OFFICIAL FEATURE REQUEST THREAD

Blackflag: Just a few of my thoughts. I hope other people read this and comment too. PLEASE, other people, I like a lot of these ideas but I'd like more community discussion too.

In NZ/Australia for World Schools or Australs-like systems of debate, we mark 40% on matter (whether your argument was any good), 40% on manner (how you present that argument) and 20% on strategy (how well your team worked together to build up their argument in the context of the debate). Almost all other countries tend to prioritize matter a lot more. The format used in the judging manual you mentioned seems like a very close cousin of Australs style which is interesting - they even have reply speeches. Nevertheless I don't think alternative models of dealing with or weighting the issues in the debate are necessarily poor even though they may be inconsistent. So any kind of system must make room for any given valid judging style, on any given debate. This is why I do feel it needs to be as open and permissive as possible - if structure wasn't relevant to the decision, I don't see why the judge must assign a winner based only on structure. It only gets in the way.

I like the idea of indicating top judges somehow. In fact if you go to a judgement done by one of the top 10 judges on the site, they now have "TOP JUDGE" written next to their name.

I'm thinking about this. I DO think the judging could be improved, and I agree with a lot of csareo's points. In fact, most of them.
I'm not sure about the suggested implementation of them, that's the part I'm thinking about- but I agree that some more structure would probably result in more voting, which is a good think.
I also like the idea of someone who consistently gives bad votes, being penalised in some way. Having their vote count for less would seem like a fair system.

I like the large space we have for RFD, and I think the feedback form has worked well for the most part, generally resulting in good quality feedback. I also like the fact the whole thing can be changed and edited.

I think my preferred system would be prompted points for matter and presentation, (40% each) and then the extra points for RFD and probably Feedback - only to encourage people to do it.
It might even be worth trialling no points for RFD and Feedback for a while and see if it has an affect on the quality of what people write.

Not sure I'm a fan of points for strategy. I would love to hear people views on strategy, but to be awarded points on it? No thanks.

nzlockie: Strategy points make sense in the context of teams or debates where role fulfillment is important (ie BP-style). For 1v1 debates you're right. In practice, I've pretty much never seen a team win a debate on strategy.

admin: In NZ/Australia for World Schools or Australs-like systems of debate, we mark 40% on matter (whether your argument was any good), 40% on manner (how you present that argument) and 20% on strategy (how well your team worked together to build up their argument in the context of the debate)
Stray away from prioritizing manners. Have you seen the conduct and source points on debate.org? Here are a couple things you can do...
1. Create several judging systems, and allow the debate instigator to decide which one to use.
2. Use one formal judging system, while also keeping the "feedback and commentary" boxes.
3. Allow the judge to choose which judging style to use (really like this idea)
4. Do a combination of 1 and 3, where the judge can select which style to vote on, unless the debate creator chooses one specific style.

Never remove feedback, please!!!

I think option 3 allows for the "permissive" feel, while also granting the privilege of good votes.

I like the idea of indicating top judges somehow. In fact if you go to a judgement done by one of the top 10 judges on the site, they now have "TOP JUDGE" written next to their name
Good improvement! Several things I would like to see.......
1. More options for rating a vote
2. Wricriw was a big advocate for "discussion" on decisions and debates. Perhaps commenting on votes can work?
3. Please punish bad voters! Moderate their votes before they count towards a debate.

Idea One: Video Debates
I REALLY, really, really want to see video debates formatted differently. I hate the scroll down way of doing it. I think videos should be clearly centered on the top of the page.

Obviously debates wont be live, so a good idea would be to press a button to show the videos from each round.

Idea Two: Coaching Reform
I originally wanted coaches scrapped, do to a lack of work on them. A couple reforms I think can work....
1. Remove coaching applications after one month.
2. Have a score called "coaching rating" that goes up and down pending their trainee's win
3. Allow the debate creator to set a "coaching" round, where the coach can give 1000 character feedback between rounds
4. In relation to number one, perhaps the coaching rating can also be affected by having people score their performance in the "coaching" round, in the same manner as vote rating.

Idea Three: Translation
Self explanatory. Thanks to google lab code, you can translate this site for other languages in under an hour

Idea Four: Site Clean Up
I'm worried about this site becoming to cluttered, like debate.org. Ideally, everything should look neat, orderly, and well structured. A couple things you may want to reconsider....
1. Moving leader boards from the front page to a separate page titled "leaderboards"
2. Deleting forfeit debates "Don't keep these", as they are worthless to look at and clutter the site with bad debates. Some debates do go on awhile before a forfeit, so it should be a case by case basis.
3. Delete forums that don't meet a certain post count, and still lock up.

Idea Five: Community Involvement
I really like how this site is based around community. Lars, serious kudos to you. You are responsive, helpful, and do everything in your power to please our site members. I will stay on this site for a long time, and I know if you keep at it, this will become a bustling site, and you can even make a couple $ out of it if you really try. I lied, and there isn't actually an idea here, but I know that the culture here shouldn't evaporate.
1. Do everything in your power to keep this site on a friendly path
2. Don't tolerate trolls or extremely bad debaters (who use extremely bad tactics/not reasoning/not logic)
3. Evaporate the winning culture. Debaters should not leave or feel threatened by having bad ELO.

Idea Six: Hiding ELO
I have heard from dozens of users that others "don't consider them to be serious debaters", "vote based on who's better in the past", "judged by their elo", ect.
Hiding ELO wouldn't be so bad, would it? Even if that person is in the top 10, just show it as "hidden". I know that this will fulfill point three in idea 5.

Blackflag: wow.....that's a lot of stuff.

A lot of good stuff. Nice work.
I also like the new dashboard.

Blackflag: Among the judging options I most like option 2.

1. More options for rating a vote
What else would you like to see?

Perhaps commenting on votes can work?
Interesting thought. I'd prefer messaging voters on votes personally, but this is feasible if there's demand for it.

Please punish bad voters! Moderate their votes before they count towards a debate.
I generally am wary of anything that allows you to restrict the user features of somebody else. That seems to open up pathways for abuse. If a vote is really, really bad, I'm sure that people will contact me about it, and you can be sure that I will take action.

I'm thinking to adding a link to a "how to vote" article on the voting form just giving some general guidelines, especially to newbies.

I REALLY, really, really want to see video debates formatted differently. I hate the scroll down way of doing it.
I'll work on this at some point.

Remove coaching applications after one month.
Like it. I'll remove team applications after a period of time too. Probably more like 5 months than 1 though.

Have a score called "coaching rating" that goes up and down pending their trainee's win
Not sure if I like this. If a trainee loses a few debates that doesn't necessarily mean the coaching was bad.

Allow the debate creator to set a "coaching" round, where the coach can give 1000 character feedback between rounds
You have no idea how much complexity this would entail.

Thanks to google lab code, you can translate this site for other languages in under an hour
NO. TERRIBLE IDEA. I can't moderate in foreign languages, so therefore the site does not allow anybody to type stuff in foreign languages, and violators of that rule are warned and banned. Makes no sense to translate the text if the site is only available in English.

Moving leader boards from the front page to a separate page titled "leaderboards"
Maybe. That page would be awfully small though. It would feel like it would need more content.

Deleting forfeit debates
We keep forfeit debates, but I used to hide them more from the main page. Can't remember why I stopped now. There was some reason.

Delete forums that don't meet a certain post count
Do you think we have too many forums now?

Evaporate the winning culture. Debaters should not leave or feel threatened by having bad ELO.
I know. Changing a culture is hard though. I do welcome ideas.

Hiding ELO
While I like the sentiment behind this, you can pretty much work out ELO based on ranking and win count. I'll look into allowing a debater to specify their account as "unranked" but then issues come into play with min/max elo for accepting a debate.

What else would you like to see?
Bad for starters
I generally am wary of anything that allows you to restrict the user features of somebody else. That seems to open up pathways for abuse. If a vote is really, really bad, I'm sure that people will contact me about it, and you can be sure that I will take action.
This is what airmax kept saying. To this day it is an endless cycle of deleting 100's of bad votes
NO. TERRIBLE IDEA. I can't moderate in foreign languages, so therefore the site does not allow anybody to type stuff in foreign languages, and violators of that rule are warned and banned. Makes no sense to translate the text if the site is only available in English.
Right click, translate
Maybe. That page would be awfully small though. It would feel like it would need more content.
There are several leaderboards already. Can't you just add more.
You have no idea how much complexity this would entail.
How about the coach can do it while the other debater is waiting to make an argument??? It seems extremely simple.
Do you think we have too many forums now?
Why keep valueless forums around to begin with?

Blackflag: Bad for starters
That's a super-subjective term. This is why I prefer either vote bomb or biased.

This is what airmax kept saying. To this day it is an endless cycle of deleting 100's of bad votes
The difference is that I don't delete bad votes. I talk to bad voters and encourage them to learn to vote, or leave only 1 point decisions with no RFD, or leave the site. It's pretty simple. I even have a pre-written template that I just initially send out, so it takes me about 5 seconds to do this.

The only type of vote I would delete is one that violated edeb8's content guidelines.

Right click, translate
Even if this were 100% accurate, it's still too much of a hassle to moderate. Particularly since when I'm moderating I'm looking directly at the database, not at the actual post on the website.

There are several leaderboards already. Can't you just add more.
What else do you want to see ranked on edeb8? I don't want to do something like DDO with their forum leaderboard and such, because that just incentivises last posting etc.

Why keep valueless forums around to begin with?
Well, which forums are valueless.

It seems extremely simple.
You had better believe me when I say that the single hardest thing to change about edeb8 is the structure of the debates. debate.php is by far the most complex code I've ever written for this reason.

admin: Also with translation, in addition to moderation difficulties, I'm not sure I could legally do it with my web host. I'd have to talk to them. They moderate edeb8 as well to check we don't have illegal stuff hiding on here.

admin: Also it costs $20 https://developers.google.com/translate/v2/pricing

On a quick side note, I like the formatting of the quoted text.nice work.

admin: Why don't you buy your own domains, and maintain them yourselves?

You can buy a domain for a little over 10:00$.
http://www.godaddy.com/domains/searchresults.aspx?isc=gofd2001al&ci=83269

Well, which forums are valueless.
These ones

Blackflag: It is my own domain, but to buy my own server would make this site:

1) much, much slower since I don't have a dedicated line
2) the cost of buying the server itself would still be borne by me, as well as ongoing maintenance and utilities costs

So I have to host it with a web host if I want to keep my budget for the site to less than $100/year lol.

Blackflag: So you're saying I should just remove all the forums?

admin: It is my own domain, but to buy my own server would make this site:
So you own the domain, but not the server?
Okay, I understand.

admin: Forums that have under 10 posts, and haven't been active for three months, should delete.

Blackflag: Yeah. More accurately, I rent part of the server, but they as the virtual landlord may come by from time to time to check I haven't broken the law or anything.