Changing Enforcement

Author: whiteflame
Code of Conduct
Chief Mod
Mod Team

Posts

Pinned
Total: 82
Topic's author
#1
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,812
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
I'm writing this message to clarify how moderation will enforce existing rules on the site going forward. The rules of the site are clear: personal attacks and harassment, particularly when they done over a prolonged period of time and target specific member(s) of the site, are ban-worthy offenses. We've given some leeway to allow conversations that include these to proceed so long as both sides were taking part in the same behavior to some extent.

That will no longer be the case. Moderation will now take action against cases of personal attacks and harassment even when both parties are participating. In order to ensure that everyone is on the same page with regards to this change in enforcement, we will not begin enforcement until this weekend ends. While past posts may be regarded as evidence of persistent behavior going forward, we will only enforce bans based on posts made after that period unless they are the subject of ongoing discussions within the moderation team. That being said, members will not have free reign to act with impunity - you will still be subject to a warning and ban within this time period if you push it too far.

To clarify, here are a few examples of the behavior that will result in a warning and, should it persist, a ban or restraining order:

  • Insulting someone's intelligence (as distinguished from attacking a given claim or argument)
  • Posting call-out threads
  • Assigning nicknames that are meant to belittle or harass
I'd also like to note that these will be enforced regardless of who acted first, though that may affect the duration of the resulting ban/RO. "But they started it" or "I was just defending myself" will not be a valid excuse for returning the favor. That being said, while the occasional insult may be tolerated with warnings, a pattern of insults and/or harassment will not.

If you have questions about how this will be implemented, this is the place to ask them. 
#2
ponikshiy
ponikshiy's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 604
3
3
6
ponikshiy's avatar
ponikshiy
3
3
6
Thank you
#3
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
From bsh1 I told to do this.
#4
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Ignoring who keeps starting it is foolish but less foolish than saying reacting makes it consensual.
#5
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@whiteflame
If Prez-Hilton is multiaccounting and you are allowing it, this is not okay btw.
Topic's author
#6
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,812
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@RationalMadman
I'm not sure what that has to do with this post, but if I was aware that anyone was multiaccounting, I'd do something about it.
#7
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 182
Posts: 807
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
-->
@ponikshiy
My bad. Lol.

I really didn't mean for RM to find out.
#8
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@whiteflame
Since it doesn't go into effect until next week...

#9
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Barney
Time to get the final insults in. 
#10
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 356
Posts: 10,596
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Well, I can live with that. I guess its just logic from now on.
#11
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@whiteflame
I personally am not at all bothered what people say to me.

I am of the opinion that offence is always created by the recipient and reacted upon by the over-sensitive, often deliberately so.

Each to their own opinion though.

Nonetheless I think that enforcing rules without a complaint being lodged is a tad dictatorial....So I hope that  this won't be the case.



NB. I did once flag up a certain Poly-theists remarks to me, but I regarded that as an exceptional circumstance.
Topic's author
#12
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,812
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Nonetheless I think that enforcing rules without a complaint being lodged is a tad dictatorial....So I hope that  this won't be the case.

As a point of clarification, we are not going to actively seek out every post where someone is insulting. We don’t make a habit of seeking out things to remove and that won’t change - we will still rely on reports as a means of finding posts that either do or don’t warrant removal. 
#13
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,146
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
So can I still say f the mods?
Topic's author
#14
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,812
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@ILikePie5
This site wouldn't be the same without it.
#15
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@whiteflame

To clarify, here are a few examples of the behavior that will result in a warning and, should it persist, a ban or restraining order:
  • Insulting someone's intelligence (as distinguished from attacking a given claim or argument)
This approach may seem contradictory to productive debates, which rely on critiquing arguments to identify logical inconsistencies. While the intention is to discourage the use of intellectual insults like "Stupid," "Idiot," or other words I prefer not to mention, it is important to recognize that constructive debate involves identifying flaws in arguments to strengthen and refine one's own and others' positions. Furthermore, individuals often struggle to identify flaws in their own arguments, which highlights the value of others providing their insights and pointing out weaknesses from an outsider perspective. This emphasizes the need for diverse perspectives and insights to engage in meaningful discourse and address flaws in others' arguments.

I hope you are not suggesting that offering insights into the flaws and logical inconsistencies in others' arguments is considered offensive. Rather, it is the use of offensive or insulting language that is deemed inappropriate. Constructive criticism and thoughtful engagement with the weaknesses in arguments are essential for meaningful and respectful discussions.
Topic's author
#16
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,812
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Critical-Tim
I thought I was pretty clear in the portion that you quoted. I have no problem whatsoever with "offering insights into the flaws and logical inconsistencies in others' arguments" - that's why I said "(as distinguished from attacking a given claim or argument)". To elaborate, the problem is with specifically targeting the person behind the argument, not the argument itself. If someone calls an argument stupid or idiotic, that's fine under the existing policy and that won't change with this increased degree of enforcement. If someone calls their opponent stupid or idiotic, that's a personal attack on their intelligence, and actionable under the CoC. That's where this applies.

Let me know if I'm being unclear. 
#17
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@whiteflame
That seems completely reasonable and makes sense. It was your quote (as distinguished from attacking a given claim or argument) that threw me off, as I misinterpreted this as being wrong to criticize an argument AKA attack an argument.
Topic's author
#18
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,812
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Critical-Tim
Yes, I would say that it’s always reasonable to allow people the flexibility to attack an opponents’ arguments in the way they deem fit. Wouldn’t be much of a debate site if we removed that.
#19
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Critical-Tim
As I wrote some years ago on the subject:
  • Don’t do mindless insults. Just calling someone a retard makes you look uninspired. It’s much better to properly evaluate their logic, point out every flaw in it, and leave them being a mentally deficient the unspoken but only rational conclusion from the evidence.

Our intention is not to forbade hurt feelings. Most people have great difficulty differentiating between being proven wrong and being physically assaulted (seriously), so feeling will be hurt. This will never be a safe space where ideas cannot be challenged. It is that this is a place for ideas to be challenged, so it ought to be the ideas targeted first and foremost, instead of the speaker.

And a reminder I had to post in another thread: "Bans do not precede the other intervention steps."

8 days later

#20
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Nothing has really changed, as per the research RM has done since.

Cheers all. Enjoy the same enforcement.
#21
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@whiteflame
@zedvictor4
I've never objected to the moderators' capacity to function within the parameters of their conceived rules, even if I may have objected to certain rules. But at the end of the day, the moderators as Mike's (DebartArt.com's) proxy can implement and enforce whatever Mike allows. While I agree with zedvictor that complaints of "offense" are usually manufactured by an oversensitive recipient (hell, I've been called a Nigger, Paedophile, Autistic, 'Frenchie,' Clown, Ignoramus, etc. on this site alone, much less did I ever once complain about it) I do however maintain that Mike is this site's "dictator," and justifiably so. So if he allows his proxies, his viceroys, his governors, his moderators to act upon his authority, then that's all the justification needed for the implementation of policy which regulates his site. There's NO SUCH THING as "free speech" on private property. The only authority members outside of the moderation team have is the power to participate and the power to leave--that's all. So while I do think some slippery slopes may be broached with letting the moderators determine that which constitutes an "insult" and that which doesn't, I am all for their regulating this site however they see fit.
#22
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
I agree.
#23
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Athias
So while I do think some slippery slopes may be broached with letting the moderators determine that which constitutes an "insult" and that which doesn't, I am all for their regulating this site however they see fit.
That’s hilarious given the fact that at any given time a mod may declare a completely innocuous made up term like “fanchick” a so-called ‘insult,’ then the next moment a moderator  is actually outright insulting a user of the site carte blanche. 

Rules for thee, but not for me. 

Do as I say, not as I do. 

Wishy washy mentality. 

In other words…hypocrisy, this is the way. 

#24
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@TWS1405_2
That’s hilarious given the fact that at any given time a mod may declare a completely innocuous made up term like “fanchick” a so-called ‘insult,’ then the next moment a moderator  is actually outright insulting a user of the site carte blanche. 
Yes, that is one of the slippery slopes. And while I do not claim to have seen every interaction, I am under the impression that the moderators of this forum (i.e. Whiteflame, Barney, and Oromagi) are generally respectful and do not instigate or initiate insults. Though that does not mean that they should not set a good example even in the face of this forum's most talented provocateurs.

Rules for thee, but not for me. 
Naturally. Of course, they operate by a different--however nuanced--set of rules. As I've already stated, the moderators are Mike's proxies.

Do as I say, not as I do. 

Wishy washy mentality. 
I do not believe that the moderators are the least bit, "wishy-washy."

In other words…hypocrisy, this is the way. 
There's NO SUCH THING as "free speech" on private property. In other words, it is their prerogative to be hypocrites. Contrary to what you may think, YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT to state what you want to state on their platform--more to the point, conscript their cosigning your statements on their platform. You can call them an "asshole," and they can reciprocate the insult and ban you for it--and that would be well within their authority. Because as I've already informed you, Mike is the site's dictator, and the moderators act upon his authority.

I as well as some other members--I presume--have never been reprimanded by the moderators. Why is that? Is it because I'm incapable of expressing myself sincerely? Or that I hold my tongue when it comes to criticizing certain actions of the moderation staff? (I supported 3RU7AL's call for delineating clear and quantifiable rules during his presidential bid.) Your only authority is to attempt to persuade them, deal with it, or leave. And since you're still participating, I can only assume that your grievance of their alleged hypocrisy does not mean as much to you as posting your statements on the platform they manage.

#25
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Athias
You have clearly missed this post by Oromagi, which has resulted in other users calling him out for his blatant (albeit flagrant) hypocrisy subsequent to this enforcement thread. A thread that was initiated by HIM calling out Sir Lancelot  for repetitively using GreyParot’s “Fanchick” reference to IWRA. 
#26
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@TWS1405_2
You have clearly missed this post by Oromagi, which has resulted in other users calling him out for his blatant (albeit flagrant) hypocrisy subsequent to this enforcement thread. A thread that was initiated by HIM calling out Sir Lancelot  for repetitively using GreyParot’s “Fanchick” reference to IWRA. 
Yes, that was a poor example set by Oromagi in the face of a talented provocateur. And I'm well aware of the "fanchick"-"dummy" feud instigated by iwantrooseveltagain, Sir.Lancelot, and Greyparrot. Even with all of that, I still maintain that Oromagi is generally respectful. I am not disputing any one moderator's capacity for hypocrisy, only that it is well within their authority to be hypocrites. You have a problem with it? Report it. Converse constructively like Sir.Lancelot did. Deal with it. Complain. Or leave. It's not that complicated.
#27
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Athias
Nothing is complicated here if you don't have a love for debating and give a shit if this community lasts. You can just be a sore loser and run away.

Some of us like to fight for change and if you say this is insulting and violates the rules, you are making it seem like others are incapable of comprehending that they can leave the site, they know they can but want to change it.
#28
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Athias
-->
@<<<TWS1405_2>>>
You have clearly missed this post by Oromagi, which has resulted in other users calling him out for his blatant (albeit flagrant) hypocrisy subsequent to this enforcement thread. A thread that was initiated by HIM calling out Sir Lancelot  for repetitively using GreyParot’s “Fanchick” reference to IWRA. 
Yes, that was a poor example set by Oromagi in the face of a talented provocateur. And I'm well aware of the "fanchick"-"dummy" feud instigated by iwantrooseveltagain, Sir.Lancelot, and Greyparrot. Even with all of that, I still maintain that Oromagi is generally respectful. I am not disputing any one moderator's capacity for hypocrisy, only that it is well within their authority to be hypocrites. You have a problem with it? Report it. Converse constructively like Sir.Lancelot did. Deal with it. Complain. Or leave. It's not that complicated.
"...it is well within their authority to be hypocrites." - Hmmm... nice contradiction to your previous assertion that they should be setting the example in the wake of so-called provocateurs!?! 

Reporting it is futile, as the other mods will just roll their eyes at said report. They will never self-enforce or enforce their own. 

It matters not how constructively I argue anything, as noted in the thread I started that Oromagi trolled for the sole purpose of directly insulting me with unsubstantiated and unwarranted ad hominem attacks. 

I will never leave. Despite your and Sidewalker's (among other easily triggered whiners) wishful thinking that I do so. 

MTFU is what is truly not complicated. 
#29
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@TWS1405_2
"...it is well within their authority to be hypocrites." - Hmmm... nice contradiction to your previous assertion that they should be setting the example in the wake of so-called provocateurs!?! 
It's not a contradiction. Would I prefer they--the moderators that is--hold themselves generally to the same standards as they would hold other participating members? Yes, i.e. setting a good example. Does that have anything to do with their authority? Absolutely not. So read my statements again: Mike is this site's dictator. The moderators act on Mike's authority by proxy. Our participation on this site is solely contingent on Mike's discretion and the proxy he's extended to his appointed moderators.

Reporting it is futile
You mean, reporting will not produce your desired result.

It matters not how constructively I argue anything, as noted in the thread I started that Oromagi trolled for the sole purpose of directly insulting me with unsubstantiated and unwarranted ad hominem attacks. 
You also called him an "intellectual fucking coward." And while I do believe oromagi did levy an ad hominem attack your way, the subject of the ad hominem, while irrelevant, is not "unsubstantiated." You can own it or deny it.

I will never leave.
That is your privilege until Mike and his moderators say otherwise.

Despite your and Sidewalker's (among other easily triggered whiners)
You give yourself too much credit. You have never "triggered" me--much less have I ever been "triggered" by anyone else on this site. You and I have had discussions on the subject of so-called "race,"and when you'd get disrespectful, I disengaged you respectfully. Don't project emotional tendencies on to me.

wishful thinking that I do so. 
I honestly couldn't concern myself less with what you do. I'm merely providing the options available to you.

MTFU is what is truly not complicated. 
And part of manning up is understanding the effect of how you comport yourself. You want to complain and act like a martyr? That is your prerogative; but just know that you're actively enabling the hypocrisy you allege through your participation.







#30
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Athias
-->
@<<<TWS1405_2>>>
"...it is well within their authority to be hypocrites." - Hmmm... nice contradiction to your previous assertion that they should be setting the example in the wake of so-called provocateurs!?! 
It's not a contradiction. Would I prefer they--the moderators that is--hold themselves generally to the same standards as they would hold other participating members? Yes, i.e. setting a good example. Does that have anything to do with their authority? Absolutely not.
*FP*

So read my statements again: Mike is this site's dictator. The moderators act on Mike's authority by proxy. Our participation on this site is solely contingent on Mike's discretion and the proxy he's extended to his appointed moderators.
Excuses, excuses of the hypocrisy.  *yawn*

Reporting it is futile
You mean, reporting will not produce your desired result.
Strawman fallacy.

It matters not how constructively I argue anything, as noted in the thread I started that Oromagi trolled for the sole purpose of directly insulting me with unsubstantiated and unwarranted ad hominem attacks. 
You also called him an "intellectual fucking coward." And while I do believe oromagi did levy an ad hominem attack your way, the subject of the ad hominem, while irrelevant, is not "unsubstantiated." You can own it or deny it.
Do you even know what the definition of an "intellectual coward" is? Clearly not.

I will never leave.
That is your privilege until Mike and his moderators say otherwise.
Excuses, more excuses for the hypocrisy.

Despite your and Sidewalker's (among other easily triggered whiners)
You give yourself too much credit. You have never "triggered" me--much less have I ever been "triggered" by anyone else on this site. You and I have had discussions on the subject of so-called "race,"and when you'd get disrespectful, I disengaged you respectfully. Don't project emotional tendencies on to me.
Nothing could be further from the truth. I give myself no credit in this regard. I'm sure even Sir.Lancelot could find several incidents of you being triggered. And I react to disrespect, I make every effort not to be overt with it. 

wishful thinking that I do so. 
I honestly couldn't concern myself less with what you do. I'm merely providing the options available to you.
As if you have any authority to give unsolicited options whereas this site is concerned. 

MTFU is what is truly not complicated. 
And part of manning up is understanding the effect of how you comport yourself. You want to complain and act like a martyr? That is your prerogative; but just know that you're actively enabling the hypocrisy you allege through your participation.
Projecting those excuses for others onto me, unremarkable. *FP*