Total posts: 2,589
Posted in:
I vote B. This means A will win, unless I call the election early and, like Kris Kobach, suppress the vote by labeling DDO immigrants ilegals who have voted fraudulently in this election.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Why are you just another mainstream Heathen with Star Wars taste?
Lol.
Disney bullshit Kylo Ren poo poo franchise doesn't count as actual star wars)
I agree with that. This is my ranking of Star Wars movies, best to worst: ROJ, NH, ESB, R1, SOL, PM, RS, TLJ, AC, FA.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Everyone should receive a vote, IMHO.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FaustianJustice
I vote yes, voting should be anonymous.
The question isn't about voting. The question is about reporting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Personally, I am Pro on this topic, but I'm taking the Con side. Personally, I think the Con side is harder, but that may be because I can only see merit in the Pro position.
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
Are you sure? Insults are hate speech... you haven't warned anyone for insults?
Hate speech is insulting, but not all insults are hate speech. Questioning whether I am sure is a bit insulting, as it implies I am either lying or unable to recall my own actions. I will repeat: "No user has been banned for hate speech, period. Similarly, no user has been warned about hate speech since that previous site discussion."
Created:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
I am going to disagree that the third category does not constitute sexual harassment. Other sources consider sexual harassment: "Unwanted sexual teasing, jokes, remarks, or questions," "Asking about sexual fantasies, preferences, or history," "Personal questions about social or sexual life," "Offensive remarks about a person's sex," "Verbal...harassment of a sexual nature," "Harassment based on sexual orientation," and "Telling lies or spreading rumors about a person's personal sex life," among other things. I feel comfortable with the definition of sexual harassment as it stands. But, just as these sources note, action on sexual harassment violations will only occur when it is deemed severe or incessant.
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
Per a previous site discussion, restrictions on hate speech have been significantly relaxed. No user has been banned for hate speech, period. Similarly, no user has been warned about hate speech since that previous site discussion.In regards to the hate speech thing... this site is starting to shape up as a perfect example. I personally don't think you can handle policing people's speech bc i don't think anyone can without bias. People can call me stupid all day and i'll just laugh bc i find it funny... You can call someone stupid once and they're devastated. Who do you side with?
Created:
Posted in:
Virt and I will be doing another live debate tonight, around 11:30pm. A link will be posted here about 10 minutes before we start if anyone wants to join. For anyone who wants to see the debate but can't watch it live, you'll be able to see and vote on it in a debate here on DART. This is the second such debate we will have done here on the site.
The topic we are debating is: "Bystanders have a moral obligation to act in the face of injustice." Virt will be taking the Pro position and I will be taking the Con position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Logical-Master
Lol. We haven't. He's being facetious. What makes it a great troll move is that we can't prove that we haven't. But I am sure Mike will confirm that we do not have the power to read any PM in which we are not participants.
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
Goldtop was not for hate speech of any kind. Hate speech did not factor into the decision at all.
Created:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
The violation was considered severe. Calling someone ugly is not severe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
Halloween, followed closely by Christmas. Halloween has, however, lost ground to Christmas as I've aged.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ArgentTongue
lol
Thanksgiving is probably my second favorite kind of meal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
The Star Wars original series and LOTR.What are your favorite movies?
Oh, and I hope you are having a fine day.
Thanks! Likewise :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
What was the best meal you've ever eaten
Probably Griessknockerlsuppe with Schnitzel, Knoblauch Pommes, Kaesespaetzle, Preiselbeersosse, Kartoffelsalat, and eingelegte Karotten. In English, that's semolina dumpling soup with schnitzel, garlic fries, egg noodles with melted swiss cheese, cranberry sauce (to put on the schnitzel), German potato salad (it's vinegar based), and pickled carrots. I grew up on German food, so it's always going to occupy a special place in my culinary heart.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
That G20 question is a pretty grotesque question, so imma skip it.
Created:
Posted in:
Who is your favorite musician
I don't have any perduring "favorite" musician. Whoever is my favorite is only my favorite for a few weeks or months, and then I usually find a new favorite. However, currently I'm really into Noah Kahan. Here are some of his songs that I really like ("Please" is probably my favorite):
I've also been listening to a lot of Halsey, M.I.A, and Ariana Grande lately.
Created:
Posted in:
I am not going to vote in this thread--I'd like to see where the site public lies, not where the mods stand. That being said, I am going to follow this thread and may post an update which reflects on this and some other developments after this thread has been up at least 48 hours (time for adequate comment).
Created:
-->
@Stephen
The warning about you using the word "stupid" was more than a month ago, and it doesn't seem like you're disputing that, since what you quoted had to do with a second kind of offense: making threats. As I told you in private, it is not appropriate to use reports or intimations of moderator action as threats in the forums. Simply report the offense comments and allow moderation to respond to the problem. It was also explained to you in-depth why your actions constituted threats and were inappropriate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
What is your middle name?
Too doxxy. Sorry, not gonna answer that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I am getting an MA in a communications-related field.What kind of school is it, and what are you studying?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Anything new with the dating life? New love interests?
Sadly, no. School has kind of sucked up my life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Never watched House of Cards, but I've been told I should.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SamStevens
Pretty well. I think I'd be better if I had a hot date knocking at my door with a box of chocolates, but you can't have everything, lol. But yeah, I am pretty excited with the first snow for the first snow of the season (though I am still waiting patiently for my first ankle-deep snowfall). School's been going reasonably well, though I have been incredibly busy. I need the Thanksgiving break just to get my workload sorted out, so I won't have too much of a break. But I am looking forward to Thanksgiving dinner. All in all, not bad, I suppose.
Created:
Posted in:
The vote count, as it currently stands, reflects an 8-2 stand against giving moderators access to users PMs, regardless of the circumstance. As I said in this thread, it would take a clear majority in favor of giving moderator's access to see that policy implemented, given the presumption in favor of privacy concerns. Since such a majority has not materialized, and indeed, since most participants do not want mods having such access, I will honor that decision, as I said I would in the OP. In short, moderators will not be permitted, in any circumstance, to access users PMs. The comment period for this proposed policy is now closed, and the thread may be locked shortly to reflect that.
TLDR: Moderators will not be able to access user's PMs, per the feedback provided during this commentary thread.
Created:
Posted in:
Feel free to ask me anything as long as it's not about moderation--I've talked a lot about moderation lately. Or just pop in to say something random about or to me. Preferably keep it positive, but really, it's up to you. I'll leave this open till Sunday afternoon. Ask away...
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I have had two warning about referring to someone as "stupid"
That was more than a month ago. Moderation has been making an effort to be more permissive lately, so the comment in question would not have resulted in a warning under current practices.
As for your other comments, they're not quite right. You were warned for threatening other members with reports and/or moderator action. It was explained to you, in both cases, why your comments constituted threats and were therefore unacceptable. That is not permitted, per site policy, and was also not permitted on DDO.
As for the notion that moderation is "hush hush," that's a bit silly. It's no more hush hush than it was on DDO, and is in fact quite open to criticism and communicating with the site, as this and other threads demonstrate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
If it becomes clear from your actions, based on your public and private proclamations to vote in a spurious fashion, that you are indeed deliberately voting in a spurious fashion, your voting privileges may be suspended.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
I think you need to calm down. You are clearly over-invested in this.
Created:
Posted in:
It seems like you disagree more with the substance of the votes than whether those votes meet minimum standards. I can't make the voters vote a certain way--that's not appropriate and not my job. I am not here to pick winners and losers.
Created:
Posted in:
The mods have told me they are totally fine with this, so I want to see what the public thinks.
That's a bit disingenuous, since it's not what moderation said.
Moderation said that it is not for the mods to interpret the sources for the voter. To do so would be to impose moderation's perceptions of a source on a voter, and thus to inject moderation opinion into the content of a vote in an unacceptable way. Moderation's only job, as it comes to voting, is to assess whether votes pass the bare minimums required by the site voting policy.
As to the other questions (the ones not relating to the sources dispute), they were not raised with me in any respect, so it's a bit presumptuous to claim that I have offered some opinion on them.
Created:
This discussion is starting to verge on making personal attacks towards Goldtop, which is exactly why issues like this should not be discussed publicly, but should be discussed via PM. I remind everyone that even though Goldtop is not here, the rules protecting him against personal attacks remain in place.
Created:
-->
@janesix
An hour isn't a lot of time to prepare a defence. I bet he was just as confused as we are.
Given the myriad warnings he received, including the notification that further COC violations were likely to lead to a temp ban, I would disagree that Goldtop never had a chance to offer a defense. In fact, at each stage of the process, that is, after each warning, he had a chance to defend his conduct. The ban came about out of a accumulation of problematic activity, and so it is perhaps accurate to say that he had scores of chances to offer defenses each time he was talked to. And, btw, it was more than an hour--an hour is the bare minimum required, but he had more than that.
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
As I explained in our PM, Goldtop was banned for harassment, sexual harassment, and for cumulative misconduct, about which he received more than a dozen warnings prior to the temp-ban action. Harassment is "a sustained pattern of misconduct, targeting a specific user or users, carrying over various forum threads over a substantial period of time." Sexual harassment is a bit more complicated to understand. Broadly, it is composed of three categories. First, lewd or suggestive comments which constitute unwanted advances. Second, lewd or suggestive comments designed to make the recipient uncomfortable or to mock the recipient. Third, comments targeting a user's sex, sexual attractiveness, sexual performance, or orientation which are designed to make the recipient feel uncomfortable or to mock the recipient. Goldtop's violation falls into the third category. The violations in question were viewed as severe by both Virt and myself. Finally, cumulative misconduct--which would not, on its own, have warranted a ban--simply refers to the sheer volume of COC violations in the form of personal attacks Goldtop accumulated while on the site.
Unfortunately, my hands are tied in going into greater depth because the questions of harassment and sexual harassment implicates other users, whose privacy ought to be respected. I am empowered to state why Goldtop was banned, and I have. I am not, however, going to engage in a lengthy debate on the question which would require me to divulge concerns involving other users or expressed to me in confidence. Goldtop was provided the exact, and rather lengthy, explanation for his ban, and had more than an hour after becoming aware of his ban in which to offer a protest. The proper procedures were followed, and Virt and I were in total agreement on the decision.
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
PMing would be more appropriate, generally.
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
Which recent ban?
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
If that's all that happened...no.
Created:
-->
@Raltar
On the general topic of the OP, voter intimidation is covered under rules which prohibit harassment. Debaters are able to argue with voters up to a point. And I think it's fine and dandy that debaters are able to do that. It keeps voters honest and may even help them cast better votes. That said, a debater, just like any user, does not have the right to harass any other user. Once the argument turns into harassment, the debater has crossed a line and needs to stop. If you feel as if you are being harassed, contact moderators about that specific issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
You continue to obstinately ignore the element of my response which directly answers your concerns. Your concerns about voting process and threshold are all answered in that text. I repeat:
You're question here is disingenuous, as I have already told you that there is a presumption, in my eyes, against implementing the policy. I told you that on post 38. The logical corollary to such a presumption would by that a clear majority of the site would need to be in favor of implementing the policy in order for it to be implemented. The "as it currently stands" qualifier acknowledges that voices which may yet contribute to this thread may be out there, but that qualifier in no way obfuscates the underlying point, which I was fairly clear on from early on: a clear majority of users would need to be in favor of the policy in order to implement it. A clear majority is more than 8-7, and certainly more than the 2-7 the vote count currently reflects.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Since you failed to address the latter half of my comment, I take it that your question about how this thread will proceed has been resolved. Granted, post 38 should have cleared the issue up for you earlier, but I am glad that there are no more concerns about this thread. Either than or you deliberately ignored the part of my reply which directly answered your concerns about the process. To repeat:
You're question here is disingenuous, as I have already told you that there is a presumption, in my eyes, against implementing the policy. I told you that on post 38. The logical corollary to such a presumption would by that a clear majority of the site would need to be in favor of implementing the policy in order for it to be implemented. The "as it currently stands" qualifier acknowledges that voices which may yet contribute to this thread may be out there, but that qualifier in no way obfuscates the underlying point, which I was fairly clear on from early on: a clear majority of users would need to be in favor of the policy in order to implement it. A clear majority is more than 8-7, and certainly more than the 2-7 the vote count currently reflects.
I am not going to continuously re-hash with you what has, in many ways, already been beaten to death. If you don't like the explanation for why I made the decision I did previously--that not enough people weighed in in favor of reinstating anonymity--so be it. Continuing on in this fashion will neither further elucidate the issue nor persuade me that my approach was somehow invalid. Moreover, I was fairly clear, from the moment the voting in the previous public thread closed consistently up until now, that I am willing to revisit the issue of anonymous reporting. If you want to encourage change on this issue, than the most constructive course of action, rather than griping and issuing personal attacks, would be to identify other voices who share your views on the subject.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Your response, vitriolic as it may be, misconstrues not only what has happened, but also what is happening, with regard to this and previous discussions. Let me repeat my previous statement:
There has never been a threshold on any of these public discussions. Rather, I holistically evaluated the situation to determine if a site-wide consensus likely existed. In the previous thread, I did not feel that there was clear enough agreement from enough members to reach that conclusion; but, as I said, I remain open to revisiting any of the proposals which were not implemented at any time.
Determining, holistically, that a 5-2 vote does not represent site consensus is not the same as imposing some kind of turnout threshold. Had the vote been 7-0, I would have likely implemented the proposal. That the vote was small and split created reasonable doubt for me that the 5 votes on the one side represented a site-wide consensus. Moreover, I have explicitly remarked, both in this thread and others, that I am open to revisiting and reversing that decision should a clear consensus be reached on that, or any other, unimplemented proposal. The judgement I made was holistic, and was never based on any kind of minimum turnout threshold. A holistic judgement is not inherently an arbitrary one, and if you feel that it was arbitrary, than perhaps it would be more productive to identify additional voices who can add to that 5-2 tally. This is also an issue I can re-raise in my next public commentary thread.
Your qualifier of "as it currently stands" exempts you from adhering to anything since you can later decide that some bullshit "hollistic evaluation" has changed things.
You're question here is disingenuous, as I have already told you that there is a presumption, in my eyes, against implementing the policy. I told you that on post 38. The logical corollary to such a presumption would by that a clear majority of the site would need to be in favor of implementing the policy in order for it to be implemented. The "as it currently stands" qualifier acknowledges that voices which may yet contribute to this thread may be out there, but that qualifier in no way obfuscates the underlying point, which I was fairly clear on from early on: a clear majority of users would need to be in favor of the policy in order to implement it. A clear majority is more than 8-7, and certainly more than the 2-7 the vote count currently reflects.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
There has never been a threshold on any of these public discussions. Rather, I holistically evaluated the situation to determine if a site-wide consensus likely existed. In the previous thread, I did not feel that there was clear enough agreement from enough members to reach that conclusion; but, as I said, I remain open to revisiting any of the proposals which were not implemented at any time. Regarding this particular discussion, I believe I have already answered your question. As I said: "As it currently stands, it will be the case that moderators will not be allowed, in any circumstance, to examine a user's PMs."
Created:
Posted in:
Just a reminder, this thread will be open for feedback up until sometime (probably the very early morning) on Friday. As it currently stands, it will be the case that moderators will not be allowed, in any circumstance, to examine a user's PMs. Feedback, comments, and questions continue to be welcome.
Created:
Posted in:
BD
bsh vs RM Environment
MoH
DebateArt.Com
Funny Members
Castin
Quality Voter
whiteflame
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I am not sure what you mean by that--moderators still retain the power to evaluate and remove votes when those founds are found to be insufficient.
Created: