Total topics: 78
Welcome to the very first MEEP (Moderation Engagement and Enactment Process)!
About MEEPs
MEEPs are official comment periods where moderation proposes and solicits feedback on various potential moderation policies. Moderation MEEPs should not be confused with other obviously common MEEP-expressions, such as "mediocre endive-eating porpoises," "marooned episodic echidnas and platypuses," "mad ecumenical equine prophets," "mesmerizingly enervated egregious parmesan," or even "mega-erotic emphysema patients." No, MEEP definitely means Moderation Engagement and Enactment Process, and is tons better than Max's silly DERP process. It's MEEP-tastic!
Anyhow, as I said, MEEPs 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.
This is the rough outline for the MEEP process we have developed with an eye to ensuring any result reflects a wide consensus of opinion. However, we will use this MEEP to kill two birds with one stone by asking you to provide feedback on the MEEP process itself. Should it be a simply majority? Should it have a participation threshold? Should its results be binding or advisory? Please let us know your thoughts.
Voting Policy Discussion
This MEEP is specifically about voting policy. The question moderation wants to put before the community is whether there should be a laxer opt-in standard that debaters can have applied to vote moderation on their debates. Such an opt-in would likely need to be agreed to explicitly by both debaters and would only impact the voting standards themselves, not other vote-related rules.
A laxer alternative might look something like this:
- 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
This is just a loose sketch, and so in addition to asking whether such an opt-in should exist, moderation is also asking what such an opt-in should look like were it to exist. Also, what should debaters have to do to opt-in to the standards? Again, please let us know your thoughts.
Select Winner
Also, as a bit of a side-issue, there is now a select winner feature. Moderation is planning on just using the current "argument points" standards to moderate select winner votes. Does anyone feel that a standard unique for the select winner feature needs to be created? Please let us know your thoughts.
Happy Holidays :)
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Aloha, DART!
Virt, Mike, and I are pleased to inform you that Castin has been brought on board as Assistant Moderator for Special Cases. She will be dealing with cases or users in which Virt and/or I are recused or in cases where our involvement would be problematic. To expand a bit more on what her role will be, Castin will handle these cases by evaluating them, then making a recommendation on how to proceed to the unrecused mod who is then bound to implement her recommendation barring any egregious disagreement. In cases where both I or Virt are recused, she will be the final deciding moderator on the case. Virt and I will be obligated, moving forward, to inform her whenever we recuse ourselves. Castin will not be handling vote reports, as Tej is available for those issues.
Castin is a user who, in a very short time, I have come to respect greatly, and I believe the site shares similar feelings. She is polite, level-headed, and insightful, and I trust her judgement as a now-moderator. I believe that she is an amazing addition to our team, and we are all incredibly happy to have her on board.
For the record, the moderation team is now:
- Chief Moderator: Bsh1
- Deputy Moderator: Virtuoso
- Assistant Moderator for Voting: Tejretics
- Assistant Moderator for Special Cases: Castin
Thank you all for your attention! Please welcome Castin on board and feel free to comment!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
LYNCHED LAST DP
Grey - You are KAI WINN ADAMI. You would always show up at DS9 at the most inopportune moment, always the bearer of ill tidings. Because you insist on showing up, even when you're not wanted, you are the compulsive VISITOR. Each night you must select another player to visit. Your visit will do nothing. If you fail to make a selection, your action will be randomly decided for you. You win with the town.
DIED IN THE NIGHT
Vaar - You are GUL DUKAT. You betrayed everyone you ever owed loyalty too--the Cardassian Union, The Dominion, yourself. Possessed by an unbridled desire for power and an insane lust for revenge, you are evil to the core. Therefore, you are the TRAITOR. You are mafia, but will not be included in the mafia PM until DP3. Your teammates do not know your identity, but you know theirs. You win with the mafia.
GRAVEYARD
Supa 1 - Lwaxanna Troi, Nexus - Town
Budda 1 - Ezri Dax, Vanilla - Town
Grey - Kai Winn Adami, Visitor - Town
Vaar - Gul Dukat, Traitor - Mafia
LIVING PLAYERS
Budda 2 (Aporia)
Argent
DPR
Lunatic
LM (Sloth)
Supa 2 (Pie)
Warren
Wylted
With 8 players, it takes 5 votes to lynch.
The DP ends at 10:30pm, EST, on 11/19/18
The DP ends at 10:30pm, EST, on 11/19/18
Good luck! And let the games begin!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Forum games
Virt and I will be doing another live debate tonight, around 11:30pm. A link will be posted here about 10 minutes before we start if anyone wants to join. For anyone who wants to see the debate but can't watch it live, you'll be able to see and vote on it in a debate here on DART. This is the second such debate we will have done here on the site.
The topic we are debating is: "Bystanders have a moral obligation to act in the face of injustice." Virt will be taking the Pro position and I will be taking the Con position.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Feel free to ask me anything as long as it's not about moderation--I've talked a lot about moderation lately. Or just pop in to say something random about or to me. Preferably keep it positive, but really, it's up to you. I'll leave this open till Sunday afternoon. Ask away...
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Imagine the following (hypothetical) situation: "User Q doxxes User T in a PM with User W. User T becomes suspicious that they have been doxxed, and reports Users Q and W to moderation. Users Q and W deny any wrongdoing and offer (selectively chosen or doctored) screenshots to 'verify' their innocence. Users Q and W in turn accuse User T of framing them/lying about them to moderation." The only means moderation has of resolving this dilemma would be to access the PMs of the users involved through the moderation portal. However, the ability of mods to access users' PM would naturally raise substantial privacy concerns.
Virt and I, and I believe Mike as well (but I will let him speak for himself), feel that it is occasionally necessary that mods have access to users' PMs to resolve situations like the one described above. That said, because of the substantial privacy concerns implicated by such a power, we believe that such authority should be limited. As a limiting measure, we believe that Virt, Mike, and I must all approve access to a user's PM in order for that access to be granted to any one of us. In other words, in order for any one of us to gain access to any PM, the three of us would need to unanimously agree that (a) reasonable suspicion of a COC violation exists, (b) the violation of the COC may be severe, and (c) accessing the PM is the only way to definitively resolve the issue (i.e. there are no less intrusive ways for moderation to resolve the issue). This tripartite test and the requirement for unanimity would act as checks against spurious or inappropriate use of any power to access users' PMs.
However, I can imagine that many may feel as if moderation should never, in any circumstance, no matter how grave, have such authority. While I disagree with that position, it is one which I can respect and abide by if the community decides that is best. For the record, this is not a power mods currently have. Therefore, I am using this post to pose the following questions to the DART usership:
1. Should moderators be able to access a user's PM if (1) all three admin officials unanimously agree that (2) the three part test outlines above is met?
2. Should moderators never--in any circumstance--have the ability to access a user's PM
3. Is there another solution to this problem or a suggestion for how to improve the proposed checks?
Please feel free to comment or to ask questions. Moderation will respect any majority decision reached by the community.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
LYNCHED LAST DP
Supa - You are LWAXANNA TROI. Ever the busybody, you fluster, discombobulate, and frazzle everyone around you while somehow making yourself the center of attention. Because of your ability to create chaos, you are the NEXUS. Each night you automatically and passively redirect all players who target you to another random player. You win with the town.
DIED IN THE NIGHT
Budda - You are EZRI DAX. I never liked you. Jadzia was oodles better, and it was horrible the way she left the series. Because I'm bitter, you are VANILLA. You have no role. You win with the town.
GRAVEYARD
Supa 1 - Lwaxanna Troi, Nexus - Town
Budda - Ezri Dax, Vanilla - Town
LIVING PLAYERS
Aporia
Argent
DPR
Grey
Lunatic
LM (Sloth)
Supa 2 (Pie)
Vaar
Warren
Wylted
With 10 players, it takes 6 votes to lynch.
The DP ends at 6:00pm, EST, on 11/13/18
The DP ends at 6:00pm, EST, on 11/13/18
Good luck! And let the games begin!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Forum games
Following from the public discussion that I initiated, which itself followed from various suggestion box threads, I am posting this list of finalized changes to moderation policy. Those policies with a clear consensus of support were adopted. Two-thirds of the suggested changes will be implemented.
1. No longer post vote remove notices on FF, troll, or conceded debates2. Whenever a vote is borderline, default to considering it sufficient3. Whenever a vote is removed, explain--briefly--how the voter could improve4. No longer post detailed analysis in notices on non-removed votes5. Allow users to summarily post the contents of mod PMs so long as no non-public information about other users (other = not the sender or receiver of the PM) is revealed by the revelation.6. Lock objectionable or COC-violating threads instead of deleting them, unless leaving them up would severely breach a user's privacy or safety rights7. Cap the number of vote reports that a user can make per day at 108. No longer prohibit the use of slurs so long as those slurs are not intended to render insult to the subject of the comment9. Make all significant changes in mod policy subject to a mandatory 2-day public comment period
Those proposals that were not adopted, except for the proposal allowing only voters and debates to report votes on a debate, met with mixed feedback in the discussion, with at least 2 objectors each. I am still willing to adopt the "mixed feedback" proposals if and when a clear consensus in favor of them emerges. That is to say, they are not permanently off the table. Ultimately, however, 2/3rds of the proposed changes will be implemented. The new policies will come into effect tomorrow if they have not already. If you have any questions or concerns about these finalized changes, please feel free to comment.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Hi!
I'd love to have a replacement, and maybe a back up volunteer replacement (if I need you), for my mafia game. If you're interested, PM me!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Forum games
Happy Election Day!
While polls are still up, I am encouraging you to exercise your civic right to cast a ballot. Voting matters, and is one of those civic freedoms we should value most highly. So, whoever you're voting for, please get out and vote before polls close (usually between 7 and 9pm, depending on where you live).
-Bsh
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Welcome to Star Trek Deep Space Nine 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, trolling, or thread derailment will also not be tolerated, and operates on the "1 warning, then replacement/mod-kill" paradigm.
Cycles and Voting
All DPs will be 72 hours long until the total number of players is less than 8. At that point, all DPs will become 48 hours. NPs will always be 24 hours less than the previous DP (so, a 48 hour DP is followed by a 24 hour NP). 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.
THEME
The theme of this game revolves around Star Trek Deep Space Nine. You can learn more about this topic at the following wiki: http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Portal:Main Do not use the beta wiki, as that is for non-canon material. The wiki I linked is correct, and is the alpha wiki. All players have characters and roles.
RESOURCES
*neither a comprehensive nor definitive list
LIVING PLAYERS
Aporia
Argent
Budda
DPR
Grey
Lunatic
McSloth
Pie
Supa
Vaar
Warren
Wylted
With 12 players, it takes 7votes to lynch.
The DP ends at 11:00pm, EST, on 11/7/18
The DP ends at 11:00pm, EST, on 11/7/18
Good luck! And let the games begin!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Forum games
Since the "suggestion box" threads have died down, I am posting this thread to propose certain changes to moderation policy. I would like feedback on these proposed changes, and to know what the community thinks of these changes. I understand there is a desire for moderation to change how it moderates, and Virt and I are committed to working towards reflecting community values to the greatest possible extent. I believe these proposals are a start, but certainly not a finish, regarding that endeavor. Some of these proposals would require technical changes, and all would require Mike's final approval. Please review the proposals and offer your questions, comments, and thoughts.
1. No longer post vote remove notices on FF, troll, or conceded debates
2. Whenever a vote is borderline, default to considering it sufficient (currently implemented)
3. Whenever a vote is removed, explain--briefly--how the voter could improve (currently implemented)
4. No longer post detailed analysis in notices on non-removed votes
5. Allow only debaters and voters to report votes on debates (this may require non-anonymous reporting)
6. Reinstate anonymous reporting
7. Allow users to summarily post the contents of mod PMs so long as no non-public information about other users (other = not the sender or receiver of the PM) is revealed by the revelation.
8. Lock objectionable or COC-violating threads instead of deleting them, unless leaving them up would severely breach a user's privacy or safety rights
9. Allow mods to disclose the reasons for a ban, via PM, upon request by a user
10. Cap the number of vote reports that a user can make per day at 10
11. No longer prohibit the use of slurs so long as those slurs are not intended to render insult to the subject of the comment
12. Make all significant changes in mod policy subject to a mandatory 2-day public comment period
Again, please feel free to comment and offer your thoughts. I will be posting a discussion on other mod topics (like voting) this upcoming weekend. This thread will be open for feedback for a few days, until interest in this thread dies down.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Drafterman recently suggested that, in order to streamline the voting moderation process, moderators cease offering detailed notices for some removed votes. He wrote:
And let's not forget the real issue is in the overall moderation decision to craft bespoke moderation reports on every single vote that gets reported. That's what's eating up your time. You want that time back? Stop doing it.
I think this is an interesting suggestion. I want to use this thread to discuss this suggestion, as well as new voting policies I put in place yesterday, namely:
- Whenever something is borderline, default to considering it sufficient
- Whenever you remove a vote, explain, very briefly, how the voter could improve
Virt as also suggested that moderators "try to contact the user first to give them time to make a correction in the comment section." I think this suggestion might add more work for moderators and is perhaps redundant. Since moderators already @ people on voting notices, and since those notices will now include suggestions for improvement, it seems that the notices may suffice. I am also concerned that, if a vote on a debate with only 12 hours left in the voting period is insufficient, moderation would be unable to remove it because we would have to wait for the voter to make changes. The vote could then be left up despite being insufficient. That said, there is clearly merit in reaching out to voters on a 1-on-1 level. It is a deeply education-focused approach, which I like. With all that said, I am open to feedback on the new voting polices and on the following suggestions:
1. No longer post vote removal notices on FF or conceded debates
2. No longer post vote remove notices on FF, troll, or conceded debates
3. Contact voters individually to talk to them about how to improve an existing vote before removing the vote
Please feel free to comment and to make other constructive suggestions.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Some site users have expressed a desire for greater mod transparency. I recently asked for concrete suggestions on this question, and Castin was gracious enough to offer the following, considered reply:
- Relax the mod PM rule so that it's only prohibited to post a mod's PM without notice if it exposes information about another user. In all other cases let people post mod PMs without having to notify you to give you a preparatory advantage.- Consider locking threads instead of deleting them. Individual offensive posts within the thread can still be deleted. Destroying evidence and records always strikes people as suppression. Doesn't matter what the reasons are.- Relax your policy of conducting mod actions "behind closed doors", so to speak. You do this to protect member privacy, but your problem is you're not on a forum that values member privacy more than transparency, you're on a forum that values transparency more than member privacy. Which means your priorities are at odds with the priorities of your base. Jmo. Start telling people why members were banned, if they ask. If this is already your policy, I apologize. I thought mod actions were currently private unless the subject of the action chose to share the information.Just off the top of my head. I don't know how reasonable or concrete they are. But they were honest attempts at actionable suggestions.When you ban someone, people don't want to hear "that's classified", they want the scoop. When you send them a PM censuring their behavior, they want to show it to people as it is and say "look guys, do you think this is fair". And even when a thread totally crosses the line, they still want to read it for themselves.
From my perspective, the public ban proposal was already put to public debate and rejected. That said, I think the other proposals are reasonable and reflect, as Castin notes, the priorities of many site users. Those proposals are:
1. Allow users to summarily post the contents of mod PMs so long as no non-public information about other users (other = not the sender or receiver of the PM) is revealed by the revelation.
2. Locking objectionable or COC-violating threads instead of deleting them.
I think these are reasonable proposals which can be implemented immediately. I am open to other--serious--suggestions on this question (i.e. what concrete things can mods do to increase transparency) and to feedback on the suggestions put forward by Castin. Please feel free to comment.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
As many of you have now learned, reports made by users are no longer anonymous to moderators. Whether mods should be able to know the identities of users who report comments is something the site should weigh in on, and this thread is a good place to chime in on whether you believe mods should have that authority.
One concern I had some time ago with the anonymity of reports was that anonymity encouraged "spam reporting." This concern has come to fruition. A user, who chose to identify themselves in a thread, has reported every single vote (as far as I can tell) cast in the last week in, what seems to me, to be an effort to swamp moderation with reports. About 70 reports were submitted--many on full forfeit debates or concessions--in a 4 day period alone. Each report, even on full forfeit debates, takes about 5 minutes to process, and on borderline cases, a report can take up to 10 minutes to process. That's more than 4 hours worth of reports.
I call these reports "spam" because they seem to be gratuitous, i.e. based more on an effort to overwhelm moderation than on any objection to the votes per se. Similarly, the reports seem to be spam because they are frequently on full forfeit debates and concessions, where clearly no moderation is appropriate.
In conjunction with the other reports and incidents that moderation has to deal with, as well as moderators' real life obligations, the effort to drown moderation in spam reports makes it difficult for moderation to perform its job. These last 5 days alone, given the deluge of reports, I have put in 18 hours of work on DART alone. I have no objection to being a moderator, and I am happy to put in that level of time when that time is necessary to properly enforce the COC. But, the use of spam reports to swamp moderation seems more like a spiteful attempt at a time suck than anything else.
I am therefore concerned about the dilemma this activity presents. Users should, I think, have a right to make reports in an unrestricted way, because all users have an interest in the COC being enforced in an even and thorough manner. However, moderators, like any other users, have a right to free time. And, importantly, moderators ability to do their job is undermined when they are forced to divert attention to spam reports; spam reports render moderation procedurally difficult to perform. Should excessive, spam reporting (the definition being up for discussion) be prohibited?
Personally, I believe that the COC should be interpreted in a way which prohibits conduct that significantly hinders moderation's ability to enforce it, as any other interpretation would be unreasonable on its face. But, I think this is a controversial enough issue that I cannot unilaterally move forward on that interpretation. So, I am opening up the question to community feedback.
This is an open discussion, and I am interested in hearing the community's thoughts on these issues. Please feel free to comment.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Blamonkey and I did a for-fun LD debate on the right to housing. We're not gonna put it to a vote on DDO, but, if you're interested, feel free to watch and comment here!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Welcome to Star Trek DS9 Mafia!
This game is based on the 7-season TV series Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. The game does not include thematic materials from any sources other than the TV series. All material will be canon and easily researchable on the Star Trek wiki, Memory Alpha, or by watching parts of the series (it's good, trust me). Memory Beta is the non-canon Star Trek wiki. It should be a fun game. Qapla'!
I am looking for 12 to 14 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. Warren
2. Vaar
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Forum games
The site's vote reporting function is operational. While you can of course still PM a moderator with your report, you may now also simply click the report button (the flag icon) on a suspect vote in order to bring it to moderation's attention.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Virt and I think it's important for users to understand how moderation handles situations which may arise regarding potential code of conduct violations. We have both encountered some misconceptions users have about the moderation process; we hope this post will help demystify this process.
=============
When a report is submitted, the responding moderator begins by evaluating whether or not the post has violated some component of the COC. If the responding moderator is unsure or believes that a post might fall into a grey area, they consult with the other moderator to determine what course of action, if any, is best.
If it is determined that a post does not violate the COC and is thus not actionable, no further steps are taken. If it is determined that a post does violate the COC and is thus actionable, moderation evaluates the severity of the violation and decides on a course of action which, in its best judgment, is going to nudge the violator towards more appropriate action in the future. Punishment is never moderation's primary objective; rather, we prioritize encouraging users to remain active and engaged on the site in a civil and rule-abiding fashion. In other words, we place our emphasis on reform. We want users who have broken the rules to learn that their conduct was unacceptable so that they do not repeat it and so that they can continue to be a part of this awesome site.
With a reform-emphasis in mind, moderation always begins its interactions with users by identifying posts or comments which have been determined to violate the COC. If users do not understand why their actions violate the COC, moderation offers an explanation. In all such cases, users are cautioned not to repeat their misconduct in the future. Mods may issue one or more warnings to a single individual, depending on the severity of the violations.
If violations accumulate such that it is clear that a user is willfully disregarding the COC and moderation's attempt to use dialogue to bring them into compliance, moderation escalates by imposing a restraining order, forum restriction, or a temporary ban. The specific means of escalation is a reflection of moderation's best judgement as to how to prevent future misconduct in the least harsh way possible. Moderation does its best to avoid being heavy-handed and takes this approach, again, to facilitate reform and to emphasize rehabilitation and restoration over retribution.
Further misconduct following an initial escalation results in a cascade of subsequent escalation in response to the additional misconduct. This chain will last until moderation feels as if the only way to prevent a user from recidivating is to perma-ban that user. After the initial escalation, however, moderation will attempt to give the violator space and time to demonstrate better behavior. But each escalatory step moderation takes reduces the leniency moderation can afford any user.
With that said, simply because there are no visible signs of moderation action does not mean that moderation is not acting. Since the warning phase, which is often quite extensive, occurs in private, moderation could be engaged in a dialogue with a user without the site at-large being aware of it. Questions such as "why hasn't X been dealt with yet" stem from a place of ignorance, because the user asking them is not in a position to know what the moderators are doing. Instead of accusing moderation of perceived inaction, if a user has ongoing concerns about another user's activities, the user is best served by bringing the offender's activities to moderation's attention by reporting those activities or contacting a moderator.
Moreover, moderation will not discuss ongoing moderation activities regarding a user or users with unrelated parties or accusers. This policy exists to protect the privacy of the users with whom moderation is engaging. At most, moderation will acknowledge that a dialogue has been undertaken with a user. We do view it as a dialogue (or coaching)--an effort to explicate the COC violations and the COC itself with a violator and to bring them, with the least amount of coercive force possible, into compliance with the COC.
In keeping with moderation's sensitivity to the privacy interests of reported users, reporting users will not receive an update on what, if any, action moderation took in response to their report. Moderation also values the privacy of accusers. Reports are anonymous, and moderation always avoids identifying reporting users whenever possible, particularly where concerns of retribution are credible.
It being understood that moderation will not discuss potential or actual moderation actions against a specific user, it is fruitless, inappropriate, and unacceptably obstructionist to attempt to use other users' perceived misconduct as cover for your own, or to attempt to redirect moderation dialogues with you to a discussion of another user. If moderation is in a dialogue with you, it's about your actions alone. Similarly, claiming that you were just responding to someone else is not an excuse for misconduct, though it may be a mitigating factor. You are responsible for your own actions. That you are not the provocateur is never a valid defense.
But let me return to the overriding mission of moderation: to reform rather than punish. Moderators are, in the first instance, educators. It is our job to educate violators of the COC on why their actions violated the COC and what the COC means, as well as to encourage them to avoid violating the COC in the future. It is only when extensive and prolonged efforts in this respect fail that moderators become cops, and are compelled by a user's intransigence to place greater pressure on violators to obey the rules of the site. Only when all of these efforts have abjectly failed does moderation resort to perma-banning.
=============
Please feel free to comment, pose questions, or offer suggestions.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
There have been some users who have called for a public ban list to be created to make the usership aware of why banned users were banned and, indeed, whether a user was banned at all.
I am quite wary of such a list, and feel like it runs counter to the privacy interests of the banned members. I am concerned also that such a list would make it harder for banned members to reintegrate into the site, and that such a list would not be truly different from call out threads, which are otherwise prohibited as personal attacks.
I am curious, however, to hear other voices and perspectives on the question. No user has yet been banned by me or my team, but it is almost inevitable that, at some point, that action will have to be taken. I am interested in hearing the arguments on both sides of the issue, so that I can carefully consider whether to implement such a policy for moderation.
Please feel free to comment, particularly on (a) whether such a list should exist in the first place and (b) how much detail should be included in the list should it be implemented.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
So, I recently posted a thread, akin to the one on DDO, which aims to give new members, including those new to debate, some resources to help them navigate the site and debating more generally.
I am posting this thread to get feedback on the resources which I've included. Should things be added or omitted, for instance? Is there some way to improve the thread I created? Feel free to comment.
Here is a link to the thread in question: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346
Created:
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.
Feel free to comment on other people's proposed baby names.
===============
Boys
Aodhan (pronounced: eyed + ahn)
August
Blue
Carolus
Christoph
Cian (pronounced: key + in)
Cobalt
Cyprien
Dakota
David
Dietrich
Eirnin (pronounced: air + nin)
Feidhelm (pronounced: fail + im)
Felix
Finbar
Friedrich
Gavin
Godfrey
Grey
Hans
Joachim
Johannes
Kaspar
Kenneth
Kiril
Liam
Marcellus
Marcus
Meriadoc
Nevin
Niall (pronounced: nile)
Nikita
Paullus
River
Rhys
Sascha
Sebastian
Silver
Theodoric
Theon
Tierney (pronounced: teer + nee)
Wilhelm
Xander
Xavier
Girls
Aibhlinn (pronounced: ave + leen)
Anastasia
Autumn
Callista
Cartimandua
Clover
Daimhin (pronounced: daw + veen)
Edeline
Emmaline
Guinevere
Heike
Hestia
Julia
Katja
Katrin
Katrina
Lara
Leia
Matilda
Minerva
Nadja
Natascha
Orfhlaith (pronounced: or + la)
Padme
Raina
Renate
Saoirse (pronounced: seer + sha)
Siobhan (pronounced: shiv + ahn)
Tatjana
Tilda
Winter
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Personal
About the Hall of Fame
Welcome to the DebateArt.com (DART) Hall of Fame! The Hall of Fame honors the very best users, debates, and threads this site has to offer. The Hall of Fame, as an institution, honors a tradition begun on another site, and hopes to continue a legacy of lauding the arts of debate and rhetoric, which are the basis of this site.
Each year, beginning in October 2019, the site usership shall nominate and elect three inductees into each of the three award categories (users, debates, and threads). The election will occur in two phases, a nomination phase and a voting phase. The nomination phase puts forward nominees for induction, and the voting phase selects which of the nominees will ultimately be inducted into the Hall of Fame. Each inducted user will be honored with a write up (not to exceed 1,000 characters) by a respected site user, honoring the inductee's character, achievements, and contributions to DART.
It is our wish that, as a community, people will always come to DART to engage in an honest, curious, and vigorous exploration of ideas. This site is unique among social websites in that it places special emphasis on intellect and rhetoric. DART's mission is to be a place where people can come to learn, to discuss, and to grow as thinkers and communicators. The Hall of Fame, at its best, is a testament to that mission, and strives to recognize those debates, threads, and users which add most significantly to the fabric of this amazing community.
Winners may be found below, or at the following URL: https://info.debateart.com/hall-of-fame
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Welcome to DebateArt.com!
Please use this thread to introduce yourself to the DebateArt.com (DART) community and to tell us a bit about yourself and your interest in debate! We hope you enjoy this site, its features, and, especially, it's wonderful community! We're happy to have you!
========
Quick Resources and Orientation
If you're new to the site or new to debating/voting, there are some useful resources that you can check out, including:
- About DART: Resources for New Members, which has useful information about debating, voting, and more
- Debate Voting Thread, which is a great place to advertise your debate if it needs votes
- Rules and Code of Conduct, which contains important information about site rules
- Privacy Policy, which has important information about site privacy and data rules
========
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Currently, the voting interface is not fully up-and-running for mods (but Mike is working on it--his efforts have been laudable). In the meantime, please reports to myself, Virtuoso, or Tejretics via PM. Thank you.
Also, I have posted an introduction for new users with some (hopefully) helpful resources for them. You can find that thread here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Welcome to DebateArt.com!
This thread has organized various useful resources geared particularly for members who are new to the community. To get the most out of your DebateArt.com (DART) experience, please familiarize yourself with this information.
I. Index
- Site Administration . . . . . . Post 1
- Frequently Asked Questions . . . . Post 1
- Site Jargon . . . . . . . . Post 2
- Debate Jargon . . . . . . . Post 2
- Debating . . . . . . . . . Post 3
- Mafia . . . . . . . . . . Post 3
- Voter Resources . . . . . . . Post 4
- Moderation and Site Information . . . Post 4
- Conclusion . . . . . . . . Post 5
II. Site Administration
You might be wondering who to contact if you have questions or concerns. Below I've written the names of the site's administrative team, as well as the names of the moderators for the site's official Discord. They are good points of contact for you in every respect, and if there is something you need, do not hesitate to reach out to them.
DebateArt.com, site owner and administrator
Ragnar, assistant moderator
David, assistant moderator
Speedrace, forum moderator
Deadfire27, discord moderator
III. Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Are there rules for site conduct?
A: Yes. Treating all users with respect is important for a site premised on rational disagreement. For a complete list of voting policies, see the site Rules and Code of Conduct.
Q: How do I report misconduct?
A: If you want to report a post, debate comment, or debate click the flag icon which corresponds to the item you wish to report. If you want to report something else, if the matter is urgent, or if you're uncertain, message a moderator privately and directly with your concerns. Moderation will address the situation as soon as they can.
Q: Are there rules for voting on the site?
A: Yes. Fair voting is important for a site premised on debate. For a complete list of voting policies, see the site Rules and Code of Conduct.
Q: How do I report a bad vote?
A: Click the flag icon in the upper right hand corner of the vote. Moderation will review the report as soon as they can.
Q: What happens when I report something?
A: Moderation examines the report, assess what, if any action should be taken, and takes that action. You are not necessarily told what the outcome of the report was, nor do you have any right to such information.
Q: Can I appeal a moderator's decision?
A: That depends. You can ask a moderator to reconsider their decision, and you can appeal the decisions of the Deputy and Assistant Moderators to the Chief Moderator, but the Chief Moderator's rulings are not subject to appeal.
Q: Can I have multiple accounts?
A: No. You may not have multiple accounts, nor may you have access to more than one account.
Q: How does one become a site moderator?
A: One may become a moderator if appointed to the position by the site owner or the chief moderator.
Q: How do I have my post deleted?
A: You may have your post deleted by contacting a moderator directly to request that your post be deleted.
Q: Can I change my username?
A: No, unless your username itself violates site policy, in which case you will have to change your username to be in accordance with site policy.
Q: What is a MEEP?
A: A MEEP (Moderation Engagement and Enactment Processes) is a process by which the users can vote on proposals submitted to them by moderation. It is a kind of referendum, where users can help guide site policy through democratic consensus and deliberation.
Q: Does DART moderation have power over DART's discord?
A: There is a moderation team on DART's official Discord which is primarily responsible for ensuring that the rules of that site are enforced. While DART's moderation team does not operate on Discord, we do have the authority to punish users here for misconduct they engaged in on DART's official Discord. A user who engages in misconduct on the Discord can therefore be punished by the moderators there and by the moderators here for the same action, depending on its severity.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Do we want to transfer the DDO HOF to this site, whether in whole or in part? If not, do we want to start a separate HOF, or just scrap the idea altogether? Other thoughts? Comments?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
I'd love to do a live debate (via google hangouts) on either of these topics:
1. Bystandershave a moral obligation to act in the face of injustice2. The people’s right to know ought to be valued above the government’s need for secrecy
I would take either side of either topic. Time division would be standard Lincoln-Douglas format:
6 min - Pro Constructive3 min - Con CXs Pro7 min - Con Constructive and Rebuttal3 min - Pro CXs Con4 min - Pro Rebuttal6 min - Con Rebuttal3 min - Pro Rebuttalw/ 4 min of Prep for each debater to use at their discretion
If you're interested. Let me know. Thurs-Sat after 11:00pm EST tend to work best for me, but there's some flexibility there.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com