Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Grading Votes and the Virgin/Whore Dilemma

Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2016 7:58:14 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I am surprised I do not see this issue addressed, but when voting there is often a false dilemma that a vote must be either saintly or absolutely horrible (like how idiots think all women are either Virgins or Whores). Worse this mixes with Virtue Ethics to say that once someone is either good or bad, they cannot ever be anything else. There is also guilt by association; for example, a member you dislike disagrees with a vote, you'd have to be Full Retard to automatically defend the vote; yet we actually see that happen.

First and foremost, I believe we should have Mediocre in our vocabulary [cue YouTube video].

I propose when addressing vote quality, we have a sliding scale, along the lines of:
Great > Good > Mediocre > Substandard > Awful.

Great: The voter showed understanding of the arguments better than at least one of the debaters, and fairly weighted them. Under the 7 point system, including rationale for all major contentions and/or categories.

Good: Understood most or all major argument lines, and fairly weighted them. (yeah I'm probably missing some details here, this is a base idea from which to be refined)

Mediocre: Cue YouTube video again, because Immortan Joe is awesome (even if I suspect his votes would be terribly biased on topics relating to women's rights, gun control, and environmental concerns). To call a vote Mediocre isn't to even say it's bad, the voter probably tried, and met expectations (Nux failing to assassinate Furiosa like so many others, wasn't unexpected, and it did not require more than a single word of review), but it certainly did not excel.

Substandard: The vote is either a little too biased, confused on a key line of reasoning (disagreeing with the impacts of a line of reasoning is usually not confusion, such as Pro says "I won," the voter is not confused to not automatically take their word for it), or missing something. A vote might be close to greatness, but say award Sources without weighting said sources. A vote might be accidently bad, from getting pro and con confused.

Awful: Intentionally bad (even if the voter might insist it's the best thing ever, such as for helping to support Mentally Incompetent Snowflakes who will otherwise not get any votes), perhaps having taken someone's word for what is in the debate rather than reading it themselves. I don't want to put anyone on the spotlight, so I'll use more Fury Road analogies: Slit's vote against Morsov going to Valhalla (winning the debate) was awful, as Morsov's performance was unquestionably Shiny And Chrome, having utterly destroyed the vehicle the other debater used for their arguments. Furiosa has proven herself a good voter before to the point where she is trusted to drive a war rig, but she is an awful voter whenever The Wives are involved, trying to smuggle them along, rather than letting them win by their own merits.

Of course there are some unfortunate members who insult votes not on the basis of the quality of the vote, but solely based on if it is in their favor or not; I do not expect these sad excuses for debaters to ever change (not saying they can't, merely admitting that I'm a pessimist). My proposed refinement would be for members with brains in decent working order.

I intentionally did not suggest an A-F scale, because those encourage grade inflation, and B shaming. And yes, the standards I suggested for the positive votes, do not include many good things which go above and beyond, because going above and beyond should never be expected.
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...
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2016 8:14:30 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I actually don't think we should be grading or shaming voters at all.

I'm totally into constructive discussions and disagreements about rfd, that's how we develop a sense of judge philosophy's and further understanding of the topic.

But the discussion should always come with the understanding that a cast ballot can't be taken back, everyone makes mistakes and that's not the end of the world, and understanding that a different or opposing ballot isn't necessarily a bad ballot.

There's just no need to grade ballots, it isn't productive.
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2016 8:59:15 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/1/2016 8:14:30 PM, Raisor wrote:
I actually don't think we should be grading or shaming voters at all.

I'm totally into constructive discussions and disagreements about rfd, that's how we develop a sense of judge philosophy's and further understanding of the topic.

But the discussion should always come with the understanding that a cast ballot can't be taken back, everyone makes mistakes and that's not the end of the world, and understanding that a different or opposing ballot isn't necessarily a bad ballot.

There's just no need to grade ballots, it isn't productive.

that's because you vote bombed in favor or airmax and defied our lord yyw, you curd
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2016 9:42:33 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/1/2016 8:59:15 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 4/1/2016 8:14:30 PM, Raisor wrote:
I actually don't think we should be grading or shaming voters at all.

I'm totally into constructive discussions and disagreements about rfd, that's how we develop a sense of judge philosophy's and further understanding of the topic.

But the discussion should always come with the understanding that a cast ballot can't be taken back, everyone makes mistakes and that's not the end of the world, and understanding that a different or opposing ballot isn't necessarily a bad ballot.

There's just no need to grade ballots, it isn't productive.

that's because you vote bombed in favor or airmax and defied our lord yyw, you curd

I thought I votebombed in favor of bsh? I cant keep track of my vendettas anymore...
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2016 11:10:20 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/1/2016 7:58:14 PM, Ragnar wrote:
I am surprised I do not see this issue addressed, but when voting there is often a false dilemma that a vote must be either saintly or absolutely horrible (like how idiots think all women are either Virgins or Whores). Worse this mixes with Virtue Ethics to say that once someone is either good or bad, they cannot ever be anything else. There is also guilt by association; for example, a member you dislike disagrees with a vote, you'd have to be Full Retard to automatically defend the vote; yet we actually see that happen.

First and foremost, I believe we should have Mediocre in our vocabulary [cue YouTube video].

I propose when addressing vote quality, we have a sliding scale, along the lines of:
Great > Good > Mediocre > Substandard > Awful.

Great: The voter showed understanding of the arguments better than at least one of the debaters, and fairly weighted them. Under the 7 point system, including rationale for all major contentions and/or categories.

Good: Understood most or all major argument lines, and fairly weighted them. (yeah I'm probably missing some details here, this is a base idea from which to be refined)

Mediocre: Cue YouTube video again, because Immortan Joe is awesome (even if I suspect his votes would be terribly biased on topics relating to women's rights, gun control, and environmental concerns). To call a vote Mediocre isn't to even say it's bad, the voter probably tried, and met expectations (Nux failing to assassinate Furiosa like so many others, wasn't unexpected, and it did not require more than a single word of review), but it certainly did not excel.

Substandard: The vote is either a little too biased, confused on a key line of reasoning (disagreeing with the impacts of a line of reasoning is usually not confusion, such as Pro says "I won," the voter is not confused to not automatically take their word for it), or missing something. A vote might be close to greatness, but say award Sources without weighting said sources. A vote might be accidently bad, from getting pro and con confused.

Awful: Intentionally bad (even if the voter might insist it's the best thing ever, such as for helping to support Mentally Incompetent Snowflakes who will otherwise not get any votes), perhaps having taken someone's word for what is in the debate rather than reading it themselves. I don't want to put anyone on the spotlight, so I'll use more Fury Road analogies: Slit's vote against Morsov going to Valhalla (winning the debate) was awful, as Morsov's performance was unquestionably Shiny And Chrome, having utterly destroyed the vehicle the other debater used for their arguments. Furiosa has proven herself a good voter before to the point where she is trusted to drive a war rig, but she is an awful voter whenever The Wives are involved, trying to smuggle them along, rather than letting them win by their own merits.

Of course there are some unfortunate members who insult votes not on the basis of the quality of the vote, but solely based on if it is in their favor or not; I do not expect these sad excuses for debaters to ever change (not saying they can't, merely admitting that I'm a pessimist). My proposed refinement would be for members with brains in decent working order.

I intentionally did not suggest an A-F scale, because those encourage grade inflation, and B shaming. And yes, the standards I suggested for the positive votes, do not include many good things which go above and beyond, because going above and beyond should never be expected.


We could implement a system in which the influence of votes is changed when their respective votes are rated up or down.
:) nac
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 2:41:27 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/1/2016 8:14:30 PM, Raisor wrote:
...and understanding that a different or opposing ballot isn't necessarily a bad ballot.

I am glad to have confirmation that someone else understands this. The problem that made me start this thread, is many don't. Some are even opposed to there being votes for the other side on any debate; among those there are a few who outside the debate go so far as to tactically discourage votes against them.

If people are going to measure the quality of votes by any degree more severe than the voting moderator (substandard, or not), which is basically unavoidable, then as I previously stated:
First and foremost, I believe we should have Mediocre in our vocabulary.
Right now people jump to the extremes.
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...
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 2:43:13 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/1/2016 11:10:20 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
We could implement a system in which the influence of votes is changed when their respective votes are rated up or down.

We can't really do systemwide changes here. I believe Edeb8 does something like that; I don't know how well it is working out for them.
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...
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 6:19:00 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/1/2016 8:09:04 PM, Raisor wrote:
What if, hypothetically, you're kind of into being called a whore?

Are you into being called a whore? *raises eyebrow suggestively*
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 9:17:39 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 2:43:13 PM, Ragnar wrote:
At 4/1/2016 11:10:20 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
We could implement a system in which the influence of votes is changed when their respective votes are rated up or down.

We can't really do systemwide changes here. I believe Edeb8 does something like that; I don't know how well it is working out for them.

My experience with it was abysmal. Nothing against Larz, as I think the system is a good one in principle, but it was just abused to all hell. While I was voting on the site, a specific user would essentially rate all of my votes terrible, provide me with absolutely no feedback or reasoning as to why they were terrible, and knock them down substantially. The result was that I was dissuaded from voting on the site.
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2016 3:51:20 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 9:02:01 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Sadolite called it.

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

lol.

I would say I hope it never gets that bad, but I remember that I was a member of the Vote Review Board, and the system was superior (not saying it needs to come back, or that the current system is broken).

Still, I really do think we don't need to grade debates as much as we do. Given that many of us do grade them, my key point is we should not view them as either Saintly or Demonic; most do (and should) fall into the middle ground.
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...
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2016 3:53:51 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 9:17:39 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 4/2/2016 2:43:13 PM, Ragnar wrote:
At 4/1/2016 11:10:20 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
We could implement a system in which the influence of votes is changed when their respective votes are rated up or down.

We can't really do systemwide changes here. I believe Edeb8 does something like that; I don't know how well it is working out for them.

My experience with it was abysmal. Nothing against Larz, as I think the system is a good one in principle, but it was just abused to all hell. While I was voting on the site, a specific user would essentially rate all of my votes terrible, provide me with absolutely no feedback or reasoning as to why they were terrible, and knock them down substantially. The result was that I was dissuaded from voting on the site.

Actually... That's exactly what I would expect to happen here if we had such a system.

The immediate solution comes to mind of voting on the quality of the votes on the quality on the votes on the quality of the... Yeah, not really any way to fix that. Some good ideas, even great ideas, just don't work out when faced with first contact against the enemy.
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...
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2016 6:44:30 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/3/2016 3:53:51 PM, Ragnar wrote:
At 4/2/2016 9:17:39 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 4/2/2016 2:43:13 PM, Ragnar wrote:
At 4/1/2016 11:10:20 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
We could implement a system in which the influence of votes is changed when their respective votes are rated up or down.

We can't really do systemwide changes here. I believe Edeb8 does something like that; I don't know how well it is working out for them.

My experience with it was abysmal. Nothing against Larz, as I think the system is a good one in principle, but it was just abused to all hell. While I was voting on the site, a specific user would essentially rate all of my votes terrible, provide me with absolutely no feedback or reasoning as to why they were terrible, and knock them down substantially. The result was that I was dissuaded from voting on the site.

Actually... That's exactly what I would expect to happen here if we had such a system.

The immediate solution comes to mind of voting on the quality of the votes on the quality on the votes on the quality of the... Yeah, not really any way to fix that. Some good ideas, even great ideas, just don't work out when faced with first contact against the enemy.

Well, I think it's still a good idea in some ways. Giving feedback on votes is a good way to improve the general voting on the site, it's just difficult to do so without having people subvert the system. Perhaps just a simple thumbs up/thumbs down on votes? If the system is commonly used, I think it could also drown out the subversive responses.
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 1:26:30 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/3/2016 6:44:30 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 4/3/2016 3:53:51 PM, Ragnar wrote:
At 4/2/2016 9:17:39 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 4/2/2016 2:43:13 PM, Ragnar wrote:
At 4/1/2016 11:10:20 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
We could implement a system in which the influence of votes is changed when their respective votes are rated up or down.

We can't really do systemwide changes here. I believe Edeb8 does something like that; I don't know how well it is working out for them.

My experience with it was abysmal. Nothing against Larz, as I think the system is a good one in principle, but it was just abused to all hell. While I was voting on the site, a specific user would essentially rate all of my votes terrible, provide me with absolutely no feedback or reasoning as to why they were terrible, and knock them down substantially. The result was that I was dissuaded from voting on the site.

Actually... That's exactly what I would expect to happen here if we had such a system.

The immediate solution comes to mind of voting on the quality of the votes on the quality on the votes on the quality of the... Yeah, not really any way to fix that. Some good ideas, even great ideas, just don't work out when faced with first contact against the enemy.

Well, I think it's still a good idea in some ways. Giving feedback on votes is a good way to improve the general voting on the site, it's just difficult to do so without having people subvert the system. Perhaps just a simple thumbs up/thumbs down on votes? If the system is commonly used, I think it could also drown out the subversive responses.

I could get behind that system.
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...