OFFICIAL FEATURE REQUEST THREAD

admin: That's what I was thinking.

Blackflag: On the other hand, what gives you the right to belittle other members of this site? I mean, it's ok if you do it every so often in the context of making a legitimate point, even if the argument isn't any stronger for it. But it's not ok to do it at every opportunity.

Maybe I should ban personal attacks just for a few days. I wonder who would survive...

admin: How about masking or obfuscating current vote totals and winner/loser status by default, either until you vote or perhaps click a button. I wonder if seeing that beforehand can introduce bias into a voting process.

The first thing you see is who is winning and what the vote counts are. Seeing a significantly higher vote count for one player immediately gives you the impression that they have done better, which can cloud an objective assessment of the debate as well as deincentivizing people that may wish to vote for the losing side (since they may conclude that their vote doesn't matter).

This bias is more likely to be caused by the ratio of votes rather than their difference. For example: 7-0 vs. 107-100. The latter would be perceived as a near-even debate, while the former would be perceived as one side clearly being in the lead. Since early votes carry proportionately more weight, an early lead could introduce a bias that colors any subsequent votes, significantly altering the ultimate outcome.

drafterman: +1 on this post.

nzlockie: It sounds kinda similar to the idea you had of hiding the identity of debaters before the end of the judging period, which is on my short-term todo list. I think I'll put this one on my long term todo.

admin: You're right, it is. When you're doing it, if it's possible, it d be cool if there was something that indicated how many people had already voted. That would make it clear to new comers that people WERE voting.

(Clarification: that last comment obviously only applies to drafter's suggestion)

I agree. If voters see that one side has more points, or one judge has recieved more positive feedback, they'll feel less confident voting the way they truly feel.

Me and NZlockie both agreed that the site needs a youtube channel. I am willing to run it with your permission, but I would understand if you would want to have control over the account. Either way, I have the software, time, and experience to compile our debates into beautiful video's, and I know the right way to get them viewed on youtube.

I would also like an update on blitz debates, seeing that has a good potential of being the world's first live text debate.

I use a thesarus with all my writings, and although I often forget, I find my cases look much better when I change words with more appropriate synonyms/antonyms.
I'm requesting that we implement one of the numerous thesaurus tools into our already great HTML code.

Blackflag: any you recommend? I've looked into adding a spellcheck too, it's on my list

admin: I don't know any in code.

admin: There is a tool with thesaurus.com that automatically gives you the synonyms of words once you highlight them.

1) Moving the shoutbox to the debate page.
2) Adding more ratings. Sometimes I think a vote is really good, but not exceptional. Just as sometimes I think a vote is poor, but not exactly biased.

Blackflag: What would be your ideal rating scale?

admin: I prefer 1 to 5, with the additional option of vote bomb, over the current system.

Blackflag: The main reason the current system has descriptions is so that people understand what a good vote should deliver. So I'd consider removing them a step backwards really.

Threads on teams?

Blackflag: I'll put it on my list. Don't consider it important though. I still think debaters should not be in too many teams.

admin: Seriously though, you should be able to start debates with the team of your choice.
I still don't agree with you on limiting teams.