Comments on Judge Decisions should be implemented

I thank my opponent for the challenge. No matter what happens this feature will probably be implemented anyway, but it's still a fun topic.

In much of edeb8, certain design choices have been made to facilitate a particular understanding of debate generally, and what a good debate or judgement ought to look like specifically. An example of this is the fact that judges are asked for constructive feedback to give to both debaters.

There are some debate websites that follow the model that a judgement is more like an opinion on the topic. This is not the case with edeb8. On edeb8, judgments should be related only to the performance of the debaters. An example of a design choice like this is in the description of a "vote bomb" available through judge ratings.

Topics are things that are discussed and, specifically, commented on. This is one reason why there are comments available on debates. Judgements, on the other hand, are not. They are final declarations of a judge's decision.

As I outline on edeb8's about page, I encourage debaters to get additional clarification from judges when they need it. That doesn't mean every judgement has to be an open dialogue for discussion with everybody. Instead, some simple private messages between the interested debater(s) and the judge ought to suffice.

Edeb8 is by no means perfect, but I will gladly defend that it is the site most ahead in terms of social interaction. The main social issue with edeb8 is not a lack of features for communication, but a lack of members.

Since my opponent has put up DDO as a counter-example, allow me to explore some of the unique advantages edeb8ers enjoy over DDOians:

Comments on judgements is not the sort of feature that will entice people here. It's just another one among the hundreds of other improvements edeb8 has over its competition, not a game-changer any way you twist it.

By attaching comments exclusively to ratings, you prevent two important things. First, you prevent users from having more than one message at a time, since there can only be one rating. Second, you prevent the judge from responding to your post. This is particularly unhelpful when most of the time, one ought only really to be asking a judge for clarification. I want my opponent to tell us what kind of helpful comments he really expects to see.

There's a huge disincentive to even using this system in that it de-anonymizes your judge rating.

I agree completely that good judgments makes great debating. But this model doesn't help either the debaters or the judges. If they want to talk, they can already do so in so many ways. But this model simply does not provide the solution to the problems the blue team has put forward.

Vote con.