Major changes are happening at Debate.org, seemingly out of the blue. On March 3rd, win ratios saw drastic changes overnight as Phil, the site’s administrator and creator, deleted all votes formerly set by closed accounts, thirty of which had recently been identified as belonging to a single vote bomber. Victims of malicious vote bombing breathed a sigh of relief as their win ratios were restored to reality. Those whose votes came primarily from these closed accounts have since exhibited less than positive reactions at witnessing their wins converted into losses. Whether this turn of events has been beneficial or destructive, you may be interested to know the story that led to this dramatic action and the prospect of votes becoming public.
It’s difficult to determine exactly when the butterfly effect began, but this story begins with whining. On February 25th, I sent a complaint directly to Phil explaining my frustration with getting vote bombed and my waning enthusiasm for Debate.org. In good fashion, Phil affirmed the problem and offered to implement any technically feasible idea I might have to solve the problem. As tempting as it was to offer what I felt would be ideal, I decided to counter Phil’s offer with this: a private focus group whose goal was to formulate a means by which vote abuse could be deterred.
Phil agreed, so I set out to select the group’s members. The primary criteria was activity, so I chose from the pool of members often seen in the forums and in debate. From there I set out to build a heterogenous panel of members, varying in age, gender, and political leanings, to ensure as best as possible those involved would represent the site’s larger demographic. On February 27th, the focus group launched with members beem0r, InquireTruth, Johnicle, JustCallMeTarzan, KRFournier, Logical-Master, PoeJoe, Ragnar-Rahl, JBlake, RoyLatham, Tatarize, and theLwerd–with Phil directly participating as the technical informant.
As one might imagine, the discussion saw a flood of ideas and a drought of agreement. It was perhaps naïve to think debators could reach a consensus, but in the end unity was unnecessary. During the interchange, Phil revealed having researched the theory that Josh was using multiple accounts, but found the evidence inconclusive. On March 2nd, Logical-Master asked Phil to investigate a specific debate on the basis of additional evidence he had previously obtained. Armed with this new evidence, Phil confirmed 30 accounts belonging to Joshandr and vowed “to pull an all nighter to write the program to reverse these votes.” The next day, justice was meted.
Vote removal was never really discussed at length, mostly because the group was focusing more on prevention than cure. In the end, however, the panel did agree that vote removal was an excellent addition to Debate.org. The group was so pleased with the change that discussion on the proposed prevention mechanisms slowed to a halt. With that, I summarized the proposals and submitted them to Phil for his future consideration. They are:
Review Board: RFDs required. Voters choose whether public or secret. Approved moderators can review all RFDs and elevate suspicious voting. Optionally: 3 debate minimum to vote.
Judge Panel: 10 judges selected by Phil. Optionally: Members apply to become judges, approved by 2 judges, judges can remove another judge with majority consensus, non-judges can still vote but with only 1 point.
Vote Points: Randomly select X active members to receive X vote points that expire (like currency). Activity is algorithmically quantified by participation in debates, tagging debates, etc. All members can tag a debate as suspicious (”con-biased” “pro-biased” “wrongly decided”), worth reading (”clever” “well researched” “close battle”), etc.
Debate Minimum: Voting privileges granted after completion of X debates. Optionally: Moderator presence to prevent spam debates.
Win Minimum: Voting privileges granted after attaining X wins.
Mandatory Public RFDs: RFDs required and always public. Users can report suspicious voting activity.
Voter Approval Queue: 3 Steps to become voter. Step 1, verify identity via mobile phone. Step 2, complete three debates. Step 3, moderator approval.
Reputation Points: Earn points for doing good deeds: debating, leaving RFDs, etc. Lose points for doing bad deeds: being reported or forfeiting debates. Milestones grant privileges, X points to enable voting, etc.
Moderator Presence: General moderation in the vein of other sites. Moderates forums, votes, and debates for abuse.
Public Voting: All votes visible to all users.
If the focus group is any indication, I’m certain the readers will be at odds as to which of these ideas have the most merit. Yet I’m also certain the readers will agree Debate.org must never stop evolving. It remains to be seen the effectiveness of removing closed account votes and publicizing ballots. Even if these ultimately give way to more sophisticated systems, doing nothing only serves to further discourage and dissuade loyal members. Whatever the outcome, I for one extend my deep and sincere gratitude to Phil and the other focus group members for caring enough about the integrity of Debate.org to do whatever they can to level the playing field.
Tags: focus group, Phil, vote reform — written by KRFournier @ 12:16 pm
