-->
@drafterman
Ok, Poe's Law.I'm just taking a jab at the older trend of RFDs
MEEP: Voting Policy, Part 2
Posts
Archived
Read-only
Total:
83
-->
@3RU7AL
It does seem useful. If there was a comment box beside to cite examples it would do the trick. I think the argument itself deserves more points than the other categories.Yeah, a ballot.What an absolutely novel concept.
A ballot suggests a secret vote.
I think the form is useful or an aid in developing more consistency in voting. The comments box for each section would give specific reasons for why you checked off a particular box in each category. It tells the reasons why a voter voted as he did. When you read through the debate you can decide whether the vote was justified.
-->
@PGA2.0
I agree.I think the form is useful or an aid in developing more consistency in voting.
Thinking about this more, are you familiar with Intelligence Squared?
They have some debates posted on youtube and I've heard them broadcast on the radio.
What they do is have the audience vote, Before the debate on whether or not they agree with the Resolution, and then the same audience members vote again After the debate and measure how many were swayed either way.
This would seem to be an interesting option - get at least 5 to 10 people to vote a simple one check box "PRO" or "CON" Before and then After the debate.
My preferred alternative would be to actually convince your opponent rather than playing to an audience or specific judges (rhetorical games).
Here's my suggestion for 3 Rules of Civil Debate - https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/376 (which was my first post on this site).
-->
@3RU7AL
I think the form is useful or an aid in developing more consistency in voting.I agree.Thinking about this more, are you familiar with Intelligence Squared?They have some debates posted on youtube and I've heard them broadcast on the radio.
I was not familiar. I listened to one, The God of the Gaps. It presents different perspectives on the subject.
What they do is have the audience vote, Before the debate on whether or not they agree with the Resolution, and then the same audience members vote again After the debate and measure how many were swayed either way.
I like that idea. I'm not sure, but I thought DDO gave this option.
This would seem to be an interesting option - get at least 5 to 10 people to vote a simple one check box "PRO" or "CON" Before and then After the debate.My preferred alternative would be to actually convince your opponent rather than playing to an audience or specific judges (rhetorical games).Here's my suggestion for 3 Rules of Civil Debate - https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/376 (which was my first post on this site).
Although I agree with your concepts, such as you can't redefine truth, what is presented as facts are not always so, and neither side seems capable of identifying the truth in some debates. For instance, what is presented as science is not always science, but scientism. When we speak of origins no one was there. So worldviews presuppose some things are true and science builds models as to reasonable scenarios based on the information available and what is considered reasonable. Then science sets out to prove or disprove the theory. The point is that we are all presented with the same data but some come to different conclusions on that data (i.e., a different interpretation of the "facts"). The problem with data is that it does need interpreting. Science also makes the assumption that the present (where we live) is the key to the past. All we have is the here and now or the present in determining such origins. We cannot go back to the point of origins. We cannot recreate the origin to test our hypothesis.
With your second premise, "Civil Debate - Rule Two: Do not disqualify your opponent" sometimes the best avenue is to show how absurd an idea actually is by ridiculing it. But I agree that ad homs are not culture but a flaw in reasoning.
-->
@PGA2.0
I like that idea. I'm not sure, but I thought DDO gave this option.
DDO did not let you vote before the debate, and there was no single checkbox option - RFD was still required.
There was a box for "I agreed with PRO/CON before the debate" but it was incidental as far as I could tell.
...neither side seems capable of identifying the truth in some debates.
What I'm trying to point out with Rule One, is that the two sides must agree on basic definitions from the outset and that neither side can claim some piece of information is a "fact" without getting agreement from the other. In other words, if I say something is a FACT and you disagree, then we must halt all other points of discussion until you and I can find what we both agree are FACTS (common ground).
We necessarily disagree on our conclusions, but we cannot disagree on FACTS.
sometimes the best avenue is to show how absurd an idea actually is by ridiculing it.
I'm not sure ridicule is generally very good at convincing your debate partner, it plays great with crowds and even with judges, but in one-on-one conversations with your friends and or family members it generally either shuts the other person up or makes them lash out in anger - both of these stifle the free exchange of ideas and as such, I would say that ridicule is a tactic to derail the debate.
I believe the Civil Debate framework is superior (to traditional forms) because it promotes mutual understanding, consensus building and respect.
I also believe it is superior when considering administration. There is no reason to review votes (saves mods time and user backlash). There are fewer (probably zero) debates that go unvoted on (which is incredibly frustrating when both parties have dedicated a lot of time and energy to produce a quality debate).
-->
@3RU7AL
-->
@PGA2.0
Who you agreed with before and after appears to be incidental.
-->
@3RU7AL
...neither side seems capable of identifying the truth in some debates.What I'm trying to point out with Rule One, is that the two sides must agree on basic definitions from the outset and that neither side can claim some piece of information is a "fact" without getting agreement from the other. In other words, if I say something is a FACT and you disagree, then we must halt all other points of discussion until you and I can find what we both agree are FACTS (common ground).
It either is a fact or it is not, but sometimes it is hard to determine since our knowledge is basic in some areas of thought.
Yeah, it is good to identify your definitions.
Yeah, it is good to identify your definitions.
We necessarily disagree on our conclusions, but we cannot disagree on FACTS.
True, if the facts are known.
sometimes the best avenue is to show how absurd an idea actually is by ridiculing it.I'm not sure ridicule is generally very good at convincing your debate partner, it plays great with crowds and even with judges, but in one-on-one conversations with your friends and or family members it generally either shuts the other person up or makes them lash out in anger - both of these stifle the free exchange of ideas and as such, I would say that ridicule is a tactic to derail the debate.
Some ideas are plain silly, for they are not rationally justifiable. When your opponent doesn't grasp this then showing the implications of their belief system in this area by a ridiculous example of what the opponent believes drives home the point, if not to them then at least to others.
I believe the Civil Debate framework is superior (to traditional forms) because it promotes mutual understanding, consensus building and respect.
Sure. Respect is always nice, but that does not mean to say all ideas are equally nice. I have found that sometimes there is no consensus available when dealing with what is true because of confirmational bias. No one is neutral. We all have a bias. It is whether the bias conforms to the truth that counts.
I also believe it is superior when considering administration. There is no reason to review votes (saves mods time and user backlash). There are fewer (probably zero) debates that go unvoted on (which is incredibly frustrating when both parties have dedicated a lot of time and energy to produce a quality debate).
In DDO there were many debates that were not voted on. Thus, a tie was declared. If you say it is different here then that is a good thing. Unless both sides have equally valid arguments a tie should not happen. When you are debating opposites it is hard to conceive of both being true to what is. It goes against logic to believe they are. Usually, there are some valid points and some invalid points in both arguments. It is hard to distinguish which is which in some debates because both debaters make a compelling argument, at least it is for me. That is why a checklist comes in handy. It identifies what the voter should be looking for.
-->
@3RU7AL
Who you agreed with before and after appears to be incidental.
Incidental to what? I find unless an argument against their worldview is irresistible powerful, the voter will usually side with the one that most closely fits their worldview.
-->
@PGA2.0
It either is a fact or it is not, but sometimes it is hard to determine since our knowledge is basic in some areas of thought.Yeah, it is good to identify your definitions.
Whether or not a "fact" is "objectively" "true" or not is irrelevant/immaterial. If a piece of information is contested, it cannot be considered a fact in the context of the debate.
True, if the facts are known.
When debating something that both sides agree is unknown/unknowable (noumenon), definitions and hypothetical frameworks must be negotiated and agreed upon as if they were facts and then treated as facts for the sake of that particular argument.
Some ideas are plain silly, for they are not rationally justifiable. When your opponent doesn't grasp this then showing the implications of their belief system in this area by a ridiculous example of what the opponent believes drives home the point, if not to them then at least to others.
If I told you, "FreeWill is just plain silly (absolutely insane) and is not rationally/logically justifiable" would you still consider me a reasonable person?
Sure. Respect is always nice, but that does not mean to say all ideas are equally nice. I have found that sometimes there is no consensus available when dealing with what is true because of confirmational bias. No one is neutral. We all have a bias. It is whether the bias conforms to the truth that counts.
I agree that no human being can seriously even pretend to be "objective". Yes, we are all 100% biased, and often for very good reasons. However, if communication is your goal, then some level of respect is mandatory.
In DDO there were many debates that were not voted on. Thus, a tie was declared.
I double checked this and as it turns out, I have two pending debates (in limbo) on DDO where a round was forfeit and a tie was never declared.
If you say it is different here then that is a good thing. Unless both sides have equally valid arguments a tie should not happen.
I believe it is unlikely/extremely rare that both sides are "perfectly equal" and that only under those circumstances deserve a tie.
If there are no votes, a tie is preferable to some other limbo status. My mission at one point was to try and track down all the debates with zero votes and give them a fair vote, but since my votes kept getting struck down, it appeared to be a complete waste of time.
When you are debating opposites it is hard to conceive of both being true to what is. It goes against logic to believe they are.
When both debaters go off-topic, their respective arguments are not necessarily mutually exclusive relative to one another.
Usually, there are some valid points and some invalid points in both arguments. It is hard to distinguish which is which in some debates because both debaters make a compelling argument, at least it is for me. That is why a checklist comes in handy. It identifies what the voter should be looking for.
I agree with you that a checklist/ballot is a great idea for "open voting".
-->
@3RU7AL
It either is a fact or it is not, but sometimes it is hard to determine since our knowledge is basic in some areas of thought.Yeah, it is good to identify your definitions.Whether or not a "fact" is "objectively" "true" or not is irrelevant/immaterial. If a piece of information is contested, it cannot be considered a fact in the context of the debate.
A fact is an objective truth. It can't be anything other than objective. A subjective truth is something that applies to a particular individual, but it is still true to that individual and can be nothing but true or it is not a fact. Facts do not depend on whether you believe them to be so or not. A fact is something that is true - period.
True, if the facts are known.When debating something that both sides agree is unknown/unknowable (noumenon), definitions and hypothetical frameworks must be negotiated and agreed upon as if they were facts and then treated as facts for the sake of that particular argument.
The definitions are either factual or they are not. Just because you agree does not make something a fact. It either is or it is not.
Some ideas are plain silly, for they are not rationally justifiable. When your opponent doesn't grasp this then showing the implications of their belief system in this area by a ridiculous example of what the opponent believes drives home the point, if not to them then at least to others.If I told you, "FreeWill is just plain silly (absolutely insane) and is not rationally/logically justifiable" would you still consider me a reasonable person?
It depends what you mean by free will? Do you think your will is really free in the sense that what you believe is built upon by other beliefs? If your thinking about these beliefs is faulty your whole house is constructed on a shaky foundation. Sure, some of it has truth to it and in it, but overall it could lead you to false conclusions. There has to be some truth to it in order to make a smidgeon of sense. It just depends on the degree.
Free will and self-will are two different things. We have the ability to choose. We all have a volition, a will to do what we want to do or like to do or deem best to do, but how free is that will from outside influences?
Since people are not neutral in their beliefs I question how free their wills are?
Sure. Respect is always nice, but that does not mean to say all ideas are equally nice. I have found that sometimes there is no consensus available when dealing with what is true because of confirmational bias. No one is neutral. We all have a bias. It is whether the bias conforms to the truth that counts.I agree that no human being can seriously even pretend to be "objective". Yes, we are all 100% biased, and often for very good reasons. However, if communication is your goal, then some level of respect is mandatory.
Unless there is an outside personal Being that is objective in that He knows all things and has revealed what is good and true, then we can have an objectively true belief if it conforms to the necessary Beings. So, even is I hold a bias and am not neutral towards one view, that view can be objective if it corresponds to what is true.
In DDO there were many debates that were not voted on. Thus, a tie was declared.I double checked this and as it turns out, I have two pending debates (in limbo) on DDO where a round was forfeit and a tie was never declared.
That is what made DDO an irritating debate site, IMO. It was not being well maintained and things were left to atrophy.
If you say it is different here then that is a good thing. Unless both sides have equally valid arguments a tie should not happen.I believe it is unlikely/extremely rare that both sides are "perfectly equal" and that only under those circumstances deserve a tie.
True, but when both sides make compelling arguments sometimes it is hard to judge one as better than another.
If there are no votes, a tie is preferable to some other limbo status. My mission at one point was to try and track down all the debates with zero votes and give them a fair vote, but since my votes kept getting struck down, it appeared to be a complete waste of time.
(^8
That would take a lot of time.
When you are debating opposites it is hard to conceive of both being true to what is. It goes against logic to believe they are.When both debaters go off-topic, their respective arguments are not necessarily mutually exclusive relative to one another.
True. But when you don't know the truth and both arguments are opposite, logically they are not both true.
Usually, there are some valid points and some invalid points in both arguments. It is hard to distinguish which is which in some debates because both debaters make a compelling argument, at least it is for me. That is why a checklist comes in handy. It identifies what the voter should be looking for.I agree with you that a checklist/ballot is a great idea for "open voting".
I think so too!
-->
@PGA2.0
A fact is an objective truth. It can't be anything other than objective. A subjective truth is something that applies to a particular individual, but it is still true to that individual and can be nothing but true or it is not a fact. Facts do not depend on whether you believe them to be so or not. A fact is something that is true - period.
The definition of "fact" says nothing about "objective" and therefore "objective" is not an integral property of "fact".
And to belabor the point, Whether or not a "fact" is "objectively" "true" or not is irrelevant/immaterial when establishing common ground.
The definitions are either factual or they are not. Just because you agree does not make something a fact. It either is or it is not.
Your bald assertions do not invalidate the statement, "they will be treated as facts for the sake of that particular argument".
It depends what you mean by free will? Do you think your will is really free in the sense that what you believe is built upon by other beliefs? If your thinking about these beliefs is faulty your whole house is constructed on a shaky foundation. Sure, some of it has truth to it and in it, but overall it could lead you to false conclusions. There has to be some truth to it in order to make a smidgeon of sense. It just depends on the degree.Free will and self-will are two different things. We have the ability to choose. We all have a volition, a will to do what we want to do or like to do or deem best to do, but how free is that will from outside influences?Since people are not neutral in their beliefs I question how free their wills are?
The details and possible intricacies of FreeWill are beside the point.
If I told you, "FreeWill is just plain silly (absolutely insane) and is not rationally/logically justifiable" would you still consider me a reasonable person?
Unless there is an outside personal Being that is objective in that He knows all things and has revealed what is good and true, then we can have an objectively true belief if it conforms to the necessary Beings. So, even is I hold a bias and am not neutral towards one view, that view can be objective if it corresponds to what is true.
"...if it corresponds to what is true."
You still have the insurmountable problem of correspondence.
How do you measure the "objective truth" value of a particular statement if nobody agrees with your hypothetical?
And beyond that, even if, for the sake of this particular argument, I grant your hypothetical, the insurmountable problem still remains that there is no way to compare the "objective truth" value of a particular statement with the hypothetical perspective of your hypothetical "objective being"?
In other words, how can we as humans directly access the perspective of a hypothetical "objective being"?
An inaccessible standard is functionally identical to no standard at all.
That is what made DDO an irritating debate site, IMO. It was not being well maintained and things were left to atrophy.
I agree.
True, but when both sides make compelling arguments sometimes it is hard to judge one as better than another.
Well, I mean, if you can't tell, that would seem to qualify as a vote for a tie.
True. But when you don't know the truth and both arguments are opposite, logically they are not both true.
When the facts/hypotheticals are not negotiated and agreed upon or are considered unknown/unknowable, even if the arguments are mutually exclusive, they are still both equally likely to be "true".
For example, either Vishnu or Nanabozho or Pangu or YHWH is "real" to the exclusion of the other three options. Does that logical conclusion support any one of the presented gods as "more likely" than any of the others? I don't believe it does.
-->
@3RU7AL
A fact is an objective truth. It can't be anything other than objective. A subjective truth is something that applies to a particular individual, but it is still true to that individual and can be nothing but true or it is not a fact. Facts do not depend on whether you believe them to be so or not. A fact is something that is true - period.The definition of "fact" says nothing about "objective" and therefore "objective" is not an integral property of "fact".And to belabor the point, Whether or not a "fact" is "objectively" "true" or not is irrelevant/immaterial when establishing common ground.
Unless one or the other combatants can establish something is a fact, or at least reasonable to believe, their argument is weak, just an opinion. Something that is a fact is objectively so, meaning it is the case.
The definitions are either factual or they are not. Just because you agree does not make something a fact. It either is or it is not.Your bald assertions do not invalidate the statement, "they will be treated as facts for the sake of that particular argument".
It is just common sense. (^8
What makes something a fact?
It depends what you mean by free will? Do you think your will is really free in the sense that what you believe is built upon by other beliefs? If your thinking about these beliefs is faulty your whole house is constructed on a shaky foundation. Sure, some of it has truth to it and in it, but overall it could lead you to false conclusions. There has to be some truth to it in order to make a smidgeon of sense. It just depends on the degree.Free will and self-will are two different things. We have the ability to choose. We all have a volition, a will to do what we want to do or like to do or deem best to do, but how free is that will from outside influences?Since people are not neutral in their beliefs I question how free their wills are?The details and possible intricacies of FreeWill are beside the point.If I told you, "FreeWill is just plain silly (absolutely insane) and is not rationally/logically justifiable" would you still consider me a reasonable person?
Explain free will. What does it mean? Then demonstrate you have it.
Unless there is an outside personal Being that is objective in that He knows all things and has revealed what is good and true, then we can have an objectively true belief if it conforms to the necessary Beings. So, even is I hold a bias and am not neutral towards one view, that view can be objective if it corresponds to what is true."...if it corresponds to what is true."You still have the insurmountable problem of correspondence.How do you measure the "objective truth" value of a particular statement if nobody agrees with your hypothetical?
Sometimes it is hard.
And beyond that, even if, for the sake of this particular argument, I grant your hypothetical, the insurmountable problem still remains that there is no way to compare the "objective truth" value of a particular statement with the hypothetical perspective of your hypothetical "objective being"?In other words, how can we as humans directly access the perspective of a hypothetical "objective being"?An inaccessible standard is functionally identical to no standard at all.That is what made DDO an irritating debate site, IMO. It was not being well maintained and things were left to atrophy.I agree.True, but when both sides make compelling arguments sometimes it is hard to judge one as better than another.Well, I mean, if you can't tell, that would seem to qualify as a vote for a tie.True. But when you don't know the truth and both arguments are opposite, logically they are not both true.When the facts/hypotheticals are not negotiated and agreed upon or are considered unknown/unknowable, even if the arguments are mutually exclusive, they are still both equally likely to be "true".For example, either Vishnu or Nanabozho or Pangu or YHWH is "real" to the exclusion of the other three options. Does that logical conclusion support any one of the presented gods as "more likely" than any of the others? I don't believe it does.
And I believe it does - YHWH. But we digress from the topic of the thread.
-->
@3RU7AL
This is a problem with ELO in general. I don't mean to insult Mikal's debating skills or temperament by the comparison, but Mikal was at the top on DDO despite the vast majority of people not seeing him as the best debater, a mantle that many would give to Whiteflame or Bluesteel. Because of the way that ELO works, you can make it to the top relatively easily by just having a lot of time to waste and strategically picking debates that you know you will win. In a site with a small and largely inexperienced debating pool like this one, it's very easy to shoot enough fish in the barrel and rise to the top, provided you don't have much use for your free time in real life. Mikal was at least a skilled debater, if not the best, so he rose through the ranks of the leader boards of DDO while it was filled with competent debaters. I think that in these early stages of this site's development it would be even easier to do what he did, with a far more impoverished skillset.
Question 1
Yea - 5
Nay - 2
Question 2
Yea - 6
Nay - 1
Question 3
Yea - 4
Nay - 2
Question 4
Yea - 7
Nay - 0
Question 5
Yea - 3
Nay - 2
This is how I am interpreting the results as they now stand. Additional participation is needed, however.
-->
@Vaarka
Get in here and vote.
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
But why would anybody bother?This is a problem with ELO in general. I don't mean to insult Mikal's debating skills or temperament by the comparison, but Mikal was at the top on DDO despite the vast majority of people not seeing him as the best debater, a mantle that many would give to Whiteflame or Bluesteel. Because of the way that ELO works, you can make it to the top relatively easily by just having a lot of time to waste and strategically picking debates that you know you will win. In a site with a small and largely inexperienced debating pool like this one, it's very easy to shoot enough fish in the barrel and rise to the top, provided you don't have much use for your free time in real life. Mikal was at least a skilled debater, if not the best, so he rose through the ranks of the leader boards of DDO while it was filled with competent debaters. I think that in these early stages of this site's development it would be even easier to do what he did, with a far more impoverished skillset.
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
This is a problem with ELO in general.
Excellent analysis.
Phenomenal analysis.
Phenomenal analysis.
Perhaps one way to improve this would be for you to only be able to gain (a significant number of) ELO points as a challenger to a debate created by someone else.
In this proposed modified system, you can lose points by setting up a debate and losing, but you cannot gain points (or can only gain a set number/small number/limited number of points).
This would prevent people from being able to "rise to the top" (quickly) by setting up (like a trap) the framework of a debate so they "can't lose" like with the "a watched pot never boils" debate where the debate creator won because they made a semantic argument that the pot itself (the metal) never literally boils.
Let's call this "The Challenger" ranking system.
-->
@PGA2.0
Unless one or the other combatants can establish something is a fact, or at least reasonable to believe, their argument is weak, just an opinion. Something that is a fact is objectively so, meaning it is the case.
If both sides agree on definitions, they are treated as facts for the sake of that particular argument.
It is just common sense. (^8What makes something a fact?
If both sides agree on definitions, they are treated as facts for the sake of that particular argument.
If I told you, "FreeWill is just plain silly (absolutely insane) and is not rationally/logically justifiable" would you still consider me a reasonable person?Explain free will. What does it mean? Then demonstrate you have it.
This is not a discussion about the merits of free will. This is a discussion about the merits of ridicule.
How do you measure the "objective truth" value of a particular statement if nobody agrees with your hypothetical?Sometimes it is hard.
No kidding.
For example, either Vishnu or Nanabozho or Pangu or YHWH is "real" to the exclusion of the other three options. Does that logical conclusion support any one of the presented gods as "more likely" than any of the others? I don't believe it does.And I believe it does - YHWH. But we digress from the topic of the thread.
But you don't believe this based solely on the mutual exclusivity of the other options. You don't believe this based solely on logic.
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Ok, so we don't necessarily need to "reinvent the wheel".
It also seems that activity should play a role in ranking. If you attain a high ranking and then refuse to debate at all, your ranking should decline by some proportion over time.
I think the battlenet ranking system for starcraft accounts for this. I should see if I can get details on how that is setup.
"Elo's original K-factor estimation was made without the benefit of huge databases and statistical evidence. Sonas indicates that a K-factor of 24 (for players rated above 2400) may be more accurate both as a predictive tool of future performance, and also more sensitive to performance."
So I believe the main point of contention is "win percentage" which can too easily be artificially inflated (by sniping newbs) without requisite merit and doesn't account for active versus inactive debaters.
If ELO is used, we should make sure we are using the "best version" of it and "win percentage" should not be on a leaderboard, but might be listed on an individual's profile page or something as a curiosity but not as a "ranked" stat.
-->
@Swagnarok
@Greyparrot
@blamonkey
@Vader
@Mharman
I'd love some more votes on this...
-->
@Logical-Master
You're vote/feedback would be nice.
-->
@bsh1
Who gets to decide what gets put on the MEEP ballot and can users opt to put things on the MEEP ballot themselves?
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. ?
4. Yes
5. ?
-->
@Logical-Master
Users can suggest things to be included--one of the things currently on the MEEP ballot was suggested and then seconded by a few members. Ultimately, moderation decides what is on the MEEP ballot, but any proposals involving significant change will automatically be added.
Question 1
Yea - 6
Nay - 2
Question 2
Yea - 7
Nay - 1
Question 3
Yea - 4
Nay - 2
Question 4
Yea - 8
Nay - 0
Question 5
Yea - 3
Nay - 2
This is how I am interpreting the results as they now stand. Additional participation is needed, however.
-->
@Swagnarok
Question 3 is about how we should moderate the select winner system. The question is proposing that the standard currently used to evaluate argument points under the 7-point system be used to moderate the select winner system.
What's the deadline here?
-->
@drafterman
MEEPs will last approx. 2 days, per the earlier discussion establishing a 2-day comment period. So this will end sometime this afternoon.
-->
@bsh1
I will when I receive some down time