1. No
2. No
3. Yes
MEEP: Reformed ban policy & DebateArt President
Posts
Archived
Total:
233
-->
@Wylted
You also do help and give thoughts about bans. But mods ultimately have that decision
The final*
-->
@ethang5
It can't be "libel" if you never reveal someone's legal identity.Then neither can anyone harass another anonymous member.Your application of logic must be sound AND consistent.
I AGREE THAT ALL INTERACTION AND PARTICIPATION ON THIS SITE IS PURELY VOLUNTARY.
IT FOLLOWS LOGICALLY FROM THIS RATHER SIMPLE PREMISE THAT (IFF) YOU FEEL THE SLIGHTEST BIT UNCOMFORTABLE FOR ANY REASON OR NON-REASON (THEN) YOU ARE FREE TO CLOSE THE WINDOW AND NEVER RETURN
(IFF) YOU ARE UNABLE TO RECOGNIZE THE INVALIDITY OF INVECTIVES AND AD HOMINEM ATTACKS (THEN) YOU SHOULDN'T JOIN A DEBATE WEBSITE
-->
@MisterChris
1. NO
2. NO
3. NO
-->
@Vader
You also do help and give thoughts about bans. But mods ultimately have that decision
Another way to say, the mods will.humor you.
When I used to work at Walmart they started encouraging suggestions and they promised to address them all. That ended shortly when they realized it was always too awkward.
Employees "how about more pay"
Management "well we saw your request and we want you to know that is already available to you, we give pay raises during your annual review and for promotions"
Employees "are breaks could be a bit longer"
Managers "well, um you see whe have exactly 7 hours and 45 min of work and you take a5 minute breaks already. If we added another 15 minute break only 7 hours and 30 minutes of work would get done and the company would lose money and you wouldn't have a job"
3 or 4 more rounds of this sort of bullshit and management hid the suggestion box and broke their promise to address things.
You see supa, I know how things work in the real word. I need more than just the mods word. They need to trust the community to make the right decision in president and not overturn the democratic leadership vetos
-->
@3RU7AL
Non-sequitur. Whether one is "UNABLE TO RECOGNIZE THE INVALIDITY OF INVECTIVES AND AD HOMINEM ATTACKS has nothing to do with whether those attacks can be libel.
I was not calling into question the soundness of your logic, but for the consistent application of your principle. If an anonymous person cannot be libeled because he is anonymous, then neither can an anonymous person be harassed.
Should we throw out all mod sanctions for harassment?
-->
@ethang5
Should we throw out all mod sanctions for harassment?
I've already made suggestions that the "block" function also include an automatic feature that hides all posts from the "blocked" individual from the view of the specific account that has "blocked" them.
This would make all (MODERATED) disputes regarding "harassment" moot.
Each individual would then be able to pick and choose what they want to read and what they don't want to read.
Kinda like discord.
This is INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY.
-->
@Vader
I have changed my vote on question 2, i vote yes
I am changing my vote on issue 1 to no
actually abstain from 1. I don't understand it enough, and I only voted yes on number 3 to try and influence rm's vote on number 1, so abstain from number 3
1. no
2. yes
3. no
Seems like the rights and responsibilities of any official should be clearly defined before we vote on whether or not such an office should exist.
Funny how all the supposed conservatives and libertarians jump at the first opportunity to increase government without even questioning what authority that government might possess.
-->
@3RU7AL
significant financial barriers to entry before you'll ever get a chance to try and "prove" to a judge or jury
Cost of filing and service? Nobody knows my identity here and there isn't anything in the moderation log about me. Even if there were defamation there, what'd be the point? It's a Russian site. The site's domain registrar is based in Russia. Can't levy the domain with an American judgment.
-->
@dfss9788
significant financial barriers to entry before you'll ever get a chance to try and "prove" to a judge or juryCost of filing and service? Nobody knows my identity here and there isn't anything in the moderation log about me. Even if there were defamation there, what'd be the point? It's a Russian site. The site's domain registrar is based in Russia. Can't levy the domain with an American judgment.
You've just made my point.
In general, I'm having trouble understanding the complaints with #1.
Moderation has standards by which it enforces the various rules of the site already. The SPES is both a refinement of that enforcement and a means for regular users on the site to understand how they're enforced and in what instances. Moderation can and will still enforce these things, but the major difference is that the means of enforcement are more transparent than they've ever been. For all those people who are saying that enforcement should be changed, this is where you start, since this is the way you can most easily engage with existing enforcement mechanisms.
-->
@whiteflame
In general, I'm having trouble understanding the complaints with #1.Moderation has standards by which it enforces the various rules of the site already. The SPES is both a refinement of that enforcement and a means for regular users on the site to understand how they're enforced and in what instances. Moderation can and will still enforce these things, but the major difference is that the means of enforcement are more transparent than they've ever been. For all those people who are saying that enforcement should be changed, this is where you start, since this is the way you can most easily engage with existing enforcement mechanisms.
Perhaps if someone would be so kind as to post the text of the proposal somewhere on debateart.com I'd be able to read it.
-->
@whiteflame
The added detail to banning policy serves to belittle the intent to manage the site. It should be much more simple than a tiered system. It's been over-thought making me think you're trying to manage three-year olds. Not the age group I necessarily want to engage. Just my personal opinion. Let others describe their opposition.
-->
@3RU7AL
It was posted in the OP: https://docs.google.com/document/d/14I1uPxdhrhvN-y5ZYz6rWlOSGv8-hyCSKUPlYEru2zQ/edit
-->
@whiteflame
It was posted in the OP: https://docs.google.com/document/d/14I1uPxdhrhvN-y5ZYz6rWlOSGv8-hyCSKUPlYEru2zQ/edit
I cannot access google docs.
I'm not sure why the text can't be posted on one of the forums on this actual website.
-->
@949havoc
The added detail to banning policy serves to belittle the intent to manage the site. It should be much more simple than a tiered system. It's been over-thought making me think you're trying to manage three-year olds. Not the age group I necessarily want to engage. Just my personal opinion. Let others describe their opposition.
Then your issue is with how moderation is done rather than the use of a publicized SPES. If you want to have some say in that system, having a DebateArt President would help, but knowing what's actually involved in moderation so that you can address what's actually policy would be a good start.
-->
@3RU7AL
I cannot access google docs.I'm not sure why the text can't be posted on one of the forums on this actual website.
Because it's rather long and has yet to be made policy. I can provide you with a different format if you'd like, but you'll have to give me some means by which you can view it. If you have an email, I can copy-paste it into a document and send it to you.
-->
@3RU7AL
why cant you access it?
maybe try a vpn or proxy site
regardless heres the pastebin version
-->
@drlebronski
I appreciate the effort, but pastebin is also blocked for me.
-->
@whiteflame
Because it's rather long and has yet to be made policy. I can provide you with a different format if you'd like, but you'll have to give me some means by which you can view it. If you have an email, I can copy-paste it into a document and send it to you.
Once again, I appreciate the offer, but I'm not interested in getting it by email.
Every other MEEP I've participated in had the full proposal posted so I could read it.
If the mods are concerned about the text, then they can delete it after the proposal is either passed or rejected.
-->
@whiteflame
Theoretically, the process of moderation ought not differ from the published policy, SPES or whatever. But I'm saying the proposed process of a tiered banning system is too cumbersome, which opens up opportunity for variation; it does not reduce it.
For example: A company is trying to define precise process instructions, and decides that the Materials Dept ought to have purchase order duplicates in several other depts, Engineering, Production, Accts. Payable, etc, and each dept is to have a specific color of the P.O. That's similar to the detail of SPES. Who cares what color each dept gets as long as it gets a copy of the P.O.? Who cares what tier an infraction is in? Define the infractions and a penalty for them. Period. Set a repeat maximum regardless of type, and permanent ban the offender. And why should a role such as the suggested president be allowed any bans? Dumbs down the system.
-->
@3RU7AL
i assume your on a school computer (happened to me a while back) ill try to get a pdf or something else
-->
@3RU7AL
couldnt get the pdf version try this
-->
@drlebronski
-->
@3RU7AL
must have glitched heres the full file:https://0bin.net/paste/06kCKwvZ#6GaZpp1XrdJHK0hhyrrxXSjJWERZxmmz8-pZi0we+7X