MEEP: Reformed ban policy & DebateArt President

Author: MisterChris
MEEP
Referendum
MEEPs
Ban Policy

Posts

Archived
Total: 233
Topic's author
#1
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
After a long period of careful policy creation and review, we have a few big MEEP propositions that I'm very excited about sharing.

PROPOSITIONS:

Below are the proposed changes to be voted on. Please vote “yes” or “no” for each one. You may change your vote at a later time, just don’t be a pain about it. 

This house proposes:
  1. In order to promote consistent, fair and even-handed moderating practices across the board, the unreserved adoption of the Standardized Policy Enforcement System (SPES) which overhauls and systematizes banning practices and replaces the Consequences section of CoC.
  2. In order to allow more accurate & direct community representation, the unreserved adoption of the proposed DebateArt President office and related policy.
  3. The creation of a “Community” category in the Help Center that will include:
  • The Hall of Fame policy and archive
  • The DebateArt President policy and archive
  • The moderation ban log
ABOUT MEEP:
 
As seen in the moderation overview,
Moderation may submit questions and proposals regarding moderation policy, voting policy, and the code of conduct to Moderation Engagement and Enactment Processes (MEEPs). MEEPs are binding referenda and comment periods on the questions and proposals submitted. Moderation has full discretion on which questions and proposals are submitted to MEEPs, though no substantive change to the COC may be made without either the consent of the site owner(s) or ratification via a MEEP.
 
In order for a submitted question or proposal to be ratified, at least 10 users must have voted in the MEEP, and more than a majority of all those voting must have voted for the question or proposal. That means, in practice, that in a MEEP with 10 total voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 7 votes in favor of the proposal or question. If a MEEP fails to produce a binding result, moderation will maintain the pre-MEEP status quo, unless doing so is entirely untenable.
The voting period will be open from now until 12:00 PM (EST) Friday, September 10th. 

Now, for Narnia, and for Aslan!!!

#2
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
2. no, if that becomes a thing I will be pretty upset but then again I will just leave the site probably, especially if some prick like wont-name-names ends up in a role that can unilaterally veto bans and alter the site while intentionally not doing it for others and the mods can say 'hey, we got a president who didn't veto, your loss' to justify longer, harsher bans and appear reasonable.

If you want 2, de-mod your own selves (you and Supa). Nobody on the website elected you, same with all the mods before. Even if you'd win an election, hold an election. Let almost everybody that's active on the site run for the position and then we decide.

If you're against that, don't pretend this is a democracy, like that's just some nonsense.
#3
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
3. no because it includes the list of banned users... That's... No. It should only include the first if anything, perhaps.
#4
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
1. I'm not quite clear on the difference. I'll wait for others to comment and vote.
#5
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
1. No
2. No
3. Yes for hall of fame - No for DART President - Yes for list of banned users
#6
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@MisterChris
1. No. Don't see the need to complicate the discipline process already in the CoC.

2. No. Don't see why a separate position from Chief Moderator is needed. If another mod is needed, add one, but I see the C.M. already filling the role that a president would have.

3. No, not as defined. Since the Hall of Fame is not a listed item in the Help Center that I see, maybe it just needs to be added as a description of what it is and how it works in the Policy section. 
Topic's author
#7
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
-->
@RationalMadman
2. no, if that becomes a thing I will be pretty upset but then again I will just leave the site probably, especially if some prick like wont-name-names ends up in a role that can unilaterally veto bans and alter the site while intentionally not doing it for others and the mods can say 'hey, we got a president who didn't veto, your loss' to justify longer, harsher bans and appear reasonable.

Read the policy. The powers of the President are quite limited but exist in order to give the user base a say on perma bans (the top complaint with the previous admin). The President is not able to drastically alter anything, and a veto can be overridden. Furthermore, the role would create site enthusiasm and activity. A problem President likely wouldn't be elected, either. And if they were, no true harm would be done. On the other hand, if a good candidate made it to the office, their advise could help make the site better.
Topic's author
#8
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
-->
@RationalMadman
1. I'm not quite clear on the difference. I'll wait for others to comment and vote.

Standardized ban times. The user base has complained that the mod team comes up with seeming arbitrary punishments and on-the-fly consequences, and there is some merit to this claim. With the SPES, the mod team won't ban one user any longer than another for the same infraction. Of course, in the event the SPES is untenable for the situation at hand, mods retain the right to act outside of it. That would be a rather rare scenario, however.
Topic's author
#9
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
-->
@949havoc
Don't see the need to complicate the discipline process already in the CoC.
This doesn't complicate the process. It actually simplifies it drastically by providing clear, simple references to mods for each crime. Without it, we are making up punishments for each infraction as we go. With the previous system, that would create unfair discrepancies in how we would treat certain users. The mods are human, and not immune to bias or mistake. With the SPES, we can look at the policy and give ban times that are fair across the board. 
Topic's author
#10
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
-->
@Sum1hugme
Any concern you have that I can comment on?
Topic's author
#11
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
Needless to say, I am voting "yes" to all three.



#12
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
#13
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
VOTES

1. YES (2)
NO (2)

2. YES (2)
NO (2)

3. YES (3)
NO (2)
#14
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
  1. SPES - Yes
    Hard not to support a project the new mod team put so much damn effort into (to be clear, my contributions were little more than proofreading).
    It's really a choice between clear process documentation (which can still be refined), or fly by the seat of their pants decisions as they go.
  2. President - Yes
    I have reservations, but it sounds like it could be something fun for those more involved in the community.
    Granted, I've always had the philosophy that any member of the community can launch events; hence why I invited people to launch their own MEEPS so many times (even massively delaying planned ones).
  3. Help Center - Yes
    A backup of certain information into a place that can better display it than the forums... I don't see any significant drawback. I'd probably toss even more into there.
#15
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
1. Abstain for now, will vote later if I have time to actually read the proposition.
2. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
3. Yes.
#16
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
1.yes
2.no
3.yes
#17
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
Yes to 1, 2 and 3

Also 

Rm, I wouldn't refused to overturn bans based on any preferential treatment. I would basically just overturn bans that airmax would not have approved of on ddo, no matter what clique that person belongs to. I urge you to alter your vote on number 2, and I can maybe even work on bringing you into my administration and putting you in charge of decisions to overturn or not overturn bans, with me having veto power on the latter but not the former. 
#18
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@MisterChris
 a veto can be overridden
What would that process be like. It isn't going to be one of those things where, any veto you don't like (which would be all of them, because they would contradict your opinion), would be subject to your whimsical overturning of it? 

To a certain. Degree, I think you just need to trust the communities judgement in picking a representing they feel will do well for them.
#19
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
pm me on number 2, so we can discuss why you feel that way. I would like some sort of explanation on why you think there should not be some sort of democratic leadership on the site. 
#20
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Dr.Franklin
pm me about number 2. I don't think you realize how much we need a site president and exactly what they can do for you
#21
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,158
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@MisterChris
Honestly each section should be it’s own individual vote cause there are a lot of cancer pills in the writing.

Also there should be an amendment process to MEEPs cause I want a recall amendment for President.

Otherwise 

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
#22
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MisterChris
google docs are blocked for me, please link to alternative text
#23
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Wylted
pm me on number 2, so we can discuss why you feel that way. I would like some sort of explanation on why you think there should not be some sort of democratic leadership on the site. 
PM does not work well on my phone but I don't see the benefits of a president position in general and dislike the specifics of the proposed implementation here.

So what really is the point of a president position?
#24
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Barney
President - Yes
I have reservations, but it sounds like it could be something fun for those more involved in the community.
If there is no real benefit (like you say anyone can organize events and many people already do such as mafia games and debate tournaments) then it just seems to me like another thing for people to get divisive over.
#25
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
VOTES

1. YES (5)
NO (2)

2. YES (4)
NO (4)

3. YES (4)
NO (2)

#26
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
Personally, I am in favor of a President.

1. We have implemented certain restrictions on presidencies in regards to power and such, so that a president is not useless, but also does not have more power.

2. Plus mods can not always set up community events and such. A president can do such things to involve the community and bring site engagement up

3. Any activity on this site is beneficial to involved more people
#27
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Vader
2. Plus mods can not always set up community events and such. A president can do such things to involve the community and bring site engagement up
Perhaps "general secretary" (or some other title) might be more palatable than "president" ?
#28
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Someone reads about the website, goes to the help center and sees the ban log, which by the way includes defamatory bullshit about me, not just others. It has a series of shit twisted out of context, like it says Ethang sexually harassed, he genuinely didn't. Idk about Wylted but even his scenario is really, scarily stated since he's UNBANNED meaning you're suggesting this website harbors someone who did that.

A lot of shit has to be done to the ban log before it should be what a new visitor to the website sees upon intriguingly looking into a 'help center'.
#29
David
David's avatar
Debates: 92
Posts: 1,218
4
7
10
David's avatar
David
4
7
10
1. Yes 
2. No
3. Yes
#30
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
If there is no real benefit (like you say anyone can organize events and many people already do such as mafia games and debate tournaments) then it just seems to me like another thing for people to get divisive over.
God forgive, people being divisive on a debate site