We are long overdue on a guide for interpreting the code of conduct on the site. A link to the code of conduct can found here https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/rules . This guide is intended to guide the site on a reasonable interpretation of the rules, so misunderstandings can be avoided in the future. It is also intended to help moderators remain consistent and show consistency in moderating policy.
I will be skipping the parts least up for interpretation.
User Accounts
"You may not use hateful, harassing, or obscene language or imagery in your username or avatar."
No nude pics unless they are artistic, no words in the avatar image such as "Wylted is a cuck" as a recent example. That would also fall under harassing language as the avatar or username was directed at a specific user, I would also advise against avatars that contain gruesome imagery such as dismembered bodies or fecal matter.
Hateful language would include clear racial slurs not borderline cases, derogatory and provably untrue statements such as "All white people are racist" or "Gypsy killer" or "Jews killedJesus" are forbidden, though defending those beliefs in a debate or by offering premises in threads that defend those positions are fine. We are not looking to thought police you, we are looking to disprove you here.
Authenticity
"Extravagant lies, not to be confused with mere context issues, may rise to the level of constituting impersonation"
extravagant lies, would constitute situations such as where you may claim to be an actual doctor and start giving dangerous medical advice. Perhaps it would be a situation where you are pretending to have inside information you don't possess, such as being a political aide and claiming that a nuke is about to hit the United States in 3 hours. These sorts of things are what is intended by the extravagant lie clause and it is not intended to be used as an excuse for other situations that don't fall neatly into the COC. For those situations I would encourage mods to either alter the COC or post "other" as the reasoning for the ban and give context.
Harassment
"You may not threaten or promote violence against any person or persons, barring hyperbole against public figures (e.g., “all politicians should be shot”). Advocacy in favor of terrorism and/or violent extremism, especially as related to hate groups as generally defined by the SPLC, is likewise prohibited."
The SPLC statement should be ignored, it is a link to an FAQ about hate groups with no definition offered, and clearly advocating the views of hate groups is acceptable. The very nature of a debate site is we are looking for a wide range of views and people to debate.
This sentence is properly interpreted to mean you are not to advocate for terrorist actions. No advising people to bomb buildings, though a debate explaining why it is a acceptable to take such actions is fine and hopefully allowing that talks somebody off an edge one day. You are not to advocate for extremist violence though if you are a terrorist or a violent extremist you are welcome to debate your views. Though not explicitly stated, promoting extremism through recruitment or advertising is not acceptable.
"You may not promote or encourage suicide or self harm."
Again this is not to be taken to mean you can't advocate for euthanasia. It means you can't go around encouraging individuals or groups to kill themselves. A debate entitle "The user known as X should kill himself" would also be off the table as well. If you are suicidal, we will not consider it a promotion of suicide to reach out on the site for help.
"You may not share any content from private messages, without the consent of the respective authors; or with moderator approval (such as for dispute resolution)."
There has been some misunderstanding here as well. Essentially no copy and pasting of a PM or sharing screenshots. Statements such as bringing up the rough outline of what was talked about in a PM is fine, this occurs all the time on the site in the mafia games for example, but please use good judgement and allow people to trust that they can communicate privately with you.
Objectionable Content
"Unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech, are subject to disciplinary actions."
We are all adults here or people mature enough to handle a bit of vulgarity. The hate speech here isn't about thought policing. It is specifically about group identified attacks. Here is 3 examples of acceptable topics that are close to being considered hate speech, followed by 3 that would be considered hate speech.
borderline
- The holocaust didn't happen or was over exaggerated
- 5 reasons White people should be sterilized
- Black people commit a disproportionate amount of crime
hate speech
- black's should be exterminated
- Chinks need to stop spreading the flu
- Native American's got what they deserved with small pox
I will say what is covered in this rule is personal attacks. I did plan on seeing if I can work with the mods to cut that down because I think the COC would make personal attacks a bannable offense, but that clearly would mean personal attacks that are considered ad hominem.
An example of an ad hominem attack would be something such as "homo's can't speak intelligently on abortion". A similar statement which is not an ad hominem would be "homos should not speak about abortion because their opinions are usually going to be informed by Ivory tower thinking". Both statements are fallacious but only one qualifies as a personal attack.
In general most insults that are backed by stated premises are usually okay. Debaters by their very nature are very logical and expose their ideals to debate because they seek self improvement. We have thick skin, and will often use the hard truth to improve ourselves or explain to you why your insult was stupid.
In general debates can get heated and the line between what will get you banned can occasionally bend to allow for heated exchanges, but the rules will not be allowed to bend too far or too often.
Conclusion
The rest of the COC touches on points irrelevant to the rules about enforcement. If you are curious about how enforcement works please click the link at top, and read through the entire COC.
The moderation team took no part in creating this document, but this is the interpretation of the COC, I find to be correct and that I am urging the moderation team to use the interpretation. They seem to be already doing this to a large extent, but the community should see this interpretation if they have a hard time comprehending the rules.
