Debates should not end in a tie with no votes

I am officially [?] lobbying for a change in debate policy to wit: Regardless of a countdown schedule [established by the instigator],  a completed debate that ends in a tie with no votes ought to have a vote extension. I further suggest that moderators do all they can [more than just "bumping for votes," whatever that really means] to encourage voting.  There is just no reason why debates should end this way, I don't care how inane or unpopular a debate subject is. As members, we should have more respect for one another. This is a community, not a scattering of individuals. Is this how DDO began it's decline? By indifference?

I suggest we develop a collection of members who take the positive step of commitment / volunteering to vote, and upon whom moderators can appeal to rescue any debate in danger of, or have ended without a vote, and allow an extension to the debate by a schedule agreeable to such volunteers. I understand personal schedules sometime prevent a few volunteers from participating in this rescue vote at any given time, but if a collection of debate rescue voters [DRVs?] is sufficiently large, this should overcome that issue. I nominate myself as a DRV, or whatever we would call it, and encourage others to voice an opinion.

Do DRVs earn rating points when they volunteer to rescue a doomed debate? I don't know, but it might be sufficient motivation to volunteer.

I fully support the idea of incentives for DRVs and extensions for debates with no votes. 

I will note that all three of my ties were debates with no votes. I think I'd rather lose than tie again for lack of a vote.

I agree that unvoted debates are an unacceptable result after the effort of full engagement.  I am to blame as much as anybody.

What if instead of a set voting period we had a set number of votes required- an odd, sufficient number like 5 or 7 votes?  After the last vote we might allow a 3 day period for moderation.  I guess one result might be that many or most debates just hang unresolved for months or years.  Unpopular subjects or debaters might be snubbed tactically....

Somehow, active voting needs to be animated by the same motivations that drive us to debate.  Voting is so disincentivized.  Voting requires more effort than posting (even debating, oftentimes) only to disappoint some fellow debater with some decision that few ever read or credit.  Maybe we have to vote a certain number of times to earn a debate privilege ( that would certainly reduce the junk debaters but might just kill activity).  Maybe we can improve our ELO (or some other rating)

thanks for your response. I really value your input, particularly. I agree that incentivizing voting might draw a larger sample, as I suggested by rating/ELO. What do you think of my DRV proposal?

DRV

advantage:

modest (no software changes)

workable

disadvantage:

creates two tiers in the population which inevitably (even unintentionally) favors the DRVs in debates and fosters

I support the idea generally.  What I really want is three automated college professors to paste gold stars.

Here's my view of most college professors, having experienced just a few: In the original 1984 Ghostbusters beginning, the Dan Aykroyd and Bill Murray characters are lamenting the loss of their grant to study the paranormal. Murray is nonchalant, but Aykroyd says, "I've been in the private sector. They expect results." The ivory tower typically does not.

DArt is not magic. You either force it a tie, or you implement an AI that tells who wins and who loses without the need for actual voters. 

An AI? Really? Is that coming out soon after AlGoreGooeyJuice?

I think it was mostly the spam bots.