Ragnar said that he didn’t engage in coc infractions, so I believe this post should be locked
TOS infractions engaged in and ignored by a moderator
Posts
Total:
86
-->
@MisterChris
Calling someone a "racist" (especially in the context of a debate website) strongly suggests their opinions and by extension their arguments (generally) are invalid.
Wouldn't it be somewhat more accurate to frame the conclusion within a CONDITIONAL STATEMENT?
For example,
(IFF) racism is defined as (_______) (THEN) someone who fulfills the aforementioned definition would necessarily be considered a racist
Also, what possible utility would the information "individual (X) is a racist" have OTHER than to attempt invalidate them personally (wholesale).
In other words, why would anyone comment on personal details (character and or belief) of another EXCEPT to either raise or lower their perceived social standing (also known as "credibility")?
tl;dr this is what happens when you let children become moderators.
Ethang5 was right https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5196-tos-infractions-engaged-in-and-ignored-by-a-moderator?page=1&post_number=8
Ragnar (an actual moderator) has responded and made what he believes to be the necessary actions. There is nothing else to discuss. The thread is over.
-->
@MisterChris
Uh huh.There will not be one because it does not violate the CoC.
According to the other mods, but not according to the CoC. But my bad, I understand the mods go by how they feel, not by the CoC. We have a CoC only because that is what all other sites have.
-->
@BearMan
Like you said it was a debate site. If you don’t like it leave, kid.
But this site loooovvveees kid boys!
-->
@ethang5
But this site loooovvveees kid boys!
You, sir, are the pinnacle of maturity.
-->
@PressF4Respect
You, sir, are the pinnacle of maturity.
Thank you sir.
But if I was 15, I'd be the pinnacle of desirability. Oh well.
Targeted harassment of any member prohibited [...] Creating threads to call-out specific users qualifies as targeted harassment
-->
@MgtowDemon
Now before I go back into my winter-bear hibernation:
You continue to advocate for non-censorship but then you go fucking ape-shit when someone calls you a dick. And let’s see who really violated the CoC or “TOS” as you call it. It is a violation to make a call-out thread of a certain user, no matter what they did. So in fucking conclusion, you fucked up bro.
Zzzzzzzzz...
-->
@BearMan
Calling out a moderator is allowed
Also being a hypocrite isn't a COC violation, it just makes you look like a dumbass
-->
@Vader
Calling out a moderator is allowed
Source
-->
@BearMan
You continue to advocate for non-censorship but then you go fucking ape-shit when someone calls you a dick. And let’s see who really violated the CoC or “TOS” as you call it. It is a violation to make a call-out thread of a certain user, no matter what they did. So in fucking conclusion, you fucked up bro.
You didn't insert enough swear words into your sentences. Therefore, I don't find your arguments effective, and more importantly, I don't think you're a cool kid.
Therefore, it is imperative that you read this OP:
You didn't insert enough swear words into your sentences. Therefore, I don't find your arguments effective, and more importantly, I don't think you're a cool kid.
Therefore, it is imperative that you read this OP:
Lol!!
In response, you and several others have engaged in several personal attacks against me (you calling me a "dick" https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5160-pornography-and-the-destruction-it-causes?page=2&post_number=26 ), the crocodile guy calling me a "jackass" and saying "I'm an unprofessional guy" https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5160-pornography-and-the-destruction-it-causes?page=2&post_number=28 , and now this BearMan has so eloquently said "piss off motherfucker" https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5160-pornography-and-the-destruction-it-causes?page=2&post_number=32 .These are all "off topic personal attacks" (direct words from the TOS), and none of them add to the discussion on whether the OP is good. It is especially concerning when you, as a moderator, are contributing to this.
You take the words from the CoC out of context. The full line is here:
Unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech, are subject to disciplinary actions.
It must be "unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives". It's obvious that what you're complaining about didn't rise to that level. This allegation is meritless.
-->
@MgtowDemon
This allegation is meritless.
Not to worry Demon, those same actions will have "merit" when you do them against one of their clique.
It must be "unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives". It's obvious that what you're complaining about didn't rise to that level. This allegation is meritless.
Very clever.
Your clique argues that it doesn't reach "unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives". You've justified abuse directed at me being "warranted" because I was being "toxic, a "dick", and a "jackass". You've justified it not being systemic because no individual user abused me all that much, yet I was harassed by at least 5 members in that thread (if my memory serves me well).
-->
@ethang5
Not to worry Demon, those same actions will have "merit" when you do them against one of their clique.
Based on how correct you were in this post TOS infractions engaged in and ignored by a moderator (debateart.com) , I'm going to assume that this is correct, also.
Very clever.Your clique argues that it doesn't reach "unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives". You've justified abuse directed at me being "warranted" because I was being "toxic, a "dick", and a "jackass". You've justified it not being systemic because no individual user abused me all that much, yet I was harassed by at least 5 members in that thread (if my memory serves me well).
Not really. I said "that what you're complaining about didn't rise to that level." I didn't say why. I looked more toward the "systemic" aspect of it. TBH the CoC was poorly written, and using the term "systemic" to refer to an individual's behavior is misplaced. But what I think what they were getting at is that the conduct has to be repeated and excessive for it to be "systemic" (at least that's probably what they intended when they wrote it). An isolated incident is probably not going to be sufficient, and that's all that I've seen.
I didn't say why. I looked more toward the "systemic" aspect of it.
Not only did I refer to this, but I also correctly guessed that you were referring to this, and have thus already responded to it.
An isolated incident is probably not going to be sufficient, and that's all that I've seen.
As already explained, the incident wasn't isolated, in that multiple people continued to harass me. Hence, the issue with cliques on this website is that they circumvent the rules of moderation by each member taking a shot at someone.
the incident wasn't isolated, in that multiple people continued to harass me. Hence, the issue with cliques on this website is that they circumvent the rules of moderation by each member taking a shot at someone.
It is unlikely that whoever wrote "systemic" in there was referring to the conduct of multiple members acting similarly. That meaning would cause the punishability of one person's conduct to be contingent on the conduct of another, and that isn't just. What's more likely is that the author made a drafting error. Specifically that he used the word "systemic" to refer to similar conduct from a single user that is repeated and excessive.
It is unlikely that whoever wrote "systemic" in there was referring to the conduct of multiple members acting similarly.
That's my point. You can circumvent moderator punishment through mob action.
That meaning would cause the punishability of one person's conduct to be contingent on the conduct of another, and that isn't just.
Your legal system disagrees with you because there is such a thing as 'an accessory to crime', which has potential criminal charges.
Of course, talking smack on the internet isn't a criminal offence, but the parallels shine.
What's more likely is that the author made a drafting error. Specifically that he used the word "systemic" to refer to similar conduct from a single user that is repeated and excessive.
I don't particularly care, but you seem to be right.
-->
@MgtowDemon
You can circumvent moderator punishment through mob action.
You can circumvent moderator action*¹ through other means too.
*¹The liberal progressive management of this website don't like*² the word "punishment".
*²They will punish, they just won't call it punishment.
My opinion was limited to interpretation and application of the CoC as it relates to the conduct you complained of. I have no opinion as to whether or not the particulars of the policy are good or bad, other than this part should be made clearer. The conduct of these users was an entirely predictable result of what you did. Surely you’ve been debating these subjects and conducting yourself in a highly critical and offensive manner long enough to know this. Perhaps you should “take responsibility”. Or are you going to continue to blame everyone else for your problems?
-->
@ethang5
You can circumvent moderator action*¹ through other means too.*¹The liberal progressive management of this website don't like*² the word "punishment".*²They will punish, they just won't call it punishment.
Agreed.
The conduct of these users was an entirely predictable result of what you did. Surely you’ve been debating these subjects and conducting yourself in a highly critical and offensive manner long enough to know this. Perhaps you should “take responsibility”. Or are you going to continue to blame everyone else for your problems?
Nonsense.
Originally, I was highly critical of a thread that was posted, which is well within the bounds of social decorum. In response, the thread's owner, who happens to be a moderator, responded by engaging in personal attacks. In other words, he got offended and upset that I criticised his OP, and then initiated personal attacks.
Afterwards, he contacted his friends. They too proceeded to be abusive.
Again, if you cannot handle your OP being criticised, then debate websites are not for you, as lashing out at critical opinion of their OP isn't acceptable, especially when you're meant to be a moderator.
If I recall correctly, Demon was insulted on post #2. If he was "highly critical and offensive" it must have been in his first post, or the mod had dragged baggage he found offensive from some other thread. Attacking someone in one thread for some perceived slight in a different thread is not proper site behavior, and quite unprofessional in a mod.
Me, I don't really care about insults or punishments, as long as the mods behavior is fair and equitable. Had a more mature mod simply said to Demon, "Sorry, you're right, he shouldn't have said that, but sometimes you come off as highly critical and offensive and it makes others become defensive." Demon would have settled down.
But because the mod and his qlique knew that not only would they suffer no penalty, but that their thuggish behavior would be justified, they felt impunity, and changed a small matter into an incident. Do you know how many times this scenario has been repeated on this site?
It is the same impunity that makes their BLM compatriots feel they can physically assault anyone they deem has displayed highly critical and offensive behavior. We've seen the videos. It's just the online version of the same mob rule mindset.
It will kill this site. And since mods cannot be sanctioned or removed for ANY reason, they have no reason or incentive to be fair and impartial. Over and over, I've seen mods become jaded and arrogant. Vert/whoever he is now used to be a great guy. Ragnar was once not a tool. A few were strong enough to quit when they saw the change in themselves. But the younger ones are on the trajectory to blighted cynics. It's easy to see, pull up one of their threads from 2 years ago and it will become apparent.
After this site peters out, the owner will simply make another site and repeat the process because the paramount purpose of this site is NOT to provide a platform for debate. It's something else. That is why my advice to Demon was, If you want to stay in the pool, stop complaining about being wet. Otherwise, get out, dry off and go do something else.
The mods will not change. Hell, they won't even comprehend this post. So their clique won't change either. Just enjoy the interactions the board offers with the people you value, and be ready to walk away when the petty cronyism gets too much. There are other sites, and there will me more of them.