CoC change - adding the intent.

Author: Ramshutu ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 55
  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    So, I would like to see some additions to the CoC - not to change the voting regulations, but to clearly add:

    - What the intent or “spirit” of a given criteria should be used for. 
    - A possible explanation of what happens if someone violates the CoC but meets the spirit - or vice versa. 

    I ask this because there have been several discussion and disagreements on the fundamental meaning of some of these conditions, and if everyone is assuming the intent is something else, everyone will be meeting the CoC but all implicitly different reasoning.

  • bsh1
    bsh1 avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 2,589
    5
    5
    8
    bsh1 avatar
    bsh1
    Right now, that is why moderation uses the warning system. By issuing warnings, we ensure that further misconduct is knowing. However, I am interested in what other's think about Ram's idea. It's an idea worth exploring.     
  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 4,546
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    Moderation of content (vis-a-vis its deletion) shouldn't care about intention.
    Moderation of users (vis-a-vis banning, restriction of rights) should.

  • ResurgetExFavilla
    ResurgetExFavilla avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 556
    2
    2
    7
    ResurgetExFavilla avatar
    ResurgetExFavilla
    --> @drafterman
    Moderation of content (vis-a-vis its deletion) shouldn't care about intention.
    Moderation of users (vis-a-vis banning, restriction of rights) should.
    Pretty much this.

  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 283
    Forum posts: 8,651
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @Ramshutu
    The CoC and their vagueness are, to me, what's entirely wrong with the site itself no matter who the Mod is. Unfortunately on this site it's solely the Chief Mod who writes and votes on the entire CoC word for word being finalised.

    In other words, The Chief Moderator on this site is all three elements of power in any democratic nation that has split the three up.

    This has resulted in everything having to go through bsh1 and bsh1 being the only thing able to actually make bsh1 change anything that bsh1 does or hold bsh1 accountable. Sure, physically Mike is, but since Mike is psychologically 'I don't moderate or do anything like that here' it is thus bsh1.
  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    --> @drafterman
    Ok, that’s nice.

    What I’m talking about, though, is what is the intent behind the “sources” category in the debate voting, what is this trying to say so that voters have a clearer picture of how and why to cast votes instead of everyone having their own idea.

    but thanks for your input.

  • Raltar
    Raltar avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 155
    0
    5
    8
    Raltar avatar
    Raltar
    I do agree that clarifying and improving the CoC should be a top priority. 
  • Polytheist-Witch
    Polytheist-Witch avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 1,932
    2
    2
    3
    Polytheist-Witch avatar
    Polytheist-Witch
    The problem is mods are holding violations until they get mad at you then give you 15 violations in one pm that are up to a month old then say, look at all this you are banned. Violations should be addressed immediately and or within 48 hours then dropped. The only reason my violations are being saved up is to punish me for hurting Ms. C's feelings. Each pm and the ban came after calling her names. Each warning had more then three violation and some more than a week old. It has nothing to do with anything other than mod pride. 
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 283
    Forum posts: 8,651
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    @Polytheist-Witch
    Same thing happened to me, except with me it was the pride of popular members not just the mods.
  • Castin
    Castin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,936
    2
    2
    6
    Castin avatar
    Castin
    You didn't hurt my feelings and I didn't report you, Poly. And no, I have no idea who did.
  • Castin
    Castin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,936
    2
    2
    6
    Castin avatar
    Castin
    --> @Ramshutu
    Ok, that’s nice.

    What I’m talking about, though, is what is the intent behind the “sources” category in the debate voting, what is this trying to say so that voters have a clearer picture of how and why to cast votes instead of everyone having their own idea.

    but thanks for your input.
    So this thread is primarily intended to address formal debate mechanics? And not, for instance, forum behavior?

  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    --> @Castin
    yeah
  • Plisken
    Plisken avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 709
    2
    1
    4
    Plisken avatar
    Plisken
    @Drafterman - Perhaps reiterating, Material in the debates even if "inappropriate" should generally be allowed to stand, and the mods should "moderate", with information, warnings, and consequences according to the CoC

    Disfunctional material should ultimately be deleted.  




  • Castin
    Castin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,936
    2
    2
    6
    Castin avatar
    Castin
    --> @Ramshutu
    Okay. How do you think the CoC could be clearer about the spirit of source voting or voting in general?
  • Castin
    Castin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,936
    2
    2
    6
    Castin avatar
    Castin
    --> @ResurgetExFavilla
    Moderation of content (vis-a-vis its deletion) shouldn't care about intention.
    Moderation of users (vis-a-vis banning, restriction of rights) should.
    Pretty much this.
    Does this mean you are in support of moderators deleting posts even if the poster intended no harm?

  • ResurgetExFavilla
    ResurgetExFavilla avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 556
    2
    2
    7
    ResurgetExFavilla avatar
    ResurgetExFavilla
    --> @Castin
    It means that I think that the ideal is to hammer out a CoC which describes a set of rules which are widely agreed upon and to enforce the letter of the law from that CoC. Having a CoC which gives moderation overly broad powers and bans absurd things and then relying on moderation to limit the scope of their own enforcement to a level which is tolerable to the community is just much worse on so many levels. I get that you always need to make judgement calls, but the CoC should narrow the grey space to a minimum. Doing do would also reduce criticism of moderation to a minimum, because instead of constantly defending their own judgement they can just point to the CoC. They can't do that now because the CoC isn't enforced, because to do so consistently would suffocate the site. Every time someone is banned (or not banned) moderation is swamped in drama because it's viewed as capricious.
  • Castin
    Castin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,936
    2
    2
    6
    Castin avatar
    Castin
    --> @ResurgetExFavilla
    I'm still interested in an answer to my question. But fair enough. So what's an example improvement of the CoC that would minimize complaints and grey areas?
  • ResurgetExFavilla
    ResurgetExFavilla avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 556
    2
    2
    7
    ResurgetExFavilla avatar
    ResurgetExFavilla
    --> @Castin
    A severe truncation. Cut down the number of bannable offenses to seven: multi-accounting, cross thread contamination, call-out threads, threats, doxxing, linking to sexual content, and harassment. Define them cleanly. For example, harassment means to continue to attempt to engage with a member after they have blocked you and asked you to stop contacting them. Cross thread contamination means to bring a preexisting conflict into an unrelated thread. Limit moderation's powers in a real way so that they can't ban people outside of these situations, and make the definition of each violation absolutely clear, so that when they occur there is no wiggle room or forgiveness. Instead of relying on a mod to use their judgement to exercise laissez-faire moderation, make the CoC demand laissez-faire moderation. This way there is a strict, clean line not to cross, instead of a blurry one that people constantly toe. This way the laws ban actions, not intentions. As for post deletion, I think that they should remain for the record, but that they should be greyed out or something to indicate that the user was punished for them (unless they are doxxy of course). But I'm sure that Mike has enough on his plate right now.
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 283
    Forum posts: 8,651
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @ResurgetExFavilla
    I've blocked you, kindly live by your own philosophy.
  • ResurgetExFavilla
    ResurgetExFavilla avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 556
    2
    2
    7
    ResurgetExFavilla avatar
    ResurgetExFavilla
    Lol, I haven't initiated contact with you once. You just keep crawling back for more, constantly @ing me even though you've blocked me. Some people are gluttons for punishment, I suppose.
  • Castin
    Castin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,936
    2
    2
    6
    Castin avatar
    Castin
    --> @ResurgetExFavilla
    I was about to ask you for an example of an "absolutely clear" definition of say personal attacks, but I realized personal attacks are not in your list of prohibited behavior. You want personal attacks to be fair game then? Presumably so they'd only be moderated if they continue after a user has blocked the attacker?

    How can moderation's power be limited in a "real way"?

    Agree with you about post deletion.
  • bsh1
    bsh1 avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 2,589
    5
    5
    8
    bsh1 avatar
    bsh1
    Should this issue be MEEP'd?
  • ResurgetExFavilla
    ResurgetExFavilla avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 556
    2
    2
    7
    ResurgetExFavilla avatar
    ResurgetExFavilla
    --> @Castin
    Yeah, I think that it would solve most of the problems with ambiguity in moderation. Is someone insulting you in a way that is too much for you? Block them and tell them to stop. If they continue, it's harassment. There's no need for moderation to police around to make sure that everyone is 'playing nice.'

    It could be limited by the site users saying to moderation when they overstep 'hey, this isn't banned at all by our terms of service' in a giant drama storm. Get enough traction and Mike, or someone appointed by him to be a sort of gatekeeper, can step in and overturn the decision. Though I imagine oversteps would be rare in any case with a clear, limited ToS.
  • Castin
    Castin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,936
    2
    2
    6
    Castin avatar
    Castin
    --> @ResurgetExFavilla
    Moderation does spend the majority of its time dealing with personal attacks. They seem to've made up, like, 80% of all the drama and messes. Legalizing them actually sounds pretty tempting. A lot of the ambiguity you're talking about seems to surround personal attacks, too.

    Did airmax ever enforce the rules in DDO's terms of service or were they basically ignored?
  • ResurgetExFavilla
    ResurgetExFavilla avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 556
    2
    2
    7
    ResurgetExFavilla avatar
    ResurgetExFavilla
    --> @Castin
    Basically ignored. But Max also had a superhuman proclivity for manipulating public opinion, so he pretty much banned people who annoyed him past a certain point and that was that.