Total posts: 3,773
-->
@Undefeatable
Condense and summarize. It's a lot easier if you are the contender.
I outlined some basics at:
Created:
On a personal note, it doesn't matter if crimes against humanity far worse than anything we can imagine were not quite as horrible as we presume. They were still horrible beyond our ability to imagine, and the perpetrators were objectively evil.
To use an analogy, having your fingernails pulled out doesn't hurt nearly as much as you would imagine before it happens, yet that something is less awful, doesn't make it a positive experience.
Created:
***
A thread like this is cutting right on the line of what the CoC allows, but does not seem to quite be crossing it. If later posts cross the line, please report them.
From the CoC:
Violence and Criminal Behavior
From the OP:
Firstly, I'd like to say that I don't condone slavery and I actively will speak out against it. However, in regards to the slavery conditions of the United States, slaves were treated quite well, relative to the bogus official narrative peddled in U.S. schools.
A thread like this seems intended to stir controversy leveraging the backfire effect, but at least from that first post it is not crossing the line into any obvious CoC violations (even if probably everyone in the moderation team disdains said post).
-Ragnar, DM
***
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
What are your thoughts on intelligent design vs unintelligent design?
Created:
Posted in:
Date: 11/28/2020
Moderator: Ragnar
BrotherDThomas has been banned 26 days.
Repeatedly and malicious violations of the harassment rule within the CoC. Including obsessive attempts to derail unrelated topics with impertinent grudges, and the worrisome behavior of taking screenshots of someones profiles over time to use in off topic mocking if they change anything.
The length is informed by the previous warnings and bans, but mitigated by the spirit of Christmas.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
It's an ugly one, but I meant #22. Sorry for the confusion. When handling so many reports, numbers get crossed sometimes. The above post is now corrected to say 22 instead of 20.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Thank you!
What bothers me is when people just assume it's the same as Facebook or something, and complain that they saw something they disliked so it somehow must be a CoC violation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
This exact thing is occurring in multiple threads involving them. Unless I'm mistaken, the topic in this one is supposed to be the mistreatment of daughters in the bible, not modern day gender politics.
From the CoC:
"Targeted harassment of any member prohibited, ... obsessive attempts to derail unrelated topics with impertinent grudges."
Sure, inside a conversation here is someone claims to be the pope while also serving on the US supreme court, mock them for it at the place it occurs. Light callbacks can be too much to resist. There is a world of difference between that, and what at the lightest of skimming seems to involve someone being stalked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
A character from Dungeons and Dragons... Basically a stand in for Gandalf: https://www.cbr.com/dungeons-dragons-greatest-wizard-elminster/
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
@BrotherDThomas
***
Regarding a few troubling posts here, particularly #110
If anyone ever feels the need to take historical screenshots of other peoples profiles to do analysis later, you are probably being way too focused on that person. If you feel the need to do that, it's probably time to take a break from interaction with that person.
I am unlocking this thread, but measures to address the problem are being undertaken elsewhere.
-Ragnar, DM
***
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
@BrotherDThomas
***
Regarding #40
If anyone ever feels the need to take historical screenshots of other peoples profiles to do analysis later, you are probably being way too focused on that person. If you feel the need to do that, it's probably time to take a break from interaction with that person.
-Ragnar, DM
***
Created:
***
Yes, sometimes a history with a user comes up unavoidably, like if someone is basically spamming threads of the same topic we're not going to intercede against someone pointing it out... but the level of obsessing over them to have that list of links, plus the vileness of the related descriptions... it crosses a line that I had hoped would be obvious by now.
Everyone, please don't behave like that.
-Ragnar, DM
***
Created:
Posted in:
***
This thread has spiraled into a seriously bad direction. It is locked for review, and to ensure things don't get any worse...
Toxic Threads:Some threads act like they’ve caught a disease. If a thread in general gets too vitriolic, moderators are likely to take the following actions against the thread:
- Place a general warning inside it against the most problematic behavior(s).
- Lock the thread for a minimum of 24 hours.
Users within may or may not be punished, as it is contextually understood that negative feedback loops happen without malevolence.Such threads may be unlocked by request (message any moderator). If unlocked, any resumed CoC violations will be treated more seriously, and if the negative feedback loop resumes the thread will be locked permanently.
-Ragnar, DM
***
Created:
is racist hate speech or something of the sort banned from the forums?
The related rule is as follows:
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
@Crocodile
@BearMan
@MgtowDemon
***
tl;dr: The CoC makes no requirement of people being nice to each other.
...
First, a few people here should review the following thread: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4572-etiquette-expectations
Second, the same people should probably review the pitfalls elaborated to so very well on South Park: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h33OOA7ZgE
Third, The CoC is available at: https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/rules
I put a lot of work into this document. Some things people are surprised it excludes, it excludes intentionally (yes you can troll, no we don't want to add clauses outright encouraging trolling). Other things are worded with lots of qualifiers for precise reasons, like "Unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives" is kinda a catch for certain types of people who just jump into threads with streams of near mindless profanity (to which I am seeing no one in this thread committing, as much as I have not read every post), whereas lower level constant harassment of any one person across several threads is caught by the targeted harassment rule (basically if someone makes it obvious they're stalking you, moderation is authorized to intervene... it is very rare for it to go that far).
-Ragnar, DM
***
Created:
Posted in:
***
This thread has spiraled into a seriously bad direction. It is locked for review, and to ensure things don't get any worse...
Toxic Threads:Some threads act like they’ve caught a disease. If a thread in general gets too vitriolic, moderators are likely to take the following actions against the thread:
- Place a general warning inside it against the most problematic behavior(s).
- Lock the thread for a minimum of 24 hours.
Users within may or may not be punished, as it is contextually understood that negative feedback loops happen without malevolence.Such threads may be unlocked by request (message any moderator). If unlocked, any resumed CoC violations will be treated more seriously, and if the negative feedback loop resumes the thread will be locked permanently.
-Ragnar, DM
***
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Are you handling reports to your own forum posts?
See #43. The ruling on how to handle it was not decided by me.
Is my report function completely removed or am I blind? I see like and reply and that is it.
It is ever so slightly possible you have lost your quick report privileges. If it's a concern, you should check your PMs for some reason why. If no message about such from a core moderator is there, then please message one of us to troubleshoot the problem.
It is also pretty cringe to make CoC violations public,
CoC violations are made public by the offenders doing them in public... However, when addressing them we usually first try light handed PMs, before slowly escalating if the problems continue.
Created:
I don’t read the majority of his debates, but it is still rare. Even more so with three stacked up on that one.
Created:
Posted in:
And as a site user, in response to whomever reported my post...
If you have not read the CoC, read it! Particularly that part that states: "criticising statements within an ongoing discussion, is fair game."
If you have read it but don't know what words mean, do yourself a huge favor and take an adult basic literacy class.
RM has repeatedly alternated between denying the very existence of those posts authored by RM, claiming I fabricated them, and of course taking pride basically claiming that since he's so amazing it doesn't count as a CoC violation when he wantonly violates the CoC.
I'm well within my rights to mock his choice to do that, particularly when he's intentionally violating the targeted harassment rule via making obsessive attempts to derail unrelated topics with impertinent grudges.
Created:
Posted in:
***
Regarding: #28
But how can we know if RM wrote his above posts, or if Ragnar secretly fabricated them? 🤯🤯🤯Maybe RM can imbed some secret code in all his posts, something like a username, to verify which ones he wrote and which Ragnar made up?
As I am the author, I passed judgement along to anyone in the moderation channel. I outright offer to ban myself if that's what anyone there deemed appropriate. This was the only response:
The fact it's a sarcastic diss in of itself pretty much disqualifies it from being a CoC violation. You would have to be pretty brazen to cross the line into harassment in my book.-MisterChris
-Ragnar, DM
***
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
***
Various reports for this thread have been marked handled, with no action taken against the authors of the offending posts.
Various reports for this thread have been marked handled, with no action taken against the authors of the offending posts.
Jokes are not banned by the CoC.
While there is a no impersonation rule, it literally clearifies "in a manner that is either intended to or likely to deceive others." if you feel you're that gullible, we double it up with a clarifying statement under consequences: "In most cases, a “reasonable person” standard will be utilized."
-Ragnar, DM
***
Created:
Posted in:
With more votes going on, those side points could serve as tie breakers. As is, they can be very helpful in spotting overwhelmingly biased votes... But yeah, being so busy with other things, I am far less interested in them than I once was.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
I'm always good to be a replacement, but I just started a new job, so really can't be properly dedicated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Regarding #159
This is an example of a post which really should not have been reported.
Nothing in the CoC prohibits sharing of information, even information anyone might disagree with (save for if it was calling for violence of something else dangerous.
This is a space intentionally for disputing ideas.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@3RU7AL
@oromagi
tl;dr: Please keep the topic(s) as the center of attention, instead of each other.
...
Apologies for the delay, I've been insanely busy with RL...
Regarding #160
For reference, here are parts of the CoC which I believe may relate to concerns...
Extravagant lies, not to be confused with mere context issues, may rise to the level of constituting impersonation.
I do believe there are context issues, but not extravagant lies. FYI, that part of the CoC was put in place for bizarre over the top slander, not mere misrepresentation (again, we put in "not to be confused with mere context issues" for good reason).
Targeted harassment of any member prohibited, as is inciting others to do so at your behest. This includes wishing or hoping that someone and/or their loved ones experiences physical harm.
The second part I certainly hope has not come up in anything related to this, but it serves dual purpose in suggesting a certain magnitude. As an example, Sean Connery certainly crosses the line with on SNL (notice the frequency of drifting off topic... key flaw in this example is that he is directly invited each time).
Creating threads to call-out specific users qualifies as targeted harassment, as does obsessive attempts to derail unrelated topics with impertinent grudges. However, criticising statements within an ongoing discussion, is fair game.
Added bold for emphasis on two points. Over the line harassment is often identified with the derailing thing; which isn't to say people cannot have grudges. Further this is a debate site, therefore so long as it's staying on topic disagreements are usually encouraged. If in doubt, so long as the ideas are the focus instead of who said them, it should be safe territory. There's also a pinned thread at the top of this forum, due to the expectation that political talk gets more ugly than most (we expect to have to lock threads, thankfully it's been awhile without that...).
If a member politely requests that you leave them alone, do so. Repeated failure to comply, is a clear aggravating factor regarding the content of said posts.
So here's the big one... If someone asks you to leave them alone, and you choose to not comply, over the line misconduct is looked at more harshly. It ties into the whole reasonable person standard. In essence, when another user has made said request, future engagements with them should be understood to be treading on thin ice. Going back to the SNL example, Trebek and Connery could still attend the same party and at it get pulled into the same conversation, but if Connery then starts into random insults it's considered a lot worse than had he no idea the other person had a problem (some friends joke around with each other, I've had to delete so many reports when some third party is traumatized by the sight of this...). At the same time, without things having risen to the point of an RO, if Trebek spotted Connery at said party and charged him preemptively, Trebek would be the one in the wrong.
Consequences for violations include:
So RO's do happen. Someone jumps on things every time your name is mentioned to throw off topic insults, that is a clear case showing the need for it. Usually things don't escalate that far.
...
All that said, unless anyone has gotten truly vile, please try to understand elevated emotions during the election. Presumably we all want what's best for America, but just have different ideas for which path is optimal. Please try to remember that of each other, even if that will forever create a divide.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
Pretty much what Intelligence said. The high frequency of abuse causes it be against the rules.
That said, when we made the new CoC we directly opened up the option for special dispensation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Less busy than Inwas, but still very busy through Saturday, and after that I’ll be starting a new job, so I can’t say if I’ll be able to be active enough.
Still if a replacement is needed, you can always count on me for that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Ragnar Passes Ramshutu to become the Number One VoterBy Conspi TheoRagnar passed Ramshutu’s record of 634 votes to become the number one voter on DART. At the time of this writing, he has reached a jaw-dropping 644 votes. However, all is not as it seems. Just nine days ago, he removed two votes on a debate. This slip-up exposes the reality behind his “record”: he’s achieved it by abusing his powers as a moderator to remove others’ votes. Why, you ask? Because he wants to appear as though he’s doing everyone on the site a great service with his votes, when he’s really a corrupt tyrant! He only got to first place by removing everyone else’s votes because he wanted all the credit for himself! In fact, he probably didn’t even write his own votes. That one time he removed those votes is proof that he is too lazy to actually vote enough to take the record, and being lazy is proof that he hasn’t written his own votes. The conclusion is unavoidable: Ragnar has been removing other people’s votes and copy-pasting their RFDs as his own. This completely speculative, baseless argument is unassailable proof of his corruption. Join me in my brave stand against this villain by doing absolutely nothing beyond complaining in contexts where I’m absolutely certain he won’t do anything about it. Together, we can stop this corruption!Conspi Theo is a biblical scholar and scientist who lives on his own in the West Virginia forests, where he spends his time attempting to track down new, large, bipedal species of apes. When he isn’t researching, he operates a business that sells custom items made of tinfoil, including a wildly popular series of hats.
All true! Additionally, I totally banned everyone who was close to beating Ram's record before me!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Annoyingly, it is only one way.
You can block me, and while I will not be able to tag you, you will still be able to tag me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
I’ll be insanely busy for the next week or two.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
SirAnon, or myself are both willing to vote strictly by your special rules for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Save for that ranking system (N/received/granted), this idea can easily be handled with electing a judge to just vote based on the scores they gave each other. Which would be a fine way to test it out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
It feels kinda good. I know it won’t last, but with how long Ram’s been gone, finally slugging past his records is a nice milestone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
What are the theists' opinions on this?
Both extremes are stupid. As is the third extreme both groups commit of making up stuff they want the bible to say to put people down.
The bible is flawed. It need not be nitpicked with a fine tooth comb. Shitheads will use it or any other excuse to justify their evil, but such is not the fault of said excuses, it comes from their all too human evil (and occasional lack of souls).
The bible likewise should not be taken literally and simultaneously declared infallible. To do so, as I pointed out in another thread, leads to comedic things like men impregnating each other; or horrible things like God mind controlling Pharaoh as an excuse to kill innocent children and animals (still, God must really hate frogs for some odd reason).
at the time the bible is written, those foods are unclean, which, if you eat it, will make you sick, thus live a subpar life.
Having studied biblical history at university, it's more of a happy coincidence with some foods (which yes, connects to cultural Darwinism), but utterly senseless with others. It seems to have been instigated just to have another way to apply otherness.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
To me that really sounds a lot like further rejection of tribal ethics. Which yes, leads to arbitrary assignment of otherness with tangible harmful consequences.Thought crimes.
How is that not tribal ethics? The student in question marked themselves as possessing otherness, so was attacked by her classmates and teacher for everything that had she not made the social media post would have been just fine, but because she's part of the wrong tribe everything about her must be evil (including apparently race-mixing, which through the lense of tribal ethics is evil for being so non-liberal?).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Thanks! And thank you for debating, without quality debates, there would be no purpose to being here.
Created:
Posted in:
But how can we know if RM wrote his above posts, or if Ragnar secretly fabricated them? 🤯🤯🤯
Maybe RM can imbed some secret code in all his posts, something like a username, to verify which ones he wrote and which Ragnar made up?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Your continued trouble coming to terms with whether or not you wrote the things you posted (you're now claiming I fabricated them), is quite interesting. I wish you the very best of luck with that.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
@Lemming
@Dr.Franklin
@MisterChris
@SirAnonymous
Thanks everyone for the votes of confidence in my voting!
Created:
-->
@seldiora
While I regret having held RM to a double standard for so long, I do not regret banning him for his many CoC violations.
As for the debate challenge: As I've mentioned elsewhere, I would not accept that debate without RM's consent.
The shared BoP stated in the full description, would have made it a very easy win for me. All I'd have needed to do is link a few RM posts proving any length of ban was justified, whereas the con side in it would be trying to prove he never violated the CoC at all. The evidence would have made con maintaining BoP impossible:
I am a little confused on exactly what Ragnar believes are the justification for, beyond a reasonable doubt, that RM has indeed definitively broken DART rules of conduct, enough for a 40 day ban. BOP is on pro, I will ask questions and clarify the reasons as the Forum discussion was really messy.
Pro: RM should have been banned for breaking DART ROC, beyond reasonable doubt
Con: RM is not guilty in breaking DART ROC
RM: Rational_Madman
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
A recent example of targeted harassment against voters: complaining with obscenities and drama that someone's vote was not automatically deleted for being against himI will admit that my first vote was done too hastily and I had to reread it. The quality of my vote was not up to any standard. It is merely that RM's reaction was phrased in a way that seemed off putting to those who didn't know. After re-judging I changed my mind on who won the argument. Therefore, I will argue that RM was justified, even with minor profanity. He insulted the vote, not the person. This is not to blame.
Saying that him lashing out and demanding that votes against him be preemptively deleted without review was justified, is a neat opinion to have. However, the big thing that concerns me is the behavioral trend of it, particularly as it relates to his repeated attempts to badger the moderation team into being tools for his many vendettas. So yes, at some point he's going to get slapped and the wrist and told no...
FYI, by discussing those posts you are either calling him a liar or insane, since he insists it's "pure lies" that he wrote any of those things.
Ragnar interprets RM's sarcasm as "doxxing", which raises eyebrows about Ragnar's ability to understand RM.
While the doxing incident was not severe and so long ago, RM was not born yesterday. His history of bad decisions when it comes to obsessively fixating on people, given that it has continued, is a relevant factor of consideration to renewed CoC violations. Kinda like in criminal court, a first time offender is treated differently than a career criminal.
...The resulting insult battle between Mikal and RM are arguably equal faulted for each, as a toxic conversation cannot happen without both participants. His vague threat of "it will backfire" is hardly reaching levels of outright saying he has mod levels of power.
Mikal was also banned. And RM making up stories about a third person who was not even there committing criminal grifting, is not some minor insult that "cannot happen without both participants" given that it indeed happened without said person being there. By making the choice to do this, it crossed a clear line which alone necessitated moderation intervention.
The only thing left is his sole contention about Ramshutu, which RM apologized for.
I addressed the doxxing threat above, and that was far from the only thing left...
The targeted harassment: "This one goes on endlessly. Claiming victim to the moderation team regularly via insisting roughly half the active user base are bullying him; while regularly being the instigator of conflict and following people around complaining at them obsessively."
There is justification beyond a reasonable doubt for a few days a ban. Maybe even two weeks, for harsh language. But to double that final idea is a questionable action, and confusing to me. Yes, RM's wording could be better, but it seems to me most of his "faults" did not seem to justify 40 days.
It most likely would have been one month in light of his apologies and a couple charges being dropped, had RM himself not chosen to launch a protest against the length decreasing (it was still decreased significantly from the original).
The exact length of punishment is of course debatable, but his many times repeated choice to violate the CoC is all but self evident.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
Sorry for the delay, I'm busy IRL.
For reference, here is the ban log on it:
Date: 08/12/2020Moderator: Joint DecisionRationalMadman has been banned for 6-weeks. This is primarily due to the following..."Targeted harassment of any member prohibited, as is inciting others to do so at your behest."This one goes on endlessly. Claiming victim to the moderation team regularly via insisting roughly half the active user base are bullying him; while regularly being the instigator of conflict and following people around complaining at them obsessively.A recent example of targeted harassment against voters: complaining with obscenities and drama that someone's vote was not automatically deleted for being against him. This further doubles as low level vote tampering, via informing any other potential voters what to expect if voting against him; while insisting in the vote request thread that they've troll voted (implying it needs a counter vote in his favor, when their questionable vote already is) https://www.debateart.com/debates/2114-god-does-not-exist?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=12 (note, this was posted within minutes of the vote in question, denying any possibility for the admin team to review and delete it).A recent example of targeted harassment via the forms (this incident has since been apologized for, mitigating the crime but not absolving the pattern): Derailing a thread with insults rising to the level of extravagant made up stories about users basically because they played board games without him. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4593-static-live-mafia-on-fridays?page=1&post_number=2Out of nowhere accusing a former member of criminal grifting (which has also since been apologized for).---Per the consequences section of the CoC: "The specific consequence will depend on the severity and frequency of the violations, along with user history, context, and other relevant factors"His history is somewhat of a mine field in an oasis. An oasis because he is indeed an immeasurably valuable contributor (which is largely why bans did not come down much sooner), and yet also someone who almost routinely get obsessed with one person or another and engage in targeted harassment; in which he constantly victimizes himself.The following two items, while not adding to the length of the ban, do imply the need for some penalty."Multi-accounting and any action indistinguishable from it is prohibited."Technically forgiven, but still of note with recent complaints of it not being more rewarded (over a dozen debates from an obvious fake account to give free wins were deleted)."Doxing is strictly forbidden. Without their express permission, you may not post, threaten to post, nor encourage others to post, anyone’s private or identifying information no matter how it was obtained."Threatening to dox another user: While this is from a while ago, it does feed into history of poor decisions, particularly as related to being fixated on certain people.Whereas mitigating factors to decrease the length include him apologizing for some recent key issues, and even one of the people he was recently engaging in targeted harassment against essentially requested he be pardoned. At the same time, he responded to being informed the length was decreasing in light of his apologies with pure vitriol.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
To me that really sounds a lot like further rejection of tribal ethics. Which yes, leads to arbitrary assignment of otherness with tangible harmful consequences.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
re: #69
My personal test is simple.If the individual person accusing someone of being a racist would not hate him even a tiny bit less were he to actually be non-racist, then the charge is absolute bullshit and a cover for the other reasons why that individual hates a person.At that point, it just descends into the realm of "yo-momma" slurs and taunts.Particularly look at the 1:35 mark of the video.There are people out there that would stand to lose a lot, both financially and with the status of their peers were they to even question if Trump were a racist.Do these opinions even matter?
Sounds like your standard is just a rejection of tribal ethics (which color of necktie, then decide if all good or all evil based on shared affiliation or otherness).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mikal
Seems to also be an organized way to play Among Us with friends.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Wow! So much awkward! So much wow!
Created: