Platform development

Topic's posts
Posts in total: 1,016
What country though?
--> @Alec
Most likely Finland
An idea for an alternative voting system: Changed Opinion.

This is taken from how some live debates are handled, specifically from an article Tejretics shared. Judges cast ballots only reflecting the strength of their opinion before and after the debate. Moving from agreed/disagreed with to neutral (or neutral to agreed/disagreed) would say be worth 1 point, and from agreed to disagreed (and vice versa) would be worth 3? (if you want to collect meta data, maybe an option for strongly agreed/disagreed, but I would not grant extra points).

I view this as something which would have only minimal moderation. And due to the risk of no voters beginning in the position of agreed to certain claims, no ELO impact.

--> @Ragnar
Sounds interesting, could you please create this proposition in a separate topic for a discussion?
I started working on the project again but I noticed that implementing even simple things become more and more complicated due to some shortcuts that were made during the previous development phase so first I am gonna fix those and then we'll get back to implementing new stuff. Also during the refactoring, I will add some minor features that were requested by some folk so there's also that. Hopefully refactoring will take 2-3 weeks. I know it sounds like a lot but trust me, it's better to spend some time now than suffer much more in a few months. 
I have not read this entire thread so sorry if this has already been brought up, but...

Is the only way to report a person in detail (with a short explanation of why you are reporting them) to contact a mod directly? I have just recently discovered that flagging a post offers no options for explaining why one flags the post, and there is no button that I can see to report a user for anything, only a users posts. There may be cases, however, where all of a person's posts looked at individually are perfectly fine but looked at as a whole indicate a pattern of harassment or stalking. The proper way to report this is unclear with the current format.
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
Yes and furthermore there's some strange limit (they say 10 but it alters throughout) per 24 hour period of the amount of flags you can do (not per user, at all).
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
Between you, me and everyone PMing Virt gets shit done. PMing Bsh1 gets nothing done for many days and then a universal RO between you and the other at best.
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
But since Virt is ill, PMing bsh1 is superior for the time being.
--> @RationalMadman
Very well, this answers my question sufficiently. Thanks.

--> @RationalMadman
Thanks for the help lol
15 days later
A few more very minor suggestions:
  1. Separate this into two threads. One for technical aspects, another for societal (rules and such).
  2. On the COC, under Voting Policies conduct, there's a typo. The word "comparatively" should be replaced with "comparative"
  3. Regarding conduct: I believe the comparative analysis is rarely needed (when one person is polite, and the other a raving lunatic, it does not feel relevant to mention how nice one was), and that the comment section activity should count (at least in extreme cases, such as blatant voter harassment; or trying to extend the debate with personal insults after it's ended).
What the conduct policy currently says:
To sufficiently ground awarding conduct points, the voter must provide specific references to the instances of poor conduct in their vote. There are two additional necessary criteria for conduct points to be sufficiently grounded. One debater must have been excessively rude, profane, or unfair, or broke the debate rules, or forfeited one or more rounds in the debate without reasonable and given cause. There must be some comparatively analysis between both debaters’ conduct. The second pertains specifically to awarding conduct solely for forfeited rounds. If this is the case, then the voter must also explain arguments, unless the debate is forfeited by half or more of its rounds. Then and only then would a vote that awards only conduct points be acceptable.
Here's what I would have it say (I do not expect this to be implemented, but it might help a future revision):
To award conduct, one debater must have committed violations to sportsmanship which outright distracted the voter from debate arguments; to which the voter needs to reference at least the worst offense (if both had severe infractions, a comparative analysis is required to show why one was a magnitude worse). Examples of inexcusable conduct:
  • Plagiarism
  • Excessive profanity
  • Repeated or grotesque Ad Hominem attacks
  • Trying to use the comment section to cheat
  • Forfeited rounds (if less than half, arguments must also be weighted)
--> @bsh1, @Ragnar

Thank you very much for the response. I will fix the typo and definitely implement a better mechanism for the feedback. Regarding the rest, I'll probably redirect you to @bsh1.
Is there any chance I can beg again for a voter  Leaderboard :)
--> @Ramshutu
Hi, I am rewriting the most parts of the website at the moment because they are quite messy and it would be hard to go on without creating even bigger mess. After that's done, I will implement bunch of new things, including the votes leaderboard :)
--> @Ragnar
The comparative analysis is indispensable, because unless the voter is able to explain why one person's conduct was worth than the other, the voter has no business awarding one a point for conduct. If the voter believes one debater was rude and the other was polite, the voter needs to state as much and then explain why. It may seem to be belaboring the obvious to the voter, who clearly has an opinion about the debaters' politeness, but it is not the moderator's job to determine if the voter was right about awarding points (thus, it is not the moderator's job to actually decide if there was an obvious conduct difference). Therefore, the only way for moderators to ensure the voter is doing the necessary mental legwork and not just randomly assigning points is to compel the voter to explain, in comparative terms, the points they award. I also don't think poor conduct needs to distract the voter to warrant punishment. 

Something we don't have from DDO that I never thought about is the polls. I never thought about it because I never really used the DDO polls very often but now that I just came up with the idea of a poll I would like to make the absence is quite conspicuous. Any chance of us getting some poll functionality in DART?
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
No for the love of all that is good and holy. No. 
--> @Virtuoso
Come on TB, I know you want to want it =)
No for the love of all that is good and holy. No. 

What is your plans for the next update?
--> @SupaDudz
I've been rewriting most of the modules of the website to make them much easier to extend. But apart from that, I've also added some minor changes, which will be deployed alongside the new rewritten version, some of them are:

1) Much more advanced permissions system for the admins to control the access to the website's features.
2) Full screen messaging window, it won't have the office sidebar on the left anymore.
3) Much better error messages, like if you try to access a wrong URL and whatnot.

Also I will probably try to add the system that would allow the mods to delete votes for the finished debates and some other minor details.

But after this rewritten version is deployed, we'll have new features every one or two weeks, as before.

--> @bsh1
comparative analysis is indispensable
I disagree given that the comparative behavior is usually strongly implied by the lack of noted violations (note: everyone already does this with forfeits). To give an example from Virtuoso, there seems no need to list times the non-penalized person abstained from saying "Oh come off it you soddy pillock" to the other, or on one of your debates all the times you did not violate the agreed upon debate rules and lie.

I also don't think poor conduct needs to distract the voter to warrant punishment. 
My suggestion for a minimum standard of distracting, is mainly due to clarity. I believe excessive is too open to interpretation, and risks conduct penalties for not being nice enough when refuting arguments. Diverting someone's attention to non-issues like what a #$%^ someone is, while also wasting the time of all readers, pulls us out of the flow of the arguments (akin to movie breaking the suspension of disbelief). Refuting an argument, even if you could have been more civil to spare their feelings, is a natural part of the debate.

Granted, what distracts one person is different from one distracts another. But I am confident any good current conduct violation vote, had the attention of the voter pulled away from arguments (pretty much guaranteed once they're quoting something other than arguments they found annoying).
Please change the auto generated words displayed in debates above the avatars. Currently it reads Instigator vs Contender, with the color switched out based on the instigator's preference. Pro vs Con (or Con Vs Pro, based on which role the instigator selected) would be far superior.

The current standard risks confusing contenders (and voters for that matter), unless a debate description clearly informs the expectations.