PressF4Respect

Well they are the range of frequencies occurring in our world, lets say our (human) frequencies occur at a specific range and the alternative ranges occurring are at higher frequency ranges. Thus the hypothetical equipment is picking up ranges that are occurring distinct from ours.

Ranges of frequencies are being used to describe our activity, like lets say for example every time you think, act or say something it produces a vibrational frequency that can be detected. If it helps at all, we could say "pitch", like detecting various levels of pitches on a scale from lowest to highest. Our pitches produced occur on the lower end of the scale and anything unassociated with that range is something entirely different.

Is there a time and a place for when members of DDO can pitch policy ideas for these MEEPS or is that basically something members can do at any time as long as they contact an admin/mod in a PM?

Are you for or against the implementation of a polling section in DART?

Are you for or against the implementation of some non-intrusive advertisements on DART?

plz tag me when this poll goes up.

Maybe include a question about ads. The owner seems to be against it because he thinks it would ruin the user experience. Good for him for putting the users first, that is what he should do, but I don't think my personal experience would be ruined and am curious how many others feel the same way.

Also please change 4 to the following:

Are you for or against the implementation of a polling section in DART?

There is an incredibly unfair stigma against the idea of having a polling section in general because of the fact that the DDO polling section got a bad rep from being the first to fall to spam bots before the forum section did. I believe my proposed wording change would have a slight effect (a very small effect I admit but hopefully a non-zero amount) in mitigating the effects of that unfair stigma compared to your proposed wording.

Removal of the harassing the moderators is ok rule (don’t worry, we’ll still have thick skin).

• "Yes1" indicates a preference for banning all moderators from voting on referendums.
  
• "Yes2" indicates a preference for banning the chief and deputy moderators from voting on referendums.
  
• "Yes3" indicates a preference for limiting the chief and deputy from voting, save for breaking stalemates.
  
• "No" indicates opposition to this refinement.
  

Where are his practices delineated? The tax figures may indicate how much he lost, but do you know why?

How does a turnover rate reflect dysfunctionality?

That works both ways. If you maintain that one should not employ a family member for the sole reason his or her being family, then one ought not to reject employing a family member for the sole reason of his or her being family.

True, those figures' histories aren't entirely pristine (Washington's complicated affair with slavery, Lincoln's actions in ex parte Milligan, and Kennedy's questionable love affairs, as examples), but they still have done substantially more for the US than Trump has. 

Like what?

• Setting the stage for what all future presidencies would look like (pretty significant)
  

• Ratifying the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, as well as outlawing slavery (also pretty significant)
  

• Averting all-out nuclear war with the Soviet Union, as well as fighting for equal rights for African-Americans and other disenfranchised groups.
  

Read the article. He thought he lost because his daughter and son-in-law told him so. So he was "surprised" when he found out that he won.

Where in that article does it state that the women he paid off were assaulted or raped? In fact, the article alleges that he had affairs with the women who were paid off. Aren't you just grasping at straws at this point?

So can I then presume that you have watched the videos and the evidence is sufficient?

Yes, I agree it is wrong to own slaves and I do not believe that is the biblical intent or God's best for humanity. I believe chattel slavery was common in the ANE (Ancient Near East), practiced by surrounding nations, but God told Israel not to adopt the practices of slavery witnessed (and they experienced) in ancient Egypt, and I can pull up Scripture that teaches against that kind of slavery. I believe the type read of in the Mosaic Laws in the OT and God's desired intent was indentured service, the same kind of principle relationship we understand in an employer/employee relationship. The NT teaches that all humans are free in Christ. That is God's ideal - our freedom in Christ. 

How can you have morality unless it is an objective measure? Why is your subjective preference any "better" than an opposing subjective preference?

How do two preferences, "I like to kill," and "I don't like to kill," make something right? Only if there is a universal or objective first principle that makes something right or wrong.

A description, what is described, is different from a prescription, what should be the case.  

A set of rules that often contradict and conflicts that of other individuals, sub-cultures, cultures, and societies. I could bring up many examples but you highlighted abortion. Some countries and even some states have different rules regarding abortion. Which is right? Can two opposing beliefs about the same thing both be right? Can two contradictory preferences or moral views/rules be "right" at the same time regarding the same thing? If you believe so I suggest you have a logical conflict. 

Second, if there is no objective value and reference point that applies to all humanity then what you call morals are nothing more than preferences. How do preferences make anything morally right? A preference is a subjective or personal taste such as I like ice-cream or I don't like ice-cream. How does a description turn into a moral prescription or an ought? "Might makes right" is a subjective preference used in the hands of a dictator, an oligarchy, or a select few to a majority to influence a preference. Hitler liked to kill Jews. The allied nation liked to protect them. The question is what makes either of those two things morally wrong rather than just preferences?

So which is the actual wrong, that which was believed 300 years ago or that which is believed today? If morals are not based on the best or ultimate measure how do you ever get to something being "better?" Better in relation to what? In relation to something that is fleeting and shifting and that can turn into the opposite of what was once legislated and believed.

That brings into question which standard is the correct one, and how do you, or can you, ever determine it? Why is your view any "better" than mine in such a situation of moral relativism. Why "should" your preference override mine? How does your preference or personal taste make something that I should do? I like ice-cream. You should/must too. Preferences are what wars are fought over. 

So the teaching of society makes things right for you (once it was thought you had the right to kill a slave since you owned him/her, or the "moral climate" taught that Jews were subhuman and they could be put to death) even though that same society once taught the polar opposite. Again, I believe you confuse what "is" with what "should be" and with a worldview structure that is not true to what is the case, the actual right, I do not believe it can get to what should be. The problem is that your views are relative and shifting. You do not have what is necessary for morality, just preference. 

As I have pointed out, if morality is not a "standardized test," or is relative then anything can be made possible and passed off as "right." You make sense of morals as that which the majority of society passes as "right." It has no objective reference point, just whims and preferences of those who have the might to make the rules. How does might make right? It does not, it just makes it what is forced on others. 

For something to be wrong it must conform to an objective measure. If I measure a piece of wood with my tape-measure to be 11 inches when the true measurement is 12 inches I have not obtained a true reading. I am WRONG in my understanding of the true measurement. When I go to apply the cut piece to the desired length it is not going to fit properly. The same is true for morals. They need an exact measurement for them to be "right."

Are you denying the law of identity, that a thing it what it is? Is a dog (A) a fish (B)? A=B? Does a dog have a true identity? Or can what I call a dog mean anything?

If you do not recognize something that is a self-evident principle you need to think about it further. The laws of logic are universal principles that are REQUIRED to make sense of things. 

If there is not a true measure then anything can be passed off as right or good. Can you live with that? "Step this way! You are the next in line for the gas chambers!" The problem is you can say something is "right" like gassing people to death until something wrong like this is done to you, then you understand and know the difference between the two. Some things are just plain wrong, like killing innocent people. If you deny that first principle or self-evident truth the killing of an innocent person could be you. Should you live with that? 

You believe there is or else you would not obey laws and rules or would not select one thing over another. It is self-evident when applied to physical things, but how do you apply it to intangible or abstract things? You believe it is good to obey particular rules for your well-being, like don't eat rotten food because it will make you sick. You would not be able to select a piece of rotten food as worse than a piece of fresh food without evaluating it as better or worse. With quantitative values, there is physical measurements and standards. Qualitative values require a different measuring standard. The problem is that without a moral objective standard it becomes futile in determining the best or better because people tend very often to do what they like or desire and can get away with doing rather than what is good or right. 

Do you just assume it is wrong to kill innocent human beings for pleasure or do you know this is wrong to do? If you don't know that I think others would soon label you as psychopathic and want to lock you up or avoid you at all costs. 

"Cryptic" tweets and botched Easter Egg rolls from three years ago don't count as "dysfunctional." Governments are dysfunctional for reasons beyond Trump.

You mean the vanity piece he had ghost written? That's the reason I qualified my question by using the term "intimate."

Washington, Lincoln, or Kennedy were no Washington, Lincoln, or Kennedy. There's a lot of "mythology" in their legacies.

So, nothing directly from Trump?

Is that what that was, or are you merely speculating based on your impressions of the NDA?

It's not a claim; I'm citing a fact. I've provided enough of a description where you can verify the information on your own. If you need more of a description, you can search, "Joe Biden pinches the nipple of Montana Senator's 8 year-old niece." You can clearly see the girl recoil right after he does it. And it's not his first run-in with a prepubescent girl.

Then I'm not following the statement, "All of that is through your modern, Western, Judeo-Christian worldview." It seems that you joined everything together. 

There are somethings that cannot be subjective to have moral values rather than preferences. I question why something is moral if you can't establish something as right or wrong.

In such cases how do you have morals?

If morals are subjective they are changeable.

How do you establish right from a standard that is shifting and has no fixed reference point?

Whatever example you choose I could probably provide a contrary view that is believed somewhere in this world for those laws or beliefs.

That brings into question a violation of a law of logic, the law of identity that states A=A. With two opposing views of the same thing, there is no fixed identity. Which one is right? Something cannot be right and wrong at the same time and in the same manner. It makes no sense to say homosexuality is right and at the same time, it is wrong. If two individuals or two societies believe the opposite which view is right?

If morality is subjective who is to say which opposing view is the true view?

Again, you need a fixed, unchanging, objective standard for morality to make sense of it.

If you can't supply one then what makes your opinion any "better" than mine?

Better, just like right and wrong, implies a qualitative moral measurement, obtained from a reference that is "best" and one in which we compare good and better, right and wrong against.

What is your "Best?" Can you establish one?

I would not classify Judeo-Christianity as a modern worldview.

Yes, we probably did discuss it before but since you applied that as your example I will once again respond.

Abortion is the taking of innocent human life. Do you find that immoral? Once you lose the concept of equal justice anything goes. Injustice is something that you would not want to be applied to you. I believe the only time it is immoral to deny a woman an abortion is when doing so will result in the loss of her life. 

One cop, the other three you cannot simply say murdered him. If we hold them all equally accountable then we begin to change a lot about how and why we punish.

ok im not homophobic but this is an example of our education systems pushing their political ideologies onto children that don't know any better. I haven't seen any other posts about this and I think it's a pretty important issue so...

But, again, to what purpose? If one wants a 3-round debate, make it a 3-round debate, and not 4 with a waived round. That's absurd. That's a game, not a debate. Too many gamers here. As in: I couldn't care less about mafia, etc.

No, he really isn't. Dislike of Trump informs neither his capacity nor his competence.

How much of his abilities as a businessman are you familiar with? Do you have intimate information on his practices?

“The final key to the way I promote is bravado. I play to people's fantasies. People may not always think big themselves. but they can get very excited by those who do. That is why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest, the greatest and the most spectacular.”

― Donald J. Trump, Trump: The Art of the Deal

Well... he is a politician.

All presidents are or have been underwhelming. Trump no more than the others.

How do you know what he thought?

What hasn't he got done?

You mean that conversation with Billy Bush where Trump states that his stardom would give him discretion to grab women by the pussy. Are you forgetting that he also stated in that conversation that the women would "let him do it"?

Unlike his current opponent, Joe Biden, who actually commits sexual assault, no less to an eight year old girl on live television.

First it would be prudent to discern his duties as president and substantiate how his last four years have demonstrated a dereliction in said duties.

 the which directly refers to "participants take turns publishing their arguments"

Where you see downplaying, I see optimism and hope.

The most relevant framework is the DebateArt.com Code of Conduct which places no restrictions on debates by relative experience.  I can't think of any overarching moral principle that might prohibit such engagement or over-ride the CoC.

Does accepting a debate from a newbie constitute undue coercion or pressure?  No.  In most cases, the new member has initiated the debate and had the chance to set the rules of engagement.  I try hard to follow the initiators rules even if I think those rules are unwarranted.  Likewise, if I initiate the debate, I define my expectations and  any acceptance of the debate should include acceptance of those terms.

Beyond the obvious educational benefits, I think early engagement between experienced and inexperienced debaters sets a higher level of expectation for effort and quality argument here than on other sites. 

Obviously, there's no enforcement of this dynamic- just a gentle promotion of the idea that if you're just going to create debates to fuck around, users like RM and myself will work to extract personal benefit while giving a slacker or troll as little satisfaction as possible.

Considering that the entire enterprise is practice & exercise, I see little chance for real harm.  All practice, all exercise in any skill set is generally beneficial

Are the costs and benefits distributed equally?  In the long term, yes.  Nobody has an equal right to win here nor should they.  Yes, more experience and greater effort provide an advantage  in debate and a newbie might not have the same appreciation for those advantages but that appreciation is usually born out of defeat and seldom gained by an easy win.

Besides, there is always the balancing benefit of the underdog effect and the disadvantage that familiarity breeds contempt for long time players.

In most competitions, we have little moral problem with matching rookies vs. veterans.  A good argument might be made for making baseball like minor leagues but in a such a hypothetical, this minor league debater would never have made it to the higher rungs.

I take it that you think there is some moral dilemma here.  Care to make that case?

Ya what happened to social distancing and lockdowns that the Democrats are preaching?

What happened to the lawless riots Democrats and Imported thugs are pushing to ensure Trump doesn't drain the swamp?

What are the Democrats going to do about the terrorist groups supporting Anarchy like Antifa and drug cartels?

Final Vote List

1. Ratify the new Code of Conduct?

Yes (15):

Ragnar

Yes, for progress.

whiteflame

Yes

RationalMadman

Yes, but I want to say that too much is changed at once and the more information about the rules, the better as a general rule of thumb. A set of rules that's too long to read in one sitting is better than a set of rules that's too short to ever explain enough when the time comes for the user to know the boundaries. You should not put all of this into one vote, let us vote on each part. I vote 'yes' because it's good enough and better than the previous, so it's the lesser evil.

Tejretics

Yes

Discipulus_Didicit

Yes

PressF4Respect

Yes, although there should definitely be a separate MEEP solely for the new COC to iron out some wrinkles. 

fauxlaw

Yes

"...the number of which..." ["which," referring to arguments, not argumentation] "

Laws are already restricted, which is why there is no America anymore. It's just a chunk of mud anyone on the globe can take a shit on.

In 1965, though, a combination of political, social and geopolitical factors led to passage of the landmark Immigration and Nationality Act that created a new system favoring family reunification and skilled immigrants, rather than country quotas. The law also imposed the first limits on immigration from the Western Hemisphere. Before then, Latin Americans had been allowed to enter the U.S. without many restrictions.

...

Subsequent laws in 1996, 2002 and 2006 were responses to concerns about terrorism and unauthorized immigration. These measures emphasized border control, prioritized enforcement of laws on hiring immigrants and tightened admissions eligibility.

I changed my mind on issue 4. I had previously voted no1, I wish to change that vote to a yes.

I think that the frivolous reporting many members engage in will not be curtailed if this is implemented (hence my previous no vote) but upon further reflection I believe it would at least produce humorous results for the mods and is worth doing for that reason.

No1

Discipulus changed his mind on #4 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4265-meep-code-of-conduct-sandg-reporting?page=4&post_number=96

The argumentation is the stage when participants take turns publishing their arguments, the number of which is equal to the number of the rounds in the debate.

Yes, for progress.

Yes

Yes, but I want to say that too much is changed at once and the more information about the rules, the better as a general rule of thumb. A set of rules that's too long to read in one sitting is better than a set of rules that's too short to ever explain enough when the time comes for the user to know the boundaries. You should not put all of this into one vote, let us vote on each part. I vote 'yes' because it's good enough and better than the previous, so it's the lesser evil.

Yes

Yes

Yes, although there should definitely be a separate MEEP solely for the new COC to iron out some wrinkles. 

Yes

Yes!

Yes

Yes!

Yes!

Yes

Yes

Yes. I think it's an improvement.

While insulting someone is obviously wrong, it's not the mods' jobs to police it. Instead, I think it is the community's job to rebuke the offending members. Trolling really depends on the intention of the troll. I don't mind friendly ribbing or just messing with someone, but when someone has malicious intent, it is once again the community's job to rebuke the offending members. If they aren't listening to the rebuke, then ignore them. They revel in getting people riled up, so don't give them that power. If it becomes spam, then there is reason for the mods to step in.

Streamlining and codifying it is excellent, as any rules or laws should always be easy to understand.

I don't see much protection of children, but I do see an age requirement to make an account, which is definitely a good thing. I don't think Little Timmy should be on this site.

I'm a little concerned about the "no moderator harassment" rule because it all depends on what they define as harassment, but I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt when they say they'll have thick skin. Mods, please do not betray this trust I have in you.

Yes

No.Do not ratify the new code of conduct

No, screw you mods. Only reason I’m voting no is because of the removal of the can’t target mods rule. I advocated for each part to be a separate question along with another dude but nothing occurred because mods want to play some politics. 

No, there should be a seperate MEEP for these changes overall to focus on the specifics that should be added

I doubt this will come to fruition, so if it doesn’t, just count this vote as “abstained”. I think that most changes are good to the CoC, but I also think they should be judged on an individual basis in a separate MEEP. It is kinda resembling pork-barrel legislation like this. I am a bit concerned about the “no insulting mods rule”. While I haven’t done so and have no intention of doing so, I think that personal grievances will add another subjectively moderated rule to the site. People like Wylted, for instance, are not popular among mods and would likely get harsher or more frequent punishments. I’m honestly curious as to why this was put in in the first place.

yes1

Yes1

Yes1

Yes1. With exceptions to mafia, doxxing, etc

Yes1, the truth will set us free.

Yes1, the truth will set us free.

Yes1, the truth will set us free.

Yes2, updated due to member concerns.

Yes2, I think option 1 is where the lines become blurred and that 2 not already being in place is silly. If the one revealing the PM isn't compelled to do so but instead is choosing to do so to help moderators do their job, that is fine. The key thing with Bsh1's suggestion was that it was against both parties who are PMing's will. That is NSA level surveillance and is where we get into 'what is privacy' concepts.

Yes2

Yes2. I strongly believe that many things in the PMs should be kept private. The only reason mods should disclose private information is if the safety of the members of DART and the community as a whole outweighs the individual's inherent right to privacy.

Yes 2

Yes2

Yes2 for sharing private messages.

I've read through the previous posts, and I choose to change my vote on #2 to Yes2.

Yes2 - Minimal restriction of privacy is an invasion of privacy, IMO. What is the point of private messaging if the messages are not private? I feel In cases of obvious harassment or threat of violence, the moderator would become involved. I do not want DebateArt to become a police state where freedom of speech is forbidden or edited. There is enough of that in your country as it is. 

Yes2

Yes2. Sharing PMs may be needed to establish what happened in say, a mafia game when someone C/P's their role and character to another player and the game host needs proof of the occurrence. However, private conversations should stay private in most cases. I am going to hope the mods understand that PM sharing must only happen when necessary, and that they must approve when it is necessary.

Yes2

No

Yes, as it's a first step in making the voting policy less nit-picky.

Yes

Yes, it already does, it just doesn't explicitly say it.

Yes

Yes, and add an ability to offer "Kudos" for a participant's particularly unique, exemplary argument

Yes. S&G play a key role already with the system, I don't think anyones is gonna give points to an argument when they can read it. Someone can lose only a point for unclear arguments versus 3. 

Yes, but S&G shouldn't exist as a point.

Yes

Yes

Yes, depending on how far it is taken. All caps throughout a post are ridiculous but to emphasize a point I see nothing wrong with encasing a word or phrase in capitals. I think the rules of grammar in judging a debate should apply for coherency and aesthetic reasons such as capitalizing the start of a sentence or proper nouns, etc. 

Yes. I think encouraging organized debates is good. You're limited to what you can put into text, so milk it for all it's worth.

no

No. True, there can be certain cases when the structuring of a debate argument gets to the point of impeding its meaning. However, I have never seen debates like that ever (and even if they do occur, they would be extraordinarily rare). The main concern I have with this rule is that it leaves a very wide grey area for what "well" and "poorly" structured debates look like. There are many different ways people formulate their arguments, and just because someone doesn't post an argument that looks aesthetically pleasing doesn't mean they should get punished for it.

No. Expanding S&G would give it equal to or more power than the actual arguments being presented. Even casual debates must be argument-oriented.

No

Abstain

Abstain, but really, S&G points shouldn't exist.

Yes. Sure, it would help the mods do their job more efficiently, but in my eyes, the main purpose of this would be to prevent abusive reporting, report trolling, accidental reporting (something which I myself have done multiple times on mobile), and any other activity in which a post gets flagged without a legitimate reason. Making the reason optional might prevent accidental reporting, but other than that would defeat the whole purpose of having a reason when submitting a report. 

Yes. Add a feature where you it's mandatory to give report explanation with 5+ characters.

Yes. It could cut down on frivolous use of the button and make mod action more efficient by actually pointing out the problem. There really seems to be little wrong with implementing it and has the potential to save time.

Yes

Yes. A reason means that people can't just report a random post they don't like and hope the mods find a reason to remove it. They have to at least come up with their own reason on why it should be removed. In addition, it makes it very clear to the mods what they're dealing with.

No1, I would love if more people said why they are reporting things, but I don't want it to be forced.

no1

No1

No1, I also recommend having tick boxes that you select from regarding the categories of rule breakage. This is much easier than typing out a reason and helps lazier or busier reporters do what they have to while helping you do what you have to.

No1

No1

No1 (as I said before checkmark list still makes sense)

No 1

No1

No1

No1

No2

No

No