Debate Voting Thread (FORMER)

This thread is to inform the public when your debate is over and needs votes. 

Link to all debates in voting period: https://www.debateart.com/debates?_utf8=%E2%9C%93&status=3&order=

Think you could pin this thread? Also I noticed when I voted on another debate that I couldn't edit or change my vote. Any way you could allow that change? 

https://www.debateart.com/debates/17

Drafterman's reason for voting in this debate is unacceptable because it doesn't justify why what he is claiming is a correct analysis on any of the votes.

Agreed. I'd like to see a bit more analysis from drafterman's vote. 

Please tell me we're not starting this shit again. This ain't DDO with its ridiculous voting rules and voting cabals.

naturally if votes determine the winner of a debate the debaters would want proper feedback on their arguments given the investment they make in them. It's not a lot of effort to explain what you mean by the one-liners you made.

I disagree that the point of votes is to provide "proper feedback." The point of votes is to determine who won the debate. Plenty of actual, real-world debate judging forms don't even require you to provide "feedback" and just ask for a score. None that I'm aware of require extensive feedback, or at least wouldn't invalidate the vote if you didn't provide it.

I think my feedback is sufficient, given how that particular debate panned out. I agree that some debates my warrant more in depth feed back. This one did not.

Again, this isn't DDO and we shouldn't be adopting its trash rules here.

yeah nah you need to give some sort of explanation. Since you mention it, real life debates are very vigorous on this point. Every decision an adjudicator makes they have to justify, and if they don't give a satisfactory reason for a decision any of the debaters can submit a complaint to the regional coordinator. then they'll make the adjudicator provide a copy of the notes they took during the debate and if the RC isn't happy in the investigation they can dock the adjudicators pay or even derank them. So yeah feedback irl is definitely a thing.

If a debate requires more effort than the vote, you ought to give the debaters the courtesy of explaining your thought processes. I don't see how you can be bothered to read the entire debate but you can't be bothered putting even a fraction of that effort into your vote. You've gone so far to do so little. 

There's also the point that you need to display your thought processes so that a debater can fairly contest your vote if you misread or made a mistake. Nobody is going to know if you cast a vote on a mistaken premise if you're not even slightly transparent. 

There's a lot of reasons to have decent RFD's really. idk just do it man it's not hard. 

Yeah, nah, I'm not doing that. Part of the reason DDO went into the crapper was because it got its head so far up its own rear it couldn't tell up from down. Then its ego got so swollen it couldn't remove it. If this site starts making the same mistakes, it'll suffer the same fate.

My vote is what it is. If people want Tolstoy to vote on their debates they can choose the Judicial system and select people that are going to do that. When you choose "open voting" then you get what you get and you don't get upset.

But good job guys on derailing the thread. A+ work.

Somehow I doubt the voting culture is what killed DDO. The votebombing beforehand was an utter shitstorm so it was pretty inevitable. If you think lower standards make for better sites then you do you. who am I to disagree. In the end you're just a strip of bacon. Juicy, sizzling bacon. 

Not sure what that last line means, but if you're really upset at my vote then you can complain to the Regional Coordinator and they can dock my pay.

FWIW, I'll agree that if you're paying for votes then you can start demanding some minimum level of qualifications.

@Virtuoso, do you want my paypal, or what?

You need only get paid back with a vote in favour of you or friendship in another way where you are backed up on forums and the social side of the site.

There's many ways to keep a 'mafia culture' running and it's not necessarily raw cash.

I don't think anyone's upset, people can sometimes differ on opinions without experiencing trauma. The reality is that nobody really can force you to put effort into your votes and present something more decent than the half baked, barren RFD you're parading as the gold standard. Inb4 moderation happens. 

If you know how to judge and assess a debate, it's not much of an extra step to record your thought process on a debate's outcome. shit votes are what I would expect from noobs who don't understand how a debate works and can't justify a vote. I don't really know much about you but I get the feeling you're not a newb to debating and you do understand what's going on. Cue my present confusion and my questions as to why you prefer to produce low quality votes. Is it laziness? That's really the only one I can come up with. 

yeah pretty much. Unless you're deliberately making bad votes. 

I don't personally think that voting quality is binary. Maybe you think that votes either meet a "gold standard" or are "bad," but I don't and that's not my position.

Voting quality, like most things, would fall on a spectrum. I'm not (nor have I ever) suggested that my vote was the best vote it could possibly be or that it should be used as a reference point for other people. Even if I was claiming that my vote was of some high level quality, that would still be different than claiming it to be a standard of any kind. A standard implies a measure for people to use and I made no such claims.

In fact, I stated - to you - that I could have provided more feedback, but this debate really didn't warrant it. So I'm not sure where you are getting this interpretation that I'm claiming my votes are the best and others should aspire to them. It's simply unwarranted. You don't seem to remember me, but I do remember you and I wouldn't have expected such a response from you, but maybe things change. I wanted to write off your statement as just exaggeration or hyperbole (hence my question) but apparently you think I have presented my vote as not only high quality, but to be a reference point for other people to use.

Laziness? Sure. If you want to call  it that. But, you know: you get what you pay for. If this was a closer debate, I would have provided more justification for my position. When one side doesn't even bother formatting their debate, is hurling obvious insults, and uses broken links, I really don't see the need to elaborate on why the points for those things would go to the other side. Like I said, I don't think this debate warranted that level of feedback.

I'm also a little hesitant about this site in general. It's new, so there is a question of whether it will last in the long run. I'm certainly not going to dive in head first and invest time and energy if it's going to fail by next week. Also, I'm not too particularly keen on the influx of DDOers who seem intent on making this a DDO clone.

This is a lie. There is a binary between unacceptable vote and acceptable. Within both there is a spectrum of how 'down' or 'up' it goes but there's a line in the sand.

You were on the 'unacceptable' side. Try again to explain a single of your votes.

Right now, one could switch out Pro with Con and alter which side they say the person is on regarding the resolution in your first line of the RFV/RFD and then justify giving all 7 to the other side.

What would your opinion be on having a debate setting that allows an instigator to require thst votes cast be explanatory or not? I came across a feature on debateisland that gives the instigator the option to have "casual voting", where RFDs can be simple one-liners, or "formal voting", which would require judges to put a hearty explanation into their votes. Votes that don't meet the standards of the latter would be removed.

I'm a strong believer in votes being thorough and helpful to each side; however I understand that many have a different opinion are have been discouraged by relatively strict moderation on DDO.

I think the "Open Voting" and the "Judicial System" could very well serve that purpose. After all, why would you select specific judges except to ensure a minimal quality of votes? I'm not against the idea of voting standards, but I think DDO was rather insane by how it implemented them. Especially since it was globally and authoritatively enforced.

Because the other side of the issue is getting votes in the first place. Everyone likes to gripe about vote bombing, but the bigger problem was getting people to vote in the first place. High standards necessarily reduce voting turnout. Basically, if you want more votes, you'll have to be more tolerating of lower quality, if you want high quality, you have to risk the fact you won't get very many votes (basically putting the result of the debate in the hands of people who are simply more eloquent or loquacious).

I think the two voting systems here offer both worlds. Do you want more votes, without regard to quality (Open) or do you want less votes of a given level of quality (Judicial)?

Now, if you are familiar with edb8t, I think lars implemented a rather clever system: ranking votes and weighing votes based on the level of feedback. This, simply put, was a stroke of genius. Rather than having secretive voting cabals or ego-stroking voting policies, you simply appeal to basic human psychology. By offering incentive to vote better, people would naturally provide better votes!

Granted that probably took a decent amount of internal programming and I'm not sure how or if that could be implemented here easily.

If the voting on the votes that ranks them is not itself moderated that defeats the entire purpose behind what Lars did and is disgustingly open to 'mob rule' mentality.

DI is miles ahead of both DDO and edeb8 (as well as civid and fordebating) in how it's innovated everything to do with debating.

Whiteflame and I were active in fixing the voting and whiteflame can take credit as can aaron who collaborated with him on the three tier system of 'casual, moderate and formal voting'. I can take credit for being the guy who put whiteflame in touch with aaron by actively asking WF to help me explain to aaron what was currently wrong about his lax vote moderation.

As much as I see your reasoning, I don't think open vs judge voting served that purpose well on DDO. Specified judges aren't going to guarantee you a thorough vote, and being a select judge itself isn't incentive enough to give a well-thought out vote.

From my personal experience with judge voting, it doesn't seem to increase the likelihood of getting votes at all. Knowing that there are many capable voters out there beyond whomever my judge pool may consist of is too discouraging for me to use that option frequently.

Edeb8's system doesn't sound bad; however it would require a great deal of moderation, and I don't think such is necessary to have a decent voting system.

Is there anything about my proposal you dislike? I think it would solve the voting issue quite cleanly -- from my observations on DI, the majority of people just stick with casual voting anyway, so actual moderation would not be required that often.

I think your proposal is great.

It's a good system. I'd love to see one similar to it implemented here. I was fond of DDO's voting standards but I also understand many people were not as much so.

If including a tiered voting system please do one of two things.

1) Ask Aaron permission directly on DI on account 'aarong' for the right to copy the system

OR

2) change at least 2 of the ranks of 'casual, moderate [and] formal' in your ranking system and word the descriptions slightly different to how DI did.

If you think Juggle is 'corporate' DI is even more so and will sue you if you copy it directly. What you could do, is offer aarong to directly give DI credit for making the system and linking to their explanation of the voting system and quoting it. He'd be more inclined to say 'yes'.

I highly doubt a lawsuit would happen over a minor feature of a website...especially considering that DI isn't a company but rather a project built by a single individual.

No it's one of three 'brands' that Aarong Golbin officially owns and has patented.

https://www.debateart.com/debates/20 Castin's vote doesn't justify the S&G.

FYI, if any of you want my vote for anything you'll put a working link to the debate in your post. None of this copying and pasting the url as text shit. Accommodate my laziness. All you have to do is hit the space bar after you paste the url, it'll automatically turn it into a link.