MEEP: Doxxing, Spam, Ban Log

Author: bsh1 ,

Topic's posts

Read-only
Posts in total: 62
  • bsh1
    bsh1 avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 2,589
    5
    5
    8
    bsh1 avatar
    bsh1
    About MEEP

    MEEPs (Moderation Engagement and Enactment Processes) are official comment periods where moderation proposes and solicits feedback on various potential moderation policies. MEEPs allow moderation to pose questions about moderation policy to the site usership and empower the site usership to either ratify or reject moderation's proposals. In order for a moderation proposal to be ratified, at least 10 users must have expressed a preference on the policy in question, and more than a majority of those expressing a preference must be in agreement. That means, in a MEEP with 10 voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 7-3; similarly, in a MEEP with 19 voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 11-8. This ensures that the outcome of the process reflects the consensus of a significant number of site users. If a MEEP result is not binding/valid, moderation will maintain the pre-MEEP status quo, whatever that happens to be. Your account must be more than 24 hours old at the time you vote in order to vote, and you must not be a banned user.

    This MEEP will be open for user votes until 9:45pm, EST, on 7/27/19. This voting period may be extended by up to twelve hours if there are fewer than 10 votes on any of the specific questions put to the usership. Any extension will apply to all questions. Votes cast after the deadline will not be considered. 

    The Questions

    Below is an enumerated list of the content to be voted on. A brief explanation of each question is included as well. Please vote "yes" or "no" to each of these questions.

    1. Should anti-doxxing protections be extended to nonusers whose identity is not already publicly known?

    Voting "yes" to this question will alter the content of the Code of Conduct. The current version reads: "Doxxing is posting in public or in private any real-life or personally identifying information about another site user against that site user's will and without that site user's explicit consent." The altered version would read: "Doxxing is posting in public or in private any real-life or personally identifying information about an otherwise anonymous person against that person's will and without that person's explicit consent." A "no" vote would retain the current wording of the Code of Conduct, though information doxxing non-DARTers might still be removed if it is deemed by moderation to be life-threatening.

    2. Should "for spam" threads be prohibited?

    "For spam" threads are threads which are made for users to spam post in (e.g.  "yeet," "record attempt at most posts," "race to 127 posts"). Voting "yes" to this question will cause these threads to be treated as spam themselves, and deleted. It will not result in the deletion of existing "for spam" threads, but will cause them to be locked. A "no" vote would continue to allow these posts to exist and to be posted in (as long as they are in the miscellaneous forum).

    3. Should accepted spam debates be prohibited?

    For the purposes of this question, "spam debate" refers not only to obvious spam (e.g. "best online guru love matchmaker [phone number]"), but also to debates created by banned users via multi-accounts. Voting "yes" to this question would allow spam debates to be deleted even if those debates have been accepted. As the creation of those debates was prohibited, that they are accepted should not change their illicit nature. A "no" vote would allow spam debates to be accepted and to count towards the leaderboard.

    4. Should there be a public ban log primarily for permanently-banned users and with some information on temporarily-banned users?

    Voting "yes" to this question would allow the creation of a public ban log (in the miscellaneous forum). This ban log would contain a list of perma-banned users with a brief description of the reason for their ban. It would also include information on the length of the ban for temporarily-banned users, but would not include the reason(s) for those users' bans. Accounts banned for commercial advertising, and which have generated no other content, would not be included in the ban log. Already banned accounts would also not be included in the ban log. A "no" vote would prevent the creation of a public ban log.

    You may now begin voting. Thank you for your participation in this MEEP process!


  • WaterPhoenix
    WaterPhoenix avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 2,042
    3
    3
    10
    WaterPhoenix avatar
    WaterPhoenix
    1. Yes
    2. Yes
    3. No
    4. Yes
  • Mharman
    Mharman avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 2,301
    2
    4
    9
    Mharman avatar
    Mharman
    --> @bsh1
    1. Yes.
    2. Yes.
    3. Yes.
    4. Yes.
  • Patmos
    Patmos avatar
    Debates: 20
    Forum posts: 7
    0
    0
    7
    Patmos avatar
    Patmos
    --> @bsh1
    1. yes
    2. No
    3. No
    4. Yes.
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 1,870
    4
    6
    10
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    1. Yes
    2. Yes
    3.Yes
    4.Yes(I would prefer temporary ban reasons displayed as well)



  • crossed
    crossed avatar
    Debates: 62
    Forum posts: 516
    2
    2
    6
    crossed avatar
    crossed
    1 yes

    2 no

    3 no

    4 yes
  • Snoopy
    Snoopy avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 1,323
    2
    2
    4
    Snoopy avatar
    Snoopy
    1.  Yes, Anti Doxxing protections should be extended to non-Users.  This website should not be used as a platform for malicious intentions.

    2.  Yes, I agree with what is meant by spam and that spam threads can be deleted.  

    3.  Yes, debates created by banned users via multi-accounts should be deleted
         Yes, I'm fine with debates that aren't really debates being deleted.  Otherwise, I think distasteful debates should generally be allowed.

    4.  Yes, I think displaying the reasons for a ban on a list would be make better use of the Mods time, as well as others.
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,880
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @bsh1
    Yes for 1 and NO for the rest
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,880
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    Reasoning:

    1.It's fucking doxxing
    2.Oh come on!,let's have some fun
    3.They could be intelligent and helps the debate ecosystem, I would prefer a debate limit than this
    4.We don't need a public shaming list, you can see if someone is banned already

  • Snoopy
    Snoopy avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 1,323
    2
    2
    4
    Snoopy avatar
    Snoopy
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    The wall of shame was my first thought as well, but really it is what people make of it.  People will shame anyway, and relishing in someone's banishment is inappropriate regardless.  The thing is, people are always curious about the gist of why someone has been banned, and that tends to generate some amount of gossip.  You can make arguments either way that people will be unreasonable, or you can put arguments towards acting reasonable.


  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,880
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @Snoopy
    If someone gets banned than someone else debating him has a one up, plus the gossip isn't a problem, what are we a middle school?, 
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 6,932
    3
    5
    9
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    Yes
    No
    No
    Yes
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,880
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @Snoopy
    Yes, and you can see if someone is banned anyway, if your generally looking for someone's ban and length just ask a mod, i think the problem of just a public shaming board is to great to ignore
  • Snoopy
    Snoopy avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 1,323
    2
    2
    4
    Snoopy avatar
    Snoopy
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    If someone gets banned than someone else debating him has a one up, plus the gossip isn't a problem, what are we a middle school?, 
    Well, I'm saying whatever happens it will be what people make of it.  It might make sense if it had some more relevant information.
  • Snoopy
    Snoopy avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 1,323
    2
    2
    4
    Snoopy avatar
    Snoopy
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    Yes, and you can see if someone is banned anyway, if your generally looking for someone's ban and length just ask a mod, i think the problem of just a public shaming board is to great to ignore
    Yeah, under the circumstances that seems to be what it amounts to.  I'm changing my vote.

    #4 No

  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,289
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @Snoopy
    1-3 abstain
    4 - no.

    People would like to know why a user was recently banned and how long for.
    There is no demand for a permanent record of bannings.

  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 8,050
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @bsh1
    Your description of what a yes means and what  no means in these questions seems to be the opposite of what they should be. So I am a little confused on what to answer.

    1. I am for anti-doxxing even for non users
    2. I am against spam threads
    3. I am against spam debates
    4. I don't think a ban log is necessary

  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,909
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @bsh1
    1. Yes
    2. No
    3. No
    4. Yes




  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    --> @bsh1
    1.) Yes
    2.) no
    3.) yes
    4.) yes.

    On 3 - One or two debates here and there are fine - but when it’s excessive and you have 9 debates going to one person in a single day by a banned user - they definitely need to be removed

  • Polytheist-Witch
    Polytheist-Witch avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 2,069
    2
    3
    3
    Polytheist-Witch avatar
    Polytheist-Witch
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    This whole placed is filled with busy body no life losers from DDO. The idea they might be out of the loop drives them crazy.
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,880
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @Polytheist-Witch
    true dat
  • Swagnarok
    Swagnarok avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 687
    2
    2
    5
    Swagnarok avatar
    Swagnarok
    --> @bsh1
    Please clarify as to the first article. If somebody else on the visible internet has already doxxed an anonymous person, would it be a COC violation to re-post that information here?
  • Club
    Club avatar
    Debates: 26
    Forum posts: 296
    0
    3
    9
    Club avatar
    Club
    1. Should anti-doxxing protections be extended to nonusers whose identity is not already publicly known?
    Yes

    2. Should "for spam" threads be permitted?

    No

    3. Should accepted spam debates be permitted?

    Yes

    4. Should there be a public ban log primarily for permanently-banned users and with some information on temporarily-banned users?

    Yes



  • bsh1
    bsh1 avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 2,589
    5
    5
    8
    bsh1 avatar
    bsh1
    --> @bmdrocks21 @Club @Mharman @Patmos @WaterPhoenix
    Can you please clarify your vote on questions 2 and 3, which should have said "prohibited" rather than "permitted." The wording has now been corrected.
  • bsh1
    bsh1 avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 2,589
    5
    5
    8
    bsh1 avatar
    bsh1
    --> @crossed @ILikePie5 @Ramshutu @RationalMadman @TheRealNihilist
    Can you please clarify your vote on questions 2 and 3, which should have said "prohibited" rather than "permitted." The wording has now been corrected.