Total posts: 2,589
Posted in:
100th post.
I am unpinning this because the information about mod's identities is now in the "About Dart" thread. Plus, this has been up for a couple days, so the information should have already been disseminated, hopefully.
Created:
Posted in:
Due to the complications, it's also taking time to have votes removed. If you see a mod notice about vote removal, but the vote hasn't been removed yet, it will be soon. If the vote hasn't been taken down within 48 hours of the notice, feel free to shoot me a PM about it.
Created:
Posted in:
Are we currently able to put more than 1 recipient in a PM?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
All the bans predate the current moderation team.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Ideally, no, there will not be mods for individual fora. That said, if any particular forum becomes chronically rowdy, shall we say, it may be necessary to name a mod for that forum. I would hope that would only happen in extraordinary circumstances. The more mods there are, the more enforcement standards vary, and I don't think that promotes a cohesive site. It might also lead to confusing about what precisely the standards are. So, all in all, I'd like to keep the mods to a minimum. The only additional position Virt and I are considering at this moment is an Assistant Moderator for Forums (as in, all of the fora).
Created:
Posted in:
Seems like the balance of opinion is towards starting afresh after, perhaps, a waiting period of several months to a year. I'd like to get some more comments on this though, but that sounds perfectly fine to me.
Created:
Posted in:
I have posted an introduction for new users with some (hopefully) helpful resources for them. You can find that thread here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346
Created:
Posted in:
Currently, the voting interface is not fully up-and-running for mods (but Mike is working on it--his efforts have been laudable). In the meantime, please reports to myself, Virtuoso, or Tejretics via PM. Thank you.
Also, I have posted an introduction for new users with some (hopefully) helpful resources for them. You can find that thread here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346
Created:
Posted in:
IV. Site Jargon
- DART - DebateArt.com
- Full Forfeit - a debate in which one or both debaters forfeited all rounds, or all rounds after the first.
- FF - depending on the context, either a forfeit or a full forfeit
- IRL - in real life, that is, in the world outside of this site or the internet more generally
- Kfc - often used as filler if a post is too short or all numeric, or as a phrase which calls attention to the absurdity of the post above
- Nac - not all caps, often used as filler if a post is too short or all numeric
- Noob-sniping - the act of an experienced or established user deliberately taking on debates with new (often inexperienced users) to inflate their own win/loss record
- OP - depending on the context, either the original post or the original poster of a thread
- PM - a private/direct message
- Votebomb - a vote which is cast without sufficient explanation, without regard for the content of the debate, or which is literally nonsensical; generically: any bad, biased, or unfair vote
V. Debating Jargon
- Advocacy - the primary position or central argument of a debater
- Burden of Proof (BOP) - the obligation to prove an assertion or claim
- Card - a piece of evidence taken from an outside source, usually a quote
- Case - the speech which outlines the position each debater will defend in the debate
- Claim - the assertion that a debater makes in an argument
- Con - the debater arguing against the resolution (sometimes referred to as the Negative or Neg)
- Constructive - a speech in which a debater presents, rather than attacks or defends, a case
- Contention - an individual argument which may be further subdivided into related arguments or subpoints
- Counterplan - a plan offered by the Con debater as an alternative to the Pro debater's advocacy
- Disadvantage (Disad) - an argument which identifies a disadvantage to an opponent's case or argument
- Double-bind - a dichotomous situation in which, either way, a debater must accept that negative consequences will occur in their world
- Drop - an unrebutted argument, that is, an argument which is not responded to
- Extension - the act of advancing a drop through to the next speech
- Fiat - a debater's right to assume that their advocacy will actually happen
- Framework - the standard plus any observations, definitions, or overviews which attempt to define and clarify the scope of the debate
- Ground - the argumentative space which is allotted to a specific debater
- Impact - the upshot of an argument (how it is relevant and how it moves the needle)
- Impact Turn - turning the impact of an argument by suggesting the converse (e.g. if Pro says that impact A is good, Con impact turns by saying that that impact A is actually bad)
- Inherency - a barrier that exists in the status quo which prevents a plan from being actualized or implemented
- Kritik - an argument which challenges an assumption being made within the resolution
- Link - links connect particular impacts to the advocacy or to particular arguments
- Non-unique - an argument which lacks uniqueness
- Permutation (Perm) - subsuming an opponent's advocacy into one's own, whether in whole or in part
- Plan - a specific course of action being taken by Pro in order to implement the resolution (e.g. a plan to institute universal healthcare might be a single-payer health scheme)
- Pro - the debater arguing in favor of the resolution (sometimes referred to as the Affirmative or Aff)
- Reason for Decision (RFD) - the justification a voter gives for the points they assign
- Rebuttal - a speech in which a debater attacks or defends, rather than presents, a case
- Solvency - the ability of an argument to fix problems identified in the resolution or by the debater
- Specification (Spec) - an argument that a debater must specific the actions they intend to take or the conditions in which they intend to take certain actions
- Standard/Criterion - the mechanism by which arguments are assessed for their strength/weight and relevance (usually part of the framework) (sometimes called the "weighing mechanism").
- Subpoint - an sub-argument within a broader contention
- Theory - an argument which appeals to what the rules of the debate should be (often preceding the debate itself and often appealing to pre-debate values of fairness, education, etc.). Theory arguments ("shells") entail several discrete parts: an interpretation (interp) of what debates should look like, an identified violation of the interpretation by the opponent, and a standard to measure violations.
- Topicality - the relevance of an argument to the resolution (i.e. the topic of the debate)
- Turn - an argument which shows how an opponent's argument or position actually supports your side of the debate
- Uniqueness - a state in which something can only happen in your world
- Warrant - a support for an argument; a warrant may be a card or may be logic
- Weigh - to compare the relative strength of arguments, particularly against a standard
- World - the hypothetical world/universe in which a debater's advocacy is implemented in full
Created:
Posted in:
Welcome to DebateArt.com!
This thread has organized various useful resources geared particularly for members who are new to the community. To get the most out of your DebateArt.com (DART) experience, please familiarize yourself with this information.
I. Index
- Site Administration . . . . . . Post 1
- Frequently Asked Questions . . . . Post 1
- Site Jargon . . . . . . . . Post 2
- Debate Jargon . . . . . . . Post 2
- Debating . . . . . . . . . Post 3
- Mafia . . . . . . . . . . Post 3
- Voter Resources . . . . . . . Post 4
- Moderation and Site Information . . . Post 4
- Conclusion . . . . . . . . Post 5
II. Site Administration
You might be wondering who to contact if you have questions or concerns. Below I've written the names of the site's administrative team, as well as the names of the moderators for the site's official Discord. They are good points of contact for you in every respect, and if there is something you need, do not hesitate to reach out to them.
DebateArt.com, site owner and administrator
Ragnar, assistant moderator
David, assistant moderator
Speedrace, forum moderator
Deadfire27, discord moderator
III. Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Are there rules for site conduct?
A: Yes. Treating all users with respect is important for a site premised on rational disagreement. For a complete list of voting policies, see the site Rules and Code of Conduct.
Q: How do I report misconduct?
A: If you want to report a post, debate comment, or debate click the flag icon which corresponds to the item you wish to report. If you want to report something else, if the matter is urgent, or if you're uncertain, message a moderator privately and directly with your concerns. Moderation will address the situation as soon as they can.
Q: Are there rules for voting on the site?
A: Yes. Fair voting is important for a site premised on debate. For a complete list of voting policies, see the site Rules and Code of Conduct.
Q: How do I report a bad vote?
A: Click the flag icon in the upper right hand corner of the vote. Moderation will review the report as soon as they can.
Q: What happens when I report something?
A: Moderation examines the report, assess what, if any action should be taken, and takes that action. You are not necessarily told what the outcome of the report was, nor do you have any right to such information.
Q: Can I appeal a moderator's decision?
A: That depends. You can ask a moderator to reconsider their decision, and you can appeal the decisions of the Deputy and Assistant Moderators to the Chief Moderator, but the Chief Moderator's rulings are not subject to appeal.
Q: Can I have multiple accounts?
A: No. You may not have multiple accounts, nor may you have access to more than one account.
Q: How does one become a site moderator?
A: One may become a moderator if appointed to the position by the site owner or the chief moderator.
Q: How do I have my post deleted?
A: You may have your post deleted by contacting a moderator directly to request that your post be deleted.
Q: Can I change my username?
A: No, unless your username itself violates site policy, in which case you will have to change your username to be in accordance with site policy.
Q: What is a MEEP?
A: A MEEP (Moderation Engagement and Enactment Processes) is a process by which the users can vote on proposals submitted to them by moderation. It is a kind of referendum, where users can help guide site policy through democratic consensus and deliberation.
Q: Does DART moderation have power over DART's discord?
A: There is a moderation team on DART's official Discord which is primarily responsible for ensuring that the rules of that site are enforced. While DART's moderation team does not operate on Discord, we do have the authority to punish users here for misconduct they engaged in on DART's official Discord. A user who engages in misconduct on the Discord can therefore be punished by the moderators there and by the moderators here for the same action, depending on its severity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I dropped someone in a round and gave them 3 speaker points (3, not 30) for swearing at their opponent. Depends on your circuit and your judge how swearing will be taken. You get a policy judge or your on the National Circuit, no one's gonna bat an eye. You get in some local leagues, and that's the kind of thing that's an auto-loss. I judge swearing in LD and Policy differently because they're different cultures, but swearing in LD is an auto-loss from me. On this site, however, I take the Policy approach, because swearing's accepted as the norm.
Created:
Posted in:
Were not going to comment on hypotheticals. Every situation is unique, and every situation will be approached as such, with caution and respect for the interests of the user(s) and the site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I am willing, perhaps, to adopt a position of confirming whether a user was banned (as opposed to merely having left the site), but not exposing the reasons for that ban. But it's something that would be have to be asked of us, not broadcast for public spectacle.
Created:
Posted in:
Do we want to transfer the DDO HOF to this site, whether in whole or in part? If not, do we want to start a separate HOF, or just scrap the idea altogether? Other thoughts? Comments?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Do you have to be either or?
The point that I am making is that there are always going to be groups who think I am too strict or too hands-off. It's impossible to please everyone.
You seem to think your job is to please people.
Oh, when I took this job I new I was going to piss people off. It's part of being a mod--the decisions you make are invariably going to annoy people at some point. I'm not setting out to pander, because that's a losing game; I'd never be able to please everyone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
If the assistant moderator must obtain approval for each and every action, then what are they good for? I don't see how this lightens the workload for the moderators themselves.I thought this as soon as I read it.
The utility is much like Blade-of-Truth to Max, for example. The recommendations of assistant mods make it easier for the primary mods to just make a cursory review the incident (inasmuch as the primary mods trust the judgement of the assistant mods).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
It absolutely should be exclusively a policy document.
I don't see the argument for not including justifications for the rules within the policies document. The policies function sufficiently on DDO, and I see no need for a major overhaul of the wording. I do, however, understand that there is a need to justify rules to readers of the policies.
Well, to be fair, that's Mike's decision, not yours.
Of course it's Mike's decision what the COC says. But I am not going to be a moderator for a COC which is overly prescriptive. Overly defined standards create far too much room for users to game the system by utilizing technicalities to avoid punishment. Moderators need the ability to implement their best judgement as a reflection of community standards, period. Moderation is not and should not be a math equation. It should be a human exercise that is able to take into account extenuating circumstances and shifting site norms, rooted in the COC.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I don't view this as exclusively a policy document. In its original iteration on DDO, it was also an argument for the conduct being required, primarily because there were concerns regarding whether the rules were appropriate. I think containing some editorial remarks is useful in explaining to readers of the policy why that policy is in place. I'm also not going to be so rigid as to lay out precise benchmarks that automatically trigger a ban, for example. Moderation is a more human process than that, and I don't think mechanically applying standards of that sort really serves anyone (but the moderator) well.
That being said, there are some of your recommendations I like, particularly some issues of wording, and I'll work them up and submit them to the site owner this afternoon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@spacetime
The thing about cyberbullying--as I see it--is that it constitutes more than a handful of infractions. Rather, it constitutes a sustained attack on a particular person. When sustained attacks occur, they will be treated as cyberbullying.
We'll see about that, man... based on your DDO history, I have a hard time believing that you won't overreach
There are those who would like me to be more interventionist and less. I cannot please everyone all the time. You may think I've overreached in a certain situation, while others will think the exact opposite. I will therefore not attempt to pander; but I will try to be hands-off because I actually believe that a community based on free-flowing discussion makes for the best kind of community. Ultimately, however, I don't want to be investing the massive amount of time it would take for me to be a meddlesome mod.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
+1
But then I think that all people should have free medical care (that is, paid for by the government).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
Done.
I plan to add a thread, like there is on DDO, for new members and to pin that, but otherwise I think we'll keep the pins to a minimum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@spacetime
The appropriate solution to perceived "cyberbullying" is for the victim to learn how to deal with it on their own
On that question, I will have to disagree, particularly when the cyberbullying is causing suicidal ideation or self-harm. There have been instances of such occurrences on DDO. Let me make this clear: the onus to change in a case of cyberbullying is on the bully, not on their victim. If the victim chooses retaliation or if the cyberbully was deliberately provoked then that changes the equation. But cyberbullying is not the same as debating and it's not the same as the free flow of ideas. It's a deliberate, long-term, often merciless effort to harm someone to their core. Cyberbullying is not appropriate on this site.
The best way forward is to let people sort out their own issues with one another. The level of interventionism you advocate is completely unnecessary.
I don't think I've advocated much intervention at all. Certainly, only a small, small minority of users are going to use phrases like the one I demonstrated to REF or are going to engage in cyberbullying. Where have I advocated high levels of interventionism in this thread? I certainly see no evidence of that. And, as I said earlier, I agree that people should deal with their disagreements themselves, but, unfortunately, there are situations which demand moderator action. Those situations are a fraction of all interactions on this site, and it is my hope that moderation can largely take a backseat in the user experience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
@David
@Tejretics
Attention
Virt and I are pleased to announce that Tej has agreed to be an assistant voting moderator. The voting admin interface is currently a work-in-progress, so it will be some time before we can really get vote moderation off the ground, but when we do, we are confident that Tej will make an excellent addition to our team. Tej will not, himself, have access to the admin interface, but will, like whiteflame and Blade-of-Truth on DDO, be able to make recommendations to us on incoming reports. Thanks again to Tej for agreeing to assist us and we look forward to getting vote moderation at full capacity soon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@spacetime
I agree that people should deal with their disagreements themselves, but I disagree that safety is not an issue on this site. Certainly, there are minors on websites like these who deserve protection from severe invective and severe cyberbullying (of the kind that I demonstrated to REF, were it aimed at a particular person) and there are those who might be harmed if they were, for example, doxxed. But my point was not to focus on privacy and safety specifically, but rather to illustrate the broader point that a moderator must juggle competing interests and concerns to find, in their judgment, the best way forward.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
In all seriousness, though, the topics that REF listed are not ones that I would auto-remove. As long as the arguments themselves used logic and evidence (as opposed to the kind of slur-laden rant I offered in my example to REF of what would be unacceptable), the debates would stay up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You asked if certain topics would be off-limits. These topics were:Basically, anything from Alex Jones.
That an intergalactic force of shapeshifting reptiles controls the world? Totally cool topic. Would read.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Just to respond to some of your points...
A few malcontents are criticizing 'the moderation on DDO' as if that is the reason for the site's failure. It isn't; seeing as Max was moderator throughout the site's busiest period, and continued to act as moderator when the site failed due to reasons beyond his control (forfeit error, spam swamping, lack of important access). DDO thrived mainly because of two things: Max, and the community.
I agree. Max was a tremendous moderator and I can only aspire to the example he set, though he and I disagreed in some areas and on some decisions. Keeping that in mind, it's important to realize that the COC is largely lifted (in some parts, entirely lifted) from the COC that Max himself authored. That COC can be found here, starting around post 7: http://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/56116/
Bsh is someone who has endorsed European free speech laws that restrict content of speech in the past.
I believe that free speech is important, as is robust and sometimes raucous debate. That said, I also believe that free speech does not occupy a place of preeminence among all the major rights we hold. It is not, for instance, more important than privacy and safety, and so the trick is to balance those competing interests among each other. All I can really say beyond that is "fair enough." If you have concerns, I hope you can give me a chance to assuage them. I am not against free speech in any way, and my views on hate speech, which is usually what critics of my stance focus on, is moot, since hate speech was and is prohibited on this site as well as DDO. My job as a moderator is not to turn this place into some kind of saccharine, schmaltzy safe space; that is not how I see my role, and not how I intend to mod.
You asked if certain topics would be off-limits. These topics were:
- defence of soviet policy that resulted in huge loss of life for its subjects- historical revisionism surrounding the holocaust- defence of the execution of gay people by a devout Muslim- arguing that homosexuality is deeply immoral- discussing relationships between race and iq- arguing that transgenerism is a mental illness
The answer is that none of these topics in and of themselves violate site policy. I think its possible that arguments presented in favor of them might violate site policy (for example, calling all Jewish people "f*cking k*kes who deserve to get sodomized by sword point before being burned alive" would certainly violate site policy as it is currently written.)
I would also just like to stress that this isn't guided by any personal animosity towards bsh, I'm not trying to make him unhappy or anything, and I actually think he would be exemplary as a vote moderator because debate is a much more rigid, rule-based format.
Thanks. I'll happily take that silver lining :)
Up until this point, I was interested in the site because I saw it as a continuation of DDO.
I certainly hope you'll stick around and give us--that is, the moderation team--a chance to prove ourselves to you and the whole site. I realize that I am untested in a moderator position, so I can only ask for patience. If I make a mistake, I will do my best to own up to it. Moderation will entail a dialogue with the community so that we can continue to improve the way we do things. But, I think one thing I've taken away from Max is precisely the need to not be inserting myself too much in the goings-on of the community. I hope to win your confidence, and urge you to stay for awhile to see how this ride goes.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I am not going to interpret Mike's actions pre-COC as binding precedent. The COC is the moderation bible, so to speak, and only precedent that keeps the COC in mind counts in anyway as directive of current policy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
It's potentially problematic. If it becomes a serious issue, I will instigate a conversation about whether it ought to be permitted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
If, by thread spam, you mean all the "lover doctors" and "ali baba witchcraft" accounts, those will be deleted summarily. This website is not for others to advertise snake oil products and services. This falls under mod discretionary authority, but if there are concerns about its absence in the rules, I can always have the COC updated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
If there is ever content you want me to examine, please report it or link it to me directly. If you're concerned about me being too hands off, it's best to ensure that any potential misconduct is brought to my (or Virt's) attention.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I will give bsh1 a chance. Clean slate and all that.
Thank you. It is interesting how your idea of an ideal mod contrasts with Smithers. Modding in a community of diverse opinions is always a delicate balancing act, and I will try to be the best juggler I can.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Moderation is currently just getting started and will need to review reports to begin making determinations. Bans, except in exceptional circumstances, should not come about overnight.
I will not comment on specific previous bans made by the site ownership, partly because I am not up-to-date on all the specifics and justifications for the ban, and partly because those bans preceded any official site conduct policy (which should be up soon).
Call out threads are trouble. I have already reached out to a member about them, and will continue to discourage their use and to take action where appropriate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Moderation on DDO was always laissez-faire, I thought. There were times when the mod response was more or less severe, but I think it averaged out. It's hard to describe a mod style, tbh. Maybe someone else can do a better job at explaining it to you than I can.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Though I am pressed for time at the moment, I would like to note three things. Firstly, I believe the best modding is modding which is laissez-faire and hands off. Secondly, everyone will start from a clean slate--what happened or happens on DDO stays on DDO. Thirdly, the rules and approach to modding that I will follow are based to a large extent on those present on DDO. Those are tried-and-tested rules which can be implemented immediately.
Created:
-->
@thett3
Sadly, I think Thett's right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
It'd be great to have a view counter on debates (like, "this debate has 10 views").
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
I'd love for PMs to be more like they are on DDO. For example, being able to send multiple PMs to the same user and to title those PMs for different subject matters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ShabShoral
Okie dokie. When are you available to debate?
Created:
Posted in:
I'd love to do a live debate (via google hangouts) on either of these topics:
1. Bystandershave a moral obligation to act in the face of injustice2. The people’s right to know ought to be valued above the government’s need for secrecy
I would take either side of either topic. Time division would be standard Lincoln-Douglas format:
6 min - Pro Constructive3 min - Con CXs Pro7 min - Con Constructive and Rebuttal3 min - Pro CXs Con4 min - Pro Rebuttal6 min - Con Rebuttal3 min - Pro Rebuttalw/ 4 min of Prep for each debater to use at their discretion
If you're interested. Let me know. Thurs-Sat after 11:00pm EST tend to work best for me, but there's some flexibility there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Because it limits each mod's oversight and therefore makes it easier to moderate
Or it just incentivizes mods to over-moderate, which is exactly the kind of thing that will drive users away. You have three well-respected users telling you that multiple mods is not a good idea; we understand that from experience.
Moreover, Smithers is right: there are not enough users who could be mods to have many more than two. Better to have two competent mods than a handful of bad ones.
Created: