows that that's not the case.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 5:08:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 5:05:50 AM, whiteflame wrote:
At 11/10/2015 4:39:34 AM, 16kadams wrote:
now it's almost a requirement and it's tedious.

+1
Like
Share
Subscribed
Tweeded
Check my status
Commented
Discussing
Hashtaged

I really hate voting now. I mean I never really liked it, but I did it. Now I pretty much refuse to vote on anything unless I really want to read the debate and think about it because the topic interests me. I mean seriously, my time is better served reading what an expert in their field thinks about something than what a random person thinks about something, and then write a book report rather than an RFD.

I mean, seriously, if I have to write a 2 page RFD and still have it be removed because people cried about it. I mean, come on son. I obviously read the debate, and if you don't trust my judgment, then leave me alone meanie

16k, I've posted in response to these kinds of statements before and I'll do it again: no one is requiring that you have a 2 page RFD for any debate whatsoever. I happen to know that I've removed none of your votes despite past reports because your votes, no matter how short, were always sufficient. I'm not sure why you've taken to the view that you have to write insanely long RFDs when your own experience shows that that's not the case.

It is still kinda the standard. But I will try brevity until it gets me in trouble XD
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
Mikal
Posts: 11,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 5:11:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think their should be standards based on the quality of the debate.

If your doing a pro abortion debate, a better rfd will likely be expected than a debate about if the pope is the leader of the illuminati.

I'm in a similar boat with 16k. I see the need for high quality rfds and the value to them but I don't have the time to read and write out what is expected in the current meta. Like people are making forum posts to post an rfd.

Your going to vote for who you want regardless and chances are if you slap a noob on the hand and say fix your rfd he's just going to alter it and re spec it so it meets the meta requirements and still end up voting for the same person with just a smidge better logic. I wish there was a way to balance the current meta with less requirements. I would vote more myself if there was.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 5:48:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 5:11:01 AM, Mikal wrote:
I think their should be standards based on the quality of the debate.

If your doing a pro abortion debate, a better rfd will likely be expected than a debate about if the pope is the leader of the illuminati.


I'm in a similar boat with 16k. I see the need for high quality rfds and the value to them but I don't have the time to read and write out what is expected in the current meta. Like people are making forum posts to post an rfd.

Your going to vote for who you want regardless and chances are if you slap a noob on the hand and say fix your rfd he's just going to alter it and re spec it so it meets the meta requirements and still end up voting for the same person with just a smidge better logic. I wish there was a way to balance the current meta with less requirements. I would vote more myself if there was.

...I'm really not clear on why this perception is going around, and it's been very persistent for some reason. There's nothing in the standards that forces you to post overlong votes. There's nothing in the standards that forces anyone to post more than 1000 characters at all, which is usually more than enough to post a sufficient vote. Yes, some people (like me) post long votes, including many in the forums in order to have a stable link to refer back to (and so that we don't have to post 10 comments). Just because we do it doesn't mean that that's become the standard. I don't know what you think is now required of you, but the standards are clear and posted for everyone to see. And yes, I enforce them the same across the board. So long as the debate isn't a troll debate or a full forfeit, it's worthy of the same moderation as any other.

Yes, voters can simply alter votes to meet those standards after they're removed - in fact, that's what I'm hoping they do. I'm not sure why you're presenting that as a problem. I hope people look at the vote removals, add the necessary pieces to make their votes sufficient, and re-post them.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 5:50:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 5:08:15 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 11/10/2015 5:05:50 AM, whiteflame wrote:
At 11/10/2015 4:39:34 AM, 16kadams wrote:
now it's almost a requirement and it's tedious.

+1
Like
Share
Subscribed
Tweeded
Check my status
Commented
Discussing
Hashtaged

I really hate voting now. I mean I never really liked it, but I did it. Now I pretty much refuse to vote on anything unless I really want to read the debate and think about it because the topic interests me. I mean seriously, my time is better served reading what an expert in their field thinks about something than what a random person thinks about something, and then write a book report rather than an RFD.

I mean, seriously, if I have to write a 2 page RFD and still have it be removed because people cried about it. I mean, come on son. I obviously read the debate, and if you don't trust my judgment, then leave me alone meanie

16k, I've posted in response to these kinds of statements before and I'll do it again: no one is requiring that you have a 2 page RFD for any debate whatsoever. I happen to know that I've removed none of your votes despite past reports because your votes, no matter how short, were always sufficient. I'm not sure why you've taken to the view that you have to write insanely long RFDs when your own experience shows that that's not the case.

It is still kinda the standard. But I will try brevity until it gets me in trouble XD

I'm still not getting this. Where are you getting the idea that long votes are the standard?
Insignifica
Posts: 285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 6:16:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 5:48:51 AM, whiteflame wrote:

...I'm really not clear on why this perception is going around, and it's been very persistent for some reason. There's nothing in the standards that forces you to post overlong votes. There's nothing in the standards that forces anyone to post more than 1000 characters at all, which is usually more than enough to post a sufficient vote.

I think it's more about what's socially acceptable on the site than it is about what's permitted by voting moderation. Community expectations are much higher than they once were, so that now voters get yelled at by angry debaters unless their RFDs are extremely thorough (and even then, sometimes). The only solution I can think of is to form a union of voters devoted to leaving nothing more than single-comment, 2000-character RFDs on all high-profile debates. Maybe that will help reduce community voting standards, lol.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 4:44:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'd say the problem here is that you assume a little motivation is more important than passing the test. In reality, anyone who *wants* to pass, while they may fail the first time, will do better next time and pass. The people who fail continuously until they give up are usually the bad voters we don't want voting.

Anyone who is actually trying to vote well will eventually learn and do better long before quitting.

While the study does claim there is less motivation, the problem you're forgetting is that, despite all of that... They still failed the test. And when someone's debate is on the line, that matters. Consider my debate with Emil.

The BIGGEST thing you forget, is that bad voting does far more to discourage good debating than regulations do to discourage voting. I know debaters who don't debate anymore because of bad voting. Bluesteel almost left over it.

Regulations don't discourage voting. It discourage bad voting. Which is exactly the point.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 6:06:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 5:11:01 AM, Mikal wrote:
I don't have the time to read and write out what is expected in the current meta. Like people are making forum posts to post an rfd.

Then you shouldn't be voting. I don't understand this perception among voters where they feel that awarding points to a debater is some type of desirable thing.

If you don't have time, why not leave a comment with your thoughts on the debate and not actually award points? You could just leave a one-liner and the mod wouldn't do anything to stray comments and the debaters get the feedback they need.

Personally I think it stems from the psyche of some people where they feel that by awarding points, they are wielding a position of power and would like to exercise it. There really is nothing wrong with simply providing feedback and leaving it at that.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 6:17:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 6:16:23 AM, Insignifica wrote:
At 11/10/2015 5:48:51 AM, whiteflame wrote:

...I'm really not clear on why this perception is going around, and it's been very persistent for some reason. There's nothing in the standards that forces you to post overlong votes. There's nothing in the standards that forces anyone to post more than 1000 characters at all, which is usually more than enough to post a sufficient vote.

I think it's more about what's socially acceptable on the site than it is about what's permitted by voting moderation. Community expectations are much higher than they once were, so that now voters get yelled at by angry debaters unless their RFDs are extremely thorough (and even then, sometimes). The only solution I can think of is to form a union of voters devoted to leaving nothing more than single-comment, 2000-character RFDs on all high-profile debates. Maybe that will help reduce community voting standards, lol.

+1
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 6:30:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 6:16:23 AM, Insignifica wrote:
At 11/10/2015 5:48:51 AM, whiteflame wrote:

...I'm really not clear on why this perception is going around, and it's been very persistent for some reason. There's nothing in the standards that forces you to post overlong votes. There's nothing in the standards that forces anyone to post more than 1000 characters at all, which is usually more than enough to post a sufficient vote.

I think it's more about what's socially acceptable on the site than it is about what's permitted by voting moderation. Community expectations are much higher than they once were, so that now voters get yelled at by angry debaters unless their RFDs are extremely thorough (and even then, sometimes). The only solution I can think of is to form a union of voters devoted to leaving nothing more than single-comment, 2000-character RFDs on all high-profile debates. Maybe that will help reduce community voting standards, lol.

I agree that some members of the community expect a higher standard in the votes that come up on their debates, and that's the reason bsh1, airmax and I are working on an opt-in system that debaters can use to set a higher standard for voting. If they don't use it, then that's their choice and complaining about the votes will get them nowhere. Honestly, voters complaining about individual votes they find flaws with is not something we can really solve for. It happens. All we can do is enforce the rules as they stand.

This is a debating website, and people should be able to take some criticism of their votes. Hell, I've had my votes roundly criticized a few times by bluesteel and YYW, but you don't see me slowing down. I realize that I have a little more drive than most to vote, but I think the mentality that voters bring to debates - one of simply wanting to provide feedback without receiving any criticism for their views in return - is a little naive.
Mikal
Posts: 11,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 6:35:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 5:48:51 AM, whiteflame wrote:
At 11/10/2015 5:11:01 AM, Mikal wrote:
I think their should be standards based on the quality of the debate.

If your doing a pro abortion debate, a better rfd will likely be expected than a debate about if the pope is the leader of the illuminati.


I'm in a similar boat with 16k. I see the need for high quality rfds and the value to them but I don't have the time to read and write out what is expected in the current meta. Like people are making forum posts to post an rfd.

Your going to vote for who you want regardless and chances are if you slap a noob on the hand and say fix your rfd he's just going to alter it and re spec it so it meets the meta requirements and still end up voting for the same person with just a smidge better logic. I wish there was a way to balance the current meta with less requirements. I would vote more myself if there was.

...I'm really not clear on why this perception is going around, and it's been very persistent for some reason. There's nothing in the standards that forces you to post overlong votes. There's nothing in the standards that forces anyone to post more than 1000 characters at all, which is usually more than enough to post a sufficient vote. Yes, some people (like me) post long votes, including many in the forums in order to have a stable link to refer back to (and so that we don't have to post 10 comments). Just because we do it doesn't mean that that's become the standard. I don't know what you think is now required of you, but the standards are clear and posted for everyone to see. And yes, I enforce them the same across the board. So long as the debate isn't a troll debate or a full forfeit, it's worthy of the same moderation as any other.

Yes, voters can simply alter votes to meet those standards after they're removed - in fact, that's what I'm hoping they do. I'm not sure why you're presenting that as a problem. I hope people look at the vote removals, add the necessary pieces to make their votes sufficient, and re-post them.

It has nothing to do with moderation, you do a great job. Im bickering withe meta. By meta i mean community consensus among established members on how voting should be done. I can post a three line rfd and have it stick. The flack people catch from it is rough though. The expected standard is a blazing long rfd.

Again the standard im refering to is a community consenus not moderation standards
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 7:08:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 6:35:34 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 11/10/2015 5:48:51 AM, whiteflame wrote:
At 11/10/2015 5:11:01 AM, Mikal wrote:
I think their should be standards based on the quality of the debate.

If your doing a pro abortion debate, a better rfd will likely be expected than a debate about if the pope is the leader of the illuminati.


I'm in a similar boat with 16k. I see the need for high quality rfds and the value to them but I don't have the time to read and write out what is expected in the current meta. Like people are making forum posts to post an rfd.

Your going to vote for who you want regardless and chances are if you slap a noob on the hand and say fix your rfd he's just going to alter it and re spec it so it meets the meta requirements and still end up voting for the same person with just a smidge better logic. I wish there was a way to balance the current meta with less requirements. I would vote more myself if there was.

...I'm really not clear on why this perception is going around, and it's been very persistent for some reason. There's nothing in the standards that forces you to post overlong votes. There's nothing in the standards that forces anyone to post more than 1000 characters at all, which is usually more than enough to post a sufficient vote. Yes, some people (like me) post long votes, including many in the forums in order to have a stable link to refer back to (and so that we don't have to post 10 comments). Just because we do it doesn't mean that that's become the standard. I don't know what you think is now required of you, but the standards are clear and posted for everyone to see. And yes, I enforce them the same across the board. So long as the debate isn't a troll debate or a full forfeit, it's worthy of the same moderation as any other.

Yes, voters can simply alter votes to meet those standards after they're removed - in fact, that's what I'm hoping they do. I'm not sure why you're presenting that as a problem. I hope people look at the vote removals, add the necessary pieces to make their votes sufficient, and re-post them.

It has nothing to do with moderation, you do a great job. Im bickering withe meta. By meta i mean community consensus among established members on how voting should be done. I can post a three line rfd and have it stick. The flack people catch from it is rough though. The expected standard is a blazing long rfd.

Again the standard im refering to is a community consenus not moderation standards

Ah, so you're following along similar lines to what Insignifica mentioned. I agree there's little room for discourse on the issue, and perhaps others should view the voting process more liberally. Many of us come from backgrounds of competitive debate, and perhaps translating the standards we expect from those to the site has become problematic. That's part of the reason we're building the opt-in standards, which will hopefully make clearer where people want those expectations to be met and where they can be more loosely applied. That doesn't solve the problem you're talking about, of course. It's a mentality. I think it's worth having more discussions about what constitutes a reasonable vote, though that does require that people be open to engaging in it.
Mikal
Posts: 11,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 7:30:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 7:08:38 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 11/10/2015 6:35:34 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 11/10/2015 5:48:51 AM, whiteflame wrote:
At 11/10/2015 5:11:01 AM, Mikal wrote:
I think their should be standards based on the quality of the debate.

If your doing a pro abortion debate, a better rfd will likely be expected than a debate about if the pope is the leader of the illuminati.


I'm in a similar boat with 16k. I see the need for high quality rfds and the value to them but I don't have the time to read and write out what is expected in the current meta. Like people are making forum posts to post an rfd.

Your going to vote for who you want regardless and chances are if you slap a noob on the hand and say fix your rfd he's just going to alter it and re spec it so it meets the meta requirements and still end up voting for the same person with just a smidge better logic. I wish there was a way to balance the current meta with less requirements. I would vote more myself if there was.

...I'm really not clear on why this perception is going around, and it's been very persistent for some reason. There's nothing in the standards that forces you to post overlong votes. There's nothing in the standards that forces anyone to post more than 1000 characters at all, which is usually more than enough to post a sufficient vote. Yes, some people (like me) post long votes, including many in the forums in order to have a stable link to refer back to (and so that we don't have to post 10 comments). Just because we do it doesn't mean that that's become the standard. I don't know what you think is now required of you, but the standards are clear and posted for everyone to see. And yes, I enforce them the same across the board. So long as the debate isn't a troll debate or a full forfeit, it's worthy of the same moderation as any other.

Yes, voters can simply alter votes to meet those standards after they're removed - in fact, that's what I'm hoping they do. I'm not sure why you're presenting that as a problem. I hope people look at the vote removals, add the necessary pieces to make their votes sufficient, and re-post them.

It has nothing to do with moderation, you do a great job. Im bickering withe meta. By meta i mean community consensus among established members on how voting should be done. I can post a three line rfd and have it stick. The flack people catch from it is rough though. The expected standard is a blazing long rfd.

Again the standard im refering to is a community consenus not moderation standards

Ah, so you're following along similar lines to what Insignifica mentioned. I agree there's little room for discourse on the issue, and perhaps others should view the voting process more liberally. Many of us come from backgrounds of competitive debate, and perhaps translating the standards we expect from those to the site has become problematic. That's part of the reason we're building the opt-in standards, which will hopefully make clearer where people want those expectations to be met and where they can be more loosely applied. That doesn't solve the problem you're talking about, of course. It's a mentality. I think it's worth having more discussions about what constitutes a reasonable vote, though that does require that people be open to engaging in it.

It will at some point come to a viable median, but as you said it requires feedback and participation
Beginner
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 8:15:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Conversely you can say that poor votes will cause poor debates because you could just as easily win debates with little to no effort if you can solicit a bunch of poor, biased votes.
Makes people like me wonder why I even put the effort I do into my debates when one or two people come in with one liners that ignore every point made in the debate by either side.
If votes are just going to suck and not cover the debate's important points - points that debaters spend countless hours hashing out - then what's the point of debaters even trying?
I don't think it's fair to just give voters all the leeway since it merely punishes the debaters. Seriously. We work hard. If you're not going to put a smidgen of effort into weighing your vote, then it deserves to be removed.
Senpai has noticed you.