Why 3ru7al should drop out of the race and his supporters should vote Airmax

Author: Wylted

Posts

Total: 14
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
3ru7al has the following platform

“My platform - any and all code-of-conduct enforcement should be uniform - regardless of the individual being considered and regardless of where they posted”



creating a uniform code of conduct is something airmax is familiar with doing and has done. He also has enough of a prior relationship with the mods to be able to influence them deeply to adopt a uniform policy he created. I am posting his code of conduct from debate.org below. If 3ru7al wants a uniform code of conduct, he should drop out and endorse the guy who not only has created one, but who has the ability to make that code of conduct a reality.

If 3ru7al is Going to stay in the race, I challenge him to create the uniform code he wants to see adopted. My guess is that not only will it pale in comparison to the one listed below, but that his uniform code of conduct will be less likely to be adopted than Airmax’s one, which I’m sure he is willing to update, to remove even more ambiguity, not that there is much of it.




Extended Code of Conduct for Debate.org (DDO)

1. Definitions

1.1 Terms of Use. The rules agreed to by members as a condition of membership, given at http://www.debate.org............. Sometimes referred to as terms of service [TOS].

1.2 Trolling. Use of inflammatory language, personal attacks, or extreme and unsupported claims aimed at provoking emotional response rather than debate.

1.3 Vote bombing. Abuse of DDO voting privileges by awarding points to a debater for reasons unrelated to the arguments or evidence presented in the debate.

1.4 Moderator. A person granted authority by the site owners to enforce the rule of the site.

2. Scope

2.1 If there is any conflict between this document and the Terms of Use, the Terms of Use takes precedence.

2.2 This document establishes trolling and vote bombing as offenses punishable by a Moderator or through trial.

2.3 This document establishes the procedures for holding trials of members in cases where violations of the rules as judged by a Moderator are for any reason unclear. Trials are at the sole discretion of a Moderator, and the provision of the Terms of Use whereby members may lose membership privileges is unchanged.

2.4 The Moderator retains the ability to remove a member or restrict privileges without benefit of a trial.

3. Warnings

3.1 The Moderator shall issue warnings to members upon observing patterns of their apparent trolling or vote bombing. The forum post, debate, or debate comment exhibiting the offense shall be cited in the warning. The member may choose to respond with a defense of the behavior.

3.2 The warning shall advise the member that repeating the offense may result in loss of membership privileges.

3.3 If an offense is repeated after the member has received a relevant warning, the member may be subjected to, at the option of the Moderator, revocation of membership privileges or subjecting the member to DDO trial.

4. Trials

4.1 The member shall be notified in advance of the trial.

4.2 The Moderator shall appoint a prosecution team.

4.3 The accused member may select a defense team or request that the Moderator solicit a defense team.

4.4 The Moderator shall establish accounts for prosecution and defense for the trial, which will be conducted as a DDO debate. The trial debate shall be four rounds of 8000 characters with a three day response period. The voting period shall be two weeks.

4.5 The Prosecution shall prepare charges and post the charges with links to supporting evidence as a challenge to the Defense. No new charges or evidence of offenses may be introduced after the challenge. The Prosecution may, however, post additional evidence in rebuttal to defense claims.

4.6 All members having voting privileges may vote on the trial debate.

4.6.1 At the option of the Moderator, the Moderator may appoint a jury prior to the start of the trial and announce that the verdict will be determined by the vote of the jurors alone. If a jury is appointed there shall be either three, five, or seven jurors. Each juror shall have participated in at least ten debates. The jury may consider the membership vote in making their decision, but are not bound by it.

4.6.2 The standard for voting for the Prosecution is that the charges have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is not any doubt, but rather the doubt that a reasonable person would have given the evidence of the trial.

4.6.3 Voters shall be instructed in the Prosecutors' R1 that they may vote up to all seven votes for the prosecution or the defense.

4.6.4 Voters finding the defendant guilty may use the RFD to recommend a suspension of privileges rather than permanent loss, and they shall be advised of this by the Prosecutors in R1.

4.6.5 The Moderator shall comply with the result of the trial. If a guilty verdict is found, the Moderator shall select the level of punishment.

4.6.6 The Moderator shall act as judge in ruling upon trial procedures.

....

Personal Attacks Policy

TL;DR: Personal attacks serve no purpose and only harm what we are trying to foster on this site. They will no longer be tolerated. This policy will take place site wide--In debates, forums, polls, opinions, and everywhere else. Do not make personal attacks, or there will be consequences.

ON PERSONAL ATTACKS

This is a website of heated exchanges. Yet it should also be a place where all users can feel comfortable--a space where they can be free of personal attack. But on a website of such variety of ideology, and that's intended to foster debate, it's worth spending some time explaining what that means in our context.

Personal attacks have always been against the TOS. However, there has not been an extended discussion on what, exactly, is a personal attack for the purposes of the site. Recently, it has become apparent that that discussion is necessary.

The following is an explanation of the sorts of things that are not allowed on DDO, in order to keep this a place that fosters debate and discussion. Expect this to be followed moving forward. This policy will take place site wide, including in debates, forums, polls, and opinions. If you have made personal attacks, stop doing so. If you were thinking about making a personal attack, don't.

INTRODUCTION

A personal attack, in the context of this site, is not "anything directed at a person that they find to be unfavorable". Not only would such a definition be absurd, it would stifle exchange and debate. If someone is being dishonest, calling them out on it could be considered by the literalist to be a "personal attack". You are, after all, saying something negative about them, personally. But that's not what's intended by the policy.

The goal is to foster debate, and allow for even heated debate and exchange of ideas, without allowing abuse and unwarranted attack.

Instigation of a personal attack will, of course, face a harsher penalty than reciprocating against one. But understand that the latter is not off the hook.

The only appropriate responses to personal attack are: taking the high ground and replying to it without a personal attack, ignoring it, or reporting it.

Violations of this policy may or may not include a warning--and scale quickly from that, to a suspension, up to even a permanent ban. Airmax is the final arbiter of the policy.

A personal attack can take several different common forms. There is some overlap between them, but it may be helpful to specifically outline a few:

DIRECT ATTACK

This is where, outside the context of a discussion on the topic or of behavior in the course of that discussion, someone posts something negative about a specific member. Generalized complaints about generalized behaviors are not direct attacks. But, for example, a thread specifically calling out a member by name, and speaking negatively about them, is a direct attack. Attack threads will be deleted out of hand.

There is another kind of direct attack, as well. The kind of post where someone drops in to just say something like "You're all idiots". While not a direct personal attack against an individual, it's still a direct attack against the members on the thread.

There is a very slim exception to this rule, noted mostly for history's sake. It only applies to moderators. On occasion, a moderator may initiate a trial of a member. Only moderators can initiate this process. If you have a beef with a member being on this site, the appropriate place to bring it up is with a moderator. In the unlikely event something like a trial is necessary, they will make that determination.

Direct attacks are personal attacks. They are not tolerated.

(Ex.: A forum post saying "You're an idiot", or a debate with the resolution "User123 should be kicked off the sit




-----------------------------------------------







Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
MERE INSULT

A step below even the Ad Hominem fallacy in terms of argument: Simple unjustified insult. "Stupidity" is not something that can be objectively justified. Nor can other insults with subjective meaning. (A**hole, etc.) Some things which may be insulting can be justified. "You are saying something dishonest" can be justified objectively, by demonstrating dishonesty. If it isn't justified, though, then it becomes a mere insult. Mere insult of ideas is allowed--mere insult of people is not.

Slurs against an entire class of people (such as racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or national groups) are mere insults. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse for mere insult. Mere insults are personal attacks. They are not tolerated.

(Ex.: "You're an a****le", " You f**")

AD HOMINEM

Should be the easy one, on a debate site; ad hominem is a logical fallacy which every debater should be aware of. Formally known as the Argumentum Ad Hominem.

Ad hominem attacks are not valid rebuttals. Which is not to say that the every statement about the person in relation to their arguments is an ad hominem attack. Pointing out that of course a politician would deny cheating, whether they did cheat or not, is not an ad hominem. Claiming that of course someone cheated, because they're a politician, would be. Ad hominem attacks are personal attacks. They are not tolerated.

(Ex.: "Well, you're a cop, so your opinion is wrong")

CROSS-THREAD CONTAMINATION

Another kind of personal attack is where a member with whom you've had heated exchanges in the past posts something unrelated, and you feel the need to bring up their actions there against them. Unrelated discussions are just that. Sometimes new discussions do directly relate to the old ones. Then, it may be acceptable to bring up the old ones. Otherwise, if it's not related to the current discussion, it's just you attacking them to attack. That doesn't help the current discussion/debate--it only hinders it. Comment on the arguments presented, and the way they're being presented. Not about the member or your own general opinions of them.

Treat every new exchange with a member with as much of a "clean slate" as possible.

Cross-thread contamination is a personal attack. It is not tolerated.

(Ex.: In a forum about the relative tastiness of cheeses, User A opines that smoked gouda is by far his favorite. User B says "Yeah, smoked gouda is delicious. But you think that leveraged buyouts are legitimate uses of corporate financing, so your opinion is worthless!")

ACCUSATIONS AND THREATS

Accusing a member of misconduct (such as votebombing) is serious. Obviously, misconduct is bad. But likewise, baseless accusations are bad.

If you're going to accuse a member of something, remember that serious accusations require serious evidence. Egregious misconduct of the kind likely to warrant immediate banning should be reported to airmax1227, rather than complained about in the forums. However, if you want to discuss something like an accusation of a supposed vote bomb, you may bring up the vote for discussion, provided you actually have cause to make the accusation. Without that evidence, an accusation is as stifling to discussion as a threat.

It should be noted that, even with a justified accusation, stating what consequences will result would be a threat. Which brings us to threats.

Threats are, for the purposes of this policy, personal attacks. They are not tolerated. Threats include (but are not limited to):

- Threats of legal action. This should be self explanatory.

- Threats of violence (even oblique ones). This should also be self-evident.

- Threats of "Doxxing" someone, or exposing a user's real-life persona. Particularly if the threat implies exposing the user to political, religious or other persecution. It's not doxxing if it's information they have provided. It is if they have not.

- Threats of moderator reporting or action. If you are not a moderator, threatening someone with moderator action is, first and foremost, an empty threat. More than that, though, it's a threat intended specifically to cut off the discussion at hand. If you really have a reason to report someone to a moderator, do so. Do not threaten to do so.

(Ex.: "I'm going to hunt you down and break your legs", "I'm gonna get you banned for this!")

INSTIGATION, RETALIATION, AND "FIGHTING WORDS"

As previously noted, instigation of a personal attack will not be tolerated. Neither will retaliation for a personal attack. Report attacks to airmax. It can be difficult to not respond when you've been personally attacked or abused. But you should not take it upon yourself to reply in kind. Airmax is the moderator. It is his job to intervene and ensure no one is getting attacked or abused. Help him do his job by reporting any you receive, and understand that he will investigate and act accordingly.

"Fighting words" are posts intended solely to provoke or belittle. They're essentially a form of bullying. Even if you've avoided the specific use of an insult, if you post a diatribe intended solely to make someone feel bad, you're going against the goal of the site. If you're getting in the way of that goal, even if you're technically keeping your hands clean, expect to have a conversation on the subject with airmax.

CONCLUSION & THE "JUST KIDDING" EXEMPTION

The above examples are not an exhaustive list. Just as there are many forms of personal interaction in general, personal attacks can take many forms. While not every negative thing said to you is a personal attack, if you believe you've been attacked, contact airmax1227. In the interests of allowing as much exchange of ideas as possible, moderator intervention is primarily initiated when a member contacts a moderator about an issue. In some cases, for the good of the site, a moderator may step in even when no complaint has been made.

It cannot be said often enough that the goal is the fostering of debate and discussion of ideas. Please keep that in mind in every post you make. If you know that what you're saying will stifle that, reconsider. Remember that you don't have to comment on everything you have an opinion on. If your opinion is just a mere insult, then it would be better for you to not voice it.

When in doubt, simply comment on the content without referring to its user at all.

And always remember that the internet is a primarily text-based medium; tone of voice doesn't always come through. If you meant to be kidding, but the person you were joking with didn't "get it", trying to say "I was just kidding" isn't going to be a sufficient defense.


-----------------------------------------------------------
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
end
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
This isn't year 1 of college Wylted, he/she/they can't dropout now, 3RU7AL's too far in, too deep too passionate.

It is not our duty to interfere between the beautiful story of Athias and 3RU7AL, it is our duty to be the henchmen to the arch villain in their storyline.
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@3RU7AL
@Athias
@MarkWebberFan
respond please.
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@RationalMadman
Okay, I guess that's more fun anyway
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Wylted
QUANTIFIABLE FUN
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@RationalMadman
Lmao
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Vader
5 letter posts and up in this thread please
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Latest update from Airmax strategic HQ

Those voting Airmax ought to change their profile image to an axolotl of some kind, it is the way forward.

Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Wylted
respond please.
No. [RESPONSE SUBMITTED.]

MarkWebberFan
MarkWebberFan's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 291
1
2
6
MarkWebberFan's avatar
MarkWebberFan
1
2
6
-->
@Wylted
You have a hand in philosophy. I think you almost sound a lot like my Instructor. Are you sure you dont teach at my university? So much for your conspiracy theories when youre infinitely more insightful here. I guess most of airmax’s goons have some form of competent background in one field or another. Im convinced he has a group of educated goons looking to force their agenda down DART’s throats.

The examples notwithstanding, 3RU7AL has a universal position that neither discriminates nor favours reputation. If I have a shitty reputation, id still be equally treated like every other famous person on the site. His position resembles the generously tossed idea that people around the world often yanked about (i.e meritocracy). I want to see if its possible to do said idea in DART.

Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,895
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@MarkWebberFan
I guess most of airmax’s goons have some form of competent background in one field or another. Im convinced he has a group of educated goons looking to force their agenda down DART’s throats.
How old are you? My guess based on this post is like 13. You have the mentality of a child. 
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@MarkWebberFan
. I guess most of airmax’s goons have some form of competent background in one field or another. Im convinced he has a group of educated goons looking to force their agenda down DART’s throats.
My highest level of education is the 9th grade, but thanks. 

3RU7AL has a universal position that neither discriminates nor favours reputation. If I have a shitty reputation, id still be equally treated like every other famous person on the site.

If you have any experience with 3ru7al, you'll know he would be incompetent in the position and practically neutered. Which part of the COC above favors reputation or is anti meritocracy?