Total posts: 2,589
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Yeah, the VC needs updating. I'll get to it tonight.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
As explained in the OP, your first choice is ranked a 1. Thus, lower numbers are indicative of more support.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You're lying when you say this won't change the standards.
Nope. There are no substantial differences between the wordings in terms of the standards they impose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
@Alec
You both voted against some or all of Questions 3-6. I want to ensure that I am understanding your views correctly. To be clear: questions 3-6 are not altering existing standards, merely rephrasing them for clarity. Are you voting against the standards or the proposed wording of the standards?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Noooo bsh a and e are the least popular
I know.
Created:
Posted in:
Question 1
Yes - 8
No - 0
- A - 27
- B - 13
- C - 13
- D - 14
- E - 22
Question 2
Yes - 5
No - 2
Question 3
Yes - 4
No - 2
Question 4
Yes - 4
No - 1
Question 5
Yes - 2
No - 3
Question 6
Yes - 5
No - 0
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
Separate proposal, I think the COC should make clear what a sufficient vote in the choose winner system is.
Agreed. In hindsight, I should have included it in this MEEP.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Thank you. That side-by-side comparison is helpful.
Please rank the plans if possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Please rank the plans if possible. I understand D is your first choice, but I would prefer rankings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
No. Many debates merit a high standard of judging, many do not- often by choice. Won’t these narrower standards prove inapplicable to a variety of cases?
We're not voting on the policy, just on the phrasing of it. The status quo is the same policy as the suggested in the MEEP. These rephrased policies are designed to say pretty much the same thing but in a more straightforward way. Do you think the COC is better phrased as-is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
- N - too lenient
We're not voting on the policy, just on the phrasing of it. The status quo is the same policy as the suggested in the MEEP. Do you think the COC is better phrased as-is?
Please rank the plans if possible.
Created:
Posted in:
To be clear: questions 3-6 are not altering existing standards, merely rephrasing them for clarity.
Created:
Posted in:
5. Should COC (Voting Policy) Section 1, Subsection C be replaced with a different text?
A "yes" vote would replace the current voting standard for spelling and grammar points with the following text: "In order to award spelling and grammar (S&G) points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) give specific examples of S&G errors, (b) explain how these errors were excessive, and (c) compare each debater's S&G from the debate. S&G errors are considered excessive when they render arguments incoherent or incomprehensible." A "no" vote would retain the current phrasing of the text.
6. Should COC (Voting Policy) Section 1, Subsection D be replaced with a different text?
A "yes" vote would replace the current voting standard for conduct points with the following text: "In order to award conduct points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate, (b) demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate, and (c) compare each debater's conduct from the debate. Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic. In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards)." A "no" vote would retain the current phrasing of the text.
(Note: questions 3-6 are not intended to substantially alter current standards, but rather to provide clearer guidelines for and wording of existing standards in order to facilitate voter compliance with voting regulations. However, some slight alterations in vote moderation policy may be implicated by these changes if they are adopted.)
Please vote "Yes" or "No" to each question, clearly indicating which question you are responding to when you do so. If you vote "Yes" to Question 1, please rank the plans as instructed. Thank you for your participation in this MEEP process!
Created:
Posted in:
About MEEP
MEEPs (Moderation Engagement and Enactment Processes) are official comment periods where moderation proposes and solicits feedback on various potential moderation policies. MEEPs allow moderation to pose questions about moderation policy to the site usership and empower the site usership to either ratify or reject moderation's proposals. In order for a moderation proposal to be ratified, at least 10 users must have expressed a preference on the policy in question, and more than a majority of those expressing a preference must be in agreement. That means, in a MEEP with 10 voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 7-3; similarly, in a MEEP with 19 voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 11-8. This ensures that the outcome of the process reflects the consensus of a significant number of site users. If a MEEP result is not binding/valid, moderation will maintain the pre-MEEP status quo, whatever that happens to be.
This MEEP will be open for user votes until 11:45pm, EST, on 3/16/19. This voting period may be extended by up to twelve hours if there are fewer than 10 votes on any of the specific questions put to the usership. Any extension will apply to all questions. Votes cast after the deadline will not be considered.
The Proposals
Below is an enumerated list of the content to be voted on. A brief explanation of the proposal is included below each proposal as well.
1. Should there be additional criteria that a debater voter needs to meet in order to be eligible to vote on a debate?
In light of recent problems regarding illegitimate voting, vote bombing, and self-voting, it may be the case that it is not prudent to give every account the power to vote. This question is asking whether there should be eligibility requirements imposed on accounts in order for them to vote. Users who vote without being eligible to do so would have their wrongful votes removed from the debate, and would receive a warning. Further attempts to cast votes while ineligible could be met with additional sanctions from moderation. If you vote "no" to this proposal, you are voting against the imposition of additional eligibility requirements (and, while unnecessary, you may still rank the plans). If you vote "yes," please rank the five plans for additional eligibility requirements, which are listed below, in order of preference (with 1 being your first choice of implementation):
- Plan A - Super Light: Accounts must have read the site's COC (which includes the site's voting policies)
- Plan B - Light: Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 1 non-troll debate without forfeiting OR posted 50 forum posts
- Plan C - Medium: Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts
- Plan D - Heavy: Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 3 debates non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 200 forum posts
- Plan E - Super Heavy: Accounts must have read the site's COC AND passed a competency review conducted by moderation AND completed at least 3 debates non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 200 forum posts
2. Should the COC (Site Rules) Section 1, Subsection 3, Part 10 be repealed?
This section of the COC prohibits the use of profanity without asterisks. This portion of the COC is not enforced unless the profanity is being used as a personal attack, in which case it falls under a different section of the COC. While I.3.10 is not enforced, profanity is treated as an aggravating factor when determining punishment in more serious cases. A "yes" vote would repeal this section of the COC, while a "no" vote would maintain the status quo.
3. Should COC (Voting Policy) Section 1, Subsection A be replaced with a different text?
A "yes" vote would replace the current voting standard for argument points with the following text: "In order to award argument points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate, (b) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and (c) explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole." A "no" vote would retain the current phrasing of the text.
4. Should COC (Voting Policy) Section 1, Subsection B be replaced with a different text?
A "yes" vote would replace the current voting standard for sources points with the following text: "In order to award sources points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate, (b) directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support, and (c) must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's. Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points." A "no" vote would retain the current phrasing of the text.
Created:
I am going to move this back to politics tomorrow or Wednesday.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
The comparative analysis is indispensable, because unless the voter is able to explain why one person's conduct was worth than the other, the voter has no business awarding one a point for conduct. If the voter believes one debater was rude and the other was polite, the voter needs to state as much and then explain why. It may seem to be belaboring the obvious to the voter, who clearly has an opinion about the debaters' politeness, but it is not the moderator's job to determine if the voter was right about awarding points (thus, it is not the moderator's job to actually decide if there was an obvious conduct difference). Therefore, the only way for moderators to ensure the voter is doing the necessary mental legwork and not just randomly assigning points is to compel the voter to explain, in comparative terms, the points they award. I also don't think poor conduct needs to distract the voter to warrant punishment.
Created:
-->
@thett3
*rolls eyes*
I'll switch it for a few days, to generate activity, but it's gonna end up here, in the politics forum, in the end.
Created:
-->
@thett3
Why is it more appropriate to the main thread than the politics thread?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Do not post PMs from other users without their explicit, written consent. It is a violation of the COC.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
Fair enough. This will need to be MEEP'd at some point. Let's discuss it more, and we can MEEP it next week.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
See, I am just not technical, but what about 2 factor confirmation?
Created:
Posted in:
I think a simpler solution would be to do what DDO does with cell phones and manual confirmations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I think it should be re-meeped.
It has already been MEEP'd twice.
As for clarity, I think the COC is quite clear in what it permits and does not permit, and I try to add further clarity in the warnings I give to and discussions I have with users.
Created:
Posted in:
The ban log question was considered in a MEEP and failed to pass the required threshold to be adopted. I understand it's appeal, but I also understand why someone might reasonably object to it. I think it is important to respect the MEEP process that the community adopted.
I tend to give multiple warnings before bans, even repeat bans. When someone comes back, they have an opportunity to join in the community again without prejudice. If they continue misconduct, consequences will naturally escalate, but they are always given the chance to change their behavior. This applied (and applies) to Poly to the same extent as it does every other user on DDO.
Finally, I do think moderation is generally laissez-faire. Users are almost never banned for their first, second, or even third warnings. I don't usually ban people for individual infractions, but rather usually only when they accumulate numerous infractions. It usually takes somewhere around 20 individual, noteworthy infractions (i.e. 3 warnings) to trigger a first moderation response. To me, that seems fairly lenient. Most reports are never even acted upon because they're judged to be too minor to warrant moderation action or because they were never really violations at all.
If Poly wants to comment on her ban after she returns, she may. I am not going to comment on it beyond what I have already said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Linkish102
Hey! I remember you. You used to do mafia, right?
Created:
Posted in:
I'm not a fan, but I'll explain why tomorrow. Busy night tonight.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Definitive statement: yeah, it's allowed (as long as it's funny). That Revenge of the Sith reference almost got the post deleted, though. Really? Bringing in that nerf-herding garbage? That's f**ked up.
Jk. In all seriousness, these kinds of stories/fanfics are allowed to the extent that they are not genuinely trying to personally attack anyone. A little light roasting/parodying/razzing (when that is the obvious intent of the post) isn't the same as making a personal attack. I do think people should retain the right to opt-out, however, but that's really up to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
That's probably because you've seen me doing most of the enforcement. I think if you were privy to our private conversations, your mind might change. Virt has advocated several perma-bans (no one has yet been perma-banned) and several temp-bans which I overruled. But I think our tendencies are complimentary, because we have different approaches to modding, but aren't so far apart that we can't find agreement on the key issues. It's good to have those counter-voices to give insight into a variety of perspectives when making a mod decision.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
However I would like to ask whether there are currently any plans on revisiting the issue at a later date.'
No. There was already a previous referendum on this question, which defeated the public ban log. This referendum was already revisiting the issue, and failed to ratify the proposal for a second time. Maybe in a year's time or so it can be revisited, but not in the near future.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
The voting is already over.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
That being said Mike could make a feature to turn off announcement notifications.
Such a feature would defeat the purpose of the announcement feature and would be counterproductive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheHammer
Every MEEP will be announced using a site-wide notification. If you find that use liberal, I apologize, but it is not going to change my position on that. They are easy enough to ignore if you find them bothersome. Ultimately, the importance of making all users aware that there is a voting process underway (so that no user can claim that their voice wasn't heard because they don't check the main forum) outweighs the minor concerns of annoyance that are being expressed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
I was also pleased with the level of participation, and the results were roughly what I had anticipated and hoped for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Please consider proposing an anonymised ban log.
Can you explain what you mean by that?
Created:
Posted in:
This thread will be locked in the next hour or two.
(Fun fact, this was my 1,000th post on DART).
Created:
Posted in:
Attention
The final vote count is as follows:
- Proposal 1
- Yes - 14
- No - 3
- Proposal 2
- Yes - 8
- No - 6
- Proposal 3
- Yes - 2
- No - 13
Per the rules of the MEEP process, as previously ratified by the site usership:
- Proposal 1 has been ratified
- Proposal 2 has not produced a binding result
- Proposal 3 has been rejected
Therefore, DART moderation will now have the authority to punish severe misconduct which occurs on DART's official discord on DART. There will be no public ban log and all COC-violating conduct will not be eligible for deletion; instead, for both Proposals 2 and 3, the status quo prior to this MEEP will remain moderation's official policy.
Created:
Posted in:
Attention
Voting is now closed.
Thanks to everyone who participated in the MEEP process and made their voice heard!
Created:
Posted in:
Time Check
About 12 hours remain to make make your voice heard! Votes cast after 10:00am, EST, on 1/31/19, will not be counted.
Created:
Posted in:
Proposal 1
Yes - 14
No - 3
Proposal 2
Yes - 8
No - 6
Proposal 3
Yes - 2
No - 13
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
A public ban log would be a publicly visible list of all bans (perm and temp), banned users, and a brief description of the reasons for each ban. The third question I think is rather self-explanatory: should all COC-violating (that is, rulebreaking) conduct be deleted?
Created:
Posted in:
Proposal 1
Yes - 13
No - 3
Proposal 2
Yes - 7
No - 5
Proposal 3
Yes - 2
No - 12
Created:
Posted in:
Time Check
About 21 hours remain to cast your votes. Please do not wait until the last minute!
Given that all proposals now have at least 10 votes--barring any vote retractions--there will not be any extension to the stated voting deadline.
Created:
Posted in:
Proposal 1
Yes - 11
No - 2
Proposal 2
Yes - 5
No - 5
Proposal 3
Yes - 1
No - 11
Created: