Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Need Judges

Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 4:36:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
J.Kenyon and I will debate about Shari'a Law, and we probably want specific voters who can judge neutrally. So far, we are sure about RoyLatham and Kleptin, if they are willing to judge, but if there are people here who are sure about their neutrality and fairness, then they can tell it and be part of the judge group.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 5:18:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 5:06:45 AM, Puck wrote:
Sure.
Thank you.

RoyLatham
Kleptin
Puck

So far, Puck is the only accepted one because I need to see if the others are willing.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 6:32:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm willing, but i don't know if you trust me. You might look through some of my RFDs to see if you agree.

My (self proclaimed) judging philosophy is tabula rasa. Debaters have to not only make arguments, but weigh them. I don't want to have to figure out the debate round for myself.

So, if the debate is over what the best food to eat is, and if A says "Potatoes are rich in vitamin A" and B says "Apples are rich in vitamin C"... I'm like wtf you haven't weighed your arguments. I don't want to have to go look up vitamins on my own. I may as well just go research the resolution, ignore the debaters, and come up with my own opinion.

So I'm happy to judge rounds where debaters spell everything out, flow arguments, etc..
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 6:37:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 6:32:18 AM, Sieben wrote:
I'm willing, but i don't know if you trust me. You might look through some of my RFDs to see if you agree.

My (self proclaimed) judging philosophy is tabula rasa. Debaters have to not only make arguments, but weigh them. I don't want to have to figure out the debate round for myself.

So, if the debate is over what the best food to eat is, and if A says "Potatoes are rich in vitamin A" and B says "Apples are rich in vitamin C"... I'm like wtf you haven't weighed your arguments. I don't want to have to go look up vitamins on my own. I may as well just go research the resolution, ignore the debaters, and come up with my own opinion.

So I'm happy to judge rounds where debaters spell everything out, flow arguments, etc..
Well, as long as you can remain neutral and vote fairly on the one that you think has gotten the best arguments, it will be fine.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 6:48:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 6:42:30 AM, Kahvan wrote:
I would be willing an believe that I could keep a neutral view and judge based off of the voting criteria
I was unsure about religious voters, but I will talk to J.Kenyon about that.

You, m93samman, and popculturepooka can come if we agree for religious judges.
Kahvan
Posts: 1,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 7:30:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 6:48:00 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/20/2010 6:42:30 AM, Kahvan wrote:
I would be willing an believe that I could keep a neutral view and judge based off of the voting criteria
I was unsure about religious voters, but I will talk to J.Kenyon about that.

You, m93samman, and popculturepooka can come if we agree for religious judges.

I can assure that no matter what the debate is that I can be a neutral voter. I always vote based off of the voting criteria presented on this site.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 10:33:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 7:30:09 AM, Kahvan wrote:
I can assure that no matter what the debate is that I can be a neutral voter. I always vote based off of the voting criteria presented on this site.
I believe in that.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 11:29:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 11:26:52 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I may be interested. I tend to vote neutrally anyway.
OK. As long as we do not get some extremely biased people to vote. I wish there were an option to choose specific voters where both debates agree upon them.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 11:31:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 11:29:45 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/20/2010 11:26:52 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I may be interested. I tend to vote neutrally anyway.
OK. As long as we do not get some extremely biased people to vote. I wish there were an option to choose specific voters where both debates agree upon them.

Yea, but there's not so the only way to counter vote-bombing is to get people who will vote fairly I suppose.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 12:15:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Sounds interesting - I'll judge
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
XYZABC
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 2:22:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Lurker and first time poster here. I'm curious how you'll arrange the judging.

There are two (or more) ways how this can be done:

1. The LaissezFaire-Sieben method where all judges take a straw poll in the comments section, and after a majority makes a decision, all judges cast all official votes the same way all for one side, presumably 7-0 on all votes, to reinforce the decision and counter any "vote bombing." It's possible a judge may break the agreement, but hopefully not enough to change the outcome.

2. Every judge casts an official vote his or her way, as he or she pleases. In reality, you recruited committed voters, who would counter any low turnout.

---

There also a Sieben suggestion of "wild cat" judging, where one side picks a judge, the other side picks another judge, and both judges then pick a third judge.

But a large judging panel may work as well, I guess.

---

But whatever you decide, any judging rules (and names of judges) should be written out in the first round by the instigator, and the contender may then accept or decline.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 3:12:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I think the method previously mentioned is iffy. It basically distinguishes only certain voters of being worthy of having an opinion and working to purposefully cancel out any "non chosen" judges. Sure you can say it's only for this debate, but doesn't every debater want unbiased voters on every debate? So what's to stop this from becoming a trend where we only allow certain people's opinions to matter? When I said in the past that voting straight 7s to the obvious winner was acceptable, Kleptin rightly pointed out that it doesn't work because there are some voters who actually follow the categories regarding the point system. So for instance if Roy, Kleptin and Puck think Mirza won but Lwerd, JBlake and Cody Franklin think Kenyon won then our votes won't count because weren't "chosen" as judges and our votes will be effectively canceled out? Whoooakay lol.
President of DDO
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 3:15:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
theLwerd, I only want to avoid unfair/biased voting, which is why I ask for trustful member to vote. They can vote as they wish, as long as they vote neutrally, and I am sure that these will do that. J.Kenyon asked about you, but I thought you were going to be off soon.
XYZABC
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 4:02:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 3:12:16 PM, theLwerd wrote:
When I said in the past that voting straight 7s to the obvious winner was acceptable, Kleptin rightly pointed out that it doesn't work because there are some voters who actually follow the categories regarding the point system.

There's a very real possibility a pre-selected judge or judges defect from the agreement (Option #1) , but perhaps not enough to change the outcome.

If enough judges defect, then the voting simply reverts back to the status quo, i.e. judges can vote any way then want.

But nobody can be sure what would happen, unless debaters actually try Option #1.

---

But it seems Mirza has already decided on a Option #2, i.e. committed voters who can vote any way they want, so that option would obviously preserve the point system.

So for instance if Roy, Kleptin and Puck think Mirza won but Lwerd, JBlake and Cody Franklin think Kenyon won then our votes won't count because weren't "chosen" as judges and our votes will be effectively canceled out? Whoooakay lol.

If many on debate.org disagree with the judges decision, they can still casts votes and reverse the judges decision, in other words voter nullification.

XYZ - Let me guess. You're an anarchist. Amirite?

Not sure why that matters, but if you must know, I am an acquaintance of Sieben.

By the way, have you seen this debate (and comments), I think you'd get a laugh out of this:

http://www.debate.org...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 4:15:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 3:15:49 PM, Mirza wrote:
theLwerd, I only want to avoid unfair/biased voting, which is why I ask for trustful member to vote.

Nobody's ever been able to prevent biased voters from voting in the past...

They can vote as they wish, as long as they vote neutrally, and I am sure that these will do that.

But anybody can vote however they want, and how will you know if it's neutrally?

J.Kenyon asked about you, but I thought you were going to be off soon.

Myself and others can vote whether you guys ask us to or not.
President of DDO
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 4:24:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 4:15:06 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Nobody's ever been able to prevent biased voters from voting in the past...
Exactly, which is why I want to make sure that I get neutral voters even though biased ones may come.

But anybody can vote however they want, and how will you know if it's neutrally?
The ones J.Kenyon and I picked are fairly neutral.

Myself and others can vote whether you guys ask us to or not.
We want to make sure that you vote. If we have 5 biased voters, then we still have neutral ones at stake.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 8:18:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 3:12:16 PM, theLwerd wrote:
I think the method previously mentioned is iffy. It basically distinguishes only certain voters of being worthy of having an opinion and working to purposefully cancel out any "non chosen" judges. Sure you can say it's only for this debate, but doesn't every debater want unbiased voters on every debate? So what's to stop this from becoming a trend where we only allow certain people's opinions to matter? When I said in the past that voting straight 7s to the obvious winner was acceptable, Kleptin rightly pointed out that it doesn't work because there are some voters who actually follow the categories regarding the point system. So for instance if Roy, Kleptin and Puck think Mirza won but Lwerd, JBlake and Cody Franklin think Kenyon won then our votes won't count because weren't "chosen" as judges and our votes will be effectively canceled out? Whoooakay lol.

Theoretically, everyone on this site should vote straight 7's to the winner. If this were a game theory game, and there were two options for each player: 1) "follow the voting rules" and 2) "defect" (vote straight 7's, in this case), then as long as you cannot guarantee that everyone will follow the rules, it makes sense to defect or your vote counts less. This would counter Kleptin's argument above because vote bombers and newbies vote straight 7's, so your vote already counts for less.

It's already perplexing to me that it might take me 20 minutes to read a full debate (at someone's request) and vote 3 or 4 points to try to counter 2 vote bombers who took 1 minute to create an account and vote 14 points to someone without reading the debate at all. In a good debate (spelling, decorum, citations being equal), it would take 3 "legitimate judges" to completely counter one vote bomber.

So maybe everyone on this site should establish a new norm: all judges should vote all 7 points to the "winner" (the side they would vote for in a policy/LD/pofo/parli competitive debate).

I can't speak for everyone, but I think it's strange, coming from policy debate, that only 3 points are award to "the better argument." In competitive debate events, the entire round (theoretically equivalent to all 7 points) is awarded to the person who "did the better debating." There are speaker points (for courtesy, better use of citations, etc), but a "win" matters far more than getting really good speaker points. If legitimate members of the site continue to follow the rules, I think the "better argument" category should at least be weighted a lot more.

I like the proposed system - decide on a winner in the comments section, all "assigned judges" vote straight 7's to the winner. It counters vote bombing. Any other non-assigned judges could simply choose to acknowledge the voting standards set forth (for this round only) and vote straight 7's as well. Debates on this site often have unconventional rules for a particular debate - why can't you also urge the judges (during round 1) to alter their judging behavior for that one debate only?

But I'm not sure if countering vote bombing is Mirza's intent here, so it may not be desirable, depending on his and J.Kenyon's intentions.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 8:46:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 8:18:09 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Theoretically, everyone on this site should vote straight 7's to the winner. If this were a game theory game, and there were two options for each player: 1) "follow the voting rules" and 2) "defect" (vote straight 7's, in this case), then as long as you cannot guarantee that everyone will follow the rules, it makes sense to defect or your vote counts less. This would counter Kleptin's argument above because vote bombers and newbies vote straight 7's, so your vote already counts for less.

You can always go back and change your vote if someone defects. Tit-for-tat ;)

I can't speak for everyone, but I think it's strange, coming from policy debate, that only 3 points are award to "the better argument." In competitive debate events, the entire round (theoretically equivalent to all 7 points) is awarded to the person who "did the better debating." There are speaker points (for courtesy, better use of citations, etc), but a "win" matters far more than getting really good speaker points. If legitimate members of the site continue to follow the rules, I think the "better argument" category should at least be weighted a lot more.

Agreed.

I like the proposed system - decide on a winner in the comments section, all "assigned judges" vote straight 7's to the winner. It counters vote bombing. Any other non-assigned judges could simply choose to acknowledge the voting standards set forth (for this round only) and vote straight 7's as well. Debates on this site often have unconventional rules for a particular debate - why can't you also urge the judges (during round 1) to alter their judging behavior for that one debate only?

But I'm not sure if countering vote bombing is Mirza's intent here, so it may not be desirable, depending on his and J.Kenyon's intentions.

Yeah, basically. Mirza's paranoid about votebombers.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 8:59:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 8:46:13 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/20/2010 8:18:09 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Theoretically, everyone on this site should vote straight 7's to the winner. If this were a game theory game, and there were two options for each player: 1) "follow the voting rules" and 2) "defect" (vote straight 7's, in this case), then as long as you cannot guarantee that everyone will follow the rules, it makes sense to defect or your vote counts less. This would counter Kleptin's argument above because vote bombers and newbies vote straight 7's, so your vote already counts for less.

You can always go back and change your vote if someone defects. Tit-for-tat ;)


Wow - that's seriously genius. Perfect game theory solution. If only potential defectors knew they were playing a tit-for-tat game...

I can't speak for everyone, but I think it's strange, coming from policy debate, that only 3 points are award to "the better argument." In competitive debate events, the entire round (theoretically equivalent to all 7 points) is awarded to the person who "did the better debating." There are speaker points (for courtesy, better use of citations, etc), but a "win" matters far more than getting really good speaker points. If legitimate members of the site continue to follow the rules, I think the "better argument" category should at least be weighted a lot more.

Agreed.

I like the proposed system - decide on a winner in the comments section, all "assigned judges" vote straight 7's to the winner. It counters vote bombing. Any other non-assigned judges could simply choose to acknowledge the voting standards set forth (for this round only) and vote straight 7's as well. Debates on this site often have unconventional rules for a particular debate - why can't you also urge the judges (during round 1) to alter their judging behavior for that one debate only?

But I'm not sure if countering vote bombing is Mirza's intent here, so it may not be desirable, depending on his and J.Kenyon's intentions.

Yeah, basically. Mirza's paranoid about votebombers.

Then shouldn't he use the system that's been outlined above - all his designated judges should vote in the comments section. Even if the vote is split 5-4, for example, all designated judges vote all 7 points to the decided winner. If other judges, like Lwerd, want to later cast their votes, they should adhere to a 7 point, all or nothing, standard for this debate only.

Or, alternatively, each judge just does his or her own thing. Whenever anyone vote bombs the debate (Mirza and J.Kenyon agree that the person is a vote-bomber), enough designated judges will switch their votes to "all 7 points" to counter-act the vote-bombing. This seems pretty complicated though.

Alternatively, you could have a group of "non-voting members," instead of "designated judges," who agree NOT TO judge and just save their votes for the sole purpose of counteracting vote bombers.

The first option seems the best solution to me, though.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)