COC Revisions

Author: David ,

Posts

Total: 171
David
David's avatar
Debates: 83
Posts: 1,203
4
7
10
David's avatar
David
4
7
10
Greetings, everybody!

We are in the process of making revisions to the COC. Most of the text is the same, but there are still some significant differences. The proposed changes can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bcpJ79KM1rOMjgyz5Ssa0T1v0Lj5ybt0LwnD3bXTYNw/edit?usp=sharing

What's New

The text has been reorganized so that the moderation structure is first, then the voting policy, and finally the conduct policy. 

The moderation structure text has been changed from "Mod decisions are final and not subject to appeal" to " If you are banned and wish to appeal a ban, you can email the moderation team at [email protected]." 

The restraining order section added, " Additionally, a user may request that an RO be placed between them and another member." 

Added the following new rules:

B. The Golden Rule

Treat others as they wish to be treated: If someone makes a reasonable request to you, please comply. In other words, don’t be a dick.

C. Authenticity

You may not:
  • Impersonate individuals, groups, or organizations in a manner intended to or likely to deceive others. Parody accounts are acceptable as long as they: are clear that they are a parody and not a parody of other Site users;
  • Violate other intellectual property rights;
  • Plagiarize content and pass it off as your own; and/or
  • Impersonate the staff or the moderation team.

D. Violence and Criminal Behavior

You may not:

  • Threaten or promote violence against an individual or group of individuals to include terrorism or violent extremism; or
  • Engage in or promote criminal activity;
DebateArt is not responsible or liable for any users that may violate national, international, or local laws. It is your responsibility to know the laws that pertain to you and act lawfully at all times.

Added a link to the privacy policy

and finally added a "harassment policy."

J. Harassment

You may not:

  • Harass other members;
  • Stalk other members;
  • Encourage harassment; and
  • Post harassing or hateful images in your profile photo.
If a member politely requests that you leave them alone, do so. Do not vote on their debates and do not follow them around the site.

Is there anything else we should add or take away? 
David
David's avatar
Debates: 83
Posts: 1,203
4
7
10
David's avatar
David
4
7
10
Oh, and one other major change: "By signing up, you agree that you are at least 13 years of age. When you are finished reading this document, please click the “accept” button at the end."

We are making it clear that all users must be at least 13 years of age to comply with COPPA. 
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
--> @David
By signing up, you agree that you are at least 13 years of age.
Why?

David
David's avatar
Debates: 83
Posts: 1,203
4
7
10
David's avatar
David
4
7
10
--> @PressF4Respect
By signing up, you agree that you are at least 13 years of age.
Why?

To comply with federal law (COPPA). 
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
--> @David
oh ok

*SLEW OF 10-YEAR-OLDS FAKING THEIR AGES TO GET ONTO DART*
David
David's avatar
Debates: 83
Posts: 1,203
4
7
10
David's avatar
David
4
7
10
--> @PressF4Respect
oh ok

*SLEW OF 10-YEAR-OLDS FAKING THEIR AGES TO GET ONTO DART*

lol

RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 343
Posts: 10,473
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @David
I have seen users such as PaulVerliane and Wylted post extreme things in opposition of the entire violence-encouragement clause. Hope you come down harder on such stuff from now on. That's what I support in what you write. The rest is either too vague or something I am slightly against.

I am a very good researcher of people, it could be twisted into being stalking to suit someone's agenda according to these vague rules.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 343
Posts: 10,473
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
I agree to this if Ramshutu's profile picture stalking of me is outlawed.
David
David's avatar
Debates: 83
Posts: 1,203
4
7
10
David's avatar
David
4
7
10
--> @RationalMadman
I agree to this if Ramshutu's profile picture stalking of me is outlawed.

This rule would ban people from using profile photos to harass or mock other users. 
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 4,237
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
The Golden Rule

Treat others as they wish to be treated

That isn't the Golden rule. The Golden rule is "Treat others as you would wish to be treated". That is a big difference.

Your version is morally superior to the original though so I'll let it slide.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 343
Posts: 10,473
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
No it's not. His version is more pragmatic but the original is more morally just.


Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 4,237
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
--> @RationalMadman
Why's that now?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 343
Posts: 10,473
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
It's easy to manipulate a victim to bargain for less, accept their situation and submit to your will over time like a masochistic cuck that you ruthlessly overpower. That doesn't make it right as such, just pragmatic because they'll probably even betray, hurt and kill someone trying to save them from you due to stockholm syndrome etc.
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 1,824
6
8
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
8
10
--> @David
The profile picture issue is covered here:https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3031/i-will-like-to-clarify-why-harassment-via-profile-pics-is-allowed
As explained, this is clearly not harassment, and is merely satirical mockery of behaviour and accusations made by another user.

I am completely for rules that prohibit profile pictures that single out individual in the form of personal attacks.

There is, however, a major caveat that should be made in these rules.

My main concern is that those who wish to abuse the rules, or simply have impossibly thin skin are likely to be able to exploit these rules to impose their will on others.

For example, if I am not a great debater, or I wish to game the system - I could demand that those I don’t like, or that I think could vote against me if I had a bad debate don’t vote on my debates. MAR did this a lot.

Likewise, someone with exceptionally thin skin who is unable to accept any criticism could very well use these rules to claim harassment in the most innocuous scenarios where other users are criticizing them, their actions or their positions.

It is critical that these rules cannot be used by such individuals to gain an unfair advantage or to suppress criticism by simply making accusations or claiming oppression and demanding action.

Harassment, personal attacks and abuse must be objective in order to take action on these grounds.
This is the biggest concern that I have: there are more users I can see today that would unfairly abuse or invoke these rules to the detriment of the site, than there are scenarios in which the new rules would have reasonably prevented toxic behaviour over what is here already.

I think they are very good guidelines in general as operating principles - but I feel there is a big difference between listing behaviour we would encourage all users to follow, and behaviour that is actionable: I think some of the rules blur that line a little. 











RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 343
Posts: 10,473
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
Virtuoso isn't like Bsh1, you cannot just charm your way out of justice.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,919
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @Ramshutu
My main concern is that those who wish to abuse the rules, or simply have impossibly thin skin are likely to be able to exploit these rules to impose their will on others.

For example, if I am not a great debater, or I wish to game the system - I could demand that those I don’t like, or that I think could vote against me if I had a bad debate don’t vote on my debates. MAR did this a lot.

Likewise, someone with exceptionally thin skin who is unable to accept any criticism could very well use these rules to claim harassment in the most innocuous scenarios where other users are criticizing them, their actions or their positions.
THIS.

100%

If I ask someone to support a claim they've made, does that request qualify for protection under the, "If someone makes a reasonable request to you, please comply." clause?

Or does my request constitute "harassment"?

If I ask someone to reveal their AXIOMS, does that request qualify for protection under the, "If someone makes a reasonable request to you, please comply." clause?

Or does my request constitute "harassment"?

I believe the COC should be logically coherent.

I believe the COC should be based on explicit AXIOMS.

The idea of a restraining order is ludicrous.  THIS IS A DEBATE WEBSITE.

No DOXXING.

No THREATS OF VIOLENCE.

No AD HOMINEM ATTACKS.

Asking people questions should not get you banned or blocked from any particular discussion.

Individuals can already block specific users they don't like for any reason.

The mods should have to interfere as little as possible.
SupaDudz
SupaDudz's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 12,670
5
8
11
SupaDudz's avatar
SupaDudz
5
8
11
--> @3RU7AL
Sometimes RO's are a good thing depending on it, I lean lassiez fair, and have stated my lassiez fair policy, but I think RO's can be a good thing when it starts to derail threads
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 1,824
6
8
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
8
10
So in a round about type of way, you’ve just illustrated the main issue with the way the rules are written. I have provided a fairly detailed justification on why I think the rules could be abused by the obtuse, the overly sensitive and the nefarious; I also re-linked the explanation of how some specifically actions do not constitute harassment because they are both aimed at behaviour and content - and in no way rise to the level of objectively offensive.

Rather than actually try and engage on those points, you made a call out related to the accusation you couldn’t defend in the other thread and resort to a personal attack instead of explaining why my point is wrong. You appear to again accuse me of breaking the rules, and imply that I am unfairly treating you, or abusing you (implicated elsewhere).

Now, as I am both a grown up, and a vote moderator - the two explicit attacks in this thread do not particularly bother me. However, if I were to say that your tendency to try and unfairly harangue moderators into taking over the top actions to punish those who are critical of you - which is true; or to point out that when challenged on your accusations in debates, threads or in other locations - you invariably fall far short of showing you are correct, and quickly revert back to simply accusations and vagueness - that these rules could easily lead to someone like you continually throwing such accusations and attacks around repeatedly - yet demand moderators take explicit action the moment anyone says even the slightest cross word about you: I’m sure you would find this fair and reasonable criticisms of your actions and behaviours to be “harassment” and “cyberbullying”. 

No matter what rules are in place, it is not possible to stop your feelings being hurt by something that shouldn’t hurt your feelings - this is an issue for you to personally resolve, rather than rules to be put in place to soothe users for perceived slights.


I absolutely agree that as a pointer for how users should act - guidelines - these are great, but given patterns of behaviour already outlined, if these are enforced as is, this site will rapidly become someone like RM abusing his ability to define what gets other people banned.





Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 1,824
6
8
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
8
10
--> @3RU7AL
I agree - I think the rules are great as guidelines and listing encouraged behaviour - but not as enforceable criteria.

This is both a community website and a debate site; it’s not a sterile environment where there are no personal interactions, but it also isn’t 4chan or Createdebate where overt hostility and personal antagonism between users poisons the atmosphere. To survive, Dart needs to foster a good environment of community and debate: I completely agree that personal attacks should be against the rules (though tbh I think due to the community nature, most of the time a simple “calm down, and stop insulting people”, is enough) most cases of personal attacks are not a big deal - and we can all (well most) tell when they start crossing over into the poisonous type.

ROs have their place : to stop the dart equivalent of the family guy chicken fight that becomes excessive - and for actual genuine harassment.


Quite frankly, while moderation should foster an environment that allows healthy discussion, and dissuade attacks: it’s shouldn’t be moderations job to protect people’s feelings as a baseline.

The reality is that we want an environment where grown ups, adults can come in, see valid and reasonable discussion and then feel willing to participate. 

We don’t want those people to be jumped upon, for overt hostility to make them reluctant to come back, or to have the environment become especially toxic. It’s tough because what keeps most people coming back over a longer time is the clash, the arguing, and trying to come up with ways of expressing their opinion and sometimes preventing toxicity can undermine that goal.



RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 343
Posts: 10,473
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
hypocrisy at its finest.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,919
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @SupaDudz
Sometimes RO's are a good thing depending on it, I lean lassiez fair, and have stated my lassiez fair policy, but I think RO's can be a good thing when it starts to derail threads
How would you draw the line between asking serious questions (like an investigative reporter) and harassment (that justifies a virtual restraining-order)?

Wouldn't it be nice if all reporters could be jailed (or banned) for harassment?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 343
Posts: 10,473
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @3RU7AL
Where do you draw the line between asking questions to poke holes for the sake of it and asking questions to actually help the site foster the best environment for the user based on the outcome of feedback on these CoC changes?
SupaDudz
SupaDudz's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 12,670
5
8
11
SupaDudz's avatar
SupaDudz
5
8
11
--> @3RU7AL
I am attempting to come to a reasonable conclusion.

I would say if it does not coencide with argument then it is a personal attack, but it needs to merely be focused on attack

e.g: You are an idiot for thinking this... OK
e:g: Bickering and calling out people for no reason: RO
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,919
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @RationalMadman
Where do you draw the line between asking questions to poke holes for the sake of it and asking questions to actually help the site foster the best environment for the user based on the outcome of feedback on these CoC changes?
This is an (indirect) ad hominem attack, namely an appeal to disingenuous motive (also known as "dime-store-psychoanalysis").

I draw the line at,

No DOXXING.

No THREATS OF VIOLENCE.

No AD HOMINEM ATTACKS.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 343
Posts: 10,473
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @3RU7AL
? You complain people can use any agenda and twisting of things beyond axioms to make something against the rules and then arbitrarily declare what I said as indirect OBJECTIVE AD HOMINEM AXIOMATIC ABUSE!!!!