EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

A message to the users of Edb8

< Return to subforum
Page: 145678Most Recent
admin
By admin | May 27 2015 10:46 AM
Blackflag: Genuine question. Why does everyone capitalize every letter in Elo like it's some kind of abbreviation? Are you all trying to indicate that you're shouting the word or something?
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
nzlockie
By nzlockie | May 27 2015 12:36 PM
admin: Haha I always assumed it stood for something!

So I'm guessing it's an actual word then?
How is it pronounced? "ee-low"?
admin
By admin | May 27 2015 12:40 PM
nzlockie: El-oh. It's the name of a famous statistician / chess player from Hungary who wanted to see who he was better than. So the capitalization rules are the same as for any other proper name.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
admin
By admin | May 27 2015 12:43 PM
admin: I've heard ee-low before too though, I imagine either way is probably not disrespectful or anything.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Mikal
By Mikal | May 28 2015 2:19 AM
admin: Elo and Spanish and English is the same :)
Chuz Life
By Chuz Life | May 28 2015 3:42 PM
admin: 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".

Then you are going to have rules that require members to vote on every debate.

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.

As I said earlier. You (Mods) have no way to know what the reasons a member chooses NOT to vote on a debate might be. You can't even know for certain that a debate has actually been read by a particular member.

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.

You have just confirmed many suspicions about how your site is structured in favor of popular opinion. I notice that you make no mention of the voter's RFD or whether it has any merits. Their vote simply must conform to the opinions of the majority or they must be ready to give you a good additional reason for why they voted against that majority. . . or for why they have this distinctive pattern.

In short, you want to force or to compel members to vote the way YOU think they should.

Isn't that called fascism? Also, the comment about having a negative feedback score only reaffirms the "appeal to popularity" components to this site. If a person always voted a particular way in every debate about a certain subject. . . but they a healthy POSITIVE feedback? What then?

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.

That is the part that bothers me most. You are ASSuming that a member who abstains from voting on some debates (those that conflict with a particular belief) can not vote 'fairly' or objectively on debates which might support that belief.

You seem incapable of accepting the fact that most of us are not inclined or compelled to vote on debates that we either have no interest in or when we don't want to vote against a personal belief and in doing so, discourage a member who shares our views..

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?

So, a person who supports gay marriage - has to occasionally vote on debates that favor the opposition to gay marriage. . . or they might raise some "red flags." Right?

I'd charge that you're getting off track because what you're trying to prove is that Elo scores are not objective.

You've pretty much confirmed that one yourself.

show me where the members in mass are systematically habitually voting against each their own personal beliefs.

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.

You have yet to explain how abstaining from voting can actually serve to "circumvent" the system.

In a presidential election where the candidate of my party is clearly the weaker candidate and I would rather ABSTAIN from voting than to support his (our) political opponent. . . what part of the system is being "circumvented" by my decision to "opt out?"

Answer: NONE
The Supreme Court needs to explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under one law but not under any others.
Chuz Life
By Chuz Life | May 28 2015 3:59 PM
Mikal: I concur that if you have bias to the level you do that it's best not to vote,

Bias (by definition) tends to manifest itself by treating someone "unfairly." Who is being treated unfairly, when a person decides to abstain from casting a vote?

Why would you say that you are not required to vote against your own bias .

I wouldn't say that. Bias is your word. I used the word "beliefs." And, it simply a statement of fact. We (members) are not required to VOTE at all. So, we are permitted to "not vote" for any reason we choose.

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 dare say that most people have no desire to vote on subjects that they have no interests in or in cases where they would be voting against their own beliefs. Why do you see that as unethical?

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.

1. That's not been my claim
2. There are many reasons for why I challenge the legitimacy of the elo system. Would you like to revisit some of your own comments about the elo that you made as 'president' of DDO?

The Supreme Court needs to explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under one law but not under any others.
nzlockie
By nzlockie | May 28 2015 4:28 PM
Chuz Life: Chuz, I think you have some things completely wrong here and other things I think you have a right understanding of Admin's position on, but you just disagree with him.

To boil it down, nobody is REQUIRED to vote - as in, nobody will be forced to vote on every debate. That being said, voting/judging debates is a crucial part of what keeps this site going. If someone declares by their words or actions that they are not willing to vote at all, then that's a problem. Especially if said person is also not willing to actually participate in a debate either.
If that person is here purely to argue in the forums, then there are other sites that would facilitate that far better.

When it comes to your specific voting issues there is a critical thing you need to understand about debate on this site. We are not here to decide what is right and wrong.
This is a debate site. Here we participate in the sport of debate. It is not about the side you advocate for, or what the issue is, it is about how well you argued that position relative to your opponent.
In short, it's a game.
As such, it completely ruins it if you as a judge will only award points when you feel the side that best represents you has beaten their opponent. This gives a completely lopsided judgement.

Do you HAVE to vote for an opposing side at least once? No, of course not. BUT it looks suspicious when the same side wins all the time. By the law of averages, that really can't happen.
People start to question whether you are voting based on the arguments presented, or on whether you're basing it on those + your own arguments. Obviously the opposition can't defend against YOUR arguments, because you weren't in the debate in the first place!

To sum up, I'm just asking myself, why you are here on this site. You are more than welcome, of course - however if you won't judge and you won't debate - this site doesn't really offer anything to you.
I'd encourage you to start soft. Just start voting on a bunch of debates. Give a well reasoned RFD that shows that you've read the debate and are basing your judgement on purely that. Then offer some helpful feedback to both sides.
Blackflag
By Blackflag | May 28 2015 7:29 PM
Do you HAVE to vote for an opposing side at least once? No, of course not. BUT it looks suspicious when the same side wins all the time. By the law of averages, that really can't happen.
People start to question whether you are voting based on the arguments presented, or on whether you're basing it on those + your own arguments. Obviously the opposition can't defend against YOUR arguments, because you weren't in the debate in the first place!

Well he actually said he chooses not to judge debates in which his side lost earlier as he doesn't want to discourage people who support his views. Still don't like the idea, but it is his right.

To sum up, I'm just asking myself, why you are here on this site. You are more than welcome, of course - however if you won't judge and you won't debate - this site doesn't really offer anything to you.
Probably to debate on the forums. I have no problem with him doing that. Why are you guys such sticklers about it?
Blackflag
By Blackflag | May 28 2015 7:32 PM
Their vote simply must conform to the opinions of the majority or they must be ready to give you a good additional reason for why they voted against that majority. . . or for why they have this distinctive pattern.

In short, you want to force or to compel members to vote the way YOU think they should.

Not true. No judgement will ever be removed from Edeb8 unless it contains obscenities or porn. In fact, this is one site in which you can not even write a reason for your judgement. I have also made some controversial judgements on the site which have personally gotten high ratings from admin, the person you are accusing of trying to conform judging. Admin does a lot of things wrong. Treating people fairly and respecting the integrity of debate are some of the things he does very well.
Blackflag
By Blackflag | May 28 2015 7:33 PM
Post Edit: You have a choice not to write a reasoning for your judgement
Chuz Life
By Chuz Life | May 28 2015 9:07 PM
nzlockie: To boil it down, nobody is REQUIRED to vote - as in, nobody will be forced to vote on every debate.

I said that.

If someone declares by their words or actions that they are not willing to vote at all, then that's a problem. Especially if said person is also not willing to actually participate in a debate either.

Ummm, I have never made such a declaration. Also, I have already voted once and have issued a debate challenge myself.

If that person is here purely to argue in the forums, then there are other sites that would facilitate that far better.

This site is not harmed in any way by members who participate in the forums only. . . nor is it harmed by those who simply lurk.

We are not here to decide what is right and wrong.

TRUE!

However (and this is key), as members are permitted to pick and choose which debates they may WANT to vote on. . . members can be (I think WILL be) selective and as a result, they will vote more on debates that represent a personal view.

For example, a member who favors gay marriage being legalized will be far more inclined to vote on debates where the stronger debater advances gay marriages. . . than they might be inclined to vote on a debate where the better / stronger debater is making arguments AGAINST gay marriage.

The Supreme Court needs to explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under one law but not under any others.
admin
By admin | May 28 2015 9:33 PM
Chuz Life: I think I'll boil this down to a few key points.

1. I have better things to do than moderate a massive forum community. My only goal is to make this the best debate site it can be.
2. If you think personal bias is a problem with debate, then rather than complain about it, how about you try to solve the problem by encouraging people to judge debates when the side they disagree with won? This kind of attitude really hurts the site, and it's something I've directly tried to challenge in various ways on here.
3. That being said, there's good evidence that it doesn't happen on this site outside of your head.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Chuz Life
By Chuz Life | May 29 2015 7:46 AM
admin: 1. I have better things to do than moderate a massive forum community. My only goal is to make this the best debate site it can be.

1. You are the one who created the forums section of your site.
2. I never asked for you to make it 'massive' or for you to moderate it.
3. I understand that you want the best "debate" site that you can create. I would like to see that happen too. . . which is why I and other suggest keeping the elo system out of it. Also, I would be interested in seeing what you think the best / most ideal debate site would look like.

If you think personal bias is a problem with debate, then rather than complain about it, how about you try to solve the problem by encouraging people to judge debates when the side they disagree with won?

You still don't even understand my position on this at all. . . do you? Have you not read any of my posts at all? I never said that personal bias is the problem on this site. Neither did I say it's a problem on DDO. And I certainly don't care to "encourage people to judge debates when the side they disagree with won." I support their right to abstain from voting in those situations - if that is what they want to do.

there's good evidence that it doesn't happen on this site outside of your head.

You clearly still don't even know what my complaints and concerns are.

Amazing.
The Supreme Court needs to explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under one law but not under any others.
admin
By admin | May 29 2015 7:47 AM
Chuz Life: Have you not read any of my posts at all? I never said that personal bias is the problem on this site.

....

members are permitted to pick and choose which debates they may WANT to vote on. . . members can be (I think WILL be) selective and as a result

How is this not a bias? Or are you saying it's not personal?
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Chuz Life
By Chuz Life | May 29 2015 7:53 AM
admin: OMFG!

When I stated the fact that "[members are permitted to pick and choose which debates they may WANT to vote on. . . members can be (I think WILL be) selective and as a result" it was NOT a complaint. It's an observation. And I said it in my defense against those who think I vote unfairly - simply because I generally don't vote at all in debates that my political opponents think I should be voting in.
The Supreme Court needs to explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under one law but not under any others.
admin
By admin | May 29 2015 8:02 AM
Chuz Life: "Political opponents"? You think this is a political game?

Look, I'm not interested in starting a forum war. @Stag tried this with me and I rage-quit the forums for a week. THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL FIGHT! I believe deeply in the importance of keeping debates as impartial as possible. I have literally dedicated months, probably more than a year of my life specifically to that cause. You're just sitting there all smug saying "nah that's not how it is", in face of everything I've done and accomplished. When you do that, you make me sick. It's an insult to me and an insult to this site.

I can't stand this discussion anymore. I'm leaving this thread.

All I will say to conclude is that if you're not here to participate in debating as a "sport" as nzlockie put it, then you probably won't last here long anyway.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Blackflag
By Blackflag | May 29 2015 8:08 AM
Calm down guys. @admin hasn't said anything wrong and neither has Chuz Life, you both need to stop making this personal. I personally think this is a productive conversation.

Anyways, @admin, if you don't want to resolve the issue with Chuz Life just answer this one question for me. Do you think it is acceptable to only judge debates in which the side you support in real life won? Does this ruin the impartiality of the debate?
admin
By admin | May 29 2015 8:12 AM
Blackflag: Only in the circumstance that all other debates you don't judge, you can't judge for some other reason. Or in other words, your real life beliefs should never be a criteria for deciding which debates to judge.

In response to your second "one" question, yes in a system based on judge feedback.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Blackflag
By Blackflag | May 29 2015 8:14 AM
admin: Only in the circumstance that all other debates you don't judge, you can't judge for some other reason. Or in other words, your real life beliefs should never be a criteria for deciding which debates to judge.
That is a very interesting position. So should Chuz Life have the right to choose to only judge debates in which anti-abortionists had won or should he be reprimanded for not judging in favor of a pro-abortionist every once in a while?
Page: 12345678Most Recent