-->
@Vader
@MisterChris
Why don't your avatars show your mod-ship?
MEEP: Reformed ban policy & DebateArt President
Posts
Archived
Total:
233
-->
@Barney
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?
I haven't heard from Mike. I just have your word.
If I get his word, I guess I'll just struggle to understand how it legitimately happened. It doesn't make sense to me.
If we introduce two competing things, which so far I only have your word. Than I just have to try and think of motives for a conspiracy y to lie about death vs motives I can think of for death to do what he died, and assign probabilities to each.
I can tell you, doing a cost benefit analysis of a conspiracy to ban him, shows very little cost to doing so. Granted, not much benefit. When I do a cost benefit analysis of his decision, there is great cost and zero benefit. Occam's razor when we look at what cost benefit analysis each side would perform before taking an action, benefits death23.
Seriously do a cost benefit analysis of death's behavior and tell me your side of things makes plausible sense.
-->
@Barney
Has anyone considered a "ban from debates and forums" only ?
That way, a "banned" user could still communicate with people they know here through the PM function, so at least we could get their side of the story and perhaps find out if they post on some other debate site or blog or discord or something if we find them interesting and wonder why they suddenly disappeared.
Perhaps we could allow them to send "friend requests" and then only allow them to PM with people who accept their "friend request".
What the hell has this MEEP to do with Death23? Seems Wylted has a fixation, which, if Wylted really wants info, and they are really good friends, seems Death23 is a source, and this site need not be the vehicle of that exchange, or is Wylted just after gossip? Curiosity kills both cats and rats. Or, let the dead bury the dead and life goes on.
-->
@949havoc
Curiosity is also the only way that the cats and rats who survive ever learn things from the errors of the curious rats and cats.
We'd be no more than less hairy primates would be expected to be if it wasn't for our species' relentless and fascinating passion for curiosity.
-->
@RationalMadman
You mean we'd all have hairy legs like Joe Biden and love to have children rub them while telling lifeguard stories?
Thanks, but I'll pass. He should have.
-->
@949havoc
What an utterly absurd sidetrack?
-->
@Wylted
If anyone has insight i to what happened with death23, please let me know.
From what I heard he looked someone up then PM'd that person and ostensibly attempted to trade the knowledge of how he found out. Names and other things were ostensibly given as proof that he had the goods. The mods interpreted this as "I know where you live, so don't fuck with me". The real truth is probably not knowable.
-->
@Barney
@dfss9788
From what I heard he looked someone up then PM'd that person and ostensibly attempted to trade the knowledge of how he found out. Names and other things were ostensibly given as proof that he had the goods.
that doesn't sound like doxxing. That sounds like just proof he had a skill he was willing to share how to do.
Ragnar,
If the above is true, you guys are huge pieces of shits. Just recently I had a user PM me my real name who has had problems with me in the past. In no way did I interpret that as threatening.
If death did not make any real threats and merely just identified somebody in a private PM, so they could teach them the skill of doxxing, than that is not actual doxxing (doxxing must be public) and it certainly does not sound like a threat.
-->
@Wylted
No, not to teach doxxing. Like, purportedly to say "your identity is exposed i can show you why". He had a beef with the user its not surprising how it came across.
-->
@dfss9788
okay, I think I am getting it now
-->
@Wylted
From the CoC:
Doxing is strictly forbidden. Without their express permission, you may not post, threaten to post, nor encourage others to post, anyone’s private or identifying information no matter how it was obtained.
When two people are activity having a dispute, and one out of nowhere says to the other something to the effect of: What a pretty little house you have (description of house), and that domestic partner (listed by name), and your kid (name of kid plus where to find them... yes, Death23 literally went there), it'd be a real shame if something should happen...
Much like a bad mobster stereotype doing a protection racket, the poorly veiled threat is still obviously a threat.
-->
@RationalMadman
No more absurd than that Biden said it of himself. Does that absurdity rate being cognitively challenged?
-->
@Wylted
@Barney
@949havoc
What the hell has this MEEP to do with Death23?
The only thing I can think of is this:
What happened was characterized as a threat of violence:
When two people are activity having a dispute, and one out of nowhere says to the other something to the effect of: What a pretty little house you have (description of house), and that domestic partner (listed by name), and your kid (name of kid plus where to find them... yes, Death23 literally went there), it'd be a real shame if something should happen...Much like a bad mobster stereotype doing a protection racket, the poorly veiled threat is still obviously a threat.
Under the CoC threats of violence result in a permaban and this was why there was a permaban https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3024/post-links/252783
Under this MEEP // SPES threats of violence result in a 30 day ban rather than a permaban:
- If a user threatens violence against any person or persons (barring hyperbole against public figures), moderation will
- FIRST, issue a 30 day ban and impose a restraining order between the two users.
If it's a threat to dox it results in a permaban under SPES:
- If a user intentionally exposes or threatens to expose the sensitive information of another user (i.e. real name, address, social security, and all other private or identifying information) without express permission from the exposed party, moderation shall
- FIRST and FINALLY, issue a permanent ban.
So, the question would then be if the SPES is adopted would it apply retroactively or prospectively? Assuming it was applied retroactively, the question would then be if the incident was a threat to dox, a threat of violence, or both? There may also be the question of what to do if there was no way to know one way or the other.
I would consider threats of violence more severe than threats to dox, but this is what's written.
-->
@dfss9788
I would consider threats of violence more severe than threats to dox, but this is what's written.
People literally threaten to kill me multiple times a day where I work. Most threats do no damage. Doxxing however can be problematic and is not conducive to an environment where everyone gives their best arguments. If you have to worry about being doxxed, it does create an element of having to worry if defending a view, will carry into your real life. That is problematic, because many people like debating devil's advocate. It's also a problem if you have views that most of society disagrees with or even just the people close to you disagree with.
Personally. I don't care that much about being doxxed. I would prefer not to, but it can hurt some people really badly, where as threats are just unsettling, but mostly harmless.
-->
@dfss9788
To my understanding SPES would not be applied retroactively, and the current mod team is showing a ton of leniency towards past offenses (within some limits...).
So about lengths for mixed and extreme offenses: Within SPES there's a tier thing. It allows for modifications based on circumstances.
- Tier 1: Things like users joking around with each other. No punishment.
- Tier 2: Either too many jokes that it becomes worrisome, or else a violation which is too minor to merit the textbook punishment.
- Tier 3: The textbook offense, yields the textbook punishment.
- Tier 4: An extreme offense, which results in skipping a step in the punishment chain; and enough of them can result in permabans.
Something like 'I want to slap some sense into you' would not be ban worthy; in fact it would barely be notable unless it's a repeated offense. However, in a fit of rage promising violence, clearly the person needs a time out. An actual credible threat of violence, that would necessitate greater than normal punishments; as would making a non-credible threat worse by bringing someone's family into it.
Regarding doxxing, it is such a serious matter... But I wouldn't mind seeing a little refinement to that section of SPES to clarify where the line is crossed. Someone guesses someone else is from Australia, it's certainly nothing we'd want to ban over. Other stuff is too mild, like 'hey are you the same dfss9788 from such and such a website?' which would clearly not be malicious.
That said, I'm not the architect of SPES; nor one of the big decision makers in interpreting the CoC now (which with the various complaints about me, and it being a move away from how I moderated, should be in its favor).
-->
@dfss9788
Yes, that is what is written, which is one reason why I oppose the MEEP. The standard is dumbed down. 30 day ban for threat against another member, violent, or not? No, I. disagree.
-->
@Barney
the current mod team is showing a ton of leniency towards past offenses
Sounds like an offer he can't refuse. Perhaps he'll get the message.
-->
@MisterChris
Has anyone considered a "ban from debates and forums" only ?
That way, a "banned" user could still communicate with people they know here through the PM function, so at least we could get their side of the story and perhaps find out if they post on some other debate site or blog or discord or something if we find them interesting and wonder why they suddenly disappeared.
Perhaps we could allow them to send "friend requests" and then only allow them to PM with people who accept their "friend request".
-->
@Barney
@Vader
@MisterChris
Will there be vice presidents, like on ddo?
11 days later
OFFICIAL VOTE COUNT
1. YES (11)
NO (9)
2. YES (18)
NO (8)
3. YES (15)
NO (7)
All propositions have been passed. Henceforth, the changes shall be in effect. The site shall be updated to reflect these policy changes.
The following thread has been moved into archives
-SupaDudz
479 days later
-->
@RationalMadman
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
That would never happen. Don't worry