Upcoming MEEP

Author: bsh1

Posts

Archived
Read-only
Total: 111
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
Aloha, DART!

There will be a MEEP posted sometime this month to address a variety of issues that have come to my attention. In this thread I will preview some of the questions to be discussed, and I invite you to suggest additional questions. Importantly, just because a question is suggested or seconded does not mean it will be included. Below are some issues I already intended to include:

  1. Extending anti-doxxing protection to non-users
  2. The permissibility of spam threads (e.g. "yeet," "record attempt at most posts," "race to 127 posts," etc.)
  3. The permissibility of spam debates (e.g. "best online guru love matchmaker [phone number]" and debates by banned users' alts)
  4. A Public Ban Log for perma-banned users
Again, feel free to add suggestions. These questions topics will be included, no matter what, and the wording of their questions is yet to be determined.

Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,599
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
Where will this "meep" be found
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Dr.Franklin
In the main forum, as usual. There will be an announcement about it in your notifications.
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,599
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@bsh1
Thank you
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 4,240
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
Interesting
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@bsh1
You can't rob me of those wins without admitting bias and hypocrisy. Oromagi, Ragnar and Ramshutu (most of all the latter) climbed by preying on Sparrow/Type1. All other MEEPs were enacted non-retroactively. If you do and enact it soon enough to rob me of those wins, you're corrupt.

Good MEEP, I am interested to know if you or Virtuoso came up with these.


bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@RationalMadman
Dear lord. Don’t be so paranoid.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@bsh1

That's what the kidnapper said to the would-be victim... The one to outsmart, outplay and outlast.
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@bsh1
Dear lord. Don’t be so paranoid.
Ah ha!...So you admit we should be a bit paranoid.   What are you hiding?

Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@bsh1
It’s not a meep thing specifically, but the CoC needs to be uodated with voting restriction information.

While I would like to see a Meep installing myself as vice emperor; I would like to see a meep about unmoderated debates.

I think troll debates are getting a bit silly now, given that we have a lot of battle debates, I think it could be useful to have a minimum moderation standard for the battles. I can prep some peiminary text

bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Ramshutu
I talked about that with Mike two weeks ago and again yesterday. Hopefully it will be done soon. I know Mike is busy.

I am open to looking at the text, of course.
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@bsh1
I’m also going to say this out loud now, as this genuinely infuriates me. While I’m sure RM objects to having debates delete and being robbed of hard earned forfeits; there are currently 9 type1 debates that somehow RM was somehow able to accept all. That’s probably over 90 free points that other normal users would otherwise have to earn by debating. If this were 1 or 2 debates here and there, or multiple people had accepted them, or if it was type 1 debates earning 3 points each; I’d not be too concerned; but this is 9 debates, that’s a major imbalance and has a major impact on the sites point tallies.

These debates are spam and abuse of the site as a whole - both of which violate the CoC every bit as much as personal attacks - of which several debates I have accepted and reported have been deleted. They’re unfair to every other genuine and legitimate debater who’ll have to debate their way to those same 90 points.

While I like the idea of a MEEP in general, By the time the meeps been put up, people have voted, the rules have been applied; its probably, going to be too late to do anything about it - and given the impact right now is actual, not theoretical - I think theres legitimate reason to act now.


RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Ramshutu
Are you happy to have yours deleted too? Shut up. You haven't added on the wins you robbed from me by corrupt voting. Nice try, back off.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Ramshutu
I thought I don't mean anything to you and the most you think about me or this site is a pickle jar I'm your fridge having higher importance.

What happened? Did I enter your mind a little more?

oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,693
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
I almost made a joke about yeet meeps yesterday  & here it is come true today. Can we have monthly yeetmeeps?


Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
I am completely unsurprised that you are attempting to defend your ability to gain 90 points with zero risk and effort - rather than actually earning t by rigorous and good faith; your objection is not because it is fair or reasonable for you to get those wins; but because you want the wins.

That is inherently the problem: no one on this site should be able to earn 90 points with no skill, no ability and simply being in the right place at the right time to click accept on debates they know will win due to the instigator being banned.

I would happily have all spam debates deleted - I’ve reported them all in the past, and had them deleted - my only reason for accepting them in the first place, is so that I wouldn’t be personally inconvenienced by one lone person accepting them all and ending up with dozens of wins.

Multiple people here have pretty much been forced to accept these types of debates when we see them, as we all know you’re just going to Hoover them all up in a mad rush for whatever points you can get.

One or two now and then are fine - it’s the 9 that concerns me here.









oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,693
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Or would too many yeet meeps mean yeet meep creep?
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@oromagi
Don’t you mean leet yeet meep creep.

oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,693
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Ramshutu
sweet
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
We should change the terms of service to allow advertising. There is no reason a coke and pepsi rep should not be able to come in here and both compete in a debate proclaiming their product is the best and advertising in this fashion
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 52
Posts: 3,171
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@bsh1
Additional item suggestion: Changing the default debate character limit. Right now it's at 10k (down from 30k), but that is way too much for most voters if a debate even approaches that. Additionally, it leaves new members vulnerable to people trying to overwhelm them so as to drive them off the site to win by FF.

---

Apparently I "climbed by preying on Sparrow/Type1" to get where I am...

I debated each of them twice, back when they were active users on this site fully engaging in debates (making some good traps even). I fail to see how debating active users in good faith is damning or even related.

During previous spouts of open spam debates, I have ignored them because free wins are without value.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Ramshutu
Utter lies being typed, you didn't report the spam debates that you accepted and won. If you did, that's even funnier.
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
@RM

Yeah... normally when you call someone a liar, it should be in circumstances and situations in which you can creatively claim you know the facts: and given that you have literally no meaningful way of knowing that I didn’t report particular debates (I did) - this accusation is just another meaningless, fabricated accusation.



Permanently banned users shouldn’t be allowed to impact the sites leaderboards in such a significant way.

If Type1 votes on a bunch of debates in a way that would swing the leaderboard by 90 points: the votes would be removed.

If Type1 posted adult content - the debate would be removed. Hate speech - removed. Personal attacks - removed.

Spam is against the CoC - it should be removed on the same Basis.




You would be saying exactly the same thing, if Type1 started challenging me 9 times, or Oromagi to these debates, or setting the ELO requirements above you. He likes annoying you enough to do think about considering that for next time, I’m sure.



The majority of your wins are against Type1, Sparrow and Spam debates like these; I get that you want to climb to the top of the leaderboard through forfeits and default victories against banned users - but frankly you’ve gone half s dozen posts here, utterly failing to explain why it is fair and reasonable for one user to earn 90 points in one day with no effort.

That should speak volumes.




RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Ramshutu
Yawn. What was that about influencing the leaderboard through bullshit votes? Ah, just a hypocrite.

oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,693
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11

  • Extending anti-doxxing protection to non-users
Former user protections seem reasonable.  Non-users would need more definition (shall we avoid pointing out that the UK PM lives @ 10 Downing St., etc)

  • The permissibility of spam threads (e.g. "yeet," "record attempt at most posts," "race to 127 posts," etc.)
Mostly driven by badge-seeking, I suppose.  Is this a problem?  Isn't a reasonable amount of  useless hyper-posting good for keeping website activity counts up?

  • The permissibility of spam debates (e.g. "best online guru love matchmaker [phone number]" and debates by banned users' alts)
Advertising and banned users are already not permitted so I think this is about other users retaining/benefiting from spam debates.  I don't know....winning 100 debates seems an awful long way off if we can't sieve the sewers for freebies now & then.

  • A Public Ban Log for perma-banned users
And temp bans, too.  This isn't just idle gossip- I have more than once been left wondering whether an opponent I was debating would return and was uncertain how much effort to spend on the abandoned debate.  Users need to know how long users are banned for- not particularly interested in the why although that might serve some "severed heads on pikes" utility.

Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
As I said; Type1 spam debates are spam by a banned user. They are a violation of the CoC: and should be treated the same way as adult content or personal attack debates would be: they should be deleted.

Without this, you have a permabanned user, attempting to disrupt the site, and doing so by letting a single user accept 90+ points worth of debates. 

This site is a debating site, and as far as is possible the points should be reflective of who that. Purposefully exploiting gaps in the CoC to artificially inflated your points is antithetical to that, I understand that you’re using it as a tactic to win; and you’re objecting to it being taken away, because you don’t want to go to the effort to win them fairly: but this does not make it any more reasonable or fair.

You don’t seem to have an objection; simply resorting to angry factless accusations - in lieu of an actual reasoned argument. Which, ironically, is in no small part the reason you lose many of your actual debates.


Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
I don't know....winning 100 debates seems an awful long way off if we can't sieve the sewers for freebies now & then.
We’re not talking about one or two debates against a user with 1200 points, noob sniping: but 9 debates from a perma banned spammer. It makes the ranking more about who is online most and clicks accept rather than who is engaging in good faith debate.

That being said - we can probably just ask Type1 to spam you and I with debate challenges. 
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@oromagi
Best to not engage the guy who votes down anyone rising to his level strategically while only taking debates where he's very sure he has no way to lose and default wins. His specialty being preaching one thing and doing another.
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
Ever rolled your eyes so hard you saw your own brain?

Am I reading an RM post, or am I doing my best Impression of Bran Stark warging?



I think the issue speaks for itself: noob sniping is fine, banned users losing debates is fine: a banned user, who has consistently attempted to disrupt the site through spam debates should have those debates deleted - as it would if it were ANY other violations of the CoC.

I don’t think Type1 should be influencing the leaderboards by letting the debates stay up: and thus far, the notable and transparent absence of ANY coherent justification from RM, is basically confirming that he’s exploiting the system, and wants to keep the benefit.

90 points shouldn’t be awarded solely on the basis of being in the right place and time. If you want to keep the debates up - that’s fine: but at least make them unrated.



oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,693
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@RationalMadman
@Ramshutu
I have much sympathy for both of your  positions

If I had seen that last batch of type1 chum before RatMan, I would have gobbled them up too because I think such misfortune is probably my only path to King-of-the-Hill gold.  I doubt I have the chops to beat the more formal debaters on their own turf so I'm looking for loopholes, same as RatMan.  I'm sure that Ram can see that when the  top debater is also the top voter and also a voting referee, leaderboard monopoly seems to justify anti-establishment strategy.  And let's face it, this is about the leaderboard:  would anybody really care if RatMan picked up a bunch of spam debate if it didn't impact rank?

On the other hand, banned users and advertisers are restricted.  If a banned user can still influence any outcomes on the website by occasional breaches, then that user isn't really banned.  If an advertisement gets to stick around because some user grabbed it for an easy win, then the illegal advertiser is encouraged to try again.  

Ultimately, I think border security has to take precedence over leaderboard gamesmanship.  I would support auto-trashing adverts and type1 style breaches altogether.  I suppose there are also non-banned spam debates  which I think we ought to generally permit.  I would not retroactively trash any debates accepted before MEEP approval.