A lot of shit has to be done to the ban log before it should be what a new visitor to the website sees upon intriguingly looking into a 'help center'.
Agreed
MEEP: Reformed ban policy & DebateArt President
Posts
Archived
Total:
233
-->
@David
fuck off. You only posted that to hurt me. You know that the presidency is a net benefit to site, and are being petty
-->
@MisterChris
Lots of ambiguities, like "criminal behavior" without reference to any jurisdiction. Blasphemy and atheism are punishable by death in many jurisdictions. Go criticize the Chinese government, you'll end up in jail in China. Holocaust denialism is criminalized in Germany and hate speech is illegal in the UK. Also no standards for burdens of proof (i.e. degrees of certainty that particular violation actually occurred); Interpreting things in "best interests of the site and users" rather than an objective approach comes across as a license to make language mean what it does not mean. Language should be interpreted based on the objective meaning of it at the time it was agreed to rather than some ex-post facto fluidic "it means whatever we need it to mean at the time"; What's the point of having any written policy if the whole thing is ultimately subordinate to the ever changing interests of the site and users? The policy may as well be that the interests of the site and users are paramount and all other priorities are secondary.
Wylted, don't vote yes to 3 if you agree with me.
-->
@dfss9788
On surface-level Internet legality, this website comes under American law because it's '.com' in case you didn't know of this default.
On the other hand, the owner claims to be Russian (we don't know, I won't discuss further but the Russian hosting email is all a proxy server and email on the 'whois') so, we may come under Russian Law.
On an older time of this website, I genuinely read somewhere on it, I am not sure where as I think it's been deleted, that the server information actually runs through the UK, so it may come under that.
The default is US law from an IT perspective, due to '.Com' classification but yeah, there's ambiguity, it's 1 of those 3 though.
-->
@RationalMadman
Someone reads about the website, goes to the help center and sees the ban log, which by the way includes defamatory bullshit about me, not just others. It has a series of shit twisted out of context, like it says Ethang sexually harassed, he genuinely didn't. Idk about Wylted but even his scenario is really, scarily stated since he's UNBANNED meaning you're suggesting this website harbors someone who did that.A lot of shit has to be done to the ban log before it should be what a new visitor to the website sees upon intriguingly looking into a 'help center'.
You makes some great points.
However, knowing who (what account name) was banned and for how long and what they were accused of and what actual evidence was presented and what (if any) appeals process is officially in place is critical information for anyone considering joining DART.
When this process is hidden, it breeds suspicion and a lack of transparency generally lends itself to corruption and pettiness.
-->
@dfss9788
What's the point of having any written policy if the whole thing is ultimately subordinate to the ever changing interests of the site and users?
Well stated.
Change vote on number 3 to no
Holocaust denial is punishable in the UK too by the way, as well as in Russia, however in Germany, France, Belgium and a few more you literally get an instant jail sentence for it as opposed to initially getting a fine and strong warning.
In the UK, judges have officially more leniency than almost any other nation (not in practise alone, in the written word of what a Judge can do with the law) to interpret the written law in a way that contextually applies to a situation. This can both be seen as good and bad, depending on the integrity of the judge.
Therefore, in practise Holocaust Denial is punishable in the UK, genuinely, but it starts with fines and warnings as opposed to jail sentences, unless it's combined with calls to violence against Jews in which case it may be instantly jailable.
It's understandable to arrest somebody for cLls to violence, but absolutely ridiculous to arrest somebody for having a different belief on a historical event.
The laws against it almost seem like a confession. If it really happened, why are they afraid of people presenting alternative theories? Nobody looks to arrest anybody who claims Lincoln was the 17th president. Lincoln was the 16th president. The facts speak for themselves, so no need to ban alternative theories. I'm incredulous to any other motive for making it punishable by law other than trying to cover something up
Abstain.
-->
@Wylted
What would that process be like. It isn't going to be one of those things where, any veto you don't like (which would be all of them, because they would contradict your opinion), would be subject to your whimsical overturning of it?
It would require a majority vote from the entirety of the mod team.
-->
@ILikePie5
Also there should be an amendment process to MEEPs cause I want a recall amendment for President.
After we finish this, you could propose your amendment to the policy in a new MEEP.
-->
@3RU7AL
Please DM your email to me. I will send you the PDF of each.
If it really happened, why are they afraid of people presenting alternative theories?
I don't know, maybe because it's fucking vile to deny it and nobody in the society except some far-right lunatics want to entertain either the idea it didn't happen or the idea of Fascism somehow being a 'good thing'.
In the end, we are a society ('we' being people in a nation) and your 'freedom to express' should be curtailed when it interferes with what the masses feel safe and content with at a base level (meaning basic level of safety and contentment). I am not even talking about the law, I'm talking about even in the wild west anarchy first amendment to the hilt, never forget that the second amendment is there too and what may just happen if you piss the wrong people off in pure anarchy. So, even in anarchy freedom is curtailed and limited precisely by what the masses feel safe and content with.
The question is where to draw that line, I think stopping anything like Nazism being entertained as a good idea is a solid start. The idea shouldn't even enter people's minds, it's poisonous, we have seen what happens and denying that very brutal outcome is the first step towards forgetting how horrific it is. On the other hand, you as a right-winger may argue that denying the horrors of Soviet Russia and Cambodia should be outlawed, to which I'd agree entirely but do not confuse that mutation of left-wing ideology to be anything resembling what actual Socialism and its values are. In fact, each and every Communist regime has had more in common with Fascism (ignoring economics) than with any left-wing nation that's not Communist, if you want I'd even take you up on this debate but next month as I'm in three atm and busy IRL.
-->
@MisterChris
Please DM your email to me. I will send you the PDF of each.
Please post @ https://www.debateart.com/forum/miscellaneous/topics
-->
@RationalMadman
On the other hand, you as a right-winger may argue that denying the horrors of Soviet Russia and Cambodia should be outlawed,
Yep.
Not to mention the systematic slaughter of native american first nations.
-->
@3RU7AL
Sure, I don't support denying a single part of history at all. Truth is absolutely what we should always aim to attain insofar as what overall a society wants the information being relayed as 'valid ideas' within it.
The problem is that we'll never evolve (and never would be more than other primates even with our language capacity) if we never ever trusted what others told us about the past, meaning we inherently do need authority to stop lies being spread or else the lies can just as easily become the 'truth'. It's easy to blame the authority as 'evil' but the alternative is far more sinister and in fact a perfect example of how sinister it can be when authorities fail to stop the spread of falsehood-tainted propaganda and other such lies is the very Holocaust in discussion, meaning it is self-evidently necessary to prevent its denial even to justify said prevention.
1 yes
2 no
3 yes
It would require a majority vote from the entirety of the mod team.
why not everyone?
1. No. I guess I’d rather have good mods with the freedom to exercise good judgement. If inconsistent moderation becomes a problem I might change my mind.
2. No. I considered the office pretty destructive to community feeling on DDO and never experienced any improved representation. We’re such a small group I don’t think further layers of govt are needed.
3. Yes, fine
-->
@RationalMadman
Hmmmm...
The default is US law from an IT perspective
Well, OK but even then there's somewhat the problem of which state's law to use. There are other problems as well, e.g.:
- If a user engages [in] criminal activity, moderation shall
- FIRST and FINALLY, issue a permanent ban.
Is this referring to conduct that occurs on the website only? If we're using US law, well possession of marijuana is a schedule I drug. Is anyone who smokes weed now going to be perma-banned?
- If a user promotes criminal activity, moderation shall
- FIRST, issue a 90 day ban
If we're using US law, is anyone who promotes medicinal use of marijuana going to receive a 90 day ban? What about someone who encourages other users to join a public protest which just so happens to be illegal for one reason or another? What of Marxists who promote joining the Communist party which would in violation of 50 U.S. Code § 842? (A relic of a bygone era which has not been held to be unconstitutional except by a single district court which isn't binding) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/842
- If a user promotes or encourages suicide or self-harm, moderation shall
- FIRST and FINALLY, issue a permanent ban. Moderation shall not tolerate the purposeful endangerment of lives.
What about the legitimate political debate over physician assisted suicide? Is any user who promotes physician assisted suicide to be insta-perma-banned?
IF the user continues to defy moderation [...] they will receive a permanent ban.
This phrase shows up repeatedly. The way this is written implicates that defiance of moderation is what is being punished rather than policy violations. Well, what do we want? Rule of law or rule of men? If the former, then the language should be something like "IF the user continues to violate the policy". If the latter is what's intended, then perhaps leave it be.
On the other hand, you as a right-winger may argue that denying the horrors of Soviet Russia and Cambodia should be outlawed,
No I would not argue that, ever. I really think the world works better when a variety of ideals are debated publicly. I even think we gain from our collective knowledge by arguing ridiculous things.
When. Commies defend Russia, I think they make many great points, though I disagree with them and it helps me have a more balanced view of soviet Russian society.
I know some right wingers will defend outlawing ideals, but I think it's ridiculous. We have to win the battle of ideals, and winning by cheating and hiding from your opponent's arguments, is less honorable, even if you are correct, and like I said. Even though some ideals are legitimately dangerous, we all benefit from.having open discussions and debates about them.
-->
@Vader
@MisterChris
Please self-veto #3 and run a separate thread or meep on the separate parts within it.
I am asking you because you never ran thiseep by us, this slipped that step. You did not follow the procedure.
I am asking you because you never ran thiseep by us, this slipped that step. You did not follow the procedure.
The banned user list is a terrible idea to showcase.
Because David was terrible at his job, half of the banned user list is just is just libel anyway. I think everyone should be unbanned and given a fresh start. One innocent guy the even banned, saying he was my alt. They banned some of my alts, but they banned one guy who was not my alt because he happened to be into transhumanism like me.
My Vote:
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
Vote Yes on issue 2
1. No
2. Yes
3. No
In the UK, judges have officially more leniency than almost any other nation (not in practise alone, in the written word of what a Judge can do with the law) to interpret the written law in a way that contextually applies to a situation. This can both be seen as good and bad, depending on the integrity of the judge.Therefore, in practise Holocaust Denial is punishable in the UK, genuinely, but it starts with fines and warnings as opposed to jail sentences
Imagine getting fined and warned for exercising freedom of speech LOL.
This is just more extremist left-wing tyrants trampling people's speech. No wonder RM agrees with it.