3RU7AL for DebateArt.com President - Official

Author: 3RU7AL
Ethics
logiczombie
intp
Anarchy
GNOSTIC

Posts

Total: 211
#181
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Users A-C are put on a list by mods based on people the mods deem toxic to the community.
I will quote myself replying to this now:
Which they don't opt-in to and which stops all their posts and threads being visible to all others whether signed-up to the site or not unless they manually work out how to make these shadowbanned users visible to them.

Now, back to you:

Users A-C ARE NOT given a choice about whether to be part of the program because they are on the list.
Oh, you understood.

Users D-J ARE given a choice about whether to be part of the program because they are not on the list
Nope, they are automatically forced into it and the reason this has to be true and the definite default is that it is the only way it adds up to the shadowban having any efficacy at all especially as users that aren't signed up no longer can view the content of that user so it is consistent to opt-in others into it overnight.

Users D-F OPT IN to the program. They CANNOT see anything that users A-C say.
Nope, they only can opt-out, everyone is part of it as soon as his proposal goes through and the mods act on it. Nowhere in his closing proposal was it implied that others don't instantly overnight no longer see this user's content without directly being told about it and more importantly future users that sign up won't in any active way be consenting or aware of it. I am using 'he/him' pronouns as Athias keeps referring to 3RU7AL as a 'he' and nothing about it has arisen from 3RU7AL's posts.

Users G-J OPT OUT of the program. They CAN see everything that users A-C say.
I'll paste my reply to this:
If they even work out that there's been a subtle censorship going on behind their backs the entire time that banned an ENTIRE USER from interacting with them without their foreknowledge.

Topic's author
#182
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Wylted
The term shadow banning has always been from the site owner making a person think their post is seen,
i very specifically stipulated that all targets of moderator action would be notified
#183
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@3RU7AL
You did that only afterwards.
#184
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Nope, they are automatically forced into it 
Okay, then you and I are talking about two different proposals and this conversation is therefore redundant. Have your last word then have a nice day.
#185
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
No, I even went through the effort of proving I read every line of what you wrote and challenged them.

Be precise, which part of it disqualifies it as shadow-banning?
Topic's author
#186
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RationalMadman
everybody's defaulted in including people who aren't signed up to the website and can't opt-in.
this is correct

under the CURRENT SYSTEM if someone is banned - they can't message anyone

under the PROPOSAL - if someone is muted by the mods - the muted (not banned) can message people on their friends list and request their friends OPT-OUT of the moderator's default "NSFW" style muted-list - in order to interact with them 
#187
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@3RU7AL
Okay and why would the mods want this user remaining but banned in some deceptive mindgame? Are they welcome in the community or not? Are they behaving in acceptable way or not? Which is it?
Topic's author
#188
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RationalMadman
Be precise, which part of it disqualifies it as shadow-banning?
the mods would be required to notify any user who was added to the muted-list

ipso-facto

NOT a "shadowban"
#189
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes, an amendment you made post-suggestion but even with that how the hell can this user contact others to get them to opt-in to reading their posts?

Even worse, new users to the site won't even know that user exists.
Topic's author
#190
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RationalMadman
Okay and why would the mods want this user remaining but banned in some deceptive mindgame? Are they welcome in the community or not? Are they behaving in acceptable way or not? Which is it?
they would be visible to those who want to interact with them

and invisible to those who do not specifically choose to interact with them
#191
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@3RU7AL
they would be visible to those who want to interact with them

and invisible to those who do not specifically choose to interact with them
Why? Why should somebody who violates site rules be able to remain and be visible to others who opt-in while continuing to break site rules?

Furthermore, who would even know they exist to make them no longer invisible, if they sign up later on?
Topic's author
#192
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RationalMadman
Yes, an amendment you made post-suggestion but even with that how the hell can this user contact others to get them to opt-in to reading their posts?

Even worse, new users to the site won't even know that user exists.
we are discussing an idea

this is a proposal

it is not written-in-stone

THE PRIVATE MESSAGING FUNCTION WOULD NOT BE INVISIBLE TO PEOPLE ON YOUR FRIENDS LIST - YOU COULD MESSAGE THEM TO LET THEM KNOW

OR

PERHAPS THE MUTED-LIST COULD AUTOMATICALLY MAKE YOU VISIBLE TO PEOPLE ON YOUR FRIENDS LIST - THAT ALSO SEEMS REASONABLE

AS FOR NEW USERS

PERHAPS YOUR FRIENDS COULD REACH OUT TO THE NEW USERS AND SUGGEST THEY OPT-OUT OF THE MODERATOR MUTED-LIST
#193
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@3RU7AL
Making posts all caps and/or bold doesn't at all increase the validity or strength of what you're saying, just so you're aware.

What you are doing is creating tyranny that isn't admitting what it is.

If you ban a user, have the honesty and integrity to ban them, if the user won't reform and obey the site rules, completely ban them do not pander to them. Rules are rules, obey or leave. I don't get what you mean with this 'we ban you but it's optional' dynamic because what it actually opens the door for is the mods to ban more (not less) readily and to justify it as pseudo-optional every time. Meanwhile, no user will be able to behave well and get out of their hellish imprisonment as the mods will say that they technically aren't banned.
Topic's author
#194
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RationalMadman
Why? Why should somebody who violates site rules be able to remain and be visible to others who opt-in while continuing to break site rules?
this proposal would not replace the ban

you could still be banned - just like you can today

just banned - that has nothing to do with this proposal

the muted-list and mutual-invisibility would be more of an enhancement to the current "restraining-order" and "block" functions

very specifically to reduce the overall workload on the moderation team
Topic's author
#195
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RationalMadman
You did that only afterwards.
do you know what a discussion is ?
#196
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@3RU7AL
If you can still be banned, then your proposal is even less sensible than I originally thought. You have essentially resolved nothing then.
Topic's author
#197
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RationalMadman
from what i can tell

the overwhelming majority of "complaints" are filed by one specific user regarding one other specific user

these complaints could be mitigated by making these two users invisible to each other

this would leave the rest of the community members free to interact with both users as normal if they wish

without requiring constant "babysitting" by the moderation team
#198
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@3RU7AL
If you are being specific to Lunatic and myself I am not going to get baited into instigating against him.

You just can't help but get personal when you run out of any real arguments.
Topic's author
#199
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RationalMadman
If you can still be banned, then your proposal is even less sensible than I originally thought. You have essentially resolved nothing then.
think of it as a sort of half-ban

like "probation"

for some pre-defined time limit
Topic's author
#200
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RationalMadman
If you are being specific to Lunatic and myself I am not going to get baited into instigating against him.

You just can't help but get personal when you run out of any real arguments.
i'm not referring specifically to you

i'm suggesting that the "restraining-orders" of the past have been specifically between two individuals
#201
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@RationalMadman
At the mods are going to go ahead and deem someone bad enough for a banned list they might as well ban the person from the site.
#202
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
absolutely
Topic's author
#203
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
At the mods are going to go ahead and deem someone bad enough for a banned list they might as well ban the person from the site.
it would be nice to have more than one option

regardless

this proposal still works as an enhancement to the current "restraining order" and "block" functions

even if

you completely remove the "ban" conversation
#204
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
@RationalMadman
@3RU7AL
I see neither the controversy nor the misrepresented consequences put forth by RationalMadman and Polytheist_Witch. Discipulus_Didicit explained it, in my opinion, as simply as it could get. What are the actual bases to your objections (i.e. RMm and P_W)?

Proposal:

In the instance where the moderation team have determined a user's behavior on this site as an infraction to their codes of conduct and/or rules, the moderation team can place said user on what's known as a "Mod(erator)-mute List." With the function of this Mod-mute list, users will be allowed the capacity to have the moderation team act as their proxy, and in effect, communally streamline the process of making select users invisible. That is, other users can voluntarily subscribe to Moderator judgement and defer to their discretion as it concerns whose posts these subscribed users can see. In addition, individual users will be allowed the capacity to "mute" (make invisible) other select individuals with whom they intend not to interact. This functions works ONLY within an individual capacity, i.e. an individual user cannot just appoint another user on to the Mod-mute List. By muting a select user, you make their posts invisible to just you, and your posts invisible to just them.

So let's say (Idea cordially stolen from Discipulus_Didicit):

The moderation team consisting of Moderator A, Moderator B, Moderator C, Moderator D, and Moderator E, decide to place these select users on the Mod-Mute List: User 1, User 2, User 3, User 4, and User 5. So for clarity:

Moderation Team:
Moderator A
Moderator B...
So forth and so on.

Mod-mute List:
User 1
User 2
User 3
User 4
User 5

What does this mean? It means that User 6 through User infinity will not be able to view the posts of Users, 1-5, if and only if they are subscribed to the Mod-mute List.(Check/Uncheck.) Users, 1-5, conversely will not be able to see the posts of any user who subscribes to the Mod-mute List. Any individual member can unsubscribe to this Mod-mute List and thereby bear the capacity to interact with Users, 1-5.(Check/Uncheck.) In the case where a member agrees with some of the User placements, but not all of them, they can individually mute any or all of the Users on the Mod-mute List, the description of which can be found above. This proposal isn't suggesting that this measure replace the banning system. This measure is being proposed as an alternative so that the resolution of disputes can be handled by members themselves, and ipso facto, relieving the regulatory burden and (some) authority from the moderation team.

So RationalMadman, Polytheist_Witch, what are the real bases for your objections? And don't state that the atheists intend to create their own echo chamber, thus locking theists out of any discussion in the Religion forum, or that this proposal is surreptitiously promoting "shadow-banning," because those are just shadow arguments.
#205
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Athias
I gave you the real basis, if you are going to pretend they aren't real, then you can get a block. I am tired of interacting with you and have other issues on this website right now than why I don't support muting everybody just because I block some from @ing me.
#206
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
@RationalMadman:

I gave you the real basis, if you are going to pretend they aren't real, then you can get a block. I am tired of interacting with you and have other issues on this website right now than why I don't support muting everybody just because I block some from @ing me.
There he is. I was wondering when you were going to show up. And let me just say that your blocking me is your prerogative, as it would be to make my posts invisible under 3RU7AL's proposal. Enjoy your evening, sir.
#207
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,617
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
If you look at the the latest straw poll, 3RU7AL and Airmax are tied.

#208
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@FLRW
You overestimate Hammer's legitimacy as a candidate.
#209
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Castin
@3RU7AL
@oromagi
@Athias
@FLRW
I have unblocked Athias. 

I do not support this blocking thing or shadowban but I would like to discuss you as genuinely the president of the website. If you are interested DM me, I am open to have my mind significantly changed and to sway the election.

Airmax just endorsed a game involving bullying me for posts I've made, I'd already have enough when he wouldn't condemn Lunatic but I forgave him anyway despite knowing what a bystander-mentality type of guy he'd been in the past with me. This time it's too far, if this is what he does to repay me, I am fucking over him.
#210
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@RationalMadman
Airmax just endorsed a game involving bullying me for posts
You're just taking lunatics interpretation of events as gospel.