Open call for ideas on future debates

reply to post by 74Templar

The stars and flags system works somewhat, but just to clarify, you are proposing the winner is based on the sole number of stars they receive in a thread as the outright winner?

Not exactly. The debaters will get stars on their posts, true, but that's not the sole determinate. The three member judges residing over the debate will each make a post at the end of the debate and they will each get stars as well. The winner is decided by the judges (three insures no tie decisions), who look at the number of stars each of the opponents vote got, how well the debaters handled themselves, etc., and then post their decision, and why. In the case a debate is too close for the judges to easily decide, stars would then be used as a final determinant. (The stars totaled up from the opponent's posts and from the judge's posts.)

I think all the volunteer judges would be fair and unbiased.

reply to post by OpinionatedB

I like your idea of a panel of three judges per debate, actually it was something I was going to suggest anyway. What we need to do is look for the best debaters in the forum, and see if they wont judge debates. Debate is something that is an art unto itself, and those who know best the art should be the ones judging it. We have wonderful debaters on the forums also who are not necessarily a part of the debate forum, one in particular who comes into mind here is Slayer69.

That's why I'm emphasizing volunteers. The fighters who volunteer decide to contribute a small amount of their time to also judging. We could recruit other members, and that is the whole point of getting the debates going again, to produce a re-newed interest, and to get more people involved.

Without volunteering, I wouldn't expect another member to embrace the commitment.

rather than putting all our eggs in one basket, we should have two or three panels of judges, so that one group of people is not taking all of their time in just judging the debates.

That's why I'm suggesting before a debate thread is created, the opponents and three judges have already been decided. This is submitted to The Vagabond (or Mod creating the debate thread), for their approval, before the debate starts. The opponents will be listed in the thread opening, as well as the three judges that volunteered.

I am more than comfortable being judged by either the Mod or my fellow members. I perceive in either case, judging will be professional and honest.

For now, my suggestion is that we all pitch in and either message Vagabond (or comment in the threads he opens) with our critisizims/kudos for the debates with our reasoning, and this would make it easier for Vagabond to decide a winner until we have some set judging panels

Well, that's the problem. The Vagabond is being inundated with debate requests (full inbox!), plus the need to create said threads, (time consuming), and then, after that, is responsible for reading EVERY debate. As far as I know, he's the only mod dedicated right now to the debates. That's a lot of work, and leaves little time for personal life, and well as the other moderating duties he has. I didn't even address the responsibility of needing to PM other mods to get their decisions, so to state simply, running the debate forum is a full time job, and leaves little time for anything else.

What I'm proposing is to allow the active debate members judge the debates, and alleviating some of the workload.

Currently, their are seven volunteers:

Druid42
W3RLIED2
vkey08
beezzer
enjoies05
74Templar and
OpinionatedB

With three volunteer judges for each debate, we have a nice start to ensuring each debate gets judged fairly.

reply to post by Druid42


OOPS: didn't see something, post irrelevant

reply to post by Druid42


I'll offer up myself as a judge, as well, but I am also a little unsure about the "star counting" aspect. I have had, in the past, more than a few pests who don't like me for one reason or another, and followed me around, posting negative comments in threads I post in, and starring each others' negative comments. I can see that behaviour being abused here, barring a sufficiently large unbiased readership.

Even the judges' perspective can't really fight it, because the biased sorts will just not star anyone who says that the person they don't agree with was the winner. So, in the extreme instance that there are, let's say, ten biased observers and five non-biased, if person A (whom the ten are biased against) presents a cogent argument, and person B posts nothing but "You're a moron and you're wrong" person B wins 50 stars (5 statements * 10 stars) to 40 (5 statements + 3 judges * 5 stars)

reply to post by adjensen


I'm sure the other two judges would be able to spot such behavior in the debate forum. To see 20 stars on a mediocre rebuttal would be a sure sign of tampering, and the judges can inform the others through u2u.

Also, all the volunteers so far have respectable posting records, and also, they wouldn't be judging if they didn't think they couldn't remain impartial.

There is a different posting criteria in a debate.

But, I'm more than willing to toss out stars as being a factor, and leave the choice completely up to the judges, just as OpinionatedB has stated. It's just that the stars system is already in place. It's not a requirement.

These are just ideas I'm tossing out there. Thanks for the input.

Has anyone heard from The Vagabond?

reply to post by Druid42


Nothing yet. I u2u'd a few days ago, but I know he was having family stuff going on, that was the last I've heard anyways.

Another point, maybe to make it easier is allow a few the authority to create the debate threads for others with the Vagabond's permission, in addition to judging/presiding over said debate. It will make the work load a lot lighter for him if we all pitched in with the process.

reply to post by Druid42


Oh, I'm not thinking that the judges would be biased, but if the general user base is providing the stars, they could be. Perhaps stars only count if the judges aren't unanimous, and in that case, it's the stars on the judges posts that tip the scales.

I'm sorry for vanishing on you guys. I went back to work this week and have been getting up early in the morning. I just haven't been up to a lot of reading or posting by the time I get home.


Anyway, I'm ready to get some more debates rolling. It looks like we will be going without judges for at least a little while- we can determine winners by star count or by posted votes from fighters at the end of debate threads, or just debate for fun with no winners declared.

Also, one more thing I'm afraid I have to announce- I will not be giving fighter status to anyone who has not been a member in good standing for at least 6 months. I keep getting u2us from people who just registered wanting to be fighters, and some of these messages seem suspicious. Rather than me trying to guess who is going to be a good contributor and who is here to cause a problem, I will let the test of time sort things out.


ETA: Now as for getting new matches started. If anyone who already has an opponent and topic would please u2u me with a statement of their topic and positions (please be clear, such as "Me and ________ want to debate 'if a tree falls in the forest and nobody's around to hear it, it still makes a sound' I will be taking the pro side and ______ will take the con".)

Also (I'm still slow catching up with this thread- I'm on a one day weekend and not fully into the computer right now) I did notice the suggestion of volunteer judges.

Way back when we did staff judging every time, and I was mostly happy with it. We experimented with having fighters volunteer, and it was hit and miss. Judges became harder to get when we got rid of character limits a while back and there have been fewer judges per debate ever since, though character limits have come back.

I think the answer might be to do away with anonymous judging and assigned judging, and just let us "round table" on debates after they are done, so that everyone gets more commentary and constructive criticism as well as more judges.

reply to post by The Vagabond


In the defense of "bringing back" fellow fighters as judges, I was not a member at the time, so I can only guess the way things went. What we have NOW is a group of people who wish to volunteer to be judges. The posting limits keep it reasonable, and I believe the volunteers would dedicate time to read and vote.

I am solely against having judge-free debates. As of the moment, I stand alone, and perhaps others will pipe in and give their opinion, but a debate on a topic without a formal structure around it, and without a definitive winner, well, it's just another thread.

The debate threads REQUIRE a winner.

In that defense, you say you will create new threads for debate, but I would really, really, REALLY like to see the debate topics discussed in this thread, and the members that volunteer to judge, and leave it up to membership to discuss in open (on this thread) about their debates, and have the three members rule a decision. It does give an air of professionalism to it.....

Honestly, we all have fighter status. We CAN police ourselves. Trust us.

At least, give it a month trial period with the three member judge rule. It can't hurt, as this is a new generation of members. I formally submit my request for a new debate to include:

1. Two members.

2. A topic.

3. The members deciding "pro" and "con".

4. Three volunteer judges with fighter status.

The U2U to The Vagabond includes all that info. It's only fair that way. I would respect the decisions of my peers, and voting would only occur after the debate.

Would you approve that? Membership has no beefs with it, and we have volunteers. If it doesn't work with newer membership, lesson learned, but the newer generations have good ideas. You have the experience of the old ways, but we have the desire to move forward. Please, consider, and give it a try.

That's all I ask.




Note: People watch this thread, and wait. It has no activity, because there is no activity here. Let's get the ball rolling again.

reply to post by Druid42


I agree with Druid on this one. As I stated before many of the people who are involved with the debates often frequent the other debates going no and read them anyway, so it's not like it's a mass stretch to get others involved in judging. Me personally I got involved having had previous experience in real life and online debate, and wanted to try my hand here also. Judging is just a small step from debating anyway, and if means the debate forum will keep on going then I am willing to do my part. I also think the three judges per debate to decide a winner is the fairest system, away from the stars and flags of threads.

It couldn't hurt to trial it anyway, and see if it works, trial and error and see if it works out. If not, then come up with ideas until we find a system that works. Already the debate forum is tapering off after only half a dozen or so debates, I would like to both be involved in keeping it going and continuing the debates.

I'm here. Day and night.

We've got a new debate going. I've u2u'd 3 of those who volunteered to be judges and 2 of them have already responded that they will judge.

I have read and kind of like some of Druid42's suggestions, including that the judging panel not remain anonymous.

I'm working two shifts with only 8 hours off between starting this afternoon, so I will pop back in tomorrow afternoon, and then should be more available on monday afternoon.

I think what I will do, hopefully by late monday, is put up a thread outlining a trial program based on some of the suggestions and discussion here that will allow fighters to basically keep the forum running at its own pace provided that there are enough people here and interested.

There are a few potential pitfalls that I will want to think over a bit and try to account for in the program; for one thing even if not consciously intended there is likely to be bias if judges self-select the debates they judge, so some randomness in judging assignments would be preferable.

Right along with that, we could find ourselves in a position sometime where there are more people who want to debate than who want to judge, so it might be wise to account for how debates are prioritized (for example, if somebody has been pitching in and judging, I don't think they should then have their debates delayed because of a first come first serve policy while others who haven't contributed are getting judges immediately)

reply to post by The Vagabond


I don't have the time to debate, research is time consuming but I'll help out in any way possible.

So who are the three "fighters" that have volunteered to judge This latest DEBATE?

Just curious, and trying to work out the parameters so it's easy for everyone involved to see how this is going to work.

Originally posted by Druid42
So who are the three "fighters" that have volunteered to judge This latest DEBATE?

Just curious, and trying to work out the parameters so it's easy for everyone involved to see how this is going to work.

Dunno, i wasn't asked so I'm not sure.. .. I would have though. *shrug*

reply to post by The Vagabond

We've got a new debate going. I've u2u'd 3 of those who volunteered to be judges and 2 of them have already responded that they will judge.

I have read and kind of like some of Druid42's suggestions, including that the judging panel not remain anonymous.

See my last post. Knowing who the judges are will prevent confusion, and will make it easy to notify them when a debate finishes.

I think what I will do, hopefully by late monday, is put up a thread outlining a trial program based on some of the suggestions and discussion here that will allow fighters to basically keep the forum running at its own pace provided that there are enough people here and interested.

Awesome indeed! That will definitely clarify things for us. I don't see a lack of members with an interest in debating, and there's a huge potential to get others involved. The process does need a bit of streamlining, and it shouldn't be MOD intensive. There's also a higher caliber of people who wish to participate, and I respect the posting records of all the volunteers.

even if not consciously intended there is likely to be bias if judges self-select the debates they judge, so some randomness in judging assignments would be preferable.

Bias is a part of human nature. I'm sure there'll be preference to take a particular side, but judging is an overall decision, and thus the need for a three judge panel. It keeps it simple, and allows the "fighters" and well as the "judges" to see the overall outcome of a debate. Favoritism would be obvious to all. Since this is a trial basis, moderator intervention would be deemed necessary if such activities were to blatantly occur, but I do have faith in my fellow members to produce a fair decision.

we could find ourselves in a position sometime where there are more people who want to debate than who want to judge, so it might be wise to account for how debates are prioritized

Due to the fact that it takes so much more time to research a debate, than to judge one, I see judging to be the least time consuming venture. There could be several debates going on, but a judge is only required at the end of the debate. The debate itself takes up the biggest chunk of time.

There may be glitches in the process, (who knows, but the staff is more than capable) but just as important, or even more so, is the ability to keep the debates going on and running smoothly.

A sincere thank you, The Vagabond, for running these debates, and for listening, and working along with us. You are appreciated more than words can say.

Originally posted by Druid42
So who are the three "fighters" that have volunteered to judge This latest DEBATE?

I'll volunteer! No, wait...

I will, however, volunteer for the next one!

reply to post by vkey08


It's on a volunteer basis at the moment. All you have to do is say you'll sit in as a judge.

Would you like to be the third judge?