Categorical Votes: Optimal Points?

Author: Barney

Posts

Total: 43
Topic's author
#1
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,724
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
We've been locked into the current voting system a long time. In fact it was copied from another site, without real refinements.

With recent developments, I believe we will have an opportunity to fix details.

The current system, up to 7 points per vote, weirdly given to both sides if left tied:
  • 3 for arguments
  • 2 for sources
  • 1 for legibility
  • 1 for conduct
Suffice to say, I don't think this is optimal. Granted, the optimal would vary based on the number of votes any debate receives, but I think our basic setup could do a lot better. For example, we could have 1 point for arguments, and fractional points for the other categories (or 10 for arguments, and numbers less than 10 for other stuff; or 100 for arguments, anything is possible); we could change legibility to illegibility and have it apply a direct negative (actually, this would probably help against particularly lazy vote bombers).

We could have different categories, different values, no values on some of them (proved to be a bit of a waste on DDO, but it was nice feedback), again maybe direct negatives... What would you all like to see?
Topic's author
#2
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,724
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@AdaptableRatman
I would particularly love to see your feedback on this... Largely because I suspect you already ran a 10,000 debate simulations on different options.
#3
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 2,516
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@Barney
Ok but not now, Ill reply some hours later.
#4
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 2,516
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@Barney
The whole system is corrupt because you dont mandate tabula rasa.

It needs to be total blank slate voting. Voters like Fauxlaw are terrible at that.

You need to come into voting kmowing only basic English and assuming 0 definitions beyond And etc. It is down to the debaters from the ground up to prove something as simple as that chili is spicy.

Since you do not mandate this, people can twist truth, turn points around, gaslight and more to make you feel tjeir vote is justified.

Also, final round blitzkrieg needs to ve all 7 votes to other opponent.

Don't ask me to fix the system until that is fixed.
#5
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 206
Posts: 1,131
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
Also, final round blitzkrieg needs to ve all 7 votes to other opponent.
That's a system that voids debate of purpose or meaning, since you're essentially creating a system that enables weaponized vote-bombing. 
Are there even enough resources that describe what a blitzkrieg is and what it isn't, or are voters free to justify assigning all 7 points to whatever side they want based on how they interpret what blitzkrieg means? 
No point in wasting three rounds having a pointless discussion, since voters are able to tactically exploit a loophole to reward all points to whichever side they prefer. 

If we're going to do this. At least, properly clarify what a blitzkrieg is. (No new arguments) Perhaps, be a little more specific on that.
If this legislation gets passed, I suggest all debaters to either forfeit the final rounds or give a one sentence answer. 

As if voters aren't already encouraged to ignore final round blitzkriegs. 


#6
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 2,516
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
In my eyes destroyed you in 2  rounds in Dionysus debate. I will lose it as the next 2 got forfeited.

Meanwhile some forfeit first 2 of 3 and go bam bam bam final round or debate small in first round, forfeit round 2 and the  spam.
#7
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,148
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
There’s no reason for any category besides who won the debate. I remember an infamous debate on DDO (between bluesteel and innomen) where a large number of people voted and voters thought bluesteel won by a 2-1 margin. But innomen won by a single point because all of his voters gave him 7 points while most of blue steels voters only gave him the 3 points for arguments. 
#8
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 206
Posts: 1,131
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
In my eyes destroyed you in 2  rounds in Dionysus debate. I will lose it as the next 2 got forfeited.

Meanwhile some forfeit first 3 of 3 and go bam bam bam final round or debate small in first round, forfeit round 2 and the  spam.
Your responses in the Dionysus debate were insufficiently engaged and rushed.
I adjusted the response time to 3 days which was more than enough to accommodate you.

And there's already restrictions in place that prevent people from claiming victories by forfeiting a round 2 and then spamming in round 3. 
Judges voting on that are nearly required to ignore the final 3 spam, and most will.
But assigning all 7 points based on that? Not only is that unnecessary, but extreme. 
#9
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,206
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@thett3
There’s no reason for any category besides who won the debate.
I think tournament debates should be a separate category with their own leaderboard where only experienced judges can vote, and their votes get graded by onlookers. With experienced judges, the only category should be arguments.
#10
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 8,862
4
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
4
4
9
I like what latest did where votes were waited by length. Though imperfect, longer votes are generally more well thought out and should be weighed more heavily
#11
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,206
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@WyIted
I like what latest did where votes were waited by length.
Too easy to game.
#12
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 8,862
4
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
4
4
9
-->
@Savant
It's the same thing if you game votes here you just delete them, but those who want low effort votes also are still encouraged to vote. The vote point differentials for length could be like

1 point for no explanation 
3 points for 500-2000 characters
5 points for 10k characters 

It wasn't abused on edeb8
#13
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,206
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@WyIted
Rather just have some way of grading votes and then restricting who can vote on tournament debates.
#14
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 8,862
4
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
4
4
9
-->
@Savant
Yeah grading votes would be awesome. Give them an elo for their votes also
#15
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,206
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@WyIted
Who would you say is the best voter on this site? I think WF definitely puts in the most effort. You're pretty decent when you try.
#16
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 8,862
4
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
4
4
9
-->
@Savant
I don't think I have ever disagreed with a whiteflame vote and I learned how to judge debates by watching him and prodding him for his reasons behind his decisions. When I actually am able to give a debate full effort I also make my arguments in a way I think would appeal to his style of voting since I believe it's objectively correct. 

I think I disagree with him on one point. Say you have 2 scenarios 

Argument A. This is a bigger threat right now and stays a consistent 30% threat

Argument B- this is a 10% threat but increasing at an exponential rate.


He would consider argument B to be more of a threat and think that's where resources should go. I personally think you attack the A problem until B is a bigger threat and then and only then shift focus.

He is a better voter than me though and the best here who at least votes on occasion. 
#17
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 8,862
4
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
4
4
9
He probably thinks me prodding him was about disagreements because I don't normally make my intent clear but it was always about learning.
#18
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 2,516
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@WyIted
Both of you are wrong.

It depends on rate, severity of impact if it stays that way etc.
#19
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 3,832
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
I think an important question, is 'who votes and debates on debate sites?
Many are novices, amateurs, and casual debaters, I am sure.

Separating who won into multiple parts such as convincing arguments? reliable sources? legibility? conduct?
Allows for 'training wheels so to speak,
'Or as simple guideline 'reminders to voters.
Not everyone reads or 'rereads the guides on voting, many don't even 'know of some guides DART recommends, I'm sure.

Personally, I always 'enjoyed (From debate.org)
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?

People (Not all) often like feedback, or can mistake winning a debate, for being enough to convince the voters.

I think the system is fine as it is,
People have the 'option during creation of their debate, to choose the type of voting their debate has.
. . .

I suppose one could argue adding one point for style,
In current debates.

#20
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 80
Posts: 4,280
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Barney
Members need more encouragement to vote in the first place, because the Debate Leaderboard has <1,300 participating members, and "participation" has a huge asterisk. There are only 100 of those members [7%] who have even 25 votes to their credit, and only 60 members [4.6%] have more than 25 votes, ea. And you wonder why I'm upset with you, personally, for deleting 2 of my personal votes in one debate? I actually enjoyed voting even though there is zero meaningful recognition for the 60 of us . 
There have been 3,600 debates. Less than 20 of us [<2%] have voted more than 100 times. You have a severe voter participation problem, and you delete 2 of mine in one debate. Hey, does anybody among you care about that? That is an absurd statistic. Before you go changing rules, perhaps a better mindset of the survival of debate on this site  ought to be given serous consideration by Mods. Debate is a competition.  Competition needs motivation to compete. Substitute "voting" for "debating" and you will come close to making the site successful in the debate realm. Either that, or toss it to the wolves in Forum, where "debate" is open season, ruleless but for language, and completely ungraded but for Hall of Fame consideration. Make voting a more motivating exercise, and one vote that one moderator thinks is not sufficient won't matter, much, will it? 
Personally, I am done voting for the time being.  Good luck to the 59 of you.

#21
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 80
Posts: 4,280
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
Suggestion: Since Argument is the sole required justification in voting on multiple-criteria debates, then make argument the only basis for mod removal of a vote because the other criteria are designated as optional, and any additional effort of voting to include mention of the other three criteria is informational, only, for the benefit of debate participants. Then, whatever value is given to argument is entirely meaningless. Then, for that matter, why have two separate types of debate [winner selection and multiple-criteria]? Simplification at this point might be a good path
#22
jonrohith
jonrohith's avatar
Debates: 21
Posts: 5
0
1
7
jonrohith's avatar
jonrohith
0
1
7
-->
@Barney
@fauxlaw
I introduced new type of debate that is casual debate. A person who want to start casual debate mention below in its description;
            *****This is a Casual debate: No moderation is allowed in this topic, Removing of votes ,or removing of comments is not allowed in this debate.
A person who accepts this debate also accept above rule. This is a casual debate.******

Topic's author
#23
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,724
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Thank you. Any thoughts on changes you’d like to see in the direct mechanics of point allotments?


tabula rasa … final round blitzkrieg
But what if con hasn’t proven that cheating is bad, then shouldn’t pro win extra points for citing someone cheated and it asserting that it was a crime that they were not rewarded for it? (Note for everyone else: this was a key issue in a recent debate)

I’m not against people using Tabla Rasa, or near enough to it, in their votes… But the goal of that paradigm is to minimize bias, and It is not the only way to achieve that. As an example, my votes often give feedback (such as the person I’m voting for is wrong because of X reason which the other side failed to address) which is not part of the scoring.

Topic's author
#24
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,724
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@jonrohith
Any other ways you wish to tell me you haven’t read the voting policy, without saying you haven’t read the voting policy?
Topic's author
#25
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,724
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@thett3
But innomen won by a single point because all of his voters gave him 7 points while most of blue steels voters only gave him the 3 points for arguments. 
Why were those votes not moderated?
Topic's author
#26
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,724
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Lemming
Personally, I always 'enjoyed (From debate.org)
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
I also liked them. When I served on the controversial vote review board, some votes tried to game the system with those which was sometimes used to prove the need for removal.


I suppose one could argue adding one point for style, In current debates.
Not to say going from 7 points to 8 is bad, but do you believe that to be ideally worth 0.33 of arguments, or would a different percentage be more suitable? 

#27
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 3,832
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
-->
@Barney
 0.33 would work for me,
I don't really have 'any percentage in mind.

I suppose style is pretty subjective, not clear cut objective as logic or sources tend to be.
But many people in 'real 'life, use style 'over logic or sources, to great effect. Unfortunately or not.
It 'has such effect, to my mind argues it's value in being considered.

Overtly or covertly,
People are swayed by style,
One of the profiles has Hitler, probably going to be a style hit in most peoples thoughts, conscious or not.
One of the debaters makes snide sneering 'almost insult remarks throughout, going to annoy some voters, but not be enough for conduct, it's a style hit.

Sure people 'try to be objective when voting,
But little details of styles predispose the voters thoughts.

Possible examples
Nixon vs Kennedy, TV vs Radio.
Howard Deans infamous yell.
Job interviews, appearance matters.
Style of speech matters, impacts people's reception of you.

Sure, people are 'legible, even with bad style, appearance, grammar, but it still effects their arguments.
#28
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 7,783
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@David
@Barney
“Select winner” ought to be the default option. Solves the issue easily.

And I think “rated” should be the default as well
#29
David
David's avatar
Debates: 92
Posts: 1,258
4
7
10
David's avatar
David
4
7
10
-->
@Mharman
Thank you for your feedback! I will note this to the dev team. 
#30
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 7,783
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@David
Dev team?