Request for ideas - CreateDebate modifications for 2012
To welcome in the new year, we have decided to crowdsource a list of the most popular modifications the users of this site would like to see. Please look through the list to see if the ideas exists before posting a new idea. We will handle this similar to the award voting.
If the idea already exists and you want to support it, please vote it up. If you have an important comment to improve the idea, please post it in support of the argument.
If the idea already exists and you don't like it, please vote it down. If you have an important comment on why you don't like the idea, please post it as a dispute of the argument.
Please be as descriptive as possible.
Thank you for making this site the best it can be!
|
6
points
6
points
Cause the Jump to Debate button under an argument on a user's page to move to the argument's specific location, rather than just opening the debate. It can sometimes be maddening to look for one post out of hundreds, if, say, one needs to put it into context. Side: Location mechanic
I thought it already did this? Sometimes when I perform the action it not only brings me to the location of the argument but highlights it in a faint yellow. However if the argument is under a long chain of supports or disputes, the replies haven't been opened so a few times I've had to click on a load of links. Side: Location mechanic
1
point
1
point
1
point
Either, I suppose. If someone asked me to clarify something because my language wasn't clear, I'd probably just edit my original post. If someone wanted me to elaborate on something that made them curious but wasn't exactly relevant to the debate, I'd probably make a new post to them. Side: How cool is that
1
point
2
points
1
point
1
point
2
points
1
point
Look at Youtube. The people behind Youtube wants its users to upload videos and watch videos. They are getting that a lot and yet, at the same time, they have the option to personalized your own Youtube profile. Therefore, you don't have to worry if this change would make CreateDebate a more less about debating and more about characterzing one's own profile. Sigh, but im not apart of Youtube to know what is going on so i could be wrong. It was an assumption. Side: mobile app
Add a meter to For/Against debates. Consider an "Abortion rights" debate. Virtually never is anyone always for abortion rights or against abortion rights. It would make sense then to have an optional meter to accompany your position that you adjust while posting your argument (like "60% for Abortion rights, or 90% against abortion rights, etc.) Side: mobile app
2
points
Two minor changes and two not so minor ones I would kindly suggest: - 1) Notifications. For example, when someone messages you, there is no way of knowing that without regularly checking your messages tab. So a notification on your profile page for ally/enemy requests, messages, if someone up-voted/down-voted your argument, disputed/supported your argument, etc.... 2) Very Minor. When you make a debate then go bak to edit it, if it was previously under a certain category (World, Religion, etc) it gets automatically reset to "General." 3) Some of the webpages in this site don't load (like ever). The "people" pages (persuasive, creative, etc.) and for example the most points users. At least for me... 4) And a finally, maybe a poll of which side had the better arguments after a certain number of arguments or on closed debates. - Anyway, I love this site and the people on it (mostly). Thanks for maintaining it. And now in true joecavalry fashion I will end this with a ;) Side: Superscript
1
point
For example, when someone messages you, there is no way of knowing that without regularly checking your messages tab. When such an event occurs, I receive an electronic mail. This is displayed by my web browser (Google Chrome) as a little red envelope. You can turn that feature on by clicking 'My Profile' and then, at the bottom of the list, 'Edit My Notifications'. Side: Superscript
2
points
Thanks to Apollo's comment, two ideas initiated in my brain. 1. Whenever you go on your profile and see those long list of "replies," you never know if it is directed towards you. So, for example, if Apollo replies to one of MY comments, i want it to say in the header of Apollo's comment: "Response To TheThinker." This may not be a problem for a debate with a few comments. However, for a debate with a long list of comments, the chances of it being a problem is higher....in my opinion. 2. The ruling of each debate is unfair. Instead of adding a point to the system PER COMMENT, add a point PER USER. If six people sat at a table and debated on which is the best state: New York or New Jersey, only one person can carry ONLY ONE VOTE. This makes the debate fair. However, CreateDebate doesn't represent that. If those six people used the debating style like CreateDebate, then each person can carry more than ONE VOTE. That is unfair if "person 1" only gives one of his votes to New York and "person 2" gives ten of his votes to New Jersey. The debate becomes unfair in that perspective. That is why a point should rewarded PER USER instead of PER COMMENT. So if i voted on the "yes" side of the arguement, that side will gain ONLY one vote. If i made another arguement, no other point should be rewarded. If i voted on the "no" side of the arguement, that side will gain ONLY one vote. And so on. And i think "upvoting" and "downvoting" should be turned into "liking" and "not liking." Because points added due to upvoting and downvoting is unfair. If i voted for "New York," New York gets one point. If someone opposes me and downvotes me, my points goes away. That doesn't make sense for a true debate. If everybody just downvote anybody else, then what is the point of debating? Side: Superscript
I like your solution to make the debates more fair (i.e. each person is given one point no matter how many subsequent arguments they post), but I like the upvoting/downvoting system to measure an argument's effectiveness. So that person who posted the argument gets one point by themselves, but people can add to the score of that argument through the upvoting and downvoting. This is pretty much how debate works in life as well, there are judges who "grade" the arguments to determine the debate winners, and upvoting/downvoting is this system on this site. I also think the "in response to " would be useful. There have been many times in long, drawn out series of arguments where I found it difficult to find who I was disputing/supporting. Side: Superscript
1
point
1
point
What I am imagining. The users of create debate suppose a debate between two relatively prominent public figures or institution heads. Maybe two think-tanks. concerted effort is made to make the most popular (reasonably arrangeable) supposed match-up actually happen HERE The debate purpose is described as an educational tool for students. Side: public figure VS public figure
There was a site called essembly, a while ago, they had it so each person had a profile which listed all the debates they had participated in, the profiles were somehow rated in relation to others so you knew your ideological alignment with respect to others. This knowledge of ideological alignment makes it easier to know what people mean in certain posts when clarity is not strong, if they are more liberal or more conservative assumptions about meaning are usually better. Also, you can find people who are like you which makes finding debates that might appeal to you easier merely by looking at things they posted in. Side: public figure VS public figure
you are welcome, i wish i could help you with that algorithm, I think that there are some sites that have ideological alignment quizes, somehow contacting them might be a good start. One site i went on a few years ago plotted alignment on a two axis grid, one axis being economic and the other being social and the scale was between liberal and conservative allowing all possible ideologies to be expressed. It plotted them on the grid and also showed other well known figures on the plot as well, such as adam sandler, george bush, ghandi, darth vader, stalin, and the unibomber (pardon my spelling) it was great. Good luck with the alterations Side: public figure VS public figure
1
point
I would say, for your net positions on any topic, you get one point in that topic. So if you debated pro religion 10 times and con religion 1 times you would have +9 religion points. You can then 'match' any other profile up to a maximum of 9 points for religion, but you can't go over the number of points the other profile has. After all the +'s are added up, you can subtract the opposites the same way. So if someone had debated con religion 9 times, you would both lose 9 points against each other. Then, show your compatibility with each profile by showing net points/total matching points. I think... Side: public figure VS public figure
1
point
1
point
I love love the fact that if you make a account on this website that your username would be different from your CreateDebate name that is what I though it was in the first place. I really don't like the fact my username is my site name as well because it's not professional. Usernames are suppose to be a easy I.D to remember to login not a permanent name I wish I could change my name on here because I don't like it. I don't want to make a whole new account to do it. All someone has to do to hack someones account on here is to figure out there password they already know the username another way why it should change is to improve security reasons. Side: public figure VS public figure
Deepest Debates This might be an easy one. A link to the deepest discussions. Not the debates with the most arguments but the deepest conversations (longest continuous direct back and forth exchanges) irrespective of what debate topic they are under. Side: public figure VS public figure
|
