CODE of CONDUCT VIOLATION? ASKING DARTERS to WEIGH IN.

Author: oromagi
DebateArt
Code of Conduct
oromagi
civil rights
gay rights

Posts

Total: 23
Topic's author
#1
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Mods have fielded a couple of complaints tonight requesting action regarding this particular forum post:
############
Best.Korea

06.02.2023 12:12PM
-->
@zedvictor4
No. Bible commands the death of gays.
################################

Regarding VIOLENCE and CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR our CODE of CONDUCT advises:
  • 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 promote or encourage suicide or self harm.
  • You may not engage in or promote criminal activity.
  • You may not engage in or promote the sexual exploitation of minors.
The complaints assume that BK's logic here runs something like: 

P1: All faithful Christians must obey the Bible
P2: The Bible command the death of gays
C1: Therefore, faithful Christians must murder gay people

Certainly, advocacy for murdering gay people in Christ's name does seem like one legitimate interpretation of BK's comment but its also non-specific and probably hyperbolic.  I don't think any regular readers of this site would mistake BK for a sincere or dedicated Christian.  On the other hand, if BK hauls an AK down to his local pride parade tomorrow, authorities could legitimately fault us for ignoring this warning sign.

I'd like to hear from my fellow DARTers regarding the actionability of comments like this. 

  • How many DARTers think a comment like this is actionable based on present CoC or should be actionable based on an improved Code of Conduct?
  • If actionable, what course of action would you recommend?  Warning?  Ban?  Police notification?  etc.




#2
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 182
Posts: 807
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
-->
@Best.Korea
You gotta respond to this 

#3
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,062
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
The complaints assume that BK's logic here runs something like: 
P1: All faithful Christians must obey the Bible
P2: The Bible command the death of gays
C1: Therefore, faithful Christians must murder gay people
Well, no, I dont remember saying this. 
#4
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,834
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@oromagi
  • How many DARTers think a comment like this is actionable based on present CoC or should be actionable based on an improved Code of Conduct?
  • If actionable, what course of action would you recommend?  Warning?  Ban?  Police notification?  etc.
Hate speech has become acceptable in society at large and in this site, so it probably doesn't matter.  

Advocating violence is clearly actionable, so yes, there shopuld be consequences to this poste, probably a temporary ban and then banning them permanently if it happens again.

This poster spent a lot of time advocating pedophilia with no consequences, which empowers more and more innapropriate behavior, so this is what we get.

This has become the site for pedophilia and hate speach toward race andLGBTQ, doubt that trend is reversible now.  

Hell, it's even become the Republican platform lately.
#5
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,062
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Okay, so the voting has begun.
#6
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 2,106
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@oromagi
@Best.Korea
Since Best.Korea never said "faithful Christians must murder gay people," I vote against mod action.

#7
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,802
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@oromagi

Yes, I believe that the comment violates the Code of Conduct and should be removed. The author should receive a warning.
#8
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 182
Posts: 807
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
-->
@Barney
@whiteflame
What are your guys’ thoughts? 
#9
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,955
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
I'm not particularly fond of posts like this, though I don't think it's positive for the site. It's not against the rules as they stand, so much as I have my personal problems with it, I probably would have just sent BK an informal message to cool it with statements like this.
#10
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,466
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
There’s some weird areas that kind of talk gets into.

Essentially I don’t view it as a real call to action, so much as criticism of group think.

Let’s swap it out for a religion we all dislike: Charles Manson’s cult. True followers of Charles Manson ought to murder people… this doesn’t imply anyone should obey Charles Manson; rather it seems like an implied reason people should not follow Charles Manson.

A user might proclaim a religion encourages pedophilia, and yet proclaiming this about the religion, is not claiming that people should obey such a religion.
#11
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 3,439
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
I'm doubtful Best.Korea's intention is to incite a killing of homosexuals,
Given their history of posts,
And that their profile once stated that no one should take any of their posts seriously,
Though it 'might be my memory is wrong, still that's what I remember their profile stating.

While the code of conduct 'does say, you can't threaten or promote various actions,
It seems to me a bit of a gray area,

Where someone might make a joke, criticize a group for possible contradiction (Christians for example), or state a nonserious yearning,
Compared to someone attempting to 'cause other's to action, or plan with people together.

'If actionable,
Warning seems the most reasonable to me.

Ban,
If there is a history of recent warnings,
If the individual blatantly disregards reprimands,
Or harassment, where the harassed has blacked the harasser, yet the harasser continues.

Regardless of it's 'definition,
January 6th is an example of police ought be notified.
People making actionable plans.
. .
I suppose if some individual 'claimed they were going to do something,
It could be argued that the police ought be informed.

@NoOneInParticular
Is saying 'ought,
The same as encouraging action, or threatening?
Gray, I think.

Would the death penalty be considered promoting violence?
Hm, assumption is 'illegal violence I suppose.
#12
AustinL0926
AustinL0926's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,288
3
5
9
AustinL0926's avatar
AustinL0926
3
5
9
Usually, I don't comment on drama, but I'm legitimately a bit confused here. I fail to see how the above posting advocates for violence - is it not a factual statement that the Bible does indeed call for the death of gays?

Many atheists have criticized the Bible on moral grounds - its condemnation of homosexuality being one of them. When they mention that the Bible commands the death of gays, they aren't calling for violent behavior or criminal action. Just because BK is a Christian (or a very good parody of one), shouldn't change that.



#13
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,802
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
 The Trevor Project estimates that at least one LGBTQ youth between the ages of 13–24 attempts suicide every 45 seconds in the U.S.

. Best.Korea is saying that the Bible commands the death of gays.
#14
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,320
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
It’s free speech. Let him live
#15
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
This is a stupid thread made about a troll post.

It's unreal that everyone taking it so seriously is getting trolled this hard.

How do people not know about the behavior of trolls in 2023 (the current year)?

You might as well take the troll out to an all-you-can-eat buffet, if you're going to feed them this hard.
#16
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
I know this site doesn't get so much traffic, but I really don't see how it ever grows with this mostly degenerate userbase. Don't know why the owner isn't trying to cultivate something in terms of userbase and community here. DDO was an awesome place when I first joined it. So much diversity and it was deep politics, religion, philosophy, whatever, not news reel petty bullshit. It was just full of interesting people. This place is actually a bunch of incels. What's the depth or interest in any of these conversations? 

BK is an eyesore, simple as. He should be banned. 
#17
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
If I google "online debate site" I still don't see this site listed. I see edeb8. Fix that and start lopping off the heads of some of these losers. If edeb8 can appear on google search, this site can. 
#18
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,802
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@badger

OMG, badger is Saul Goodman!
#19
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,062
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@badger
BK is an eyesore, simple as. He should be banned.
I am sorry for being an eyesore.
Its not my fault. I was abused a lot as a child. We dont know what I would have become if I had a normal childhood like other people had. If only I was given the chance and the love I needed to grow into a normal person, maybe, just maybe, troll Korea wouldnt exist today.

Sad story. Lets cry.
#20
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 182
Posts: 807
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
-->
@oromagi
What’s your opinion, oro? 
#21
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@badger
I know this site doesn't get so much traffic, but I really don't see how it ever grows with this mostly degenerate userbase. Don't know why the owner isn't trying to cultivate something in terms of userbase and community here. DDO was an awesome place when I first joined it. So much diversity and it was deep politics, religion, philosophy, whatever, not news reel petty bullshit. It was just full of interesting people. This place is actually a bunch of incels. What's the depth or interest in any of these conversations? 
This 100%. . I have been absent lately because quite frankly I found a better debate community. I feel guilty even mentioning Dart to them because I feel the same way about this site. It's an active community of almost 2000 people also. 

They were looking for extra people today as well and I legit felt guilty telling them to look here, and after logging back in for the first time in a month. I think I am going to message the group leadership and tell them to not to proceed to come here and share users
#22
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
Also whiteflames response to how this should be handled is correct 
#23
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@oromagi
I'd like to hear from my fellow DARTers regarding the actionability of comments like this. 

  • How many DARTers think a comment like this is actionable based on present CoC or should be actionable based on an improved Code of Conduct?
Anything besides pure and absolute pacifism is actionable by the previous CoC, as I pointed out when I first came here.

I don't remember reading anything in the new CoC that would apply, nor do I think anything should apply.

You can't mandate moral conclusions in site rules and then claim the result is anything but the shallow appearance of debate.


Police notification?
It would be hilarious if someone decided on police notification for this but not the whole time he was talking about pedophilia being potentially harmless.