Total Posts:73|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page

# New Ranking System - Official

 Posts: 25,980 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/26/2010 10:59:06 PMPosted: 5 years agowin^2/loses is a simple one."Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
 Posts: 25,980 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/26/2010 11:00:37 PMPosted: 5 years agoI think we must ask how important is each factor, total wins, win%, and people that you win against."Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
 Posts: 4,933 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/26/2010 11:06:52 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 12/26/2010 10:59:06 PM, OreEle wrote:win^2/loses is a simple one.Hit's you too hard if you lose.'sup DDO -- july 2013
 Posts: 25,980 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/26/2010 11:07:16 PMPosted: 5 years agoI'm thinking a point system.If you win a debate, you get 20 points + 1 point for every win your opponent has (at the time of the win, or always fluctuating, either way). Take the total number of points squared, and divide by 20*X (where x = the total number of debates you've completed).This means that a win against a veteran is worth more then a win against a newbie. However there are still points to be had against the newbies.This basic formula can be reworked with different numbers (say 10 points +1 for each win, or 15 or whatever)."Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
 Posts: 4,933 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/26/2010 11:09:35 PMPosted: 5 years agoLooks like I'm the only one who likes it as it is.'sup DDO -- july 2013
 Posts: 25,980 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/26/2010 11:14:02 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 12/26/2010 11:06:52 PM, Zetsubou wrote:At 12/26/2010 10:59:06 PM, OreEle wrote:win^2/loses is a simple one.Hit's you too hard if you lose.Personal opinion. I think that going 20/24 (16.67 points) is far superior to 25/45 (13.89), but not as good as 30/37 (24.32).Loses actually don't hurt all that much when you've done more debates (since squares grow so much faster then linear).You'll find that if you are 53/81 (65.4% winning), that is 34.69 points, which is better then someone that is 34/34 (undefeated). And someone that is 20/20 can go 9 for their next 20 and still grow in rankings."Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
 Posts: 5,095 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/26/2010 11:17:48 PMPosted: 5 years agoI think the whole concept of a leaderboard should be scrapped completely.: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote: It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer. : At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
 Posts: 4,194 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/26/2010 11:19:36 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 12/26/2010 10:59:06 PM, OreEle wrote:win^2/loses is a simple one.But that doesn't take into account the relative quality of opponents faced. If I'm 23-4-17, but I debate primarily against people like theLwerd, RoyLatham, TheSkeptic, and Puck, I ought to have a higher rating than someone who's 30-0-0, but only debates noobs.Omar comin' yo https://www.youtube.com...
 Posts: 4,933 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/26/2010 11:20:17 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 12/26/2010 11:14:02 PM, OreEle wrote:At 12/26/2010 11:06:52 PM, Zetsubou wrote:At 12/26/2010 10:59:06 PM, OreEle wrote:win^2/loses is a simple one.Hit's you too hard if you lose.Personal opinion. I think that going 20/24 (16.67 points) is far superior to 25/45 (13.89), but not as good as 30/37 (24.32).Loses actually don't hurt all that much when you've done more debates (since squares grow so much faster then linear).You'll find that if you are 53/81 (65.4% winning), that is 34.69 points, which is better then someone that is 34/34 (undefeated). And someone that is 20/20 can go 9 for their next 20 and still grow in rankings.I'll graph it.'sup DDO -- july 2013
 Posts: 25,980 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/26/2010 11:21:50 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 12/26/2010 11:19:36 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:At 12/26/2010 10:59:06 PM, OreEle wrote:win^2/loses is a simple one.But that doesn't take into account the relative quality of opponents faced. If I'm 23-4-17, but I debate primarily against people like theLwerd, RoyLatham, TheSkeptic, and Puck, I ought to have a higher rating than someone who's 30-0-0, but only debates noobs.See the point system one that I did afterwards"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
 Posts: 4,194 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/26/2010 11:22:35 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 12/26/2010 11:07:16 PM, OreEle wrote:I'm thinking a point system.If you win a debate, you get 20 points + 1 point for every win your opponent has (at the time of the win, or always fluctuating, either way). Take the total number of points squared, and divide by 20*X (where x = the total number of debates you've completed).This means that a win against a veteran is worth more then a win against a newbie. However there are still points to be had against the newbies.This basic formula can be reworked with different numbers (say 10 points +1 for each win, or 15 or whatever).That still places way too much emphasis on total number of wins. An Elo system is the closest you can get to rating debate skill on an objective scale.Omar comin' yo https://www.youtube.com...
 Posts: 25,980 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/26/2010 11:23:09 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 12/26/2010 11:20:17 PM, Zetsubou wrote:At 12/26/2010 11:14:02 PM, OreEle wrote:At 12/26/2010 11:06:52 PM, Zetsubou wrote:At 12/26/2010 10:59:06 PM, OreEle wrote:win^2/loses is a simple one.Hit's you too hard if you lose.Personal opinion. I think that going 20/24 (16.67 points) is far superior to 25/45 (13.89), but not as good as 30/37 (24.32).Loses actually don't hurt all that much when you've done more debates (since squares grow so much faster then linear).You'll find that if you are 53/81 (65.4% winning), that is 34.69 points, which is better then someone that is 34/34 (undefeated). And someone that is 20/20 can go 9 for their next 20 and still grow in rankings.I'll graph it.If you want to take power away from total wins, and push it towards win% and people faced, do the same equation, but take the ^2 out of the equation."Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
 Posts: 4,194 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/26/2010 11:31:06 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 12/26/2010 11:07:16 PM, OreEle wrote:I'm thinking a point system. If you win a debate, you get 20 points + 1 point for every win your opponent has (at the time of the win, or always fluctuating, either way). Take the total number of points squared, and divide by 20*X (where x = the total number of debates you've completed).This means that a win against a veteran is worth more then a win against a newbie. However there are still points to be had against the newbies.This basic formula can be reworked with different numbers (say 10 points +1 for each win, or 15 or whatever).Plus, your system modifies the number of points awarded based on total wins, rather than on the debaters respective point totals, which doesn't make any sense to me. Additionally, it doesn't penalize someone for losing a debates. There's no way to fall in the rankings; it emphasizes seniority too much. The only way for a new user to get his ranking up is to do lots and lots of debates. An Elo system directly compares skill.Omar comin' yo https://www.youtube.com...
 Posts: 2,685 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/26/2010 11:43:55 PMPosted: 5 years agoI'm for the Elo. Seems most basic, easiest to implement (because we don't have to formulate anything majorly time consuming), and most accurate.VOTESElo- 2 (J.Kenyon, m93samman)Others- 0: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote: : Pascal's wager is for poosies. : : I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie. : : I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
 Posts: 25,980 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/26/2010 11:47:47 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 12/26/2010 11:43:55 PM, m93samman wrote:I'm for the Elo. Seems most basic, easiest to implement (because we don't have to formulate anything majorly time consuming), and most accurate.VOTESElo- 2 (J.Kenyon, m93samman)Others- 0Since the Elo doesn't have a basic mathematical formula, but a formula for how much change should happen after a given win or loss, can it really be back applied to our current wins and losses?"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
 Posts: 2,685 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/26/2010 11:56:53 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 12/26/2010 11:47:47 PM, OreEle wrote:At 12/26/2010 11:43:55 PM, m93samman wrote:I'm for the Elo. Seems most basic, easiest to implement (because we don't have to formulate anything majorly time consuming), and most accurate.VOTESElo- 2 (J.Kenyon, m93samman)Others- 0Since the Elo doesn't have a basic mathematical formula, but a formula for how much change should happen after a given win or loss, can it really be back applied to our current wins and losses?It could if it was implemented in the chronological sense that J.Kenyon mentioned. Begin with the very first debate.: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote: : Pascal's wager is for poosies. : : I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie. : : I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
 Posts: 4,194 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/26/2010 11:58:22 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 12/26/2010 11:47:47 PM, OreEle wrote:Since the Elo doesn't have a basic mathematical formula, but a formula for how much change should happen after a given win or loss, can it really be back applied to our current wins and losses?I don't see why not. An Elo script would go through the database in chronological order beginning with the first ever debate.Omar comin' yo https://www.youtube.com...
 Posts: 4,194 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/27/2010 12:02:46 AMPosted: 5 years agoAt 12/26/2010 11:43:19 PM, bluesteel wrote:I really like this proposal is some ways, but not others. I'd like to see more high quality debates on this site, but regular users rarely instigate open challenges, which limits opportunities. There is no tournament system like in chess (where if you win, you are guaranteed higher quality matches), although I'd like to see something like this on this site (also with switch side debating, where people don't just endorse resolutions/sides they agree with; maybe also a monthly topic that everyone uses like in competitive debate?).I'm also a little skeptical because getting vote bombed on certain debates could really sink your rating (losing to someone who has a really bad record), and also, 90% of users on this site engage in less than 3 debates, so beating someone who is 2-0 really ups your rating, but beating someone in their first debate, and then having them lose two rounds in a row drops your rating? I dunno maybe this isn't true; don't understand perfectly how the system works. J.Kenyon?The way I understand it, Elo ratings aren't modified retroactively. If you beat someone rated 1,900, but later on he drops to 1,200, it doesn't affect you adversely. Vote bombing is a separate issue, but I see how it would be more important if we were to implement an Elo system. We could implement something like requiring a minimum number of debates be completed before allowing someone to vote, or create an option to only allow people with a certain ranking to vote on your debate.Omar comin' yo https://www.youtube.com...
 Posts: 10,864 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/27/2010 12:22:31 AMPosted: 5 years agoMr. Kenyon has my full support with this system. My only concern was that it would be difficult to implement retroactively, but that's been addressed and isn't a problem."Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman." Muh threads Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org... 6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...