- Let's agree that voting sucks and debate outcomes mostly determined by a small, overburdened group of voters.
- Forfeit=auto-loss would compel greater alertness in DARTists of good will.
- Quickly processing the less than serious efforts allows active voters to focus on those debates deemed worthy of completion by both participants.
- High drama unintentional forfeitures would likely make the debate rankings more competitive.
- Far fewer depressing forfeitures overall would also make for a decidedly more active queue.
PROPOSED MEEP: forfeit = auto-loss
Posts
Total:
29
I vote aye
Both voters and debaters lose out due to this, I vote no.
This is based
-->
@oromagi
Too voter-centric. And I agree that voting sucks, but I would submit that forfeiture is at the bottom of the list of reasons (especially considering that voting on forfeits require incredibly short RFD's.)
I vote No. I had missed out on one argument because I was attending classes. And many of you WORK alright. Imagine just losing because you forgot to tend to your computer because you were too busy at your job, even if you actually do have arguments. I mean, forfeiting definitely disadvantages the forfeiter, but automatically losing because of forfeiture is too harsh in my opinion.
For forfeiters, those messages of extension would only take like 2 minutes or so for the other side, and what if they come back and actually kick ass with good arguments before the last round? If forfeit = autoloss, then we would lose more opportunities than would time, so I think the net benefit, if we consider opportunity costs, is negative.
We are here to have good arguments, not to be punctual. There are actual people with little time and penalizing others for having a life despite us not knowing how good their argument will be would be pretty harsh, I suppose.
However, if people forfeit over 50% of all rounds, then it should be an autoloss.
This seems extreme if someone just ffs in the last round. I think 2 ffs might be better, and at that point they have probably lost the debate anyways.
-->
@oromagi
I vote aye
-->
@RationalMadman
Both voters and debaters lose out due to this, I vote no.
Just think of all the debates you wouldn't have to ask for voters on. I can see how a debater who tends to forfeit might consider this a losing proposition but how do voters lose when they don't have to process a lot of low effort debates?
-->
@Athias
-->@oromagiToo voter-centric. And I agree that voting sucks, but I would submit that forfeiture is at the bottom of the list of reasons (especially considering that voting on forfeits require incredibly short RFD's.)
Right so why are we making humans do work that software could take care of? Especially when its hard to recruit labor to do that work?
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@oromagiI vote aye
Keep in mind this is just a proposal. I think expressing your vote is fine as a way of gauging support just so long as new folks understand that I am not a mod and voting here doesn't count towards anything. I'm just trying to start a conversation which DebateArt seems interested in expanding.
-->
@Intelligence_06
We are here to have good arguments, not to be punctual. There are actual people with little time and penalizing others for having a life despite us not knowing how good their argument will be would be pretty harsh, I suppose.
- I agree that it is a high standard but debaters have the option of allowing 2 weeks to make arguments which seems sufficiently generous to allow debaters to have a life.
- An auto-loss feature would actually encourage debaters who are merely crunched for time to add a brief note of explanation to the debate, which seems only courteous and would prevent the auto-loss feature from kicking in.
-->
@oromagi
any automation we can implement is welcomed
i've spent quite a bit of effort to get a "self-moderated" option added - even if it's unranked - - just like the "judicial decision" option that already exists, but allowing both participants to be selected as judges
-->
@oromagi
- An auto-loss feature would actually encourage debaters who are merely crunched for time to add a brief note of explanation to the debate, which seems only courteous and would prevent the auto-loss feature from kicking in.
Lol. So, instead of going 'fuck I may be able to finish this last minute let me try later and forfeit if need be' we go 'ahhhhh I lose if I don't actively waive this Round!'
Idc if you personally never feel the stress, you are you and Intel and I speak on behalf of the currently active debaters.
-->@oromagi
- An auto-loss feature would actually encourage debaters who are merely crunched for time to add a brief note of explanation to the debate, which seems only courteous and would prevent the auto-loss feature from kicking in.
Lol. So, instead of going 'fuck I may be able to finish this last minute let me try later and forfeit if need be' we go 'ahhhhh I lose if I don't actively waive this Round!'
In that circumstance, why wouldn't you, in the final minute, just post what you've got with an apology for incompleteness? Literally, even a "No, you're wrong" will prevent a forfeit and it lets readers, voters, the other debater know that you are still engaged. Why would you choose forfeit as preferable to even a very short incomplete argument- since that makes a huge difference in terms of debate outcomes?
Idc if you personally never feel the stress, you are you and Intel and I speak on behalf of the currently active debaters.
I definitely feel the stress. Often. I'm debating whiteflame right now and kept postponing until Sunday and then didn't really get to sit down until Sunday night. I was trying to edit my arguments on deadline while I kept dropping off, desperate for sleep.
Remind me to tell you about the time I had to write a final argument against bsh1 on an iPhone from a McDonald's parking lot in 105 degree weather because that was the only internet I could find.
-->
@RationalMadman
BTW- the speed with which you engaged on this issue with strong opinions of your own demonstrates exactly why I supported your candidacy for President.
-->
@oromagi
Only problem I see is if there’s some sort of mutual agreement to waive rounds or something
-->
@ILikePie5
-->@oromagiOnly problem I see is if there’s some sort of mutual agreement to waive rounds or something
Well you should always post "waived per agreement" or something to that effect anyway, right?
We might consider a WAIVE ROUND button, tho.
-->
@ILikePie5
And how often do you engage in debating on this website?
And how often do you engage in debating on this website?
Why is that relevant? I don’t have to be an debater to vote on MEEPs
take that debate I lost against Fruit_Inpector- I thought I had another day to write my argument but instead I had 20 minutes. All I could do was cut & paste arguments from the prior round and start trying to edit them into something that looked like a response to Fruit. The result was unconvincing and repetitive but still I'd argue way better effort than just letting it got to forfeit, even if the content was not much better than a forfeit. At least my opponent knew I was engaged and I gave him a chance to continue his arguments, call me repetitive, whatever. If you forfeit than the other guy is left uncertain whether to keep pushing or coast. I think introducing that uncertainty into the debate is poor conduct by itself.
-->
@ILikePie5
Ignorance is bliss, as they say... Until you type your views as if you've got a clue what active debaters and voters alike experience.
It's like a MEEP on the Mafia games where I talk shit like I know what the active players feel about an aspect of it.
Ignorance is bliss, as they say... Until you type your views as if you've got a clue what active debaters and voters alike experience.
I’m a pretty active voter if someone keeps bothering me about voting. But it’s easier to award points if there’s a forfeit. To me it shows that you don’t care enough about the debate, nor care about the time of the individual you’re debating. You shouldn’t be rewarded for that by any means.
It's like a MEEP on the Mafia games where I talk shit like I know what the active players feel about an aspect of it.
And I wouldn’t care lol. I may disagree with it but I won’t just say you shouldn’t have an opinion. It’s like the argument women make about abortion. You’re a man, what do you know?
-->
@oromagi
So people are just gonna waive and say there is no time to prolong. How does this solve anything?
I proposed something very similar awhile ago, which was for the site to automatically assign points for forfeitures (1 point per occurrence), but still allow votes to happen (which would allow voters to outweigh those assigned points).
Granted, in cases where only one side shows up, I would prefer a truly automatic victory without any voting; and in cases where neither show up probably best if the debate were just deleted.
-->
@Barney
Everybody voting aye basically never debates and everybody voting no is an active debater with Oromagi being the only exception so far.
-->
@RationalMadman
Everybody voting aye basically never debates and everybody voting no is an active debater with Oromagi being the only exception so far.
It's a valid point but have you considered that never debaters might become more active if the debate queue got more interesting?
-->
@oromagi
More interesting meaning that people who are forfeiting a Round get less chance to make up for it by posting later? Alright.