OFFICIAL FEATURE REQUEST THREAD

To reduce the amount of buried threads, why not include a button next to the link for the most recent thread, that takes you to the second most recent thread?

I'm also reinstating the idea of reducing the number of forums on our site

Blackflag: Is this just for the main forum page? (the one with the shoutbox)

I feel like maybe it would be cool if I got a notification if someone "liked" one of my posts? Is that even possible?

nzlockie: Yes it is possible. It's going on my to-do list for once these mobile fixes are done

nzlockie: This is possible now. You'll need to enable the notification in your settings though.

admin: Can you make RFDs compulsory on the voting? Or vote-bombing will be easy, with biased votes, etc. It works much better with compulsory RFDs, or allowing members to make RFDs compulsory on debates they make. Thanks.

Tejretics: There's a number of different standards with this. Some people have proposed a minimum number of words or characters in the past (with exact limits also being a debatable issue). In practice I find this encourages poor voters to just write meaningless characters, which in turn causes their impact on the debate to increase points-wise using the edeb8 judging model, while simultaneously (one would hope) reducing their judging score (bearing in mind edeb8 has a strong policy of not removing judgments but rather countering them with good judgments and using feedback loops). Regardless, it's a seemingly innocuous change, but I think it would screw up the system in many ways.

So far, only a single non-FF debate has come down to a 1-point decision. As such I think there's nothing wrong with the weighting. It's simply a matter of getting enough good judgements on every debate that the 1-pointers don't matter. So long as there aren't more than 3-4 1-pointers for every 3-4 pointer, this should be easy enough. And indeed, the average judgement quality right now is sitting around "exceptional", between good and constructive. Biased and vote bomb judgments are possible ranking factors as well.

This being said, I understand for debaters, "mandatory RFDs" is a peace of mind kind of thing that their debate won't be decided that way, even if it doesn't work that way in practice (and I think, actually makes moderation harder, too). That kind of value is hard to communicate in another way. So it's a complicated issue, one that I'm personally very unsure about.

admin: The thing is, let's say you debate a really popular person ... you win undoubtedly and crush their arguments, but BOOM! they're popular = they win.

Tejretics: Right, but that can happen with mandatory RFDs too. Just because RFDs are mandatory doesn't mean the judgment is high quality.

Which is why I've always thought the better approach would be to encourage good voting. Something that edeb8 makes a point of, in case you haven't noticed haha. And like I mentioned, debaters here generally think very highly of judges here.

But at the same time, that value isn't easily communicated without an option as you describe, and can be hard to demonstrate particularly to a new member who might be afraid of something like that deciding their debate. Heck, I have more friends than anyone else on here, but still my win ratio is far from the best. But if you look at cliques that form on other debate sites it's easy to see what you mean, and I don't want anybody thinking "vote circles" etc are happening here. I honestly don't know how to do that without mandatory RFDs, but keeping the judging system open.

Another option would be minimum judge score required to judge the debate. But that would create elitism and exclude new members. So again, brick wall haha.

admin: terjetics I would have to agree with both of you. Mandatory reasoning is not necessary because they are worth 1/3 of the points of a judgement with an explanation. At the same time I sympathize with the problem that more popular = more judgements. The site doesn't have a fix for that. When Mikal and other popular DDO members participate in the WODC they are going to get flooded with noob and friend judgements. We should work towards fixing this now.

Blackflag: Ideas?

admin: One minor solution would be to ban private requests to judge. Although I have not abused judging since my time on DDO, I know how easy it is to ask a friend through PM to judge my debate knowing that s/he will most likely judge me for. If I ask publicly that same friend might give a completely different judgement.

In the case of well established "cliques," I have no idea how you would prevent them from positively judging each other.

Blackflag: Obviously if they did become established I could personally intervene.

admin: In real debates the debating "community" does not judge the debate. Certified judges do.
Is it possible that special users could get the privilege of an extra point?

admin: By doing what? Removing a judgement by YYW on a debate by Bsh1 on the WODC would cause an outrage. Am I wrong?

Blackflag: That's actually a good idea, except that I really don't like the certification process in real life. It leads to other sorts of in-group bias.

Still thinking about private requests. It's a complex issue.

Blackflag: Talking to them first. And if it continues, ban the offending members. Would have to be quite serious to go that far but there's always that last resort.

admin: I would say use the judgement rating system to determine certified judges, but that would give to much influence to the community on judgements. Here is an idea. If a judge reaches a high percentage rating, he can apply to be certified as a special judge, granting him or her an extra point when judging. You, or another person you trust who had a lot of time on their hands, could review their judgements and determine if they are worthy of the certification.