Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

A Vital Suggestion

bobmac
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 7:28:05 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
As I am sure many people will agree, a vast number of debates are tied unfairly simply because no one has voted. Debates where people have worked hard to prove their point against lazy opponents who forfeit still are tied, because no one has voted.

Therefore, it is necessary that debate.org introduces a mandatory voting system, where (I have no evidence on the demographics of this website but I can make a guess) people have a debate assigned to them to vote once a day/week. Of course, the votes can be reported and removed to be assigned to another voter (giving punishments to those who do not vote well is an option). If this is not possible, a new option can be added to the length of the voting period (chosen by the creator of the debate). Instead of the period lasting ten day, it can last "5 votes".

I believe that a lack of voting is a very frustrating problem for many on this website. The options stated above and any ideas you have should be utilised to combat this.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 2:18:15 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
I don't agree that there ought to be mandatory voting. Some people ought not vote because they're not good at it, and that is unfair to the debaters.

But I think having debates "open" until, say, three votes have been made, rather than being "open" until a set time is not a bad idea. The problem is that it would require re-writing code and updating the web page, which Juggle is not inclined to do.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Vaarka
Posts: 7,653
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 2:45:29 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 2:18:15 PM, philochristos wrote:
I don't agree that there ought to be mandatory voting. Some people ought not vote because they're not good at it, and that is unfair to the debaters.

But I think having debates "open" until, say, three votes have been made, rather than being "open" until a set time is not a bad idea. The problem is that it would require re-writing code and updating the web page, which Juggle is not inclined to do.

I think we could combine them, possibly. Not the mandatory voting, but make it so that there is both a time limit and a vote minimum. The idea is that the challenger chooses how many points are necessary for someone to win, and they can choose between like 1 to 5 points, but if the ten days haven't run out yet, a debater can earn more than 5 points.

The shorten that, the challenger says how many votes are needed for a minimum, for the first 10 days, the number of points don't matter, but once the 10 days end, then the minimum point count comes in.

Of course, this could lead to never-ending debates because it never gets enough votes. Maybe instead of that, debates require at least 1 vote to end.
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCatX: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
Jeholopterus
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 4:10:38 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
To the first one I say, it is not a good idea to force people to vote. First they may be bad at it. Second it would be hard and time wasting to implement. Third few votes will actually have more than one vote on them which opens up the possibility of bias to come to play.

To the second idea I say, I like it very much though it requires aid from the owner of DDO, which I heard they are unwilling to give.

Here is my counter proposals.
First, we can have vote mods who sign up for the job, get evaluated, then go around voting on debates. I think it is a much better then forcing users to vote. Still it will be hard to find dedicated good voters.

Second, I think there should be a system where if I for example give a good vote on your debate you now owe me a vote. It shouldn't be flrced though.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 5:35:13 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 7:28:05 AM, bobmac wrote:
As I am sure many people will agree, a vast number of debates are tied unfairly simply because no one has voted. Debates where people have worked hard to prove their point against lazy opponents who forfeit still are tied, because no one has voted.

Therefore, it is necessary that debate.org introduces a mandatory voting system, where (I have no evidence on the demographics of this website but I can make a guess) people have a debate assigned to them to vote once a day/week. Of course, the votes can be reported and removed to be assigned to another voter (giving punishments to those who do not vote well is an option). If this is not possible, a new option can be added to the length of the voting period (chosen by the creator of the debate). Instead of the period lasting ten day, it can last "5 votes".

I believe that a lack of voting is a very frustrating problem for many on this website. The options stated above and any ideas you have should be utilised to combat this.

Just contact me if there is a forfeited round and the debate is at risk of tying. I will place a vote
diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid
Posts: 146
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 6:47:42 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 7:28:05 AM, bobmac wrote:
As I am sure many people will agree, a vast number of debates are tied unfairly simply because no one has voted. Debates where people have worked hard to prove their point against lazy opponents who forfeit still are tied, because no one has voted.

Therefore, it is necessary that debate.org introduces a mandatory voting system, where (I have no evidence on the demographics of this website but I can make a guess) people have a debate assigned to them to vote once a day/week. Of course, the votes can be reported and removed to be assigned to another voter (giving punishments to those who do not vote well is an option). If this is not possible, a new option can be added to the length of the voting period (chosen by the creator of the debate). Instead of the period lasting ten day, it can last "5 votes".

I believe that a lack of voting is a very frustrating problem for many on this website. The options stated above and any ideas you have should be utilised to combat this.

Didja ever try to go through and vote? I mean really make an effort to cut through the crap and develop an RFD.

Pro: Jibberish
Con: Gobbletygook
Pro: Nuh-huh
Con: forfeited turn
Pro: forfeited turn
Con: Boobies

Ummm... rfd.... ummm... Jibberish > Gobbletygook. Voting Pro.

And then there is the big ones.
Pro: ENTIRE ENCYCLOPEDIA
Con: ENTIRE BIBLE
PRO: ALL OF WIKIPEDIA TO REFUTE BIBLE
Con: ALL OF WOOKIPEDIA TO REFUTE ENCYCLOPEDIA
Pro: ALL OF REDDIT TO REFUTE ALL OF WIKIPEDIA
Con: ALL OF YAHOO TO REFUTE ALL OF REDDIT
Pro: REPEATING MYSELF BECAUSE YOU QUESTIONED WIKIPEDIA
Con: REPEATING MYSELF BECAUSE YOU QUESTIONED THE BIBLE
Pro: REPEATING MYSELF AGAIN BUT QUOTING YOU
Con: REPEATING YOU QUOTING ME REPEATING YOURSELF

Ummm. rfd...ummm... Vote to Pro for better sources. Con had spelling mistakes.