Debate.org voting protocols

Thanks for putting time and effort into this debate. It was really quite fun. I found it interesting that you used my name, haha. Your idea is quite interesting, though I do plan to address some possible faults with it. My main point, however, is that in order to suggest a new system in lieu -- not in conjunction -- with the current system, it is critical to differentiate in what areas the old system faltered. Logically, your proposed system should address those areas. What I can glean are your primary arguments against the three-vote requirement are: 1. It's annoying 2. There's a loophole 3. If people want to votebomb, they will find a way to do it I'll address all of these in reference to the new system you've advocated. First, your argument that "if people want to votebomb, they will" is actually quite similar to arguments against gun control and gun background checks. I'm not accusing you, of course, of holding such a position, but I think the same logic applies. Opponents of gun background checks argue that people who want to break the rules -- which, in our case, is votebombing -- will find a way to do so, anyway. Therefore, we should rely on a "good guy with a gun to counteract a bad guy with a gun" -- in our case, a good debater and voter to counteract a bad debater and voter -- as Wayne LaPierre put it [1]. The problems with this position are as follows. First, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Gun control opponents are so adamant that bad people will be able to purchase firearms anyway -- even if they would have no hope of passing a background check (and, mind you, first-time offenders who have never committed a crime, but intend to, would be able to) -- that they're lifting what was likely the strongest restraint (gun background checks) that would have made it nearly impossible for these people to purchase firearms legally. Therefore, they have effectively made it easier for these people to purchase guns, because they can now simply purchase one at a gun store without restraint. Certainly that must be easier and more convenient than purchasing one on the black market, and quite likely much safer. At the very least, having more options would empower criminals. So, why is this analogy relevant? Because I sense in your argument that your belief is that, because a loophole exists -- and we assume that no one notices this loophole and, consequently, they do not report the debate -- setting an initial requirement is not necessary, but merely regulating the amount of votes that a new user has relative to an established debater would deter this problem. Effectively, a "good guy with a gun" would save the day. However, why must we assume that, just because someone is good at debating, that they are a good voter? Could they be, in some cases, a troll? What if a strong debater doesn't vote as much as he or she should, and thus cannot counteract every bad vote? What if there are two many bad votes due to multi-accounts? Does this not place an undue onus on the site's best members, and thus serve to drive them away? Now, I'm going to throw one member, whom I honestly respect dearly, under the bus. This isn't an attack on him in any sense, but I think he'll understand and appreciate my logic here. If not, well, my apologies. Let's look at Imabench -- who is, by all accounts, a fine debater. The first two sentences of the "About me" section of his profile are as follows [2]: "DDO Hall of Fame member. If you look at my Bio it mentions trolling 8 times and my debating skills only once, so that alone summarizes what kind of member I am." So, he is indeed an excellent debater with an ELO rating of 4,239 at this moment. However, he admits to taking part in the convention of "trolling." What is trolling? Well, since it's a slang word, I suppose we have no choice other than to look at urban dictionary [3]: "One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument." Though I am not accusing Imabench of being a serial votebomber or potential serial votebomber, I do think his example causes us to rightfully call into question the "good guy with a gun" analogy. Is it not reasonable for us to question whether someone is a good -- or a serious -- voter, even if their ELO rating is quite high and they have proven themselves a worthy debater? Is there ever a possibility of "trolling?" Moreover, if these people have more votes than other members, who will counteract a bad vote by a high-ranked member? The analogy I often think of is one that is used in opposition to government regulation: who will regulate the regulators? How can you trust the regulators? No matter how you frame it, this system affords great power to someone and some group. The Bible says we're all sinners, right? Next, I'd like to offer another comparison to a relevant outside source. Billionaire Tom Perkins, who recently got into trouble over comparing the Occupy Wall Street protesters to Kristallnacht [4], argued that rich people should get more votes in elections than middle-income and poor people, essentially because they "pay more in taxes." Now, let's look past the economics of this claim for just a moment -- as many would argue, myself included, that the very affluent are able to reduce their taxable income significantly with loopholes, deductions, and reduced rates for capital gains, while the poor pay a sales tax on the entirety of their income because they spend 100% of what they earn to survive (comparable, perhaps, to using troll debates to earn a high ELO). Is the logic not the same as Con's -- that people who have been successful are, by definition, better voters and thus should receive more say in how the system ought to run? Here are the problems I see with this system -- and these extend to both the Tom Perkins analogy and Con's proposed solution: 1. As we have learned earlier, having a high ELO ranking does not preclude a desire for "trolling." In the case of the very affluent having more votes, the logic would be that a millionaire like Mitt Romney who enjoyed paying a 14% tax rate on millions of income would not vote to raise his own taxes, which brings us to my next point: 2. It preserves and perpetuates a social hierarchy. This brings us back to the claim of "who regulates the regulators?" More specifically, we must ask who regulates the "good guy with a gun?" If someone with a very high rating pinpoints and votes for their friends, or finds someone they don't like, who will counter this? They could prevent people from ever reaching the top tier. 3. Democracy is critical, and this is rooted in the idea that our self-worth is not determined by our debating skills, our intellect, or our connections. Thus, giving some people more of a voice than others runs counter to this claim. To recap: 1. A three-vote requirement may be annoying, but it is even more annoying to endure a "votebomb" campaign or to receive a bad vote from an inexperienced member, or even an experienced member who has more votes, but is trolling or protecting a friend. 2. Debate experience is valuable. 3. The loophole in Con's proposed system is even larger than the loopholes in the current system. People can partake in troll debates to raise their ELO in order to get more votes. 4. Con's system relies far too much on the assumption that the "good guy with a gun" will be a fair, honest, good voter. 5. His system may perpetuate a social hierarchy. 6. Democracy is valuable. Therefore, the current system should remain. Thanks, Con, for a very interesting debate. I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion. 1. http://www.npr.org... 2. http://www.debate.org... 3. http://www.urbandictionary.com... 4. http://www.ibtimes.com...-