CreateDebate


Debate Info

47
26
Yeah! No!
Debate Score:73
Arguments:20
Total Votes:76
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yeah! (13)
 
 No! (7)

Debate Creator

frenchieak(1132) pic



New Downvoting Update

The new downvoting policy:

Each downvote costs the downvoter one reward point, and,

The downvote is displayed in the Reward Point history.

From the CreateDebate blog.

What do you think?

Yeah!

Side Score: 47
VS.

No!

Side Score: 26
6 points

This is a good response to a large problem. My efficiency will no doubt increase.

I do have some questions, though.

If the reward points mean nothing but status, will this really stop people? If there really are rewards, this might be more effective.

Some people will stop downvoting altogether. Downvoting can be annoying in excess, but it is a necessary function of the website that exposes bad arguments and shows disagreement. If people enjoy their reward points, why would they waste them on downvoting?

I know I'm attacking the issue on both sides, but I think that they're both valid points.

This will provide a solution to the problem. Hopefully. At least we will now be able to see when someone downvoted us, and we will know that they paid for it, as well.

Side: Yeah!

I agree. Some arguments are just plain bad and deserve downvites. I'm not sure I want to waste my reward points.

I guess I'll have to see how it affects the site before I judge.

Side: Yeah!

While I do favor some of your remarks Frenchie, I heartily disagree with receiving anything but prestige from your rating. It becomes game like after a time and costs money the site may use for better things. We use this site at no charge to us which is very generous...I'd hate to see that change. Don't forget, the pendulum swings both ways. You can get all your pals to down or up vote you and falsely inflate or deflate any one they chose.

Side: Absolutely not
3 points

Definitely agree. Not only would actual rewards turn this into a game of points and profit rather than persuasion-- fuck, I hate alliterations-- it would definitely take away from the (hah) quality of intellectual discourse. One JoeCavalry is fine, but I think we'd see dozens of them then.

Side: Yeah!
2 points

Oh, that wasn't my idea. I'm not "hinting" at the site to do anything. I took that information straight from the FAQ section of the site. It states that:

"What are Reward Points good for?

We're still thinking about redeeming points for free stuff or special privileges on the site. In the future, when you vote for an argument, your level of points will influence how much those votes are for. If you have any suggestions, let us know!"

And I agree. Voting does work both ways.

Supporting Evidence: CreateDebate FAQ Page (www.createdebate.com)
Side: Yeah!
6 points

I can't say how relieved I am to finally have some input from the devs on this issue. I should think that the recent blog post should finally clear up the issue of "what are votes for?" once and for all. Particularly the sentence: "In our opinion, downvoting should be reserved for poorly thought out, offensive, stupid, or totally-off-base arguments." What should be carefully read here is the lack of "disagreement" in any of the criteria listed. It seems clear here that voting is for determining the quality of an argument, not whether you like what is being said. It is a question of how it's being said.

Side: Yeah!
4 points

That just boils down to the most important "debate" on the site; whether we use downvotes for the opinions people have or whether we use them for the quality of the argument. The meaning behind all of this is to clear up the fact that everyone has a valid opinion.

Side: Yeah!
4 points

I've never been too concerned one way or another with down votes, though I do see that there's a lot of ill will going around,

And I have to admit I was annoyed with a couple of my comments that were mysteriously downvoted for no apparent reason (most have very good reasons to be downvoted.)

But screw it, I have the points, and I've already started burning them on the AIG debate. Let's do this thing.

Side: Yeah!
4 points

Yeah, a good idea. although, reward points shouldn't be cost for down voting.

but, in general, i hate down voting. it's mainly unnecessary (unless it's a really stupid comment). if someone gives a well thought argument though, they shouldn't be down voted despite how much you may disagree with them (like how i was recently arguing from a Nihilist point of view, imagine how many bible thumpers would hate that). it's really a childish thing to do.

so, down votes should be recorded. ah, fuck it, go ahead with costing people reward points.

Side: Yeah!
3 points

You may want to read these 2 interesting blog posts that help to shape our reasoning and guide the decision-making process:

Hacker News:

http://www.paulgraham.com/hackernews.html

Stack Overflow:

http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/03/the-value-of-downvoting-or-how-hacker-news-gets-it-wrong/

We agree with the folks over at Stack Overflow, there is a value to downvoting.

Side: Yeah!
3 points

There is definitely a value to downvoting. Otherwise, people will never know what's good, what's just OK, and what's bad. As said in the Stack Overflow post.

I also like their idea of voting limits. I agree with their idea of inflation due to endless voting, and the minimum point threshold for new users before they can begin downvoting. They are both pretty cool sites.

Side: Yeah!
2 points

YAY!!!!! i still think that it should show who gives you a downvote >.> yea

Side: Yeah!
7 points

I like the effort behind it, but what about all of those REALLY badly written comments? Personally, my down-voting now will only be for the worst of the worst of the worst. Senseless down-voting will go down, no doubt, but so will some of the useful down-voting...

Side: No!
5 points

No!

I downvote like crazy, but not abusively. Now this is going to cost uppity moderators like me, while it won't point out vote-bombing. I imagine people concerned with their score will never down-vote. GOOD JOB AT FAILURE, CD :(

Side: No!

HG...you've nailed it! It is nothing more than a poorly thought out attempt at protecting the down voter and screwing the innocent. Talk about being Politically Correct! This makes me ill. Besides that, I didn't know it was a done deal yet!

Side: Absolutely not
2 points

Absolutely, although I initially was very favorable to the new system I've come around in no small part because of the arguments presented against it. As for vote-bombing I wouldn't mind seeing a big box on the front page that appears whenever someone votes too many times against one contributor or one side of a debate. Something very public so as to discourage this sort of behavior.

Side: No!

No, sorry...that is not a viable answer to the issue as I see it. It should cost nothing in points to down vote someone properly but it should cost them an explanation as to why they did it! Either that or the feature should be removed entirely as an option. All anyone would need to do to down vote someone and not have it count against their main account is to create new accounts which they wouldn't care about...so, NO, not for me! This must be made as fool-proof as possible.

Side: Absolutely not
3 points

As I give this whole thing more thought it seems less and less like a good solution. Granted, I'm glad to see some action on this front, but increasingly this appears to not be the correct action. However, there is a way to correct the imbalance that the new system will likely create: making reward points a currency. Instead of only taking away points for down votes, points should be deducted for any vote up or down. In this way particularly effective debaters can spend their "clout" on promoting good debate. Here's the catch: the JoeCavalry effect. How would spammers be dealt with? My solution is relatively simple; one's efficiency score determines the "cost" of a vote. For example someone with an efficiency score of 99% (and a reasonable number of points) would pay less for a vote than someone with an efficiency score of 59%. The difference would have to remain small enough as to not concentrate undue power to any one individual, but large enough to create an incentive to write well thought out arguments.

Side: No!

One point (excuse the pun) I'm not clear on is HOW the minus point is shown on one's profile. Are you simply going to deduct it from one's total without notation or insert another line which would show the total down votes?

Side: No!