MEEP: Code of Conduct, S&G, reporting

Yes, but S&G shouldn't exist as a point.

Yes, for progress.

Yes

Yes, but I want to say that too much is changed at once and the more information about the rules, the better as a general rule of thumb. A set of rules that's too long to read in one sitting is better than a set of rules that's too short to ever explain enough when the time comes for the user to know the boundaries. You should not put all of this into one vote, let us vote on each part. I vote 'yes' because it's good enough and better than the previous, so it's the lesser evil.

Yes

Yes

Yes, although there should definitely be a separate MEEP solely for the new COC to iron out some wrinkles. 

Yes

Yes!

Yes

Yes!

Yes!

Yes

Yes

Yes. I think it's an improvement.

While insulting someone is obviously wrong, it's not the mods' jobs to police it. Instead, I think it is the community's job to rebuke the offending members. Trolling really depends on the intention of the troll. I don't mind friendly ribbing or just messing with someone, but when someone has malicious intent, it is once again the community's job to rebuke the offending members. If they aren't listening to the rebuke, then ignore them. They revel in getting people riled up, so don't give them that power. If it becomes spam, then there is reason for the mods to step in.

Streamlining and codifying it is excellent, as any rules or laws should always be easy to understand.

I don't see much protection of children, but I do see an age requirement to make an account, which is definitely a good thing. I don't think Little Timmy should be on this site.

I'm a little concerned about the "no moderator harassment" rule because it all depends on what they define as harassment, but I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt when they say they'll have thick skin. Mods, please do not betray this trust I have in you.

Yes

No.Do not ratify the new code of conduct

No, screw you mods. Only reason I’m voting no is because of the removal of the can’t target mods rule. I advocated for each part to be a separate question along with another dude but nothing occurred because mods want to play some politics. 

No, there should be a seperate MEEP for these changes overall to focus on the specifics that should be added

I doubt this will come to fruition, so if it doesn’t, just count this vote as “abstained”. I think that most changes are good to the CoC, but I also think they should be judged on an individual basis in a separate MEEP. It is kinda resembling pork-barrel legislation like this. I am a bit concerned about the “no insulting mods rule”. While I haven’t done so and have no intention of doing so, I think that personal grievances will add another subjectively moderated rule to the site. People like Wylted, for instance, are not popular among mods and would likely get harsher or more frequent punishments. I’m honestly curious as to why this was put in in the first place.

yes1

Yes1

Yes1

Yes1. With exceptions to mafia, doxxing, etc

Yes1, the truth will set us free.

Yes1, the truth will set us free.

Yes1, the truth will set us free.

Yes2, updated due to member concerns.

Yes2, I think option 1 is where the lines become blurred and that 2 not already being in place is silly. If the one revealing the PM isn't compelled to do so but instead is choosing to do so to help moderators do their job, that is fine. The key thing with Bsh1's suggestion was that it was against both parties who are PMing's will. That is NSA level surveillance and is where we get into 'what is privacy' concepts.

Yes2

Yes2. I strongly believe that many things in the PMs should be kept private. The only reason mods should disclose private information is if the safety of the members of DART and the community as a whole outweighs the individual's inherent right to privacy.

Yes 2

Yes2

Yes2 for sharing private messages.

I've read through the previous posts, and I choose to change my vote on #2 to Yes2.

Yes2 - Minimal restriction of privacy is an invasion of privacy, IMO. What is the point of private messaging if the messages are not private? I feel In cases of obvious harassment or threat of violence, the moderator would become involved. I do not want DebateArt to become a police state where freedom of speech is forbidden or edited. There is enough of that in your country as it is. 

Yes2

Yes2. Sharing PMs may be needed to establish what happened in say, a mafia game when someone C/P's their role and character to another player and the game host needs proof of the occurrence. However, private conversations should stay private in most cases. I am going to hope the mods understand that PM sharing must only happen when necessary, and that they must approve when it is necessary.

Yes2

No

Yes, as it's a first step in making the voting policy less nit-picky.

Yes

Yes, it already does, it just doesn't explicitly say it.

Yes

Yes, and add an ability to offer "Kudos" for a participant's particularly unique, exemplary argument

Yes. S&G play a key role already with the system, I don't think anyones is gonna give points to an argument when they can read it. Someone can lose only a point for unclear arguments versus 3. 

Yes, but S&G shouldn't exist as a point.

Yes

Yes

Yes, depending on how far it is taken. All caps throughout a post are ridiculous but to emphasize a point I see nothing wrong with encasing a word or phrase in capitals. I think the rules of grammar in judging a debate should apply for coherency and aesthetic reasons such as capitalizing the start of a sentence or proper nouns, etc. 

Yes. I think encouraging organized debates is good. You're limited to what you can put into text, so milk it for all it's worth.

no

No. True, there can be certain cases when the structuring of a debate argument gets to the point of impeding its meaning. However, I have never seen debates like that ever (and even if they do occur, they would be extraordinarily rare). The main concern I have with this rule is that it leaves a very wide grey area for what "well" and "poorly" structured debates look like. There are many different ways people formulate their arguments, and just because someone doesn't post an argument that looks aesthetically pleasing doesn't mean they should get punished for it.

No. Expanding S&G would give it equal to or more power than the actual arguments being presented. Even casual debates must be argument-oriented.

No

Abstain

Abstain, but really, S&G points shouldn't exist.

Yes. Sure, it would help the mods do their job more efficiently, but in my eyes, the main purpose of this would be to prevent abusive reporting, report trolling, accidental reporting (something which I myself have done multiple times on mobile), and any other activity in which a post gets flagged without a legitimate reason. Making the reason optional might prevent accidental reporting, but other than that would defeat the whole purpose of having a reason when submitting a report. 

Yes. Add a feature where you it's mandatory to give report explanation with 5+ characters.

Yes. It could cut down on frivolous use of the button and make mod action more efficient by actually pointing out the problem. There really seems to be little wrong with implementing it and has the potential to save time.

Yes

Yes. A reason means that people can't just report a random post they don't like and hope the mods find a reason to remove it. They have to at least come up with their own reason on why it should be removed. In addition, it makes it very clear to the mods what they're dealing with.

No1, I would love if more people said why they are reporting things, but I don't want it to be forced.

no1

No1

No1, I also recommend having tick boxes that you select from regarding the categories of rule breakage. This is much easier than typing out a reason and helps lazier or busier reporters do what they have to while helping you do what you have to.

No1

No1

No 1

No1

No1

No1

No2

No

• By using DebateArt.com, you are bound and agree to be bound by this Code of Conduct and the Privacy Policy, as well as any other rules that may be published from time to time. If participating in debates, you are also bound by the Voting Policy.
  
• In essence, treat others as you wish to be treated. If someone makes a wholly reasonable request of you, please try to comply.
  

• All users must be a minimum of 13 years of age when creating an account, or older to help comply with any local laws pertaining to Internet usage.
  
• You may not use hateful, harassing, or obscene language or imagery in your username or avatar.
  
• Multi-accounting and any action indistinguishable from it is prohibited. Dispensation may be granted on a case-by-case basis, such as for multiple users within a single residence; but they will have certain restrictions applied (e.g., never voting on each other’s debates).
  
• Users are free to transition a new account or back to a former, so long as they demonstrate no exploitative intent, and inform moderators to ensure only one is active.
  
• Account bans may be appealed by emailing: [email protected]
  

• You may not impersonate individuals, groups, or organizations in a manner that is either intended to or likely to deceive others. Parody accounts are acceptable, so long it is clear that they are parodies and do not parody other site users.
  
• Extravagant lies, not to be confused with mere context issues, may rise to the level of constituting impersonation.
  
• You may not violate others intellectual property rights.
  

• Targeted harassment of any member prohibited, as is inciting others to do so at 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, criticising statements within an ongoing 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 regarding the content of said posts.
  

• 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 and/or violent extremism, especially as related to hate groups as generally defined by the SPLC, is likewise prohibited.
  
• You may not promote or encourage suicide or self harm.
  
• You may not engage in or promote criminal activity.
  
• You may not engage in or promote the sexual exploitation of minors.
  

• Doxing is strictly forbidden. Without their express permission, you may not post, threaten to post, nor encourage others to post, anyone’s private or identifying information no matter how it was obtained.
  
• You may not share any content from private messages, without the consent of the respective authors; or with moderator approval (such as for dispute resolution).
  

• You may not post or link to media that is excessively gory or violent.
  
• You may not post or link to pornography or other explicit adult sexual material.
  
• You may not engage in commercial advertising anywhere on the site.
  
• Spam is prohibited, and any overtly repetitive nonsensical posts are considered spam.
  
• Unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech, are subject to disciplinary actions.
  

• Nothing, as most perceived violations are too minor to constitute a true offense.
  
• Written warnings, which are most common for first-time violations.
  
• Restraining orders, which will always be mutual to ensure neither may antagonize the other.
  
• Revocation of abused privileges, such as loss of the ability to create threads due to creating too many spam threads.
  
• Temporary bans, with increasing duration for subsequent violations, up to 90-days.
  
• Indefinite bans, which have no set expiration, but may be appealed every 90-days.
  

• Delete any content in violation of the above rules.
  
• Lock threads with frequent noteworthy violations of the above rules, or as a preventative measure when such are assuredly imminent.