The Active Top 10

While we have a leaderboard regarding the top 10, not all of them are very active, a good amount of the top spots are extremely careful about which debates they take - as far as I'm aware - Undefeatable, Fauxlaw, and myself are the most active of the top 10 - what do you guys, the top 10 and in general, think about this strategy? What do you guys think of this form of ranking debaters in general? I would argue that Fauxlaw should be higher on the board by his raw abilities in rhetoric, and Athias should be on it for his deductive prowess, but neither are. What do you guys think about this?

Main reasom I'm not top ten is people leave my debates vs high ranked debaters either as ties or favouritist losses (but that was a while ago, the favoritism thing).

The past seven debates or whatever that I've vsd undefeatable had barely any votes. The wrestling debate you voted against me on vs sum1hugme is strange how you concluded what he proved vs what I didn't but that's part of the game I guess.

Top ten or bottom ten, I'm proud of what I do and how active I am. If being active is the paramount thing, ranking should be secondary especially when so many debates end as unvoted ties. Unvoted toes don't affect rating like a voted tie would, the admin did that for fairness on the higher rates debater who would otherwise lose rating.

It's fine to be all elitist and stiff but this site only has ten active debaters at most anyway, so all active debaters are the top ten if you're using that as qualification.

How is my post "elitist" when I'm advocating for moving people up the list? I'm asking about what people think about the idea in general? Not saying I approve of it, if anything I disapprove of the system we have here.

Also I explained why I think you lost, in theory, KF looks much better than wrestling, but I need proof that these are moves that are actually practically useable in fights - so in a fight - I need more evidence. 

It was a debate, not a physical fight, however I accept your vote. As I said, it's the way the game is played, there's elements within voter interpretation that are gambles, it's the part of debating that does separate it from Chess.

It's good to be careful about your debates, though I'd argue Ragnar and Oromagi took it to the extreme. I'm also reasonably careful with researching a topic ahead of time, though the Problem of Evil was done kind of on impulse to see how good I was thinking on my feet. I'm not the best at logically deducing ideas that I don't know intimately (ex. utilitarianism flaws) so I tend to avoid those kind of debates.

Oromagi deserves respect where it's due, he didn't play it totally safe in terms of topics and opponents. He defeated me more than once and topic-wise didn't ever play dirty to do so.

He won primarily due to voter bias in both of the instances but a defeat is a defeat. He deeply researches topics like a machine and makes you bleed out for every character you spend.

I fear debating him and have no problem admitting it. I can take on more topics and angles than him, I am not denying that but if he agrees to a topic against me, I know he will make me put blood, sweat and tears in to win.

He's won 500-character debates.

I don't want to shit on his legacy, he earned his position there is no doubt. He lacks the love for debating in and of itself that I think people like you and I have but when he does it, he's a monster of efficient point-spam and information overload.

Edit:  I remembered wrong, I debated him twice and lost both times, the forfeit debate was vs someone else,.

Perhaps there could be more than one leaderboard.

Maybe one that only includes the last 90 days and one for "all time".