Reform the ranking system

Author: Benjamin

Posts

Total: 47
Topic's author
#1
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 94
Posts: 828
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
Please forgive me if I have gotten the system already in place wrong. This is based on my current understanding of the Dart score system.


1. Make unvoted ties not be registered at all
  • This would make our ranking system more accurate

2. Make unrated debates not affect win/loss ration
  • Right now, unrated does not mean actually unrated. The current system makes losing an unrated debate affect the win/loss ration, a very important number.
  • With my suggestion implemented, people like Ragnar and Oromagi would be able to participate in as many debates as they would like
    • Currently, participating in unrated debates puts their precious win/loss rations at risk
    • The current system thus prevents exceptional debaters from participating in funny/informal debates
      • thus the current system causes a lot of undesired and fatal effects and is VERY flawed because of this

3. Possible extension: have unrated debates be a separate number from the rated debates
  • Elsewise, point 2 would not be as effective
  • Currently, unrated debates and ranked debates are seen as one category, making it very possible for the win/loss ratio and elo number to disagree

4. Make tied debates not affect win/loss ratios
  • Tied debates are neither win's nor losses, and should not be recorded as such
  • This suggestion makes the win percentage more accurate, as ties are not actually half-wins half-losses,
  • With this feature, an agreed-upon tie can have the desired effect of not affecting any rating or number



These are three minor changes that would have major effects on the accuracy and usefulness of our ranking system. These changes would be beneficial, objectively speaking.

#2
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Benjamin
Make unvoted ties not be registered at all
  • This would make our ranking system more accurate
Already done, thanks to me suggesting it very early on and admin being responsive.
#3
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Benjamin
Right now, unrated does not mean actually unrated. The current system makes losing an unrated debate affect the win/loss ration, a very important number.
You're correct that they affect win/loss ratio but if their ego is too fragile to risk the w/l ratio then I just gotta laugh.

Everyone knows what they did to get there, nobody truly 'respects' the approach they take, it's sad how enslaved they are to the fear of losing. Oromagi pretends that he quit because it reached 99 debates but he really quit because he got a loss and it was clearly so traumatic for him.

#4
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@RationalMadman
Everyone knows what they did to get there, nobody truly 'respects' the approach they take
What is the "approach" that they take. I would think that a 99 win streak would be a sign of a competent debater. From what I've seen, Ora's beaten you 3 times. Would you consider yourself a good debater?
#5
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Bones
Focus on the topic and voter (single) each time, it was twice not three times I think.
#6
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Bones
I will take a topic I know little about and debate it to the best of my ability, Oromagi will only take stuff he's researched inside-out beforehand and not ever dare risk his pretty record being tarnished if he can avoid it needing to be possible.
Topic's author
#7
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 94
Posts: 828
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Ragnar and Oromagi value their win streaks -- so what? Why is that a bad thing? And why should our ranking system prevent such excellent debaters from participating in informal debates? You do have an idea how much effort it takes to reach their position, so you should understand the reason they don't want to lose.

The only reason you ridicule their approach is that you have chosen a different approach. As a matter of fact, Oromagi and Ragnar could have had much more fun had the system been changed -- and they would also have been able to debate topics without being 100% sure that they would win. The current system makes it impossible to both be a tryhard and have fun because it does not see any difference between informal and tryhard debates.


I propose we upgrade the system to allow for informal debates that don't affect one's ego. How can you oppose this change?

Topic's author
#8
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 94
Posts: 828
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Barney
@oromagi
I do in fact respect you, and I disagree with RationalMadman that you don't deserve your status.

Anyways, what do you think about my proposed changes?
#9
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
RMM

You seem to think that raw rhetoric is the most important part of debating... I would disagree, it's certainly an important part of debating, you should have the ability to correctly interpret data and research you cite, sure, but without that research all you have is empty claims. ITS A GOOD THING that Oro debates things he's researched in depth, you should only come to believe x assertion whenever there has been evidence indicative of it's truth 
Topic's author
#10
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 94
Posts: 828
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Well stated
#11
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Barney
@oromagi
@Benjamin
I never said they don't deserve their status. Don't put words on my fucking mouth fool.

You're the one trying to reform the system so they can lose without hurting their fragile egos. i just pointed out I agree with you that it's sad how scared they are of it.

#12
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Theweakeredge
You should read Benjamin's suggestions. They're all indirect mockery of people who sit there too scared shit to lose and UNRATED debate even just because their ego can't take the loss if it happens.

Benjamin is trying to pretend this isn't the entire joke behind his OP and trying to say I'm jealous or mean. I'm neither.

I just find it sad that someone can be so scared shit of losing that they couldn't accept a win-loss ratio decrease even if their rating is unscathed. That's sad, I find it amusing and I got jack shit to apologise fod.
#13
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Benjamin
I propose we upgrade the system to allow for informal debates that don't affect one's ego. How can you oppose this change?
I find it deeply hilarious that someone's ego is the thing the system has to adapt to rather than the opposite.

That's how I can oppose to. I am a left-wing progressive but I'll be damned if this isn't a 'special snowflake' scenario.

#14
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@RationalMadman
Oromagi pretends that he quit because it reached 99 debates but he really quit because he got a loss and it was clearly so traumatic for him.
Your premise is false.  I have not quit, much less made any pretense about it.

I don't feel traumatized by my 98 and 1 record.  I am proud of the work that number represents but an undefeated record for a guy with no debating experience or training was never going to be sustainable.

Last summer and autumn, I fielded a lot of requests to slow down and give others a chance to challenge which I offered to do once I lost or got to one hundred.  I fell one short of that hundred goal but I've promised my hundredth debate to whiteflame so that was always going to be a loss anyway.  This present pause is me honoring that offer.

What did wreck my mood and outlook about this site in early November was Greyparrot reporting me to moderation as a bully and moderation requesting that I make no defense against Greyparrot's snipes, even while he enjoys the freedom to target and mock me.  Its like being told that the stand your ground law applies in all cases except when the home invasion is done by men wearing swastikas, in which case you must allow them to rape your wife.
#15
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@RationalMadman
it was twice not three times I think.
thrice.



#16
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@RationalMadman
Oromagi will only take stuff he's researched inside-out beforehand and not ever dare risk his pretty record being tarnished if he can avoid it needing to be possible.
Well, if I initiate a debate it is probably going to be a topic that I've looked into but when I'm the challenger, I'm often uncertain about the topic.  I know little about boxing, for example, but took that Ali v. Holyfield debate of yours.
#17
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Benjamin

1. Make unvoted ties not be registered at all
I'd prefer a system where no well-engaged debate goes unvoted.

2. Make unrated debates not affect win/loss ration
I'm fine with this.

3. Possible extension: have unrated debates be a separate number from the rated debates
fine.

4. Make tied debates not affect win/loss ratios
I don't know how this works now but if it improves the ranking of good debaters with too many ignored debates like fauxlaw or Fruit_Inspector then I am for it.




#18
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
RMM

Not the point of my post, I was just pointing out the assumption in your position there. 
#19
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,087
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@oromagi
Its like being told that the stand your ground law applies in all cases except when the home invasion is done by men wearing swastikas, in which case you must allow them to rape your wife.
This is very amusing. Wylted comparing RM to Elliot Rodgers too. 

This is the stuff I've been missing. 
#20
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@badger
I already regret the metaphor.  It's not as if mods are endorsing men in swastikas, they are simply required to pass on any request for "safe space" protections whatever the circumstance.  The cowardice is entirely GP's to suffer.
Topic's author
#21
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 94
Posts: 828
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
I did not expect this to get heated up. Yet you managed to turn this forum into a personal attack discussion. Well done! 


Benjamin's suggestions. They're all indirect mockery of people who sit there too scared shit to lose and UNRATED debate even just because their ego can't take the loss if it happens.
WTF! My suggestions are an objective improvement of the ranking system. The very name, "unrated", shows us that their purpose is exactly that ---- to not affect ratings.

All I am saying is that IF we are to have an unrated mode THEN that mode ought not to affect important numbers. Do you deny this?
#22
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@badger
Wylted comparing RM to Elliot Rodgers too. 
Rodgers is best known as a mentally ill misogynist, neither of which characterization seems to apply to RM particularly but both characterizations are well established traits of Wylted.
#23
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,087
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@oromagi
Wylted,  like the other fellow, was a lunatic. He was very amusing, though. 
#24
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@badger
All bullying that occurs on this site should be permitted if it amuses you is that right?

#25
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,087
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@RationalMadman
Not at all. I've known Wylted for a long time, though. He was a troll, that's all. 
#26
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Benjamin
You attacked me in several ways, put words in my mouth, suggested I was jealous or some shit like I didn't think they deserve things.

I made clear to you what my take is and isn't. In the future when asking for feedback on a thread, specify you only want support and sheep. You made two errors regarding the system and the rest was essentially pandering to people who need to toughen up. If they are like that with stats on here, I worry for them. Risking an unrated L is that scary... God forbid your WL ratio takes a hit!

Difference between you/them and me? I could laugh and be happy either way around. It's them who are enslaved to their fears and I will never encourage that attitude, it's a coward's mentality and I'm entitled to say that on a thread without you blasting me.
#27
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@RationalMadman
one in three odds: badger=wylted
#28
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,087
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@oromagi
I'm another infamy. 
#29
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,087
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
Nobody looks at your name and pronounces it anything other than origami btw. 
Topic's author
#30
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 94
Posts: 828
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
 if their ego is too fragile to risk the w/l ratio then I just gotta laugh.

Everyone knows what they did to get there, nobody truly 'respects' the approach they take, it's sad how enslaved they are to the fear of losing

I will take a topic I know little about and debate it to the best of my ability, Oromagi will only take stuff he's researched inside-out beforehand and not ever dare risk his pretty record being tarnished if he can avoid it needing to be possible.
Is it just me, or is that a statement by you that Oromagi and Ragnar don't deserve the respect their position calls for?