Debate Voting Group

Hi all -

So on debate.org there was a debate voting club - a group of people who would make sure each debate gets at least one high quality vote. These members can also be contacted if you wish to setup a judicial voting debate. 

I hope that such a group can encourage more high quality debates and high quality votes. Of course you do not have to be a member of this group to cast a vote.

Members

-Virtuoso

-Ramshutu

-blamonkey

Would you all be interested in this? You all have shown yourselves to be fairly good voters. 

i already try to do that. I’d be happy to

Awesome! 

This is my issue with it and a main reason I haven't won the 15 in 24 hour silver medal yet (the only silver one I lack). I actually don't think people realise the high quality of my votes. They think my quality is average but truth is when I give an RFD I explain every point, I justify why I didn't give it to who I didn't give it to and it's that simple. It's not ever gonna be RM-style to think all debates deserve high quality vote. I have allies I don't wanna vote against who I abstain from voting on the debate if there's little to gain from it or the win is so narrow that there's a chance to win that I am denying them given the subjectivity of it all (other voters may see it as him/her winning) and you can never make a CoC that out-rules tactical refraining from voting just as much as you can never force companies to compete but only can protect weaker ones against abuse.

I don't care what people think of me, I am salty as fuck that you didn't vote here despite me begging it several times to those you just pinged with a ohntification and others too:

I apologize that I forgot about the debate and didn't get a chance to look it over. 

Apology denied. 

If you didn't make this about giving every debate a vote, blamonkey is the best voter I have ever seen and the only one who I think is genuinely superior to me in comprehending debating itself. I will admit at first I thought I was his equal but he actually comprehends burden of proof and logic in ways very few humans are capable of reaching.

Ramshutu never votes against the atheist/ liberal. No matter who wins the debate, check the votes and Ram has voted against the conservative position. With as many times he has voted, this clearly shows that he isn't a fair voter. He's what we call a ringer. A sure liberal/atheist vote regardless of argument content.

If you want this to work, you may have to pair judges cause the club would quickly become a joke when judge Ram ransacks the voting with auto checks marks on every atheist position every time.

Agreed.

Although the rules about voting are very strict, it is still possible for a skilled writer who is familiar with those rules to write up an analysis which technically complies with the rules, while still ignoring critical facts that should have been taken into account.

Ramshutu writes very long and detailed votes, which always comply with the rules, but somehow also seem to declare the exact opposite winner that all the other voters voted for. And of course, it is always the liberal/atheist position. That doesn't appear to be a coincidence.

I don't think a "voting club" is a very good idea in general. It sends the message that some gang of people is forming up to make sure that votes come out the way they want them to, and that they will try to influence the outcome of debates as much as they can get away with.

I thought no one else had noticed it.

I noticed. But I try (and sometimes fail) to keep my complaining to a bare minimum. So I never mentioned it previously, but now that you went ahead and pointed it out... I agree.

Also, did you see that our names are now being listed off on some debates as being part of a group that the creator of the debate has officially blocked us from voting on?

Really? Lol. That's funny. Must be Ram's voting cabal.

Which ones? Can you link me?

Bump. Welcome balamonkey to the group 

Thanks.

It's silly because he can't stop anyone from voting anyway.

Plus, the only people who will debate him after reading that bit of stupidity will be idiots or trolls.

Very funny.

This whole moderation fiasco is like a farce at this point, might as well break out the popcorn. I knew that ideological homogeny could blind people, but I never imagined that they would induct a literal religion forum votebomber into a 'good voter' group lol.

Wow. You're still adding members? No response on the Ram ringer charge?

Here is another funny thing Virt. In post one you list Ram as a member of the group. But you invite him in post 2. He only accepts in post 3. Are your posts chronological?

I think blamonkey is a decent guy, I hope he doesn't get used by the "club".

I'm not surprised. Some of your votes have been hideously dishonest

Easy there  Waldorf. When making stupid and baseless accusations it’s always worthwhile using these little things called “facts” to support your position. If you had, before shoving your foot straight in your mouth, you would have realized that I never vote for the non-liberal or theist positions...

Except for here:

https://www.debateart.com/debates/183?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1

and here:

Hahahaha, pathetic scrub who can't debate and only can vote watch how the fuck you talk to and about me.

What's your rating? Winrate? Where is it?

Can't debate can only sit and point finger in judgement. 

I try and vote on EVERY debate, since I started there have been only a handful  of religious debates that weren’t Ffe. Many of them were from Mopac - who is a terrible debater. He’s made the same argument in debates twice that I have voted on. Once he won because his opponent didn’t attack it, one where his opponent made a better and more targeted argument.

Virtuousos KCA debate went the same way - the KCA is a terrible argument, but his opponent didn’t attack it well, and despite me thinking virt is wrong - I voted for him anyway.

There was a bunch of gun debates - mostly the same arguments were presented, but on one case, the pro gun position was much better, and edged it out.

I always vote based on the arguments - and have voted against the side I personally believe multiple times. If you don’t agree or think I’ve made a mistake, feel free to explain: but so far, most of the people disagreeing with my votes are angry, butthurt, arseholes like Ethang who write incedulous posts about how they can’t believe that I voted contrary to their position.

If you want to know why I voted like I did: go to my vote. I literally spend 74823729 words explaining why I vote the way I do.

By the win rate do you mean including or excluding the ones  that ended in forfeits....

Ive voted for you when you’ve had the better argument. I’ve voted against you when you didn’t. You raged out at me for not voting for you because you couldn’t believe that I didn’t think you won the debate.

That’s just petulant and childish behaviour and I’m calling you out for it - it’s not the way adults act.

That being said, even after that, I have voted for you in multiple debates because I thought you did better. Don’t be a hater.

Note that I also missed this:

https://www.debateart.com/debates/298?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1

And this.

https://www.debateart.com/debates/193?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1

Note: out of my 68 votes thus far, I counted 53 that were forfeits, unmoderated troll/rap battles or inherently neither political nor about theism.

That leaves 15 political/theist debates. In those I’ve voted liberal/theist in these:

1.) https://www.debateart.com/debates/158?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1

2.) https://www.debateart.com/debates/204/vote_links/247

3.) https://www.debateart.com/debates/205?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=4

4.) https://www.debateart.com/debates/208?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1

5.) https://www.debateart.com/debates/207?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=2

6.) https://www.debateart.com/debates/166?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1

7.) https://www.debateart.com/debates/242?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=4

So, despite your petulant accusations the fact is that when arguments have been presented I have taken the conservative or theist side more than 50% of the time.

You either don't know what a conservative or theistic position is, or you're a petty liar. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and call it ignorance OK?

You must have been thinking, no one would actually check the links. Dude, I don't care to convince you that you're a ringer. Your links above show that you did not take the conservative or theistic position at all. An I'm not the only one who noticed it. And your links above prove it.

Yeah, we'll just say it's ignorance.

(Can the class say "slickster play slick with words"?)

My links prove that I have take the theist/conservative side of debates 8 times, and prove that I have taken the atheis/liberal side 7 times. You don’t seem to argue that, and you don’t seem to be objecting to anything I said specifically: so apology accepted

I have no idea what distorted agenda, or emotional grudge you have against me - but when you claim I have never voted against the positions I hold, and that is provably false - and I prove it false by sharing at least 8 times out of 15 where I have done just that - the correct response is to apologize.

At this point, simply repeating the lie doesn’t make it any more true, emphatically ignoring every single link in order to simply say their content doesn’t matter, or pretending without evidence that these are somehow phoney or dishonest links that “show nothing”, is quite frankly: hilarious.

I have shared multiple links to multiple debates where I have done the very thing you claim I have never done. If you can’t deal with that, and you have no intention in acknowledging any of them, the that is your own petty biases at work and I would suggest you stop talking before you make yourself look even more dishonest.

To everyone else: I would strongly encourage you to look at the links, you just have to look at the first link I shared to demonstrate that Ethang5 is just making stuff up, probably because he didn’t like a vote I made. 

As I said, I don't care. It isn't like I was unaware there were people like you. That is why I addressed virt and not you. People like you will be caught by their own behavior.

And surprise, I'm conservative / theist. Who wodda think it?

whoops forgot to tag you in the post above!

Feel free to ignore the clear and incontrovertible evidence that you’re wrong, repeat your claim and then call me dishonest.