Upcoming MEEP: Code of Conduct, S&G, reporting

Author: Barney
Code of Conduct
Crowdsourcing
MEEP

Posts

Archived
Read-only
Total: 85
Topic's author
#1
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
Hey DART. 

I'm hoping to post a MEEP next week. MEEP stands for Moderation Engagement and Enactment Process, it is a referendum on site policies.

In this thread I will preview some of the questions to be discussed, and I invite you to suggest additional questions and refinements. Importantly, just because a question is suggested or seconded does not guarantee it will be included. Below are issues I already intend to include:

---

1. Ratify the new Code of Conduct?
 
Voting "yes" to this question will overhaul and streamline the Code of Conduct.
 
A few key changes:
  • Removal of the trolling and insults rules, but adding a no targeted harassment rule.
  • Removal of the harassing the moderators is ok rule (don’t worry, we’ll still have thick skin).
  • Added clauses to protect children.
 
2. Allow PM sharing with moderator approval?
 
Voting “yes” would add a clause to the no sharing of Private Messages rule, to allow moderators to grant permission to settle disputes.
 
Currently there have been outright lies about the contents of PMs, and the victims are without real recourse. This is intended to correct that oversight.
 
 
3. Change the Voting Policy to have S&G to include organization
 
Voting “yes” would amend the Spelling and Grammar in the Voting Policy, to allow consideration of organizational issues, such as a 10,000 character true wall of text (no line breaks) vs a case which is easy to navigate.
 
Note: This is intended to inform a larger effort to overhaul the voting policies in a similar manner to the CoC.
  
---

Again, feel free to make any suggestions.

Topic's author
#2
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
Code of Conduct
Basics
  • By using DebateArt.com, you are bound and agree to be bound by this Code of Conduct and the Privacy Policy, as well as any other rules that may be published from time to time. By participating in debates, you are also bound by the Voting Policy.
  • Treat others as they wish to be treated: If someone makes a reasonable request of you, please comply.
User Accounts
  • All users must be a minimum of 13 years of age when creating an account or older to comply with any local laws pertaining to Internet usage.
  • You may not use hateful, harassing, or obscene language or imagery in your username or avatar.
  • Multi-accounting and any action indistinguishable from it is prohibited. Special dispensation may be granted on a case-by-case basis, such as for multiple users within a single household; but they will have certain restrictions applied (e.g., never voting on each other’s debates).
  • Account bans may be appealed by emailing: [email protected]

Authenticity
  • You may not impersonate individuals, groups, or organizations in a manner that is either intended to or likely to deceive others. Parody accounts are acceptable, so long it is clear that they are parodies and do not parody other site users.
  • Extravagant lies (not to be confused with mere context issues) may rise to the level of constituting impersonation.
  • You may not violate others intellectual property rights.

Harassment 
  • Targeted harassment of any member is a bannable offense, as is inciting others to do so on your behest. This includes wishing or hoping that someone and/or their loved ones experiences physical harm.
  • Creating threads to call-out specific users qualifies as targeted harassment, as does obsessive attempts to derail unrelated topics with impertinent grudges. However, calling people out for their statements within a discussion, is fair game.
  • Threats of lawsuits are not allowed, and by using this site you agree to waive any rights to file civil suits against fellow site users for any non-criminal actions.
  • If a member politely requests that you leave them alone, do so. Repeated failure to comply, is a clear aggravating factor toward the content of said posts.

Violence and Criminal Behavior
  • You may not threaten or promote violence against an individual or group of individuals, which includes terrorism or violent extremism. Advocacy in favor of any hate group or their mission is likewise prohibited.
  • You may not promote or encourage suicide or self harm.
  • You may not engage in or promote criminal activity.
  • You may not engage in or promote the sexual exploitation of minors.

Safety and Privacy
  • You may not post, threaten to post, or encourage others to post, other people's private information (DOXXING). This includes intimidation or sensitive (but non-identifying) material without their consent.
  • You may not post the contents (in part or in whole) of a private message without the consent of all parties contributing to the contents of the private message. [Standalone MEEP question for Moderator approval clause]

Objectionable Content
  • You may not post or link to media that is excessive gory or violent.
  • You may not post or link to pornography or adult material.
  • You may not engage in commercial advertising anywhere on the site.
  • Repetitive nonsensical posts are considered spam. Both creating and replying to spam is prohibited (please just report it for deletion).
  • Unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives (to include off topic personal attacks and hate speech), are subject to disciplinary actions.

Consequences
The moderators retain the authority to interpret and apply the policy in the best interests of the site and users therein. In most cases, a “reasonable person” standard will be utilized. 

Consequences for violations include:
  • Nothing (most perceived violations are too minor to constitute a true offense).
  • Written warnings (most common for first-time violations).
  • Restraining orders (these will always be mutual, to ensure neither may antagonize the other).
  • Revocation of abused privileges (such as loss of the ability to create threads due to creating too many spam threads).
  • Temporary bans (of increasing duration for subsequent violations);
  • Indefinite bans (bans with no set expiration, to which appeals may be made every 90 days).

The specific consequence will depend on the severity and frequency of the violations, along with user history, context, and other relevant factors. Any violation of the Violence and Criminal Behavior policy will result in an immediate indefinite ban.

In addition to the above measures, moderators reserve the right to:
  • Delete any content in violation of the above rules.
  • Lock threads with frequent noteworthy violations of the above rules (or as a preventative measure when such are assuredly imminent).

#3
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
Will the 3 points under ratifying conduct be under different questions? We arent congress where we have to stick in good stuff with bad stuff.

I dont mind pm sharing specifically, as long as its approved by person.


I do have a question to add. The possibily of having RO on request rather than under mod approval. No one is going to suffer from not talking to someone they dont want to.

#4
David
David's avatar
Debates: 92
Posts: 1,218
4
7
10
David's avatar
David
4
7
10
-->
@Melcharaz
I do have a question to add. The possibily of having RO on request rather than under mod approval. No one is going to suffer from not talking to someone they dont want to.
This is something to discuss. There's always the block button, but it doesn't transfer over to the forums, sadly. 
#5
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
You remove the troll and insult rules, this place will be another ddo. 

Also what do you mean by harrassing? Do you mean interrupting a lunch break with a complaint or someone getting cused out cause the mod broke the rules? Harrassment should be clearly outlined and defined.

What clauses should be added to protect kids? That they arent supposed to be here if 13 or under? How are you gonna know when it is a kid?

And now you want to tell people how to type their arguements and count it for or against them in debate? People should be considerate of how they type out arguements, but its not up to mods to tell them how to. The most important thing is the reasoning. Not the spelling or typing.

These are all my questions, suggestions and objections. I ask yall to consider them. We dont need a more controlling website, just one that enforces civility as we debate and/or bond together over what we like.


#6
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
1) I agree with this and vote yes

2) I think this doesn't go far enough but is a step in the right direction, another yes vote.

3) Not that important to me. Abstain.
#7
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
  • Removal of the trolling and insults rules, but adding a no targeted harassment rule.
  • Removal of the harassing the moderators is ok rule (don’t worry, we’ll still have thick skin).
  • Added clauses to protect children.
All of these should be separate questions not part of one big thing
#8
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
1. Ratify the new Code of Conduct?
 
Voting "yes" to this question will overhaul and streamline the Code of Conduct.
 
A few key changes:
  • Removal of the trolling and insults rules, but adding a no targeted harassment rule.
It also depends on the type of trolling overall that is going down. Trolling is a extremely broad word to use to describe situations, and I think there needs to have a line to draw. There is flaws with the trolling argument in general, and I do not know how you can tell overall if it is a troll or serious. I'm thinking while typing, so I will say yes for now, but my opinion may change.
  • Removal of the harassing the moderators is ok rule (don’t worry, we’ll still have thick skin).
Yes
  • Added clauses to protect children
Yes. What weareacouple put out with their PFP is vile and is a federal crime

So right now, rule 1 is an overall YES
 
2. Allow PM sharing with moderator approval?
Yes. I am a huge advocate for this. There has been many types where RM had lied about a content of the PM and I got in trouble for leaking a PM of what I said. I despise this rule because of it when people lie. It is not fair for someone to share info of a PM conversation to prove their innocence and receive a warning over it
 
3. Change the Voting Policy to have S&G to include organization
 
Voting “yes” would amend the Spelling and Grammar in the Voting Policy, to allow consideration of organizational issues, such as a 10,000 character true wall of text (no line breaks) vs a case which is easy to navigate.

I think people generally take S&G or Conduct when it comes to these types of arguments in debates. I don't think there is a true need overall for this

so NO
#9
Jeff_Goldblum
Jeff_Goldblum's avatar
Debates: 13
Posts: 132
0
2
10
Jeff_Goldblum's avatar
Jeff_Goldblum
0
2
10
My thoughts:

1. I like protecting children
2. This one is alien to me
3. Holy hell I would love for this one to pass
Topic's author
#10
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Melcharaz
1. Ratify the new Code of Conduct?
Will the 3 points under ratifying conduct be under different questions?
Not currently. If you do a side-by-side comparison of the CoC's, it should be self evident why this is presented as a package, instead of a hundred or so confusing separate questions.

That said, as seen with question 2, some pieces can be broken off into standalone questions.


I do have a question to add. The possibily of having RO on request rather than under mod approval.
RO's may already be requested, but yes, they are subject to moderation approval.

The new CoC makes RO's easier to get: "If a member politely requests that you leave them alone, do so. Repeated failure to comply, is a clear aggravating factor toward the content of said posts." Which is worded to not be a ban hammer on interaction, but to guide people to tread carefully on future engagements (of course obsessive persistence, falls under the harassment rule).


You remove the troll and insult rules, this place will be another ddo. 
This is a changed emphasis, chiefly toward where those things most often become problematic (targeted harassment). Still, there remain are multiple rules which protect members from generalized excessive levels of those:
"Extravagant lies (not to be confused with mere context issues) may rise to the level of constituting impersonation."
"Unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives (to include off topic personal attacks and hate speech), are subject to disciplinary actions."


Harrassment should be clearly outlined and defined.
We have experience with trolls exploiting too much detail and then finding loopholes for exact things not being specifically outlined as rule breaking. Imagine a rule which said no more than 5 uses of the F word directed at a member inside a week, and further no more than 4 uses of the S word, but combined not to exceed 7. Some troll, would literally ride that line on a weekly basis, and find various obscenities which are not expressly forbidden (or as we've literally had happen, they start misspelling the words they were expressly told to cease using, and cry semantics). ... Instead we have four rules under the harassment heading, which while outlining some clear violations, are not trying to be all inclusive but rather thematic.


What clauses should be added to protect kids? 
Under the violence and criminal behavior heading, "You may not engage in or promote the sexual exploitation of minors." Granted that is implied to already be included under "You may not engage in or promote criminal activity." but we've had issues, so are adding an extra line to make zero tolerate crystal clear.


3. Change the Voting Policy to have S&G to include organization
And now you want to tell people how to type their arguements and count it for or against them in debate? ... The most important thing is the reasoning. Not the spelling or typing.
S&G is already on the ballot, this change would merely open up voter discretion to other offenses which impede legibility.
And I do agree with you that the most important thing is reasoning, hence why that's worth 3-points and may be awarded for even a slight lead; whereas S&G is worth 1-point and can only be done as a penalty for excessive legibility issues.

It's really just the first step to a more open voting policy.
#11
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
yes 1 and 3, no on 2
#12
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
You gonna be trolled anyways. If you make a rule saying not to insult mods for example. They could call ya ignorant and make it not be an insult. So non specific terms is a cop out. A clear general rule works for most situations. A rule that wont be tried doesnt exist.

#13
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
1. Yes. It looks good, except for a few bits here and there that can be hammered out better later.
2. Yes. Only people who are hiding something in PMs should be scared of this. 
3. No. The current S&G rules are sufficient. The organization of an argument does not affect its content (which is ultimately what should determine the outcome). As long as an argument is legible, the way that someone structures their argument (header format, essay format, etc.) doesn't matter.
Topic's author
#14
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@PressF4Respect
...As long as an argument is legible...
Exactly my point. Or shall I SAY EXACTLY MY POINT I SAY EXACTLY MY POINT I SAY EXACTLY MY POINT I SAY EXACTLY MY POINT I SAY EXACTLY MY POINT I SAY EXACTLY MY POINT I SAY EXACTLY MY POINT I SAY EXACTLY MY POINT...  I'm so smart I capitalized everything to make it seem more important, and bolded it to make it bigger, and underlined it to add further emphasis, and I did this on all of it. This is to say that at some point, even without misspelling anything, legibility is harmed such that it becomes painful to try to read someones case.
#15
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Barney
This is to say that at some point, even without misspelling anything, legibility is harmed such that it becomes painful to try to read someones case.
That's subjective. (But then again, voting IS based on one's own thoughts of the debate at hand, so...)
#16
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Dr.Franklin
no on 2
Communist
#17
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
2. This one is alien to me
As it stands now nobody is allowed to disclose the contents of their PMs to anyone else.
Topic's author
#18
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
no on 2
Communist
This jibe exemplifies my issue with the current personal attacks rule.
Topic's author
#19
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
2) I think this doesn't go far enough but is a step in the right direction, another yes vote.
What more would you like to see on this?
#20
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Barney
This jibe exemplifies my issue with the current personal attacks rule.
I definitely like your proposed revision and would vote yes on it.

What more would you like to see on this?
I have never liked the idea of having any level of enforced secrecy regarding PM contents.
#21
sigmaphil
sigmaphil's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 12
0
1
6
sigmaphil's avatar
sigmaphil
0
1
6
-->
@Barney
Yes to 1, 2, and 3.  Thanks.
Topic's author
#22
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I have never liked the idea of having any level of enforced secrecy regarding PM contents.
I feel like it's there for some important reason, but I do not know what it is.

If no big reason is revealed, and anyone else expresses support for it, I would be down with adding that as an option to the MEEP (likely with some slight expansion of the main doxxing rule, for not sharing personally identifying information from PMs).

This does take me back to the last time someone PM doxxed me, to which I mostly just found funny that they thought I would particularly care.
#23
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
Yes to 3, ambivalent on the others. They don't affect me nearly as much.
#24
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
Voting "yes" to this question will overhaul and streamline the Code of Conduct.
 
A few key changes:
  • Removal of the trolling and insults rules
YES ON 1 
#25
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Barney
(likely with some slight expansion of the main doxxing rule, for not sharing personally identifying information from PMs).
I don't think that is necessary due to the fact that sharing PII from PMs would already be a violation of the main doxxing rule but I wouldn't be against it. It would be very difficult to create a CoC that I thought stressed the no-doxxing rule too strongly.
Topic's author
#26
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
After only a day of discussion, it feels like this will be a success.

Census data (yes/null/no)
1. (8/1/1) 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, -1,
2. (6/3/1) 1, 1, 1, 1, -1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0,
3. (5/2/3) 1, 0, -1, 1, 1, -1, 1, 1, 0, -1,

...

Regarding the new CoC, the link allows both comments and suggesting edits. To assist hammering out a final form, using those are probably the best tools available.

The other questions are of course open for refinement. #3 will probably be expanded to include legibility issues as the voter defines them (so long as it's not BS justification, e.g., "I don't like pro, so I'm penalizing him for using big words."). Again, this is a first step about making voting a bit less restrictive.

...

If anyone would like any questions added, now would be a good time to speak up.

We have a proposal from Discipulus_Didicit, to generally remove enforced PM privacy. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? Unless a good reason not to is revealed, one more user in support will place it on the ballot.
#27
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
Oh, i forgot to say my vote directly. No to 1 and 3
Topic's author
#28
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Melcharaz
To be clear, the census is not the official vote. But with people voicing so clearly their ya and nays, I thought I might as well gather it. I've added your data to the above.
#29
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
only PMS between mods and yourself
#30
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Frankie this is not the place to be talking about PMS, also I think someone is trying to get between our great friendship by reporting our friendship posts...


But I assure you that no matter how mush communism you indulge in I will always hold our friendship dear to my heart.