Moderators rights

Author: DebateArt.com

Posts

Archived
Read-only
Total: 122
Smithereens
Smithereens's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 502
2
2
4
Smithereens's avatar
Smithereens
2
2
4
-->
@XLAV
ethang is from the religious forum and was regularly triggered by the atheists who would reply to his posts "trolling" him. He complained to Airmax expecting him to ban them and ofc Airmax didn't. Cue present circumstance. 
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
This site has an owner who seems ready to be the head mod. We do not need Airmax.

Airmax was as biased as they came. It wasn't the spam that killed DDO, it was the trolls. Airmax was alerted to their horrendous abuse and he decided to do absolutely nothing about it.

Not only that, but was generally snippy with people who were concerned about it. For years he stood by as the site died from neglect and trolls, and spent his time with his crew making movies about how terrible the religion board was.

If Mike wasn't the same future as DDO, he can bring Max here. As soon as he is here as mod, trolls like dee, willows, bully, and hari, will know they will not be limited at all and they will infect the site.

Already bully is here paving the place with his stupidity. You can have that. This site has done fine without Airmax. Let him stay at the site he made. We're fine.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Smithereens
ethang is from the religious forum and was regularly triggered by the atheists who would reply to his posts "trolling" him. He complained to Airmax expecting him to ban them and ofc Airmax didn't. Cue present circumstance. 

I challenge anyone to go there and check the posts of bully, or hari, or look at willows 15 flame posts a day and tell me if they would want that here.

You tell us Smithereens, would hari's behavior be acceptable to you as Mod? Yes or no?
vagabond
vagabond's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 277
0
2
3
vagabond's avatar
vagabond
0
2
3
-->
@ethang5
Who's we? Name and shame.
vagabond
vagabond's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 277
0
2
3
vagabond's avatar
vagabond
0
2
3
-->
@ethang5
You calling others trolls is the very height of hypocrisy.
vagabond
vagabond's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 277
0
2
3
vagabond's avatar
vagabond
0
2
3
-->
@ethang5
Your behaviour isn't acceptable even as a member of low standing, as you are.
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 315
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
I would like to see an "Active Topics" button so you can easily see the latest posts and related threads regardless of the category.
1harderthanyouthink
1harderthanyouthink's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 256
0
1
3
1harderthanyouthink's avatar
1harderthanyouthink
0
1
3
-->
@keithprosser
Moderation can be democratized, but a problem that may arise is mob mentality, and the application of a majority ideology to moderation. So there should always be at least one mod that can stop that from happening.
vagabond
vagabond's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 277
0
2
3
vagabond's avatar
vagabond
0
2
3
-->
@ethang5
Trust me


hahaha the funniest post so far.
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 7,717
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
This site has an owner who seems ready to be the head mod. We do not need Airmax.Airmax was as biased as they came. It wasn't the spam that killed DDO, it was the trolls. Airmax was alerted to their horrendous abuse and he decided to do absolutely nothing about it.
This is just not true. Max was a generally relaxed mod, as in he would give warnings, or try to talk some sense into someone before just outright banning them. A lot of that isn't made public knowledge. But if you said something controversial, there's a good chance he is going to talk to you about it and warn you that this behavior isn't acceptable and try to come to an understanding with you rather than just pulling the trigger on a ban. That is good moderation.'

Not only that, but was generally snippy with people who were concerned about it.
Can you cite this "snippy" behavior?

For years he stood by as the site died from neglect and trolls, and spent his time with his crew making movies about how terrible the religion board was.
His "crew"? You mean the movie imabench made? Max had very little to do with that, if anything at all. The site always had trolls, being a troll doesn't warrant a ban, and a lot of what people considered "prominent" members liked to troll. That's just the nature of a website. If it got too toxic, he banned people.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Lunatic
Most of your post is just your opinion, which is fine, but I have the tangible record of DDO to support my point. Airmax did not ban people who were virulently toxic. The politics and religion boards were feeding frenzies of trolls. We are seeing the results now.

Take my challenge. DDO is still open. Go there and tell me if you think hari or bully were not ban-able behavior. If you would allow such behavior here, then we are lucky you aren't mod. Airmax would not have banned rational madman. Even at 10 times as offensive.

Anyone who knows me knows I don't care about insults. My problem is with posters who disrupt debate. Insult me all you want, just include some content. These people have no content. They only insult, the never debate. I'm here to debate.

We don't need to agree on Airmax. You like him, fine. I don't think he was a good mod. I do not need to justify that to you. And I would not divulge private conversations jus because you ask for them. 

I'm glad Mike isn't him.  I like this site. If you think Max is so great, go there. The site is still functioning.
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 7,717
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
Most of your post is just your opinion, which is fine, but I have the tangible record of DDO to support my point.
Of course it's just my opinion, responding to your opinion. That's what debate is. xD

Take my challenge. DDO is still open. Go there and tell me if you think hari or bully were not ban-able behavior. If you would allow such behavior here, then we are lucky you aren't mod. 
Max isn't an active mod anymore, he has no real obligation to the website, especially after the influx of spam. Max was a volunteer mod and was never paid for his job, though he's put more collective work into the site than the developers by a long shot. Point is, he is no longer invested as much in what happens anymore because the site is broken and the developers refuse to fix it. Whatever's happened over the last couple months on the site behavior wise, max has taken much less notice or care of. I personally don't know either of those members or the behavior you are referring to, because you haven't posted any links, but it's a lot less likely for something to be done about their behavior now then it was before the influx of spam increased to the point of making the site virtually unuseable. If their behaviors are as toxic as you say, and this was brought up to him when the site was working more functionally, there is a good chance he would have looked into the situation and done something about it. I have known Max presumably a lot longer than you have, and I think other members who know well him would vouch that he would always look objectively into any situation back when the site was working. You are mis-directing a lot of your frustrations to Max when it should be at the failings of the developers of DDO.

Airmax would not have banned rational madman. Even at 10 times as offensive.
This is blatantly untrue. Rationalmadman, if memory serves, was perma-banned back in 2013. He was banned and un-banned multiple times before that as well. Max is no longer invested in the site now, so yeah trolls run rampant, but he did an amazing thankless job for years sheerly out of his own personal interest. He never got a dime for moderating. 

We don't need to agree on Airmax. You like him, fine. I don't think he was a good mod. I do not need to justify that to you. And I would not divulge private conversations jus because you ask for them.
I am just saying, if you are going to make a broad statement like Max not being a good mod, and aren't willing to justify it, it's hardly a convincing case. You are here to debate you said, right? In debate is someone generally supposed to substantiate a claim they make for anyone to reasonable buy into their arguments?

I'm glad Mike isn't him.  I like this site. If you think Max is so great, go there. The site is still functioning.
This is a non-sequitur, I never argued that Max should be a mod here. Also I don't need him as a mod to enjoy a debating website. I am very good friends with him and talk to him almost daily outside of the website. My point with all of this is that I think you are kind of an "anti-Airmax" ideologue, but again you are mis-directing your anger at him. 
David
David's avatar
Debates: 92
Posts: 1,218
4
7
10
David's avatar
David
4
7
10
I've been a moderator on several forums before. Here's my suggestions;

1) Create a public moderation log

-This log informs the public as to why a specific person was banned. As an example of what this might look like, see this: https://www.mafiauniverse.com/forums/threads/137-Public-Moderation-Log.I believe this is important to be transparent with their process. Furthermore if someone is debating someone or is in a game with someone that is banned, it would be helpful to know that they were banned.

Note: While I am staff on MU, I AM NOT A MODERATOR on that site (just for emphasis).

2) Create several tiers of moderators

Global Moderators/Head Moderators:

These oversee the moderation team as well as have reign and say over the entire site and create and modify site rules as needed.

Debate Moderators

These moderators will oversee the the debate section on DA. They remove votes that do not conform to our standards (which needs to be created), delete debates that violate TOS, and can ban users from voting on debates.

Forum Moderators

These oversee the forum section of the site. They should have the ability to ban users from posting to forums, ban users from editing, lock threads, pin threads, and edit posts/threads as needed.

Site Chat Moderators

Site chat moderators will oversee the live chat section. They should have the ability to kick people out of the site chat and ban people who are being abusive, trolling, etc.



David
David's avatar
Debates: 92
Posts: 1,218
4
7
10
David's avatar
David
4
7
10
-->
@Lunatic
Just curious, how are you going to select mods? Will you host an election of sorts for the community to vote, or choose someone you know and trust?
I strongly advise against moderator elections. The problem with mod elections is that it just becomes a popularity contest. The most popular people on the site are not necessarily gonna be the best moderators. (Yet on the flip side, someone who is not well-liked or well-respected won't be a good moderator either).


David
David's avatar
Debates: 92
Posts: 1,218
4
7
10
David's avatar
David
4
7
10
-->
@ethang5
This site has an owner who seems ready to be the head mod. We do not need Airmax.Airmax was as biased as they came. It wasn't the spam that killed DDO, it was the trolls. Airmax was alerted to their horrendous abuse and he decided to do absolutely nothing about it.Not only that, but was generally snippy with people who were concerned about it. For years he stood by as the site died from neglect and trolls, and spent his time with his crew making movies about how terrible the religion board was.If Mike wasn't the same future as DDO, he can bring Max here. As soon as he is here as mod, trolls like dee, willows, bully, and hari, will know they will not be limited at all and they will infect the site.Already bully is here paving the place with his stupidity. You can have that. This site has done fine without Airmax. Let him stay at the site he made. We're fine.
I completely and totally agree with this. Just look at all the reviews debate.org has!
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Lunatic
Most of your post is just your opinion, which is fine, but I have the tangible record of DDO to support my point.

Of course it's just my opinion, responding to your opinion. That's what debate is. xD
My opinion is informed, as indicated by the seat site you currently can't access.

Take my challenge. DDO is still open. Go there and tell me if you think hari or bully were not ban-able behavior. If you would allow such behavior here, then we are lucky you aren't mod here
Max isn't an active mod anymore,
How do you know? He posted TODAY with his mod Airmax account.

he has no real obligation to the website, especially after the influx of spam.
Nonsense. He has an obligation as long as he accepts the position of mod.

Max was a volunteer mod and was never paid for his job,
How do you know this? But anyway, he accepted the post, so whining about the lack of pay is dishonest.

though he's put more collective work into the site than the developers by a long shot.
I never saw that. He mostly made others like whiteflame work for him.

Point is, he is no longer invested as much in what happens anymore because the site is broken and the developers refuse to fix it.
Airmax is still mod of DDO.

Whatever's happened over the last couple months on the site behavior wise, max has taken much less notice or care of.
I know. Which is why he should have resigned and let someone who wanted to work, work.

I personally don't know either of those members or the behavior you are referring to, because you haven't posted any links, but it's a lot less likely for something to be done about their behavior now then it was before the influx of spam increased to the point of making the site virtually unuseable.
Dude! I'm talking about starting from 2 years ago.

If their behaviors are as toxic as you say, and this was brought up to him when the site was working more functionally, there is a good chance he would have looked into the situation and done something about it.
Completely untrue. I was not the only person who brought it up to him. The site was working. He called a filthy racist "problematic" and did absolutely nothing. Not even a "cut it out". No one asked him to ban anyone. 

I have known Max presumably a lot longer than you have, and I think other members who know well him would vouch that he would always look objectively into any situation back when the site was working.
I doubt you've known him longer, but it matters not. He was a poor mod, and our present situation is the culmination of his ennui and incompetence.

You are mis-directing a lot of your frustrations to Max when it should be at the failings of the developers of DDO.
Both of them share fault. Max was the head mod. My blame on him is objective, correct, and supported by the sad state of affairs.

Airmax would not have banned rational madman. Even at 10 times as offensive.
This is blatantly untrue. Rationalmadman, if memory serves, was perma-banned back in 2013. He was banned and un-banned multiple times before that as well
If he was permabanned, how was he on the site yesterday? Several people on the site now make RM seem like a priest. You have no clue what you're talking about.

Max is no longer invested in the site now, so yeah trolls run rampant, but he did an amazing thankless job for years sheerly out of his own personal interest.
Trolls have run wild for more than 2 years. And no one forced him to take the job. He was a terribly poor mod.

We don't need to agree on Airmax. You like him, fine. I don't think he was a good mod. I do not need to justify that to you. And I would not divulge private conversations jus because you ask for them.

I am just saying, if you are going to make a broad statement like Max not being a good mod, and aren't willing to justify it, it's hardly a convincing case.
If the troll and spam eaten site doesn't convince you, nothing will.

You are here to debate you said, right? In debate is someone generally supposed to substantiate a claim they make for anyone to reasonable buy into their arguments?
The dead site is my substantiation. This thread full of ragged DDO refugees is my substantiation.

I'm glad Mike isn't him.  I like this site. If you think Max is so great, go there. The site is still functioning.
This is a non-sequitur, I never argued that Max should be a mod here. Also I don't need him as a mod to enjoy a debating website. I am very good friends with him and talk to him almost daily outside of the website.
I highly doubt this. No one had contact with him for ages, not even juggle.

My point with all of this is that I think you are kind of an "anti-Airmax" ideologue, but again you are mis-directing your anger at him. 

OK. And I think you are one of those people too easily influenced by a little power. A hanger on.

But we are allowed to disagree. I just think the current condition of DDO supports my opinion much better than yours.


bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
Pretty much what Harder said at the top of the thread. Also +1 the thread-pinning thing.

The forum moderator should be free to discipline members, including by issuing bans (temp and perma) and restraining orders. The mod should also be free to contrive new, reasonable methods of discipline when dealing with special cases (e.g. telling a fractious religion forum user not to post in the religion forum for a month, particularly if the user is only a problem in that forum).

The mod should have the right to delete posts, threads, debates, and votes. There should be voting standards that the mods can enforce; the ones currently in use on DDO are, in general, quite good (at least IMHO). There should be a clearly spelled out code of conduct that members should follow (see this thread, posts 7-9, for what I am talking about re: voting and conduct: http://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/56116/). This code of conduct should constitute a powerful guideline for mods to follow.

Bans of any kind should never be put to a user vote. Trials on sites like these are simply kangaroo courts that act more like popularity contests than fair means of redressing grievances and determining appropriate courses of action.

Mods should be able to obtain new powers or clarify existing ones by going through a community discussion and consent process similar to the DERP process that Max has implemented previously. That being said, the aforementioned powers (disciplining members, deleting posts, threads, debates, and votes) should always be the mods exclusive purview and not subject to community review. Though, the rules on what constitutes "bannable content" should be up for debate within limits (obviously, even there are lines there that should never be crossed, even if the community supports crossing them, e.g. mercilessly hounding someone with calls for them to commit suicide, serious and habitual personal attacks, etc.).
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
Pretty much what Harder said at the top of the thread. Also +1 the thread-pinning thing.The forum moderator should be free to discipline members, including by issuing bans (temp and perma) and restraining orders. The mod should also be free to contrive new, reasonable methods of discipline when dealing with special cases (e.g. telling a fractious religion forum user not to post in the religion forum for a month, particularly if the user is only a problem in that forum).

The mod should have the right to delete posts, threads, debates, and votes. There should be voting standards that the mods can enforce; the ones currently in use on DDO are, in general, quite good (at least IMHO). There should be a clearly spelled out code of conduct that members should follow (see this thread, posts 7-9, for what I am talking about re: voting and conduct: http://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/56116/). This code of conduct should constitute a powerful guideline for mods to follow.Bans of any kind should never be put to a user vote.

Trials on sites like these are simply kangaroo courts that act more like popularity contests than fair means of redressing grievances and determining appropriate courses of action. Similarly, once a mod is appointed, they should be shielded to some degree from the whims of users. We should not be able to vote mods in and out of modship, otherwise mods will make unfair or inappropriate rulings in order to curry favor with the voters in order to stay in office. That said, if a mod is clearly and egregiously abusing or misusing their authority, the site owner should be prepared to remove them from the position. But, the site owner must be careful not to remove a mod simply because they made an unpopular decision--the site owner must understand that a mod can only be removed if a pattern of severe, inexcusable, and ongoing abuses of mod power occur. Mostly, the mods should just be left alone to do their job. Some complaints, esp. after unpopular decisions, are inevitable, and we mustn't defrock a mod on such a tenuous justification.

Mods should be able to obtain new powers or clarify existing ones by going through a community discussion and consent process similar to the DERP process that Max has implemented previously. That being said, the aforementioned powers (disciplining members, deleting posts, threads, debates, and votes) should always be the mod or mods' exclusive purview and not subject to community review. Though, the rules on what constitutes "bannable/punishable content" should be up for debate within limits (obviously, even there there are lines there that should never be crossed, even if the community supports crossing them, e.g. mercilessly hounding someone with calls for them to commit suicide, serious and habitual personal attacks, etc.).

For a site like this, I would recommend a team of two mods, with one being the chief/senior mod. I would suggest that for any individual to be perma-banned or temp-banned for more than 3 months, both mods would have to agree. For temp-bans of 3 months or less, I think it would be sufficient for the chief mod to approve them on his/her own.
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
My second post was an edit of my original post.
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 483
2
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
2
2
6
-->
@bsh1
Good post.

Before we do appoint mods though, I think a formal rule system of some sort should come first... 
Smithereens
Smithereens's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 502
2
2
4
Smithereens's avatar
Smithereens
2
2
4
-->
@ethang5
Airmax spent all day closing down spam accounts until the incident where all the inactive bots started posting all at the same time. It was beyond his powers to stop. The site would've died long before without Airmax.

On the subject of trolls, it's up to you to host civilised conversation with your fellow members. I've seen some of the flame wars that went down and in every case, you were the one who wasn't restraining yourself or staying civil. Atheists have a right to disagree, mock, ridicule or otherwise attack your beliefs. If you get angry, you start a flame war that doesn't have to happen.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Smithereens
Dodging my challenge only shows you have no case. Tell me if Hari's behavior is acceptable to you.

If you can't take a stand now, please spare me the opinion.

Smithereens
Smithereens's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 502
2
2
4
Smithereens's avatar
Smithereens
2
2
4
-->
@ethang5
Hari does nothing ban worthy. We literally have a ToS on DDO to tell members when something will result in a ban, and he stays in the rules.  
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@ethang5
I'm not acquainted with the situation with Hari and DDO, but I can say that this Smithereens person you're arguing with has already shown that he enables/engages in troll behaviour.

For example, I've seen Smithereens try to double down on facts. Initially, he claimed Australia was a "majority secular country". I took two minutes to check Census data, in order to prove him wrong (for the record, Australia is roughly 60% Christian). He ended up saying that I have the "maturity of a toddler", I'm an "edgy teen" and that I'm a narcissist (lol). That's one of many examples I have. (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/12?page=3).

Personally, I think that extends from his know-it-all attitude, wherein if he is proven wrong, he seems compelled to create a mess. It's not surprising that, if you did encounter troll behaviour on DDO (whether from Hari or whoever), that Smithereens would be defending such behaviour, given how he conducts himself here.
David
David's avatar
Debates: 92
Posts: 1,218
4
7
10
David's avatar
David
4
7
10
-->
@DebateArt.com
Just a question: If someone is banned while they are in the middle of a debate, should it be possible for the debate to be reset or auto resigned? 

I think having a "resign debate" feature would also be nice. That way they don't have to wait several days for the next few rounds to be forfeited. 
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Smithereens
Then you are either illiterate, blind or a racist.

Invite him here, or better, fetch one of his race posts and post it here. If what you say is true, there should be no problem.


bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@triangle.128k
It might be helpful to have mods moderate a discussion on what the rules should be. Besides, the rules won't help us choose the mods. The mods should be chosen on their character. That said, it isn't particularly important in which order those things are done, so long as both are done relatively soon and relatively close together.
David
David's avatar
Debates: 92
Posts: 1,218
4
7
10
David's avatar
David
4
7
10
-->
@bsh1
I just started a seperate thread about the site rules/TOS
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@triangle.128k
Also, thanks. Glad someone thought it was good after the time I spent writing it ;P
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@David
Cool.