Elite debates league

I am having another random idea that I wanted to discuss.

So as you can see in the debates section, we have lots of low quality debates, like the ones that type1 spammed or just forfeited ones or that kinda stuff, so I am thinking if it makes sense to create a separate elite "league", in which only "serious" debaters would be invited and they'd have separate ratings, separate everything, because it doesn't really makes sense that people that spend hours on their arguments compete with people saying that ducks are dangerous. And what we have now could be a sandbox for the new people to prove (or to learn) that they deserve to be invited to the elite league. Obviously it raises some questions but it's a random idea and I haven't given it much thought but I'd still like to hear your comments.

So, what do you think?

I don't debate formally on these sites, but that sounds like a good idea. 

Yeah, I think we'd need to have something like that in one form or another. 

I support this 110%!

It's a great idea. (goes well with the Art in debate art) but you would have to make sure that spotty vote moderation didn't kill it.

for an elite debate we could potentially create a serpersre voting standard or at least discuss how we should apply the rules. 

This is an excellent idea with a lot of potential. I never debate but would consider it if the quality of the debates were better. Many others would too.

IMO we would attract better and more people if we had higher quality debates and more good votes. 

I am down, but we should set a defined standard of "elite" before we start going out there and wildly calling things elite

I totally agree. The people who don't debate sometimes underestimate the value of debate to the site. I think it is the search for good debates that first draws people here.

To discourage people from simply voting thumbs up on topics with which they agree, (and verse versa) have a scaled voting system.

Each elite will state his political, social, religious, etc, position, and positive votes against his position will carry more points than votes for his position.

i like this idea a lot. 

On DDO, I was usaully annoyed if somebody who wasn't on the first page accepted my debates, unless it was fuzzycat, he was a terrible debater who managed to be on the front page, and was only interested in debating truisms against obviously weak opponents.

How does one qualify for inclusion?

My suggestion is invitation only. Start with somebody such as yourself, and you got one invite. Use it wisely, now that person has one invite he needs to use wisely and so on and so on.

Not a bad suggestion.

thanks

In theory, that suggestion could work, but not in practice. Assuming the invite can circulate among one group of elite individuals, all it would take would be for that invitation to go viral, and soon the torch has been passed to people who are not as deserving nor as trustworthy. Perhaps you can try and vet people coming into the league, but eventually the influx will get out of control. I think there should be a starting cabal of top debate users who can deliberate on who to let in. Place the ability to invite with one central authority.

What about a series of 8 person tournaments. One tournament a month, and the winner of the tournament gets into the league. This can be done monthly, and it would be a true meritocracy

I think that is a far better idea. And so long as the moderation of tournaments is trusted a central and honorable authority, that might be the best manner through which to induct new members.

Honestly argent, most people would not even exercise their invite once the group had about 10 people in it. Plus your peers will give you a ton of shit for inviting the wrong person in if you do

I like that idea. 

I know once I got an invite, whoever did that will be quite unpopular.

Ah, but there is no way to guarantee the group would be restricted to that number and the mistake would not be made. That is, assuming you do not add more regulations, which would be necessary. All it would take would be one misstep and the entire system goes into a state of shock and disorder.

You're just being a cynic.

It shouldn't be restricted to that number, it should be constantly growing, and merely used as a tool so people can have fun debates without effecting their true rating, and have an area where only serious debates exist so that you don't have to sift through so much garbage.

It's not some fragile ecosystem. You can have plenty of missteps and be fine. I think you fear some chain reaction, like some idiot gets invited in and that idiot invites the next one, and so on and so on. I just don't see that occurring. There would be some percieved risk of that voting for somebody such as myself, but honestly my vote would only be used to get some under appreciated serious debater into the circle such as Zarroette.

Even if some smart ass gives some idiot an invite, even idiots hate idiots, so it will likely remain an isolated incident and not set off some chain reaction.

The biggest danger would be in the blavkmail that takes place. "If you send me an invite I'll debate that thing you've been desperately trying to get me to debate" but I don't even see that is being overly harmful

Not necessarily a cynic. I just have a firm predilection for a strong and well defined central authority, but by the same token a compact and efficient one. I would much rather give the privilege of issuing out invitations to a small group of or one individual (s) than give that power to the public.

Even now days when democratizing things has been so successful uber, air BNB, various software, etc. , and this democratization has proven superior for consumers to things like Yellow cab, Ben n breakfasts, Windows etc.

Dude, you that whole mode of thinking is seriously outdated and proven wrong more and more everyday. Just switch to linux, start using uber instead of yellow cab and order some stuff off of grubhub and you'll give up on this outdated ideal that a strong central authority is neccesary and things will devolve into chaos without it.

Regardless of your opinion on my ethics and tastes I agree that the elite league is a good idea. I just do not agree on the method through which to dictate membership. I refuse to get into an argument, especially here, over anything other than the topic at hand.

Without weak debaters to prey on, there is left only strong ones to kick you in the ribs as you lay on the floor eating their other foot's ankle. You're just envious that someone who is so efficient at taking on mediocre and weak debater is out-grinding you.