Savant

Maybe have a setting "unmodded votes" on debates then? Or no vote standards for casual?

So what is your proposed voting system that pleases everyone?

the existence of opposite votes on debates pretty much shows there is no any objective "win standard" regulating votes.Its like if there was a chess game, and one judge said you won, and the other said you lost. Would that make sense?

The win condition is maximizing what percent of voters vote for you. That's an objectively measurable thing. The criteria for voting are to ensure it's not arbitrary. After enough debates, everyone learns the biases of the user base, so it's a level playing field.

Ultrarated debates also suffer greatly from lack of votes

Once we have enough people to do tournaments regularly, it'll start moving fast enough that it'll probably get more popular.

Novice quit because, in his words, "voting quality was bad"

He never did UltraRated

So this isnt about "users can do this instead". Its about what users actually want to be able to do on the site.

You have to consider the current user base too though. They seem to care a lot more about vote quality. Plenty of people might leave if we change things, but we don't see them complaining because they are happy. The current user base are also the ones investing a ton of effort into growing the site.

Also, the type of user who doesn't want voting is just gonna ditch us for Modern-Day Debate eventually, they can get way more of what they want there. Our only unique feature, really, is the leaderboard. That can be a big asset long term, but not if we kill the quality of votes.

Without requiring RFDs, the quality of votes goes way down to almost worthless. We gotta have some metric for determining who made better arguments. With any complicated debate, most voters aren't gonna bother to track all the arguments and will just go with who they agree with. Also if they want us to get rid of voting, couldn't they just...not vote, and it would be the same effect? Or comment who they think won?

Just remove voting system as a whole. I dont really see point in it. "Oh a few people said you won a debate" - yeah

I mean we need some way to score it and give feedback to the debaters. It's a competition.

I’ll still do the voting thing so I can contribute by voting

Thanks. You know how voting badges and random voting assignments and all that works? It'll give you a three day deadline, so I recommend waiting until you know you'll be able to complete a vote in three days.

Thank you🙏

And also, I state a fact that a state-wide holiday helps facilitate working voters more than unemployed voters, and you imply that this qualifies as a "conspiracy theory" seems to indicate that you are a type of person who ignores incentives and consequences and would actively obscure facts to avoid both.

Isn't implementing things like that with a hidden agenda effectively a conspiracy? I'm not even saying conspiracies don't happen, I'm saying it doesn't make much sense that not giving private industry workers time off would be a scheme to help Dems when Dems are the ones pushing for them to have time off on election day.

I'm no fan of the DNC, but you typically seem more critical of the left in the context of American politics, so when you make a broad criticism of the American political system, I assume you see more fault with the Democrats. It's fine to make nonpartisan arguments, though, if that's what you're doing. I shouldn't have assumed.

Also I'm direct messaging people who join the server to direct them to the site. Discord limits how many messages I can send out at once, so it will be slow, but if you can handle getting people to the server I can try and handle getting them to the site.

I mean, the party generally in favor of this is the one you tend to oppose. If you're implying the Democrats are orchestrating some conspiracy here, it seems odd they are the ones more inclined to so something like this. 4/5 states that mandate time off for voting are Democrat run.

Some new users are trolls who annoy users who were there for years. I am just not sure how we can grow without also having trolls come over.

I mean, wouldn't discord channels for ads be worse for this than channels designed for formal debating?

Can you ask door or whoever to invite a ton of ppl or make announcement in their server?

To do UltraRated you gotta vote on UltraRated debates specifically. And the only way to do that is go to profile > badges and then take the vote quiz, and once you pass, click to earn vote badge and it'll assign you a debate to vote on with 3 day time limit.

But I am pausing invites currently, for now. Right now I am advertising our server in servers designed for advertising to see if that works maybe better.

Then we're competing with other advertisers. I'd focus on recruiting debaters, that's what we need more of.

Yes and yes.

Although I will think about it a little more

Okay, plz do. I can make it work with 6 but we still need that 6th person if we want UltraRated to catch on, which I think is gonna be necessary for consistent high-quality debates.

Then why are they in the Discord...?

Because the Discord doesn't require as much effort as doing formal debates.

I don't think the trolls are as likely to actually join the site. And there are ways to filter them out, easier to filter once ppl are in the discord.

To be honest, I'm willing to just go with SatanLucy here. He's done more to grow the site in a few days than we've done in months. Not every discord member will join the site, but they're in our turf and we can advertise the site to them. Also a few started doing debates and one even signed up for the tournament. Uncommitted people will filter themselves out.

Any interest? Don't be shy.

Tbh you are a genius for this. Should have thought of it way earlier.

Also, where are you finding all these people?

I would but that strategy requires having friends. Go for it though.

The actual quote wasn't about AI, it was about television, the quote McLuhan popularized was:

“When you consider television's awesome power to educate, aren't you thankful it doesn't?”

Yeah that's the title of the post. Faux said he was paraphrasing it.

The whole premise of maga is to make America great again as if America aint already great. If maga dont like it, why dont they just leave?

Saying America isn't great and not liking it are different things though. Your kid could be a serial killer and you still love them. It's kind of a nitpicky distinction, but of the people who would say they are ashamed to be American, I think more would be on the left than in the MAGA camp though. Of course, MAGA sometimes conflates these things themselves when they accuse people of being unpatriotic for not supporting the current government.

Now, that said, whether America is great or not really depends on how we're defining "America" when measuring greatness. If the greatness of a country depends on what it stands for, then perhaps even totalitarian countries are great if they outwardly stand for good things. If it depends on whether bad things happen in the country, then no country is great.

Does a sitting Prime Minister have the authority to take swift action like a president even during times when Parliament is gridlocked?

No, and that kinda solves the problem.

Although I do have a personal preferred design for parliamentary democracy to try and get the best of both worlds. Basically parliament selects a PM through concordet voting to get someone representing the median voter, and the PM can take action with only 40% of Parliament in agreement. But a simple majority of Parliament can remove the PM and replace them with the concordet runner up, and the runner up leaderboard changes weekly. So things get done without gridlock, but if the PM really starts pushing it they can easily be swapped out and the govt continues ahead at full speed with the replacement. (The runner up would be cross-examining the PM weekly as well).

The populace would also vote on which issues are most important, and camps in parliament would select reps to debate those issues in front of a jury of a few hundred people randomly selected from the population. Then when the jury votes (in advance of the rest of the population), their vote selects the makeup of 20% of parliament. And citizens could also defer their vote to the jury, and it would split their vote into the same proportions as the jury voted. So you get a random sample of the populace to represent the informed median voter.