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

Author: Barney
Code of Conduct
Crowdsourcing
MEEP

Posts

Archived
Read-only
Total: 85
#61
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Barney
That definition isn't by any means be-all and end-all. It only serves as the first step in determining a definition that suits everyone. I heavily emphasize the fact that if anyone has an alternative definition, then they are welcome to provide it. If that definition proves to be better than the SPLC one, then that will be the one on the CoC.
#62
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@Barney
Sounds alright to me, for the reason that extremism which is not violent is not prohibited.
Topic's author
#63
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
So it's been about a week for feedback. I am of course still open to it, but I would appreciate any more constructive suggestions (especially regarding the wording of the CoC) to be offered ASAP.

A few key changes between the current CoC and the proposed one:
  • Streamlined it, cutting the length by 45%.
  • Made it no longer dependent upon external extended policies and interpretations documents.
  • Codified various policies (e.g., context affecting consequences, protocols for new accounts, etc.)
  • Removal of the trolling and insults rules, but adding a no targeted harassment rule.
  • Expanded to impersonation rule to everyone.
  • Removal of the harassing the moderators is ok rule (don’t worry, we’ll still have thick skin).
  • Removal of the "Contravening or Disregarding Moderation" rule.
  • Added clauses to protect children.
  • And more...

So preview questions:
  1. Ratify the new Code of Conduct?
  2. Allow PM sharing?
    This is not to imply encouraging it... A yes to this may be divided into two subsets:
    1. With minimal restrictions. Identifying information for example, is still protected under the general doxing rule.
    2. Exclusively with moderator approval.
  3. Change the Voting Policy to expand S&G to include other excessive legibility issues?

I assumed there would be more community generated questions. I'll say there is still room for a couple of them (without making this thing too long and confusing).
Topic's author
#64
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
Final day for refinements.

I'll launch the proper MEEP late tomorrow night (Monday May 25th, Pacific Time, UTC−07:00), and conclude it early next Monday morning (June 1st).
#65
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Barney
I'm not entirely sure what exactly is in the document regarding the protection of minors but anyone who votes against it is probably worth taking note of (long-term). Why are you even being democratic about something like that? Just do it, I don't understand what the issue is.
Topic's author
#66
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@RationalMadman
I'm not entirely sure what exactly is in the document regarding the protection of minors
Only a couple short lines about it.
  • "All users must be a minimum of 13 years of age when creating an account, or older to help comply with any local laws pertaining to Internet usage."
  • "You may not engage in or promote the sexual exploitation of minors."
Some form of the first one is already in the extended documents.


Why are you even being democratic about something like that? 
To me it doesn't merit a standalone vote, or honestly a vote at all. However while attempting to roll out an improved CoC, allowing discussion (especially in case anyone might offer superior wording for it), I assumed would have no drawbacks.

I already focused one ban on someone sexually targeting a minor. If there had been any significant backlash, I'd probably have left the site. With us already acting to protect minors in mind, a vote against the new CoC will not be assumed to be based on that one issue (as much as I hope people justify any nay votes).
#67
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Barney
I think adding a voting subject as you [I think] suggested to award point[s] for particularly illuminating debate argument, the nature of which would be left to the voter to determine. I think you called it "Kudos"  If the voter felt no such qualifying argument was had, the "Kudos" point would not be given to either side, or, if leaving it blank is a problem, a tie.
#68
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
How does one vote, anyway. never done this before
Topic's author
#69
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@fauxlaw
How does one vote, anyway. never done this before
You'll just make a post in the upcoming thread, indicating your preferences. So long as it's easily legible, it's count as a vote.

For a sample, I'll point to #5 from last referendum.

A vote could look like this:
  1. Yes, 
  2. Yes1, (the 1 signifying a preference for variant 1)
  3. Yes.
Like this (the missing 2, counts it as abstaining that question):
1. No, each change should be an individual question
3. Yes, we shouldn't even have voting rules.

Or even like this (a vote against 3, but abstaining from the others):
Wrong direction for voting, so no.


 think adding a voting subject as you [I think] suggested to award point[s] for particularly illuminating debate argument,
I actually want to do another MEEP soonish specifically for voting refinements. While I don't want to dumb voting down, I would prefer it a little less stringent.

What would your opinion of the conduct point performing double duty? Like so long as arguments are for the other side, a voter may give conduct as Kudos if they so choose. ... And yes, I would not want to open it up to risk of abusive fluffing up the side they already favor.
Topic's author
#70
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
Anyone have any thoughts on the idea of requiring a reason to report a post, debate, and vote?
#71
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Barney
Don't require it, enable it to be possible.
#72
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Barney
thanks, I understand
To your question at bottom, I could agree to a conduct point having double duty.
#73
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Barney
Conduct and S&G should actually be 1.5, with Sourcing remaining as 2 and Arguments remaining as 3.

This makes far more sense when you observe the impact of multiple votes on a close debate than any other scenario (especially solo-voter scenario) but once you pay attention to the ability for ties to form and how they're broken in borderline cases, you'd appreciate what I'm suggesting here.
Topic's author
#74
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@RationalMadman
I've wondered for the longest time how the exact 7 points were settled on, and if a couple tweaks could improve it. I would be happy to put that or any similar refinement as a question on the next MEEP (I don't want to rush it on this one). And yes, I'm fairly certain Mike would implement such minor changes if the majority of users wanted it, unlike what we faced with Juggle.

Ironically, I don't believe in change for the sake of change, but I do believe we can do better than the systems of DDO.
#75
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Barney
Anyone have any thoughts on the idea of requiring a reason to report a post, debate, and vote?
I think that's certainly an issue we could put onto the referendum, with 3 options:
  1. Keep the current system of reporting (simply clicking on a flag and sending a report)
  2. Having the option to make a more detailed report (thanks to RM for suggesting this idea)
  3. Requiring that the user write a reason for reporting

#76
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Vader
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. 
No, you liar, there hasn't.
Topic's author
#77
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@PressF4Respect
Anyone have any thoughts on the idea of requiring a reason to report a post, debate, and vote?
I think that's certainly an issue we could put onto the referendum, with 3 options:
  1. Keep the current system of reporting (simply clicking on a flag and sending a report)
  2. Having the option to make a more detailed report (thanks to RM for suggesting this idea)
  3. Requiring that the user write a reason for reporting
My hesitation on this is that to my knowledge Mike already has adding such an input box on his to-do list.

That said, if people turn out to have no desire for it, that would be one item off his list. Whereas if they want reports to have written details, it's one code tag (not even a line) added when he builds it, so for information gathering it seems useful, even if there will not be any timely results from two out of the three potential results.
#78
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Barney
That said, if people turn out to have no desire for it, that would be one item off his list. Whereas if they want reports to have written details, it's one code tag (not even a line) added when he builds it, so for information gathering it seems useful, even if there will not be any timely results from two out of the three potential results.

I think DDO had something like this as well as a list of checkmark items listing all the valid reasons a post could be reported. Maybe a list like that would help in statistical data gathering but I don't see the point of requiring an RFD for reporting a post. The post is either going to be against the CoC or it isn't and nothing the reporting person says will change that either way.

At any rate I don't see any reason for anything remotely like this to be MEEPed. This seems more like a discussion for the thread Mike has set aside for site feature suggestions.
#79
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@RationalMadman
The one where I gave you a warning about your conduct on Discord, you claimed I threatened you to Bsh1 so I purposely leaked what I said in the PM to show I was telling you this under my authority as a Discord Mod
#80
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@RationalMadman
Topic's author
#81
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
There's currently a little controversy over a debate: https://www.debateart.com/debates/2007/veganism-is-not-the-optimal-diet-for-humans

Currently we are allowing voters to decide on a case-by-case basis without interference. So should moderators enforce any outcome on such nitche cases?

This would apply to: Dual-FFs (even if uneven), FF vs Concession, dual-concessions. I believe paradoxes like this should be excluded from any ruling.
#82
sigmaphil
sigmaphil's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 12
0
1
6
sigmaphil's avatar
sigmaphil
0
1
6
-->
@Barney
Again as per...

3. Change the Voting Policy to expand S&G to include other excessive legibility issues?
I'm okay with this as long as it doesn't make the voting process more onerous.  The voting policy as it sits is a disincentive to vote.  I think the voting policy should be more simplified instead of more complicated.

Topic's author
#83
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@sigmaphil
That would pretty directly simplify one of the voting rules, allowing a voter to incorporate more general things which distracted them from the actual logical reasons (if they so choose). It is not a great simplification, but more is coming with the next referendum which will have a main focus on voting policies.

Yeah, I'm already asking people to read a potential new CoC. I want people to be able to digest that, and make an informed decisions. Then later move on to another streamline project.

Oh what is your opinion of allowing conduct to pull double duty? Like so long as arguments are for the other side, a voter may give conduct as Kudos if they so choose. ... And yes, I would not want to open it up to risk of abusive fluffing up the side they already favor.

Also if you have any thoughts on simplifying (without dumbifying) the voting policies, please let us know.
#84
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Vader
You have committed cross-thread contamination. I will not do the same. Keep it to the thread where we are discussing this issue.
#85
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@RationalMadman
Called me a liar in this thread so I responded in this thread to. Don’t do that