Debate.org should use Elo based rating system for leaderboard

You have not explained whether you will be defending the current system or arguing for an alternative one. I assume that you will do that in this round. Any average debater, on his day - can upset a top debater. Ranking debaters objectively is an interesting problem. A statistical solution to this problem was developed by Arpad Elo. He calculated a system where ratings are decided by looking at the rating of opponents a particular debater has lost to or defeated. [1]The rough idea is that based on current rating, probability of winning against your rival is estimated based on statistical techniques. In case your probability of winning was low and you win - you get a big boost in rating. On other hand if the probability of winning was high and you win - it is not considered a big achievement and you get a small boost. Similarly losing against a weak opponent will cause big point loss - but losing against strong opponent causes small point loss. Permit me to explain the incentives another way:If you contest against weak debater: Your chances of winning are high (EASY for you) but on winning point increase is less (BAD). If you contest against strong debater: Chances of winning are low (CHALLENGING) but on winning, points increase is large (GOOD). Thus this system, provides incentive to try tough things and refrain from the simple path. ==Advantages==1. Fair: Current system is based on number of wins. This is heavily biased towards older player. In Elo system new players can top the tables quickly if they consistently defeat top debaters.2. Well established: This system is working in several sports. Examples include chess, football, baseball. Many online games also use this system[2].3. Reward for extraordinary debater: If a new debater, challenges and defeats top 10 debaters for 10 consecutive matches, we can say he should be in top 10. However in the current system will record his/her performance 10 wins - which will give him a very average percentile.4. Emphasis on skill: It will force top debaters to maintain their forms. They will not be at top just because they fairly good debaters who joined 2 years ago and kept debating regularly. Rather they will have to be the best debaters everytime. I believe - they will find this challenge rewarding.5. Opponent strength: Currently a person can increase his rank by taking part in large number of debates against low ranked debaters. On other hand a debater - who dares to debate better ones - is penalised as chances of victory are less. Moreover debating against a top debater will usually consume more time and research. In this system the reward of winning against a top debaters will compensate that.6. Professional: Debaters can use their Elo rating on resume. Saying that I have Elo rating of 2600 on debate. org sounds much more professional than saying I have a rank 20 on debate. org.7. Easy to implement: The implementation is simple. Stable GPL implementations are available[3]. Implementation from scratch is also not tough. (I can do it - and my majors is not computers! ) It can be crowd sourced as well to a website like 'topcoder'[4] which incidentally uses a variant of Elo for rating its coders!8. The old system is there: The Elo ratings can appear in a new column in leaderboard. If some one really wants to sort on basis of wins only - they can easily do so. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://kenai.com...[4] . http://www.topcoder.com...