-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Degrade me as a dog, say many things to me, votebomb on multiaccounts and get away with it.
Yeah you sure deserve modhood. 🤦♂️
The permanent ban on chap470: Justified or unjustified?
Posts
Total:
202
-->
@Barney
So I agree with the KKK example. If they are at your yard burning a cross, yes ban them. But you would acknowledge that a belief is different, correct?
Degrade me as a dog, say many things to me, votebomb on multiaccounts and get away with it.Yeah you sure deserve modhood.
In-spite of whatever beliefs you think I did, what you think about me, or the mean things I've actually said to you.
The reality is you still dm'ed me, with the intention of recruiting me to your revolution. If you are serious about this, then you will at least consider what I said. You don't have to make a choice right away.
If you decide I'd make a terrible mod, it should be because you've had the time to think on it and came to that conclusion on your own terms.
A decision that you've thought about and actually considered. This is not a guarantee or a promise that I can make things happen, but I'd push for it. Because we share similar views on legislation and policy reform. This could be your only shot at making it happen.
But if you say no right now, which is your choice.
It is not because you think I'd be a terrible mod. It's because you care more about being petty than you do your mission. You would have refused out of spite, out of pride.
I think that relates to an unfounded slippery slope fear; which isn't to say the CoC couldn't do with an overhaul. For zero moderation, there was DDO for the longest time; for ultra light moderation, 4Chan still exists. We don't pretend to be the only option, but are are rather open that we're not safe space for anything and everything. At the same time, we're not power tripping by banning people for getting on our nerves, nor for having a harmless different opinion (such as regarding pineapple on pizza).
I mean, you're the one who proposed an iron-clad causal link between allowing a debate on the historicity of the Holocaust on a minor, almost forgotten debate site and the cattle cars being rolled out again, then used it to permaban a user a day after he created his account and had made what? One post? Talking about unfounded slippery slopes is a bit of throwing stones in the old glass house, isn't it?
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Is it a permanent ban if someone denies the Armenian purge?
-->
@Debunker
Oh that’s a GOOD point. I wanna see how the mods react to a communist user joining and making all of their initial posts about Holodomor denial.
Chap470 for the Hall of fame anyone?
-->
@Mikal
Yes, closely interconnected beliefs and actions can contradict. Hell, we see this every day with politicians saying one thing but doing the opposite.
Also, on the political front, we know that MAGA in Minnesota support eugenics; but being a red-cap from Minnesota isn’t grounds for an automatic ban on large part because as bad as eugenics usually are, it can be carried out without committing atrocities.
And connected back to the topic, I’ve already conceded:
That said, while it's like a one in a million chance, sure, it's possible he just loves those so very white and empowering motivational speakers, and thinks their chants of "white power" are actually about the flour for the final solution of cake recipes, which is going to create prosperity by employing millions of Jewish chefs in the ovens...
-->
@Barney
Also, on the political front, we know that MAGA in Minnesota support eugenics; but being a red-cap from Minnesota isn’t grounds for an automatic ban on large part because as bad as eugenics usually are, it can be carried out without committing atrocities.
Lol. I can’t wait for when the mainstream media decides to assert that MAGA wants genocide and all the mods believe it. It’ll be a Thanos snap to the site lol
-->
@Debunker
What about that so called genocide in Gaza?
Shit I just did it...
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Questioning means you have a small chance at supporting the most extreme position, and we can't allow any of those to speak. We will all have to take one for the "team"
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
I really don't understand this idea everyone seems to have that moderation should be a democratic process,The site culture encourages these conversations. There’s always room for discussion on a debate site about moderator decisions.Anyone who believes mods should be immune to criticism are on the wrong platform.And when bans on users are publicized, they are subject to scrutiny.If the mods banned you and gave a fake reason, I am likewise justified in starting a thread and speaking on your behalf. (This is just an example. A hypothetical)
So banned speech isn't really a thing here.
Inappropriate posts should not be deleted because then everyone doesn't get to read it, they can't deny our right to impropriate posts, and we can't deny those who want to do inappropriate posts their right to have those posts read.
Got it.
Your conduct towards me when I was a mod implies you are faking accepting that it is undemocratic.
Just because I accept moderation should be undemocratic, doesn't mean I think we should give totalitarian control to a whack job asshole.
In review, the moderation team has decreased the length of the ban to 90 days.
More details at: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3024/posts/531673
-->
@Barney
@Vader
@Savant
90 days?
That is not acceptable. You're giving the maximum sentence to a new user with no previous record.
It should 30 days at the most, give or take.
Now according to the head mod, whiteflame. He says.:
As for whether this warranted a ban, my perspective in retrospect is that a warning or a short term ban would have been more appropriate, particularly for a new member. It's a distinctly negative place for a new member to start on the site, and I don't think comparisons to existing members who have a history of trolling on the site is entirely warranted, but for all my personal and strong disagreement with it, I believe any member who isn't outright calling for violence deserves a chance to moderate their behavior.
Given this. Whiteflame already acknowledges that a ban was disproportionately extreme and unnecessary, and that a warning or a short-term ban would suffice.
90 days is still crossing the line and is no different than a permanent ban in hindsight. Consider this.:
- Mods now have to manually lift bans.
- A user banned for 90 days is unlikely to revisit the site or notice.
- The mods will forget about the user, and the ban will remain perpetually.
There are two reasons why it should be 30 days. It sets a precedent for fairness and consistency.:
- RemyBrown, a user who was banned for the same reason (Antisemitism) only got a 30 day ban. Public Moderation Log
- FishChaser, a user who was banned countless times in the past and has a reputation for posting vile and shock value content, as well as harassing users. He was banned for 30 days after violating an RO by making SA threats. Public Moderation Log
There is a pattern of the mods here giving troublemakers with a pattern of repeated violations a second or three chances.
A 30 day ban on a user with no previous record when everyone acknowledges the rules were unclear is more than reasonable. DebateArt is a debate site afterall, and the platform needs new users.
Vader & Savant. - You guys don't have to agree with this. This is just an opinion-based discussion. But based on the evidence so far. What are your guys' feelings? I believe it's fair, consistent, and reasonable.
-->
@Barney
@Sir.Lancelot
I'll admit it seems a bit inconsistent to hold a new user to a harsher standard than other users who were familiar with the CoC. It's true the user in question didn't post anything productive, but they barely got the chance to with how quickly they were banned. I do think Lancelot has a point that the rules were unclear, and even if they weren't, a new user probably wouldn't be as familiar with them. Only the mods know exactly what was posted, but from what I can gather, a warning may have been more appropriate. For all we know, the user in question might have immediately apologized and agreed to follow the rules.
-->
@whiteflame
It would appear that you and Savant already agree with me on this.
You yourself did say that a warning or a short-length ban is appropriate.
A 90 day duration seems unnecessary. My reasoning is supported in the comment above.
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
90 days?That is not acceptable.
By what standard do you draw that conclusion?
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.
You're welcome to name any relevant part of that document I've overlooked.
-->
@Sidewalker
The rules are the rules because the rules are the rules. Don’t question anything you chud! Lol.
-->
@Mharman
The rules are the rules because the rules are the rules.
Wow, how profound, are you sure?
Don’t question anything you chud! Lol.
That's a good rule of thumb for sheeple.
-->
@Sidewalker
The rules are the rules because the rules are the rules.Wow, how profound, are you sure?Don’t question anything you chud! Lol.That's a good rule of thumb for sheeple.
It’s also ur whole logic.