Calling Others "Deluded"....

Author: EtrnlVw

Posts

Total: 45
#31
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Buddamoose
That whole personal attack section is tortured AF and a hot mess.
This is, essentially, the same COC that Max created for DDO, with only limited alterations.

Dropping a "you're stupid" and leaving it at that? Far from what should be deemed punishable wrongdoing. 
What's important to remember, of course, is the discretionary element of moderation enforcement. I doubt I would act on a single instance like that. I cannot and do not pretend to suggest that the COC is non-subjective; that said, most rules require interpretation, so subjectivity is an inherent byproduct of rulemaking. The COC functions well on DDO, and I see no reason why it cannot function well here.
#32
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
-->
@bsh1
This is, essentially, the same COC that Max created for DDO, with only limited alterations.

And it was a hot mess then too. 

The COC functions well on DDO, and I see no reason why it cannot function well here

And that CoC was active previous to and throughout the fall of DDO. Do you often repeat things from failed endeavours? 
#33
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Buddamoose
And that CoC was active previous to and throughout the fall of DDO. Do you often repeat things from failed endeavours? 
I think it is a patently absurd claim to suggest that the COC was the cause of DDO's decline, which is basically what you're doing here. The reason DDO collapsed was a string of long-running technical glitches that caused users to be fed up with the site. I can think of not one user who left as a result of the COC, and, in fact, I cannot think of one user who was banned under the COC that would not have been banned under previous moderation standards. Your argument is ridiculous, and thus, by extension, your claim that we ought not to use the COC is ridiculous so long as you premise it on such an absurd claim.
#34
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
-->
@bsh1
I think it is a patently absurd claim to suggest that the COC was the cause of DDO's decline, which is basically what you're doing here

The only cause? No. A major one? No. But it's not absurd to say it didn't help. 
#35
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Buddamoose
The only cause? No. A major one? No. But it's not absurd to say it didn't help. 
And the evidence for that is...? So far, all you've done is a draw correlation. I could similarly say that DDO's collapse coincided with my spending less time on the site, but I think it would be absurd to suggest that my spending less time on the site was the reason DDO collapsed. People admitted to leaving the site as a result of technical glitches--there were whole threads devoted to people talking about that. That's more that correlation; it's testimonial evidence of causation.

Moderation did not substantially tighten after the implementation of the COC. Rather, the COC provided a clearer framework under which Max could do what he was already doing. The whole notion that it contributed to the site's claim is thus undeniably absurd. Period.

#36
Vaarka
Vaarka's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 696
2
1
5
Vaarka's avatar
Vaarka
2
1
5
What's the COC again?
#37
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Vaarka
#38
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
-->
@bsh1
People admitted to leaving the site as a result of technical glitches-

Some, yes. And there were threads devoted to percieved wrong treatment by moderators as well. Usually focused around how one person was banned for doing X(such as flame wars), while others were not. Or things of similar issue of percieved unjust treatment(like issues with RO's.)

Are you going to next claim its absurd for me to say that percieved poor/unfair/inconsistent moderation doesn't cause people to leave a site? If you were in a rec sports or otherwise league where you thought officiating was 100% biased AF, you gonna keep playing in that league if you can find another one?

"this person did this and got banned, this person did and was not." Complaints of unjustness, inconsistent application, all these things will be percieved regardless. But I would find it equally absurd to state that highly subjective sections such as the "personal attack" section in many parts would not play a role in those types of issues. 

Moderation did not substantially tighten after the implementation of the COC

I never said it did? 

your claim that we ought not to use the COC

That wasn't my claim bud. Simmer down, take some deep breaths hombre.

That whole personal attack section is tortured AF and a hot mess.

Again, I take issue with this section mainly. It's a well intentioned section. Sections 1, 3, and 7 under "personal attacks" are the specific sections i take issue with.

I'll also amend that with sections 6, 9, and 10 of "other prohibited conduct." As well. But these other three except for 9 are tangential to the main issue that I see with sections 1, 3, and 7. 
#39
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
-->
@bsh1
I'll admit "that whole section" was maybe a smidge hyperbole 😉
#40
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Buddamoose
Some, yes. And there were threads devoted to percieved wrong treatment by moderators as well. Usually focused around how one person was banned for doing X(such as flame wars), while others were not. Or things of similar issue of percieved unjust treatment(like issues with RO's.)
The moderator threads were always the case. There was no noticeable uptick in such threads, and certainly, as I said before without comment from you, no one was banned under the COC who would not have been banned under the previous modding system. So, your claim here is a non-argument. There is, however, clear evidence that the glitches were the *overwhelming* cause of DDO's collapse.

I would challenge you to identify action that I've taken or which Max took which would is "100% biased AF."

Moderation did not substantially tighten after the implementation of the COC
I never said it did? 
If moderation did not substantially tighten after the COC, then it's absurd to say that the COC caused a decline in usership, insofar as the COC was not fundamentally different than the system that existed for years before the COC was in place.
#41
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,238
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
The last forum Etrnl was on was the religion forum on DDO, where accusations of delusion were taken to discussion-killing extremes, and no one stopped it. The statement "you're deluded" was misused in almost every instance of its occurrence. People who are fresh from a worst case scenario environment often have very different ideas about what kind of rules are necessary.

A lot is being made of the rules, but for me the most important thing is that we have active moderators who will enforce those rules and interpret them reasonably based on context. There were rules on DDO, but no rule enforcement. If someone abuses the freedom to call their opponent deluded as badly as it was abused on DDO, there's not much doubt in my mind that it would not be tolerated here.

#42
spacetime
spacetime's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 206
0
1
3
spacetime's avatar
spacetime
0
1
3
-->
@bsh1
The use of the term deluded may or may not constitute a personal attack depending on the context. If you have concerns about a specific situation, please notify me in private so that I can evaluate the situation and take action if action is appropriate.

Jesus Christ.
#43
Logical-Master
Logical-Master's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 111
0
1
6
Logical-Master's avatar
Logical-Master
0
1
6
As long as personal attacks and ridicule is simply done for presentation purposes, I don't have a problem with it. I think we can insult each others' mothers throughout a debate and then go drinking together afterwards rather easily!

21 days later

#44
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
Moderate debate conduct, not forum conduct unless there´s something severe. If this site gets big (which I predict it will) than there will be no way to moderate all of that. 
Topic's author
#45
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Username
I know, this was more of an appeal to personal conduct. Maybe I was too literal about my point I wanted to make. The point is lost now so it don't matter anymore lol, "deluded" to one and all...makes no difference to me it just lowers the level of exchanges and debate. Like I said, everyone thinks the other side or other person is deluded so it's just a subjective opinion it adds no real weight other than insulting the other persons intelligence. If it has any real warrant, it still doesn't add anything to call someone that, everyone will see it in debate so I do not see it as something useful to label the opposing view.