Upcoming MEEP

Author: bsh1 ,

Posts

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: 9,644
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: 9,644
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @bsh1
Thank you
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,306
2
4
9
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
2
4
9
Interesting
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 11,453
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
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: 354
Posts: 11,453
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
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: 3,053
2
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
2
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: 42
Posts: 2,144
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: 42
Posts: 2,144
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: 354
Posts: 11,453
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
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: 354
Posts: 11,453
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
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: 99
Posts: 6,293
7
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
7
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: 42
Posts: 2,144
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: 99
Posts: 6,293
7
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
7
10
11
Or would too many yeet meeps mean yeet meep creep?
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,144
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
--> @oromagi
Don’t you mean leet yeet meep creep.

oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 99
Posts: 6,293
7
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
7
10
11
--> @Ramshutu
sweet
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,033
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
Ragnar
Ragnar's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 1,968
5
9
10
Ragnar's avatar
Ragnar
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: 354
Posts: 11,453
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
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: 42
Posts: 2,144
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: 354
Posts: 11,453
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Ramshutu
Yawn. What was that about influencing the leaderboard through bullshit votes? Ah, just a hypocrite.

oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 99
Posts: 6,293
7
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
7
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.