Total posts: 3,773
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
People are going to pre-vote so to speak. It's a fast way for them to express their support or dissent. Enjoy it for the early feedback it represents.
1. Do you agree or disagree with the following clause in the new COC:
I'm fine with a vote on this. However, I will say the old rule was too open ended. We could take no action against a user for claiming we were a racist gay pedophile rape cult (yes, this actually happened!).
2. Are you for or against mods being allowed to vote in future MEEPs? Note that there are multiple options for this question:
I'm fine with a vote on this. I'll probably withhold my own vote, to see where it naturally goes.
3. Are you for or against votes being reported on (and possibly removed) after the voting period is finished?
This one could do with sub-options. To my knowledge the big issue that delayed this happening is the connection to the ratings system. So there should be an absolute yes (goes through even if ratings are unchanged), and a conditional yes (meaning it should only happen if ratings will be changed to reflect vote changes). ... And I really do wish new votes would extend the voting period to ensure last minute vote bombs have a chance at being reviewed (even if it would open things up to trolls occasionally forcing a debate to stay open indefinitely).
4. Are you for or against the implementation of a polling section in DART?
It would certainly be nice to be able to make polls within the forums...
5. Are you for or against the implementation of some non-intrusive advertisements on DART?
Could also do with more options. Some people will claim any ad is intrusive, so maybe a scale from from pop-ups (I hope we never have those), to static banners, to small things, to text only (like we see on Google with sponsored links).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Related to tags, it would be cool to be able to see a complete list of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Star Trek adventure into outer space in his initial post is trying in vain to prove a higher intelligence, aka, God, aka, Jesus as Yahweh God incarnate!
This is a religion forum, not strictly a Jesus forum. You may of course bridge the topic to Jesus, but doing so does not retroactively mean discussions not specifically of Space Jesus holding the ships in place, are somehow slapping Jesus in the face. You would of course be welcome to state the hypothesis that within the scenario trying to go too far away from earth was a slap in the face to Jesus (the target being the astronauts, not spectators talking about what it means).
“No Fly Zone”
In such cases, warnings are usually attempted when an aircraft approach any no fly zone. As opposed to say what Iran did to Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 (as much as Iran insists the only criminals in need of arrest, are those who leaked that they shot it down).
Do the moderators have the ability to find fault, with at least a reprimand, as in this case, RationalMadman...
We have the ability to do almost anything, which does not mean we will... I've skimmed those links, and did not spot where RM accused you are threatening him. Right now I have you accused him of accusing you... In future, please click the report button when someone does something like that toward you, and concisely message whatever context to one of the moderators (currently myself or Virt).
As for him telling you to "kindly fuck off," two things.
- While it may have been a very subtle and easy to miss request, it does contradict your insistence that he never told you to leave him alone...
- We do have a rule about potty mouths ("Unwarranted systemic vulgarity"), but a lone F bomb is far from reaching the point of notice. If someone was as addicted to vileness the way you're addicted to spreading the good word of Jesus, then we would intervene.
Created:
Some notes regarding reports within this topic:
- The first post targeted no site members, and was further not explicit adult sexual material. It can be disliked, without being a CoC violation.
- BrotherDThomas is the OP. This gives him some leeway within topics he starts, as such makes it an active choice for people to seek engagement with him; presumably knowing his habits. I want to say it would be nice (not required) if he added a warning label, but his user picture implies one.
- Reports are taken more seriously if issued by the person targeted.
Created:
The current voting policy (sans update to S&G) can be viewed at: https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
I'm hoping people have ideas for improvements. So if so, please share them.
One example might be other voting paradigms which lead to valid votes. Another might be changing the point allotements within the categories. Etc.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Don't even joke about that!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@BrotherDThomas
***
BrotherDThomas,
If RationalMadman (RM) has or has not in the past requested you to leave him alone, with #10, he clearly has now.
Further, within this thread you seem to be the only person who has made direct mention of Jesus. If he has elsewhere in some way slapped Jesus in the face, neither him nor the topic author mentioning Jesus here makes it irrelevant to the conversation in question. Continuance of this (particularly if directed at RM), will increasingly be seen to resemble attempts to derail unrelated topics with impertinent grudges.
This is not yet rising to the level of a restraining order, but if you don't tone it down it quickly will.
To use an analogy: You're shooting on sight, rather than applying escalation of force.
-Ragnar, DM
***
P.S.: If you look at #8 without seeking offense, there's some interesting biblical conversations which could spring from it. As an example, characters within the bible primarily get simulated within our minds as we read it. Not to mention, the bible itself is flat, and I suspect you disbelieve in things outside of the bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
How precise is the mechanism for voting privileges being unlocked? Is it just 100 forum posts or 2 completed debates, or does it check the debates for any certain content?
I'm thinking ahead to an upcoming referendum focused on voting policies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
There is a clause in there for any criminal action. And you are still welcome to suggest better wording
It's really just to take the teeth out of one type of frivolous BS.
Created:
Posted in:
Code of Conduct
Basics
- By using DebateArt.com, you are bound and agree to be bound by this Code of Conduct and the Privacy Policy, as well as any other rules that may be published from time to time. If participating in debates, you are also bound by the Voting Policy.
- In essence, treat others as you wish to be treated. If someone makes a wholly reasonable request of you, please try to comply.
User Accounts
- All users must be a minimum of 13 years of age when creating an account, or older to help comply with any local laws pertaining to Internet usage.
- You may not use hateful, harassing, or obscene language or imagery in your username or avatar.
- Multi-accounting and any action indistinguishable from it is prohibited. Dispensation may be granted on a case-by-case basis, such as for multiple users within a single residence; but they will have certain restrictions applied (e.g., never voting on each other’s debates).
- Users are free to transition a new account or back to a former, so long as they demonstrate no exploitative intent, and inform moderators to ensure only one is active.
- Account bans may be appealed by emailing: [email protected]
Authenticity
- You may not impersonate individuals, groups, or organizations in a manner that is either intended to or likely to deceive others. Parody accounts are acceptable, so long it is clear that they are parodies and do not parody other site users.
- Extravagant lies, not to be confused with mere context issues, may rise to the level of constituting impersonation.
- You may not violate others intellectual property rights.
Harassment
- 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.
- 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.
- Threats of lawsuits are not allowed, and by using this site you agree to waive any rights to file civil suits against fellow site users for any non-criminal actions.
- 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.
Violence and Criminal Behavior
- 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.
- You may not promote or encourage suicide or self harm.
- You may not engage in or promote criminal activity.
- You may not engage in or promote the sexual exploitation of minors.
Safety and Privacy
- 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.
- You may not share any content from private messages, without the consent of the respective authors; or with moderator approval (such as for dispute resolution).
Objectionable Content
- You may not post or link to media that is excessively gory or violent.
- You may not post or link to pornography or other explicit adult sexual material.
- You may not engage in commercial advertising anywhere on the site.
- Spam is prohibited, and any overtly repetitive nonsensical posts are considered spam.
- Unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech, are subject to disciplinary actions.
Consequences
The moderators retain the authority to interpret and apply all policies in the best interests of the site and users therein. In most cases, a “reasonable person” standard will be utilized.
The specific consequence will depend on the severity and frequency of the violations, along with user history, context, and other relevant factors. Any violation of the Violence and Criminal Behavior policy will result in an immediate indefinite ban.
Consequences for violations include:
- Nothing, as most perceived violations are too minor to constitute a true offense.
- Written warnings, which are most common for first-time violations.
- Restraining orders, which will always be mutual to ensure neither may antagonize the other.
- Revocation of abused privileges, such as loss of the ability to create threads due to creating too many spam threads.
- Temporary bans, with increasing duration for subsequent violations, up to 90-days.
- Indefinite bans, which have no set expiration, but may be appealed every 90-days.
In addition to the above measures, moderators reserve the right to:
- Delete any content in violation of the above rules.
- Lock threads with frequent noteworthy violations of the above rules, or as a preventative measure when such are assuredly imminent.
Created:
Posted in:
None of the votes were remotely close, so I don't see any benefit in worrying about how or why anyone voted.
Outcomes:
- The new Code of Conduct is ratified. 75%
For most people this should primarily be just changed empahses, but which should be easier for new members to read.
In the next few days Virt will be putting it into the information center, followed by us petitioning Mike to update the main link (no need to ask him now, as one step needs to be done before the other).
Further changes may of course be requested. Larger ones will require another referendum. - Private Messages may be shared with moderator approval. 60%
This closes an annoying loophole.Do understand that context matters. If you invite someone to this site, and one of you refers to the other by first name instead of username, that innocent slip is not what the privacy rules are here to enforce. - Within the Voting Policy, Spelling and Grammar has been expanded to include other excessive legibility issues. 65%
Effectively this makes the point Legibility issues. It should not be awarded for mild preference, but rather as a penalty if someone chooses to make their case hard to read. And with all points, don't award it just because someone else did.
For clarity: This does not change it's value. It's still worth only 1/3rd of arguments. - Reports may still be submitted without a reason. 55%
This is a reinforcement of the status quo. No surprise there.
You may always opt to message a moderator with a reason for any report (often very helpful, particularly pertaining to context of perceived offenses).
Created:
Posted in:
Polling has closed. I'll let PressF4Respect give his final numbers, since he's been working harder on that than I have.
I would like to thank everyone who voted, everyone who participated in the prior feedback thread, all moderators and advisers who helped write the new CoC.
The new CoC is of course directly inspired by the old CoC written by Bsh1 and Virtuoso, and based primarily on previous refinement efforts of Drafterman and Virtuoso.
Plus while I've lost count of the number of people who helped refine it, off the top of my head: bmdrocks21, CaptainSceptic, PressF4Respect, christopher_best, blamonkey, RationalMadman, Imabench (spiritually, as he reminds us not all trolling is bad), and BrotherDThomas (who literally submitted a rewrite, from which the final one borrows several bits of phrasing).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@skittlez09
I see no evidence of exploitative intent. So which account would you like to continue?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Your right, the minor discrepancies between the polls shouldn't affect the outcome, but just to be sure, you can double-check your tally with the following (accurate as of 06/01/2020 1:00am PT):
Looking over some of it due to the rioting is giving me too much anxiety to sleep...
Discipulus changed his mind on #4 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4265-meep-code-of-conduct-sandg-reporting?page=4&post_number=96
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Not sure why, but there seems to be a discrepancy with our voting polls (for #3 and #4):
I would guess when people updated their votes? Since I've got the spreadsheet posted, people may easily double check that they are not being mistallied. I added highlights to non-empty cells to further decrease any miscounts.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yTeO0YjEJ91xzihmRo-Uv-U-2D-ro3W9DUa5hsa7lfo/edit?usp=sharing
With none of the issues close, it shouldn't be anything to worry about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I had forgotten about that plotline. Apparently they retconned Black Bolt as having not really been a member, due to Skrull impersonating him.
I personally prefer it when characters aren't reset. It was in that period they declared Hulk never killed anyone (said as he was leading an alien invasion against earth...).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@User_2006
Updated the tracker. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yTeO0YjEJ91xzihmRo-Uv-U-2D-ro3W9DUa5hsa7lfo/edit?usp=sharing
If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to voice them.
Created:
Posted in:
Preamble:
In this round, I shall not discuss what Black Bolt did to anyone other than those he would claim are his own people. I consider these crimes to be paramount, but if warranted I will list even more.
I shall discuss major contentions in the following order:
I. Cyclops was a Hero
II. Black Bolt was a Monster
III. Terrigen Death Count
I. Cyclops was a Hero:
Scott Summers (AKA Cyclops) has stood against racism since 1963 [1], which was only about ten years ago in Marvel time...
Killed for Stopping Poison Gas
Cyclops’ death was broadcast around the world. He had successfully stopped a cloud of poison gas which was killing millions of people (see Terrigen Death Count below). For this crime, and for fear he would save even more lives, he was executed by Black Bolt [2].
II. Black Bolt is a Monster:
Blackagar Boltagon (AKA Black Bolt) has stood in favor of systemic racism since 1965.
Terrorism at a Young Age
He has ruled the Inhumans since age 20, when he assassinated his peoples parliament and blamed it on aliens [3], which was eerily similar to the burning of the Reichstag [4],only with a much higher immediate death toll.
Gassing the Whole Planet
During 2013’s event Infinity [5], Thanos decided to kill all Inhuman children between a certain age due to one or more trysts with Inhumans (Thanos is an anti-abortion advocate, he firmly believes they should be killed years later, rather than being denied the chance at life).Black Bolt detonated a Terrigen Bomb in New York City, with the intent of increasing the number of targets Thanos would have to kill... Let me repeat that, his plan to stop Thanos’ evil scheme, was to increase the body count ofsaid scheme.
The gas from the bomb became known as Terrigen Mists, which formed two clouds traveling around the planet, messing with people’s DNA (often fatally, for others mere sterilization).The core thing from this section is that Black Bolt did this by choice and is thus to blame for the consequences.
Karnak
One of Black Bolt’s best friends and cousin, Karnak literally killed himself in horror of what Black Bolt had done [6].
III. Terrigen Death Count
An exact figure cannot be pinpointed, but there are reasonable ways to estimate it. Doing some massively conservative approximations, this comes to just shy of 23 million people...
Thane’s Town
Thane is Thanos’ son. His exposure to the Terrigen Mists caused the immediate death of the whole town he was in [7].
Flint’s Town
Flint lived in an Inhuman community in Minnesota. His whole town tried to flee the Terrigen Mists, but failed. The mists themselves killed all but Flint (whom was adopted) due to them not being pure (AKA inbred) enough [8].
That they doubted their survival, means this danger was generally known to Inhumans; such as Black Bolt who chose to gas them.
Worse, that they were a community of Inhumans close knit enough to maintain knowledge of distant secret heritage, implies that for every Inhuman Family without knowledge of their ancestry, there is an even greater likelihood of death.
Bird People
An offshoot group of Inhumans called Bird People (I’m not making this up), did not do well with exposure to Black Bolt’s gas. They all died, or grotesquely mutated with insanity as a common side effect [9].
Others
The Marvel Database describes the initial release of the gas causing “millions of Inhuman descendants suffer from Terrigenesis across Earth” [5]. There Are 88 named ones who survived the transformation [10], plus countless others whom are unlisted.
Math
A town is considered to contain between 1,000 and 10,000 people [11]. Looking at just Thane and Flint, and assuming each were surrounded by the most conservative numbers of 1,000 each. We further assume only one million total transformations, of which only those 2 out of every 88 had such horrible results (roughly 2.27%).
This gives us: (88/2)*1,000,000 which equals 22,727 bad outcomes, then based on the assumed average of 1,000 deaths per bad transformation, comes to a grand total of 22,727,272 deaths attributed to Black Bolt.
That nearly 23 million people dead, is only if we are doing conservative underestimates.
There is also the possibility that of those untold millions of Inhumans exposed, most simply died due to not being sufficiently inbred enough to have more than trace amounts of Inhuman DNA (as seen with Flint’s family). Either way you go on this, those millions of the deaths are the direct result of Black Bolt’s eugenics experiment on the entire population of the planet.
Sources:
Created:
Posted in:
I've tried a couple times but I don't think this will ever get off the ground as a debate (credit to RationalMadman for being willing to debate it as a length 22k or 30k debate), so I'm going to make a forum topic.
Anyone is welcome to participate, just understand the first couple posts are going to be weird for a forum...
Short Description:
A fun comics debate.
Disney's official policy to promote the Inhumans iMax release, included that Cyclops turn into a literal Hitler.
Full Description:
In 2016 Marvel Comics launched the limited series Death of X, during which the X-Men’s leader Cyclops is killed by the Inhuman leader Black Bolt. Following this event, the narrative thread throughout various of their comics is that Black Bolt was the good guy, and that Cyclops was basically Hitler. This debate is intended as a discussion to challenge that narrative, in which I intend to show that if either were behaving like Hitler, it would be Black Bolt.
I am hoping to debate an Inhumans fan who agrees with the narrative that Cyclops’ actions were analogous to Hitler.
The title of the debate is thematic, it is not intended to be the resolution. If a traditional resolution is needed, it would be a lengthy statement about the comparative moral values displayed by the two, and how Black Bolt is greater on the Hitleresque quotient (exact phrasing can be decided on in the comment section).
Scope:
This debate is about characters within Marvel Comics, particularly Marvel’s treatment of Cyclops. As pro, I am arguing against the demonization of Cyclops following his death. The scope does not extend to his eventual resurrection or other weird time travel things to include later retcons (I don’t know of any related ones yet, but Marvel has a bad habit of doing things like declaring Magneto never would have killed innocent people, so it must have been someone else who did all that throughout the entire history of the character...).
Burden of Proof:
Pro (Ragnar) has the burden of proving that Cyclops was morally superior to Black Bolt.
Con (my opponent) has the burden of proving that Black Bolt was morally superior to Cyclops.
And yes, modern morals are assumed, as in killing people is wrong, Hitler was a bad person, etc.
Definitions:
Generally normal English is to be used.
If there’s some important definition which you believe would change the outcome of the debate, please discuss it with me in the comments prior to accepting the debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
How did none of you suspect coal lol
I identified him as scum in DP1.
Granted, nothing in DP1 gave me reason to suspect Oro.
...
Thanks for your repeated quality analyses. I dread going against you when you are scum.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
@Stephen
@BrotherDThomas
***
Beyond just what's reported, this thread has degraded pretty far into toxicity. As per the warning for this forum, I'm locking it for a day to give everyone time to cool off: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3621-moderation-notice
Any offenses after it is unlocked, will be treated as aggravated.
-Ragnar, DM
***
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Life happens. And I'm sorry it's happening to you like this right now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Sorry I count't make it. I had to help my GF with term papers.
Created:
Posted in:
Polling (updated 9:00pm PT, May 29th):
Of 19 votes total (I think I'm missing someone)...
- Ratify the new Code of Conduct?
82.4% in favor (14 yes, 3 no). - Allow sharing of Private Messages?
57.9% Yes2 (7 Yes1, 11 Yes2, 1 No). - Change the Voting Policy to expand S&G to include other excessive legibility issues?
82.4% in favor (14 Yes, 2 No). - Require a reason when submitting a report?
52.6% in favor of No1 (6 Yes, 10 No1, 1 No2).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
that is against policy. Why doesn't anybody see that but me? Either change the policy, or enforce it, but it makes no sense to ignore it for whatever contrived reason.
The policy you found, is just an explanation within one of the help files (said file has the statement near the top "** Outdated **"). https://info.debateart.com/help/debates
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I am a bit concerned about the “no insulting mods rule”. While I haven’t done so and have no intention of doing so, I think that personal grievances will add another subjectively moderated rule to the site. People like Wylted, for instance,
For clarity, there is no "no insulting the mods rule" being added. What's being done is the removal of a rule which empowered people to commit any level of vile defamation.
Ironically, Wylted has been the #1 petitioner to overturn that rule.
Created:
Posted in:
Polling :
Of 16 votes total (some questions were abstained by some participants)...
- Ratify the new Code of Conduct?
79% in favor (11 yes, 3 no). - Allow sharing of Private Messages?
Issues with Yes1 have been raised, but as it stands...
50% Yes1 (8 Yes1, 7 Yes2, 1 No). - Change the Voting Policy to expand S&G to include other excessive legibility issues?
85% in favor (12 Yes, 2 No). - Require a reason when submitting a report?
69% in favor of No1 (3 Yes, 11 No1, 1 No2).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
@User_2006
A benefit (and occasionally a hindrance) of comments bumping debates on the default list, is just that.
It's a way people can opt to draw attention to one in need of attention, over say a cluster of FF debates. Plus if a debate is being talked about a bunch, it might be a conversation worth checking out... Obvious downside is a debate with say 1000 comments, is probably a lot of really circular dialog there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
@PressF4Respect
Going to second Press on this. A "Needs Votes" piece on the right could be useful.
Probably anything tied which has under a week remaining, organized by least time remaining. ... There are other ways it could be done, as a fallback when zero debates fit that criteria.
Created:
Posted in:
Date: 05/28/2020
Moderator: Ragnar
Dreadnought has been suspended until his birthday on June 3rd, for being below 13 years of age.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Wait, so even if Yes2 gains a majority, it won't be the option implemented?
I think you mean if Yes1 gains a simple majority... It's a scale, with Yes2 being the medium option. Both Yes options are opposed to the status quo, but both Yes2 and No are presumably opposed to outright dropping that specific rule as seen with Yes1.
I hoped having a week of discussions would bring to light any flaws with the questions. Sadly a strong valid member concern did not come up until this week.
For reference, the question in discussion:
2. Allow sharing of Private Messages?
This is not to imply encouraging it... A "yes" to this may be divided into two subsets (either yes option endorses change):
- "Yes1" indicates with minimal restrictions. Identifying information for example, is still protected under the general doxing rule.
- "Yes2" indicates exclusively with moderator approval.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
In light of your points in #22, I think doing away with that rule needs to be taken very seriously. Hence I believe it should only be considered, if it is overwhelmingly prefered over the combined total from other options.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@User_2006
I did some investigative work a while ago for the final update to the guide, and sad to say I kept using it long after the time of death I've given it:
This tragedy happened in large part due to debate.org's developers being outright opposed to spam suppression (even basic CAPTCHA), likely given that spam is unmistakable from real content to ad agencies.Some may argue the site lives on as long as spam bots produce new pages, but for the human fraction of the user base, the point was debates. On July 11th 2016, an update which broke debate functionality was identified and never reverted or otherwise corrected.As debates are the beating heart of a debate website, this is the attributed cause of death.R.I.P. Debate.orgOctober 2007 - July 2016
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@User_2006
They're a fine place for disagreements, but sub-optimized.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Wait, how can there be a 75% yes with 10 people voting? 75% would mean that 7.5 people voted yes.
Two people abstaining, so only 8 votes counted toward that.
As for other ways to display the results, I focused in on what data I found most interesting. The raw data can be seen at:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yTeO0YjEJ91xzihmRo-Uv-U-2D-ro3W9DUa5hsa7lfo/edit?usp=sharing
Oh yeah nearly forgot to mention, but for #1, 3 people (crossed, ILikePie5, and SupaDudz) voted no, not 2.
Thank you for the correction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
violates the trust and feeling of privacy people had while PMing
You've got a great point. I've updated my vote to reflect my agreement with your concern.
Created:
-->
@Tejretics
Short of disallowing voting entirely, there's no way we can fully prevent horrible RFDs from occurring. But yes, I believe we're at the wrong part of the bell curve, so I would like to make voting a little less restrictive (while not too open to allow single sentence votes on complex debates).
To me part of why I like having S&G be seperate from Arguments, is that if repeated blunders hurts my reading of the debate, I don't just vote on that. Similar with conduct, that I can end up really hating how someone is acting and penalize them for it, but still agree they won the debate. It's an exceptionally rare case for someone to win arguments but lose the rest (I should bookmark it next time I spot one of those).
Plus those points can serve as a nice tie-breaker. Take for example if we argue and I forfeit half the debate, then only two votes come in with a mixed result. Under Winner Selection, we're tied. Under Four Points (I think we should that to "Categorical"), you showing up for the whole debate grants you the victory. If a third voter comes along, under either you would be quite frustrated if they declared me the winner on some technicality, but under Four Points their damage is mitigated to only making it a tie; whereas under Choose Winner you get declared to have lost the debate.
And yes, I would like to add a small voting rule to allow policing of blatant exclusion bias.
Created:
Posted in:
Current Polling:
Of 10 votes total...
- Ratify the new Code of Conduct?
80% yes. - Allow sharing of Private Messages?
100% yes.
60% vs 40% for which form of the refinement. - Change the Voting Policy to expand S&G to include other excessive legibility issues?
75% yes, with two people abstaining. - Require a reason when submitting a report?
80% no.
Created:
-->
@Tejretics
whether you used a swear word once
I'd delete any vote awarding conduct for a single single swear word, unless it somehow overshadowed their argument (such as if instead of making a case they just say 'f__ you,' in which case they might as well have forfeited anyway).
The key thing on S&G and conduct, is the issues must be excessive.
Do you have any suggestions for how to make that more clear? Or any other refinements to the descriptions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Why would you, as a Mod and someone who clearly has a lot of PMs that you don't want public as you're a very active and talked-to member of the site, vote Yes1 instead of Yes2 to question 2?
I really could go either way on it. When in doubt, I lean towards less power to the moderation team. I've already previously had old PMs of mine leaked, and I think it says a lot more about the toxicity of the person leaking it, than it does about what I say in confidence.
Also, I've been told moderators refrained from voting on previous referendums. Any thoughts on if us voting should or should not be allowed? I've always taken the view that since we're not paid, we're still primarily site members.
Created:
Posted in:
I was dealing with drama in my personal life, which pulled me away after I revealed Supa was lying about being vanilla (#130). Granted I was not certain he was scum, only that he visited Cookie. Which combined with our host having clarified there was a way for town to win even if they became outnumbered, made me think the weapon on his ship might in turn be a bomber role I've seen in another game (the alt fire on his ship is stated to: "bores a tiny hole through the hull metal and injects a high-pressure stream of hot plasma into the interior of the vessel, inflicting massive amounts of damage.")
And yes, I believed if anyone was lying about being vanilla, it would be humans, so I watched them the first night. I watched Oro the second night, as he would be a good target to frame me if Supa was innocent (if Mafia, I'd be dead by morning, and people could backtrack to the last thing I said...).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Thank you for the feedback.
Regarding #1: I'm quite open to including refinement questions on another referendum soon. I believe this one will move us into a place where further change (even backwards change) is a lot easier.
Regarding #2: The current rule has been a pain.
Regarding #3: There has been dispute over that, so I want to end it.
Regarding #3: Great idea!
Created:
Posted in:
In case anyone missed it, there was a previous thread for refinements and adding questions.
My vote:
- Ratify the new Code of Conduct?
Yes, for progress. - Allow sharing of Private Messages?
Yes2, updated due to member concerns. - Change the Voting Policy to expand S&G to include other excessive legibility issues?
Yes, as it's a first step in making the voting policy less nit-picky. - Require a reason when submitting a report?
No1, I would love if more people said why they are reporting things, but I don't want it to be forced.
Polling (updated 9:30am PT, June 1st):
Of 20 votes total (some questions were abstained by some participants)...
- Ratify the new Code of Conduct?
83.3% in favor (15 yes, 3 no). - Allow sharing of Private Messages?
60.0% Yes2 (7 Yes1, 12 Yes2, 1 No). - Change the Voting Policy to expand S&G to include other excessive legibility issues?
76.5% in favor (13 Yes, 4 No). - Require a reason when submitting a report?
57.9% in favor of No1 (6 Yes, 11 No1, 1 No2).
Created:
Posted in:
In short, for about a week we'll have a few voting questions open for the community to decide things.
This referendum will run until 10:00am PT (UTC-7), June 1st 2020.
About MEEP:
As seen in the moderation overview,
Moderation may submit questions and proposals regarding moderation policy, voting policy, and the code of conduct to Moderation Engagement and Enactment Processes (MEEPs). MEEPs are binding referenda and comment periods on the questions and proposals submitted. Moderation has full discretion on which questions and proposals are submitted to MEEPs, though no substantive change to the COC may be made without either the consent of the site owner(s) or ratification via a MEEP.
In order for a submitted question or proposal to be ratified, at least 10 users must have voted in the MEEP, and more than a majority of all those voting must have voted for the question or proposal. That means, in practice, that in a MEEP with 10 total voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 7 votes in favor of the proposal or question. If a MEEP fails to produce a binding result, moderation will maintain the pre-MEEP status quo, unless doing so is entirely untenable.
The Questions:
Below is an enumerated list of the content to be voted on. A brief explanation of each question is included as well. Please vote "yes" or "no" to each of these questions.
1. Ratify the new Code of Conduct?
Voting "yes" to this question will overhaul and streamline the Code of Conduct.
- Streamlined it, cutting the length by 45%.
- Made it no longer dependent upon external extended policies and interpretations documents.
- Codified various policies (e.g., context affecting consequences, protocols for new accounts, etc.)
- Removal of the trolling and insults rules, but adding a no targeted harassment rule.
- Expanded to impersonation rule to everyone.
- Removal of the harassing the moderators is ok rule (don’t worry, we’ll still have thick skin).
- Removal of the no "Contravening or Disregarding Moderation" rule.
- Added clauses to protect children.
- And more...
2. Allow sharing of Private Messages?
This is not to imply encouraging it... A "yes" to this may be divided into two subsets (either yes option endorses change):
This is not to imply encouraging it... A "yes" to this may be divided into two subsets (either yes option endorses change):
- "Yes1" indicates with minimal restrictions. Identifying information for example, is still protected under the general doxing rule.
- "Yes2" indicates exclusively with moderator approval.
3. Change the Voting Policy to expand S&G to include other excessive legibility issues?
Voting “yes” would amend the Spelling and Grammar in the Voting Policy, to allow consideration of other legibility issues which distract the user from the arguments themselves (sPeLlInG EvErYtHiNg lIke tHiS, as an example). This would slightly simplify one aspect of voting, and inform a larger effort to overhaul the voting policies in a manner similar to the CoC.
4. Require a reason when submitting a report?
Voting "yes," would require users to message a moderator or use the upcoming improved report tool provide details on why the report is being filed.
No is divided into two options,
- "No1" indicates a belief against the requirement.
- "No2" indicates opposition to upgrading the report tool in that direction.
Voting:
I'm not that attached to how people vote, so long as it's easy to understand. People may also change their votes, but please don't be a pain about it.
A vote could look like this:
- Yes,
- Yes1, (the 1 signifying a preference for variant 1)
- Yes.
Like this (the missing 2, counts it as abstaining that question):
1. No, each change should be an individual question
3. Yes, we shouldn't even have voting rules.
Or even like this (a vote against 3, but abstaining from the others):
Wrong direction for voting, so no.
Created:
Posted in:
Date: 05/25/2020
Moderator: Joint decision
truthbomb has been banned indefinitely, for multi-accounting (alt of Singularity).
Without prompting, expert multi-level analysis was offered comparing behavioral trends, topic selection, and more.
This type of thing can be done as a statistical simulation, to which at the very most basic we could use the Poisson distribution to determine the odds of any two interchangeable users in any notable metric (being a dedicated voter, being a Karen, etc.) showing up within differing amounts of time. It's basically null for W2 to appear independently of W1's banning within that time interval. Still possible of course, but highly doubtful.
Time was given for any new behavior to counter this, but none presented itself. This being a ban without absolute certainty, but weighted based on the need to protect the underage portion of the website against harm. It may be appealed by emailing: [email protected].
Created:
-->
@sigmaphil
That would pretty directly simplify one of the voting rules, allowing a voter to incorporate more general things which distracted them from the actual logical reasons (if they so choose). It is not a great simplification, but more is coming with the next referendum which will have a main focus on voting policies.
Yeah, I'm already asking people to read a potential new CoC. I want people to be able to digest that, and make an informed decisions. Then later move on to another streamline project.
Oh what is your opinion of allowing conduct to pull double duty? Like so long as arguments are for the other side, a voter may give conduct as Kudos if they so choose. ... And yes, I would not want to open it up to risk of abusive fluffing up the side they already favor.
Also if you have any thoughts on simplifying (without dumbifying) the voting policies, please let us know.
Created:
There's currently a little controversy over a debate: https://www.debateart.com/debates/2007/veganism-is-not-the-optimal-diet-for-humans
Currently we are allowing voters to decide on a case-by-case basis without interference. So should moderators enforce any outcome on such nitche cases?
This would apply to: Dual-FFs (even if uneven), FF vs Concession, dual-concessions. I believe paradoxes like this should be excluded from any ruling.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Anyone have any thoughts on the idea of requiring a reason to report a post, debate, and vote?I think that's certainly an issue we could put onto the referendum, with 3 options:
- Keep the current system of reporting (simply clicking on a flag and sending a report)
- Having the option to make a more detailed report (thanks to RM for suggesting this idea)
- Requiring that the user write a reason for reporting
My hesitation on this is that to my knowledge Mike already has adding such an input box on his to-do list.
That said, if people turn out to have no desire for it, that would be one item off his list. Whereas if they want reports to have written details, it's one code tag (not even a line) added when he builds it, so for information gathering it seems useful, even if there will not be any timely results from two out of the three potential results.
Created: