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

Author: David

Posts

Pinned
Total: 220
#31
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,820
3
3
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
3
2
-->
@Mharman
Ok that does it, I'm making a copy paste for this.


A quote to set the mood:

“The rules are simple: they lie to us, we know they're lying, they know we know they're lying, but they keep lying to us, and we keep pretending to believe them.”
― Elena Gorokhova, A Mountain of Crumbs


starting with "You may not use hateful, harassing, or obscene language or imagery in your username or avatar."


The link to the old CoC was never updated with the new rules. The current rules were often ignored, people continued to cite the repealed rules, including mods.

--I called this out and corrected people many times (this is just the highlights where I made whole threads):

--So has Wylted (again just a highlight):


--This is part of a pattern of MEEPs being ignored:


--In https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/12761-code-of-conduct-interpretation (already linked above) whiteflame and Savant both acknowledge the change by trying to shoehorn a ban justification into the current rather than repealed CoC.


[Whiteflame] You can continue to be indignant and you can disagree.

Damn right I will continue to be indignant, this isn't a difference between a good logic and bad logic.

The gulf here is between honest people and dishonest people.

People with honor rock the boat when they see lies, even when they weren't the ones to tell them.
#32
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 7,695
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@David
@Lemming
I believe the Question feature is still bugged. Yeah a fix would be good
#33
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 7,695
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Thx. I’ll come back and read all that later.
#34
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 3,793
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
Debatesanart
Might not be taken, and could preserve the DART.
I'm not sure it 'rolls off the tongue though.

Debate's An Art
Debate Is An Art

Debatesanart
Be more, DAART, I suppose, but we could just say DART.
#35
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 204
Posts: 1,059
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
-->
@Mharman
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.
It's a tactical marketing strategy. 

Freedom of Speech is a legal right that preserves your immunity from prosecution. It means squat on a private domain, regardless of what your attorney tells you.

#36
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 3,793
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
I don't think the site needs to be rebranded,
I just suggested debatesanart, as I thought Debateart as a name had been lost,
But I think I see now that it was debate.org, that could not be obtained.

DART is catchy, I think.
#37
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,671
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@David
Hmmmmmmmmmm.


Rebranding is just an exercise in rebranding, and I can't see how it would make the slightest difference to anything.

Though if that is what the site owner/s want, then that is their prerogative.

I would nonetheless suggest that "debate" is intrinsically necessary, and if art has outworn its usefulness the replace it with something equally as catchy, like fart.

Only joking.

How about, DebateOwl. Replacing the current logo (which looks like a bottom bracket bearing) with a wise old  Owl...Perhaps not radical enough for you young radicals.


And as I continue to stress, moderation should be moderate, not authoritarian.

And freedom of speech is essential, otherwise the site becomes an unattractive, pat on the back, eulogizing, mono-ideological clique.

In my opinion.
#38
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 3,793
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
Another feature I recall from Debate.org,
Was that the instigators first round would be visible, before acceptance.

I don't think that was necessarily bad,
It would give people more information on what type of debate they were accepting,
And what the Instigator 'meant more clearly,  and was looking for in an opponent.
#39
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,503
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@David
Proposition 4: New features

What new features would you like to have added to the website?
I think when a person blocks someone it should work in both directions, many users block another user and continue to respond to that user's posts, quite often it increases their engagement with the blocked individual who can't respond.

Stephen was the worst, he would block a user, deny that he blocked them, and then focus on harassing that user while claiming their lack of response showed they were afraid, or outmatched, or whatever his inane game was.  




#40
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,694
4
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
4
4
9
I thought maybe David learned his lesson. The site was really active before he became the head mod and then when he did he did all the woke shit and site participation dropped by 80%. Now he is saying he will do it again and we don't have 80% to lose again. Whiteflame becoming mod stopped the bleeding but it will happen again. 
#41
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 7,695
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
It's a tactical marketing strategy. 

Freedom of Speech is a legal right that preserves your immunity from prosecution. It means squat on a private domain, regardless of what your attorney tells you.
You confuse law for ethics. Yes I’m aware you have the right to kick anyone out of your private property, but that doesn’t mean you always should.

And marketing a debate website with censorship is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard. That only attracts people who desire uncomfortable ideas be censored; the site that does this will attract the most intellectually dishonest debaters possible.

And of course, you forget that the freedom to have an open debate about some very controversial opinions could be good marketing of its own, especially when you remember this is a debate website where you’re supposed to debate.
#42
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,694
4
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
4
4
9
Edit the post and remove the slurs 
Send a warning to the user 
This is the most evil thing you can do. To edit the slur so the moderator can lie about whether it was even a slur or not and there is no room for debate not only on whether it is fair to punish people for slurs but on if something even qualifies is evil. This is literally the same thing as when Hitler was burning books. I would not be surprised if the mods were studying Hitler given the Nazi like strategies of stomping on free speech, even going beyond a ban of saying naughty things to then erasing the words from existence. 
#43
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,694
4
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
4
4
9
-->
@David
If you want to make people like me happy a word filter would be a fair compromise. It won't let you post if your message is too short or too long so the same mechanism can be adjusted for words .  It can't be some AI shit tone policing though. You actually ban the word and it shows up as all stars and yes people will find ways to duck the word filter which is where the fun begins so you start off adding the following

1. Nigger

And to account for bad spellers

2. Nigger

They get around it with 

Ni66er

So you ban ni66er

Then they use 

N1gger

Then you can that then they use

Nigg3r 

Then you ban that so they throw them all together

N1663r

And you can that and it gets to the point where they say monkey and you have to debate banning monkey with the word filter. It becomes a fun game instead of an attack on free speech in the one place where rules should be looser. So go with the compromise option of word filters and stop looking for ways to emulate Hitler with thought policing. 


#44
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,694
4
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
4
4
9
I would ban the following words

1. Nigger
2. Kike
3. Gook
4. Orange man (racial slur against the orange)
5. Cracker
6. Retard
7. Canadian
8. Jew (yes just ban the whole word so people half to say "funny hat people")

Also just for fun you can ban the word tomato or for even more fun anyone who types nigger or something it. Changes their text when they press submit to something like "I am a proud homosexual".

If you are going to ban words this is how to do it while respecting freedom of speech and making things easier on the mods. 
#45
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,694
4
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
4
4
9
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Push for word filters. It's a fair compromise 
#46
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,820
3
3
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
3
2
-->
@WyIted
There is no compromise with lies.

It's not love of that MEEP that makes me keep bringing this up, it's love of truth. The bastards keep pretending it doesn't exist after voting for it. If they had voted for a resolution that claims the moon is made of cheese and pretended they didn't, I would feel the same way and do the same thing.
#47
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,694
4
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
4
4
9
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Absolutely they need to abide by the correct COC which actually has wiggle room as a living document written right in but also has the intention of the COC written in so adjustments need to be justified according to the meaning of the COC
#48
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,421
3
2
5
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
5
-->
@Sidewalker
I think when a person blocks someone it should work in both directions, many users block another user and continue to respond to that user's posts, quite often it increases their engagement with the blocked individual who can't respond.

I agree, Fuaxlaw has blocked me for year or more.  I figured out to unblock him and made a few posts --in a thread he was posting in--  over the last year, explaining for him out to do it.  Never heard from. I dont think I ever tried a direct message to him. I dunno.


To best  of my knowledge he still makes replies or posts in threads Ive begun, and Ive just presumed he still has me blocked. I dunno.

Some people are'nt worth time and effort to attempt fair back and forth with.
#49
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 2,143
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@WyIted
Site has to lose some vitriolic scum to gain many users who never want to use a site with that.

We must bend the knee to the new regime. Accept it.
#50
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,421
3
2
5
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
You left out other ways infer slur words. So sometimes it comes to context to figure out when some one is using slur words to disparge other in a way that crosses some gradient scale, degree over 0 - 360 degrees.

1. N.....r

2. K__e

3. G__k

4. O!!!e man (racial slur against the orange)

5. C****r

6. R%$@d

Some if not many still have culture ways of not typing cuss words or using other text characters to alter curse words.

So we to rely on words to express our disdain for the others person, other persons ideas, other persons ways of being etc.

I suppose all comes around the words being civil towards those we disagree, with varying degrees of impatience { grammar begins failing } > frustration { warns other or self an issue } > anger { RASIED  VOICE } > mad-ness { throwiing this or that } > insanity { intentionally propagating lies? }

I remmeber some colledge-like, civilized debates, and the younger person sometimes had William Buckley on his program, and sometimes I think it was the other way around. Im was never that well educated so those two debate shows mostly went over my head, yet sometimes I would attempt to follow them for a bit.


#51
Mikal
Mikal's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,938
3
3
5
Mikal's avatar
Mikal
3
3
5
Can we get a mafia elo system. 

I’ll help promote it if we can 
#52
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,421
3
2
5
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
5
-->
@AdaptableRatman
We must bend the knee to the new regime. Accept it.

I agree. Disrespect the manager by not attemting their directive is  direct line to out the door of the building as termination.

Circumstances alter cases, and with that in mind  communicating your circumstances,  allows for them to take the heat if your circumstances are disregarded and causes detrimental issue else where is out of respect to them knowing if their directive is immediate, or after you finnish your set of circumstances. 

Some rational back and forth needs to be allowed depending on the overall whole set of circumstances, always.  

A manager who listens, and responds appropriately is the best we can hope for.  
#53
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,694
4
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
4
4
9
-->
@ebuc
I suppose all comes around the words being civil towards those we disagree, 
Everyone here agrees we shouldn't name call. We are all against that. David is trying to change it so he can be the word police and eliminate ableism or saying nigger or whatever. 
#54
LucyStarfire
LucyStarfire's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 819
3
3
6
LucyStarfire's avatar
LucyStarfire
3
3
6
-->
@WyIted
I thought maybe David learned his lesson. The site was really active before he became the head mod and then when he did he did all the woke shit and site participation dropped by 80%. Now he is saying he will do it again and we don't have 80% to lose again. Whiteflame becoming mod stopped the bleeding but it will happen again.
Who even cares if they ruin the site this willingly? They want it.
#55
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,694
4
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
4
4
9
-->
@LucyStarfire
Who even cares if they ruin the site this willingly? They want it.
That's a fair point but just giving my opinion here. If he acquires the site it's his business what he does with it
#56
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,503
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@ebuc
I think when a person blocks someone it should work in both directions, many users block another user and continue to respond to that user's posts, quite often it increases their engagement with the blocked individual who can't respond.

I agree, Fuaxlaw has blocked me for year or more.  I figured out to unblock him and made a few posts --in a thread he was posting in--  over the last year, explaining for him out to do it.  Never heard from. I dont think I ever tried a direct message to him. I dunno.


To best  of my knowledge he still makes replies or posts in threads Ive begun, and Ive just presumed he still has me blocked. I dunno.

Some people are'nt worth time and effort to attempt fair back and forth with.
Yes, Faux Law has done it to me, so has Ratman, and as I said, Stephen was the worst.
#57
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 204
Posts: 1,059
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
-->
@Mharman
And marketing a debate website with censorship is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard. That only attracts people who desire uncomfortable ideas be censored; the site that does this will attract the most intellectually dishonest debaters possible.

And of course, you forget that the freedom to have an open debate about some very controversial opinions could be good marketing of its own, especially when you remember this is a debate website where you’re supposed to debate.
There is nothing in the appeal that calls for abolishing free speech. Total censorship is an Adaptable concept.
Placing strict restrictions on harassment, hate speech, and discrimination are not limiting free speech either. While there are a lot of gray lines, and vagueness leaves room for interpretation. That only means extra clarification and expectations are required to draw the lines. Most of it is self-explanatory.
Racial slurs, nazi symbols, derogatory language, or normalizing stereotypes are all obvious examples. 
Placing standards like these are not a violation of ethics. 

Controversial subjects can and should be allowed. But this site should change to open itself up to a more mainstream demographic.
#58
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 2,143
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
I am possibly the only honest Authoritarian around. The rest are lying.
#59
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 7,695
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Placing strict restrictions on harassment, hate speech, and discrimination are not limiting free speech either.
They are.
#60
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 2,143
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@Mharman
In the end they kicked me out but took on almost every single bit of advice I left in that mod chat, lol.