No downvoting Please?
I have read the arguments of many of the questions debated at CD. And surprisingly, I must conclude that there is actually very little debate about most questions. It is as though the participants are arguing and opposing for the sake of points among peers whom are of the same opinion; who, in turn, up-vote their golden calf lest an opposing view or opponent acquires more votes. And if the largest portion of the participants of CD is of the same opinion the format of quantifying the effectiveness of all responses by a point system is in the favor of the mobs opinion and therefore does not indicate anything but majority opinion. And thus, the point system that is currently in use is incapable of allowing any debater to determine anything other than he/she has many/few peers of the same view. Debates are not intended to be measured quantitatively, but rather qualitatively.
I must admit that the identified problem is difficult to resolve. Yet, that does not mean that the problem is not solvable. Consider, if you will, some alternative additional options for imparting quality into the quantitative format of CD.
1. No votes by observers. 2. No down votes. 3. Only participants with opposing arguments can upvote.
Do you think any of these options will impart quality into CD in the stead of a quantification of popular votes? I think we all would agree that when our opponents consent in one form or another, we have better feedback that is of more value than ten friends of the same opinion.
|
3
points
You've got some good ideas. But they're all in the rough beginning stage, and would need some tweaking. 1) No votes by observers - Good idea, but this would be... against the style of the site. The people of the site seem to be the problem, not the system. We need to vote on the important, good arguments, and, as you said, not just arguments you agree with. I try to follow that rule as much as possible. 2) Bo downvotes - Not such a great idea, I don't think. The upvotes would be much less valuable if there were no downvotes. We need downvotes for balance, and people will run wild with stupid comments if there is no such thing as a downvote. I agree more with... I think it's HGrey87's idea... arguments start at a neutral number, 0. 3) Only participants with opposing arguments can upvote - Good idea as well. I like this one more than the rest, I think. This would bring the actual good arguments to the top, instead of the popular ones. These should definitely be considered. Side: Both agree and disagree
If a voter has hundreds of points there is no effective deterrent currently in place for efficiently reducing the abuse of a habitual down voter when the cost of doing such is a mere one point. And moreover, the down voter can replace that point by a fifty word derogatory comment a minute later. None of which precipitates a legitimate attempt to reasonably debate any question. And they in essence are employing the argumentum ad hominem at no cost to their intellectual ineptitude. As for the style of the site, the format of the site doesn't preclude maniacal voting patterns derived from a laziness of mind. If they want to up-vote or down-vote a particular argument there is no intellectual energy or time required to accomplish such. If they want to see their view have more points they, according to the options I've mentioned, must actually take the time to debate with the opponent of their view. It's is principally like drive by shooting; cowards won't stop and address the adversary one on one, yet they might not be so bold to shoot if it means they must stop and stand on the same ground as their adversary who then can shot back as well. The problem with up-voting is also equally true when no argument is required. Lastly, consider the following. If all of the participants of CD are living on food stamps can CD be a legitimate site for a debate on the importance of food stamps? (argumentum ad populum) Side: I agree that we need more quality
On several points, I agree, however, on even more points I disagree. The issue of excessive downvoting has been solved, at least, it has reached a stage that should limit or completely halt the abuse of it. So completely irradicating downvoting is unnecessary. 500 word minimum in order to get the 1 point start off is kind of unnecessary as well. People are already mad at the 50 character minimum (or at least I think that is the minimum) that is currently in place so increasing it to 500 would just cause an uproar to those who are able to condense their arguments but still make a valid point. And although upvoting is usually done by those who have a similar appeal, well, isn't that the point? People who have the same appeal of a certain issue's resolution should get to upvote one another if they feel that they made a valid point. Only allowing people of the opposing side to upvote is totally unjust, because then you have a similar problem: No one will get upvoted because those who are disagreeing with them will not want them to get higher points. Am I right? So although you made a few valid points, for the most part I understand your mindset, but disagree due to the flaws I just pointed out. ^_^ Side: I Disagree
I've finished the poll. There were many problems in my attempt to submit the poll. Many things were eliminated that consequently countered my intention. The 500 word minimum is in addition to other points earned. And lastly, I take music instructions to learn music, not to be told that I am an excellent piper. Kinda like American Idol, contestants will improve their skills by considering the critique of the judges, and not the applause of the judges. Quality in a debate is derived similarly as well. Side: I Disagree
You're right for the most part, Lawnman. Really, there are about a dozen or so real regulars, and they all seem to vote based on the strength of argument rather than what they agree with. So while most voting on the site is crap, we all know where we stand with the people who actually stick around. If I looked at the efficiency ratings of the people I knew best on the site, I couldn't match them up with the users. It is infuriating to get vote-bombed when you first come on the site, or see a rational but unpopular argument at -5, but you get used to it :P cough age requirements. Side: I Disagree
I have debated with andsoccer and a couple of others on a couple of issues and there were times that I upvoted their arguments, not because I agreed with them, but that they took the time to be reasonable in their responses. Also, under the current format, they have no means of knowing that such has been done.
My upvotes, I perceive, would be a better measure of their debating skills than simply the up-votes of others of the same opinion. And so in conclusion if up-voting is restricted to only the participants of a debate the opposition can empirically know the effectiveness of their methods of debate. Side: I agree that we need more quality
1
point
Hello Lawnman! I am with you 100%. No member should be able to peruse a couple of debate replies and render them moot if they haven't participated in the first place. Up votes are for debates or rebuttals that are well thought out and bring important points to the fore, down votes are for complete and utter rubbish and not disagreement if an argument is well put. As it has been pointed out, it is the fault of the people here and not the fault of CD, however, knowing what we all know, and that includes CD, we must apply rules that thwart this behavior. We must have debates of quality on OUR site and the way to do that is to keep our key people from being so disenchanted that what we are left with are people no one would wish to debate. Side: I agree that we need more quality
|
