The Elo System Should be Changed in DDO

Pro has been making baseless assumptions about the system. It's true that everyone is able to gather information and make decision based on this information, or you can even ask administrator or developers about the system, but my opponent did not make anything of this. I will present my last rebuttals and a summary in this round. Rebuttals1. The difference between Chess and DDOPro claims that the DDO rating system is unfair because the formula is the same for the "noobies" as it is for the highest rated debaters. He is using my source to create an excuse for lack of fairness. This is completely absurd. The reason there is a difference is because Chess Grand Masters play in tournaments designed only for them and a little more accuracy can be used. If you check any other rating system that is based on Elo for chess that it's not the one FIDE (World Chess Federation) uses, you will notice that it uses the same formula for everyone. That's because the same formula for everyone is not unfair. That's the point of having a rating system, that it is able to rate everyone.2. Noob snipingMy opponent didn't address this issue in his last round, so please extend.3. Accurately displaying skillsHere my opponent presents a new problem. Users can create new accounts (change of account) "resetting" their stats. Again Pro presents a problem that will exist in any rating system. This problem is less "problematic" using converging differential equations. This makes the system more accurate with more debates and it's exactly what the DDO rating system is using right now, and it's the same idea of the Elo rating system. Then he presents a solution without explaining why it would solve the problem. People have different reasons to change accounts, and users are still going to debate the same group of users they used to debate before the changing of account, so they will quickly get the same Elo they used to have. In other words, the solution presented by Pro will not work.4. Con's proposed solutionI presented a solution in my second round just to give an idea of where the problem lies. It was a solution that consisted in several parts that should be implemented at the same time. Because Pro is attacking problems that would occur if each part was implemented separately I will not divide the solution anymore, for easy understanding. First Pro claims that with my solution, they can't debate each other. One part of my solution has non rated debates and rated debates, so you can challenge any user using unrated debates. I believe rated debates should have limits. If the 200 Elo difference only debates is too much because we are talking about debates that need preparation and people always want challenges, a reset of Elo and/or tournaments only Elo would be a great idea. Or we can conserve the Elo as it is now and add tournament only Elo. The tournament only Elo would represent your skill more accurately because you would not dodge, noob snipe and you should debate people with similar skill. That's only for people that would like to challenge themselves against the best debaters, and know where they can place. Tournaments like Mikal's tier tournaments would benefit of this because the division would be more accurate and the same tournament would represent these changes in Elo necessary to make the system more accurate. Having ties to make "unrated debates" is ridiculous. Debaters want other debaters judge their work and vote for them. They also want to win their debates. And the fact that the solution is just a workaround is a reason why people don't use it. And again, this is just a part of the solution. The solution is complete. Then Pro claims that not counting Full forfeits is a bad idea because "noobs" should be taught a lesson. This is true. What I meant is that full FF should not count to the side of the winner, because it would be giving Elo that the winner didn't won debating. This would not be a problem if the full FF were uncommon, but sadly they are pretty common if you accept challenge of most of the debaters.5. Paid work argumentPro keeps assuming that the "100" in the formula he gave is the "K" in the Elo formula. He also assumes that the formula he gave is the one implemented in the site. He didn't address the fact that the numbers are bigger in DDO and the K would also be bigger anyway. In other words, Pro has no ground to make decisions related to the rating system or to know where the problems lies. Summary-Pro was not able to present a compelling case for a change on the DDO rating system. This change would require work and money if necessary. -He presented some problems that will exist in every rating system and in the DDO system with any little or big change that he propose. -He made a lot of assumptions but didn't prove anything, and even if his assumptions were true his solutions would have the same problems. -I presented a solution that would solve his problems so his "change" is not necessary and the resolution can't be defended. -For the resolution to be defended Pro's assumptions have to be true, his solutions have to work and he has to prove they work, and he has to prove that those changes are necessary, and only possible if these changes are in the DDO Elo system, and that those changes are worth the money, time and work invested. -Sadly for Pro's case, he was not able to defend any of those points. Every point was rebutted. Message to the votersA change in the DDO rating system is a popular position. I ask to the voters that if you share this position and even if you have a good idea for a change, you need to take Pro's arguments and ideas into account in the voting. Pro's arguments and assumptions were ungrounded and he was not able to prove that a change was needed or that it would solve the problems he presented. Thanks for the debate. It was a fun debate. And thanks to the voters and readers.