Is calling someone a coward a ban worthy offense

Author: Outplayz

Posts

Total: 229
Topic's author
#181
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@EtrnlVw
If DDO wasn't dead, at the moment, i would there. That's not a very good argument since you know there are no to barely any users there. I'll make due here, and i always speak up to injustice. That's what i did there, and that's what i'll do here. And very little people, as i've noticed, talk about how mass reports due to easy offense are just as toxic as toxic members. And lastly, i have a healthy respect for the mods but not speaking up will teach them nothing. Apart from that, i trust they are doing what they can.  

#182
Raltar
Raltar's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 155
0
5
8
Raltar's avatar
Raltar
0
5
8
-->
@Outplayz
i have a healthy respect for the mods but not speaking up will teach them nothing. Apart from that, i trust they are doing what they can.
I'm not personally (can't speak for anyone else here) saying that the mods aren't doing anything about the problems. Obviously a few trouble makers got banned, and probably deserved it. And in the case of the problems I'm experiencing, I've spoken to a moderator who did take some basic actions to attempt to rectify the situation. So clearly something is being done. 

However, I do think that both the current rules are too loose and the block feature needs to be buffed up significantly. If users could solve their own problems by simply blocking the worst offenders, then it would save the mods from having to get involved at all. 

The forums will always be a 3rd grade playground with an associated level of name calling, and I'm fine with that. The rest of the site doesn't need to be that way if designed correctly. 
Topic's author
#183
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Raltar
However, I do think that both the current rules are too loose and the block feature needs to be buffed up significantly. If users could solve their own problems by simply blocking the worst offenders, then it would save the mods from having to get involved at all. 
You have to consider the implications of what you are asking for. Here is an example in law that we encounter all the time. It has to do with ex ante and ex post reasoning. Say someone robs a bank, puts a gun to a customers head and asks the teller for money. The teller refuses and the robber kills the customer. Should the courts punish the teller for not giving money? In this case, courts ruled no, taking the ex ante reasoning. Why? Bc if they would have, robbers now can go to future banks and threaten with life and get money. It gives them more arsenal. People may think that is unjust, but judges have to consider what will cause the least harm and in this case, the future of customers willing to put their money in banks. 

Now, in your scenario you want to do more to the block feature... what are the implications of that? What will it do to the discourse? What will it do to future people wanting to come to this site? What will it do to people that hold opposing theories from coming to this site to discuss them? And i should ask you... what do you propose? The person that is blocked not being able to comment on the debate? The person that's blocked not being able to enter the thread? Do you think that's fair... and do you think this site would be more attractive? 

I would say no. Bc what you want to do and many of the other people running around saying abuse is turn this site into what "they" want. What "they" think is appropriate. What "they" think is good discourse. I'm sorry... but all i see is reverse bullying and passive aggressive forms of abusive and selfish behavior.

As of now, it's perfectly fine. You block the person and you don't get notifications and don't have to converse with said person. If they follow you around, ignore them. If they become abusive in their actions... report them and i'm sure the mods will take care of it bc the mods on this site are involved. Sometimes more than i'd like but guess what... i don't expect them to do exactly what i like or else i would be a hypocrite in everything i just said.  It's a fine balance and why i'm not mad at the mods or dislike them.  They are doing as good as they can, and i can only voice my opinion in opposition and hope that they adopt a little of my logic. I don't expect them to fully adopt all of my logic.

To ask for extra punishment makes no sense to me unless you can propose it in a fair way that will still promote people of different opinions and temperaments from coming here.  

#184
Raltar
Raltar's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 155
0
5
8
Raltar's avatar
Raltar
0
5
8
-->
@Outplayz


Say someone robs a bank, puts a gun to a customers head and asks the teller for money. The teller refuses and the robber kills the customer. Should the courts punish the teller for not giving money?
False equivalence fallacy. I'm just going to leave it at that.



To ask for extra punishment...
I didn't ever ask for "extra punishment" in any part of anything I said anywhere in this thread. You have massively misunderstood everything I'm saying if you think that. 

I asked for; 

  1. A stronger block feature (such as preventing people from spamming the comments of your debate after you have blocked them).

  2. Clearer rules which explain that it isn't okay to repeatedly target the same person and keep going after them in multiple parts of the site (particularly after they have blocked you).


The person that's blocked not being able to enter the thread?
A "thread" (if that is indeed what you are referring to) is a feature of the forum. I repeatedly and clearly stated that I wasn't seeking to change any aspect of the forum. 




The person that is blocked not being able to comment on the debate?
Yes.

The comments section should be a privilege, not a right. If you can politely comment, great. If you argue a little, fine. But if you annoy the actual participants in the debate to the point where they block you, tough luck. If they aren't a participant in the debate, and one of the actual participants has them blocked, then they can go start their own debate or forum thread if they need to discuss the topic that badly. 




Do you think that's fair... and do you think this site would be more attractive?
Unequivocally yes.

As I've repeatedly said, I'm not seeking to change the forums. If people want to troll, harass each other and hurl childish insults around, the forum will always be here for that, and it is pretty obvious that moderation is minimal here. People even openly insult the moderators and face no punishment. So this form of "discourse" (if you really want to stoop low enough to call it that) will always be here. 

But for the actual official (and rated, I might add) debates, those need rules and structure in order to not dissolve into random chaotic name calling and harassment. Voting already has strict (albeit only partly effective) rules, so I don't see why the debate itself and attached comments section should be an unregulated battlefield. 

I'm not asking for "extra punishment" by any stretch of the imagination. Just empower users to kick annoying jackasses out of their comments section so they don't become a distraction. This is not the outrageous idea you are making it out to be. 



If they become abusive in their actions... report them and i'm sure the mods will take care of it bc the mods on this site are involved.
As I said earlier, in my case I did notify a moderator and some action was taken. The action taken was partly effective. 

However, I believe a more effective block feature would have prevented the need for a moderator to have ever become involved in the first place. 

The type of blocking I'm proposing would only impact the debates and comments, not the forum. And ideally, it would cause moderators to get involved in disputes LESS often, which seems to be what you want, so no "extra punishment" is needed. 
Topic's author
#185
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Raltar
False equivalence fallacy. I'm just going to leave it at that.
What the heck are you going on about... that was an example of ex ante ex post reasoning... it had nothing to do with what you're talking about, but only to illustrate how that reasoning works. I was hoping you would look it up so i didn't have to define it for you... ex post - after the fact;  ex ante = before the event. The case was so you get what i mean. It has everything to do with what you are proposing merely bc it will have an affect on the site. You have to reason if that effect is a harm to future use or better. That's up to you what you decide. Starting to throw out fallacy this or that means your overly analyzing and quite frankly trying to be a smarty two shoes. So understand something before you jump to calling it fallacious. An example isn't a false equivalence when i had no intention to correlate the two...

A stronger block feature (such as preventing people from spamming the comments of your debate after you have blocked them).
That is an extra feature to punish... lol man. 

Yes. 
The comments section should be a privilege, not a right. If you can politely comment, great. If you argue a little, fine. But if you annoy the actual participants in the debate to the point where they block you, tough luck. If they aren't a participant in the debate, and one of the actual participants has them blocked, then they can go start their own debate or forum thread if they need to discuss the topic that badly. 
Although i told you to reason... looks like you did zero of it. I think you're annoying right now... i can block you... and then you can't enter any of my forums or debates? And since i have to walk you through this hand and hand... i'm including forums obviously bc i use forums, but i said "or" debates... so lets concentrate on that okay. You wouldn't be able to enter any of my debates. What if i am debating something you vehemently disagree with and you're the only one... suppress your voice? What if i am debating your best friend... not allow you to back said user up? What if my opponent wants you to comment and vote, or whatever... simply bc i don't like you and blocked you tough luck? Should i go on? That sounds fair to you? This sounds like you're selfishly wanting to impose what you find moral on others. Again since you take things a little too seriously... no, you aren't annoying me... all that was just to illustrate what i mean. 

I'm not asking for "extra punishment" by any stretch of the imagination. Just empower users to kick annoying jackasses out of their comments section so they don't become a distraction. This is not the outrageous idea you are making it out to be. 
You don't have to bold things, i'm pretty good at knowing when you're making a point. I won't say there isn't room for improvement, maybe there is. But blocking someone and not allowing them into a thread or debate (i hope you know by now to concentrate on debate), has very bad implications in abusing it. Who get's to decide who is a jackass? Why should we agree with you someone is being a jackass? What do you consider to be a jackass and what do i consider being a jackass? What if i wanted that persons opinion on my debate? What if i wanted to see that person's comments? Ect... And, once again... this is extra punishment. Instead of totally ignoring what i meant and not thinking through it... which is all i asked for and now i have to write it all... what about trying to think of some extra punishment that would be fair (which i also asked for)? Here i'll just do that too since you're probably going to try to debate everything i just said. How about something like... hmm, if both parties agree someone can't vote, then they can't vote. Which i think is a thing. And, if both parties agreed to not allow someone to comment, to not allow a comment. Nothing permanent, but consented on by both parties. That seems a little more fair than you arbitrarily getting to decide blocking people bc YOU didn't like them.  

Sorry for being a smart ass in my reply, but all you did in your reply is debate what i said vs. adding any substance which was what i was hoping for. Don't over think things... let's try to figure out what would be fair and think of reasons why one way wouldn't be fair to everyone and not just you. 
#186
Raltar
Raltar's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 155
0
5
8
Raltar's avatar
Raltar
0
5
8
-->
@Outplayz
...It has to do with ex ante and ex post reasoning.

...your overly analyzing and quite frankly trying to be a smarty two shoes.
Knock that off. My irony detector can't handle this much abuse. 


[A stronger block feature] is an extra feature to punish.
You... can't be serious. 

That means I could "punish" anyone on this site, right now.



What if i am debating your best friend... not allow you to back said user up?
You... think the purpose of the comments section... is for non-involved third parties... to "back up" their buddies... by attacking one of the debate participants?

I don't feel the need to continue this conversation. Good day, sir.
Topic's author
#187
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Raltar
That means I could "punish" anyone on this site, right now.
Yes. You are punishing a user when you block them... duh. 

You... think the purpose of the comments section... is for non-involved third parties... to "back up" their buddies... by attacking one of the debate participants?
I never said that's the only reason they're there. Why don't we just get rid of comments all together to protect your fragile ego.

I don't feel the need to continue this conversation. Good day, sir.
I'll take that as you have no substance to add. That was apparent anyways. 




#188
Raltar
Raltar's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 155
0
5
8
Raltar's avatar
Raltar
0
5
8
-->
@Outplayz
You are punishing a user when you block them
I have decided to "punish" you. Stupidity of this magnitude deserves punishment. 

Topic's author
#189
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
Sure thing beta. 
#190
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,239
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Outplayz
Doesn't look like he recently said anything any worse than normal, it must have just been an accumulation of offensive behavior. 
This is sorta something i have a problem with. Many cases of being a jerk shouldn't be stacked against you to get you banned. I think there should be a clear instance of being malicious and abusive that gets you banned. I've seen it from D, but he already got banned for the time i saw it. I'm just hoping that's what got him in trouble again... not that he's mean-spirited bc we all know he is. 
If this was their policy, I imagine abusive posters could be at large for a long time. Problem members aren't always gonna hand you a gift-wrapped slam dunk reason to finally ban them. But "many cases of being a jerk" isn't really how I'd describe it.

Do you really think blocking members punishes them unfairly?

#191
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Nothing like comparing a forum to prison. People getting shot, snitching. Says a lot about the person saying it. 
#192
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@Raltar


Say someone robs a bank, puts a gun to a customers head and asks the teller for money. The teller refuses and the robber kills the customer. Should the courts punish the teller for not giving money?
False equivalence fallacy. I'm just going to leave it at that.
You should really read the Wikipedia page that you linked. A false equivalency fallacy is a specific fallacy that compares two things in an equivocal manner which aren't equivocal. Read the examples given in the article:

"They're both living animals that metabolize chemical energy. There's no difference between a pet cat and a pet snail."
"The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is no different from your neighbor dripping some oil on the ground when changing oil in his car."

Nowhere did Outplayz ever try to insinuate that bank robbers shooting clerks was equivalent in any sense to banning someone on an online forum, in moral or practical terms. What he did do was use an example to demonstrate a principle that he was using in another argument. The example was certainly more severe, but that just makes it a more useful example because the principle is more stark. This is one of those common logical misunderstandings; someone uses an analogy or example to demonstrate something, and because the examples used are different someone screams that they are 'comparing' x to y, and x and y are different so you can't do that. 'How dare you compare him to Hitler!' It's not a logical fallacy unless you are equivocating (insinuating that they have equal worth or weight), but the accusation often gets thrown at people who make no such insinuation. I find it hilarious that the analogy section was removed from the SATs because they're 'irrelevant to success in a college or work environment'. Lol, I guess so, though it becomes apparent that they are irrelevant only because our country is so ill educated that nobody knows what an analogy is.
#193
Raltar
Raltar's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 155
0
5
8
Raltar's avatar
Raltar
0
5
8
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Nowhere did Outplayz ever try to insinuate that bank robbers shooting clerks was equivalent in any sense to banning someone on an online forum...
You are correct to the (extremely limited) extent that he didn't make a comparison between "bank robbers shooting clerks" and "banning someone on an online forum..."

But that just shows that you didn't read his post, or mine. He never said that, and I never said he said it.

What he DID say, and which I am pointing out as a fallacy, is that punishing a bank teller for refusing to give money to a bank robber who is threatening to shoot a person is equivalent to blocking someone on an internet website, because he claims that both are examples of a "punishment" taking place. This could even be divided into two separate fallacies, first for the outrageous attempt to equate a situation involving armed robbery with activity on a website, and then again for claiming that blocking a person should be considered a "punishment" in any sense of that word.

His argument could be summarized this way;
You... you... you...You want to block people on an internet website!? You MONSTER!!! Blocking people is exactly the same kind of PUNISHMENT as if you were to punish a bank teller who refuses to give money to an armed robber!
Not only is that an obvious example of a false equivalence fallacy, by attempting to equate his obscure bank robber scenario with blocking someone on an internet website, but merely claiming that blocking someone is a "punishment" is yet another type of fallacy on top of that which is so severe and rare that I doubt it even has a name at all.

But, I have good news for you!

You see, your buddy over there has actually created an excellent opportunity for an object demonstration!

See, I'm going to BLOCK YOU.

Afterword, one of two things will be true,

Either,

   (A) You will feel hideously violated and enraged over the "punishment" of being blocked by a random person on the internet.

Or,

   (B) You won't care, because like any rational person, you will realize that being blocked by a random person on an internet website has no meaningful impact on your life.

If (B) is true at the conclusion of the demonstration, then you will see how Outplayz committed a fallacy with his argument.

Enjoy!
#194
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Raltar
Its always a tough choice - I would prefer moderator action too the ability to block a user being buffed up. I’ve seen people simply blocking anyone who disagrees with them on other sites.
#195
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Raltar
Oh my heavens that was mic drop good!

I'm guessing he will come back with (A)

+1
#196
Raltar
Raltar's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 155
0
5
8
Raltar's avatar
Raltar
0
5
8
-->
@Ramshutu
I’ve seen people simply blocking anyone who disagrees with them on other sites.
I have too.

But I'm just saying, the perspective that blocking is a problem (or a "punishment") doesn't really make sense.

When I first signed up for this website and filled out my profile, I mentioned that I used to "debate" (if you could call it that) users on Tumblr. Most of those "debates" ended with the other person cussing me out and blocking me.

When someone had a mental breakdown and blocked me I didn't treat it like I was being "punished" by that person, because that is an absolutely crazy viewpoint which just doesn't make any sense. You can't "punish" someone by using a feature of the website that they have an equal power to use against you. Exactly the opposite is true; If a person blocks you, then they obviously weren't going to listen to anything else you had to say anyway, so they are saving you time by not having to waste any further effort talking to them. If they don't want to hear what you have to say, oh well, move on and talk to someone else. It isn't like there is a shortage of users on this site.

In my (admittedly very brief and likely soon to be over) time on this site, I've tried to be very tolerant and open-minded. I've voted on debates where I ended up voting for the person who argued for the position that I'm personally against. In fact, because most of the positions being debated on here are positions I'm against, I end up voting for those positions more often than not, simply because there is no alternative. I've also struck up polite and meaningful conversations (including private messages) with people who have directly opposing worldviews to my own. I've had people say things to me like "You seem like a nice guy... why are you conservative?" I don't flip out and want to attack everyone who has a different view from my own. We are here because we have different views and want to discuss them in an adult manner (I would hope).

But DAMN, some people on this site...

I've seen people wig out and go ballistic because one person voted against them on a debate.

People set up these debates with absolutely insane rules, clearly designed to hamstring their opponent and guarantee an easy win, even going so far as to say that voters will be punished for voting the wrong way if the creator of the debate disagrees with their view.

And a certain group of people treat the comments section of the debate as a way for them to "back up" their personal friends and harass whichever debater they personally oppose.

This isn't tolerant. This isn't treating people with different views respectfully. This is just trying to strong arm people into agreement with you.

When I was in the Army, they used to say "When you hear a stupid rule, it is because someone actually did that and now we have a rule against it."

Basically, thats what blocking is. It sounds "unfair" at first to deny a person the chance to speak to you... but there is a reason why that feature exists! Someone, at some point in time, did something sufficiently stupid/aggressive/evil that it resulted in blocking being invented! And this website is a fantastic example of that.
#197
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Raltar
I was one of the people who backed you up in the comments section, you didn't seem to hate it when it was done in your favour.
#198
Raltar
Raltar's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 155
0
5
8
Raltar's avatar
Raltar
0
5
8
-->
@RationalMadman
I hear you, and you have been one of the few pretty reasonable and generally likable people I've met on this site. We have drastically differing worldviews, yet we manage to treat each other with respect. I think our relationship aught to be a model for how other people should treat things.

But in that particular case which you cite, you were backing me up after someone else (who I had previously attempted to block) showed up to attack me in the comments section, for a reason that didn't pertain to the debate itself (I can't elaborate more specifically than this, due to moderator involvement). I appreciated you jumping in to help me out, but had that original attack not taken place, there would have been no need for a defense at all.
#199
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Raltar
The user was backing himself/herself/theirself up. They had grudge-voted you and were continuing as a rebellious lone ranger. 
#200
Raltar
Raltar's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 155
0
5
8
Raltar's avatar
Raltar
0
5
8
-->
@RationalMadman
They had grudge-voted you
Unfortunately, I can't really discuss this specific incident publicly, due to the moderator involvement aspect. I hope you understand. *shrug*

To that extent, I will say that this is why I remain in disagreement with the other views expressed here. Moderator involvement isn't always the answer, because then the situation becomes more complicated and hazardous for all parties involved, rather than less so. My experience has been that moderator involvement was less helpful than I was originally expecting/hoping for.

Alternatively, if a stronger blocking feature could have prevented the entire situation, moderator involvement would not have been necessary.

I would describe it as locking your front door, as opposed to leaving it open and calling the police after an intruder walks in. That is a better analogy than a bank robbery.

Topic's author
#201
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Castin
If this was their policy, I imagine abusive posters could be at large for a long time. Problem members aren't always gonna hand you a gift-wrapped slam dunk reason to finally ban them. But "many cases of being a jerk" isn't really how I'd describe it. 

Do you really think blocking members punishes them unfairly?
In regards the the problem users... yeah they can be low key, but i think they are being that way bc they are afraid of punishment which is a good thing. And the many cases of being a jerk... that's all i mean. If it goes beyond that i always agree with moderation. I'm just talking about those specific cases. 

In regards to blocking, i think it has the potential for abuse. As my conversation with Ratlar is a perfect example. I may have been a little pushy, but i personally wanted to see if i'll annoy him enough for him to ban me. So i made sure i did so in a substantive way. He didn't disappoint. Now, any forum or debate he's in... if he had it his way, i wouldn't be able to join. I think people just ban people bc they don't like them, as is proof here. But i didn't even need to set this up bc it's apparent everywhere else too. People ban others simply bc they don't like them or that they feel trapped or something by the arguments. I think for this site to hand down extra punishment in banning them from threads and debates is excessive. But not only that, it will be abused. The number of people that justly get banned vs the latter i think is too small to have this website step in and set up an extra feature to punish users even further. 
Topic's author
#202
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I've been to prison twice... albeit just for fighting so i was in the drunk tank. All i can say is prison is a lot scary and actually puts shivers down my spine. Something this site can never do.  
Topic's author
#203
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Nowhere did Outplayz ever try to insinuate that bank robbers shooting clerks was equivalent in any sense to banning someone on an online forum, in moral or practical terms.
You

What he DID say, and which I am pointing out as a fallacy, is that punishing a bank teller for refusing to give money to a bank robber who is threatening to shoot a person is equivalent to blocking someone on an internet website, because he claims that both are examples of a "punishment" taking place.
Him

Honestly, he's too dense to understand an illustration or analogy to teach him what ex ante ex post reasoning is in no way means i'm equating the two. He just wants to be right. 
#204
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Raltar
I understand where your coming from: and don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a genuine requirement to be able to block someone from PM, debate challenging, etc.

My problem with it, is that if there is harrasment, or rule violations: then the person involved should
be banned. It’s a moderation issue.

Less than that? If someone is just angry at you, or sounding off? It’s probably not a moderation issue, and there is probably no genuine reason for you to block them either, other than you don’t like what they’re saying.

if I blocked everyone that was angry at me, there wouldn’t be very many people left: and my fundamental issue is that literally the entire point of this entire website is about disagreeing with what people say, and providing a written argument as to why they’re wrong.

I could have both you and Ethang for accusing me - despite mountains of contrary evidence - of voting one given way. I could
have done that, but it would have been petty and childish. It’s much better to have an argument - that’s the whole point. 

#205
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 501
3
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
3
4
8
-->
@Outplayz
If a user frequents threads i am in, and i disagree with them... i will target said user.
Quite clearly, bsh1 seems to be talking about "targeting" a user with harassment. 

(Note: This post is made with a few disclaimers: (a) I have no knowledge of what happened or who this user is outside of bsh1's post above. (b) This post is a personal opinion that has nothing to do with my moderation capacities, given that I serve as vote moderator and not any position that would give me authority/information about matters such as bans.)

Topic's author
#206
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Tejretics
Quite clearly, bsh1 seems to be talking about "targeting" a user with harassment. 
Yes, i've come to trust bsh1's decision bc i do think he is trying his best. My problem was in what would constitute targeting and harassing users. Bc i've all too often noticed users jumping to the conclusion that they are being harassed and/or targeted. And in ways, that is unavoidable. If you frequent the religion forum and there is only two or three active threads... you're going to be around that person and likely addressed by that person if they vehemently disagree with you. My take is if it is substantive, as in the person is still trying to ask questions and dig deeper, even if it's done in a rude way, that shouldn't constitute harassment. Harassment to me is going around calling a person an idiot or deluded incessantly without adding any kind of substance. Since i've known Gold for such a long time, i'm aware that is not what he usually does. He usually asks questions and probes. With that said, i don't know the whole story and i'm not a mod in any way to know the history of what got him banned. And bsh1 said that to me in PMs when i told him how Gold usually acts.. he said i don't know the full picture. All i can do is trust moderation at that point. And given how they take feedback and listen to concerns, even if they don't agree.. that's really all i can ask for and trust he did a good job. I don't really see too many reason's not to trust that. Although i have concerns on how involved mods should be... i can see these concerns fading as this site goes on. Which makes me think they are actually paying attention to our concerns. 

You know, what i've been thinking about is a past discussion thread bsh1 brought up about punishment being public to other users. I disagreed at that time but i'm starting to think it would be a good thing if it's public what users did to get banned. When i think about it, that's how it is in life. If you get convicted of a crime, your mug shot, your crime, is all published for everyone to see. That is bc people will know what will get them in trouble. In that, people know to follow the law or else they can also get in trouble for whatever they read online others have. So, in some sort of minimal capacity... i think it would actually help, and put a lid on conspiracy theories of why someone got banned, if mods made these decisions public. At the very least, per. bans, preferably temp bans too.  I don't know, maybe i'll rejuvenate a thread topic on that at some point.  

#207
Raltar
Raltar's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 155
0
5
8
Raltar's avatar
Raltar
0
5
8
I could have both you and Ethang for accusing me - despite mountains of contrary evidence - of voting one given way. 
In regards to that, I do actually apologize for bringing that up publicly. If you check my post history (somewhere in this thread I believe), you should find that I partly retracted that after seeing several of your votes recently. I should reserve any other judgement on this issue until I know more facts of the situation. 

That said however, I expressed my concerns here on the forum. As I have stressed several times throughout this discussion, the forum is fair game for people to attack and criticize each other (within reason).

If I had attacked you in the comments section of a debate, sent you private messages or taken some other realtalatory action against you, I bet you would be a lot more upset with me, and rightfully so. 

That is why I draw a distinction between blocking someone on the "debate side" of the site where I feel the decorum should stay professional and still allowing people to act freely in the forum. They should be handled differently.


My problem with it, is that if there is harrasment, or rule violations: then the person involved should
be banned. It’s a moderation issue.

Less than that? If someone is just angry at you, or sounding off? It’s probably not a moderation issue, and there is probably no genuine reason for you to block them either, other than you don’t like what they’re saying.
This approach really seems to be drawing a very drastic line in the sand, dividing the issue into black and white sides. If someone breaks the rules, you would ban them. If they strictly obey the rules, you can't even block them. 

I see two problems with that; 

1. The moderators don't automatically ban everyone who breaks the rules and not every moderator action results in a ban. 

2. It is possible, very possible, to obey all the technical rules of the site and still behave like an asshole. 

So I don't see how we can make things as black and white as that. My concern lies with all the grey area in between. And blocking people from forcing unwanted interactions on others is the simplest way to address all that grey area.

The forum will always be here for unrestricted communication. But would the ability to stop people from interrupting your debate by kicking them out of the comments section really cause the total collapse of all civil discourse on this site? I don't buy it.


#208
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
Lol

Something can be a 'punishment' without being unbearable. The technical definition of a punishment used in behavioral psychology is simply a facet of operant conditioning: a way to reduce the frequency of a target behavior through the introduction of an 'bad' stimulus (spanking) or the removal of a 'positive' stimulus (grounding). By your own argument, banning is a punishment, because you claim that it is a 'stupid rule' introduced to decrease the frequency of a certain behavior. That is literally the textbook defintion.

Also, to equivocate means to equivocate two things to one other. Hitler=Donald Trump is an equivocation. Hitler = A man; Donald Trump = A man is not. Just as 'Robber shooting a person = Blocking on a forum' is an equivocation, but 'Robber shooting a person = Punishment; Blocking on a forum = Punishment' is not.

I really don't care if you block me. As I've already said, I just view it as indicative of intellectual frailty or thin skin, but understand why the function exists, even if I've never personally made use of it. I was just correcting a mistake on your part because it'ss one that I see commonly repeated for whatever reason (I imagine the complete failure to teach grammar or logic in the American college and primary education systems, which I myself fell victim to for a long time).
#209
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,239
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Outplayz
Do you really think blocking members punishes them unfairly?
In regards to blocking, i think it has the potential for abuse. As my conversation with Ratlar is a perfect example. I may have been a little pushy, but i personally wanted to see if i'll annoy him enough for him to ban me. So i made sure i did so in a substantive way. He didn't disappoint. Now, any forum or debate he's in... if he had it his way, i wouldn't be able to join. I think people just ban people bc they don't like them, as is proof here. But i didn't even need to set this up bc it's apparent everywhere else too. People ban others simply bc they don't like them or that they feel trapped or something by the arguments. I think for this site to hand down extra punishment in banning them from threads and debates is excessive. But not only that, it will be abused. The number of people that justly get banned vs the latter i think is too small to have this website step in and set up an extra feature to punish users even further. 
You're still able to join any forum debate or discussion that person is in, and even address them directly, albeit without @ing them.

I've been blocked for saying things someone didn't like, but I did not feel it was cruel and unusual punishment and I did not feel that it constituted a restraint on my freedom.

To be frank: Some people will overreact and block you, yes. But overreacting to them blocking you scarcely makes you much better.

I've been to prison twice... albeit just for fighting so i was in the drunk tank. All i can say is prison is a lot scary and actually puts shivers down my spine. Something this site can never do.  
That would be jail, not prison.
Topic's author
#210
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Castin
To be frank: Some people will overreact and block you, yes. But overreacting to them blocking you scarcely makes you much better.
Did you mean not overreacting to them blocking me makes me better? I'm not that good of a person lol. If someone disrespects me and runs.. i will have something to say about it. I don't like bullies, and bullies come in all shapes and sizes. I make sure they learn their lessons. 

In regards to blocking i fully agree with you. I was referencing the "extra features" part of the discussion with Rat. If there was extra features to the block function where i can't even enter a thread, or i can't comment on a debate... that's extra and it would be a restraint on your freedom. To be fair, he only wanted it on the comments of debates.. but that's bc he uses those the most so for him it would be more convenient to block people from entering. I don't see why that eventually wouldn't apply to forums too. All in all, i think it's a very bad idea bc it will be abused. People block others for no reason at all other than not liking them. And, that is what i see the block function used for the most... if all these people couldn't enter specific debates in the comments bc one person thought to block them... it would be a mess. That was the reason i introduced ex ante and ex post reasoning. The ex ante reasoning on this would be... once everyone can do it, there could be a potential i wouldn't be able to enter any debate where i disagree with the person. Why wouldn't i block everyone i disagree with and make sure only people that will vote for me can get on? That will happen. 

That would be jail, not prison. 
Oh come on... let me feel like a bad-ass for just one second.