Total posts: 3,685
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
I had ceased using the site before the spam got that bad, but I do remember a few months ago glancing to see that island site had flooded 6 pages of the main forum with their pity bait.
Of course to Juggle as long as spam-bots fake site activity, it will continue to be alive in their ledger.
Created:
Posted in:
Think I found it. July 2016! They updated the code in such a way that disabled forfeited debates being able to end (and then decided it was too wonderful of a change to ever reverse): https://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/82207/2#2511128
We stayed in denial a long time, hoping it was temporary. But denial is just the first stage of grief... There were certainly other wounds, but that one is highly comparable to cardiac arrest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I don't count Weekend At Bernie's II level shanahans to be living...
Anyway, what event in 2018 would you say killed it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Roy was the single most active voter. For that alone I will always hold some fondness toward him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I got to have a debate with Roy over Facebook... I was left unimpressed to say the least.
Created:
Posted in:
I believe it is safe to say it is dead. Much like how finding a corpse which no longer resembles whom it had been after being largely consumed by cats, that person is indeed dead... But time of death? For DDO I am estimating sometime in 2017, but without a change log for their site (the update that removed debates being able to end?) it's a bit hard to narrow down.
For that matter, time of life? I believe the site came alive November 2008, as that is the oldest post which hasn't had necrophiliacs have a go at it.
Anyway, I've decided to polish up that guide a wrote for it a final time, and have a brief farewell message to a site which at one time had been so good to so many of us.
Created:
Posted in:
Small thing, but I dislike how much space there is after a quotation. I wish it were like the space given preceding one.
Example:
Something someone else said
My reply... About three lines down, and already feeling disconnected.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Raltar
Not worried about it in terms of the vote, merely in making debates more enjoyable to read.
Created:
Posted in:
Pretty short read (about 3 pages if printed), and should be an easy vote. I also wouldn't mind feedback on the formatting I use, to ease readability in future on this site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Might be ideal to have a hidden archive for deleted threads.
Created:
Posted in:
1. Is the current MEEP process an acceptable framework for hosting these policy discussions?
Yea.
If anyone comes up with a better framework, they should suggest it. Until such time, MEEP seems to be a coherent system with which to work.
2. Should an opt-in voting standard which is less stringent than the default be implemented for debaters?
Yea.
I firmly believe debaters should be able to set the standards they wish for their debates.
3. Should moderation moderate select-winner votes using the argument standard currently applied to the 7-point system?
Yea.
I stand by the categorical allotments (I've posted elsewhere about slightly better categories to be used), but I remember on DDO when the select winner system was written such that a vote under it would have been technically valid for just S&G so long as it did not address any other category. Arguments are the most important piece, so it makes sense to have an easy to access option which just focuses on that.
4. Should moderation be able to suspend problematic votes prior to deleting the voting in order to give the voter to fix the vote before the vote is taken down?
Yay!
Actually I would prefer if votes are never outright deleted, but just have the scoring stricken from them.
5. Should there be an opt-in for stricter moderation standards? If yes, what should those standards look like?
Yea.
Honestly whatever increased standard the debaters in said debate desire.
Regarding voting... I firmly believe votes should never be held to a higher quality standard than the debates themselves. Meaning, a two paragraph debate does not warrant a full dissertation of a vote. There are times when little more than 'Pro did not address the topic, con did' are enough.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
According to you being a rational person is a god complex. Good luck in life, you'll need it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
How many separate times has it been explained to you that running debate.org was not his job? He was just an unpaid volunteer. Yet that does not fit into your world view, so you disregard it as fake news.
Yet you "don't give two craps about [him] or that site," therefore you shouldn't care enough to repeatedly complain about either one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Your confirmation bias is showing rather badly.
Created:
Posted in:
I love the movie enough to have bought the Chrome Edition.
A couple things...
The lead actor in question is Tom Hardy (not Dan).
The villain Immortan Joe, is played by Hugh Keays-Byrne, who played the lead villain Toecutter in the first Mad Max.
It is perhaps the only movie to ever be awarded 100 stars on the five-star scale (http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=mad_max_hell_yeah).
Created:
Posted in:
Last time I glanced at that site, debate island spam filled six continuous pages of the main forum...
Created:
Posted in:
Posting only due to being tagged in this thread...
I neither approve not disapprove of any of them. Were the poll to have a better setup, this would be the third option.
I will say they each obviously care about this site a lot, and that deserves some credit. Please cut them a little slack for whatever prompted this thread, they're flawed humans, just like the rest of us.
Created:
Posted in:
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.
Created:
Posted in:
In general I like the idea of badges to be earned...
For a major incentive, I would suggest beta access to upcoming features. IMO this would be to the benefit of everyone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
These days more and more people have a problem with androcentrism, so even men are more likely to get their feelings hurt by the usual default, than by the pain of making a selection one line down from their usual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
A random order within a drop down box, does nothing to assume anything; it is outright breaking away from assumptions.
Created:
Posted in:
During survey design a good idea is to randomize the order of appearance on many demographic questions. While for sex Other would be the third option, having Male and Female display in random order avoids the obvious complaint of one over the other.
Created:
Posted in:
Were there to be a use, sure. As is, we actually have direct communication with the owner of this site, so there's no need for an elected diplomat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Could be an alternative system worth exploring, at least for people who are very civil toward each other.
I suggest finding a couple people to demo it (forums, Google docs, or whatever).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Suggestions:
- A concede button (done in lieu of a debate round, with any formalities carried out in the comment section if the debaters wish).
- An auto loss on repeated forfeits (say two or more, but > opponent forfeitures), along with an auto draw on repeated equal forfeitures.
The two above could be done a few ways. How I would personally envision it is a using a called function for each one.
Concede (four actions):
- Applies a copy of the function which writes "Forfeited" but instead writing "Conceded"
- Ends the argument period.
- Calls the vote function, casting it as if from user DebateArt.com, giving argument points to the victor and conduct to the loser, with a RFD of "Concession. ... [INSERT ANY LENGTHY EXPLANATION HERE]"
- Ends the voting period (or sets the countdown to 1 second, so that any scripts related to it can run properly).
Forfeiture (a check run at the end of the debate)
- IF(ANY(ConForfeit >= 2, ProForfeit >=2) THEN ... [code for following steps triggered] ... END (the end is a part of it, only triggered if the path is triggered at all, and prevents the rest of the normal code from happening so as to decrease errors)
- IF(ConForfeit = ProForfeit) THEN ... Calls the cast vote function with no points awarded, and an RFD of "Draw due to duel forfeiture." ... Set voting period to 1 second ... END
- IF(ConForfeit > ProForfeit) THEN ... Calls the cast vote function, assigning just the conduct point to Pro, with an RFD of "Forfeiture. ... [INSERT ANY LENGTHY EXPLANATION HERE]" ... Set voting period to 1 second ... END
- IF(ConForfeit < ProForfeit) THEN ... Calls the cast vote function, assigning just the conduct point to Con, with an RFD of "Forfeiture. ... [INSERT ANY LENGTHY EXPLANATION HERE]" ... Set voting period to 1 second ... END
Related to the forfeiture idea, would be the ability to on debate creation setting a forfeit cap to automatically end the debate. This would be a stored variable to be tested against after each forfeited round (added to the existing script there). This would +1 to their forfeit count to the loser (trust me), followed by the end argument period script.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
What you want is "Deluded," to be treated as "Nazi." This seems unlikely.
Let's say pulling the Nazi card is equivalent to First Degree Murder (FDM), and the Deluded card is equivalent to Assault and Battery (AB). If the scale of punishment leads AB being punished to the level of FDM, once someone has committed AB they might as well kill the person to destroy the evidence; given that the punishment cannot be increased with the added crime. In for a penny, in for a pound.
Granted in a debate pulling the Nazi card does not destroy the opponent, it merely destroys your own credibility. The above analogy stands as an example of why scales of punishment to fit the severity of crime are needed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
I would not consider that a K. That's more akin to not conceding, as there must be a counter argument. In the case of two competing ethical frameworks, both can be wholly valid even if judges will be asked to choose which comes ahead in the particular case.
I believe a decent example of a Kritik is seen with Robin Hood vs. Blackadder (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzijOEHcFxk). Robin Hood takes utilitarianism to be self evident to justify his cause and the suffering of his men, all for taking from the rich and giving to the poor... Blackadder basically says those efforts are for naught because it makes the poor dependent on charity, denying them the actual progression they could attain with their own effort, leaving it at best a zero sum gain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
Not formally trained, so take what I say with a grain of salt...
Some K's are just BS. Suffering is good, you haven't proven otherwise = BS. The missing impact turn leaves the new proposal weightless against the presumably justified argument.
With some overlap, I'd draw the line of K with using the underlying foundation upon which their argument is based. Like what they took to be self evident. If writing out their reasoning, it'd be hidden inside one of premises, a condition needed for it to be true.
Created:
-->
@DebateArt.com
My two cents: If S&G remains a weighted category, it should be changed to "presentation." This is an intentional expansion of the focus, to account for the various visual sides to how an argument is organized. Basically if one side uses a wall of text, along with horrid spelling, and the other has clean headings, images, organized links, and so on... I think we all appreciate when a voter puts that effort in, making at least half the debate easy to read. (and yeah, I pretty much think sources themselves should be dropped; point inclusion of it often causes source spamming rather than sources of value)
The earlier any changes to the voting system are done, the less problems there should be in any retraining later. I'd suggest starting a focus group (forums here would be fine for that), to try to figure out what the ideal ballot would be, rather than arbitrarily copying what's been done before... Even if using a categorical system, there's no reason to assume the weights and categories were done the best way previously.
Created:
-->
@linate
To use an analogy: A woman says her abuser has changed because he hasn't yet thrown her down a flight of stairs this month... To trust that bad behavior will not repeat itself, would call for some fundamental change, of which there has been none.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
That's quite the bad mental image you've put in my head.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Questions:
- What names have you gone by on other sites?
- What made you decide to launch this site?
- Why did you name it Debate Art? And anything we should infer from the name?
- What can we do to help?
...
And a couple suggestions:
- DA.Admin would be a good user name for you.
- Have a different persona(s) for casual use of the site. On top of many obvious reasons, a good vote should speak for itself, not have opinions on it dictated by it coming from the admin.
- I've seen people suggesting you should ask the moderator of another site for his black book (records of users): Don't! We've crashed on these shores, and should do our best to forgive past grudges; certainly those should not be institutionalized parts of our new experience here. ... If someone repeats familiar stupidity, I'll personally be faster to judge them for their habits, but I'm not the site admin, I'm allowed to be a normal petty user.
- Threads like this should probably be reorganized to have an updated gist section as the second post. Like you've answered all these questions, users could jump to one post with just he Q and A, rather than tracing your answers back to whom asked what, which is needless work and with a larger user base would result in questions being repeated.
- When disputes arise, try to think in terms of User X and Debate Y. Official rulings could mirror that, further decreasing confirmation bias. As an example:
"In a recent dispute raised by several unnamed members, Ragnar (henceforth User X, has been accused of repeated failure as a sportsman. In the topic of US military intervention (henceforth Topic Y), he has voted every time in favor of Con, to include on Debate Z when con forfeited every round until the last so that no rebuttals could be made (which should be an automatic lose), and on various other debates in Topic Y refused to penalize conduct even when con made strictly Ad Hominem attacks full of swear words and sexual slander. It is thus ruled that User X shall lose ALL voting privileges for six months, in addition to Topic Y in perpetuity."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
@RationalMadman
Reposting from another thread (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/201?page=4&post_number=91), as I did not know RM had made the same suggestion...
My two cents...There needs to be multiple types and levels of moderators.Forum ModeratorsDeleting spam from the forums could be trusted to many, but reorganizing the forums or locking threads is a top level decision low level mods should lack powers to accidentally enact.Debate ModeratorsAgain deleting outright spam is easy to trust. Deleting (or hiding the listing) of offensive debates, would require a greater level of care. We want love spell salesmen banned in short order (call it probation until reviewed by a top level admin?). Fake debates created by peoples alts to give them free wins, at a certain point become obvious, but not something to risk mistakes with. Finally offensive topics call for maximum care, likely multiple admins signing off on the removal (I'd say zero intellectual validity, like neo nazis saying the holocaust must be resumed... if Ren is smarter than Stimpy on the other hand, is without importance, but could serve as a valid exchange of ideas).Vote ModeratorsSensitive topic to which I might start a thread for the discussion, but in brief... I know to some a series of random symbols is the gold standard of judging debate, but to anyone with intellectual integrity it's an insult to the debaters as well as any judgement which shows evidence of even knowing the debate topic. Then getting harder, there's obvious vote trades (on DDO there was even a guy offering blowjobs for favorable votes), which call for care in handling beyond a quick click of delete. A few levels up there's votes which are low quality, but not intentionally violating the rules; for these I'd say comity review with veto powers (blocking the removal)... of course the primary goal of such things should not be policing, but rather vote analysis to give positive feedback to improve future votes ("I agree with x" gets deleted, any vote which tried is okay).
Mine is basically a long term explanation, written without industry lingo. I haven't actually worked IT, but I am trained in cyber security, and elsewhere have seen things go wrong in easily preventable ways. Anyway I'd be happy to re-write this, combine other things into it, etc.
Created:
Posted in:
My two cents on the original thread topic...
There needs to be multiple types and levels of moderators.
Forum Moderators
Deleting spam from the forums could be trusted to many, but reorganizing the forums or locking threads is a top level decision low level mods should lack powers to accidentally enact.
Debate Moderators
Again deleting outright spam is easy to trust. Deleting (or hiding the listing) of offensive debates, would require a greater level of care. We want love spell salesmen banned in short order (call it probation until reviewed by a top level admin?). Fake debates created by peoples alts to give them free wins, at s certain point become obvious, but not something to risk mistakes with. Finially offensive topics should be maximum care, likely multiple admins signing off on the removal (I'd say zero intellectual validity, like neo nazis saying the holocaust must be resumed... if Ren is smarter than Stimpy on the other hand, is without importance, but could serve as a valid exchange of ideas).
Vote Moderators
Sensitive topic to which I might start a thread for the discussion, but in brief... I know to some a series of random symbols is the gold standard of judging debate, but to anyone with intellectual integrity it's an insult to the debaters as well as any judgement which shows evidence of even knowing the debate topic. Then getting harder, there's obvious vote trades (on DDO there was even a guy offering blowjobs for favorable votes), which call for care in handling beyond a quick click of delete. A few levels up there's votes which are low quality, but not intentionally violating the rules; for these I'd say comity review with veto powers (blocking the removal)... of course the primary goal of such things should not be policing, but rather vote analysis to give positive feedback to improve future votes ("I agree with x" gets deleted, any vote which tried is okay).
Created:
Posted in:
I was on DDO for a long time, but gave up on it early into the errors due to it's lack of enforcement of anti-stalking policies.
Created: