Propositions for automatically finished debates

I believe somewhere someone suggested this idea that if debate is full forfeit or mostly forfeit, the system should completely skip the voting part and just finish the debate without any rating change. At least that's how I remember/understood that part, so I just wanted to bring this up again and decide if I should implement something like and how it should be done. Any ideas or suggestions?

I believe any forfeit should be an automatic & instant loss that impacts rating.

Currently 4-5 debates about to hand the winner Rating points all flagged by me involving a banned user in each are undeleted. Why is this?

Just kidding bsh1, don't answer that, you'd struggle.

RatMan-

I guess this is the context.  So, I take it my opinion here doesn't match my opinion expressed elsewhere.  I'm often surprised by my own inconsistency, hypocrisy.  Feel free to PM me details and if you re-friend me sometime I'll be sure to accept.

There's more to how they double standard me. I was blackmailed by bsh1 hard into not accepting speedrace's debates as apparently if a user blocks you and doesn't like you but doesn't put your name in a description, you can't accept the debate anyway. Yet he is allowing ramshutu to accept debates from me. Just curious why. I wonder if the coward will come out to talk. There's more. Like callout threads against me and mharman reporting them. 

That's just with me. They've been biased against others too and by 'they' I include the spineless sidekick who I have wrongly defended for too long now and whom needs to either get a backbone or admit he approves of his master.

The idea was that it would still give ratings, but that you wouldn’t have to wait for the entire forfeit of the debate to play out to gain the win. Especially important if the debate has 2 week rounds.

iirc, what got a little agreement was:

1:) first round forfeit = auto loss to the non forfeiting side

2.) reach two forfeits more than the other side = auto loss.

3.) rule is opt in if possible.

There are one or two clear reasons why virt and bsh1 will take all other users head-on in public but with me they're scared shitless. It's because they know I'm intelligent and back my shit up properly. I'm not easy to drive into looking like an idiot but more importantly they realise that I willingly take on the villain role so making me look selfish has zero deterrence-power on me as I admit I'm selfish in my motive to take them on.

Bsh1 went from threatening me (on PM) to make a public thread about the deletion of my debates to backing off and locking the entire thread where it came up as I promised him if he did make that thread, I would lay out plainly just how unjust it was. I laughed, felt rage and just quit due to the stupidity of it all. I still loathe the administration here but I like debating.

RatMan-

Well, I came to this site because I like bsh's governing style and  the moderation here continues to earn my unflagging admiration & support.   I don't agree with every choice but I acknowledge the great difficulty of moderating a site like this with respect for freedom while also trying make a site that isn't overrun by bad behavior.   I support the toleration of some transgressions as good for freedom and I also support strong, consistent limits as good for site growth and accessibility.  If that's hypocrisy, so be it.

I won't pretend to know you well, but you also don't need me to tell you that you like to push on those boundaries, test those limits.  It does not surprise me at all that some inconsistencies might arise in the management of that boundary-testing.  Instead of feeling put upon, I'd encourage you to recognize that mods are trying to keep your boundary-testing style engaged while also trying to attract new folks.  Try to see it from a community perspective: speedrace is a top notch contributor we want him to stick around and have lots to say. If every time he starts a new debate, he's got to worry about engaging you, then he might hesitate to contribute more.  A few people have asked me not accept their debates & I always respect that wish, knowing that translates to more happy and just more debaters. 

I have said before that I think of you as punk in the punk rock sense.  I like punks.  I want a few punks hanging around my town, just on principle.  But punks get tossed in jail every once a while or they stop being punks.  Punks get roughed up by the police sometimes even when we know that's not just.  I'm not saying this site will ever treat you in a way that you might find fair, I'm just saying you should stick around anyway because you add a lot to the site and I enjoy your contributions.

and you should play some mafia sometime, man.  I think you'd be good at it.

Oh I see, that makes sense to me. Let's wait for some other ideas or suggestions, if people agree on this one, then I'll add it.

Good point about the banned users, I will come up with something to handle this issue.

I am already proven to be the best mafia player of this entire site. I do not need to refer you to those games because it was disgusting how I was treated in them and I lost my temper so I too treated others negatively despite having flawless reading strategy.

Mafia is a nonsense game where you need to convince fools that other fools are deceiving them but then the means of deception you need to explain in ways an intelligent person would deceive. Once in a while you and an opponent or ally both will be intelligent and it will be a very ugly match in the former scenario or unfair stomp in the latter as long as you and them aren't unfairly lynched or killed in some irrational decision very early on.

Enjoy the rating boost, Mr. WaterPhoenix. This debate possibly involved two banned users, only furthering the irony.

Try speaking less nonsense, empathising with police abuse such as happened to a group of black teenagers to get them all convicted on a rape charge as shown in the recent "When They See Us" Limited Series on Netflix. https://people.com/tv/ava-duvernay-when-they-see-us-netflix/

Who the actual fuck do you think you are to go 'but come on you're testing the system' to justify the victimisation? I can tell your dad was a cop or something, that's the only reason one would end up with such a ridiculous view of this. I can also tell you definitely are not a cop yourself, as no cop would justify it in that way.

RatMan-

You're right that it is nonsense to try to justify police violence although I would not characterize you as a victim.  The metaphor is dart=town, since there are no parallels in terms of violence or even compulsion I thought the metaphor had style without implying any justification. 

I'm sorry you're not up for mafia.  I'll try not to broach the subject again.

I am a victim. It is actually objectively verifiable if Mharman will add to my testimony but even without that it's concrete and provable. 

RatMan-

which are detailed in the forum topic, "DA and the fundamental issue of a debate website."?

No, barely even scratching the surface there. I went a lot more into that here.

I previously had a debate on this topic (which someone who sucks at math thought was a tie...).

Ram' once started a thread on this type of thing (which spawned the aforementioned debate).

So some thoughts about the current proposals...

Mechanically I would use logic events along the lines of:

The benefit of just giving points is that should someone have deplorable conduct but the other side missed a round, voters could counterbalance the system, yet the default winner should no voter get involved becomes the person who at least showed up.

Those are good points, I agree that first round forfeit is not critical so it's probably not the great way to go. And yeah, debates already have too many settings, I think this one can be done without adding new ones. I will also read the debate later, thank you!

And regarding the logic, I will check it after work today, it's hard to grasp the idea quickly :)

The first round forfeit rule is really for two reasons:

1.) While it’s normally recoverable; the large majority of debates where the opening round are forfeited, the remainder are forfeited.

2.) It is also the round people should be most invested in posting were they to start or accept a debate; and is thus largely the least reasonable to forfeit.

This isn’t an attempt to automate a predictive mechanism of who will lose the debate; but a method of reducing wasted time waiting for forfeited debate

Ugh and that's a fair point too :/

Stop looking for fair points and start looking for great points.

Ram' has a got a really good point. Especially since they can always ask for a rematch, and we expanded beyond the previous three day round limit...

The one caveat on it is that first round should conclude before any instant end scripts trigger. Since the instigator forfeiting is not a guarantee against the other doing likewise.

If going this route, I'd have the forfeit script's text generator post different text in the first round (normally it just posts "Forfeited" but in the first round it posts "Forfeited. Due to early forfeiture, this debate will automatically end with conclusion of round.")

Combined with the previously mentioned mechanism for automatic score adjustments when any forfeitures occur, debates would have a small script execute at the conclusion of R1, something like this: IF(ABS(SUM(score1,score2))>0, trigger early termination function (which pulls a sequence of functions to properly shut down the debate without DDO type errors), ELSE (else being just continue normally if the IF is false). This way mutual R1 forfeits end in a draw (the debaters could of course request it be deleted from the system, but I wouldn't risk automating that).

I don't think there would be any protest to also triggering early termination should forfeitures reach 50% of the round count, but for simplicity I would go with the previously suggested rule of 2 (with the exception of 5 round debates it's assured to already meet that threshold, for them it's already 40%, and there is value in decreasing wasted time).