I don't think there should be any rules. these are kinda shitty
COC Revisions
Posts
Total:
171
-->
@855h01E
What about doxxing
-->
@Vader
I came from da fuckin mud. If a dude fucks with me. the finna get exposed and my boyz finna pull up along with everyone on this site who knows where you live at
-->
@855h01E
What gang are you from? No real g is playin Fortnite and raging
-->
@Vader
Fortnite the only game a nigga from da hood plays because it's the only game that's free to play. you don't need to spend no money on it
-->
@855h01E
What about the v-bucks, you can't be a trash no skin
-->
@3RU7AL
If someone does something on the forums that you take issue to as bad behaviour.
Calling them a jerk, is an “Ad-Hom”.
Calling them a jerk, then saying that their particular behaviour was bad is “poisoning the well”.
Explaining the behaviour, and why it is bad; and explaining that this behaviour can be considered Jerky to some is - imo - legitimate.
I didn’t read everything, but imo personal attacks are ones that contain either explicit insults directed at an individual; or contain explicitly derogatory or insulting language about some material aspect of the person.
I can’t call someone dumb, stupid, mentally ill - as that is materially impacting and referencing the person. I can explicitly talk about a particular action or behaviour of an individual as being specifically stupid - as long as I don’t use words that are ubiquitously used insultingly (what you did was stupid is okay, what you did was regarded - is not).
It is not possible to have a discussion concerning behaviours of individuals without being negative to some degree; and when your trying to explain the issues with actions or behaviours - it often legitimately lands in derogatory territory. The key aspect for me for where attacks cross from being behaviour based to personal based is when there is an inferrerence that the poor behaviour is due to a derogatory material fault or flaw in the person:
IE,
Ramshutu - why the hell do you keep responding to RM, while he is calling you out, you should know better and should simply ignore him rather than acting like a petulant child demanding to get the last word.
Is fine
Ramshutu - why the hell do you keep responding to RM, while he is calling you out, you should know better and should simply ignore him. You must have some serious maturity issues to keep constantly responding.
Is the other side of the line and makes it a personal attack due to being material.
Ramshutu - why the hell do you keep responding to RM, while he is calling you out, you should know better and should simply ignore him rather than acting like a retarded child demanding to get the last word.
is also the other side of the line due to the clear inference of insult with the specific insulting word.
It’s a sliding scale with an area in between that makes it difficult to feel out what is okay and what a not, but there is a clear line in that inference that helps delineate one from the other.
The main issue is that often insults aren’t a big deal - no one really takes offence on either side yet action is taken: a lot of time’s I think it’s good to reiterate to people not to insult others as you find that while I could insult Ragnar and he could be okay, others may take that as green light for similar behaviour.
I think we’re trying to foster a civil atmosphere; but we still have a personal small community that has all that sort of drama - it’s important to strike a fair balance between those. On the one hand we want to encourage a meta-bunk like atmosphere, with interesting discussion, data, etc; but we have to accept that this is more of a pie fight rather than a tea party, insults will be thrown as will happen in literally anywhere with more than one person, and we just need to politely warn people to be more civil and only take more substantial actions when there is clear abuse.
It’s difficult to really pick out what the atmosphere should be; I would say act like you would at work - but this isn’t work and shouldn’t be. At parties with drink, you’re in a much more relaxed and less meaningful environment so the rules of parties isn’t quite the same. In a bar you don’t say bad things so as not to get stabbed.
The best scenario that explains the level of expected behaviour is probably that of an amateur football team. You won’t all like each other, you wouldn’t start a fight in a game, or screen obscenities at a team mate; but you can understand if someone insults another player of frustration is running high - the manager would tell them both to calm down as the goal is everyone pulling together to win. Like wise in the locker room if you took issue at how another play worked in a game, I think it would be fair to go into detail of what a player does wrong, to explain how it’s bad as to be expressively negative as long as it goes both ways
-->
@David
I thought this was going to be an ED advertisement.
Ramshutu, you are so cute when you try to be the bigger man who doesn't get the last word and isn't meaner to the other. Oh how graceful you are.
@RM
Thank you, the positive sentiment is appreciated.
-->
@Ramshutu
The best scenario that explains the level of expected behavior is probably that of an amateur football team. You won’t all like each other, you wouldn’t start a fight in a game, or screen obscenities at a team mate; but you can understand if someone insults another player of frustration is running high - the manager would tell them both to calm down as the goal is everyone pulling together to win. Like wise in the locker room if you took issue at how another play worked in a game, I think it would be fair to go into detail of what a player does wrong, to explain how it’s bad as to be expressively negative as long as it goes both ways
Well stated.
-->
@Ramshutu
imo personal attacks are ones that contain either explicit insults directed at an individual; or contain explicitly derogatory or insulting language about some material aspect of the person.
So, if someone said, "you're a gorgeous movie-star, therefore your political arguments and or views are invalid" this statement would NOT qualify as either a personal-attack or as an ad hominem in-your-opinion?
-->
@3RU7AL
From my position as a voting mod my opinion is that this would qualify as a personal attack and an as hominem - as it is specifically implying that there is a material problem with the person (dumb due to being a movie star)
While I said the word explicit about 8 times in two sentences; your example illustrates I should probably have included strong inferred negative statements too as long as they’re material.
-->
@Ramshutu
From my position as a voting mod my opinion is that this would qualify as a personal attack and an as hominem - as it is specifically implying that there is a material problem with the person (dumb due to being a movie star)
I agree. Thanks for the clarification.
I previously made the suggestion:
...I would like S&G to be expanded to also include general presentation. A user can technically commit no spelling errors, but engage in an all bold wall of text still harming legibility, and when that's against someone who uses proper headings and other good formatting tools, I believe we should be able to give the point.
This morning I saw a fine example of a time when someone would be awarded it on this basis: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1601/social-democratic-states-in-europe-socialist-gun-grabbers-are-not-anti-gun
-->
@Barney
This morning I saw a fine example of a time when someone would be awarded it on this basis: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1601/social-democratic-states-in-europe-socialist-gun-grabbers-are-not-anti-gun
Please explain exactly what you are objecting to in your example.
-->
@3RU7AL
...I would like S&G to be expanded to also include general presentation. A user can technically commit no spelling errors, but engage in an all bold wall of text still harming legibility, and when that's against someone who uses proper headings and other good formatting tools, I believe we should be able to give the point.This morning I saw a fine example of a time when someone would be awarded it on this basis: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1601/social-democratic-states-in-europe-socialist-gun-grabbers-are-not-anti-gunPlease explain exactly what you are objecting to in your example.
One person went through all the trouble of formatted headings, effective use of bullet points, etc. Whereas the other had walls of text, missing punctuation, missing capitalization, etc.; while he was still understandable, the comparative presentation in extreme cases like this IMO should be open for a merit of S&G.
-->
@Barney
One person went through all the trouble of formatted headings, effective use of bullet points, etc. Whereas the other had walls of text, missing punctuation, missing capitalization, etc.; while he was still understandable, the comparative presentation in extreme cases like this IMO should be open for a merit of S&G.
Ok, that makes a little more sense.
I thought you were disapproving of all the bold headings and laundry lists.
I wouldn't characterize the "problematic" participant's responses "walls-of-text", they were, if anything, too brief.
-->
@Barney
S&G should be presentation and structure
8 days later
A few changes (as opposed to just reordering) I would like to make:
- Change Spelling and Grammar to Presentation & Structure, which would still include S&G as factors in it, but would allow walls of text and other offenses to legibility be penalized when compared against well organized easy to follow cases. ... Come to think of it, another decent name change would just be Legibility.
- Add a special case for No Contest debates, as basically another full forfeiture or concession. A recent example: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1366/this-site-is-elitist-bullshandt
- While I know this can be interpreted to be covered under votevombs via the "a vote cast without regard for the content of the debate" clause, but it could do with being expanded and possibly separated from vote bombs for clarity... A vote should not ignore major categorical areas to fluff up the side which favors their bias. Here's a hypothetical: If I vote on an abortion debate in favor of the pro-choice advocate, and the pro-life advocate has a dozen good .gov and .edu sources vs. none from the pro-choice side; if I do not give sources against the side to which I'm favoring, my vote should be removed. Granted, were it flipped around and the side I'm favoring had all those sources, I would say the extra points should be fully at my discretion.
- This isn't important, but right now we call every non-moderated debate type a troll debate... Maybe we should just call them non-moderated?
22 days later
-->
@David
The restraining order section added, " Additionally, a user may request that an RO be placed between them and another member."
Can we change this rule please? It seems a bit strict, and the punishment kind of unjust. Why can't a user just not respond to an individual who upsets them?
-->
@Lunatic
Why can't a user just not respond to an individual who upsets them?
Didn't you used to play Overwatch? I'm almost certain you're familiar with the concept of 'tilt'.
-->
@Zaradi
Yeah, the mei wall bug sucks.Didn't you used to play Overwatch? I'm almost certain you're familiar with the concept of 'tilt'.
-->
@David
@Barney
Though I understand the necessity of keeping "distance" between two parties with friction, it seems a person who has behaved perfectly can have an RO instated against them by a disgruntled member.
I am a Christian, so I address challenges made to Christianity. Some member doesn't like that, and requests an RO against me, though I've behaved in no way that violates the CoC.
And I get restricted for no illegal behavior.
Even worse is someone else misbehaving, like insulting or stalking me, and because RO's are reciprocal, I get restricted when he does though I was the victim in the episode. It seems this system could be tweaked to not be so punitive of members who have not done anything worthy of being under an RO.
I'm afraid trolls and unstable people will learn how to use RO's as a weapon against others.
-->
@Lunatic
Why can't a user just not respond to an individual who upsets them?
Question of the modern age. But apparently, they can't.
-->
@David
Lol I like how you just slid this in thereThis rule would ban people from using profile photos to harass or mock other users.
Oops didn't realize this was a month old ;-;
-->
@Lunatic
Additionally, a user may request that an RO be placed between them and another member.Can we change this rule please? It seems a bit strict, and the punishment kind of unjust.
To be clear, the need for an RO must be justified. User X might dislike all members of political affiliation Y, but such will not be sufficient grounds for an RO against said members (or a cluster of ROs as that would call for).
I would also argue that it's not meant as a punishment. I certainly hope they don't deeply enjoy engaging with each other.
Why can't a user just not respond to an individual who upsets them?
In cases where they're both willing to do that, probably they'll settle down before things get to the point of an RO. Even then, when a moderator talks to them, the RO time can be adjusted downward, and possibly not even formalized.
There's a user here (they shall not be named) who repeatedly lies about me. I am capable of not responding, and mostly avoid reading anything they post. While I have the thick skin for this, I don't expect the average user to handle it so well; nor should anyone have to.
-->
@Barney
How about we clear up here and now who lies about who and who bullies who? You won't like the posts I link to as it will show the real you and how rude you were pre-mod. I don't lie about you, you lie about yourself and I am peaceful enough to let you do it. If you want to run around talking shit about me and not even having the guts to name me, best you be reminded who has the actual evidence of the other being a really disrespectful cyber bully before he thought he'd have a modship to defend against losing.
-->
@RationalMadman
How about we clear up here and now who lies about who and who bullies who? You won't like the posts I link to as it will show the real you and how rude you were pre-mod. I don't lie about you, you lie about yourself and I am peaceful enough to let you do it. If you want to run around talking shit about me and not even having the guts to name me, best you be reminded who has the actual evidence of the other being a really disrespectful cyber bully before he thought he'd have a modship to defend against losing.
Please start your list with my vote (or votes? I don't care about you enough to keep lists of all your delusions) which only you can see the source point allocations on, because within reality they did not occur, but you complained about those source allocations all the same. Then go into the comparative behavior between us during the RO; remind me exactly how many hours did each of us last before taking part in debates specifically about the other?