What would your ideal voting policy look like?

Author: Barney
Voting
Crowdsourcing

Posts

Total: 53
#31
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@PressF4Respect
 it will need some tweaking to make it relatively troll-safe.
I still think the dumbs are a bigger problem than the trolls. I literally had a guy in a recent economics forum conversation that asked me to provide evidence of my "bold claim" that there is less than infinity money on the planet.
#32
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
What about the dumb trolls?
#33
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@PressF4Respect
God help us...
#34
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
God help us...
God is dead, and we have killed him.
– Friedrich Nietzsche 
#35
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@PressF4Respect
Capitalism help us...

#36
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
@PressF4Respect
@Jeff_Goldblum
@User_2006
I suppose that there are merits to your system, though it will need some tweaking to make it relatively troll-safe.
Let's look at this from the perspective of a "troll".

Troll says, "I'm going to enter a bunch of CIVIL DEBATES and never give out any points and I'll rocket to the top of the leaderboards and everyone will think I'm awesome!!"

However, there is no leaderboard or win-ratio, so that sorta takes the wind out of their sails.

And in practice, if the troll fails to GIVE any points for round one, they might get a participation point from a generous opponent.

And if the troll fails to GIVE any points for round two, they still might get a participation point from a generous opponent.

And if the troll fails to GIVE any points for round three, even an extremely generous opponent will probably consider a 2 point lead is generous enough.

So the troll ends up with a CIVIL DEBATE rank of 0/2 which is "extremely impressive" (probably not the ego boost they were hoping for) and is a direct reflection of their debating style for all to see.

ON THE OTHER HAND, if you have honest opponents giving constructive feedback by awarding up to 3 points per round, after one debate, your CIVIL DEBATE rank could be something more like 6/5 or 3/4.  Compared to a 0/2, that seems like a much better payoff for roughly the same effort.

When I look at ELO, it doesn't tell me anything about the style or tactics that person uses to achieve such a high (or low) score.

I've been very impressed with some low ELO ranked members and often quite shocked at the tactics of high ELO ranked members.

Your CIVIL DEBATE ranking is a direct reflection of your open-mindedness (and experience) and willingness to entertain and explore ideas you don't necessarily agree with.

Trolls and Zealots will likely be repulsed by the entire idea of CIVIL DEBATE and will gravitate to ELO like they do now.
#37
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
PressF's main concern was that people might not be willing to give points even if they know that their opponents argument is clearly superior due to being dishonest. My main concern would be people who have a clearly inferior argument but honestly do not even realize it due to being...
That's the entire challenge.

Let's not rush-to-disqualify (ad hominem) everyone who fails to recognize our obvious individual genius, dismissing them as "crazy, stupid, evil, dishonest, and or intellectually blind" and "a lost cause" or "human trash" or "trolls".
#38
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@3RU7AL
Ok, so what if the troll were to ALWAYS give out points to seem more open-minded? It doesn't affect their ELO whatsoever, and it would make more people want to debate them, so naturally, they would want to give out points ALL the time?
#39
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 561
Posts: 19,892
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@3RU7AL
@Discipulus_Didicit
I come here as a pastime. Debating as a sport is a very niche and seldom-admired hobby of very few humans (and I mean very few). Those few of us who love it struggle in daily life as most humans loathe arguing, no matter how logical and right you are. For those of us, this is a healthy outlet and even the forums on a site dedicated to that tend to enable one to debate more often. It's like a 'vent' sort of like a very violent or hyperactive person can get from working out and practising a martial art.
#40
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Barney
convincing argument should be >50% of vote
4 pts on 7 pt scale,
you can divide these points between debaters 4-0, 1-3, 2-2

It doesn't make sense that you can win every argument and still lose debates

spelling and grammar should replaced with clarity
clarity of reasoning, thesis, purpose
1 pt on a 7pt scale

sources should be replaced with "strength of evidence"
some arguments don't require sourcing
strength of evidence is how well you supported your argument with facts
2 pts on a 7 pt scale
you can split these point or award all

all pts must be awarded
no ties, ever.  Matches end after 5 votes are cast.

conduct  should be removed from regular voting since good conduct is always required
however, a finding of bad conduct by a VOTER against one debater that is not reciprocated by the other debater can forfeit the debate.  Bad conduct includes to excessive concessions, excessive ad hom, excessive bigotry or prejudicial arguments against classes of people, etc and must be consistent with DART CoC

I have said before that I think any forfeit should automatically end the debate with a loss.  This would concentrate VOTER attention on well engaged debates and seems very fair to me.  In any school or pro debate, a no-show would result in auto loss.

I understand this is an unpopular notion but I strongly advocate this position and think it would rapidly improve the quality of debates.

Lastly, all creative debates, rap debates, non-debate debates, etc should have a "dogfight" category which would replace winner selection.  These debates only come in odd numbers 1,3,5 rounds and voters pick winners by rounds with very short (less than 100 character)explanations.

#41
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Barney
Also, mods have at their discretion a "degree of difficulty modifier" that allows mods  to add +1, +2,  or +3 points to the ELO win/loss results.  DoD mods are awarded for experienced players vs. noobs, truism debates, etc to reward bold or brave moves and dis-incentivize easy wins
#42
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
I have said before that I think any forfeit should automatically end the debate with a loss.
I agree.

Lastly, all creative debates, rap debates, non-debate debates, etc should have a "dogfight" category which would replace winner selection.  These debates only come in odd numbers 1,3,5 rounds and voters pick winners by rounds with very short (less than 100 character)explanations.
These should be unranked (from ELO).
#43
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@3RU7AL
These should be unranked (from ELO).
agreed.  ELO should reflect debating skill, however much we might value other skill sets.
#44
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PressF4Respect
Ok, so what if the troll were to ALWAYS give out points to seem more open-minded? It doesn't affect their ELO whatsoever, and it would make more people want to debate them, so naturally, they would want to give out points ALL the time?
You could have the option to preemptively disqualify anyone with an imbalanced ratio greater than 60/40 or 40/60.

Someone with a near 50/50 ratio would seem to be a fair (ideal) opponent.

A "troll" is by definition myopically selfish.

I have trouble imagining a "troll" just handing out points like candy.

I think I'd probably be the most generous, and even I wouldn't award more than 2 points per debate to someone obviously stone-walling (unless I really thought they made excellent arguments and or critiques).

And if I found myself being showered with points with little or no constructive feedback, I'd likely avoid that particular participant in the future.

The CIVIL DEBATE framework has built-in incentives for participants to sharpen the communication skills of their opponents.

Most people are loathe to admit when someone makes a "good point", so I believe this natural impulse would mitigate the "damage" of a rare "debate Santa Claus" (and they'd be easy to spot because of their CIVIL DEBATE ranking ratio (323/22, OUTbound/INbound).

Also, in the absence of any "win/loss" leaderboard and just pure scoring, it would disincentivize "gaming the system" just to get "wins".
#45
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
@PressF4Respect
@Jeff_Goldblum
@User_2006
For example,

The debate resolution is "Science is not objective."

This debate will follow the 3 rules of Civil Debate. - https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/376

Civil Debate - Rule One: You cannot redefine truth.
Civil Debate - Rule Two: Do not disqualify your opponent.
Civil Debate - Rule Three: Only your opponent can award points.

Each participant will award and/or deduct up to 6 points to their opponent per round with the stipulation that points can never go below zero. The judge will award "arguments" (3 points) to the participant with the highest points tally at the end of the debate. In the event of a tie, no vote will be registered by the judge.

First round will be PRO's opening argument and definitions and CON's opportunity to challenge definitions and present counter-arguments.

Second round will be PRO optionally awarding points to CON for round one and modifying arguments to address concerns identified by CON and CON optionally awarding points to PRO for their response and modifying arguments to address PRO's points.

Third round will be the same as the second round with the addition of closing arguments.

Fourth round will be for points assignment/deduction and tally only.
If points are awarded or deducted (including a note for "no points"), CON will note points in the same round and PRO will note points at the beginning of the round following the arguments/comments that are being judged.

#46
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 561
Posts: 19,892
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@3RU7AL
There was serious potential as a devout debater in Type1, he genuinely wasn't a full troll.
#47
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Let's not rush-to-disqualify (ad hominem) everyone who fails to recognize our obvious individual genius, dismissing them as "crazy, stupid, evil, dishonest, and or intellectually blind" and "a lost cause" or "human trash" or "trolls".
I'm just saying, there are people who I have had to take time to explain why it is impossible for 100% of a group to be better than that group average at something... Took several paragraphs to lay it out and they still don't get it. The fact that I get it doesn't make me a genius it just means I paid attention in grade school.
#48
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I'm just saying, there are people who I have had to take time to explain why it is impossible for 100% of a group to be better than that group average at something... Took several paragraphs to lay it out and they still don't get it.
I find myself "explaining the obvious" most of the time.

Deism is functionally identical to Atheism.

Science is not Objective.

Free-will can be (EITHER) an act of will (OR) free from influence, but never both.
#49
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
My ideal voting policy would be no voting. I advocate for Absolute Hereditary Monarchy (think Saudi Arabia)
#50
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Username
My ideal voting policy would be no voting. I advocate for Absolute Hereditary Monarchy (think Saudi Arabia)
So, less "debate" and more DOGMA.
#51
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@3RU7AL
i was joking
#52
User_2006
User_2006's avatar
Debates: 50
Posts: 510
3
3
11
User_2006's avatar
User_2006
3
3
11
-->
@3RU7AL
So, less "debate" and more DOGMA.
I'd like AI to judge every debate. There are occasions where people just don't vote at all, If I'd lose in that it is still ok, but if I'd win it it would be unfair. 

#53
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@User_2006
Yeah, the abandoned (no vote) debates are the worst.

That's why I think the "self-moderated" CIVIL DEBATE would be such a great option.

The best measure of your skill is to actually CONVINCE your opponent (not just sway a crowd of judges).