Question Brainstorming for Next Referendum

Author: Barney
Code of Conduct
MEEP

Posts

Total: 50
#31
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,828
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Barney
Callout threads:
What does everyone think of easing up on these? For starters, maybe they shouldn't be automatically locked?
Better banned or explicitly allowed than "case by case", that's arbitrary power and unequal treatment waiting to happen.
Topic's author
#32
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 50
Posts: 2,888
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The content which comes up inside any thread, can result in it getting locked.

Right after the no callout thread rule came out, someone did a mock callout thread accusing someone of being a wonderful human being... Obviously the context of that, was not what the rule was designed to discourage.

Of course, I mainly bring up the idea due to complaints about the rule during the recent election.
#33
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,828
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Barney
The content which comes up inside any thread, can result in it getting locked.
Yea, but the purpose of a rule is to identify a category of behavior which is not acceptable. Call-out threads can be explicitly allowed and yet locked if the content within them breaks another rule. In that case it is not the call-out nature that is the factor, it is merely a coincidence. The other rule is ideally precisely defined and objectively evalueable.

No-callout threads can be objectively evaluated, I'm just saying if you don't want that rule anymore  you shouldn't convert it into something vague... like "callout threads aren't allowed but we'll just let them exist at our discretion"

It seems like the rule is aimed towards getting people to focus on topics of contention rather than each other, it combines with:

obsessive attempts to derail unrelated topics with impertinent grudges
To basically imply that calling someone out is off-topic in threads not about the member and threads about the member where it would be on-topic are not allowed.

This makes some sense in the context of a debate, a fairly large proportion of commonly identified fallacies revolve around ad hominems.

On the other hand if the site accepts that people will try to make the character of members an issue regardless of the rules it could be better to have call-out threads to contain the grudge and continue to prevent off-topic derailments about character. After all a call out thread is the one place where attacking the man would not be a fallacy.

Topic's author
#34
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 50
Posts: 2,888
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
Multi-Accounting:
What does everyone think of further easing up on the restrictions? Not to say no restrictions at all.

To me, the goal has been to prevent exploitative slave accounts (debate yourself for free wins, bypass your senpai blocking you, etc.).

Yet, there could be good value from being somewhat more open.
Mafia games for example, could have game specific accounts for some anonymity.
Group debates could have a shared login, instead of a selected host from each team (which if that one host has login problems, currently forfeits the whole team).
#35
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
I think anyone being allowed to have more than one account for any reason is complete and utter bull shit. Especially when someone you don't like has an account that you don't know is them and they try to be nice to you with that account to get information out of you.
Topic's author
#36
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 50
Posts: 2,888
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
It's never a good idea to share sensitive information with randos from the internet.
#37
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Barney
Forum Games crowd already have enough rule leniency serving their narcissism, there is no need for extra rule tweaking just to feed their ego.

Rules are for all subforums, equally. It is about time you slapped them with that reality.


#38
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Barney
No shit. 
#39
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,485
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
Petition to remove mod from their position for abuse of power: 10 signatories required to petition after which a MEEP will take place. Signatories must have 6 months of activity or 1 gold medal to sign.

2/3s of all votes must be in affirmative in the MEEP thread for the MEEP to succeed. Mods cannot vote for ethical reasons.
#40
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,485
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
You support above? Any suggestions/improvements are appreciated 
#41
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ILikePie5
which mod?
#42
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,485
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
which mod?
Any mod who we think has committed an abuse of power. I’m thinking of implementing a 6 month limit for each successful removal so the process isn’t abused
#43
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,485
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
We can discuss details over Discord if you’d like
#44
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ILikePie5
This isn't a democracy just because you want it to be now. Nobody gave a shit when I wanted to overthrow David and Ragnar.

Also very few people realise that I am the rightful mod of this website and the glorious king yet to be crowned.

We get rid of the current mods, Lunatic/Coal and their thugs run the show which only benefits you.
#45
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,485
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
This isn't a democracy just because you want it to be now. Nobody gave a shit when I wanted to overthrow David and Ragnar.
We can only get rid of one mod every 6 months with 2/3s threshold and after 10 signatories sign a petition. That’s the initial idea so. I’m more than happy to overthrow Ragnar now. As always if you approached me with your concerns I might’ve been more sympathetic, but Idek what happened between y’all.

We get rid of the current mods, Lunatic/Coal and their thugs run the show which only benefits you.
Assuming CM gets removed, the DM takes the CM position. Any other position gets removed then CM appoints or gets rid of position altogether. 

Also I don’t think WF is a thug of Coal and Lunatic lol. Same with Supa.
#46
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ILikePie5
I said if they get removed.
#47
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ILikePie5
WF is absolutely one of their thugs though but he answers ultimately to Lunatic, not Coal.
#48
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,485
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
WF is absolutely one of their thugs though but he answers ultimately to Lunatic, not Coal.
How so
#49
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@RationalMadman
Also very few people realise that I am the rightful mod of this website and the glorious king yet to be crowned.

It is true that RationalMadman deserves a shot at being a mod one day, although I strongly feel he would suck at that job.  It is for the very reason of anticipating that regular users like RationalMadman or Wylted or Greyparrot might be a Moderator some day that  I strongly oppose Mods having powers like re-writing the voting rules after the election and while voting is in progress.  Supadudz has already stated publicly that he believes his opinion as moderator outweighs the opinion of the majority of regular users as expressed in MEEPs.  If Supadudz can say so now what's to stop RationalMadman from saying the same when his turn comes?

  • I propose a MEEP that states that the majority opinion of debaters on DART outweighs the opinion of the moderation team and on those rare occasions where mods must stray from the voter-approved  MEEPs, the DART community is constantly consulted and negotiated with as part of any decision the moderators make to modify MEEPs.  Mod rules state that MEEPs are binding and so moderators should see themselves as bound.
  • I propose a MEEP to eliminate the office of DART President, since I think we've established that nobody seems to expect anything from that office and so that office proved a  divisive waste of time.
  • I propose a MEEP that eliminates EDUCATION as a Forum Category and makes HISTORY  and CONSPIRACY THEORIES new Forum Categories and arranges Forum categories so that the most recently posted to Category is seen at the top of the Category list until a Category with a newer post pushes all the Categories down one.  This way, posters are less tempted to miscategorize Topics for improved visibility.
  • I propose a separate Debate Tournament page that's built to be faster and less formal-debates have no set rounds but each debater has a 10K character limit.  There can be up to three debaters on either side of an issue.  Debaters can argue back and forth as much as they like until they hit that 10K limit then they're done.  Debates end as soon as all debaters hit their limit or 72 hrs passes.  It takes 7 votes+24 hrs to end the voting phase.  To earn a berth in the tournament, debaters must have voted on 3 debates.  Leaderboards for tournaments refresh to 0 every hundred days.

Topic's author
#50
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 50
Posts: 2,888
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@oromagi
FYI, we (or at least I) encourage community lead referendums. If you want to put the work in, you're welcome to initiate one.

That said, I'll give feedback on the bullet points...
First, and I'm sure you already meant this, but I advise making all those proposed separate referendums into questions in a single larger one.


  • I propose a MEEP that states that the majority opinion of debaters on DART outweighs the opinion of the moderation team and on those rare occasions where mods must stray from the voter-approved  MEEPs, the DART community is constantly consulted and negotiated with as part of any decision the moderators make to modify MEEPs.  Mod rules state that MEEPs are binding and so moderators should see themselves as bound.
There's a fair bit to unpack here...

If I understand this correctly, the main goal is to codify that mods communicate far better when deviating from course set by previous referendums.

Further, a refinement to the official referendum rules to specifically state that referendums are binding. While I respect Bsh1's work in codifying it, I would personally be glad to see the referendum process rewritten (the extension by no more than 12 hours, is weird in practice... Plus two days does not seem to be enough time to give people a fair chance to participate; even if the week I aimed for proved needlessly long). I would also love to see the specific name MEEP done away with.

So yeah, please rewrite the referendum rules, and lets get the new ones voted on.


  • I propose a MEEP to eliminate the office of DART President, since I think we've established that nobody seems to expect anything from that office and so that office proved a  divisive waste of time.
Seems premature. Maybe the president will do something... Maybe not... I don't care much; I just hope we don't go back and forth on if it exists every referendum from now on.


  • I propose a MEEP that eliminates EDUCATION as a Forum Category and makes HISTORY  and CONSPIRACY THEORIES new Forum Categories and arranges Forum categories so that the most recently posted to Category is seen at the top of the Category list until a Category with a newer post pushes all the Categories down one.  This way, posters are less tempted to miscategorize Topics for improved visibility.
I've previously lead some forum restructuring, and would glad to see more of it. Ultimately, there is no one optimal set of forums here, as we'll have a slowly shifting userbase with different needs over time. Yet, I am loving the idea of a conspiracy theory forum, and suspect it would aid site traffic.


  • I propose a separate Debate Tournament page that's built to be faster and less formal-debates have no set rounds but each debater has a 10K character limit.  There can be up to three debaters on either side of an issue.  Debaters can argue back and forth as much as they like until they hit that 10K limit then they're done.  Debates end as soon as all debaters hit their limit or 72 hrs passes.  It takes 7 votes+24 hrs to end the voting phase.  To earn a berth in the tournament, debaters must have voted on 3 debates.  Leaderboards for tournaments refresh to 0 every hundred days.
Sounds like some very cool long term functionality. You'd have to get Michael to agree to code it, which will be when he has time and gumption for it, but still sounds cool.