DDO's Official Op-in Voting Standards

I'm a DDO convert. I was wondering, would there be any trouble with using DDO's Official Op-in Voting Standards in an Edeb8 debate?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vWrUtwoRSvVqxw9MmqeajStGDbiXpYxPy2_pN6toOFM/edit

Kilk1: Have you seen the edeb8 community voting standard?

http://www.edeb8.com/resources/Community+Judging+Standard

Bi0Hazard: Yes, I have. However, it doesn't seem to be quite what I'm looking for. For example, it doesn't contain any clause with meaning similar to, "An RFD should address all major arguments." This is not the case with DDO's Official Op-in Voting Standards, on the other hand.

Kilk1: It's called the community standard because the community wrote it. If you or others want to draft another standard, and our main moderator can understand it, I'd have no trouble whatsoever adding it into this site as another option. I think it would also be cool to have standards built around existing RL judging standards so judges can practice for tournaments. I'd like to see judges be able to assign points per round etc.

In practice I've found edeb8's default judging model is not statistically worse in terms of judging feedback than the community model, while also garnering more votes per debate. For a time the community model was the default, now it's switched back to what I've called the "open" standard.

admin: I'd even not have a problem with directly copying the DDO standard if people really wanted to use it. I'm not sure if there's copyright concerns but heck, in terms of giving debaters more flexibility I'm all for it.

admin: Okay. Via another DDO user, airmax1227, I was able to contact Bsh1, the user who wrote the standard. (Bsh1 isn't accepting messages at the time.) Per Airmax: "I talked to Bsh. You are welcome to use the voting guide (Edeb8 can use it word for word), but again, be sure proper attribution of authorship is provided."

Let's do this! However, does Edeb8 use a 7-point system? If not, this and potentially other things that are non-Edeb8 may need revision.

Thanks,
Kilk

Kilk1: Edeb8 by default uses a system where the number of points is related to the length of the judgment. With some characters of feedback it increases from 1 to 3 points - with more it goes from 3 to 4.

However there is no reason why it COULDN'T use a 7 point system as an option. Do you like the 7 point system? Is it just "each judge can assign each side a certain number of points"? If so, why 7 and not, say, 10?

admin: Actually, I'm not sure what I prefer in regard to a 7-point system; I'm probably fine with the way Edeb8's voting is. Just to clarify, when I said that "this and potentially other things that are non-Edeb8 may need revision," I was referring to revising the standard's document, not Edeb8 itself. It would probably make sense for the document not to speak of content that isn't in Edeb8.

However, one feature I probably would like bring back from DDO is "judge voting," which is just the ability to have only a select view judges in a debate, and only those specified judges may vote. Could this work?

admin: Maybe that way of judging could be optional in the debate settings.

Bi0Hazard: Yeah, I think that would be a good idea.

Kilk1: What's interesting is that I actually implemented that feature a few hours before DDO did (DDO told people 24 hours before their feature went live, so I went ahead and coded it in like 3 hours lol). People complained it made the site elitist and it was not popular. After some reflection I agreed. Would you use a feature that allowed you to pick judges?

admin: You beat DDO to it? Lol!

Yes, if you bring back the ability to pick judges, I'll use the feature all the time. In fact, every debate I was in on DDO (excluding my first debate and a generic open debate I accepted) was a judge debate. What I really like about it is that it makes me feel accountable during a debate. Picking the cream of the crop makes me feel that the user who wins is the one who really did argue a better case. Unless my case for a given topic really is sufficient, I can't feel confident I will win; if I do provide a sufficient case, on the other hand, I feel confident I will be given the votes.

admin: In regard to those who feel the feature's too elitist, they won't be affected from what I see, because they can just choose the other options. This way users who like picking judges can pick judges, and those who like a more popular option can go with that.

It seems everyone gets their way, right?

Kilk1: Cool I'll put it back up for a trial later this month when I'm less swamped with uni work.

admin: Sounds great! Thanks!

admin: By the way: I've noticed a feature on Edeb8 that really interests me--the ability to hide the participants and judgments. If I nominate users under the judge system AND take advantage of these features, will I be able to nominate people without them knowing my true identity? Also, I may want to keep up with the selected judges; could there be a way my opponent and I would be able to message them anonymously?

Thanks a lot for the work you're doing!

Kilk1: I think those features were coded after the choose-judges system. From memory the notification doesn't give away who requested you to judge the debate, so yes.

Why would you want to message somebody on here anonymously?

admin: I'm glad to hear that if I make a request for judges, they won't be able to know my identity under the said scenario.

The reason I'd like the ability to message anonymously is because I want to be able to message the judges. Actually, the impetus that sparked my looking into Edeb8 was my desire for change after none of the judges on my last DDO debate voted--making a debate tied when I was confident I would have won. Because of this, I want to be able to contact judges before and even during a given debate. However, if I should tell a judge, "Hey, how's your preparation going on my debate," it obviously would give away that I'm in the debate, lol.

Do you see what I mean?

Kilk1: I guess I have a few issues maybe with the implementation, avoiding accusations of bias, etc. The tradition/courtesy I know of debating is that anything you say to a judge before or during the debate must be in public, with your opponent(s) present. Perhaps an alternative would be some means of having judges accept or sign in or something. Not sure how that would play out with anonymous judges but you could potentially do cool things graphically with that. Perhaps send them more reminder messages if time is running low to judge debates they're nominated for etc.

admin: Yeah, if there's a way that I can keep up with judges without compromising the ability to be anonymous in-debate, then I'll likely be for it. I'd like it if I could contact the judges personally, typing in my own words, while remaining anonymous. Could there maybe be a way that these notifications you're talking about be sent to judges with a personally typed message attached (a message that could be viewed by both of the debaters as well as the judges)?