COC Revisions

Greetings, everybody!

We are in the process of making revisions to the COC. Most of the text is the same, but there are still some significant differences. The proposed changes can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bcpJ79KM1rOMjgyz5Ssa0T1v0Lj5ybt0LwnD3bXTYNw/edit?usp=sharing

The text has been reorganized so that the moderation structure is first, then the voting policy, and finally the conduct policy. 

The moderation structure text has been changed from "Mod decisions are final and not subject to appeal" to " If you are banned and wish to appeal a ban, you can email the moderation team at [email protected]." 

The restraining order section added, " Additionally, a user may request that an RO be placed between them and another member." 

Is there anything else we should add or take away? 

Oh, and one other major change: "By signing up, you agree that you are at least 13 years of age. When you are finished reading this document, please click the “accept” button at the end."

We are making it clear that all users must be at least 13 years of age to comply with COPPA. 

Why?

To comply with federal law (COPPA). 

oh ok

I have seen users such as PaulVerliane and Wylted post extreme things in opposition of the entire violence-encouragement clause. Hope you come down harder on such stuff from now on. That's what I support in what you write. The rest is either too vague or something I am slightly against.

I am a very good researcher of people, it could be twisted into being stalking to suit someone's agenda according to these vague rules.

I agree to this if Ramshutu's profile picture stalking of me is outlawed.

This rule would ban people from using profile photos to harass or mock other users. 

That isn't the Golden rule. The Golden rule is "Treat others as you would wish to be treated". That is a big difference.

Your version is morally superior to the original though so I'll let it slide.

No it's not. His version is more pragmatic but the original is more morally just.

Why's that now?

It's easy to manipulate a victim to bargain for less, accept their situation and submit to your will over time like a masochistic cuck that you ruthlessly overpower. That doesn't make it right as such, just pragmatic because they'll probably even betray, hurt and kill someone trying to save them from you due to stockholm syndrome etc.

The profile picture issue is covered here:https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3031/i-will-like-to-clarify-why-harassment-via-profile-pics-is-allowed
As explained, this is clearly not harassment, and is merely satirical mockery of behaviour and accusations made by another user.

I am completely for rules that prohibit profile pictures that single out individual in the form of personal attacks.

There is, however, a major caveat that should be made in these rules.

My main concern is that those who wish to abuse the rules, or simply have impossibly thin skin are likely to be able to exploit these rules to impose their will on others.

For example, if I am not a great debater, or I wish to game the system - I could demand that those I don’t like, or that I think could vote against me if I had a bad debate don’t vote on my debates. MAR did this a lot.

Likewise, someone with exceptionally thin skin who is unable to accept any criticism could very well use these rules to claim harassment in the most innocuous scenarios where other users are criticizing them, their actions or their positions.

It is critical that these rules cannot be used by such individuals to gain an unfair advantage or to suppress criticism by simply making accusations or claiming oppression and demanding action.

Harassment, personal attacks and abuse must be objective in order to take action on these grounds.
This is the biggest concern that I have: there are more users I can see today that would unfairly abuse or invoke these rules to the detriment of the site, than there are scenarios in which the new rules would have reasonably prevented toxic behaviour over what is here already.

I think they are very good guidelines in general as operating principles - but I feel there is a big difference between listing behaviour we would encourage all users to follow, and behaviour that is actionable: I think some of the rules blur that line a little. 

Virtuoso isn't like Bsh1, you cannot just charm your way out of justice.

THIS.

100%

If I ask someone to support a claim they've made, does that request qualify for protection under the, "If someone makes a reasonable request to you, please comply." clause?

Or does my request constitute "harassment"?

If I ask someone to reveal their AXIOMS, does that request qualify for protection under the, "If someone makes a reasonable request to you, please comply." clause?

Or does my request constitute "harassment"?

I believe the COC should be logically coherent.

I believe the COC should be based on explicit AXIOMS.

The idea of a restraining order is ludicrous.  THIS IS A DEBATE WEBSITE.

No DOXXING.

No THREATS OF VIOLENCE.

No AD HOMINEM ATTACKS.

Asking people questions should not get you banned or blocked from any particular discussion.

Individuals can already block specific users they don't like for any reason.

The mods should have to interfere as little as possible.

Sometimes RO's are a good thing depending on it, I lean lassiez fair, and have stated my lassiez fair policy, but I think RO's can be a good thing when it starts to derail threads

So in a round about type of way, you’ve just illustrated the main issue with the way the rules are written. I have provided a fairly detailed justification on why I think the rules could be abused by the obtuse, the overly sensitive and the nefarious; I also re-linked the explanation of how some specifically actions do not constitute harassment because they are both aimed at behaviour and content - and in no way rise to the level of objectively offensive.

Rather than actually try and engage on those points, you made a call out related to the accusation you couldn’t defend in the other thread and resort to a personal attack instead of explaining why my point is wrong. You appear to again accuse me of breaking the rules, and imply that I am unfairly treating you, or abusing you (implicated elsewhere).

Now, as I am both a grown up, and a vote moderator - the two explicit attacks in this thread do not particularly bother me. However, if I were to say that your tendency to try and unfairly harangue moderators into taking over the top actions to punish those who are critical of you - which is true; or to point out that when challenged on your accusations in debates, threads or in other locations - you invariably fall far short of showing you are correct, and quickly revert back to simply accusations and vagueness - that these rules could easily lead to someone like you continually throwing such accusations and attacks around repeatedly - yet demand moderators take explicit action the moment anyone says even the slightest cross word about you: I’m sure you would find this fair and reasonable criticisms of your actions and behaviours to be “harassment” and “cyberbullying”. 

No matter what rules are in place, it is not possible to stop your feelings being hurt by something that shouldn’t hurt your feelings - this is an issue for you to personally resolve, rather than rules to be put in place to soothe users for perceived slights.

I absolutely agree that as a pointer for how users should act - guidelines - these are great, but given patterns of behaviour already outlined, if these are enforced as is, this site will rapidly become someone like RM abusing his ability to define what gets other people banned.

I agree - I think the rules are great as guidelines and listing encouraged behaviour - but not as enforceable criteria.

This is both a community website and a debate site; it’s not a sterile environment where there are no personal interactions, but it also isn’t 4chan or Createdebate where overt hostility and personal antagonism between users poisons the atmosphere. To survive, Dart needs to foster a good environment of community and debate: I completely agree that personal attacks should be against the rules (though tbh I think due to the community nature, most of the time a simple “calm down, and stop insulting people”, is enough) most cases of personal attacks are not a big deal - and we can all (well most) tell when they start crossing over into the poisonous type.

ROs have their place : to stop the dart equivalent of the family guy chicken fight that becomes excessive - and for actual genuine harassment.

Quite frankly, while moderation should foster an environment that allows healthy discussion, and dissuade attacks: it’s shouldn’t be moderations job to protect people’s feelings as a baseline.

The reality is that we want an environment where grown ups, adults can come in, see valid and reasonable discussion and then feel willing to participate. 

We don’t want those people to be jumped upon, for overt hostility to make them reluctant to come back, or to have the environment become especially toxic. It’s tough because what keeps most people coming back over a longer time is the clash, the arguing, and trying to come up with ways of expressing their opinion and sometimes preventing toxicity can undermine that goal.

hypocrisy at its finest.

Wouldn't it be nice if all reporters could be jailed (or banned) for harassment?

Where do you draw the line between asking questions to poke holes for the sake of it and asking questions to actually help the site foster the best environment for the user based on the outcome of feedback on these CoC changes?

I am attempting to come to a reasonable conclusion.

I would say if it does not coencide with argument then it is a personal attack, but it needs to merely be focused on attack

e.g: You are an idiot for thinking this... OK

e:g: Bickering and calling out people for no reason: RO

This is an (indirect) ad hominem attack, namely an appeal to disingenuous motive (also known as "dime-store-psychoanalysis").

I draw the line at,

? You complain people can use any agenda and twisting of things beyond axioms to make something against the rules and then arbitrarily declare what I said as indirect OBJECTIVE AD HOMINEM AXIOMATIC ABUSE!!!!

This is personal attack #3.

This type of post serves absolutely no purpose. It doesn’t advance your ideas, nor does it attack mine. It doesn’t challenge any of the points made, and is simply a pointless and meaningless attack for the sake of it. How am I a hypocrite? What am I hypocritical about?

For example, I could call you a hypocrite for repeatedly issuing personal attacks (such as in this thread) on multiple other users - yet is the first to comment, accuse and object when someone else does the same at any point.

This is the point I am making; a user to whom all criticism is harassment could get a genuine user who is engaging fairly and in good faith banned despite the inherently odious behaviour coming from the other side.

Oh darling, we all know which of the two of us whispered in bsh1's ear to get debates deleted and actively hinder the other's ability to thrive and enjoy the website. I will intentionally be vague, because everything I say you will hypocritically portray as an 'attack on you' whereas your profile pic choices and active leading of gang bullying of me in the forums were legit abuse that would have psychologically broken a weaker individual.

This is such a hilariously ridiculous set of rules. Like, arson, murder, jaywalking.

I have not and will not "report" or "flag" your comment because I don't consider it "abusive".

AND I still answered your question.

Well, "no ad hominem attacks" is already in the COC and has been there from the very beginning.