Total posts: 2,589
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Alrighty then, looks like everyone likes this idea :)
Yes, with some caveats (see posts 10 and 11). But, it is nice to see agreement on the site about something, lol.
Created:
Posted in:
I think this is a good feature idea which Mike could implement, time-permitting.
Though, I do think it should be a net of 2 forfeited rounds, otherwise it could simply become a race towards who forfeits 2 first.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WisdomofAges
Oh RIGHT, according to the pathetic BRAINWASHED and DUMBED DOWN ......PGA2.0.......who is incapable of independent thought and reasoningall must accept his / her ?
Since you do not respond to PMs, I will reach out to you here. You were banned for repeatedly violating the site's policy against making personal attacks like the one quoted here, despite receiving multiple warnings to desist from such conduct. If you persist in making remarks like these, the penalties you face will escalate. If you wish to discuss this further, please reach out to me using the site's private messaging (PM) system.
You can find the site's code of conduct here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
Created:
Posted in:
I think were it comes racist and unacceptable, particularly in gay culture, is when someone issues a blanket proclamation like "no Asians." That kind of remark implies that the speaker wouldn't even entertain the possibility of sleeping with an Asian person, which goes beyond sexual preferences and moves into racist territory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
I have preferences in who I am attracted to. I prefer white, Indian, and Latino guys. That being said, I have found people of many others races attractive. I do not rule out dating any race completely. I recognize that I generally prefer some racial groups to others in dating, but I am open to dating anyone I find attractive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dave2242
My remark was a bit tongue-in-cheek, lol.
Created:
Posted in:
This is also a great reason for people to get familiar with the site's voting policies! It's really a fun read.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
This is false. Type1 was warned multiple times and notified about his imminent banning prior to being banned. So far as I can recall, only one user (not Type1) has ever been banned without prior notification, a step which was taken to prevent them going apesh*t towards other site users.Type1 did not recieve warning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Someone with extreme views is allowed on this site. While the COC prohibits hate speech, the ban on hate speech is currently only enforced with that hate speech is used to harass or personally attack another user. In this respect, the COC could probably be updated to reflect current practices. But, I think it is demonstrably false to suggest that any user might not be allowed on this site due to the opinions they happen to hold. People of all opinions are welcome, so long as they do not engage in behavior which is abusive towards other users.
Created:
James Buchanan. He hastened the coming of the Civil War and failed to address the structural issues present which made it possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Type1 was aware of the site's rules and code of conduct. These rules apply equally to all users. He chose to violate those rules repeatedly, despite warnings. He was banned temporarily as a slap on the wrist for his choice to engage in misconduct. He will be back on the site shortly, when his temp ban expires.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
They are not the same. One is done by a user on the site and another is done by the higher-ups.
That's a distinction without a difference. That is like saying that if the President shot someone in cold blood on 5th Avenue, it would be morally acceptable because the President did it, and not some everyday citizen. The doer of the action is not relevant to the nature of the action, just as the creator of the thread is not relevant to the nature of the thread. The only meaningful difference that exists is that, when the "higher-ups" do it, they are signalling that it is an acceptable social practice because, by doing it, they endorse it. That is an argument precisely against the policy you're trying to promote.
I don't want conspiracy theorists, people advocating for illegal activity on my site
I am not the thought-police. It is not my job to ban people because they have atypical views, nor would it be desirable for me to do so on a debate website (debate being all about the free clash of ideas). As for advocating illegal activity, that's altogether a separate issue, and one which I might very well act on if it came to my attention that it was occurring. If someone posted a thread with bomb-making instructions, for instance, and a call to blow up a building, I would immediately remove the thread, ban the user, and report the issue to the relevant authorities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
This is a public platform and the higher-ups can create the audience they target. With this in mind publicly embarasing indivduals sends a message that this behaviour will not be tolerated and will make sure people know there place. This will help people understand authority and what are acceptable limits to what can be done on the site. I am not for call-out threads. I am for higher-ups making public with who was banned.
This misses the precise point I made earlier: "such a process...would also performatively undermine the spirit of the site's code of conduct by institutionalizing call-out threads as an acceptable social practice on DART." A public ban log would constitute a call-out thread to the extent that it would be used to publicly shame or embarrass other site users by name. I am not going to enforce rules which ban call-out threads by creating call-out threads.
There are already sufficient deterrents in place against misconduct--including knowledge of existing bans and the issuance of official warnings--to ensure sufficient compliance with site rules.
The other "benefits" you mention are either addressed by the current system, which already provides the resources needed to understand moderation's enforcement positions, or are not sufficient to outweigh the legitimate privacy and user retention interests protected by the status quo. Moreover, it would be far too great an encumbrance for moderation to keep a running, public list of all reports and the actions taken on them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
This is not well-articulated, so I am not entirely sure what you're trying to say. What I believe I can gather from the above is that you're basically saying that rules which prohibit harassment are sufficient protections against the revelation of private information. What you fail to consider is that the revelation of private information is itself harmful--not only on its own terms, but insofar as it provides additional fodder for personal attacks against users. It does not seem to be a viable solution to punish the harassers afterward, as the harassment as already occurred at that point.This person who had his/her account banned is public and there is very little information that can be public on this site which means there is very little a supposed mob can do to harm a user. If it does occur simply add a rule which I think you guys have that targeted harassment will be punished. So basically this is already a public site and very little information is given and the only way to harm the user is to harass them. If the person reports on it, that user who did the harassing can be punished.
Created:
Posted in:
Swearing is permitted, btw. It's tacky, but no longer violates site policy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
My case for this is that it will give this site more transparency which will lead to the site profiles understanding what is consider ban-able or at the very least be up to date with what is going on with current ban-ings.
As noted above, we're re-litigating here something which was already twice rejected in MEEP processes by the site usership. That alone should be reason enough to reject the idea. Even were it not, there are myriad reasons why such a policy would be foolhardy. Users who have engaged in misconduct would be publicly embarrassed and shamed through such a process, which would not only make it harder to retain users but would also performatively undermine the spirit of the site's code of conduct by institutionalizing call-out threads as an acceptable social practice on DART.
Official warnings and on-site discussions of the site's code of conduct already serve to educate users about what is and is not bannable, and, given the strike-throughs used to indicate when a member was banned, users face no significant burden in determining who is currently banned or not. Given that the policy your proposing has almost no tangible benefits not already provided by the status quo, while entailing not insignificant harms, hardly recommends it for implementation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
No.
A public ban log has twice been rejected in MEEP processes, and I see little utility in stripping the process of the privacy it currently provides to the impacted users.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Mods currently have jurisdiction over who to ban and for how long. The process involved in deciding whether to ban a user involves the accumulation of evidence of infractions, presenting that evidence to the offending user, allowing them the opportunity to defend their actions, and then reaching a decision on whether to ban and, if a ban is indicated, for how long.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Would you guys have a trial on the next person you decide to permanently ban?
Trials are prohibited. They tend to devolve into mob rule and popularity contests.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Uther-Penguin
Aloha, Uther :) How's it going?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
You realize right, you've just exposed your strategy? Kind of like one of those villains who reveals their whole plan when they think they've won, and then gets their asses whooped by the hero who can now predict their every move.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Given that this has been a point of discussion within moderation recently, let me clear this up. The final image is tacky, sure. But it doesn't seem to violate site rules. Many sexually-tinged jokes and off-hand remarks are tolerated as allowable. The image above is no more inappropriate than those kinds of jokes or remarks. It is clearly not porn, and it is not clearly explicit erotica. It may be "inappropriate for the website" (it's not my job to pass judgement on that), but it is not in violation of site rules.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
This thread isn't about you having no reason to struggle, it's about the fact that you are.
I don't understand how, on the one hand, you can accuse me of finding moderation to be a laugh-fest, and then say this. It's contradictory on its face.
These challenges indicate that moderation is in no way a laugh-fest, but do not indicate that I am struggling. Rather, that I am responsive to these issues (particularly that I am dealing with them instead of avoiding them, as you would seem to suggest I am doing) and that I am on top of reports suggests that I am doing fairly well in my position.
If you feel or believe differently, that is certainly your prerogative. I disagree. I believe my record speaks for itself. Feel free to continue to debate and discuss that record (also your prerogative), but, in the meantime, I will continue to be doing the job you accuse me of shirking. I don't really have anything else to add, unless you have some specific questions which are not meant simply to entrap.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
You can sit there laughing
Trust me when I say that moderating DART is in no way a bundle of laughs.
Moderating DART is a lot of dealing with people who are angry at being punished or being caught violating site rules (dealing with angry people is in no way fun or humorous). There is also a lot of dealing with spurious, petty, or ridiculous allegations, disagreements, or reports, and a lot of wearily repetitive sifting through report after report. Then, every so often, it's dealing with a thread accusing you of being incompetent, dishonest, unfeeling, immoral, dumb, or some combination thereof. And there are also the scary moments when people threaten you with doxxing or say that they're going to commit suicide, sending you into a panic as you try to make sure they're alright. So no, I would not say this job is particularly laugh-inducing; if anything, it's the exact opposite. I do the job because I believe I can make a positive impact on this community; I don't do it for the laughs.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
he is willing to take all of my PMs
So, basically what you're saying is that Virt is doing more because he talks with you more? That's hardly a compelling argument. As you know, I do reply to your messages when appropriate; that I am not ebullient or talkative when conversing with you is certainly not evidence that I am lazy or shirking my responsibilities as a mod.
Just in the past ten days, for example, I have handled more than 100 discrete reports; issued warnings (sometime multiple) to more than 6 users based on reports that I've handled; banned or unbanned three users; and called the police to ensure a wellness check for a user who posted a suicide note.
I hardly think, then, I am being lazy in the fulfillment of my obligations to the DART community. But, ultimately, that is for the usership to decide; in the meantime, I would prefer to keep doing my job instead of having to respond to groundless accusations like this, which are rooted more in flawed cognitive heuristics than a rational evaluation of the evidence.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Bsh1, so far, hasn't denied it either and the latter has actually posted in this thread.
I think it's clear that in late January I went through a period of abnormally reduced activity due to IRL constraints on my time. One of the advantages of having two mods is that, when sh*t hits the fan, you have someone who can take over temporarily; as Virt did for me. I would do the same for him if he needed it. The ability of someone to temporarily step back is not a flaw in the system, but a reasonable adaptation to manage the competing obligations which we all have. Literally any workplace in the world does this--whether it be through sick leave, vacation time, maternity leave, or something else entirely.
Before and since that period of reduced activity, I have been online every day, and--as I am sure other users could attest, were they willing to do so--I have been handling reports and dealing with issues of user misconduct. Most of my activity occurs behind-the-scenes (after all, only the user that receives a warning from me knows that such a warning was ever issued). That you do not see me working is not proof that I am not working. That being said, such things as Poly's ban are evidence of my behind-the-scenes activities. Frankly, I like the behind-the-scenes approach, largely because it produces less drama and minimizes my interference in day-to-day user experience on the site. So, yes, I do deny your allegations; they're spurious and based largely on an absence of understanding regarding how most moderation activity occurs in venues not visible to you.
Created:
-->
@Goldtop
Even Poly is still here after all her vile content
Poly was recently issued a lengthy ban based on numerous interactions and conversations I have had with her over recent weeks. I think it is nearly universally clear that it her conduct was deteriorating and totally inappropriate. One cannot follow other users around calling them "pussy sock puppets." As vivid as that imagery is, it clearly constituted harassment and was dealt with as such, in context with numerous other observed infractions.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
@TheRealNihilist
What is MEEP?
This is a good example of a MEEP: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1492 Lemme know if you have any questions about the process.
What is a MEEP fatigue
I would liken it to voter fatigue. There are users who might be, or perhaps already have become, disinclined to participate the more MEEPs there are. Spacing MEEPs out thus affords users a break from the process, allowing them to use the site without the intrusive announcements or the attention-diverting threads.
Created:
Aloha, guys!
I guess I'll use this opportunity to mention that there'll be another MEEP around mid-April to wrap up the final voting-related issues that we have. I would hold it sooner, but I don't want to induce a MEEP fatigue. Hopefully we can have a nice long MEEP break after April. That is all :)
Created:
Posted in:
What information I have suggests that Wylted is safe. This thread will remain locked.
Created:
Posted in:
Action is being taken to ascertain what is going on and to ensure Wylted's wellbeing. If and when I have any updates to provide, I will make that information available.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
If you're in crisis, call the hotline, man. Suicide is not the answer.
Also, if you'd rather talk to Virt or I, we're here to help. You are a valued member of this community.
Created:
Posted in:
Final Vote Count
Question 1Yes - 13No - 0
- A - 14
- B - 40.5
- C - 40
- D - 37
- E - 23.5
(higher numbers = greater support)Question 2Yes - 9No - 3Question 3Yes - 10No - 1Question 4Yes - 9No - 2Question 5Yes - 8No - 3Question 6Yes - 9No - 2
Results
Proposals 2-6 have met the criteria for adoption, and those proposals will take effect in the coming days. Proposal 1 has also met the criteria for adoption, but, due to the close nature of the vote between options B and C, a runoff is necessary to determine a winner. Therefore, please look for a MEEP to be held in the next 2-3 weeks which will include this runoff, as well as a few other issues which need to be put to a community vote.Thank you again to all who have participated. As always, it was good to get the community's feedback on these important issues, and we hope this overhaul of the voting policies will foster more robust and honest voting practices in the future. This MEEP will be switched to read-only sometime within the next 24 hours.
Created:
Posted in:
I am working on a way to assess the ranked choice system, since not everyone who voted provided a complete ranking by the voting window's end. Please wait patiently until a final vote count can be announced.
Created:
Posted in:
Extension
Due to insufficient votes on 5/6 questions, the voting window has been extended to 11:45am on 3/17/19, as described in the OP. If you have not yet voted, please consider making your voice heard on these important issues!
Created:
Posted in:
Time Check
About 2 hours and 15 minutes remain in the regularly scheduled MEEP voting window. This voting window may be subject to a 12 hour extension if there are an insufficient number of participating voters for any one question at the end of the regularly scheduled window.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
If we can be confident that an account is a bot, then we can remove the vote. However, the presumption is always in favor of accounts not being bots, so there needs to be some concrete and persuasive evidence to the contrary for us to remove votes on that basis.
Created:
Posted in:
Time Check
About 5 hours and 15 minutes remain in the regularly scheduled MEEP voting window. This voting window may be subject to a 12 hour extension if there are an insufficient number of participating voters for any one question at the end of the regularly scheduled window.
Created:
Posted in:
Question 1
Yes - 10
No - 0
- A - 41
- B - 21
- C - 19
- D - 22
- E - 34
Question 2
Yes - 7
No - 2
Question 3
Yes - 7
No - 1
Question 4
Yes - 6
No - 2
Question 5
Yes - 5
No - 3
Question 6
Yes - 6
No - 2
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
A vote against the proposal will not change the list of things a voter needs to do.
Created:
Posted in:
My previous vote count was off. Guess that happens when you rush. The above is accurate, I believe. Lower numbers in the ranked choice portion indicate greater voter preference.
Created:
Posted in:
Question 1
Yes - 8
No - 0
- A - 33
- B - 16
- C - 14
- D - 17
- E - 27
Question 2
Yes - 5
No - 2
Question 3
Yes - 5
No - 1
Question 4
Yes - 4
No - 2
Question 5
Yes - 3
No - 3
Question 6
Yes - 4
No - 2
Created: