EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

"blocking" and voitng

< Return to subforum
admin
By admin | Nov 1 2014 6:46 AM
Response especially for whiteflame and plutarch:

I just did a test where I blocked the tester, and the tester was indeed barred from voting on my account's debates. So I'm 100% confident the blocking system is working.

Having said that, I won't retrospectively remove a vote from a blocked user unless there's a proven bug. That's because the timing is important. If they place a vote then get blocked, the block should not remove the vote. While I can verify the timing of the vote, I cannot verify, from my end, when the block was put in place.

What's more, out of fairness, a block does not take effect until a user opens a new page on edeb8. So if they were working on a big long vote, and don't open new pages all that time while some user in the debate blocks them, the block only starts taking effect once the vote they were working on has been placed.

Blocks do not currently apply to a few areas of the site, notably debate comments and vote comments. I'm thinking about adding those in.

Tell me any thoughts you have. :)
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 | Nov 1 2014 6:48 AM
Also, apologies for epic spelling error in title.
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!
Darth Vitiosus
By Darth Vitiosus | Nov 1 2014 12:55 PM
admin: Can blocking someone prevent them from debating you? One member throws a temper tantrum every time someone doesn't vote for her. I am considering blocking her and her incessant complaining.
admin
By admin | Nov 1 2014 1:09 PM
Darth Vitiosus: Should prevent that, yes

Having said that, definitely try talking to them first.

Also, what did you know about that spammer that I don't? Honestly, I need all the background info I can get.
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!
Darth Vitiosus
By Darth Vitiosus | Nov 1 2014 1:21 PM
admin: Too late. Either way, I don't think talking to them is going to make a difference since they have been doing this for as long as I have seen them debate. It just happens to be effecting me personally now since they are debating me. First person I blocked.

Terms of Use, let us just leave it at that. Therefore, I can't answer and won't answer anything related to yesterday's hacking event. I won't comment any further on this topic.
admin
By admin | Nov 1 2014 1:27 PM
Darth Vitiosus: That comment seriously freaks me out. Is it the edeb8 terms of use you're talking about? If so, can you at least say which specific provision of the terms of use prevents you from speaking out?
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!
whiteflame
By whiteflame | Nov 1 2014 1:43 PM
admin: I appreciate the explanation, Lars. I took a great deal of time to write up this most recent RFD, and I appreciate that it won't be removed. As I said under the comment itself, however, if Csareo can prove that it is biased by finding a reasonable person who agrees that that's the case, I'll remove it myself. In the meantime, if he wishes to treat the vote as hostile, that's his choice. I don't care much for the effect on my judge rating, but the presumed slam at my integrity matters more than my judge score.
Darth Vitiosus
By Darth Vitiosus | Nov 1 2014 2:08 PM
whiteflame: I have a strong distaste with your RFD reasoning but it was not biased from what I read. Leave your vote there.

Short Explanation of the RFD: I am a debater and go to regional competitions so I have an elitist opinion on debating. The only thing that matters is the resolution and the burden of proof. Who has better arguments is not relevant. It is strictly a matter if one has reached or held the burden of proof. This is why I tend to dislike debating here compared to DDO because the failure to understand this. Debaters in general will often go on tangents and off on non-relevant issues to the BOP or resolution. Then people here will vote on these same non-relevant issues and these tangents which have nothing to do with the resolution or the BOP. That is a problem.
whiteflame
By whiteflame | Nov 1 2014 2:25 PM
Darth Vitiosus: I'm a debater too, and I spent years going to regional competitions (and will probably be attending some this year). I have a decent idea of how resolutions work and how the BOP works. From what I saw in this debate, the only burden Csareo carried was to show that his case was, overall, net beneficial. He didn't present a clear case, I'll grant you that, and depending on the type of debate I choose to speak from, that is either a game breaker or a negligible issue. I decided that the decision came out the same either way, so I gave him the perspective that allowed me to evaluate the rest of the debate without immediately voting him down.

If you felt he really hadn't met his burdens, then it would have been worth your while to explain why, but all I see in your arguments is that he's straddling the line between overly vague and overly specific, and that that somehow shows that he hasn't met a standard BOP that you didn't present. The only mention of BOP I see is in your final round, and you don't actually explain what his burdens are and where he falls short in meeting them. I might have bought that argument if you had made it clear, but the only indication I was given of any BOP beforehand was that it comes from a straightforward comparison of net benefits.
admin
By admin | Nov 1 2014 2:31 PM
Darth Vitiosus: I say this as somebody who has been to international competitions: the way the term "burden of proof" is used on the internet, I have never seen a debate judged to that standard. It's a style thing more than it is a substantial difference on the part of debaters. Look at Worlds, and how countries like Australia always punch well above their weight despite a very different debating tradition than, say, the United States. You've got to believe me when I say that over here everybody judges like that.

It's ok not to like it. I'm not a fan of LD personally, for example. My philosophy is that you don't need to like every debating or judging culture, but just allow them to peacefully co-exist. Likewise if some judges judge differently, that's their choice.

Might be an interesting debate, which model is superior. Would be kind of meta to judge that debate though.

Still curious about TOU provision and you can believe that I'll keep bringing it up, because that could potentially be a huge risk for the site at large depending on your answer.
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 | Nov 1 2014 5:28 PM
Having said that, I won't retrospectively remove a vote from a blocked user unless there's a proven bug. That's because the timing is important. If they place a vote then get blocked, the block should not remove the vote. While I can verify the timing of the vote, I cannot verify, from my end, when the block was put in place.
I am 100% certain that the vote I reported was cast while a block was in effect.
Darth Vitiosus
By Darth Vitiosus | Nov 1 2014 9:10 PM
whiteflame: I am more confused when I actually went back to read his opening arguments. He didn't explain what he was arguing for and why. Now, I remember asking him why I wanted to know what was the purpose of the drug tests during the Cross-Examination period. He didn't explain this in either of his arguments so he had no premise. Nor did he explain what the drug tests actually consisted of. He was supposed to do this especially considering he was arguing in the affirmative of the resolution.

I believe that whoever is arguing in the affirmative for should definitely explain who has the burden of proof. It would be convenient if the opposing side explained but I think I skipped this for some strange reason in Round 1. I lazily just responded to whatever he posted in Round 1. This is a fault of mine considering I usually explain what I am arguing for/against and why.
Darth Vitiosus
By Darth Vitiosus | Nov 1 2014 9:16 PM
admin: That is your philosophy. Let us agree to disagree.

I don't find it acceptable for a debate to be discussing the 9/11 attacks and the Bilderberg group when the debate resolution is: "President Obama is a Great President." Especially in debates where debaters are allotted over 20 minutes to defend/argue their case.
whiteflame
By whiteflame | Nov 1 2014 9:24 PM
Darth Vitiosus: I'm not disagreeing with you, and I made it clear in my RFD that he had done exactly as you explain here. As I said, that could have been the sole basis for my vote, and it would have been a very short RFD that came to the same conclusion, except far more definitively. I wanted to evaluate the whole debate. If he had won that evaluation, I would have balanced that against the extreme vagueness of his first round, and likely voted for you anyway, but since that wasn't necessary, I gave a full RFD analyzing the arguments given.
Darth Vitiosus
By Darth Vitiosus | Nov 1 2014 11:09 PM
whiteflame: Thanks for your explanation.