Judging & Judging the Judges

I was perusing through several debates trying to look into the judging system in order to put it into the tutorial when I noticed that there are different standards for an RFD and that RFD can be judged too. What makes up a satisfactory RFD that should be standard?Then what type of RFD should be considered above standard?

I noticed that majority of the RFDs were rated as "exceptional." Are most RFDs "exceptional?' I ask because I noticed some RFDs did not consist of even a single sentence and they were rated as exceptional. Here are several examples of whole RFDs that were rated as exceptional :

"Pro failed to fulfill his BoP+FF"
"Everything DDO has and then some won it for me. "
"Full FF, and the filler was great."
"Username at-least typed one round."


Rating inflation? I even came across an RFD that said something similiar to " I agree with the other poster, Con loses." This RFD was rated as exceptional as well.

Tophatdoc: When you go to rate the votes, the criteria is explained there. I just voted in your debate so you should be able to see it now.

GOOD: the judge has read and thought about the debate in detail
EXCEPTIONAL: as above with the addition of a good explaination for their decision.
CONSTRUCTIVE: as above with the addition of good feedback.

So yes, most votes end up being either exceptional or constructive. Unless its from Rebekah because she never gives her reasons. She is mysterious and complex.

Tophatdoc: Provided the RFD is good, I don't think voters should be penalized if there isn't a lot to say. 1000 words is not required to explain full forfeit losses. That being said I do monitor everything carefully. The average judge on EDEB8 has an average vote rating of just below 75%, which is below the 80% of constructive. Hasn't been significant inflation though the site is still relatively young.

nzlockie: I think your RFD was detailed and clear. I am just a little skeptical of the RFDs that have little detail and are rated exceptional.

admin: Ultimately, a constructive rating is better than an exceptional rating? I would assume constructive ratings would bring higher ratings. I am unsure of how much a constructive rating is worth compared to an exceptional rating. What happens if someone gives a poor RFD and they offer feedback at the same time? I think that feedback is only included in a the constructive rating.

Tophatdoc: Sorry, my mistake. I meant the 80% of exceptional. Constructive is 100%. Sorry.

admin: I think I understand now.

I think it might be worth some clarification from Admin on how people should approach this "rate the RFD" business. What are we trying to achieve here?

I've had one time where I deliberately didn't rate a judge in my debate because I genuinely didn't think he'd read one of my main points. His RFD made it clear that if he HAD read the point, then he'd LITERALLY taken it to mean the exact opposite of what I'd said. I didn't want to accuse him with a "Biased" vote because I didn't really think he was being biased, but since my conclusion was that he hadn't actually read the debate, that was really my only option. Since it was an early vote I took the chicken's way out and just didn't rate it. Every since then I've felt guilty about that because I think I may have been undermining the purpose of the feature.

Since then I've always rated the judges based strictly on the criteria. If I think they've read the debate and they provide an RFD - Exceptional. If they've read the debate, provided an RFD and feedback - Constructive. I haven't had to do a Good or Biased one yet.
In times where I don't agree with the judge's reasoning or I think they've misunderstood one of my points, I take that as positive feedback that I need to express myself better next time.
I've learned to be very conscious that in debate, where arguments are scored, if I want to win then I need to style my argument for the people that will be scoring it. That means that in a Religious debate on a site where the atheists are more likely to be scoring me than the christians, I'm going to style my debate more towards the type of thinking that THEY prefer. Case in point was when Admin used the fact that Jesus didn't rise from the dead as evidence that God didn't exist, I pointed out that thanks to a recent decision by the catholic church, most of Christianity also doesn't think Jesus rose from the dead.
I decided that I had more chance defusing the impact of his argument by delinking belief in the Resurrection from God's existence than I did by appealing to the circumstantial evidence that Christians typically use.

Now as it happened it still didn't help and he kicked my butt but my point still stands. We'd like to think we are able to judge these things completely objectively, but that's just not the case. We always bring our own stuff to the table, whether that be a worldview or a prior knowledge of the subject material. The best we can do is try to be as objective as possible.

So I'd like to have a crack at answering my own question. "What are we trying to achieve here?"

A: We want to encourage people to actually read the debates, think about their decision making process and provide some feedback for the participants.

This means, we are NOT...
... assigning a vote based on whether we agree with their decision.
... assigning a vote based on how closely their RFD matches our own.
... assigning a vote based on whether we agree with their feedback.

Am I way off base here Admin?

nzlockie: No, that's pretty much how I see it too.

(I'm feeling guilty because this post is way shorter than yours but it's really true - you are exactly on the mark)

nzlockie: " I pointed out that thanks to a recent decision by the catholic church, most of Christianity also doesn't think Jesus rose from the dead. "

SAY WHAT?!

ADreamOfLiberty: What?