@RationalMadman
Are you allowed to swear?Of course not. If you fuck with him, he'll hire his goons to bully you and mock you on the thread.
Guess I won't get on bsh1's bad side then.
Using Nice Words
Posts
Total:
42
-->
@bsh1
No.
My case for this is that it will give this site more transparent which will lead to the users understanding what is consider ban-able or at the very least be up to date with what is going on with current ban-ings.
How is this a bad thing?
A public ban log has twice been rejected in MEEP processes, and I see little utility in stripping the process of the privacy it currently provides to the impacted users.
This person who had his/her account banned is public and there is very little information that can be public on this site which means there is very little a supposed mob can do to harm a user. If it does occur simply add a rule which I think you guys have that targeted harassment will be punished. So basically this is already a public site and very little information is given and the only way to harm the user is to harass them. If the person reports on it, that user who did the harassing can be punished.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
No you fucking can't.
@RationalMadman
Are you trying to test bsh1 or something?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
My case for this is that it will give this site more transparency which will lead to the site profiles understanding what is consider ban-able or at the very least be up to date with what is going on with current ban-ings.
As noted above, we're re-litigating here something which was already twice rejected in MEEP processes by the site usership. That alone should be reason enough to reject the idea. Even were it not, there are myriad reasons why such a policy would be foolhardy. Users who have engaged in misconduct would be publicly embarrassed and shamed through such a process, which would not only make it harder to retain users but would also performatively undermine the spirit of the site's code of conduct by institutionalizing call-out threads as an acceptable social practice on DART.
Official warnings and on-site discussions of the site's code of conduct already serve to educate users about what is and is not bannable, and, given the strike-throughs used to indicate when a member was banned, users face no significant burden in determining who is currently banned or not. Given that the policy your proposing has almost no tangible benefits not already provided by the status quo, while entailing not insignificant harms, hardly recommends it for implementation.
Swearing is permitted, btw. It's tacky, but no longer violates site policy.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
This is not well-articulated, so I am not entirely sure what you're trying to say. What I believe I can gather from the above is that you're basically saying that rules which prohibit harassment are sufficient protections against the revelation of private information. What you fail to consider is that the revelation of private information is itself harmful--not only on its own terms, but insofar as it provides additional fodder for personal attacks against users. It does not seem to be a viable solution to punish the harassers afterward, as the harassment as already occurred at that point.This person who had his/her account banned is public and there is very little information that can be public on this site which means there is very little a supposed mob can do to harm a user. If it does occur simply add a rule which I think you guys have that targeted harassment will be punished. So basically this is already a public site and very little information is given and the only way to harm the user is to harass them. If the person reports on it, that user who did the harassing can be punished.
-->
@bsh1
As noted above, we're re-litigating here something which was already twice rejected in MEEP processes by the site usership.
Can't really disagree with this.
Users who have engaged in misconduct would be publicly embarrassed and shamed through such a process, which would not only make it harder to retain users but would also performatively undermine the spirit of the site's code of conduct by institutionalizing call-out threads as an acceptable social practice on DART.
This is a public platform and the higher-ups can create the audience they target. With this in mind publicly embarasing indivduals sends a message that this behaviour will not be tolerated and will make sure people know there place. This will help people understand authority and what are acceptable limits to what can be done on the site. I am not for call-out threads. I am for higher-ups making public with who was banned.
Given that the policy your proposing has almost no tangible benefits not already provided by the status quo, while entailing not insignificant harms, hardly recommends it for implementation.
+ Users will understand what current implementation of the law looks like
+ Can keep up-to-date what occurred with an individual in order for users to be aware if what they have reported on was followed through
+ More transparency leads to less conspiracy or assumptions made up which can leave known trolls hard-pressed to find something to make up
-->
@TheRealNihilist
This is a public platform and the higher-ups can create the audience they target. With this in mind publicly embarasing indivduals sends a message that this behaviour will not be tolerated and will make sure people know there place. This will help people understand authority and what are acceptable limits to what can be done on the site. I am not for call-out threads. I am for higher-ups making public with who was banned.
This misses the precise point I made earlier: "such a process...would also performatively undermine the spirit of the site's code of conduct by institutionalizing call-out threads as an acceptable social practice on DART." A public ban log would constitute a call-out thread to the extent that it would be used to publicly shame or embarrass other site users by name. I am not going to enforce rules which ban call-out threads by creating call-out threads.
There are already sufficient deterrents in place against misconduct--including knowledge of existing bans and the issuance of official warnings--to ensure sufficient compliance with site rules.
The other "benefits" you mention are either addressed by the current system, which already provides the resources needed to understand moderation's enforcement positions, or are not sufficient to outweigh the legitimate privacy and user retention interests protected by the status quo. Moreover, it would be far too great an encumbrance for moderation to keep a running, public list of all reports and the actions taken on them.
-->
@bsh1
. I am not going to enforce rules which ban call-out threads by creating call-out threads.
They are not the same. One is done by a user on the site and another is done by the higher-ups. It is like the President of the United States I am not going to war with an actual enemy of the US because it will lead to public hatred of that enemy. The closest context to the site would be someone hacking the site.
There are already sufficient deterrents in place against misconduct--including knowledge of existing bans and the issuance of official warnings--to ensure sufficient compliance with site rules.
Official warnings that are not public?
So private warnings I am guessing.
or are not sufficient to outweigh the legitimate privacy and user retention interests protected by the status quo. Moreover, it would be far too great an encumbrance for moderation to keep a running, public list of all reports and the actions taken on them.
I guess my idea would be further into the future of DA so I will leave this as my last post until DA increases the size of its authority figures. I don't want conspiracy theorists, people advocating for illegal activity on my site. I would go about this as give them a chance to explain depending on the severity allow them onto the site again and if it occurs again permanently ban them with a much longer investigation. I am sure you guys already do this so basically I am telling you what you already do.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
They are not the same. One is done by a user on the site and another is done by the higher-ups.
That's a distinction without a difference. That is like saying that if the President shot someone in cold blood on 5th Avenue, it would be morally acceptable because the President did it, and not some everyday citizen. The doer of the action is not relevant to the nature of the action, just as the creator of the thread is not relevant to the nature of the thread. The only meaningful difference that exists is that, when the "higher-ups" do it, they are signalling that it is an acceptable social practice because, by doing it, they endorse it. That is an argument precisely against the policy you're trying to promote.
I don't want conspiracy theorists, people advocating for illegal activity on my site
I am not the thought-police. It is not my job to ban people because they have atypical views, nor would it be desirable for me to do so on a debate website (debate being all about the free clash of ideas). As for advocating illegal activity, that's altogether a separate issue, and one which I might very well act on if it came to my attention that it was occurring. If someone posted a thread with bomb-making instructions, for instance, and a call to blow up a building, I would immediately remove the thread, ban the user, and report the issue to the relevant authorities.
-->
@bsh1
Guess I should stop now before I go on to advocate for why the marketplace of ideas is awful. Oh well. Nice talking. Keep up the great work and I still haven't read your rules. Do make it more concise for people who don't like reading. Please.