Should ELO even exist?

Sometimes I think its presence is more harmful than it is helpful

Blackflag: Like you can still win and lose debates, but it seems kind of lame that we're scoring and ranking debaters talent.
Especially on a site meant to advertise improvement.

Blackflag: I think it's helpful, for several reasons.

1. It gives you something to work towards - a goal, if you will. Competition is generally a good way to improve.
2. It helps you understand the level of others. For example, if you're deciding whom to take on as a coach, their track record against other debaters may be relevant.
3. It helps, optionally, with preventing overly one-sided debate contests that are a chore for experienced debaters and off-putting for developing debaters (this is different from learning from experienced debaters).
4. It gives meaning to the win/loss record, in terms of each debater's relative experience.

Having ELO scores is different from drawing attention to them, which outside of the "top debaters" and "top teams" lists the site doesn't really do.

admin: It gives you something to work towards - a goal, if you will. Competition is generally a good way to improve
I just don't get why you need elo to do that. There's incentive to do challenging debates beyond elo.

It helps you understand the level of others. For example, if you're deciding whom to take on as a coach, their track record against other debaters may be relevant.
No matter how fair the elo equation is, there are always going to be those with an elo not reflective of their actual debating prowess. You can tell if people are good debaters simply by reviewing and reading their debates. Some people lose more debates than those who win a lot. Even if they put more energy, work, and skill into their losing debate. There are also those people who get so concerned about

It helps, optionally, with preventing overly one-sided debate contests that are a chore for experienced debaters and off-putting for developing debaters (this is different from learning from experienced debaters).
Isn't it an option to take a debate in the first place?

It gives meaning to the win/loss record, in terms of each debater's relative experience.
There are better ways to measure a debaters experience.

Okay, now here are the problems
1. It creates division in the community. Elitism will develop between self styled good and bad debaters.
2. It discourages risk and challenge. People on "the site whose name shall not be mentioned" would make the weirdest rules to push the debate in their favor. A lot of tricks were used with the motivation of gaining more elo.
3. It sends the wrong message of what our community is about. Competition here is friendly for the most part, but rankings kind of force competition. You know there are tons of people who get to caught up on their rank. Everyone wants to feel good about themselves, and it can demotivate a couple of users to see their elo drop.

People will draw attention to elo scores themselves. I think they are a good idea that didn't work out so well. Maybe we should minimize ratings significantly?

btw
http://www.edeb8.com/debate/That+Edeb8+shouldn%27t+have+ELO+rankings+/

Blackflag: You don't need elo to be the challenge, but it's a legitimate form of self-improvement in debating.
Elo may not be perfect but it is a better indicator than not having elo scores.
Taking a debate is optional but if you are unfamiliar with the prior experience of another debater then that may dissuade some debaters, and if it doesn't, make the debate unhelpful.
If you believe their are better, objective measures of experience I'd be keen to hear them.

Elo has never created division in the community, or any other community that uses elo far more extensively than edeb8 does. You don't see chess grandmasters mocking chess masters for having marginally lower elo scores.
Elo is not self-styled. It is an indicator of objective past performance in debates.
Taking risks is an effective way to gain elo. Bigger gains are only earned by winning underdog debates, but stronger debaters are less likely to take debates with unreasonable rules. As such this tactic would not be effective.
Competition and friendly competition are not exclusive.
Losing debates in general can be demotivating. Elo has nothing to do with that.

What are you actually suggesting here? Doing away with leaderboards?

admin: You don't need elo to be the challenge, but it's a legitimate form of self-improvement in debating
Elo doesn't cause self improvement. The will to self improve does. If elo is your motivation to improve, then you're doing it for the wrong reasons.

Taking a debate is optional but if you are unfamiliar with the prior experience of another debater then that may dissuade some debaters, and if it doesn't, make the debate unhelpful.
It is important to talk to people you want to debate before you debate them. The harms of elo make it a better alternative just to review old debates.

If you believe their there are better, objective measures of experience I'd be keen to hear them
Yes, it is called reviewing older debates. There isn't much need to measure experience anyways.

Elo has never created division in the community, or any other community that uses elo far more extensively than edeb8 does. You don't see chess grandmasters mocking chess masters for having marginally lower elo scores.
That isn't true. On DDO it was either endless bragging or endless mocking about elo.

Elo is not self-styled. It is an indicator of objective past performance in debates.
Except it isn't actually reliable. Don't get me started about the people who are influenced by elo when judging.

Taking risks is an effective way to gain elo. Bigger gains are only earned by winning underdog debates, but stronger debaters are less likely to take debates with unreasonable rules. As such this tactic would not be effective.
The risk of going up against a better debater. Not the risk of taking challenges and harder stances.

Losing debates in general can be demotivating. Elo has nothing to do with that.
Yes it does. It is more demotivating to lose with elo than without it. For the same reasons you argue people would take bigger risks.

What are you actually suggesting here? Doing away with leaderboards?
Do away with the useless number that is elo.

If you want an alternative to elo, I would suggest a customizable debating portfolio that is attached to your profile.

Blackflag: While learning is certainly a big part of debating, for those who see it more as a competition, I don't see that as being the "wrong reasons". I for one am part of the group that sees debate more like a sport.

Talking to people before you debate them is not the only valid mechanism here. Elo scores may not precisely correspond to who can beat who, but it is a very robust and accurate system, which is why it is so widely adopted by many sports and other disciplines.

Reviewing older debates is already built in as a feature to this site. There is no need to add that. It also isn't particularly objective.

Just because you don't need to measure experience does not mean it is illegitimate if somebody else does.

If you quit judging ELO by the standard of DDO (which uses a gross simplification of the ELO formula anyway), and rather compare it to any other code, you'll probably see what I mean. If ELO ever were to become as big of an issue as on DDO I may reconsider but right now the ONLY person making an issue of it is you.

ELO is very reliable anywhere where past performance in some way is predictive of future performance. It's good because the more data it has, the more accurate it becomes, while also being flexible enough to change quite rapidly if your performance changes.

Having a lower elo means you have significantly less to lose by going up against a better debater, and more to gain. If anything, sometimes people refuse to engage with those who have lower elo scores, not higher as you claim, because those with lower scores have less to lose and more to gain from winning.

I totally fail to see your point about demotivation because of the potential to earn more points by challenging better debaters. If somebody wants to earn points, then it's an incentive to take risks, which apparently you support. If they don't then they won't be marginally demotivated by the loss of points.

I for one find it very useful. I fail to see any reason why you can't just ignore the number if it doesn't suit you.

Blackflag: How would this look different from the current "debates" tab?

admin: The current debates tab isn't a personalized portfolio of past experience, debating theory, and won/lossed debates. There isn't much reason for elo if you include that.

Blackflag: Maybe I should ask this instead. In what ways would you be able to personalize it?

admin: Almost like a debating bio. It shows won + lossed debates. A summary of past experience. Other uses can include comments about debate experience.

admin: Almost like a wiki page, but tagged on to the profile. Anything but elo, the judge of who's good and who's not.

Blackflag: Well currently we show won/lost debates. Would this be basically like an extra bio section on top of that for listing debate experience?

admin: Yes, something like that. Almost like a wiki page presented on the profile about the debater.