Total posts: 2,589
Posted in:
The public commentary period for this topic will be open until sometime on Friday, but it seems like the consensus emerging so far is against any mod power to examine users' PMs. If that holds, that consensus verdict will be honored.
Created:
Posted in:
Vote Count
Grey (6/6) - Wylted, Supa, Warren, Argent, Vaar, LM
Wylted (1/6) - DPR
Results
Grey was lynched! He was innocent.
The DP is over. Stop posting.
Submit night actions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I am not disputing that. That it came about via accident does not mean there wasn't an argument for retain it, and thus for it.Dude, Mike admitted that it was an accident.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I wasn't referring to you in that post, but I hardly think, if I were trying to manipulate things behind the scenes, I would drag discussions like this out into the sunlight.I didn't compare you to a dictator, I compared you to a sniveling adviser who used his proximity to leadership to poison the well of with bad ideas.
There never was an argument for non-anonymity
Even if you didn't see it or agree with it, there was.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Like i said earlier, we have no idea what you guys do in the background. Mike can very well give you guys access momentarily and we'll never know. I think this situation should always be up to Mike to handle since it is beyond moderation and can hold legal consequences. He should do everything he can to keep things like that off his site. How he does it we really can't ever know. But getting an okay from this community to allow you guys to enter PMs is asking a little much. Just leave this sort of thing up to Mike. How he handles it is up to him. There shouldn't be any need of a permanent okay from us for you guys to have access. This is a rare occurrence that Mike should handle... and yes, if you guys do get access... it should only be through Mike. I don't think there should be any permanent extra ability to enter PMs.
I think it is important to get the community's approval before mods have access to any user's PMs. The idea that Mike could unilaterally give us approval in certain cases necessarily circumvents the democratic agency of the community. That agency is important to respect, however, particularly when the privacy rights of members is at stake.
Created:
Posted in:
I think Mike's agreement to put this proposal up for discussion is good. Unlike Drafter, who would simply have Mike rule by fiat, the democratic process here of seeking feedback is probably the best. The comparisons of me to some kind of dictator are also a bit ludicrous insofar as I have put this up to public discussion (and promised to abide by the result of that discussion) and am subject to scrutiny.
That said, so far, I have seen two points emerge. That mods should never have this power, and that if mods had this power, users should be notified when their PMs are read. I invite further feedback and commentary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I don't recall Napoleon the pig ever inviting feedback like this or tolerating harsh criticism. Besides, I think you mean "like 1984." There aren't a lot of privacy issues going on in Animal Farm. Just a lot of weirdly Soviet livestock...Mike, can you not see what bsh1 is doing? This is becoming like Animal Farm.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
So @drafterman pointed out that we may no longer need the reports to be open ( as in, not anonymous ) and I am thinking if we should indeed roll it back. What do you think? I wonder if I am missing something here?
The site already agreed on capping the amount of vote reports at 10 per day per user (not capping the number of votes). I agree that takes a lot of oomph out of the argue for non-anonymity. I have no objection to making it anonymous, I simply haven't seen a clear consensus in favor of making it anonymous. Knowing the identity of reporters might help, for instance, in understanding whether a user is spite-reporting someone, but that's not really important for mods to know, though it could be potentially helpful in some cases.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Regarding the PMs, truth be told, I am also not a fan of disclosing them, but bsh1 pointed out some situations where it could possibly make sense and I believe we decided to bring this up on the forum and discuss it and that's what this topic is about. But then you've also provided some good points so it's going to be a hard decision. The best idea I've got is to maybe provide access only in some very serious cases (death threats and whatnot) and limit the access somehow so that the mods wouldn't be able to access it on a whim. But then, I can't come up with decent logic for this request PMs feature...so it's going to take some time and thinking.
+1
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
No I don't. I have explicitly said that what happens in a PM isn't doxxing. Don't deliberately misrepresent my argument.
Whether you call it doxxing or not is immaterial to the fact that you admit it was bad. Ergo, you're argument was never misrepresented. Instead, your admission that it is bad underscores the need for moderation to be able to respond to such a problem. Whatever you want to call it is irrelevant to its need to be policed.
Private disclosure is less impactful than public disclosure
As I said, "Even if I buy that, and it seems like there is a reasonable case for you being right, it seems like doxxing people via PM is still pretty bad because of the potential for real-life problems."
When are we getting anonymous reporting back?
Not enough people weighed in. At such time when a clearer consensus emerges against it, I will be happy to reinstate it. But a 5-2 decision is not exactly compelling. This issue, with PMs, is different, however. I think the substantiality of the potential for misuse warrants a presumption against implementation, so I would reject PM access on a 5-2 decision.
Created:
Posted in:
in that case, i guess you would have to look at PMs, but that would be a very rare case.
Exactly. This is not something moderation will be doing frequently--it would be a rare occurrence and one that only occurs in extreme cases.
However, i'm starting to think the only person that should be able to do this is Mike
Since it is a moderation issue, I think moderation should be able to do it, or to see screenshots taken by Mike, but Mike's permission and assent should be obtained in any situation where something like this occurs, yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I certainly don't think mods should be reading PMs willy-nilly. Your suggestion of notifications would put the kibosh on that. However, there may be cases in which a user is aware that they have been doxxed in another's PM (perhaps through a message sent to them or a comment in a hangout). They could then refer the case for investigation to a moderator.
In fact, there was a case recently where a user made such an allegation, one which was not entirely unsubstantiated upon interviewing the involved users. However, ultimately, a decision was made not to proceed as the alleged violation did not constitute doxxing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
But not in the same degree. Which is why actually Doxxing is bad and should be prevented and stopped, but private individuals privately discussing other individuals isn't.
That doesn't make sense. You essentially admit here that doxxing people via PM is bad, but not as bad as public doxxing. Even if I buy that, and it seems like there is a reasonable case for you being right, it seems like doxxing people via PM is still pretty bad because of the potential for real-life problems. Certainly it seems bad enough that it should also be banned. Simply saying that it is less awful than public doxxing is not an argument for its being permissible.
And giving you access to everyone's PMs doesn't alter that situation. Ergo, you don't need it.
Moderation does need it in order to know when it happens and who is doing it. This allows moderation to ban toxic and potentially dangerous users and to create a vigorous deterrent against users engaging in that kind of activity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
No it doesn't.
The eloquence of this reply notwithstanding, indeed it is the case that "the potential for real life consequences holds whether their personal information was revealed in a PM or in a public forum."
Suppose for example that User W hated User T, and was willing to use the personal information revealed to them to out User T as gay or to harass them at work or to message all their friends on facebook or to send them threatening letters in the mail (among other potential harms). The fact that the information was revealed in a PM does not change that revelation's potential to have real-life, negative consequences for User T.
Doxxing is banned in part to prevent such real-life consequences from occurring. This kind of activity is incurs the exact same harm. So, as I said, "the potential for real life consequences holds whether their personal information was revealed in a PM or in a public forum."
Created:
Posted in:
If you were removed as Mod, would you remain a member of Dart?
Most likely, yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
That's not Doxxing. Doxxing means to publish such info. As in, make it public.
I disagree. As I said to Poly: "If someone gave out my personal information to someone who wished me ill, there is a lot they could do that would be problematic for me. Imagine if you gave someone's stalker their home address or something like that. Just because it happens in PMs doesn't mean it isn't doxxing." One of the primary reasons doxxing is such a severe violation of the rules is precisely that it could entail real-life consequences for the user; the potential for real-life consequences holds whether their personal information was revealed in a PM or in a public forum.
Moreover, the reason this discussion was started was precisely to put this decision in the hands of the community, not in the hands of the mods. Ultimately, the community will decide.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I can only take action in those cases in which I am aware of the problem (which is why reporting is beneficial) and in which there is sufficient evidence to act.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Why are you always into other's pm's.
I'm not...?
If the doxxing is private is really doxxing?
Yes. If someone gave out my personal information to someone who wished me ill, there is a lot they could do that would be problematic for me. Imagine if you gave someone's stalker their home address or something like that. Just because it happens in PMs doesn't mean it isn't doxxing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
A notification is a good suggestion and something I am open to. I would be interested in hearing other's thoughts on that kind of suggestion.
Created:
Posted in:
Vote Count
Grey (5/6) - Wylted, Supa, Warren, Argent, Vaar
Wylted (1/6) - DPR
Time Check
About 4 hours remain in the DP. This will be the last time check for this DP. There will be no further extensions.
Created:
Posted in:
Imagine the following (hypothetical) situation: "User Q doxxes User T in a PM with User W. User T becomes suspicious that they have been doxxed, and reports Users Q and W to moderation. Users Q and W deny any wrongdoing and offer (selectively chosen or doctored) screenshots to 'verify' their innocence. Users Q and W in turn accuse User T of framing them/lying about them to moderation." The only means moderation has of resolving this dilemma would be to access the PMs of the users involved through the moderation portal. However, the ability of mods to access users' PM would naturally raise substantial privacy concerns.
Virt and I, and I believe Mike as well (but I will let him speak for himself), feel that it is occasionally necessary that mods have access to users' PMs to resolve situations like the one described above. That said, because of the substantial privacy concerns implicated by such a power, we believe that such authority should be limited. As a limiting measure, we believe that Virt, Mike, and I must all approve access to a user's PM in order for that access to be granted to any one of us. In other words, in order for any one of us to gain access to any PM, the three of us would need to unanimously agree that (a) reasonable suspicion of a COC violation exists, (b) the violation of the COC may be severe, and (c) accessing the PM is the only way to definitively resolve the issue (i.e. there are no less intrusive ways for moderation to resolve the issue). This tripartite test and the requirement for unanimity would act as checks against spurious or inappropriate use of any power to access users' PMs.
However, I can imagine that many may feel as if moderation should never, in any circumstance, no matter how grave, have such authority. While I disagree with that position, it is one which I can respect and abide by if the community decides that is best. For the record, this is not a power mods currently have. Therefore, I am using this post to pose the following questions to the DART usership:
1. Should moderators be able to access a user's PM if (1) all three admin officials unanimously agree that (2) the three part test outlines above is met?
2. Should moderators never--in any circumstance--have the ability to access a user's PM
3. Is there another solution to this problem or a suggestion for how to improve the proposed checks?
Please feel free to comment or to ask questions. Moderation will respect any majority decision reached by the community.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Does he have a special arrangement to have multi-accounts?
This is really the kind of thing that ought to be handled in private. That said, lunatic and disgusted are not the same person, and are not multi-accounts.
Could he log in now if he tried?
Yes.
Created:
Posted in:
Vote Count
Grey (4/6) - Wylted, Supa, Warren, Argent
Wylted (1/6) - DPR
Created:
Posted in:
Vote Count
Grey (3/6) - Wylted, Supa, Warren
Wylted (2/6) - Argent, DPR
Attention
Given the lack of inactivity, the DP will be extended for 24 hours. The DP will now end at 6:00pm, EST, on 11/14/18. All players having made fewer than 10 posts in the DP will be activity prompted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
If a player was prevented by some role from posting, their ability to vote would depend on how their PM was worded. Their vote would still appear in the count, however, were they able to vote.
Created:
Posted in:
Working on a vote count now.
Time Check
About 30 minutes remain in the DP, but I may consider an extension, given what I see as I review the DP.
Created:
Posted in:
Time Check
23 hours remain in the DP. An activity prompt will be sent to all those with fewer than 10 posts in the DP.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SamStevens
@RationalMadman
Guys, stop spamming the thread with this junk. I don't need the mental image of RM in panties or Sam in a schoolgirl's outfit. I am sure there is someone out there in the ether who would pay good money to see that show on webcam, but not me. So please, stop spamming a pinned thread. Plus, if y'all keep this up it's gonna be problematic and I'd rather not have to deal with it as the big bad moderator...I left my whips and gags at home. K? Thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
Vote Count
Grey (2/6) - Wylted, Supa
Time Check
About 41 hours remain in the DP. Plan accordingly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Member of Honor(honorary DART member of choice)bsh1, for doing a thankless job, taking a lot of shit, and being able to bend.THE FIRST PERSON TO MAKE A NAUGHTY JOKE OUT OF THAT WILL SUFFER A GYPSY'S CURSE. *glares around challengingly*
I've had a lot of practice ;)
Created:
Posted in:
Oh. I get it. One of the moderators just hasn't gotten to it yet
Correct. RM then rushed to the conclusion that I had decided not to remove the vote because it was on a troll debate, when in fact I had not and when in fact the vote was assigned to Tej to moderate, not me. Plus, RM was told that the vote had not been gotten to yet, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Unfortunately, I don't think you did.
You had that debate with 2 votes in post 24. I voted in post 32, but the debate is still down with only 2 votes. It seems like my vote was missed.
In fact, if you look back on the first page, you'll see Virt, RM, and I all voted for that debate, so it should have 3 votes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You could request to be notified when a decision has been reached. I have no issue telling you when a decision has been reached. It just hasn't been reached yet (as had been communicated to you), which is why this whole thread is a bit absurd.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I never told you that I was undecided about the vote because I did tell you it was not my job to render a verdict on the vote. I am not sure how you misinterpreted me saying "the vote has not yet been evaluated" as me saying "I evaluated the vote and decided not to take it down."
The vote was assigned to Tej, and he assured me in private that his assigned votes would be handled today. I have not examined the vote to reach a decision on it precisely because it was not assigned to me to do so. I told you that it had been assigned and that it would be dealt with by the mod it was assigned to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I spoke with you to say that the vote had been assigned and that the reason it was checked was that it had been assigned. I noted that the vote was yet to be evaluated. I am happy to quote directly from our PM with your permission.
Since I never spoke to any extent about the validity or non-validity of the vote in question, I am not sure what there is for Virtuoso and I to disagree about. And since the vote was not assigned to Virt, it would have been inappropriate for him to have commented on it at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Which, as I said in the PM, is done as soon as the vote is assigned to a moderator. This clears the queue in the mod dashboard of old reports and indicates to me what votes have and have not yet been assigned. It also indicates that the vote has been reported, so that people do not continue to report it unnecessarily. It was checked because it was assigned, not because it was evaluated.
Really, all this has been explained to you now several times. That you keep asking the same questions over and over again is a bit irksome.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I'm not interested in having a formal debate on that topic, but, as I said (and then as I did), I am happy to talk about it here if you want. The excuse is quite valid. Votes are assigned to a handling mod in order to ensure equity, to keep things organized, and to prevent any mod from being swamped. The reason for the vote not being evaluated yet was already explained to you, and, again, it has nothing to do with the supposed nature of the debate as a troll or non-troll debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
If you're referring to this debate, then the reason nothing has been post about the vote is that it has not yet been evaluated by a moderator. It was assigned to a moderator, and will be dealt with by them at the earliest possible moment. I explained that to you already. It has nothing to do with the debate's status as a troll or non-troll debate; it has everything to do with the fact that the moderator it was assigned to just hasn't gotten to it yet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
If the vote was evaluated before yesterday, it may have fallen under a different standard, which was more imprecise than the current one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I am happy to explain why troll debates do not have votes moderated. That is primarily because their content is too subjective to really require moderation. In a rap battle for example, an ineffable, emotional sense of liking one set of raps more than another is sufficient to pick a winner, and so an RFD of "I liked X's raps more than Y's" really is fine. Same with poetry. Same with talent competitions. Moderation cannot be meaningfully applied in such hypersubjective, emotion/impression-based situations.
To clarify what a troll debate is, vote moderation has defined it among ourselves as "any (a) competition-style debate (e.g. a rap battle, talent show, poetry competition), (b) debate primarily designed to be humorous or facetious or containing primarily humorous or facetious content, (c) debate on a truism (e.g. "a bachelor is someone who is unmarried"), (d) debate in which one of the debater's is a subject (e.g. "bsh1 should commit suicide"), and (e) debate in which no or almost no argumentative content is present (e.g. a debate that is all links or images)." However, this is a working definition which was only proposed yesterday in our PM, by me. It is still under review internally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
You make some fair points, so I'll try to hit what I think are the key ones. Also, if you reply to me and want to continue the discussion, please @ me so that I see that you replied to me.
What is bigotry?
Bigotry is intolerant and single-minded devotion to one's own arbitrary ideological prejudices, disgust-responses, or irrational beliefs.
Surely you can see the difference?
Sure I can, but what if I was a racist who believed that black skin was repulsive, and so discriminated against blacks? The point of my example was to illustrate that disgust is itself not a criterion by which to judge moral questions like the worth of persons or the moral permissibility of certain kinds of sexual acts.
The permissibility of sex in the person's view may have nothing to do with how disgusting he finds it. I asked about a person who has a moral objection the homosexuality. Though you did not call him a bigot, you described a bigot. Just as Keith did.
I was responding to the question (also the title of this thread) you posed first, namely: "is repulsion at the homosexual act bigotry?" Nowhere in that question, or in any of the questions of the OP, do you mention a "moral" objection.
My answer to that first question is "no," because one can be repulsed by something, but still not allow their views of it to be defined in terms of their repulsion. A person repulsed by heterosexual sex could still come to believe that heterosexual sex is perfectly okay to engage in and that heterosexual people are of equal worth to him/her. In such a case, the persons disgust is not allowed to dictate the way they conceive of heterosexual sex.
A moral objection to gay sex, to answer your new question, is not bigotry per se, unless it is rooted in disgust (thereby conflating disgust with moral reasons/justifications), arbitrary ideological prejudices, or irrational beliefs.
Created: