-->
@Polytheist-Witch
you should quote the post you reply to, I'm not sure what you mean without context.
Is there any moderation here, or is this a right wing shit hole? Who are the admins?
Posts
Total:
75
-->
@drafterman
They don't and the debate should have been deleted anyway regardless of either user's consent.But the mod team here has opted to voluntarily neuter itself as their style of moderation.
So you are saying people shouldn't have the right to argue anti-natalism, or are you saying that the title of such a debate shouldn't be a piece of good marketing that will ensure it is not one of those debates that go unvoted and ignored around here?
If the debate was titled something like "Yeshua should kill herself" that would clearly advocate for suicide, but the other title could have been interpreted as saying I am pro mortality. It could also be interpreted as a debate about whether physical immortality is desirable for humans. Until you see the arguments, you really can't know if that type of debate is a violation of the code of conduct.
-->
@Wylted
I believe the title of the debate fell under the definition of "personal attack" as the CoC defines it.
The excuse that you did it as "good marketing" to drum up participation and voting is merely an "ends justify the means" rationale for which no exception is granted in the CoC.
Hypothetical interpretations are irrelevant: that's not how it was actually interpreted. Engaging in violating behavior as a prank or to make a point is still violating behavior (see "The Just Kidding Excuse).
-->
@drafterman
Hypothetical interpretations are irrelevant
LOL, that is the interpretation. Even the first comment on the debate before she got a chance to accept I explained that I was going to run some sort of schoppenhour argument that explained non existence was preferable to exist or take the environmentalist angle. The title was "The User known as Yeshuabought should die" . You are correct that hypothetical interpretations don't matter. You ignorantly assumed that the debate was meant as advocating suicide, when I made it clear I was advocating for mortality. I can't control your interpretation of the title. I do make titles for debates that sound more interesting than the debate itself. It is something I do almost every single debate I create. You are essentially saying that because somebody could interpret the title of the debate as violating the COC (something they could only do by ignoring the comment section and not reading the first round of the debate), that it should be removed.
No title would have sufficed in that situation. If I titled it something like "Society should implement a Logan's Run law and kill everybody at 30" , it would be the same debate and yet could be interpreted in a way that makes it a violation of the COC. It is not the mod's job to use twisted logic to see if something can be interpreted as violating the COC, it is their job to make sure the spirit of the rules are obeyed even if that means some actions would technically not violate the rules, but should be punished, or if somebody technically violated the letter of them but should go unpunished. Honestly, I can't control what you ignorant interpretation of the title is despite me framing the debate to be impersonal in the comment section and just a few hours after it was removed it would have been framed in round 1. Maybe we should debate whether BSH1's original decision not to remove the debate was correct, though you would clearly lose. Your whole argument is that if something can be interpreted as hateful that it should be interpreted as hateful. You sound like one of those SJW who interpreted the Geico Caveman commercials as racist.
-->
@Wylted
You ignorantly assumed that the debate was meant as advocating suicide, when I made it clear I was advocating for mortality. I can't control your interpretation of the title. I do make titles for debates that sound more interesting than the debate itself. It is something I do almost every single debate I create.
I'm assuming nothing about what you meant by the debate title because what you meant by the debate title is irrelevant to the CoC:
"[The nature of the comment] is not based upon the intentions of speaker"
You are essentially saying that because somebody could interpret the title of the debate as violating the COC (something they could only do by ignoring the comment section and not reading the first round of the debate), that it should be removed.
It objectively violated the CoC. Consider this:
The mods are not going to delete comments and debates simply because another person demands it; there must be some violation of the CoC for the mod to respond to. So the fact that bsh1 was willing to delete this debate at all means that a violation was already determined ("[I]nterpretation is left to the discretion of the moderators"). The only question is why he was soliciting Yeshua's opinion in the first place. And the answer is that he was willing to let this violation go if the involved parties agreed to it. My main point in all of this is: I disagree that the CoC should be so selectively enforced.
That there was a CoC violation in the first place is a given.
No title would have sufficed in that situation. If I titled it something like "Society should implement a Logan's Run law and kill everybody at 30" , it would be the same debate and yet could be interpreted in a way that makes it a violation of the COC.
I don't see that such a title violates any part of the CoC.
It is not the mod's job to use twisted logic to see if something can be interpreted as violating the COC,
The "twisted" modifier aside, that is exactly their job.
it is their job to make sure the spirit of the rules are obeyed even if that means some actions would technically not violate the rules, but should be punished, or if somebody technically violated the letter of them but should go unpunished.
Flip that, reverse it. The mods should only ever enforce the letter of the law. If the letter of the law is insufficient, it should be modified.
Honestly, I can't control what you ignorant interpretation of the title is despite me framing the debate to be impersonal in the comment section and just a few hours after it was removed it would have been framed in round 1. Maybe we should debate whether BSH1's original decision not to remove the debate was correct, though you would clearly lose. Your whole argument is that if something can be interpreted as hateful that it should be interpreted as hateful. You sound like one of those SJW who interpreted the Geico Caveman commercials as racist.
My argument has already been stated:
The mods should enforce the CoC objectively and dispassionately, without polling involved users about specific actions. That the debate violated the CoC has already been decided; the debate was deleted after all. My issue is that he waited to enforce the CoC until he got permission to do so from an involved party. That latter part is what I have an issue with.
-->
@drafterman
Good luck showing me in the COC where a debate about mortality is a violation. Especially when you said the Logan's run debate which was the same debate titled differently, doesn't.'m assuming nothing about what you meant by the debate title because what you meant by the debate title is irrelevant to the CoC:"[The nature of the comment] is not based upon the intentions of speaker
Flip that, reverse it. The mods should only ever enforce the letter of the law. If the letter of the law is insufficient, it should be modified.
That so wrong as to be laughable. The reason that most countries leave laws up for interpretation by courts and modified by courts is because the spirit of the law is important and takes precedence over the letter of the law. Take the speed limit for example. It is technically illegal to speed, but when you do so to take your child who got bit by a poisonous snake and is turning blue to the hospital, even if giving a ticket for it, a judge would normally interpret that you violated no such law.
Enforcing the letter of the law is the worst way to go, and it would lead to even more injustice in the court system than already takes place. Enforcing to the letter, the COC would have a similarly negative result.
Not to mention, if I am okay with people making personal attacks against me than it causes no harm. It is beside the point but absolutely true and would not be challenged as true by an intelligent person.
Your rules also don't take into account special people. Let's say you can label driving ability 1 to 10, and most people drive like 7s, but when drunk drive like 5s. If I normally drive like a ten while sobor but can provably drive like an 8 when drunk, it is ignorant to lock me up for reckless endangerment when my driving skills are still above normal. So looking at the letter of the rule unjustly punishes people who the rule should not apply to.
-->
@Wylted
I agree so much to wylted. Intention is vital in deciding how to punish.
-->
@Wylted
Good luck showing me in the COC where a debate about mortality is a violation. Especially when you said the Logan's run debate which was the same debate titled differently, doesn't.
A debate about mortality isn't a violation, nor have I argued that. The specific wording of the title is what was a violation and the fact that it was a violation isn't really an open question: it was deleted as a violation. If you disagree that it was a violation, then you should take it up with the mod that made the decision. I'm not opening that case for adjudication, I'm simply saying that, once a violation has been determined, the mod should take the appropriate action without having to wait for permission from a user.
That so wrong as to be laughable. The reason that most countries leave laws up for interpretation by courts and modified by courts is because the spirit of the law is important and takes precedence over the letter of the law. Take the speed limit for example. It is technically illegal to speed, but when you do so to take your child who got bit by a poisonous snake and is turning blue to the hospital, even if giving a ticket for it, a judge would normally interpret that you violated no such law.Enforcing the letter of the law is the worst way to go, and it would lead to even more injustice in the court system than already takes place. Enforcing to the letter, the COC would have a similarly negative result.
Certainly, in a full fledged government with different, isolated branches, with checks and balances, individual autonomy, hierarchical court systems, multiple competing jurisdictions, complex and arcane laws dating back hundreds of years, applied to almost all possible combinations of human behavior, yes. I agree with the above.
This dinky web site tucked away in some corner of the internet with about a dozen or so active members has precisely none of those properties.
Enforcing the spirit of the law over the letter of the law is a flaw. It's because the letter of the law is insufficient. And the reason why is generally because the letter of the law can't account for all possible circumstances and changing the law is an enormous undertaking. Furthermore, the existence of law enforcement discretion is a necessary component, given that the legal system can't handle all instances of potential law violation.
So it makes sense, in the real world, to use the existence of such discretion as a solution to the problem of inflexible laws.
But, again, that doesn't apply here. The only thing that does apply is the fact that the CoC can't account for all possible scenarios. But the rules aren't inflexible. They can be freely changed and amended as needed.
Not to mention, if I am okay with people making personal attacks against me than it causes no harm. It is beside the point but absolutely true and would not be challenged as true by an intelligent person.
There is no exception in the CoC where a violating act ceases to be a violating act simply because the involved parties have consented.
Your rules also don't take into account special people. Let's say you can label driving ability 1 to 10, and most people drive like 7s, but when drunk drive like 5s. If I normally drive like a ten while sobor but can provably drive like an 8 when drunk, it is ignorant to lock me up for reckless endangerment when my driving skills are still above normal. So looking at the letter of the rule unjustly punishes people who the rule should not apply to.
This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
-->
@Wylted
You'll have to take that up with the mods. But I contend that their decision to act shouldn't depend on your permission.
-->
@drafterman
This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Thought so, you have no argument against it. It just sounds wrong to you.
-->
@Wylted
I think your decision to focus on a completely insane hypothetical not worthy of serious discussion while ignoring and cutting out the stuff we were actually talking about says more about you than me.
-->
@drafterman
Your assertions aren't even worth looking into. You ask that BSH1 mod in perfect accordance with the letter of the rules. It's absurd and you haven't even backed up that bare assertion. He should just do it that way based on what? Your fealings I suppose?
It can't be to eliminate bias in modding decisions, because quite frankly the English language like all languages, is limited and meant to act as short hand for ideals that can't quite be encapsulated with words. You can't remove bias from the modding decision making process.
You also can't eliminate mistakes or in this case a percieved mistake. BSH1 is human and like all humans with the exception of one, falls short of perfection. Maybe he made a mistake here in this instance, maybe he is inconsistent because he is constantly evolving and is in essence a slightly new person each day.
I think the worst possible sin here is putting a microscope on what BSH1 does. Do you really want to put his every action under a microscope like it currently is? Do you want him to act like he is under a microscope which is trying to expose his every flaw?
Eliminating the mod's personal bias should not be the number one goal of choosing a modding philosophy (which is unique to each mod), it should be to maximally enhance fairness, whatever modding philosophy on how to do that he is working with.
I'm going to rehash this in a new thread I am starting on this subject which deserves it's own thread. If you have the patience, please save your responses for that thread. If not, I'm impatient myself and understand.
-->
@Smithereens
I wasn't talking to you. The person I replied to answered.