The new DDO Voting System is superior to the old

I wish to thank Thett3 for what I’m sure will be stiff competition. By standard debate conventions, Pro is to assume the burden of proof, hence he must affirm that the new system is better than the old one. Anything less (e.g. neither being proven better) results in my victory. “Better” I propose that there are two highly important aspects involving a debate which can make it “better”: 1: Quality of content 2: Quality of votes The old system strived for both components. My following arguments will show that the old system reached these goals better than the new system. Arguments in favour of the old system A1: Encourages far more complex, better voting In some regard, the new voting system likens to that of a forum upvote system: you vote it up or you don’t. There is a slight difference, of course, in that of an RFD being required. However, because there is less framework for voters, this new system lessens the capacity to vote well for BOTH competent and new voters. Allow me to explain… The multiple forms in which one can vote, under the old system, creates a structure that leaves the new system an embarrassment. For competent voters, the old system allows them to distinguish between debaters in important aspects of a debate. With the new system, competent judges cannot makes such distinction, in terms of point allocation. For example, if a competent judge thought that differing aspects of each debaters’ cases, he/she is unable to express those distinctions in point form (i.e. it’s either 7 points or nothing). Therefore, this competent voter is unable to express his/her true thoughts of the debate in point form, due to the over-simplification of the voting system. As for newer voters, the tool-tips of the old system provide instructions on how to vote in each category. This will help the newer voters produce a better vote, especially when you compare it to the “who do you believe won?” In an analogy, you don’t teach someone to ride a bike by telling them that he/she should be going forward (the result). You tell him/her how to go forward. Likewise, you don’t get someone new to voting to vote properly by telling him/her to choose a winner (the result). You tell him/her how to choose a winner. A2: From this complexity, it is far easier to detect fraudulent votes, because each component of the vote requires an RFD With the new system, the delegation of 7 points is all that there is to the vote, in terms of determining the winner. As to why the 7 points are given, it’s really as simple as “who you believe won”. How could you easily penalise anyone for a supposed ‘vote-bomb’, when the criteria is literally “who you believe won”? Someone could think that I won this debate, and regardless of whether the reasons are even coherent, there would be no qualms with the RFD, in regards to the rules (which is different to the moderation, as I’ll explain later). Alternatively, under the old system, a vote with underhand tactics would be deleted. Not only do the points’ allocation require accuracy, but it’s easy to detect inaccurate or fraudulent votes. If the RFD is not one from the criteria, listed in the tool-tip (the question mark circle, on the left of each category), then it is easily spotted, thanks to the explicit criteria to check against. Conclusion for A: Via increased complexity required in point allocation of votes, votes will: be easier for newer members to understand, be more nuanced for more competent members to differentiate debaters with and will make detection of fraudulent/grossly inaccurate votes easier. All of these things help to increase the quality of votes. B1: Sources, spelling & grammar and conduct are all important aspects of a debate My opponent essentially concedes this point in the latter half of his 3rd argument. Therefore, for this debate, this premise is a given. B2: Giving points to categories greatly incentivises them In absence of incentives, one does not necessarily feel obliged to perform. Hence, when the incentives are obvious (i.e. points, instead of assumed integrating into overall vote), then there becomes a real focus to strive for these. So, when 1 point is awarded for conduct in a debate, then there becomes a real incentive to behave during a debate. Similar examples can be given with sources and S&G. Conversely, in absence of incentive, or in this case a convoluted sense (general 7 point vote, rather than the multi-category), these important points are not encouraged to a great extent. Yet they are, as my opponent concedes, important parts of a debate. B3: Negation When opposing debaters are incentivised to behave correctly, provide sources and punctuate and spell correctly, they will both try to compete for the point. In absence of conduct or spelling and grammar issues, neither side will be awarded points. So, as long as you are correctly spelling, correctly punctuating and behaving correctly, you should not lose in this contention. In regards to the sources, offering points for sources encourages the debaters to not only gather sources, but to gather better sources than the opponent. The fear of not gathering the quality of sources required for points will drive debaters to hunt for sources. Conclusion for B: There are real incentives to be found in the old voting system. When offered points (i.e. things of desire) for work, people are far more likely to provide better quality work. When there is a vague sense of points for work, people are less likely to provide. C1: Lessening of inherent bias The goal of any voter is to vote objectively as possible on debate content only. At every point allocation of the old system’s tool-tips, it reminds voters that, “your opinion of the topic should not have any influence here”. Given this context, the new system spews out the unintelligent line, “who do you believe won the debate?” When it comes to voting in general, there is going to be a certain level of inherent bias. This is due to personal context, such as life’s experiences, background knowledge, reading comprehension skills etc. When there is explicit criteria to be met, this lessens the inherent bias, because the RFD is now bound by these specific voting guidelines. Again, “who do you believe won the debate?” is an incredibly vague standard in which to vote by, and this will exacerbate the inherent bias in voting. The old system lessened the capacity for inherent bias, and hence increased the quality of votes. Counter-arguments to my opponent’s main points CA1: The new system increases a voter’s capacity to cause more damage with a strategical vote To argue this points, let’s say that I wanted to illegitimately vote on a debate. Under the new system, the maximum and only amount of damage that I can do is 7 points worth. All I have to justify is “who I believe won”. Comparatively, under the old system, to do seven points of illegitimate damage is nigh impossible. In conjunction with the voting rules expressed in the tool-tip, a voter cannot award source points to someone who did not provide sources, or clearly provide poorer quality sources. Thus, in instances of strategical voting, the damage in the new system will always be the maximal of the old system – the worst you can do in the old system is the norm in the new system. CB1:“…there is no guideline on when to vote on which category.” I’m really quite shocked that my opponent has provided such misinformation. The tool-tips, next to each voting category, provide guidelines on when to vote on which category. Due to character limits, I will address the other of my opponent's arguments in the next round. The resolution is being negated.