Total posts: 2,589
Posted in:
Proposal 1
Yes - 9
No - 2
Proposal 2
Yes - 4
No - 5
Proposal 3
Yes - 1
No - 9
Created:
Posted in:
Proposal 1
Yes - 8
No - 2
Proposal 2
Yes - 3
No - 5
Proposal 3
Yes - 1
No - 8
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Maybe at some point in the near-ish future, I can visit the issue of revising the COC. Either through a public thread or through empanelling a diverse group of users to provide some feedback. However, such a process is apt to create significant drama, and so it will need to occur at a point in time where moderation is ready to be maximally engaged in that process.
Created:
Posted in:
I am pleased with the level of response to this so far. Thanks, everyone. If you haven't voted yet, please do so (if you want).
Created:
Posted in:
Proposal 1
Yes - 8
No - 0
Proposal 2
Yes - 2
No - 5
Proposal 3
Yes - 1
No - 7
Created:
Posted in:
Proposal 1
Yes - 6
No - 0
Proposal 2
Yes - 1
No - 4
Proposal 3
Yes - 1
No - 6
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 10:00am, EST, on 1/31/19. 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. 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 DART moderation be able to punish users for severe misconduct which occurs on the site's discord?
Since the site's discord is an official extension of DART, should moderation be able to punish, on DART, serious misconduct which occurs on the discord? Any problems on discord threaten spillover effects on the site, and could have real, negative implications for site users. Serious misconduct includes such things as doxxing and making credible threats of violence, and does not include such things as calling someone "stupid" or "retarded."
2. Should there be a public ban log?
A previous referendum concluded that a public ban log should not be instituted. The concerns at the time were that such a ban log would make it harder for banned users to re-integrate into the site and that a ban log would constitute an unacceptable form of public shaming which would itself be a personal attack. That being said, the proliferation of public discussions of bans has effectively publicized bans in the same way that a ban log would. Therefore, this question is being re-posed to the community to gauge the community's views.
3. Should COC-violating conduct be deleted?
It is currently the case that only cases of severe misconduct are deleted. Posts which simply call other users "stupid," for example, are left up. Call-out threads, per a previous referendum, are locked, not deleted. A "yes" vote on this question would require moderation to delete ALL posts containing misconduct, from posts which say that other users are "stupid" to the serious misconduct which is already being deleted to call-out threads. Moderation is concerned that a regime of deletion could be construed as censorship, which is why it is not currently moderation's policy to delete all COC-violating content. Deletion of such content also makes it harder for moderation to catalog evidence of conduct violations. Keep in mind: a "yes" vote would require the deletion of a significant amount of site content.
Please vote "Yes" or "No" to each question, clearly indicating which question you are responding to when you do so. Thank you for your participation in this promised MEEP process!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
Yeah, I've been working on these topics for awhile (not the policy one, which is yearlong), but I don't care for them whatsoever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Yeah. And I can get really gay with the right discussion topic. Debates aren't really a good showcase of my gay voice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Just because he is gay does not mean he fits the stereotypical HEY HO HO voice. Also I think he has live debated and he has it in him.(no offense)
Are you saying I have a gay voice? If that's the case, I'd have to agree--I don't particularly care for my voice, but what can you do? (none taken)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
You can care about this site and suggest improvements, but do not put DART over basic needs
+1
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
That is not what transpired.Sam states "analgesic is not this specific facebook profile" in response you state something like "since you have narrowed down the list of 6,000,000,000 possible people to 5,999,999,999, you have doxxed her and shall be banned".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Sam, like several other users, received warnings about conduct which was deemed by moderation to be inappropriate. However, any other infractions were either covered by the warnings or were not sufficient enough on their own to demand a ban longer than 15 days, which was already a significant length of time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I've explained why he was banned. When offered the chance to defend himself, Sam chose not to contest the facts of what he did, or that he was attempting to dox anyone. Instead, Sam asserted that rules against doxxing were suspended in AMAs, which is not the case. From my perspective, that's all there is to say. Sam chose not to offer a substantive defense, and, frankly, admitted to the charges in his response to me. The ban was entirely appropriate.
Created:
Posted in:
Sam will be unbanned in two days anyway. This incident, moderation hopes, will strongly discourage future misconduct, particularly that which strays into doxxing territory. We chose not to issue a longer ban because Sam has, in general, not displayed other significant misconduct on the site, but we chose not to issue a shorter ban because of the seriousness of the kind of offense committed. I don't anticipate having to ban Sam in the future, because I believe he is a generally good user with a solid understanding of how the rules work, esp. now that he and I have had a more thorough discussion on doxxing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Sam was banned for providing specific details about another user which indicated that (a) Sam had doxxed the other user and (b) could easily lead another user to learn the identity of the doxxed user. In fact, Sam suggested that he wanted his information to be used by others to dox the user in question. So, moderation considered this case to be serious, given the content and the intent behind it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dk-McDan
I wouldn't call it a crackdown, in the sense that implies a harsh response to multi-accounters. The fact that we offered a general amnesty for multi-accounters indicates that we would prefer not to act harshly against any particular multi-accounter.Again, I am not very supportive of the crackdown.
Created:
Posted in:
This is a final reminder that to claim the amnesty offered in the OP, you must come forward to moderation by sending them a private confession (identifying all accounts you've ever had on DART) on or before 11:59pm, EST, on January 2, 2019. Only 4 days remain to do so.
Created:
KL requested a ban.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I was accused also
In your case, there was an IP match. More than enough reason to justify an investigation. And while Virt handled that exchange, merely asking questions is not accusing. It's investigating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Zeichen
@Analgesic.Spectre
You guys need to desist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Police investigate when there is reason to believe a crime may have occurred. The operative word there is "may." Investigations are not the same as accusations, and so it is incorrect to suggest we accused anyone of anything based on a device-type match. What that match did is spur one mod to investigate. If you're claiming someone was hurt because we made an accusation, you're wrong because (a) no accusation was ever made and (b) you cannot plausibly demonstrate that any harm occurred as a result of the non-existent accusation (you are not the accused, so anything you have to say is just you speculating out of your ass). If you're claiming someone could be hurt by an investigation, then tough luck. Rules can only be enforced by investigations, and if the bar were as high as you would seem to want it to be before an investigation could be triggered ("an astronomical amount of suspicion," since you're conflating accusations and investigations), then an investigation could only occur when there was enough evidence to convict, which couldn't happen without an investigation.
Moreover, you don't want accusations/investigations without "an astronomical amount of suspicion," yet you bridle at the notion of wrongful suspicion. If the suspect is innocent, you would only have them accused if an astronomical amount of wrongful suspicion was directed at them, despite insisting that wrongful suspicion is harmful. Better to investigate when there is only a little suspicion in order to quickly quash any cases wrongful suspicion then to let that wrongful suspicion fester and grow to "astronomical amounts" as you now say you want it to. Your statements, taken together, render each other incoherent.
Let's also remember that the moderator who engaged in the practice--Virt--was told to desist, so the situation won't repeat itself. This makes it even more absurd that you are continuing to blather aimlessly. Not only are your accusations against me unfounded, as I did not commit the act you are objecting to, but your concerns (devoid of worth though they are) have already been addressed to the extent they are addressable.
Ultimately, you've said nothing of value here, and have instead made arguments which are obviously specious and without merit. I will not be engaging with you here further, because all you have to say is precisely nothing. Remember that this is the sum total of your argument:
"Mods can't tell wrongful multi-accounting from other cases, but I don't have any examples where this was ever the case, so basically it's an unsubstantiated claim. It seems like, at one point, the mods asked someone about multi-accounting based on a device-type match, but never acted upon it because they determined that no multi-accounting occurred, so nothing really happened and no harm was ever done."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
As you yourself said, the harm done to OJ was his reputation. Since I've never revealed the name of the user, the user has not had their reputation harmed. The comparison to OJ is a false equivalency, and demonstrates further the absurd lengths to which you are going to try to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
You're argument in this thread is this:
"Mods can't tell wrongful multi-accounting from other cases, but I don't have any examples where this was ever the case, so basically it's an unsubstantiated claim. It seems like, at one point, the mods asked someone about multi-accounting based on a device-type match, but never acted upon it because they determined that no multi-accounting occurred, so nothing really happened and no harm was ever done."
So, where did moderation go wrong? Moderation never wrongly banned anyone on the basis of an erroneous multi-accounting charge, so we didn't go wrong there. Moderation never accused any user of multi-accounting based on a device-type match, so we didn't go wrong there. Apparently, we went wrong simply for asking the question of whether someone had ever multi-accounted because there was circumstantial evidence that they might have multi-accounted. First, that's a laughably petty accusation to make, because literally nothing of consequence happened. Second, it's not like a mod asked the user out of the blue; the question was spurred by the circumstantial evidence which the mod wanted to address out of an abundance of caution. And third, the moderator who engaged in the practice was told to desist, so the situation won't repeat itself.
Also, fyi, most of our bans have been publicly explained.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Virt has been cautioned not to approach users based on device-type alone again; frankly, I did not know that he was doing that. That said, wrongful suspicion is hardly the same as incompetence. Indeed, verification and investigation of clues is the hallmark of thoroughness and competence. That suspicion was laid to rest is beneficial both for the suspect and for the investigator.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
No one was ever banned or threatened with a ban due to device-type matches. If you think we are incompetent, perhaps you could actually identify a case where a wrongful ban was imposed as regards multi-accounting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
This is admirable moderation.
Thank you. It has to be made clear that multi-accounting is not permitted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
That's not particular relevant here. Certainly, at least one prominent case of multi-accounting was publicly discussed in recent weeks. What is relevant is that multi-accounting is against the COC, and, if you don't want to be banned for it if caught, you should come forward.
Created:
Posted in:
Multi-accounting is against the site's COC. I consider it one of the more serious categories of offenses because it allows a user to cheat on debates (by self-voting) and in mafia (by playing both sides of the field). Moreover, it allows a multi-accounter to skirt the sanctity of PMs by soliciting other user's private thoughts which those users may not have shared with the multi-accounter had they known who the multi-accounter was. Multi-accounting is deeply problematic and prohibited. However, as with most offenses, there is room for leniency based on the severity of the crime, the contrition of the violator, and the various situational factors at play in any given case.
Virt and I have noticed a significant amount of multi-accounting occurring among certain users. Much of this multi-accounting stems from a lack of understanding of how the rules work or from users simply changing to new accounts in order to have a fresh start. We therefore wish to clarify a few things and then propose a solution which we hope will be agreeable to individuals guilty of unintentional, misdemeanor/mild, or accidental multi-accounting.
Let's begin with the clarifications. First, credential-sharing is a form of multi-accounting. Do not ever give your log-in credentials to another user. Second, because DART does not allow users to self-close accounts when they decide to start over, moderation must be asked to those close the old accounts. This prevents both the appearance of multi-accounting and the ability to use both accounts simultaneously (as one might be tempted to do, even if that was not one's original intent). You will not be in trouble if you want to switch accounts, but it is problematic if you switch accounts without notifying moderation. Third, accounts created for specific purposes (e.g. an account for voting, an account for posting) are still multi-accounts.
In order to address the panoply of multi-accounting violations we've encountered, we will be offering a one-time amnesty to multi-accounters who have created fewer than 3 total accounts AND either: (a) created multi-accounts only to "start over" and have therefore not been actively using more than one account at any given time OR (b) created multis but never self-voted and have only one account with 50+ posts. To claim this amnesty, you MUST come forward to moderation by sending them a private confession (identifying all accounts you've ever had on DART) on or before 11:59pm, EST, on January 2, 2019. Moderation will close all your multi-accounts, but you will be permitted to retain a single account of your own choosing. You will not be punished for your offense, nor will it be held against you in any future proceedings with moderation (unless you recidivate as a multi-accounter). Moderation authority for this action comes from our ability to issue and withhold punishments based on our discretionary judgement of the severity of the offense committed.
If you share an IP address with another user (e.g. a sibling, spouse, classmate), you should also come forward. This is not against the rules, but you will be subject to additional restrictions and moderation scrutiny (as it may not be possible to verify that you are, in fact, different people). Restrictions include not being able to debate someone who shares your IP address and not being able to vote on debates in which someone with your IP address was a participant. Additional restrictions may be imposed based on moderation's confidence in your honesty.
TDLR: if you multi-accounted accidentally or non-maliciously, let moderation know and we'll give you a one-time pardon. Also notify moderation if anyone (like a spouse or a friend) might be sharing (or have ever shared) your account's IP address. And please, remember these two key points: do not multi-account, and, if you want to start afresh with a new account, let moderation know within 12 hours of creating that new account so that we can close your old one.
Created:
Posted in:
I would like to wish everyone, on behalf of moderation, a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!
This is the time of year where goodwill and compassion towards others should be foremost on our minds. In that spirit, I hope that this holiday season each of you will be able to enjoy the company of family, the joys of giving and receiving gifts, the happiness of curling up with a warm cup of hot chocolate, and the beauty that is the fellowship of humanity. Whether you are or are not religious, this season is special for all of us, and invites us to reflect sincerely on what it means to be a part of the human community and on what the real goods are in this world. With that, and a few Christmas Carols, I wish you the most wonderful of holiday seasons.
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays,
Bsh1
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
True. I probably wouldn't take action against deleted or edited posts unless they were severe violations (including severe personal attacks) or unless that tactic became a habitual means for a particular user to dodge moderation. But I also think there should be a time limit on deletion, as there is with editing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
True, but that would be the case if I deleted a doxxing post and subsequently banned someone on the basis of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Virt say's it's something called shadow banning, I think. Basically, mods can still view cached original versions, and can see all the edits, but to everyone else, it appears deleted.
I am not sure how much storage the site has for stuff like that, so maybe the cached info disappears after 3 months stored or something like that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
Of course. Unwanted doxxing info is something I'd remove. But that's more of a COC issue than a courtesy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
The risk that I see is that mods might be overly inundated with such requests, one reason Max did not allow username changes on DDO. That being said, I am willing to delete threads (whole threads, not posts) upon request, so long as I am free to reveal that the request was why I deleted the thread and so long as I have time to review any reported content in those threads before its deletion.
I further support the ability of users to delete their own content so long as some record of that remains for mods to examine. Users should not be able to irrecoverably delete incriminating content, as this would obviously hamper moderation's ability to enforce the COC.
Created:
Posted in:
I will be creating a new thread which will hold a link to the hangout and to the site's discord. I will do that sometime tomorrow.
Created:
Posted in:
млъкнете! Благодаря.
-Бш1
(sorry, I don't know any Russian. Bulgarian's the best I can offer.)
Created:
Posted in:
I believe it was unnecessary to lock the thread, particularly when there were still outstanding questions without formal answers
In my mind, all the questions I could answer were answered--indeed, the vast majority of questions (no matter who they were for) were answered. If questions remain outstanding, feel free to PM the parties who have the answers.
Created:
Posted in:
This was explained. I already answer moderation policy questions all the time. The AMA was created to address a specific challenge to moderation integrity, not moderation policy.Then it seems odd you would forbid questions about modding in the OP. Nevertheless, you did.
Created:
Posted in:
You know that, irrespective of site opinion, I will be doing neither.you can delete this thread and ban me.
Created:
Posted in:
No, it's an attack against your credibility and integrity as a person. Or do you not see the difference?
There is relatively little difference. Calling me a liar, for example attacks me as a person, but also undermines my credibility as a mod. Ethang's thread was also critical of my modding and my being a moderator, and many of those criticisms were rooted in criticisms of me as a person.
Created: