(Pro)New Voting System Vs (Con)The Previous One

Pro has misunderstood what I was saying. I agree that (WTA+7P) > 7P but I am saying that the system in place is not actually WTA+7P. The system in place forces the instigator to, in turn, force the voters to use only one of the two systems. The point I am trying to make is that the very presence of WTA as an option is detrimental to DDO far more than a system of 7P only is. A system of WTA+7P would be the instigator beign unable to differentiate between WTA and 7P and each individual voter picking which of the two they prefer. Now, onto the good stuff. R1) Mitigation of vote bombs/fluff votes This is irrelevant due to the fact that the 7P voting system is still an option, and is the default option that all noobs who don't know how to use settings very well, end up picking as their debate's voting system. Thus, the current system is not mitigating this very well at all and the drawbacks (which I shall come to later) outweigh the benefits.. R2) Evens out the weight of votes This is actually a bad thing, not a good thing. Vote A would have punished pro for having poor grammar and encourage him to keep up the standard in the future. If the RFD did not state the exact grammatical, or spelling, errors then the person is welcome to report the debate vote bomb (or for lack of RFD which is an independent violation to vote-bombing) and the mods will clean it up and discipline the voter. Thus, this contention is rendered futile. R3) The new system allows the old one to be incorporated into it Yes, that's the good part. The problem with it is the WTA option. Now I shall (c)ounter-(r)ebuttal CR1) I explained the misunderstanding earlier in this debate. I am aware I have equal BOP here, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. CR2) The fact that 7P is the default option as opposed to a neutral option such as 'select voting system' which would force the instigator to consciously pick the voting system means that almost every single noob instigator ends up with the 7P system. Now, either this is a flaw and a reason to hate the new system or it's a good thing because 7P is superior. CR3) Firstly, you have prevented noob voters via the elo restrictions so the data is already skewed in your favor but on top of this I was referring to the fact that if i person has better grammar, conduct and sources they'd beat a more convincing opponent via 7P whereas in WTA it's very unlikely this would happen. Thus, being convincing is held above all other things put together and the need to be polite is no longer required, nor encouraged in the new system. What you will find is that newer voters won't understand what the 7 points are supposed to be weighted upon so they'll just go for the smoothest talker as opposed to the more logical debater who may have less textual charisma. 7P reminds them what to look for and how to judge in the first place. All the debaters on your debates had previous, extensive exposure to 7P before voting on WTA so the problematic outcome was nullified by the elo restriction in place on voters. CR4) Just read my CR3 please... CR5) As I said, please refer to CR3 as well. CR6) "pro had better sources2 is reportable for the lack of RFD violation. The point you're making is moot. On the other hand, it is more likely that the 7P system is going to at least give them guidelines as opposed to "ooh there's a button for pro and pro types cooler slang, yay!" *clicks*... *7 whole points to Pro* CR7) (a) is true but (b) is false. There is noway on Earth you can say that a noob voter seeing one button for 7 points and no wording as to what the poitns should be going to is somehowgoing to knwo how to vote accurately or fairly. The 7P system is so much more efficient at trainign noobs, ther eis literally no rebuttal for this. You are just saying that because 7P happens to be an option that they will all be voting on it to begin with. Some may be seldom voters who ony bother voting for the WTA ones as it's just a one-click proceand easier to explain away withotu splitting it into several parts. I want to raise a new contention since you allow this in your R1 structure: C8 - The splitting of votes is inevitably superior to the condensing of them if one wants to truly have the one with more points being the genuine winner. EC8 The fact that you mention that if someone happens to subjectively think that pro had better grammar while the other person just gave 3 to con, is actually a perfect example of why the 7P system is better. This not only allows people to better spot RFD inconsistencies and thus report this violation better but the 'vote bombs' are far easier to be cancelled out by other people splitting votes fairly and explaining it too. On top of this, look at the following scenario: 7P Pro 7 (voters X+Y+Z) Con 6 (voters 2+3) WTA Pro 7 (voter 1) Con 14 (voters 2+3) 7P mentality: X successfully explains in his/her RFD why Pro has better conduct and arguments via his interpretation. Whilst Y felt that Pro's sources were more reliable but that Con had more convincing arguments and Z felt the same about conduct as X and the same about convincing arguments as Y. WTA mentality: "He is kinda better slightly so... 7-points to Gryffindor!" C9 The probability of equally good debaters getting actively tied is drastically lowered via WTA This now requires equal number of voters whereas in other system can be a fair split between an odd number of voters. This makes people afraid to vote to not be mean to the other guy whereas in old system they could split their votes fairly and not feel as bad because there's only a 1 point difference due to them that can be countered by another voter looking at the debate in a different way. Equally good means equally good, not "Oh, well... someone has to win, so I might as well give an entire 7 points to that guy."