Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Blaming voting standards for lack of votes

TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 5:02:36 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
This topic is inspired by a conversation with maikuru, and I want to address it, gather thoughts, and get an overall general opinion on it.

Do you think good voting has decreased in the recent years? If so do you have any examples of a period of time where copious quality voting was at its peak? I see so many people say that voting is declining, and I wonder if this is actually true. My impression of voting is that it has actually got better, but there are also many areas of the site I have not been exposed to.

When I first joined the site there was a lot of voting, I will admit. But that was when putting comments in your vote wasn"t required. When I joined you could vote all 7 points in favor of the debater you wanted, and no one even knew it was you. It seemed most debates then got votes. Obviously there were tons of problems with vote bombing though, and the anonymous nature of the vote tempted even the more respected community members to do it.

Obviously many votes go now without votes, and with the standards of vote moderation, the ones that keep are considerably better than the votes back in the day.

But this thread is to focus on the "lack of voting" problem. Everyone complains about this, I do, you do, anyone who has had a debate go 0-0 because no one read it. Do you feel that as someone who has been effected by lack of voting, you should have some sort of responsibility to fix the problem by voting more yourself? Insert excuse here. Lives are busy, and reading someone else"s debate isn"t exactly the most fun way to spend your free time. I get it. I only point this out to push idea that voting is inspired by intrinsic motivation. If that doesn"t exist, why vote?

Hypothetically, what if in order to participate in a debate the site forced you to vote on at least two debates to earn enough points to be eligible to vote on a debate, and the vote had to be approved by a moderator in order to get the points (therefor forcing you to vote fairly). This system would obviously force people who wanted to debate to solve the problem by voting themselves. This idea obviously only works in theory and would be disastrous if implemented. It would be more likely that people wouldn"t debate at all if they were forced to vote just to debate. Also it would decrease the debates that pop up in google searches, attracting new members.

But the theory does draw an interesting point, imagine if every person voted on one unvoted debate for every debate they did, imagine what kind of effects that would overall have on the debating community.

If you are going to complain about lack of voting, you should look at means to solving that problem. Debate.org is a community driven website. It is completely dominated, and ran from community members. Because this is the case, it falls on you and me to help fix the part of the site that needs fixing. We all share the same house, and if something breaks, the only way to fix that is to step up and volunteer to help when no one else is, otherwise that pipe will just keep leaking until the house is flooded.
But if someone applies a lazy fix to that pipe, and another person removes that fix because it doesn"t fix the problem, don"t blame the person removing the crappy fix for inspiring others not to try and fix it.

In a more direct correlation for voting, stop blaming vote moderation for inspiring people to vote less. It is completely counter-productive to solving the problem. Accepting more bad votes isn"t a solution to having more votes. That completely takes the responsibility to vote more off of your own shoulders and other peoples shoulders to help to community they are a part of. So this is really the extent of the post. Blaming "stricter voting standards" for less votes is the wrong way to look at the problem. If you know you aren"t willing to vote as much yourself, you are removing your right to complain about the broken pipe. Be willing to sleep in the puddle if the idea fixing the broken pipe is too daunting of a task for you.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 5:08:24 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 5:02:36 PM, TUF wrote:
This topic is inspired by a conversation with maikuru, and I want to address it, gather thoughts, and get an overall general opinion on it.

Do you think good voting has decreased in the recent years? If so do you have any examples of a period of time where copious quality voting was at its peak? I see so many people say that voting is declining, and I wonder if this is actually true. My impression of voting is that it has actually got better, but there are also many areas of the site I have not been exposed to.

You also have to consider the population of DDO then vs now. The number of active users (both debating in and in the forums) then vs now. Are the number of quality votes reflecting the increase in site activity? I don't know.
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
lannan13
Posts: 23,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 5:18:19 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Good idea.

Voters Union should go on strike.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 5:32:32 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Its easy to point to vote moderation as the problem but it is probably more due to the huge increase in debate traffic as well.

I remember where it was exceedingly rare for the challenge section to go into a second page where at any given moment there were maybe only 5 debates that could be accepted.... Now its rare to see the challenge period be LESS than a page long. If the amount of voting on debates has remained approximately the same, but the number of debates to be voted on doubles or triples like it has, then it would make it appear that voting has gone way down when in reality its just being diffused onto a greater number of debates.

Vote moderation does remove a good number of votes sure, and voting standards also have prevented certain votes from being cast in the first place. Those standards do have a role in the decrease in votes on debates, but the sheer increase in number of debates that can be voted on I think exacerbates the appearance of lack of voting, especially when those debates arent very high quality and have been made time and time again
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 5:37:18 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 5:18:19 PM, lannan13 wrote:
Good idea.

Voters Union should go on strike.

That's the opposite of the solution to the problem lol.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
lannan13
Posts: 23,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 5:37:25 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 5:02:36 PM, TUF wrote:
This topic is inspired by a conversation with maikuru, and I want to address it, gather thoughts, and get an overall general opinion on it.

Do you think good voting has decreased in the recent years? If so do you have any examples of a period of time where copious quality voting was at its peak? I see so many people say that voting is declining, and I wonder if this is actually true. My impression of voting is that it has actually got better, but there are also many areas of the site I have not been exposed to.

Well it obviously has. For this I'm quite sure it's just the growing regulations on voting to ensure that people get a "good" vote. The term "good" has changed over the years. You used to be able to Vote Bomb for Sh*ts and giggles, but now if you pratically don't make a thread for an RFD it will likely be reported. People on DDO have also taken advantage of this. They report anyone who votes against them or against their favor. This is what we expect with the younger DDO gen that is coming in filled with SJW-type people.

When I first joined the site there was a lot of voting, I will admit. But that was when putting comments in your vote wasn"t required. When I joined you could vote all 7 points in favor of the debater you wanted, and no one even knew it was you. It seemed most debates then got votes. Obviously there were tons of problems with vote bombing though, and the anonymous nature of the vote tempted even the more respected community members to do it.

I can agree that it was a good idea that we got rid of it. This is because people would have to CVB instead of providing a good RFD. I think a good example of this was one of my debates with Imabench. The debate was just constant VB and CVBs that it seemed like a waste of time since we got no feed-back. Today it's pratically the same thing since vagueness and disagreements turn into vote bombs.

Obviously many votes go now without votes, and with the standards of vote moderation, the ones that keep are considerably better than the votes back in the day.

The votes today are of better quality, but would you rather have a wide-read debate with many votes with possible cr@ppy votes or a wide-read debate that has possibly no votes at all due to this regulation.

But this thread is to focus on the "lack of voting" problem. Everyone complains about this, I do, you do, anyone who has had a debate go 0-0 because no one read it. Do you feel that as someone who has been effected by lack of voting, you should have some sort of responsibility to fix the problem by voting more yourself? Insert excuse here. Lives are busy, and reading someone else"s debate isn"t exactly the most fun way to spend your free time. I get it. I only point this out to push idea that voting is inspired by intrinsic motivation. If that doesn"t exist, why vote?

I try to vote, and granted most are just quick read debates, to help newer users prevent this, but a lot of the time, since I'm in college with 3 jobs, it's nearly impossible for me to find time to read debates and type out a good RFD. This was the main reason I had to quit the Voter's Union as I simply couldn't contribute anymore.

Hypothetically, what if in order to participate in a debate the site forced you to vote on at least two debates to earn enough points to be eligible to vote on a debate, and the vote had to be approved by a moderator in order to get the points (therefor forcing you to vote fairly). This system would obviously force people who wanted to debate to solve the problem by voting themselves. This idea obviously only works in theory and would be disastrous if implemented. It would be more likely that people wouldn"t debate at all if they were forced to vote just to debate. Also it would decrease the debates that pop up in google searches, attracting new members.

That maybe true, but this would dramatically increase the oversite and work time of the Voting Mods and I'm quite sure that Whiteflame and BOT are busy as is as they've constantly have stated that they tend to be busy as hell with reports. This would skyrocket their duties. Granted more mods would be added, but this would significantly decrease the amount of votes that go out even further and this issue would grow

But the theory does draw an interesting point, imagine if every person voted on one unvoted debate for every debate they did, imagine what kind of effects that would overall have on the debating community.

That would be interesting, but could you imagine that how many spam votes you would get from new people just wanting to debate. An important part about this site is the simplicity to navigate and opperate, but over the years that has been disappearing. These regulations have also chased away users in exoduses. Ancap, Flamewar exodus, and many others that I'm sure I haven't listed nor could remember at the time of this post. This would simply destroy our user base and to put it in RoyLarthum's perspective, the site would soon become to uninteresting and dull.

=snip=
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 5:38:17 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 5:32:32 PM, imabench wrote:
Its easy to point to vote moderation as the problem but it is probably more due to the huge increase in debate traffic as well.

I remember where it was exceedingly rare for the challenge section to go into a second page where at any given moment there were maybe only 5 debates that could be accepted.... Now its rare to see the challenge period be LESS than a page long. If the amount of voting on debates has remained approximately the same, but the number of debates to be voted on doubles or triples like it has, then it would make it appear that voting has gone way down when in reality its just being diffused onto a greater number of debates.

Vote moderation does remove a good number of votes sure, and voting standards also have prevented certain votes from being cast in the first place. Those standards do have a role in the decrease in votes on debates, but the sheer increase in number of debates that can be voted on I think exacerbates the appearance of lack of voting, especially when those debates arent very high quality and have been made time and time again

Good post.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 5:40:33 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 5:08:24 PM, lamerde wrote:
At 3/16/2016 5:02:36 PM, TUF wrote:
This topic is inspired by a conversation with maikuru, and I want to address it, gather thoughts, and get an overall general opinion on it.

Do you think good voting has decreased in the recent years? If so do you have any examples of a period of time where copious quality voting was at its peak? I see so many people say that voting is declining, and I wonder if this is actually true. My impression of voting is that it has actually got better, but there are also many areas of the site I have not been exposed to.

You also have to consider the population of DDO then vs now. The number of active users (both debating in and in the forums) then vs now. Are the number of quality votes reflecting the increase in site activity? I don't know.

It's hard to say, and harder to gather any type of statistics on such a thing to really draw a conclusion but that is a very big factor that goes into explaining why voting is the way it is.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 5:51:08 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 5:37:25 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 3/16/2016 5:02:36 PM, TUF wrote:
This topic is inspired by a conversation with maikuru, and I want to address it, gather thoughts, and get an overall general opinion on it.

Do you think good voting has decreased in the recent years? If so do you have any examples of a period of time where copious quality voting was at its peak? I see so many people say that voting is declining, and I wonder if this is actually true. My impression of voting is that it has actually got better, but there are also many areas of the site I have not been exposed to.

Well it obviously has. For this I'm quite sure it's just the growing regulations on voting to ensure that people get a "good" vote. The term "good" has changed over the years. You used to be able to Vote Bomb for Sh*ts and giggles, but now if you pratically don't make a thread for an RFD it will likely be reported. People on DDO have also taken advantage of this. They report anyone who votes against them or against their favor. This is what we expect with the younger DDO gen that is coming in filled with SJW-type people.

Fortunately we have an active moderator that can process and filter these reports to mitigate the problem.


When I first joined the site there was a lot of voting, I will admit. But that was when putting comments in your vote wasn"t required. When I joined you could vote all 7 points in favor of the debater you wanted, and no one even knew it was you. It seemed most debates then got votes. Obviously there were tons of problems with vote bombing though, and the anonymous nature of the vote tempted even the more respected community members to do it.

I can agree that it was a good idea that we got rid of it. This is because people would have to CVB instead of providing a good RFD. I think a good example of this was one of my debates with Imabench. The debate was just constant VB and CVBs that it seemed like a waste of time since we got no feed-back. Today it's pratically the same thing since vagueness and disagreements turn into vote bombs.

Yep, the current system seems less sloppy.


Obviously many votes go now without votes, and with the standards of vote moderation, the ones that keep are considerably better than the votes back in the day.

The votes today are of better quality, but would you rather have a wide-read debate with many votes with possible cr@ppy votes or a wide-read debate that has possibly no votes at all due to this regulation.

The thing is, with poorly explained votes or otherwise bad votes there's no evidence to suggest someone has read the debate as widely as you think. I'd rather have a few people read the entire thing than a hundred people skim it and vote without really knowing what they are talking about.


But this thread is to focus on the "lack of voting" problem. Everyone complains about this, I do, you do, anyone who has had a debate go 0-0 because no one read it. Do you feel that as someone who has been effected by lack of voting, you should have some sort of responsibility to fix the problem by voting more yourself? Insert excuse here. Lives are busy, and reading someone else"s debate isn"t exactly the most fun way to spend your free time. I get it. I only point this out to push idea that voting is inspired by intrinsic motivation. If that doesn"t exist, why vote?

I try to vote, and granted most are just quick read debates, to help newer users prevent this, but a lot of the time, since I'm in college with 3 jobs, it's nearly impossible for me to find time to read debates and type out a good RFD. This was the main reason I had to quit the Voter's Union as I simply couldn't contribute anymore.

Right, and I am not saying that you are obligated to vote if you want to be part of the community. Just that your right to complain about voting isn't there if you can't vote on a debate yourself. It seems some people feel like the DDO owes them votes, and blaming moderators for strict voting is placing the blame and responsibility from your own shoulders.


Hypothetically, what if in order to participate in a debate the site forced you to vote on at least two debates to earn enough points to be eligible to vote on a debate, and the vote had to be approved by a moderator in order to get the points (therefor forcing you to vote fairly). This system would obviously force people who wanted to debate to solve the problem by voting themselves. This idea obviously only works in theory and would be disastrous if implemented. It would be more likely that people wouldn"t debate at all if they were forced to vote just to debate. Also it would decrease the debates that pop up in google searches, attracting new members.

That maybe true, but this would dramatically increase the oversite and work time of the Voting Mods and I'm quite sure that Whiteflame and BOT are busy as is as they've constantly have stated that they tend to be busy as hell with reports. This would skyrocket their duties. Granted more mods would be added, but this would significantly decrease the amount of votes that go out even further and this issue would grow .

Yeah I am saying it isn't realistic too.


But the theory does draw an interesting point, imagine if every person voted on one unvoted debate for every debate they did, imagine what kind of effects that would overall have on the debating community.

That would be interesting, but could you imagine that how many spam votes you would get from new people just wanting to debate.

This was by no means a suggestion, and also would be assumed hypothetically to fall under current vote mod standards. Meaning you wouldn't get points to vote if the mods didn't pass your vote.

An important part about this site is the simplicity to navigate and opperate, but over the years that has been disappearing. These regulations have also chased away users in exoduses. Ancap, Flamewar exodus, and many others that I'm sure I haven't listed nor could remember at the time of this post. This would simply destroy our user base and to put it in RoyLarthum's perspective, the site would soon become to uninteresting and dull.

=snip=
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 5:59:16 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
The most direct impact of voting moderation ive seen on reducing the number of votes has been the outlawing of counter-vote-bombing in response to regular vote-bombing. 8+ months ago if you look at any high-quality debate between two members, chances are that about 1 third of the votes on those debates were made just to counter the sh*tty votes made by other people on those same debates.

I dont know what percentage of votes on past debates were simple CVB's, but moderation has certainly cut down on them
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 6:52:58 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Agree with pretty much everything here. There were lots of votes in the past but the quality of voting was so low it just wasn't enough of a benefit to have votes on your debates without seeing feedback. The long, explanatory votes that have now become the norm were a rare occurrence worthy of being praised by debaters for their "detailed" feedback.

Many people talk about the glory days of voting but votes have never been as thorough, as detailed, as unbiased, and as helpful as they are now.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 7:02:59 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 5:59:16 PM, imabench wrote:
The most direct impact of voting moderation ive seen on reducing the number of votes has been the outlawing of counter-vote-bombing in response to regular vote-bombing. 8+ months ago if you look at any high-quality debate between two members, chances are that about 1 third of the votes on those debates were made just to counter the sh*tty votes made by other people on those same debates.

I dont know what percentage of votes on past debates were simple CVB's, but moderation has certainly cut down on them

True. If you remove vote-bombs and counter-vote-bombs, the amount of real voting back then wasn't that far above today's standards.
-- 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 --
U.n
Posts: 214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 10:36:43 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 5:32:32 PM, imabench wrote:
Its easy to point to vote moderation as the problem but it is probably more due to the huge increase in debate traffic as well.

I remember where it was exceedingly rare for the challenge section to go into a second page where at any given moment there were maybe only 5 debates that could be accepted.... Now its rare to see the challenge period be LESS than a page long. If the amount of voting on debates has remained approximately the same, but the number of debates to be voted on doubles or triples like it has, then it would make it appear that voting has gone way down when in reality its just being diffused onto a greater number of debates.

Vote moderation does remove a good number of votes sure, and voting standards also have prevented certain votes from being cast in the first place. Those standards do have a role in the decrease in votes on debates, but the sheer increase in number of debates that can be voted on I think exacerbates the appearance of lack of voting, especially when those debates arent very high quality and have been made time and time again

It's easy to vote moderation as the problem but.:.

I blame the dozens and dozens of sticklers who are reporting votes daily.
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 11:02:29 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
In short: We need to trust that whatever the standard is to be both fair and reasonable.

At length: If there were no standards, I would never bother to debate here (my opponent not forfeiting is all the justification some use to vote against me, but at least they need that much). But one of the recent standards are why I barely vote anymore, so yes voting standards do affect ratio of votes.

I don't even know what the current standard is, but at one time not so long ago it changed to one to which...
At 1/7/2016 12:30:24 AM, Ragnar wrote:
I highly disagree with any voting standard that if universally enforced calls for any and every vote on the site to be deleted. Remember that according to then vote moderator, any vote which regardless of copy/pasted debate specific reference material from the individual debate, technically "could be said of any debate" should be deleted. There does not exist any vote on this site which passes that standard.
http://www.debate.org...
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...
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 11:16:45 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 11:02:29 PM, Ragnar wrote:
In short: We need to trust that whatever the standard is to be both fair and reasonable.

yes, and it needs to cover all it's basis without being hypocritical, or being unfair to others members based on vet status (ddo vet not military), etc.

At length: If there were no standards, I would never bother to debate here (my opponent not forfeiting is all the justification some use to vote against me, but at least they need that much). But one of the recent standards are why I barely vote anymore, so yes voting standards do affect ratio of votes.

I don't even know what the current standard is, but at one time not so long ago it changed to one to which...
At 1/7/2016 12:30:24 AM, Ragnar wrote:
I highly disagree with any voting standard that if universally enforced calls for any and every vote on the site to be deleted. Remember that according to then vote moderator, any vote which regardless of copy/pasted debate specific reference material from the individual debate, technically "could be said of any debate" should be deleted. There does not exist any vote on this site which passes that standard.
http://www.debate.org...

When realism was applied to this standard, did you actually see good votes getting removed due to said standard?
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
tejretics
Posts: 6,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 3:22:06 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Voting standards have *nothing* to do with the lack of votes. The standards have been virtually the same for over a year. But debates from that time got a lot of votes. It's the *perception* that voting standards have changed that causes it -- because more people have started typing up exhaustive RFD's, people are deterred from doing so.

I have frequently made a suggestion that those who write super-long RFD's should temporarily revert to writing short RFD's, so that the social stigma associated with the latter is removed and people learn how to write short RFD's.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 3:36:59 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 5:32:32 PM, imabench wrote:
Its easy to point to vote moderation as the problem but it is probably more due to the huge increase in debate traffic as well.

I remember where it was exceedingly rare for the challenge section to go into a second page where at any given moment there were maybe only 5 debates that could be accepted.... Now its rare to see the challenge period be LESS than a page long. If the amount of voting on debates has remained approximately the same, but the number of debates to be voted on doubles or triples like it has, then it would make it appear that voting has gone way down when in reality its just being diffused onto a greater number of debates.

So why aren't the people who are putting up debates voting on debates? If there's a big increase in debaters, there should be an increase in voters. Maybe because it's not fun and easy to vote.

Vote moderation does remove a good number of votes sure, and voting standards also have prevented certain votes from being cast in the first place. Those standards do have a role in the decrease in votes on debates, but the sheer increase in number of debates that can be voted on I think exacerbates the appearance of lack of voting, especially when those debates arent very high quality and have been made time and time again
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 10:37:25 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 11:16:45 PM, TUF wrote:
At 3/16/2016 11:02:29 PM, Ragnar wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:30:24 AM, Ragnar wrote:
I highly disagree with any voting standard that if universally enforced calls for any and every vote on the site to be deleted. Remember that according to then vote moderator, any vote which regardless of copy/pasted debate specific reference material from the individual debate, technically "could be said of any debate" should be deleted. There does not exist any vote on this site which passes that standard.
http://www.debate.org...

When realism was applied to this standard, did you actually see good votes getting removed due to said standard?

IMO yes (not to say great votes, but I would argue superior to some of the votes cast by the then vote moderator around the same period). Both the then vote moderator, and assistant moderator were notified of the disagreement with stated reason for removal, to which there was no reply... The main case in question can be reviewed at the following link: http://www.debate.org...

Truthfully this was during a weird period. I had voted against the then vote moderator on a debate, and he went really weird; started criticizing votes of mine without showing any sign of having actually read them (posting quotes from them to call them barely passable, when the votes did not contain said quoted content...).
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...
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 12:15:35 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 3:22:06 AM, tejretics wrote:
Voting standards have *nothing* to do with the lack of votes. The standards have been virtually the same for over a year. But debates from that time got a lot of votes. It's the *perception* that voting standards have changed that causes it -- because more people have started typing up exhaustive RFD's, people are deterred from doing so.

I have frequently made a suggestion that those who write super-long RFD's should temporarily revert to writing short RFD's, so that the social stigma associated with the latter is removed and people learn how to write short RFD's.

Although voting standards have been the same for over a year, only recently have votes been consistently reported for not quite reaching those standards. Back then most votes that didn't reach the standard which weren't obvious vote bombs went unreported because most people didn't know that you could get those types of votes removed by reporting them.

So the increased enforcement of the same voting standard is likely partially responsible for the lack of votes.
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 12:22:09 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Measures have being taken to increase voting quality and yes it come with a price in reduction of number of votes. Lets not go back to the DDO dark ages of voting, and votebombs, and voting blocks, and you vote me I for you.

Thus another way to look at this is, are the debates being produced have enough appeal/interest in the first place to get people to vote.