MEEP: Discord, Ban Log, Deleting Content

Author: bsh1

Posts

Archived
Read-only
Total: 93
#31
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
My thoughts, for what little they're worth:

1. Should DART moderation be able to punish users for sever misconduct which occurs on the site's discord?

Yes.

We should be clear that we are only talking about moderating punishing people for conduct on the discord for this particular site, which are only a function/platform derivative of DebateArt itself and were not utilized to the same extent that they are now on Debate.org. 

This should be distinguished from Hangouts, which is not necessarily derivitave of DebateArt, as many of the same links co-exist on Debate.org, and Debate.org's Hangouts predated DebateArt. 

2. Should there be a public ban log?

No. 

I can see no added utility to this and it would almost certainly delegitimize any ban or other moderator decision; which would create more controversy, and risks creating greater problems in itself than any ban would be intended to solve. 

3. Should COC-violating conduct be deleted?

The problem with this question is that there are many kinds of COC-Violating conduct; which cannot be appropriately addressed in a unidimensional way.  The so called "MEEP" process should differentiate between different kinds of COC violations, of which there are at least several: spam, personal insults, posting private information, pornography, etc. 

This question is insufficiently precise.  No policy which could result from its answer would be good. 



Topic's author
#32
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
Proposal 1

Yes - 8
No - 0

Proposal 2

Yes - 2
No - 5

Proposal 3

Yes - 1
No - 7

#33
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Can't imagine why...
Topic's author
#34
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
I am pleased with the level of response to this so far. Thanks, everyone. If you haven't voted yet, please do so (if you want).
Topic's author
#35
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Maybe at some point in the near-ish future, I can visit the issue of revising the COC. Either through a public thread or through empanelling a diverse group of users to provide some feedback. However, such a process is apt to create significant drama, and so it will need to occur at a point in time where moderation is ready to be maximally engaged in that process. 
#36
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@bsh1
I certainly agree that if such a thing does happen it isn't something that could be done overnight, it would be a significant undertaking to be sure.
#37
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
Doesn't discord have a mod already? Let them handle stuff independently. 
#38
KingLaddy01
KingLaddy01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 411
0
1
2
KingLaddy01's avatar
KingLaddy01
0
1
2
-->
@Wylted
Perhaps, but nobody cares about any form of punishment in the discord as much as they do if the same is carried out here.

The mod of discord hasn't had to ban/kick anyone yet, so if the issue is left alone then it can become a "loophole" space for members who indulge in doxxing or behavior that is just as lamentable. I don't think behavior on discord should be reprimanded to the extent that it is on DART, but a slap on the wrist simply will not do for when members drastically cross the line.

#39
KingLaddy01
KingLaddy01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 411
0
1
2
KingLaddy01's avatar
KingLaddy01
0
1
2
-->
@Wylted
For example, saying the n-word should not require DART mod intervention, especially when the intent was not harmful. (Yes this was an actual event. I said the n-word without a pass.)

Worst case scenario should be that the head discord mod tells me, a lesser mod, to stop.
#40
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
At least question 1 and 2 will become properly dealt with.
#41
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Wylted
Yes. It's my understanding they were assigned Discord to specifically monitor it. But Bsh has the only say in modding really. And his fag hag Castin.
#42
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@KingLaddy01
Call me nigga you should be banned. 
#43
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
1. No. Discord has different rules and different varying degrees of punishment. Since it is different and different environment. Doxxing, extreme threats, etc, is not tolerated
2. Yes
3. No

Topic's author
#44
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
Proposal 1

Yes - 8
No - 2

Proposal 2

Yes - 3
No - 5

Proposal 3

Yes - 1
No - 8

#45
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@bsh1
1. Should DART moderation be able to punish users for sever misconduct which occurs on the site's discord?
Yes, only for doxxing and violent threats.

2. Should there be a public ban log?
Yes. It increases transparency, allowing people to know exactly why people were punished instead of gossiping or just wondering. If someone did something bad, people should know for themselves what it was and then decide whether they want to forgive the person or not. It's silly to say that the best way to help people rejoin the community is to avoid confronting the central issue (what they did to get banned in the first place). Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

3. Should COC-violating conduct be deleted?
Absolutely not, with the only exceptions being links to pornography and doxxings.
Topic's author
#46
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
Proposal 1

Yes - 9
No - 2

Proposal 2

Yes - 4
No - 5

Proposal 3

Yes - 1
No - 9

#47
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
-->
@Vader
Withdraw your "no" vote. It can't pass without 10 votes.
#48
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@bsh1
1. Yes
2. Yes. This would function as an oversight for moderation. 
3. No. Again, this functions as a check on the moderation team. It should be seen as transparency rather than public shaming.

#49
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Not even sure why three is brought up. The mods have said if you pm them they will discuss the details of any banning. Even before it happens. 
#50
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,465
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@bsh1
1. Yes.
Anyone who has dealt with online stalkers, will understand why this is vital. ... Don't get me wrong, things could certainly be fairly lax, but there's time when lines are intentionally crossed.

2. Abstain.
Probably best to just ask the users being banned if they want it to be a secret or not.

3. No.
And the request for every little insult to be deleted is lacking in foresight, which means were yes to pass this post should be deleted.
Topic's author
#51
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
Proposal 1

Yes - 11
No - 2

Proposal 2

Yes - 5
No - 5

Proposal 3

Yes - 1
No - 11

Topic's author
#52
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
Time Check

About 21 hours remain to cast your votes. Please do not wait until the last minute!

Given that all proposals now have at least 10 votes--barring any vote retractions--there will not be any extension to the stated voting deadline.
#53
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@bsh1
Not even sure why three is brought up. The mods have said if you pm them they will discuss the details of any banning. Even before it happens. 
Which makes it de facto public information.
#54
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
-->
@bsh1
1. Sure
2. Sure
3. Sure
#55
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@bsh1
1: No
2: What's this?
3: What's this?
#56
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
1) Yes
2) Yes
3) No

Topic's author
#57
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
Proposal 1

Yes - 13
No - 3

Proposal 2

Yes - 7
No - 5

Proposal 3

Yes - 2
No - 12

Topic's author
#58
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Alec
A public ban log would be a publicly visible list of all bans (perm and temp), banned users, and a brief description of the reasons for each ban. The third question I think is rather self-explanatory: should all COC-violating (that is, rulebreaking) conduct be deleted?
#59
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
#2: No.
#3: What does COC mean?
Topic's author
#60
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Alec
COC = Code of Conduct