MEEP: New moderators, website redesign, new features, and more! [DISCUSSION]

Author: David

Posts

Pinned
Total: 220
Topic's author
#1
David
David's avatar
Debates: 92
Posts: 1,255
4
7
10
David's avatar
David
4
7
10
Hello everyone,

It has been a long time since we last had a MEEP (Moderation Engagement and Enactment Processes). There is a lot to discuss. For those unfamiliar with a MEEP, they are essentially site referendums that the moderation team uses to guide them into making policy. 

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. MEEPs must be open for voting for at least 48 hours, and may be extended (at the mod's discretion) by no more than 12 hours. To be eligible to vote in a MEEP, the voter must be a user on DART, must have an account that is more than 24 hours old, and must not be banned during the voting window. If a MEEP fails to produce a binding result, moderation will maintain the pre-MEEP status quo, unless doing so is entirely untenable.

There is a lot to discuss, so let's buckle in.

Proposition 1: New moderators

The moderation team has decided to add new moderators to the team.  We have decided to do a combination of nominations and applications. To be eligible to become a moderator a member must:

1. Have been a member for at least 6 months
2. No bans in the past year
3. No open restraining orders
4. 2 completed non-forfeited debates 

You are allowed to nominate yourself in this thread.  If you are interested in becoming a moderator please send me a DM and write the following application: 

The Application
1. How long have you been on the site?
2. What are all of the alt accounts you might be known by?
3. How do you think the collaborative process for the moderation team should work? 
4. Have you ever been a moderator on another site, discord server, or facebook group? 
5. What site rules would you like see changed?
6. Do you have anything else that might make you a particularly good discussion moderator?

Proposition 2: Rebranding the site

As most of you have heard Mike is planning on giving me ownership of the site. We are thinking of doing an entire redesign and a rebrand. Do you think we should rebrand? If so, what names would you suggest?

Proposition 3: Updating the COC 

1. Use of racial slurs

Currently the code of conduct is quite clear on hateful conduct, but there is no guidance in the COC on the use of slurs. Here is the current COC on hateful conduct:

  • You may not use hateful, harassing, or obscene language or imagery in your username or avatar.
  • 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.
  • Unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech, are subject to disciplinary actions.
If a user has hateful, harassing, or obscene language or imagery in their username or avatar, moderation will:
a) FIRST, request the hateful, harassing, or obscene language or imagery in the username or avatar be removed and instruct the user on how to do so.
b) IF adequate time passes and A is ignored by the user, OR IF the user complied initially after A but again introduces hateful, harassing, or obscene language or imagery in their username or avatar at some later date unapologetically, moderation shall issue a 14 day ban and then repeat A.
c) IF the user continues to defy moderation after the 14 day ban, moderation will issue a 60 day ban and then repeat A.
d) ALL additional infractions after C shall be met with bans according the formula y=4(x2)y=4(x2)where "y" equals ban time in months and "x" equals the number of infractions after C.

If a user promotes violence against any person or persons (barring hyperbole against public figures) or advocates in favor of terrorism and/or violent extremism, especially as related to hate groups as generally defined by the SPLC, moderation will:a) FIRST, issue a 90 day ban and request the user cease & desist such behavior.
b) IF the user again promotes violence against any person or persons (barring hyperbole against public figures) or advocates in favor of terrorism and/or violent extremism, said user will receive a permanent ban from the site.

If a user’s content includes unwarranted (or excessively toxic) systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech, moderation shall:
a) FIRST, request the user cease & desist such behavior.
b) IF adequate time passes and A is ignored by the user, OR IF the user complied initially after A but again unapologetically engages in unwarranted (or excessively toxic) systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech, moderation shall issue a 30 day ban and repeat A.
c) IF the user continues to defy moderation after the 30 day ban, moderation shall issue a 90 day ban and then repeat A.
d) ALL additional infractions after C shall be met with bans according the formula y=6(x2)y=6(x2)where "y" equals ban time in months and "x" equals the number of infractions after C.

Proposed language:

The use of racial slurs or slurs against any other protected group of any type is not allowed. If a user uses any type of slur, the moderation team will:
  • Edit the post and remove the slurs 
  • Send a warning to the user 
If a user continues to use a slur the ban will include a 30 day site ban. Continuing such conduct will result in a permanent ban. 

Depending on the severity of the statement the moderation reserves the right to jump to either a 30 day ban immediately or a permanent ban. 

2. Other COC overhaul 

What other information do you want changed? How can the moderation team improve the COC and improve enforcement of COC?

Proposition 4: New features

What new features would you like to have added to the website?

Proposition 5: Open discussion

Users may use this forum space to request anything that is not listed here. 

The discussion period will be open for 2 weeks. 

Best,
David



#2
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,115
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@David
You even changed the slur rule how I said to and banned RemyBrown for reasons I said to.

Can I apply or not?
#3
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,042
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@David
The use of racial slurs or slurs against any other protected group
Which groups are protected, and which terms are designated as slurs? For example, is midg*t a slur? Are exceptions made for slurs describing one's own group (e.g. black people saying the n-word) and if so, how are they enforced?
#4
LucyStarfire
LucyStarfire's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 791
3
3
6
LucyStarfire's avatar
LucyStarfire
3
3
6
-->
@David
The use of racial slurs or slurs
So all slurs?
#5
LucyStarfire
LucyStarfire's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 791
3
3
6
LucyStarfire's avatar
LucyStarfire
3
3
6
Yeah, which groups are protected other than racial groups? Let me guess, religious groups?
#6
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,717
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@David
Proposition 1: New moderators
FYI, until you’ve got full ownership powers to enable the moderator menus for whomever, my account remains ready for any new admin(s) to utilize.

———

Proposition 2: Rebranding the site
I tried to get us the URL debate.org, but GoDaddy is running a couple little scams which it’s caught up in, so that one’s hopeless.

I am not a fan of Debateart as a name (note the wiki is DAT not DART) as it implies we’re debating art. Something straight forward like Formal Debate Addicts would seem a better fit. I wonder if there’s .debate URLs yet, if so that opens tons of solid options.

Also the visual design needs more cowbell.

#7
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,675
4
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
4
4
9
-->
@David
We had a meep on the COC that ADOL has linked you to dozens of times one that respected free speech so this isn't it. You are literally proposing a meep while disrespecting a binding meep so it's contradictory nhow do we know you will have honor here if the very act of quoting the wrong COC is occurring. 
#8
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,115
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@Barney
FYI, until you’ve got full ownership powers to enable the moderator menus for whomever, my account remains ready for any new admin(s) to utilize.
Not everyone is honest and moral like me.

You are opening a can of worms here.

I strongly advise against this.
#9
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,042
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
It's also not super clear to me which posts got Remy banned. Maybe AR can tell me? It seems like it was right after this post, but it's not clear how that crosses the line. I could see this one being offensive, but it was clearly done to make a point, not because Remy actually believes those things.
#10
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,042
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@Barney
GoDaddy is running a couple little scams which it’s caught up in
Can you clarify this?
#11
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,115
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@Savant
The thread is deleted.

However for me many led to it as he gradually justified racial genocide including on Gazans simply for being of Islamic Arab heritage. He himself framed it as genocidal killings and still justified it.
#12
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,042
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
The thread is deleted.
Okay, I think I remember the one you're talking about now.
#13
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,042
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
Wait no the one I'm thinking of isn't deleted (it's locked though). I see how this one crosses the line with the current CoC.
#14
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,115
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@Savant
I am not interested in telling what was said. I want mods to ban, shut up and move on, intelligence agency style.

Democracy cannot run a website, it is not the population that has their lives and investment at stake, only the owner and shareholders do. I'd support this becoming corporate.

The owner is held legally liable for all his website hosts.
#15
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,042
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@Barney
What about debate.com? It looks like it's for sale with the owner's contact info.
#16
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,675
4
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
4
4
9
-->
@Savant
I just read that thread. So he is referring to messages by terrorist organizations that say "we live death like you love life" and seems to advocate for euthanasia. It doesn't cross any line and whoever decided to lock that thread was behaving unethical by doing so. It is not the job of mods to be the morality police and try to narrow the range of acceptable opinions here. It is their job to ensure a respectful environment and to kill spam. In this environment respectable means treating each other kindly. It doesn't mean trying to decipher what is or is not a racial slur and ban based on that. 

Nor is it even clean what a racial slur is. David is also not a good judge of this. When I displayed oromagis personality once by showing his reckless disregard for the poor during Covid 19 his autism made him take my mocking tone as actually me making the statement and not just stripping away niceties to show people oromagis heart. So he just either is evil and ignores context frequently or he is too autistic to see things in a way that is intended and appropriate. Even if he was capable of that feet though it isn't the place of mods to do so. 
#17
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 17,539
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@WyIted
As the incumbent President, you have the right to veto 
#18
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,042
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@David
As most of you have heard Mike is planning on giving me ownership of the site. We are thinking of doing an entire redesign and a rebrand. Do you think we should rebrand? If so, what names would you suggest?
I propose we let anyone submit a name and then send a survey out where users rate each name. Proposals should be available domain names.

A few proposals from me:

lidebate.com (like lichess)
dinnerwithsocrates.com
netspat.com
debateonline.xyz
thewarofwords.com
debateclub.co

However, I think we should wait on rebranding to the new name and focus more on advertising and adding features. debateart.com is fine for now.
Topic's author
#19
David
David's avatar
Debates: 92
Posts: 1,255
4
7
10
David's avatar
David
4
7
10
-->
@Savant
I personally really like lidebate as I am a huge fan of lichess. 
#20
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,042
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@David
I personally really like lidebate as I am a huge fan of lichess.
It's available and proven to be brandable with the success of lichess.com and debate.org. If you think we should just go with that one you can grab it and I'll trust your judgment.
#21
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,115
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@David
I am opposed to any name change. I like the loyalty to the name of what revived DDO and saved 1v1 texg debate online from extinction.
#22
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,042
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
I am opposed to any name change. I like the loyalty to the name of what revived DDO and saved 1v1 texg debate online from extinction.
We can have both and redirect.
#23
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,115
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@Savant
I oppose that.
#24
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,820
3
3
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
3
2
As Wylted just pointed out: You guys didn't care about the last one, and I doubt David or the future moderators will feel bound by this one.

There is more dignity in an open exercise of arbitrary power than a false facade of democracy and process.
#25
Casey_Risk
Casey_Risk's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,890
3
4
8
Casey_Risk's avatar
Casey_Risk
3
4
8
-->
@Savant
However, I think we should wait on rebranding to the new name and focus more on advertising and adding features. debateart.com is fine for now.
I agree with this. I don't see any particular reason why rebranding should include a new name just yet. 

As for making a prohibition on slurs more clearly stated, I agree with this idea. I think a line can and should be drawn, however, between hateful usage and general discussion about hateful language, including slurs. Like, I wouldn't want someone to be banned for engaging in the type of discussion found in this video for instance. 
#26
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 7,693
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
Proposition 1: New moderators

The moderation team has decided to add new moderators to the team.  We have decided to do a combination of nominations and applications. To be eligible to become a moderator a member must:

1. Have been a member for at least 6 months
2. No bans in the past year
3. No open restraining orders
4. 2 completed non-forfeited debates 

You are allowed to nominate yourself in this thread.  If you are interested in becoming a moderator please send me a DM and write the following application: 

The Application
1. How long have you been on the site?
2. What are all of the alt accounts you might be known by?
3. How do you think the collaborative process for the moderation team should work? 
4. Have you ever been a moderator on another site, discord server, or facebook group? 
5. What site rules would you like see changed?
6. Do you have anything else that might make you a particularly good discussion moderator?
I feel like I’d do fine but I don’t wanna dedicate the time to this. /out

Proposition 2: Rebranding the site

As most of you have heard Mike is planning on giving me ownership of the site. We are thinking of doing an entire redesign and a rebrand. Do you think we should rebrand? If so, what names would you suggest?
DebateArena (DA)
Debate online/ online debate
place of debate
Symposia
freedebate 

  • You may not use hateful, harassing, or obscene language or imagery in your username or avatar.
This is already kinda stupid. “Hateful” is very subjective and in most cases where it can be somewhat agreed upon, context is almost never considered. Plus, I think people do have the right to be hateful. It is free speech, despite what your local professor of Islamo-Marxian Genderology would say.

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.
I’ll agree with the first part since people shouldn’t feel personally threatened.

However, the line with the latter portion can become quite blurry and I’d like you to draw a more specific line. The current standard allows for “extremism” to be too relative to whatever the mods think it is. As a right-leaning libertarian on a site that is about to be owned (and has been modded) mostly by leftists, I’m not too enthusiastic.

Finally since hate speech is free speech, people should be allowed to represent hate groups. If you absolutely must restrict users in this way, however, the SPLC’s standards for what count as a hate/extremeist group are laughably low.


Sure, plenty of hate groups in here. But as you scroll through the list, you see groups that aren’t exactly white hood-wearing Neo-Nazi skinheads about to fight with Black Israelite Nationalist Panthers in some alleyway.

For example, one could recommend any of the Catholic websites and be called an extremist worthy of mod discipline. You could advocate a conspiracy theory Alex Jones spouted on Infowars, and incur mod action. You could identify with the Constitution Party, and the standards set already allow for mods to discipline you for it.

Yes, we are lucky that the mod team has shown restraint thus far, but there should never be a path to going that direction in the first place.

I don’t like such censorship, let alone on a debate website, where ideas can and should be discussed freely, even the most controversial ones. 

I will add here that websites like these also present a good place for hateful beliefs to be logically torn to shreds, in front of the people who believe them.

Proposed language:

The use of racial slurs or slurs against any other protected group of any type is not allowed. If a user uses any type of slur, the moderation team will:
Edit the post and remove the slurs
Send a warning to the user
If a user continues to use a slur the ban will include a 30 day site ban. Continuing such conduct will result in a permanent ban.

Depending on the severity of the statement the moderation reserves the right to jump to either a 30 day ban immediately or a permanent ban.
This is a poll so I am going to be relatively polite about it: Fuck no, fuck that.

Again, context is removed in situations like these, and hate speech is free speech. This website should not be for the thin-skinned.

This is the shit RM tried to enforce in the mafia community. Once again, I will be very vocal in opposition of this.

2. Other COC overhaul 

What other information do you want changed? How can the moderation team improve the COC and improve enforcement of COC?
I would like “excessive trolling” to be enforced a bit better. If someone is not interested in having a genuine discussion, only ragebaiting, you can remove them for the site. It’s pretty obvious when someone is here just to troll, and do nothing else.

I remember back on DDO the established idea was that you had users who’d only troll on occasion, so it wouldn’t get out of hand. It allowed for the fun of trolling while not completely derailing the site.

Proposition 4: New features

What new features would you like to have added to the website?
Toggleable likes for the creator of a thread. I think a thread creator should have the ability to turn likes off, and possibly make them public.

I also think the “forum games” forum should have special perks where thread creators can lock their own threads, a permission that an be taken away from individual users if abused. (For example, a user could create a discussion on mafia game theory, get destroyed on a bad take, and lock the thread out of embarrassment. I would count that as an abuse of the feature). The feature would allow game mods to close their DPs without having to wait for a mod.

Next, rated debates should be the default option. Noobsniping does very little at high elo, and it’s better than those debates not being accepted. I’d argue having someone engage with the debate you started is a preferable experience, even for a noob who is about to get his ass kicked.

Finally, I think elo nullification for forfeited debates should have a threshold. I’m not sure what the current code is, but I don’t think it’s good for someone to miss out on their elo reward for winning a debate, just because their opponent forfeited a single round. Obviously there’s specifics to this, but I’m sure you get the point.

Oh almost forgot: Group PMs.

And a polls section like DDO used to have.

Proposition 5: Open discussion

Users may use this forum space to request anything that is not listed here.
If you want to place ads on this site, limit it to two per page: One at the top, and at the bottom. Don’t restrict adblockers.

Finally, do not let this site become like Reddit. Please remember the origins of DDO/DART culture and respect it.

Wishing both you and the site the very best in this endeavor,
Mharman
#27
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 7,693
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@David
Forgot to tag you above.
#28
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,820
3
3
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
3
2
-->
@Mharman
This is already kinda stupid.
Fortunately it was already repealed.

Oh wait that has been erased from history. Continue with the make-believe.
#29
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 7,693
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
What are you talking about?
#30
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 3,792
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
As some people have noted on earlier threads,
'What makes a profile picture of a movement or individual hateful?
'So much messed up in history, I am more inclined to be against a profile picture of nudity, a middle finger, a curse word spelled out, someone being hanged.
Than I am against a profile picture or Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Flag.

Different countries and cultures can 'vary a bit in what is considered a slur or vulgarity, maybe.

If Moderators Edit the post and remove the slurs,
I think they should leave a (REDACTED BY MODS) in place of the slurs.
Or 'some type of evidence how a post has been altered. Rather than invisible Moderation.
. . .
Does Moderation intend to edit all past posts that may have used slurs?

I think the site is 'overall solid,
I thought the Questions function, where one could ask users questions was a decent feature, but by it's removal I assume there were bugs or backlash by people annoyed by it.
. . . I suppose profiles 'could turn on/off ability for others to ask them questions.
But there is something said for KISS, Keep It Simple

I liked Opinions and Polls for Debate.org, but they seemed hard to Moderate.
I suppose they 'could be brought back, if only chosen by Moderation, but people's opinions 'do change over time, and sometimes dislike a past choice being forever on their face/profile.
They 'were useful in inspiring official debates, I suspect.
Still, KISS, maybe.