MEEP: Reformed ban policy & DebateArt President

Author: MisterChris
MEEP
Referendum
MEEPs
Ban Policy

Posts

Archived
Total: 233
#121
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@949havoc
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.
After reviewing the text of the policy, it is simultaneously too detailed and too vague.
#122
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@ethang5
...I've learned to let go.
As clearly evidenced by you endlessly bringing it up.
Does "letting it go" to you  mean never mentioning it again?
The frequency of complains akin to a kid playing the hit song Let It Go on repeat, combined with blatantly lying about the material details ("Ragnar can't defend a single point" when I defended them at length multiple times...), strongly implies that it has not in fact been let go.


Stop being disingeneous. If your past behavior makes you uncomfortable, it should.
In order to stop being disingenuous, first I would have to be disingenuous to begin with... And I'm quite comfortable with the vast majority of my past behaviors.
#123
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Vader
@MisterChris
After rereading the proposal, I would like to change my vote for number one to yes.
Topic's author
#124
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
VOTES

1. YES (10)
NO (9)

2. YES (14)
NO (10)

3. YES (14)
NO (7)

#125
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@MisterChris
close voting now, and stop ignoring my PM's
Topic's author
#126
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
I have a few comments.

First, regarding the DebateArt President... this is the proposal I feel least strongly about. There seemed to be some hype surrounding the idea, but implementing such an office is a delicate task. If we're going to do it, we might as well do it right. So I've created a reasonable office that would be a boon to the site and I am offering it to the community. The President's function isn't undefined, it will be exactly what's said in the document: mostly an elected advisor to the mod team, a lobbyist on behalf of the DART community. This serves not only to give the community a voice but to spur some positive activity... The President won't be able to alter policies or singlehandedly prevent people from being banned or anything else that extreme. They can, however, be a counterbalance against unfair modding practices. As I've said before, read the document. The worse case scenario is that we have a controversial figure in the office who, ultimately, doesn't hurt a thing. The best case scenario is that the community gets a spokesperson who can contribute thoughtfully and help ease the rift that has grown between moderation and the community. Again, this isn't an issue I feel particularly strongly about, but ultimately this office isn't going to measurably hurt the site and could easily help it.


Second, regarding the Community section... This is literally just an update we've needed to do for a while. The Hall of Fame will be more meaningful and prestigious if we can move a copy of it into the Help Center, somewhere more official (and more difficult to alter) than the forums. If the DART President policy passes, we'll need that space for the policy. As for the ban log, our intent wasn't to advertise the past wrongdoings (or false accusations) of users to more people. In fact, quite the opposite. While we still need that record available for reference, it makes much more sense to put it somewhere more private and official (the Help Center) than plastered in the middle of the forums for all to see. Voting "yes" allows us to do that.

I have a lot more to say about the SPES. I'm going out for some time but I'll come back and share some thoughts.
#127
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MisterChris
mostly an elected advisor to the mod team, a lobbyist on behalf of the DART community.
OMBUDSMAN
#128
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@MisterChris
... The President won't be able to alter policies or singlehandedly prevent people from being banned or anything else that extreme. They can, however, be a counterbalance against unfair modding practices
That sounds like the president won't be able to do shit, but it magically acts as a counter balance. Why are you afraid of the community having influence over decisions?
#129
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Good Ideas.

But that still didn't answer my question. And self-sovereignty still isn't morality.
#130
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Barney
Then I must be referring to those behaviors of yours you aren't comfortable with. They aren't secret Rag, so spare me the "what are you talking about act".

Whatever else one can say about him, RM is vastly more honest than you are.
#131
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
-->
@MisterChris
id like to change my vote on 2 to yes
#132
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@drlebronski
thank you potentate
#133
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
So where do I run for president?

This thread? You ready to vote for me, guys?
#134
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Change my vote on 2 to yes if that changes something lmao.
#135
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Yeah put your libel against me in the help center. That seems great.

Change my vote to three to yes.
#136
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Fantastic MEEP, loved the pre-MEEP phase thread, where we got to suggest changes to it before voting on it.

It didn't exist, but I enjoyed it.
#137
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@ethang5
Stop being disingeneous. If your past behavior makes you uncomfortable, it should.
In order to stop being disingenuous, first I would have to be disingenuous to begin with... And I'm quite comfortable with the vast majority of my past behaviors.
Then I must be referring to those behaviors of yours you aren't comfortable with. They aren't secret Rag, so spare me the "what are you talking about act".
No one is a mind reader here. You are making really weird leading claims about me, so please actually finish your statements instead of leaving them in the realm of your imagination. What specific old behaviors of mine on this site are you claiming I regret?


Whatever else one can say about him, RM is vastly more honest than you are.
If I'm regularly caught blatantly lying, please list five. To make it easy on you, you can find all my forum posts at: https://www.debateart.com/participants/Ragnar/forum_posts
Given my law rate of posts, and assuming you're not talking rubbish, they should be really easy for you to find...
#138
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,159
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@MisterChris
Ex post facto for President?
#139
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Barney
No one is a mind reader here.
You seemed to read minds fine when you were listing intentions for the bans you were flinging.

You are making really weird leading claims about me, so please actually finish your statements instead of leaving them in the realm of your imagination.
It seems like it's your imagination that is the problem here Rag.

What specific old behaviors of mine on this site are you claiming I regret?
The ones you dodge when asked about them.

Whatever else one can say about him, RM is vastly more honest than you are.

If I'm regularly caught blatantly lying, please list five.
I said RM is more honest than you. This is true and I need answer no test from you.

You were careful to lie mostly in PM, but I still have the PMs. One time Stephen unwittingly busted you lying in PM by posting your PMed lies. You went silent. When I asked you permission to post your PMed lies, you went silent.

You have been given god-mode powers on Dart. You do not need to lie. You can do what you want without consequence save one; members will call you out on your dishonesty.

Fear of sanctions will silence some, but not all.

You're still a mod, so let me ask you a forth time.

Is it a violation of board CoC if a member does not leave a thread whose author has him to leave?

Does a thread author have the authority to forbid  another member from posting in his thread?

First time I asked you, you dodged the question. 2nd time I asked you, you answered a different question. Third time I asked, you rambled about how I deserved a ban.

I've made no comment or complaint about any ban here. I've asked nothing about my conduct. The question is about your interpretation of board rules.

Can you answer now?
#140
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@ethang5
What specific old behaviors of mine on this site are you claiming I regret?
The ones you dodge when asked about them.
Again, list them if they exist.


You were careful to lie mostly in PM
"Mostly" means you've got public times I lied a bunch. If you're not either having a mental break down or being intentionally fictitious, share the links to me lying.

If you're wrong and I have not lied publicly as you've repeatedly claimed, then I authorize you to share the alleged PMs of me lying a whole big bunch.


You went silent
My sincerest apologies that your precious feelings are hurt by me having other things to do than read every single post made on this site...
/satire


members will call you out on your dishonesty
By all means, call me out on my dishonesty when I'm actually dishonest. Name the terrible lies I committed if they exist.


Is it a violation of board CoC if a member does not leave a thread whose author has him to leave?
I'm sorry you're having trouble accessing the link at the bottom of the screen.

From the Code of Conduct: "If a member politely requests that you leave them alone, do so. Repeated failure to comply, is a clear aggravating factor regarding the content of said posts."

Meaning the ask does not automatically make any post a CoC violation, but negative content of said posts is treated as worse than it would otherwise (better evidence to support the need for a restraining order as an obvious example).


Does a thread author have the authority to forbid  another member from posting in his thread?
Not without a restraining order being in place. But again from the Code of Conduct: "If a member politely requests that you leave them alone, do so. Repeated failure to comply, is a clear aggravating factor regarding the content of said posts."
#141
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Barney
What specific old behaviors of mine on this site are you claiming I regret?
The ones you dodge when asked about them.

Again, list them if they exist.
They exist. Remember, I'm not the only member who has accused you of lying.

You were careful to lie mostly in PM

"Mostly" means you've got public times I lied a bunch. If you're not either having a mental break down or being intentionally fictitious, share the links to me lying.
Thank you for tacitly conceding that you lie in PM.

If you're wrong and I have not lied publicly as you've repeatedly claimed, then I authorize you to share the alleged PMs of me lying a whole big bunch.
Thank you. I'm checking now to see if you or your crack team have deleted our PMs. I will get back to you.

You went silent
My sincerest apologies that your precious feelings are hurt by me having other things to do than read every single post made on this site...
/satire
You were in open conversations with ME! Did you go into a fugue for some of the convo? Some of the time that question was asked you in PM. You still managed not to "read" that question though you replied the PM.

members will call you out on your dishonesty
By all means, call me out on my dishonesty when I'm actually dishonest.
Yes. You'll be the on who decides if you've been dishonest. Thanks for the permission.

Name the terrible lies I committed if they exist.
Why? Because you will decide if they exist? Because they won't exist unlist I list them? Are all the charges of you lying by unrelated members all Fabrications?

Is it a violation of board CoC if a member does not leave a thread whose author has him to leave?
I'm sorry you're having trouble accessing the link at the bottom of the screen.
From the Code of Conduct: "If a member politely requests that you leave them alone, do so. Repeated failure to comply, is a clear aggravating factor regarding the content of said posts."
That is not the question slick. Instead of dodging, just ignore the question if you don't wish to answer. The CoC does not address my question.

The question is not "if a member asks you to leave them alone, but whether one must leave if a member asks you to stop posting in the thread. Because you can participate in a thread without addressing, referring to, or mentioning the offended member.

Meaning the ask does not automatically make any post a CoC violation, but negative content of said posts is treated as worse than it would otherwise (better evidence to support the need for a restraining order as an obvious example).
You are still dodging, and you have to dodge because you cannot answer without confirming your dishonesty.

If you say, "Yes, a member has the authority to forbid other members from a thread," then that would be a surprise to most members because it is not in the CoC, and is not only not true, but ludicrous.

And if you say "a member does not have the authority to forbid other members from a thread," then you will have to explain why you banned me for exactly that reason. So you waffle and dodge the question.

Does a thread author have the authority to forbid  another member from posting in his thread?

Not without a restraining order being in place. But again from the Code of Conduct: "If a member politely requests that you leave them alone, do so. Repeated failure to comply, is a clear aggravating factor regarding the content of said posts."
Non-moderation members cannot issue or enforce  RO's. The question has nothing to do with ROs or leaving someone alone. If a member asks me to leave his thread and I then respond to a 3rd party inside that thread, not addressing, responding to, or referring to the offended member, is that a violation?

You, a mod, can't answer a simple question about board policy asked 5 times, but you're asking me to list your lies? Please.
#142
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
I’d hate to see that Presidential Role voted in but if it is we need to have a referendum on the role as defined by MisterChris- which definition I thought was pretty good. I agree with 3ru7al when he says the role is more ombudsman than president.  As defined, the role presides over nothing and nobody so president is a misnomer
#143
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@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.
I disagree with it because there's a rule which I think is stupid and ultimately harmful. The SPES will herald in a more rigid and uniform enforcement of the rules, including the one which I don't like. I think it's better for the mods to be unrestrained in how they handle the letter of the law because it gives them the ability to selectively enforce rules and avoid the harm which some of them would cause if rigidly enforced. Tying their hands takes away the leeway that they currently have to ameliorate the impact of harmful rules. If we had a coherent set of rules that made sense and limited moderation to harassment/threats and other clear breaches of basic decorum I wouldn't have a problem with an SPES. Instead we have a set of rules which could be construed to allow censorship based on ideological content rather than the abusive nature of posts.
#144
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@ethang5
Do you want me to make a gofundme page to help you to take basic adult literacy classes?


Is it a violation of board CoC if a member does not leave a thread whose author has him to leave?
the ask does not automatically make any post a CoC violation
That is not the question slick. Instead of dodging, just ignore the question if you don't wish to answer. 
...
Does a thread author have the authority to forbid  another member from posting in his thread?
Again: "the ask does not automatically make any post a CoC violation"

I can mail you a dictionary if those words are too big and complex for you.


you will have to explain why you banned me


Date: 04/07/2020
Moderator: Joint-moderator decision

ethang5 has been banned for 30 days due to an unending stream of personal attacks, cross thread contamination, excessive trolling, disregarding moderation intervention...

Two additional weeks have been added for an restraining order violation.

Date: 06/16/2020
Moderator: Joint Decision

BrotherDThomas has been banned for 14-days days for spam. It is understood that this was done at the behest of another user, who is likewise punished equally.

FYI, Jesus is not a site member, rather he is a public figure thus not protected by the CoC.

Following this there is to be a one month full restraining order, with ethang5, lasting until August 1st.

---

Date: 06/16/2020
Moderator: Joint Decision

ethang5 has been banned for 14-days days for spam. And yes, contextually spamming requests for another member to spam, is itself spam.

Following this there is to be a one month full restraining order, with BrotherDThomas , lasting until August 1st.

Date: 07/20/2020
Moderator: Ragnar

ethang5 has been banned for 90 days, following a resumed pattern of sexual harassment and disregarding both moderation intervention and polite requests from the target to cease.

#145
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Barney
Ethang5 is an actual contributor to the religion forums. Same can't be said for Brother D.
#146
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@RationalMadman
@Barney
He knows RM. He likes DeeDee because he disrupts the religion board, exactly what Rag wants.

He also knows "...following a resumed pattern of sexual harassment..." was not only a blatant lie, but an attempt at abuse.

See Rag, unlike many of your clique who think banning is akin to real death, I don't fear a ban. You are angry now because you know I'm right. You were unfair, you did lie, not just to me.

Again: "the ask does not automatically make any post a CoC violation"
The "ask" is asking to "leave them alone". But one can post to a thread without addressing, referring to, or mentioning the offended member.

In my case, I left the member alone but you considered just my post to his thread to harassment.

As long as you respond, I will pin you down and force you to answer the question I'm asking instead of your smarmy dodge.

Stop equavocating on the word "ask". You are still a mod, and I am still a member. It is your responsibility to answer. Now again.

If I am asked not to post in a thread, can I legally ignore that request if in my post I do not mention, refer to, or address the person?

You are so invested in your "power" as mod that you can't see that I am not here opposing my ban, but trying to get a question about board policy cleared up.

No member simply asking another member to leave a thread should result in a CoC violation, automatically or otherwise. That was just you using the vagueness of the CoC to do what you wanted.

My question, again, is NOT about a member asking to be left alone, but one asking another member to leave a thread. The CoC does NOT address this.

Right now, Tradesecret has asked DeeDee multiple times to stop his ad-hom attacks and stick to the thread topics. I have asked DeeDee multiple times to stop @'ting me in his posts. I have flagged those post multiple times. There has been no word or action from moderation.

You must decide Rag, what is your policy, and will you apply it fairly? David is your friend, if you don't want a religion board, close it down. But this silly, petty, vindictiveness against theists is, well, silly.

Dodge again and I will ask again. So you can ignore me, which you have been doing, dodge again, ban me or answer the question. Ignoring me or dodging again will bolster my point. You do not want to answer.

And by now, if you were really no longer the head mod, the head mod would have stepped in and addressed the question you are so nimbly dodging.

Teenagers are so easily controllable aren't they?
#147
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
There has been no word or action from moderation.
I think they're dealing with a pedo right now they'll be occupied for a while.
#148
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
I think your evaluation is fair enough and I understand your logic behind your belief. I think a problem you once brought up is that how moderations acts to freely without defined borderlines (maybe not you, but someone did). Also these standards are not a sole guide, but merely a reference to what can occur giving users a basis on what could happen if a violation was committed. If you read, all these decision are discussed to see if this table should be enforced.

I do appreciate the fact you are trusting us to make decision based on the ends we see as the Status Quo. Also if you are not happy with the rules, feel free to shoot either MisterChris and I a PM and if you create a referendum for such rules, I would be more than happy to conduct a MEEP on it. 

It is also very feasible this action can be done. Not to toot my own horn, but I led a full referendum of the RO Policy that allowed Restraining Orders to be less harsh, less likely to occur, and more fair to the users engaged. 
#149
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Also if you would like to show me what constitutes as "limiting ideological preferences," please let me know. I think the SPES is fair enough to where ideologies of all can be showed. 
#150
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@Vader
5) If a user’s content includes unwarranted (or excessively toxic) systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech, moderation shall
  1. FIRST, request the user cease & desist such behavior.
  2. IF adequate time passes and A is ignored by the user, OR IF the user complied initially after A but again unapologetically engages in unwarranted (or excessively toxic) systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech, moderation shall issue a 30 day ban and repeat A.
  3. IF the user continues to defy moderation after the 30 day ban, moderation shall issue a 90 day ban and then repeat A.
  4. ALL additional infractions after C shall be met with bans according the formula y=6(x2) whereyequals ban time in months andxequals the number of infractions after C. 
This is the section that throws up red flags to me. Hate speech is an ill-defined term which has often been used to silence people for political reasons. It seems completely unnecessary here, as vulgarity and invective are both banned. The inclusion of hate speech implies to me that the hate speech which is banned is something aside from invective or vulgarity, otherwise it would be redundant. The problem is that when I think of 'hate speech' that isn't covered under 'invective' or 'vulgarity', all that comes to mind is stuff that shouldn't be banned, and the banning of which acts as the camel's nose under the tent when it comes to censorship. The rest of it seems more reasonable, but that term in the  wrong hands could lead to a stifling of free discussion and I don't see why it shouldn't be removed.

TLDR: Either A. Hate speech is covered under 'invective' and 'vulgarity', in which case it is redundant and can be removed to avoid confusion, or B. It represents a new category of thing which is banned, in which case the term presents a dangerous slippery slope to censorship and should be removed to keep the site a place of open discussion.