Clarity on Full Forefeit Rules Please

Author: CaptainSceptic ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 32
  • CaptainSceptic
    CaptainSceptic avatar
    Debates: 8
    Forum posts: 80
    0
    0
    10
    CaptainSceptic avatar
    CaptainSceptic
    The rule says.

     "Full Forfeit - a debate in which a debater (or both debaters) have forfeited all or all but one of their rounds"

    Therefore if it is a 2 round debate and you only answer one round, you FF.

    Yet I am seeing judging that does not reflect this.  What am I missing?
  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 89
    Forum posts: 3,357
    6
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards).

    A full-forfeit debate is defined as a debate that has no argument presented by one side following the opening round, resulting in all subsequent rounds being forfeited. When this is the case, these debates are considered full-forfeit debates and are not moderated unless a voter votes for the forfeiting side.
  • CaptainSceptic
    CaptainSceptic avatar
    Debates: 8
    Forum posts: 80
    0
    0
    10
    CaptainSceptic avatar
    CaptainSceptic
    --> @oromagi
    Please confirm.    A judge may still adjudicate the merits of the debate even said debate qualifies as a FF?

    Please confirm my understanding that if it is a 2 round debate and only one round is argued, that is a full forfeit.   


  • Melcharaz
    Melcharaz avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 426
    1
    4
    8
    Melcharaz avatar
    Melcharaz
    I actually brought up a similar point of view. FF should = deleted debate. Unless specified in comments.
  • Ragnar
    Ragnar avatar
    Debates: 29
    Forum posts: 1,493
    5
    7
    10
    Ragnar avatar
    Ragnar
    --> @CaptainSceptic
    Technically it's not a full forfeit if they skip the first round, but show up later.  However, conduct may be awarded without regard for arguments if they forfeit half or more of the rounds. And yes, arguments may always be graded. ... Sadly there have been some dishonest debaters who join as contenders, skip all but the final round, and expect to win; this is of course not how it works, as they cheated to deny any chance at defense.
  • Ragnar
    Ragnar avatar
    Debates: 29
    Forum posts: 1,493
    5
    7
    10
    Ragnar avatar
    Ragnar
    --> @Melcharaz
    I actually brought up a similar point of view. FF should = deleted debate. Unless specified in comments.
    If both sides commit a true FF, sure.

    Otherwise, generally no. People would FF intentionally if they decide the opposing argument is too strong, in fact they do this already, but your proposal would end up rewarding it.

    You may of course request any you participate in be deleted. So long as your opponent consents, it shall be done. This can even be done as a special rule when you instigate.
  • CaptainSceptic
    CaptainSceptic avatar
    Debates: 8
    Forum posts: 80
    0
    0
    10
    CaptainSceptic avatar
    CaptainSceptic
    --> @Ragnar
    Technically it's not a full forfeit 
    So the definition is wrong?  If it is wrong, what is the proper definition then and how do people know?
  • Ragnar
    Ragnar avatar
    Debates: 29
    Forum posts: 1,493
    5
    7
    10
    Ragnar avatar
    Ragnar
    --> @CaptainSceptic
    From the voting policy:
    A full-forfeit debate is defined as a debate that has no argument presented by one side following the opening round, resulting in all subsequent rounds being forfeited. When this is the case, these debates are considered full-forfeit debates and are not moderated unless a voter votes for the forfeiting side.

    The other one was from the jargon right? I just updated that. It was however never meant to be the standard, merely a guide to the shorthand some debaters use.
  • CaptainSceptic
    CaptainSceptic avatar
    Debates: 8
    Forum posts: 80
    0
    0
    10
    CaptainSceptic avatar
    CaptainSceptic
    --> @Ragnar
    Yes there are a few issues.


    1.  I am confused as to the central source of what the rules are.  What I read is in multiple places,  or has a page that does not respond.
    2.  The practice appears to be different than the rules.
    3.  I still do not have a clear yes or no.  In a 2 round debate if a debater does not participate in the second round, is that a full forfeit, or should that be an exception?  I do not care, I see both sides, however, I would like clarity for my voting.


  • Ragnar
    Ragnar avatar
    Debates: 29
    Forum posts: 1,493
    5
    7
    10
    Ragnar avatar
    Ragnar
    --> @CaptainSceptic
    the central source of what the rules

    We are of course open to discussion of refinements. 


    The practice appears to be different than the rules.
    Any key examples?


    In a 2 round debate if a debater does not participate in the second round, is that a full forfeit,
    Yes.

    Earlier I added extra detail, in case it was a case of them missing the first round but appearing later (which in a two round debate the instigator could do, but the contender would be cheating).
  • CaptainSceptic
    CaptainSceptic avatar
    Debates: 8
    Forum posts: 80
    0
    0
    10
    CaptainSceptic avatar
    CaptainSceptic
    --> @Ragnar
    Any key examples?

    You did not count it as a FF.

    I am not trying to call you out, I am only looking for clarity.

    Thank you for your understanding.


  • Ragnar
    Ragnar avatar
    Debates: 29
    Forum posts: 1,493
    5
    7
    10
    Ragnar avatar
    Ragnar
    --> @CaptainSceptic
    Yep.  In your  vote with User_2006 debate
    For reference, the vote may be found at: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1991/vote_links/4946

    That it was an FF, does not require me to not grade anything. I have the option to do so if I wish. A vote which just says "forfeiture" would also be valid on that debate.

    The second vote (#2) gives the forfeiting side the majority of points. This just means the vote is still subject to moderation (if reported), so if he just wrote "forfeiture" it would be deleted, but by the looks of it he graded the debate fairly.


  • CaptainSceptic
    CaptainSceptic avatar
    Debates: 8
    Forum posts: 80
    0
    0
    10
    CaptainSceptic avatar
    CaptainSceptic
    --> @Ragnar
    If it is a full forfeit, why would one side be allowed to get any points?

    I see it in two categories.

     FF = no points
    F = points that need to be justified, or subject to moderation,  but not the win

    Am I wrong?
  • Ragnar
    Ragnar avatar
    Debates: 29
    Forum posts: 1,493
    5
    7
    10
    Ragnar avatar
    Ragnar
    --> @CaptainSceptic
    If it is a full forfeit, why would one side be allowed to get any points?
    Because of the varied context, to which voters are trusted to use their discretion as they see fit. 

    Imagine one side offers a strong substantive case in their first round then FFs, and the other just trolls them (not one on topic statement, but technically not a forfeiture). No one would be faulted for a quick FF vote, but we also have no reason to fault someone for going above and beyond.
  • CaptainSceptic
    CaptainSceptic avatar
    Debates: 8
    Forum posts: 80
    0
    0
    10
    CaptainSceptic avatar
    CaptainSceptic
    --> @Ragnar
    voters are trusted to use their discretion 
    However, said discretion is subject to moderation.    How do you moderate someone's discretion?
  • blamonkey
    blamonkey avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 492
    1
    4
    8
    blamonkey avatar
    blamonkey
    --> @CaptainSceptic
    So, if a person forfeits 2 rounds in a 4 round debate but their opponent provided deficient argumentation, plagiarized, or just never addressed the topic whatsoever, then a vote for the forfeiting side would not warrant removal assuming that the vote meets the minimum requirements of the policy outlined in the following URL. 




  • CaptainSceptic
    CaptainSceptic avatar
    Debates: 8
    Forum posts: 80
    0
    0
    10
    CaptainSceptic avatar
    CaptainSceptic
    --> @blamonkey
    You state

     but their opponent provided deficient argumentation, 
    But then in https://www.debateart.com/debates/1991/should-we-be-allowed-to-instigate-as-con.  you permitted a vote for the party that forfeited, Con.  Pro clearly did not provide deficient argumentation.     So why does Con still get a chance to win, if they forfeit?  

    I till do not understand.    I thought I did base on the anti-troll stance etc.  But not in this case.  Maybe you should change the rule to say that a full forfeit in a 2 round debate only occurs if both rounds are not answered.


    Con only responded once, and yet still wins argument points, when his opponent had valid arguments and answered both rounds.  I just dont understand.
  • blamonkey
    blamonkey avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 492
    1
    4
    8
    blamonkey avatar
    blamonkey
    --> @CaptainSceptic

    Pro clearly did not provide deficient argumentation


    There is no way that I, a neutral party to these debates, could remove a vote because I think that the vote is predicated on faulty logic. If the voter can explain why they think the arguments are insufficient, then that is all that matters insofar as said reasoning is not in violation of the Voting Policy. As long as the RFD meets the minimum standards, I cannot remove a vote. I may disagree with the voter's conclusion, but he awarded argument points and sufficiently justified it in accordance with the voting policy requirements. Those requirements are as follows:


    In order to award argument points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
    • Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
      He listed an argument and counterargument. It is not the place of moderation to determine which arguments are more main than others. 
    • Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
      He explains why one argument precludes the impact of another. 
    • Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points
      He explains that through the strength of the counterargument, he felt that Con won despite the forfeit. 
    That said, it is fair to suggest that the voting system is flawed. As far as the current requirements though, this vote meets the minimum criteria, so it must stand. 


  • CaptainSceptic
    CaptainSceptic avatar
    Debates: 8
    Forum posts: 80
    0
    0
    10
    CaptainSceptic avatar
    CaptainSceptic
    --> @blamonkey
    Ok so a full forfeit is not mandatory.    A judge may decide to categorize as a full forfeit or not.  It is entirely optional.   Is that what you are saying?
  • blamonkey
    blamonkey avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 492
    1
    4
    8
    blamonkey avatar
    blamonkey
    --> @CaptainSceptic
    No, a debate may be full forfeit, but a vote may be cast for the forfeited side if it meets the Voting Policy standards
  • CaptainSceptic
    CaptainSceptic avatar
    Debates: 8
    Forum posts: 80
    0
    0
    10
    CaptainSceptic avatar
    CaptainSceptic
    --> @blamonkey
    I am havig a real hard time here.

    I said this.

    A judge may decide to categorize as a full forfeit or not.  It is entirely optional.   Is that what you are saying?

      You then said


    No, a debate may be full forfeit, but a vote may be cast for the forfeited side if it meets the Voting Policy standards

    When you vote, if the debate qualifies as a FF you may either award points declaring it a, or you may vote for the forfeited side, and be subject to moderation. 

    In short, a full forfeit could still win the debate.  I am just trying to understand this nuance 




  • blamonkey
    blamonkey avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 492
    1
    4
    8
    blamonkey avatar
    blamonkey
    --> @CaptainSceptic
    If you, as the voter, feel that the forfeited side in an FF debate simply won, then yes, you can vote for then insofar as you provide justification that meets the Voting Policy requirements.

    If you vote against the side that full forfeited, then your vote does not need to meet the voting policy standards.

    You said it best actually:

    "..i.the debate qualifies as a FF you may either award points declaring it a, or you may vote for the forfeited side, and be subject to moderation."

    That is correct.

  • blamonkey
    blamonkey avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 492
    1
    4
    8
    blamonkey avatar
    blamonkey
    I meant to c and p this. That's what I get for doing this on my phone.

    When you vote, if the debate qualifies as a FF you may either award points declaring it a, or you may vote for the forfeited side, and be subject to moderation. 


  • Melcharaz
    Melcharaz avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 426
    1
    4
    8
    Melcharaz avatar
    Melcharaz
    In what universe is a deleted debate a reward? You arent making sense. If people dont want to debate, then end the debate. Thats common sense
  • Ragnar
    Ragnar avatar
    Debates: 29
    Forum posts: 1,493
    5
    7
    10
    Ragnar avatar
    Ragnar
    --> @Melcharaz
    One in which their inferior performance will otherwise credit them with a loss, AKA this universe.

    This is a sport. A loss due to disqualification, is still a loss.

    To use an analogy: Imagine going to the Super Bowl. One team performs badly in the first quarter, so decides they don’t want to play anymore. How do you believe it should be handled?