How to get people to vote

Author: DynamicSquid

Posts

Total: 42
DynamicSquid
DynamicSquid's avatar
Debates: 29
Posts: 182
1
3
11
DynamicSquid's avatar
DynamicSquid
1
3
11
Should there be a mandatory requirement for people to vote let's say every 3 days?

And to make sure you actually voted thought fully, the character minimum should be 100 or something like that.

I don't know, it just seems that debates are deflating when it comes to votes...

What encourages people to vote?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Debate is fun, but it's not without votes. From now on, I'll be voting at least once per day, and you guys should do the same.
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
Should there be a mandatory requirement for people to vote let's say every 3 days?
Nice sentiment, but it would never fly. I've seen users cite political reasons as why they do not vote, and there are likely a host of other reasons why some users simply don't. I would love if everyone (well, almost everyone) voted, but I can still respect their choice not to.


the character minimum should be 100 or something like that.
The character limit is low (I assume) due to how many debates are FF or concessions.


What encourages people to vote?
Depression. If my life were worse, I would vote way more often.

Okay that was nonconstructive... I don't think I would want to manually track it, but I imagine the next voting thread could handle a bit of a pay-it-forward system (the simple encouragement to vote for a debate or two above where yours is listed). I am also considering deleting stuff as it expires within the next thread (thus the first page is always relevant ... problem being, that this is busy work, which might be wholly needless without causing any uptick in voting).
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
We should try rewarding voters with Denebian Buckazoids.
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@SirAnonymous
Or V-Bucks :3
DynamicSquid
DynamicSquid's avatar
Debates: 29
Posts: 182
1
3
11
DynamicSquid's avatar
DynamicSquid
1
3
11
-->
@SirAnonymous
Denebian Buckazoids

What's that?
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@DynamicSquid
A useless form of currency from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
DynamicSquid
DynamicSquid's avatar
Debates: 29
Posts: 182
1
3
11
DynamicSquid's avatar
DynamicSquid
1
3
11
-->
@SirAnonymous
Ah, okay
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
I like the v-bucks idea
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
A voting league is another measure that could encourage more voting.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Good thread  squid.

Here is my idea.

Right now, the voting process is too difficult. I understand that we have voting rules to curtail vote bombs and frivolous votes, but what good is a system that refines votes AND discourages votes?

Voting in America is not restricted at all, and no one needs to give a reason for their vote. Now I understand this is possible partly because there are millions of votes, not a case that is true for Dart.

We can free the votes, making it super easy to vote, but still having it be counter-productive to vote unfairly. How?

Assign value to votes.
Let every voter have a vote designation. Liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc. This designation cannot be changed except by petition to a mod.

A vote by a conservative for a conservative gets the conservative debater one vote point.

A vote by a liberal for a liberal gets the liberal debater one vote point.

But a vote by a conservative for a liberal gets the liberal debater 2 vote points. And a vote by a liberal for a conservative gets the conservative debater 2 votes.

Here are the advantages of this system.

1. It forces debaters to consider the POV of people who do not share his view, it makes him a better debater.

2. It forces debaters to be more civil to the view he is debating against, as voters with that view hold a heavier vote.

3. Better debaters win more often because their wins will be due more often to having convinced more people with an opposing view.

4. Because voters will not have to post essentially another entire debate, more people will vote.

5. This system will greatly reduce the work the mods have to do in monitoring and managing votes.

6. It will greatly reduce the drama in voting as any vote, regardless of RFD will be viable as long as the voter meets the voting requirements.

Mods will still have the authority to remove votes they think are fraudulent in some way, or ask a voter to further explain his vote.

Mods will refuse frivolous changes of designations simply to give bigger votes to whom that voter likes. Either by restrictions on how long a designation must be kept before it can be changed, or how many times it can be switched at all.

Both liberals and conservatives MAY be tempted to mis-designate themselves so that their votes for their real choices carry more weight. But then that would conversely mean they get lesser votes in their own debates.

One weakness would be the people who never debate, but mis-designate themselves and vote.

The solution to that is having the 2 tiered voting system apply only for members who have a certain number debates themselves in a certain time period.

And if ones debate topics consistently contradict ones requested designation, mods will catch it and refuse that designation.

Anyone will still be able to give as long and as detailed an RFD as they want.

What does Dart think?
Zaradi
Zaradi's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 705
2
3
7
Zaradi's avatar
Zaradi
2
3
7
-->
@ethang5
Bruh, you politicize shitty online debate voting way too much.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Zaradi
So you think the voting system is OK?

What a surprise.

I tried to address what some view as a voting problem, if you think there is a problem, suggest a solution. If you don't think there is a problem, say why you think the people who do are wrong.

You have only 3 debate attempts, all of them with you in the liberal position though you don't state in your profile what your political association is.

If Dart's online debate voting is "shitty", why are you trying to debate in that "shitty" system? And why are you attacking me instead of suggesting solutions?

Can the class say clique?
Zaradi
Zaradi's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 705
2
3
7
Zaradi's avatar
Zaradi
2
3
7
-->
@ethang5
So you think the voting system is OK?


No. Did I say that?

political association
You put waaaaaaaaay too much value on this. I have three debates on DART, sure. I have close to 300 on DDO, defending issues on both sides of the isle. Why does political ideology necessarily matter when it comes to competitive debate?

If Dart's online debate voting is "shitty"
Oh it's not DART specific. DDO had shitty voting too. So did edeb8. So does every online debate platform I've seen. 

why are you trying to debate in that "shitty" system
Because i have fun doing so?

And why are you attacking me instead of suggesting solutions?

Bruh, if that's an "attack" on you, then maybe you should take a step back and cool off. I'm not trying to attack anyone. 

ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
So you think the voting system is OK?

No. Did I say that?
No. That's just it. In a thread trying to discuss how to improve voting, you thought it more  relevant to tell us your opinion of my opinion.

political association
You put waaaaaaaaay too much value on this.
That is your subjective opinion. So what? You call the system shitty, yet you're here adding to politics you claim has waaaaaay to much value already.

I have three debates on DART, sure. I have close to 300 on DDO, defending issues on both sides of the isle.
Cough!, cough!, DDO elite cough!

Why does political ideology necessarily matter when it comes to competitive debate?
1. Because most people debate in line with their political views.
2. Because most people (including mods) vote in line with their political views.

If Dart's online debate voting is "shitty"

Oh it's not DART specific. DDO had shitty voting too. So did edeb8. So does every online debate platform I've seen. 
And you're just as happy as a goat in a boat to keep debating and voting in such shitty conditions. Clique much?

why are you trying to debate in that "shitty" system?
Because i have fun doing so?
Of course you do. South African whites had fun with their shitty system too! The clique benefiting always views the shitty system as fun.

And why are you attacking me instead of suggesting solutions?
Bruh, if that's an "attack" on you, then maybe you should take a step back and cool off. I'm not trying to attack anyone. 
Oh, it must have been a compliment then. Thanks.

Ok, you're obviously not addressing the problem noted in the OP, though you admit there is a problem, and you say you aren't attacking anyone. Then what exactly are you doing here?

Lead, follow, or get out of the way Z.
Zaradi
Zaradi's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 705
2
3
7
Zaradi's avatar
Zaradi
2
3
7
-->
@ethang5
you thought it more  relevant to tell us your opinion of my opinion.
Yes. You proposed an idea. I'm giving you feedback. Its kinda how these things work.

yet you're here adding to politics
I'm adding to politics? What am I adding, out of curiosity? I wanna add strippers.

DDO elite
Fuck, ya got me there.

Because most people debate in line with their political views.
Why do you believe that's true? I'd argue that most competitive debate forces people to defend ideas that aren't in line with their personal views.

Because most people (including mods) vote in line with their political views.
So a liberal mod is always going to vote for a liberal position, regardless of what actually happens in the debate? That's a little bit of a stretch, don'tcha think?

South African whites
#outtanowhere

Then what exactly are you doing here?

Havin' a nice conversation with you. How ya doin', buddy?


ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
You proposed an idea. I'm giving you feedback.
I would have preferred the feedback be on my idea, not my politics.

What am I adding, out of curiosity?
Political drama.

I wanna add strippers.
Of course you do. I bet you miss bsh1 don't you?

Why do you believe that's true?
It has been demonstrated here on Dart and on DDO. Its one of the reasons you call both site's voting system shitty.

So a liberal mod is always going to vote for a liberal position, regardless of what actually happens in the debate?
In your absolute dychotomy maybe.

That's a little bit of a stretch, don'tcha think?
Yes I do. And that's why you posted it.

Then what exactly are you doing here?

Havin' a nice conversation with you. How ya doin', buddy?
I'm a little busy trying to offer solutions to what some call a shitty system.

I'll flap my gums later in a thread that isn't about anything ok? Take care and have fun.
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@ethang5
Ctrl+] increases the indent, allowing tiers:
Like
this

So back at DDO, an indicator of fraudulent votes was the changed opinion option on votes. It was not even worth any points, but people would occasionally try to sway it to make the person they were voting for look better (there were also people who made legit use of it). I vaguely remember someone who voted in favor of every pro-life argument (no matter how laughably weak, even forfeits... religious debates suffered similarly with a couple Muslim vote alliances doing likewise), insisting their opinion was changed from pro-choice each time.

Anyway, your ideas have some merit, especially on political debates (not that all debates are political). ... One way it could be tested would be special debate rules posted in the description in a few debates. You would technically use the seven-point system, but have people vote with S&G and Conduct in the place of everything else (S&G for victory, and Conduct as a bonus point for the political ideology of the voter not matching whom they're favoring).

Generally us moderators do not enforce special rules, but I personally would be fine with guarding the experiment via deleting any votes which award more than 2 points (but leaving all which follow that system alone).
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@DynamicSquid
This is dictatorship at it's finest. No way should that happen. You should vote yourself, but it should not be required to do so. Create a Voters League! 

I do not have the time to vote a legit debate 99% of the time. I am a busy student and working on fanfic & music
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@PressF4Respect
It is time to stop
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Barney
What would a voter's league look like?
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Vader
It is time to stop
NO U

Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@PressF4Respect
reverswe
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Vader

PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@SirAnonymous
Think COC leagues

with less P2W

Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
You tie them to the electric chair and force them to vote on your shitty K that you spent 8hrs working on just to lose because I hate K's
Zaradi
Zaradi's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 705
2
3
7
Zaradi's avatar
Zaradi
2
3
7
-->
@Vader
I hate K's
I hate you. 

Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 501
3
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
3
4
8
-->
@Zaradi
Oh, hi. Been a while.
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Zaradi
Ok lol
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Barney
The idea is good as a test, but I think the problem would be getting people to understand it. 

They are smart enough to understand, but their eyes glaze over if an explanation takes more than 3 sentences. Would they give it a chance?

What do you think the problems with weighted voting would be?




Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@ethang5
One feature suggestion I've made, and will probably make again, is the option on voting to give less than full argument points (on debates I'm in, I would be fine if people say gave conduct to the other side to lessen arguments if they want to give credit to the non-winning side... I might end up suggesting this as a special rule). So I'm there with you on wanting to try new things.


What do you think the problems with weighted voting would be?
One that immediately comes to mind, is peoples addiction to complaining. They would cry at someone else having given the other side one more point than them, not all votes are equal, blah blah blah... And yeah, me actively using the 7 point system, has caused such complaints before (back on DDO at least, I remember someone giving their side arguments, sources, and I think conduct; so as to outweigh me voting arguments and sources; when of course the side they were voting for offered no sources, nor challenges to sources). Heck I remember times when people would complain for being voted against on sources, when they offered none, so they thought they were immune to the comparison against their absence.

Another problem I do foresee is increased complaints over fakers, in addition to complaints like... Ragnar's not a liberal, he's a progressive, his vote should do this instead... The alternative being things like it should give double points for favoring a communist argument, or other (usually but not exclusively) dumb things.

Another problem is people play devil's advocate (I highly suggest it to understand the other side's argument in depth). So the case of "A vote by a conservative for a conservative gets the conservative debater one vote point." Wouldn't always make sense, when the conservative debater is arguing against a conservative viewpoint (such as in favor of the Due Process clause...), or a liberal argument a conservative viewpoint (such as in favor of the 2nd amendment)... So basically any time someone is arguing generally in defense of the US constitution, they are going to offend people who are generally classified as the same political leaning.