Well, looks like DebateArt will be over-run by left wing censorship.

Author: triangle.128k

Posts

Total: 153
#31
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Plisken
Are you able to further clarify if there is or is not standardization for what constitutes invective language, differentiating it from brazen noninvective language? 
I would cite the example I gave to Triangle: "were you to say something like "gay people are f**king bastards who deserve to be sodomized at the stake," I would take that as invective. Invective is a degree of harshness above mere insult." Can I give you a precise brightline? No, but that is a perpetual problem in all rule-making. Ultimately, determining invective requires me to make a judgement call in each case.

As for marginalized groups, I am not so much referring to groups on this site, but to social groups which may be marginalized in society writ large.
#32
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
-->
@bsh1
Your post was reported. [...] your post was not moderatable in the sense that it was not the case that you should be either warned or punished.
If the post was not moderatable according to the CoC, then no moderation action should have been taken. However, moderation action was taken. The post was moderated with a warning. Although included within the warning is the statement "[t]his is not an official warning", that statement is a conclusory disclaimer. A moderator received a report. In response to the report, the moderator referenced the user's comment and told the user that "language like this is not looked kindly upon by moderation, and that it is best to avoid comments which may be reasonably construed as hate speech." The message to the user was a warning made by a moderator (site official) in response to a report. That is a moderation action.
#33
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Death23
"[t]his is not an official warning" is the "no offense, but..." of the moderation world.
#34
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
there are only two genders, "non binary" people are idiots
#35
spacetime
spacetime's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 206
0
1
3
spacetime's avatar
spacetime
0
1
3
-->
@bsh1
fuck off, you idiotic tranny faggot 

#36
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
-->
@spacetime
That's kinda harsh m8.
#37
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,238
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
It's times like this I breathe in the fresh air and think about how relieved I am that I'm not in leadership.
#38
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@spacetime
Unfortunately, Bsh1 may not address an insult directed at moderation, and shouldn't have to spend time reading that post.  If you could just refrain from ruining the utility of vocabulary for decent people by exemplifying an association with malevolent stupidity, that'd be great.    
#39
TheGreatSeal
TheGreatSeal's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 27
0
0
5
TheGreatSeal's avatar
TheGreatSeal
0
0
5
We could have an appeals process or something to lessen the probability of censorship, through I trust the DART moderators immensely already.
#40
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Plisken
Unfortunately, Bsh1 may not address an insult directed at moderation, and shouldn't have to spend time reading that post.
That would be correct. In terms of actions against moderators, only those that violate their safety and privacy rights (e.g. doxxing) are moderatable.
#41
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Death23
If the post was not moderatable according to the CoC, then no moderation action should have been taken.
Moderation action is any action taken to enforce the COC. I did not, and do not, conceive of gentle reminders that the COC exists, as enforcement actions. The entire purpose of the message was to notify the user that continuing down a specific trajectory might eventually lead him to violate the COC. It was informational, and not an attempt at enforcement.
#42
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Castin
Oh, to be free once more...
Topic's author
#43
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
-->
@bsh1
However, my message was deleted in spite of you admittingly saying that it did not violate the CoC. As he said, it was a de-facto enforcement whether it was intended as such or not. 
#44
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@triangle.128k
You are conflating the message with the deletion. The message did and does not constitute moderation action. The deletion, on the other hand, did constitute moderation action, and I acknowledged it to be a mistake. The attempt to continue fault-finding beyond the mistake I acknowledged seems a bit silly at this point, to be honest.

#45
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
I am personally happy with BSH as moderator.

#46
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@triangle.128k
"Just include an option called 'other' for idiots who can't align with the binary. There's only two genders lol."
Wow... this was a problematic sentence?? Are you F88888 kidding me. This has liberal bias written all over it. I'm disappointed in moderation.  

#47
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@bsh1
In future, give moderation due notice that you are planning to disclose moderation PMs. This is non-negotiable.
Why does he have to? He felt unfairly targeted, and for good reason, and made it known. Does it say somewhere that we can't share our own PM's? If someone decides to talk to me or warn me of something i can do whatever i want with that. If he wanted to make it public he can... This is abuse of power in my eyes all bc it makes you feel uncomfortable. A police officer feels uncomfortable when people record them... this is the same case. You may feel uncomfortable but it is in his right to speak out... if he wants to have extra courtesy, he can give you a heads up. But i imagine he was upset and giving the person that just made him upset that courtesy isn't automatically deserved.  

#48
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Oh, to be free once more...
Yet you keep slurping up to the mod of whatever site you find yourself, until you are "in" with him.

Sure you long to be free.
#49
spacetime
spacetime's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 206
0
1
3
spacetime's avatar
spacetime
0
1
3
-->
@bsh1
The message did and does not constitute moderation action. 
Bullshit. You are a moderator, and you contacted him in your capacity as a moderator. That is a "moderation action."

And regardless of the label we assign to it, contacting him was a stupid idea. There was no reason to say anything to Triangle about his post. You should have left it alone. Unless he gave some indication that he would do something legitimately problematic to a specific person (e.g. doxxing, targeted harassment).

Furthermore, I don't accept your apology for deleting his post. Your deletion proves exactly what I've been saying about you all along -- your instinct is to overreach on the basis of your ideological inclinations, and that disqualifies you as a moderator. You should never have been appointed. Resign.

#50
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@spacetime
You should never have been appointed. Resign.
You are, of course, entitled to that opinion. I shall not, however, be resigning over this incident.
#51
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Outplayz
Does it say somewhere that we can't share our own PM's?
It does. From the COC: "Posting the contents, in part or in whole, of private messages (PMs) in a public venue without the consent of all parties to the PM is strictly prohibited." This rule also applies on DDO. Private messages are "private" for a reason.

Moderators are exceptions to the normal rules, however. That is why, in other threads, I have said the following: "(1) they may not quote directly from a PM with a moderator without first giving the moderator ample notice and (2) they may not quote directly from a PM with a moderator if the information they wish to reveal is likely to impinge on the privacy or safety rights of another user, moderators excluded. Users must also understand that by posting content from the PM in protest to a certain moderator decision, they waive their privacy rights for any and all discussions which pertained/pertain directly to the decision they are protesting. This is done to allow the moderator the chance to reply to the criticism, and to prevent selective release of information. This is all to say that users do have the right to waive their privacy rights in PMs with moderators, with only two reasonable restrictions on that right to waive."


#52
spacetime
spacetime's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 206
0
1
3
spacetime's avatar
spacetime
0
1
3
-->
@bsh1
You are, of course, entitled to that opinion. I shall not, however, be resigning over this incident.
I didn't expect that you would. Doing so would require some semblance of honor.
#53
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@bsh1
It does. From the COC: "Posting the contents, in part or in whole, of private messages (PMs) in a public venue without the consent of all parties to the PM is strictly prohibited." This rule also applies on DDO. Private messages are "private" for a reason.
I see. So he's going to be warned on this too. I don't like these rules. It is all stacked to give power to moderators that they do not deserve any more than any other user to be able to harass those they disagree with for non-problems. You made a bad move warning the user for the subject sentence. I hope you can see how it comes off as bias and abuse of power. That was as innocuous a sentence can be.  

#54
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@spacetime
delete your account, mudblood 

#55
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Outplayz
It is all stacked to give power to moderators that they do not deserve any more than any other user to be able to harass those they disagree with for non-problems.
In fact, it's not geared towards the mod. The non-moderator is the one who holds the power to go public with the content of a moderation PM, not the moderator. The non-moderator is the only one with a choice regarding privacy vs. publicity. The privacy exists to safeguard users against having their private discussions and affairs made public against their will. But, as I noted in my post to you, moderation PMs are not like normal PMs. With or without the moderator's permission, a user can choose to take a moderation PM public, so long as they give the moderator notice and are not violating the rights of other non-moderators in the process.

You made a bad move warning the user for the subject sentence.
I disagree. I explained clearly that I was not taking a moderation action against triangle, and that I was merely informing him that future action along the trajectory he was taking might violate the COC. In other words, I was cautioning--as opposed to warning--him to be aware of the comments he was making and how they might, potentially, violate the COC. I have thoroughly explained my actions in this regard.
#56
TheHammer
TheHammer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 211
1
2
4
TheHammer's avatar
TheHammer
1
2
4
this shit dumb lmoa
#57
spacetime
spacetime's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 206
0
1
3
spacetime's avatar
spacetime
0
1
3
-->
@bsh1
Question: if I'm black, am I allowed to say "nigger" ?
#58
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@spacetime
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking dead, kiddo.
#59
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
Let me be clear: knowing that revealing moderation PMs requires giving advanced notice and still posting moderation content without such notice is not permitted. User have every right to reveal those PMs, and so I do not view requiring such notice an unreasonable restriction.

But, more importantly, the use of hate speech slurs is never permitted. Period. Words like k*ke, *f**got, n**ger, ch**k, and tr**ny are not acceptable and will--upon repeated use and/or a use designed to harm another user--result in moderation action. The avoidance of these words is called for not just by common decency, but by the COC.
#60
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
"i will be a fair mod and not be overbearing"

1 month later

> u can't say "tranny" guys