What are your guys’ thoughts on the update limiting how many debates you can participate in at once?
Debate Limitations Update
Posts
Total:
26
How many is it?
its 10 now.
The response time of a lot of debates are usually a week.
I don’t think it would hurt to extend the maximum limit to 20 or 25.
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
hmmm. tag debateart. for some reason he doesnt get notifications unless he is tagged, he has been busy working on bugs though.
It is undemocratic and BS
10 is fine, the other updates are BS.
He changed it from 5 to 10 due to me btw
-->
@DebateArt.com
Extending the number to 20 or 25 will actually increase activity within the site.
Google tends to obscure certain sites based on inactivity and filter bubbles, but increasing the number of debates at a time could reverse this by making it more searchable.
Should not be a limit. Hardcore debaters are now more limited in their activity and other problems
10 is ridiculous and engaging in that many at once detracts from quality.
That's true, Wylted!
We should make it 25.
Honestly, I do my best to not have more than one active debate. I feel like excessive amounts leads to forfeited rounds/debates and low quality arguments. I feel like the increase to ten is too much.
-->
@AleutianTexan
Which matters more?
- Encouraging fewer debates with higher quality by restricting users' freedom?
- Promoting user activity and contribution by allowing multiple debates with lower quality.
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Higher quality debates, no doubt.
1. I flat out reject the idea that site is dying and that we need a million people. Just because we are a small community doesn't mean that the site is broken. The fact that users like Wy1lted, Best.Korea, Lemming, you, RationalMadman, etc. are names and identities I can recognize and engage with on a meaningful level is really cool, and a sea of a million people coming to the site will kill that.
2. Why the fuck would I want to judge a bunch of shitty debates instead of a few good ones? Like more bad work or less good work is the easiest answer ever.
3. "Freedom" is a meaningless concept. If something is bad, we should have structural systems in place to disincentivize that action, especially when bad debates lead to people wanting to not engage on the site and makes the education and recreation of this space worse.
-->
@AleutianTexan
It is possible for users to put full effort in all of their debates regardless of high number. This may not work or suit for you, but you do not know what other people are capable of handling in the way of debates
-->
@Skipper_Sr
Agreed. I think whatever option gives the most freedom and choice to its users should be supported. Any excessive regulation will only do more harm than good - in contrast, if we allow users to do as many debates as they can handle, then eventually they'll find their own limit, whether it's 1, 5, or 25.
-->
@AleutianTexan
The small amount of users who already use this site shouldn’t have to be restricted, as they are what is keeping the site alive.
They should have the ability to engage in as many debates as they desire.
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
@Skipper_Sr
I just disagree. 10 feels like a ridiculous amount. As someone who judged half a dozen of your debates, Sir.Lancelot, it's evident that too many active debates lowers a debaters quality and that lowers the quality of the site as people stack on debates that they don't participate in, that other people are then upset that they're engaging in.
Honestly this part of the update is the least of my "concerns". However, I also see the reasoning behind this more clearly than the other parts of the update. Many people end up forfeiting their debates handling one, but more than 10? Especially when the debates are only two or three days per each round. Further, ill use the quote: "quality over quantity".
Nonetheless I understand the other side of this.
No, I don't have much of an opinion on this part of the update. Just stating my thoughts on it so far.
-->
@AleutianTexan
I just disagree. 10 feels like a ridiculous amount.
Yes, to you
I just disagree. 10 feels like a ridiculous amount. As someone who judged half a dozen of your debates, Sir.Lancelot, it's evident that too many active debates lowers a debaters quality and that lowers the quality of the site as people stack on debates that they don't participate in, that other people are then upset that they're engaging in.
Why would that be reason to infringe on a debaters' right to create more debates?
Presume that you are right that debate quality goes down, that raises three questions.
- How does that impact site quality?
- Isn't an opponent rewarded for one debater's poor quality?
- Don't debaters have the right to pick and choose which debates they take?
If a debater feels they can withstand the burden of carrying on ten or more debates at a time, stifling that opportunity is killing their engagement in the community and that leads to people leaving the site. Other debaters have the choice of whether or not to partake and if one forfeits, the other is compensated for it through increased rating or win percentage.
i dont believe anyone should limit how many debates a person can engage in. if they have the mental capacity, focus and free time, who are we to limit them? most people here are adults and have the right to do what they wish with their time and strengths they have.
if its a question of how much the website can handle it however, thats a different arguement and reasons altogether.
-->
@AleutianTexan
Freedom" is a meaningless concept. If something is bad, we should have structural systems in place to disincentivize that action, especially when bad debates lead to people wanting to not engage on the site and makes the education and recreation of this space worse.
this is a very bad arguement.
infact, you should turn it into a debate, it would be fun to see how quick it can be demolished.
i would argue however, that its not bad debates that make a website less engagable, but bad voting, trolling, racism, sarcasm and lack of general communication skills that ruin it (see some of ddo's debates.)
also, rap battles.
-->
@Melcharaz
I think it would be a good topic. I'm not opposed to freedom broadly, like I shouldn't be told every little aspect of my life, but people who say "muh freedom" in the face of genuinely good ideas without a detailed description how the loss of freedom lowers their quality of life more than it would be increased through social cohesion or whatever is goofy.
Also, I think it's both. When two out of three of the first three debates that are currently voting are forfeited, that has an effect on the site.
I think it would be a good topic. I'm not opposed to freedom broadly, like I shouldn't be told every little aspect of my life, but people who say "muh freedom" in the face of genuinely good ideas without a detailed description how the loss of freedom lowers their quality of life more than it would be increased through social cohesion or whatever is goofy.Also, I think it's both. When two out of three of the first three debates that are currently voting are forfeited, that has an effect on the site.
Freedom in the context of a user's abilities to efficiently make use of the platform and when certain restrictions severely compromise said freedom, which then discourages people from engaging in the community due to limited mobility.
- Your freedom to vote for example.
- My freedom to create more debates.
I feel like the limit is unnecessary. If you don't participate but accept a bunch of debates you will get banned/blocked probably.