Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

A United Message from DDO to Phil

ournamestoolong
Posts: 1,059
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2009 4:28:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
We want required RFD's. As a yound debater I know that I want to better myself through academic pursuit, so I joined this site. I am losing many of my debates, but rarely get advice. To combat this DDO wants Required Reasons For Decisions. We can do this to combat vote bombing as well. Sign this petition if you agree.

DDO MEMBERS FOR RFD'S
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
I'll get by with a little help from my friends.

Ournamestoolong

Secretary of Commerce

Destroy talking ads!
ournamestoolong
Posts: 1,059
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2009 4:29:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago

DDO MEMBERS FOR RFD'S
1. Ournamestoolong
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
I'll get by with a little help from my friends.

Ournamestoolong

Secretary of Commerce

Destroy talking ads!
ournamestoolong
Posts: 1,059
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2009 4:42:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/23/2009 4:34:54 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
Petitions don't matter. This site gets 5 bucks a day and is therefore a waste of time for them to manage (as Phil has implied).

Would it kill you to try? Just type your username?

I know it could be a waste but if we don't advertise at all or even make an effort to change things, this site won't have enough members and Phil won't change anything, but it doesn't hurt in any way to try.
I'll get by with a little help from my friends.

Ournamestoolong

Secretary of Commerce

Destroy talking ads!
ournamestoolong
Posts: 1,059
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2009 4:43:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/23/2009 4:41:25 PM, Harlan wrote:
I am anti-signing it. I don't want required rfd's.

May I ask why?
I'll get by with a little help from my friends.

Ournamestoolong

Secretary of Commerce

Destroy talking ads!
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2009 5:24:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Before writing that something is a united message, it's usually good to make sure of the unity.

That said, I don't really care about RFD's but we need an edit button on these forums :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2009 11:55:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/23/2009 4:41:25 PM, Harlan wrote:
I am anti-signing it. I don't want required rfd's.

This. If someone does not want to tell the debaters why they voted how they did, that should be fine. Further, it would be a difficult system to put into place while preserving old data, and it simply isn't worth the time to implement. And this would also filter out the less intelligent among us, since they would be ashamed of their shoddy RFD's compared to people who RFD like madmen. Such high-brow requirements for participation would lower site revenues even further.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2009 12:30:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I am opposed to RFDs. That will reveal identities and cause people to worry about retaliation if they don't vote for their friends. The secret ballot should be preserved.

Vote bombing could be prevented by requiring a site member to have completed three debates before earning the right to vote.
right_wing
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2009 10:39:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Wow, the untied message was an epic fail. Do you know why? Do you really think they want mandatory RFD's all the time? Then how could THEIR voting bloc still be effective? Do you think the cleaners (or anyone) gives or wants to give RFD's all the time? Really?
burningpuppies101
Posts: 1,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2009 11:03:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Notice how the people who were against RFDs are against it because they feel you are a more pressing issue??? Notice how people don't want you here???
Omnes te moriturum amant 

http://www.debate.org...
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2009 3:59:38 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
RFD's would cut down vote bombing, but people would just write in

"Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"

and nothing could be done unless he were to appoint user mods who inspect the RFD's.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2015 6:26:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2009 12:30:38 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I am opposed to RFDs. That will reveal identities and cause people to worry about retaliation if they don't vote for their friends. The secret ballot should be preserved.

Vote bombing could be prevented by requiring a site member to have completed three debates before earning the right to vote.

I think you're wrong about this. Not that the pressure doesn't exist, but RFDs should be required to combat vote Bombing and to provide feed back to debaters so they can improve. The 3 debate perquisite is a good ideal, though and hope that somebody sees your suggestion and implements it.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2015 6:28:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2009 3:59:38 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
RFD's would cut down vote bombing, but people would just write in

"Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"

and nothing could be done unless he were to appoint user mods who inspect the RFD's.

No shitt sherlock
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2015 8:18:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2009 10:53:32 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
I would much rather have the vote bomb removal program.

I wish it would go back to the good old days. Because that is how things are in real life. In real life you don't get RFD's you have to be liked and convincing. All the sources and facts in the world won't get someone's vote in the real world. I think RFD's set up the younger voters for huge disappointment when they find out that this isn't the way the world works.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%