Total posts: 3,773
After only a day of discussion, it feels like this will be a success.
Census data (yes/null/no)
1. (8/1/1) 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, -1,
2. (6/3/1) 1, 1, 1, 1, -1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0,
3. (5/2/3) 1, 0, -1, 1, 1, -1, 1, 1, 0, -1,
...
Regarding the new CoC, the link allows both comments and suggesting edits. To assist hammering out a final form, using those are probably the best tools available.
The other questions are of course open for refinement. #3 will probably be expanded to include legibility issues as the voter defines them (so long as it's not BS justification, e.g., "I don't like pro, so I'm penalizing him for using big words."). Again, this is a first step about making voting a bit less restrictive.
...
If anyone would like any questions added, now would be a good time to speak up.
We have a proposal from Discipulus_Didicit, to generally remove enforced PM privacy. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? Unless a good reason not to is revealed, one more user in support will place it on the ballot.
Created:
Posted in:
2) LittleCookie08
3) PressF4Respect
4) Ragnar
5) oromagi ??? wiki/Encoded claim
6) iLikePie5
7) Speedrace
---
SCUM Role Notes
UnOfficial Vote Count
User (3/5) - speedrace, cookie, Supa
Press (1/5) - User_2006,
Created:
Posted in:
We're not in a hurry, and there's a theme which may be adventitious.
Unvote
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@User_2006
As you're two votes away from being lynched, you should warn us if you happen to be hated or anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
UnOfficial Vote Count:
Trains:
Press peaked at 2, with Pie and User,
Warren peaked at 2, with Ragnar and Pie
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I have never liked the idea of having any level of enforced secrecy regarding PM contents.
I feel like it's there for some important reason, but I do not know what it is.
If no big reason is revealed, and anyone else expresses support for it, I would be down with adding that as an option to the MEEP (likely with some slight expansion of the main doxxing rule, for not sharing personally identifying information from PMs).
This does take me back to the last time someone PM doxxed me, to which I mostly just found funny that they thought I would particularly care.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
@User_2006
Unvote,
VTL User_2006
Created:
Posted in:
Now that everyone's posted, here's my reads for the first day:
1) SupaDudz - The first person to claim (#8), but I'm suspicious of early vanilla claims due to it benefiting scum. #25 is slightly suspect if User_2006 scum flips. I do find his misspelling of his race name to be a favorable sign.
2) LittleCookie08 - No opinion, save for a slight oddity of seemingly unearned top of mind awareness from User_2006 in #26.
3) PressF4Respect - I'm wondering what's going on in #37, #43, and #48. Regardless, I appreciate him giving useful reads in #46. His questioning in #57-#63 appears town-like.
4) Ragnar - He's scum more often than not.
5) oromagi - No opinion yet, but his #5 will become relevant for future reads.
6) iLikePie5 - No opinion yet, but with #60 he's at least putting in work.
7) Speedrace - Defending User_2006 to Warren in #21 and #24, after having seen User in the previous game, seems off. Granted, he also defends Warren in #81. ... Yeah, I'm thinking ahead too far into potential combinations.
8) Warren42 - Slightly suspect full claim in #32, as he would traditionally want Mafia to waste a night kill on him; justified with being a normal instead of a weak hider, but I don't see what is so weird about that (I'm honestly guessing he got mislynched for something similar before).
9) User_2006 - It took me a few games to understand what calculated posts meant, but #16 feels calculated; it's working very hard to defend itself later if I flip town. His reason for a VTL in #52 is weird and his defense of it in #61 is even more weird ("I think he is most likely town because he said it"), even if it could be a misunderstanding from inexperience.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
2) I think this doesn't go far enough but is a step in the right direction, another yes vote.
What more would you like to see on this?
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
no on 2Communist
This jibe exemplifies my issue with the current personal attacks rule.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
...As long as an argument is legible...
Exactly my point. Or shall I SAY EXACTLY MY POINT I SAY EXACTLY MY POINT I SAY EXACTLY MY POINT I SAY EXACTLY MY POINT I SAY EXACTLY MY POINT I SAY EXACTLY MY POINT I SAY EXACTLY MY POINT I SAY EXACTLY MY POINT... I'm so smart I capitalized everything to make it seem more important, and bolded it to make it bigger, and underlined it to add further emphasis, and I did this on all of it. This is to say that at some point, even without misspelling anything, legibility is harmed such that it becomes painful to try to read someones case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@User_2006
DAMN IT I am keep turning off my sense of humor just because I am on a debate site.
No need to do that. Even debates on serious topics can have humorous notes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Yes, I'm very aware I'm a zoomer, zoomer
Conceived during a Zoom meeting?
Created:
Posted in:
TOWN Role Notes
---
1) SupaDudz Vanilla Zoq-Fot-Pik
2) LittleCookie08
3) PressF4Respect
4) Ragnar
5) oromagi ??? Encoded claim
6) iLikePie5
7) Speedrace
9) User_2006
---
SCUM Role Notes
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Oromagi: Too inactive to tell (only one post, which was fluff)
I hope I am not ruining a trap (whatever the term is), but a small thing to note here is Oro is well known for using breadcrumbs. So while #5 is weird and fluff like, I would bet money he'll later prove it contained a claim (possibly some race which smells like lemons?).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Claim for me on post 8
Thanks. I assume you meant Zoq-Fot-Pik? (you listed Fit instead of Fot)
And yeah, I much prefer when there's a quick reference available.
And yeah, I much prefer when there's a quick reference available.
TOWN Role Notes
---
1) SupaDudz Vanilla Zoq-Fot-Pik
2) LittleCookie08
3) PressF4Respect
4) Ragnar
5) oromagi
6) iLikePie5
7) Speedrace
9) User_2006
---
SCUM Role Notes
Created:
Posted in:
Well, time to get this going...
TOWN Role Notes
---
1) SupaDudz
2) LittleCookie08
3) PressF4Respect
4) Ragnar
5) oromagi
6) iLikePie5
7) Speedrace
9) User_2006
---
SCUM Role Notes
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
Curious that you would reveal that without any pressure. Mafia knowing to not try to target you, is beneficial for them. What do you believe is the benefit to the town?
Created:
-->
@Melcharaz
1. Ratify the new Code of Conduct?Will the 3 points under ratifying conduct be under different questions?
Not currently. If you do a side-by-side comparison of the CoC's, it should be self evident why this is presented as a package, instead of a hundred or so confusing separate questions.
That said, as seen with question 2, some pieces can be broken off into standalone questions.
I do have a question to add. The possibily of having RO on request rather than under mod approval.
RO's may already be requested, but yes, they are subject to moderation approval.
The new CoC makes RO's easier to get: "If a member politely requests that you leave them alone, do so. Repeated failure to comply, is a clear aggravating factor toward the content of said posts." Which is worded to not be a ban hammer on interaction, but to guide people to tread carefully on future engagements (of course obsessive persistence, falls under the harassment rule).
You remove the troll and insult rules, this place will be another ddo.
This is a changed emphasis, chiefly toward where those things most often become problematic (targeted harassment). Still, there remain are multiple rules which protect members from generalized excessive levels of those:
"Extravagant lies (not to be confused with mere context issues) may rise to the level of constituting impersonation."
"Unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives (to include off topic personal attacks and hate speech), are subject to disciplinary actions."
"Extravagant lies (not to be confused with mere context issues) may rise to the level of constituting impersonation."
"Unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives (to include off topic personal attacks and hate speech), are subject to disciplinary actions."
Harrassment should be clearly outlined and defined.
We have experience with trolls exploiting too much detail and then finding loopholes for exact things not being specifically outlined as rule breaking. Imagine a rule which said no more than 5 uses of the F word directed at a member inside a week, and further no more than 4 uses of the S word, but combined not to exceed 7. Some troll, would literally ride that line on a weekly basis, and find various obscenities which are not expressly forbidden (or as we've literally had happen, they start misspelling the words they were expressly told to cease using, and cry semantics). ... Instead we have four rules under the harassment heading, which while outlining some clear violations, are not trying to be all inclusive but rather thematic.
What clauses should be added to protect kids?
Under the violence and criminal behavior heading, "You may not engage in or promote the sexual exploitation of minors." Granted that is implied to already be included under "You may not engage in or promote criminal activity." but we've had issues, so are adding an extra line to make zero tolerate crystal clear.
3. Change the Voting Policy to have S&G to include organizationAnd now you want to tell people how to type their arguements and count it for or against them in debate? ... The most important thing is the reasoning. Not the spelling or typing.
S&G is already on the ballot, this change would merely open up voter discretion to other offenses which impede legibility.
And I do agree with you that the most important thing is reasoning, hence why that's worth 3-points and may be awarded for even a slight lead; whereas S&G is worth 1-point and can only be done as a penalty for excessive legibility issues.
It's really just the first step to a more open voting policy.
And I do agree with you that the most important thing is reasoning, hence why that's worth 3-points and may be awarded for even a slight lead; whereas S&G is worth 1-point and can only be done as a penalty for excessive legibility issues.
It's really just the first step to a more open voting policy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@User_2006
I like the work you put in. However, as Warren said, it might be the Gambler's Fallacy: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gamblersfallacy.asp
Of course, it might not. Game hosts are fallible beings. I spent my first several games as Mafia, which contributed to the lynch the moderators joke. It could have been pure coincidence, but in data-mining that correlation would have a strong coefficient.
My general advice would be to use such logic to inform hunches. It's weak evidence, but still evidence.
Created:
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. By participating in debates, you are also bound by the Voting Policy.
- Treat others as they wish to be treated: If someone makes a reasonable request of you, please comply.
User Accounts
- All users must be a minimum of 13 years of age when creating an account or older to 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. Special dispensation may be granted on a case-by-case basis, such as for multiple users within a single household; but they will have certain restrictions applied (e.g., never voting on each other’s debates).
- 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 is a bannable offense, as is inciting others to do so on 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, calling people out for their statements within a 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 toward the content of said posts.
Violence and Criminal Behavior
- You may not threaten or promote violence against an individual or group of individuals, which includes terrorism or violent extremism. Advocacy in favor of any hate group or their mission 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
- You may not post, threaten to post, or encourage others to post, other people's private information (DOXXING). This includes intimidation or sensitive (but non-identifying) material without their consent.
- You may not post the contents (in part or in whole) of a private message without the consent of all parties contributing to the contents of the private message. [Standalone MEEP question for Moderator approval clause]
Objectionable Content
- You may not post or link to media that is excessive gory or violent.
- You may not post or link to pornography or adult material.
- You may not engage in commercial advertising anywhere on the site.
- Repetitive nonsensical posts are considered spam. Both creating and replying to spam is prohibited (please just report it for deletion).
- Unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives (to include off topic personal attacks and hate speech), are subject to disciplinary actions.
Consequences
The moderators retain the authority to interpret and apply the policy in the best interests of the site and users therein. In most cases, a “reasonable person” standard will be utilized.
Consequences for violations include:
- Nothing (most perceived violations are too minor to constitute a true offense).
- Written warnings (most common for first-time violations).
- Restraining orders (these 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 (of increasing duration for subsequent violations);
- Indefinite bans (bans with no set expiration, to which appeals may be made every 90 days).
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.
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:
Hey DART.
I'm hoping to post a MEEP next week. MEEP stands for Moderation Engagement and Enactment Process, it is a referendum on site policies.
In this thread I will preview some of the questions to be discussed, and I invite you to suggest additional questions and refinements. Importantly, just because a question is suggested or seconded does not guarantee it will be included. Below are issues I already intend to include:
---
1. Ratify the new Code of Conduct?
Voting "yes" to this question will overhaul and streamline the Code of Conduct.
A few key changes:
- Removal of the trolling and insults rules, but adding a no targeted harassment rule.
- Removal of the harassing the moderators is ok rule (don’t worry, we’ll still have thick skin).
- Added clauses to protect children.
Full text is available at (with live updates): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DT0dprecA-ehRtRHO4tDPmUZel4hlUrWKdydLbyFlKk/edit?usp=sharing
And at (frozen draft): https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4214/post-links/173638
2. Allow PM sharing with moderator approval?
Voting “yes” would add a clause to the no sharing of Private Messages rule, to allow moderators to grant permission to settle disputes.
Currently there have been outright lies about the contents of PMs, and the victims are without real recourse. This is intended to correct that oversight.
3. Change the Voting Policy to have S&G to include organization
Voting “yes” would amend the Spelling and Grammar in the Voting Policy, to allow consideration of organizational issues, such as a 10,000 character true wall of text (no line breaks) vs a case which is easy to navigate.
Note: This is intended to inform a larger effort to overhaul the voting policies in a similar manner to the CoC.
---
Again, feel free to make any suggestions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@User_2006
Caution can be good, but sometimes you've got to just roll the dice.
Always remember to try to have fun. As an example, as Mafia I once declined a night kill for the lols.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
As per a random number generator (seed of 4213),
VTL Warren
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I was literally just having a discussion with a user, about the agreed need for rhetoric devices to be permitted, even if they are impolite (not to say ones that are outright vile).
It's hard to codify where the line is, as much as I hope everyone agrees that there is one which may be crossed.
I'm leaning toward viewing the line as targeted harassment, as opposed to insults.
It's hard to codify where the line is, as much as I hope everyone agrees that there is one which may be crossed.
I'm leaning toward viewing the line as targeted harassment, as opposed to insults.
Created:
Posted in:
Date: 5/16/2020
Moderator: Joint decision
BrotherDThomas will receive a 7-day ban, principally for publishing an insulting list of members. A key factor there is the missing consent that would be implied in normal discourse with them. This is not to be confused with a ban on alternative points of view or general abrasiveness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
@warren42
@Speedrace
@User_2006
Let's get this game underway... Okay, probably tomorrow...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
@oromagi
@PressF4Respect
@skittlez09
Woot woot!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Hopefully less bans will be needed in future.
Out of curiosity, what level of people being complete dicks would say say should warrant moderation intervention?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DeusVult
You strangely seem to have missed our entire discussion of Jesus making Mary his key messenger. As you're disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, there is no point to continuing this discussion with you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
What is your opinion of Star Control Origins?
Also do you believe Ghosts of the Precursors will ever get made?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
It gives people a chance to post if they get busy, but it certainly shouldn't take that long on average.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DeusVult
How it chooses to teach it, is within the authority of the individuals according to the times and locations in which it does so. No conflict and no making up stuff.
Yet the rule about women is something it arbitrarily made up, directly against Jesus' own post rebirth actions regarding Mary, even while the church only exists with belief in the resurrection due to said actions.
How is Jesus post-rebirth immediately showing favor to a woman they chose to exclude, me making a case against myself? Fallible humans did something, and Jesus seemed to shun that decision, opting to chose a woman to be the primary messenger of his rebirth.Precisely my point. Even though Mary Magdalene was the first person recorded to have been visited by Jesus after His resurrection (there is good reason to believe that He appeared to His mother Mary first) she was not a priest in the early Church.
Your point is that the early church rejected the example set by Jesus... Wow!
"Not as himself." Exactly.That we are made equally in the value of our souls, we are not made identically to carry out the same functions.
You seem to miss the part where priests are not acting as themselves. Unless God is very limited, matching genitalia should not matter when through the divine power of God someone is not acting as themselves. Plus if that arbitrary physical bit is too much for the power of God to overcome, why not various others?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Would you mind sharing your basic thoughts on your kill methodology each NP?
Also well played. I was certain the scum was either Warren or Singularity.
Created:
Posted in:
/in
Also there is still an edited tag visible on the web version of the site. So people other than the moderator can call out the BS if they see it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Some of us have been playing for years and still VIG the wrong guy
I would have probably shot Warren to test the bulletproof claim. Losing for town a lot faster.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@User_2006
If your gun fails, telling people is a good option, even more so when you're single shot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
One in which their inferior performance will otherwise credit them with a loss, AKA this universe.
This is a sport. A loss due to disqualification, is still a loss.
To use an analogy: Imagine going to the Super Bowl. One team performs badly in the first quarter, so decides they don’t want to play anymore. How do you believe it should be handled?
This is a sport. A loss due to disqualification, is still a loss.
To use an analogy: Imagine going to the Super Bowl. One team performs badly in the first quarter, so decides they don’t want to play anymore. How do you believe it should be handled?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CaptainSceptic
If it is a full forfeit, why would one side be allowed to get any points?
Because of the varied context, to which voters are trusted to use their discretion as they see fit.
Imagine one side offers a strong substantive case in their first round then FFs, and the other just trolls them (not one on topic statement, but technically not a forfeiture). No one would be faulted for a quick FF vote, but we also have no reason to fault someone for going above and beyond.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CaptainSceptic
Yep. In your vote with User_2006 debate
For reference, the vote may be found at: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1991/vote_links/4946
That it was an FF, does not require me to not grade anything. I have the option to do so if I wish. A vote which just says "forfeiture" would also be valid on that debate.
The second vote (#2) gives the forfeiting side the majority of points. This just means the vote is still subject to moderation (if reported), so if he just wrote "forfeiture" it would be deleted, but by the looks of it he graded the debate fairly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CaptainSceptic
the central source of what the rules
That would be the voting policy: https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
We are of course open to discussion of refinements.
The practice appears to be different than the rules.
Any key examples?
In a 2 round debate if a debater does not participate in the second round, is that a full forfeit,
Yes.
Earlier I added extra detail, in case it was a case of them missing the first round but appearing later (which in a two round debate the instigator could do, but the contender would be cheating).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CaptainSceptic
From the voting policy:
A full-forfeit debate is defined as a debate that has no argument presented by one side following the opening round, resulting in all subsequent rounds being forfeited. When this is the case, these debates are considered full-forfeit debates and are not moderated unless a voter votes for the forfeiting side.
The other one was from the jargon right? I just updated that. It was however never meant to be the standard, merely a guide to the shorthand some debaters use.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
I actually brought up a similar point of view. FF should = deleted debate. Unless specified in comments.
If both sides commit a true FF, sure.
Otherwise, generally no. People would FF intentionally if they decide the opposing argument is too strong, in fact they do this already, but your proposal would end up rewarding it.
You may of course request any you participate in be deleted. So long as your opponent consents, it shall be done. This can even be done as a special rule when you instigate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CaptainSceptic
Technically it's not a full forfeit if they skip the first round, but show up later. However, conduct may be awarded without regard for arguments if they forfeit half or more of the rounds. And yes, arguments may always be graded. ... Sadly there have been some dishonest debaters who join as contenders, skip all but the final round, and expect to win; this is of course not how it works, as they cheated to deny any chance at defense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
I think this stems from the conversation we had earlier in the Kaepernick thread.
It does not.
Created: