Should voting be a requirement to engage in new debates?

I see a lot of debates with only a few votes. For those qualified to vote, should voting on debates be a requirement before they can participate in one? I'd def vote more if it guaranteed more votes on my debates. The alternative is people agreeing to vote on each other's debates, which seems like it could introduce bias.

Thoughts?

Would increase grudge voting happening, if you ask me based on what I've seen in the past when voting gets encouraged, gang mentality and tit for tat voting would occur too.

I have advocated such a scheme since joining the site.  I've made various recommendations ranging from 3-6 votes to earn a new debate.  I've recently been suggesting a less formal arena format with shorter arguments and a lot back and forth and just flat out voting with no reason req'd.  Maybe some kind of tiered debating with more formal requirements and more formal voting and recordkeeping as you climb.

I decided to present my thoughts as a rap, to stay true to the gang culture/mentality that would ensue.

Want to debate? Then vote, vote against me I'm coming for your throat,

Vote for me and I'll stick to the code,

Never admit why we do it, bullshit 'n' stay afloat,

Any motherfucker cocky voting 'gainst us in a boat'll understand that we are dolphins to the shark once they're in the water we'll drown intruders in the moat,

It's not about debating, it's about elo-inflating,

Vote to debate, vote right or you get branded as Satan,

Oromagi gets mad and says 'don't you dare vote against me if you blocked me' while waitin',

Silent little punk killin' rating's without repayment,

We all think that it's passive, we all think the higher road gets taken,

What I think is fantasies need a big bad wolf to blow down houses, utopia's painting's wet 'n' breakin',

All the highest rank debaters'll get to tradin' votes and sailin',

All the naive fools won't stick to the script, they'll assume this is a new idea and that bans'll get handed to those that excel at evadin',

I've seen Mikal rise on DDO by this exact mentality so please trust me when I'm sayin' I know how this goes; tit for tat game and you're either perishing or playing.

They could do that anyway under the current system.

For those confused, what was tried on DDO was a scheme where if you voted on people's debates, others would 'owe' you votes as in there was a currency developed for a while on a scheme I think Bsh1 or bluesteel headed, it may have been Lunatic as TUF.

The scheme incentivised people to vote on debates with one very active, popular debater, come up with shallow reasoning to vote for him (or her) and get voted for in return later.

Mikal was the most astute to the scheme and floated on it for literally 2-3 years and had some talent at rap battling (which for him was just bullshitting as in he'd lie about you to win and just be 'mean' in ways he knew the majority found mean) and floated like that. He became the site's highest rated debater because even after the scheme died down many maintained the tit for tat mentality, won't name names, just observe who kept voting for him and how he voted on their debates.

So you wouldn't owe it to a particular person. Problem solved.

Unlike DDO, such collusion would already directly violate DART's CODE of CONDUCT

Officially you could vote against them just had to vote on their debate for the credit. Unofficially, the idea rarely involved clashes where votes for or against both were optimal.

It lost steam because simply too few actively participated in it and Mikal and his friends kept at it so you joined in or had to befriend noobs fast. Either way, it became tit for tat voting on DDO, no matter what anybody says.

But you wouldn't even have to vote on their debate

yes, in-fact

i'd require two votes on other debates before being allowed to create a new ranked debate

and also,

i'd allow unranked SELF-MODERATED debates

Voting expectations are such that most cannot be bothered.

As a vote is almost expected to be a debate within itself.

If someone whinges enough, the moderators will happily remove a vote.

And for sure bias is prevalent.

So votes have little value, other than as a statistic.

I agree