Total Posts:100|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Let's end Vote Bombing

TUF
Posts: 21,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 6:39:40 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Today this forum post is on Vote-bombs. This forum post is inspired by an issue that has been noticed in the voting guidelines, and while there is already a topic related to this, I was asked by the moderator (Airmax1227) to make a separate thread to discuss some ideas. I will do my best to be open minded in this discussion and ask that we avoid a "nay-saying" response and if there is criticism or dis-agreement with anything mentioned here, that it is provided in a detailed and reasoned critique.

My question is what qualifies as a vote bomb? I am sure everyone will have different answers to this. My understanding of a vote bomb is rather simple though, and that is voting on a debate you haven"t bothered to read. That"s it. If you are voting without having fully given both debaters proper credence to their arguments, you are, in my eyes, a vote bomber.

While I feel like the current vote moderation is very strong, I feel like there are some cracks and loop holes in it that occasionally will let vote bombs slip through, and it is to this point, I would like to address a change. As of right now, you can miss (forfeit) one round in a debate, and will most likely lose no matter what simply for forfeiting that round. It doesn"t matter if you had the best argument in the world, that red-line will mostly likely result in a conduct point against you in the voting period (or if it"s a select winner option, the entire vote).

Now in the other thread started by DK, I heard some rebuttals to this. It seems a few people are in with the idea that not reading a debate and voting is okay in a situation where one has forfeited, where generally this standard isn"t accepted elsewhere. Another response is that vote bombing for the non-forfeiter is better than ending in a tie. I disagree with these concepts strongly.

It promotes laziness. In two ways: The voter is obviously encouraged to cast votes without reasons, but also what drive does the debater have to continue a debate after forfeited a round. He knows that is chances of his arguments being read are considerably lower, because a vote bomb will be accepted against him for missing one round. Does that mean that the rest of the debate automatically isn"t worth reading? With the current legal vote bombs on one rounded forfeited debates, there is no incentive to continue arguing after a forfeit. Now sure, forfeiting is going to impact your argument negatively, but does that mean you automatically had the worst case?

Let"s take a second and analyze what a vote actually means. When you are voting someone to actually win a debate, that means you believe that they had the more convincing arguments. That means whatever they said in that round, you felt they were more convincing, and you are thus awarding them the win. Even a single conduct point in the seven point system virtually means that. What if I clicked on a debate, saw one mis-spelled word on one side, and awarded just a spelling and grammar point while not reading the rest of the debate? Would that not be considered a vote bomb? The issue is entirely the same with forfeited debates. You are taking one criteria, and cross applying it to the entire debate. I have used this example before, and I"ll use it again: For all you know, the non-forfeiter was spamming for 4-5 rounds sphealing hate content or trolling, while the forfeiter actually debated seriously and was genuinely apologetic for missing his/her round. Sure that"s most likely not the case with every debate, but the thing is, how would you not if you don"t elect to take the time and read the debate for yourself?

Also what is the purpose of a vote, a superficial win record? Or is a vote intended to give the debater actual feedback on their debating skills, even if that means a forfeit had something to do with their loss?

I know people hate changes to the vote system, so I am not going to ask that changes be made. I am going to propose that we define a votebomb by voting without reading, and stick to the current guidelines of removing votebombs. We don"t need to add stricter standards, we just need to enforce what is in place and understand that it applies to current policies.

If there is any content whatsoever in a debate, and you want to cast a vote, just read it. If there is a forfeit or two, all the better, it means less reading right? There is even less of an excuse to not read it, as it is shortened by a forfeit.
I appreciate any constructive feedback on this issue, and hope that this will result in a change.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
Vaarka
Posts: 7,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 8:32:52 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 8:14:31 PM, TUF wrote:

I can just imagine how pissed I'd be if I spent a ton of time on a debate, getting my argument together, researching, and the like, but my opponent doesn't do crap and forfeits two rounds.

Oh well, I guess I'll win, right?

But then I only get a few points for conduct, each of the reasons being "FF", and the rest being left as ties. Sure, I'd be happy I won, but I'd be pretty pissed off that I spent all that time on my arguments, only to win b/c my opponent forfeited his rounds. :/
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
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 8:47:30 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 6:39:40 PM, TUF wrote:

Posting to remind myself to post. I think OPs like this should be encouraged.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 11:05:04 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 8:32:52 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 3/13/2016 8:14:31 PM, TUF wrote:

I can just imagine how pissed I'd be if I spent a ton of time on a debate, getting my argument together, researching, and the like, but my opponent doesn't do crap and forfeits two rounds.

Oh well, I guess I'll win, right?

But then I only get a few points for conduct, each of the reasons being "FF", and the rest being left as ties. Sure, I'd be happy I won, but I'd be pretty pissed off that I spent all that time on my arguments, only to win b/c my opponent forfeited his rounds. :/

I can't even describe how true this is. Or ff the 1st of 4 rounds, then spend a lot of time and effort on the other 3 of the 4 rounds, and the voter not read a single one of them because "ff"
-- 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 --
Peepette
Posts: 1,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 11:26:21 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 11:05:04 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 3/13/2016 8:32:52 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 3/13/2016 8:14:31 PM, TUF wrote:

I can just imagine how pissed I'd be if I spent a ton of time on a debate, getting my argument together, researching, and the like, but my opponent doesn't do crap and forfeits two rounds.

Oh well, I guess I'll win, right?

But then I only get a few points for conduct, each of the reasons being "FF", and the rest being left as ties. Sure, I'd be happy I won, but I'd be pretty pissed off that I spent all that time on my arguments, only to win b/c my opponent forfeited his rounds. :/

I can't even describe how true this is. Or ff the 1st of 4 rounds, then spend a lot of time and effort on the other 3 of the 4 rounds, and the voter not read a single one of them because "ff"

+1
diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid
Posts: 146
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 11:27:52 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 8:32:52 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 3/13/2016 8:14:31 PM, TUF wrote:

I can just imagine how pissed I'd be if I spent a ton of time on a debate, getting my argument together, researching, and the like, but my opponent doesn't do crap and forfeits two rounds.

Oh well, I guess I'll win, right?

But then I only get a few points for conduct, each of the reasons being "FF", and the rest being left as ties. Sure, I'd be happy I won, but I'd be pretty pissed off that I spent all that time on my arguments, only to win b/c my opponent forfeited his rounds. :/

The value is in your effort, your learning, your skill and creativity.

Never debate for the praise of others. Take any critique with a grain of salt but find value in the perspective. Never take any vote for or against personally.

People who do this for rfds or attention only place their happiness in the hands of complete strangers. Foolish philosophy.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,006
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 11:45:42 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 6:39:40 PM, TUF wrote:
Today this forum post is on Vote-bombs. This forum post is inspired by an issue that has been noticed in the voting guidelines, and while there is already a topic related to this, I was asked by the moderator (Airmax1227) to make a separate thread to discuss some ideas. I will do my best to be open minded in this discussion and ask that we avoid a "nay-saying" response and if there is criticism or dis-agreement with anything mentioned here, that it is provided in a detailed and reasoned critique.

My question is what qualifies as a vote bomb? I am sure everyone will have different answers to this. My understanding of a vote bomb is rather simple though, and that is voting on a debate you haven"t bothered to read. That"s it. If you are voting without having fully given both debaters proper credence to their arguments, you are, in my eyes, a vote bomber.

While I feel like the current vote moderation is very strong, I feel like there are some cracks and loop holes in it that occasionally will let vote bombs slip through, and it is to this point, I would like to address a change. As of right now, you can miss (forfeit) one round in a debate, and will most likely lose no matter what simply for forfeiting that round. It doesn"t matter if you had the best argument in the world, that red-line will mostly likely result in a conduct point against you in the voting period (or if it"s a select winner option, the entire vote).

Now in the other thread started by DK, I heard some rebuttals to this. It seems a few people are in with the idea that not reading a debate and voting is okay in a situation where one has forfeited, where generally this standard isn"t accepted elsewhere. Another response is that vote bombing for the non-forfeiter is better than ending in a tie. I disagree with these concepts strongly.

It promotes laziness. In two ways: The voter is obviously encouraged to cast votes without reasons, but also what drive does the debater have to continue a debate after forfeited a round. He knows that is chances of his arguments being read are considerably lower, because a vote bomb will be accepted against him for missing one round. Does that mean that the rest of the debate automatically isn"t worth reading? With the current legal vote bombs on one rounded forfeited debates, there is no incentive to continue arguing after a forfeit. Now sure, forfeiting is going to impact your argument negatively, but does that mean you automatically had the worst case?

Let"s take a second and analyze what a vote actually means. When you are voting someone to actually win a debate, that means you believe that they had the more convincing arguments. That means whatever they said in that round, you felt they were more convincing, and you are thus awarding them the win. Even a single conduct point in the seven point system virtually means that. What if I clicked on a debate, saw one mis-spelled word on one side, and awarded just a spelling and grammar point while not reading the rest of the debate? Would that not be considered a vote bomb? The issue is entirely the same with forfeited debates. You are taking one criteria, and cross applying it to the entire debate. I have used this example before, and I"ll use it again: For all you know, the non-forfeiter was spamming for 4-5 rounds sphealing hate content or trolling, while the forfeiter actually debated seriously and was genuinely apologetic for missing his/her round. Sure that"s most likely not the case with every debate, but the thing is, how would you not if you don"t elect to take the time and read the debate for yourself?

Also what is the purpose of a vote, a superficial win record? Or is a vote intended to give the debater actual feedback on their debating skills, even if that means a forfeit had something to do with their loss?

I know people hate changes to the vote system, so I am not going to ask that changes be made. I am going to propose that we define a votebomb by voting without reading, and stick to the current guidelines of removing votebombs. We don"t need to add stricter standards, we just need to enforce what is in place and understand that it applies to current policies.

If there is any content whatsoever in a debate, and you want to cast a vote, just read it. If there is a forfeit or two, all the better, it means less reading right? There is even less of an excuse to not read it, as it is shortened by a forfeit.
I appreciate any constructive feedback on this issue, and hope that this will result in a change.

I think vote bomb is someone who gives someone all 7 points when they don't deserve it.

As for single issue voting, I have a simple solution... Get rid of conduct as a criteria. Until that time, I will continue to punish those who forfeit rounds.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
U.n
Posts: 214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 2:40:06 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
The biggest issue with votes on this site is the complete lack of votes. Over half your debates end 0-0. Yet at the same time there's a constant stream of forums regularly posted of people complaining about the few votes that actually occur.

Just completely remove voting for the entire site already and get it over with.
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 5:34:54 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
IMO a vote bomb is any overwhelmingly biased vote. For examle I give feedback on pro life debates, but do not award points on their arguments because I actively choose to not vote bomb. My rule of thumb is if you aren't going to consider awarding points to both sides, you should award to neither.

If the definition becomes not reading debates, I would argue that many votes which have technically read a debate should still be considered vote bombs, on the grounds of the voter making it clear they considered reading the debate content irrelevant to their vote decision.
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 5:58:01 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 6:39:40 PM, TUF wrote:

I certainly have voted on debates that are clear forfeits (i.e., multiple missed rounds, no effort by one side). Otherwise, I agree that it is unfair to take a forfeit as a full concession. Often times, users will even post their missed rounds in the comments or in an external document, so a simple "ff" seems inappropriate and completely ignores their efforts.

That said, I'm not sure how this system would work. Perhaps having every vote include some comments about arguments? I'm hesitant to include any additional expectations around voting, given what seem to be prevailing attitudes about the site having a lack of debates and voting in the first place.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 6:07:42 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
In general terms, I agree with the OP. In the specific case where time is running out and a debate has no votes and if the voter doesn't have the time to read the debate beyond skimming, I think it's okay to award the one point for conduct so at least there is a victor and it's not a tie. A skim will always tell the voter whether the other person spammed or if it was reasonably close that they'd have to read closer to determine who won. But if the feels that its close, I'd be okay giving the conduct point to the non-forfeit-er. If the non-forfeit-er was terrible and doesn't deserve a win, then I'd either read the debate or just ignore it.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 6:08:08 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
I just talked to lamerde about this and she did highlight something important. I agree that we should respect people's efforts in terms of the work they point into debates, but I feel like this vote bombing question obfuscates something more pressing: are we taking the fun out of all this?

Debating, voting...this is all just based on intrinsic motivation. I fear that the more we discuss or debate the issue of proper voting, the less appealing the process becomes. I've seen multiple debates end in 0-0 this week alone, and I wonder how much of this relates to our current atmosphere around voting. Maybe the vote moderator(s) (I don't actually know who this/these person/people are) can shed light on if voting rates seem to have declined in their eyes. I know for me, I used to vote constantly but stopped when it became a topic of public critique. That was months ago and I'm somehow still 14th on the voting leaderboard, which concerns me.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
CodingSource
Posts: 350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 2:08:22 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I was banned from voting privileges without notification. Is it because of my forfeiture votes?
If computers have no doors or fences, who needs Windows and Gates?

I have a 10-0-0 debate record with an ELO ranking of 2,814. From 610th during my first two-week stay, I am now 326th in the Debates Leaderboard: http://www.debate.org...
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 2:47:28 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 2:08:22 PM, CodingSource wrote:
I was banned from voting privileges without notification. Is it because of my forfeiture votes?

You'll likely receive a message from Blade-of-Truth today about it, though he should have sent you messages previously regarding vote removals. If you'd rather, we can continue this in a PM and I can point to previous removals.
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 3:23:45 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 6:39:40 PM, TUF wrote:
My understanding of a vote bomb is rather simple though, and that is voting on a debate you haven"t bothered to read. That"s it. If you are voting without having fully given both debaters proper credence to their arguments, you are, in my eyes, a vote bomber.

How do you feel about not wholly reading debates, in the case of caught plagiarism?
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
Kirigaya-Kazuto
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 3:29:51 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I am personally guilty of the classic "FF" vote. Honestly I feel as if those votes in general should be deleted. Now I do not want to diss the moderation but I have had votes that were completely legitimate and covered all the points awarded and, they even gave tips to help improve debating get deleted. The decision making for deletion as a whole really needs to be updated
#Don'tlookatDATXDUDE'sprofilebecauseyoureyeswillexplode ~ Petfish
#Treebrokethechurchbells ~ Discipulus_Didicit
Don't quote me ~fire_wings
If anyone's getting modkilled, it's kiri. Just for his sig. ~Seventh
Yes ~Vaarka
No ~Rosalie
Ya clown ~Solon
OSU! ~Vaarka
diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid
Posts: 146
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 3:56:10 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 3:29:51 PM, Kirigaya-Kazuto wrote:
I am personally guilty of the classic "FF" vote. Honestly I feel as if those votes in general should be deleted. Now I do not want to diss the moderation but I have had votes that were completely legitimate and covered all the points awarded and, they even gave tips to help improve debating get deleted. The decision making for deletion as a whole really needs to be updated

People get votes deleted when whiny b!tches with bad arguments get butt-hurt that they're losing.
Kirigaya-Kazuto
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 3:58:19 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 3:56:10 PM, diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid wrote:
At 3/14/2016 3:29:51 PM, Kirigaya-Kazuto wrote:
I am personally guilty of the classic "FF" vote. Honestly I feel as if those votes in general should be deleted. Now I do not want to diss the moderation but I have had votes that were completely legitimate and covered all the points awarded and, they even gave tips to help improve debating get deleted. The decision making for deletion as a whole really needs to be updated

People get votes deleted when whiny b!tches with bad arguments get butt-hurt that they're losing.

It's pretty sad when that statement is true.
#Don'tlookatDATXDUDE'sprofilebecauseyoureyeswillexplode ~ Petfish
#Treebrokethechurchbells ~ Discipulus_Didicit
Don't quote me ~fire_wings
If anyone's getting modkilled, it's kiri. Just for his sig. ~Seventh
Yes ~Vaarka
No ~Rosalie
Ya clown ~Solon
OSU! ~Vaarka
diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid
Posts: 146
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 4:02:32 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 3:58:19 PM, Kirigaya-Kazuto wrote:
At 3/14/2016 3:56:10 PM, diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid wrote:
At 3/14/2016 3:29:51 PM, Kirigaya-Kazuto wrote:
I am personally guilty of the classic "FF" vote. Honestly I feel as if those votes in general should be deleted. Now I do not want to diss the moderation but I have had votes that were completely legitimate and covered all the points awarded and, they even gave tips to help improve debating get deleted. The decision making for deletion as a whole really needs to be updated

People get votes deleted when whiny b!tches with bad arguments get butt-hurt that they're losing.

It's pretty sad when that statement is true.

Blade-of-truth has fallen into the trap of being the tool of whiners. They know he'll use the ridiculous standards to wipe out votes against.

95% of the debates have votes that don't meet standards. they don't get removed because they aren't reported.

95% of the people who on the site hide in the forums instead of vote, because what's the point if there is a chance it will get removed?

it's like a soccer game with a ref who has a quick yellow. People are TRAINED to dive by the officials because it gets rewarded a reasonable amount of time, with NO consequence.
Kirigaya-Kazuto
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 4:05:18 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 4:02:32 PM, diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid wrote:
At 3/14/2016 3:58:19 PM, Kirigaya-Kazuto wrote:
At 3/14/2016 3:56:10 PM, diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid wrote:
At 3/14/2016 3:29:51 PM, Kirigaya-Kazuto wrote:
I am personally guilty of the classic "FF" vote. Honestly I feel as if those votes in general should be deleted. Now I do not want to diss the moderation but I have had votes that were completely legitimate and covered all the points awarded and, they even gave tips to help improve debating get deleted. The decision making for deletion as a whole really needs to be updated

People get votes deleted when whiny b!tches with bad arguments get butt-hurt that they're losing.

It's pretty sad when that statement is true.

Blade-of-truth has fallen into the trap of being the tool of whiners. They know he'll use the ridiculous standards to wipe out votes against.

95% of the debates have votes that don't meet standards. they don't get removed because they aren't reported.

95% of the people who on the site hide in the forums instead of vote, because what's the point if there is a chance it will get removed?

it's like a soccer game with a ref who has a quick yellow. People are TRAINED to dive by the officials because it gets rewarded a reasonable amount of time, with NO consequence.

That's a really good analogy, honestly due to some of the moderation "issues" I haven't really felt the motivation to come back to ddo.
#Don'tlookatDATXDUDE'sprofilebecauseyoureyeswillexplode ~ Petfish
#Treebrokethechurchbells ~ Discipulus_Didicit
Don't quote me ~fire_wings
If anyone's getting modkilled, it's kiri. Just for his sig. ~Seventh
Yes ~Vaarka
No ~Rosalie
Ya clown ~Solon
OSU! ~Vaarka
TUF
Posts: 21,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 5:22:42 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 11:27:52 PM, diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid wrote:
At 3/13/2016 8:32:52 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 3/13/2016 8:14:31 PM, TUF wrote:

I can just imagine how pissed I'd be if I spent a ton of time on a debate, getting my argument together, researching, and the like, but my opponent doesn't do crap and forfeits two rounds.

Oh well, I guess I'll win, right?

But then I only get a few points for conduct, each of the reasons being "FF", and the rest being left as ties. Sure, I'd be happy I won, but I'd be pretty pissed off that I spent all that time on my arguments, only to win b/c my opponent forfeited his rounds. :/

The value is in your effort, your learning, your skill and creativity.

I'd say learning is the most important, but can you really learn if you aren't getting feedback on your arguments? I suppose, but I think RFD's definitely help.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
TUF
Posts: 21,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 5:24:26 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 2:40:06 AM, U.n wrote:
The biggest issue with votes on this site is the complete lack of votes. Over half your debates end 0-0. Yet at the same time there's a constant stream of forums regularly posted of people complaining about the few votes that actually occur.

Just completely remove voting for the entire site already and get it over with.

The thing is there is no real incentive to vote except for (like Maikuru said) intrinsic motivation, or just generally wanting to help the community in a "what goes around comes around/ pass it forward attitude". At the same time, I feel like a debate tied with no votes is still better than vote bombs like "I liked pro better so he wins".
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
TUF
Posts: 21,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 5:25:53 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 11:45:42 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 3/13/2016 6:39:40 PM, TUF wrote:
Today this forum post is on Vote-bombs. This forum post is inspired by an issue that has been noticed in the voting guidelines, and while there is already a topic related to this, I was asked by the moderator (Airmax1227) to make a separate thread to discuss some ideas. I will do my best to be open minded in this discussion and ask that we avoid a "nay-saying" response and if there is criticism or dis-agreement with anything mentioned here, that it is provided in a detailed and reasoned critique.

My question is what qualifies as a vote bomb? I am sure everyone will have different answers to this. My understanding of a vote bomb is rather simple though, and that is voting on a debate you haven"t bothered to read. That"s it. If you are voting without having fully given both debaters proper credence to their arguments, you are, in my eyes, a vote bomber.

While I feel like the current vote moderation is very strong, I feel like there are some cracks and loop holes in it that occasionally will let vote bombs slip through, and it is to this point, I would like to address a change. As of right now, you can miss (forfeit) one round in a debate, and will most likely lose no matter what simply for forfeiting that round. It doesn"t matter if you had the best argument in the world, that red-line will mostly likely result in a conduct point against you in the voting period (or if it"s a select winner option, the entire vote).

Now in the other thread started by DK, I heard some rebuttals to this. It seems a few people are in with the idea that not reading a debate and voting is okay in a situation where one has forfeited, where generally this standard isn"t accepted elsewhere. Another response is that vote bombing for the non-forfeiter is better than ending in a tie. I disagree with these concepts strongly.

It promotes laziness. In two ways: The voter is obviously encouraged to cast votes without reasons, but also what drive does the debater have to continue a debate after forfeited a round. He knows that is chances of his arguments being read are considerably lower, because a vote bomb will be accepted against him for missing one round. Does that mean that the rest of the debate automatically isn"t worth reading? With the current legal vote bombs on one rounded forfeited debates, there is no incentive to continue arguing after a forfeit. Now sure, forfeiting is going to impact your argument negatively, but does that mean you automatically had the worst case?

Let"s take a second and analyze what a vote actually means. When you are voting someone to actually win a debate, that means you believe that they had the more convincing arguments. That means whatever they said in that round, you felt they were more convincing, and you are thus awarding them the win. Even a single conduct point in the seven point system virtually means that. What if I clicked on a debate, saw one mis-spelled word on one side, and awarded just a spelling and grammar point while not reading the rest of the debate? Would that not be considered a vote bomb? The issue is entirely the same with forfeited debates. You are taking one criteria, and cross applying it to the entire debate. I have used this example before, and I"ll use it again: For all you know, the non-forfeiter was spamming for 4-5 rounds sphealing hate content or trolling, while the forfeiter actually debated seriously and was genuinely apologetic for missing his/her round. Sure that"s most likely not the case with every debate, but the thing is, how would you not if you don"t elect to take the time and read the debate for yourself?

Also what is the purpose of a vote, a superficial win record? Or is a vote intended to give the debater actual feedback on their debating skills, even if that means a forfeit had something to do with their loss?

I know people hate changes to the vote system, so I am not going to ask that changes be made. I am going to propose that we define a votebomb by voting without reading, and stick to the current guidelines of removing votebombs. We don"t need to add stricter standards, we just need to enforce what is in place and understand that it applies to current policies.

If there is any content whatsoever in a debate, and you want to cast a vote, just read it. If there is a forfeit or two, all the better, it means less reading right? There is even less of an excuse to not read it, as it is shortened by a forfeit.
I appreciate any constructive feedback on this issue, and hope that this will result in a change.

I think vote bomb is someone who gives someone all 7 points when they don't deserve it.

Or giving points in general to people who may not deserve it. Same thing.

As for single issue voting, I have a simple solution... Get rid of conduct as a criteria. Until that time, I will continue to punish those who forfeit rounds.

They have a "select winner option". Again that doesn't really solve the problem of not knowing what you are voting for.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid
Posts: 146
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 5:28:15 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 5:22:42 PM, TUF wrote:
At 3/13/2016 11:27:52 PM, diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid wrote:
At 3/13/2016 8:32:52 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 3/13/2016 8:14:31 PM, TUF wrote:

I can just imagine how pissed I'd be if I spent a ton of time on a debate, getting my argument together, researching, and the like, but my opponent doesn't do crap and forfeits two rounds.

Oh well, I guess I'll win, right?

But then I only get a few points for conduct, each of the reasons being "FF", and the rest being left as ties. Sure, I'd be happy I won, but I'd be pretty pissed off that I spent all that time on my arguments, only to win b/c my opponent forfeited his rounds. :/

The value is in your effort, your learning, your skill and creativity.


I'd say learning is the most important, but can you really learn if you aren't getting feedback on your arguments? I suppose, but I think RFD's definitely help.

I can with or without feedback. To me, it's pretty obvious what resonates and what doesn't. Most intelligent people can adapt. Sometime, you just run into a better debater who beats you. If you don't learn from that, that's your fault. Idiots, like ViceRegent, will keep posting the same thing over and over no matter how much feedback they get.
TUF
Posts: 21,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 5:28:39 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 5:34:54 AM, Ragnar wrote:
IMO a vote bomb is any overwhelmingly biased vote.

A vote bomb is anything really that means your vote is not qualified, IE bias, mis-understanding of arguments, or not reading. For me not reading is the biggest qualifier though.

For examle I give feedback on pro life debates, but do not award points on their arguments because I actively choose to not vote bomb. My rule of thumb is if you aren't going to consider awarding points to both sides, you should award to neither.

Good rule of thumb.

If the definition becomes not reading debates, I would argue that many votes which have technically read a debate should still be considered vote bombs, on the grounds of the voter making it clear they considered reading the debate content irrelevant to their vote decision.

IE a bias vote =/= vote bomb.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid
Posts: 146
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 5:30:00 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 5:24:26 PM, TUF wrote:
At 3/14/2016 2:40:06 AM, U.n wrote:
The biggest issue with votes on this site is the complete lack of votes. Over half your debates end 0-0. Yet at the same time there's a constant stream of forums regularly posted of people complaining about the few votes that actually occur.

Just completely remove voting for the entire site already and get it over with.

The thing is there is no real incentive to vote except for (like Maikuru said) intrinsic motivation, or just generally wanting to help the community in a "what goes around comes around/ pass it forward attitude". At the same time, I feel like a debate tied with no votes is still better than vote bombs like "I liked pro better so he wins".

In addition to "no real incentive", this community creates a significant dis-incentive.
TUF
Posts: 21,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 5:31:59 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 5:58:01 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 3/13/2016 6:39:40 PM, TUF wrote:

I certainly have voted on debates that are clear forfeits (i.e., multiple missed rounds, no effort by one side).

Me too.

Otherwise, I agree that it is unfair to take a forfeit as a full concession. Often times, users will even post their missed rounds in the comments or in an external document, so a simple "ff" seems inappropriate and completely ignores their efforts.

That said, I'm not sure how this system would work. Perhaps having every vote include some comments about arguments? I'm hesitant to include any additional expectations around voting, given what seem to be prevailing attitudes about the site having a lack of debates and voting in the first place.

"Lack of votes" has really always been an issue, and probably always will. Even when votes were passed poorly, it wasn't like through the roof or anything. I don't think this idea really focuses on increasing voting moderation, just enforcing rules already in place. We don't allow vote bombs, but we allow this because we think it isn't a votebomb (for some reason).
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
TUF
Posts: 21,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 5:33:44 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 3:23:45 PM, Ragnar wrote:
At 3/13/2016 6:39:40 PM, TUF wrote:
My understanding of a vote bomb is rather simple though, and that is voting on a debate you haven"t bothered to read. That"s it. If you are voting without having fully given both debaters proper credence to their arguments, you are, in my eyes, a vote bomber.

How do you feel about not wholly reading debates, in the case of caught plagiarism?

I guess it depends. I probably wouldn't even vote on a debate that was majorly plagiarized. But if every aspect of the argument was copy pasted, and you verified that, It's probably a win to the opponent. I think that's a little different than the OP is referring to though.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
TUF
Posts: 21,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 5:40:37 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 6:07:42 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
In general terms, I agree with the OP. In the specific case where time is running out and a debate has no votes and if the voter doesn't have the time to read the debate beyond skimming, I think it's okay to award the one point for conduct so at least there is a victor and it's not a tie.

I don't really get why though. This is placing the value of the win over the content of the debate, which kind of defeats the purpose of winning. Did you really "Win" the debate if no one bothered to read your arguments?

A skim will always tell the voter whether the other person spammed or if it was reasonably close that they'd have to read closer to determine who won.
But if I feel that its close, I'd be okay giving the conduct point to the non-forfeit-er. If the non-forfeit-er was terrible and doesn't deserve a win, then I'd either read the debate or just ignore it.

One problem with skimming, is that there are a lot of face value things that look good in an argument. I won't name names, but I read a debate recently and was shocked. On the surface you see these awesome stats and graphs, big rounds filled with big words and maxed out characters. But when I read the actual argument all the way through, it was absolutely horrible, the graphs stats were wrong and mis-represented, the many sources posted didn't have much to do at all with the info, etc. What I am saying is what looks good on the surface is what a lot of people look at, and it makes for a horrible debate practice. Not going to call anyone out in public, but because I know you like examples you can PM me if you want some links that demonstrate this.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227