This is not "laissez-faire moderation" by any meaningful definition of those words. This is technocratic insanity.
Appointed moderators
Posts
Archived
Read-only
Total:
108
This doesn't sit well with me now that I've read the CoC. Conversations and human relationships in general are exercises in a mutual testing of limits. It's best to not interfere with such things, instead of attempting to micromanage and fine tune a conversation which doesn't involve you, but the CoC rather explicitly gives moderation the ability to not only define a 'personal attack' within an already overbroad range, but to throw away their own carefully delineated range of infractions with no justification, and no right of appeal.
A few malcontents are criticizing 'the moderation on DDO' as if that is the reason for the site's failure. It isn't; seeing as Max was moderator throughout the site's busiest period, and continued to act as moderator when the site failed due to reasons beyond his control (forfeit error, spam swamping, lack of important access). DDO thrived mainly because of two things: Max, and the community. Max was able to moderate the site in a way that made it succeed for many reasons, but one of the central ones was an absolute personal devotion to freedom of speech. If someone wants an echo chamber, there are plenty of sites to go to. Plenty of solipsistic subbreddits to bury yourself in, plenty of carefully curated, ideologically delineated forums to frequent. DDO couldn't have competed with those sites, and had it tried to it would have ended up like any of the other fossilized Web 2.0 sites that litter the digital wastes. DDO offered something unique: a site where you could debate or have a discussion with a communist, a racist, an anarchocapitalist, a black nationalist, a radical feminist, an Islamic traditionalist, and a trans rights advocate within the span of a day. And I'm not just pulling ideologies out of my ass here either; at its height, DDO had people representing all of those diverse viewpoints who were active. That community is what made it unique and kept it afloat, and it was maintained by Max's combination of absolute free speech and hard crackdowns on people who violated specific severe rules revolving around harrasment, spamming, and doxxing.
So what this all sums up to I guess is this: a whole lot of people are on this site because they see it as a continuation of DDO. That doesn't mean that it's just for people from DDO; optimally it will continue to grow. But it is taking over the niche which DDO held as a forum for at times heated and pointed discussion and a platform for more structured, impersonal debating on probably the widest range of topics anywhere. This CoC seems to me that it wants to apply the rules for debating to the forums, instead of letting the forums be a place for discussion and debates a place for debates. And if the CoC were being implemented by Max, most people wouldn't have a problem with it because they know his history and his impartiality. But they aren't, and while I don't know Virtuoso enough to judge them, and since the CoC explicitly subordinates them to bsh, I will focus there. Bsh is someone who has endorsed European free speech laws that restrict content of speech in the past, has displayed discontent over content that most users of DDO saw no problem with, and was often seen as overbearing in his idea of what should be expected of members even when he had to run his ideas by Max as the DDO site president. And while I do not pass any judgement on Virtuoso's character, I do know that they are, as well as bsh, on the far left politically. So I guess my primary concerns are these:
1. Will certain debate topics be 'out of bounds' because they can be construed as 'hurtful' or 'a form of attack', even if conducted cordially? Examples of a few extreme test cases:
- defence of soviet policy that resulted in huge loss of life for its subjects
- historical revisionism surrounding the holocaust
- defence of the execution of gay people by a devout Muslim
- arguing that homosexuality is deeply immoral
- discussing relationships between race and iq
- arguing that transgenerism is a mental illness
These are all 'verboten' topics that were no verboten on DDO. Will they be here?
2. If an ideologically homogenous moderation team does show favoritism to one side, will users of the site have any recourse to the administration? I ask because the CoC explicitly states that they will not; it seems highly unusual to me to put someone with no experience in moderation (and considerable controversy in a non-moderator position) into a position of basically unchecked power.
3. Can there be specific definitions of personal attacks which actually restrict the powers that a moderator exercises and not leave it all up to discretion? Because the way it is written now, there essentially is no terms of service for the users to hold the moderators to. There are no hard restrictions on moderator power, so they aren't even really 'terms'.
I would also just like to stress that this isn't guided by any personal animosity towards bsh, I'm not trying to make him unhappy or anything, and I actually think he would be exemplary as a vote moderator because debate is a much more rigid, rule-based format. I just have some concerns about forum moderation. I also don't mean it as a slight to the site owners/administrators. I am just completely in the dark as to who they are and what their idea of where they want the site to go is. Up until this point, I was interested in the site because I saw it as a continuation of DDO. If it is going to degrade into a series of robotically polite discussions revolving around a small, circumscribed set of 'safe' debate topics (this is the way that many other online discussion/debate sites function), well, I prefer to be able to have both a rowdy tavern discussion and a structured debate from time to time, and my interest will decline considerably if this site only offers the latter option. And I know for a fact that there are others who are similarly concerned, but are far more invested in the site than I am and don't want to be seen as sticking their necks out. Personally, I'm happy to let DDO die if it's going to die, or to continue on with the ride if it isn't.
/endthread
-->
@spacetime
/endthread
Why did you feel the need to say that
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Just to respond to some of your points...
A few malcontents are criticizing 'the moderation on DDO' as if that is the reason for the site's failure. It isn't; seeing as Max was moderator throughout the site's busiest period, and continued to act as moderator when the site failed due to reasons beyond his control (forfeit error, spam swamping, lack of important access). DDO thrived mainly because of two things: Max, and the community.
I agree. Max was a tremendous moderator and I can only aspire to the example he set, though he and I disagreed in some areas and on some decisions. Keeping that in mind, it's important to realize that the COC is largely lifted (in some parts, entirely lifted) from the COC that Max himself authored. That COC can be found here, starting around post 7: http://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/56116/
Bsh is someone who has endorsed European free speech laws that restrict content of speech in the past.
I believe that free speech is important, as is robust and sometimes raucous debate. That said, I also believe that free speech does not occupy a place of preeminence among all the major rights we hold. It is not, for instance, more important than privacy and safety, and so the trick is to balance those competing interests among each other. All I can really say beyond that is "fair enough." If you have concerns, I hope you can give me a chance to assuage them. I am not against free speech in any way, and my views on hate speech, which is usually what critics of my stance focus on, is moot, since hate speech was and is prohibited on this site as well as DDO. My job as a moderator is not to turn this place into some kind of saccharine, schmaltzy safe space; that is not how I see my role, and not how I intend to mod.
You asked if certain topics would be off-limits. These topics were:
- defence of soviet policy that resulted in huge loss of life for its subjects- historical revisionism surrounding the holocaust- defence of the execution of gay people by a devout Muslim- arguing that homosexuality is deeply immoral- discussing relationships between race and iq- arguing that transgenerism is a mental illness
The answer is that none of these topics in and of themselves violate site policy. I think its possible that arguments presented in favor of them might violate site policy (for example, calling all Jewish people "f*cking k*kes who deserve to get sodomized by sword point before being burned alive" would certainly violate site policy as it is currently written.)
I would also just like to stress that this isn't guided by any personal animosity towards bsh, I'm not trying to make him unhappy or anything, and I actually think he would be exemplary as a vote moderator because debate is a much more rigid, rule-based format.
Thanks. I'll happily take that silver lining :)
Up until this point, I was interested in the site because I saw it as a continuation of DDO.
I certainly hope you'll stick around and give us--that is, the moderation team--a chance to prove ourselves to you and the whole site. I realize that I am untested in a moderator position, so I can only ask for patience. If I make a mistake, I will do my best to own up to it. Moderation will entail a dialogue with the community so that we can continue to improve the way we do things. But, I think one thing I've taken away from Max is precisely the need to not be inserting myself too much in the goings-on of the community. I hope to win your confidence, and urge you to stay for awhile to see how this ride goes.
-->
@DebateArt.com
I am very excited this is taking place. The future looks bright.
-->
@bsh1
Basically, anything from Alex Jones.You asked if certain topics would be off-limits. These topics were:
-->
@Greyparrot
You asked if certain topics would be off-limits. These topics were:Basically, anything from Alex Jones.
That an intergalactic force of shapeshifting reptiles controls the world? Totally cool topic. Would read.
-->
@TheHammer
Why did you feel the need to say that
Because there isn't a "Like" button on this site.
-->
@bsh1
"for example, calling all Jewish people "f*cking k*kes who deserve to get sodomized by sword point before being burned alive" would certainly violate site policy as it is currently written."
For clarification since you said all Jewish people, would if be okay if I called a specific Jewish person, say Dtaylor, a "f*cking [k*ke] who deserves to get sodomized by sword point before being burned alive?"
-->
@Greyparrot
In all seriousness, though, the topics that REF listed are not ones that I would auto-remove. As long as the arguments themselves used logic and evidence (as opposed to the kind of slur-laden rant I offered in my example to REF of what would be unacceptable), the debates would stay up.
-->
@thett3
Lol.
The post would probably get removed.
-->
@bsh1
I believe that free speech is important, as is robust and sometimes raucous debate. That said, I also believe that free speech does not occupy a place of preeminence among all the major rights we hold. It is not, for instance, more important than privacy and safety
I certainly agree that the right to privacy must be upheld. But this is a debate website. "Safety" is not a concern here. The users of this site don't need a babysitter to protect them from emotional harm. Let people hash shit out on their own.
-->
@spacetime
I agree that people should deal with their disagreements themselves, but I disagree that safety is not an issue on this site. Certainly, there are minors on websites like these who deserve protection from severe invective and severe cyberbullying (of the kind that I demonstrated to REF, were it aimed at a particular person) and there are those who might be harmed if they were, for example, doxxed. But my point was not to focus on privacy and safety specifically, but rather to illustrate the broader point that a moderator must juggle competing interests and concerns to find, in their judgment, the best way forward.
-->
@DebateArt.com
@David
@Tejretics
Attention
Virt and I are pleased to announce that Tej has agreed to be an assistant voting moderator. The voting admin interface is currently a work-in-progress, so it will be some time before we can really get vote moderation off the ground, but when we do, we are confident that Tej will make an excellent addition to our team. Tej will not, himself, have access to the admin interface, but will, like whiteflame and Blade-of-Truth on DDO, be able to make recommendations to us on incoming reports. Thanks again to Tej for agreeing to assist us and we look forward to getting vote moderation at full capacity soon.
Welcome aboard Tej!
i for one welcome our new neoliberal overlords
Turns out irl Revenge of the Nerds sucks
-->
@DebateArt.com
Well, Mike, are you happy you don't have to put up with the headache of moderation anymore and can focus totally on site development?
-->
@TheHammer
Wanted the thread to conclude on a post he personally found mic drop worthy./endthreadWhy did you feel the need to say that
-->
@bsh1
I agree that people should deal with their disagreements themselves, but I disagree that safety is not an issue on this site. Certainly, there are minors on websites like these who deserve protection from severe invective and severe cyberbullying (of the kind that I demonstrated to REF, were it aimed at a particular person) and there are those who might be harmed if they were, for example, doxxed.
Doxxing is a blatant a violation of the right to privacy, and I have no issue with banning people for doing it.
The appropriate solution to perceived "cyberbullying" is for the victim to learn how to deal with it on their own, perhaps with the help of older members, and perhaps even using the "Block user" feature if necessary. No need for moderation to be involved in any official capacity.
But my point was not to focus on privacy and safety specifically, but rather to illustrate the broader point that a moderator must juggle competing interests and concerns to find, in their judgment, the best way forward.
The best way forward is to let people sort out their own issues with one another. The level of interventionism you advocate is completely unnecessary.
-->
@spacetime
The appropriate solution to perceived "cyberbullying" is for the victim to learn how to deal with it on their own
On that question, I will have to disagree, particularly when the cyberbullying is causing suicidal ideation or self-harm. There have been instances of such occurrences on DDO. Let me make this clear: the onus to change in a case of cyberbullying is on the bully, not on their victim. If the victim chooses retaliation or if the cyberbully was deliberately provoked then that changes the equation. But cyberbullying is not the same as debating and it's not the same as the free flow of ideas. It's a deliberate, long-term, often merciless effort to harm someone to their core. Cyberbullying is not appropriate on this site.
The best way forward is to let people sort out their own issues with one another. The level of interventionism you advocate is completely unnecessary.
I don't think I've advocated much intervention at all. Certainly, only a small, small minority of users are going to use phrases like the one I demonstrated to REF or are going to engage in cyberbullying. Where have I advocated high levels of interventionism in this thread? I certainly see no evidence of that. And, as I said earlier, I agree that people should deal with their disagreements themselves, but, unfortunately, there are situations which demand moderator action. Those situations are a fraction of all interactions on this site, and it is my hope that moderation can largely take a backseat in the user experience.
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
1. Will certain debate topics be 'out of bounds' because they can be construed as 'hurtful' or 'a form of attack', even if conducted cordially? Examples of a few extreme test cases:- defence of soviet policy that resulted in huge loss of life for its subjects- historical revisionism surrounding the holocaust- defence of the execution of gay people by a devout Muslim- arguing that homosexuality is deeply immoral- discussing relationships between race and iq- arguing that transgenerism is a mental illness
I think our right to controversial free speech is safe here. Like a user recently told me all women should be banned from the site. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/121?page=1&post_number=12 Not pretty, but still free speech, a right we all have and which I support. There's also a thread called Unpopular Political Opinions where people let fly with some pretty blunt stuff. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/72?page=1 Anyway, we all know when we come on the internet that we won't be perfectly protected from ugly words. That's just the nature of the jungle.
-->
@Castin
Well, Mike, are you happy you don't have to put up with the headache of moderation anymore and can focus totally on site development?
Yeah, that's for sure haha But there's still a lot of work ahead to provide all the site utilities for the mods to do the work in most effective way
-->
@bsh1
On that question, I will have to disagree, particularly when the cyberbullying is causing suicidal ideation or self-harm. There have been instances of such occurrences on DDO. Let me make this clear: the onus to change in a case of cyberbullying is on the bully, not on their victim. If the victim chooses retaliation or if the cyberbully was deliberately provoked then that changes the equation. But cyberbullying is not the same as debating and it's not the same as the free flow of ideas. It's a deliberate, long-term, often merciless effort to harm someone to their core. Cyberbullying is not appropriate on this site.
I'm not defending the practice of cyberbullying. I just think moderator intervention should be kept to a bare minimum, only activating when absolutely necessary. Cyberbullying, like virtually all forms of dickish behavior, can (and therefore should) be handled without moderator intervention.
I don't think I've advocated much intervention at all. Certainly, only a small, small minority of users are going to use phrases like the one I demonstrated to REF or are going to engage in cyberbullying. Where have I advocated high levels of interventionism in this thread? I certainly see no evidence of that. And, as I said earlier, I agree that people should deal with their disagreements themselves, but, unfortunately, there are situations which demand moderator action. Those situations are a fraction of all interactions on this site, and it is my hope that moderation can largely take a backseat in the user experience.
We'll see about that, man... based on your DDO history, I have a hard time believing that you won't overreach. But perhaps you'll prove me wrong.
-->
@spacetime
The thing about cyberbullying--as I see it--is that it constitutes more than a handful of infractions. Rather, it constitutes a sustained attack on a particular person. When sustained attacks occur, they will be treated as cyberbullying.
We'll see about that, man... based on your DDO history, I have a hard time believing that you won't overreach
There are those who would like me to be more interventionist and less. I cannot please everyone all the time. You may think I've overreached in a certain situation, while others will think the exact opposite. I will therefore not attempt to pander; but I will try to be hands-off because I actually believe that a community based on free-flowing discussion makes for the best kind of community. Ultimately, however, I don't want to be investing the massive amount of time it would take for me to be a meddlesome mod.
-->
@ethang5
For example, I don't think he would have banned Z, Willows, Lunatic or hari the way Mike did. Basically, we have AirMax in all but every thing but the name. And that is the first step to sharing DDO's history.
What? Mike never banned me? What did I do that was ban worthy other than dis-agree with you about max being a bad moderator? lol
Anyways, I am excited bsh1 will be the new mod, he was president over on DDO for a while, and did a fantastic job in my opinion. I have no doubt he will continue excellency in a moderator position.
Bsh is a great choice. Virt is not bad, but I'll give him the chance.
I wish you all the best of luck.