Total posts: 3,773
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Any questions you would like added?
1. Should waiving rounds count as poor conduct equal to forfeitures?No to #1 in fact I don't even understand why forfeits are bad conduct, I just accept it. If you forfeit, you give the opponent a free win.
IMO forfeiting is a disrespectful waste of the other persons time. Plus, someone voting for the forfeiting side without mitigating the vote with a conduct penalty, is a strong indicator of overwhelming bias. Still, I'd be open to adding a question to make forfeitures no longer negative conduct? ... Related thing: we could codify a list of debate conduct harms.
2. Should Full Forfeits be broadened to missing every round after their first argument?I support the opposite to this. Showing up at all means you didn't FF.
I admittedly have never liked calling every round after the first a "full" forfeiture. I think it leaves the debate basically a foregone conclusion, but not quite the same thing.
I think on this we could separate it into options for what level of forfeiture should make the moderation one sided (only moderated if voting against the presumptive winner).
3. Allow implicit justifications for lesser points?3. is a 'no'. That will defy the very basis on which you judge an RFD as valid.
I've got this one in here in the first draft largely for discussion. We basically already use it to a lesser extent, as seen every time we rule 50% forfeiture votes okay in spite of the voter not explicitly stating that the side they're voting in favor of did not forfeit. If it should be tightened up, is also a possibility.
4. Less stringent justification for counter points?4. Tactical vote reporting is morally correct, slamming 5-7 points against one side just to be a dick and get away with is because you have 'law' in your username is not some kind of acceptable practise that should be encouraged.
This would apply only when decreasing the margin of victory. The points in favor of the chosen winner would still be held to the same standard, but counter point against them would not. So a 5 points mitigated to 4 points, would not be deleted for the act of mitigation.
Created:
Posted in:
Hey DART.
I'm hoping to post a MEEP soon. MEEP stands for Moderation Engagement and Enactment Process, it is a referendum on site policies.
This one will focus this on on refining the voting policies. Please submit any ideas for changes, addendums, etc.
Current questions which have been raised (will be updated as this thread progresses):
- Should waiving rounds count as poor conduct equal to forfeitures?
- Should Full Forfeits be broadened to missing every round after their first argument?
Such as someone forfeits the first round, shows up in the second or third, and forfeits the remainder. - Allow implicit justifications for lesser points?
I need better wording for this, but in essence not needing the spell out the absence of things. Such as one side having a dozen .gov and .edu sources, sure their impact needs to be mentioned if giving sources, but the other side having none and not challenging them is self evident at a glance. - Less stringent justification for counter points?
This may be a weird one, I don't know if it will make the cut into the referendum... So let's say someone gives you arguments and sources but gives the other side conduct and doesn't dot the i's and cross the t's on that part; with this change, the vote would not be removed so long as the primary points are justified to the standard... And yes, I have seen tactical vote reporting along these lines, wherein someone waits until near the end of the voting window to report such a vote against them.
Created:
Posted in:
Discussing politics online, often needlessly devolves into toxicity. This thread is an attempt to both mitigate that, and help new users find their path.
Words of Wisdom:
“Despite our own fervency. Religion nonetheless does not offer up any definitive answers. Therefore we must always be tolerant of opposing beliefs and opinions.”-Zedvictor4
“Ideologues believe two plus two equals five. Don't be an ideologue.” -Ragnar
“We must admit that refutation is the greatest and chiefest of purifications, and he who has not been refuted, though he be the Great King himself, is in an awful state of impurity.”-Plato (suggested by Discipulus_Didicit)
==========
Formatting Best Practices:
For actual debates, I highly suggest referencing the guide. However, for general forum use, just obey a few simple guidelines:
- Space between things is useful if you wish to be legible
- Don’t bold and/or CAPITALIZE all of your text
- Don’t misquote other users
Regarding the quote tool (just right of the underline button when making a post), bare in mind it adds an extra space after paragraphs; so if replying just after it, use a couple line breaks around each section.
Correct Way
What’s being replied to...
Reply to the above, followed by two line breaks to separate it from the next point of discussion.
What’s being replied to next...
Reply to the above.
Wrong Way
What’s being replied to...
Reply to the above, disguised to look like it’s replying to what’s below; adding needless confusion.
What’s being replied to next
Reply to the above, disconnected from the flow of everything else.
The problem with this is there are no extra line breaks, which clusters the wrong bits together. That the formatting does this is known, so use the extra line breaks.
========
Code of Conduct:
A new Code of Conduct (CoC) was ratified June 1st, 2020.
There are two frequently relevant sections of the CoC:
This should not need to be said, but if a behavior is obviously wrong, don’t do it.
Making Reports
To make a report, click the flag icon on the offending post. Ideally also message a moderator to explain what CoC violation occurred, as some posts have a lot of text and we usually have to read several others to determine context. So please make it less difficult.
The context of who is making the report does matter. As an example, some users are friends in real life, and make rude seeming inside jokes at each others expense; it being consensual, mitigates the offense.
Most things you dislike are not offenses that should be reported (such as the mere fact of having a contradictory opinion), you being “triggered” does not constitute a CoC violation. When someone writes something you dislike, first imagine a line in the sand. On one side of the line is civility, and the other savagery. Usually just a reminder is enough. A user without history of crossing the line, will be shown more leniency than someone who regularly skates it. The users who tend to be banned, are the ones who forget there is a line at all. Of course the ones likely to be indefinitely banned, might ask “what sand?”
Some examples of disagreeable statements, posts akin to the delinquent ones should be reported...
Expressing frustration with immaturity:
- Borderline: “The job of moderation is not to be your surrogate parents.”Problematic, but not outright vile.
- Delinquent: “Clearly your daddy didn’t beat you enough, so I’m going to take your mom out to a nice dinner; don’t wait up...”Don’t start imagining things about peoples upbringing, especially not to insinuate child abuse, or infer intent to... Just don’t ok?
Response to mind reading:
- Borderline: “I didn’t know you have super powers to know what I was thinking! What’s it like to be a superhero?”Sarcasm is usually warranted, and as an isolated case it does not cross the line into excessive trolling.
- Delinquent: “Oh yeah? You’re a Nazi!”Accusing someone of direct involvement with genocide, is almost never warranted.(This example had to go in here somewhere, and I did not have any good bad reply to the common BS of members claiming to know what someone else is thinking)
Please submit more hypothetical examples, and suggest any refinements to the above (layout and/or content). The basic idea here is to make people aware first that there is a line to be crossed, and further about where that line is (without getting too ugly).
========
Trolls (and comedy):
A troll is a mythic cave dwelling being, with an appetite for billygoats.
Nothing attracts trolls like attempts at intelligent discourse. They are usually best handled by simply ignoring them.
Overly sensitive users are going to accuse anyone who so much as cracks of joke (or corrects them) of being a malicious troll, so I will use the term a bit open-endedly.
There are three types of trolls (or with vulgarity):
- Clowns who are not necessarily trying to inspire anger.
- Losers with nothing better to do with their lives than try to anger strangers.
- Idiots who say things so stupid you mistake them for the Type 1 or Type 2, but they lack the mental facilities to do it intentionally.
So if engaging in comedy, please keep the following in mind:
- Lots of people will see it, so try to make it more about entertaining the audience, rather than hurting anyone’s feelings.
- Never forget Poe's Law. The one time a feminist talks in satire about how women are weakened by their right to vote, someone will mistake them for being serious.
- Don’t do mindless insults. Just calling someone a retard makes you look uninspired. It’s much better to properly evaluate their logic, point out every flaw in it, and leave them being a mentally deficient the unspoken but only rational conclusion from the evidence.
- Don’t stalk people. Their interactions on a different topic in a different thread, is not the time to bring up old dirt. Certainly never make threads calling them out by name.
========
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.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
That is a descriptive document under the help category, as opposed to a policy document. While I'm happy to update it and ensure it aligns with any policy, and even do referendums for policy refinements and clarifications, it doesn't make that document binding. Plus it self identifies itself as "outdated."
Technically the system forces people to have twice as many arguments as there are rounds. The system also forces people to not post arguments if they fail to do so in time, which again causes that statement to be false.
Plus, does anywhere in the document declare what combination of characters and letters must be presented inside someone's argument? Plus by posting "waive" someone is posting something as their argument. It does not advance their case, but no rule specifies the percentage of the character limit they must use (you're welcome to propose such a rule).
The fact is people have opportunities to post arguments related to the resolution. I've both proposed an update to make the document not outdated anymore, and offered a referendum question to further address the matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I would suggest that it is inadvisable to accuse someone of sexual harassment without proper cause.
Thank you for the advice, but this isn't a borderline case.
Stephen knows that his posts will goad
And Stephen also gets banned when he pushes it too far.
And the "minors" issue I raised was somewhat overlooked......What is the debateart position with regard to this?
To my knowledge, Ethang has not targeted any minors. I find his behavior reprehensible, but I'm not going to demonize him more than his chosen actions warrant.
As for minors using the site in general, if you think it would benefit anyone, we can probably add specific rules about parental supervision. Right now we limit the type of content which may be posted, and require users to be of age for local laws to use this kind of website.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I think the concept needs to have clear definition in the argumenmt phase that waiving a round shall not be done.
I understand that you believe waiving is poor conduct on level with forfeitures.
There are two problems:
- Conduct violations are ultimately handled by voters. We could make all the rules we want against forfeitures as an example, but the voters will still be the ones who regulate it; so it becomes a matter for the voting policy.
- Saying voters have to treat waived rounds as an equal offense to forfeitures, would be a change in the rules against common practice as it's been done. That there is ambiguity here, makes it a matter for the next referendum to settle the matter decisively.
If a referendum concludes that waived rounds are horrible conduct, then a short paragraph should be added to the debate information page (in addition to the voting policy page).
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
@Intelligence_06
Why is it strongly encouraged to play devil's advocate?
Well it’s arguably the best way to learn why people have those opposing viewpoints. 😉
I tossed that in there to encourage people to seek more personal growth, via considering the other side on issues. Plus I've seen numerous times when people were confused by it. It could of course be worded in about a hundred different ways. How does the following sound?
Q: May I play devil’s advocate for a position I’m against?
A: Yes. Sometimes doing this is encouraged, as it’s a great way to come to understand the merit of differing viewpoints.
A: Yes. Sometimes doing this is encouraged, as it’s a great way to come to understand the merit of differing viewpoints.
I can't remember the name for the term, but in Jewish philosophy there's a concept for dispute resolution which involves learning the other side so well that you can explain it to them and have them agree that is their stance, and via versa, before trying to settle whatever the issues are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
It was a fun debate. I do wish my opponent was willing to engage with the evidence, with that he probably would have won; whereas asserted denials against the evidence, really don't hold up.
Also, I wish South Park had perfect clips for more of my debates. I like being able to know the audience will be entertained by my evidence.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Any feedback on the current draft? And yes, I know the Voting Policy goes hand in hand with it, so will also need to be refined.
Debates
An introduction
Why DebateArt.com?
There exist many websites for online disagreements. However, they are almost exclusively open forum based, without any method of quality control. They are often reduced to distorted echo chambers perfect for ideologues, and suboptimal for anyone hoping to learn or otherwise grow as a person.
DebateArt.com offers the unique value proposition of a safe environment for competitive one-vs-one text debates, wherein participants own up to the intellectual quality they are capable of presenting. The results of this are then judged by the community to determine a winner, using standards which mitigate partiality (see: Voting Policy).
How it Works
We use text debates, a communication format in which two participants defend their opposing positions on the chosen topic, using the written word.
Each debate has three important informational elements pre-agreed before the start:
- Title, which unless specified otherwise serves as the resolution or thesis.
- Details, which lists the various mechanical constraints such as the character limit and number of rounds.
- Description, which allows inclusion of any pertinent details to include definitions, expanded resolution, special rules, and scope limitations.
Each debate has three areas separated by tabs:
- Arguments, which is the field of play.
- Comments, which is essentially the stands. Debaters should minimize contact with it during the competition; while they may ask for clarifications on a vote or correct a typo in their case, they must never try to win here.
- Votes, which is where judgements are cast based on what transpired within the arguments.
Stages of Debate
Each debate has 5 stages: Creation, Challenge, Argumentation, Voting, and Post Voting.
- Creation
Debates may be instigated by any user in good standing.
The topic may be on almost anything, but ideally should be non-obtuse. If the topic is not the resolution to be argued, clarifications should be made in the full description.
The instigator may elect to be pro or con related to affirming or negating the resolution.
By default debates are open challenges for anyone to accept, but may be issued as a direct challenge toward a specific contender. Direct challenges remain hidden with locked comment sections until accepted, so should only be issued after gaining consensus as to the terms of the debate. If the challenge is declined, the debate will cease and automatically delete itself.
By default debates use the open voting system, in which anyone may vote. If opting for a judicial decision, specific judges are invited. Similar to a direct challenge, if any decline judging, the debate will cease and automatically delete itself.
- Challenge
Debates created as open challenges are publicly visible, may be commented upon, and certain perimeters may be edited by the instigator.
During this phase, the instigator may delete the debate for any reason. If no one volunteers to be the contender, the debate will automatically delete itself after several days.
Once any user in good standing accepts the challenge, most of the debate settings lock, and it advances into the next stage.
- Argumentation
In this stage participants take turns publishing their arguments, to which they each have up to five opportunities as determined by the pre-selected number of rounds set at the time of creation.
Debaters can make any many contentions as the character limit allows (to include citing evidence to raise them from assertion to warranted argument), but should aim to be respectful to both the other debater and any potential voters.
If no argument is published within the time limit (12-hours to 2-weeks), the debater will automatically forfeit the round, and presumably be penalized by voters.
Regarding sources, no particular citation format is required, but it is highly recommended for ease of voting, that all citations be listed within the body of text at the bottom of each relevant argumentation round. However, if pre-agreed by both debaters, it is acceptable to document sourcing references in the comment section. If not pre-agreed, voters may dismiss the sources in question and/or assign a conduct penalty for character limit violations.
When all arguments have been published, the debate goes into the next stage.
- Voting
During this period, the community or the appointed judges select the debate’s winner. The criteria is discussed at length in the Voting Policy.
The winner need not be right, judges can and should vote against their own beliefs.
Votes may of course be challenged, but should be done respectfully.
After the winner has been selected, the debate goes into the next stage.
- Post Voting
The debate is considered finished, at which point everyone involved is encouraged to discuss it in the comment section.
Debates Editing/Deletion
The instigator may edit most things until the challenge is accepted, save for the following: Voting system, Required rating, and Contender. They may also opt to delete the debate for any reason at this stage.
Otherwise with mutual permission from the instigator and contender, a moderator can edit the following until voting concludes: Title, Category, Rating Mode, Short Description, Full Description. Likewise, moderators can delete debates by mutual consent of the contestants, or occasionally for extenuating circumstances (usually involving blatant Code of Conduct violations).
No one can edit the content inside any rounds once they are posted.
Comments Editing/Deletion
Authors may edit or delete their comments for up to 30 minutes after posting. In order to edit or delete the comment, on the right side of it click on the pen or trash can icons respectively.
Moderators can edit or delete any comments at any time, but will respectfully only do so by request or to address grievous Code of Conduct violations.
Links to specific comments are available, embedded in the comment number on the right side.
Votes Editing/Deletion
Unfortunately votes may not be directly edited; they must instead be deleted and re-cast with any changes. Alternatively, extensions or corrections may be posted in the comment section.
The author of a vote can delete it for the first 30 minutes after publishing. Afterward, they must request a moderator delete it for them.
Votes which fall short of the voting standard, are also eligible for deletion if reported.
Regarding Judicial Decision debates, the voting period ends once all judges have voted, so if there is only one, there is no opportunity for point corrections.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What does it mean to be a user “in good standing”?
A: As per the Code of Conduct, a user may lose the privilege to create debates and/or accept challenges (referenced as “participation” in the notifications) if abused. Debates in wanton violation of that, are eligible for summary deletion.
Q: May I play devil’s advocate for a position I’m against?
A: Yes. This is in fact strongly encouraged, as it’s arguably the best way to learn why people have those opposing viewpoints.
Q: Are special rules binding?
A: That is up to voter discretion. Usually breaking them merits a conduct penalty, but a voter may consider the rules themselves to be in bad faith to the spirit of debating, so dismiss out of hand.
Q: May a vote ever consider things from outside the arguments?
A: Generally no, but if a voter properly justifies it there are exceptions; such as if a spectator identifies plagiarism. Further, by voting they are of course asked to interpret the debate, which cannot occur in a pure vacuum free of even their own language. Still, a vote clearly based upon their bias without fair weighting, is subject to deletion.
Q: Can more rounds be added to a debate?
A: Before the debate reaches the argumentation phase, yes. Afterward, no.
Q: Can I withhold my arguments until the final round, to prevent the other side from having a chance to respond?
A: Technically you can, but this well known cheat is called a “final round blitzkrieg,” which is universally despised by voters; who will most likely dismiss it with prejudice.
Q: May I concede a debate?
A: Yes. Ideally you should still refrain from forfeiting, as it’s very rude.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@Vader
@Bullish
@Crocodile
This has been a damn enjoyable game to watch!
Created:
-->
@DebateArt.com
This thread may interest you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
As mentioned, this was not an isolated incident. The post in question was a clear public resumption of his previous intolerable habit of sexually harassing people.
The target this time was Stephen, whom Ethang calls Homer. Annoying nicknames are not in themselves a CoC violation, but as you probably guessed, it does make moderation more painful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
As indicated in the ban log:
ethang5 has been banned for 90 days, following a resumed pattern of sexual harassment and disregarding both moderation intervention and polite requests from the target to cease.
So sexual harassment, but nothing about that implies targeting minors.
He unwarrantedly began accusing another member of trying to jack off onto him... This was not some isolated incident. He has chosen to outright declare people rejecting his sexual advances "is of no interest to me."
Created:
I was tempted to accept a bunch of free win debates to get that medal back when it was within reach, and have mixed feelings toward my choice.
Still, whatever negative things can be said, there's no denying the crazy effort put into it by RM, Ram, and Oro. They've got something the rest of us will not, and nothing would be gained from taking it away. Any changes to the standard for it, would needlessly water down what they went through for it.
We can however always add more medals. Say one for making it to the first page of the leaderboard, another for top 10... Or for various scores... Whatever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Sadly for the non-religious, on average knowing more about doctrine than the devote, harms the utility of not believing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
One has to wonder have they ever read the NT for themselves?
I actually did some research on this for a debate.
Most Christians have not read it: https://lifewayresearch.com/2017/04/25/lifeway-research-americans-are-fond-of-the-bible-dont-actually-read-it/
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
***
This thread crosses the line into being a call-out thread aimed at a particular other user, so is being locked.
While a thread may insult political groups as a whole or narrowed down to cells within them, #1 clarifies with name and quotation that it is about a certain other user. The challenges to what he has said, should be made in the threads to which he said it.
And no, calling someone by an obvious nickname does not mitigate the problem.
***
Created:
Posted in:
Discussing religion online, often needlessly devolves into toxicity. This thread is an attempt to both mitigate that, and help new users find their path.
Words of Wisdom:
“Despite our own fervency. Religion nonetheless does not offer up any definitive answers. Therefore we must always be tolerant of opposing beliefs and opinions.”-Zedvictor4
“We must admit that refutation is the greatest and chiefest of purifications, and he who has not been refuted, though he be the Great King himself, is in an awful state of impurity.”-Plato (suggested by Discipulus_Didicit)
==========
Formatting Best Practices:
For actual debates, I highly suggest referencing the guide. However, for general forum use, just obey a few simple guidelines:
- Space between things is useful if you wish to be legible
- Don’t bold and/or CAPITALIZE all of your text
- Don’t misquote other users
Regarding the quote tool (just right of the underline button when making a post), bare in mind it adds an extra space after paragraphs; so if replying just after it, use a couple line breaks around each section.
Correct Way
What’s being replied to...
Reply to the above, followed by two line breaks to separate it from the next point of discussion.
What’s being replied to next...
Reply to the above.
Wrong Way
What’s being replied to...
Reply to the above, disguised to look like it’s replying to what’s below; adding needless confusion.
What’s being replied to next
Reply to the above, disconnected from the flow of everything else.
The problem with this is there are no extra line breaks, which clusters the wrong bits together. That the formatting does this is known, so use the extra line breaks.
========
Code of Conduct:
A new Code of Conduct (CoC) was ratified June 1st, 2020.
There are two frequently relevant sections of the CoC:
This should not need to be said, but if a behavior is obviously wrong, don’t do it.
Making Reports
To make a report, click the flag icon on the offending post. Ideally also message a moderator to explain what CoC violation occurred, as some posts have a lot of text and we usually have to read several others to determine context. So please make it less difficult.
The context of who is making the report does matter. As an example, some users are friends in real life, and make rude seeming inside jokes at each others expense; it being consensual, mitigates the offense.
Most things you dislike are not offenses that should be reported (such as the mere fact of having a contradictory opinion), you being “triggered” does not constitute a CoC violation. When someone writes something you dislike, first imagine a line in the sand. On one side of the line is civility, and the other savagery. Usually just a reminder is enough. A user without history of crossing the line, will be shown more leniency than someone who regularly skates it. The users who tend to be banned, are the ones who forget there is a line at all. Of course the ones likely to be indefinitely banned, might ask “what sand?”
Some examples of disagreeable statements, posts akin to the delinquent ones should be reported...
Expressing frustration with immaturity:
- Borderline: “The job of moderation is not to be your surrogate parents.”Problematic, but not outright vile.
- Delinquent: “Clearly your daddy didn’t beat you enough, so I’m going to take your mom out to a nice dinner; don’t wait up...”Don’t start imagining things about peoples upbringing, especially not to insinuate child abuse, or infer intent to... Just don’t ok?
Response to mind reading:
- Borderline: “I didn’t know you have super powers to know what I was thinking! What’s it like to be a superhero?”Sarcasm is usually warranted, and as an isolated case it does not cross the line into excessive trolling.
- Delinquent: “Oh yeah? You’re a Nazi!”Accusing someone of direct involvement with genocide, is almost never warranted.(This example had to go in here somewhere, and I did not have any good bad reply to the common BS of members claiming to know what someone else is thinking)
Please submit more hypothetical examples, and suggest any refinements to the above (layout and/or content). The basic idea here is to make people aware first that there is a line to be crossed, and further about where that line is (without getting too ugly).
========
Trolls (and comedy):
A troll is a mythic cave dwelling being, with an appetite for billygoats.
Nothing attracts trolls like attempts at intelligent discourse. They are usually best handled by simply ignoring them.
Overly sensitive users are going to accuse anyone who so much as cracks of joke (or corrects them) of being a malicious troll, so I will use the term a bit open-endedly.
There are three types of trolls (or with vulgarity):
- Clowns who are not necessarily trying to inspire anger.
- Losers with nothing better to do with their lives than try to anger strangers.
- Idiots who say things so stupid you mistake them for the Type 1 or Type 2, but they lack the mental facilities to do it intentionally.
So if engaging in comedy, please keep the following in mind:
- Lots of people will see it, so try to make it more about entertaining the audience, rather than hurting anyone’s feelings.
- Never forget Poe's Law. The one time a feminist talks in satire about how women are weakened by their right to vote, someone will mistake them for being serious.
- Don’t do mindless insults. Just calling someone a retard makes you look uninspired. It’s much better to properly evaluate their logic, point out every flaw in it, and leave them being a mentally deficient the unspoken but only rational conclusion from the evidence.
- Don’t stalk people. Their interactions on a different topic in a different thread, is not the time to bring up old dirt. Certainly never make threads calling them out by name.
========
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
While imperfect, the historical record suggests he indeed lived.
Granted, while he became the Christian Messiah, he was not the Jewish Messiah.
Created:
Posted in:
***
Regarding: #61
Sexual harassment will not be tolerated on this site. The offender has been banned.
***
Created:
Posted in:
Date: 07/20/2020
Moderator: Ragnar
ethang5 has been banned for 90 days, following a resumed pattern of sexual harassment and disregarding both moderation intervention and polite requests from the target to cease.
Created:
Posted in:
We have a moderator shortage right now. Please hold off reports for minor things which are most often not even CoC violations. Major things should of course be reported.
In essence, if someone is acting like Varelse, report them. If they merely say something you disagree with, oh well.
The Code of Conduct can be found at: https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/rules
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
***
Regarding: #22
I think I see why this was reported, a general comparison of a user to a bad habit. In repetition it would get really bad. As an isolated incident it's ugly, but not exactly what the CoC is designed for (we updated the CoC to clarify that people aren't forced to be exclusively nice to each other).
As reporting anything asks me to read the thing, and related things, please save it for the real bad stuff... Like say one member accuses another of murdering millions of people, as seen in post #23.
***
Created:
I'm adding a FAQ section, which should allow clarifications without overly bloating the main areas for a casual new member.
Anyone have any feedback on a heavily revised How It Works section?
How it worksWe use text debates, a communication format in which two participants defend their opposing positions on the chosen topic, using the written word.Each debate has three important informational elements pre-agreed before the start:
- Title, which unless specified otherwise serves as the resolution.
- Details, which lists the various mechanical constraints such as the character limit.
- Description, which allows inclusion of any pertinent details to include definitions, expanded resolution, special rules, and scope limitations.
Each debate has three areas separated by tabs:
- Arguments, which is the field of play.
- Comments, which is essentially the stands. Debaters should minimize contact with it during the competition; while they may ask for clarifications on a vote or correct a typo in their case, they must never try to win here.
- Votes, which is were judgements are cast based on what transpired within the arguments.
The old one then becomes a new section for the stages of a debate.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I'm editing things, and am into the argumentation section, which seems to contain most of your suggestions.
Thematically I would generally say this document is a new users guide. Some of your suggestions seem to be more aimed at voting policy, which we can change, but will be harder due to requiring a referendum. Such as whether users are allowed to waive any rounds, which if I type "my opponent forfeited, so I extend until they return" it's not particularly different than typing "my opponent forfeited, so I waive until they return"; , and even being concise could be considered waiving the remainder (actually I nearly lost a debate for doing just that).
Well I've got a work audition to get to, but I'll try to edit more another day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Before this goes any further: He has identical credentials.
He just did a damned good job making himself seem different, and apparently asked a noob question to sell it.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
It saves automatically as you type. As close to real time as these systems can hope to get without creating a ton of errors (as seen with Office.com stuff).
Created:
I started a document with open editing privileges for suggestions:
Currently it is the same as the live version in the help center, save for a tiny new section at the top explaining why people should use this site instead of another.
One resource that might be good to borrow from, is the old guide I wrote for DDO:
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Thanks for putting this work in. And again, sorry I did not spot it before.
This might be better in a Google doc (or even a link to a word doc), as strikesthroughs can't be seen on this forum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
@sadolite
@WaterPhoenix
@ebuc
@Intelligence_06
***
Due to multiple posts clearly crossing the line, and the general trajectory, I'm locking thread a day for things to cool down (someone please remind me after 24 hours to unlock it).
Probably everyone in it has seen the notice about this type of thing, but for a reminder (I strongly suggest familiarizing yourselves with it before continuing to participate in this conversation): https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3621-moderation-notice
***
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
***
Regarding #51:
no, i didn't actually like naruto all that much ngl. i'm saying she's bad cause she's tsundere cancer.
No clauses in the CoC stipulate to which level users must like Naruto (or anything about it at all...), and fictional characters are not protected from insults (even while it seemed more of just a preference against a certain archetype).
***
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
@BearMan
***
Regarding: #482
While abrasive, it was obviously just a joke. The context of it being a reply to a more obvious joke (the Rick Roll), is a big clue on this.
Humor is allowed on this site.
***
Created:
Posted in:
I just shut off someone's ability to make forum reports. For important things, they may still message moderators and explain what the CoC violations were.
To be clear, the CoC has two key statements:
- "Targeted harassment of any member prohibited, as is inciting others to do so at your behest."
- "Consequences for violations include: Revocation of abused privileges."
Moderators are here to try to keep the ship afloat, not to be weaponized when you can't be bothered to just argue better than someone you dislike.
Created:
Posted in:
Date: 07/13/2020
Moderator: Ragnar
wlsw9 has been banned for being a presumptive alt of Willows: https://www.debateart.com/participants/willows
Ban may be appealed by emailing: [email protected]
Edit: add wllws9 to the list of banned alts.
Created:
Posted in:
In short, key factors include intelligence sharing and ideological unity: https://www.businessinsider.com/us-israel-allies-2017-2
If it might overall be a waste of money, does not change the existence of reasons for such expenditure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
Accept that you'll inevitably change stuff, and try to live the best life you can.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
As per your profile, you're 90 years old, which probably makes you memorable. Heck, just wearing different fashion from other people might make you memorable. Also I referenced prolonging things, for which thinking of random non-appealing stuff is useful... The point is that even a single second shift in such a minor event, leads to a randomized population in the future.
Let's say you don't even bump into someone. Some animals eat your corpse, and a couple that otherwise would not have made it through a harsh winter now do... It takes longer, but slight changes to the animal population will cross paths with people, thus affecting the human populations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
If not any significant amount of time, you would be unable to measure any changes before catching up with your origin point. And your death would still have a full impact on the future.
I think your self removal, would only make any sense if at least a year ago. Even then, I doubt any changes you could try to make would do harm, at worst you would be one more crazy person shouting the end is nigh something something China pandemic.
Regarding the danger of the butterfly effect, the TV series The Flash showed the most simple consequence of time travel, which the further back you go, the more unpredictable the impact from it would be... So let's say you arrive 500 years ago, immediately head out to a remote spot to end it, and along the way you bump into one random guy. That random guy is fooling around with his wife a week later and his mind wonders back to that odd person he bumped into, thus prolonging the passion. His wife still gets pregnant the same night, only the egg merges with a different sperm from the same father. The obvious case of randomization is switching the sex of the future child, but let's say it was a boy and is still a boy, but is more or less hansom than in the previous iteration... That one change spirals out, not just in one family tree, but in the impacts of everyone they interact with slightly differently. The population of at least one region will get randomized, and likewise other people as well considering our interconnected world.
So I don't think suicide to avoid the butterfly effect would be a good idea in that scenario.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
How far into the past would you have to go to enact the suicide plan?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bullish
I can't promise having the proper amount of time to play this, but put me down as a replacement in case anyone drops out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Crocodile
This brings me back to the bsh1 scandal. Didn't he like sexually harass someone? Why didn't he get consequences for that?
He and another user joked around too much in the wrong ways, for which he resigned and left the site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I have made no references to any friendships in this conversation.
really you patted him on the back and giggled along with what he said?
Please point to where I giggled or did anything to imply such?
I've seen you come down harder on Stephen and Disgusted for less severe things
As per the CoC: "The specific consequence will depend on the severity and frequency of the violations..."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You may respond as you wish. However, you might be having a comprehension problem. Your opinion of someone receiving a public warning against something, seems to be that such is an endorsement instead of opposition (#13): "Why is it ok to say that just because it's a mafia game? Why is it ever okay to say what he said???"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Welcome back.
I prefer your new user name. There was something a little awkward about the old one, when so often we are referencing users or user as a stand-in for names.
Created:
Posted in:
For easy reference, here is the post in question (#221):
Added07.03.20 10:01AM-->@RationalMadman-> @oromagiYou are confused. I can be lynched and still win. In a ga.e where death is inevitable, I do not need to pander to you and beg for mercy. Go ahead, do not think for one second you are owed a claim by me more than you owe me your claim. You're not town, I do not fear the rushed bandwagon here, I do not fear losing either. Do what you want.Non-responsive. IRL I would taser your genitals about now.ZAP!Why won't you answer the question? Please provide character claim now.
And here is the public moderation action (#410):
Added07.03.20 09:51PM-->@oromagi***Regarding: #221, two things:
- It is understood to be a hypothetical statement, as the odds of you all being kidnapped into a real life game like this are null.
- Mafia games are by nature mostly self-regulating. Whatever bad thing someone says in a game, is for better or worse, their tactic in that game.
That said, please tone it down in future.***
With that done, I need to address some myths that have been circulated ad nauseam:
- There was no moderator intervention!
As seen above, clearly there was; and before any threads were made about it too. That we did not jump to a ban, is not the same as no action. - The lack of any intervention was due to favoritism!
Again, there was intervention to discourage this type of thing in future. Further, Mafia games being less regulated has been the standard for awhile, with many easy to find examples, even ones where it goes against the alleged favorite (Total Drama Island). - User_2006 quit the site in protest!
I'm going to believe User_2006 when he says that is false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
In #18 the OP has requested you leave the thread. You were clearly not engaged in meaningful conversation within it at that point. I have not reviewed everything but at a glance, this request seems to be repeated a couple times.
You know it's fruitlessly antagonizing him, so please give him some space.
Note: There's a major holiday where I live, so not taking the time to look at everything until later.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
it seriously scared, enraged and much else for me
I'm sorry you're scared. However, this is part of why the CoC directly stipulates employment of a reasonable person standard.
Unless I'm missing context from some other dialog you had with the user in question, no suggestion of any intent to track you down was made. What I see is a hypothetical statement reflecting on a bizarre scenario which would never happen in real life, even were you two to somehow meet.
absolutely nothing in the CoC states this at all
"The specific consequence will depend on the severity and frequency of the violations, along with user history, context, and other relevant factors."
If you wish all targeted references to violence to in mafia to result in an auto-ban, start a MEEP about it (seriously, I'll fully support your efforts, and abide by whatever people want). You could do another question to prevent any bullying of people in Mafia. Etc.
You do have favourites and this is partly due to that
You can repeat that claim a dozen more times, and it won't make the standard applied to many users suddenly be about that (I lost count of how many he insulted me complaints we used to get over mafia).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@Crocodile
Mafia is a social deduction game where people apply targeted pressure and figuratively kill each other to advance the game. By partaking in the game, you implicitly consent to the game-play. Much like if you play Call of Duty, your avatar is probably going to get shot.
Making matters worse, users have special roles with special powers. A user might be assigned the role of suicide bomber, and we mods are not going to ban them from the site for terrorism when they use said role; nor if they pretend to have it as part of their game-play. This applies to various other roles, to which someone may slip in a phrase to imply they have it.
With having not banned Wylted for his behavior in Mafia (even when I would have liked to), the claim that this is only happening due to favoritism is rendered absurd.
All of this is when the user in question was in fact already publicly given a soft warning ("please tone it down in future"). Which makes this thread feel like a demand to ban anyone who makes an ugly hypothetical comment in Mafia.
This is not to say CoC violations in Mafia are not reviewed, but they need to be a lot worse for us to step in. Examples:
- If someone excessively doxes (speculation about timezone is just research), I'll step in.
- If someone makes a threat to track you down in real life over the content of the game, I'll step in.
I of course do advise killing people in game for what they say. Give me the in game role of vigilante, I'll probably shoot the rudest person if I don't have active reason to suspect someone else of being scum (pretty sure as scum I've used night kills for this too).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
***
Regarding: #221, two things:
Regarding: #221, two things:
- It is understood to be a hypothetical statement, as the odds of you all being kidnapped into a real life game like this are null.
- Mafia games are by nature mostly self-regulating. Whatever bad thing someone says in a game, is for better or worse, their tactic in that game.
That said, please tone it down in future.
***
Created: