-->
@DebateArt.com
Yep, you wanted it, you got it ;)
I'm drunk on responsive administration.
Platform development
Posts
Pinned
Total:
1,735
-->
@DebateArt.com
Thanks to my computing knowledge I realised how to work around this but this will hard-troll some users posting last minute.
When you paste a huge chunk without pasting it as plain text it completely distorts the character count to be so much higher than it is.
Also I think the maximum is 60k for debates, not 30k based on what it told me.
-->
@RationalMadman
Yeah, it's not ideal but I'll give a more detailed answer tomorrow, if I don't forget. It's way beyond midnight for me and I have work tomorrow -_-
-->
@DebateArt.com
block mechanism for PM, please add I need to block someone tyGoing to work on this and other things in the next 2-3 weeks.
Yes, I would like to block someone as well.
New changes:
Now it's possible to start a debate both as PRO and as a CON.
Now it's possible to start a debate both as PRO and as a CON.
I mean, either as PRO or as a CON*
-->
@RationalMadman
So the logic is that the argument may have 60k chars including formatting and 30k without formatting so it varies, maybe there is a better way to handle it but I haven't looked into it yet.
One thing to have in mind is that you can now paste all kinds of things into the editor, like text with ugly red background or huge font sizes or anything of the kind but eventually it should get stripped away when it goes through the server.
One thing to have in mind is that you can now paste all kinds of things into the editor, like text with ugly red background or huge font sizes or anything of the kind but eventually it should get stripped away when it goes through the server.
I have started working on the foundation for the moderation system and it make take a while, probably a few weeks, so please don't be worried that I stopped releasing the new changes as often as before, the work is still in progress.
You really need a report button.
-->
@DebateArt.com
Can you specialize username color, or something, if they are high up in the leaderboards? By choice to the user, of course.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
That's exactly what I am moving to :)
-->
@Earth
Shouldn't be too hard but we'd need to decide on specifics
-->
@DebateArt.com
What about awards? Like Reddit has.
-->
@Earth
I am not familiar with the one on Reddit but I like the reward system on StackOverflow and we're definitely having one of those :)
-->
@DebateArt.com
Cool
-->
@DebateArt.com
Your version of Elo is incorrect. You should be able to lose Elo for other people beating your opponent over time, not gain it.
What you have done with your current Elo algorithm is given higher skill rating to people who beat an easy opponent before it's known he/she is easy which is actually nonsensical to do. Both Drafterman and Virtuoso should have identical Elo at this point.
Would it ever be possible to edit the receivers of a post or comment I make? Sometimes I forget to @ the right person, but I can't fix that in edit.
But I know this could present problems for the mention system.
-->
@DebateArt.com
I see that when you click a reply it goes to the post that replied you. Sweet. Thanks man.
-->
@RationalMadman
Yeah the Elo system was written like 3 years ago and in the most naive way so we may need to discuss it and reimplement, I'll create a separate topic for it a bit later.
-->
@Castin
Yeah, the mentions is my main concern because it may be confusing if your activities start to disappear or point to posts in which you are not actually mentioned, not sure how to go around it to be honest.
-->
@ethang5
Sure, glad you like it :)
-->
@DebateArt.com
I figured. Thanks anyway.Yeah, the mentions is my main concern because it may be confusing if your activities start to disappear or point to posts in which you are not actually mentioned, not sure how to go around it to be honest.
-->
@DebateArt.com
Win count doesn't tally up properly but the rating does do so on time.
I have won 2 and the rating altered but it says I have debated one time with one win both on leaderboard and my profile.
-->
@DebateArt.com
Never mind, it updated now, it's just delayed.
-->
@DebateArt.com
Two more suggestions:
1. Allow Instigators to set character limits on rounds.
2. An interesting feature Edeb8 had was the ability to include "reply speeches," which are basically R4s except where (i) Con goes first and then Pro goes and (ii) the character limit is half the character limit of the rest of the debate -- the purpose of those speeches is exclusively to crystallize without any rebuttal or defense or offense.
-->
@DebateArt.com
Delete the "sources," "conduct," and "spelling and grammar" points for votes.
Or, at the very least, create an option where Instigators can pick a "choose winner" voting system where only argument points are used.
Why?
(1) This option existed on DDO and virtually every well-established user who did debates frequently used that option.
(2) DArt should aim to, at least in some respect, mirror real-life debate, which doesn't have "conduct," "sources," or "spelling and grammar" points. Why should real-life debate be mirrored? Because (a) a lot of the best debaters on a debate site are likely to have done formal debate and creating an RFD system that's similar is more likely to help with retention and (b) nobody in real life thinks someone lost a debate because of their spelling and grammar; to the extent that things like conduct, sources, and basic coherence matters, they're already reflected in argument points.
(3) It's much easier to strategically vote on conduct/sources/spelling and grammar because it's much easier to create voting standards for argument points.
(4) Good judges typically vote only on argument points -- this means that the points of poorer judges are inflated. This is harmful because (a) each judge should only have one vote and (b) worse quality or strategic voters now have more sway than unbiased, strong judges.
-->
@Tejretics
1. Allow Instigators to set character limits on rounds.
Will be there for sure, at least to some extent.
2. An interesting feature Edeb8 had was the ability to include "reply speeches," which are basically R4s except where (i) Con goes first and then Pro goes and (ii) the character limit is half the character limit of the rest of the debate -- the purpose of those speeches is exclusively to crystallize without any rebuttal or defense or offense.
Could you please elaborate a little on this one? What's R4? But apart from that, if I got it right, it sounds interesting and we may come to something like this at some point.
Regarding the voting system, I believe a few people have already mentioned pretty much the same thing and I'll surely work on it.
Regarding the voting system, I believe a few people have already mentioned pretty much the same thing and I'll surely work on it.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Yeah, I am working on those things at the moment. Tomorrow I'll release a new version with the "block" button among other things and then we'll get to the reporting stuff.
New changes:
1) Added a way to block people
2) Added a category picker in the forum topic creation form
3) Added a way to delete forum topics created less than 5 mins ago
4) Changed the location of the "edit" button for the forum posts, now it's an icon in the right top corner, soon there will be a few more buttons there.
5) Done some general refactoring and bug fixes
If you find that something stopped working or started to look ugly or anything of the kind, please, let me know. Thank you!
4) Changed the location of the "edit" button for the forum posts, now it's an icon in the right top corner, soon there will be a few more buttons there.
5) Done some general refactoring and bug fixes
If you find that something stopped working or started to look ugly or anything of the kind, please, let me know. Thank you!