2) Yes. I think it should be harder to ban someone and all opinions that want to change any law should be allowed to say on DART, even if it's for something extreme and highly illegal.
MEEP: Reformed ban policy & DebateArt President
Posts
Archived
Total:
233
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
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.
This is untrue. Further, the presumption that the rule violations are all politically motivated is somewhat insulting to liberals and conservatives.
Multi-accounting for example, which political movement is that supposed to belong? I would bet money both liberals and conservatives have been banned over that one (I don't know, as such determinations have never been a part of the review process).
-->
@Barney
This is untrue. Further, the presumption that the rule violations are all politically motivated is somewhat insulting to liberals and conservatives.David literally tried to spread his SJW worldview by being quick to ban people for wrong think. I can name probably 5 wrong think bans. He pretty much openly states that is the reason for the bans with ban comments like"We will not tolerate racism here"Banning people for being racist. That is problematic in itself, but people should know he is referring g to the beliefs of a person, and he has a pretty loose definition of racism.Us David literally banned a member for being me, who wasn't me. Which is why we should be very hesitant to ban perceived alts. Funny enough the. Guy he banned was an Allie who was so SJW, that he had literally started a debate proclaiming computers were a racist invention or something.
-->
@Wylted
David literally tried to spread his SJW worldview by being quick to ban people for wrong think.
It's not like he sat at the entrance to the politics forum with a ban hammer. I would estimate that he strongly disagrees with half of that forum, and yet bans never became a frequent occurrence.
He pretty much openly states that is the reason for the bans with ban comments like"We will not tolerate racism here"
Which ban did he make that statement? I'm not seeing it in the ban log. I am seeing a single instance of "The moderation team will not tolerate any glorification of Nazis, rape, pedophilia, and sexual assault." To which, there is a huge difference between being a normal racist, and endorsing genocide.
David literally banned a member for being me, who wasn't me.
The only ones I'm spotting in the log are Bringerofrain and Singularity. Both gave incredibly good reasons to believe they were you. Was there someone else?
-->
@Barney
The only ones I'm spotting in the log are Bringerofrain and Singularity. Both gave incredibly good reasons to believe they were you. Was there someone else?
Noth were me. I'll find the innocent one accused of being me. I can't remember the name right now
-->
@Barney
the words are glorifying. If I debate an ideal well, it can be argued I glorified it.
Besides that, there is a difference between opinions David felt were wrong, and ones he felt like were disgusting. He would be quick to ban anyone he felt had disgusting beliefs.
I actually think you might be evil. Why would you go along with David for banning somebody, even if they did argue genocide was a good ideal (not that I have)?
It's basically the same as antinatalist arguments. Arguing genocide is a good thing, is not a call for violence, not unless you think Biden is reading this site for ideals on policy proposals and has a realistic chance of implementing them.
I looked over mgtowdemon's posts. It looks like they stated a bunch of white supremacist ideals and were banned for that. They were banned for coming to a debate site and debating their beliefs with people.
Not personal attacks where they call people nigger. Not calls for violence like "you know we should kill all jews" . They were banned for having wrong think.
Just before the ban on bringer of rain, there was a ban on a long time user for making threats in PM or something that was also unjustified. The name escapes me at the moment something like "death23" or something. I had plenty of interactions with them. I can tell you, that person would never do something like that, and yet they were banned.
My supposed alt, who was literally an SJW who believed your laptop is racist, was banned for being me. This is off the top of my head. I haven't even dug through the ban logs yet to see all the retarded bans.
They've destroyed this site. The reason this place is not like DDO was, is because David did not moderate like airmax did. David moderated with a political bias. We should know that somebody who had an antifa picture in support of the blackblock could not keep bias out of their decisions.
Hell the guy even started taking down threads when people started using them to point out, that he was being evil and promoting an agenda, instead of moderating without bias.
It should be noted that when David was an assistant mod to bsh1, he acted like he would reject the type of moderation bsh1 did. The unfair aspects anyway. However he took bsh1's problems (which were problems due to personal bias that he attempted to hold in check as morally obligated to), and he made them worse by refusing to hold those biases in check, due to moral failings (guy is evil and lied about how he would moderate and did it differently once he lied to get the role)
-->
@oromagi
I agree with 3ru7al when he says the role is more ombudsman than president.
THANX
-->
@Wylted
I actually think you might be evil.
This is well documented...
the words are glorifying. If I debate an ideal well, it can be argued I glorified it.
You can argue that, sure. Most rules could be enforced to the point of absurdity. If they are not enforced in such a manner, why complain about a less ideal world where they are? We've had some flagrant racists making debates, whom I wanted to ban, but as they had not gone deep enough into advocacy in favor of terrorism and/or violent extremism, I limited myself to mocking them.
Why would you go along with David for banning somebody, even if they did argue genocide was a good ideal
The same reason I would go along with banning someone for multi-accounting to vote on their own debates, as it's a severe violation of the Code of Conduct.
You are of course welcome to initiate a referendum to refine the Code of Conduct.
It looks like they stated a bunch of white supremacist ideals and were banned for that.
This exemplifies why I try to make rulings wordier (plus there's a typo in said ruling). It's easy to look back on things and not see the importance of "general toxicity," when stated so concisely.
Someone streams nothing but toxicity, without a single positive contribution (not even just once putting their vileness in the form of a debate), there is a lack of any counterbalance against the negativity. Recall that the Code of Conduct directly spells out: "The specific consequence will depend on the severity and frequency of the violations, along with user history, context, and other relevant factors."
there was a ban on a long time user for making threats in PM or something that was also unjustified. ... I can tell you, that person would never do something like that, and yet they were banned.
This exemplifies why the trap of tribal ethics should be avoided. That you like Death23, is your basis for disbelief that they could do something wrong; yet they made threats which included names of family members, description of residence, and more.
You are of course welcome to start a referendum to try get those rules changed.
IMO threats by name of family members a user has never mentioned, is so far beyond what anyone should be exposed to here or on any site...
-->
@Barney
This exemplifies why the trap of tribal ethics should be avoided. That you like Death23, is your basis for disbelief that they could do something wrong; yet they made threats which included names of family members, description of residence, and more.
I just don't believe this happened. If it did good that he is banned. I have talked to the guy frequently, and I know he isn't capable of it.
Why would he be a model member for so long and then randomly out of the blue start threatening random people. Occam's razor suggests, that shit is highly exaggerated or just made up.
When you get down to it, there's a reason that most of the people who still use this site fit into one of three camps. Some of them are old-school DDO people who do it to keep in touch with the community. This group shrinks all the time due to the nature of the latter two camps. One of these camps contains the... colorful folk who were formerly contained within the religion subforum. They tend to not be able to argue coherently (in the worst cases they can't even form coherent sentences) and instead repeat the same exact diatribes and grievances at each other ad infinitum, as if they're condemned spirits in some Greek tragedy-turned-farce. I'm generalizing, there were always some more lucid people who you can tolerably communicate and a handful of people who were quite brilliant, but the majority are a bit unfortunate (Some of them, I'm sure, are good people). The third are people new to the scene and the general concept of online debating, the genuine 'noobs'.
I think that you need to think of a site like this a bit like a nuclear reactor: you need to get it started with some initial material, then feed it new fissile material in order to keep the reaction going. If you introduce too many dampening elements, like lead rods they will suppress the reaction and slow it down, perhaps even snuffing it out. The people who are completely fixed in their opinions and also incapable of elegantly defending their positions are lead rods. They shut down discussion, lead to a dampening of interest and engagement, and eventually make the site all about their own pet issues and personal conflicts without adding anything of value. New members are like new fuel. With an engaging debate culture, the site can transform them into interesting, open-minded, and knowledgable people who in turn brighten the site further. Without that, their intellectual growth is retarded and they instead either leave (because nobody wants to be shouted out by schizos all day) or they degrade to the point of the sites lowest common denominator and add to its problems.
It's a critical issue to prevent the latter state from coming to pass. And one of the main ways this is done is through moderation policy. It shouldn't just be about enforcing rules, but about cultivating a certain environment. And I think that the ideal environment is summed up by three qualities:
1. Zero ideological bounds on discussion
2. An ideologically diverse user base
3. A user base which is capable of intelligent debate
One and two are tied explicitly together. Restrictions on the first quality choke out the ideological fringes and turn a site into an echo chamber. And a less ideologically diverse user base leads to increased calls for ideological policing, in a vicious feedback cycle. One of the main reasons that I left the site originally was that the moderation team was entirely on the progressive side of things, and I could see the writing on the wall. But, now that more conservative people have joined said team, an opportunity to reintroduce a laissez-faire approach to speech content presents itself. A debate site needs a diverse user base that can defend its ideas intelligently, and people like this thrive in an open environment. In a stifled environment, you end up with ideologically stale dullards, the control rods slam down, and the site begins to circle the drain. If people want basic, milquetoast liberal vs. conservative tripe they can find it anywhere on the internet at a higher quality level than they can here. What made a site like DDO attractive is that you could watch an erudite doctrinaire Marxist debate with anarchocapitalists, antifa people, austere Islamic scholars, and some guy who thought the moon was fake. It was an interesting place to be, and it was made such an interesting place while being moderating by a guy who was consummately moderate himself, yet knew how crucial it was to defend the fringes.
That's my ten cents on moderation, anyway.
-->
@Wylted
This exemplifies why the trap of tribal ethics should be avoided. That you like Death23, is your basis for disbelief that they could do something wrong; yet they made threats which included names of family members, description of residence, and more.I just don't believe this happened. If it did good that he is banned. I have talked to the guy frequently, and I know he isn't capable of it.Why would he be a model member for so long and then randomly out of the blue start threatening random people. Occam's razor suggests, that shit is highly exaggerated or just made up.
I did not want to believe he did it, but Mike ran a system query to verify he indeed sent the message.
Also your application of Occam's Razor is flawed. Not only are you trying to compare three possibilities (a modified Lewis's trilemma is much better for that), but also you're not considering the competing probabilities of the options you are defaulting to when not wanting to believe the first.
-->
@Barney
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.
And that is exactly what happened. Coincidence?
...would gloss over that part of the thread after their brain registers the username making the post was E...
I can see I'm still unpopular with the clique.
There's a long history with Ethang's wanton stupidity and desperation for my attention.
Nothing about you justifies such hubris.
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;
And yet Supa embarrassed you by quickly answering the question you had dodged for months.
The site barely escaped having it exposed as a front with bsh1. But there will be other incidents. I know because you all have continued the same behavior.
You are a liar, and you will take comfort in your usual clique's soothing words of support. You will not notice your trajectory untill the end of your arc.
And Rag, unlike you, I'm heterosexual.
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
I think that you need to think of a site like this a bit like a nuclear reactor: you need to get it started with some initial material, then feed it new fissile material in order to keep the reaction going. If you introduce too many dampening elements, like lead rods they will suppress the reaction and slow it down, perhaps even snuffing it out. The people who are completely fixed in their opinions and also incapable of elegantly defending their positions are lead rods.
Well stated.
-->
@Barney
Also your application of Occam's Razor is flawed. Not only are you trying to compare three possibilities (a modified Lewis's trilemma is much better for that), but also you're not considering the competing probabilities of the options you are defaulting to when not wanting to believe the first.
Well let's assign probabilities to the trigeminal.
We got basically 2 real options though
. Can we agree that death23 had no history of this prior to the alleged incident and has been around a while?
Possibility 1 - a person has spent probably a decade being laid back and not making threats to people, just randomly decided to threaten a random person's family. Not block the person, not engage in debate with the person. Just randomly threaten him.
We know possibility one is highly highly unlikely. I've gotten into it with him before, why hasn't he threatened me?
Possibility 2- some people are full of shit
I think people being full of shit is far more common than people just randomly making threats to a random person after a decade of perfect behavior.
I'd call possibility 1 less than a 1% thing and number 2 happens all the time with all types of people.
What makes possibility 2 more likely, is that I have also seen David do at least 5 unjustified bans . (From memory, it is probably a lot more and you can see resurgent post above proving that method of modding is evil and undeniably so) .
Give me some evidence death23 did this. Better yet, give me no reason and just destroy my logic. Tell me why somebody would randomly do this sort of thing to a random person? Not a nut, but why would an otherwise good person do this randomly
-->
@Wylted
What exactly made Death23 a model member and good person?
-->
@RationalMadman
he literally just randomly posted occasionally stuff like "God isn't real" in the religion section. He never even really made waves. I only even know he exists to a fluke of luck
-->
@Wylted
Well let's assign probabilities to the trigeminal.We got basically 2 real options though. Can we agree that death23 had no history of this prior to the alleged incident and has been around a while?
A couple odd moments, but certainly nothing where a ban was even considered.
Possibility 1 - a person has spent probably a decade being laid back and not making threats to people, just randomly decided to threaten a random person's family. Not block the person, not engage in debate with the person. Just randomly threaten him.
Neither a random person, nor a random threat. It was in an attempt at blackmail, because he wanted something from the user in question.
Still, I genuinely I did not want to believe he did it.
Possibility 2- some people are full of shitI think people being full of shit is far more common than people just randomly making threats to a random person after a decade of perfect behavior.
For this, you would need at a minimum Mike and the user whose family was threatened to be in a conspiracy to frame him; and likely myself as well (which if I was going to frame someone, wouldn't it be someone I hate or at the very least dislike?).
Immediately this idea that person cannot be "full of shit" but people can, runs into the problem that person is a unit of people.
Two (or three) trustworthy persons vs one trustworthy person. Intuitively, the higher number have lesser odds of all being all misjudged and actually full of shit than the one.
What makes possibility 2 more likely, is that I have also seen David
Character assassination on David is of surprisingly low relevance to this case. He posted the ban into the moderation log, but it was carried out by me immediately when I heard back from Mike.
Give me some evidence death23 did this. Better yet, give me no reason and just destroy my logic. Tell me why somebody would randomly do this sort of thing to a random person? Not a nut, but why would an otherwise good person do this randomly
Your own logic if applied consistently is against your conclusion. Why would the threatened user, Mike, and myself "randomly do this sort of thing to a random person?"
You've fallen into the trap of tribal ethics, in which you've started from the conclusion that it would be impossible for someone you like to be misjudged by you, so decided that even less likely things must be what really happened. Let's use basic joint-probability for this: Keeping it to what could be modeled in dice, if we arbitrarily assign the probability of 1 in 6 for any person to be full of shit, there is a 1/6 chance that death is full of shit. Rolling snake eyes has a 1/12 chance, and finally if you count me in the pool it's down to a tiny 1/36 chance (or since I'm evil, you can assume half of what I say is a lie, and make it only 1/24, which is still a whole lot smaller probability than the 1/6 for you misjudging Death23).
That isn't even getting into the lack of any benefit, and the potential devastation.
If Mike engaged in a conspiracy, and he even has a falling out, his co-conspirator could share their login information to let everyone curious see the message does not exist. That would make all the work Mike put into this website be for nothing, as anyone sane would then leave. So zero potential benefit, in fact losing an active user is already a significant net lose, with the potential to then lose everything.
-->
@Barney
Character assassination on David is of surprisingly low relevance to this case. He posted the ban into the moderation log, but it was carried out by me immediately when I heard back from Mike.
He has literally lied regarding my banning. Lunatic saw the posts he was basing his decisions off of and how they were portrayed. He can verify it was lies. That's the reason I am unmanned, because people knew David was full of shit. Plus look at resurgent post that describes the problems with David's modding style. It isn't a character assassination, if it's true.
I assume you 2 made the decision together, so it's on you as well.
Neither a random person, nor a random threat. It was in an attempt at blackmail, because he wanted something from the user in question.Still, I genuinely I did not want to believe he did it.
I cannot imagine any user here needing something from another user. That doesn't make sense.
Your own logic if applied consistently is against your conclusion. Why would the threatened user, Mike, and myself "randomly do this sort of thing to a random person?"
How would Mike confirm this without looking at user PMs?
I also don't put it past you. I have seen some unjust bans from David.
You've fallen into the trap of tribal ethics, in which you've started from the conclusion that it would be impossible for someone you like to be misjudged by you, so decided that even less likely things must be what really happened.
That's a dumbed down version of it. I look at possible motives to determine likelihood.
I start with
1. What would person A stand to gain from doing to person B?
2. What would person B lose?
I then run a cost benefit analysis and see if they are likely to have engaged in that decision and take into account what I have personally seen of their character and history.
Death23 stands to gain from randomly threatening somebody. Maybe a sense of feeling good for making somebody scared
Death23 stands to lose, a community he has been a part of in one firm or another for a decade and a fun place to hang out.
Black mail doesn't even normally get you what you want, so I just don't understand why he would do what he supposedly did.
What could he possibly gain?
by the way, David taking the post down while his judgement was questioned, was tantamount to a confession. In order for me to believe he made an honest mistake, I would have to think he was some sort of artist, who has also never seen a chris Hanson to catch a predator show, even though it was the most popular show on television for a while
-->
@Wylted
This is like you saying that banning people denying the Holocaust happened is 'tantamount to admitting/confessing' it didn't... When it did.
Just because censorship occurs doesn't mean the one censoring is giving falsehood, it can mean that the reality is so vulgar it is problematic not to censor. You are making a series of logical fallacies in your defense of death23 here, only assuming the worst of one side and the best of the other.
-->
@RationalMadman
You are making a series of logical fallacies in your defense of death23 here, only assuming the worst of one side and the best of the other.
No, give me a logical reason why he would do such a thing?
I can't think of one.
Maybe I have a bias, but I can't think of one. I was told the same thing when I said OJ Sipmpson was innocent. I just don't think a millionaire living his dream life, would do a cost benefit analysis and decide killing an ex was worth losing his life of privilege. Even if he was the most evil guy in the world, it wouldn't change the cost benefit analysis.
Death didn't seem evil to me. I have had conversations with him. He seemed to have empathy, and he had no reason to hide his true self from me, if he was evil. I wouldn't have judged him.
If anyone has insight i to what happened with death23, please let me know.
Pm me it
-->
@Wylted
OJ Simpson isn't innocent, wtf are you talking about?
People don't owe you logical reasons for doing nefarious things.
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
I definitely am more in favor of lassiez fair policy as a site naturally grows the less hands on moderation is, as my belief in the real world with government itself.
I hope to open up more interesting discussion with everything as a moderator so that the site can flourish. However, I think VERY VERY VERY few views deserved to be censored. CP, advocacy of genocide, etc, are views that could have this website shut down and looked into by the FBI if something is not done about them. TO BE CLEAR, I severely doubt we will have such cases, but those are examples of some stuff I find to limit. Hopefully we can be on the same page with these
I also think that a lot of the issues you might have are the userbase itself. Sure, it's nothing like the DDO userbase, but I think with a good foundation of core users who argue well as well as young people who are eager to debate and learn, a site like this can boom, it just sadly hasn't caught as much wind as it should. It could be for a variety of reasons (domain name, time created, etc.) Maybe in the future if there's funds, we can advertise and branch out into something bigger.
I think a lot of this site as well is younger. Hell, whiteflame is the only one on the actual moderation team that is over 20. I'm assuming you are older than 20, so a lot of the newer generation of debaters could just strike you as "inmature," which is a fair argument to make. I think once some members mature out, they can become more tolerable to a degree. I remember when I was an annoying little shit when I joined at 15/16. Now I'm mature and hopefully significantly less of an annoying little shit.
Anyway, I appreciate the compliments to my moderation philosophy and such.
tl:dr: Overly extreme views such as CP, advocacy of genocide, etc, are things that can get us in trouble legally so we have to censor that type of stuff but we hope to have more variety of topics with lassiez fair. I think your issue is that the site average age is low and not a lot of the members have fully matured yet so you find it hard to relate to a degree, which is totally acceptable
The voting period has closed. We will tally the votes and give the final count soon.
VOTES
1. YES (11)
NO (9)
2. YES (18)
NO (8)
3. YES (15)
NO (7)
Unofficial
-->
@Vader
when will voting for president start?
-->
@Vader
"inmature,"
inbelievably imaccurate but disdeniably adorable.
-->
@Wylted
[the ban] was carried out by me [not David] immediately when I heard back from Mike.[David, David, David]
Irrelevant to the the discussion of Death23.
doesn't make sense.
So much of what you say boils down to this repeated assertion. Yet as I pointed out "Your own logic if applied consistently is against your conclusion." I've even demonstrated this in easy mathematical terms for you.
What could he possibly gain?
Again, as I pointed out "Your own logic if applied consistently is against your conclusion." If other people having full knowledge of the desired gains is the standard for someone being capable of wrongdoing, what gain are you proclaiming Mike would get from starting a conspiracy against a random active user?