Auto-loss for forfeits.

Author: Ramshutu ,

Posts

Total: 33
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 1,824
6
8
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
8
10
Hi everyone, just gauging interest in a possible feature for automatically determining a winner if there is a forfeit.


Many debates have rules specifying a forfeit is an automatic loss, and waiting for an opponent to forfeit multiple rounds can be frustrating. I was hoping to understand if people would be interested in an option when creating debates to make forfeits garner an automatic loss. 

This would work along the following lines:

- A check box will be presented giving the option of “auto loss for forfeit”
- this will only be available on 3 day rounds (so you can’t trick an opponent with 12 hour debates).
- when accepting the debate, this option will be prominently displayed as being active for the debate
- if either side forfeits the opening round. OR forfeits 2 or more rounds, the forfeit will be followed by immediately moving the debate to finished, and the winner is the non forfeiting side.

note: it is obviously that numerous options concerning when to trigger a loss could be made. The intent here is to simplify a debate win in scenarios where one side is not participating. The 2+ Forfeited round after the opening is there so as not to penalize genuine or unavoidable forfeits.


Any thoughts?
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @DebateArt.com @Ramshutu
Good idea.  Maybe extend it to 2 days to post arguments too.
David
David's avatar
Debates: 83
Posts: 1,203
4
7
10
David's avatar
David
4
7
10
I’d like that. Edeb8 has that feature. 
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
8
11
--> @Ramshutu
What would be the minimum number of forfeits required for an auto-loss debate?
Would it adjust depending on how many Rounds there are?

- this will only be available on 3 day rounds (so you can’t trick an opponent with 12 hour debates).
How would this be tricking?
When you accept a debate you understand how much time you have for each argument. If they are not able to meet the rules laid out by the instigator they can simply not accept or ask the instigator to change it if possible.
why have this not be included with non-3 day Round publish argument phases? 
Any thoughts?
Good idea. Hope the execution is also good.

oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 99
Posts: 4,940
7
9
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
7
9
11
--> @Ramshutu
I strongly endorse such an option

dave2242
dave2242's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 79
0
0
5
dave2242's avatar
dave2242
0
0
5
--> @Ramshutu
i support this as well
SupaDudz
SupaDudz's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 12,636
5
8
11
SupaDudz's avatar
SupaDudz
5
8
11
In support
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 1,824
6
8
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
8
10
--> @TheRealNihilist
So the issue here is that everyone’s accepted debates without checking the duration. That is our fault, but I can imagine scenarios where people do this with the intent of someone forcing a forfeit. This is likely to be a bit of a possibility with this proposal. With shorter debates - there is much less of an issue in the first place.

Now, with the first round an auto loss, I think the two rounds forfeited makes sense. If the debate is only two rounds, the first non first round forfeit ends the debate. A three round debate, if the second is forfeited, I’m not convinced you want to end the debate - especially if you limit to one forfeit then if someone makes a great argument and the forfeits the final round, you may not want the auto loss to kick in.

its really a trade off between not penalizing accidental forfeits and wrapping this up quickly.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
8
11
Yes, the country is not a democracy, but rather a democratic republic
Have a feature where there is a 5 second delay before someone can accept the debate. Maybe have when clicking on accepting the debate a link they go to highlighting key information. Like DDO.

bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
I think this is a good feature idea which Mike could implement, time-permitting.

Though, I do think it should be a net of 2 forfeited rounds, otherwise it could simply become a race towards who forfeits 2 first.
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 1,824
6
8
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
8
10
--> @bsh1
I would agree other than for the opening round.

DebateArt.com
DebateArt.com's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,254
3
3
8
DebateArt.com's avatar
DebateArt.com
3
3
8
Alrighty then, looks like everyone likes this idea :)
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
--> @Ramshutu
Sure.
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
--> @DebateArt.com
Alrighty then, looks like everyone likes this idea :)
Yes, with some caveats (see posts 10 and 11). But, it is nice to see agreement on the site about something, lol.
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 1,824
6
8
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
8
10
--> @bsh1
At least people mostly just bombard you with hate PMs in private now rather than starting up angry ranting threads about you being a Nazi every three days.

bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
--> @Ramshutu
lol
Ragnar
Ragnar's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 1,885
5
8
10
Ragnar's avatar
Ragnar
5
8
10
An easier way to handle this, would just be automatically giving a conduct point to the other side for each forfeit (could be done as "Admin" placing votes, even during the debate).
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 343
Posts: 10,444
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Ragnar
Counterpoint: What if I'm a rude bastard and you forfeit one Round?
Ragnar
Ragnar's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 1,885
5
8
10
Ragnar's avatar
Ragnar
5
8
10
--> @RationalMadman
Actual voters would still be able to override that through the length of the voting period.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 343
Posts: 10,444
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Ragnar
What if voters tie us for arguments or enough voters disagree on who won them to make it so the conduct points aren't outweighed?
Ragnar
Ragnar's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 1,885
5
8
10
Ragnar's avatar
Ragnar
5
8
10
--> @RationalMadman
That would just be the system working as intended. By forfeiting one side has set the default end state to be a loss.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 343
Posts: 10,444
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Ragnar
That's really idiotic, lol. That means they can't mark worse conduct for the rudeness.
Ragnar
Ragnar's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 1,885
5
8
10
Ragnar's avatar
Ragnar
5
8
10
--> @RationalMadman
You may be having a comprehension problem. Nothing about the existence of prior votes, limits anyone's ability to cast future votes; to include assigning conduct in a different manner than the earlier votes.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 343
Posts: 10,444
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Ragnar
You have a logic comprehension problem.
Ragnar
Ragnar's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 1,885
5
8
10
Ragnar's avatar
Ragnar
5
8
10
--> @RationalMadman
Please enlighten us on why you believe it is impossible ("lol. That means they can't mark worse conduct for the rudeness.") for people to award conduct if conduct only votes exist previously?

I'll point to one of your votes as an example, since you gave the opposite conduct score than every other voter, but are now insisting that logically cannot have happened.