A flawed voting system

Author: 949havoc

Posts

Total: 11
Topic's author
#1
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
It appears by the Voting policy that two voting systems exist: a four-point and a winner selection. 

The four-point system seems flawed because three of the four voting factors [sources, legibility, and conduct] are optional, whereas argument is considered mandatory. So what makes four-point a different voting system than winner selection if 75% of the vote is optional, and yet a secondary flaw: points are still awarded even if a voter opts out of voting on the 3 optionals. And how does a mod know whether the voter intended to opt out of the optionals, or simply did not justify their vote? Yes, both debaters are given the points, so it appears to equal out, but why do they deserve any points at all if the voter opts out of voting?

Either add a column to the voting summary page for the voter to opt out of any of the three optionals, so no points are awarded, or eliminate the optional feature and mandate a justified vote on all four factors. The current system makes no sense at all.

Otherwise, what makes the current four-point any different than winner selection?
#2
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
A lot of people had concerns the 4 point system could be taken advantage of, so they wanted winner selection. Ironically enough the 4 point system was originally created to overcome the problems with winner selection


75% of the vote should be optional

Grammar is really just a punishment vote. It punishes players who write in a way that makes voters struggle to understand them. For example walls of text, or word salad typical of some of the schitzo debaters here. It should not be used as a way to become a grammar nazi. It is an international site and some people or not native English speakers. They should not be punished for bad grammar. 

Conduct is only awarded if one side is being a huge dick and needs to be punished, or if one side is being very accommodating.  Like his opponent asked him to delay posting his arguments so he would have more time, and the other player complied.

Sources are only awarded if somebody argues a good reason why the points should be awarded to them or if their own sources are used to defeat them. 

As you can see, most 4 point debates should have that 75% vote not used. Anyone voting any of the 3 points above, for any reason other than what I listed, are trying to game the system and just find an excuse to award a debater more points than they deserve or deprive a player of the points they deserve
Topic's author
#3
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Wylted
Otherwise, what makes the current four-point any different than winner selection?
My final question, cited here, remains unaddressed. 

If voting should have educational value to the debater, win or lose, and I believe it should, then the other three factors currently optional are too valuable to remain optional. The policy was much better before making them optional. Apparently, my opinion my be in the minority, and this site may not truly be dedicated to use by intelligent people who should never be beyond enlarging education.
#4
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@949havoc
educating the debater is done in the feedback section of a proper rfd
#5
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 50
Posts: 2,944
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@949havoc
So what makes four-point a different voting system than winner selection
The ability to directly assign points for sources, legibility, and conduct.


And how does a mod know whether the voter intended to opt out of the optionals,
It is considered opted out if not commented upon. That said, there are cases where refusing to vote on one of them can contribute to identifying overwhelming bias in a vote (such votes are almost always bad anyways, but it's one more metric to which mods can point out in a decision to remove it).


Yes, both debaters are given the points [when left a tie]
I agree with you on the problem here. That piece of flawed coding on that has been irksome to me since day 1.
Topic's author
#6
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Barney
The ability to directly assign points for sources, legibility, and conduct.
However, the way the system is designed right now, if a voter opts to not vote on S, L, C, there are still points assigned, and if there are points assigned, there must by justification for them according to the policy.

It is considered opted out if not commented upon.
That's a policy based on assumption. Nope, not adequate. If it is a code issue, whoever writes code ought to address it.
Topic's author
#7
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Wylted
educating the debater is done in the feedback section of a proper rfd
What feedback on  sourcing, legibility. or conduct if a voter doesn't vote on any of them, and, thereby, leaves no commentary in the vote?
#8
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@949havoc
What feedback on  sourcing, legibility. or conduct if a voter doesn't vote on any of them, and, thereby, leaves no commentary in the vote?
If sourcing legibility and conduct is not atrocious, it needs no feedback. It is like feedback on how to tie your shoes. You o ly need feedback if you fuck it up severely
#9
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
The problem is with the intellectual capability of most voters and even mods of said vote but I won't say more so as not to be accused of insulting too harsh.

In reality, there's a pretty objective winner in most debates if one is intelligent enough to analyse the chains of interconnected logic and facts. Unfortunately, very few are capable of objectively seeing that. I slowly am learning to take advantage of this though and focusing less on genuinely winning and more on appealing to what voters think equals winning (which takes a lot of trial and error as well as observation).
#10
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,479
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
and more on appealing to what voters think equals winning
that's the tricky bit.
Topic's author
#11
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Wylted
Until someone comes along who ties shoes better than anyone ever has. Kind of like replacing the buggy whip with a carburetor.