Auto-loss for forfeits.

Hi everyone, just gauging interest in a possible feature for automatically determining a winner if there is a forfeit.

Many debates have rules specifying a forfeit is an automatic loss, and waiting for an opponent to forfeit multiple rounds can be frustrating. I was hoping to understand if people would be interested in an option when creating debates to make forfeits garner an automatic loss. 

This would work along the following lines:

- A check box will be presented giving the option of “auto loss for forfeit”

- this will only be available on 3 day rounds (so you can’t trick an opponent with 12 hour debates).

- when accepting the debate, this option will be prominently displayed as being active for the debate

- if either side forfeits the opening round. OR forfeits 2 or more rounds, the forfeit will be followed by immediately moving the debate to finished, and the winner is the non forfeiting side.

note: it is obviously that numerous options concerning when to trigger a loss could be made. The intent here is to simplify a debate win in scenarios where one side is not participating. The 2+ Forfeited round after the opening is there so as not to penalize genuine or unavoidable forfeits.

Any thoughts?

Good idea.  Maybe extend it to 2 days to post arguments too.

I’d like that. Edeb8 has that feature. 

What would be the minimum number of forfeits required for an auto-loss debate?

Would it adjust depending on how many Rounds there are?

How would this be tricking?

When you accept a debate you understand how much time you have for each argument. If they are not able to meet the rules laid out by the instigator they can simply not accept or ask the instigator to change it if possible.

why have this not be included with non-3 day Round publish argument phases? 

Good idea. Hope the execution is also good.

I strongly endorse such an option

i support this as well

In support

So the issue here is that everyone’s accepted debates without checking the duration. That is our fault, but I can imagine scenarios where people do this with the intent of someone forcing a forfeit. This is likely to be a bit of a possibility with this proposal. With shorter debates - there is much less of an issue in the first place.

Now, with the first round an auto loss, I think the two rounds forfeited makes sense. If the debate is only two rounds, the first non first round forfeit ends the debate. A three round debate, if the second is forfeited, I’m not convinced you want to end the debate - especially if you limit to one forfeit then if someone makes a great argument and the forfeits the final round, you may not want the auto loss to kick in.

its really a trade off between not penalizing accidental forfeits and wrapping this up quickly.

I think this is a good feature idea which Mike could implement, time-permitting.

Though, I do think it should be a net of 2 forfeited rounds, otherwise it could simply become a race towards who forfeits 2 first.

I would agree other than for the opening round.

Alrighty then, looks like everyone likes this idea :)

Sure.

At least people mostly just bombard you with hate PMs in private now rather than starting up angry ranting threads about you being a Nazi every three days.

lol

An easier way to handle this, would just be automatically giving a conduct point to the other side for each forfeit (could be done as "Admin" placing votes, even during the debate).

Counterpoint: What if I'm a rude bastard and you forfeit one Round?

Actual voters would still be able to override that through the length of the voting period.

What if voters tie us for arguments or enough voters disagree on who won them to make it so the conduct points aren't outweighed?

That would just be the system working as intended. By forfeiting one side has set the default end state to be a loss.

That's really idiotic, lol. That means they can't mark worse conduct for the rudeness.

You may be having a comprehension problem. Nothing about the existence of prior votes, limits anyone's ability to cast future votes; to include assigning conduct in a different manner than the earlier votes.

You have a logic comprehension problem.

you are a troll, end of story.

I would not have believed baseless Ad Hominem attacks was your go to move when a discussion doesn't go your way, but now I know.

I suggest next time you have nothing but insults, to not derail the conversation with them.

I couldn't care less what you suggest.

The issue with the proposal isn’t bad - the main issue I suspect is implementation. For an autoforfiet, the code changes can be built upon pre-existing functionality, whereas point allocation would likely need additional changes to support it.

Right now, the limiting factor on everything is not coming up with ideas, but managing Mikes time. That means prioritizing small changes that give you 90% of what you need for 10% of the time :)

Well said. And it was not to disagree your original idea. The amount of new code needed depends on what functions already exist within the code, so I offered an alternative which might take less.

Without having seen the code, I estimate my suggestion calls for the writing of a single function called by the existing forfeited round function. This function itself hopefully just feeds the current vote function, but bypassing any error check functions users contend with.

The major downside to my way of handling it, would be that it does not tie things up quickly. The voting period still passes normally, just with each debater docked a single point for each concession, causing user votes to be less needed with each concession.

Examples in practice:

Someone forfeits four out of five rounds. A single argument vote in their favor would not outweigh their forfeits. End state: 3 vs 4 points.

Someone forfeits just one round. A single argument vote in their favor (even docking conduct), outweighs the admin votes. End state: 3 vs 2 points.

Someone forfeits two rounds, but their opponent was a horrible racist about it (or other conduct worse than forfeits). A single vote in favor of the forfeiter, outweighs the admin votes. End state: 3 (or 4) vs 2.