Total topics: 78
This is intended to be my final post on DART.
I am now no longer a mod. This will be the first time I can say this since, essentially, the inception of moderation on the site. I am not sure how to take it yet, but I just need to keep moving, and doing my best to survive. I think with all the recent controversies (e.g. Hammer, Press), some family issues, and a few other factors, this was the best time to step aside. I am not sure that stepping aside was best for me, but I believe it will be for DART.
I have said my goodbyes to most of you. There are a few of you I have yet to reach out to--you are the ones it is hardest for me to say farewell to. When I return for a day or two at Christmastime, I will say those last few goodbyes then. I can't really bring myself to face that prospect yet.
I just want to say that I loved DDO and DART and the community's the made them so vibrant. I have made so many friends here--I appreciate you all. I have also made some enemies, and to them I say, touché. I will now need to be en garde for the next phase of my life.
But I will--and I mean this with absolute sincerity and sadness--miss being here every day, talking to you every day, posting here every day, working here every day, and debating and playing mafia with you when I could. This place and you all have literally been a constant feature of my life for almost a year and a half, and so it is impossible for me to walk away now without feeling pangs of regret.
Please don't remember me for my failures--which were many and spectacular. Please don't remember me for my successes, which too were spectacular. Instead, remember me not at all. For if I never existed here, really, as I feel now that I have, then it will be easier for me to fade away.
With that, I want to wish all of you well. Live large, live free, live happy. Never stop discussing, never stop debating, and never stop being a community that cares about each other. DART is awesome; keep it that way. Goodbye.
Aloha with love,
Brian (Bsh1)
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Miscellaneous
My uncle passed away tonight after slipping into a coma two days ago. He was an entrepreneur, a lover of history, a proud New Englander, and a good man. May he rest in peace.
While I am agnostic, I would like to believe that there is more to life than this momentary existence we lead. If you are reading this, please do someone a kindness today in memory of someone who passed. Let's make our ephemeral reality a little easier for us all to bear.
Thank you.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Personal
Aloha!
My term as moderator is officially ending at midnight. I just wanted to say a few things before I go about moderation.
First, just because there is a change in moderator does not mean that the COC has changed. All the same rules will still currently be in force once I leave, and those rules should only be changed via MEEP processes. Virt may see fit to change the MEEP process, but that will itself require a MEEP. I leave that up to him. But just remember: the rules have not changed, only the person enforcing them. Second, the Extended Moderation Policies and the previous MEEPs will still be binding unless they themselves are changed via the MEEP process. As status quo on the site, changing them would be a substantial adjustment to moderation policy requiring a MEEP. Finally, I want to wish Virt all the best as he takes over. He will be implementing a new team--I will allow him to say more on that--and I trust him to moderate well and fairly.
That's all really. If you have any issues from this point onward, Virt is the one to go to.
-Bsh1, Chief Moderator
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Aloha, DART!
This is, I believe, the final time I will be addressing you as Chief Moderator, or indeed a member of this site. I am about to submit, via PM, my formal letter of resignation to DebateArt.com (Mike) in order to allow the site to move beyond my modship.
In the last few days, there have been several controversies regarding my tenure as moderator. Some of these controversies--particularly those regarding the Hall of Fame--were manufactured. Others, particularly that regarding Press, were not. The latter case was a genuine and serious error in judgement on my part that cannot be undone, and that will forever undermine my credibility and standing on this site. For that reason, I can longer be a moderator.
Moderators must be above the fray, not within it, and certainly not the cause of it. They must exemplify the kinds of behaviors we seek to promote on this site, and not lower the bar with their mistakes. They must be unifying, active, encouraging, and well-liked. And, importantly, they must have the support of the community. I have lowered the bar beyond what I--and others--consider acceptable, and I responded to the problem in a way that was itself reprehensible. I must acknowledge that, and in that acknowledgement, I must understand that it is time for me to step aside.
I wish first to apologize to anyone hurt or disappointed by my actions, esp. Press. I wish them and him well as they move forward. I wish also to thank those who have been so helpful to me during my time as a mod here, including Mike, Virt, Castin, Speed, Supa, and others. They are good people who will continue doing an excellent job of handling the site's business. Good people can be hard to come by, and I will forever count myself lucky to have stumbled into their paths. Finally, I wish to thank the users here, who have created such a fabulous, caring, and truly wonderful community. It was an honor to be part of it.
In my last official act as Chief Moderator, I will be recommending to Mike that he replace me with Virt and replace Virt with Castin. I will suggest a few other names for the Chief and Deputy Moderator positions in the event that either is unwilling or unable to serve or in the event that Mike would prefer to choose someone besides them for those roles. It will ultimately be up to Mike and the parties he chooses to consider to decide how those positions will be filled.
My resignation will be submitted at 1:00am, EST, on 10/28/18. This brief delay will allow me to formulate my letter to Mike and bring all moderators up to speed on certain pieces of information that they will need to know prior to my departure. I believe that Mike will accept that letter of resignation. I will be asking Virt to close my account once I have confirmed that Mike has accepted my resignation. I believe my remaining here will not be in anyone's best interests--though I may briefly return at Christmas in order to wish a few people well and to provide them with details so that we might keep in touch.
Again, thank you to everyone who has been so helpful in getting this site going and in helping moderation develop. If you have any questions about these developments, please post those questions here and I will attempt to answer them to the best of my ability. This community, both on DDO and on DART, has been a part of my life for 6 years now, and I would not be who I am today without it. For parts of my life, this community has been the best part. You all mean the world to me, just as this place does, and I am sorry I couldn't be better for you. I am deeply disappointed in myself. I know that you will continue to thrive without me, for I was never that important anyway, and it is my sincerest wish that you do continue to thrive. Show the world and the web that good, honest debate by good, honest people isn't a thing of the past. So, this is where I tip my hat and bid you all farewell. Goodbye, and godspeed.
Aloha,
Bsh1, Chief Moderator
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Aloha, DART!
We would like to announce that Speedrace will be joining the moderation team as an Assistant Moderator for Forums. His duties in this role will include overseeing the enforcement of restraining orders and forum restrictions as well as keeping a watchful eye over some of the more antagonistic forums to identify potential flamewars before they metastasize. He will also be a second opinion Virt and I can consult with on certain, forum-related matters. He will not be involved with vote moderation in this capacity, nor will he have access to the site's moderation interface.
Speed was selected from among several considered candidates for a few reasons. Chief among those reasons were his relatively high levels of activity, clean moderation record, being generally well-liked by the usership, and consistent respectfulness in engaging with other users. Mike has approved the appointment. I believe Speed is capable of serving impartially and intelligently and that he will be an asset to our moderation team.
Speed was offered this position on the afternoon of October 16th. He accepted the same day. This announcement was delayed so as not to detract from the then-ongoing Hall of Fame process and so as to give Speed time to review the site's conduct rules to prepare for this position. He has not been involved in any moderation activities since accepting this position given that he has only officially become a moderator today.
Moderation is hoping to bring on board one more Assistant Moderator for Voting within the next 6 months, at which point we believe our moderation team will be complete. No further additions are planned, nor do we believe at this time that a moderation team larger than what we have planned will be necessary in the foreseeable future.
If you have any questions, please let me know. Feel free to ask Speed any questions you have at this time or to go to him with any forum-specific issues (e.g. harassment, spam) you might be encountering. Of course, Virt and myself will still be available as well. Again, I'd like to welcome Speed to the team on behalf of moderation, and thank him for agreeing to take on this responsibility.
-Bsh1, Chief Moderator
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Aloha, DART!
The Hall of Fame thread has now been updated to reflect the results of the latest Hall of Fame election process. Please check out the thread to read the write-ups and to check out the inductees! Again, congratulations to all the nominees!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Here I will summarize recent events and investigations relating to Wylted and Hammer. These summaries are accurate, complete, supported by cited evidence, and straightforward. They represent my final word on the issue.
I. Wylted
A. Wylted's Transgressions
Based on screenshots which were originally sent to me by a trustworthy party, I concluded that Wylted was actively campaigning for Supa's induction into the Hall of Fame despite rules prohibiting that kind of electioneering. On the basis of those screenshots, I referred the case to Castin--the Assistant Moderator for Special Cases--to further investigate. I am personally recused from moderating Wylted, and therefore stepped back to allow Castin to perform her investigation as she saw fit.
She reported back to me with the conclusion that Wylted had in fact been pursuing such an illicit campaign on Discord. She was able to confirm the validity of the screenshots with a different party (not the person who originally submitted the screenshots), and on that basis recommended a 4-day extension of Wylted's temp-ban. This was pursuant to the MEEP giving DART moderation authority over activities on Discord. When the campaigning persisted, despite Wylted being informed of this ban extension, Castin referred the issue to Discord moderation for further review.
Wylted knowingly violated the rule against campaign twice. Once when his ban was originally extended, and again when he continued to campaign despite having had his ban extended. A statement was made during the Hall of Fame voting phase stating these findings and making a ruling on the validity of certain votes cast in light of what had transpired.
B. Moderation Involvement
While some moderation figures (Supa, Vaar, and Virt) did vote with Wylted's campaign and were exposed to it, I said explicitly in a later statement that "I have not punished any user for voting with a campaign so long as they were not actively a part of the campaign." Virt also denied that Wylted's outreach had influenced his decision. No users was punished for voting with a campaign so long as they themselves were not actively doing the campaigning. No special treatment was given to these mods. Moreover, I reached out to each of these users to discuss the seriousness of their oversights. Moderation cannot be perceived to be breaking the rules it sets. I acknowledge that there choices were problematic, but, again, they received no special treatment.
II. TheHammer
A. The Beginning of the Inquiry
Hammer made a thread alleging that he had, in coordination with others, "pushed most of his early nomination votes." Having heard these allegations, I was concerned. I was initially inclined to believe Hammer's allegations in part because his cadre of friends had attempted to violate the rules of the last Hall of Fame election on DDO. I therefore needed to verify what was going on. I did not want to treat the Supa/Hammer case differently from the RM/Wylted case if indeed the situations were alike.
In my very first message to Hammer, I asked him who he had campaigned with. I also said, explicitly, that "if they were unaware of the rule, they will not be punished. I would just like to be able to verify your math." Hammer had already publicly stated that "most of them didn't even know about the no strategizing rule."
Given Hammer's admission that most were unaware of the rule and my assurance that they would not be punished in that case, I believed that Hammer would comply. Instead, Hammer consistently refused to provide me any names or other evidence with which I could corroborate his story. I either needed names of users, so that I could conduct interviews to back up his assertions, or I needed screenshots that verified Hammer's claims.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Report on the Investigation into the Trolls' Interference in the 2019 Hall of Fame Election.
This report is based on extensive research conducted by the Bsh1 Overly Bureaucratic and Loquacious Always Stop the Trolls Research Union Service (OBLASTRUS) in conjunction with Conspiracy Theorists International, the Tal'Shiar, the Massachusetts Creative Writing Collective, and Twink Capture-and-Release Animal Rescue.
Volume I - Spacetime
Space was often bored. He was afflicted by twin curses that rendered his life a vapid hell. First, he lived in a small town. Dallas, Texas, to be specific. A town full of nothing but tumbleweed, sand, and angus cattle, it was a backwater's shithouse. And he hated every minute of it. Second, he was ripped. Being 6'4" and able bench press 350 pounds, his body was so enormous with its rippling muscles, that girls could barely make out his dick. It made it impossible for him to find dates. Sexually frustrated, decided desperate action was called for.
At the annual reaping, where the disheveled, starving townsfolk made their way out into the cornfields to see who the aliens would abduct this harvest season, Spacetime, driven to the brink of insanity by blueballs, volunteered himself as tribute. As he floated up into the air, he could only hope that they would finally, mercifully put him out of his misery.
They blindfolded him as soon as he entered their saucer. In the brief glimpse he had before the dark cloth sent him into visual oblivion, he was surprised by just how fine the china actually was, now that he saw it up close. In the black night of this semi-existence, suspended in midair for weeks on end, he felt the aliens watching him, judging him. He felt them pull out hairs from his head and laughed at his odd proportions. This was the final outrage: he felt a sense of evil growing inside him.
Sometime later, using his skills as a pirate--honed on his long sea voyages with Captain Thett--he managed to escape. Much cutlass-wielding and cannon-firing was involved. The particulars of his escape are too gory to reproduce here in detail, but [redacted]. He learned that the aliens had been cloning him and other minority men and women as part of a dastardly left-wing conspiracy to make the world more diverse! It was truly despicable.
Disgusted by what he saw, he prepared to kill the environmentally green- and LGBTQIAPABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ rainbow-colored alien scientists. But suddenly, a deliciously evil idea came to him. He knew just what to do! He had the aliens make him a clone of his own specifications, imbuing him with the miasma of Trump's orange manliness and the power of Trump's oversize hands.
And when the aliens were done, Spacetime took his clone Tyrone and took some black thread, and tied a MAGA hat on top of his head. And then with a smile most unpleasant, they headed to the voting booth to steal the election. Double voting filled Space with such an cynical, trollish delight, that he finally got off on that election night.
Volume II - TheHammer
Every twink needs his daddy, and Hammer is a twink in need of coal's smokestack. Desperate for the attention that every twink craves, Hammer concocted a half-assed plot to win his would-be daddy's pride. Of course, if the plot has been full-assed, he might have gotten something a bit better, like shale's big fracking drill, wind's huge turbine, or nuclear's explosive reactor shaft. But Hammer decided to settle for coal, and so he made his move. He decided to make a fib. A big, big fib.
Hammer slunk into the DART Forum CoOp one night, and planted evidence (written in pink crayon, because what else would a twink do?) of a plot to get RM elected into the Hall of Fame. Hammer was jealous of all the attention Spacetime had received. Where were his photo ops?! Where were his Vogue spreads?! Spacetime wasn't even pretty! And so he placed the evidence carefully around the office and left, leaving a trail of glitter and anal beads in his wake.
The next morning, upon discovering the lubricated site, investigators were called to the scene, where Hammer gleefully admitted that yes, he had rigged the election! Now his daddy would see him in the tabloids, would know that he could create drama like the best little twinks out there. He had mastered by naughty, now daddy could teach him to be nice.
Dressed in his best yellow mesh briefs, he skipped off to his booking and smiled for his mug shot. But soon his admission was exposed as fake, and he decided to pretend it had been real all along. He was going to live his fantasy, goddamnit. He had impressed his daddy, and got the attention he craved. A few lies here and there would keep the sprinkle train going.
He'd get the ban hammer now and the ass hammer later. As a flunked-out pirate, this was the best he could get, after all. Well, that and a bunch of rubrics cube trophies, which he couldn't even sell for spare parts.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Miscellaneous
Congratulations to all the nominees in our inaugural Hall of Fame class! They were all deserving, and represent the great talent that is present on this site. Please join me in recognizing their achievement!
Inducted Users
Inducted Threads
Once more, congratulations to all these fabulous inductees! For those who missed the cut, there is always next year, when this process will again take place, allowing us to honor the best and brightest of DART!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Hall of Fame I
Voting Stage Rules
Welcome to DART's first official Hall of Fame induction process! This thread is for the second stage of that process, namely, the voting stage. During this stage, users (you) may vote for nominees in three categories (users, threads, debates) for inclusion in the Hall of Fame. The three nominees with the most votes in each category will be inducted into the Hall of Fame.
Any user will be able to vote for up to three nominees per category for a maximum of 9 votes per voting user. Voters may choose to vote for less than the maximum number if they choose. You may vote for any of the nominees who have advanced out of the nomination stage. The voting process will close at 12:30am, EST, on 10/18/19. Votes cast after the close of the process will not be considered.
When you vote, you are permitted to offer a brief justification for, explanation of, or reason for your vote. Any such justification, explanation, or reason must be confined to the same post in which you made the vote. Please also bold your votes to make them more visible. You may only change one vote per category, and that vote may be changed only once.
Those nominees with the most votes (3 per category) will be inducted into the DART Hall of Fame. In the event of a tie preventing exactly 3 inductions per category, the voting window will be extended for just those nominees who/which are tied. Those inducted will be formally honored with entries in the Hall of Fame thread. Those entries will be posted within 2 months of the voting period closing.
There are no prerequisites or eligibility requirements for users to participate in the Hall of Fame nominating process, except that they have an account on DART and are not voting/nominating from more than one account. Importantly, coordinating votes or launching campaigns for induction are prohibited. Violating these rules will be a moderatable offense. Other violations of the COC (e.g. personal attacks) committed in this thread will be treated severely.
The Nominees
For Users:
For Debates:
For Threads:
Let's Begin!
With all that said, let the voting process begin! If you have questions, feel free to ask. Good luck all the nominees and best wishes on a fantastic Hall of Fame process. This is a wonderful site and community, and there is so much greatness out there to recognize! I look forward to honoring those contributions and users who have made this site what it is!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Hall of Fame I
Nomination Stage Rules
Welcome to DART's first official Hall of Fame induction process! This thread is for the first stage of that process, namely, the nominations stage. During this stage, users (you) may propose nominees in three categories (users, threads, debates) for inclusion in the Hall of Fame. The nominees with the most nominations in each category (approx. 4-6 per category) will advance to the second stage of the process.
Any user will be able to propose up to three nominees per category for a maximum of 9 nominations per nominating user. Nominators may choose to nominate less than the maximum number if they choose. You may nominate yourself and your own content. The nominating process will close at 10:00pm, EST, on 10/15/19. Nominations proposed after the close of the process will not be considered.
When you propose a nomination, you are permitted to offer a brief justification for, explanation of, or reason for you nomination. Any such justification, explanation, or reason must be confined to the same post in which you made the nomination. Please also bold your nominations to make them more visible. After making a nomination, you may change that specific nomination once (before the close of the nominating process) and only once.
There are no formal criteria for determining who/what can be nominated except that the user, thread, or debate be on DART. However, if I conclude that a nomination is wholly and blatantly incongruous with the purpose of the HOF (that purpose being to highlight good, notable, and/or consequential inductees), I reserve the right to withhold forwarding that nomination to the second stage of the process.
There are no prerequisites or eligibility requirements for users to participate in the Hall of Fame nominating process, except that they have an account on DART and are not voting/nominating from more than one account. Importantly, coordinating votes or launching campaigns for induction are prohibited. Violating these rules will be a moderatable offense. Other violations of the COC (e.g. personal attacks) committed in this thread will be treated severely.
Let's Begin!
With all that said, let the nominating process begin! If you have questions, feel free to ask. Good luck to everyone and best wishes on a fantastic Hall of Fame process. This is a wonderful site and community, and there is so much greatness out there to recognize! I look forward to honoring those contributions and users who have made this site what it is!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Morality is an objective system of action-guiding precepts which distinguish right from wrong and assign praiseworthiness and blameworthiness to actors. I think this is a generally acceptable definition. It must be objective, lest it be capricious. It must be systematic, lest it be internally contradictory. And it must be action-guiding, lest it be purposeless. It also must assign praiseworthiness and blameworthiness because morality, as we conceive it, not only judges actions but also persons. While I anticipate that most objections to this definition of morality will focus on its classification as "objective," I wish to focus more on its classification as "action-guiding" for the purposes of this thread.
It strikes me as obvious, on some fundamental level, that morality must seek to direct our actions and not simply categorize them. This is true, I think, because mere categorization would run afoul of morality itself. If morality merely categorized--leaving us utterly blind as to how to behave--there could never be ascriptions of praise or blame, since we would lack the requisite foreknowledge to be genuinely responsible for the rightness or wrongness of our actions.
I would also venture that, in order for morality to genuinely direct our actions, we must have free will. If I cannot choose to behave wrongly, then I cannot be guided into choosing rightly. Instead, I simply choose rightly by default. A guide points to the right path when you come to a fork in the road. But if their are no forks, you cannot be guided.
Now I come to the question I am interested in posing. Given all of the above, in a perfect world, would morality exist, and could a perfect world exist without morality? A perfect world is one in which everyone would always and automatically make the right decision even if they did not know why it was the right decision and even if they had no guidance as to how to act. If agents did not always choose rightly, the world would not be perfect.
It seems, counterintuitively, that a perfect world does not need morality. Given the guaranteed nature of right action in a perfect world, there is no need for an action-guiding system delineating right from wrong. In other words, morality might not exist in a perfect world. Indeed, it is possible that morality could not exist, because no agent could ever be assigned praise or blame. Yet, this challenges a basic assumption I have always held, namely that a perfect world is perfectly moral (implying, of course, that morality must exist in a perfect world).
Perhaps one could reply by objecting to the notion that morality requires free will. If it doesn't require free will, then it need not always be action-guiding. But then again no agent could ever be assigned praise or blame. So maybe ascriptions of praise and blame are not integral to morality, but merely a non-integral or ancillary function of it. But that suggestion seems problematic as well, largely because it restricts morality to merely judging actions and not persons. We do not typically say "the murder was wrong, but the murderer cannot be blamed/condemned" or "Hitler's actions were wrong, but Hitler cannot be blamed/condemned." It does seem to me that praise and blame are a core part of what we conceive morality as being.
So, I put my question to you now. Can morality and perfection coexist? If yes, must they always coexist? What implications might this have for discussions of heaven and hell, for example? Please discuss. Also, this is not the right post to debate morality's subjectivity or objectivity. That is not really the question I am concerned with in this post.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
Aloha, DART!
I just wanted to update everyone on the approaching DART Hall of Fame induction process. This process will unfold in two stages, and will take one week to complete.
On or about the 14th of October, I will post a thread soliciting nominations from the usership in each of the three award categories (users, debates, and threads). Any user will be able to submit up to three nominees in each category for a maximum of 9 nominations per user. Nominators may choose to nominate less than the maximum number if they choose. The nominating window will close on or about the 17th of October. The nominees with the most nominations (approx. 4-6 per category) will advance to the second stage of the process. There are no formal criteria for determining who/what can be nominated; however, if I conclude that a nomination is wholly and blatantly incongruous with the purpose of the HOF (that purpose being to highlight good, notable, and/or consequential inductees), I reserve the right to withhold forwarding that nomination to the second stage of the process.
On or about the 18th of October, I will post a thread soliciting votes from the usership on the finalist nominees in each of the three award categories (users, debates, and threads). Any user will be able to vote for up to three nominees in each category for a maximum of 9 votes per user. Voters may choose to vote less than the maximum number if they choose. The voting window will close on or about the 20th of October. Those nominees with the most votes (3 per category) will be inducted into the DART Hall of Fame. In the event of a tie preventing exactly 3 inductions per category, the voting window will be extended for just those nominees who/which are tied. Those inducted will be formally honored with entries in the Hall of Fame thread. Those entries will be posted within 2 months of the voting period closing.
There are no prerequisites or eligibility requirements for users to participate in the Hall of Fame nominating or voting processes, except that they have an account on DART and are not voting/nominating from more than one account. Importantly, coordinating votes or launching campaigns for induction are prohibited. This process is about awarding those with merit or importance, and not about awarding those who can cajole the most voters. Violating these rules will be a moderatable offense. Also, more exact start and end times will be made clear in the threads in question, to ensure there is no ambiguity as to when the processes begin and conclude. Please be sure to check these times.
I am posting this update now to (a) brief you on the process, (b) give notice about the restrictions placed on campaigning and vote coordinating/rigging, and (c) give you time to consider who/what you would like to nominate, come October the 14th. Hopefully this update has been informative. Thank you!
-Bsh1, Chief Moderator
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
On September the 10th, it will have been one year since Virt and I were installed as Deputy and Chief Moderator, respectively, by Debateart.com, the site owner.
During this year, moderation has adopted a system of practices which allow a great deal of freedom of speech but which also protect the mutual civility which is necessary for reasoned debate to occur. Moderation has established rules in consultation with the general usership in order to allow the site public to have a say in determining particularly important and controversial policies. Moderation has, with every effort being made towards fairness and impartiality, enforced those rules and policies. And, moderation has attempted to be highly engaged on the site and to address legitimate concerns put to it by the usership whenever those concerns arise.
This AMA is being held to offer the usership a further opportunity to express concerns and ask questions such that moderation can address and answer them to the extent it is able. This AMA will also prove useful to moderation in helping us evaluate our policies and practices on year on, so that appropriate and considered adjustments can be made where necessary.
This AMA will last until 6:30pm, EST, on September the 12th. This will allow ample time for questioning, but will provide a point of conclusion to the process, hopefully to reign in any resulting drama (though I appeal to all members to be civil). I will be taking all questions not specifically addressed to Virt, Ram, or Castin. All four of us will participate as indicated. This is a moderation AMA, and so questions not strictly related to moderation issues (including personal and technical/features questions) might not be answered.
The AMA is now open, and I look forward to a robust discussion.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Aloha!
Recently, as I have been moderating the site, I have noticed that there has been some confusion as to what counts as a call-out thread. I am posting this to clarify the issue for site users. A call-out thread is, per the COC, any thread "in which a purpose of the thread is to attack another user."
The definition of a call-out thread means a few things in practice. First, it means that not all threads calling people out are call-out threads as the COC defines the term. If I create a thread saying, "Calling Out Castin," and then in the thread I say only complimentary things about her, I have not created a "call-out thread" as the COC defines it, and so my thread has not broken any site rules. The COC certainly does not prohibit saying nice things about other people. Second, the call-out thread, in its purpose, OP content, or title content, must constitute a personal attack. Threads criticizing or parodying other users are not necessarily call-out threads. Not all criticism or mockery rises to a level which is actionable under the COC.
Therefore, a call-out thread is a thread created for the purpose of personally attacking another user. It is not a thread created for complimenting other users, nor is every thread that has something negative to say about someone a call-out thread.
Hopefully this adds some clarity to the issue.
- Bsh1
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Welcome to the Celebrity Mafia endgame!
Mafia wins! Congratulations!
MAFIA
Pie - You are CATE BLANCHETT. You have enormous malleability as an actress, demonstrated by your successful portrayal of roles as diverse as Galadriel, Elizabeth I, and Irina Spalko. Your versatility--and the skill by which you cross boundaries--makes you the even-night NINJA. On even-numbered nights, if you perform the NK, you may not be tracked or watched. You win with the mafia.
Speed 2 (Oro) - You are RACHEL MADDOW. Relentless truth-seeking is your hallmark. Your in-depth exploration of oft-undercovered (yet critically important) stories, has earned you plaudits from critics and lay audiences alike. Your decision to take seriously the press’s role as watchdog makes you the LOOKOUT. Each night you may select another player. You will learn who, if anyone, visited your target that night. You win with the mafia.
Warren - You are KIM KARDASHIAN. For you, I have only a collection of adjectives: “irresponsible,” “vacuous,” “conceited,” and, most devastatingly, “hackneyed.” You are the GOON. You have no role. You win with the mafia.
TOWN
Press - You are SEAN O'PRY. As a highly successful model, your presence and all-American facial features have earned you acclaim and placed you in high demand. That being said, I never found you attractive. Being frank, your looks strike me more as skeletal than sensual. Therefore, you are VANILLA. You have no role. You win with the town.
Speed 1 - You are SHAWN MENDES. Your music is not good, but who honestly cares? Your hair, your face, your body...You could visit me any night. Therefore, you are the compulsive VISITOR. Each night, you must choose another player to visit. Your visit has no effect on you or on your target. If you fail to submit a target, one will be randomly selected for you. You win with the town.
Wylted - You are JAMES DEAN. For a generation, your name became synonymous with rebellion and the malaise of social estrangement. You embodied a particular brand of dark, outsider sex appeal that excited fangirls around the world before the world fangirl even entered our lexicon. However, while I admit there is a gravity to you and your persona, you never did anything for me. Therefore, you are VANILLA. You have no role. You win with the town.
Supa - You are ANDERSON COOPER. You are a silver fox; time is typically the enemy of beauty, beauty being a sadly ephemeral condition. Yet, you have more than weathered the tests of time. Therefore, you are the 1-shot BULLETPROOF. The first time you are targeted for death at night, you will survive. You will not be notified if/when your shot is used. You win with the town.
Mhar - You are RUPERT BROOKE. Prepossessing in a boyish kind of way, your youthful and philosophical idealism permeates your poetry, which strikes the reader as somewhere between the aestheticism of Keats and the music of Hopkins. You expressed a yearning so many of us feel, yet so few of us can convey. Therefore, you are the DREAMER. At the end of each night, you will be provided the names of three players. At least one of those players will be scum, and at least one of those players will be town. You will not dream if disturbed in the night. You win with the town.
Cogent - You are PITA TAUFATOFUA. Your Olympic entrance was appreciated not just for your celebration of traditional Tongan culture, but for how fantastic you looked doing it. Having competed in multiple sports, you are experienced at setting and pursuing goals. Therefore, you are the TRACKER. Each night, you may select another player. You will learn who, if anyone, that player visited during the night. You win with the town.
Club - You are EDUARDO SANCHEZ-UBANELL. For a YouTube celebrity, you come across as surprisingly shy. Granted, when you have the backing of BuzzFeed and when you look like that, shyness is not much of a barrier to influencer stardom. Sweet and sexy, I wouldn't mind you paying me a few visits. Therefore, you are the compulsive VISITOR. Each night, you must choose another player to visit. Your visit has no effect on you or on your target. If you fail to submit a target, one will be randomly selected for you. You win with the town.
Grey - You are GEORGE CLOONEY. You inherited an immense talent from a family brimming with it, and became a success almost by virtue of your birth. It certainly did not hurt that you benefited from connections, dreamy looks, and money. It is indisputable, of course, that as your fame ballooned, so too did popular references to your good-looks. Yet, that some would find you so attractive always baffled me. I have always found you rather plain and nondescript. Therefore, you are VANILLA. You have no role. You win with the town.
Disc - You are THEO JAMES. As Four, you read as a modern Marlon Brando--strong, confident, masculine. Your seething sex appeal certainly reeled me in. I'd go so far as to say that you could visit me anytime. Therefore, you are the compulsive VISITOR. Each night, you must choose another player to visit. Your visit has no effect on you or on your target. If you fail to submit a target, one will be randomly selected for you. You win with the town.
NIGHT ACTIONS
NP1
Cogent - Trk. Wylted
Disc - Vst. Cogent
Speed - Vst. Supa
Club - Vst. Speed
Oro - Lkt. Wylted
Warren - NK Speed
NP2
Cogent - Trk. Mhar
Disc - Vst. Cogent
Club - Vst. Cogent
Speed - Lkt. Cogent
Warren - NK Wylted
NP3
Cogent - Trk. Speed
Disc - Vst. Cogent
Club - Vst. Cogent
Speed - Lkt. Cogent
Warren - NK Mhar
NP4
Cogent - Trk. Club
Disc - Vst. Grey
Club - Vst. Grey
Speed - Lkt. Cogent
Speed - NK Cogent
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Forum games
LYNCHED LAST DP
Warren - You are KIM KARDASHIAN. For you, I have only a collection of adjectives: “irresponsible,” “vacuous,” “conceited,” and, most devastatingly, “hackneyed.” You are the GOON. You have no role. You win with the mafia.
DIED IN THE NIGHT
Cogent - You are PITA TAUFATOFUA. Your Olympic entrance was appreciated not just for your celebration of traditional Tongan culture, but for how fantastic you looked doing it. Having competed in multiple sports, you are experienced at setting and pursuing goals. Therefore, you are the TRACKER. Each night, you may select another player. You will learn who, if anyone, that player visited during the night. You win with the town.
GRAVEYARD
Press - Sean O'Pry, Vanilla - Town
Speed 1 - Shawn Mendes, Visitor - Town
Pie - Cate Blanchett, Ninja - Mafia
Wylted - James Dean, Vanilla - Town
Supa - Anderson Cooper, Bulletproof - Town
Mhar - Rupert Brooke, Dreamer - Town
Warren - Kim Kardashian, Goon - Mafia
Cogent - Pita Taufatofua, Tracker - Town
LIVING PLAYERS
Club
Grey
Disc
Speed 2 (Oro)
With 4 players, it takes 3 votes to lynch.
The DP ends at 1:15am, EST, on 9/5/19.
The DP ends at 1:15am, EST, on 9/5/19.
Good luck! And let the day phase begin!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Forum games
LYNCHED LAST DP
Supa - You are ANDERSON COOPER. You are a silver fox; time is typically the enemy of beauty, beauty being a sadly ephemeral condition. Yet, you have more than weathered the tests of time. Therefore, you are the 1-shot BULLETPROOF. The first time you are targeted for death at night, you will survive. You will not be notified if/when your shot is used. You win with the town.
DIED IN THE NIGHT
Mhar - You are RUPERT BROOKE. Prepossessing in a boyish kind of way, your youthful and philosophical idealism permeates your poetry, which strikes the reader as somewhere between the aestheticism of Keats and the music of Hopkins. You expressed a yearning so many of us feel, yet so few of us can convey. Therefore, you are the DREAMER. At the end of each night, you will be provided the names of three players. At least one of those players will be scum, and at least one of those players will be town. You will not dream if disturbed in the night. You win with the town.
GRAVEYARD
Press - Sean O'Pry, Vanilla - Town
Speed 1 - Shawn Mendes, Visitor - Town
Pie - Cate Blanchett, Ninja - Mafia
Wylted - James Dean, Vanilla - Town
Supa - Anderson Cooper, Bulletproof - Town
Mhar - Rupert Brooke, Dreamer - Town
LIVING PLAYERS
Warren
Cogent
Club
Grey
Disc
Speed 2 (Oro)
With 6 players, it takes 4 votes to lynch.
The DP ends at 1:00pm, EST, on 9/3/19.
The DP ends at 1:00pm, EST, on 9/3/19.
Good luck! And let the day phase begin!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Forum games
LYNCHED LAST DP
Pie - You are CATE BLANCHETT. You have enormous malleability as an actress, demonstrated by your successful portrayal of roles as diverse as Galadriel, Elizabeth I, and Irina Spalko. Your versatility--and the skill by which you cross boundaries--makes you the even-night NINJA. On even-numbered nights, if you perform the NK, you may not be tracked or watched. You win with the mafia.
DIED IN THE NIGHT
Wylted - You are JAMES DEAN. For a generation, your name became synonymous with rebellion and the malaise of social estrangement. You embodied a particular brand of dark, outsider sex appeal that excited fangirls around the world before the world fangirl even entered our lexicon. However, while I admit there is a gravity to you and your persona, you never did anything for me. Therefore, you are VANILLA. You have no role. You win with the town.
GRAVEYARD
Press - Sean O'Pry, Vanilla - Town
Speed 1 - Shawn Mendes, Visitor - Town
Pie - Cate Blanchett, Ninja - Mafia
Wylted - James Dean, Vanilla - Town
LIVING PLAYERS
Warren
Cogent
Club
Grey
Disc
Mhar
Speed 2 (Oro)
Supa
With 8 players, it takes 5 votes to lynch.
The DP ends at 9:45pm, EST, on 8/31/19.
The DP ends at 9:45pm, EST, on 8/31/19.
Good luck! And let the day phase begin!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Forum games
LYNCHED LAST DP
Press - You are SEAN O'PRY. As a highly successful model, your presence and all-American facial features have earned you acclaim and placed you in high demand. That being said, I never found you attractive. Being frank, your looks strike me more as skeletal than sensual. Therefore, you are VANILLA. You have no role. You win with the town.
DIED IN THE NIGHT
Speed - You are SHAWN MENDES. Your music is not good, but who honestly cares? Your hair, your face, your body...You could visit me any night. Therefore, you are the compulsive VISITOR. Each night, you must choose another player to visit. Your visit has no effect on you or on your target. If you fail to submit a target, one will be randomly selected for you. You win with the town.
GRAVEYARD
Press - Sean O'Pry, Vanilla - Town
Speed - Shawn Mendes, Visitor - Town
LIVING PLAYERS
Warren
Cogent
Club
Grey
Disc
Pie
Mhar
Oro
Wylted
Supa
With 10 players, it takes 6 votes to lynch.
The DP ends at 8:30pm, EST, on 8/29/19.
The DP ends at 8:30pm, EST, on 8/29/19.
Good luck! And let the day phase begin!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Forum games
Welcome to Celebrity Mafia!
RULES
Read all of the following information carefully. It will behoove you to do so.
Activity
You are required to make 15 posts per DP. At least 7 of those posts must be substantive. A substantive post is any post that advances the progress of the game. The determination of what is or is not a substantive post is mine, and mine alone, to make.
Failure to meet this activity standard makes you eligible for replacement. If you know in advance that you won't be active, tell me ahead of time, otherwise I will have a lot less sympathy for you. For those who were insufficiently active but who had legitimate reasons for the low activity, I will expect you to make up for your inactivity in the next DP. You may receive 1 activity prompt in the last 24 to 12 hours of a DP; this is not guaranteed. A failure to get this prompt out to you will not excuse any inactivity.
PM Etiquette
Don't use PM structure, wincons, PM time stamps, or things of that ilk as points of analysis in the game. Discussion of these issues is strictly prohibited. You may not C/P anything from your PMs into the game or take photos of your PMs. There is to be no communicating via non-mod-initiated methods, even with teammates or hydra-halves. This means there is to be no game-related discussion on G+ hangouts, rabb.it hangouts, unauthorized PMs on site, PMs offsite, etc. If you suspect or know that any such communication is taking place, you are obligated to inform me immediately.
Remember, paraphrasing is your friend. You may only paraphrase PM content. An acceptable paraphrase should substantially change the original wording of the passage, and that change should be noticeably more than mere deletion, addition, or substitution. I am willing to pre-screen your paraphrases if I have time. Violation of the rules in this section ("PM Etiquette") are the most severe breaches of rules in my games, and will most likely result in instantaneous mod-kills.
Other Issues
Observe civil and good conduct. Except in cases of exceptional rudeness, anyone who violates the conduct policy will receive 1 warning. Violations past that warning will result in you being replaced or mod-killed. What constitutes civil and good conduct is at my discretion. Additionally, all players must play to their wincon. Attempts to throw the game will not be tolerated. Play to win. Finally, excessive spamming, post editing, trolling, or thread derailment will also not be tolerated, and operates on the "1 warning, then replacement/mod-kill" paradigm. I reserve the right to bring back in any previously eliminated player as a replacement at least once, unless that player had an investigative role and received results prior to being eliminated.
Cycles and Voting
All DPs will be 72 hours long. NPs will be 48 hours long; however, if all actions are submitted early, the NP may be concluded earlier. No NP will be concluded before at least 12 hours have elapsed. I am willing to grant extensions for the DPs or NPs upon request, but it will be at my discretion whether to grant those requests. DP extensions will be 12-24 hours; NP extensions will be 6-12 hours. Votes or unvotes cast in twilight will not be assessed. Once a lynch is secured, the DP immediately ends; you must refrain from posting after a lynch is announced or secured. Only two warnings will be offered in twilight reminding people to stop posting. Posting after the warnings may result in a mod-kill. A policy of majority (as opposed to plurality) lynching is in force for this game. You are not required to unvote before re-voting, but you are required to use the acronym "VTL" to preface your votes and to bold your votes. Sometimes, when I am in a hurry, I will do a ctrl+f search for "VTL" and "unvote;" so using those specific phrases is important for ensuring an accurate count.
THEME
The theme of this game is "celebrities." By a "celebrity" I mean "a person who is or once was famous." This theme is largely self-explanatory and should be easily navigated.
RESOURCES
*neither a comprehensive nor a definitive list
LIVING PLAYERS
Warren
Cogent
Club
Grey
Disc
Pie
Mhar
Speed
Oro
Wylted
Supa
Press
With 12 players, it takes 7 votes to lynch.
The DP ends at 11:15pm, EST, on 8/26/19
The DP ends at 11:15pm, EST, on 8/26/19
Good luck! And let the games begin!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Forum games
Welcome to Celebrity Mafia!
The theme should be largely self-explanatory. The one clarification I'll give on the theme is that by "celebrity" I mean "a person who is or once was famous." I don't foresee this being a difficult theme to navigate.
I am looking for 12 to 13 players for this game. I'll go over the game's rules in the DP1 OP of the game--the rules will be similar, though not necessarily identical--to the rules I've employed in prior games. Please feel free to sign up!
Sign-Up List
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Forum games
Overview
This is a log of ongoing bans, both permanent and temporary, which were effectuated on or after August 5, 2019. Not included in this log are bans impacting accounts which were created exclusively for commercial advertising or spam-related purposes. The information given for each kind of log entry is stated below:
- Entries of permanent bans will state the date the ban was effectuated and provide a brief (not more than 500 characters) summary of why the user was permanently banned
- Entries of temporary bans will state the length of the ban and the date the ban was effectuated
- Entries of bans by request (i.e. bans a user requested be applied to their own account) will state the date the ban was effectuated.
- Entries of closed multi-accounts (i.e. old accounts of otherwise active users) will state the date the ban was effectuated.
The moderator who made the ban ruling will also be included in all entries. Moderation will not offer public comment on the reasons for temporary bans unless and until either (a) the banned user returns and raises the issue publicly or (b) public interest outweighs the banned user's privacy concerns.
Permanent Bans
- Type1 - 8/9/19 by joint moderator decision
- Banned for: a continuing pattern of multi-accounting, making personal attacks against other users, spamming, and making threats against other users, all despite repeated warnings and moderation interventions. Hate speech, excessive trolling, deliberate call-outs, and an overt lack of contrition were aggravating factors. Multi-accounting to avoid a temporary ban was the precipitating factor.
- Alts: MaoZedongs_Son, Fresh_Broccoli, Farah_Bristy, NationalSocialist00, Goatis, Sparrow, Person777
- Polytheist-Witch - 8/12/19 by joint moderator decision
- Banned for: a continuing pattern of making personal attacks against other users, refusing to comply with licit moderation instructions, and harassment of other users, all despite repeated warnings and moderator interventions. An overt lack of contrition was an aggravating factor. Violation of a moderation-imposed probationary period with a 3-strikes policy was the precipitating factor.
- Alts: None
- Nd24007 - 8/30/19 by joint moderator decision
- Banned for: a continuing pattern of making personal attacks against other users, multi-accounting, and doxxing (including threats of doxing). A lack of sincere contrition and the sheer volume of multi-accounts (56 known accounts) were aggravating factors. Preliminary plans to doxx a DART user, which were brought to moderation's attention, were the precipitating factor.
- Alts: Superfly, Tax900, Sorrymilliontimes, High, 6000yyyt, whatthef, Toystory77, Shock555, Savethree, Tou88, Tjfour00, Fireball, Lion1950, Tyjlille, Bgyihf, Gggyyyy, Tellg, Sos33, Fog1000, Ggg666, Wrongagain, Wrongagain5005, Whybitch, Howdygut, Taguit, Bbby, Gyourbite, Heyu, Gotu, Tobad, Knowledgekim, 2499s, Thering, Exotic666, Mr.Wonderful, Toughasnailsg, Youarewrong, Meandyou, Joyous, Yeahuknow, Topfuck, Hmmuuu, Itcoming, Yeppers, MRTi, Imhere, Superhero, mynameiswhat, Fkyou1, Hyuytrdc, What99, Meone, Lllggg, Slug, Thefff
Temporary Bans
- Harikrish - 10/18/19 by Bsh1
- Length of Ban: 60 days
Bans by Request
- Cowscreen - 8/30/19 by Bsh1
- YitzGoldberg - 9/3/19 by Virt
- Club - 9/11/2019 by Bsh1
- Pinkfreud08 - 9/17/19 by Bsh1
- Bsh1 - 10/29/19 by Virt
Closed Multi-Accounts
- Gatorade - 9/21/19 by Bsh1
- Club - 9/21/19 by Bsh1
- BobsonDobson - 9/21/19 by Bsh1
- Graccus - 10/11/19 by Bsh1
- dontstopmenow - 10/11/19 by Bsh1
- billsands - 10/11/19 by Bsh1
- Tyrone - 10/14/19 by Bsh1
- shockthemonkey - 10/14/19 by Virt
- FagCrusher1488 - 10/14/19 by Bsh1
- Sinful - 10/21/19 by Bsh1
- The-Voice-of-Truth - 10/26/19 by Bsh1
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Miscellaneous
It's been over 7 months since I have done one of these, and was in the mood. Four random facts about me, for anyone looking for something to ask me...First, while some people rely on Myers-Briggs to sort their personalities, I prefer to use Hogwarts houses. Having taken the Pottermore test twice, I am definitely a Ravenclaw. My Ilvermorny house is either Thunderbird or Horned Serpent.
Second, while I consider myself well-read and knowledgeable about a wide array of topics, I typically read Science Fiction and Fantasy. I find non-fiction tedious, and almost never open non-fiction books. I prefer to read synopses or abridged versions, and I wonder sometimes whether I am missing out on something crucial, or whether reading the books is fundamentally unnecessary if the facts concerned can be apprehended more efficiently in other ways.
Third, I am agnostic, meaning that I believe that belief in god is irrational and that disbelief in god is irrational. Or, in other words, I believe that the only rational position is to refuse to believe anything, and to subject oneself to a state of permanent doubt. I find this deeply unsatisfying because it seems to keep everything in limbo; humans are not well-adapted to tolerating ignorance when they accept that they are indeed ignorant. I feel the greatest connection to the spiritual while in nature, where I often get a sense of the transcendence Thoreau and his ilk purport to have felt.
Fourth, I am on the left of the political spectrum. The role of the state is, in my view, not simply to guarantee the kind of superficial freedom that comes from non-interference, but to to guarantee substantive freedom, which requires the promotion of wellbeing, and thus active involvement in the affaris of society. I tend to think about ethical-political questions in terms of caring for others and the community, and not in terms of leaving others alone.
So yes, I wrote mini-essay about me for an AMA OP (rhyme!). But, seriously, feel free to ask me anything, whether its about the four topics or not. I would prefer not to entertain site policy or moderation questions; this thread is just for my own amusement. If a more site-focused AMA is necessary, I can host that later and separately. Finally, that a question is asked, does not guarantee I will answer. Thanks! I look forward to your questions.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Miscellaneous
About MEEP
MEEPs (Moderation Engagement and Enactment Processes) are official comment periods where moderation proposes and solicits feedback on various potential moderation policies. MEEPs allow moderation to pose questions about moderation policy to the site usership and empower the site usership to either ratify or reject moderation's proposals. In order for a moderation proposal to be ratified, at least 10 users must have expressed a preference on the policy in question, and more than a majority of those expressing a preference must be in agreement. That means, in a MEEP with 10 voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 7-3; similarly, in a MEEP with 19 voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 11-8. This ensures that the outcome of the process reflects the consensus of a significant number of site users. If a MEEP result is not binding/valid, moderation will maintain the pre-MEEP status quo, whatever that happens to be. Your account must be more than 24 hours old at the time you vote in order to vote, and you must not be a banned user.
This MEEP will be open for user votes until 9:45pm, EST, on 7/27/19. This voting period may be extended by up to twelve hours if there are fewer than 10 votes on any of the specific questions put to the usership. Any extension will apply to all questions. Votes cast after the deadline will not be considered.
The Questions
Below is an enumerated list of the content to be voted on. A brief explanation of each question is included as well. Please vote "yes" or "no" to each of these questions.
1. Should anti-doxxing protections be extended to nonusers whose identity is not already publicly known?
Voting "yes" to this question will alter the content of the Code of Conduct. The current version reads: "Doxxing is posting in public or in private any real-life or personally identifying information about another site user against that site user's will and without that site user's explicit consent." The altered version would read: "Doxxing is posting in public or in private any real-life or personally identifying information about an otherwise anonymous person against that person's will and without that person's explicit consent." A "no" vote would retain the current wording of the Code of Conduct, though information doxxing non-DARTers might still be removed if it is deemed by moderation to be life-threatening.
2. Should "for spam" threads be prohibited?
"For spam" threads are threads which are made for users to spam post in (e.g. "yeet," "record attempt at most posts," "race to 127 posts"). Voting "yes" to this question will cause these threads to be treated as spam themselves, and deleted. It will not result in the deletion of existing "for spam" threads, but will cause them to be locked. A "no" vote would continue to allow these posts to exist and to be posted in (as long as they are in the miscellaneous forum).
3. Should accepted spam debates be prohibited?
For the purposes of this question, "spam debate" refers not only to obvious spam (e.g. "best online guru love matchmaker [phone number]"), but also to debates created by banned users via multi-accounts. Voting "yes" to this question would allow spam debates to be deleted even if those debates have been accepted. As the creation of those debates was prohibited, that they are accepted should not change their illicit nature. A "no" vote would allow spam debates to be accepted and to count towards the leaderboard.
4. Should there be a public ban log primarily for permanently-banned users and with some information on temporarily-banned users?
Voting "yes" to this question would allow the creation of a public ban log (in the miscellaneous forum). This ban log would contain a list of perma-banned users with a brief description of the reason for their ban. It would also include information on the length of the ban for temporarily-banned users, but would not include the reason(s) for those users' bans. Accounts banned for commercial advertising, and which have generated no other content, would not be included in the ban log. Already banned accounts would also not be included in the ban log. A "no" vote would prevent the creation of a public ban log.
You may now begin voting. Thank you for your participation in this MEEP process!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Aloha, DART!
There will be a MEEP posted sometime this month to address a variety of issues that have come to my attention. In this thread I will preview some of the questions to be discussed, and I invite you to suggest additional questions. Importantly, just because a question is suggested or seconded does not mean it will be included. Below are some issues I already intended to include:
- Extending anti-doxxing protection to non-users
- The permissibility of spam threads (e.g. "yeet," "record attempt at most posts," "race to 127 posts," etc.)
- The permissibility of spam debates (e.g. "best online guru love matchmaker [phone number]" and debates by banned users' alts)
- A Public Ban Log for perma-banned users
Again, feel free to add suggestions. These questions topics will be included, no matter what, and the wording of their questions is yet to be determined.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
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.
Here was my previous thread on this topic. Feel free to comment on other people's proposed baby names.
===============
Boys
Aodhan (pronounced: eyed + ahn)
August
Bastian
Benjamin
Carolus
Cian (pronounced: key + in)
Cyprien
Dakota
David
Dietrich
Eirnin (pronounced: air + nin)
Feidhelm (pronounced: fail + im)
Felix
Finneas
Fionnlagh (pronounced: fin + lay)
Friedrich
Gavin
Grey
Hans
Joachim
Johannes
Kaspar
Kenneth
Kiril
Liam
Marcellus
Marcus
Martin
Nevin
Niall (pronounced: nile)
Nikita
Noah
Paullus
Rhys
Sascha
Sebastian
Theodoric
Theon
Tierney (pronounced: teer + nee)
Wilhelm
Xander
Xavier
Girls
Aibhlinn (pronounced: ave + leen)
Anastasia
Autumn
Callista
Cartimandua
Daimhin (pronounced: daw + veen)
Edeline
Emmaline
Ghislaine
Guinevere
Heike
Hestia
Julia
Katja
Katrina
Lara
Leia
Maebh (pronounced: maeve)
Matilda
Minerva
Nadja
Natascha
Niamh (pronounced: neev)
Oonagh (pronounced: oo + na)
Orfhlaith (pronounced: or + la)
Padme
Raina
Renate
Saoirse (pronounced: seer + sha)
Sinead (pronounced: shin + aid)
Siobhan (pronounced: shiv + ahn)
Tatjana
Tilda
Winter
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Personal
Aloha, DART!
Currently, the site's Code of Conduct bans "adult content" from being posted or linked to on the site. But what does "adult content" even mean? I wanted to create this thread to have a discussion on that question.
To me, adult content means, in general, anything that fully depicts the ass, groin, or (for women) breasts in a state of undress. This applies to depictions of humans or other, anthropomorphic entities/creations. A good rule of thumb (though certainly not a cast iron rule) for me is whether the amount of skin would be allowed on an average public beach in the US. Revealing, or even highly revealing states of dress, are not the same as adult content. Bikinis could be considered highly revealing, but they're not really adult content. Similarly, someone in a mankini--though they may be guilty of a serious fashion faux pas--is not adult content either. This all, in my mind, seems fairly common sense.
This issue does get into some thornier grey areas, however. For instance, should artwork depicting nudity be banned? Some of the greatest masterpieces contain full or partial nudity, masterpieces like Botticelli's The Birth of Venus or, more recently, Hockney's Peter Getting out of Nick's Pool. Ancient Greek art is littered with phallic imagery, sex scenes, and other nudity. What do we do about these kinds of images, and how do we distinguish them from other kinds of images containing nudity?
Another thorny area might be sex scenes in movies. Does the fact of what is being portrayed make the content "adult" even if the actors' bodies are not visibly exposed or nude? Or what of clips of movies or shows like Game of Thrones, where nudity is displayed? These obviously have artistic merit, so should they be prohibited?
And absolutely none of this is to touch on the other dimensions of adult content, namely that content which is too violent or disturbing to show to a general audience. We need to consider as well what counts as too violent or disturbing to post on this site.
With these thoughts tossed out there, I'd like to open this thread for general commentary and feedback. These issues may eventually be put to a MEEP, but right now, I am just seeking constructive discussion and dialogue. Thanks!
- Bsh1, Chief Moderator
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Who is the ultimate DARTer?! Clearly, they'll need to be someone who is talented. This round is therefore all about showcasing your talents. But, before we get to the maxi-challenge (and the announcement of our guest judge), we're going to get started with the first mini-challenge of the Race! Oh, and a review of the competition rules, of course.
== Speed Demons ==
1. Speed
2. Virt
3. Ram
4. Supa
5. RM
6. Oro
7. KM
== Rules ==
Each round of competition will involve a different challenge. Four rounds will begin with a "mini-challenge" and all rounds will contain a "maxi-challenge." In the final determination of the round winner, the mini- and maxi-challenges will not be scored separately, but will instead be considered together, with an emphasis placed on the maxi-challenge.
I will judge every round. It is my hope to get guest judges (who may also be eliminated contestants) for at least four of the rounds. In cases where there is a guest judge, we will confer holistically to identify a round winner and two round losers. The guest judge and I must concur on those decisions. These decisions are not point-based, but rather are based on the judges' deliberations, analysis, and impressions.
The two losers will then "rap battle for their lives," after being given certain parameters for their raps. These parameters will change each round. Only the bottom two will rap battle, and only they will be at risk of elimination. The guest judge and I (or just me, when there is no guest judge) will each handicap the two bottom constants with points out of 10 (with fewer points being worse for the contestant) prior to the rap. The contestants raps will then be judged and scored out of 20 (again, with fewer points being worse for the contestant). The contestant with the highest points after the rap battle will be saved, and the other will be eliminated. Ties will be decided exclusively by me. As you can see, the rap battle is more valuable than the handicap. In one competition round, to be decided by me, neither of the bottom two contestants will be eliminated.
Mini-challenge wins (decided solely by me) may convey maxi-challenge advantages, and some mini- or maxi-challenges may require contestants to work in teams. The Finale will have a special maxi-challenge and rap battle. The format will be explained at the time the round begins.
Here is the tournament round schedule (asterisks indicate rounds with guest judges):
R1: Talent Show w/ Mini-Challenge*R2: Speed Debating*R3: Voting Bonanza w/ Mini-Challenge*R4: DART Roast w/ Mini-Challenge*R5: Brain GamesR6: Finale w/ Mini-Challenge
== Mini-Challenge ==
Unfortunately, the Fan Fic round was cut due to a dearth of participants. But, never fear! Creative writing is the name of the game for this mini-challenge.
You are tasked with composing a 150-750 word (not character) flash fiction piece or still-life writing centered on the theme of "competition." The theme is open to your interpretations, as long as the guest judge and I get it. You will have two days from the time stamp of this post to write and submit your pieces. You submit your work by posting it to this thread.
Do not plagiarize or violate the COC in your submissions. Do not work together or with others on your submissions. The contestant who writes my favorite piece will earn an advantage in the maxi-challenge, which will be disclosed later.
Good luck, and let the Race begin!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Aloha, DART!
As many of you will now be aware (and many won't), there is now the option to have "unmoderated" debates. While there is still some question on moderation's end about the technical aspects of this change, it is clear that unmoderated debates do not impact your ELO scores, whether you win those debates or lose them. We are currently working with Mike to understand fully the implications of this feature.
It is unclear to moderation whether, as it stands, we are technically empowered to remove votes on unmoderated debates. If we're not, then we're not. If we are, it will be our policy--until this question can be MEEP'd--to only remove votes on unmoderated debates if those votes (a) violate the site's conduct policy (e.g. by making a personal attack) or (b) are for a debater who fully forfeited the debate. No RFD will be actually required to pass moderation review, either.
Therefore, for those debaters and voters who desire minimal moderation, the unmoderated option is ideal. It provides the least amount of vote moderation available on the site. For those who want all of their debates to be moderated, it is imperative that they read carefully the fine print before accepting the debate. Ideally, these debates could be flagged somehow to prevent unsuspecting users from accepting them accidentally. In the meantime, be cautious and be aware so that you are neither hoodwinked nor, dare I say, bamboozled into accepting any unmoderated debate challenges.
If you have any queries about unmoderated debates, or moderation's stance regarding them, I will attempt to respond. Until I have more information, that might be difficult, but I'll do my best.
- Bsh1, Chief Moderator
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
There has been an unsettling argument made in these forums that Pride Month is somehow based on an unjustifiable premise. In other words, since straight people shouldn't take pride in their heterosexuality, neither should gay people take pride in their homosexuality. More nuanced versions of this argument might claim that the fact that these orientations were assigned at birth--and are thus unchosen--render them not worth celebrating.
This argument, while popular in some quarters, is ill-informed. It comes from a place of ignorance or strawmanning that is rooted in attitudes of privilege, a lack of critical analysis, and/or, more charitably, misunderstanding. The strawman on which the entire argument rests is that Pride is a celebration of homosexuality. In fact, Pride is not a celebration of homosexuality, but of something related, yet far more consequential.
LGBTQ+ people have faced historic discrimination across the globe. We were persecuted by Nazis, lynched in the American South, and stoned to death in the Middle East. In many places, being gay still carries the death sentence. Even where being LGBTQ+ is not an executable offense, gay people may face official and unofficial persecution. Gay people leaving bars at night may be victims of gay bashing assaults or murders. Across the US, it is legal to fire an employee simply for being gay. In dozens of countries, we are denied access to civil unions and marriage. We may face life imprisonment for such arcane crimes as "carnal knowledge against the order of nature." We may be denied the ability to adopt or we may feel the torture of being rejected by the family we love for being something we did not choose to be.
In the face of such everyday oppression, gay people have formed a sense of community, united in our struggle for basic human rights and respect. From the Stonewall Riots to Obergefell, gay people in the US and around the world have fought together for the attainment of the fundamental dignities that we are owed. And through this joint endeavor, we have gained solidarity.
Pride is a Celebration of our solidarity as a community. It is a celebration of all the battles (win or lose), of all the martyrs and heroes who fought for our equality, of all the successes and defeats that paved the way for equality, and for the sense of shared identity that we have forged through centuries of fighting to be recognized as equal persons in the sight of law and public morality.
Pride is also a message of solidarity sent out to all those still fighting oppression. This message is twofold. First, Pride is an act of performativity which enacts a narrative of value for all those people who ask themselves, like I once did, "am I a monster because I am gay? Am I a freak? Am I worthless?" Suicide is a leading cause of death within the LGBTQ+ community, and for all those struggling with depression as they confront their orientations and identities, Pride is a message of hope. It tells them that life can--and does--get better. Pride is not a celebration of homosexuality, but it is a reaffirmation of our human worth notwithstanding our homosexuality. It is a reminder to those depressed kids just starting to navigate their feelings that they are not less human because they are gay.
Second, Pride is clarion call to all those around the world who cannot imagine their own countries coming to accept them as equal and valuable persons. To them, it communicates that the gay community is strong, vibrant, and unified in our commitment to keep on fighting, to keep on the rainbow train to victory. We will not be silent. We will not go away. We will not shut up. We will not stop resisting. We will press on with our message of love, acceptance, and togetherness. We will put on a spectacle to be a counterpoint the hate and prejudice so many of us face.
Pride then is both a celebration of the LGBTQ+ community and a rallying cry for that community to keep on fighting. The ignorance of those who critique it as a celebration of homosexuality itself is revealed by the very utterance by which those critics present their argument. Pride is not about homosexuality itself. It is about having Pride in how far we have come, in what we have achieved, in the community we have, and in the humanity we all share, irrespective of our orientations and identities.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Aloha!
Given that both Virt and I are gay, it would be an atrocious oversight if moderation were to fail to remark on this most fabulous of seasons: Pride Month!
For Americans like us, Pride month is a celebratory time to watch go-go dancers parade their abs down Main Street thoroughfares throughout this great country, while Britney and Cher bang out from massive speakers. Color-filled Pride parades are a way for queer people of all stripes to revel in our community's strength, talent, and solidarity and...of course, to party.
For many other Americans and non-Americans, life as an LGBTQ+ person is not as sunny. We should all take time to reflect in horror the places like Brunei, Sudan, Uganda, and Saudi Arabia where gay people are not just denied access to marriage, but face stiff punishments simply for loving someone of the same gender. Many may be stoned to death. Others may be socially ostracized or imprisoned. Pride Month is also a time for the world to investigate their plight, to think on their suffering, and to, where possible, take action for improved equality and justice.
Whatever Pride month means to you, be you an LGBTQ+ person or a straight ally, join us in celebrating this wonderful time of year by updating your avatar to reflect the Pride theme. Be it a sexy snap like mine, or a rainbow-infused image, or a respectful gif, please show your support for the millions of LGBTQ+ people around the world!
-Bsh1
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Who is the ultimate DARTer?! This competition aims to find out. Inspired by the format of RuPaul's Drag Race, this competition will involved a gauntlet of contests that will test your strengths in a variety of skills, formats, and abilities that are frequently in-demand on DART and related websites. If you survive the trials, you will be crowned the reigning DART All Star, the ultimate user! Keep reading for more information.
== Participation ==
I am seeking between 8 and 10 participants for this competition. The structure listed below is based on there being 10 participants. Asterisks indicate those rounds that may be cut if there are fewer than 10 participants. If fewer than 8 people sign up, the competition will not run.
== Format ==
Each round of competition will involve a different challenge. Four rounds will begin with a "mini-challenge" and all rounds will contain a "maxi-challenge." The mini- and maxi-challenges will not be scored separately, but will instead be considered together, with an emphasis placed on the maxi-challenge.
I will judge every round. It is my hope to get guest judges (who may also be eliminated contestants) for at least four of the rounds. In cases where there is a guest judge, we will confer holistically to identify a round winner and two round losers. The guest judge and I must concur on those decisions. These decisions are not point-based, but rather are based on the judges' deliberations, analysis, and impressions.
The two losers will then "rap battle for their lives," after being given certain parameters for their raps. These parameters will change each round. Only the bottom two will rap battle, and only they will be at risk of elimination. The guest judge and I will each handicap the two bottom constants with points out of 10 (with fewer points being worse for the contestant) prior to the rap. The contestants raps will then be judged and scored out of 20 (again, with fewer points being worse for the contestant). The contestant with the highest points after the rap battle will be saved, and the other will be eliminated. Ties will be decided exclusively by me. As you can see, the rap battle is more valuable than the handicap.
Mini-challenge wins may convey maxi-challenge advantages, and some mini- or maxi-challenges may require contestants to work in teams. The Finale will have a special maxi-challenge and rap battle. The format will be explained at the time the round begins.
To preview the rounds, here is a schedule of what the competition structure will look like:
R1: Talent Show w/ Mini-ChallengeR2: Quickfire Mafia*R3: Speed DebatingR4: Voting Bonanza w/ Mini-ChallengeR5: DART Roast w/ Mini-ChallengeR6: Brain GamesR7: Fan Fic Fun*R8: Finale w/ Mini-Challenge
This structure is purposefully left vague in order to keep the details of the challenges secret, while still giving you an idea of what the competition will entail. As you can see, it's fairly wide-ranging, and the hope is to give you a lot of flexibility in the content you choose to produce as part of the competition. Also, for those who are curious, it will not be overtly RuPaul's Drag Race-themed; I am just using the show's structure for this competition.
== Sign-Ups ==
Before you sign up, keep in mind that this competition may take up to two months to complete overall, though my hope is that you will not need to spend much time on it on a weekly basis. Still, you should be able to log-on at least every other day for a couple of hours for the duration of your time in the competition. The competition will not begin until at least the first week in June, and no later than the second week in June. If you have questions, feel free to ask! There are no prerequisites to signing-up, so please feel welcome to participate no matter your skill level!
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Thank you for signing-up, and I am looking forward to an exhilarating race!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
All the pinned threads in the main forum have been updated completely. All of them have had changes made, some more extensive than others. Lemme know what you think! Anything missing? Anything worth adding?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
This is a catalog of all Moderation Engagement and Enactment Processes (MEEPs) held on the site which are currently informing or dictating site policy. This is not an exhaustive list of site referenda, only site MEEPs. The MEEPs are listed chronologically with topical headings listed adjacent to them. This thread serves as a useful reference page for both the usership and moderation.
==========
MEEP No. 8 - Voting Policy
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Offense and defense
Unlike football, for debate the best offense is not a good defense. The best and only offense is a good offense.
An offensive argument is a reason to vote for your side. A defensive argument is one that mitigates your opponent's case. For example, imagine the topic: the US should adopt an assault weapons ban. You are Con. An offensive argument would be that assault weapons empirically act as a crime deterrent, so banning assault weapons would increase crime. A defensive argument would be that past assault weapons bans have failed to significantly reduce crime. The former argument is a reason that an assault weapons ban is bad. The latter argument is merely a reason that an assault weapons is not as good as Pro might claim.
Voters should only be voting for offensive arguments. Defensive arguments, on their own, cannot logically form a basis for decision because they only mitigate the opponent's case. They don't provide an actual reason to vote for a particular side.
Impact analysis
A good offensive argument has a link and an impact. A link is the explanation of how the argument relates to the resolution. An impact is the reason to vote for your side. Take, for example, the topic: Iran poses a greater threat to the United States than North Korea. You are Pro. You run an argument about Iran cutting off the Strait of Hormuz. The link is that Iran has the military capability to cut off all access to the Strait of Hormuz and has threatened to so in the past. The impact is that if Iran cut off the Strait of Hormuz, the US would lose access to Middle Eastern oil, which would cause a large uptick in oil prices.
In contrast, Con argues that North Korea might launch nuclear weapons at the United States. The link is that North Korea has operational nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them against the United States in the past. The impact is that a nuclear explosion in Los Angeles would kill 10 million Americans.
As the judge, you have to weigh Pro's Strait of Hormuz argument against Con's nuclear attack argument. For impact analysis, you are supposed to consider probability and magnitude. Probability is the likelihood that the impact will happen. Magnitude is the total size of the impact. A nuclear attack has a greater magnitude because 10 million lives is a much bigger impact than higher oil prices. However, given that the United States would retaliate against North Korea using nuclear weapons, North Korea would likely be deterred from launching a nuclear attack, so the probability of this impact is low. In contrast, Iran is far more likely to cut off the Strait of Hormuz given that the current Revolutionary Government has shown a willingness to resort to extreme tactics, such as when it took over the United States embassy in Iran. So the judge could still vote Pro, even though the magnitude of the impacts are smaller, because the probability of Iran harming the US by cutting off the Strait of Hormuz is much higher.
A good RFD should engage in impact analysis and consider both probability and magnitude.
If you cannot fit your RFD within the 1,000 character limit, say "RFD in comments," and leave your RFD in the comments section of the debate.
[A more extensive explanation of offense/defense and impact analysis can be found in post 4]
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Miscellaneous
Voting Tabula Rasa
There is a right and a wrong way to judge a debate. The wrong way to decide which side was more convincing is to ask merely: "which side was more convincing to me?" The right way to decide which side was more convincing is to ask: which side's arguments would be more convincing to a reasonable third party who knows nothing about the topic and has no opinion on it.
The latter approach is referred to as tabula rasa judging. Tabula rasa is Latin for "blank slate." In the law, when we ask how a "reasonable person" would judge something, we are referring to an "objective standard." The standard for police conduct when they conduct searches is whether a reasonable police officer would believe there is probable cause to conduct a search. In contrast, a subjective standard would ask what that *particular* police officer was actually thinking. We adopt objective standards to remove bias.
If you want to judge a debate objectively, rather than subjectively, you have to adopt a tabula rasa approach. Otherwise, your personal opinion will inherently influence which side you find more convincing. You are already predisposed to agree with a certain side. That sides arguments sound more convincing to you because you have heard those arguments before. And we have a natural familiarity bias. We prefer things we have seen before, e.g. we like people more merely by interacting with them more regularly. We like products more merely by being exposed to them more (something that advertisers exploit). If you've seen an argument twenty times before and find it convincing in the past, you will treat it as *more* convincing than if you had seen if for the first time. The way to eliminate bias is to (1) be aware of this phenomenon (studies show that being aware of the concept of implicit bias actually reduces implicit bias), and (2) pretend that you are hearing this argument for the first time.
A tabula rasa approach lets you recognize when a more skilled debater is winning by making better arguments, even though you still agree with the less skilled debater's side. For example, I might think that the death penalty is bad because it is too costly, but imagine a not-so-great debater who argues that the death penalty is costly. His opponent seriously calls that into question, such as by proving that by reducing habeas appeals, we can save a lot of money. The not-so-great debater fails to respond. I know that without any knowledge about the feasibility or desirability of abolishing habeas, I would find this argument convincing, at least enough to negate the not-so-great debater's BOP of establishing that the death penalty is inherently costly. So I can vote for the better debater in this scenario under a tabula rasa framework, even though I still disagree with him and have not personally changed my mind on the issue.
How can you tell if an RFD is being tabula rasa or not? RFDs that explain their decision based on BOP and insufficient rebuttals to certain points are clearly applying tabula rasa. RFDs that simply said "Pro was more convincing" without explanation or that conclude merely with, "After reading the debate, I just found myself agreeing with Pro more," are inherently based on a subjective evaluation model.
In your RFDs, at least endeavor to be tabula rasa. No one can apply it perfectly. No one can be completely free from bias. Even when apply an "objective" evaluation model. [That's also the problem with objective morality: it becomes subjective through its application by humans]. But an objective *analytical system* is still preferable to a subjective one, even if the result is not perfectly objective. Subjective evaluation models will always lead to entirely subjective decisions. Objective evaluation models are more likely to lead to objective decisions (where an objective decision is one on which all *reasonable* minds would agree).
You'll notice that there are some debaters, e.g. currently on the front page, where one debater wins the bulk of the votes, but the other debater still gets *some* votes. There are sometimes debates where one side is simply outclassed, and you can read the RFDs that still vote for the outclassed side to see obvious examples of subjective evaluation models in action. Those RFDs invariably come from people with establishable pre-existing biases on the topic and either fail to articulate argument or BOP-specific reasons for voting or fail to give any credence to one side's arguments and merely list all the things they liked from the other side. Subjective RFDs often do this: they say "omg, all these arguments from the side I agreed with beforehand were so good, e.g. Pro referred to John Lott who is the God of gun statistics and can never be wrong about anything." If you keep a sharp eye out, it becomes really easy to see votes that are based on a subjective analysis.
So keep your eye out. Force yourself to be tabula rasa. And keep up the good work (because anyone who cares enough to read my voting advice is doing good work).
Stay classy San Francisco.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Miscellaneous
Aloha, DART!
It has now been 7 months since Virt and I were first appointed as DART's moderators by Mike. During that time, moderation has handled countless reports, helped numerous users address various problems, and implemented several changes based on usership feedback.
Given that we are now more than halfway through our first year volunteering as moderators for DART, I thought it would be appropriate to pause to allow the community to provide feedback on moderation. Virt and I value the usership's input, which is one reason why we implemented the MEEP process and why we try to engage with individual users who express concerns.
Moderation always tries to achieve the highest standards of integrity, fairness, and consistency possible. While we are not perfect, and while no code of conduct is perfect, we are striving every day towards excellence in our moderation of DART.
Please use this this thread to express any thoughts, concerns, or questions you have with regard to site moderation. Feel free to address queries to any of the moderators. This is not the ideal thread to talk about technical issues, as that is outside of moderation's purview. For the next 3 days or so, we will attempt to answer your questions and will weigh any potential changes to policy implicated by your concerns. Consider this your opportunity to provide us a report card on our first 7 months in office. After three days, the thread will be locked.
Thank you. We look forward to a productive discussion.
- Bsh1, Chief Moderator
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Aloha, DART!
First, Ramshutu has been appointed as an Assistant Voting Moderator. His appointment will be officially effectuated at 8:00pm, EST, on 5/8/2019 (today). He will now have the power to render moderation decisions on votes cast on debates, with oversight from myself and Virtuoso. His powers are confined to vote moderation, and he does not have authority to act for moderation in other moderation remits. I, Virt, and Mike are all excited to have him on board, and to again have a member of the moderation team dedicated to handling votes. Welcome!
Second, an official Moderation Extended Policies and Interpretations has been published. This document includes various moderation policies which are either too insignificant to include in the COC, are tangential to the COC, or both. It is my hope that this document will be instructive for both users and moderators.
Please feel free to use this thread to comment on either of this topics. This thread will be locked in 48 hours. Thank you.
-Bsh1, Chief Moderator
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Aloha, DART!
So, I have recently been working on revamping the About DART: Resources for New Members thread. It is still a work in progress, and I think it always will be. But I am interested in your thoughts on potential edits, deletions, and/or additions which could improve the content there.
Also, as you might be able to tell from reading the changes I made to the thread, some of the MEEP'd policies will, instead of being added to the COC, be included in a new "Moderation Extended Policies and Interpretations" google document. This document will be a combination of moderation rulings and MEEP'd policies which are not substantial enough to merit being located in the COC. This will help keep the COC to a readable length. I hope to publish this document sometime in the coming weeks.
That's all. Thanks in advance for your comments and suggestions!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Aloha!
Moderation's policy on tied votes (specifically, votes which award no points) has recently been that they are not moderatable. Let me explain briefly why that policy was implemented. Beginning of the argument, sources, spelling, and conduct clauses of the voting policy is the following phrase: "in order to award conduct points." I interpreted this text to mean that a vote must actually award points in order to be subject to these clauses. Put differently, "in order to award points" is not the same as "in order to award no points." I was not particularly pleased with the result of this reading of the voting policy, as it essentially allowed junk votes to be cast, possibly in order to inflate the voter's site statistics.
Recently, however, thanks both to Ramshutu and Virtuoso, my view on what the voting policy allows moderation to do with regard to tied votes has changed. There are two relevant portions of the voting policy and COC which are important in this new reading. First, the voting policy defines a "vote bomb" as "a vote cast without regard for the content of the debate." This implies that the voter must have at least examined the debate and its content prior to voting, and must root their vote in a consideration of that content. Second, the COC prohibits spam content, where "spam" refers to "any content which is nonsensical or excessively repetitive." Voters who cast the same tied vote with highly similar RFDs over and over again are spamming.
Therefore, there will be a change to moderation's approach to voting moderation with regard to tied votes. These changes will impact any votes cast on or after of 4:00pm, EST, today. This post is serving as a public notice of those changes in policy. This thread will be locked in 48 hours.
The first policy change is that voters must offer an explanation (which is related to the content of the debate) of why they chose to award no points. Simply saying "my opinion wasn't changed" or "I wasn't able to form an opinion" or "pink elephants smoke meth" will no longer be acceptable RFDs on tied debates. Voters need not meet the standard of sufficiency for awarding argument points, but they must clearly explain why, based on what transpired in the debate, they chose not to award points. The second change is that casting more than 5 tied (no points awarded) votes a day will be considered spam, and will result in all tied (no points awarded) votes in excess of the 5-vote limit being deleted.
I intend to submit these policies to a MEEP for further consideration and development. The MEEP will be held sometime in June or early July. My hope is that a clearer standard for tied votes can be developed, and that the spam cap can possibly be repealed or limited in scope. Until then, these stopgap measures, based on a careful consideration of the site's COC and voting policy, will be implemented as described. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Thank you.
-Bsh1, Chief Moderator
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
About MEEP
MEEPs (Moderation Engagement and Enactment Processes) are official comment periods where moderation proposes and solicits feedback on various potential moderation policies. MEEPs allow moderation to pose questions about moderation policy to the site usership and empower the site usership to either ratify or reject moderation's proposals. In order for a moderation proposal to be ratified, at least 10 users must have expressed a preference on the policy in question, and more than a majority of those expressing a preference must be in agreement. That means, in a MEEP with 10 voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 7-3; similarly, in a MEEP with 19 voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 11-8. This ensures that the outcome of the process reflects the consensus of a significant number of site users. If a MEEP result is not binding/valid, moderation will maintain the pre-MEEP status quo, whatever that happens to be.
This MEEP will be open for user votes until 11:30pm, EST, on 4/23/19. This voting period may be extended by up to twelve hours if there are fewer than 10 votes on any of the specific questions put to the usership. Any extension will apply to all questions. Votes cast after the deadline will not be considered.
The Questions
Below is an enumerated list of the content to be voted on. A brief explanation of each question is included as well.
1. Voting Criteria Run-off: Should Plan B or Plan C be adopted?
The last MEEP process asked the site's usership whether their should be criteria that must be satisfied in order to be eligible to vote on debates. The usership answered that question with a clear "yes," but was unable to clearly decide which proposed set of criteria should be adopted. This question asks which of the two finalist plans from the last MEEP should be implemented. Please answer by indicating clearly a preference for Plan B or Plan C.
- Plan B: Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 1 non-troll debate without any forfeits OR posted 50 forum posts
- Plan C: Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts
2. How should a "troll debate" be defined?
Currently, it is the case that troll debates are not-moderated. This is done for numerous reasons, including the increased subjectivity which is often involved and the generally more lighthearted nature of the debates. However, this question is not asking whether troll debates should be moderated. Instead, it is asking how troll debates ought to be defined. Please rank the following three options from 1-3, with 3 indicating your most preferred choice. Plan B represents the definition currently in use by moderation. Failure to make a choice will result in Plan B continuing to be used.
- Plan A - A troll debate is any (a) competition-style debate (e.g. rap battle, talent show, poetry competition), (b) debate primarily designed to be humorous or facetious or containing primarily humorous or facetious content, and (c) debate on a truism (e.g. "a bachelor is someone who is unmarried").
- Plan B - A troll debate is any (a) competition-style debate (e.g. rap battle, talent show, poetry competition), (b) debate primarily designed to be humorous or facetious or containing primarily humorous or facetious content, (c) debate on a truism (e.g. "a bachelor is someone who is unmarried"), and (d) debate in which one of the debaters is a subject (e.g. "Bsh1 is gay").
- Plan C - A troll debate is any (a) competition-style debate (e.g. rap battle, talent show, poetry competition), (b) debate primarily designed to be humorous or facetious or containing primarily humorous or facetious content, (c) debate on a truism (e.g. "a bachelor is someone who is unmarried"), (d) debate in which one of the debaters is a subject (e.g. "Bsh1 is gay"), and (e) debate in which another dart user is the subject.
3. Should there be a voting moderation opt-out possibility on debates?
Not every user wants moderation on debates. While moderation should, in my view, always be the default (in order to protect users from the worst and most capricious voting practices), there may be cases where debaters would like to opt-out of voting moderation. Therefore, should debaters be allowed to opt-out of voting moderation on their debates if the instigator clearly and obviously opts out of moderation in the full description of the debate? Please answer "yes" or "no."
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
About MEEP
MEEPs (Moderation Engagement and Enactment Processes) are official comment periods where moderation proposes and solicits feedback on various potential moderation policies. MEEPs allow moderation to pose questions about moderation policy to the site usership and empower the site usership to either ratify or reject moderation's proposals. In order for a moderation proposal to be ratified, at least 10 users must have expressed a preference on the policy in question, and more than a majority of those expressing a preference must be in agreement. That means, in a MEEP with 10 voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 7-3; similarly, in a MEEP with 19 voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 11-8. This ensures that the outcome of the process reflects the consensus of a significant number of site users. If a MEEP result is not binding/valid, moderation will maintain the pre-MEEP status quo, whatever that happens to be.
This MEEP will be open for user votes until 11:45pm, EST, on 3/16/19. This voting period may be extended by up to twelve hours if there are fewer than 10 votes on any of the specific questions put to the usership. Any extension will apply to all questions. Votes cast after the deadline will not be considered.
The Proposals
Below is an enumerated list of the content to be voted on. A brief explanation of the proposal is included below each proposal as well.
1. Should there be additional criteria that a debater voter needs to meet in order to be eligible to vote on a debate?
In light of recent problems regarding illegitimate voting, vote bombing, and self-voting, it may be the case that it is not prudent to give every account the power to vote. This question is asking whether there should be eligibility requirements imposed on accounts in order for them to vote. Users who vote without being eligible to do so would have their wrongful votes removed from the debate, and would receive a warning. Further attempts to cast votes while ineligible could be met with additional sanctions from moderation. If you vote "no" to this proposal, you are voting against the imposition of additional eligibility requirements (and, while unnecessary, you may still rank the plans). If you vote "yes," please rank the five plans for additional eligibility requirements, which are listed below, in order of preference (with 1 being your first choice of implementation):
- Plan A - Super Light: Accounts must have read the site's COC (which includes the site's voting policies)
- Plan B - Light: Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 1 non-troll debate without forfeiting OR posted 50 forum posts
- Plan C - Medium: Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts
- Plan D - Heavy: Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 3 debates non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 200 forum posts
- Plan E - Super Heavy: Accounts must have read the site's COC AND passed a competency review conducted by moderation AND completed at least 3 debates non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 200 forum posts
2. Should the COC (Site Rules) Section 1, Subsection 3, Part 10 be repealed?
This section of the COC prohibits the use of profanity without asterisks. This portion of the COC is not enforced unless the profanity is being used as a personal attack, in which case it falls under a different section of the COC. While I.3.10 is not enforced, profanity is treated as an aggravating factor when determining punishment in more serious cases. A "yes" vote would repeal this section of the COC, while a "no" vote would maintain the status quo.
3. Should COC (Voting Policy) Section 1, Subsection A be replaced with a different text?
A "yes" vote would replace the current voting standard for argument points with the following text: "In order to award argument points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate, (b) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and (c) explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole." A "no" vote would retain the current phrasing of the text.
4. Should COC (Voting Policy) Section 1, Subsection B be replaced with a different text?
A "yes" vote would replace the current voting standard for sources points with the following text: "In order to award sources points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate, (b) directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support, and (c) must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's. Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points." A "no" vote would retain the current phrasing of the text.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
About MEEP
MEEPs (Moderation Engagement and Enactment Processes) are official comment periods where moderation proposes and solicits feedback on various potential moderation policies. MEEPs allow moderation to pose questions about moderation policy to the site usership and empower the site usership to either ratify or reject moderation's proposals. In order for a moderation proposal to be ratified, at least 10 users must have expressed a preference on the policy in question, and more than a majority of those expressing a preference must be in agreement. That means, in a MEEP with 10 voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 7-3; similarly, in a MEEP with 19 voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 11-8. This ensures that the outcome of the process reflects the consensus of a significant number of site users. If a MEEP result is not binding/valid, moderation will maintain the pre-MEEP status quo, whatever that happens to be.
This MEEP will be open for user votes until 10:00am, EST, on 1/31/19. This voting period may be extended by up to twelve hours if there are fewer than 10 votes on any of the specific questions put to the usership. Votes cast after the deadline will not be considered.
The Proposals
Below is an enumerated list of the content to be voted on. A brief explanation of the proposal is included below each proposal as well.
1. Should DART moderation be able to punish users for severe misconduct which occurs on the site's discord?
Since the site's discord is an official extension of DART, should moderation be able to punish, on DART, serious misconduct which occurs on the discord? Any problems on discord threaten spillover effects on the site, and could have real, negative implications for site users. Serious misconduct includes such things as doxxing and making credible threats of violence, and does not include such things as calling someone "stupid" or "retarded."
2. Should there be a public ban log?
A previous referendum concluded that a public ban log should not be instituted. The concerns at the time were that such a ban log would make it harder for banned users to re-integrate into the site and that a ban log would constitute an unacceptable form of public shaming which would itself be a personal attack. That being said, the proliferation of public discussions of bans has effectively publicized bans in the same way that a ban log would. Therefore, this question is being re-posed to the community to gauge the community's views.
3. Should COC-violating conduct be deleted?
It is currently the case that only cases of severe misconduct are deleted. Posts which simply call other users "stupid," for example, are left up. Call-out threads, per a previous referendum, are locked, not deleted. A "yes" vote on this question would require moderation to delete ALL posts containing misconduct, from posts which say that other users are "stupid" to the serious misconduct which is already being deleted to call-out threads. Moderation is concerned that a regime of deletion could be construed as censorship, which is why it is not currently moderation's policy to delete all COC-violating content. Deletion of such content also makes it harder for moderation to catalog evidence of conduct violations. Keep in mind: a "yes" vote would require the deletion of a significant amount of site content.
Please vote "Yes" or "No" to each question, clearly indicating which question you are responding to when you do so. Thank you for your participation in this promised MEEP process!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Multi-accounting is against the site's COC. I consider it one of the more serious categories of offenses because it allows a user to cheat on debates (by self-voting) and in mafia (by playing both sides of the field). Moreover, it allows a multi-accounter to skirt the sanctity of PMs by soliciting other user's private thoughts which those users may not have shared with the multi-accounter had they known who the multi-accounter was. Multi-accounting is deeply problematic and prohibited. However, as with most offenses, there is room for leniency based on the severity of the crime, the contrition of the violator, and the various situational factors at play in any given case.
Virt and I have noticed a significant amount of multi-accounting occurring among certain users. Much of this multi-accounting stems from a lack of understanding of how the rules work or from users simply changing to new accounts in order to have a fresh start. We therefore wish to clarify a few things and then propose a solution which we hope will be agreeable to individuals guilty of unintentional, misdemeanor/mild, or accidental multi-accounting.
Let's begin with the clarifications. First, credential-sharing is a form of multi-accounting. Do not ever give your log-in credentials to another user. Second, because DART does not allow users to self-close accounts when they decide to start over, moderation must be asked to those close the old accounts. This prevents both the appearance of multi-accounting and the ability to use both accounts simultaneously (as one might be tempted to do, even if that was not one's original intent). You will not be in trouble if you want to switch accounts, but it is problematic if you switch accounts without notifying moderation. Third, accounts created for specific purposes (e.g. an account for voting, an account for posting) are still multi-accounts.
In order to address the panoply of multi-accounting violations we've encountered, we will be offering a one-time amnesty to multi-accounters who have created fewer than 3 total accounts AND either: (a) created multi-accounts only to "start over" and have therefore not been actively using more than one account at any given time OR (b) created multis but never self-voted and have only one account with 50+ posts. To claim this amnesty, you MUST come forward to moderation by sending them a private confession (identifying all accounts you've ever had on DART) on or before 11:59pm, EST, on January 2, 2019. Moderation will close all your multi-accounts, but you will be permitted to retain a single account of your own choosing. You will not be punished for your offense, nor will it be held against you in any future proceedings with moderation (unless you recidivate as a multi-accounter). Moderation authority for this action comes from our ability to issue and withhold punishments based on our discretionary judgement of the severity of the offense committed.
If you share an IP address with another user (e.g. a sibling, spouse, classmate), you should also come forward. This is not against the rules, but you will be subject to additional restrictions and moderation scrutiny (as it may not be possible to verify that you are, in fact, different people). Restrictions include not being able to debate someone who shares your IP address and not being able to vote on debates in which someone with your IP address was a participant. Additional restrictions may be imposed based on moderation's confidence in your honesty.
TDLR: if you multi-accounted accidentally or non-maliciously, let moderation know and we'll give you a one-time pardon. Also notify moderation if anyone (like a spouse or a friend) might be sharing (or have ever shared) your account's IP address. And please, remember these two key points: do not multi-account, and, if you want to start afresh with a new account, let moderation know within 12 hours of creating that new account so that we can close your old one.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
I would like to wish everyone, on behalf of moderation, a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!
This is the time of year where goodwill and compassion towards others should be foremost on our minds. In that spirit, I hope that this holiday season each of you will be able to enjoy the company of family, the joys of giving and receiving gifts, the happiness of curling up with a warm cup of hot chocolate, and the beauty that is the fellowship of humanity. Whether you are or are not religious, this season is special for all of us, and invites us to reflect sincerely on what it means to be a part of the human community and on what the real goods are in this world. With that, and a few Christmas Carols, I wish you the most wonderful of holiday seasons.
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays,
Bsh1
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Given the recent thread by Ethang, I thought it would be only responsible for me to open myself up to user questions. It should be clear that I categorically deny the allegations that Ethang made. For the next 48 hours, feel free to ask me here any questions related to my relationship with Mike, my past on DDO, my political and other beliefs, and any questions related to me as a person. I am not going to deal with questions related to modding here, as those are addressed on an ongoing basis as concerns arise. I reserve the right to refuse questions of a doxxing or overly personal nature.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Post any and all here. Posters should disclaim that they are not rendering *actual* insult to any subject of the rap if that subject is a user here. Everything should be taken and meant in good fun. Feel free to write reviews as well. Please understand that raps often involve sexual, insulting, or braggadocious language, and that the use of these words will be considered artistic expression as long as it does not become harassing (i.e. overly focused on a particular user), doxxing, or consistently threatening. Any user may at any time request (publicly, in this thread, or in a PM to me) that they not be rapped about in this thread, and that request will be honored.
I'll go first. No COC violations, threats, insults, etc. are intended. Please let me know how I did; this is my first time rapping. It's entitled "Head Bowed."
=========
Before you suck me off get your head bowed
You know you want me to come and get your ass plowed
Cause I'm the baddest bitch in this whole place
And you ain't even worth it, you just blank space
You just a motherf*cker ain't got endowed
A wanna be whore that only kowtows
So bend over now on your kneepads
And I'll show you domination like a dungeon dad
A disgrace, a sh*tface, chained and gagged
Erase your name--you gonna die sad!
Before you suck me off get your head bowed
You know I'm on fleek, turn your ass around
I see it in your eyes, got invidia
At least I'm not like you, no chlamydia
And when I take that whip I got good form
But when you in the bed you just deformed
And when I'm with my man, I'm good for 'im
But when you with your girl, you're just lukewarm
A scrawny little dunce, f*ckin moron
You wish you could be me with that more brawn
Before you suck me off get your head bowed
Cause I make all the men go oh wow
So guzzle all that milk, let the honey flow
Like my rap, perfect pace; I get the money, hoe
You crawl up to me beggin' for some handouts
But I ain't here to help bail your ass out
If you want my money, my treats, and no bans
Better show me you can work that f*ckin' poll stand
So crawl on over hear with your lap dance,
good dog, rub against a real man's lance
Before you suck me off get your head bowed
I hear you in that dungeon, got you beggin' loud
I got the brains, I got the ass, I got the ripped men
Know that I'm always turnt like a straight ten,
But you anorexic ugly like a gay one
Ain't no one wanna see your limp blowgun
Microscopic anyway--it's sorry hon'
You need that f*cking dildo just to get off
Cause no one wants to see you with your clothes off
So you take out your frustrations in these rage posts
But you ain't got nothing in those empty boasts
Before you suck me off get your head bowed
You know you want me to come and get your ass plowed
Cause mine ain't flaccid like yours at climax
I know how to give it on those freakin' barebacks
So come on sorry hoe and give that deep throat
I know you want it bad but I'm not gonna gloat
Your sorry enough with your sad-ass rhymes
It's not your fault that you're past your prime
Oh, wait--nevermind!
You know I'm the baddest bitch in this whole place
And you know you're just a waste of space
Yeah, before you suck me off get your head bowed
Drink it all up like you need it now!
And if you do good I might not lock you up
Got the dungeon all ready to f*ck you all up.
Bitch.
*drops mic*
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Show business
Given that moderation did not emerge with a clear consensus on the questions posed in the previous MEEP, we will be hosting this second MEEP with an eye to acquiring a clearer picture of where the community stands. For more on what the MEEP process is, see the previous MEEP thread. For the purposes of this first vote alone, any particular result of this MEEP will be considered valid if at least 10 users have expressed a preference on the policy in question and more than a majority of those participants are in agreement. If the result is not valid, I will implement the proposals in Questions 1 and 3, because answers to these questions are necessary, but not the proposals in 2 and 4.
Below, moderation will propose several changes to moderation policy. Please indicate whether you are a yea (or yay, if you're super excited) or a nay on the proposed policy. If their are tweaks you would like to make to said policies, please suggest them (esp. if you are a nay), but also, importantly, indicate your overall support for the policy proposed.
1. Is the current MEEP process an acceptable framework for hosting these policy discussions? Generally, the reviews of MEEP seemed positive, but confirmation of that impression is important. The MEEP process is described below.
MEEPs (Moderation Engagement and Enactment Processes) will be periodically instigated by moderation in order to gain community feedback on various policy options and to obtain the community's approval or disapproval of those policy options. This will ensure that the site usership will have the opportunity to democratically weigh in on moderation policies. In order to ensure that the result of any MEEP process reflects the will of a substantial number of community members, for a specific MEEP result to be binding, at least 10 users must have expressed a preference on the policy in question, and more than a majority of participants must be in agreement. That means, in a MEEP with 10 voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 7-3; similarly, a in MEEP with 19 voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 11-8. Again, this ensures that the outcome of the process reflects the consensus of a significant number of site users. If a MEEP result is not binding/valid, moderation will maintain the pre-MEEP status quo, whatever that happens to be. MEEP commentary periods will be open for feedback for at least two days, and may be switched a read-only mode shortly after that period in order to signal a clear end to the MEEP process. MEEPs will be broadcast using the site's announcement feature to ensure maximum awareness.
2. Should an opt-in voting standard which is less stringent than the default be implemented for debaters? A potential such opt-in standard is described below.
- To award argument points, the voter must (1) analyze the argument they found most important, (2) explain who is winning that argument and why.
- To award sources points, the voter must (1) offer a comparative statement about the quality of each side's sources, or note that one side did not use sources while the other did, and (2) point to a specific good or bad source.
- To award spelling and grammar points, the voter must (1) offer a comparative statement about the quality of each side's spelling and grammar and (2) point to a specific instance of poor spelling and grammar.
- To award conduct points, the voter must (1) offer a comparative statement about the conduct of each side, and (2) point to a specific act of misconduct by a particular side
3. Should moderation moderate select-winner votes using the argument standard currently applied to the 7-point system?
4. Should moderation be able to suspend problematic votes prior to deleting the voting in order to give the voter to fix the vote before the vote is taken down?
5. Should there be an opt-in for stricter moderation standards? If yes, what should those standards look like?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com