There are hardly any rated debates here as of now.

Author: Intelligence_06

Posts

Total: 48
Topic's author
#1
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
I suggest changing the default to rated, not standard. Why have a leaderboard if there is like 1 movement per month?

In competitive sites that specialize in others than debating, the leaderboard could change on an hourly basis with everyone fighting all the time. DArt's format has made this less possible because a debate usually would take weeks on end, for argumentation and for voting. Slowing down leaderboard progress is one way the site becomes irrelevant as of this percentage of rated debates.

Sometimes, I accept debates for the sole reason that my rating could go up. I am sure in this opportunistic world numerous people think the same as well. Although not disconnecting them from the site truly and genuinely, this is one way to reduce their user activity and even decrease their effort, because everything is standard and matters negligibly.
#2
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
i agree that there should be a smaller time limit for voting as a minimum and a larger time limit for round debates as a minimum.

give like 24-48 hours for voting
push the 2 hour debate window to at least 4 hours.

if we didnt care about ratings we'd just get judges to vote that will back up our opinion and disregard voting procedures entirely. Go ahead and make all debates rated except for when voting is done by judges to negate bias.
#3
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Intelligence_06
The last major update was dogshit overall but it's nice the owner is genuinely dedicating to the website so I'm just gonna sit tight and watch. After this tournament, whenever I'm knocked out and my Buddhism debate I am done with this website for a while. I have proven to myself that I genuinely am weaned off of using it but not lurking on it atm. So, I'll be watching now and again, not sure I want to quit doing that.
#4
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Intelligence_06
Just so you understand, the default cannot be 'rated' because to debate 'rated' you have to have completed 5 debates to Finished stage.
#5
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
As soon as people know you are gone they start misrepresenting history, which forces you to chirp in. The only way out is with a no peaking rule. 
#6
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
or block everyone and be blissfully unaware of who says what.
#7
AustinL0926
AustinL0926's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,185
3
5
9
AustinL0926's avatar
AustinL0926
3
5
9
-->
@Intelligence_06
Agreed - this update definitely reduced activity from veteran users. While I can understand trying to ease new users in, I also feel it has to be balanced with keeping the site truly competitive.
#8
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
or block everyone and be blissfully unaware of who says what.
I block occasionally who are annoying. It's extremely rare, but blocking people because they point out the problems in your arguments is cowardice 
Topic's author
#9
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
To be fair, there shouldn't be a debating limit before ratedness at all. What if I am an experienced debater IRL and just want entertainment before my computer before realizing that I have to numb by way through 5 null ordeals before being able to be competent? If a new user creates a debate and willingly forfeits it or loses because he doesn't know what debating is like, a loss of points should be the expected outcome because look, you are inexperienced and the rating reflects what you are doing, which isn't "good" to rigid standards.

This is like as if you get 10 unrated games before your rating is affected in Chess.com, except if you are an experienced people challenging random users and once the user is an 800, you automatically get denied any incrementation of points. And that analogy is still inaccurate to whatever this site is, and the games happen in a pace of weeks, not a matter of minutes or hours. Even if adding this rule would be a bummer in Chess, it would be devastating for such a site where the rate of activity is already low.

Trust me, this new so-called "update" has literally decreased my ability to write stuff. My TOEFL score on writing, which is to be inspected by college admissions, went down from 28 to 24 due to a lack of interaction with this site(because I didn't need to, because nothing matters, not even my current debates that are going). Although it may just have been the fault of my own lazy ass, it is in of itself a baffling matter that the update which should encourage activity, actually does not encourage more activity at all!

Although the influx of new users may seem good, it is important to note that:
  • Most of them aren't "Good"
  • Most of them leave after 1, 2, or 3 debates and never back
The site is giving too much way to the inexperienced(and not even relatively experienced new accounts such as Weaveroffate) that at this point I am beginning to understand the motives of 2b2t elite obsidian build groups, more and more. Once again, this site should not provide any shielding to new users. Nobody on the leaderboard got high because they got shielded for 5 genuine debates. NONE. Instead of a site desperate to draw users in by making policies way too friendly, I would rather this site to be 2b2t before CampingRusher. Because in the former, it turns into a smaller-scale DDO very quickly and gets very old, even if it is just a month or something.

Topic's author
#10
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
Just face it. I am participating here for virtual internet points on a leaderboard. I literally am. That is my drive to keep being here. I lament when I drop from 4th to 12th, and spark joy when I rise up to 2nd. I cheer in front of my monitor when I win a rated debate and analyze seriously when I didn't. Though I respect the ascended objectives of Mall and similarly where they are just here to talk about stuff without caring if they win or not, many do, including some of the experienced ones relatives like me or RM or Novice(if he is still around here, if he quits, the update is partially to blame probably).

Don't know the actual motives behind this alteration. That said, I could keep complaining, it is like a major part of my life has been sliced through the nape. It is like seeing your position at a paid company being cut forever and you can't do anything about it, if I actually know what it is like.

I anticipate a reversal of said rules. I desire no individual to temper with the developed atmosphere of this site, the environment for 2.5 years, not even the owner. If the owner did it, I will voice my opinion when I intend to so the day of return could arrive sooner than if nothing is done.
#11
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Intelligence_06
To be fair, there shouldn't be a debating limit before ratedness at all.
This.
Topic's author
#12
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@SkepticalOne
As the only one person I do know who uses Dart to vent in general(because I am generally considered too "analytical", "logical" and "bragging" in other spaces just by generally speaking in words), I am surprised that I got to the point in the first sentence in one of the longest forum posts I have typed since the beginning of 2023.
#13
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
You guys sound like senior citizens bitching about changes.
Topic's author
#14
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Oh of course, you sound like a non-worker bitching about workers going on strike. You don't even majorly debate most of the time. You don't deal with 5 debaters simultaneously, and you don't have like 10 pending debates that are nullified significance because of a feature.

The change made debating less relevant and that is bad, that is my point, yeah.
#15
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@Intelligence_06
Having a split between major league debates and minor league debates, decreases the significance of major league (rated) debates, how?
Topic's author
#16
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
League? No. This is essentially a neighborhood where streetfights take place everywhere. I am basically a person enrolled at the streets(Never received formal debating training). This update essentially made some streetfighters lose interest in fighting because they told both sides of the fight that fighting doesn't matter now.

Treating this site as a league in of itself reduces the amount of participation. It should just be a free-for-all altogether.
Topic's author
#17
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
Ironically, debating seems like a good idea for an anarchy server because people vote, people are willing to debate(as long as there is a true sense of incentive). If people just go full-on attack mode with all the ad homing, they lose because they are not valid attacks. Unlike Minecraft PvP, the winners are those that actually try to argue with logic and facts.

Just to make sure that plugins can keep up with bot technology. I guess mod involvement should be focused on bots rather than banning those who dare speak different. Disabling bots is one of the only roles that I think are necessary for moderation actually at minimum.
Topic's author
#18
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
Ironically, debating seems like a good idea for an anarchy server because people vote, people are willing to debate(as long as there is a true sense of incentive). If people just go full-on attack mode with all the ad homing, they lose because they are not valid attacks. Unlike Minecraft PvP, the winners are those that actually try to argue with logic and facts.

Just to make sure that plugins can keep up with bot technology. I guess mod involvement should be focused on bots rather than banning those who dare speak different. Disabling bots is one of the only roles that I think are necessary for moderation actually at minimum.
#19
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
I would like to see the site connect gpt technology and debate humans . 
#20
DebateArt.com
DebateArt.com's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,403
3
3
8
DebateArt.com's avatar
DebateArt.com
3
3
8
The idea behind the rated debates is not to shield anybody, but to make sure that before participating in the rated debates, the member understands how it all works. Also it avoids situations when it's easy to grind rating on the new accounts that don't know what they are doing.

Also I believe a while ago I added "two weeks" as an option for the voting period for the rated debates, it wasn't allowed in the beginning.

But you are right, I should probably reduce the number of required debates for being able to participate in the rated debates. I will drop it to 3, I think.

#21
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
its not cowardice. thats the largest and most foolish arguement against blocking.

when you block someone, you arent saying you fear their words, you are saying "i dont want to hear/see you." its a method of bringing peace and regulating good voices from evil ones.
assuming you believe in Jesus Christ, should i allow a 3 man team of athiests to always knock on your door, cuss you out and then leave? or, would you be right in locking the door, not answering them and potentially calling the police?

this philosophy of "cowardly people block others" is so stupid it almost makes me vomit.
#22
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
-->
@DebateArt.com
oh the poor children, they may click the rated debate and lose then complain about it! For the children we must make sure they understand how rating works before letting them do a rated debate! God knows we dont need more people complaining about their own ignorant choices.

it seems i must stand alone in this conflict against ignorance ... For the children!
#23
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
-->
@DebateArt.com
i usually dont do sarcasm, but i thought it was funny to word it like that.

but speaking seriously, just make people aware of what a rated debate is. if they cant figure it out, a few losses aren't gonna hurt them.
#24
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
assuming you believe in Jesus Christ, should i allow a 3 man team of athiests to always knock on your door, cuss you out and then leave? or, would you be right in locking the door, not answering them and potentially calling the police?
Ili would honestly kick their asses, but if they just wanted to debate me, I wouldn't cower. That means you lack faith if you don't believe God will give you the arguments to defeat theirs and make new christians. 
#25
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
you arent thinking about this in the right way. They arent going to change, they dont care what arguement you bring, they hate God and think you are a fool, they will never be convinced because they refuse to.

even scripture tells us to not talk with certain people and convince them. are you smarter than God who is trying to give you peace? or do you think God is a coward too?

Ili would honestly kick their asses,
turn the other cheek boy.
#26
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,272
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
I suggest changing the default to rated, not standard
I second this. I get the feeling a lot of these are products of people just leaving the defaults, not really being conscious of what they change. To be honest, I don't see why we should have unrated debates in the first place.
#27
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,272
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@DebateArt.com
Also it avoids situations when it's easy to grind rating on the new accounts that don't know what they are doing.
If the noobs don't like being noobsniped, perhaps they should look for other noobs to challenge specifically.
#28
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
turn the other cheek boy.
This doesn't mean what you think. romans were occupying the area at the time and since the Jews were outgunned Jesus devised another strategy to defeat their oppressors.


Paul T. Penley explains in “Turning the Other Cheek’: Jesus’ Peaceful Plan to Challenge Injustice,” “Roman soldiers tended to be right-handed. When they struck an equal with a fist, it came from the right and made contact with the left side of the face. When they struck an inferior person, they swung with the back of their right hand making contact with the right cheek. In a Mediterranean culture that made clear distinctions between classes, Roman soldiers backhanded their subjects to make a point. Jews were second-class.” The Roman slap was an insult to the Jews’ personal dignity.
Again Jesus said if the enemy asks you to carry their stuff one mile, you carry it 2. This is because roman law said soldiers were not allowed to have the people they conquered carry their gear for more than one mile. It was intended to get soldiers in trouble. 

Jesus was not somebody who would advocate for taking things lying down. It's obvious how to deal with inferior forces. In that sermon he was teaching how to deal with superior earthly forces
#29
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,599
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
This site is having lots of activity now, which is the point.
#30
AustinL0926
AustinL0926's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,185
3
5
9
AustinL0926's avatar
AustinL0926
3
5
9
-->
@DebateArt.com
My suggestion:

  • Make it so that for debates, the default option is standard
  • Remove qualifications for newbs (so that if they feel ready, they can create a rated debate as their first one)
  • If they change it to "rated," give them a short warning about how this type of debate will be more competitive and difficult