A message to the users of Edb8

Blackflag: I think the time to discuss this would be after the WODC. That way we have consistent judging standards for the tournament, which is important to the tournament code. I'm interested but we have to step carefully, because in RL that kind of thing often leads to cliques

Mikal: Being a part of conversations with moderation and the past president of the site, I can promise you that your voting privileges were on the way to being removed. Strictly because of your voting patterns, but that is not a conversation I want to have. What is past is past

That just confirms my opinions of DDO and those who run it even more.

Members are not required to vote against ANY of their own personal interests on DDO. Neither are we required to vote against our own personal interests here on EDB8. So, obviously the votes that ARE made will tend to fall in line with that reality.

admin: 1. Edeb8 attempts to improve this by clearly communicating expectations for judges

Unless you can require members to vote on debates we don't want to vote on (and against our own personal interests) . . . your "attempt" is futile.

2. Edeb8 *tends* not to attract members who vote in a biased way as frequently

No offense but Edb8 tends to not attract very many members at all and (again) as I said before. . . we are all permitted to discriminate between which debates we want to vote on and not vote on. So, each and every engagement is an expression of personal interest in that regard.

Edeb8's average feedback score, which I've been internally tracking for some months, is VERY constant around "exceptional" - far removed from "Biased" or "Vote Bomb"

I have already acknowledged that you have made some improvements over DDO. That doesn't in any way mean that the elo scores are anything less than a way of measuring "popularity" and popular opinion. The voting remains personal & voluntary and it is completely subjective. Furthermore, the elo system treats all subjects and styles of debate as equals. It treats in depth debates which require multiple sources and higher levels of thinking an analysis with any other less cerebral subjects and challenges like "Joke Debate."

Chuz Life: Unless you can require members to vote on debates we don't want to vote on (and against our own personal interests) . . . your "attempt" is futile.
Of course if there's a clear pattern of strategic voting, be that for a particular side or anything else, then I'd ban the member after talking to them. I'd have a basic expectation of members to attempt to vote objectively. I expect this would become reflected in the vote ratings as well, however.

Edb8 tends to not attract very many members at all
... and I've always argued this can be a good thing.

I've actually thought about requiring people to do a debate before giving them forum posting privileges, but for now I'm sticking with the philosophy of "keep everything available from day one" because I feel like people like you would do a single "zero effort" debate to circumvent things.

That doesn't in any way mean that the elo scores are anything less than a way of measuring "popularity" and popular opinion.
At BEST you can argue they measure popularity AS A DEBATER, not popular opinion. This doesn't follow in any way.
If you consider debate winners and losers to be a popularity contest, you'd think the same of Elo scores.

The voting remains personal & voluntary and it is completely subjective.
I for one try to judge every debate objectively.

It treats in depth debates which require multiple sources and higher levels of thinking an analysis with any other less cerebral subjects and challenges like "Joke Debate."
... which is why it's so important to encourage serious topics. For example I think our random topic system achieves this.
Again, these are all things that can easily be disincentivised. You seem dead set on the notion that debate is inherently unfair, however (without even trying a debate!). You remind me a LOT of the anonymous Edeb8 critic whose conversation I blogged about once... this would be of interest to you... http://www.edeb8.com/blog/Conversation+with+an+EDEB8+critic

Honestly if you're not interested in judging fairly or debating, well, maybe I agree with you that this might well not be a site for you.

admin: Of course if there's a clear pattern of strategic voting, be that for a particular side or anything else, then I'd ban the member after talking to them.

How is it "strategic Voting " - if and when a person (even subconsciously) opts to NOT vote at all in debates that they are either not interested in or when we feel it's in our best interest (for whatever the reason) to NOT vote at all?

I feel like people like you would do a single "zero effort" debate to circumvent things.

Again, are we or are we not permitted to pick and choose the debates that we want to read and vote on?

I'd have a basic expectation of members to attempt to vote objectively.

Please try to FOCUS! The point I am making is about a member's right to be SELECTIVE in the debates we choose. Of course, once we decide to vote in a debate, we are all expected to be objective. You seem oblivious to the fact (however) that we can still be "objective" personally and then keep it to ourselves by NOT voting.

I feel like people like you would do a single "zero effort" debate to circumvent things.

"People like you?"

Prejudge much?

At BEST you can argue they measure popularity AS A DEBATER, not popular opinion.

If you really believe that, show me where the members in mass are systematically voting against each their own personal beliefs.

If you consider debate winners and losers to be a popularity contest, you'd think the same of Elo scores.

FACE PALM. . . DUH! What else did you think our point was against keeping the elo?

I for one try to judge every debate objectively.

As do I. Now, having said that, are we required to vote in every debate? Even debates that we either have no interest in or the ones we think run contrary to our personal beliefs? Yes or no?

Are we allowed to pick and choose the debates we want to read and or vote on? Yes or no?

After reading a debate or part of any debate, do we have the right to OPT OUT and to not vote on that debate? Yes or No?

Honestly if you're not interested in judging fairly or debating, well, maybe I agree with you that this might well not be a site for you.

Are you being intentionally dense?

Chuz Life: if and when a person (even subconsciously) opts to NOT vote at all in debates that they are either not interested in or when we feel it's in our best interest (for whatever the reason) to NOT vote at all?
The problem I have is with "whatever the reason". There are some reasons that may be legitimate, such as a conflict of interest. There are other reasons that are not legitimate, such as "the side I personally disagree with won". From a moderation perspective it's not something that's worth enforcing, or in fact, CAN be practically enforced, unless there is strong evidence to the effect. For example, if somebody always only gives a decision on man-made global warming debates and always gives it to the side that agrees global warming is man-made, and has a low judge feedback - then yeah, of course I'd talk to them and if I don't get a good excuse, I'd ask them to leave the site. I EXPECT everyone to judge on this site fairly and to the best of their ability, in return for me providing a large amount of leeway with the judgments themselves.

Again, are we or are we not permitted to pick and choose the debates that we want to read and vote on?
To a certain extent, yes, of course. Unless that privilege is abused to not give debaters in debates helpful, constructive judgements every time.

You seem oblivious to the fact (however) that we can still be "objective" personally and then keep it to ourselves by NOT voting.
Sure, but if somebody still only judges debates in favor of one particular side of a topic that's still going to send up red flags for me, right? Ultimately the very few users who do this only bring down the quality of judging and make edeb8 worse for everybody. That doesn't mean the outcome of debates is necessarily less objective, however. I'd charge that you're getting off track because what you're trying to prove is that Elo scores are not objective.

If you really believe that, show me where the members in mass are systematically voting against each their own personal beliefs.
You don't "systematically vote". You judge a debate. There's a big difference. If somebody had a system, that would be an issue.

Edeb8's sample size on this is far too small to draw useful conclusions - nonetheless I just ran a very quick statistical p-test, and based on people's answers in the issues section, there is no evidence people are generally biased in their judging, and some evidence of a lack of a correlation.

Even debates that we either have no interest in or the ones we think run contrary to our personal beliefs?
I'd say there's certainly a moral obligation, though I don't want to enforce a specific rule on it.

Prejudge much?
Not judging you ... just people who hold similar views to you with regards to debate could easily circumvent the system is all I'm saying.

Are you being intentionally dense?
No

Chuz Life: So, obviously the votes that ARE made will tend to fall in line with that reality.
Obviously? Heck, look at the monumental effort @nzlockie makes in all of his judgments. Typically they're considerably more detailed than even mine. And even on things he believes passionately in, such as his faith, he frequently goes the other way with his judgments.

Chuz Life: Just a question chuz. I concur that if you have bias to the level you do that it's best not to vote, but why would you say that you are not required to vote against your own bias. You may not be *required*, but you from an ethics standpoint you should want to judge a debate by who won and not based off your own personal opinion. I just don't get how you can claim the elo system has no merit because it's based on confirmation bias, but then adhere to confirmation bias yourself.

admin: But larz, with the method we mentioned are you willing to implement a chart or just part of the profile page that incorporates the elo from DDO?

Mikal: What kind of a chart?

admin: Well not chart, but add a DDO elo to our homepage

Mikal: Probably not outside of profile pages unless I had a compelling reason to put it there I guess.

admin: That's what I'm asking for, just below elo score on my profile page add a section that has like "Other elo score" or whatever you want to label it

Mikal: And that's on my feature request list. I'm talking to max and he's currently considering whether I should be allowed to multiaccount. He can be fickle with this kind of thing so I don't want to jump through any hoops just yet.

admin: My advice make a post on DDO , saying this is a feature you are going to add.

For now you are using your larz account, and if max determines it acceptable, there will be a dedicated account to do this on. It may draw people

Mikal: No I really need to keep my Larz account notifications going to me directly because of the tournament.

Also, if I do add the feature, it won't be for a week or two at least anyway. Got the major release on here tomorrow and of course the tournament needs running a lot, plus I've got two debates on and a lot of work right now.

admin: Fair enough

when you implement it, message me or post it and I will actually be active on here and help you anyway i can.

admin: Are you seriously adding this feature? It isn't often that I lose faith in the direction of the site.

Blackflag: You know Stag, you probably wouldn't even realize if I did.

Seriously, when one considers how many random features this site has just because one member wanted it... or even, because I thought it would be cool to try to program... most people just ignore them. And you can too. Heck, I'm making debate profiles right now only for you.

admin: You'll soon come to realize how wrong you have been regarding ELO policies