The new DDO Voting System is superior to the old

Thank you, Thett3. Counter-arguments to round 2 (leftovers) and 3 arguments Real world debating versus DDO ~ Round 2:“We should also presume an affirmative ballot because every real world debate league uses an up/down voting style like the new system.” Debaters compete through written work on DDO, not through speech. It would be far harder to write a complex RFD for a real world debate, given that the arguments are not literally written down in front of you. However, since we at DDO are afforded this luxury, should not the way in which we vote reflect this greater capacity to analyse? Moderation and the voting system’s rules ~ Round 2: Let me make this clear: the voting system’s rules, and the moderation of said rules, are not the same. For example, voting systems do not ban people, they give reason to ban people. ~ Airmax has been quoted saying, “as long as the RFD gives a reason for each point awarded, it is considered valid and not subject to deletion.” This is not consistent with the rules of voting. The tool-tip specifies exactly why each allotment of points is to be awarded – “a reason” cannot be any reason. ~ A2: “this is why Airmax adheres to a policy of leaving votes unmolested as long as they explain each point awarded.” This is a problem with the moderation, not the system. There are 2 moderators that regulate this site [3]. Does anyone honestly think that such an amount would be capable of regulating 9,230 debates (among the other tasks of moderation, such as forum duties, the opinion’s section, the polls section, personal messages etc.)? [2] OR, is it possible that there aren’t enough moderators, and the new system seems more popular because the site does not have the moderating staff required? ~ A2: “being overeager to delete votes…” ‘Overeager’ is an irrelevant term, in this debate. Votes should be deleted when they do no adhere to the rules, and that is all. B2: “I would argue that the old system creates a perverse incentive in the debater themselves to argue points irrelevant to the arguments...” It doesn’t mean that the old voting system allows it. ~ C: “We shouldn't look to the tool-tips on the old system, we should look to how people actually voted.” No, because there were other factors involved, which would influence the result, such as moderation. Good and bad votes, versus legitimate votes ~ If a vote is illegitimate, then it should be deleted. If it isn’t, then it shouldn’t be deleted. Labelling votes with these overly vague, subjective terms (good/bad) is meaningless. Having fair rules for legitimate voting will produce high quality votes. ~ III. Competition and the nature of debate & A1: My opponent consistently makes the argument of “it's self evidently ridiculous that I can award someone 33% of the value of the arguments point for conduct/spelling and grammar”. You can’t, because this isn’t legitimate. A single instance of a spelling mistake does not suffice as reason, by the old voting rules. The rule for voting in this section is: “which debater, on balance, took the time to [ensure] their writing was easy to read with proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation”. If your RFD reads, “Pro used the incorrect ‘your’”, then according to voting rules, it is not a legitimate vote, because this vote does not balance for all three categories. The tool-tips of the old system, versus “Who do you think won the debate?” ~ Following fair, well-considered and explicit steps, as found in the tool-tips, will help keep votes fair, for both new and veteran voters, rather than being at the mercy of creative license. ~ A1: “…there's no indication that people even read [the tool-tips] let alone abide by their suggestions” Then this is a problem with the people voting, not the rules themselves. For example, if my job is working with chemicals, and part of the rules in working there requires me to wash my hands afterwards, and I don’t, is there a problem with requiring people to wash their hands after working with chemicals? No, it’s a good idea, it’s just that someone hasn’t followed it properly. Likewise, the old system is a good idea, it’s just that someone hasn’t followed the rules properly. ~ A1: “Zarroette argues [for]… 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.” Having a different voting paradigm does not mean that it valuable, in terms of quality voting. Besides, it does not follow that because voters are given this explicit voting criteria, that judging for new members becomes “impossible”. ~ A1: “…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. Comparatively, the new system gives even less quantification of when to vote, by merely having “who do you believe won the debate?” Thus, the old system is better than the new, in this regard. ~ A2: “Determining which RFDs are fraudulent is a lot more difficult than it sounds” …and it’s nigh impossible under the new system, with ‘who do you believe won the debate?’ ~ A2: “The old system is infinitely harder to explain than the new one.” Prove it. ~ C: "Who do you think won?" is too vague but it is just as vague as "Who had better conduct?" Wrong. Again, there is a tool-tip that explicitly states what is to be considered for each point allocation. No such thing exists with the new system. ~ C: “The old system increased the capacity for inherent bias because bad voters are given the power to outweigh good voters.” Again, compared to the old system, having the voting standards of, ‘who do you believe won the debate?’ sets no explicit standard in which to vote by. Thus, the capacity for inherent bias to be ingrained within the vote, and be allowed, is far more in the new system than the old. ‘Evidence’ – Small sample-size fallacy ~ The fundamental problem with all of my opponent’s evidence is that the sample sizes are always too small. This leads to inferences proceeding to not be based upon a true representation of DDO. [6] ~ There are currently (31/05/2104) 35,013 debates on this website [1]. My opponent believes that in sourcing a few debates, and analysing trends from these few, that he now has sufficient evidence to say that the harms of the old voting system are “widespread” (the term use a couple of times, by my opponent, to refer to his ‘evidence’). ~ A1:“Zarroette 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” My opponent confuses causation with association (logical fallacy), in that he assumes increasing the quality of the voting system will better the results. It is possible that the old voting system is better than the new one, yet the results, of a small sample-size, show that the new is producing better votes. ~ B2: “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].” There are far more than 17 debaters on DDO. Appeals to popularity ~ Appealing to popularity occurs when someone argues that because many people believe something is good, it is therefore good[4] ~ Round 2: “We should also presume an affirmative ballot because every real world debate league uses an up/down voting style like the new system.” ~ A1:This is an appeal to unpopularity, which is as fallacious as an appeal to popularity: “This (the old system) is a paradigm that most DDO voters *reject*” In the next round, I will continue which my leftover rebuttal contentions, and conclude the debate. References [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://www.debate.org... [3] http://www.debate.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org...