The new DDO Voting System is superior to the old

Thanks Zarroette. =Neg case=AVoting complexityZarroette needs to provide some kind of empirical evidence on the quality of votes going down due to the lack of categories. My harms are tangible and widespread, hers we cannot be sure even exist; if the new voting system is as bad as she says it is she ought to be able to provide some tangible evidence of the decrease in votes under the new system. My impacts should be preferred because evidence of their occurrence is manifest and widespread. She argues that a voter cannot express their "true thoughts" on a debate without the categories, but this is just ridiculous. Not only can a voter simply express their opinion in their RFD, but taken to it's logical conclusion this argument would lead to a template with hundreds of categories for everything that is important in a debate. Indeed, things that are extremely important to debate like word economy, argument prioritization, and case structure are ignored under the old system. Zarroette argues that the old system is easier for newer voters. First, this is an easily turnable argument. I've literally handed a lay judge a ballot and briefed her on how to judge on the way to the room--contrast this with the old DDO system where to teach a new member how to judge would be impossible as DDO members have wildly different paradigms on when to vote on each category. She argues that the tool-tips on the side of the point allocation provide an objective criteria on when to vote but this is flawed for two reasons: First, there's no indication that people even read them let alone abide by their suggestions--quite the contrary, my arguments show that they do not. Secondly, if you actually read the tool-tips they heavily imply that the judge is to vote on each category as it gives no quantification of when to vote, it just says "vote for the debater that does x better", even if they won the category by an extremely slight margin. This is a paradigm that most DDO voters *reject*. It's *rare* to see someone fill out the full ballot. Thus the tool-tips succeed only in misleading new voters into a voting paradigm that is contrary to the one most DDO voters hold, teaching them to vote incorrectly by adding 33% of the argument value to someone's count because they used the wrong "your". Fraudulent votes This argument is completely false. Zarroette offers no proof whatsoever of widespread voteboming under the new system. I would contend that contrary to the voting on debates with the new system has vastly increased. Zarroette is right that bad votes will still occur and they do--the difference is that under the old system a bad vote is often worth *two* good votes as opposed to one in the new system. Deletion of votes can only go so far--being overeager to delete votes led to a prominent member, Drafterman, leaving the site. Determining which RFDs are fraudulent is a lot more difficult than it sounds, this is why Airmax adheres to a policy of leaving votes unmolested as long as they explain each point awarded. By now, the vast majority of people wishing to vote dishonestly know how to structure their vote to keep it from being deleted, the best solution is to mitigate the power bad voters are allowed to grant themselves. Zarroette sells new members short when she argues that they can't figure out how to vote without a specific template. The tool tips are, at best, irrelevant and at worst mislead new members into a voting paradigm that clashes with the majority opinion on DDO leading to increased hostility to new members voting. The old system is infinitely harder to explain than the new one.B. Incentives Zarroette argues that things such as spelling and conduct are important in a debate. Sure. First cross apply the argument I made in response to her complexity argument--taken to it's full conclusion this argument would support nearly limitless categories for everything that's important in a debate. Zarroette shoots herself in the foot here--if these things are important in a debate than people will do them *anyway*. The goal of each debater is to win the round, and things like proper spelling and using sources help with this. Contrary to what my opponent claims, there has been no noticeable depreciation in conduct or grammar in debates under the new system. I would argue that the old system creates a perverse incentive in the debater themselves to argue points irrelevant to the arguments by encouraging them to nitpick spelling errors, to source spam, and to feign offense at minor conduct violations. While I don't dispute that some of these things are important in a debate, I question greatly the degree they're emphasized in the old system. Remember, a debater can win the arguments point and still lose the ballot as a whole. I can award 66% of the value of the arguments point by counting the sources used without reading the debate and the mods are powerless to stop me. What's really lacking here is empirical evidence--in my case I gave specific examples of bad voting. We all know that strategic voting occurs, which is why DDO members voted 17-0 when asked if someone had ever strategically voted on their debates[1]. I also offered (and performed) instances of poor voting under the old system and offered a comprehensive rationale for why we see these kinds of votes and how they are inherent under the old system. Comparatively Zarroettes arguments are baseless conjecture, my arguments should be preferred due to their sound basis.NegationZarroette agrees that people will compete for the points under the old system. This is a tough fact for supporters of the old system because it gives incentive for debaters to use all means of abusive tactics. As a typical example, before he reformed 16kadams would spam as many sources in a debate as he could even if they were unnecessary so that his friends could claim that he had better sources and increase their voting power. Remember, either these things are important in picking up ballots or they aren't and if they are people will do them anyway. Zarroette gets no advantage from these aspects being important in a debate. C. BiasThere's no evidence of bias being worse under the old system--we shouldn't look to the tool-tips on the old system, we should look to how people actually voted. I find it hard to believe that Zarroette would be comfortable with losing one of her debates because a voter "[wished] to choose a winner" and arbitrarily decided that "sources on Con's side aid his argument more."[2] Zarroette argues that "Who do you think won?" is too vague but it is just as vague as "Who had better conduct?". This disadvantage is nonunique. The old system increased the capacity for inherent bias because bad voters are given the power to outweigh good voters. We need to prefer whichever system best mitigates bad voting, not the one that hands them a blank check.=Aff case=Zarroette entirely misunderstands the strategic voting argument. What's important is not the nominal point value of votes, but their value in relation to eachother. While votes under the new system might nominally be worth seven points, for all practical purposes they are worth one. Compare this to old system where a poor vote can often be worth two good votes--look to GWL's vote as an example. Strategic voting is completely eliminated under a one judge, one vote system because voters can't fudge their RFDs to increase their value. She also misunderstands my argument regarding guidelines--the tool tips might exist but they don't say *when* to vote except to heavily imply to fill out the full ballot. When I say there's no bright line, I mean that DDO members are undecided on when to vote on each category. Thus some peoples votes are worth more than others because they have differing paradigms. The resolution is affirmed. We need a system that mitigates the power bad voters have, not one that hands them a blank check.1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com...