Hi all,
What CoC refinement questions would you like to see on the next referendum?
Other refinements are also possible.
Question Brainstorming for Next Referendum
Posts
Total:
50
That using profile pictures to harass or imitate another user comes under personal harassment.
I have now had two different users do this to me during my time here, actually three but Novice having a Russia flag is not really important to count.
-->
@Barney
@Vader
@whiteflame
Fix your rules or I promise you I will eventually reach a limit where Ichange my image to your profile pics until you admit it is not okay.
If you then ban me for imitating mods, you are blimd to see me being imitated beforehand.
-->
@RationalMadman
I honestly don't know why this is a problem for you or anyone else, but if you’d like to demonstrate by copying my pfp, be my guest. Wouldn’t bother me.
That being said, if this is a more widespread concern, we could discuss what the policy would be here. I don’t think someone posting a pfp should necessarily result in only that person having access to that pfp for as long as it’s up, particularly if it’s just generally popular, but assuming we did that, how many changes would have to be made to the picture to make it kosher? Would a color change be enough? How about adding text? Using it as part of a picture set? What’s the barrier to entry here?
Original:
You may not threaten or promote violence against any person or persons, barring hyperbole against public figures (e.g., “all politicians should be shot”). Advocacy in favor of terrorism and/or violent extremism, especially as related to hate groups as generally defined by the SPLC, is likewise prohibited.You may not engage in or promote criminal activity.You may not engage in or promote the sexual exploitation of minors.
Replace with:
You may not post content that would be illegal to post in the jurisdiction in which the hosting of this website occurs.
Reasons:
You may not threaten or promote violence against any person or persons
Threats made by one member directly to another member can be objectively evaluated, and are illegal in almost every jurisdiction (however if it turns out they are not in the case of this website's home jurisdiction the rule would have to be added).
However a prohibition on the promotion of violence against any person or persons is absurd. There is a well known name for the school of ethics which permits no violence and it is called "pacifism", to have a rule against even the promotion of violence is to in effect force all opinions expressed on this website to be pacifist ones. The degree to which this is not so is the degree to which moderators have failed to enforce this rule.
At the very least it is obvious after short thought that to advocate for anything to be illegal is to advocate that people are attacked for doing that thing. Therefore not only does this rule require pacifism but also anarchy as enforced opinions.
Moderators may have implicitly ignored this implication, but observe the consequence of the unwritten exception for "legal violence": https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7407/post-links/318679
This post was reported, reviewed, and allowed to stand.
What was the critical factor? Perhaps "judicial apparatus", the claim that the violence promoted would be carried out by some kind of "legitimate" authority.
Could I then have responded that "What really needs to happen is that after careful consideration a jury needs to sentence anyone who would shoot someone for sexual urges to be tortured, paralyzed, and left to be an object of mockery for the rest of their lives."?
Advocacy in favor of terrorism and/or violent extremism, especially as related to hate groups as generally defined by the SPLC, is likewise prohibited.
The error here is simply a repeat of the previously described error with more emotive language. Almost every nation on earth arose out of violence, violence which at the time was called extremist, terrorist, or some other derogatory name. A liberal application of this rule would prohibit almost all forms of patriotism, nationalism, or support for historically violent international movements like communism.
The SPLC does not use objective criteria for any determinations they make. If there were objective criteria it would be appropriate to use those criteria in the rules (presuming the criteria were themselves appropriate) rather than to defer to a list.
You may not engage in or promote criminal activity.
Many organizations in the world define crimes, enforcement of many of the criminal statutes in the world is itself criminal in other parts of the world. For example someone executing a person for homosexual intercourse in Saudi Arabia (or whatever) would in fact be guilty of murder for performing the exact same actions in the United States of America.
The use of the word "promotion" is entirely nonsensical, arguing for the change of laws is perhaps the most significant thing that can be debated. To argue that something should be legal is to argue no one should be attacked for it. To argue that something should be illegal is to argue someone should be attacked for it (see point on violence above)
Does this site propose a circular cancellation system in which you must denounce a behavior until it is legal, but you may argue that it should be legal while simultaneously denouncing it? (and again legal in what country)
More than half the assertions on this site are subject to this rule as it stands, and any lack of moderation is due to the rule not being enforced. A rule against breathing is license for arbitrary punishment.
Unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech, are subject to disciplinary actions.
"Unwarranted" is subjective.
In all cases "hate(ful)", "harassing", and "obscene" all need to be defined in a way such that they can be objectively evaluated.
-->
@Barney
If you block someone, responding to them shouldn’t be allowed
-->
@ILikePie5
If you block someone they shouldn't be allowed to address you either.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
If you block someone they shouldn't be allowed to address you either.
That’s what Restraining Orders are for if I’m not mistaken
-->
@ILikePie5
LOL
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
My personal view is that if you block someone, you shouldn’t be responding to them or addressing them. The person you are blocking can do whatever they want. That’s how free speech works. Ofc until it becomes too much in which case you file a restraining order
-->
@ILikePie5
I’ve always felt because of non-tagging reply posts the way of regulations such a rule results over moderation. I don’t think there should be a blocking feature at all except for PMs. Anything else should be fair game, and if you get harassed on a forum or debate, that’s where the mods can step in.
One dedicated spam thread should be allowed.
-->
@ILikePie5
LOL
-->
@Mharman
LOL
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
LMAO
-->
@ILikePie5
"If you block someone, responding to them shouldn’t be allowed" I second this motion . What kind of punk ass shit is it to block someone and then respond to their posts. That's like being the ultimate hypocrite coward.
-->
@Mharman
I’ve always felt because of non-tagging reply posts the way of regulations such a rule results over moderation. I don’t think there should be a blocking feature at all except for PMs. Anything else should be fair game, and if you get harassed on a forum or debate, that’s where the mods can step in.
Perfectly fine with that too
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
LMFAOO
You do realize that the RO policy was changed without any sort of the word discussion. It's basically worthless now. Right before the two people had to avoid each other for 30 days now basically the person that you have the RO against can do everything they want as long as they don't insult you. That's why I'm laughing because nobody's bothered to even look into it you're just saying things and you don't even know what the f***** going on.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
If you need a restraining order on the internet, you probably shouldn’t even be on the internet.
-->
@Mharman
If you need a restraining order on the internet, you probably shouldn’t even be on the internet.
Where have you been all these years lmfao
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
You do realize that the RO policy was changed without any sort of the word discussion. It's basically worthless now. Right before the two people had to avoid each other for 30 days now basically the person that you have the RO against can do everything they want as long as they don't insult you. That's why I'm laughing because nobody's bothered to even look into it you're just saying things and you don't even know what the f***** going on.
No. The person you have a restraining order against cannot engage with you and you can’t with them. Unless there is a mutual decision on both sides
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Who do you even want a restraining order against the why?
Also how is that evidence lmaooo. I said there was mutual decision on both sides for a reason
-->
@ILikePie5
I’ve known about the restraining orders for a while now. This just the first time I’ve talked about it. But considering this is debate website, the whole idea of a blocking someone (outside of PMs) is completely counterintuitive. Any such system implemented automatically makes it super easy to post an opinion and then shut down the conversation when someone disagrees with you. Then you can play victim when they just keep replying to you without tags.
Based on feedback here and elsewhere, I think refining the harassment section is in order...
Quick disclaimer: obviously not all actions of harassment are equal to each other, and any one action of it in isolation is unlikely to be severe and/or prolonged enough merit any outside intervention. The harassment needs to be excessive, and non-reciprocal.
Profile pics:
I would certainly hope that anyone who copies someone else's profile picture without prior consent, they would quickly change it when asked by the author; but refusal to to so could indeed be one form of harassment. At the same time, such a rule while minor, would need to be done with some care (as whiteflame pointed out in #4). Still, a short sentence on directly copying anyone's work against their express wishes could probably handle this.
Extravagant lies:
I think it's time to move this to under the harassment heading.
Law suits:
I think this doesn't merit its own line, and could be combined into the criticizing statements within an ongoing discussion is fair game.
...
Callout threads:
What does everyone think of easing up on these? For starters, maybe they shouldn't be automatically locked?
...
Regarding the block feature:
I don't foresee any positive utility in trying to regulate how and why people use it.
I can't believe a public domain picture for your profile pic which is the same as someone else's is harassment, but actual harassment isn't.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
What is the precise form of harassment you believe should be added to the CoC?
-->
@Mharman
One dedicated spam thread should be allowed.
I'm not strictly opposed, but I am curious what benefit you expect from it?
-->
@Barney
Just one tread in the misc forum for messing around. Like DDO’s “record attempt at most posts” thread or something.