Why we should not have elo

1. It creates division in the community. It creates a feeling of superiority at debating in the community for people with high elo. For people with low elo, it can and usually does cause them to lose self esteem, and shy away from debating. Take this to heart: if someone is constantly reminded they suck at something, they will eveventually quit. Elo, however you sugarcoat it, is still a ranking of status in our community. This only comes with negative impacts.

2. Elo decentivizes taking risk. I have studied this in depth on DDO. People will take less risky stances and will be more protective over the flow of the debate. This will reduce the level of creative topics on the site, and make them less interesting.

Refuting admin

1. ELO does not create friendly competition. Friendly competition is undertaken under the guide of friendship and mutual interest in having fun. Elo takes its place outside the realm of friendly competition. It makes people focus on ranking and status over friendship and having fun. Elo, if anything, motivates malicious debate.
Competition is not influenced in one way by elo, much less a positive one.

2. Everytime we have this discussion, admin brings up that elo's primary purpose is to create an easy way to see the skill of other debaters. Elo is a number.It will never be a good representation of a debates skill. Never. I. Repeat. By telling people it is, we are promoting the judgment of debaters by their assigned number and not their actual skill. It also alienates high elo debaters from low elo debaters, as eventually they will have nothing to gain by taking low elo challengers.This means there will be absolutely no forward mobility for people with drowned elo.

Typed by phone

Blackflag: 1. Fine. To prove my point, would you like me to set my elo to zero and yours to a million? Would that make you feel like a god? Do you think it would make me feel like a peasant and leave the site?

2. Why? A less risky position isn't always a more likely to win one. I mean, I've taken some pretty extreme stances on this site before.

3. You misread my point. I meant it in the sense of "well, that guy has over 200 less elo than me, so I might want to find another opponent more suited to my level", not "haha, I can nab 25 elo points if I beat that guy!" The influence on elo on competition is a leveling one, so debaters who win often are paired against each other more. I've actually wanted to further restrict the default elo restriction on debates for that reason but I've abstained so far.

4a. Just because it isn't perfect isn't a reason to scrap it. This site isn't perfect in general but I won't shut edeb8 down because of that.
4b. There is no evidence that judges on this site don't read debates and just vote for elo.

BTW, my work on edeb8=
55% creating features
44% defending the creation of those features to people who want me to remove them
1% misc. moderation, answering questions etc.

Blackflag: Also, kinda ironic, you are the ONLY person who's ever expressed any kind of problem to me with their elo number (a few early bugs aside)

admin: Nicely put. I think any person, little kid or otherwise, who has low self esteem because of a low elo score has bigger issues than debating or elo scores. Way bigger issues.

sea_shell: While I appreciate the sentiment, this is kinda personal-attack-ish and might be cool to avoid. I'm sure Stag only has the best interests of the site as a whole at heart. Stay classy.

I might not be the norm but I honestly don't mind taking odd positions regardless of whether it affects my ELO or not.

admin: 1. No, but on sites like DDO, people with extremely high elos have developed superiority complexes. And yes, it does negatively effect those with lower elo.
2. Yes, but you are also not the common breed, and you may be a bit biased since you have a high elo. I can ensure you from my experience, it causes people to be ore protective over their topics.
3. There are a million better ways to judge someones debating prowess over elo. Elo does nothing but cause people to perceive other debaters solely on the number. I am not going to cry over people who actually have to read a debate to see someones skill. I simply am not a fan of dividing people into elo social classes, and I will take the loss quite well.
4. I'm not claiming it is perfect. Rather incredibly pointless with a few negative side effects.

admin: I am the only person who is vocal about it. Regarding DDO, there are a 1000 more like me.

I might not be the norm but I honestly don't mind taking odd positions regardless of whether it affects my ELO or not.

Blackflag: 1. You sure that's not just DDO culture?
2. You sure that's not just DDO culture?
3. Name one.
4. You've just made this point circular

admin: 1/2. Yes, as I felt the effects here a little. The question is how DDO culture was created. Probably because of stupid things like elo.
3. READING debates
4. My position is that elo is pointless with a few negative side effects. Therefore I do not believe it should exist.

Blackflag: 1/2. Probably not. I remember DDO well before ELO and such. Don't tell me elitism did not exist. When do you ever see Magnus Carlsen say "nah sorry, I'm too good for all of you because I set Elo records!" ?

3. So you think to judge somebody's debating prowess the best statistic is a subjective evaluation of every single debate they've done in the past?

4. Yes but these subpoints are supposed to be explanations for why, not re-stating your conclusion.

admin: I hear what you're saying. By the sounds of it, stag wasn't talking about himself, I have no idea what anyone's elo is. I just hate when anyone talks about not doing things where people might not measure up to others and that it will affect people's self esteem. I find it a little pathetic. It's like how some countries no longer have awards for younger kids, or placings for sports, and just have 'participation awards'. Blugh.

sea_shell: OK then, I totally agree.

Okay, here is something way more productive. Answer these questions with a fresh response.
1. Why do we need ELO?
2. If it is not perfect, then for what reasons?
3. How do you propose fixing it?
4. If you had to find an alternative, what would it be?

Blackflag: 1. For reasons described many times previously. I'm not going to spend my time coming up with a fresh set of reasons every time you demand it. If I'm being evasive, it's because I want to add more things to the site and I'm trying to get to that asap.
2. Because it has the limitations of all statistical metrics.
3. I don't propose fixing it. I don't see why you campaign against Elo but have never said a word against the win rate. Elo scores were created specifically to fix the win rate problem. So far as I'm concerned, elo is the best replacement to win rate, given everything humanity knows about statistics at this point in time.
4. Not having user profiles.

Blackflag: You can place me on that list. For all the reasons you have indicated and more. I find the negative downside to elo rankings to be more of a detriment to a site - even with all of the upsides being taken into consideration.