Let’s discuss common criticisms of this site and work on addressing those issues accordingly.
Site Upgrades For 2023
Posts
Total:
84
The name sucks.
-->
@Wylted
100% valid complaint. I agree.
-->
@Wylted
A few suggestions for the ELO system:
- Increase rating deviation for new debaters (they gain more rating if they win, but lose more rating if they lose)
- E.g. for debate 1 the rating change is x3, then for debate 2 the rating change is x2.5, until it flattens out to x1.
- Implement activity requirement - in order to remain on the leaderboard, you need to have finished a debate in a certain past time period
- Add modified rating decay - after a certain period of no debates, rating decays by 5 per week. However, rating deviation also increases.
- Full forfeitures should give reduced rating
Most of these features are implemented on online chess serves, and they have been fairly effective in accomplishing the three features of a good ELO system:
- Discourages inactivity, while also avoiding an "inactivity trap"
- Allows users to get to their real rating faster
- Encourages a few high-quality matches rather than many low-quality ones
-->
@AustinL0926
- Add modified rating decay - after a certain period of no debates, rating decays by 5 per week. However, rating deviation also increases.
I disagree. There are some people who are only here to post on forums. Make implement it for the top 10 people or something
-->
@AustinL0926
Figure out the math so we can make it easy for the site owner to do what you are requesting. The entire math even the elo calculation part might be helpful since all the code for that would likely have to be rewritten. If you can manage that and give me a pdf or doc with the information that makes it easy, I will push for this.
I have waited 5 years for group messaging
(Holy shit I've been here 5 years)
(Holy shit I've been here 5 years)
-->
@ILikePie5
Oops, my bad, I forgot to add that. I think we could copy the rating system of a certain chess site, which goes like this:
<=1500: no decay
1501-1600: -1 per week
1601-1700: -2 per week
1701-1800: -3 per week
1801-1900: -4 per week
>= 1901: -5 per week
In order for rating decay to activate, a debater must have:
- Not accepted a debate for two weeks
- From someone within 200 rating points
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I've studied chess ELO systems extensively, I'll get back to you.
-->
@RationalMadman
@AustinL0926
- Increase rating deviation for new debaters (they gain more rating if they win, but lose more rating if they lose)
- E.g. for debate 1 the rating change is x3, then for debate 2 the rating change is x2.5, until it flattens out to x1.
- Implement activity requirement - in order to remain on the leaderboard, you need to have finished a debate in a certain past time period
- Add modified rating decay - after a certain period of no debates, rating decays by 5 per week. However, rating deviation also increases.
- Full forfeitures should give reduced rating
Most of these features are implemented on online chess serves, and they have been fairly effective in accomplishing the three features of a good ELO system:
- Discourages inactivity, while also avoiding an "inactivity trap"
- Allows users to get to their real rating faster
- Encourages a few high-quality matches rather than many low-quality ones
This is a perfect suggestion.
RM, what problems do you have about the site?
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Make the rules for the debates like forfeiture and ties, more stable.
Ties should give both parties the win.
1 forfeiture should count as a loss, because then what's the point of forfeiture.
Also yes name needs to be changed to something better.
-->
@AustinL0926
Oops, my bad, I forgot to add that. I think we could copy the rating system of a certain chess site, which goes like this:<=1500: no decay1501-1600: -1 per week1601-1700: -2 per week1701-1800: -3 per week1801-1900: -4 per week>= 1901: -5 per weekIn order for rating decay to activate, a debater must have:
- Not accepted a debate for two weeks
- From someone within 200 rating points
This would place a little more importance on quantity of debates. The top debaters would lose some elo if they took 1-2 months break from debating. To be precise, if someone has 1900 elo, after just a month of not debating he would have 1888. After 2 months, he would have 1872.
The downside is that this makes it harder to progress for those debaters who have to take breaks from the site.
The upside is that it could increase number of debates on the site, and encourage more activity. This could attract more users.
I would recommend a test run and see if it works well for desired purposes.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Ties should give both parties the win.1 forfeiture should count as a loss, because then what's the point of forfeiture.
The first suggestion is very open to abuse (e.g. tie-trading), and would also lead to rating inflation.
The second suggestion I think should be implemented as a partial feature. Basically, when creating a debate, there could be a section where "special rules" could be implemented. One of these could be forfeiture = loss.
As long as we're on the subject of the website name, it would make sense to make suggestions of new names.
Random descriptor plus the word debate so maybe
World debate.com
Fire debate.com
Fiercedebate.coffee
Debatex.com
Virtualdebate.org
Safe debate.biz
Whatever anything so it is clear that you don't have to argue about the Mona lisa
World debate.com
Fire debate.com
Fiercedebate.coffee
Debatex.com
Virtualdebate.org
Safe debate.biz
Whatever anything so it is clear that you don't have to argue about the Mona lisa
-->
@K_Michael
Above
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Random descriptor plus the word debate
Just because this is the current format doesn't mean we should retain that. Also a lot of the forums aren't debate so much as discussion so it's worth considering names that express that
Off the top of my head suggestions, I wouldn't be surprised if these are taken domains, but just to spitball
Articulate (It pays homage to the Art portion of the current name, i.e., keeping the art of debate alive)
DebateAt.com This only removes a single letter, and references the one-on-one nature of debate. More importantly, it has the word teat in it, which tickles my funny bone.
Some AI generated
3. Arguing.net
4. Intellectum.com
5. Dialectic.me
6. DebateMania.com
7. ForumFights.com
8. Debating.net
9. ClashOfIdeas.com
10. ProConvo.com
-->
@AustinL0926
Ties should give both parties the win.1 forfeiture should count as a loss, because then what's the point of forfeiture.The first suggestion is very open to abuse (e.g. tie-trading), and would also lead to rating inflation.
Ties should make no change to rating, in my opinion. I don't know how I am truncated points for tying something. Well, good thing the average number of points per user does not change. Let's keep it this way.
-->
@K_Michael
As long as we're on the subject of the website name, it would make sense to make suggestions of new names.
I submit "Sidewalker Is Wonderful Debate Site"
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
No criticisms, and works just fine as it is.
And makes no difference what the website name is.
Is the debate.org domain still up? I bet we can move this site back there. I am sure that is a good idea if possible.
(Crouch as numerous slippers are being thrown in the air amongst a crowd of boos)
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Let the president show us his insight and lead these improvements. You voted me out of it, so leave me out your posts.
RM is correct. He is incapable of helping to facilitate positive change for the site, which is why the voters made sure it didn't happen.
Criticism: A bunch of white male dumbasses, that's being nice, who could be doing things for this site for years, but haven't, now claim they will because they got a little bit of power. White men do nothing unless you give them some sort of fake position of authority. This site is a f****** joke. It's never going to get better, it's never going to have more members because the people who engaged in this election are the same people who post troll post constantly and treat people like s***. Thanks for the $9 cup of coffee, you're an a****** and in 3 months you'll be doing nothing like everybody else. F****** dicks. No excuse me I'm going to go back to the debate site where I actually get to debate people because they're not f****** dicks.
@Wylted
And how many positive changes have you done?
I am the one who made the thumbs up button happen, encouraged and participated in shifts to better vote moderation policy as well as clearer rules and a better welcome page and who got all mods and most heavy debaters to vote for myself this election.
I am very capable of bringing about positive change here, now remind us how much positive change you have ever brought about here.
Let us ignore change, let us even say positive backbone activity to save a site from going dead both in debates and forums.
Trolled a presidential election twice, that is all you have done. Bravo.
Your spitefulness does not work when you have done jack shit compared to me.
Polytheist witch.
Where is this debate site where people aren't dicks?
I am the one who made the thumbs up button happen,
Pointless button and a waste of time to implement. This isn't reddit.
participated in shifts to better vote moderation policy
I am going to work on having those policies rolled back.
got all mods and most heavy debaters to vote for myself.
I didn't want to do this, but you forced me. They voted for you because they feel bad for you. You put in a lot of effort here, everybody likes your presence even virtually everyone you hate.
Why do the people you hate, like you?
They see you as a mascot mostly. Not me I see you as a person but to them you are a mascot and your childish tirades they see the way a pet owner thinks it is cute to blow in their dogs face and piss them off.
They see all your effort and feel bad that your efforts have not born fruit for you. They voted you because, they feel bad for you. Lunatic felt bad for you that your years of effort did not pay off because of his actions and he voted for you.
Notice the compliments from those individuals. Nothing related to you will be better at the jobs. Quotes like this
"No 2 people combined care as much for the site"
Compliment on how much you care not on your competence
"Sorry for ruining it last time for you"
Not a vote based on perceived competence but one based on feeling bad for you.
These are all from memory from the voting thread btw used to justify votes for you.
" He deserves it"
A statement about rewarding you for lots of effort not a statement displaying they think you are competent.
Go ahead and look through the thread for the justification of the votes for you from the people you like the most.
Let us ignore change, let us even say positive backbone activity to save a site from going dead both in debates and forums.
If there is a uptick in activity here, it won't be from you personally debating a lot and making chaos in the threads. It will be from the stuff me and my team are currently doing that nobody is aware of yet.
&-----
Note. RM has blocked me like he has done for half the site now certainly he would be an effective advocate for datizens when he can't even communicate with them
Take the votes or whatever you want, just a few months ago you told puvlic-choice I am half the reason this website stayed alive at times.
You cannot help it Wylted, you have a genuine psychological problem that makes you lie in a compulsive, chronic manner.
I am done enabling your illness, I will just stop replying other than to defend myself and point things out.
You can type whatever you want, discrediting all my contributions after pretending I did none and saying to others that I was a huge reason the site stayed active at other times.
You being active now is also part of your lying habit, you get a thrill out if pretending you would be inactive your first month for reasons that are for your therapist and you to work through.
You made 0 campaign promises, at least you cannot disappoint us by failing them, except that gift card you owe some random winner, be sure to rig it well, or maybe let us forget about it, either works.
Nobody voted you for competence Wylted, they voted to make me upset. The fact you cannot see that is hilarious.
You got every single troll to vote for you, they could not give a shit about DART or your competence.
As Mike will tell you, I found about 15 glitches and bugs in the early days, maybe 12 who cares. You have made 0 contributions to the website beyond some donations and trolling it.
Nobody thinks you are competent Wylted, they voted you for a laugh.