The Elo System Should be Changed in DDO

My opponent analysis the chess elo system. Then, he compares it to the DDO elo system. Good job. The DDO elo formula actually is D=100* (w+9L)/10W, with a 25 point advatage to the instigator and 25 point discount from the contender, as calculated by many to be true [1], so that the voters will not be confused and neither will ArcTImes. 1. Stopping noob snipersHow do we know I really deserve more elo? Although I have defeated such high-elo, I am also defeated by those of not-so-high elo. I lost to Ajab in my speciality, School uniforms, and he only has 2,271 elo. [2][3] I'm also losing a serious debate against DannyC, who only has 2,320 elo. [4] In fact, once I even got defeated by lannan13, who has a lowly 1816 (in comparison to my elo of over 2,100). [5] As seen here my elo is probably only slightly low at the best. Maybe I deserve an elo of, say, 2150, but that's not a very big increase from my current elo. My elo pretty accurately displays my skills, but those noob-snipers, definitely not!2. Accurately displaying debating skillsMy opponent hasn't shown why inaccurate display of skills isn't a problem. Again, why is it NOT a problem? My opponent needs to show how if your elo is low while your debating skills are awesome, it ain't a problem. On the other hand, I have clearly shown that people would more likely ignore a debater with low elo, or that the particular debater would feel bad about their lowly elo.REBUTTALS1. It's accurate?I'm not too sure about that. The elo formula is D=100* (w+9L)/10W, but is that really the best formula possible? As far as we're concerned, this has no "distribution model". However, even the top rating systems utilize distribution models. If DDO elo system had a logistic distrubution model-- the most effective model, then it would be much better and accurate. [6] In addition, 100 is too big, if 100 is the true number used. "If the K-factor coefficient is set too large, there will be too much sensitivity", source [7] states. Furthermore, if I am wrong and the actual formula is calculated 10* (W+9L)/W, that's still not the most accurate formula! "The chess statistician Jeff Sonas believes that the original K=10 value (for players rated above 2400) is inaccurate in Elo's work." source [7] says. This is supported by Sonas's own website, that suggests a K-factor of 24 has the most accuracy, rather than 10 or 100. [8]2. New systemOh yeah, I got a solution. I stated it above.-Logistic distribution used for the DDO formula-A K-factor of 24This is new but it solves both of my problems a little bit. Noob snipers earn far less elo and those who instigate debates and win them against awesome people gain more points.-Bigger advantage for the instigator, or bigger disadvatage for the contender, possibly increase 25 to 30 pointsPossible solutions?a. MatchmakingThis is an interesting idea, but it already exists. You can make a debate impossible to accept, as well as limit who can accept, or make only a certain person accept.B. Non-rated debatesThat's technically changing the elo system. It's destroying the advantages/disadvantages, and changes the elo to D=0* (0+0)/infinityC. Don't let noobs debateUh-huh. That doesn't really turn out well. My point is, noobs might improve, but noobs might not improve. One good example is diarygirl4u2c. Regardless of having 470 debates [9], she still has terrible spelling and does not exactly learn from her mistakes. In fact, I defeated her with less than 150 words in total! [10]D. Don't count ff'sUnfortunately, ff's always grant conduct point in the bias towards the non-forfeiter. We need this to keep noobs in check or teach experienced people to time their rounds carefully and look forward in their calendar.Thus, I have shown that the elo system needs to change. Most noobies don't know how to set their debates to limit who can accept. And the formula currently used isn't right; the formula can't be consistent for everyone. There needs to be a distribution--and logistic is the best way.Unto you, con.[1] http://www.debate.org...[2] http://www.debate.org...[3] Link to debate: http://www.debate.org...[4] http://www.debate.org...[5] http://www.debate.org...[6] http://en.chessbase.com...[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...[8] http://en.chessbase.com...-[9] debate.org/dairygirl4u2c[10] http://www.debate.org...