DDO should keep a voting system with multiple categories

Thanks Roy. Academic debate It's best to look to real world debate to determine which system is better. Roy calls a one judge one vote system primitive and argues that real world debate leagues would change to a DDO akin system if they experienced scandals. This is simply not true. Academic debate has experienced *tons* of scandals but everyone still agrees that a one judge one vote system is preferable. Anyone who is thinking of voting for Roy should imagine the National debate tournament and think if it's a good idea for the announcer to say "It's a 6-5 decision for Neg and the winner is...Aff due to grammar!" Roy's argument for why real world debate shouldn't be compared is bunk because scored real world debate is the closest system to scored online debate we have and it's a much better comparison than figure skating. He argues that academic debate is not the real world, but neither is DDO debate. You don't get an 8000 character round to convince someone in real life. Roy's only reason for preferring the figure skating judging method to the actual debate judging method is that it supposedly cuts down on scandal, but Sochi shows that's completely false and as TheWire pointed out, compared to other events figure skating is considered a joke for it's arbitrary judging standards. Roy hasn't given any statistics on the changes being good for figure skating. His only response is that DDO has a moderator, but this is completely underestimating the time and power Airmax actually has. I've shown that there are plenty of examples of strategic voting that slip through what Airmax can delete as they only have to explain why they awarded their points. Roy is mistaken when he says that changing the system to a one judge, one vote system would bring it closer to polling. This highlights a huge inconsistency in his arguments, he is essentially saying that having only an arguments point would lead to people just voting on what they think is meant subjectively by "best"...except, that's literally the current system except the current system is worse because it has even more categories that are not manadtory and even more subjective! Pro's sources "felt" stronger, Pro's conduct you "felt" was rude. The non argument categories are even more subjective and are much closer to polling than arguments are. Remember, this argument should lead you to vote Con by default. Real world debate is run by people who have dedicated a large part of their life to debate, and the competition is at a much higher level than DDO debates. They have chosen a one judge one vote system. Recall as well that under the current system, poor voters are usually weighted above good voters. This is a massive flaw in the current system.Do not vote on any of Roys proposed changes to the system as he didn't extend them to his final round. Judge the debate on which system is preferable, mine or the status quo. Roy has carried through to the last round any compelling difference between DDO and real world debate that justifies a different system.Strategic voting Roy argues that I only cited one example of a reversal. I have three responses. First, even if debates decided due to nonsense are rare, if they're mitigated in my system and with no reason to prefer the status quo, this is still a reason to vote con. The debate I cited was one Roy himself originally cited as a meritorious example of how the current system works. It was decided by "sources on Con's side aid his argument more." Secondly this is an unfair burden on me. In order to cite debates where the decision was unjust I would have to rehash arguments on both sides and show why the losing side deserved to win which would take up all of my characters. Thirdly, I *have* shown unjust voting to occur. Roy doesn't dispute in this round that the entire system incentivizes people to make their votes as heavy as can possibly be justified and he offers no solution except faith in the moderator, but most people by now know how to write an RFD to avoid deletion. If I show that logically strategic voting occurs, I win the impact as my burden is to show that strategic voting happens and is facilitated by the status quo, not laundry list debates that should've gone the other way. If strategic voting exists, it will obviously effect some outcomes.Roy's only response to the poll is a complete mischaracterization. The poll was not asking DDO members if they were satisfied with the current system, it was a clear question of "Has someone ever voted "strategically" on one of your debates?". The answer was a resounding yes. His solution is to "educate" voters but that's utopian--it's better to make the system more "idiot proof" by taking out a tool from biased voters toolbox than hoping to change their ways. The current system has been around for seven years, if it's good at educating people we should've seen that happen by now. Lay judges have no issue with the up down real world ballot. You can't educate voters on how to vote on sources or spelling because it's inherently arbitrary. Is one extra source than your opponent enough to win the points? Is one spelling error? There is no consensus. Roy argues that my system would lead to more ties. There's no real impact to this as I find it hard to believe that Roy, or anyone, would prefer a hard fought debate to be decided by "sources on Con's side aid his argument more." This is unjust to both debaters. A tie is better than a loss due to a bad decision. Roy is saying its good that strategic votes break ties. Don't consider voting on this argument unless you want to lose one of your close debates because of one spelling error or because your opponent used one more source than you did. A perfect example of how the current system leads to bad votes is GWL-CPA's vote on Roy's debate with Mikal[1]. GWL met the bare minimum requirements to keep his vote from being deleted (he explained every category he awarded) but it was still clearly a very poor vote worth six points. It's a vote on a contentious debate between two very good debaters, and this horrible vote is worth bluesteel's and whiteflame's votes put together, both of whom left comprehensive RFD's containing thousands of characters. This is what the current system leads to and it might swing the debate. The status quo is broken. Even if Airmax deletes GWL's vote, to do so would be violating the criteria he laid out about voting, meaning that even the moderator himself can't give consistent rules on this horrible system. If Roy really doesn't think strategic voting can sway a debate and is unjustified he should be okay with everyone giving me the sources for citing Wikipedia less. He wouldn't be because debates shouldn't be decided by nitpicking sources. In conclusion the only vote is a vote for Con. I've proven strategic voting is commonplace using the poll, and it happens for two reasons: Poor voters tend to award a lot of points, so otherwise honest voters react to this by playing the dominant strategy and fudging their votes too. Strategic voting is unfair, and the only way to eliminate it is a vote to vote Con and eliminate the categories that have been abused constantly since for seven years. Do we want to base our system off of the subjective figure skating system that has caused so much controversy or the method used uncontroversial by actual debate leagues? DDO should not readily hand over the tools for voters to make unjust votes. The system is inherently flawed, in conflict with systems used by real leagues, and encourages egregious amounts of bias and dumb votes. Vote Pro if you want your debates to be decided by minor spelling errors or a source or two and you want your RFD to be outweigh by votes like GWL's.It's high time for DDO to change it's system and stop cheapening the value of good votes by allowing bad votes to outweigh them. The resolution is negated. Sources:1. http://tinyurl.com...