MEEP: Voting Opt-In Discussion

Author: bsh1

Posts

Archived
Read-only
Total: 89
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@RationalMadman
Yeah, I apologize. I totally understand what you're saying. We've remedied the problem, and we are doing everything we can to make sure vote reports are processed in a timely and fair way going forward. The backlog was a bish.
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@RationalMadman
I'll look into that.
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
I am curious about peoples thoughts of the 3 questions in the OP.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,387
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@bsh1
Majority winning is fine by me. I proved to Drafterman that even if he controls the podium and bribes the audience, I understand negotiating position and people-puppeteering better than he ever will.

I am fine with it being democratic sheeple-choose. As you can see, so far only one person is supporting leniency being the direction to head in.

The reason why this is ultimately flawed even though I know how to beat the other side, is that not everyone is equal. 

You should know I am smarter and care more about the site than five regs combined. I am basically 6 users in 1, and that's my value. 

You also know that I spit the raw truth, whether it's what you want or not despite being accused of bringing out the kneepads for you by insolent court Jesters in this community and MEEP system. They are here to giggle and poke fun, some of them are not Jesters of that kind but rather Pierrots such as Drafterman. Don't let them get to you, don't let their nonsense even penetrate your mind past the simple intake layer. They are saying what they say to anger and sadden you, to destroy your confidence and what-not. Do not let them do it, they will smirk if you break and get harsher the more that you show it gets to you every step of the way towards making you cry and quit.

You need to realise you have homies and fuckboys on these MEEPs and that you need to separate one from the other as soon as you can. If you don't, your sanity and confidence will be the price you pay. You should know what quality-advice is, regardless of how many cheer it on.
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@RationalMadman

Judge Debates are different and should be entitled to their own standards of voting. Not only is it unfair how it rigs the voting (which on DDO was an issue because it affected the same rating) but it's also unfair to enforce in something like an arranged off-kilter voting system such as this debate:


^ Here, the judge is there to serve a totally different voting system to normal.

This is fine because judge debates don't affect rating and I wish they also didn't affect winrate but so be it. :)

It depends on who is selected in judicial voting. When you choose open voting you can get anyone to judge your debate and those who judge it could be your mortal enemies or hold a very strong view against your position and throw the debate in favor of your opponent. I used the judicial vote and I pick the best debaters I can find because my reasoning is they will have experienced unfair decisions so they will want to be as fair as humanly possible. The other feature of this choice is that a debate is always judged. I watched many debates on DDO go unjudged (i.e., a draw) because with the open vote no one voted on them. 

I will not use open voting if I have a choice. I choose the best debaters available to me as judges and I try to choose at least two of five that hold a different worldview from the majority. These forums are predominately atheistic or agnostic. In an open vote on controversial subjects birds of a feather flock together. With judicial voting, I can pick the fairest and most intellectual judges available. 

Open voting sucks.  


RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,387
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@PGA2.0
Enjoy your rating staying the same.
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@bsh1
What is the intended pupose of formal debating?   is it to prove the truth of a proposition, or to pratice rhetorical skills, or a 'pissing contest' or what? 
I think some people just want a 'troll free' environment to disuss issues seriously but to others debating is a comptititive sport, like conkers.

AFAICT debates on DART don't affect policy or have any 'IRL' consequences.   If you identify why there are debates at all the best way to implement them might become obvious.  I suspect different people debate for different reasons so making up 'one size fits all' rules is infeasible.

So - why do people want formal debating in the first place?

PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@RationalMadman
Enjoy your rating staying the same.
Do you want as fair a judgment as possible or do you want an ego boost and bragging rights? With our debate, Skepticalone and I chose our judges. We chose them based on the number of debates they had participated in and because we felt they would be fairer than most in an open votes system. We selected from what we had available and I think we chose the best judges available.

I noticed on the DDO that debaters had a lot of friends they could call upon if the debate was an open vote. I noticed sometimes that they would post, "Please vote" in calling on their friendships (You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours). No voting system is perfect and if you are looking for a fairer judgment, in my opinion, you have a better chance with the judicial system in which the judges are chosen by the two combatants before the debate starts. 

What I witness on debate forums is a largely atheistic or agnostic community inundating a small Christian one. That is just the nature of these forums (they are breeding grounds for a secular viewpoint enlarge), and I enjoy coming here because I will find a predominately secular worldview, but such forums have their faults also. On DDO I usually looked at the profile of those I engaged with. I did this because I can assess where a person is coming from once I understand their worldview commitment. Thus, the atmosphere is one of where the secular community appears vindicated by sheer numbers (majority) alone. I fear (but have not looked for evidence to the fact) the same would be true in open voting.  

drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
Should it be a simply majority?
Yes.

Should it have a participation threshold?
No.

Should its results be binding or advisory?
Trick question. There is no way to bind moderation to any result so they can only ever be advisory and voluntarily accepted.
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 49
Posts: 2,767
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
I second #39.

Additionally, I would prefer a certain level of built in handling of these debate voting matters. Such as the debaters being able to outright disable categories individually (which would be very good for comedy debates, as they could just disable conduct and have the votes otherwise be tallied and moderated normally).

Further, I think with only slight refinement the ballot itself could fairly easily teach people about the voting standards, without it becoming particularly confusing when in use. Instead of just "Con Tie Pro," it could it could factor in the level of strictness the debaters opted for on a scale. I'm envisioning an extra option in each direction, such as as "Pro by strong margin, Pro, Tied or Indeterminate, Con, Con by strong margin." The voter increased BOP for by strong margin, should speak for itself. For a more lax debate, points would begin being rewarded at the lower margins, and with that lesser RFDs would be needed (while votebombs would stick out a little more clearly for moderation action).

As an extra bonus, this would further take this site away from resembling any other.
spacetime
spacetime's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 206
0
1
3
spacetime's avatar
spacetime
0
1
3
-->
@bsh1
please stop sending me notifications about moderation stuff. i get very excited when i see the little orange dot. the disappointment is soul-crushing.
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@spacetime
The notifications are universal. 
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,387
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@PGA2.0
Alright. Out of curiosity what is your attitude to competition in general?
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@RationalMadman
PGA and skeps wanted to debate a particular issue they felt strongly about in a troll-free environment.   They weren't in the least concened with their ELO or ranking.  It was very much a one-off thing for them.

That is very different from people who debate because they like to debate, build up their ELO and top the leader board.




RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,387
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@keithprosser
Why ask people to judge then? Why not either do it as PMs or in a forum thread like this one except in the relevant subforum?
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@RationalMadman
obviously the hope was to avoid the voting going purely on party lines.   If the judges are known to be fair there is no need to demand they justify  themselves.   Also I don't think they felt it would be the end of the world for PG or skeps if they lost.. it is clear to outsiders that some people take formal debating and their ELO/leader board bragging rights far, far more seriously than a casual posters might imagine!
 
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
Could really use more feedback and participation on this.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Raltar
If moderators can't just nuke votes without warning, but have to give the voter a chance to correct any shortcomings, then it makes life a lot easier for the voter and also gives the debater a chance to dispute anything specific about the vote they may have a legitimate reason to dispute. After the vote has been corrected and allowed to stand, no further (public) bickering over the vote should be allowed. 
Well stated.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@BrutalTruth
Considering that a person's vote which I recently reported to you on my recent debate was deemed adequate when the voter made false claims about my arguments and used those false claims as reasons for giving the argument vote to my opponent, I feel that the strictness of the RFD is entirely irrelevant to the problem this site is facing. The problem is, obviously, that bullshit votes are allowed in formal debates. I am brand new to this site, and because of that moderation decision, I am already seriously considering leaving it. Formal debate here is obviously useless if votes are not required to have factual merit. I am very disappointed, because I actually like this site a lot.
Excellent point.

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
I still think that...

Voting periods should go on indefinitely, always.

Voting should be based on quality of the debate rather than a "winner" as if 3 or 5 votes in a debate have anything to do with what is true.


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
So - why do people want formal debating in the first place?
To pratice rhetorical skills (and logic).
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Not to establish the truth of a proposition, then.   That's what PG and skeps naively assumed.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
Not to establish the truth of a proposition, then.   That's what PG and skeps naively assumed.
"Truth" is a bit of a reach in my opinion.

Logical coherence based on (mutually agreed upon) common ground is a bit more quantifiable.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@bsh1
  • To award argument points, the voter must (1) analyze the argument they found most important, (2) explain who is winning that argument and why.
  • To award sources points, the voter must (1) offer a comparative statement about the quality of each side's sources, or note that one side did not use sources while the other did, and (2) point to a specific good or bad source.
  • To award spelling and grammar points, the voter must (1) offer a comparative statement about the quality of each side's spelling and grammar and (2) point to a specific instance of poor spelling and grammar.
  • To award conduct points, the voter must (1) offer a comparative statement about the conduct of each side, and (2) point to a specific act of misconduct by a particular side
These are a marked improvement over the current Voting Policy RFD "rules". - https://www.debateart.com/rules

If "select winner" is going to simply be identical to "argument points" I'm not sure why anyone would bother implementing such an option.


RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,387
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@3RU7AL
No, they are the opposite of an improvement. They are vaguer, enabling even less rational voters to justify BS votes. This is a step in the wrong direction.

BrutalTruth, who won the debate he is complaining about, as well as MagicAintReal who is in the exact same boat, both agree with me severely strong on this matter. Raltar agrees with me, albeit less strong.

Notice something about those agreeing with me preferring the harsher voting laws in place versus these ones moving in the wrong direction?... They all take debating seriously as proven by their previous debates and general behaviour on the site.

How about you? You are a casual debater whose only debate is a debate where your opponent decides what points you get and Judge Debates don't even count towards official rating. So, do kindly explain why you support the OP instead of just quoting it and saying a phrase like 'marked improvement' without explaining why it is.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@bsh1

In order to award argument points, a voter must do two things. First, they must survey specific arguments and counterarguments from both sides which impacted their voting decision. This survey must be comprehensive, which is to say that it must survey all or most of the main arguments in the debate, or must explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself.
It would take hours to list each of the twenty plus arguments and or counter arguments and explain why they should or should not be considered main arguments.  This makes a true RFD unmanageable and necessarily a comprehensive summary of the entire debate.  Since the term Main Arguments is not clearly defined, either by the rule makers, or the debaters themselves, or by the moderators, it is a purely subjective and arbitrary measurement. 

It would make more sense to focus attention on the Debate Resolution Itself and ignore any arguments that do not either directly support or directly attack the Debate Resolution Itself.

Second, the voter must explain how the arguments and counterarguments they reference impacted the outcome that the voter arrived at. In other words, the voter must weigh the arguments and counterarguments they identified. Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one set of arguments and counterarguments outweighed and/or precluded another set of them, and then, in turn, how this strength imbalance led to the decision to give one debater a win as opposed to a loss. This requires situating the arguments and counterarguments being analyzed within the context of the debate as a whole.
"Situating the arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate" would require retyping the entire debate in your RFD.

The voter must assess the content of the debate and only the debate, any reasoning based on arguments made or information given outside of the debate rounds is unacceptable. This includes reasoning that stems from already-placed votes, comment sections, and separate forums. Votes that impermissibly factor in outside content and which are reported will be removed.
This is a particularly bizarre rule, which seems to impossibly hamstring any potential voter by disallowing even basic logic as being used as "reasoning" to be included in a sufficient RFD.  For example, if, as is commonly the case, both debaters go full gish gallop with tangential off-topic rants, and both sides ignore 80 to 90% of what their opponent says, and I try to carefully pick through the chaos to find statements that directly address the Debate Topic Itself (either PRO or CON), and carefully analyse the logical coherence of those statements, then my RFD is considered "insufficient" because, not only did it not comprehensively survey the entire debate, including all of the "main arguments" but, on top of that, by making reference to basic logic, I am then accused of using "information given outside the debate rounds".
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RationalMadman

RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,387
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@3RU7AL
You are strawmanning the current rules, making them for more OCD than they are.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RationalMadman
Do you want me to explain why I believe the newly proposed rules are a marked improvement over the old rules?
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
There is a 'coherence' view of truth and a 'correspondence' view of truth.