Total posts: 2,627
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
@Tejretics
But in what is it hard to look at? I simply removed the categories sidebar which was pretty much useless and took too much space on the side.The fonts look untidy and weird.The sideward expansion has made cases seem smaller than they actually are.And the categories sidebar was useful so I could just directly click to look at debates from a particular category.I'm also just used to the sidebar being around, as on DDO.
I'm not experiencing these font problems. They sound annoying. It's probably also that you're most comfortable absorbing and processing a debate when the screen looks like the one your brain most strongly associates with that activity.
I just open all debates in a new tab so that I never navigate away from the main debate list and its categories sidebar.
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
I'll spend my time advocating for anyone i think was unfairly punished. I concede that his posting style could come off as spam, so i think a warning not to do it is justified. If he does come back and continues with said behavior, i agree with punishments. The debate bw us right now isn't really Willows. I know him and that he can be very trolly (which i don't know if i agree deserves punishment if the trolling isn't malicious). We are disagreeing on punishment methods. I think every minor to medium offense should always have a warning before action is taken. Bc these are offenses that some may not know is against the rules. I feel this situation is one of those scenarios. Like i said, i wouldn't have known that was considered spam bc of my way of defining what spam is so i could have even done it. So, in these kind of situations it's good to get a warning. In any case, I'm done with this situation, i said my peace and i feel the situation was handled properly in the end.
It's worth pointing out that ever since mods were appointed and the CoC went up, warnings before bans on minor/medium offenses are now de facto policy. If I'm reading it right, that is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
eth, I love ya man, but sometimes it sure seems like you're trying to make a sociopolitical battle out of everything. Sometimes I just want to chat with people on a personal level.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Half the people I talk to about this shrug and say they don't remember when they stopped believing, and the other half describe it as like, their first experience of feeling betrayed. These are the only two responses I seem to get. That's weird.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
If you do change the width back I hope it's still a toggle option or something. Full width makes it easier for me to read debates which makes it more likely for me to vote. Not that it's super important for me to be a voter.
Created:
Posted in:
Maybe "lied to" is overly harsh language to apply to every case. It can be a relatively harmless fib to make Christmas fun for kids.
I was never told Santa exists. I mean, my mom basically referred to herself as Santa. It was another name for "exciting holiday mom who gives presents if you're good".
So I never went through this whole moment where I found out there is no Santa. I'm interested in hearing what it was like for people who did, and if you have kids, whether you tell them Santa is real.
In today's day and age it really must be harder to get kids to believe in Santa. We've got eight-year-olds with phones and google search. "Says here on Wikipedia Santa is a fictitious amalgam of several cultural legends. Nice try, Dad."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
How many filters does information have to go through before it reaches our consciousness?The reality we experience is in many ways corrupted from that which our senses draw from, our nervous system reformulates, and our subconscious sorts through.There is a source, and what we experience comes from a selective drawing from that source and heavy processing. You could certainly say we live in a simulation.
Definitely some truth to that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
101 denominations. Lol.
I would expect yes, a theist who believes they follow the one true religion will probably think other religions are incorrect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
Yes it's the universe.Let me be clear here, the universe has no intelligent agency, just the laws of physics. A flowing river can create a canyon, but the river has no intelligent agency either. Many people wrongly assume that when they see the word creator it implies an intelligent agency, it does not.
It would appear we share a common creator. And an awesome, fascinating, deeply mystifying creator it is.
Why do you think it's so important to people that our creator have intelligent agency?
Obviously I already have an answer and could probably guess yours, but all people do in religion forums is ask the same questions and have the same discussions, so why not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
*blows dust off thread*
I'll suspend judgment until I hear that the task force has actually done something worth being concerned about. If it remains unbiased, protects all religions equally, doesn't infringe upon the liberties of the non-religious, and doesn't push people around under the guise of "defending religious freedom", then I will have no problem with it.There is a (somewhat) open question about whether or not we should accept as a check on government power and abuse the character of the people that populate it. That is, should we judge whether or not to allow the government have some power based upon how the best person will use it or based upon how the worst person will use it.If we recognize that it is much harder to take away power than it is to grant it, then I think it is prudent to err on the side of very reluctantly allowing power to increase, no matter how favorably we view the person currently wielding it. You can never know who will end up wielding that power in the future. For example, I liked Obama and think he was a decent president and a good man. Yet I objected to his use of drone strikes. My feelings about Obama's use of that power notwithstanding, that power (which has allowed to persist) now rests in the hands of someone who is, generously speaking, an unstable megalomaniac.
Very well put together argument. I seem to have forgotten to tell you so last month.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Lol risque. I love it. Aww, but I expect you'll be toning it down now that you have a few chevrons on your sleeves. Damn. How fun does a risque moderator sound.
I don't really understand how running a lot of programs is overbearing and I would've thought there'd be more to it, but okay. Shame on you for promoting activities. SHAME.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I appreciate the feedback and peer review. I don't consider myself unbiased enough to objectively evaluate the voting standards, so I won't touch that with a 10 foot pole.I understand the desire to have users understand the rules, but - and call my cynical - that's really a luxury. The CoC isn't really for the users, its for site administration. And I agree with you about it being hard enough to get people to read the rules to begin with. That's part of the reason why I think that burden should be eliminated as much as possible. I completely agree that people will be unlikely to read the "whys" if they were in a separate document, but I don't think we can force or trick the users to read them by putting them in the rules document; they'll just not read that, too.
Thanks for hearing my comments fairly. If nothing else, I think they should take some of your advice about conciseness and redundancy. It would really shorten the CoC. Ultimately people come to this site for recreation and they don't want to slog through a long treatise that isn't actively entertaining them. I'm worried the intensity of some of your other objections will make them disregard your recommendations in their entirety.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
This isn't about your issues as you described them. Which I agree with btw. I think some people are just interested in blunter dirtier debate where they can unleash. They don't want a safe place. They want an exciting unsafe place. We already have unmoderated debates. But some people who are not interested in formal debates would be interested in the same concept.
Spilling over into the main forums is a genuine concern and would depend. On the forums where I saw this implemented, people were used to the dynamic of leaving their sh*t in the unmoderated forum and they understood they'd be penalized for bringing it into the main forum. Once that status quo was established it was respected. There was a real iron wall there. But it would be the moderators who have to put up with the growing pains before this status quo is established, putting out fires that spill over into the main forum and whatnot. Certainly wouldn't blame 'em for not wanting to even touch it.
Created:
So I've been seeing a few people lament being unable to tell so-and-so he's an idiot, or tell everyone they're idiots, or, I dunno, strip naked and gallop around the room smacking their own ass and yelling "you like horsey? you like?". As one does.
On a few sites I've seen a separate subforum where some -- repeat, some -- of the rules were suspended. Mostly the ones prohibiting personal attacks, profanity, and adult/NSFW content. Threats, doxxing, all the serious stuff, still banhammerable. And every time you clicked on that subforum to navigate to it a box popped up asking you to input your age with a message something like "you're about to see some sh*t, don't say we didn't warn you".
Thoughts?
Created:
-->
@thett3
on DDO back when people actually voted on debates
Tell me stories of these ancient times, Elder One. Is it true the desert was once green and verdant, and water fell from the sky?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
Are you sure it's deliberate. As humans we can suffer from intentionality bias.
It irritates me when someone begins with "I hate to break it to you, but...". Particularly when it's something I already know, which is the case most of the time. My hands reflexively make neck-strangling movements.
Created:
Posted in:
It sounds like you were a rebel back on DDO, bish. You'll have to tell me a wild story or two sometime.I don't think I've advocated much intervention at all. Certainly, only a small, small minority of users are going to use phrases like the one I demonstrated to REF or are going to engage in cyberbullying. Where have I advocated high levels of interventionism in this thread? I certainly see no evidence of that. And, as I said earlier, I agree that people should deal with their disagreements themselves, but, unfortunately, there are situations which demand moderator action. Those situations are a fraction of all interactions on this site, and it is my hope that moderation can largely take a backseat in the user experience.We'll see about that, man... based on your DDO history, I have a hard time believing that you won't overreach. But perhaps you'll prove me wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I see they have a DDO only channel. Maybe that will segregate the problem.We have to be rewarded for the year we suffered with that sie
I'm pro-reward in general.
Created:
Posted in:
No wait, Mike is the king. That would make you and Virtuoso... perhaps an archduke and count. Viscount. Archduke and marquis? I don't know, something upper echelon nobility, I've forgotten my feudal hierarchies. The cultural variances always confused me, like in some places the duke or the baron is the ruler, wtf. And Tej would be like... a knight. Or an esquire. This ramble is clearly an important use of your time and attention, by the way, you should be writing this down.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
If the assistant moderator must obtain approval for each and every action, then what are they good for? I don't see how this lightens the workload for the moderators themselves.I thought this as soon as I read it.The utility is much like Blade-of-Truth to Max, for example. The recommendations of assistant mods make it easier for the primary mods to just make a cursory review the incident (inasmuch as the primary mods trust the judgement of the assistant mods).
I don't recognize that user, I'm afraid. I only saw max appoint a few assistants in the religion forum. They had no special powers.
But I gather you're saying this scenario:
You get an explosion of reports from a recent flamewar thread. Both parties accuse the other, the thread is eleven pages long, you slowly go through the whole thing to reasonably find who is at fault.
Would be turned into this scenario:
Assistant mod: "Hey bsh, I saw the whole thing and User X was the troublemaker, it okay if I go ahead and temp ban?"
I am willing, perhaps, to adopt a position of confirming whether a user was banned (as opposed to merely having left the site), but not exposing the reasons for that ban. But it's something that would be have to be asked of us, not broadcast for public spectacle.
I appreciate that you're trying to exercise discretion for banned members, and that you want the forum to stay classy even about expulsions, but I think there's also something to be said for transparency and an administration that explains why it does things. I also think your stance will cause people to talk more about bans, not less. But I'll abandon this line of argument since it is irreducibly a difference of opinion, and he who weareth the crown haveth the say. Long live the king.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
I like the full width for debates, fwiw.
In addition to a time stamp for each post, could we get text that says 1 day ago, 2 days ago, 2 weeks, etc? Like on DDO. It was convenient.
Created:
-->
@mustardness
Have you ever heard of a pocket of brown fungus-y stuff growing inside a callus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
you're all idiots
Ha. Well you got balls, man, I'll give you that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I like that they took the time and consideration to explain to us why they chose these rules and why we'll lose our online identities here if we break them. In my experience, "because I say so" has never led to a healthy mod/member understanding. And it's when I'm actually reading the rules that I'm likeliest to ask "Why is this a rule?"Can you honestly say that there is a rule in the CoC whose reason isn't patently obvious? I mean, it's pretty generic stuff.
I think just the fact that there has been such heated disagreement about the rules proves that the reasons they exist are important and worth spelling out.
But I honestly can't think of a single rule I didn't immediately get, nope. At most there were some strict rules in the Voting Section that gave me pause for a second.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I'm perfectly fine with the why's of the rules being included with the rules themselves. But perhaps each rule could have a Why? button at the bottom of its section that expands an editorial explanation of the rule.That's a very interesting compromise; I like it.I have two main issues with the "why" being included in-line in the same document.1. The longer and more verbose a document is, the less likely it is to be read and understood in its entirety. That's just a fact. And what you absolutely, positively want, in this case, is people to read, understand, and conform to the CoC. People understanding why a rule is the way it is, doesn't matter. It may sound callous, but as a site owner and moderator, they want user obedience, not user agreement. Agreement is icing on the cake, but if it gets in the way of conveying the desired result, it should be set aside.2. It raises a potential issue where a user may agree with the rule, but disagree on the why of that rule. Two people can agree on the same course of action for different reasons. If what matters is the course of action, then talking about the reasons is only going to foster argumentation, which then in turn distracts from the course of action! This is just human behavior. You can put a document in front of a person, and they can agree with 99% of it, but damned if they won't chew your ear off about the 1% they disagree with.Putting the "why" in its own document insulates the CoC from that kind of disagreement. People might still disagree with the overall philosophy, but that disagreement will be directed away from the CoC, not at it.
My hope was that placing explanations in collapsibles would cut down on the visual length of the document. Because your #1 is completely correct about length and likelihood of reading. It should be as easy to read as possible.
I like that they took the time and consideration to explain to us why they chose these rules and why we'll lose our online identities here if we break them. In my experience, "because I say so" has never led to a healthy mod/member understanding. And it's when I'm actually reading the rules that I'm likeliest to ask "Why is this a rule?"
But I have no problem with it being a separate document, and there is some organizational value to that idea. I suppose it could be linked in the footer as Manifesto or Mission Statement or some such. I question how many people would really read it, even if it was linked in the CoC. It can be hard enough just to get folks to read one rules page. Though you'd be trading the one long rules page for two separate pages of average length, I suppose.
As for disagreement on the why of a rule -- I'm confused about how it would matter. I don't think agreeing with a rule but disagreeing with its reason would be a common source of argument. But even if it was, why would it "distract from the course of action"? The rules are the rules and they will be enforced, regardless of our disagreements.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
infeactions will be handled privately and occur via PM. Most of the time it’ll probably just be mod coaching.As per the ban thread bsh is opposed to it so most likely not. I still think a ban log is a good idea.
I'm with you on that one. But my opinion doesn't count, so I hope you keep defending it. I even think the administration being silent about bans can generate more talk and gossip about bans, where people are asking if such and such user was banned, why were they banned, details, etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
How are infractions private, unless they're being committed in private messages? And will you guys be implementing that thread for announcing and explaining bans or other rule enforcements?
Created:
Posted in:
I agree with a lot of draft's points about redundancy and organization. The CoC did seem a bit repetitive when I was going over it.
If the assistant moderator must obtain approval for each and every action, then what are they good for? I don't see how this lightens the workload for the moderators themselves.
I thought this as soon as I read it.
Trials fall into the definition of personal attacks as thus defined. They do not need to be called out. Section is redundant.
In earlier site discussions, there was talk about the idea of bans by popular vote. A few seemed to see it as democratic. I interpreted this as the CoC making a point to declare it stands against that (thank goodness).
The purpose of this document is to tell the users what they can and cannot do on this site, and the consequences for violating that. Waxing philosophical about the nature of debate and communication on the internet should be reserved for a separate document. A mission statement or something like that.
I'm perfectly fine with the why's of the rules being included with the rules themselves. But perhaps each rule could have a Why? button at the bottom of its section that expands an editorial explanation of the rule.
2. Mere InsultA mere insult is a simple unjustified insult. "Stupidity" is not something that can be objectively shown or grounded. Nor can other insults with subjective meaning(a**hole, etc.). Some things which may be insulting can be justified. "You are saying something dishonest" can be justified objectively, by demonstrating dishonesty. If it isn't justified, though, then it becomes a mere insult. Mere insult of ideas is allowed, mere insult of people is not.Slurs against an entire class of people (such as racist, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, transphobic, ageist,ableist, religious, political, ethnic, or national groups) are mere insults.Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation,ethnicity, etc., is not a legitimate excuse for mere insult.This entire section is redundant.The description here falls under the general definition of what a personal attack is and does not need to be called out as a specific example.
I think the last paragraph should be kept and moved to the definition of a Personal Attack. Specificity is good.
Also, we're threatening to ban people if they make any unfounded accusation? Ridiculous.Recommendation: Eliminate reference to "accusations" and reduce to "Threats."
The first thing that leapt to my mind was accusations of multi-accounting. They're inevitable and not uncommon. I've seen accusations of multi-accounting I heartily believed myself. But there's no way a member can produce hard proof to back it up, so this not uncommon thing people do may result in a lot of policing if it's interpreted as "unfounded accusations".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
1. Will certain debate topics be 'out of bounds' because they can be construed as 'hurtful' or 'a form of attack', even if conducted cordially? Examples of a few extreme test cases:- defence of soviet policy that resulted in huge loss of life for its subjects- historical revisionism surrounding the holocaust- defence of the execution of gay people by a devout Muslim- arguing that homosexuality is deeply immoral- discussing relationships between race and iq- arguing that transgenerism is a mental illness
I think our right to controversial free speech is safe here. Like a user recently told me all women should be banned from the site. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/121?page=1&post_number=12 Not pretty, but still free speech, a right we all have and which I support. There's also a thread called Unpopular Political Opinions where people let fly with some pretty blunt stuff. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/72?page=1 Anyway, we all know when we come on the internet that we won't be perfectly protected from ugly words. That's just the nature of the jungle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheHammer
Wanted the thread to conclude on a post he personally found mic drop worthy./endthreadWhy did you feel the need to say that
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Well, Mike, are you happy you don't have to put up with the headache of moderation anymore and can focus totally on site development?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
It's weird that I've never heard of him before. Looks like he was created in 1965.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
What's to be done?
I see they have a DDO only channel. Maybe that will segregate the problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
That's cool, but kind of broad. Lemme think.
Favorite superhero if you had to choose?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
@Earth
Lol. I see. Spam on, mates. *salutes*
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
@ShabShoral
I hear ya, eth. My heart sank for a second when I read the words "hands off" and "will follow DDO's approach to modding". Flashback moment. But I really like the CoC they wrote, and if they just enforce their rules there I think they'll do a good job. Have you taken a look at it yet? Particularly liked the breakdown of the various kinds of insults and attacks and their place in the spectrum of internet hostility.
I HIGHLY recommend listening to this podcast about DDO Moderation:
👍
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheHammer
While I am glad we finally have mods, I am disappointed in bsh1. Not that he isn't an intelligent fair person, but because he was too much an AirMax man. All indications are that he will be just as much of a non-mod as AirMax was.For example, I don't think he would have banned Z, Willows, Lunatic or hari the way Mike did. Basically, we have AirMax in all but every thing but the name. And that is the first step to sharing DDO's history.With Mike knowing all this and still making him top mod does not fill me with faith. Let me be clear, I don't dislike bsh1, or think he will be deliberately unconcerned, he just is an apprentice of AirMax and sees AirMax's ennui as the proper way to mod. That is how he was thought.Ok, now that I've alienated both mods, I will give bsh1 a chance. Clean slate and all that.I hope both mods much success and little drama.This is a terrible post. I'd be much more concerned about the opposite happening
I don't think it was a terrible post. Eth doesn't want DART to become like DDO, where lack of moderation became detrimental to the health of the forum. I share his feelings about a return to those standards. They were pretty terrible.
But I agree with drafterman that DDO's problem was a distant and neglectful administration, and that we don't have that problem on DART.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
I only bring it up as a potential trouble starter. Flamewars take over chats even worse than threads.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
Chat's usually dead when I check in there. But I think I saw someone from DDO calling DART trash that doesn't belong on Discord. Might want to put "no hating over site loyalty" in the rules to kill potential tribalism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Yeah but science is still in its infancy. Another point is that science defines our reality... not any additional realities that might be. Although, there is math for it all which i find interesting. You just can't test a lot of what we know. Plus, i think spirituality is infinite. I think we come from an infinite platform. Therefore, i don't think science will ever be able to define it for we are finite beings trying to define an infinite reality. Can we ever? Who knows, but there is a chance we will never be able to. Just like a dog has it's limits... humans probably do to. However, if humans do come from an infinite intelligence... then interestingly, we should be able to imagine it. Which amazingly we can. We just can't define it perfectly in our limited bodies and mind.
True. The many worlds hypothesis is a legitimate theory in physics.
I'm actually not sure the human mind can truly imagine infinity.
Watch this video if you want and have time. This guy is really good at explaining what i can't. He has a similar belief to mine. I add a bit to it, but it's basically the same idea of a lot of people that find this infinite intelligence thing to be plausible.
Long vid. May not watch the whole thing, but I'll give it a good half hour and get back to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
A definition of faith...."something that is believed especially with strong conviction"Evidence leads to strong conviction.No, the faith is in the scientific method as far as being a way of aquiring knowledge.Or in the case of most people, faith in what people say or write in textbooks is science.
By that limited definition, science does produce faith, yes. Keeping in mind that just because science can produce faith does not mean it relies on faith. I don't believe "something that is believed especially with strong conviction" is a complete or accurate reflection of what science is.
I've heard theists try to draw a comparison between religion and science before, usually in an attempt to put religion and science on equal footing. But they're not the same, and that's okay. Science is not about what emotionally resonates within the personal human journey, and religious faith is not about gaining testable scientific data about the universe. While all religion I am aware of claims to be revealed truth, the methods, aims, and qualities of religion are sufficiently different from science to be considered apples and oranges imo.
Created:
Posted in:
Helped Juggle doxx users?? I assume it was in extenuating circumstances.Airmax could see Ip addresses and even helped Juggle to dox some users as in full name, address via getting their lawyers to pressure ISPs.Airmax was NOT a hand-off god-mod (god mod is below admin but above a standard mod in what they can access and do). He could delete forum posts, forum-restrict you, vote-restrict you, ban you, in fact he could alter the contents of your profile but never used this power maliciously.
I'm sure he had the power to do those things, but I still found the moderation on DDO hands-off.
Created: