Judging: How should it be done?

admin: I think moderating every judgement and not allowing novice judgments is a bad way to go. I do think you can solve a lot of the issues that have come up in terms of people arguing whether a judgement is legitimate or whether it has been judged in the right way by setting out your own standards of what judging is and some rules by which to judge. (ie do not judge on your own opinion and use only the argumentation discussed in the debate) Like I said you already have a document on how you would judge so you can make that the standard. As said by the novice judges on the forum it is really confusing coming into a debate and trying to judge without having any idea of how to do it. Giving some basics on what you should do in a judgement would give novices confidence in this and would allow for less judgements to be "vote bombed" just because the judge is inexperienced.

Ab_M: I had a similar idea once where votes could be removed by the mutual consent of both debaters.

TheHouse: Isn't it already clear that vote bombs are given to voters whose judgements have more opinion than analysis, then?

admin: I like that idea

admin: I mean there should NOT be a winner - the vote should be removed. A 0-0 tie is **way** better than an unjust loss.

admin: Not all the time. I have seen judgements that have large amounts of justification and comparison and are still voted "vote bomb". I have also seen votes which are limited in their analysis and explanations being given "exceptional" votes. I've also seen votes being given to balance out other votes. One of the issues is that the votes are not accountable and they are just a representation of peoples opinions on the judgment without having anything else to back it up.

Tejretics: Isn't the whole point of debating that there are no draws? That was the first thing I learnt when I did my accreditation training, that debate is set apart from most other competitive sports in that draws are impossible.

The problem might be partially solved if there was a period where you could judge, and during that period all previous judgements were hidden, and then after that, a period to vote on judgements, and during that period judging was already closed. That way no one could vote just to balance the judgements or be biased based on othet judges' opinions.

admin: The difference between formal debate and edeb8 is that there are no absolutely terrible judges who don't even *read* the debate let alone type a proper RFD in formal debate. There are no draws when people *judge* it, but that isn't the "purpose" or "whole point" of debating. Debating is fun and allows you to learn and engage in discourse. Sure, resolve disputes, but that's what *competent judges* should do.

Ab_M: How would judge ratings affect scores in such a scenario?

admin: Couldnt you remove judgements that were voted complete "vote bombs" even after judging is closed?

Ab_M: Maybe. Debaters would have to wait for me to manually do that on every debate though. Which honestly I'm trying to avoid.

Ab_M: Maybe even wait to calculate the values of each judgement until after the voting period?

admin: Could it be automated?

Tejretics: I think you're sort of confusing the mechanics of a debate and a judgment. So like, from a code perspective, each debater is assigned a number, and the system at the end of each debate determines a winner, and stores the winner's number. It does a cross-reference, updates Elo scores, whatever else it needs to do. That's a system that's designed not to award draws. If you look at the way debate tab software is written you'll see this principle is quite common.

The judge system, of course, allows there to be equal decisions because on edeb8 it is point-based. All I'm taking objection to is the idea that the debate should end in a draw, not necessarily that the judgments should end 0-0. Edeb8 has systems in place to account for such circumstances.

Ab_M: Possibly, though I'd prefer if it was the debaters, not just the site at large.

admin: What if, during the voting period (not judging period), each judgement was automatically assigned a value based on votes (rather than based on what fields were filled out)?

Ab_M: Does that incentivise what judging styles are popular over what judging styles are most constructive and helpful?

admin: I kinda think that might be the best way to decide which ones are most constructive and helpful

admin: Hey, I thought I would add my two cents worth:
(1) A tied debate is much more fair than an unjust vote
(2) Users should at least have the option to require their voters to provide comments
(3) It would also be ideal if there were moderated votes; there are simply instances in which votes are entirely incompetent.
(4) As Tej mentioned, length is not congruent to quality. I can ramble on and on about things that don't really matter, and make my analysis off of totally false conclusions. Awarding more points for more content is meaningless, especially when that content can feasibly be anything I want it to be.
(5) I would argue that "quality" votes should be awarded no more points than sufficient votes. A vote can meet standards (though there seems to be none), but it can also provide feedback and critiques for the voters. None of these are inherently worth more to the debate itself, but exclusively the debaters. Feedback to the debaters should not in any way affect the outcome of the debate, as that is completely irrelevant in choosing a winner. If you want to reward feedback and critiques, do it in the form of inflating ELO or something like that. Don't have that compete with the debate itself.
(6) Regarding your "Fairness" point, I find it intriguing that you mention "no debates should be decided on the basis of very poor judgements." This seems antithetical to being AGAINST removing votes. If the vote is poor, it should not have a factor in deciding the debate. The vote should be removed. You can't assure there will be another voter to come along and vote well on the debate, so you concede the chance of a bad vote being the deciding factor.
(7) Hopefully you take none of this personally. I believe you're doing a great job, considering you're running the site essentially single handedly. Props for that. These are just my opinions, and should be taken as such, not as insults.