-->
@RationalMadman
@Christen
सचमुच सभी को इस बारे में पता है
MEEP: Code of Conduct, S&G, reporting
Posts
Archived
Read-only
Total:
145
Alright let's get this back on track
Polling (updated 05/29/2020, 4:20pm PT):Of 20 votes total...1. Ratify the new Code of Conduct?
14 Yes, 3 No, 2 Abstain, 1 Undecided2. Allow sharing of Private Messages?7 Yes1, 12 Yes2, 1 No3. Change the Voting Policy to expand S&G to include other excessive legibility issues?14 Yes, 3 No, 3 Abstain4. Require a reason when submitting a report?5 Yes, 12 No1, 0 No2, 1 Abstain (2 Unclear)
-->
@RationalMadman
மற்ற நபர் தட்டச்சு செய்ததை ஒட்டுவதன் மூலம் நீங்கள் மொழிபெயர்க்கிறீர்கள். எனவே, அவர்கள் அச்சுறுத்தல் அல்லது தீவிர பார்வையைத் தட்டச்சு செய்திருந்தால், நீங்கள் அதை Google மொழிபெயர்ப்பில் தட்டச்சு செய்திருப்பீர்கள்.
That is correct, yes. That is how typing works.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Then you will be blamed and at least flagged for what they typed, by the authorities.
-->
@RationalMadman
Then you will be blamed and at least flagged for what they typed, by the authorities.
Ek gaan jou neusgate lek
Careful translating the above dangerous threat, you may be hunted down by MI6.
-->
@Barney
I changed my mind on issue 4. I had previously voted no1, I wish to change that vote to a yes.
I think that the frivolous reporting many members engage in will not be curtailed if this is implemented (hence my previous no vote) but upon further reflection I believe it would at least produce humorous results for the mods and is worth doing for that reason.
Make it a policy in CoC to speak English.
Racist
Diversity is so beautiful, we should embrace it.
I support making PMs fully shareable because I think that moderators could abuse their power. People should be able to prove their case in public, to hold the powerful accountable. How would the public know if moderation was framing someone? You would only hear the prosecutor's side of the story under Yes2.
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Instead of arguing that mods can abuse Yes2, argue why the general user with a grudge won't abuse Yes1.
The latter is far more likely if we take reputation and past events into account.
The latter is far more likely if we take reputation and past events into account.
-->
@RationalMadman
argue why the general user with a grudge won't abuse Yes1.
Uh, because there is literally nothing to abuse? The worst I can think of is someone lying about me supposedly saying something I said in PM that I didn't actually say. A highly unlikely scenario but also thing I can think of that would be a potential negative outcome of a yes1 vote. One with an easy fix in this case too, I simply point out that it is a lie and post screenshots to prove it. Problem solved, move on with my life.
Polling (updated 9:00pm PT, May 29th):
Of 19 votes total (I think I'm missing someone)...
- Ratify the new Code of Conduct?
82.4% in favor (14 yes, 3 no). - Allow sharing of Private Messages?
57.9% Yes2 (7 Yes1, 11 Yes2, 1 No). - Change the Voting Policy to expand S&G to include other excessive legibility issues?
82.4% in favor (14 Yes, 2 No). - Require a reason when submitting a report?
52.6% in favor of No1 (6 Yes, 10 No1, 1 No2).
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
You have nothing to expose because you are scarred by trust being broken in the past so you never trust anyone. What those who voted Yes2 are defending is that trust.
-->
@RationalMadman
You have nothing to expose because you are scarred by trust being broken in the past so you never trust anyone. What those who voted Yes2 are defending is that trust.
I trust people to not reveal embarrassing things said in PM - even if there is no rule against doing so. That is why I don't think such a rule is needed.
You want a hard rule to enforce not sharing PMs - because you do not trust that they won't if no such rule exists. That is why you want such a rule.
Instead of arguing that mods can abuse Yes2, argue why the general user with a grudge won't abuse Yes1.The latter is far more likely if we take reputation and past events into account.
Yes1 is impossible to abuse. I don't know what kind of weird unpalatable things you've been saying in PMs to people you don't trust, but that's on you. You've shared something personal with someone who you misplaced your trust in, and they might share it. That's life. What you're fighting for is your right to accuse them of lying while they are powerless to present evidence in favor of themselves. You want to suppress the truth so you can calumniate someone who personally betrayed you. That isn't good or noble.
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Not everyone votes solely for selfish gain. I am sure others in the future on this site, if not already, have said things in PM they don't want all to read. If you want a situation of exposing each other, I will embrace it. Just be sure you are ready for it.
-->
@RationalMadman
You need trust more.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Trust is not what psychopaths think, nor (obviously) what the most naive of us think. It is neither a stupid thing nor a great thing to aim for.
Trust is fundamentally a requirement in all non-solitary animals as they evolved to develop high stress or depression to help them be fast-thinking (stressed) or patient and weary (depressed) to extreme degrees in times of severe betrayal, terror, famine and such. Those that reacted with the correct bursts of hormones in those periods of time were the ones to spread their genes on, hence it being what has become the norm in our species.
As result of that, we are now in a situation in the modern age where trust is actually a rational thing to have, not just a thing that we happen to have. The reason that it's rational is because the community as a whole (not just the individual) will become very prone to stress and depression the less that it fosters trust. This is why we need to have safeguards in place so that the more willing of us to experience stress and depression (and trigger it in others) have significantly stronger incentive to not do so.
This sums up almost every single situation in life and is why the ethos of valuing net-well-being over freedom itself ends up with people better off and sums up why I identify as Progressive. This scenarios reminds me a lot of both gun rights and how right-wingers view taxation and the ability to use money as greedily as one wants vs the needs of the community.
We have option Yes1 as the 'arm all, let them all fight over it equally' ethos (which never happens, people with more to expose on others will always have the upper hand)
^ This is right-wing Libertarianism as well as somewhat Converatism
The option 'No' is actually both attractive to centrists and to anarchists of the socialist variety. The idea being that no one should violate privacy, not even those in power.
The option Yes2 is a healthy balance between the 2 in my opinion and is where we achieve a split of power that ensures those we trust to overlook and protect us have sufficient ability to investigate while the privacy and safety of users is maintained against malicious non-officials. This is closes to the left-wing Progressive ethos.
There would of course be a fourth option of each 'share of PMs' being voted on via referendum that would be truly democratic but unrealistic and would be the utopia for most types except for the malicious ones or severely 'privacy above all' types.
-->
@RationalMadman
We have option Yes1 as the 'arm all, let them all fight over it equally' ethos (which never happens, people with more to expose on others will always have the upper hand)
Constant worry that people are behind your back conspiring to 'expose' you.
But I am the one that is 'scarred by childhood breaks of trust'... because I say we can all trust eachother.
Right. Okay.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I am not the one who voted Yes1.
-->
@RationalMadman
You display a constant worry that people are behind your back conspiring to 'expose' you.
Yet you say I am the one that is 'scarred by childhood breaks of trust'... because I say we can all trust each other.
Right. Okay.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I am not the one who voted Yes1.
-->
@Barney
You missed your mod bro blamonkey lol
Polling (updated 05/31/2020, 12:00am PT):
Of 20 votes total...
1. Ratify the new Code of Conduct?
14 Yes, 3 No, 2 Abstain, 1 Undecided
14 Yes, 3 No, 2 Abstain, 1 Undecided
2. Allow sharing of Private Messages?
7 Yes1, 12 Yes2, 1 No
3. Change the Voting Policy to expand S&G to include other excessive legibility issues?
14 Yes, 3 No, 3 Abstain
4. Require a reason when submitting a report?
5 Yes, 12 No1, 0 No2, 1 Abstain (2 Unclear)
-->
@Barney
@Discipulus_Didicit
@PressF4Respect
For the people that are managing this thread, I will revise my votes.
1. Yes
2. Yes2
3. No
4. No2
Thank you so much for acknowledging this.
-->
@User_2006
Updated the tracker. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yTeO0YjEJ91xzihmRo-Uv-U-2D-ro3W9DUa5hsa7lfo/edit?usp=sharing
If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to voice them.
Polling (updated 05/31/2020, 6:30pm PT):
Of 20 votes total...
1. Ratify the new Code of Conduct?
15 Yes, 3 No, 2 Abstain
15 Yes, 3 No, 2 Abstain
2. Allow sharing of Private Messages?
7 Yes1, 12 Yes2, 1 No
3. Change the Voting Policy to expand S&G to include other excessive legibility issues?
13 Yes, 4 No, 3 Abstain
4. Require a reason when submitting a report?
5 Yes, 11 No1, 1 No2, 1 Abstain (2 Unclear)
-->
@User_2006
I may have accidentally put your original No2 vote as a No1. I fixed it with the current polling update.
-->
@triangle.128k
@K_Michael
Can you please clarify whether you meant No1 or No2 for #4? Thanks!
-->
@PressF4Respect
Triangle was trolling with his vote, I'm certain of it.