Were not going to comment on hypotheticals. Every situation is unique, and every situation will be approached as such, with caution and respect for the interests of the user(s) and the site.
Code of Conduct: A review and discussion
Posts
Total:
63
I agree with mostly all
Profanity should not be an offense. Even in debate rounds, I've seen judges give 29 speaker points when teams swore
-->
@Vader
I dropped someone in a round and gave them 3 speaker points (3, not 30) for swearing at their opponent. Depends on your circuit and your judge how swearing will be taken. You get a policy judge or your on the National Circuit, no one's gonna bat an eye. You get in some local leagues, and that's the kind of thing that's an auto-loss. I judge swearing in LD and Policy differently because they're different cultures, but swearing in LD is an auto-loss from me. On this site, however, I take the Policy approach, because swearing's accepted as the norm.
-->
@bsh1
Our school doesn't offer LD Debate so I can't say. But policy gets very different. I have heard of novices swearing and the judges not taking off during states. It could just norms in Illinois
-->
@bsh1
You know, I didn't create this thread with the intention of critiquing the specific rules themselves, or on moderation style, but damned if this isn't an infuriating response.Were not going to comment on hypotheticals. Every situation is unique, and every situation will be approached as such, with caution and respect for the interests of the user(s) and the site.
If you're not going to comment on a real scenario, and if you are not going to comment on a hypothetical scenario, then what's the point? I mean, maybe it's a high bar, but I assume that the CoC was written with purpose. But you're telling me that you won't comment on a scenario specifically put in the CoC as an example of unacceptable behavior? What's the point?! Like. why be a moderator or have a CoC if you are unwilling to commit to enforcing it?
As a user, I have a vested interest in knowing whether or not certain behavior can get me in trouble and transparency in rule enforcement. But you're basically telling me you're just going to keep the users in the dark about unacceptable behavior ("unacceptable" in the sense that you don't accept it, that is, you take action against it). That basically says moderation is arbitrary and potentially capricious.
I know most people could care less about moderation, but for anyone that does, this should be a HUGE red flag. As a user I absolutely have the right to question the moderators regarding acceptable behavior. "Every situation is unique" is a non-answer and this kind of response certainly is in the interest or is out of respect for the user.
-->
@drafterman
This a really good breakdown of many of the general problems that I had while reading the ToS. Thanks drafterman, for taking the time to do something that my lazy ass likely wouldn't have gotten around to.
I definitely agree that policy/rules ought to be tight and concise. Maybe it's a bit dramatic in scope for a debate website, but Machiavelli summed it up quite well:
'As all those have shown who have discussed civil institutions, and as every history is full of examples, it is necessary to whoever arranges to found a Republic and establish laws in it to presuppose that all men are bad and that they will use their malignity of mind every time they have the opportunity... men never act well except through necessity: but where choice abounds and where license may be used, everything is quickly filled with confusion and disorder. It is said therefore that Hunger and Poverty make men industrious, and Laws make them good. And where something by itself works well without law, the law is not necessary: but when that good custom is lacking, the law immediately becomes necessary.'
- Discourses on Livy, Book 1 Chapter 3
-->
@Outplayz
I can agree. Honestly even telling someone they're an idiot isn't the end of the world. It may not be civil, but it's not like calling them a racial slur or something.
I mean obviously too much of anything is bad but the rules regarding conduct seem kinda strict (and yet very vague).
-->
@Vaarka
I hope this site doesn't start to feel like a safe space. I don't come on the internet to be protected. I am already concerned of some bans i have seen.
nice stuff drafter.
-->
@bsh1
Disagreement on moderation style notwithstanding, I've taken your feedback to heart. I've included a preamble section that goes into the philosophy and reasoning behind the CoC as a whole and made the consequences less "binding."
-->
@drafterman
I'm perfectly fine with the why's of the rules being included with the rules themselves. But perhaps each rule could have a Why? button at the bottom of its section that expands an editorial explanation of the rule.That's a very interesting compromise; I like it.I have two main issues with the "why" being included in-line in the same document.1. The longer and more verbose a document is, the less likely it is to be read and understood in its entirety. That's just a fact. And what you absolutely, positively want, in this case, is people to read, understand, and conform to the CoC. People understanding why a rule is the way it is, doesn't matter. It may sound callous, but as a site owner and moderator, they want user obedience, not user agreement. Agreement is icing on the cake, but if it gets in the way of conveying the desired result, it should be set aside.2. It raises a potential issue where a user may agree with the rule, but disagree on the why of that rule. Two people can agree on the same course of action for different reasons. If what matters is the course of action, then talking about the reasons is only going to foster argumentation, which then in turn distracts from the course of action! This is just human behavior. You can put a document in front of a person, and they can agree with 99% of it, but damned if they won't chew your ear off about the 1% they disagree with.Putting the "why" in its own document insulates the CoC from that kind of disagreement. People might still disagree with the overall philosophy, but that disagreement will be directed away from the CoC, not at it.
My hope was that placing explanations in collapsibles would cut down on the visual length of the document. Because your #1 is completely correct about length and likelihood of reading. It should be as easy to read as possible.
I like that they took the time and consideration to explain to us why they chose these rules and why we'll lose our online identities here if we break them. In my experience, "because I say so" has never led to a healthy mod/member understanding. And it's when I'm actually reading the rules that I'm likeliest to ask "Why is this a rule?"
But I have no problem with it being a separate document, and there is some organizational value to that idea. I suppose it could be linked in the footer as Manifesto or Mission Statement or some such. I question how many people would really read it, even if it was linked in the CoC. It can be hard enough just to get folks to read one rules page. Though you'd be trading the one long rules page for two separate pages of average length, I suppose.
As for disagreement on the why of a rule -- I'm confused about how it would matter. I don't think agreeing with a rule but disagreeing with its reason would be a common source of argument. But even if it was, why would it "distract from the course of action"? The rules are the rules and they will be enforced, regardless of our disagreements.
-->
@Castin
I like that they took the time and consideration to explain to us why they chose these rules and why we'll lose our online identities here if we break them. In my experience, "because I say so" has never led to a healthy mod/member understanding. And it's when I'm actually reading the rules that I'm likeliest to ask "Why is this a rule?"
Can you honestly say that there is a rule in the CoC whose reason isn't patently obvious? I mean, it's pretty generic stuff.
-->
@Outplayz
All the bans predate the current moderation team.
-->
@drafterman
I like that they took the time and consideration to explain to us why they chose these rules and why we'll lose our online identities here if we break them. In my experience, "because I say so" has never led to a healthy mod/member understanding. And it's when I'm actually reading the rules that I'm likeliest to ask "Why is this a rule?"Can you honestly say that there is a rule in the CoC whose reason isn't patently obvious? I mean, it's pretty generic stuff.
I think just the fact that there has been such heated disagreement about the rules proves that the reasons they exist are important and worth spelling out.
But I honestly can't think of a single rule I didn't immediately get, nope. At most there were some strict rules in the Voting Section that gave me pause for a second.
-->
@Vaarka
you're all idiots
Ha. Well you got balls, man, I'll give you that.
-->
@DebateArt.com
@David
@bsh1
What's the logic behind this rule?
The use of profanity without asterisks or similar non-letters replacing the majority of the letters in the word is a minor offense and is discouraged.
It's not a big issue, and doesn't really affect me because I rarely swear, but it seems useless and I'd default to the harm principle of no rules without justification.
You should NOT be allowed to make anyones cousin cry.
-->
@bsh1
If the assistant moderator must obtain approval for each and every action, then what are they good for? I don't see how this lightens the workload for the moderators themselves.I thought this as soon as I read it.The utility is much like Blade-of-Truth to Max, for example. The recommendations of assistant mods make it easier for the primary mods to just make a cursory review the incident (inasmuch as the primary mods trust the judgement of the assistant mods).
I don't recognize that user, I'm afraid. I only saw max appoint a few assistants in the religion forum. They had no special powers.
But I gather you're saying this scenario:
You get an explosion of reports from a recent flamewar thread. Both parties accuse the other, the thread is eleven pages long, you slowly go through the whole thing to reasonably find who is at fault.
Would be turned into this scenario:
Assistant mod: "Hey bsh, I saw the whole thing and User X was the troublemaker, it okay if I go ahead and temp ban?"
I am willing, perhaps, to adopt a position of confirming whether a user was banned (as opposed to merely having left the site), but not exposing the reasons for that ban. But it's something that would be have to be asked of us, not broadcast for public spectacle.
I appreciate that you're trying to exercise discretion for banned members, and that you want the forum to stay classy even about expulsions, but I think there's also something to be said for transparency and an administration that explains why it does things. I also think your stance will cause people to talk more about bans, not less. But I'll abandon this line of argument since it is irreducibly a difference of opinion, and he who weareth the crown haveth the say. Long live the king.
No wait, Mike is the king. That would make you and Virtuoso... perhaps an archduke and count. Viscount. Archduke and marquis? I don't know, something upper echelon nobility, I've forgotten my feudal hierarchies. The cultural variances always confused me, like in some places the duke or the baron is the ruler, wtf. And Tej would be like... a knight. Or an esquire. This ramble is clearly an important use of your time and attention, by the way, you should be writing this down.
-->
@Castin
I appreciate the feedback and peer review. I don't consider myself unbiased enough to objectively evaluate the voting standards, so I won't touch that with a 10 foot pole.
I understand the desire to have users understand the rules, but - and call my cynical - that's really a luxury. The CoC isn't really for the users, its for site administration. And I agree with you about it being hard enough to get people to read the rules to begin with. That's part of the reason why I think that burden should be eliminated as much as possible. I completely agree that people will be unlikely to read the "whys" if they were in a separate document, but I don't think we can force or trick the users to read them by putting them in the rules document; they'll just not read that, too.
Fixed up some formatting:
Because he IS unwilling to enforce it.But you're telling me that you won't comment on a scenario specifically put in the CoC as an example of unacceptable behavior? What's the point?! Like. why be a moderator or have a CoC if you are unwilling to commit to enforcing it?
He praises Max's modding style, but Max did NOT enforce the CoC. Hari posted a single racist post here and was banned, he has posted the exact (word for word) post on DDO more that 20 times and Max calls it, "problematic" but does nothing, not even a warning. So then, what exactly is bsh1 praising? Both sites have the same CoC!
When he says he will mod like Max, what could he possibly mean other than, "I will basically do nothing."
Drafterman is spot on, we deserve a better answer than, "I'll decide when it happens."
Will you enforce the CoC or not?
-->
@Tejretics
It's there mostly as a reminder to act in a civil fashion, and not to direct invective against others. I doubt it will be enforced except in extreme cases.
-->
@Castin
But I gather you're saying this scenario
You gathered correctly, though if the recommended course of action were a ban, rather than a warning or a loss of voting privileges or something like that, I would be obliged to take a closer look. But certainly assistant mods can speed up the process and help me triage issues.
I also think your stance will cause people to talk more about bans, not less.
If it becomes an issue, I am willing to reconsider. I will proceed, for the time being, without a public ban log (though a private one will be maintained for moderation's own records) until such a time as it is clear that the site would benefit from one.
-->
@bsh1
Okay, i trust you will be much more responsible with moderation efforts from what i see... I just hope there will be some more discretion in bans. I wont talk about the specific person i am thinking of that was most recent... but a simple warning would have sufficed for this person. A ban was too extreme, temp or perm. I hope the user comes back bc he is truly one person i don't agree with but like to read his posts for the smiles.
-->
@Outplayz
If you have concerns about a banned member (or any mod-related issue), please feel free to message me.
-->
@drafterman
I appreciate the feedback and peer review. I don't consider myself unbiased enough to objectively evaluate the voting standards, so I won't touch that with a 10 foot pole.I understand the desire to have users understand the rules, but - and call my cynical - that's really a luxury. The CoC isn't really for the users, its for site administration. And I agree with you about it being hard enough to get people to read the rules to begin with. That's part of the reason why I think that burden should be eliminated as much as possible. I completely agree that people will be unlikely to read the "whys" if they were in a separate document, but I don't think we can force or trick the users to read them by putting them in the rules document; they'll just not read that, too.
Thanks for hearing my comments fairly. If nothing else, I think they should take some of your advice about conciseness and redundancy. It would really shorten the CoC. Ultimately people come to this site for recreation and they don't want to slog through a long treatise that isn't actively entertaining them. I'm worried the intensity of some of your other objections will make them disregard your recommendations in their entirety.
-->
@Castin
I will be reviewing the proposed changes in more detail this weekend. I have not dismissed them entirely, and intend on submitting some recommendations to Mike for consideration. I cannot say what changes I will endorse, or how extensive those changes might be that I endorse, but I will give it serious thought.
-->
@bsh1
Awesome, I respect that.
I have recommended an update version of the policy to Mike. It will be up to him to implement it or not. I am sure commentary will follow once it is posted--that's fine. The site's policy is always up for scrutiny.