Total posts: 111
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Life can be terrible sometimes. More like 70% of the time if I'm being honest. Good to know you managed to overcome it in a positive and uplifting way. You got some talent there that's for sure.
Created:
-->
@Castin
@keithprosser
@Wylted
@DrChristineFord
@DrChristineFord
We could do it on edeb8 or DDO. I would prefer it if the first trial was not for RM. It should be a volunteer.
I wouldn't be opposed to this. I still have my DDO account. If we could get enough interest going, I'm be happy to do it over there!
I volunteer to keep starting the rm trial here until I get banned, and then the real trial can be about my ban off-site. Then you get to argue for the trial system.
I won't encourage you to do that, but would be happy to make the argument were it to happen!
@Wylted
Your ideal of getting banned is actually good. I think on that note you can take the lead on setting up a trial for RM. I think if you substitute some words it could pass. Like call RM "frog" and base the trial off of his actions, but just make them a caricature of his actions or something as a test. It could still get you banned because bsh1 is a (censored by Castin), but it could work
Theoretically, there shouldn't be an issue with an RM caricature since no one is technically being called out per se, lol.
@keithprosser
It's the debating about debating about debating that annoys me!
Debating about debating about debating is fine. It's the debating about debating about debating about debating about debating that we should strive to avoid.
@Castin
How would you address the concern that this would turn every ban into a drawn-out drama circus?
From what I can tell on DART thusfar, literally every ban is already a drawn-out drama circus. Hell, I wouldn't have even started this thread if not for the litany of threads about RM on the first two pages. My impression was that the mods were not concerned with drama circuses per se, though that too could be addressed by simply plugging trials into a separate sub-forum akin to the other categories (Arts, games, science, politics, religion, etc) and keeping the main page free and clear of "drama." Out of sight out of mind if you will! Though the only assured way to avoid a drama circus is not to ban anybody. Beyond that, moderate the thread like you would any other!
Created:
Posted in:
Didn't really gain an appreciation of this concept until I was reading an article last night regarding an astronaut who lived in space for a year, came back to earth and was suddenly a hundredth of a second younger than his identical twin brother. Fascinated the hell out of me. Could someone explain this concept to me in simple terms? Stuff like a human being able travel the entire unobservable universe in a human lifetime fascinates the hell out of me!
Created:
-->
@Castin
@Lunatic
@ResurgetExFavilla
@DrChristineFord
@Castin
I like Rash but I just don't think there's any doubt that what he said this time violated the CoC. I mean, what would be the point? Seems like it would be a lot of sound and thunder just to reach the same outcome.
Testing purposes only. To see how a structured trial feature would operate here. Based on that, I think we could determine whether it was worthwhile. It might be a disaster. It might be amazing. Only one way to find out imo! I think every concern that's been raised here could easily be addressed, but that's just me!
@Lunatic
All this is to say I agree with the idea, but not because I have some agenda to object the ban, which is what I am hoping Logical Master doesn't have with this either.
I have no vested interest in RM's fate either way. I've just been seeing a lot of talk about him and his consecutive bans on the main page threads here.
If bsh's answer is absolutely going to be a "no" we can still do a mock trial with this and just make up a user, or use an old user from Debate.org that is currently no longer active on this site (like YYW, or royalpaladin, or something).
I'm open to something like that if there's enough interest and that kind of thread isn't gonna be deleted on site.
Only change I would recommend is that the Jury's decisions final decision should maybe be made in private to the judge if it comes to Jury vote. Have them discuss all the different facets, but when it comes down to the actual vote, have them submit it privately so it takes away the worry that someone was pressured into a decision.
Good idea!
@DrChristineFord
I sign up as jury member.
Thanks for the volunteer, but it doesn't look like we're going to be able to conduct this experiment at this time.
@ResurgetExFavilla
I volunteer for Defense Attorney
^Same!
People were a bit salty, but the exact opposite of a mob mentality happened. If anything, the mob mentality was dispelled by the trial system.
Looking at that debate, I think I can agree. The only change I'd make is conducting the Trial in a thread as opposed to the constraints of a debate.
Created:
-->
@bsh1
Maybe that's where the disconnect we're having is coming from then as I don't see how one can presume that a trial is a thread created "simply to insult a specific user or a specific group of users." I think your "insulting post" distinction seals the deal on why the thread itself wouldn't be a problem from a mod discretion point of view as the thread itself would obviously be neutral towards the user and any comments made to harass or impermissibly attack would be subject to moderation (though imposing a rule to restrict posts from non-participants akin to mafia games would clear up any riffraff) .
I have no plans on reporting any of those threads on the grounds that they don't bother me. They're harmless at best. As is a jury trial with an actual impartial judge involved!
Created:
-->
@bsh1
Well it's not just people saying "I'm glad X was banned." We also got people saying "X group is a bunch of faggots", "I Lost all of my respect for X" and *insert random rap battle OP", but those threads are still here and kicking. On the other hand, we have a potential thread that is premised and proposed based on a legitimate real-world process (with which bashing/mob rules concerns are either misplaced or easy to address on the front end) that you have promised to remove/wipe-clean on-site and without negotiation. I and many others would certainly rather avoid getting banned for making any other threads premised on legitimate real-world processes, so if you could help me out here in fleshing out the difference and seriousness, that would be great.
Created:
-->
@bsh1
Whether it's up for negotiation or not, I want to make sure I understand you correctly. Because if a call-out thread is in fact "a thread specifically calling out a member by name, and speaking negatively about them", that surely would not be the case here or else we wold have a series a threads here on the first page alone that would constitute call-out threads and would thus also be subject to removal. Threads which appear to have not been deleted out of moderator discretion, right?
Created:
-->
@David
The izbo trial is the perfect example of mob rule.The way we have it set up right now one is told before hand that they will be banned and they have enough time to defend themselves and appeal their ban before the mod team.
I can agree that the Izbo trial is a pefect example of mob rule, but simply not a trial for the reasons stated. It was more akin to an anarchistic bash fest. As to your justifications, my position at this time is to simply permit an experiment of a proper trial before reaching any conclusions. If things get out of hand or the rules violated, mods can freely close the thread, delete posts or whatever. But at this time, I see no harm in giving this system a non-binding test.
Created:
-->
@David
@bsh1
Trials will be deleted and considered call-out threads . . .
Question: What is a callout thread . . . exactly?
Case in point: The izbo10 trial https://www.debate.org/debates/THE-OFFICIAL-IZBO-TRIAL-Resolved-Izbo10-should-be-permanently-banned/1/This debate was basically the epitome of mob rule. The majority of the 43 voters were simply vote bombs for the pro position. There were a few sympathetic people who voted con. Not a single vote had a sufficient RFD.That being said a person like izzy would very probably be perma'd long before it gets to the point where there is a so called trial.
I wasn't aware this had been attempted before, but I can tell from bluesteel's first comment alone that it is in no way comparable to what I have in mind. 43 random people is a terrible way to conduct a trial and the whole thing is gonna automatically fall apart if there is no Judge in place to keep things in order. From the look of things, some random person decided X user needed to be banned and thus randomly decided a "trial" needed to be held. What we instead got was some debate rounds and votes filled to the brim with bashing and nothing but pure nonsense. In a nutshell, it wasn't done correctly.
Created:
-->
@DebateArt.com
@David
@bsh1
@drafterman
If anyone thinks a mere experiment is a violation of the CoC, I welcome them to speak now or forever hold their peace! DART prides itself on the thoughts of feelings of its community. And above all else, open-mindedness, freeform expression and the endless pursuit of the truth. That is what makes debate so great and that is a core value DART triumphs day in and day out!
Created:
-->
@drafterman
Good luck getting it changed with the ridiculously high bar everyone voted on.
One step at a time. ;-)
Created:
-->
@Raltar
I think the whole "mob rule" sentiment is just something somebody decided was true one morning and left it at that. I see no harm in actually conducting an experiment! :)
Created:
-->
@drafterman
Which is just a conclusory statement and nothing more as far as I am concerned. This is a harmless opportunity to put that philosophy to the test. As I said in my OP, if this process proves worthwhile, we can always iron out the flaws in a later discussion.
Created:
One of the ideas people bring up from time to time is the ability for users violating the website's terms and conditions is to let them have a trial. To have their day in court so to speak. I've seen this idea talked about, but have never seen it implemented on a website (and perhaps with good reason). Thus, I'd like to conduct an experiment. I propose that we hold a "trial" for this case so to speak. If it's a hit, I would propose implementing this feature officially into website so that users could have their "day in court" when they wish to appeal official website action. Obviously, there would need to be some measures taken to keep this system from being abused, but we can always iron all of that out on a later date. For now, I'd like to give the very concept a test and see how it works. To do that, I am going to need several participants. 1) A Prosecutor (any user who wants to represent the good state of DART and prove that RationalMadman broke the rules and should have been banned), 2) a Defense Attorney (any user who wants to represent RationalMadman and prove he didn't break the rules and/or should not have been banned), 3) RationalMadman himself, 4) a Judge (I'll play the role just to make sure this test goes smoothly; both the prosecutor and defense attorney need merely follow my lead to see how this trial will be conducted) and 4) three fair and impartial members of the Jury (who both the Prosecutor and Defense attorney can agree on in order to insure fairness).
How this case will work is that it is the Prosecutor's job to prove beyond reasonable doubt that RationalMadman is guilty of breaking the rules and prove by preponderance of the evidence (e.g. more likely than not) that he should have been banned. The defense has no burden whatsoever and need merely show that the prosecutor has failed to prove his/her case and/or that RationalMadMan is not guilty and/or should not have been banned.
The case will start with the prosecutor putting on a brief opening statement of what it intends to prove and the defense can then opt to respond with a brief opening statement of its own. Opening statements shall be limited to one post each.The prosecutor will then get to make their case first (by questioning any available witnesses and/or citing any available evidence). Once the prosecutor's done, the defense can opt to make an affirmative case or do nothing in light of having no BOP. The Prosecutor shall then have the opportunity to present a closing argument. The defense shall then present its closing argument. And the prosecutor shall then have a brief opportunity to present a rebuttal should it choose to. Closing argument's shall be limited to one post each. After closing arguments are finished, the jury can talk amongst themselves via private message before making a ruling (Guilty/Not Guilty). The jury need not provide any explanation for its verdict.
So with all of that out of the way, I need individuals to sign up for the following roles:
1) Prosecutor ( )
2) Defense Attorney ( )
3) Prospective Jury Members
Only sign up for these roles if you are actually gonna participate. If you anticipate being unable to participate, let me know! This process is not rocket science and I guarantee everyone that even a trained monkey could do it based on what I see every day!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Who gets to decide what gets put on the MEEP ballot and can users opt to put things on the MEEP ballot themselves?
Created:
Posted in:
Wylted and rationalmadman? They always struck me as being upstanding gentleman. Why did they get banned?
Created:
Posted in:
As long as the community has the power to keep mods in check, I'm fine with it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
The argument is simple:1. Knowing the identity of a reporter is immaterial to the substance of the report. The reported comment, vote, thread, etc. is a violation or it is not. The status of that violation does not change if it was reported by Bob vs. Alice.2. Knowing the identity of a report can only possibly introduce bias in how mods respond to reports. Mods should be objective.3. There is no problem that requires knowing the identity of a reporter.
I disagree. Knowing the identity of a reporter is useful in weeding out spam reports, granting mods further ability to focus on stuff that actually matters. If a mod has a vendetta against X user, that user can bring it to the attention of the community as we've seen with the issues that have raised in the past several weeks and get it resolved out in the open.
As such, my vote is no.
Created:
Posted in:
The issue here is that we're merely talking about a hypo as opposed to something that has actually been happening. And so for that time being, I see no need to give mods that power. When this stuff actually happens, I think that the community (being the size it is right now) can address the issue together and at that point direct how the mods take action.
Created:
Posted in:
I say we should wait until such a scenario arises before giving mods carte blanche authority (albeit with unanimous mod approval) to do so. Then, we can assess the situation as a community and respond accordingly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I'm glad he extended it. Scum team should have protested that decision hard behind the scenes
They're probably not online or otherwise too inactive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I played in a beginner game he modded where there were 3 jesters who all had to get lynched in order to get a collective win
What was the scum / town/ jester ration in that game?
Created:
Posted in:
Based on his modding style, how often does bsh1 put a fool/jester in his games?
Created:
Posted in:
Am gonna be honest here. Don't really have time to wade through 700+ posts. If Budda or someone is willing to take over for me, I'm down with that. Alternatively, if the mod could extend the DP till this weekend, that'd be great. Really bad week for mafia,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@Wylted
@ResurgetExFavilla
@Tyrone
I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I'd be a very sporadic mod due to my workload. And although I think modding only when clearly necessary is the most effective way to mod, I can't say I'd always be available in those instances of necessity.
Created:
Posted in:
At some point, we'll need to have a very open conversation about the pink elephant in the room: Lack of voting participation (something I myself am guilty of tbh).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I don't think we need a change in moderation. Just need less moderation. Hopefully, these discussions will result in just that. Mods need to keep in mind that we only need them for the purpose of keeping this site from becoming the living breathing hell hole DDO has become. Anything beyond that is just way too much micromanaging.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
Here is what I am propsing regarding votes (not official policy yet):1) All "border-line" votes should be permitted2) When votes are removed, the moderator will explain **how** the vote could be improved to meet the standard; and3) We will contact the user prior to removing and give them a chance to correct it before we delete it.
What are "border-line" votes?
Created:
Posted in:
1) Knowledge of who is making the report is necessary to determine whether the report is frivolous. I would also add in a feature that requires the user making the report to fill out a 'report' detailing the basis of their report. This would further help in weeding out frivolous reports.
2) There is no need to give a detailed basis for non-mod-action for every report, much less doing so on a F/F or conceded debate.
3) There needs to be a much more lax approach to modding debates/posts.
4) Spam reporting can easily be circumvented by only allowing a maximum number of reports per day.
5) The CoC should only exist in spirit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Then tell to me why they can and apparently 'should' allow goldtop and zeichen who are sole-bullies to run rampage but clamp down hard on other users?Did you even see what Tyrone posted? The guy who agrees with you posted vile, racist vitriol yesterday intentionally trying to aggravate some users so his buddy Thett and a couple others could ROFL at their sake.
I haven't been monitoring this site enough to be familiar with anything any of the aforementioned users, but what you just described doesn't sound like anything a block/ignore-user feature can't solve. And if it rises to the level of flooding/spamming, the ban-hammer takes care of that rather easily!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Or less rule enforcement. For the most part, I think users here can police themselves in the current forum climate. They shouldn't even waste time moderating a fully forfeited debate. And unless a user is flooding/spamming the forums, posting pictures/links to obscene images or doing anything else that seriously and reasonable interferes with most of the other members' ability to enjoy the site, they shouldn't get involved.I don't understand why the solution to the mods being unable to keep up with the work isn't too get more mods.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I think the user base should be aware that one of the changes made to the moderation tools is now that reporting is no longer anonymous.The ability to report behavior anonymously is a crucial element to being able to report in a secure and safe manner. I find it troubling now that moderation can now evaluate reports based upon who is making them.
Massively disagree. Not sure what your intentions were in reporting every vote, but having mods assess every vote on every debate consumes a lot of time and resources and IMO leads them to them making absurd modding decisions like the ones I've pointed out to them in the past. Being able to see who is reporting is a fine means of weeding out frivolous reports and allowing them to narrow down on the stuff that actually needs to get addressed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Saying that the ball is not red constitutes a counter claim merely rejecting the premise that the ball is red does not. Clearly They are two different situations.
I can say the ball is NOT red without saying a word to you. I can go into a random bar and tell everyone else the ball is NOT red at which point I'm not countering anything and am instead instigating conversation. The burden of proof would be mine. Simultaneously, I can go into a bar, describe this situation and tell bargoers why I reject the premise that the ball is red. Burden of proof still belongs to me. In both cases, I am the moving party and so it is up to me to get other people on board with my ideas.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Simply rejecting a claim on its face does not require a burden of proof. However, if you were to run into a bar and scream to everyone that the ball is NOT red, it would be your burden to prove it was NOT red. The burden proof has and will always only belong to the party initiating conversation. The instigator if you will! ;-)This is actually an exercise to illustrate whether rejecting a claim requires a burden of proof. So how about it do you believe that the ball is red?Rejecting a claim
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Now you can't actually prove that the ball is not red. Should you simply accept my word?
No I should not. You made the claim that it is red, so it is your burden to prove it is red. Till then, I don't know what the ball looks like. As far as I know, it merely might be red.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
Society doesn't last under a Republican form because humankind is naturally evil, and removing a strong government led by a strong ruler will create a power void that is filled in more local levels - 99.9% being much worse. Think of the example I gave in my OP. Poor/lower class southerners suffered from the American Revolution because the void of the British Crown was replaced by a more powerful planter elite. Had that not happened, the planter elite would be subjugated under anti-slavery acts that the Crown was quite bent on pursuing during the turn of the 18th century.
Yes, I saw your argument in the OP, but I don't really buy it as being a general argument for monarchism. What it looks like is a combination of the post-hoc and the historian's fallacy. Clearly slavery isn't inconsistent with a Democratic Republic given that it was eventually abolished mere decades into ours. One could alternatively make the reverse argument by citing America's instrumental role in both world wars (a war incidentally caused by autocrats) to make the case that America's ceding from the British was ultimately for the good of the entire planet, thereby making the losses of poor/lower class southerners meager in comparison.
One thing I will agree with you on is that humanity is naturally inclined towards evil. The problem here, however, is that you are not taking this truth to its logical conclusion which is that government is therefore doomed to be evil.
Why don't you want a President who is capable of fixing things?
I have staunchly different ideas about the role a government should have than you do. In my mind, government should exist only for the purposes of societal security, infrastructure and maintaining law/order. In a free society, anything else should be left to the people to resolve. Monarchs throughout history have not led their nations to great prosperity. What happens is that you get a wise leader who has enough sense to get out of the people's way so that there can be prosperity. Whenever presidents talk about how many jobs "they've created", I always chuckle. They haven't created a damn thing. The free market either exceeds despite them or they get enough sense get out of the free markets way (which is why America currently has the current boost to prosperity that it does).
One man alone simply doesn't have the intelligence to "fix things", which is why Presidents have entire cabinets of people to assist him throughout the many areas of the executive branch. And even then, despite all of that assistance and executive power, we still have presidents that are content to incompetently drive up the debt. I'd rather "fix things" through channels that don't open the door for despotism.
the reality is that this stuff does not typically happen. A monarch is either trained from birth to rule, or is carefully appointed (if we're talking about an Elective Monarchy), and this "selection" process would naturally filter out the idea of a psychopath coming to power.
And we're right back to the premise of relying on the "good will" of one unelected man/woman who we have to hope and pray will do the right thing. That does not sit well with me . . nor does not having any means discourage this man/woman from the doing the wrong thing besides getting ourselves killed in a coup.
The concept of government itself is NOT stupid and evil. What is "stupid and evil" is the poor rule by governments
It is stupid and evil. Why in the world would you ever want to be ruled over by someone/something that's not perfect, is subject to corruption and is prone to make mistakes? People by nature are evil, so why isn't government evil by extension?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
The risk our republic is pretensed on is totally worth it! As long as we the people remain a virtuous society, we will continue to flourish with a limited government. And the wonders of our limited government includes natural rights which our government is powerless to interfere with, free enterprise and all sorts of built-in mechanisms designed impede government tyranny. On the flip side, as our friend Big Ben Franklin said, only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. The minute we stop being a virtuous society, the American system fails (which is what we're seeing right now). Where you and I disagree at is whether an unvirtuous society should get its just deserts for engaging in the kind of foolishness that leads to special interest groups having so much sway (or an unelected bureaucracy having so much power). I have no problem with this whatsoever. We had a choice. If in the end, it turns out we chose . . . poorly, so be it. Reap the consequences and hope the next generation isn't doomed to repeat our mistakes!
You say that when we leave society to itself, society falls apart. This is true. And I'll tell you something else that's true: When we leave society to the whims of one man, it falls apart. This has been the case throughout all of history. No government lasts.
Why is this risk of a Democratic Republic worth taking? Society lasts much longer when its under proper control and leadership.
Because it comes the closest to people having the ability to live their lives the way they see fit without someone else telling them what to do. Freedom if you will. As to this notion that society lasts longer under a monarchy (or hell, lets just call it what it is since I'm rejecting any form of leadership under which one man/woman has absolute power), I've (1) seen no proof of that and (2) don't count longevity alone as being indicative of a good society. There are barbaric cannibalistic Indian tribes who've maintained their traditions for generations, but I wouldn't consider that as being indicative of a good society to live in.
You certainly are giving the most hypothetical of scenarios regarding abusive monarchs
Perhaps a historical example would be more instructive. Tell me, which monarchy throughout say . . . all of human history, got it right? Whose regime would you like to see the US model itself after?
Who is to say that the CIA can't suddenly order 10% of the US army to be human subjects for nuke tests?
We the people of course. And on that front, we've failed and are thus currently experiencing the government we deserve. We have the built-in mechanism in our Constitution to stop all of this however. It's simply a matter of whether we have the will to exercise it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
It's easy! Failure is a part of life. If she says no, laugh it off and move onto somebody else. If you don't ask, she's eventually gonna get with somebody else and you'll have blown your chances anyway. You don't even need to plan extensively. If you've known her longer than ten minutes, just ask what's she doing on Friday night and she wants to see a movie with you. The rest writes itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I would consider the scenario racist, but I would not consider you a racist. Instead, I would consider you a coward.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
If the people are corrupted and blindly elect poor leaders, oh well! Society is only as good as the people allow it to be. Here in America, the idea was that we would only have government in the limited capacity it was needed and allow the people to take care of themselves in every other avenue of life. We've gotten away from that and it's not because of special interest groups (they are merely a symptom of a much larger problem), but the will of people has continued to falter over the years. That's the risk of a democratic republic. A risk Benjamin Franklin readily understood as indicated by the following quotes:
The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. ”
If things turn south enough in America, hopefully I can save up some money and get out! If I ever get a hold of some serious cash, I'd love to buy my own island, build a nice house on it, have my own water/gas/electricity/satellite/transportation and just live without any concern about how stupid/evil the government is.
What if the rule in Republic with separation of powers is too weak to fix anything because of the limitations of the Presidency? Hallelujah! That's good! I don't want the president to fix everything. Not only on the grounds that no one man is smart enough to fix everything, but that no one man needs to have that much power. Otherwise we are at the mercy of said man and all better hope and pray that he and his successors have enough good-will not to start taxing the hell out of us just so he has enough extra cash to pay for his daughter's super ultra deluxe extravagant honeymoon! We better hope and pray that he doesn't decide to get pissed off one day and declare that anybody with "triangle" in their username needs to be sent to the guillotine just cuz it's Thursday!
You're damn right that a Republic is flawed institution. No matter how you run it, the concept of government is and always will be stupid and evil. Nevertheless, it is a necessary stupid and evil. Therefore, my proposal is simply to keep the stupidity and evil low enough to where it's a couple of paces above anarchy. You're not seeing that right now in America, but if we could find that magical sweet spot between anarchism and statism, things would be a heck of a lot better!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Gonna tell you something I wish someone had told me when I was your age. If you have a crush, you need to go man up and ask her out. Take a shot! Screw reading books or anything corny like that. Ask her out! If she says yes, cool. If she says no, screw her, laugh it off and move onto somebody else. It's that easy. Women like a man who is assertive and takes what he wants, consequences be damned! If you wanna be a lawyer some day, that's a lesson you're gonna have to learn anyway so you may as well get it over with right now!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
If you don't like your duly elected democratic republic representative, you can vote him/her out of office and hopefully get someone who can make government slightly less stupid/evil. If you don't like your unelected monarch, you have to fight a war and probably get killed, plan a coup and probably get killed or wait for the b!tch/bastard to kick the bucket the old fashioned way and hope her/his descendant isn't as stupid/evil as she/he was. All the while, you better hope your monarch isn't named Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, Pol Pot, Lenin, etc etc or else you're probably gonna get killed just cuz it's taco Tuesday. Now if we had the ability to make certain fictional characters the Monarch, I'd be all on board!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
Historically, both are highly incompetent, but at least the former is more malleable and with less of tendency towards bloodshed.
Created:
Posted in:
Government incompetence narrowed down to the incompetence of one man (or woman). No thanks!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
I agree with what you’re saying. On DDO there was a way to opt out of the voting requirements and also to opt in to more stringent requirements. I think that ought to be an option here.
I wasn't around DDO when that became a thing, but as a means of precluding the inevitable accusations that people are manipulating their win/loss record by only doing un-modded debates, I think separating these debates into two separate columns (doesn't even have to be judged/amateur) would help!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
First, your analysis fails to address the concern thatcomments on voting logic often come only after a vote has been moderated. Thismeans that voters who don't comment extensively in the comments will bedisadvantaged relative to ones who do, and that doesn't seem fair to me.
My proposal is simply that mods do some due diligence to get to the bottom of whether a voter has read/understood the debate. A mod can do this either by assessing the comments in the comment section or doing some basic follow-up with the voter in question. To address your concerns, let us refer back to the infamous drafterman example. There, rather than remove his vote, a mod could have queried him about it. With hindsight on our side, we know drafterman would’ve been able to provide a sufficient explanation (without getting into a 50+ post comment war) and so the matter would’ve been resolved expediently and with minimal effort on the mods’ part. And so no, what it really boils down to is not necessarily even commenting extensively or not, but a mod using the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the voter read/understood the debate.
Second, moderators cannot be expected to read the debate inits entirety or the comments in their entirety in order to adjudicate the vote.In order to determine whether a debater really understood a debate, entire conversations might need to be read, adding greatly to the practical burden of moderation.
A couple of observations I have about this ‘practical burden of moderation’ point. 1) I can much better appreciate this objection as you guys are (presumably) not getting paid for your time and simply doing this task out of love for the community. 2) I would make the constructive criticism that mod-time, as it is now, is greatly mismanaged. For instance, do you really need to spend time posting your justification for non-action on a forfeited debate? I’d also recommend getting away from this practice of modding every single reported vote since someone is always not going to like the outcome of their debate. I’d recommend coming up with practical measures to weed out frivolous reports (e.g. if voters are going to be burdened with typing up something mods might delete anyway, perhaps that burden should be placed on the person doing the reporting and a detailed explanation of why they feel a vote is worthy of moderation should be required). 3) Again referencing the drafterman debate, if mods have time to argue with the voter as a means of justifying mod-action, I don’t buy any notion that they don’t have time to read comments or ask the voter simple questions.
Third, the comments are not the vote, unless the RFD was posted in the comments. It is the text of the vote which is up for moderation under the voting policy, and so it is not appropriate for the mods to make judgments external to the vote itself in determining the vote's sufficiency.Comments outside of the vote don't make the vote sufficient; only the content of the vote can make the vote sufficient.
We’ll have to agree to disagree ultimately. In my mind, the only utility of having a moderator mod debates is to make sure voters are actually reading the debates and voting legitimately. That can be achieved without exclusively relying on an RFD. The minute mods start deviating outside of that function, they’ve defeated the purpose.
This is a bogus scenario because you build in positive presuppositions which may or may not be the case . . .
It’s a bogus scenario because you’re trying to divert attention away from the fact that you actually agree with the subtle principle being established here. Interaction! Feedback! Conversation! This is what people want in their debates and this is exactly what a voter does whether you win or lose. So of course you’d prefer Scenario A over Scenario B. You come to this site for the same reason everyone else does.
You cite your personal experiences, so I'll cite mine as well. I’ve had plenty of unjust losses on DDO. Hell, I was around during the days when there was nothing to be done about vote bombing and a single troll with a lot of free-time and phone numbers had the entire site at his mercy and was effectively in the position to pick and choose who won debates! And you know what we did? We laughed about it went about our days here like it was no big deal. The prospect of winning or losing is great, but it’s really the community that holds this website together(an element that does not come into play IRL). And so no, unjustly losing a debate and lack of participation from voters doesn’t even begin to compare. I’ve never seen anyone leave this site due to a legitimately ‘unjust’ loss(assuming we're not talking about people just complaining because they lost, it's something that is usually either remedied or laughed about), but I have seen scores leave due to inactivity.
Does moderation remove great votes? Unfortunately, it can based my limited experience here thus far. Even worse, it would appear that it can, good intentions notwithstanding, discourage voting altogether.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
How does that differ from whatI understood your position to be?
Just making sure we’re on the same page here. Leaving outthe “violates the rules” distinction sounds a little more . . . autocraticmaybe? :P
It certainly does come with the territory, but I think itis worth calling attention to the various demands and interests I am having tobalance, so that the reasoning of moderation can be better understood.Moreover, I never adjudicate or remove votes on debates I participate in; thosevote reports are always handed off to another moderator.
Your response does nothing to address my specific concern:your suggestion leads to unequal voting policy enforcement.
Edit: Having glanced over the CoC just now, this 'unequal voting police enforcement' point shouldn't even be your contention since the CoC cites the legitimacy of mod discretion multiple times and is thus, by your own reasoning, encouraging unequal policy enforcement (e.g. according to CoC Section IV, subpart A, some members might lose their membership privileges and some may not based purely on the mod's own discretion). What's worse is that unlike what I'm proposing, there is no remedy for egregious mod decisions.
Created: