Total posts: 2,589
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Whoops, lol. Sorry about that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I think if you actually wanted me to respond to post 33, you would've tagged me. The accusations you've made re: recusals are so absurd as to make any response by me unnecessary. I am also not interested in rehashing long-debunked claims you've made about me either. My position has been clearly articulated, and that is, respectfully, where I'll leave it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Screenshots were shared with Castin, who concluded that they proved Wylted was lying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
You know he did pm me to tell me to kill myself before?
More than 2 years ago, I told you once to "go jump off a cliff." It's an expression of frustration, not an active call for you to kill yourself. That should be self-evident. That you chose to misrepresent my comment as me actively urging you to end your life only further reflects your lack of honesty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Sorry :( Not a horror guy. I meant Queen Elizabeth I of England.When you say "Queen Elizabeth" ... do you mean Elizabeth Bathory? I so hope you do ;p She's my favorite queen of horrors.
Created:
Posted in:
I am curious about peoples thoughts of the 3 questions in the OP.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Yeah, I apologize. I totally understand what you're saying. We've remedied the problem, and we are doing everything we can to make sure vote reports are processed in a timely and fair way going forward. The backlog was a bish.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Raltar
You know what I'm referring to, as we have discussed it privately.
If you're referring to what I think you're referring to, I am not sure of the exact nature of your objections. If you want to talk about those concerns further, PM me. In that situation, the solution I implemented was, I think, far and away the best stopgap measure, and I left open the possibility of future action if warranted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
where your vote was reported for over 1.5 weeks with no removal
See post 17. A number of reports ran into trouble because a moderator did not handle their assigned case load promptly, resulting in a significant backlog that has now been resolved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Raltar
I also think moderation on this site is poor and many bad decisions have been made by the moderators.
Such as? Moderation cannot address concerns which are not brought to our attention.
My vote on this idea is NO. I don't even know how this idea was conceived, as it does nothing to address any actual problem that currently exists.What you should implement is the suggestion that Drafterman made HERE.
I should make clear that the proposal above is not being put forward to the exclusion of other ideas or proposals. I certainly have no objection to the proposal Drafterman made in that post; in fact, it's quite a nice idea. It would need to be put to a community vote through a MEEP process, but I would support that.
The reason why this thread was posted has to do with people conceiving of vote moderation as too harsh. I disagree with that, but for those who do feel that way, an opt-in gives them a choice of the standard applied to votes on their debate. It gives users more freedom to chose.
I also agree with what RM said here
Troll debates are practically not moderatable given the rules available. In a rap battle, for example, there are no arguments or counterarguments to analyze, which makes it impossible to apply argument point standards to the debate. Troll debates are also not moderated because voting on them tends to be even more subjective then in non-troll debates, so the same kinds of standards don't make sense for both kinds of debates. When debaters choose to host troll debates, they choose to initiate debates which are not vote moderated, and so they bring the results of that decision upon themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
I am not sure if the vote in question was ever moderated. You reported the vote at a time of significant backlog in vote moderation. It may have been the case that no one got to the vote prior to the voting period closing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
I don't think that S&G or sources should be separate points,
Thanks for the feedback. The above quote might be a bit out of my purview, because it would require coding changes, I imagine. That said, I will keep it in mind, and if people want to offer some comments on that notion, I'd be happy to listen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheHammer
Ditch the acronym
Nah, that's the best part!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
Those standards represent less strict standards than the ones that currently exist. Those standards do reflect what moderation considers "barely adequate."
Created:
Posted in:
Welcome to the very first MEEP (Moderation Engagement and Enactment Process)!
About MEEPs
MEEPs are official comment periods where moderation proposes and solicits feedback on various potential moderation policies. Moderation MEEPs should not be confused with other obviously common MEEP-expressions, such as "mediocre endive-eating porpoises," "marooned episodic echidnas and platypuses," "mad ecumenical equine prophets," "mesmerizingly enervated egregious parmesan," or even "mega-erotic emphysema patients." No, MEEP definitely means Moderation Engagement and Enactment Process, and is tons better than Max's silly DERP process. It's MEEP-tastic!
Anyhow, as I said, MEEPs 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.
This is the rough outline for the MEEP process we have developed with an eye to ensuring any result reflects a wide consensus of opinion. However, we will use this MEEP to kill two birds with one stone by asking you to provide feedback on the MEEP process itself. Should it be a simply majority? Should it have a participation threshold? Should its results be binding or advisory? Please let us know your thoughts.
Voting Policy Discussion
This MEEP is specifically about voting policy. The question moderation wants to put before the community is whether there should be a laxer opt-in standard that debaters can have applied to vote moderation on their debates. Such an opt-in would likely need to be agreed to explicitly by both debaters and would only impact the voting standards themselves, not other vote-related rules.
A laxer alternative might look something like this:
- 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
This is just a loose sketch, and so in addition to asking whether such an opt-in should exist, moderation is also asking what such an opt-in should look like were it to exist. Also, what should debaters have to do to opt-in to the standards? Again, please let us know your thoughts.
Select Winner
Also, as a bit of a side-issue, there is now a select winner feature. Moderation is planning on just using the current "argument points" standards to moderate select winner votes. Does anyone feel that a standard unique for the select winner feature needs to be created? Please let us know your thoughts.
Happy Holidays :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You really do embody Padme Amidala in how you conduct yourself as our Queen
I've always thought of myself more as a Queen Elizabeth type, or a Boadicea for liberal values. But Padme's cool too. She makes some great fashion choices...except for that one thing she wore in the Senate rotunda in PM. It made her look like she had horns or something. Gross.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You need to stop tolerating such behaviour.
I am not, despite the misconception of some, a dictator. People are free to disagree with me, and to do so publicly and harshly. As the one wielding power, it is my duty to not just exercise that power as I see best, but to provide others wide latitude to criticize those decisions. The freedom to criticize is the root essence of political liberty.
I am not here to play a political game. I am here to moderate as best I can, end of story.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
You may be right. However, there's no reason I know of to perm-ban it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
It's not true, and as should be clear by the obvious absurdity of it all. People are just trolling moderation to because moderation is a great troll target. To quote Castin quoting someone else: "Are you not entertained?"
But yeah, it's just a load of BS designed to stir the pot. These kinds of posts pop up every time there's drama involving a moderation decision.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Excuse me but bish is obviously the queen.
Yasss, honey.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Nope. I say hell, but I do rarely swear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
the nastiest PM that bsh has ever sent is like 'go jump off a cliff' or something
Oh, I've said worse stuff in PMs, but only about YYW...lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Not speaking to this particular case, but in general, lying to win a debate is not bannable. It might be an aggravating factor in some cases, but it is not bannable unless it violates some element of the COC.
Created:
Posted in:
I might either do my thoughts on various policy issues or a series on how to debate well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Bow before my glory, bish. "47 posts"
Only if you show me your strap-on.
Created:
Posted in:
Wait... Is it a bannable offense to lie about what's been said in a PM?
You'll need to talk to Castin for a definitive answer. From my understanding, it is not permitted to lie in order to assassinate another user's character and it's not permissible to lie in order to cheat in a debate. Those acts constitute personal attacks and excessive trolling, respectively. I also explained why I personally felt the violation was severe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
Everything they cover, they cover well. I have read some of their chess articles (I play, albeit amateurishly, but Chess is nevertheless fun). They're reasonably interesting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Guess I'm just omniscient.
I've never heard of that movie.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I hope that quote wasn't you btw
It was not me, which is why Wylted was banned right now. Castin was shown evidence of Wylted's dishonesty, Wylted was unable to provide her evidence of the truth of his allegation (because none existed), and, based on that, coupled with Wylted's confession to Virt, Castin made a determination. Honestly, that quote doesn't even sound like me.
The debates are nothing more than a popularity contest.
They sometimes are, but I could not disagree more strongly with the sentiment that they usually are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
People lie to win debates and/or get dishonest votes all the time. The formal debates are a joke in my opinion. This kinda seems like a grudge match bw you guys so i'll stay out of this one. My opinion on the formal debates and honesty? ... i vote dishonesty usually wins the day.
I wouldn't agree with that, tbh. Debaters are almost always literally honest (and also mostly honest in spirit), and where "lies" occur, they are usually mistakes. And, most of the time, intentional lies are not efforts to defame your opponent and to assassinate their character in order to extract a win. This kind of behavior is unprecedented on either DDO or DART, at least during my years on the site. I know DDO was a bit more wild west before I arrived, but still, this behavior is beyond the pale.
Created:
Posted in:
This is, frankly, an absurd situation. Wylted admitted to Virtuoso that he lied in order to pull out a win of a debate he was losing. It was a desperate and dishonest tactic and a character assassination. Moreover, if actions like Wylted's are tolerated on debates, the entire integrity of the activity will be severely undermined. This was beyond unacceptable--it was unconscionable, and a violation of debate ethics of the most grotesque and egregious kind.
Created:
Zeichen asked for their account to be banned.
Created:
-->
@DebateArt.com
I don't object. If the community wants it, let it be done. But the voting period probably shouldn't be extended more than 24 hours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
The point is exactly as was described to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I know I do.Everyone already posts naked, FREE YOUR MIND.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Understanding that Castin informing the userbase of violations isn't actually a punishment, is it reasonable to infer, then, that there isn't a punishment for just ignoring Castin (purely hypothetical of course, as Castin is extremely unlikely to disagree with you).
That is a reasonable inference, but no one but Mike can really "punish" moderation in that sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
@Vaarka
Can you make announcement links or PM links clickable?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
If they were self evident, I wouldn't have asked them.
Somehow I doubt that. But to briefly address the general gist of the questions: moderation has bound itself to these rules to ensure a fair process of rules adjudication. In this respect, it is not dissimilar to the previous system of handling recusals. However, we believe it to be an improvement because Castin will not be intimately involved with moderation in most respects, so she retains a great separation from moderation which will help increase the perception of and actual impartiality in addressing cases involving recusals. The 'egregious disagreement' override can only occur if a mod believes Castin's recommendation would be seriously injurious to the users concerned; and a mod can only cite this if they themselves are not recused in that particular case. I envision such an objection being extremely rare, because I trust Castin's judgement. I imagine that in such a situation a mod would consult with Castin to arrive at another, mutually acceptable outcome. Were this recusal-handling process not substantively followed or were Castin to have serious concerns about the integrity or fairness of moderation's handling of cases involving recusals, Castin could potentially raise those concerns with the general userbase.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Is this a change in the current process where recused mods still get involved, or will that continue regardless?
Frankly, I think the answers to questions 1-4 are fairly self-evident. As for 5, this process involving Castin will supplant the existing system of handling recusals.
Created:
Posted in:
Aloha, DART!
Virt, Mike, and I are pleased to inform you that Castin has been brought on board as Assistant Moderator for Special Cases. She will be dealing with cases or users in which Virt and/or I are recused or in cases where our involvement would be problematic. To expand a bit more on what her role will be, Castin will handle these cases by evaluating them, then making a recommendation on how to proceed to the unrecused mod who is then bound to implement her recommendation barring any egregious disagreement. In cases where both I or Virt are recused, she will be the final deciding moderator on the case. Virt and I will be obligated, moving forward, to inform her whenever we recuse ourselves. Castin will not be handling vote reports, as Tej is available for those issues.
Castin is a user who, in a very short time, I have come to respect greatly, and I believe the site shares similar feelings. She is polite, level-headed, and insightful, and I trust her judgement as a now-moderator. I believe that she is an amazing addition to our team, and we are all incredibly happy to have her on board.
For the record, the moderation team is now:
- Chief Moderator: Bsh1
- Deputy Moderator: Virtuoso
- Assistant Moderator for Voting: Tejretics
- Assistant Moderator for Special Cases: Castin
Thank you all for your attention! Please welcome Castin on board and feel free to comment!
Created: