Board Thread:Debate of The Week/@comment-28112409-20171002232846/@comment-32881402-20171105111012

Vertroyer wrote: ProfessorArceus wrote: Being a minority doesn't invalidate my point. I know you didn't mean it, but pointing out that I was minority implied it. I'm often a minority because I'm a critic. I help communities through - what I hope is - constructive criticism. I'm often that 'one guy' who complains about everything. But I don't see a problem, unless I am talking nonsense. Sometimes people just look over a flaw because they're lazy, or unsure if it is a flaw. But if it passes you, why not point it out? If they fix it, you've helped. If not, you haven't harmed anything. Being a minority means nothing.

I'll take a look at that part of the debate. Being in the minority formed of just one person DOES invalidate your point, because as I see it, it seems like a you problem more than a general problem. You haven't convinced me that it is an actual problem that a good portion of debaters suffer from, all I see is you complaining about something that doesn't suit you or you can't handle effectively.

'''Except it doesn't. See, people might not see the flaws and problems that exist within this - or every - community. People might not pick up on it. Or people might not have the courage to say it confidently and debate against someone of authority. I'm not trying to generalize the whole of the Wiki here, I'm really not. But hey - maybe I haven't been clear enough on why swingy role debates are a general problem:'''


 * Swingy roles don't debate well.
 * 'Swingy' can be one of three (or so) things:
 * RNG. Something swingy can be heavily based off of the RNG mechanic. This makes it extremely unpredictable and the game can really go either way. The debate wouldn't last long, as the answer will always lie in probability. Whoever takes it upon themselves to calculate the probability (not that difficult with simple RNG) can prove their point and it ends there. It's either one or the other with probability like this. Math proves that GA is Town-sided. Math proves that the Pirate has a very high chance of winning by night 8. The debate ends there. GA IS Town-sided. Pirate IS going to win by n8, because arguing against fair numbers doesn't work. Which means you have to bring up other arguments. But since the math isn't often even nearly neutral, the math appears as the strongest piece of evidence - and often it is.
 * Visits. A role dependent on visits, or something similar. Take WW and Vet for example. Once somebody decides to prove that the Veteran has a higher chance of harming Town than scum, or the other way around, the debate ends. Veteran is/n't a helpful Town role. There is no further debate, as it does/n't harm Town more than scum. Is there really anything else to this debate? There you have it - Veteran has super negative utility. If it were to continue, it would tie into the following point.
 * Day Chat. Oh boy, don't we love day chat? The roles here are subject to huge amounts of swing. Nothing here is calculable. Vetbaiting? Well you can't use that, because people will/not figure out that you're vetbaiting. You can't calculate the chance that you'll be visited when taking vetbaiting into account, therefore nullifying the variable in your calculation. Jester? How can it force Town to hang him? It can't. Nothing is forced. Nothing can be calculated, because you don't know if Town is in a good or bad mood. Executioner? Well how do you know if Town will believe your claim? We can balance Invest results, sure, but in the end it's up to the Town to believe you.

It is true that minority doesn't mean being wrong, but I perceived what you said as just one person having a problem with something that no one else has faced an issue with. Maybe no one else has seen this and there's actually a lot more suffering than what is actually visible, but people have argued about "swingy roles" before and nothing much went wrong.

'''It may not be a huge issue, but an issue nonetheless. It's a small issue, but why not fix it? I'm not reworking the whole of the Wiki - just this tiny issue that's very easy to prevent. It might not be causing major upset - it might not affect anyone at all for now - but an issue is an issue, no matter the size.'''

In the end of the day, this activity is not as high up in level of professionalism as some would think. Doc vs. BG was a horrible debate topic that was supposedly one-sided according to some BG members including you, but the difference in numbers wasn't massive, BG's points weren't impressive at all, Team BG didn't dominate the debate, none of what was expected of a "one-sided" debate happened. Team BG regurgitated their points more than any other Team in DoTW's history, leading to their performance being much more underwhelming than expected and implied.

'''We recycled points because team Doc was doing the same. We needn't think of new arguments to defend our team when Doc was just saying the same old things over and over again. People came in and left the debate just like that. They didn't read a thing and repeated what was said at the very beginning.'''

If this debate was made in the forums where the experts, pros, and veterans of the game dwell more than in the wiki, Team Doc wouldn't have stood a chance. It took place in the wiki however, and the debate had fair grounds and fair results. You need to remember that this is not the forums, we don't have seasoned, dedicated, amazingly experienced players going on for a debate here. Your criticism can become subjective and biased from your view if you start talking about aspects that are too advanced or too unimportant for the community here, and it doesn't suit them either. No one has ever cared about the swinginess of roles so far or even used that term in this wiki's debates, except you.

'''Why not raise the standards a little, though? This whole community can be better than debating off of subjectivity. Why not improve the standards? '''

The entire point of what I'm saying is not bashing you or disregarding your criticism. My point is, swingy role debates are not a problem in this community's debates, and there are things that can and already have been different from your expectations in practical work. You can complain freely all you want, but don't talk about such miniscule issues being real problems, because they aren't. Remember to take a look at how others are handling the problem in question before calling it out, that greatly improves criticism. In the end of the day, debates are an activity made suitable enough for some people of the community in it's standards, they are not made to be perfect for everyone. If only one person complains about something that was never even mentioned as a problem at all, then of course people can perceive that person as a whiner who can't handle such a trivial issue.

'''Well the issue has been said and now people are aware that they don't often make good arguments and debates. I'm not whining, at least I don't see it that way. I'm trying to raise the standards of the debates here because I can. Why? Every member of this community is able to balance and debate properly, so why not do it to a higher level?'''

One of the important aspects of a debate is being able to handle the difficulties you're given with, a problem graciously reduced by the option of picking a team without number limits or balancing. All this is just theoretical talk though, it is much better to prove this point right or wrong by producing a proper debate about swingy roles and seeing how it goes, if you agree to it of course.

'''Number limits and balancing is what fuels the debate. Non-swingy roles have less restrictions than swingy ones, because of these qualities that can't be nullified in an instant like that. Subjective arguments don't count because of their subjectivity - on such a small scale, that is. If you got a poll involving thousands of tos players/games then you have a point. With just 6-7 people, it really doesn't mean much.'''