Manik's avatar

Manik

A member since

0
0
1

Total posts: 26

Posted in:
Moderation AMA
-->
@drafterman
I think i mixed you up with someone else.





Created:
0
Posted in:
Moderation AMA
-->
@drafterman
Ok well the purpose of thread was not to attack other users. It was satire, and I thought it was funny.

But yeah.  You used to be a champion for free speech, drafterman. So if even you are backing this, I guess there's not much hope.

Created:
0
Posted in:
Moderation AMA
-->
@drafterman
"It prevented you from having that conversation in that thread. You are free to continue it elsewhere."

We are free to have a different discussion elsewhere. If we tried to have the same one again it would be locked again.


"Rather it was a direct and explicit call upon the entire user base to label other members in a derogatory fashion."

It was clearly mocking the standard awards threads.  It was light hearted.  And before you say that joking is no excuse for insults, the opening post did not contain any insults.

It was like a game.  Responding without insulting required some thought and care, but was possible.

"The thread itself falls within the definition of a call-out thread"

I can't see where call out thread is in the CoC, but anyway no.  A call out thread requires calling someone out, naming someone.


Created:
0
Posted in:
Moderation AMA
-->
@drafterman
"There is nothing preventing you or coal from having a discussion that doesn't violate the CoC"

We were having a discussion that didn't violate the CoC, but then the thread was locked which prevented us from continuing the discussion.

As I said before, there are lots of topics that are likely to result in other members violating the CoC.  It's absurd that anybody should have to tiptoe around for fear of what other members might or might not do.

The CoC is clear.  If the SOLE intent of a comment is to encourage insults etc. then it counts as "fighting words".  But that was not the case for Coal's thread.

Created:
0
Posted in:
Moderation AMA
-->
@drafterman
Coal's thread didn't violate the CoC, and nor did my response to it.  So it's simply untrue that you are always allowed to have a discussion that doesn't violate the CoC.

Discussions aren't equivalent.  So it's not enough to say that if coal is censored, I'm fine to go have a discussion on a similar topic with someone a bit less confrontational.  Those are two separate discussions. 

Created:
0
Posted in:
Moderation AMA
-->
@drafterman
Unless a few trolls jump in and start insulting people and then the approved discussion would get blocked too.
Created:
0
Posted in:
Moderation AMA
-->
@drafterman
That's simply untrue.  The thread was shut down because of the way the discussion was framed.  That means discussions of that type are forbidden here.  Yes, of course, I could have a different kind of approved discussion, I suppose. 
Created:
0
Posted in:
Moderation AMA
-->
@drafterman
Yes it did.  If the thread had stayed up, an interesting discussion might have developed.  Now it won't.
Created:
0
Posted in:
Moderation AMA
-->
@drafterman
Why not?
Created:
0
Posted in:
Moderation AMA
-->
@RationalMadman
"Who is the one who can't control themselves, the creator of such thread or the ones who shut it down?"

Neither.  I was referring to the members who would be unable to resist responding to the thread with insults against other users.  The thread was blocked to prevent them.

Created:
0
Posted in:
Moderation AMA
-->
@drafterman
I've been prevented from adding more insights to the dark awards thread.  Or indeed continuing discussions on any thread that has been blocked.
Created:
0
Posted in:
Moderation AMA
-->
@Ramshutu
First, I think it was definitely possible to respond to Coal's thread without insulting users.  Some (most?) of the categories related to specific posts or mafia games rather than users.  Wylted nominated the bsh1 sexual harassment of a minor post, for example, which seems valid.

Even for categories requiring people to be named, I think it is possible to do so without insulting people.  I nominated someone whose contribution to the site was only a fully forfeited debate.  I think that's fair, and not insulting. 

I didn't mention rape at all, and find it disturbing that you would get that from what I did say.

It seems disappointing to have to block threads on a debate site?  Why should people who are legitimately engaged in discussion have to be punished for a few people who can't control themselves?





Created:
0
Posted in:
Moderation AMA
-->
@ethang5
"If you still can't see it, take it on his authority as mod."

Sure. But if we're going to just have mod discretion, let's lose all that CoC nonsense, then, because what a waste of time that is.

"Those people are also members who deserve to have their sensibilities considered. Not every "interesting discussion" is profitable or appropriate."

Coal's thread was provocative, agreed.  That means that some people wouldn't like it, and some people might have reacted badly, yes. 

But sometimes ideas need to be provocative.   If there's a general principle of blocking threads that are awkward or controversial, then it's impossible for this site to ever have much value as a debate platform, in my opinion.  May as well call it circlejerkart.

This is not meant as an attack on the mods.  On the contrary.  I'm only bothering to ask these questions because they seem open to discussion.


Created:
0
Posted in:
Moderation AMA
-->
@RationalMadman
Then the motive was at the very minimum to insult and ridicule all who took HoF and DART Awards seriously, most of all the ones who made the threads and came up with the ideas. Do you go to a Temple and mock the statues and ceremonies there? If you do that and think they won't be insulted or punish you for it, you're just plain ignorant and too belligerent to belong in a debating shrine like DART. If you don't, give us the same respect for our traditions, thanks.
People's ideas can be ridiculed.  There would not be much scope for debate if that were not the case.

From the COC: "A personal attack is not "anything directed at a person that they find to be unfavorable. Such a definition would stifle exchange and debate. Rather, a personal attack is any abusive or derogatory remark aimed at a site user or site users rather than the content of what those users say or espouse."

Also the 'just kidding' excuse is covered entirely by the such-named clause.

The "just kidding" clause only applies to personal attacks.  Coal did not make any.

Created:
0
Posted in:
Moderation AMA
-->
@RationalMadman
then go ahead and provide a reasonable counter-motive for the thread
As I have said, Coal has said, and was indeed clear in the opening post of his thread, its purpose was to mock the awards threads and hall of fame threads.  I thought it did so effectively.

The main problem with this site is lack of interesting discussion.  The mods are clamping down on debate before it even occurs.  So, I think this habit of locking threads and banning discussion because it might lead to insult is really counterproductive, if the purpose is to nurture a site where debate occurs.
Created:
0
Posted in:
Moderation AMA
-->
@ethang5
Threads cannot be judged solely on the intent of the poster.
And yet the COC refers specifically to intent, as quoted above.


Perhaps Coal had perfectly good intentions, but the thread still was 1. A violation of CoC,
People keep saying that, but which part of the COC exactly?  I can't see it.

and 2. Very likely to cause and encourage insult and abuse.
Well, yes.  But you have to admit that ANY thread about religion in the religion forum is very likely to result in insult and abuse.  But that's no reason to ban the religion forum.  Or threads related to controversial topics in other areas. To me, that would be bowing before the uncouth.  It would be sad if they were to control us in that way.


In cases like this, someone must make a decision, that is why there are mods. You can disagree sure, but the mods did their job.

Coal naming himself is OK, but would everyone else have named only themselves?
Yes, Coal naming himself is OK.  And yet his attempts to have an interesting discussion are blocked because of what other people might say. 
Created:
0
Posted in:
Moderation AMA
-->
@Ramshutu
Virtuoso laid out the explicit reasoning;
Where?

in the last few posts I explained that the posts in questions were specifically written to invite users to be effectively insult and be derogatory about other users,

Well, I disagree.  I think Coal has been clear from the beginning that the questions were intended as satire.  That seemed obvious to me when I first read the thread, and he has also explained that.

and that there is no meaningful way this wouldn’t happen (and I think that’s exactly what happened in the thread too):
I'm not sure what you mean by "meaningful way this wouldn't happen", but as a general principle, it doesn't seem reasonable to blame a person for the way people might respond to them.  For example, you might easily predict that a woman in a short skirt might provoke sexist behaviour from a certain group of men, but that is not a good enough reason to forbid her from wearing those clothes or appearing in public, even if "there is no meaningful way this wouldn't happen".  Rather, the responses themselves should be handled as they occur.  I understand that this would mean more hassles for moderators, but the alternative, taken to extremes, would mean preventing conversation entirely on the principle that rude comments will inevitably occur from time to time.

though I elaborated this in the form of a few questions - basically to try and explain what was deemed unacceptable about the thread, and encouraging coal (or anyone for that matter) to explain why they felt this wasn’t the case.

The main issue here is that we have very specific rules concerning personal attacks and insulting other users that have been in force for a while; there are certainly potential arguments concerning whether those rules should be changed - and I think there could be constructive discussion on that, but with the rules as they stand now, it’s not acceptable to attack other users; and thus threads that basically encourage users to be attacked are unacceptable too. 
Perhaps it would be helpful to link back to the COC.  As I explained above, Coal did not insult anybody when he initiated the thread, and unless you disagree, the only part of the COC relevant is "fighting words".  The COC states that "Fighting words are posts intended solely to provoke or incite another user into taking prohibited actions."  As we discussed already, it seems clear that Coal's intention was not to provoke or incite other users into taking prohibited actions.  It certainly wasn't his sole intention.

Therefore, I can't see how the thread violates the COC.

Created:
0
Posted in:
Moderation AMA
-->
@Ramshutu
"You think the decision is bad; that’s fine - but Virt and I have outlined the reasoning behind it"

Are you referring to a private conversation?. Because I can't see your reasoning in this thread, only a series of questions.

Created:
0
Posted in:
Moderation AMA
-->
@David
How was YYW's thread "abusive, insulting, or derogatory"?  The only person he nominated initially was himself as least valuable member, which clearly indicated the light hearted nature of the thread.

The target of the thread was not particular individuals but rather the unbearably stuffy hall of fame/award type threads.  They are fair targets.

Could you please explain more about how his thread went against the coc in your opinion?

Created:
0
Posted in:
2019 DARK Dart Awards
Site least valuable member: Edenison



Created:
0
Posted in:
2019 DARK Dart Awards
-->
@RationalMadman
Please don't interpret this exchange as personally malicious in any way.  I think we all have the same goal of upholding the site's code.
Created:
0
Posted in:
2019 DARK Dart Awards
-->
@PressF4Respect
Thank you.  I was shocked that he would accuse me of violating site rules like that.
Created:
0
Posted in:
2019 DARK Dart Awards
-->
@RationalMadman
How was my referring to the code of conduct disrespectful? 

Surely, every member may refer to the code as needed.


Created:
0
Posted in:
2019 DARK Dart Awards
Threats are not tolerated, rationalmadman.
Created:
0
Posted in:
2019 DARK Dart Awards
-->
@RationalMadman
From the site COC:

Threats are, for the purposes of this policy, personal attacks. They are not tolerated. Threats include (but are not limited to: 
  • Threats of reporting conduct to a mod or of moderation action.

Created:
0
Posted in:
Looking for Debates
-->
@Lucy
Hi.  I'm a radical feminist. 

And my feminism is based on sex not gender.  Do you really want me to shut up?  Or we could debate it, if you like.





Created:
0