Total posts: 2,589
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Is this about a winner-take-all standard?
Yes.
Created:
Posted in:
For those saying no to the MEEP process and applying argument voting standards to select-winner debates, please suggest changes or alternatives to the proposals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
And that proves that he's Max how? More likely it just gave a troll the notion to impersonate Max.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
You don't need to read the whole last thread. Just read the OP of this thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not sure what you're asking.
The reason I object to the 7-point system is that the non-argument categories are not particularly relevant to the activity of debate, and that these other concerns can be dispensed with internally within the arguments themselves. Moreover, any attempt to assign these categories discrete proportions is absurd. Just because someone has better sources and better spelling does not mean they should tie a debate with someone who had exceedingly better arguments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If you use exactly the same standard, why bother having a "select-winner" option at all?
Because many debaters, myself included, feel that sources, spelling, and conduct do not deserve separate point categories.
Created:
Posted in:
To be clear: current moderation practices do allow voters to modify their votes and to then re-vote. Moderation currently, however, takes down insufficient votes, and voters can then tweak the removed votes and re-vote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Airnax1227
The fact that you were online on DDO 8 hours ago shows this reply to be concocted.
Created:
Posted in:
Given that moderation did not emerge with a clear consensus on the questions posed in the previous MEEP, we will be hosting this second MEEP with an eye to acquiring a clearer picture of where the community stands. For more on what the MEEP process is, see the previous MEEP thread. For the purposes of this first vote alone, any particular result of this MEEP will be considered valid if at least 10 users have expressed a preference on the policy in question and more than a majority of those participants are in agreement. If the result is not valid, I will implement the proposals in Questions 1 and 3, because answers to these questions are necessary, but not the proposals in 2 and 4.
Below, moderation will propose several changes to moderation policy. Please indicate whether you are a yea (or yay, if you're super excited) or a nay on the proposed policy. If their are tweaks you would like to make to said policies, please suggest them (esp. if you are a nay), but also, importantly, indicate your overall support for the policy proposed.
1. Is the current MEEP process an acceptable framework for hosting these policy discussions? Generally, the reviews of MEEP seemed positive, but confirmation of that impression is important. The MEEP process is described below.
MEEPs (Moderation Engagement and Enactment Processes) will be periodically instigated by moderation in order to gain community feedback on various policy options and to obtain the community's approval or disapproval of those policy options. This will ensure that the site usership will have the opportunity to democratically weigh in on moderation policies. In order to ensure that the result of any MEEP process reflects the will of a substantial number of community members, for a specific MEEP result to be binding, at least 10 users must have expressed a preference on the policy in question, and more than a majority of participants must be in agreement. That means, in a MEEP with 10 voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 7-3; similarly, a in MEEP with 19 voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 11-8. Again, 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. MEEP commentary periods will be open for feedback for at least two days, and may be switched a read-only mode shortly after that period in order to signal a clear end to the MEEP process. MEEPs will be broadcast using the site's announcement feature to ensure maximum awareness.
2. Should an opt-in voting standard which is less stringent than the default be implemented for debaters? A potential such opt-in standard is described below.
- To award argument points, the voter must (1) analyze the argument they found most important, (2) explain who is winning that argument and why.
- To award sources points, the voter must (1) offer a comparative statement about the quality of each side's sources, or note that one side did not use sources while the other did, and (2) point to a specific good or bad source.
- To award spelling and grammar points, the voter must (1) offer a comparative statement about the quality of each side's spelling and grammar and (2) point to a specific instance of poor spelling and grammar.
- To award conduct points, the voter must (1) offer a comparative statement about the conduct of each side, and (2) point to a specific act of misconduct by a particular side
3. Should moderation moderate select-winner votes using the argument standard currently applied to the 7-point system?
4. Should moderation be able to suspend problematic votes prior to deleting the voting in order to give the voter to fix the vote before the vote is taken down?
5. Should there be an opt-in for stricter moderation standards? If yes, what should those standards look like?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Airnax1227
Message me the most recent thing I PM'd you on DDO.
AND
Message me on DDO linking to your account here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Look at his misspelled name and basically all of his posts. It's clearly not Max.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
I'll take a look at it, but there's nothing I can do to change anything at this point, even if I determined a change was appropriate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SeaShelli24
Where is Max? Tell him to join. Pleeaaasseee. Thx.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
dancing queen is lit
Yasssss! That song takes me from 0 to GAY in 5 seconds.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@KingLaddy01
Dancing Queen is soooooooo much better though...10/10 would recommend.
Created:
Posted in:
Lol. While I disagree with the sentiment, I applaud Drafter on his LOTR game.
Created:
-->
@Vader
Yeah, I figured. I probably didn't need to post that, just wanted to be clear.
Created:
Posted in:
I think we all knew that. And wtf is that, lol? A dancing crab? This is soooooooo much more me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFrGuyw1V8s
But, srsly, I am never happy to ban anyone or to see anyone banned. Every ban deprives a user (to some degree) of their ability to enjoy the site, something I can empathize with as being incredibly frustrating and perhaps even isolating. I also understand that every ban has the potential to cause a shitstorm, that bans may force otherwise good users to endure a certain degree of ignominy and/or inconvenience, and that they interfere with each users potential to contribute to the site. Plus, they make me feel mean. Rules, however, are rules, and I do my best to enforce them fairly and accurately, including when doing so calls for a ban. In this case, Castin decided on the course of action, but it doesn't change my overall feeling.
Created:
-->
@Vader
Doesn't excuse the comment.
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
Some of the threats were more along the lines of "don't mess with me or I will get moderation to do some nasty thing to you." That's clearly a threat, and more than just generally saying "doing nasty things could get you in trouble with the mods." But, the ban has a combination of motivating factors, including several personal attacks. Hopefully that makes sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I believe they were copied verbatim from DDO.
The DDO TOS served as the basis for DART's COC, but there were changes and additions. And, after Christmas, I hope to host a series of MEEPs allowing users to provide feedback on the COC, going section-by-section, in order to have a COC that better reflects community feeling. I should have time over break to do that.
Created:
Posted in:
I am still not sure I've got a clear idea of what the usership is feeling on these issues. I may simply post another thread to vote on some specific proposals, if no one has any objection.
This thread will be open for commentary for another 3 or so hours. It will then be switched to read-only.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
+1 on the sentiment of that post.
IDK why people think I am unfriendly, but Castin certain is awesome. And Virt and Tej. I think we all do our best, whatever that's worth, for the site. Doesn't mean we're perfect, but we always strive to make the right calls.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I am not going to comment on specific cases without links to get the whole picture of those cases. But, I disagree that the voting policy rules are too subjective. In fact, they are quite stepwise and direct with what they require from voters, though perhaps that could be expressed more clearly. That's probably a discussion for a later date. The comprehensiveness requirement simply requires you analyze the "main" arguments, of which there are usually 2 to 5 in a debate. I don't think requiring debaters to analyze those main arguments is unreasonable.
But, I think there may be something in what you're saying here, and I'll revisit the issue of the extant standards sometime after Christmas.
Created:
Posted in:
Right now, I am not really getting much feedback on the MEEP process itself, though some have commented on the thresholds included in it. Should I interpret this relative silence as an endorsement of MEEP as written, or what?
I am also getting the sense that there is support out there for the opt-in standards, but that, generally, people feel that other solutions need to be implemented to address voting more broadly. I like the suggest from Drafter, reiterated by Raltar, of putting votes on hold first. Is that something people generally like?
Again, please comment on the OP and clearly indicate what your thoughts are. Thank you.
Created:
Posted in:
The last post is not the same as last time active, or, as you put it "the last time a person logged in." And the name-calling is just childish.
Created:
Posted in:
Obviously, I approve of Mike. I won't be voting on the others or myself.
Created:
Posted in:
Drafter, I don't think you know how the site works. The leaderboard shows the registration date (i.e. the date they created their account), not the date someone was last active.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
On your analysis of the rules, I don't think it is accurate at all. If you look at many of the RFDs moderation has upheld, you will find that they don't require nearly as much work as you seem to think. Basically, the rules require a thoughtful, written reply that assigns points for how things interacted in the debate space and not based on superficial evaluations. When I write an RFD, I put in about 20 minutes, tops. I am sure you could do it in less time than that, depending on how quickly you type and process the arguments in your head.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I am in favor of a 2/3 (of members active within the last 30 days) participation threshold.
Not sure how I would measure that. A simple participation threshold would be easier to measure, but I'll cogitate a bit on your suggestion and maybe talk to Mike to see if it could be done.
Created:
-->
@Raltar
Why am I still being tagged in this discussion? I never asked you to explain your decision, nor did I ever give any indication that I was seeking any kind of response from you at all.
In a conversation on a forum, there is generally not a need to indicate that you desire a response, because forums work by people replying to other people who post in a thread. You expressed a concern, and I replied, like any normal user might do in any normal conversation. Replying to people who post is literally how the forums work. I have always tried to treat you with respect, both in public and private.
That said, this will be the last time I tag you, per your request.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Oh, you were certainly warned multiple times. Below is a smattering of those warnings, though other warnings were also issued about call out threads and personal attacks, among other things. I post these just to remind you that you were warned against (a) making personal attacks and (b) against making threats, which were the main motivating factors for your ban.
09.24.2018 01:57PM
You may absolutely never, for any reason, call another member an "emoji spewing cunt I am sick of you @ing me." This is the paradigm of a personal attack. This is a warning/reminder to conform to the site's COC.
09.24.2018 06:11PM
Nevertheless, it is not permissible to respond to personal attacks with personal attacks. The COC requires you to either take the higher ground or to say nothing at all.
11.04.2018 12:31AM
So, I will be talking to [redacted] momentarily, now that I have had a chance to review the reported comments. However, I must remind you not to threaten other users with moderator action.
11.04.2018 12:34AM
11.12.2018 02:24PM
Also, please stop telling people left and right that their actions violate the COC and that mods will do something about their conduct if they keep it up.
11.14.2018 03:08AM
RM, you repeatedly held moderation over his head in a way that was reasonably considered threatening. Mods are not your personal enforcers, and it is best not to cite us in reference to punishing other members.
Created:
-->
@Raltar
Ultimately, the danger of passing judgement on mod decisions is that users lack context, and given that I don't own the privacy rights to the PMs I have with users, I cannot unilaterally provide that context. In the case of RM, who chose to quote from the PM, giving me some leeway to speak and quote myself, the process leading to a ban was literally months in the works, and came after only several very thorough discussions and warnings. Dozens of reports were filed, analyzed, and addressed, and many factored into this decision. Believe me when I say this decision was not reached rashly or without giving RM ample opportunity to reform and to defend himself against the accusations made by the reporters.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Reminding people of rules and telling them they will be punished is undeniably the right thing to do if they are breaking the rules, I cannot fathom why it's not.
I agree.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Would you like me to quote each warning I have ever given you? I am happy to do that.
Created:
-->
@Raltar
Sorry to hear about another bad moderator decision on this site.
The decision was commensurate with the voluminousness of the transgressions, which occurred after more than a dozen warnings. If anything, a 2-day ban is lenient. Actions like threatening other members and making numerous personal attacks over the course of months call for moderator action.
Created:
Posted in:
Could really use more feedback and participation on this.
Created:
Posted in:
What in the actual fuck are you talking about?
Then we simply miscommunicated. It happens.
Created:
Posted in:
Actually, I do. It blocks tags and PMs. I was not aware that a block prevented me from saying "Drafter" in the text of a post like I just did. I still don't believe it prevents that. Perhaps you could read more closely what I write, to accurately represent what I say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Really? I did not know that. I will ask Mike, and confirm. I simply thought in prevented tagging other users. It certainly wouldn't stop me calling him "Drafter" in the text of a post like this, and, thus, doing so is not circumventing the feature.
Created:
Posted in:
This thread has been determined to be a call-out thread. Per mod policy, it will be locked.
Created:
Posted in:
The block feature does nothing to prohibit mentions. I will not be circumventing the features that a block feature would normally allow you to exercise, per your request. That means neither tagging nor PMing you, except if moderation needs urgently require that I do, and no other mod is available.It might be, if you werent fucking mentioning me in the very same post.
Created:
Posted in:
Yeah, Drafter, so much of that is utter nonsense, but I'm not going to get in to any more with you given the tenor of your response. As I said above, I "will try to remember not to tag you going forward." That should be sufficient. I do, agree, however, with your comments about Wylted, so he has been unblocked, and Virt and I will no longer block users.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
If you're willing to @ me on your own initiative, then your objection strikes me as entirely hollow, if not outright ridiculous. Nevertheless, I will try to remember not to tag you going forward.
Created: