Total posts: 3,773
Posted in:
I just fixed the broken links in the HoF.
While warranted nominations are not required, they are very useful. We can then use the best of those to explain in the HoF why something is being celebrated. Incidentally, people are of course welcome to submit descriptions for the old ones which never received any (or even updates for ones which did).
In case anyone is curious about the Misc category being added, it is to prevent another case of someone's balls being snuck in as if they were a thread or a debate, while taking away a spot from said category (yes, this actually happened).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
In the votes tab on debates, please re-enable the ability to select ✗'s and ✔'s
Copy/pasting votes without data loss is useful.
Created:
-->
@simplybeourselves
Your argument is they are hypocrites for not rising perfectly to a do no harm lifestyle. This does not invalidate the decreased harm they do over the course of a lifetime by giving up consumption of animal products.
Granted, that some vegans are not true vegans is true for other reasons, but again, they are still working toward doing better, which is admirable.
As for vegetarians who consume meat... Yeah, it's a little weird that they want to call themselves vegetarian, instead of just proclaiming being on a no red meat diet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I think this round all has charter schools as the topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BearMan
I do understand. I suggested a bit of a failsafe being available.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BearMan
It could double as that. We don't have enough active voters to make it meaningful, but it would allow the possibility of someone else stepping in should either judge get unexpectedly busy.
By the way, what will you do in the event of a tie?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
@MisterChris
@Crocodile
@Intelligence_06
Looks like I've been nominated to judge your debates.
I should probably write my own, but a really good judging paradigm to review is Ram's:
Judging Paradigm:I make it my goal to vote on 100% of debates.Conduct: repeated petulance, name-calling, dishonesty, or forfeits will garner a deduction.S&G: Penalization for S&G bad enough that it impedes my understanding of your argument - minor typos are okay, but noticeable errors that prevent the argument scanning will garner deduction.Sources: I judge sources based on how they improve the warrant for core claims. For me to award points, your sources must firmly support a key claim that is not separately warranted. Conversely you will lose source points if you don’t check your sources and they end up harming your warrant. Backing up key issues of your argument is a skill - and I view sources - and their 2 points - as more than simply selecting news articles over blog posts. One perfect source can be so impressive and well used it can win or lose this category.Arguments: Merit and warrant win over technicalities and NSDA approved terminology. This means I am more interested in whether your argument is better, rather than whether you’ve formatted, structured or replies in the right way using formal language.I am TR to a point - in that while I will not make an argument if you or your opponent doesn’t make it - I will also not give your position warrant that you do not give it yourself. This means if an argument is bad but unaddressed, I will still treat it as bad. Saying that, pure TR will award the win to the last person to post a round, thus I’ll use general rules of intuition, logic and knowledge but will not use any preconceptions on the debate resolution or the arguments you use.If an argument is obviously bad, it will be treated as such - and bad arguments will only win if your opponent is worse.My rulings are normally made on point by point wins and losses - then weighting based on argument strength. I give the benefit of the doubt in favour of the side I am interpreting: eg I will assess a dropped argument as dropped only if it is clearly not covered - if other arguments or rebuttals overlap I will not consider the argument dropped as I can’t weigh based on my interpreted intent.
Understand that I'm a business student (ok, graduated, but still job hunting...). So my training is very much to appreciate brevity (if you can expand a single sentence to fill those 30,000 words, it is probably better off as just a sentence).
I do like headings I can easy follow between rounds, as well as structure to how they're presented. I wrote that handy guide (does not need to be followed, but if it doubt on things, it's a good way to do things). I should note that if changing out your contentions, give the new ones their own numbers.
Guide: https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
And seeing it in action: me debating a bigot (you could just read my R1 preamble and my final round, and know everything of consequence).
I really don't care for excessive nitpicking and semantics. My eyes gloss over when that stuff becomes the focus of the debate, instead of the core ideas.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BearMan
Small suggestion:
Even with one judge assigned to grade a debate, the other judge and yourself should also be listed in the setup (just as a precaution). That or have that judge's ruling decide things for the tournament, but allow technically open voting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
(̶P̶l̶e̶a̶s̶e̶ ̶d̶o̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶p̶o̶l̶i̶t̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶p̶l̶e̶a̶s̶e̶ ̶d̶o̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶p̶o̶l̶i̶t̶i̶c̶a̶l̶)̶
How did you add strikethrough text?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
This thread is about you. If you want it taken down or anything, just let any moderator know.
Created:
Posted in:
I honestly had Supa in my scum pile. Outing himself as cop but never getting killed or giving useful results seemed fishy.
Created:
Posted in:
In case anyone missed it: The time was dropped from 2 months, to 42 days. As seen in the moderation log.
RM has sent me various messages about how he's going to prove he never wrote those things someone named RationalMadman wrote (it's apparently "pure lies" that he wrote that stuff), some of which he already apologized for writing...
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Could you please give me more details what looks off on a mobile device?
IMO, on a mobile device it becomes way too much at the start. On my iPhone, it's three pages of stuff before the main content (and that is for debates with "no information" as their description). The first page is basically just who the instigator is, but it's not going to be meaningful to a casual view.
I checked and it indeed looks better if holding the phone horizontal instead of vertical.
Since apparently Google is obsessed with a mobile version being available for pages, I would suggest either making them minimalistic or putting all the information prior to the debate itself into a tab on mobile devices.
Created:
Posted in:
I just had a conversation about best breeds of certain animals... The best breed of fish is a Maine Coon. They don't even need an aquarium.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
@ILikePie5
@Discipulus_Didicit
@skittlez09
***
Regarding: #21
Scum should be silenced
At risk of being a broken record: Mafia is a social deduction game with lynching as a mechanic to advance the game, and to which the players have implicitly given their informed consent by participating.
If outside of a game Ragnar, Supa, Cookie, and Pie openly made a pact to track him down in real life and silence him, even with the threat being veiled, moderation would have no choice but to intercede (likely by banning said users and calling the real police). However, in a game of Mafia the context changes the nature of the speech to not be a literal threat of harm.
To use an analogy: If you play a FPS, your avatar will probably be shot in the head. If you play Mafia, your avatar will probably be lynched or murdered in the night. That is the game players of said games have signed up to play, and may opt to leave at any time.
To be clear, Discipulus_Didicit did not file the report.
-Ragnar, DM
***
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
@Discipulus_Didicit
@WaterPhoenix
Unless there’s any results to share, would one of you mind hammering?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
Up and down the Oregon Coast. It was beautiful! I swear, every other time I'm at the coast, clouds block the sunset, but this time I got to enjoy it. Pictures do it zero justice.
Created:
Posted in:
As written in DP3 #80 from a confirmed town who had more sense than the rest of us:
Please don't do a mass claim tomorrow. Lynch Disc first thing.SUPA DON'T YOU DARE USE YOUR COP ON DISC use it on LITERALLY ANYONE ELSESomeone watch Supa if you can, or vig Disc if you can
VTL Discipulus_Didicit
Created:
Posted in:
So in order to lynch, we need all non-scum to agree to it. This could be tricky with activity levels.
Oh and I'm back from my camping trip.
Created:
Posted in:
Looks like I shouldn't delete this thread yet, as I'm getting continued PMed claims that the content of it never happened... Simultaneously that post #1 itself was the real targeted harassment, with everything else (which never happened) was defense against that vileness. 🙄
Created:
Posted in:
It does not look too good on a mobile device. I’ll compare to computer and generate ideas later.
Created:
Posted in:
Ok at the beach. The seals are beautiful.
I admit in these games I am a bit dependent on dashboards to keep track of all the claims and actions.
So did we track down oro’s gifting? DiDi was saying he got a telescope which he used to watch, and it sounds like that was confirmed yesterday?
FYI, those are almost certainly one time use abilities. A vest would not make someone bulletproof for the rest of the game.
Created:
Posted in:
Speed seems town with those possibly dying words (not positive the vote count).
Well, back to driving.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
There was a post I glanced at from Water, which I thought merited rereading, so I clicked like to make it stand out when I reread everything. Sorry for any confusion that caused.
Created:
Posted in:
Typing from my phone while en route to a camping trip...
Super and water using such a similar avatar, is causing me slight problems in that I can’t recall which I was getting a scum vibe from.
Would someone mind updating the dashboard? Here was the most recent I can find.
oromagi
ToWN State Role: DP1 important notes:
waterphoenix Utah MILLER (#11)
Bearman . .
iLikePie5 . .
Discipulus_Didicit . .
Ragnar . .
Supadudz . .
littlecookie . . Minimal check-in
Lunatic Idaho BELOVED PRINCESS Counter claimed Croc.
Speedrace . .
crocodile Idaho . Counter claimed by Lunatic
AWoL
PressF4Respect . .
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Don't feel bad about the delay on cars, since they are still improving in that time. We're starting to have some autopilots for highway driving.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@VonKlempter
I beat him on a two-round self driving cars debate. Chiefly, I thought his time table for the switch was way too fast.
Hypothetically if we engaged in the same debate today, I would still stand a good chance at winning... However, it would not be the same one, as he would have a more conservative time estimate (oh gosh, it's been 7 years... ok, maybe the same time estimate would now apply).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Even a star quarterback can be suspended.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
@BrotherDThomas
***
Regarding #203
Disagreeing with someone is not against the CoC, nor are accusations against Tolkien for all the things he imagined, nor indeed would someone defending Sauron's foreign policy.
Nor even applying their opinion of context to a mythological figures statements, as related to them having referenced old religious texts. The presumed threatened people, have all been dead for about 2000 years. To borrow a line from the user reported, and use it toward the user who filed the report: "You are grasping for straws."
---
Regarding #209
This has been reported by a third person (saying it to avoid Tradesecret being accused of having soft skin).
I'm pretty sure you're trying to be funny, but abuse of the report function was just key to a lengthy ban on someone. This is really not the time (not that there ever really is an appropriate time for that).
Also if quoting the CoC about someone in future, please trim off extra bits that are not relevant to avoid being confused with accusing the person of all of those things.
***
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
The form of the fallacy, does not guarantee it is fallacious.
As an example, an appeal to authority isn't fallacious if it's a valid authority on the topic.
Created:
Posted in:
While I think upbringing is an important influencer, I mildly disagree.
I was firmly conditioned to be an evil piece of shit Neo-Nazi, but either due to God or just a working brain capable of empathy, I rejected that even when it put me in harms way. It would be hard to get a worse upbringing, and here I am volunteering to make food deliveries during COVID.
Comparatively, my oldest brother started torturing and killing animals at a young age. I would expect him to be less horrible with a good upbringing, but I cannot imagine it outright fixing him.
Call it what you will, but for most I believe evil is a choice no matter our upbringing; yet there are some people who are for lack of a better term born without a soul.
Granted, this could be kritiked, as it's questionable if they should count as people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Thanks for checking in before work. If you haven't hammered, then I will before this hour ends.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
@everyone please say whether your PM is structured as positive things about your state and then negative things about your state or not
Mine is not structured like that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
Not really important, but I cycled to Croc, and more recently just to an unvote (it was when he was at only 3 or 4 votes).
To make things very easy without the need to verify: Unvote.
Created:
Posted in:
Date: 08/12/2020
Moderator: Joint Decision
RationalMadman 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=2
Out 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:
Posted in:
-->
@Crocodile
FYI, early on we're trying to find character claims (or state in this game), but role claims are generally avoided.
There are normal roles (vanilla), and power roles. But all are still roles, and it's useful to the scum team to identify any of them.
Let's say that all the vanillas out themselves: That then tells the Mafia who to not bother killing.
Created:
Posted in:
I am heading to the red cross to donate platelets. I won't be back until late.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Even if there is no replacement in time to contribute to dp1 it gives Warren more time to find one so we don't have an absent player for dp2.Waiting is the best townie move in my opinion.
Or the best scum move if he's mafia. Lack of guidance could have played a role in Croc's slip.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
@Vader
@ILikePie5
@oromagi
@WaterPhoenix
I don't mind hammering, but if anyone wants more time they should say so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
If I ever become mod. I am doing a mass reform of banning. While I think 2 months is actually adequate IMO, there are some rules in the CoC I’d change
Anyone can start a petition to get the CoC changed. When I did a MEEP about it, I tried to get as much community feedback as possible before starting voting. What further changes do you have in mind?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
We have potatoes for no role (not even vanilla?), vs beautiful scenery for beloved princess.
I don't think Croc is the jester, since he was the one who was counter claimed. This denial of having a role, is however weird. I don't think he's that new to playing scum that he doesn't know to make a fake role claim of something town could be (assuming he's scum, were I in his boat of such a strong CC, I'd claim to be a doctor or another role I want to hunt for).
The possibility of Lunatic as jester or a similar a role passed through my head (a mission to kill Croc, or to be killed).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Ironically, part 1 is something RM has repeatedly suggested (himself as site moderator), but the opposite of part 2 (well he would probably call it the ultimate discretion, but I you get the idea). ... This has continued even after removing the disagreeable no insults rule from the CoC.Hmm, does it being Ironic that RM kind of agrees mean you dis-agree? What's your take?
RM is good at spotting suspicious activity and time investment, but he desires things to be absolutely strict. In short, I believe he would ban people constantly for things which do not even border on CoC violations.
That said, I've had to take away the report button from a couple of users, and RM is not among them.
supa situation. Just because something is hard written in the rules doesn't mean you can't say "Yeah I think that punishment might not exactly fit the crime in this context" and bend the rules towards leniency here.
If I recall correctly, Supa's ban was longer than it otherwise would have been, due to repeated warnings, and serving as discord mod (whatever title or non-title that has) so being held to a higher standard.
I wonder what would have happened if we let that thread continue. I mean they don't like each other, but they do seem to have some monicker of respect for the other now after some discussion today. Makes the banning decision feel a little hazier now to me.
It's a weird one, as without the wake up call of moderation action, I doubt there would be said progress. At the same time, with that progress (particularly the apologies), the length now seems non-ideal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
I have seen you (ragnar) slide into forums where things have been ridiculously reported and I can practically see you rolling your eyes at the report. I'll link this as an example since I used it earlier: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4154-someone-is-secretly-admiring-me-on-dart?page=4&post_number=97. That is to say I think you agree with me in general that you don't want to over-moderate.
Correct. While I don't think there should be zero moderation, not every statement someone disagrees with need be reported.
there are too many moderators
We usually use this to lessen punishments, by deflecting off people with cooler heads at any given time. Still, good to know the perception is bad.
Not sure the best way to handle it. The reason for vote and forum moderators, is to make it less of a burnout job, and to pass things on to people with less investment in any feud.
if you can amount a hundred small offenses to equal a huge one, it's easy to justify a ban on someone like RM by dismissing him as "always just being a problem".
I can admit that is the slippery slope we're on. I stand by bans being about patterns more often than a single insult or whatever (with a few exceptions where it was particularly excessive), but we do need checks and balances to keep it from getting out of control (or reigning it into control if already out of control).
1. Go down to 1 moderator2. Use a lot more discretion in both banning, and choosing ban lengths.
Ironically, part 1 is something RM has repeatedly suggested (himself as site moderator), but the opposite of part 2 (well he would probably call it the ultimate discretion, but I you get the idea). ... This has continued even after removing the disagreeable no insults rule from the CoC.
I have a general feeling that I can't speak the same way that I did on debate.org, without consequence. That freedom of speech was one of the biggest attractors on that site for me.
I've put some hard work into getting the CoC to be less restrictive on that, but if you say it's a fear, it's clearly not enough yet.
I want to say "Your wrong douchebag, and here's why your f'ing wrong" without being blocked by that user. Then later I can re-read that post realize I was a douche, and re-evaluate my opinion in a way I couldn't if a restraining order or something was placed on me and that individual barring him from letting me see and reflect further on his opinions.
I admit my one big complaint about DDO's moderation was that Restraining Orders were nearly impossible to get (the one time I got one, I gently called out the person for violating it, and quickly heard from a mod how me asking them to honor it was itself the true violation of it). At the same time, I had no qualms about losing a member for refusing to make them be given out like candy. They remain a bit of a last resort.
Anyway, thank you for all the feedback!
Created: