Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

A crazy idea to make DDO great again

philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 11:39:35 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Every since I've been on DDO, which has been several years, people have complained about voting. Either people weren't voting at all, or else they were making bad votes, or vote bombing, or multi-accounting, or whatever. Many ideas were put forward to try to rectify the situation and improve things. It used to be that if somebody gave an obviously bad vote, somebody else would come along and counter that vote. That was ended with moderation in which you report a bad vote, and a moderator removes it. Then later, we got official guidelines about what had to be included in a vote, and the regular vote comment box wasn't really big enough for what was being asked of voters. Voting moderation became heavy-handed. That fixed one problem, but it appears to have created another.

Now, it has become nearly impossible to get any votes at all on a debate, and the one vote you might get, it's inevitable that one of the voters will be unsatisfied with it. The heavy-handed moderation has discouraged most of the voting. The lack of voting has discouraged people from debating. It's a real bummer when you put a lot into a debate and nobody votes on it. It's especially a bummer when you're pretty sure you would've won if at least four people voted.

I think that's a big part of what's killing this site. I've lost interest in voting after multiple debates that were either never voted on or only got one vote. It's also a bit of a chore to vote on other people's debates, more so than it used to be.

I think we've all been laboring under the delusion that there's a solution to all of our woes if we can just figure out what it is and all get behind it. I think we're just going to have to live with some problems if we want this site to be as fun and interesting as it used to be.

So here's my crazy solution. Let's just go back to the imperfect system we used to have. Let the votes be bad. If they're really bad, we can cancel them out with a counter-vote. If there are bad votes on one side, there'll probably be bad votes on the other side, too. But it raises interest in debates. The hope is that if ten or so people vote, the person who should've won probably will win with a mixture of good and bad votes. So let's just live with the fact that there are going to be bad votes. That might get people interested in debating again, and it might get people interested in reading and judging debates more.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 11:41:28 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
I've lost interest in voting after multiple debates that were either never voted on or only got one vote.

I meant to say I've lost interesting in DEBATING. . .
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 12:23:45 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 11:39:35 PM, philochristos wrote:
Every since I've been on DDO, which has been several years, people have complained about voting. Either people weren't voting at all, or else they were making bad votes, or vote bombing, or multi-accounting, or whatever. Many ideas were put forward to try to rectify the situation and improve things. It used to be that if somebody gave an obviously bad vote, somebody else would come along and counter that vote. That was ended with moderation in which you report a bad vote, and a moderator removes it. Then later, we got official guidelines about what had to be included in a vote, and the regular vote comment box wasn't really big enough for what was being asked of voters. Voting moderation became heavy-handed. That fixed one problem, but it appears to have created another.

Now, it has become nearly impossible to get any votes at all on a debate, and the one vote you might get, it's inevitable that one of the voters will be unsatisfied with it. The heavy-handed moderation has discouraged most of the voting. The lack of voting has discouraged people from debating. It's a real bummer when you put a lot into a debate and nobody votes on it. It's especially a bummer when you're pretty sure you would've won if at least four people voted.

I think that's a big part of what's killing this site. I've lost interest in voting after multiple debates that were either never voted on or only got one vote. It's also a bit of a chore to vote on other people's debates, more so than it used to be.

I think we've all been laboring under the delusion that there's a solution to all of our woes if we can just figure out what it is and all get behind it. I think we're just going to have to live with some problems if we want this site to be as fun and interesting as it used to be.

So here's my crazy solution. Let's just go back to the imperfect system we used to have. Let the votes be bad. If they're really bad, we can cancel them out with a counter-vote. If there are bad votes on one side, there'll probably be bad votes on the other side, too. But it raises interest in debates. The hope is that if ten or so people vote, the person who should've won probably will win with a mixture of good and bad votes. So let's just live with the fact that there are going to be bad votes. That might get people interested in debating again, and it might get people interested in reading and judging debates more.

I was around those many years ago when voting was pretty much anything goes. No, I don't want to go back to that, I want at least some standards in place for voting..

I am concerned you seem to think the answer is dropping standards, this is DDO, not an american college damm it.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 12:26:17 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/18/2016 12:23:45 AM, illegalcombat wrote:

I was around those many years ago when voting was pretty much anything goes. No, I don't want to go back to that, I want at least some standards in place for voting..

I am concerned you seem to think the answer is dropping standards, this is DDO, not an american college damm it.

It never was anything goes. There was shaming and counter-voting. It wasn't a perfect system, but this site was more interesting back then.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 12:37:13 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/18/2016 12:26:17 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 10/18/2016 12:23:45 AM, illegalcombat wrote:

I was around those many years ago when voting was pretty much anything goes. No, I don't want to go back to that, I want at least some standards in place for voting..

I am concerned you seem to think the answer is dropping standards, this is DDO, not an american college damm it.

It never was anything goes. There was shaming and counter-voting. It wasn't a perfect system, but this site was more interesting back then.

It was a sh*t fest.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 1:09:35 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/18/2016 12:37:13 AM, illegalcombat wrote:

It was a sh*t fest.

And we had the Drama Farm! Those were the days!
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 1:30:27 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 11:39:35 PM, philochristos wrote:
Every since I've been on DDO, which has been several years, people have complained about voting. Either people weren't voting at all, or else they were making bad votes, or vote bombing, or multi-accounting, or whatever. Many ideas were put forward to try to rectify the situation and improve things. It used to be that if somebody gave an obviously bad vote, somebody else would come along and counter that vote. That was ended with moderation in which you report a bad vote, and a moderator removes it. Then later, we got official guidelines about what had to be included in a vote, and the regular vote comment box wasn't really big enough for what was being asked of voters. Voting moderation became heavy-handed. That fixed one problem, but it appears to have created another.

Now, it has become nearly impossible to get any votes at all on a debate, and the one vote you might get, it's inevitable that one of the voters will be unsatisfied with it. The heavy-handed moderation has discouraged most of the voting. The lack of voting has discouraged people from debating. It's a real bummer when you put a lot into a debate and nobody votes on it. It's especially a bummer when you're pretty sure you would've won if at least four people voted.

I think that's a big part of what's killing this site. I've lost interest in voting after multiple debates that were either never voted on or only got one vote. It's also a bit of a chore to vote on other people's debates, more so than it used to be.

I think we've all been laboring under the delusion that there's a solution to all of our woes if we can just figure out what it is and all get behind it. I think we're just going to have to live with some problems if we want this site to be as fun and interesting as it used to be.

So here's my crazy solution. Let's just go back to the imperfect system we used to have. Let the votes be bad. If they're really bad, we can cancel them out with a counter-vote. If there are bad votes on one side, there'll probably be bad votes on the other side, too. But it raises interest in debates. The hope is that if ten or so people vote, the person who should've won probably will win with a mixture of good and bad votes. So let's just live with the fact that there are going to be bad votes. That might get people interested in debating again, and it might get people interested in reading and judging debates more.

I agree, it's worth a try. I hope you find others who support what you are recommending :)
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 2:41:21 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/18/2016 1:30:27 AM, Emmarie wrote:

I agree, it's worth a try. I hope you find others who support what you are recommending :)

Thank you for your support, Emmarie.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Tree_of_Death
Posts: 763
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 3:22:18 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 11:39:35 PM, philochristos wrote:
Every since I've been on DDO, which has been several years, people have complained about voting. Either people weren't voting at all, or else they were making bad votes, or vote bombing, or multi-accounting, or whatever. Many ideas were put forward to try to rectify the situation and improve things. It used to be that if somebody gave an obviously bad vote, somebody else would come along and counter that vote. That was ended with moderation in which you report a bad vote, and a moderator removes it. Then later, we got official guidelines about what had to be included in a vote, and the regular vote comment box wasn't really big enough for what was being asked of voters. Voting moderation became heavy-handed. That fixed one problem, but it appears to have created another.

Now, it has become nearly impossible to get any votes at all on a debate, and the one vote you might get, it's inevitable that one of the voters will be unsatisfied with it. The heavy-handed moderation has discouraged most of the voting. The lack of voting has discouraged people from debating. It's a real bummer when you put a lot into a debate and nobody votes on it. It's especially a bummer when you're pretty sure you would've won if at least four people voted.

I think that's a big part of what's killing this site. I've lost interest in voting after multiple debates that were either never voted on or only got one vote. It's also a bit of a chore to vote on other people's debates, more so than it used to be.

I think we've all been laboring under the delusion that there's a solution to all of our woes if we can just figure out what it is and all get behind it. I think we're just going to have to live with some problems if we want this site to be as fun and interesting as it used to be.

So here's my crazy solution. Let's just go back to the imperfect system we used to have. Let the votes be bad. If they're really bad, we can cancel them out with a counter-vote. If there are bad votes on one side, there'll probably be bad votes on the other side, too. But it raises interest in debates. The hope is that if ten or so people vote, the person who should've won probably will win with a mixture of good and bad votes. So let's just live with the fact that there are going to be bad votes. That might get people interested in debating again, and it might get people interested in reading and judging debates more.

Definitely would be better than what we have now. I had an idea though--what if a set of looser standards were created (like the opt-in voting standards) that debaters could agree to before a debate? Moderation would then hold off on deleting "insufficient" votes at the request of the debaters, but those who prefer more rigorous voting standards could still have them.
"If life were easy, it wouldn't be difficult."--Kermit the Frog

#Treebrokethechurchbells--DD

"I am after all the purveyor of intellectually dishonest propaganda." --YYW
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 3:39:44 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/18/2016 1:09:35 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 10/18/2016 12:37:13 AM, illegalcombat wrote:

It was a sh*t fest.

And we had the Drama Farm! Those were the days!

Save the drama for your mama.
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 4:27:17 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
I lost interest in voting way before stricter vote standards ever went into place, as many others did, and thats probably because like many members who have been around for a long time have seen, the debates get boring after a while since they become repetitive..... New debates start revolving around the same resolutions, the same arguments, the same sources, etc to the point that after seeing a gay marriage debate appear for the 31st time in the voting list, you are more tempted to skip over it and look out for more unconventional, interesting debates to vote on, rather than any debate that is available in the voting period.

The fewer debates there are to vote on the more likely it is for people to vote on them as well. Back when we had maybe 4 or 5 debates a week go into the voting period, there was more inclination to vote on those debates simply because they were the only ones available. Now the voting section is fuckin saturated with debates, which spreads out the number of votes that are given on debates as well, since people who do cast votes usually tire out after the 7th or 8th time.

I dont know what will make DDO great/fun again, but removing voting standards isnt going to do much, especially since people are already allowed to opt out of them in the first place when making debates
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

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
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 5:10:23 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 11:39:35 PM, philochristos wrote:
Every since I've been on DDO, which has been several years, people have complained about voting. Either people weren't voting at all, or else they were making bad votes, or vote bombing, or multi-accounting, or whatever. Many ideas were put forward to try to rectify the situation and improve things. It used to be that if somebody gave an obviously bad vote, somebody else would come along and counter that vote. That was ended with moderation in which you report a bad vote, and a moderator removes it. Then later, we got official guidelines about what had to be included in a vote, and the regular vote comment box wasn't really big enough for what was being asked of voters. Voting moderation became heavy-handed. That fixed one problem, but it appears to have created another.

Now, it has become nearly impossible to get any votes at all on a debate, and the one vote you might get, it's inevitable that one of the voters will be unsatisfied with it. The heavy-handed moderation has discouraged most of the voting. The lack of voting has discouraged people from debating. It's a real bummer when you put a lot into a debate and nobody votes on it. It's especially a bummer when you're pretty sure you would've won if at least four people voted.

I think that's a big part of what's killing this site. I've lost interest in voting after multiple debates that were either never voted on or only got one vote. It's also a bit of a chore to vote on other people's debates, more so than it used to be.

I think we've all been laboring under the delusion that there's a solution to all of our woes if we can just figure out what it is and all get behind it. I think we're just going to have to live with some problems if we want this site to be as fun and interesting as it used to be.

So here's my crazy solution. Let's just go back to the imperfect system we used to have. Let the votes be bad. If they're really bad, we can cancel them out with a counter-vote. If there are bad votes on one side, there'll probably be bad votes on the other side, too. But it raises interest in debates. The hope is that if ten or so people vote, the person who should've won probably will win with a mixture of good and bad votes. So let's just live with the fact that there are going to be bad votes. That might get people interested in debating again, and it might get people interested in reading and judging debates more.

No. And here's why.

The problem is thus; bad votes suck. Two ways to make them not suck: moderation and countervotes. Who decides whether a vote sucks in each system? In the moderation system the most gifted and capable voter on the site is awarded voting moderator and evaluates bad votes and deletes them. In the free for all system, the people decide if a vote is bad or not. Allowing the people to decide if a vote is bad or not doesn't work since people have warped views of what a bad vote is. Any vote against them could easily be considered a bad vote by more than half the site. Debates are determined by how many friends you have rather than by debating skill.

In regards to voting quantity. Would people be deterred from doing debates more if they got no votes on their debate or if they lost the debate because of terrible votes? I think the latter is more true.

Regardless, the voting standards aren't that stringent. You just have to explain why you awarded the points you did. Even the most complex debates can be voted on in a paragraph or two.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 5:16:42 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/18/2016 3:22:18 AM, Tree_of_Death wrote:
At 10/17/2016 11:39:35 PM, philochristos wrote:
Every since I've been on DDO, which has been several years, people have complained about voting. Either people weren't voting at all, or else they were making bad votes, or vote bombing, or multi-accounting, or whatever. Many ideas were put forward to try to rectify the situation and improve things. It used to be that if somebody gave an obviously bad vote, somebody else would come along and counter that vote. That was ended with moderation in which you report a bad vote, and a moderator removes it. Then later, we got official guidelines about what had to be included in a vote, and the regular vote comment box wasn't really big enough for what was being asked of voters. Voting moderation became heavy-handed. That fixed one problem, but it appears to have created another.

Now, it has become nearly impossible to get any votes at all on a debate, and the one vote you might get, it's inevitable that one of the voters will be unsatisfied with it. The heavy-handed moderation has discouraged most of the voting. The lack of voting has discouraged people from debating. It's a real bummer when you put a lot into a debate and nobody votes on it. It's especially a bummer when you're pretty sure you would've won if at least four people voted.

I think that's a big part of what's killing this site. I've lost interest in voting after multiple debates that were either never voted on or only got one vote. It's also a bit of a chore to vote on other people's debates, more so than it used to be.

I think we've all been laboring under the delusion that there's a solution to all of our woes if we can just figure out what it is and all get behind it. I think we're just going to have to live with some problems if we want this site to be as fun and interesting as it used to be.

So here's my crazy solution. Let's just go back to the imperfect system we used to have. Let the votes be bad. If they're really bad, we can cancel them out with a counter-vote. If there are bad votes on one side, there'll probably be bad votes on the other side, too. But it raises interest in debates. The hope is that if ten or so people vote, the person who should've won probably will win with a mixture of good and bad votes. So let's just live with the fact that there are going to be bad votes. That might get people interested in debating again, and it might get people interested in reading and judging debates more.

Definitely would be better than what we have now. I had an idea though--what if a set of looser standards were created (like the opt-in voting standards) that debaters could agree to before a debate? Moderation would then hold off on deleting "insufficient" votes at the request of the debaters, but those who prefer more rigorous voting standards could still have them.

Already allowed. When you set up your debate set no RFD in the voting system and all votes are unmoderated. You can create specific R1 rules too regarding voting. Type up a google doc explaining your prefered voting standards and link them to the debate and say that debate will go by these and my opponent accepts them upon acceptence. The debate is moderated based on that then.
Tree_of_Death
Posts: 763
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 9:48:59 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/18/2016 5:16:42 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/18/2016 3:22:18 AM, Tree_of_Death wrote:
At 10/17/2016 11:39:35 PM, philochristos wrote:
Every since I've been on DDO, which has been several years, people have complained about voting. Either people weren't voting at all, or else they were making bad votes, or vote bombing, or multi-accounting, or whatever. Many ideas were put forward to try to rectify the situation and improve things. It used to be that if somebody gave an obviously bad vote, somebody else would come along and counter that vote. That was ended with moderation in which you report a bad vote, and a moderator removes it. Then later, we got official guidelines about what had to be included in a vote, and the regular vote comment box wasn't really big enough for what was being asked of voters. Voting moderation became heavy-handed. That fixed one problem, but it appears to have created another.

Now, it has become nearly impossible to get any votes at all on a debate, and the one vote you might get, it's inevitable that one of the voters will be unsatisfied with it. The heavy-handed moderation has discouraged most of the voting. The lack of voting has discouraged people from debating. It's a real bummer when you put a lot into a debate and nobody votes on it. It's especially a bummer when you're pretty sure you would've won if at least four people voted.

I think that's a big part of what's killing this site. I've lost interest in voting after multiple debates that were either never voted on or only got one vote. It's also a bit of a chore to vote on other people's debates, more so than it used to be.

I think we've all been laboring under the delusion that there's a solution to all of our woes if we can just figure out what it is and all get behind it. I think we're just going to have to live with some problems if we want this site to be as fun and interesting as it used to be.

So here's my crazy solution. Let's just go back to the imperfect system we used to have. Let the votes be bad. If they're really bad, we can cancel them out with a counter-vote. If there are bad votes on one side, there'll probably be bad votes on the other side, too. But it raises interest in debates. The hope is that if ten or so people vote, the person who should've won probably will win with a mixture of good and bad votes. So let's just live with the fact that there are going to be bad votes. That might get people interested in debating again, and it might get people interested in reading and judging debates more.

Definitely would be better than what we have now. I had an idea though--what if a set of looser standards were created (like the opt-in voting standards) that debaters could agree to before a debate? Moderation would then hold off on deleting "insufficient" votes at the request of the debaters, but those who prefer more rigorous voting standards could still have them.

Already allowed. When you set up your debate set no RFD in the voting system and all votes are unmoderated. You can create specific R1 rules too regarding voting. Type up a google doc explaining your prefered voting standards and link them to the debate and say that debate will go by these and my opponent accepts them upon acceptence. The debate is moderated based on that then.

Oh. If it's that easily fixable why do people want voting moderation reform so badly?
"If life were easy, it wouldn't be difficult."--Kermit the Frog

#Treebrokethechurchbells--DD

"I am after all the purveyor of intellectually dishonest propaganda." --YYW
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 10:05:00 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/18/2016 9:48:59 PM, Tree_of_Death wrote:
At 10/18/2016 5:16:42 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/18/2016 3:22:18 AM, Tree_of_Death wrote:
At 10/17/2016 11:39:35 PM, philochristos wrote:
Every since I've been on DDO, which has been several years, people have complained about voting. Either people weren't voting at all, or else they were making bad votes, or vote bombing, or multi-accounting, or whatever. Many ideas were put forward to try to rectify the situation and improve things. It used to be that if somebody gave an obviously bad vote, somebody else would come along and counter that vote. That was ended with moderation in which you report a bad vote, and a moderator removes it. Then later, we got official guidelines about what had to be included in a vote, and the regular vote comment box wasn't really big enough for what was being asked of voters. Voting moderation became heavy-handed. That fixed one problem, but it appears to have created another.

Now, it has become nearly impossible to get any votes at all on a debate, and the one vote you might get, it's inevitable that one of the voters will be unsatisfied with it. The heavy-handed moderation has discouraged most of the voting. The lack of voting has discouraged people from debating. It's a real bummer when you put a lot into a debate and nobody votes on it. It's especially a bummer when you're pretty sure you would've won if at least four people voted.

I think that's a big part of what's killing this site. I've lost interest in voting after multiple debates that were either never voted on or only got one vote. It's also a bit of a chore to vote on other people's debates, more so than it used to be.

I think we've all been laboring under the delusion that there's a solution to all of our woes if we can just figure out what it is and all get behind it. I think we're just going to have to live with some problems if we want this site to be as fun and interesting as it used to be.

So here's my crazy solution. Let's just go back to the imperfect system we used to have. Let the votes be bad. If they're really bad, we can cancel them out with a counter-vote. If there are bad votes on one side, there'll probably be bad votes on the other side, too. But it raises interest in debates. The hope is that if ten or so people vote, the person who should've won probably will win with a mixture of good and bad votes. So let's just live with the fact that there are going to be bad votes. That might get people interested in debating again, and it might get people interested in reading and judging debates more.

Definitely would be better than what we have now. I had an idea though--what if a set of looser standards were created (like the opt-in voting standards) that debaters could agree to before a debate? Moderation would then hold off on deleting "insufficient" votes at the request of the debaters, but those who prefer more rigorous voting standards could still have them.

Already allowed. When you set up your debate set no RFD in the voting system and all votes are unmoderated. You can create specific R1 rules too regarding voting. Type up a google doc explaining your prefered voting standards and link them to the debate and say that debate will go by these and my opponent accepts them upon acceptence. The debate is moderated based on that then.

Oh. If it's that easily fixable why do people want voting moderation reform so badly?

Not that many people do want voting moderation fixed according to the referendum we had a while back.

Regardless, not that many people realize this solution and it hasn't been brought to attention yet except by me. Just because people don't know about it doesn't reflective its desirability.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 5:28:00 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 11:39:35 PM, philochristos wrote:
Every since I've been on DDO, which has been several years, people have complained about voting. Either people weren't voting at all, or else they were making bad votes, or vote bombing, or multi-accounting, or whatever. Many ideas were put forward to try to rectify the situation and improve things. It used to be that if somebody gave an obviously bad vote, somebody else would come along and counter that vote. That was ended with moderation in which you report a bad vote, and a moderator removes it. Then later, we got official guidelines about what had to be included in a vote, and the regular vote comment box wasn't really big enough for what was being asked of voters. Voting moderation became heavy-handed. That fixed one problem, but it appears to have created another.

Now, it has become nearly impossible to get any votes at all on a debate, and the one vote you might get, it's inevitable that one of the voters will be unsatisfied with it. The heavy-handed moderation has discouraged most of the voting. The lack of voting has discouraged people from debating. It's a real bummer when you put a lot into a debate and nobody votes on it. It's especially a bummer when you're pretty sure you would've won if at least four people voted.

I think that's a big part of what's killing this site. I've lost interest in voting after multiple debates that were either never voted on or only got one vote. It's also a bit of a chore to vote on other people's debates, more so than it used to be.

I think we've all been laboring under the delusion that there's a solution to all of our woes if we can just figure out what it is and all get behind it. I think we're just going to have to live with some problems if we want this site to be as fun and interesting as it used to be.

So here's my crazy solution. Let's just go back to the imperfect system we used to have. Let the votes be bad. If they're really bad, we can cancel them out with a counter-vote. If there are bad votes on one side, there'll probably be bad votes on the other side, too. But it raises interest in debates. The hope is that if ten or so people vote, the person who should've won probably will win with a mixture of good and bad votes. So let's just live with the fact that there are going to be bad votes. That might get people interested in debating again, and it might get people interested in reading and judging debates more.

We should have a system where as long as the voter points out the argument they found compelling, the vote should stand.
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
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 2:02:31 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
I agree with this tbh. Even in the wild west of voting, I got put on trial, in large part, due to excessive biased voting. It wasn't as wild-westish as people seem to think. Really bad voters still, if they did it enough, got punished.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
TUF
Posts: 21,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2016 6:17:02 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Can DDO be "great" again with the homepage toting harambe and masturbation? I find this quite funny.
http://i.imgur.com...
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 5:13:02 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/28/2016 6:17:02 PM, TUF wrote:
Can DDO be "great" again with the homepage toting harambe and masturbation? I find this quite funny.
http://i.imgur.com...

That's why DDO is great, Tuf!
#FeeltheFreezerBern
Death23
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 6:20:24 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 11:39:35 PM, philochristos wrote:
Every since I've been on DDO, which has been several years, people have complained about voting. Either people weren't voting at all, or else they were making bad votes, or vote bombing, or multi-accounting, or whatever. Many ideas were put forward to try to rectify the situation and improve things. It used to be that if somebody gave an obviously bad vote, somebody else would come along and counter that vote. That was ended with moderation in which you report a bad vote, and a moderator removes it. Then later, we got official guidelines about what had to be included in a vote, and the regular vote comment box wasn't really big enough for what was being asked of voters. Voting moderation became heavy-handed. That fixed one problem, but it appears to have created another.

Now, it has become nearly impossible to get any votes at all on a debate, and the one vote you might get, it's inevitable that one of the voters will be unsatisfied with it. The heavy-handed moderation has discouraged most of the voting. The lack of voting has discouraged people from debating. It's a real bummer when you put a lot into a debate and nobody votes on it. It's especially a bummer when you're pretty sure you would've won if at least four people voted.

I think that's a big part of what's killing this site. I've lost interest in voting after multiple debates that were either never voted on or only got one vote. It's also a bit of a chore to vote on other people's debates, more so than it used to be.

I think we've all been laboring under the delusion that there's a solution to all of our woes if we can just figure out what it is and all get behind it. I think we're just going to have to live with some problems if we want this site to be as fun and interesting as it used to be.

So here's my crazy solution. Let's just go back to the imperfect system we used to have. Let the votes be bad. If they're really bad, we can cancel them out with a counter-vote. If there are bad votes on one side, there'll probably be bad votes on the other side, too. But it raises interest in debates. The hope is that if ten or so people vote, the person who should've won probably will win with a mixture of good and bad votes. So let's just live with the fact that there are going to be bad votes. That might get people interested in debating again, and it might get people interested in reading and judging debates more.

If you instigated the debate you should be able to set the rules for voting. This might help, a little.