Moving More Quickly on Moderation

Author: 1harderthanyouthink

Posts

Total: 169
#121
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
A seemingly innocent post having nothing to do with him could be perceived as antagonistic and illicit a response.

This is precisely why RO's are arbitrary fmpov. 

On another note, it doesn't come as a surprise necessarily that RM might have a mental illness of some sort, what surprises me is there are people advocating for very little tolerance in regards to negative behaviors that likely stem from this. This should otherwise be a mitigating factor in potential avenues of punishment, no? 

Im all for punishing violations of ToS, and in understanding his past, can see why such negative views have developed over time, even admittedly those I have of my own.

However, measures such as RO's, would facially place an unequal burden upon such individuals. It basically amounts to a trap with the purpose, as stated previously, of creating an arbitrary basis for which to justify punishments that might not otherwise be punishable offenses.(fast tracking bans)

Like, have a cookie for being a savage, but creating traps that catch mentally ill individuals who probably otherwise can't help their reaction, for offenses that otherwise might not be offenses in themselves rubs me the wrong way 🤔

#122
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
At least RM's presence gives us something to post about.
#123
Smithereens
Smithereens's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 502
2
2
4
Smithereens's avatar
Smithereens
2
2
4
-->
@Buddamoose
Like, have a cookie for being a savage, but creating traps that catch mentally ill individuals who probably otherwise can't help their reaction, for offenses that otherwise might not be offenses in themselves rubs me the wrong way 🤔
You should clarify at what point you draw the line where alleged mental issues stops being a justification for bad behaviour. Atm you're effectively suggesting total exemption from the rules for RM and I know you don't mean to come across as claiming this so imo it would be helpful to define when too far is too far.

Obviously some members here think he's gone too far so you might find yourself in agreement with them after you've decided where your arbitrary line is drawn. 
#124
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
-->
@Smithereens
You should clarify at what point you draw the line where alleged mental issues stops being a justification for bad behaviour. 

"I'm all for punishing violations of ToS" 

My complaint was specifically regarding restraining orders. Can see why you might otherwise think it was applicable to all areas if you missed that part 👏
#125
Vaarka
Vaarka's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 696
2
1
5
Vaarka's avatar
Vaarka
2
1
5
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
Give me the job
#126
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
-->
@Smithereens
RO's are not a part of the ToS. They are being proposed as an additional behavioral standard. My point is that violations of ToS provide sufficient basis for punishment. RO's are an arbitrary metric that has at least in part the purpose to fast track bans, for things that might otherwise not be offenses in themselves, or the need for an RO present to ban would itself be unecessary anyways. 

This unequally burdens individuals who might have such illnesses as they might not otherwise be able to control that, or their disposition might be inclined to view, as pointed out, even vague references as directed at them, and thus viewing any RO as being consequently broken by that post. 

One could try to add an objective metric of say, @'ing the person is when a post constitutes as directed. But that itself is arbitrary because post can be directed or targeted without the use of @'ing. 

If his offenses are violations of ToS they merit punishment. If they are not, this metric of RO's seems less a sensible metric of "just" adjudication, and more a desire to see a fast track method of removing users that are deemed less than desirable. Fair enough, that again, rubs me the wrong way. 


#127
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
And I'm not saying that practical purpose is necessarily primarily intended. But when examining potential policies, what is intended, rarely fmpov outweighs what practical effects that policy will have. "Its not meant to do that" doesn't provide adequate defense to it doing as such. 

#128
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Zeichen
ok show where i actually said i'd slit your throat. I can show juicy shit from you.
#129
Smithereens
Smithereens's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 502
2
2
4
Smithereens's avatar
Smithereens
2
2
4
-->
@Buddamoose
I'm talking about your suggestion for differential treatment for RM. It's the patronising of people with mental disabilities I see a lot of IRL, and portrarying them as incapable of controlling themselves or somehow inferior and thus needing the handicap. You said to Emil "Are you the kinda person that tries to grab ice cream out of an autists hands and cry wrongdoing when you get bit? 🤔" This is a bluntly offensive way to think of someone who has a mental disability, as you're assuming that Emil is in a position of superior responsibility over RM given RM's mental issues.

Since you and I don't know anything about RM, prejudice is going to be apparent here. you're treating him like he's a certified retard, and that Emil is effectively bullying a helpless kid. RM is self aware enough to know what behaviour is and isn't acceptable, and ought to be treated as anyone's equal. I also think this is the default assumption anyone should make when coming across a person with a professed mental illness. Remove the stigma, he's not an inferior human being and he's not retarded.  

#130
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Buddamoose
High functioning autism / asperger's syndrome is not a reason to play a victim. I am not a victim because of that.

ADD is why I am so capable of having so many debates at once.

Narcissism is why I know I am so great.

I never once asked for sympathy, I asked only for admiration.
#131
Vaarka
Vaarka's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 696
2
1
5
Vaarka's avatar
Vaarka
2
1
5
Give me the job, boss


#132
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
You said to Emil "Are you the kinda person that tries to grab ice cream out of an autists hands and cry wrongdoing when you get bit? 🤔" This is a bluntly offensive way to think of someone who has a mental disability, as you're assuming that Emil is in a position of superior responsibility over RM given RM's mental issues.

No, first of all, the comparison was not in comparing all mentally ill people to being severely deficient. It was in establishing that there are circumstances in which, though person X is not punishable for anything, neither is Person Y. You know as well as i do that both involved parties can be determined as not being wholly at fault, or at all. You are going to need to stop being obtuse.

Since you and I don't know anything about RM, prejudice is going to be apparent here.
Enough to know that he has a paranoid personality that is predisposed to viewing vague posting as a violation of any RO. 

you're treating him like he's a certified retard, and that Emil is effectively bullying a helpless kid.
No, im not. That's you wishfully thinking that's whats going in here. If you don't like that I'm pointing out that RO's practically are a method to fast track removal of undesired members, and such a metric unequally places burden on such members who otherwise might have dispositions vulnerable to the unintended breaking of an RO, that's not on me. 

RM is self aware enough to know what behaviour is and isn't acceptable, and ought to be treated as anyone's equal.
I agree, which is why I'm fine with him being held accountable for ToS violations. I get the feeling you are white knighting here cause this is a bit of a laughable attempt at painting what I said as inherently insulting. 😂😂



#133
Vaarka
Vaarka's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 696
2
1
5
Vaarka's avatar
Vaarka
2
1
5
My first task as mod

@everyone - stfu, nobody cares
#134
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
-->
@RationalMadman
Im not saying you are a victim, you aren't. And any violations of ToS you make are yours to own up to and face the consequences for. My point isnt even specifically about you, you just so happen to be the  clear example to point to that illustrates the overall point I'm making. 

I frankly dont like your mentality when it comes to people, its barely tolerable, that last part exemplary of it. But nonetheless, though it rubs me the wrong way, isnt a valid basis fmpov to seek out ways to fasttrack punishments for anything that doesn't itself already violate current ToS 🤔
#135
Smithereens
Smithereens's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 502
2
2
4
Smithereens's avatar
Smithereens
2
2
4
-->
@Buddamoose
There doesn't need to be any double standard for RM here for any reason, RO or otherwise. A ToS requires users to exercise self control in a wide variety of ways, and an enforced RO is hardly a form of self control beyond the capability of any member present. If an RO is fair for Emil it's fair for RM. I care a lot less about the RO itself than your apparent desire to hold him to a different standard of acceptable behaviour. "Unequal burden" is not a thing. 
#136
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
Remove the stigma, he's not an inferior human being and he's not retarded.  

Finally, multiple of my family members have mental illnesses ranging from bi-polar to schizophrenia. I don't think any of them are in the sense you are trying to apply, "inferior". But to claim that a mental illness isnt a disadvantage and creates innate susceptibilities to what would be viewed as generally undesirable behavior, as you are trying to imply here, is absurd. 

Whatever implications derive from not factoring that into the creation of policies that set redundant behavioral standards independent of current ToS, isnt on me, im just the messenger pointing it out.

>Regarding the mentally ill/deficient without stigma and with due respect and consideration.

>Wanting to implement measures that such individuals are disproportionately susceptible to, so as to create a method by which removal can be fast tracked for offenses that otherwise might not be violations of ToS themselves

You are gonna have to pick one, cause you cant have both


#137
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
-->
@Smithereens
A ToS requires users to exercise self control in a wide variety of ways, and an enforced RO is hardly a form of self control beyond the capability of any member present. If an RO is fair for Emil it's fair for RM

You again are obtusely interpreting what im saying, considering that i never said it was fair for either one. And a ToS does require users to excercise self control. RO's indeed also require self-control. But they are redundant, arbitrary, and clearly, as was stated, have the purpose of fast tracking removal. This necessarily implies for instances where ToS is not itself being violated. 

What part of me arguing against RO's in general would lead you to honestly believe I'm ok with them in certain circumstances? Or that the point of disproportionate burden and it being a trap, is at all the core of my complaint
#138
Smithereens
Smithereens's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 502
2
2
4
Smithereens's avatar
Smithereens
2
2
4
-->
@Buddamoose
>Wanting to implement measures that such individuals are disproportionately susceptible to, so as to create a method by which removal can be fast tracked for offenses that otherwise might not be violations of ToS themselves
The ToS disproportionately affects everyone. All people, mental illness or not vary immensely in their innate ability to exercise self control and pro-social behaviour. If you think RM is unfairly burdened by RO then you must concede that he is similarly unfairly burdened by the ToS since both demand similar levels of self control. He's shown an inability to abide by DDO's ToS (this site doesn't have one), so why do you not claim that the ToS is unfair?

Literally he's in complete control of himself he does not need to be treated differently to any other member. 

#139
Smithereens
Smithereens's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 502
2
2
4
Smithereens's avatar
Smithereens
2
2
4
-->
@Buddamoose
An RO is undefined insofar as you leave it undefined. The ToS does not exist so bringing it up is a moot point. Moreover DDO had issues with ToS interpretation, as each rule was itself open to interpretation which is why Airmax had to go through so much effort to make his conduct thread to explain exactly what was meant. An RO is no different, it also needs defining. 

All that's an aside to the fact that it's the same for both members who are bound by one. Whether or not this site uses an RO is not a major concern to me, so long as it's implemented equally. 

#140
Smithereens
Smithereens's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 502
2
2
4
Smithereens's avatar
Smithereens
2
2
4
The RO point I don't really understand tbh, because it's a non issue once you tell the members involved what they aren't allowed to do. If there's some nuance here that I've missed please point it out. 
#141
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
"There doesn't need to be any double standard for RM here for any reason, RO or otherwise."

I agree with this, which is why RO's are invalid. See, either you dont hold a double standard, which creates a necessary situation where you are having to punish acts that lack intent

Or

You necessarily create a double standard because individuals who are otherwise predisposed to violate RO's over percieved violations, lack intent to violate and thus ought not be punished to as severe an extent. 

I mean, this point operates in accordance with a lack of a desire to see a double standard as well. It just wasn't stated outright. But as i pointed out, there appears to be a heavy focus on intent and ideal application, and not so much on pragmatic applications both on your part and others.
 
Offenses such as harassment, threatening, doxxing, all have intent built in. You can't harass, without intending to harass. You cant threaten, without intending to threaten, you cant dox, without intending to dox. You can however violate an RO without intending to violate an RO... 

And thus we reach the core and foremost complaint presented against an RO, and one that would equally apply to both main involved parties(Zeichen and RM for instance) if placed within the boundaries of an RO. 

Mental illness as mitigating factors aside, if RM and Zeichen were both involved in an RO at this moment, neither could be held fmpov as intending to break such an RO. Yet there would be those who hold it having been broken. Therein, again, lies the core issue. 

#142
Smithereens
Smithereens's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 502
2
2
4
Smithereens's avatar
Smithereens
2
2
4
-->
@Buddamoose
we can't prove intent either. RM for example thinks Zeichen's threats were real threats and that she's a deranged psychopath when imo he's miles off. It's completely misguided to talk about intent imho when all we can deal with is behaviour.

1. We stipulate the terms of an RO explicitly
2. We punish violations of the terms

Since 1 is made clear to all parties, 2 will follow naturally and easily. There's no issue to be had as far as I can see here.
#143
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
I am unbanned on ddo that is the truth
#144
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,222
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Buddamoose
The whole post frequency point is just utterly arbitrary beyond that. As Castin pointed out, i've done that before. Would that be held as a punishable offense? I doubt it

@Castin- You keep up with pointing out when i ramble and I'll poop in ur wheaties 😤😂
Hey, I enjoy your rambles! 😄 The one in that thread was especially interesting. I consider it a positive example of chain posting.

#145
Vaarka
Vaarka's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 696
2
1
5
Vaarka's avatar
Vaarka
2
1
5
You guys continue to provide evidence for moderation demands

Topic's author
#146
1harderthanyouthink
1harderthanyouthink's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 256
0
1
3
1harderthanyouthink's avatar
1harderthanyouthink
0
1
3
-->
@Vaarka
I expected as much when I made the thread.
#147
Zeichen
Zeichen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 186
0
1
6
Zeichen's avatar
Zeichen
0
1
6
-->
@Castin
Buddamoose responded to me with five posts in a row in this thread. Is there a problem with it? https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/131?page=1 
RM responded to me five times because a.) he was offended by my commentary, and b.) has difficulty controlling his emotions. The posts that Buddamoose made in your thread are not comparable. 

#148
Vaarka
Vaarka's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 696
2
1
5
Vaarka's avatar
Vaarka
2
1
5
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
lmao
#149
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,222
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Vaarka
You guys continue to provide evidence for moderation demands
If Mike is really working on a more robust block function that will extend to forum posts, I think it'll help clear a lot of this up. Maybe even without him having to appoint a premature moderator. Depends on how soon the improved block will be implemented.
Topic's author
#150
1harderthanyouthink
1harderthanyouthink's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 256
0
1
3
1harderthanyouthink's avatar
1harderthanyouthink
0
1
3
-->
@Castin
I don't think forum blocks should be a thing on a debate site.