Should we start talking debate limits

Author: Ramshutu ,

Posts

Total: 32
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 1,941
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
So, we had Type1 creating dozens of debates, then forfeiting.

We had Wrick it Ralph starting and accepting dozens of debates, and has now conceded a bunch.

We have sparrow and Joshua Whatshis name forfeiting accepting and starting multiple debates.

We even had RM who basically hoovered up every debate he could find, and ended up forfeiting the last rounds in a dozen.



Should we consider a limit on concurrent debates - at least temporarily until we have an increased number of participants and debaters - for the purposes of improving content?
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 279
1
4
9
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
1
4
9
This is probably a good idea, though some people can handle more debates at a time than others. What we really need is to set boundaries for ourselves. That's what I've been doing.
David
David's avatar
Debates: 85
Posts: 1,207
4
7
10
David's avatar
David
4
7
10
I would totally support this. When people start all these types of debates and forfeits, they end up bringing down the quality of debates overall. I would consider supporting a 3 debate max. 
SupaDudz
SupaDudz's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 13,460
5
8
11
SupaDudz's avatar
SupaDudz
5
8
11
I would support this for sure
SupaDudz
SupaDudz's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 13,460
5
8
11
SupaDudz's avatar
SupaDudz
5
8
11
The only reason RM is so high is because he hoards up debates with Type1 that he ends up winning due to his concession
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 1,941
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
Note - my intent is not to cast aspersions in anyone, or argue they are doing anything wrong or doing something nefarious: just that at the very least it’s easy to get carried away, take on too much, and generally degrade the content - ultimately in a way that is a little detrimental to others experience 
Speedrace
Speedrace's avatar
Debates: 63
Posts: 6,214
4
9
11
Speedrace's avatar
Speedrace
4
9
11
That’s cool, a 3-debate max sounds good
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
--> @Ramshutu
On DDO, to prevent spam, there used to be a function that capped the number of debates you could create per day (I believe this is the case, but I am not certain). I would support this limit: 3 debates can be created per day per user.
David
David's avatar
Debates: 85
Posts: 1,207
4
7
10
David's avatar
David
4
7
10
I’d go further and say no more than 3 debates at a time. 
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
--> @David
I’d go further and say no more than 3 debates at a time. 
I think that would be an absurd restriction. People can legitimately have 4 or 5 or 6 debates going on at any one time. I've had at least 5 debates progressing at once, and wasn't spamming.

The goal of any "limit" should not to be circumscribe users' ability to enjoy the main feature of the site: debates. Rather, the goal should be to hinder individuals who create extreme numbers of debates which clutter the site. Limiting people to only 3 ongoing debates at any one time is massive overkill in pursuit of that goal. Simply imposing limits which prevent them from creating 20 debates in 12 hours is sufficient. There is no reason to go further.
David
David's avatar
Debates: 85
Posts: 1,207
4
7
10
David's avatar
David
4
7
10
--> @bsh1
Fair point. I definitely think a daily limit is necessary at the last 
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 1,941
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
--> @bsh1
While I don’t necessarily disagree - that some people can handle a large number of concurrent debates, there does come a point where individuals accept, say, 20 concurrent debates, then end up forfeiting/conceding debates - and which has happened at least twice in the last week. 

I dont think if there was a limit limit for debates you are that is as low as 3 (or maybe 1 for virtuoso!), it’s possible you may either want a higher restriction - or have the ability to limit individual users if their behaviour is disruptive.

I mean, someone accepting every single open challenge debate then it participating would probably be as bad as starting multiple spam debates.
David
David's avatar
Debates: 85
Posts: 1,207
4
7
10
David's avatar
David
4
7
10
--> @Ramshutu
I dont think if there was a limit limit for debates you are that is as low as 3 (or maybe 1 for virtuoso!), it’s possible you may either want a higher restriction - or have the ability to limit individual users if their behaviour is disruptive.

ROFL
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
--> @Ramshutu
While I don’t necessarily disagree - that some people can handle a large number of concurrent debates, there does come a point where individuals accept, say, 20 concurrent debates, then end up forfeiting/conceding debates - and which has happened at least twice in the last week. 
I agree, but to an extent, that's on them. If they get in over their heads, they are already penalized by losses. That aside, though, a per day limit would also help with time management, spacing out more the progress of the debates. The per day limit would cap anyone at 21 debates per week, which, depending on the difficulty of the debates, is not unmanageable, though I would find it wearisome. 

I mean, someone accepting every single open challenge debate then it participating would probably be as bad as starting multiple spam debates.
Reasonable. Cap that per day as well, then. 
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 9,859
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @Ramshutu
Maybe some kind of timer that keeps you from joining another debate for two days if you fail to respond (forfeit) to a debate round.
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 933
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
The thing about spammed debates is that while they are annoying, they do serve a purpose in enticing people to actually participate in debates by believing they are essentially free wins... Then those same people who got the free wins try doing debates of their own that are superior and better organized in terms of content and structure. Some of the first debates I did on DDO were ones I took just cause they looked pretty easy, and that led to me making tons of them myself later on. 

However, there are people so tremendously idiotic that they make tons of debates and do poorly on all of them repeatedly (Type1). I think Vi Spex on DDO made nearly a thousand debates with a vast majority of them being complete nonsense or got no votes and nothing was ever done about it even though he basically clogged the open-debate-section with pure sh*t...... Some people in this thread have proposed a cap limit of 3 debates at a time, I would be a little more lax and put it at 6 debates at a time, then if someone really takes it too far or spams a bunch of stupidity their rights could be further restricted. 
 


oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 99
Posts: 6,141
7
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
7
10
11
I wonder if auto forfeit would curb some of the overinstigation. Should we implement first before considering further checks?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 11,217
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
No. You're capping someone ability to debate and climb rating as well as debate as bad or good as they want to by doing this. Your irritation or envy has zero impact on their right to climb as fairly as others. If you got an issue, accept the debates before they do.
Capping the rate of creation could be fair. Capping the rate of acceptance never will be fair.

DrChristineFord
DrChristineFord's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 80
0
0
2
DrChristineFord's avatar
DrChristineFord
0
0
2
--> @Ramshutu
The way to solve this problem is to take away all incentives to game the system, especially the leaderboards and the elo.  Then, people are only debating for the debate itself, which is how it should be and the only environment for good debating, imo.

However, nobody here will agree to that.  To me, it seems strange that people cling to these empty signals of success.  Nobody ever thought Mikal was the best debater on DDO.  Nobody imagines that RM is the best debater here.  And yet, people keep treating it as a game.  And why?  Because you are right, these behaviors are boring.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 11,217
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @DrChristineFord
Results are irrefutable, talking of 'skill' is entirely down to the delusion of those envying those at the top.

Not all at the top are proportionally ranked in any system but all those at the bottom are usually genuinely shit at what they do.

This is a fact in any such ranking system in life, I don't see what the issue is. If you're jealous put in the work and strategy.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 11,217
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
I have been prioritising getting the 100 win badge first and miles ahead of the rest, far above my rating so far bearing it in mind simply as a side-priority.

Since my 2-3 day hiatus, I had time to meditate and rethink things and now that I am so near to the 100, I am altering my priorities. All debates begun or engaged in since I've been 'back' (since 1 week ago or so) are genuinely done with the intent to win, not to garner many.

Now 'many' is the side-thought and 'winning each one' is the main priority. This is going to result in my style becoming more brutal than it used to be, with actual thought put in, rather than reserving energy to win 8 at the sake of 2-3 out of 10-11 like I used to do.
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
Is this something which people would eventually like to see MEEPed? Obviously, it's more of a technical issue for Mike, but a MEEP might give some idea of whether it is a popular change to be made.
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,068
3
2
6
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
6
--> @David
I’d go further and say no more than 3 debates at a time. 
Do you mean no more than 3 at a time for each user, or a 3 debate max applied to the whole site?

Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 933
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
--> @bsh1
It sure seems like people are on board with the idea and that the only issue is where specifically to draw the line in the sand, which would make it perfect for a MEEP thread to sort out once and for all. 
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,068
3
2
6
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
6
--> @Imabench
The thing about spammed debates is that while they are annoying, they do serve a purpose in enticing people to actually participate in debates by believing they are essentially free wins... Then those same people who got the free wins try doing debates of their own that are superior and better organized in terms of content and structure. Some of the first debates I did on DDO were ones I took just cause they looked pretty easy, and that led to me making tons of them myself later on. 

However, there are people so tremendously idiotic that they make tons of debates and do poorly on all of them repeatedly (Type1). I think Vi Spex on DDO made nearly a thousand debates with a vast majority of them being complete nonsense or got no votes and nothing was ever done about it even though he basically clogged the open-debate-section with pure sh*t...... Some people in this thread have proposed a cap limit of 3 debates at a time, I would be a little more lax and put it at 6 debates at a time, then if someone really takes it too far or spams a bunch of stupidity their rights could be further restricted. 
As a debate outsider who dips a toe in now and then, I can definitely say I didn't find Type1's debates enticing. They actually made debate seem less appealing to me and made me less interested in participating.