Propositions for automatically finished debates

Author: DebateArt.com ,

Posts

Total: 26
DebateArt.com
DebateArt.com's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,254
3
3
8
DebateArt.com's avatar
DebateArt.com
3
3
8
I believe somewhere someone suggested this idea that if debate is full forfeit or mostly forfeit, the system should completely skip the voting part and just finish the debate without any rating change. At least that's how I remember/understood that part, so I just wanted to bring this up again and decide if I should implement something like and how it should be done. Any ideas or suggestions?
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 99
Posts: 4,963
7
9
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
7
9
11
I believe any forfeit should be an automatic & instant loss that impacts rating.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 343
Posts: 10,474
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @bsh1 @David @DebateArt.com
Currently 4-5 debates about to hand the winner Rating points all flagged by me involving a banned user in each are undeleted. Why is this?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 343
Posts: 10,474
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
Just kidding bsh1, don't answer that, you'd struggle.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 99
Posts: 4,963
7
9
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
7
9
11
RatMan-

I guess this is the context.  So, I take it my opinion here doesn't match my opinion expressed elsewhere.  I'm often surprised by my own inconsistency, hypocrisy.  Feel free to PM me details and if you re-friend me sometime I'll be sure to accept.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 343
Posts: 10,474
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @oromagi
There's more to how they double standard me. I was blackmailed by bsh1 hard into not accepting speedrace's debates as apparently if a user blocks you and doesn't like you but doesn't put your name in a description, you can't accept the debate anyway. Yet he is allowing ramshutu to accept debates from me. Just curious why. I wonder if the coward will come out to talk. There's more. Like callout threads against me and mharman reporting them. 
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 343
Posts: 10,474
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @oromagi
That's just with me. They've been biased against others too and by 'they' I include the spineless sidekick who I have wrongly defended for too long now and whom needs to either get a backbone or admit he approves of his master.
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 1,824
6
8
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
8
10
--> @DebateArt.com
The idea was that it would still give ratings, but that you wouldn’t have to wait for the entire forfeit of the debate to play out to gain the win. Especially important if the debate has 2 week rounds.

iirc, what got a little agreement was:

1:) first round forfeit = auto loss to the non forfeiting side
2.) reach two forfeits more than the other side = auto loss.
3.) rule is opt in if possible.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 343
Posts: 10,474
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
There are one or two clear reasons why virt and bsh1 will take all other users head-on in public but with me they're scared shitless. It's because they know I'm intelligent and back my shit up properly. I'm not easy to drive into looking like an idiot but more importantly they realise that I willingly take on the villain role so making me look selfish has zero deterrence-power on me as I admit I'm selfish in my motive to take them on.

Bsh1 went from threatening me (on PM) to make a public thread about the deletion of my debates to backing off and locking the entire thread where it came up as I promised him if he did make that thread, I would lay out plainly just how unjust it was. I laughed, felt rage and just quit due to the stupidity of it all. I still loathe the administration here but I like debating.

oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 99
Posts: 4,963
7
9
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
7
9
11
RatMan-

Well, I came to this site because I like bsh's governing style and  the moderation here continues to earn my unflagging admiration & support.   I don't agree with every choice but I acknowledge the great difficulty of moderating a site like this with respect for freedom while also trying make a site that isn't overrun by bad behavior.   I support the toleration of some transgressions as good for freedom and I also support strong, consistent limits as good for site growth and accessibility.  If that's hypocrisy, so be it.

I won't pretend to know you well, but you also don't need me to tell you that you like to push on those boundaries, test those limits.  It does not surprise me at all that some inconsistencies might arise in the management of that boundary-testing.  Instead of feeling put upon, I'd encourage you to recognize that mods are trying to keep your boundary-testing style engaged while also trying to attract new folks.  Try to see it from a community perspective: speedrace is a top notch contributor we want him to stick around and have lots to say. If every time he starts a new debate, he's got to worry about engaging you, then he might hesitate to contribute more.  A few people have asked me not accept their debates & I always respect that wish, knowing that translates to more happy and just more debaters. 

I have said before that I think of you as punk in the punk rock sense.  I like punks.  I want a few punks hanging around my town, just on principle.  But punks get tossed in jail every once a while or they stop being punks.  Punks get roughed up by the police sometimes even when we know that's not just.  I'm not saying this site will ever treat you in a way that you might find fair, I'm just saying you should stick around anyway because you add a lot to the site and I enjoy your contributions.

and you should play some mafia sometime, man.  I think you'd be good at it.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 99
Posts: 4,963
7
9
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
7
9
11
--> @DebateArt.com @Ragnar @Ramshutu
1:) first round forfeit = auto loss to the non forfeiting side
2.) reach two forfeits more than the other side = auto loss.
3.) rule is opt in if possible.

I'd support this, too.  I think Ragnar had some suggestions along this line.

DebateArt.com
DebateArt.com's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,254
3
3
8
DebateArt.com's avatar
DebateArt.com
3
3
8
--> @Ramshutu
Oh I see, that makes sense to me. Let's wait for some other ideas or suggestions, if people agree on this one, then I'll add it.
DebateArt.com
DebateArt.com's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,254
3
3
8
DebateArt.com's avatar
DebateArt.com
3
3
8
--> @RationalMadman
Good point about the banned users, I will come up with something to handle this issue.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 343
Posts: 10,474
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @oromagi
I am already proven to be the best mafia player of this entire site. I do not need to refer you to those games because it was disgusting how I was treated in them and I lost my temper so I too treated others negatively despite having flawless reading strategy.

Mafia is a nonsense game where you need to convince fools that other fools are deceiving them but then the means of deception you need to explain in ways an intelligent person would deceive. Once in a while you and an opponent or ally both will be intelligent and it will be a very ugly match in the former scenario or unfair stomp in the latter as long as you and them aren't unfairly lynched or killed in some irrational decision very early on.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 343
Posts: 10,474
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11

Enjoy the rating boost, Mr. WaterPhoenix. This debate possibly involved two banned users, only furthering the irony.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 343
Posts: 10,474
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @oromagi
Try speaking less nonsense, empathising with police abuse such as happened to a group of black teenagers to get them all convicted on a rape charge as shown in the recent "When They See Us" Limited Series on Netflix. https://people.com/tv/ava-duvernay-when-they-see-us-netflix/

Who the actual fuck do you think you are to go 'but come on you're testing the system' to justify the victimisation? I can tell your dad was a cop or something, that's the only reason one would end up with such a ridiculous view of this. I can also tell you definitely are not a cop yourself, as no cop would justify it in that way.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 99
Posts: 4,963
7
9
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
7
9
11
RatMan-

You're right that it is nonsense to try to justify police violence although I would not characterize you as a victim.  The metaphor is dart=town, since there are no parallels in terms of violence or even compulsion I thought the metaphor had style without implying any justification. 

I'm sorry you're not up for mafia.  I'll try not to broach the subject again.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 343
Posts: 10,474
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @oromagi
I am a victim. It is actually objectively verifiable if Mharman will add to my testimony but even without that it's concrete and provable. 
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 99
Posts: 4,963
7
9
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
7
9
11
RatMan-

which are detailed in the forum topic, "DA and the fundamental issue of a debate website."?


RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 343
Posts: 10,474
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @oromagi
No, barely even scratching the surface there. I went a lot more into that here.
Ragnar
Ragnar's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 1,886
5
8
10
Ragnar's avatar
Ragnar
5
8
10
--> @DebateArt.com @oromagi @Ramshutu
I previously had a debate on this topic (which someone who sucks at math thought was a tie...).
Ram' once started a thread on this type of thing (which spawned the aforementioned debate).

So some thoughts about the current proposals...
  1. I disagree with instant auto-loss for forfeiting the first round, as that is a place which is quite recoverable; with the exception of one and two round debates. I agree with instant auto-loss for repeated forfeits of two or more rounds greater than the other side (maybe a logic check of forfeiting>(1/3) of the round count?).
  2. I do agree with forfeited debates still modifying debater scores.
  3. I would not do opt in, as debate creation should not overwhelm new users. Plus people are already intentionally misusing the non-scored debate option, so I would expect POS to abuse forfeiture options...

Mechanically I would use logic events along the lines of:
  • When the existing forfeit script is triggered, an extra line in it adds 1 point to the other side (or subtract 1 if the system can handle negative numbers). In the debate I discussed why 1 point works fine for both voting systems.
  • For auto ending (could be error prone, so I would not prioritize it...): An additional line in the forfeit script checks the debate score, if the difference ABS(score1-score2)=2, trigger early debate end scripts (maybe modify the voting period to 30 seconds, fill all remaining rounds with an auto end text? I would need to think on this a little more, but again, I think it could be a little tricky to get right and not offend anyone...
  • When the existing debate entering voting period script is triggered, an extra line in it checks IF OR(ABS(score1)>0,ABS(score2)>0) = TRUE, add a system vote (which could bypass normal voter checks), which explains the point modification. It could look like this "[user1] forfeited [-score1] times, and [user2] forfeited [-score2] times. Scores have been adjusted to reflect this conduct... Please do not factor this modifier into votes."
The benefit of just giving points is that should someone have deplorable conduct but the other side missed a round, voters could counterbalance the system, yet the default winner should no voter get involved becomes the person who at least showed up.
DebateArt.com
DebateArt.com's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,254
3
3
8
DebateArt.com's avatar
DebateArt.com
3
3
8
--> @Ragnar
Those are good points, I agree that first round forfeit is not critical so it's probably not the great way to go. And yeah, debates already have too many settings, I think this one can be done without adding new ones. I will also read the debate later, thank you!

And regarding the logic, I will check it after work today, it's hard to grasp the idea quickly :)
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 1,824
6
8
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
8
10
--> @Ragnar
The first round forfeit rule is really for two reasons:

1.) While it’s normally recoverable; the large majority of debates where the opening round are forfeited, the remainder are forfeited.

2.) It is also the round people should be most invested in posting were they to start or accept a debate; and is thus largely the least reasonable to forfeit.


This isn’t an attempt to automate a predictive mechanism of who will lose the debate; but a method of reducing wasted time waiting for forfeited debate



DebateArt.com
DebateArt.com's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,254
3
3
8
DebateArt.com's avatar
DebateArt.com
3
3
8
--> @Ramshutu
Ugh and that's a fair point too :/
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 343
Posts: 10,474
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @DebateArt.com
Stop looking for fair points and start looking for great points.