Total posts: 2,589
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
As I said, it's not an argument for a ban list, insofar as users will be informed of their ban under either system. As you said:
Banned lists are made for those who were banned so that they can read for themselves why they can no longer logon to the site
You wrote here that these lists were for the banned users, not the mods. But the banned users receive the same information in either system, and thus it's a non-unique argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Right, I understand that. My response was clarifying why I don't find that argument persuasive. What I am doing in this thread is soliciting arguments, which I will then consider.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
A section to that effect was added.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
I think Banned lists are made for those who were banned so that they can read for themselves why they can no longer logon to the site. It's simply a time management tool for mods.
Banned users will be informed via PM prior to their banned. No user will be banned--with or without a list--without them having been given notice. So, that is not a reason in favor of a ban list, as I see it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Please feel free to comment more extensively here:
Created:
Posted in:
There have been some users who have called for a public ban list to be created to make the usership aware of why banned users were banned and, indeed, whether a user was banned at all.
I am quite wary of such a list, and feel like it runs counter to the privacy interests of the banned members. I am concerned also that such a list would make it harder for banned members to reintegrate into the site, and that such a list would not be truly different from call out threads, which are otherwise prohibited as personal attacks.
I am curious, however, to hear other voices and perspectives on the question. No user has yet been banned by me or my team, but it is almost inevitable that, at some point, that action will have to be taken. I am interested in hearing the arguments on both sides of the issue, so that I can carefully consider whether to implement such a policy for moderation.
Please feel free to comment, particularly on (a) whether such a list should exist in the first place and (b) how much detail should be included in the list should it be implemented.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
What would you suggest be included in such a paragraph?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I don't have kids, which I consider fortunate since I am only in my early twenties and lack a means of supporting any. I would, however, like a reasonably big family eventually, depending of course on my financial situation.
I haven't had a chance to "test drive" the names; I thought about giving a name from the list to my dog, but decided against it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Nah. Shell will always make me think of sea shells. I don't want to picture a conch every time I say my daughter's name.
Created:
Posted in:
So, I recently posted a thread, akin to the one on DDO, which aims to give new members, including those new to debate, some resources to help them navigate the site and debating more generally.
I am posting this thread to get feedback on the resources which I've included. Should things be added or omitted, for instance? Is there some way to improve the thread I created? Feel free to comment.
Here is a link to the thread in question: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346
Created:
Posted in:
If you have kids, are thinking about kids, or even if you're not really at the point of thinking about having kids, what would you consider naming your children? What are your ideal baby names?
I'll share mine. I have some traditional Gaelic names to reflect my Irish heritage, quite a few German names to reflect my German heritage, and some Russian names because, to me, they sound attractive. There are also a few names of various extractions included.
Feel free to comment on other people's proposed baby names.
===============
Boys
Aodhan (pronounced: eyed + ahn)
August
Blue
Carolus
Christoph
Cian (pronounced: key + in)
Cobalt
Cyprien
Dakota
David
Dietrich
Eirnin (pronounced: air + nin)
Feidhelm (pronounced: fail + im)
Felix
Finbar
Friedrich
Gavin
Godfrey
Grey
Hans
Joachim
Johannes
Kaspar
Kenneth
Kiril
Liam
Marcellus
Marcus
Meriadoc
Nevin
Niall (pronounced: nile)
Nikita
Paullus
River
Rhys
Sascha
Sebastian
Silver
Theodoric
Theon
Tierney (pronounced: teer + nee)
Wilhelm
Xander
Xavier
Girls
Aibhlinn (pronounced: ave + leen)
Anastasia
Autumn
Callista
Cartimandua
Clover
Daimhin (pronounced: daw + veen)
Edeline
Emmaline
Guinevere
Heike
Hestia
Julia
Katja
Katrin
Katrina
Lara
Leia
Matilda
Minerva
Nadja
Natascha
Orfhlaith (pronounced: or + la)
Padme
Raina
Renate
Saoirse (pronounced: seer + sha)
Siobhan (pronounced: shiv + ahn)
Tatjana
Tilda
Winter
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
Some, yes. And there were threads devoted to percieved wrong treatment by moderators as well. Usually focused around how one person was banned for doing X(such as flame wars), while others were not. Or things of similar issue of percieved unjust treatment(like issues with RO's.)
The moderator threads were always the case. There was no noticeable uptick in such threads, and certainly, as I said before without comment from you, no one was banned under the COC who would not have been banned under the previous modding system. So, your claim here is a non-argument. There is, however, clear evidence that the glitches were the *overwhelming* cause of DDO's collapse.
I would challenge you to identify action that I've taken or which Max took which would is "100% biased AF."
Moderation did not substantially tighten after the implementation of the COCI never said it did?
If moderation did not substantially tighten after the COC, then it's absurd to say that the COC caused a decline in usership, insofar as the COC was not fundamentally different than the system that existed for years before the COC was in place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
And the evidence for that is...? So far, all you've done is a draw correlation. I could similarly say that DDO's collapse coincided with my spending less time on the site, but I think it would be absurd to suggest that my spending less time on the site was the reason DDO collapsed. People admitted to leaving the site as a result of technical glitches--there were whole threads devoted to people talking about that. That's more that correlation; it's testimonial evidence of causation.The only cause? No. A major one? No. But it's not absurd to say it didn't help.
Moderation did not substantially tighten after the implementation of the COC. Rather, the COC provided a clearer framework under which Max could do what he was already doing. The whole notion that it contributed to the site's claim is thus undeniably absurd. Period.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
And that CoC was active previous to and throughout the fall of DDO. Do you often repeat things from failed endeavours?
I think it is a patently absurd claim to suggest that the COC was the cause of DDO's decline, which is basically what you're doing here. The reason DDO collapsed was a string of long-running technical glitches that caused users to be fed up with the site. I can think of not one user who left as a result of the COC, and, in fact, I cannot think of one user who was banned under the COC that would not have been banned under previous moderation standards. Your argument is ridiculous, and thus, by extension, your claim that we ought not to use the COC is ridiculous so long as you premise it on such an absurd claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
That whole personal attack section is tortured AF and a hot mess.
This is, essentially, the same COC that Max created for DDO, with only limited alterations.
Dropping a "you're stupid" and leaving it at that? Far from what should be deemed punishable wrongdoing.
What's important to remember, of course, is the discretionary element of moderation enforcement. I doubt I would act on a single instance like that. I cannot and do not pretend to suggest that the COC is non-subjective; that said, most rules require interpretation, so subjectivity is an inherent byproduct of rulemaking. The COC functions well on DDO, and I see no reason why it cannot function well here.
Created:
Posted in:
FF. Please vote.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
That, in no way, reflects anything I have said to you.So as we've agreed there is no possible reason for my banning
I am not going to comment publicly on specific cases or potential moderation action against other users.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Lovely! It is just that I wasn't granted any of these niceties
Your ban occurred before my modship and before the implementation of the COC, so those policies weren't in place at that time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Do you have any plan to inform a member of banning and the duration of that ban?
Absolutely. The COC that was implemented at the time of me becoming a mod reads, in part:
> "The temp-banned user will be notified of their ban no less than one hour prior to their ban taking effect unless moderation has cause to believe that a delay in implementing the ban would result in harm to the site, a site user, or further violations of this code of conduct. The user will be presented with evidence of their offense (in a manner consistent with the rights of other members) and the date of their ban’s expiration. The user has the right to offer a defense against the charges."
and
> "The perma-banned user will be notified of their ban no less than three hours prior to their ban taking effect unless moderation has cause to believe that a delay in implementing the ban would result in harm to the site, a site user, or further violations of this code of conduct. The user will be presented with evidence of their offense (in a manner consistent with the rights of other members). The user has the right to offer a defense against the charges."
The emphasis in these passages is my own. Moderation will give the users the opportunity to offer a defense to the presented evidence before the decision to implement a ban is ultimately decided upon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I am still considering this; we'll see how things shake out. At this point, I am disinclined to post such a list, but I have not explicitly ruled out creating one in the future.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
I am not going to comment on specific cases or potential moderation action against other users.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
It was not a mod he accused, it was the site owner.
In this respect, I am going to treat the site owner like the moderators.
Accusations like that, being illegal IRL
Libel is not a crime, it is tort. Besides, in a US court, that would not pass the basic standard for libel. It's such a ridiculous assertion that no one would believe it true, and therefore is not actually injurious to the recipient. Moreover, it's not clear that any actual malice was at play. But whether it's libel or not (and it's probably not), that is not my job to adjudicate. My job is to enforce the COC, not the US legal code. If someone has a legal issue, they should seek a legal arbiter who can then approach me or the admin and then, on that basis, we can take appropriate action in order to comport with the law.
I think most members will be less inclined to take mods seriously if some loser can insult them any way he likes with no consequence
That wasn't the case with Airmax (who had a similar policy) and I doubt it will be the case here. Usually the mod powers are enough grounds to take mods seriously.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
It is libel.
To be clear, personal attacks against moderators and admins will not be enforced, except in cases of (a) plausible and serious threats and (b) cases of sustained hate speech in the form of slurs. Moderators will also taken action against those who attempt or succeed in (a) doxxing them or the admin and (b) violating the privacy of their or the admin's PMs. In other words, moderators are pretty fair game for insults; that is because, by volunteering for this kind of "public" office, we have chosen to open ourselves to heightened scrutiny and criticism.
This applies to assistant moderators only to the extent that personal attacks arising from the execution of their moderation duties will not be penalized or acted upon. Personal attacks outside of this context made against assistant moderators will still be actionable for moderation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I think it is reasonable to adopt a laissez-faire position as this site's moderator because this site is fundamentally different from the outside world. We can't really and honestly treat DART as a microcosm of the "real" world. Nothing that happens on this site, for example, is going to determine how wide-spread poverty gets addressed in the United States; whereas, how the US government enacts policies very well could have such an impact. So, while laissez-faire views may be disgusting in IRL politics, I don't think we can infer that the same is true of laissez-faire moderation policies on this site. Remember that I am anything but laissez-faire in my IRL political perspectives. Nevertheless, I have come to the conclusion that a laissez-faire approach is the right one to take going forward here on DART.
This is a site premised on debate. Debate can be conceptualized in several different ways, as a game, as a truth-seeking activity, as an identity-affirming activity, as deliberation, and as education (among other ways). All of these goals are furthered by an expansive (but not unlimited) view of what constitutes permitted speech. As a game, it is productive to engage in those topics (even controversial ones) which arouse us most. As a truth-seeking activity, it is best to unleash the market of ideas so that ideologies and positions can be compared to one another for legitimacy. As an identity-affirming activity, it is necessary to allow people to express their genuine beliefs, however non-traditional they might be. As deliberation, we must be willing to meet people where they're at. And as education, we must also be willing to delve into unfamiliar concepts in order to expand our intellectual horizons.
All of this is to say, of course, that expansive free speech, protected via laissez-faire moderating, is a necessary prerequisite to a site premised on open debate and discourse. It is not, however, to say that moderation will not enforce the COC wherever violations occur. There must be some regulatory framework in place to avoid debate devolving into ad hom wars or to avoid more serious consequences like doxxing. There is a method to the madness. And moderation, while not perfect, will always endeavor to do our best.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I am not currently aware of why the thread was locked. But there is no reason it ought to be, per the COC.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
People are free to share their IRL identities with other users. They must understand that, in so doing, they put themselves at risk of being doxxed. But, choosing to reveal themselves to another user is an acceptance of that risk. Though, anyone who revealed an identity shared to them in confidence would be severely and appropriately punished.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
People may voluntarily doxx themselves. It's involuntary doxxing that is prohibited.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
It was undone before you even posted. Before drafter even posted. Once I realized it had occurred, I rectified the situation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@spacetime
It was undone once I realized it had occurred. It was undone before you posted, in fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Without commenting on specific inductees, I can say that no institution, particularly no elective body, is going to be populated only by the deserving. As long as the institution remains more or less one that honors desert over other traits, it is worth retaining in my view.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
I don't really agree with that. The HOF was always fairly diverse.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't even understand what you mean by rule 3.
Honestly, these rules seem unnecessary.
Created:
Posted in:
Let's keep this thread positive and upbeat, folks!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Logical-Master
a vote is only bad if there is indication that the person didn't read the debate, is trolling, is voting for some reason other than the debate itself or any other questionable practice
Sure, those things make a bad vote, but it's the last thing in your list that's the kicker. A bad vote, for example, might be a vote which fails to engage in weighing analysis (the absence of which many would consider a questionable practice). Suppose, for a moment, that I read an entire debate about whether vaccines should be compulsory, and I decided to cast a non-troll vote. Suppose I voted based on one argument made in the first round, which was never discussed again in the debate and which had little to do with the topic at hand. In such a case, a voter is cherry-picking rather than weighing, and that's problematic for a host of reasons, not the least of which is that such a voting style fails to appreciate the debate as a whole.
The standards we are employing on DART are almost identical to those used on DDO. They seek to ensure a minimum threshold of acceptability among votes by imposing certain criteria which a voter must meet in order for their vote to stand. When a voter's vote is removed, they always have the opportunity to make edits to their vote and to re-vote with those edits, in order to bring their vote into compliance with site policy. That is why moderation notices include reasoning for a vote's removal--not just for moderation transparency, but to educate voters about the voting criteria.
Certainly, not everyone will agree on which votes ought to be removed or which votes ought to stand as-is (this goes to the so-termed "legitimacy" of a vote). Nonetheless, moderation always strives to impartially and accurately apply the voting standards in all cases. Some disagreement is inevitable, and I can accept that. But, to that extent, no voting policy should be preferred on the basis of the current one being disliked by some, as any voting policy will be subject to dislike by some.
What I can say about your specific concern--that legitimate votes might be being removed--is that the standards are there to prevent exactly the kind of questionable voting practices you cite. For example, how can the mod tell if a voter has read a debate if the voter isn't required to demonstrate a certain grasp of the issues in their RFD?
So, while I totally understand where your coming from, I think that current standards are fairly reasonable ones designed to achieve a minimum level of acceptability among votes, and so I stand by those standards and current moderation practices. If you have more individualized concerns, or concerns about specific instances of moderation action, please always feel free to reach out to me in private.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Technically, creating a new account to get around a ban on another is a circumvention of the ban. That said, I am looking into the circumstances around your ban and will be contacting you, in private, to discuss once I have further information.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Logical-Master
Please remind me to reply to this post later if I happen to forget. I think it's an important issue to discuss, even if we don't ultimately end in agreement on it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
If you were banned, you should not have circumvented the ban by returning in a different account.
Nonetheless, I did not ban you. Your ban predates my modship. I will need to talk to the site owner to determine the answer to that question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I've heard 9 hours is what you need. But, 5 hours is a bare minimum.
Created: