Total posts: 3,773
Posted in:
I got mistaken for 28 when I tried to hit on women my own age, and I never want to be mistaken for 30 (well at least not until I'm in my 40's). So wearing a mask to protect my face from the sun, seems like a fine idea so long as it's socially acceptable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
***
Regarding: #8. No action is to be taken.
Nothing even resembling a CoC violation was noted. Morgz is a public figure, rather than a site member.
***
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
***
Regarding: #30, no action is to be taken.
It was obviously a joke, rather than advocacy for criminal activity. Further, with it satirizing the OP, the CoC outright stipulates: "criticising statements within an ongoing discussion, is fair game."
***
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Is there is a different title you would like for this thread, now that the misplaced topics have been corrected?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Put me down as a replacement. I cannot give this the full time it deserves, but in case anyone drops out, I'm still interested at a lower activity level.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Have you considered storing the ratings from each debater as a local variable in each debate?
It could only be applied to debates after it began being stored, but at least for those it could solve the core issue preventing votes from being deleted after the conclusion of a debate; as ratings impact could be recalculated at any time using that stored information.
Of course a minor problem would be score impact inflation for frequent debaters.
If ever going down this rabbit hole, you would probably want to have the system recognize new debates from then forward as if they were a new point system, and the old one becoming non-selectable for new debates. Which as a minor added bonus, could also correct the score allotments away from the tied points to both sides thing.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
What happens when I have the clearly more logical position and arguments and my opponent simply doesn't acknowledge this,
Intuitively, you would probably give yourself 3 points for your quality arguments, and they would give themselves 7 points for having called you a Nazi.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
It had already been removed via the previous referendum; but had been lumped in with the hundred or so other changes to the CoC, rather than voted on individually.
Created:
Posted in:
Thanks everyone who participated in this. I've kept out of it, to not sway anything during it.
Outcomes:
- No binding result.
This means we will not be adding those nine lines (or something closely to their effect) into the CoC.
I would like to note that no one is being punished for saying screw the mods. The old rule allowed truly deranged defamation, which was to no ones benefit. - Most people favor moderators being able to vote on these.
This means the Moderation Overview will not be updated with an extension to the eligibility.
Thanks! - Leaning toward the status quo.
I think it's already somewhere on Mike's lengthy to-do list.
So the big complexity in removing votes after the voting period ends, is the ratings effects are not recorded within the debate. I think it would basically break the site if it tried to recalculate everything backwards.
Had the majority of people been ok with bad votes being removed even if the ratings were not adjusted accordingly, then it would have been possible to roll out something much much faster. - Most people favor polls as an option.
This doesn't mean it will happen, but in platform development it is good to know what people would like (and similarly if they would be opposed). - People lean toward opposition to pop-ups.
Again, probably useful information for Mike in future platform development (if he chooses to go in that direction).
Created:
Posted in:
Lots of problems with how polls are conducted. Even the same poll run by two different groups, will have skewed results.
Let's say NPR asks 10,000 people are they for or against the border wall, and Fox news does likewise... Even if they try their best to be random, you'll have massively different outcomes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
He is the most important because of the sheer numbers but when you actually look at key stats you see he isn't consistent. 65.22% win-rate.
Numbers in every metric; and I specifically pointed out "his magnetic personality which raises the value of being here." That you're engaging him like this, is yet more evidence in support of that point.
Speaking as a moderator, many of his insights have been of immense utility.I also very much doubt his utility
He has regularly messaged to moderation team to alert of of multi-accounts (with evidence going back years), non-obvious bots, and more.
Created:
Posted in:
China is great, so long as you are a loyal party member. If you say it's not great, you are not a loyal party member.
Admittedly, I find their treatment of Li Wenliang unforgivable.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I was speaking just of debate votes. As for forum posts... I've seen too many Facebook arguments end with someone deleting everything they wrote, to try to make the other person look insane.
That said, if anyone wants their post deleted which was never replied to, probably any moderator will assist no questions asked.
Created:
-->
@User_2006
While I am always cautious of potential abuse, that it could be misused, does not seem to be sufficient reason to deny the benefits to vast majority of members who would use it properly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You can put me down as a replacement, but I really can't give this the proper time peoples efforts at it deserve.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
It would be an additional safety net, unlikely to ever affect anyone not trying to game the system, but giving a bit more peace of mind to honest debaters.
Right now technically someone could make two multi-accounts a few hours before a voting window closes, have them quickly debate each other on spam topics, and then cast 14 points on their own debate. While it would be detected quickly, the damage to the original debate would be irreparable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Any chance you could add a minimum account age for voting to be unlocked? I'm thinking three days.
This would serve as a safety net against multi spam accounts voting.
Created:
Posted in:
RM is easily the most complex and interesting member. Behind Mike, I would say he's the most important person here... And I say this as someone who used to mock him shamelessly. That I sometimes hate him, doesn't mean I don't respect his commitment to this site, as well as his magnetic personality which raises the value of being here.
Speaking as a moderator, many of his insights have been of immense utility.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
It seems to be a demand to remove all the trolling rules from the site, which is directly against his previous opposition to changing the focus away from such vagueness.
He even insisted people should be automatically banned if anyone accuses them of trolling... So probably an accident in grammar, ending up saying the opposite of what he meant it to say.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I'd be game for stricter if easier for people to understand.
Created:
Posted in:
From Melcharaz profile:
IF DART DOES THE FOLLOWING, I WILL RETURN.1: INCREASE MODERATION.2: NOT PASS RULES ABOUT TROLLING3: BAN PEOPLE WHO VIOLATE RULES4: BE ABLE TO BLOCK PEOPLE ON FORUMS5: LET PEOPLE MAKE RO'S WITHOUT MOD APPROVALUntil then i leave this place and will never return.
It needs to be said: This is a debate website, not a safe space where whatever you say will never be challenged.
Created:
One example of a refinement I would like to make, is codifying that certain things are implicit.
Right now by the letter of the law, awarding conduct for one side missing a round is supposed to be compared and contrasted to the other side not missing a round. Similarly if one side chants none-stop profanity at the other, that someone didn't sink to that level seems redundant to list.
Where this gets slightly tricky, is vote fluffers. And yes, I do remember some old votes which did things like penalizing con for the misconduct of quoting pro's vile words. It would be about like someone penalizing conduct for a missed round, when the person they're awarding it to missed two.
Created:
Posted in:
Date: 06/16/2020
Moderator: Joint Decision
BrotherDThomas has been banned for 14-days days for spam. It is understood that this was done at the behest of another user, who is likewise punished equally.
FYI, Jesus is not a site member, rather he is a public figure thus not protected by the CoC.
Following this there is to be a one month full restraining order, with ethang5, lasting until August 1st.
---
Date: 06/16/2020
Moderator: Joint Decision
ethang5 has been banned for 14-days days for spam. And yes, contextually spamming requests for another member to spam, is itself spam.
Following this there is to be a one month full restraining order, with BrotherDThomas , lasting until August 1st.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
How is it their fault if their opponent forfeits?
It's not. I would like to change the rules to reflect this.
Created:
-->
@simplybeourselves
You can unlock voting in one of two ways:
- Complete two debates, which must be rated, have open voting system, and not have any forfeits (I believe the system allows a single misses round from your opponent, but more than that denies you the proper experience). They should also be moderation eligible debates (no insult matches, and the primary intent can't be comedy). Once said debates reach the voting stage, it should unlock.
- Make 100 forum comments, and they can't be spam. I think this basically indicates interest. A fast way to do this is playing a game of forum Mafia, there is currently a game available to join: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4328-ilikepies-mafia-signups?page=1
If there are any you really wanted to vote on, you can still post a comment on the debate. It won't count toward the tally, but I would bet the debaters would still love the feedback.
And welcome to this site. I'm the deputy moderator, and I'll directly say that our general dislike of topics does not result in any action.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
I have no plans to try to push one. And if anyone else proposes such a rule, I would hope it is worded carefully to avoid the problems you gave.
Created:
Posted in:
Date: 06/14/2020
Moderator: Ragnar
EricT has been banned indefinitely for multi-accounting and unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives.
After 90 days, this may be appealed by emailing: [email protected]
EricT2, and EricTbiggestfan, have likewise been banned.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@User_2006
OK WHAT IS THISWhy are people suddenly banned all the way to 2102 when there is no reason? Why are moderators allowed to do that or is it just an operational error?
Any bans from before we voted in a ban log (I think it was voted in...), do not list the reason due to the privacy rules we had at the time.
As for the weird dates: We don't technically have an option when enacting a ban to make it permanent, so we make do with setting it for 10,000 days or something like that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Crocodile
1. RagnarAs he does not have that many debates on DART, I would look at his DDO profile to see his good debates.
Thanks! ... FYI, I'm effectively retired at this point. I mostly just try to help others now.
7. Semperfortis
He is way better than I am. When he came onto the scene I was already a dinosaur, but I learned so much from reading his debates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
I can't make it, but thanks for the invite.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Just tit for tat, friendly jibes...
That represents a reason I am glad we de-emphasized insults in the new CoC.
Created:
Posted in:
***
Regarding #62, I am not noticing any obvious CoC violations. It specifically allows criticism of statements within any discussion.
-Ragnar, DM
***
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
***
Regarding #37, I am not noticing any obvious CoC violations. We can dislike a post, without it breaking the rules.
-Ragnar, DM
***
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
***
Regarding #34, I am not noticing any obvious CoC violations. We can dislike a post, without it breaking the rules.
-Ragnar, DM
***
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@User_2006
or not list it at all and accept it is a part of China.
It's geographically not connected to China, so dropping the listing would seem pointless; not to mention harmful if we ever attract users from there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
George Floyd was murdered, period.
I'll offer mild disagreement, as murder implies intent to kill (manslaughter and a probably a few other charges). Still, the eggshell skull rule makes the death a death, even if he had health issues which contributed. The officer killed him, there is no sane doubt about that.
spreading severe misinformation with that post. I think there should be a rule about that.
There was some discussion of having a rule against harmful disinformation. Around that time some troll was spreading disinformation about Covid. However, it's a hard thing to word, when people need to be free to have discussions of controversial topics. ... You're of course welcome to suggest such a rule for a future referendum (Press is currently organizing one).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Crocodile
I'm always happy to give advice, but I lack motivation, and last time I did one of these it turned really ugly.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't think any change is necessary, but an okay one might be to: "Taiwan, Republic of China" or just "Taiwan"
Ease in finding one thing in such a long list, is why it's very useful to have Taiwan first.
To use an example: To find Puerto Rico, the listing just says the common usage name. Nothing would be gained from calling it either "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" or "Territory of United States of America Puerto Rico."
Created:
I'll be sure to check that out.
Created:
Colin Powell would have my vote. Michelle Obama is probably the choice Biden should make.
Created:
Posted in:
Date: 06/09/2020
Moderator: Joint decision
QueefJuice has been banned indefinitely, for Multi-accounting (specifically an alt of Human), and obscene language or imagery in username avatar and profile description.
LePelch has likewise been banned for being an alt of the same.
---
Date: 06/09/2020
Moderator: Joint decision
Stephen has been banned for 30-days, due to a pattern of unwarranted systemic invectives, exemplified by responding to "I'll leave you be," with vitriol. Borderline authenticity violations of making up stories about what people are doing in real life (e.g., hiding under their bed while using this site).
This is magnified by a previous ban on 03/12/2020, and a renewed warning on 05/31/2020.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
A peaceful protest would have Karened out the rioters and gave them up to the police as a symbol of solidarity against violence. Instead the protesters encouraged or at least passively tolerated the violent brick-throwing and frozen water throwing. That's NOT a peaceful protest.
Regarding #8, well said. Aiding and abetting is a crime. Were it not, there would be zero calls for systematic change to the police force; or even charges filed against the other officers present in the George Floyd case.
Created:
-->
@User_2006
It was a suggested addition while various ones were being removed.
If/when another round of forum restructuring happens, it will probably be done away with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
dont be a soft cry baby who doxxes a 15 year when they make a meme
Regarding #7: Doxing is a serious allegation, so please be careful to ensure your words imply the news source which committed it, as opposed to the member who did not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
You may be worrying too much about the CoC. The new one literally has a context clause.
This is not to say go out of control and spam links everywhere, but having a link within your profile should be fine, along with making the occasional direct mention. Someone who is just here to advertise, or makes advertisements the main point of being here, things might go differently even if we aren't certain they're a spambot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
***
In review of #101, while I abhor any calls for sexual violence on anyone, no action is to be taken.
The key thing here is context. There were four pages leading up to it, with it seemingly distilled from larger statements in #78. Within the violence section of the CoC, it falls under the hyperbole clause, as it is addressing public figures (the cops who killed or served as accomplices, or others who choose to do similar...).
If taken out of context it would skirt dangerously close to violent extremism. However it is clearly not saying all cops, much like a call to shoot looters is not saying to shoot all protesters. People need to be free to say both things (so long as they don't start spamming them), and other people are free to disagree with the statements and prove them wrong.
-Ragnar, DM
***
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You may want to invite recent players from Lucky's themeless game: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4218-themeless-mafia-1-day-phase-1
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
Is there a time and a place for when members of DDO can pitch policy ideas for these MEEPS or is that basically something members can do at any time as long as they contact an admin/mod in a PM?
Any time, and pretty much any place. Good places which come to mind:
- The Platform Development thread (I suggest tagging Virtuoso and/or Ragnar).
- A new thread from the main forum (ideally tag us, we don't read everything).
- A new debate (tag us in the comments).
- Direct Messaging.
There's no required format (both the suggestion and something it hopes to improve would be nice).
Before the last referendum I left a suggestions thread up for just over a week before it. I had hoped more community ideas would stem from it. I'll admit there was one community idea I rejected pretty hard, but there was a... how to phrase this politely... when someone decides they don't like something without bothering to read it. The request (felt more like a demand), was to outright remove the new CoC from the ballot, and just do small refinements to the old.
Personally, I'd be cool with a non-moderator run referendum. Obviously some veto power would exist, such as if you gathered support and voted in a policy requiring members watch Frozen a minimum of seven times per week; morally we all should, but there's just no practical way to enforce it.
Created: