ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

I took this debate, in part, to get my opinions of this Web site out there. I think all the regulars here really believe this site could be run and managed better. However, in terms of the actual vote count, I suspect people will vote largely on reputation and ideas presented and not primarily based on the thesis statement. I could be wrong, though, we'll see.

Austhus | 02/28/08

I do know what you mean, I'm still very new to the site (but I see myself being a regular), I'm currently fighting that Ron Paul constituency you mentioned above, maybe we should just make all voters that support Ron Paul not count (I'm kidding....or am I?).

base89 | 02/28/08

A suggestion: Use the Elo system. It's perfect for this sort of head-to-head competition, which is why, for example, it's used for assigning scores in chess maches. It would take into account the scores of the winner and loser in assigning point totals. It would therefore give fewer points for beating 'n00b 1' who has never before debated in his life than it would give for beating the one heading the leaderboard. Wikipedia (much as I detest using it as a source for anything) has a pretty good summary of the system.

Utilitarian | 02/28/08

There are many methods of ranking: ask any college football fan about the BCS structure of rankings and they'll probably give you eight different metrics of measurement. The problem is finding the best way to do it efficiently.

Austhus | 02/28/08

Oh, I agree completely, although I still think Elo's got an advantage over most systems in that it's been tested far more intensively than most other systems. FIDE's been using it for years, and aside from certain minor differences (like the K-factor that should be used and such), it's just about perfect for most systems.<BR><BR> As an aside, the Elo system can probably even adjust for the magnitude of a victory/defeat, by using the votes received for win/loss percentage.<BR><BR> All in all, though, I would agree that a change to the current system is preferable.

Utilitarian | 02/28/08

I think the leaderboard should be assembled starting with those who have consecutive 'G-Hs' in their names and then the rest. Seriously, you could make an argument for debaters who initiate hotly contested face-offs as being more "successful", as more participation equals more success, or you could use a dozen other criteria. Maybe they'll develop a better 'matrix' as the site grows.

IamFry | 02/28/08

Still cant believe that of all the debaters, that I drew Austhus, what kind of luck is that? Anyway, I would also like new icons to be used and if we are going at it on any topic, then why not new icons? I think it would be seriously entertaining to see someone arguing for abortion using a britney spears icon. But the votes, like ive seen some 12 to 1 sometimes and thought that the opening statement is what did someone in. That debate should surely be counted as 1 win, 11points. It would be more favorable to win against someone in good standing...like austhus, or hadrian or the consequential guy , or the accidental guy....

Eaglevision | 02/28/08

When is "My Face offs" updated? I have entered 1 so far and won it but it still says 0-0-0 behind my name?!

B-man | 02/28/08

I actually left this site because of the leaderboard score. One loss and you were all the way down. Im glad someone brought this to light, even if It does mean that he is going to lose. Sweet irony! But thanks eagle.

Bitterwords | 02/28/08

When is "My Face offs" updated? I have entered 1 so far and won it but it still says 0-0-0 behind my name?! I'm not even on the list now

B-man | 02/28/08

lol, accidental guy. I propose multiplying one's win percentage with his/her number of wins.

Accidental Democrat | 02/28/08

I'd like to be notified when people comment on my Face offs.

Antioxidant Overdose | 02/28/08

I think we should subract the losses from the wins. That would knock all these 1 and 0 bozos off our score board. They would have 1 point where as a 4 and 1 blogger would have three.

twelve angry men | 02/28/08

Im with Eagle on this one. I wanted an icon of Uncle Sam. I couldnt believe they didnt have one? Is there a contact number for the person who moderates this?

UncleSam70 | 02/29/08

What would be cool is if we had to debate a Time person like three times before we could even start. Kind of like a basic training. That would be cool

Eaglevision | 03/03/08

The most logical way of ranking would be to have a minimum number of debates (8-10). All sports stats are measured this way; we should also do it this way.

Consequentialist Libertarian | 03/06/08

You know I support Ron Paul; I doubt any of you think I'm a fool. You guys should take it easy on the other RP guys on here.

Consequentialist Libertarian | 03/06/08

The only thing wrong with Ron Paul is that he kept using the phrase "do away with.." Now if he would have said "restructure", he might still be a candidate. You know, restructure the IRS, restructure the health care system, ...etc. I actually thought his "blowback" talk was spot on. I know I would be pssed if some other country kept sticking its nose into our business...

Eaglevision | 03/06/08

Sometimes things are broken beyond mend. We don't need to restructure the IRS, we need to abolish it. You, he, and I are all correct on blowback. It is unfortunate that the Republican party has swayed from Goldwater Conservatism.

Consequentialist Libertarian | 03/09/08