Total topics: 7
I'm writing this message to clarify how moderation will enforce existing rules on the site going forward. The rules of the site are clear: personal attacks and harassment, particularly when they done over a prolonged period of time and target specific member(s) of the site, are ban-worthy offenses. We've given some leeway to allow conversations that include these to proceed so long as both sides were taking part in the same behavior to some extent.
That will no longer be the case. Moderation will now take action against cases of personal attacks and harassment even when both parties are participating. In order to ensure that everyone is on the same page with regards to this change in enforcement, we will not begin enforcement until this weekend ends. While past posts may be regarded as evidence of persistent behavior going forward, we will only enforce bans based on posts made after that period unless they are the subject of ongoing discussions within the moderation team. That being said, members will not have free reign to act with impunity - you will still be subject to a warning and ban within this time period if you push it too far.
To clarify, here are a few examples of the behavior that will result in a warning and, should it persist, a ban or restraining order:
- Insulting someone's intelligence (as distinguished from attacking a given claim or argument)
- Posting call-out threads
- Assigning nicknames that are meant to belittle or harass
I'd also like to note that these will be enforced regardless of who acted first, though that may affect the duration of the resulting ban/RO. "But they started it" or "I was just defending myself" will not be a valid excuse for returning the favor. That being said, while the occasional insult may be tolerated with warnings, a pattern of insults and/or harassment will not.
If you have questions about how this will be implemented, this is the place to ask them.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Mods have fielded a couple of complaints tonight requesting action regarding this particular forum post:
################################
Regarding VIOLENCE and CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR our CODE of CONDUCT advises:
- You may not threaten or promote violence against any person or persons, barring hyperbole against public figures (e.g., “all politicians should be shot”). Advocacy in favor of terrorism and/or violent extremism, especially as related to hate groups as generally defined by the SPLC, is likewise prohibited.
- You may not promote or encourage suicide or self harm.
- You may not engage in or promote criminal activity.
- You may not engage in or promote the sexual exploitation of minors.
The complaints assume that BK's logic here runs something like:
P1: All faithful Christians must obey the Bible
P2: The Bible command the death of gays
C1: Therefore, faithful Christians must murder gay people
Certainly, advocacy for murdering gay people in Christ's name does seem like one legitimate interpretation of BK's comment but its also non-specific and probably hyperbolic. I don't think any regular readers of this site would mistake BK for a sincere or dedicated Christian. On the other hand, if BK hauls an AK down to his local pride parade tomorrow, authorities could legitimately fault us for ignoring this warning sign.
I'd like to hear from my fellow DARTers regarding the actionability of comments like this.
- How many DARTers think a comment like this is actionable based on present CoC or should be actionable based on an improved Code of Conduct?
- If actionable, what course of action would you recommend? Warning? Ban? Police notification? etc.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
We are long overdue on a guide for interpreting the code of conduct on the site. A link to the code of conduct can found here https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/rules . This guide is intended to guide the site on a reasonable interpretation of the rules, so misunderstandings can be avoided in the future. It is also intended to help moderators remain consistent and show consistency in moderating policy.
I will be skipping the parts least up for interpretation.
User Accounts
"You may not use hateful, harassing, or obscene language or imagery in your username or avatar."
No nude pics unless they are artistic, no words in the avatar image such as "Wylted is a cuck" as a recent example. That would also fall under harassing language as the avatar or username was directed at a specific user, I would also advise against avatars that contain gruesome imagery such as dismembered bodies or fecal matter.
Hateful language would include clear racial slurs not borderline cases, derogatory and provably untrue statements such as "All white people are racist" or "Gypsy killer" or "Jews killedJesus" are forbidden, though defending those beliefs in a debate or by offering premises in threads that defend those positions are fine. We are not looking to thought police you, we are looking to disprove you here.
Authenticity
"Extravagant lies, not to be confused with mere context issues, may rise to the level of constituting impersonation"
extravagant lies, would constitute situations such as where you may claim to be an actual doctor and start giving dangerous medical advice. Perhaps it would be a situation where you are pretending to have inside information you don't possess, such as being a political aide and claiming that a nuke is about to hit the United States in 3 hours. These sorts of things are what is intended by the extravagant lie clause and it is not intended to be used as an excuse for other situations that don't fall neatly into the COC. For those situations I would encourage mods to either alter the COC or post "other" as the reasoning for the ban and give context.
Harassment
"You may not threaten or promote violence against any person or persons, barring hyperbole against public figures (e.g., “all politicians should be shot”). Advocacy in favor of terrorism and/or violent extremism, especially as related to hate groups as generally defined by the SPLC, is likewise prohibited."
The SPLC statement should be ignored, it is a link to an FAQ about hate groups with no definition offered, and clearly advocating the views of hate groups is acceptable. The very nature of a debate site is we are looking for a wide range of views and people to debate.
This sentence is properly interpreted to mean you are not to advocate for terrorist actions. No advising people to bomb buildings, though a debate explaining why it is a acceptable to take such actions is fine and hopefully allowing that talks somebody off an edge one day. You are not to advocate for extremist violence though if you are a terrorist or a violent extremist you are welcome to debate your views. Though not explicitly stated, promoting extremism through recruitment or advertising is not acceptable.
"You may not promote or encourage suicide or self harm."
Again this is not to be taken to mean you can't advocate for euthanasia. It means you can't go around encouraging individuals or groups to kill themselves. A debate entitle "The user known as X should kill himself" would also be off the table as well. If you are suicidal, we will not consider it a promotion of suicide to reach out on the site for help.
"You may not share any content from private messages, without the consent of the respective authors; or with moderator approval (such as for dispute resolution)."
There has been some misunderstanding here as well. Essentially no copy and pasting of a PM or sharing screenshots. Statements such as bringing up the rough outline of what was talked about in a PM is fine, this occurs all the time on the site in the mafia games for example, but please use good judgement and allow people to trust that they can communicate privately with you.
Objectionable Content
"Unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech, are subject to disciplinary actions."
We are all adults here or people mature enough to handle a bit of vulgarity. The hate speech here isn't about thought policing. It is specifically about group identified attacks. Here is 3 examples of acceptable topics that are close to being considered hate speech, followed by 3 that would be considered hate speech.
borderline
- The holocaust didn't happen or was over exaggerated
- 5 reasons White people should be sterilized
- Black people commit a disproportionate amount of crime
hate speech
- black's should be exterminated
- Chinks need to stop spreading the flu
- Native American's got what they deserved with small pox
I will say what is covered in this rule is personal attacks. I did plan on seeing if I can work with the mods to cut that down because I think the COC would make personal attacks a bannable offense, but that clearly would mean personal attacks that are considered ad hominem.
An example of an ad hominem attack would be something such as "homo's can't speak intelligently on abortion". A similar statement which is not an ad hominem would be "homos should not speak about abortion because their opinions are usually going to be informed by Ivory tower thinking". Both statements are fallacious but only one qualifies as a personal attack.
In general most insults that are backed by stated premises are usually okay. Debaters by their very nature are very logical and expose their ideals to debate because they seek self improvement. We have thick skin, and will often use the hard truth to improve ourselves or explain to you why your insult was stupid.
In general debates can get heated and the line between what will get you banned can occasionally bend to allow for heated exchanges, but the rules will not be allowed to bend too far or too often.
Conclusion
The rest of the COC touches on points irrelevant to the rules about enforcement. If you are curious about how enforcement works please click the link at top, and read through the entire COC.
The moderation team took no part in creating this document, but this is the interpretation of the COC, I find to be correct and that I am urging the moderation team to use the interpretation. They seem to be already doing this to a large extent, but the community should see this interpretation if they have a hard time comprehending the rules.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Hi all,
What CoC refinement questions would you like to see on the next referendum?
Other refinements are also possible.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
In short, for about a week we'll have a few voting questions open for the community to decide things.
This referendum will run until 10:00am PT (UTC-7), June 1st 2020.
About MEEP:
As seen in the moderation overview,
Moderation may submit questions and proposals regarding moderation policy, voting policy, and the code of conduct to Moderation Engagement and Enactment Processes (MEEPs). MEEPs are binding referenda and comment periods on the questions and proposals submitted. Moderation has full discretion on which questions and proposals are submitted to MEEPs, though no substantive change to the COC may be made without either the consent of the site owner(s) or ratification via a MEEP.
In order for a submitted question or proposal to be ratified, at least 10 users must have voted in the MEEP, and more than a majority of all those voting must have voted for the question or proposal. That means, in practice, that in a MEEP with 10 total voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 7 votes in favor of the proposal or question. If a MEEP fails to produce a binding result, moderation will maintain the pre-MEEP status quo, unless doing so is entirely untenable.
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. Ratify the new Code of Conduct?
Voting "yes" to this question will overhaul and streamline the Code of Conduct.
- Streamlined it, cutting the length by 45%.
- Made it no longer dependent upon external extended policies and interpretations documents.
- Codified various policies (e.g., context affecting consequences, protocols for new accounts, etc.)
- Removal of the trolling and insults rules, but adding a no targeted harassment rule.
- Expanded to impersonation rule to everyone.
- Removal of the harassing the moderators is ok rule (don’t worry, we’ll still have thick skin).
- Removal of the no "Contravening or Disregarding Moderation" rule.
- Added clauses to protect children.
- And more...
2. Allow sharing of Private Messages?
This is not to imply encouraging it... A "yes" to this may be divided into two subsets (either yes option endorses change):
This is not to imply encouraging it... A "yes" to this may be divided into two subsets (either yes option endorses change):
- "Yes1" indicates with minimal restrictions. Identifying information for example, is still protected under the general doxing rule.
- "Yes2" indicates exclusively with moderator approval.
3. Change the Voting Policy to expand S&G to include other excessive legibility issues?
Voting “yes” would amend the Spelling and Grammar in the Voting Policy, to allow consideration of other legibility issues which distract the user from the arguments themselves (sPeLlInG EvErYtHiNg lIke tHiS, as an example). This would slightly simplify one aspect of voting, and inform a larger effort to overhaul the voting policies in a manner similar to the CoC.
4. Require a reason when submitting a report?
Voting "yes," would require users to message a moderator or use the upcoming improved report tool provide details on why the report is being filed.
No is divided into two options,
- "No1" indicates a belief against the requirement.
- "No2" indicates opposition to upgrading the report tool in that direction.
Voting:
I'm not that attached to how people vote, so long as it's easy to understand. People may also change their votes, but please don't be a pain about it.
A vote could look like this:
- Yes,
- Yes1, (the 1 signifying a preference for variant 1)
- Yes.
Like this (the missing 2, counts it as abstaining that question):
1. No, each change should be an individual question
3. Yes, we shouldn't even have voting rules.
Or even like this (a vote against 3, but abstaining from the others):
Wrong direction for voting, so no.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Hey DART.
I'm hoping to post a MEEP next week. MEEP stands for Moderation Engagement and Enactment Process, it is a referendum on site policies.
In this thread I will preview some of the questions to be discussed, and I invite you to suggest additional questions and refinements. Importantly, just because a question is suggested or seconded does not guarantee it will be included. Below are issues I already intend to include:
---
1. Ratify the new Code of Conduct?
Voting "yes" to this question will overhaul and streamline the Code of Conduct.
A few key changes:
- Removal of the trolling and insults rules, but adding a no targeted harassment rule.
- Removal of the harassing the moderators is ok rule (don’t worry, we’ll still have thick skin).
- Added clauses to protect children.
Full text is available at (with live updates): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DT0dprecA-ehRtRHO4tDPmUZel4hlUrWKdydLbyFlKk/edit?usp=sharing
And at (frozen draft): https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4214/post-links/173638
2. Allow PM sharing with moderator approval?
Voting “yes” would add a clause to the no sharing of Private Messages rule, to allow moderators to grant permission to settle disputes.
Currently there have been outright lies about the contents of PMs, and the victims are without real recourse. This is intended to correct that oversight.
3. Change the Voting Policy to have S&G to include organization
Voting “yes” would amend the Spelling and Grammar in the Voting Policy, to allow consideration of organizational issues, such as a 10,000 character true wall of text (no line breaks) vs a case which is easy to navigate.
Note: This is intended to inform a larger effort to overhaul the voting policies in a similar manner to the CoC.
---
Again, feel free to make any suggestions.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Greetings, everybody!
We are in the process of making revisions to the COC. Most of the text is the same, but there are still some significant differences. The proposed changes can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bcpJ79KM1rOMjgyz5Ssa0T1v0Lj5ybt0LwnD3bXTYNw/edit?usp=sharing
What's New
The text has been reorganized so that the moderation structure is first, then the voting policy, and finally the conduct policy.
The moderation structure text has been changed from "Mod decisions are final and not subject to appeal" to " If you are banned and wish to appeal a ban, you can email the moderation team at [email protected]."
The restraining order section added, " Additionally, a user may request that an RO be placed between them and another member."
Added the following new rules:
B. The Golden Rule
Treat others as they wish to be treated: If someone makes a reasonable request to you, please comply. In other words, don’t be a dick.
C. Authenticity
You may not:
- Impersonate individuals, groups, or organizations in a manner intended to or likely to deceive others. Parody accounts are acceptable as long as they: are clear that they are a parody and not a parody of other Site users;
- Violate other intellectual property rights;
- Plagiarize content and pass it off as your own; and/or
- Impersonate the staff or the moderation team.
D. Violence and Criminal Behavior
You may not:
- Threaten or promote violence against an individual or group of individuals to include terrorism or violent extremism; or
- Engage in or promote criminal activity;
DebateArt is not responsible or liable for any users that may violate national, international, or local laws. It is your responsibility to know the laws that pertain to you and act lawfully at all times.
Added a link to the privacy policy
and finally added a "harassment policy."
J. Harassment
You may not:
- Harass other members;
- Stalk other members;
- Encourage harassment; and
- Post harassing or hateful images in your profile photo.
If a member politely requests that you leave them alone, do so. Do not vote on their debates and do not follow them around the site.
Is there anything else we should add or take away?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com