#MEEP

• Savant
  
• SkepticalOne
  
• Athias
  
• greyparrot
  

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.

• VOTING will remain OPEN until 11:00 PM EST,  FRIDAY, AUG. 15th 
  
• One VOTE per PERSON, please.
  
• Duplicate VOTES will be disregarded.
  
• No requests to change VOTE after submission will be considered.
  
• Any indication of multi-accounting will be referred to MODERATION
  
• Please help promote voting clarity by limiting posts to VOTING ONLY using roughly this format:
  
1. YES or NO
   
2. YES or NO 
   
• QUESTIONS/CONCERNS/DISCUSSION/ARGUMENT/CAMPAIGNING are all encouraged and may be posted to these FORUM TOPICS:
  
• https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7756-proposed-meep-history-as-a-new-forum-category
  
• https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7757-proposed-meep-conspiracy-theories-as-a-new-forum-category
  
• For either PROPOSITION, 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    With 20 total voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 11.
  
• If either PROPOSITION fails to produce a binding result, no change shall be requested.
  
• If either PROPOSTION succeeds, I'll provide that result to DebateArt.com and the MODERATION TEAM requesting that change be completed before the END of 2022.
  

1. Should waiving rounds count as poor conduct equal to forfeitures?
2. Should Full Forfeits be broadened to missing every round after their first argument?
   Such as someone forfeits the first round, shows up in the second or third, and forfeits the remainder.
3. Allow implicit justifications for lesser points?
   I need better wording for this, but in essence not needing the spell out the absence of things. Such as one side having a dozen .gov and .edu sources, sure their impact needs to be mentioned if giving sources, but the other side having none and not challenging them is self evident at a glance.
4. Less stringent justification for counter points?
   This may be a weird one, I don't know if it will make the cut into the referendum... So let's say someone gives you arguments and sources but gives the other side conduct and doesn't dot the i's and cross the t's on that part; with this change, the vote would not be removed so long as the primary points are justified to the standard... And yes, I have seen tactical vote reporting along these lines, wherein someone waits until near the end of the voting window to report such a vote against them.
   

Subsection B1: The Chief and Deputy Moderators and Site Owner

1. Conduct violations against the Chief Moderator, Deputy Moderator, and the Site Owner will not be enforced, barring certain exceptions
   
2. Exceptions to PA.A1.SB.SbB1.PI are limited to:
   
1. Plausible, repeated, or serious threats
   
2. Hacking or attempted hacking
   
3. Staff Impersonation
   
4. Doxxing or attempted doxxing
   
5. Life- or health-threatening cyberbullying
   
6. Violating the privacy of PMs not related to issues of moderation
   

• "Yes" indicates agreement with the removal of the above clause in the new COC.
  
• "No" indicates disagreement with the removal of the above clause in the new COC.
  

A vote could look like this:

1. Yes, 
   
2. Yes1, (the 1 signifying a preference for variant 1)
   
3. 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.

Removal of the harassing the moderators is ok rule (don’t worry, we’ll still have thick skin).

• "Yes1" indicates a preference for banning all moderators from voting on referendums.
  
• "Yes2" indicates a preference for banning the chief and deputy moderators from voting on referendums.
  
• "Yes3" indicates a preference for limiting the chief and deputy from voting, save for breaking stalemates.
  
• "No" indicates opposition to this refinement.
  

Regarding X,

I must ask that you strictly minimize any interaction with them. Without knowledge of your matching credentials to a certain former user, they identified you as said user; to which there was a very negative and prolonged experience.

There is no loss to this situation, since if you are not that person, then you have no investment with the aforementioned user. If you are whom they believe you to be, then ignoring them will help avoid old habits from which you wish to differentiate yourself.

Out of respect for privacy, the credentials match has not been revealed.