moderation already sucks

Author: thett3 ,

Posts

Total: 47
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 893
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
I was reading this thread: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/381

The idea was weird but there was no reason to lock the thread, and less reason to be catty about it.

"Yeah, no." reminds me of reddit mods, lol. in the near future RIP DART 


RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 350
Posts: 10,695
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @thett3
Thett3: one of the single most on-point complainers of the site.

drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,659
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
--> @thett3
It was an off topic thread, sure. But the ability to move threads to appropriate forums exists and has been used before. I didn't even realize this one was locked. I wonder what part of the CoC the mods think this violates.
DebateArt.com
DebateArt.com's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,281
3
3
8
DebateArt.com's avatar
DebateArt.com
3
3
8
--> @bsh1 @David
I find the idea weird and funny at the same time, but I am not sure how to react to it, I don't really see a problem with it, except for being unusual, so to say.  Any comments, guys? 
spacetime
spacetime's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 192
0
1
3
spacetime's avatar
spacetime
0
1
3
--> @bsh1
This isn't the "laissez faire" moderation style you promised. Get your minions under control.
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
--> @spacetime
It was undone once I realized it had occurred. It was undone before you posted, in fact.
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
--> @DebateArt.com
It was undone before you even posted. Before drafter even posted. Once I realized it had occurred, I rectified the situation. 
Vaarka
Vaarka's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 695
2
1
5
Vaarka's avatar
Vaarka
2
1
5
double post, different words
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
--> @Vaarka
double post, unique words
Vaarka
Vaarka's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 695
2
1
5
Vaarka's avatar
Vaarka
2
1
5
--> @bsh1
I can solve the energy crisis in Yemen

(can't solve the poverty)
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,474
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
I thought it was because of the possibility of doxxing it opened up.
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
--> @ethang5
People may voluntarily doxx themselves. It's involuntary doxxing that is prohibited.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,474
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
--> @bsh1
Yeah, involuntary doxxing is the possibility this idea opens up.

But I think his intention was good.

bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
--> @ethang5
People are free to share their IRL identities with other users. They must understand that, in so doing, they put themselves at risk of being doxxed. But, choosing to reveal themselves to another user is an acceptance of that risk. Though, anyone who revealed an identity shared to them in confidence would be severely and appropriately punished.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,474
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
--> @bsh1
I agree. Did that risk come to your minds at all? Or was it not related to the snafu at all?
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
--> @ethang5
I am not currently aware of why the thread was locked. But there is no reason it ought to be, per the COC.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,474
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
--> @bsh1
OK. You can relax with me bsh1. I promise I will try to be fair and objective with you. You are aware that I didn't start this thread or endorse its sentiment right?
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,056
3
2
6
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
6
Maybe we should rename this thread "moderation already fixed that problem".

So no one has any confirmed idea why the Death Notification thread was originally locked?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 350
Posts: 10,695
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Castin
It's very obvious why it was locked but the issue is that the mods claimed to be Libertarian instead of the correct form of moderation which is ruthless but fair to all. The issue at hand is that it was correct to delete the thread entirely and naive people are going to get exposed hardcore not even to people on this site but everywhere, after all I suspect the admin of being involved with actual gangs of online hackers and being part of the spambots of DDO and the admin would read all the PMs.

Don't be confused when I say that the thread being taken down was correct, I understand it contradicts the promised laissez-faire moderating style of bsh1 but I also understand that laissez-faire is corrupt and disgusting both in real life politics as well as online moderating.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,474
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
--> @RationalMadman
...after all I suspect the admin of being involved with actual gangs of online hackers and being part of the spambots of DDO and the admin would read all the PMs.
If you have no proof of this you need to keep it to yourself. It is libel.

If what you suspect is true, it would be illegal. But libel is also illegal. You get really upset when people "suspect" you of being mentally unstable, don't unfairly do the same thing you dislike to others.



Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,056
3
2
6
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
6
It's very obvious why it was locked but the issue is that the mods claimed to be Libertarian instead of the correct form of moderation which is ruthless but fair to all. The issue at hand is that it was correct to delete the thread entirely and naive people are going to get exposed hardcore not even to people on this site but everywhere, after all I suspect the admin of being involved with actual gangs of online hackers and being part of the spambots of DDO and the admin would read all the PMs.

Don't be confused when I say that the thread being taken down was correct, I understand it contradicts the promised laissez-faire moderating style of bsh1 but I also understand that laissez-faire is corrupt and disgusting both in real life politics as well as online moderating.
Well my assumption was the same as ethan's, but I was looking for some confirmation.

I do want a fair mod, but I can't say I want a ruthless one. Unless you mean unbiased in their execution of justice, in which case, absolutely. Why would it have been correct to delete the thread? Do you think the moderators are responsible for protecting people from their own risky choices?

I am not going to discuss allegations that Mike was responsible for the DDO spampocalypse.

Meh, I tend to associate laissez-faire policy with outright apathy. Past experiences have made me not too keen on it. Maybe a positive example of laissez-faire moderation will change my mind.
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
--> @RationalMadman
I think it is reasonable to adopt a laissez-faire position as this site's moderator because this site is fundamentally different from the outside world. We can't really and honestly treat DART as a microcosm of the "real" world. Nothing that happens on this site, for example, is going to determine how wide-spread poverty gets addressed in the United States; whereas, how the US government enacts policies very well could have such an impact. So, while laissez-faire views may be disgusting in IRL politics, I don't think we can infer that the same is true of laissez-faire moderation policies on this site. Remember that I am anything but laissez-faire in my IRL political perspectives. Nevertheless, I have come to the conclusion that a laissez-faire approach is the right one to take going forward here on DART.

This is a site premised on debate. Debate can be conceptualized in several different ways, as a game, as a truth-seeking activity, as an identity-affirming activity, as deliberation, and as education (among other ways). All of these goals are furthered by an expansive (but not unlimited) view of what constitutes permitted speech. As a game, it is productive to engage in those topics (even controversial ones) which arouse us most. As a truth-seeking activity, it is best to unleash the market of ideas so that ideologies and positions can be compared to one another for legitimacy. As an identity-affirming activity, it is necessary to allow people to express their genuine beliefs, however non-traditional they might be. As deliberation, we must be willing to meet people where they're at. And as education, we must also be willing to delve into unfamiliar concepts in order to expand our intellectual horizons.

All of this is to say, of course, that expansive free speech, protected via laissez-faire moderating, is a necessary prerequisite to a site premised on open debate and discourse. It is not, however, to say that moderation will not enforce the COC wherever violations occur. There must be some regulatory framework in place to avoid debate devolving into ad hom wars or to avoid more serious consequences like doxxing. There is a method to the madness. And moderation, while not perfect, will always endeavor to do our best.

Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,056
3
2
6
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
6
--> @bsh1
Those last two paragraphs were pretty rockin'.
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,056
3
2
6
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
6
--> @ethang5
...after all I suspect the admin of being involved with actual gangs of online hackers and being part of the spambots of DDO and the admin would read all the PMs.
If you have no proof of this you need to keep it to yourself. It is libel.

If what you suspect is true, it would be illegal. But libel is also illegal. You get really upset when people "suspect" you of being mentally unstable, don't unfairly do the same thing you dislike to others.
I thought I recalled the original CoC having a clause concerning accusations, the importance of presenting evidence, etc. Can't seem to find it now. Or anything directly addressing accusations or libel. May have been changed in the update. I suppose it's all considered personal attacks now.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,474
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
--> @Castin
Yeah. 

It was a pretty unfair accusation to throw out.

Just saw GoG. Asked him why he wasn't here. Invited him. And goldtop is here too, basically doing what bully did.

See us just chatting? No socio-political Armageddon? Thought I couldn't eh?