MEEP: Reformed ban policy & DebateArt President

Author: MisterChris
MEEP
Referendum
MEEPs
Ban Policy

Posts

Archived
Total: 233
#151
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Vader
@ResurgetExFavilla
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.
100% all of this. 

This has played out in ALL the online discussion websites I've been to. You have Progressive zealot moderators who use the anti-free speech term "hate speech" to justify banning right-wing people over comments like "African Americans have lower IQ than Whites" or "Lower Hispanic income is partially a result of heritability". In effect, "hate speech" becomes whatever these Progressives get upset over, and thus most Conservatives end up getting shafted.

As is clearly pointed out here by Resurget, there is no reason to have "hate speech" in the SPES. If you bake this into the SPES, you've giving Progressives like Ragnar and RM (if he ever gets in) ammunition to ideologically ban people who upset them.

Still, I think the SPES is a major upgrade that overall is better than what is currently in use. It just would be a lot better still if this anti-free speech "hate speech" was removed.
#152
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
I understand your point with that statement as well and while I think things like excessive vulgarities are hard to define in the context, I will hopefully try to answer the question as best as I can

1. This section is simply referring to toxic behavior as a whole, not as a whole group. This is not saying vulgarities are hate speech (granted they can be depending on the context), but is saying toxic behavior can be excessive vulgarities. Some vulgarities are not hate speech, others are, but context matters. To add to this extension, no one is saying that vulgarities can not be debated or discussed, but they have to be used in a way that directly attacks someone. For example, if we are debating the use of the n-word in a discussion. No action would be taken for that. However, if a certain user is using that word is a manner deemed toxic and excessive, that would result in a punishment.

2. This is where moderation discretion comes in as you mentioned. Moderation will determine whether or not an attack is personal and is detracting from the topic at hand. This discretion is stated in the SPES. The guide itself is not a clear cut rules, but a basic procedure as stated before. Everything is reviewed using mod discretion, this is simply a baseline. This is one of those cases.

3. I think an improvement can be made. I do think excessive toxicity can play into hate speech depending what vulgarities is used. Most times, hate speech is used by vulgarities, hence why the groups is combined

I appreciate the concern for that and do agree there could be confusion, but I hope these principles have cleared up. Just remember, a lot of this is moderation discretion as well. As for the limiting the freedom of speech and such, I highly doubt Chris or I are going to start censoring certain beliefs and become some authoritarian figure to this site. I have better things to do. Trust is what matters in the grand scheme of things
#153
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Mesmer
Yes I would agree with your statement 100%. I believe on this site, an user must trust moderation to preserve their rights to free speech, while moderators must trust users to not excessively break basic rules that are detrimental to the function of the site. 

There's a fine line between a political discussion and an excessive personal attack hate speech. 
#154
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Vader
You don't need to use the term "excessive personal attack hate speech".

You can just use and moderate using the term "excessive personal attack".

If someone keeps calling a homosexual a f*ggot or an African American a n*gger, and not saying much else, there doesn't seem to be a problem with you suspending/banning (whatever you think is appropriate) this person due to an "excessive personal attack". We don't need to discuss whether it's "hate speech". It's just an excessive personal attack that doesn't contribute to productive conversation. 

'Invective' and 'vulgarity' are already covered in the SPES and would give justice to banning people for an "excessive personal attack"; you don't need to give political ideologues more power than necessary to abuse terms like "hate speech" -- that was Resurget's main point imo.
#155
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Mesmer
Fair point to note. I think then the issue would be with the repetition used here. 
#156
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Vader
Yeah. Me too.

I personally don't use these slurs, though.
#157
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@Vader
Fair point to note. I think then the issue would be with the repetition used here. 

I've had the same experience that Mesmer had, where discussing basic conservative viewpoints is construed as 'hate speech' and banned. It's part of why I didn't get as involved in this site; the moderation policy was not the laissez-faire approach taken at DDO.

I think it should read like so:

5) If a user’s content includes unwarranted (or excessively toxic) systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks, 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, 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.

I don't think anything is lost by this reframing, and it removes any possibility of the ambiguous term 'hate speech' being misapplied to mere ideological disagreements.
#158
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@ethang5
You are angry now because you know I'm right
You are just a poor functionally illiterate soul trapped in a world of your imagination... You're not worth my anger, but you have my pity.
#159
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Show me a single nation that is far-right where the populace aren't oppressed to the hilt.

They start with the propaganda 'we are the freedom fighters' and when in charge they always are the very opposite of that.

I am not going to fall for a new age Hitler or Stalin, left-wing or right-wing the sophistry and bullcrap you pass as genuine politics isn't my concern. You push a racist agenda, you can fuck right off to whatever racist shithole you want to make, because the land of America, or whatever the fuck it is you want to make racist, instead of telling the immigrants that they belong somewhere that your lunatic ancestors did while pillaging and conquering lands that also weren't theirs to start with. 

Hitler, Stalin, Margaret Thatcher, Donald Trump, Mao, they play the same tune 'we are different, we will bring back to you the pride you once lost, help this revolution and we will make our national pride and the silent majority rise once again' then when in charge they do absolutely nothing but make the poor starve and rule with an iron fist, silencing the opposition while pretending not to and giving fake news designed to make the real news seem outrageous.

So, I know exactly what happens when your vile ideology finds its way into the minds of the impressionable, I've seen it in countless differnet variations on both sides of the aisle. Jingoism and tyranny are a nice thing to package as 'but the other side doesn't let you be totally free'. Your shit works somewhere else, just stay the fuck off a debate website, it's not the best place to give your BS.

Nobody gives the slightest shit if the average IQ of a certain race is something in relation to another, there's factors involved such as opportunities during upbringing to increase intelligence as well as the fact that there's more to life even than IQ. The average IQ of a left-wing doctor is consistently higher than the average IQ of a right-wing farmer, nobody gives a shit because that has no implication beyond the IQ. The only fucking reason you post about blacks and caucasians having different average IQs is to suggest something else based on that and you have, especially on your MGTOWDemon account where you went full blown racist nutjob, which is just what you are with the mask off.

I couldn't give the slightest shit if any of this offends you, Mesmer, I didn't do shit to you and you used a fabricated past that you knew I was vulnerable to as I am sensitive about how I am seen, in order to blackmail me into dropping out of the presidency race here. You are everything you fucking hate, an oppressor and bully but you think it's okay when it suits your agenda. Get a taste of your own fucking medicine then, I am never going to be your buddy again Zarroette, no matter what enemy here you think we can unite against.
#160
dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@Barney
You are angry now because you know I'm right
You are just a poor functionally illiterate soul trapped in a world of your imagination... You're not worth my anger, but you have my pity.
OK so he says whatever and then you imply that he is delusional, stupid, worthless and pitiable. Were you just having a bad or are you really that thin skinned and vindictive?
#161
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@dfss9788
OK so he says whatever and then you imply that he is delusional, stupid, worthless and pitiable. Were you just having a bad or are you really that thin skinned and vindictive?
Yeah you're right.

This is a bad look for Ragnar.
#162
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Barney
Compare
You are just a poor functionally illiterate soul trapped in a world of your imagination... You're not worth my anger, but you have my pity.  
Post #58

with
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. 
Post #14

and it appears someone needs to have a more clearly defined policy before adopting its proper attitude?
And you wonder why those of us who oppose the ban policy as proposed are confused and don't see change as necessarily improvement?
#163
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
1.) Yes
2.) Yes
3.) Yes

#164
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Barney
I also have your lies.

What I don't have is an answer to my question. What a surprise.
#165
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ethang5
Nice poetry
#166
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Barney
@Vader
Ok, since it's evident the educated Rag will not answer, perhaps Supa will.

If I am asked not to post in a thread by the threads author, can I legally ignore that request if in my subsequent posts to that thread I do not mention, refer to, or address the thread author?
#167
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@ethang5
Yes, however, if you are falling into the category of extreme toxicity that is stated in the SPES, moderation has a right to tell you to stop posting in that thread. Thought I don't think I will ever tell anyone to do that
#168
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@ethang5
Good question. Deserves an answer. So, why isn't that answer forthcoming? I suppose that leads to the more basic question: does a topic originator "own" the thread? I've been told as such by some jealous members. If we truly believe the Forum is a open expression of ideas for and by all, and as long as a post is cordial to that ideal, with moderate respect for one another, I don't see how it is rational that the initiator of a thread can dictate who may and may not post an appropriate comment, or what content that comment contains as long as it meets basic decorum. "Appropriate" being a term any reasonable person can decipher, unless we're all considered three-year-olds, which is not the inference given on the DebateArt homepage.

I hope someone of oversight on this site will offer you a legit answer and not just a dismissal.

Well, it appears SupaDudz has responded
#169
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Vader
I just wish the SPES stopped there, and dismissed all the tiers. It's rather confusing. Seems you've defined the matter well enough in your #167. Why can't the policy be that simple? It's the total reason why I voted against it.

What is the current vote tally, by the way?
#170
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Vader
Thanks Supa.

...moderation has a right to tell you to stop posting in that thread.
I agree. Which is part of the reason I've never resisted a ban, or tried to circumvent one.

But my question is about a non-mod asking another member to leave his thread. Does that ask obligate the member to leave the thread? It may seem to you that I'm being insistent, but I really want a clear answer.

Thanks
#171
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@ethang5
No, that user can't tell you to leave their thread. The only person that can tell you to leave the thread is moderation itself
#172
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Vader
Thanks Supa.
#173
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@ethang5
No problem
#174
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@dfss9788
You are angry now because you know I'm right
You are just a poor functionally illiterate soul trapped in a world of your imagination... You're not worth my anger, but you have my pity.
OK so he says whatever and then you imply that he is delusional, stupid, worthless and pitiable. Were you just having a bad or are you really that thin skinned and vindictive?
There's a long history with Ethang's wanton stupidity and desperation for my attention. As mildly suggested by the above him repeatedly asking the same question, having it answered clearly, only for him to call it a lie to say it was answered and ask it again; all while he repeatedly committed ad hominins against me for which he refused to support with evidence.

He pretty much goes into a fit of cognitive dissonance at the sound of the word no, such as when I've rejected his romantic advances toward me (due to said rejection, he tries to spread bizarre conspiracy theories about me now).

So yes, I disagree with the assessment that after years of said behavior from him, I'm thin skinned and vindictive for being concise toward him and his ramblings.
#175
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
These sites work because content and dissension attracts engagement. Too much, or too toxic, and it harms engagement.

Moderation is there to constrain the toxic aspects that drive people away whilst maintaining as much of the dissension as possible to drive engagement.

It’s important to note that Moderation is constrained through popular support in shitstorms, and user interactions not by the rules assigned.

If a rule is applied exactly as written and intended, but in a way that ends up appearing or being clearly unfair; some moderators may possibly do it - but really only once before they’re constrained by shitstorm.

The real purpose of moderator rules here, is that any moderator decision will illicit at least 5% of active users suggesting it was the right decision, and 5% suggesting that the moderators are like Hitler.

Dealing with that is so tiring, so thankless, and so ridiculous; having rules to wave in those threads to give you cover that your good faith decision made in the best interests of all users wasn’t actually because you’re trying to become a forum dictator.


Decisions, users, context, etc, are so unique in each case that requires moderation, that you can’t really rely on these type of rules to always work for the good of the site; and sometimes you need an individual to be able to argue the case for the userbase (hence they president) or to be able to at least be able to convey that decisions are clearly made in good faith, for all but the three die hard haters that would object if you had banned Jeffrey Epstein from talking to highschoolers.
#176
dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@Barney
I disagree with the assessment that after years of said behavior from him, I'm thin skinned and vindictive for being concise toward him and his ramblings.
A lot of what you've said about him is probably true as far as I can tell. He seems like a rooster in a cockfight. He thinks you're the other rooster and just can't help it. He experiences anger, aggravation, rage and those sorts of things which aren't pleasant. It's not a good place to be for him and it's not like you have to defend your reputation against his allegations as I doubt anybody is taking them seriously. (I'm not)

Anyway, my underlying concern had more to do with appearances than what really happened. When a moderator appears intemperate, even if it's only upon a cursory examination, it begets a concern that intemperance may pollute his moderating decisions. A potential consequence is erosion of community confidence.
#177
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Ramshutu
Popular support in shitstorms.

Fantastic.
#178
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@dfss9788
Well stated.

To be clear my current level of involvement in moderation is mostly limited to light housekeeping. I am no longer a primary decision maker (not to say I never offer opinions). With this referendum, I did not even see the final drafts before it was posted.
#179
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
I don't know why we even address changing these rules every now and then because when it comes down to it this debate site at its core is liberals versus conservatives. Don't believe me read every single post in this thread. It's why certain people are allowed to talk all they want to and certain people get banned on a regular basis. The religion forum is a great example. It's supposed to be about religion but almost every post ends up being liberal versus conservative. An absolutely nothing is done about it because as long as the mods agree politically with someone the other person is always going to be the loser or banned. 
#180
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@dfss9788
Anyway, my underlying concern had more to do with appearances than what really happened.
Believe me, anyone that has been on this site long enough to know would gloss over that part of the thread after their brain registers the username making the post was E and anyone that has not been on long enough to know that will quickly find out they should have.