DDO vs Edb8

It's not that I think edeb8 is better because it's smaller, it's that DDO isn't necessarily better because it's bigger. This is practically the only benefit pro clings to, and one he hasn't shown the merits of. C1: LearningFirst of all, learning to use either site shouldn't be hard. Sovi/Jifpop has written a new guide for edeb8 members, not unlike Ragnar's for DDO (see . http://tinyurl.com...). Likewise I have made a number of guides teaching members how to use different features (not sure if I should cite myself in a debate as a source lol), there's an analogous new member thread on edeb8, all new members are reached out to (often by multiple existing members) and all that. Our coaching system, unlike the adopt-a-noob programme pro pointed to, is actually designed for the long term rather than expiring every single month. Edeb8 retains a number of key advantages that pro missed. First, features such as secret topics - which cannot be replicated in DDO by design - are key tools in helping people develop their skills. As such, edeb8's programmes are more effective. Second, edeb8's platform isn't just geared towards learning for newer members, but is open to and geared for everyone regardless of their current skill level. Third, most of these features do not require an explicit sign up. People can gain experience faster with the incentives edeb8 provides, without needing to go through the forum or the like. Fourth, the actions of the dozen or so members who participate in such DDO programmes are not necessarily indicative of the site as a whole, comprising of many thousands. Contrast this with edeb8, where formal and informal coaching is common generally due to the whole site culture being improvement-focused. C2: FormatsPro's assertion that DDO allows any format is incorrect. A clear example would be a 4-way (BP style) debate, since every debate on DDO must have exactly 2 participants. Round structure can be awkward also: simulating an Australs-style debate with an acceptance round requires 2 debates, including one debate to be held purely so the affirmative can give their final reply speech, because DDO does not support reversing the speaker order in the final round. Thus, even when some features can in theory be tentatively emulated, the majority of popular real-life formats are either impossible on DDO or needlessly difficult to complete and judge. This holds true for informal debate systems too. On edeb8 you can record and upload your video rounds right on the site. On DDO, you need to head off to youtube, record and upload your video there, get the DDO-friendly URL of your video, and paste and submit it over here. It's a needless level of complexity for a simple format. For team debates on DDO you need to get a moderator's permission and create a new user account just for the team. And if there wasn't any reason for user progression, there certainly is no incentive on DDO for team progression. As for this idea of an open structure, edeb8 has that too. Except that we don't require the wasting of an acceptance round for that to happen, as debates on edeb8 can have separate rules for the debate. C3: Ads1. The need for "fixes" implies the site has problems needing "fixing", which edeb8 does not.2. Even if helpful to Juggle, ads remain annoying to users. What money does get reinvested into DDO is only generally spent on acquisition, which targets a broad range of users. I'm willing to bet few of the top users joined DDO because of ads. Further, it's counter-productive, because the ads which slow the site down also slow down search spiders, harming rankings on search engines. C4: CustomizationPro concedes edeb8 has more options here but claims it is not an advantage. He needs to show why this is any less major than his points. To see how important this is to people, just remember the outcry that has happened on DDO whenever the site design has been modernized and people have protested the new colors or layout or such. C5: Bugs/DevelopmentOther bugs, on the other hand, remain persistant. Whiteflame's profile pic hasn't been appearing in search results for at least some months now, for instance. The difference is that Juggle has little incentive to polish minor bugs like this. In addition, I explained two other impacts pro has not addressed:1. Member support also having the power to fix stuff or improve stuff if need be.2. Less spammers/trolls/mischief-makers. C6: SocializationEdeb8 is also linked to Facebook. When it comes to socialization, edeb8 one-ups DDO in basically every way imaginable, and pro thinks this is a marginal impact at best. When two sites both call themselves debate social networks, I'd say socialization is vital. C7: Judge DevelopmentNot only does edeb8 also have a leaderboard, but the assertion that the DDO leaderboard has increased judging quantity is plainly wrong. At the time of writing this, the last 10 post-voting debates on DDO had an average of 2 votes each. Using a consistent metric, the figure for Edeb8 is almost double that, at 3.5. So DDO is not winning on encouraging users to vote in bulk, but edeb8. Edeb8 also has judge guides (. http://tinyurl.com...) and experienced members, but the difference is that this focus is built into the entire site from the ground up - including but not limited to what badges a judge can get, what their ranking is on the leaderboard, their feedback/comments etc. Things that the community has had to catch up on on DDO are already there on edeb8. The vote moderation system on DDO, even if perfect and the mods were perfect judges, doesn't address the majority of users, and certainly doesn't do much to encourage newer users to try voting if they thought their vote would count for nothing. This kind of negative reinforcement only works when people feel invested enough to vote again, and thus I'd be surprised if any great DDO judges have become so because of the vote moderation system. Contrast that with the edeb8 rating system for judgments. R1: QualityIt's not just a bare assertion. A site that has a million poor debates and 50 good ones (0.5%) has a far lower proportion of good debates than a site that has 200 debates even if the smaller site only has 10 good ones (5%), which makes it an inferior site overall. Roy may be a good debater, as are many others on here, but edeb8 can still have a higher average quality. DDO may have many times as many good debaters, and it's still irrelevant, so long as they also have significantly more poor-quality members (and edeb8 doesn't). I contest that for every 1 "good" member Mikal can find on DDO, I can find 3 "poor" members on DDO, and anyone else can do the same. While the good members raise the quality, the poor members also lower the quality to a greater extent than the good members can raise it. It's not about more serious topics, but about more quality topics. Such as topics written by experts for major tournaments. Pro never has negated the value of feedback to quality. You can draft arguments on both sites - pre-drafting, persistant drafting etc is something else. Hence also why so many DDO users prefer to type up their arguments in Word first, since the DDO system is not as sophisticated as the edeb8 one. And no, my debating record on here proves that a forfeit does not equal an automatic win. Pro didn't bother to refute my 4 reasons for why edeb8 has higher quality members. Once again, many of the members he listed for DDO are also on edeb8. Additionally, 4 of the top 10 DDO debaters have made accounts there. Edeb8 may have way less users, but my rebuttal is merely that those users are disproportionately higher quality. Note the dropped major point on poor members. R2: Net WorthI disagree that profitability is the sole determinant of value. See my charity example in the last round. A better standard is utility and pro has not argued against my claims that utility should be the ultimate standard for this debate. Pro is also yet to demonstrate why more members is always better. R3: TypesI've never stated edeb8 is geared only to formal debate. Seriously, I want my opponent to quote where he thinks I said that, because the only time I mentioned formal debate in the previous round was to demonstrate that we do NOT only focus on formal debate, in rebuttal to this very point. Pro otherwise refuses to engage with any of my material or rebuttal on this point. R4: FeaturesTo pro, membership numbers are everything. To edeb8, it's about the superior experience. Pro has yet to prove why more people is always good for a debate site, especially since the crowd that polls and opinions draws isn't necessarily the same as the crowd of "quality" members he refers to in his first contention. Membership also tells us little about preference, unless of course the people have also tried edeb8. People may prefer edeb8, but not know about it. By the same token I could argue that any one of edeb8's impressive features (say, Groups) draws an entirely different crowd which leads to more members, except that I don't see why maximizing membership numbers is at all a desirable goal. R5/6: SocialMy second rebuttal to this point - which conveniently pro ignores - that these social diversions do happen on edeb8, throughly negates the point that the site doesn't push for them. I further demonstrated that the rate at which this happens is analogous across sites, if you will recall my math. Further, I deny that on-site activities add to the site presence. They do add to the social clique, but if DDO were to randomly shut down, the social clique would survive. Members wouldn't give up the strong friendships they have formed just over that, which is in part why they also contact each other on third-party social networks. Such personal connections can be made on just about any debate site, but DDO is still a debate site in essence. People know that and COME BACK for that, just as with edeb8. Edeb8 remains (arguably) the best.