-->
@Mharman
I think “rated” should be the default as well
If new users start a lot of rated debates it makes noob sniping a lot easier.
Categorical Votes: Optimal Points?
Posts
Total:
44
-->
@Mharman
We are working on a redesign and an overhaul of the website
-->
@David
Introduce option to have formal debates without voters.
-->
@David
Do we have access to the code yet? If so, didn't see it posted in the Discord.
-->
@Savant
Sadly I don’t
-->
@David
Did Mike give a timeline for the ownership transfer or is that still up in the air?
-->
@Savant
Still up in the air. He said he’d give me the website and I asked for the code. As of now I haven’t heard back from him in the past few days
-->
@David
We? Who are the other members of the dev team?
-->
@Savant
The alternative is for the debates section to remain as dead as it is
-->
@Mharman
There will be the same number of debates either way, question is how many are rated. Also advertising can help.
Ideas so far:
- Switch wholly to single category voting (currently available as opt in)
- Make single category voting the default
- Add the ability to vote on the quality of votes (I think the notion has a lot of merit, but could prove too complicated to code (at least for awhile))
- Weighted votes by length
- Add non-scoring categories (basically survey questions)
- Add a low value style category
- Allow debaters to disable voting (so rated, unrated, and no voting… this can currently be simulated using a judge instructed to leave it a tie)
Apologies if I overlooked any.
I couple thoughts I have:
- If multi-category voting remains an option, it ought to value arguments far more than anything else. Even well intended people sometimes convert what would be good votes into vote bombs instinctively trying to out score votes for the other side (the competition is supposed to be between the debaters, not the voters). I’d like arguments to be worth at least as much as everything else combined (including any additional categories this process may suggest adding).
- Also for if the current categories one stays mostly in place, I’d like to invert the penalty categories. Someone trying to use their vote as a valentines card by blinding giving everything to them, would inadvertently assign them categories which have negative points (misconduct and illegibility).
- “Tie” should be renamed tied/ungraded (there’s been complaints stemming from the current wording)
- Tied should not assign points.
- Allow moderators to modify votes (to include whatever adjustments after the debate has ended… even if we have to manually estimate ELO corrections with it)
- I think the voting system I’d like most would be a single-category+ system. The plus for more advanced, like New Game+. I envision this as simply giving voters control over the weight of their own vote if they so choose. The default weight is 100%, but they may decide to lower it (but obviously not to raise it).
-->
@Barney
Allow debaters to disable voting (so rated, unrated, and no voting… this can currently be simulated using a judge instructed to leave it a tie)
Yes, but with judge, its too much work. Also, new users are clueless about that completely. Also, make sure there are no requirements for voter-less debates. So new users can start standard or voter-less.
7 days later
-->
@Barney
Arguments are made up of 'parts, yes?
In a way, it seems odd to divide arguments into pieces, and yet still have 'arguments as a category left over.
(Though I think still helpful to voters at times, as reminder what they are looking for)
(Also useful in not making a debate vote black or white, people dislike Steam reviews for being thumbs up or down, at times)
But when one says better arguments they mean,
Logic, Consistency, Practicality, Style, Legibility, Conduct, Sources?
Probably even more.
Though some such as Conduct are odd in a way,
I've heard some lawyers in ancient times could be downright abusive liars verbally, yet be thought of as 'fantastic debaters, sometimes 'because of how 'well they were abusive or lied.
14 days later
I’ve been thinking a lot (painful for me I know)…
I think a near optimal voting system will have five options in a single row:
- Pro Full (1/0 awarded)
- Pro Mitigated (1/0.25)
- Null/Tie/Comment (0/0)
- Con Mitigated (0.25/1)
- Con Full (0/1)
This way a vote bomber cannot make their vote worth more than anyone else’s. The worst they can do is withhold the mitigation fraction when it has been blatantly earned.
The mitigation would be for things like the other side coming well ahead on sources, or conduct, or other factors the voter deems relevant. I would actually prefer if its application is all but unregulated, but withholding it can contribute to determining bias (basically be able to drop something which was already borderline into the delete pile; but a well reasoned and detailed vote would not suffer that fate).
The 0.25 awards are less than we currently see with conduct or legibility (each effectively worth 0.33) The idea here is a lesser chance of it changing outcomes save for when debates would otherwise be tied. It would take a very popular debate for it equal the weight of a single vote, since with three or less voters applying mitigation it can only break a tie.
Thoughts?
…
Related to this, I would set a negative award automatically for each forfeiture. I’m thinking a half point (yes, this would allow for negative scores).
This isn’t to say an automatic loss for forfeiting any number of rounds.
I’d say an increasing number of points deducted per forfeiture, but I know the coding is much easier for a flat amount.