MEEP: Reformed ban policy & DebateArt President

Author: MisterChris
MEEP
Referendum
MEEPs
Ban Policy

Posts

Archived
Total: 233
#61
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 567
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Because David was terrible at his job, half of the banned user list is just is just libel anyway. 
Ragnar committed the libel against me but yes 100%

The multi-accounting and doxxing is just straight up defamation, I never did either on DART, point blank period.. 'Targetted harassment' is such a bullcrap thing, when did I serial-target people in a harassing manner, look at their examples. Look at them.

I want to bring it up again and prove how Ragnar can't defend a single point but I've learned to let go.
#62
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
Yes to 2. 
#63
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
rm, I really never felt targeted by you. I actually am fond of you so it kind of hurts that you make statements about. Disliking me, but I think saying shit like "wylted posts racist shit" is a fair statement. 

We just get off wrong despite me liking you, because we clash on politics and the philosophy we each apply is different. For example I'm like

"My words hold no power and can neither harm or help anyone " 

And you are like the type of guy who likes to "defend the weak". I feel like you divide the world into bullies and weakling which is problematic.

Despite the fact I think you dislike me more than anyone, and it kinda hurts. I never felt you personally targeted me. I figure if you were to personally target anyone, I would be at the top of your list. I Don't see it though.  I think you pulled that sort of thing on DDO a few times and maybe you are being unfairly pigeon holed as somebody who does it here, but I just personally haven't seen you target anyone. If anything you seem to avoid people who piss you off for the most part.
#64
spacetime
spacetime's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 206
0
1
3
spacetime's avatar
spacetime
0
1
3
1. No
2. Yes
3. Yes
#65
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,373
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
I'll say yes to all 3.

I think the SPES system is a much more thorough and transparent means of explaining how moderation works and will respond to a variety of circumstances.

I see no harm in the inclusion of the "Community" category in the Help Center including all 3 of those elements. They largely exist in scattered forms across the site as is, and I think there's value in consolidation.

As for the DebateArt President, while I can understand the hesitancy of many who have already voted against it based on experiences on DDO, I'd say that this is markedly different and serves as a meaningful way to increase engagement. It's bound to invite some controversy, though I think there's value nonetheless that we can't gain from having a solely appointed moderation team.
#66
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
1. yes

2. yes

3. abstain. 


#67
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 567
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@whiteflame
The harm in 3 is the lies but also alternatively what is the point of a clean slate promise from the new mods when all they do is dig up old lies from former mods and wave them in front of us?

I didn't multiaccount. I didn't arrange any cheating with Type1.

I am accused of doxxing because I said I knew a clique of girls (which are mainly men in a mafia discord server) are braiding each other's hair and getting manicures.

I didn't harass in a serial or targeted manner. Seldiora and Mikal both backed me up on that, the latter to my surprise.

It's a series of defamation. I was wrongly banned, literally.
#68
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 567
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Type1 was a weird dude who was/is actually someone who resented me. We had a rivalry elsewhere and I felt he'd be fun to have here. It's that simple. 

I was wrong in the long run, he proved to be incapable of disciplining himself. That doesn't mean I arranged off-site for his bursts of multiaccounting. I am the reason the mods caught him so fast each time.
#69
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 567
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
I apologised to Mikal as it later seems that I had been mistaken about his financial situation years ago and as a result was also therefore very wrong about bluesteel.

This was cleared up. Mikal didn't even want me banned. I was surprised. So who is it I harassed?
#70
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
1. No. It's vague and pointless when we know Mods will simply classify behavior as they like anyway. The terms have never mattered. The same mods we have now were here and in agreement as Rag ran the board as a personal fiefdom.

For example, I asked Rag pointedly if it is a violation if one does not leave a thread if the thread's creator asks one to leave. He dodged the question. Even the new proposed rules dodge, saying only, "reasonable requests by members". I was banned on a policy that the mod was unwilling or unable to explain! The new rules still don't address it.

2. No. The Dart clique, taking their cues from the mods, will make sure one of their lackys gets the nod, and then they will use him as a shield for their unfair decisions.

3. No. How can we have a clean slate if the abuse remains up? Everyone (brave enough to admit it publicly) knows many of Rags decisions were pure abuse. David has given mods total power so why the need to fake a democracy?

Talk of criminal activity here is ironic. Does the owner think his making the mod team teenaged boys will mitigate the grooming of underaged boys when it occurs on the site?

The whole excersize is a sham. I believe it will pass, but the board will remain exactly the same, and we will continue to have mod problems and "resignations". Every year, a new crop of boys turn 16 and 17.

RM is perfectly correct. Props.




#71
dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@Wylted
half of the banned user list is just is just libel anyway
Surprised the site owner puts up with it considering that's the sort of thing that can get the site in trouble. Section 230 doesn't protect sites from defamatory content that's made from people who are acting as agents of the site itself.
#72
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 50
Posts: 2,971
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@RationalMadman
...I've learned to let go.
As clearly evidenced by you endlessly bringing it up.
#73
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@MisterChris
Creating a president, as I understand, helped contribute to the destruction of DDO.
#74
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@ethang5
 I was banned on a policy that the mod was unwilling or unable to explain! 
You were banned because you threatened to ejaculate on a Dart member. 
#75
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,731
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@dfss9788
half of the banned user list is just is just libel anyway
Surprised the site owner puts up with it considering that's the sort of thing that can get the site in trouble. Section 230 doesn't protect sites from defamatory content that's made from people who are acting as agents of the site itself.
It can't be "libel" if you never reveal someone's legal identity.
#76
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,731
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Barney
Can you please post the text of the MEEP on https://www.debateart.com/forum/miscellaneous/topics ?
#77
dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
It can't be "libel" if you never reveal someone's legal identity.
Not necessarily. If there are people in the world who already know your true identity then the requirement can be satisfied that way. This is not uncommon.
#78
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@MisterChris
1. No. I don't like any system of rules which includes vague and ideologically charged terms like 'hate speech'. If 'hate speech' isn't covered by 'invective' or 'threats' then that just means that you're banning measured stances on politically charged topics that aren't personal attacks or threats.

2. Yes. This would be the best thing to happen to this site.

3. Yes.
#79
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,731
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@dfss9788
It can't be "libel" if you never reveal someone's legal identity.
Not necessarily. If there are people in the world who already know your true identity then the requirement can be satisfied that way. This is not uncommon.
While some victims may hope to pursue Internet service providers or the hosts of websites in the hope of going after deep pockets, a federal law called the Communications Decency Act prohibits suing these entities for defamation. Instead, wronged individuals should pursue a claim against the individual or entity that made the derogatory statement. This is usually accomplished by filing a complaint in the appropriate state court.

The alleged defamatory statement must be presented as a fact and not as an opinion. However, an opinion can be considered a fact statement if a reasonable person would have interpreted it as such.

In order for a plaintiff to prevail in a defamation lawsuit, he or she must be able to show that the defamatory statement damaged him or her in some way. This may be expressed as demonstrating that the damage was significant, quantifiable and documented. If the person who was insulted online was running a business, damages may be shown by the loss of business or profit.
#80
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
My vote on #1 was a no, and I retain that decision. I find it curious that so much verbiage is used on a subject that is, after all, a simple discipline of social control that ought to be more easily self-regulated. After all, there is already a stipulation that members be at least 13 years old. B y that age, people ought to be more inclined to be cordial to one another. The refinement of banning duration based on specific violations results in the appearance that members can be much younger than 13, when social graces have not been taught and embraced. Treat us as adults should expect to be treated, or increase the minimum age of membership, and make the conduct rules even more simple with harsher treatment of violators. Either we are adults, or we are not. Simple: bad acting is bad acting, and should not have to be coddled with brief bans to punish abusers. Make bans permanent if a member acts like a spoiled three year old.

As for #2, a community president can have a ban in the last year, but not two or more? We're supposedly talking about a position that is exemplary membership. Any ban ought to disavow a member from holding that position. Again, treat us as adults should expect to be treated. Some on this site appear to be over 30, but act like the zero is dropped. But then, I voted "no" on this one, too. I just don't see the need.
#81
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Then neither can anyone harass another anonymous member.
#82
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Barney
RM brought it up in a board discussion about fixing past problems involving that very list. Perhaps your insinuation is that it should never be brought up. He has let it go, but can bring it up in the context of a discussion about the list. Does "letting it go" to you  mean never mentioning it again?

Stop being disingeneous. If your past behavior makes you uncomfortable, it should.

#83
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Bones
Begging is what the choir boys did the priest.
What did the choir boys do? They begged.
Whom did they beg? The Priest.
What did they beg for? .....

Is it any wonder "ejaculate on a Dart member" was your take?
#84
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@dfss9788
urprised the site owner puts up with it considering that's the sort of thing that can get the site in trouble. Section 230 doesn't protect sites from defamatory content that's made from people who are acting as agents of the site itself.
I actually considered taking legal action, considering how heinous the libel was against me 
#85
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Sum1hugme
Creating a president, as I understand, helped contribute to the destruction of DDO.
Nope, not true. It was the site glitches and spam bots
#86
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,731
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Then neither can anyone harass another anonymous member.
I've never blocked or reported anyone and will never block or report anyone.

All site participation is purely voluntary. [**]
#87
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@MisterChris
your meep proposal on issue 2 needs to be altered for the first election. The reason for a president given is to help with community decision making in overturning bans.

If somebody was subject to an unfair ban, prior to their being democratic leadership to fight on their behalf, they should not be subject to the rules around preventing somebody running for having bans that were "over 21days" in the year of 2021. I have no issue with years after that, but given the circumstances of why we are even needing a president, than the non ban requirements need to be waved for year one. 


#88
dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
In order for a plaintiff to prevail in a defamation lawsuit, he or she must be able to show that the defamatory statement damaged him or her in some way. This may be expressed as demonstrating that the damage was significant, quantifiable and documented. If the person who was insulted online was running a business, damages may be shown by the loss of business or profit.
Key words
#89
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,731
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@dfss9788
In order for a plaintiff to prevail in a defamation lawsuit, he or she must be able to show that the defamatory statement damaged him or her in some way. This may be expressed as demonstrating that the damage was significant, quantifiable and documented. If the person who was insulted online was running a business, damages may be shown by the loss of business or profit.
Key words
there are significant financial barriers to entry before you'll ever get a chance to try and "prove" to a judge or jury that some rando online or offline comment resulted in some sort of personal "damage"
#90
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
It can't be "libel" if you never reveal someone's legal identity.
Then neither can anyone harass another anonymous member.

Your application of logic must be sound AND consistent.