DebateArt.com

Anonymous reporting is absolutely stupid. A highly successful reporter should get their reports handled faster and you should gamble that they will give accurate reports more readily if pressed for time. A poorly accurate reporter, especially if high volume and rate needs to have a violation that you should add to CoC called report spam that can disallow them to report for a period of time until they learn. If they keep at it, a site ban should be in order no joke.

1. There was never any "problem" to which de-anonymization was a solution.

I like this attitude. But if you feel that strongly about it, why is this even a discussion? Just tell bsh1 "No" he doesn't get this loaded gun to play with?

Dude. It's YOUR site. They only have the power to do what YOU give them. Put your foot down and say, "No, you can't have that."

I have this question, is there any way to tell if bsh1 has the ability already? If no, then he could already be reading PMs now right?

You have that with the 10/day limit. Also, the issue with the spam reports was the work load the mods decided they needed to do in response to them. That, too, has been fixed with the relaxation of the voting standards and the lack of need of mod response for every report. Furthermore, the lack of anonymity didn't stop the spam reporting.

With respect to Mike, it isn't about trust. We access his servers. He has access to all of the information we put here. That is an inherent concession any user makes when they sign up. His turning over PMs (or any other information) to law enforcement isn't up for discussion. If he is so supoena'd, he doesn't have a choice.

It is less about "trusting" Mike than the fact that that bridge is already crossed and burnt. There is no uncrossing it. I did not, however, give any sort of consent, implicit or otherwise, to let some random person who happens to have Mike's ear have access to that information.

Mike reads all PMs when and why he pleases.

Do you still remember my idea? Whoever is winning the debate has it in their wins category rather than only once you have won. Like on DDO? 

Besides that, an alternate theme would be kinda cool, but I understand that takes a lot of work. 

Also, I think it's a little bizarre that tied points go to both debaters and it makes it a little complicated.

2. Allow open challenges to specify both a minimum and maximum ranking requirement. Just setting your minimum requirement to 1501 would prevent random noobs from accepting the debate. But putting an upper limit on the debate as well would prevent significantly higher ranked debaters from beating down less experienced debaters who want someone closer to their own rank. 

Needs more activity though.

Dude... how long does it take for google to optimize this site... You're still not on the first 4 pages of results for "debate sites" ... 

Can we archive this thread at some point and start a new one? Not necessarily now, but, eventually.

am I actually going insane?

It was just an amusing vision. Don't let worst case scenarios bog you down. It's a really good idea. I really think you should stick to it. The problems can be discussed and worked out. It deserves a trial period at least.

I support 'spies' who can see even what mods can't that way you stay in power. We will spy for the mods and lie to them at times to stir the pot about what's going on in the private communities, they will punish us if we lie too much, we will lie if they punish us too much.