-->
@Barney
whats a meep
Upcoming MEEP: Code of Conduct, S&G, reporting
Posts
Archived
Read-only
Total:
85
-->
@skittlez09
A prolonged way to say referendum. Basically next week people will be invited to vote on site policy issues.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
the sheer disrespect, this will not fly
-->
@Barney
I still say you should divide #1 into 3 seperate votes. Like i said earlier, we aint congress to put good with bad bills or bad with good bills
And dont try to over exaggerate it by saying we will have "infinite" more things to vote on if we do things that way.
We will have 3 more at the most. If you feel like there is to many items for meep process then just do a better job and bring 1 subject at a time.
Ill give an example. 1: child protection rules
2: harrassment toward mods
3: trolling
Honestly you are trying to make a package instead of topics and it is deceitful. Its exactly what congress does. They are smarter though, they stick it in the midst of 5000 words so people dont see it.
-->
@Barney
1. Ratify the new Code of Conduct?Voting "yes" to this question will overhaul and streamline the Code of Conduct.A few key changes:
- Removal of the trolling and insults rules, but adding a no targeted harassment rule.
- Removal of the harassing the moderators is ok rule (don’t worry, we’ll still have thick skin).
- Added clauses to protect children.
Full text is available at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DT0dprecA-ehRtRHO4tDPmUZel4hlUrWKdydLbyFlKk/edit?usp=sharing2. Allow PM sharing with moderator approval?Voting “yes” would add a clause to the no sharing of Private Messages rule, to allow moderators to grant permission to settle disputes.Currently there have been outright lies about the contents of PMs, and the victims are without real recourse. This is intended to correct that oversight.3. Change the Voting Policy to have S&G to include organizationVoting “yes” would amend the Spelling and Grammar in the Voting Policy, to allow consideration of organizational issues, such as a 10,000 character true wall of text (no line breaks) vs a case which is easy to navigate.Note: This is intended to inform a larger effort to overhaul the voting policies in a similar manner to the CoC.---Again, feel free to make any suggestions.
Let me show you how you SHOULD have done it.
1. Conducts in regards to trolling
Voting "yes" to this question will add the following rule to coc
- Removal of the trolling and insults rules, but adding a no targeted harassment rule.
2. conduct in regards to mod harrassment.
Voting yes will effect the following rule.
- Removal of the harassing the moderators is ok rule (don’t worry, we’ll still have thick skin).
3. rules to protect children
• Added clauses to protect children.
Full text is available at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DT0dprecA-ehRtRHO4tDPmUZel4hlUrWKdydLbyFlKk/edit?usp=sharing
4. Allow PM sharing with moderator approval?
Voting “yes” would add a clause to the no sharing of Private Messages rule, to allow moderators to grant permission to settle disputes.
Currently there have been outright lies about the contents of PMs, and the victims are without real recourse. This is intended to correct that oversight.
5. Change the Voting Policy to have S&G to include organization
Voting “yes” would amend the Spelling and Grammar in the Voting Policy, to allow consideration of organizational issues, such as a 10,000 character true wall of text (no line breaks) vs a case which is easy to navigate.
Note: This is intended to inform a larger effort to overhaul the voting policies in a similar manner to the CoC.
---
Again, feel free to make any suggestions.
-->
@Melcharaz
Microsoft Word has a comparison tool. Please tell me how many changes it finds? I've estimated over a hundred, you've estimated four at the most.
All of this is when I've demonstrated perfect willingness to add more questions, so long as multiple users support them (as seen with Discipulus_Didicit's proposal).
Look at 1-5 compared to your 1-3
If yo cant tell what im trying to show ya, you shouldnt be a mod.
Also i didnt add 100 changes. At the most i added 30. And that was to word 2 and 3
I support 3 and 4
-->
@Melcharaz
If you prefer the old CoC, vote against the new. You may even write your own, and gather support for what you believe would be ideal.
Right now, you insisted there "We will have 3 more at the most" changes between the old and the new (for a total of 4), against my estimate of "a hundred or so." If you're right, put your money where your mouth is, by doing a document comparison. Given that the new is about half the length of the old, I'm confident in my ballpark estimate.
All this said, if other members want the questions further separated akin to your proposal, I'm game for that.
I made a thread of how you should have worded it.i encourage you to watch responses.
-->
@Barney
ahh
-->
@Swagnarok
In another thread you stated (#6):
"Advocacy in favor of any hate group or their mission is likewise prohibited."No. Take this one out. "Don't advocate genocide" is fair, but for one thing nobody can really agree on what a hate group is and also it unreasonably limits the parameters of open debate.
The current line of the new CoC currently reads as follows:
You may not threaten or promote violence against an individual or group of individuals, which includes terrorism or violent extremism. Advocacy in favor of any hate group or their mission is likewise prohibited.
What would your ideal line on this be? While we want people to have the freedom for controversial debates, we don't want this to become a wretched hive of scum and villainy.
A member has emailed in some suggestions. There's a lot, but to start a bigger one, to which a number of their other suggestions follow this pattern...
Changing from:
Harassment
- Targeted harassment of any member is a bannable offense, as is inciting others to do so on your behest. This includes wishing or hoping that someone and/or their loved ones experiences physical harm.
- Creating threads to call-out specific users qualifies as targeted harassment, as does obsessive attempts to derail unrelated topics with impertinent grudges. However, calling people out for their statements within a discussion, is fair game.
- Threats of lawsuits are not allowed, and by using this site you agree to waive any rights to file civil suits against fellow site users for any non-criminal actions.
- If a member politely requests that you leave them alone, do so. Repeated failure to comply, is a clear aggravating factor toward the content of said posts.
Changed to:
HarassementTargeted harassment of any member is a banning offense, along with inciting others to do so on your behest. This includes the following, of which may be added to in the future.
- In wishing or hoping that someone and/or their loved ones, friends, or family experiences physical harm.
- Creating threads to call-out specific members will qualify as targeted harassment, along with obsessive attempts to derail unrelated topics with your impertinent grudges. However, calling people out for their statements within a discussion, is fair game.
- Threats of lawsuits are not allowed, and by using this site you agree to waive any rights to file civil suits against fellow site members for any non-criminal actions. If a member politely requests that you leave them alone, do so. Repeated failure to comply is suggestive of the need for a restraining order to said member, which moderation can enforce at their discretion.
I'm not against an introduction sentence, followed by a numbered list. It's a good format. A problem I foresee is over specification, and people getting caught up in semantics when small changes are made. Like if the list is increased to 6 points, and what used to be #1 is now #3 due to new more urgent points, some Karen will complain that they were punished under the old point #1, when they never did the crime of the new #1. (I know it's unavoidable, I just want to minimize that problem)
Anyone care to share any thoughts on this?
And yes, I owe this contributor a beer; a six-pack in fact.
-->
@Barney
"While we want people to have the freedom for controversial debates, we don't want this to become a wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Forbidding people from advocating genocide is enough. Encouraging violence against people is the only kind of "scum and villainy" that really counts. The rest is just your subjective taste and should have no bearing on a platform dedicated to being a place where people from diverse backgrounds and perspectives air their beliefs and opinions with each other and try to make the case for what they think is true, however outside of the norm it might be.
For example, a person might start a debate and argue "Hitler would've gone down as a good leader who made Germany great again if he hadn't started WWII and genocided ethnic minorities."
In this case, he/she would be saying something positive about a blatant hate group (the historic Nazi party and its leadership) while not promoting genocide. He likewise wouldn't necessarily be encouraging anti-Semitic policies so much as saying that the positive aspects of Hitler's pre-WWII administration (uniting Germans across Europe under one roof, building the Autobahn, overseeing economic recovery, reinspiring confidence in the German state, passing laws against animal cruelty, etc) would've outweighed a systemic anti-Semitism that didn't culminate in the Holocaust.
Would this person be right? That's not the point. Should this person be banned from DART for attempting that debate? Under the new policy, wouldn't the mods have to delete that debate at the very least?
-->
@Barney
So why can’t number 1 be three different questions?
-->
@ILikePie5
It could be three if there proves to be desire for such. It could also be a hundred questions to slowly morph the old into the new. I went minimalistic, with presenting two questions about it to be built upon as necessary (#2 being a question about one part which I predicted could be controversial).
And I do hope you don't mean the proposal from #35, which accidentally managed to remove ratification of the the new CoC from the docket, opting instead for incremental changes to the old.
-->
@Swagnarok
What would your ideal line on this be?
Also what is your opinion of adding a hyperbole disclaimer to it?
For example, a person might start a debate and argue "Hitler would've gone down as a good leader who made Germany great again if he hadn't started WWII and genocided ethnic minorities."
Elselseworld Hitler would not be targeted by the restriction, as he lives in Elseworld, as opposed to being a member of the real world historic Nazi party. Nor would saying At Least The Trains Ran On Time be considered real advocacy. However, I do see validity to your concern, as that rule is under the zero tolerance Violence and Criminal Behavior policy.
As a related example, I currently have a debate up on the topic of someone Mickey Mouse declared to be LITERALLY HITLER (it was a whole big thing to hype their IMAX release of Inhumans...).
What you are not understanding is the WHY of why i made #1-#5. Its because they are different points and proposals. You can consoladate similar points. Example.
#21 trolling will now include targeted messages to people who have blocked you.
Also, multiple reports of trolling will result in a 24 hour ban.
You see the difference? Its the same subject.
-->
@Barney
It could be three if there proves to be desire for such.
There are already 2 people supporting it. How many do we need?
Probably 5 or 6. 10 votes so far already. @ilikepie5
-->
@Melcharaz
You can consoladate similar points. Example.
Do you see the irony of that statement?
Also, multiple reports of trolling will result in a 24 hour ban.
Most reports are frivolous. Were that a rule passed and blindly followed, some troll could report you a couple times each day calling anything you've done trolling, and you would effectively be unable to use the site.
Probably 5 or 6. 10 votes so far already. @ilikepie5
Please do share this hypothetical list of users who stated total opposition to ratifying a new CoC in favor of slow incremental changes to the old? If they exist, they really should have a voice.
-->
@ILikePie5
It could be three if there proves to be desire for such.There are already 2 people supporting it. How many do we need?
For the sake of clarity, do you endorse removing the new CoC from the ballot in favor of incremental revisions to the old, as proposed in #35?
-->
@Barney
Bruh I just want the three questions separate. Nothing more nothing less.
-->
@ILikePie5
For the sake of clarity, please just state which questions you actually want included. From there, I'll assume you would prefer any other suggestions be excluded.
-->
@Barney
For the sake of clarity, please just state which questions you actually want included. From there, I'll assume you would prefer any other suggestions be excluded.
If number 1 was three separate question then
YES, NO, YES
-->
@Tejretics
Tej, has made a proposal worth considering. Changing the default voting method to Choose Winner (it is currently categorical).
He started a thread for it, in which he lays out the merits in his words, which can be found at: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4232-proposal-make-choose-winner-the-default-voting-system-in-debates
-->
@David
@Barney
Threats of lawsuits are not allowed, and by using this site you agree to waive any rights to file civil suits against fellow site users for any non-criminal actions.
Never have nor will agree to this. If the situation comes up where I am drawn to do this to someone, I will damn well inform them of it first to give a 'warning shot' and help them correct their behaviour without getting things to the courtroom or revealing who I am to them (both are unpleasant for me, costly and a waste of energy).
I have seen situations like this arise on other websites and often it is the mods themselves who issue this thing that you call 'harassment' but is actually a correct part of legal proceedings because often what you are asked to prove is that you informed the other party of how severe their actions were, legally, and yet they continued to pursue them. This helps with increasing the length of sentence and is often very significant in whether they get probation or not.
-->
@RationalMadman
That bit was expanded directly from the current CoC, ban on threats of legal action: https://info.debateart.com/statements/code-of-conduct#5-threats
People threatening to lawyer up about losing debates with strangers, or generally being made to look bad in an argument, breeds a toxic atmosphere. It's been a pretty rare problem, but trying to give people peace of mind in case it ever resumes. ... You do have a very good point about warning (too tired right now to think how to properly word the differentiation between warning and threat).
Any suggestions for how best to word it? Or alternatively, do you believe it should just be stripped from the CoC?
-->
@Swagnarok
@PressF4Respect
What do you each think of this wording for the violence rule?
You may not threaten or promote violence against any person or persons, barring hyperbole against public figures (e.g., "all politicians should be shot"). Advocacy in favor of terrorism or violent extremism, especially as related to hate groups as generally defined by the SPLC is likewise prohibited.
The current draft is:
You may not threaten or promote violence against any individual or group of individuals, which includes terrorism or violent extremism. Advocacy in favor of any hate group or their mission is likewise prohibited.