DDO should keep a voting system with multiple categories

We want a voting system that sets up a standard that distinguishes good debates from not-so-good debates, is straightforward enough for DDO voters to apply, and is as objective as possible, given the inherently subjective nature of the evaluation. The present system of voting in categories is a reasonable compromise for achieving these objectives. 1. Competitive sports provide good examples of judging methodsGymnastics, figure skating, and diving require subjective judging. So how are these sports judged? They have detailed judging standards. In gymnastics the standards are the Code of Points. The [4. http://tinyurl.com...] system is complex. It includes, “Gymnasts must demonstrate skills from five required Element Groups on each apparatus.” The Code specifies standard point deductions for each type of failure. The Wiki article says that some in the sport are not pleased by the way points are awarded under the system.Figure skating uses a complex point system called the International Judging System (IJS). [5. http://tinyurl.com...] The IJS was instituted after a scandal in 2002 “in which a Russian team with an error-riddled performance was given a gold medal ahead of a Canadian pair whose memorable programme was all but perfect. In response to the resulting outrage, the International Skating Union (ISU) instituted a new, intricate scoring system intended to enhance objectivity and combat corruption.”The rules for judging competitive diving are not as complex as for the two previous examples. Still, they say, “The following elements must be considered with equal importance by judge before awarding a score: the starting position and the approach, the take-off, the flight, and the entry.” [6. http://tinyurl.com...] Both the participants and the judges are thereby informed that these elements are of equal importance. An uninformed observer (like me) might assume that the flight and entry were much more important.In debate all the back flips are verbal, but the problem of subjective judging is the same. Having extremely complex judging rules on DDO would discourage voting. We can draw some parallels to the sports and provide a more objective judging system.2. The debate categories are appropriateSuppose DDO members decided that “expressing enthusiasm for a viewpoint” was a key element of debate. With that standard, a debater might gain points by typing his arguments in bold caps and underlining them. Most members –all but a determined few-- reject that as an important element. However, if that were determined to be an important element in debate it could be put into the voting system by creating a category for "Expressing conviction." Categories guide the debate.The characteristics of on-line debate are important for selecting categories. The main audience for on-line debates are not the debaters nor even the voters. The main audience is “lurkers.” These are DDO members who read the debate but don't vote, and the general audience of web denizens who find the debate with a search. In one of my recent debates there were 6 votes, 14 comments, and 779 page views. [6. http://tinyurl.com...] Another had 13 votes, 54 comments, and 1915 page views. Success of the site depends upon serving the audience that produces the page hits.Conduct is important because the anonymity of online persona leads to bad behavior that would rarely be presented in a live debate, especially if the judges are school administrators or the opponent plays offensive tackle on the football team. Bad behavior is a distraction from the debate. People rarely walk out in the middle of a live debate, but forfeiting is common on-line.The Spelling and Grammar category includes all the ways that a debater may make his arguments hard to understand through poor presentation. Perhaps the opposing debater is motivated to slog through a word swamp, but the readers are far less motivated. On-line debaters should learn to present arguments in a way that they can be readily understood by an audience that is largely invisible to him. Only the most motivated will vote or comment.Arguments are really in two parts: the logic and the facts assumed by the logic. The Sources category is the factual component. It could be renamed Facts.Arguments fail if a debater uses a logical fallacy to reach a conclusion. That is why arguments are the most important category. However, if a debater has three arguments as to why the resolution should be affirmed, only one need to be true to support his case. The logical structure of the presentation is part of the argument. If the logic is sound, the factual basis must support it to win.Some debates are purely philosophical, wherein the facts are argued as being self-evident, as in “I think therefore I am.” In a few debates, both sides may agree on the relevant facts. In those cases, sources are not determining elements, but in those cases there is no problem in leaving sources tied 0-0. In most DDO debates, and nearly all real-world debates, facts are interwoven with logic to arrive at a conclusion.There may be several sources for the same relevant data, so that if one source is not definitive it isn't necessarily fatal. sometimes the facts are not completely available, in which case the evidence must at least show plausibility. In the real world the importance of a factual basis for arguments is underrated, which is why it deserves attention as a debate category. In political contests, candidates tend to talk about the importance of outcomes rather than the factual basis of policies that produce the outcomes. Candidates tend to say, “Vote for me because I'll work to achieve A, B, and C.” rather than saying “My policies to achieve A, B, and C will work because ...” Claims are much easier to make than a supporting factual basis for the claims, which is why political candidates and novice debaters both downplay having to build a factual basis for their case.The present system of categories works well because the categories tell both the participants and the judging readers what is required to be a good debater. It allows the DDO community to discuss the relative importance of the factors, just as gymnasts are currently questioning if their current point allocations are the best. 3. Categories can help combat vote bombingMore categories would make the system too complicated, but having scoring guidelines within the categories would help make scoring more objective. For example, in S&G, the break out might be: no point deduction if S&G errors do not significantly interfere with understanding the case; a 0.2 point deduction if spelling errors interfere with understanding; 0.5 deduction if the grammatical errors interfere, and 1 point lost if the case is incoherent. After the fractional point deductions, the debater with the higher score in the category gets the whole S&G point. If there is a tie, no points are scored in the category.The scoring template would be discussed by the members of the site. It would be available to readers if they wanted to use it to figure out who wins a particular category. In my example, the scoring template says that spelling is less important than grammar. The detailed scoring template serves to guide both debaters and judges about what is important.Vote bombing is awarding points without good reasons. A vote may be appealed to the site moderators as unjustified. The scoring template then provides an objective basis for determining if the vote was justified or not, and the moderators could require an errant voters to provide reasons according to the scoring template for each category. A tournament organizer might also recruit judges who volunteer to do the detailed scoring for debates in the tournament. Figure skating ended up with a scoring template as a result of a vote bombing scandal, and DDO should move in that direction as well.