Total posts: 155
-->
@DebateArt.com
@drafterman
Concur. This is an idea to implement.Ideally, there should be a way of flagging the vote such that it no longer counts towards awarding points without deleting it. The voter can then come in and has the option to update the vote. If the vote is not updated in, say, 24 hours, then it is deleted. When updated, the mods are notified and can then review and then "release" the vote allowing it to contribute to the score.
Created:
Side note that probably nobody cares about;
I played an online game once that had a running tally of every person who was disciplined by moderators. The list included what the disciplinary action was, how many players were impacted, which mod was responsible and the reason why.
Everyone hated the mods in that game with a passion, so make of it what you will.
I played an online game once that had a running tally of every person who was disciplined by moderators. The list included what the disciplinary action was, how many players were impacted, which mod was responsible and the reason why.
Everyone hated the mods in that game with a passion, so make of it what you will.
Created:
-->
@Castin
You're still able to join any forum debate or discussion that person is in, and even address them directly, albeit without @ing them.I've been blocked for saying things someone didn't like, but I did not feel it was cruel and unusual punishment and I did not feel that it constituted a restraint on my freedom.
Pretty much what I've been saying all along.
+1
+1
Created:
...banning is a punishment...
When did I ever say it wasn't?
I've been talking about BLOCKING this entire time.
Banning and blocking are completely different things.
Hence the purpose of the blocking demonstration.
I really don't care if you block me.
And therein my point is proven. You don't actually view blocking as a punishment (since you don't care), which makes the claim by outhouse guy a fallacy which you yourself obviously disagree with.
Created:
I could have both you and Ethang for accusing me - despite mountains of contrary evidence - of voting one given way.
In regards to that, I do actually apologize for bringing that up publicly. If you check my post history (somewhere in this thread I believe), you should find that I partly retracted that after seeing several of your votes recently. I should reserve any other judgement on this issue until I know more facts of the situation.
That said however, I expressed my concerns here on the forum. As I have stressed several times throughout this discussion, the forum is fair game for people to attack and criticize each other (within reason).
If I had attacked you in the comments section of a debate, sent you private messages or taken some other realtalatory action against you, I bet you would be a lot more upset with me, and rightfully so.
That is why I draw a distinction between blocking someone on the "debate side" of the site where I feel the decorum should stay professional and still allowing people to act freely in the forum. They should be handled differently.
My problem with it, is that if there is harrasment, or rule violations: then the person involved shouldbe banned. It’s a moderation issue.Less than that? If someone is just angry at you, or sounding off? It’s probably not a moderation issue, and there is probably no genuine reason for you to block them either, other than you don’t like what they’re saying.
This approach really seems to be drawing a very drastic line in the sand, dividing the issue into black and white sides. If someone breaks the rules, you would ban them. If they strictly obey the rules, you can't even block them.
I see two problems with that;
1. The moderators don't automatically ban everyone who breaks the rules and not every moderator action results in a ban.
2. It is possible, very possible, to obey all the technical rules of the site and still behave like an asshole.
So I don't see how we can make things as black and white as that. My concern lies with all the grey area in between. And blocking people from forcing unwanted interactions on others is the simplest way to address all that grey area.
The forum will always be here for unrestricted communication. But would the ability to stop people from interrupting your debate by kicking them out of the comments section really cause the total collapse of all civil discourse on this site? I don't buy it.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
They had grudge-voted you
Unfortunately, I can't really discuss this specific incident publicly, due to the moderator involvement aspect. I hope you understand. *shrug*
To that extent, I will say that this is why I remain in disagreement with the other views expressed here. Moderator involvement isn't always the answer, because then the situation becomes more complicated and hazardous for all parties involved, rather than less so. My experience has been that moderator involvement was less helpful than I was originally expecting/hoping for.
Alternatively, if a stronger blocking feature could have prevented the entire situation, moderator involvement would not have been necessary.
I would describe it as locking your front door, as opposed to leaving it open and calling the police after an intruder walks in. That is a better analogy than a bank robbery.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I hear you, and you have been one of the few pretty reasonable and generally likable people I've met on this site. We have drastically differing worldviews, yet we manage to treat each other with respect. I think our relationship aught to be a model for how other people should treat things.
But in that particular case which you cite, you were backing me up after someone else (who I had previously attempted to block) showed up to attack me in the comments section, for a reason that didn't pertain to the debate itself (I can't elaborate more specifically than this, due to moderator involvement). I appreciated you jumping in to help me out, but had that original attack not taken place, there would have been no need for a defense at all.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
I’ve seen people simply blocking anyone who disagrees with them on other sites.
I have too.
But I'm just saying, the perspective that blocking is a problem (or a "punishment") doesn't really make sense.
When I first signed up for this website and filled out my profile, I mentioned that I used to "debate" (if you could call it that) users on Tumblr. Most of those "debates" ended with the other person cussing me out and blocking me.
When someone had a mental breakdown and blocked me I didn't treat it like I was being "punished" by that person, because that is an absolutely crazy viewpoint which just doesn't make any sense. You can't "punish" someone by using a feature of the website that they have an equal power to use against you. Exactly the opposite is true; If a person blocks you, then they obviously weren't going to listen to anything else you had to say anyway, so they are saving you time by not having to waste any further effort talking to them. If they don't want to hear what you have to say, oh well, move on and talk to someone else. It isn't like there is a shortage of users on this site.
In my (admittedly very brief and likely soon to be over) time on this site, I've tried to be very tolerant and open-minded. I've voted on debates where I ended up voting for the person who argued for the position that I'm personally against. In fact, because most of the positions being debated on here are positions I'm against, I end up voting for those positions more often than not, simply because there is no alternative. I've also struck up polite and meaningful conversations (including private messages) with people who have directly opposing worldviews to my own. I've had people say things to me like "You seem like a nice guy... why are you conservative?" I don't flip out and want to attack everyone who has a different view from my own. We are here because we have different views and want to discuss them in an adult manner (I would hope).
But DAMN, some people on this site...
But DAMN, some people on this site...
I've seen people wig out and go ballistic because one person voted against them on a debate.
People set up these debates with absolutely insane rules, clearly designed to hamstring their opponent and guarantee an easy win, even going so far as to say that voters will be punished for voting the wrong way if the creator of the debate disagrees with their view.
And a certain group of people treat the comments section of the debate as a way for them to "back up" their personal friends and harass whichever debater they personally oppose.
This isn't tolerant. This isn't treating people with different views respectfully. This is just trying to strong arm people into agreement with you.
This isn't tolerant. This isn't treating people with different views respectfully. This is just trying to strong arm people into agreement with you.
When I was in the Army, they used to say "When you hear a stupid rule, it is because someone actually did that and now we have a rule against it."
Basically, thats what blocking is. It sounds "unfair" at first to deny a person the chance to speak to you... but there is a reason why that feature exists! Someone, at some point in time, did something sufficiently stupid/aggressive/evil that it resulted in blocking being invented! And this website is a fantastic example of that.
Basically, thats what blocking is. It sounds "unfair" at first to deny a person the chance to speak to you... but there is a reason why that feature exists! Someone, at some point in time, did something sufficiently stupid/aggressive/evil that it resulted in blocking being invented! And this website is a fantastic example of that.
Created:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Nowhere did Outplayz ever try to insinuate that bank robbers shooting clerks was equivalent in any sense to banning someone on an online forum...
You are correct to the (extremely limited) extent that he didn't make a comparison between "bank robbers shooting clerks" and "banning someone on an online forum..."
But that just shows that you didn't read his post, or mine. He never said that, and I never said he said it.
What he DID say, and which I am pointing out as a fallacy, is that punishing a bank teller for refusing to give money to a bank robber who is threatening to shoot a person is equivalent to blocking someone on an internet website, because he claims that both are examples of a "punishment" taking place. This could even be divided into two separate fallacies, first for the outrageous attempt to equate a situation involving armed robbery with activity on a website, and then again for claiming that blocking a person should be considered a "punishment" in any sense of that word.
His argument could be summarized this way;
You... you... you...You want to block people on an internet website!? You MONSTER!!! Blocking people is exactly the same kind of PUNISHMENT as if you were to punish a bank teller who refuses to give money to an armed robber!
Not only is that an obvious example of a false equivalence fallacy, by attempting to equate his obscure bank robber scenario with blocking someone on an internet website, but merely claiming that blocking someone is a "punishment" is yet another type of fallacy on top of that which is so severe and rare that I doubt it even has a name at all.
But, I have good news for you!
You see, your buddy over there has actually created an excellent opportunity for an object demonstration!
See, I'm going to BLOCK YOU.
Afterword, one of two things will be true,
Either,
Either,
(A) You will feel hideously violated and enraged over the "punishment" of being blocked by a random person on the internet.
Or,
(B) You won't care, because like any rational person, you will realize that being blocked by a random person on an internet website has no meaningful impact on your life.
If (B) is true at the conclusion of the demonstration, then you will see how Outplayz committed a fallacy with his argument.
Enjoy!
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
I have decided to "punish" you. Stupidity of this magnitude deserves punishment.You are punishing a user when you block them
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
...It has to do with ex ante and ex post reasoning....your overly analyzing and quite frankly trying to be a smarty two shoes.
Knock that off. My irony detector can't handle this much abuse.
[A stronger block feature] is an extra feature to punish.
You... can't be serious.
That means I could "punish" anyone on this site, right now.
What if i am debating your best friend... not allow you to back said user up?
You... think the purpose of the comments section... is for non-involved third parties... to "back up" their buddies... by attacking one of the debate participants?
I don't feel the need to continue this conversation. Good day, sir.
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
Say someone robs a bank, puts a gun to a customers head and asks the teller for money. The teller refuses and the robber kills the customer. Should the courts punish the teller for not giving money?
To ask for extra punishment...
I didn't ever ask for "extra punishment" in any part of anything I said anywhere in this thread. You have massively misunderstood everything I'm saying if you think that.
I asked for;
I asked for;
- A stronger block feature (such as preventing people from spamming the comments of your debate after you have blocked them).
- Clearer rules which explain that it isn't okay to repeatedly target the same person and keep going after them in multiple parts of the site (particularly after they have blocked you).
The person that's blocked not being able to enter the thread?
A "thread" (if that is indeed what you are referring to) is a feature of the forum. I repeatedly and clearly stated that I wasn't seeking to change any aspect of the forum.
The person that is blocked not being able to comment on the debate?
Yes.
The comments section should be a privilege, not a right. If you can politely comment, great. If you argue a little, fine. But if you annoy the actual participants in the debate to the point where they block you, tough luck. If they aren't a participant in the debate, and one of the actual participants has them blocked, then they can go start their own debate or forum thread if they need to discuss the topic that badly.
Do you think that's fair... and do you think this site would be more attractive?
Unequivocally yes.
As I've repeatedly said, I'm not seeking to change the forums. If people want to troll, harass each other and hurl childish insults around, the forum will always be here for that, and it is pretty obvious that moderation is minimal here. People even openly insult the moderators and face no punishment. So this form of "discourse" (if you really want to stoop low enough to call it that) will always be here.
But for the actual official (and rated, I might add) debates, those need rules and structure in order to not dissolve into random chaotic name calling and harassment. Voting already has strict (albeit only partly effective) rules, so I don't see why the debate itself and attached comments section should be an unregulated battlefield.
I'm not asking for "extra punishment" by any stretch of the imagination. Just empower users to kick annoying jackasses out of their comments section so they don't become a distraction. This is not the outrageous idea you are making it out to be.
If they become abusive in their actions... report them and i'm sure the mods will take care of it bc the mods on this site are involved.
As I said earlier, in my case I did notify a moderator and some action was taken. The action taken was partly effective.
However, I believe a more effective block feature would have prevented the need for a moderator to have ever become involved in the first place.
However, I believe a more effective block feature would have prevented the need for a moderator to have ever become involved in the first place.
The type of blocking I'm proposing would only impact the debates and comments, not the forum. And ideally, it would cause moderators to get involved in disputes LESS often, which seems to be what you want, so no "extra punishment" is needed.
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
i have a healthy respect for the mods but not speaking up will teach them nothing. Apart from that, i trust they are doing what they can.
I'm not personally (can't speak for anyone else here) saying that the mods aren't doing anything about the problems. Obviously a few trouble makers got banned, and probably deserved it. And in the case of the problems I'm experiencing, I've spoken to a moderator who did take some basic actions to attempt to rectify the situation. So clearly something is being done.
However, I do think that both the current rules are too loose and the block feature needs to be buffed up significantly. If users could solve their own problems by simply blocking the worst offenders, then it would save the mods from having to get involved at all.
The forums will always be a 3rd grade playground with an associated level of name calling, and I'm fine with that. The rest of the site doesn't need to be that way if designed correctly.
Created:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
...contacting people's real life Facebook friends unsolicited to shittalk them or sending violent PMs...GoldTop was the user whom I was referring to...
The thing is though, you know one user engaged in behavior that severe, so why would you be convinced another user wouldn't eventually take a page out of the same playbook and pull the same stunt? It's like saying that "we caught the murderer, so now we never need to worry about anyone ever committing murder again."
Commenting on debates can be ignored, and if the information is being spread publicly it's banned as either call-out thread or cross-thread contamination in most cases.
Unfortunately, I have to say that hasn't been my experience so far.
I don't want to say too much publicly, so as to avoid any possible CoC violations myself, but I do feel that "cross-thread contamination" was only partly addressed in my case, at best.
There's one particular user who has not once voted for the conservative/theist position in any debate, but is apparently now part of the 'high quality vote' group on this site lol.
I believe to know which one you are talking about. I did personally say that I was opposed to the idea of a "high-quality vote group" on the thread which announced said group, because I felt it sent the wrong message.
For what it is worth, I have seen the user in question vote fairly when the topic of the debate is non-religious in nature. Said user voted in my favor on several of my recent debates, and I also stumbled across a few older votes cast by said user which came down on a "conservative" side in political debates which lacked any major religious component.
It seems that there is only an issue on religious debates, specifically if the debate directly addresses the existence of God. Not just that user specifically either, but a number of people will basically say that any debate involving God is wrong by default, and know how to write their justification so that it complies with the rules.
Alternatively, I'm hoping that when "groups" are added as a fully-fledged feature of the site in the future, there may be an option to organize groups to represent Christians and conservatives. This could balance out the unfair votes... or it might just escalate the issue to a higher level of fighting between various groups. I guess we will see...
Alternatively, I'm hoping that when "groups" are added as a fully-fledged feature of the site in the future, there may be an option to organize groups to represent Christians and conservatives. This could balance out the unfair votes... or it might just escalate the issue to a higher level of fighting between various groups. I guess we will see...
The only thing that would really be 'problematic' is spamming debate votes, but we kind of have a system in place to take care of that.
It isn't so much "spamming" of votes that I'm concerned about, but more "sniping" of votes by individuals with an axe to grind, or something personal to gain.
It is possible, albeit challenging and time-consuming, to write very long, detailed votes which technically comply with all the requirements of the CoC regarding votes, yet still effectively cast a vote for whomever they personally wanted to win, rather than who actually debated better. (And again, you yourself cited an example where you already believe this is happening.)
It is possible, albeit challenging and time-consuming, to write very long, detailed votes which technically comply with all the requirements of the CoC regarding votes, yet still effectively cast a vote for whomever they personally wanted to win, rather than who actually debated better. (And again, you yourself cited an example where you already believe this is happening.)
Alternatively, legitimately honest votes that are just short statements about why a person won will often fail one or more of the CoC requirements and get easily removed if anyone (even a random uninvolved third party) complains.
So this creates an atmosphere where winning a debate honestly seems to come down to whoever has more allies voting on their behalf wins, particularly if said allies are able to carefully walk the line of obeying the CoC while still doling out the opinions of their choice, intimidating anyone who disagrees and utilizing the moderators to take down votes that don't follow the pattern. The current system grants an obvious advantage to those who are technically complaint with the rules, but still engaging in some obviously biased form of abuse by combining multiple strategies of trolling, low-grade harassment and bias-based voting to ensure a lot of easy debate wins.
Like I said, I don't want to name-names or get too detailed on my specific experience, but if you think it would help, shoot me a PM and I'll point you to the specific incidents I'm talking about.
Created:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
I don't see how someone can claim that someone is 'harassing' them if they are choosing to continue contact with said person after the site has given them a way to effectively not see that person's notifications.
See what I said earlier;
...users who are rapidly developing techniques for abusing almost every feature of this site, including comments, votes and the debates themselves.
And this.
Not seeing notifications is fine. And not responding to people you have blocked sounds like a great policy on paper.
Unfortunately, neither of these things helps you if people continue to follow you around, comment on all your debates, give phony votes, spread false information about you to other people, etc.
Like I said, it is fine on the forums where you expect people to argue and insult each other. But once a grudge starts to spread to all the other functions of the site, just blocking alone isn't a complete fix (unless the functionality of the block feature gets buffed up significantly, as I've requested elsewhere).
Nothing like any of the serious bullying that we saw on DDO, like contacting people's real life Facebook friends unsolicited to shittalk them or sending violent PMs.
Honestly, I see it escalating to that point eventually. One of the guys currently harassing me is a former DDO user (who supposedly left that site because he had some negative run-ins with the moderators) and I wouldn't put it past him to pull a stunt like that if he knew how to contact anyone else who knows me off of this site. This guy is obsessed with trying to force me to "talk" to him, at any cost.
Every time he gets confronted about his behavior, he just says "But... all I wanted to do is talk to him!" Classic stalker behavior right there.
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
I have around 600 posts already here... what is really bothering me is why don't i see it?
Well, as I was saying, on the forum it doesn't come off as harassment (as much), because you expect "flame warrioring" on the forums where people are going to verbally spar with each other, be rude and sometimes even insulting. That is just a sad fact of using forums, and people can always choose to ignore the forum and stick to the debates if they find the forum unpleasant.
But the stuff I'm running into is happening on other parts of the site aside from the forums.
So yeah, you have 600 posts on the forums. But you only have two comments, one vote and no debates. You won't likely encounter the people I've talked about or the type of harassment which they have engaged in, due to it being mostly executed through parts of the site you aren't currently using.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I don't know the backstory on Goldtop, so I really can't offer any opinion there.
As far as the rest, I agree this site has some seriously problematic people who seem to be here exclusively for the purpose of trolling and getting their jollies by making other people uncomfortable.
On the forum is one thing, because when you post on a forum you expect other people to respond to voice their agreement or disagreement (and unfortunately, it is just a fact of life that some people will be more rude than others).
But I've observed a number of users who are rapidly developing techniques for abusing almost every feature of this site, including comments, votes and the debates themselves. When people try to stand up to them, they treat it like a declaration of war and start a campaign to follow and harass that person wherever they go. If the moderators intervene, then they play the martyr and act as if there is some grand conspiracy being executed against them. No matter what the outcome, they find some way to make the site less enjoyable for everyone else, which seems to be the only real objective of this type of trolling.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Just like what you see with Disgusted... here he is, in almost every religious topic insulting people...
I've been on this site a very short time, but I can verify this. The very first time I posted in the religion forum he immediately started hurling insults at me.
I've got similar issues happening with two other users on this site right now. I've blocked both of them, but they follow me in all of my debates and either alternately demand that I "talk" to them about why I blocked them, or simply hurl insults at me for not responding to them.
Created:
-->
@bsh1
Thank you. Sounds like that solves that issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Sounds like solid advice. I've already got two stalkers on this site, I don't need another.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Who declared the bible the final authority on anything?
They would be the ones who allow you to think that you actually have something worth saying, when in fact you only have the teachings of the IPSS, so nothing worth saying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
I'm waaaaaayyy late to this thread... Anyway,
I've been an atheist most of my life. And until just recently, I thought the majority of us were very sane, logical and intelligent, as opposed to theists whom are obviously delusional(the belief in the existence of that which cannot be known to exist is denial of reality, which is the textbook definition of delusion). However, I recently lost a boat load of respect for an atheist I used to truly admire. A woman who writes many essays on the evils of the Christian bible. All these years, I had neglected to read her essay on the definition of atheism. She states that "atheists" who claim that atheism is defined as a "lack" of belief in gods or deities are morons, and that true atheism is the affirmative claim that gods indeed do not exist.
I'm a Christian, but I actually see where you are coming from on this.
There are actually some atheists I like an appreciate. Atheists are better than people of a lot of other worldviews because they at least insist on seeing evidence and trying to make rational decisions based upon that evidence. And that is more than can be said of a lot of "post-modern" worldviews, where people do whatever "feels" right and make decisions based on emotion rather than logic.
But then you get some "Atheists" who are just as ideologically and emotionally driven as the worst worldviews out there. These folks will spout off some of the most ignorant stuff you can imagine and stick by it even after being presented evidence that what they are claiming is unarguably wrong.
The way I have seen other wise sources explain this phenomenon is that there are two types of "atheists" out there;
- Big "A" Atheists; The dumb, ideologically and emotionally driven ones.
- Little "a" atheists; The logic and evidence driven atheists.
The problem with the Big "A" Atheists is that they have absolutized their belief system to the point that it overrides everything else, including logic, reason and evidence.
The same way Catholics absolutize the authority of the Pope over the actual principles of Biblical scripture, these Big "A" Atheists do the same thing with their own belief system. For them, it becomes more important to harass and terrorize Christians and preach the supposed non-existence of any God, than to utilize any sort of rational decision making process.
Created:
-->
@drafterman
I do not think that it, in itself, should be a CoC violation except when it verges into existing harassment prohibitions.
That seems reasonable, for the most part. The only real distinction I can make is that it may be a somewhat different type of violation when the goal is to explicitly discourage people from voting against you.
In this case, it seems like outright harassment is what it is likely to become. Although I've added the user in question to my block list, it has now escalated to him complaining about being blocked in the comments of my other debates, as well as him putting me on a special list of people who are no longer allowed to vote.
Created:
In the past, I've suggested/requested a more robust blocking feature on the site, so that people would not just be prevented from sending you private messages, but also prevented from interacting with your content (such as commenting on your debates and continuing to pester you that way).
Now, while I still like that idea, I do see one major area where it could backfire; Blocking people from voting.
Lets say a feature were to be added to the site where you could mechanically block a person from voting on your debates. What would then stop a person from blocking all the major active users of the site, except for one person whom they had made a previous agreement with to vote in their favor?
Let me give you an example of how this kind of abuse could (hypothetically) work;
- I create a debate where I allege that "Dogs are made of Golden Cheese!"
- I then contact my friend "Bob" and tell him to accept the debate.
- Bob agrees to debate really badly and make a total ass of himself.
- At the same time, I go through and block all the serious voters on the site from voting, including moderators.
- After the debate ends, I contact my friend "Joe" and tell him to come vote for me.
So I have this obviously absurd debate, but I've rigged it in a way that prevents me from losing because I've blocked anyone who may vote against me, and I know at least one guy who is guaranteed to vote for me. A few newbies who I neglected to block may throw in their votes, but I can probably get most of their votes removed by reporting them, and I'll just be more careful to block them in the future.
Now, I've already started to see an example of a user who engages in behavior similar to this. In another thread, I talked about a user who tries to harass and intimidate voters to prevent them from voting against him. It seems that user is now keeping a list of everyone who voted against him anyway after his attempts at intimidation failed, and is declaring that those users are no longer allowed to vote on his debates. His argument basically goes like this...
Bob, Joe and Frank are no longer allowed to vote on this debate... because the fact that they voted against me in the past PROVES THEY ARE DISHONEST!Moderators will be REQUIRED to remove any votes that I disagree with and my opponent, by accepting this debate, must also agree to go along with everything I say and also demand that votes be removed if they are against me in any way!Furthermore, votes will be removed if they do any of the following;1. Interpret my argument in a way that I later decide isn't what I really meant!2. Claim my sources are bad (even if they are).3. Claim my arguments are bad (even if they are).4. Claim my opponent won for any reason.5. Award any points to my opponent at all!6. Fail to hold my opponent accountable for 115% of the burden of proof and remember that I'm right before the debate even starts.Those are all DISHONEST things to do! You can't do any of that!
I mean... Really? Who would ever accept a debate with "rules" like that? And yet, that is exactly what I'm starting to see happen more and more often on this site.
I'm actually engaged in a debate right now where my opponent ignored most of the debate description and decided to argue a topic other than what the actual topic of the debate was. So I definitely understand the temptation to engage in these sorts of shenanigans where setting up an obscene number of rules appears to funnel your opponent into the type of argument you wanted them to make.
But there has to be some sort of reasonable limit on this kind of thing. And when we get to the point where debaters have banned people from voting simply because they disagree with them, and are requiring their opponent to agree to some insane standard before the debate even starts, haven't we gone a little too far?
So here are my questions;
1. If debaters create these sorts of rules, including lists banning specific people from participation, are those rules actually going to be enforced?
2. What prevents the type of abuse I described before, where a sinister user may attempt to ban everyone that is likely to disagree with them, allowing only people to vote that are likely to vote in their favor?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I noticed. But I try (and sometimes fail) to keep my complaining to a bare minimum. So I never mentioned it previously, but now that you went ahead and pointed it out... I agree.
Also, did you see that our names are now being listed off on some debates as being part of a group that the creator of the debate has officially blocked us from voting on?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
I feel ashamed now and sorry for the harsh language.
I've seen much worse, believe me.
Years ago, I played this awful online game called Zelderex Online.
Like this site, Zelderex was being run by one guy who was designing it in his spare time. Unlike this site, he was charging people money to play.
Also unlike this site, that guy appointed his "wife" (who was actually just a live-in girlfriend) to be an administrator on the site. She ran amok on the site, blatantly abusing her power and harassing paying customers. She even had her own squad of enforcers within the game itself, who would try to kill off any players who said anything bad about her.
It eventually blew up in their faces. The "wife" admin banned one of her own enforcers who tried standing up to her. The rest of the enforcers turned on her and she had to ban all of them to stop the uprising. Those folks went around and convinced a whole bunch of other players to quit the game also, and it started a mass exodus. That was the beginning of the end for Zelderex.
A few years later, the game was shut down without any warning, probably because it was losing massive amounts of money and most of the "players" were automated farming bots. Not to mention that the game itself sucked, on top of all the drama.
So yeah, I've seen much worse.
As long as you are providing this site free of charge and nobody is required to be here, there really isn't much room for people to complain. Even if some of the complaints may have a small amount of merit, it doesn't make a lot of sense for people to just rag on you and harass you about it, when you clearly are doing as much as you can in the amount of time you have available. If it truly sucks that bad, they can quit and go somewhere else, without having lost anything, since they never invested anything in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
This "polytheist witch" character seems to be a troll anyway. She calls this place a "first grade playground" but she is part of the reason it seems like that, as she just goes around to different threads insulting people.
If the banhammer came down on her, I doubt anyone would mind. After all, the site is "shitty" anyway, so why is she even here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
@David
Ramshutu never votes against the atheist/ liberal. No matter who wins the debate, check the votes and Ram has voted against the conservative position. With as many times he has voted, this clearly shows that he isn't a fair voter. He's what we call a ringer. A sure liberal/atheist vote regardless of argument content.
Agreed.
Although the rules about voting are very strict, it is still possible for a skilled writer who is familiar with those rules to write up an analysis which technically complies with the rules, while still ignoring critical facts that should have been taken into account.
Ramshutu writes very long and detailed votes, which always comply with the rules, but somehow also seem to declare the exact opposite winner that all the other voters voted for. And of course, it is always the liberal/atheist position. That doesn't appear to be a coincidence.
I don't think a "voting club" is a very good idea in general. It sends the message that some gang of people is forming up to make sure that votes come out the way they want them to, and that they will try to influence the outcome of debates as much as they can get away with.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Thanks for the support!
I did discuss it with bsh1 and I believe he addressed it, although I don't know any details.
(There is another thread in this forum which actually brings up the argument from the opposite point of view, and a lot of the responses to that topic were basically telling the guy to chill the hell out.)
Created:
Posted in:
I vote to ban all polls which are seeking to ban polls.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I believe he signed up for the site with several of his friends and they likely share an IP address. Hence that might appear to be multi-accounting to the mods.The reason I think this is b/c the mods think I have multi accounts
I'm also not 100% clear on how that relates to anonymous reporting, but he might be in a situation like mine where he doesn't want to say too much in order to avoid revealing the content of private messages.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I don't want to say too much (so as not to reveal anything said via private mesaage), but I do feel that in my case at least moderators have been able to be more helpful and productive than they would have been than if they didn't know the origin of reports.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm going to vote against this.
As I believe I may have mentioned elsewhere, there is a certain user who has a grudge against me because I voted against him on one of his debates. The moderators upheld that vote, but as retaliation he went around and reported a bunch of random votes in the hope that a few would get taken down, as round about way of punishing me for voting against him. (Oh and does this sound similar to my concern about voter harassment?)
I also know of one other situation where a moderator knowing who was submitting reports was handy, but I don't think I should elaborate here on that.
Suffice to say, I believe that moderators should know who submitted a report and take that into consideration. Even if the reported incident ends up being a valid item to report, there could still be other motives and larger issues why a specific person submitted that report.
Created:
Currently, DebateArt has a rule against 'Vote Rigging', as follows;
C. Vote Rigging
Vote rigging is when someone solicits deliberately biased votes in order to rig the outcome of a vote.
I propose that there is also an inverse possibility. Instead of "rigging" votes by asking biased individuals to vote on your behalf, it is also possible to harass, pester, intimidate or otherwise try to influence an unbiased voter to vote in your favor, or prevent them from voting entirely. This can be used to either influence people to vote for you in a circumstance where they would otherwise vote for your opponent, or simply not vote at all, thus preventing a vote for your opponent.
This would essentially be the debate-world equivalent of real-world Voter Suppression and/or Voter Intimidation.
I believe this sort of behavior should be against the rules.
I have seen at least one user (whom I shall not name here) engaging in this behavior.
Recently, there was a debate which was worded in a very sneaky way to make it impossible for anyone to reasonably "win" the debate. The wording worked something like this;
The sun... rises... IN... "The West" *snicker**snicker*
Naturally, this was a troll debate designed as a trap. When Con argues the widely accepted scientific fact that the sun rises in the direction of East and sets in the direction of West, Pro merely says he was actually talking about the location East and the location West, meaning because the sun does indeed rise in "The East" at some point in time, so Pro's argument must be correct by default.
One of the moderators described that debate in these exact terms;
This was the worst troll debate in the history of bad troll debates.
In spite of that fact, the instigator of that debate has been arguing with, insulting and attacking every single person who has cast a vote against him in that debate. He started doing this even before the debate was over by insisting that Con had "conceeded" the debate (which Con denied) and then threatening anyone who disagreed that their vote would be removed by the moderators if they dared to vote for Con.
After the debate was over and people began voting, he continued to call out and harass specific individuals in the comments by insisting their their votes were "dishonest" and that he was going to get moderator's to remove them. I'm not sure to what extent he may have harassed other users, but he even contacted me via a private message. He later posted the contents of that private message into the comments (which I believe may violate a separate rule about 'PM Doxxing').
The troll debate wasn't the only circumstance where this particular user engaged in this sort of behavior either. He has done similar things in other debates he was a participant in, often attacking everyone who voted against him as "dishonest" and praising everyone who votes for him as "honest" in the comments section. He regularly tries to argue with people about their reasoning for casting certain votes and virtually attempts to start the debate all over again in the comments against anyone who disagreed with his logic (keeping in mind that his "logic" is rarely more than clever wordplay).
Frankly, I don't think this kind of behavior should be tolerated. Harassing people and attempting to intimidate them into changing their vote is just as bad as soliciting biased voters in the first place. And while I'm sure everyone is going to be inclined to think their argument is better than their opponent's argument, that doesn't give you the right to start contacting people via private message to argue with them over it. If you think a vote is bad or against the rules, report it to the mods and let them do whatever they will do with it. Otherwise, just shut up and take your lumps if the voters decided to vote against you.
In a best case scenario, this kind of behavior is "backseat modding" at the least, and in a worst case scenario it is outright harassment. And either way, it is bad sportsmanship.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I agree with a stronger block feature...
Cool. I hope other folks agree too.
Also, I just want to clarify that they aren't asking for permission to go into your own PMs. They are asking for the right to go into anyone's PMs based on a separate third party asking them to. So it's less: "this guy is harassing me, come look" and more: "I think those two people are talking about me privately, go stop it"
That is a valid distinction to make.
Is it possible that we could have a rule similar to the way votes work, that a particular item has to be "flagged" before a moderator can act on it? (But once flagged, it gets automatically assigned for action?)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Because they started sending PMs before I blocked them. If the moderators can't access those private messages, then I can't point to them as evidence of wrongdoing.
Regardless, I think a stronger block feature would probably resolve this issue. I'm still hopeful that someday this site will embrace that viewpoint and implement better social controls and limits on who can and cannot interact with your content on the site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
You can block them.
I did.
But this guy seems to have a real grudge against me for reasons unknown. In addition to private messages, he argues with me in comments and I frankly doubt that blocking him will have much meaningful impact over the long haul.
I also suggested a more robust blocking feature in another thread and was shot down on that idea...
Created:
Posted in:
BD
Lewis Trillema
MoH
Virtuoso
Trend
DART Gender
Funny Members
jrboy3
Quality Voter
Mharman
Created:
Posted in:
I currently have a user sending me unsolicited private messages in which he is trying to force me to change/remove/"talk about" a vote I submitted that he didn't agree with.
Based on this incident, I support the idea of allowing moderators to access private messages upon request to investigate cases of harassment or other possible rule violations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jboy3r
Sorry to hear that. Looks like you are about to win funniest user on this site, so hopefully that helps.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
@Jboy3r
Oh, I also think 'jr3boy' is actually 'Jboy3r'. We should probably clarify that in the voting.
He declined my challenge for a debate on Sega. :(
Created:
Posted in:
Although I guess what I'm really saying is...
Please don't leave me here with the atheist conspiracy theorist and the guy who wants three dicks!
Created:
Posted in:
So, troll debates and chronic forfeits are a legitimate problem right now, but this is still a relatively new site. I personally would expect things to stabilize over time.
The problem I see with setting up a separate "elite" category, is that when you take the competent and serious debaters out of the pool with the "regular" folks, then the net IQ of the pool drops dramatically. New users won't be able to find anyone worthwhile to debate in the "regular" pool, and because they lack an opportunity to display their skills, they won't be able to get into the "elite" group either. Over time, this would stagnate both groups.
I think a simpler approach would be to just make a few minor changes to the current pool of debaters to cut down on the "troll" debates and better highlight the serious folks.
1. Remove new accounts from the leaderboard. New users wouldn't be visible until they complete one debate and have their ranking altered from the default starting position.
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.
3. Don't give people easy wins off of "Full forfeit" debates. I won't name names, but a lot of folks who currently have multiple wins got them merely for showing up when no actual debate took place.
4. Allow people to tag their own debates as "troll" debates and don't include those in the ranking system. Obviously not everyone will openly admit when they are trolling, but even offering the option may help to filter out some of the more obvious material.
I think the above four changes would help a lot and involve much less effort than setting up a whole new "elite" category.
Created:
Posted in:
The problem with a tie awarding points to both parties is that it psychologically suggests that both parties did well in that category, but usually when I give a tie it is because both parties were equally bad.
Created:
Posted in:
Yeah, the points have no effect unless you have more of them than your opponent at the end. So even if you get a vote where the voter says you tied in three categories, but he gives the fourth category to your opponent, that is still functionally a vote for your opponent. From a purely mechanical standpoint, it doesn't actually matter if a tie awards equal points or no points, because the outcome is the same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I swear it's like Type1 has an evil genius plan to get his rating as low as possible so he can sabotage the ratings of higher ranked debaters.
If so, he is going about it entirely the wrong way. I challenged him to a debate that I easily would have won and he declined! That would have been an easy loss for him.
Created:
Posted in:
Er... yeah?That could cause some issues with quoting and interactions.
I mean, preventing interaction is usually the goal of blocking somebody.
Let me pitch it to you this way; I've got an issue right now where a guy didn't like the way I voted on his debate and has been following everything I do so he can report all my votes and hope a few of them get removed.
If the guy wanted to tell me I'm a jerk, cool, whatever.
But trying to get moderators to harass me on his behalf is just childish. It forces me to repost content that gets removed, and forces you to waste time evaluating content just because one guy has an axe to grind.
I've blocked this joker, but with the current functionality of the block feature being what it is, this really does nothing to solve the problem.
Created: