Total posts: 2,589
Posted in:
I neither believe in God's existence nor God's nonexistence, and I am not particularly well-schooled in theological topics, so perhaps I am not the best person to comment on this question. Those caveats known, it seems to me that the question of God's existence is fundamentally different from, say, the existence of gnomes. When people ask whether God exists, they are asking whether existence or the universe has an origin instantiated in some being or force. The arguments which attempt to demonstrate or trace God's existence are akin, in some sense, to working backwards to the starting point of the celestial map. Understood in this quasi-geographical, temporal sense, I think we can differentiate gnomes from God. God is the originator, gnomes postdate the start of existence or the universe. Gnomes are unprovable because there is no quality of them which is independently analyzable and potentially provable. This is not the case with God, as the question of whether there is or is not an origin is potentially provable (and at least arguable).Hopefully that makes some sense...
I just want to expand a bit on the above passage. I wasn't sure if my original post was clear.
Suppose that, for the sake of argument, we define a gnome thusly: a 3-foot tall, bearded human who wears a green hat and possesses magical powers. None of the traits with which a gnome is identified can be independently demonstrated in a way which necessitates a gnome's existence. The elements of a gnome are (1) 3-foot tall, (2) bearded, (3) human, (4) wears a green hat, (5) possesses magical powers. I could prove that green hats exist and are worn, that there are 3-foot tall humans, even that magic exists. But proving any of these things in isolation is insufficient to demonstrate that a gnome exists. There could be many non-gnomes which are 3-feet two, many humans which are not gnomes, and even (theoretically at least) users of magic which are not gnomes.
Now suppose we define God as the origin of all creation. There is here a trait with which God is identified that can be independently demonstrated in a way which necessitates God's existence. That creation has an origin could plausibly and potentially be demonstrated via argument (indeed, that is the whole project of the Kalam Cosmological Argument). And, if creation is shown to have an origin, by definition, God must exist. Nothing like this (a necessary and sufficient element to prove its existence which is theoretically demonstrable) is the case for the gnome.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
If you define God as possessing the property of origination, then it would be semantically impossible for any being to predate God. Similarly, if gnomes possessed the property of origination, then they would be gods and could be shown to exist via that property. Your argument, then, misunderstands my own.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I neither believe in God's existence nor God's nonexistence, and I am not particularly well-schooled in theological topics, so perhaps I am not the best person to comment on this question. Those caveats known, it seems to me that the question of God's existence is fundamentally different from, say, the existence of gnomes. When people ask whether God exists, they are asking whether existence or the universe has an origin instantiated in some being or force. The arguments which attempt to demonstrate or trace God's existence are akin, in some sense, to working backwards to the starting point of the celestial map. Understood in this quasi-geographical, temporal sense, I think we can differentiate gnomes from God. God is the originator, gnomes postdate the start of existence or the universe. Gnomes are unprovable because there is no quality of them which is independently analyzable and potentially provable. This is not the case with God, as the question of whether there is or is not an origin is potentially provable (and at least arguable).
Hopefully that makes some sense...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
Nope. Finally back stateside and working on my Master's. Doing pretty well. How about you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I'm sorry I couldn't allay your concerns about moderation's desire to process objections and defenses fairly. We are ethically and practically required to evaluate them earnestly in our decision-making and moderating processes, but I understand that for those not involved in those processes, the opacity, which exists to protect the privacy interests of users, may make it difficult to believe moderators in that regard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
objections are meaningless.
I don't think that's quite fair and it's certainly not accurate. Moderation will consider defenses and objections offered by concerned parties, particularly accused users. To suggest that we don't or won't take into account these defenses is to suggest that we're chronic liars, which I hope no one here believes is the case. That said, objections do have meaning to us, and we are ethically and practically required to evaluate them earnestly in our decision-making and moderating processes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
I would just read it. I think the full text captures what we're trying to say most accurately, so I don't want to attempt to distill it into a short TLDR that cannot capture all the nuances and feelings that the full text expresses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Mike assured me that we would be autonomous in our activities. But, there are some pretty clear problems with suggesting that the site owner ought to be the final judge in questions of moderation. Firstly, the site owner is already immensely busy with site upkeep and improvements, and I doubt adding on the extra burden of dealing with moderation issues would be feasible. Secondly, allowing the site owner to be the final judge would fundamentally undermine moderation's authority, since it would be understood that their calls could always be overturned by some higher authority. At that point, why even have separate moderators? Since most moderation actions are disputed by someone, often the party being punished or warned, then the site owner would be required to deal with an almost endless stream of appeals. The site owner would, in effect, become moderation because all or almost all moderation decisions would be referred to him. Not only would that render having a separate moderation team meaningless, but it would add a substantial burden to an already busy site owner's tasks. Thirdly, the site owner has already shown himself to be far more willing to resort to bans than existing moderation. While I have immense respect for Mike, I doubt the usership as a whole is in sync with his moderation style. Fourthly, because moderation is typically the one liaising directly with users, we are best positioned to actually make the kind of value judgments necessary to enforce the COC. Finally, there is no guarantee that any actor would be free from malice in any particular decision. So, you objections to moderation as the final arbiter could be applied to anyone who might serve in such a role. At the point where your objections could apply to everyone, they become meaningless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I don't think anyone who read what I said in that post could accuse me of obfuscating. What I said was pretty clear: "There is no appellate power higher than the mods, and so users, if they object to a moderation decisions, cannot appeal that decision."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
What I said original to your question was: "That's kind of like asking 'if the Supreme Court makes a partisan decision or acts in a biased manner, what recourse does a petitioner have?' The problem is that the buck must stop somewhere; there cannot be an infinite chain of appeals, because then no final decision could ever be reached." I think it's fairly clear from this response that the buck stops with moderation, meaning that there is no one higher up the chain for the buck to go to. There is no appellate power higher than the mods, and so users, if they object to a moderation decisions, cannot appeal that decision.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Saying that justices can be impeached is like saying that a meteorite can destroy the earth. Only one justice, Samuel Chase, has ever been impeached, and he was later acquitted by the Senate, allowing him to remain on the court. He was impeached in 1805. Even for federal judges, only 14 have ever been impeached and only 8 have ever been convicted and removed from office. The lack of impeachment is not so much a reflection of the honor of the justices, since it is beyond belief to suggest that none have ever made partisan decisions or acted in a biased manner. Rather, it reflects the difficulty of impeachment and the need to allow the court to operate independent of political and popular interference.
So, yes, it's actually quite like moderation, in the sense that the Court is virtually impervious to the checks which theoretically exist and in the sense that the Court is impervious largely because it needs to operate independently of political and popular whims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
That's kind of like asking "if the Supreme Court makes a partisan decision or acts in a biased manner, what recourse does a petitioner have?" The problem is that the buck must stop somewhere; there cannot be an infinite chain of appeals, because then no final decision could ever be reached.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Sure. The moderator must examine the defense offered for its merits. Moderators must first screen a defense by asking: is it logical, is it truthful, and is it valid? If the moderator determines that a defense is indeed logical, truthful, and valid, the moderator must then ask whether the defense exonerates or mitigates the offense committed, and to what extent it mitigates if indeed mitigation is due. In other words, any meritorious defense must affect what actions moderation chooses to take. Consideration, then, involves assessing the merits of a proffered defense, determining the extent to which any such merits mitigate or exonerate an accused user, and factoring in the aforementioned determination into moderation's decision-making regarding the accused user.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Moderation decisions are always up for discussion between the mods and the potential recipient(s) of any moderation action. Such individuals have the right to offer a defense of their actions, per the COC, and that defense cannot be dismissed without consideration by the overseeing moderator. Moderators are certainly permitted to reconsider decisions they've made in light of any new arguments, understandings, or facts which come to light. Moderators are also obliged to make a thorough investigation of any claims which arise. Ultimately, however, moderation decisions are not subject to appeal.
Created:
Posted in:
This post will only be pinned until Sunday, in order to call attention to the content of the post itself without cluttering the pins long-term.
Created:
Posted in:
Virt and I think it's important for users to understand how moderation handles situations which may arise regarding potential code of conduct violations. We have both encountered some misconceptions users have about the moderation process; we hope this post will help demystify this process.
=============
When a report is submitted, the responding moderator begins by evaluating whether or not the post has violated some component of the COC. If the responding moderator is unsure or believes that a post might fall into a grey area, they consult with the other moderator to determine what course of action, if any, is best.
If it is determined that a post does not violate the COC and is thus not actionable, no further steps are taken. If it is determined that a post does violate the COC and is thus actionable, moderation evaluates the severity of the violation and decides on a course of action which, in its best judgment, is going to nudge the violator towards more appropriate action in the future. Punishment is never moderation's primary objective; rather, we prioritize encouraging users to remain active and engaged on the site in a civil and rule-abiding fashion. In other words, we place our emphasis on reform. We want users who have broken the rules to learn that their conduct was unacceptable so that they do not repeat it and so that they can continue to be a part of this awesome site.
With a reform-emphasis in mind, moderation always begins its interactions with users by identifying posts or comments which have been determined to violate the COC. If users do not understand why their actions violate the COC, moderation offers an explanation. In all such cases, users are cautioned not to repeat their misconduct in the future. Mods may issue one or more warnings to a single individual, depending on the severity of the violations.
If violations accumulate such that it is clear that a user is willfully disregarding the COC and moderation's attempt to use dialogue to bring them into compliance, moderation escalates by imposing a restraining order, forum restriction, or a temporary ban. The specific means of escalation is a reflection of moderation's best judgement as to how to prevent future misconduct in the least harsh way possible. Moderation does its best to avoid being heavy-handed and takes this approach, again, to facilitate reform and to emphasize rehabilitation and restoration over retribution.
Further misconduct following an initial escalation results in a cascade of subsequent escalation in response to the additional misconduct. This chain will last until moderation feels as if the only way to prevent a user from recidivating is to perma-ban that user. After the initial escalation, however, moderation will attempt to give the violator space and time to demonstrate better behavior. But each escalatory step moderation takes reduces the leniency moderation can afford any user.
With that said, simply because there are no visible signs of moderation action does not mean that moderation is not acting. Since the warning phase, which is often quite extensive, occurs in private, moderation could be engaged in a dialogue with a user without the site at-large being aware of it. Questions such as "why hasn't X been dealt with yet" stem from a place of ignorance, because the user asking them is not in a position to know what the moderators are doing. Instead of accusing moderation of perceived inaction, if a user has ongoing concerns about another user's activities, the user is best served by bringing the offender's activities to moderation's attention by reporting those activities or contacting a moderator.
Moreover, moderation will not discuss ongoing moderation activities regarding a user or users with unrelated parties or accusers. This policy exists to protect the privacy of the users with whom moderation is engaging. At most, moderation will acknowledge that a dialogue has been undertaken with a user. We do view it as a dialogue (or coaching)--an effort to explicate the COC violations and the COC itself with a violator and to bring them, with the least amount of coercive force possible, into compliance with the COC.
In keeping with moderation's sensitivity to the privacy interests of reported users, reporting users will not receive an update on what, if any, action moderation took in response to their report. Moderation also values the privacy of accusers. Reports are anonymous, and moderation always avoids identifying reporting users whenever possible, particularly where concerns of retribution are credible.
It being understood that moderation will not discuss potential or actual moderation actions against a specific user, it is fruitless, inappropriate, and unacceptably obstructionist to attempt to use other users' perceived misconduct as cover for your own, or to attempt to redirect moderation dialogues with you to a discussion of another user. If moderation is in a dialogue with you, it's about your actions alone. Similarly, claiming that you were just responding to someone else is not an excuse for misconduct, though it may be a mitigating factor. You are responsible for your own actions. That you are not the provocateur is never a valid defense.
But let me return to the overriding mission of moderation: to reform rather than punish. Moderators are, in the first instance, educators. It is our job to educate violators of the COC on why their actions violated the COC and what the COC means, as well as to encourage them to avoid violating the COC in the future. It is only when extensive and prolonged efforts in this respect fail that moderators become cops, and are compelled by a user's intransigence to place greater pressure on violators to obey the rules of the site. Only when all of these efforts have abjectly failed does moderation resort to perma-banning.
=============
Please feel free to comment, pose questions, or offer suggestions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
Personally, I have no clue. I think it's certainly different enough, if you ask me (a non-lawyer). But, DDO is dead anyway, and what's really valuable about DDO is its URL, not its layout, so I doubt that Juggle could reasonably claim any injury, since no one would use DDO anyway given the spampocalypse going on over there.
Created:
Posted in:
Given that this thread has become more of a religious discussion, are there any objections to my moving this thread to the religion forum proper?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Forrest (usually spelled with two R's when it's a name) is actually a pretty traditional name of Anglic-Frisian origin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Well, some of my names are a bit odd because they're root names. The name Aiden, for instance, is a corruption of Aodhan. I prefer the originals because it's true to my Irish heritage. After all, I was named after the Irish king Brian Boru. Other names on my list would be "normal" if we were in Germany (names like Dietrich), so it's really all a matter of perspective. Plus, those names reflect my German heritage. I'm about half Irish and half German, with some French and English thrown in for good measure.
Created:
Posted in:
Many of the names I proposed have "normal" nicknames.
Boys
Christoph = Chris
Finbar = Fin
Friedrich = Fred/Freddy
Joachim = Jo
Johannes = Jo
Kenneth = Ken
Marcellus = Marc
Nikita = Nick/Nik
Paullus = Paul
Theodoric = Theo
Wilhelm = Will
Girls
Anastasia = Ana
Callista = Cally/Calli
Carti = Carti
Emmaline = Emma
Guinevere = Guin
Katja = Kat
Katrin = Kat
Katrina = Kat
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Well, I don't think it was prohibited on DDO, per se, but Airmax could probably provide more clarity on that point. Preaching came up as a moderation issue primarily in the case of Bornofgod, who wasn't just preaching, but spamming the forums with his proselytizing comments. It's that kind of spam that was problematic, not really the preaching itself.
Created:
Posted in:
Preaching is not prohibited unless it violates some element of the COC. But preaching, in and of itself, is not a violation of site policy.
Created:
Posted in:
Having reviewed the comments on this thread, I've decided that my initial instinct jibes with where the usership is at. There will be no public ban list. Thanks to all those who offered their views and feelings on the subject.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
@RationalMadman
That's something to bring to Mike's attention.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
It seems like that could be abused. If I don't like someone, what is to prevent me from just reporting every post they make?
I would eventually like to consider the possibility of making it non-anonymous, if only because there already has been a large quantity of spam reporting. That being said, it's not an urgent issue and it's not an issue on which I've made up my mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
You bsh1 are a user, and therefore the chief moderator (also you) is not the chief of police, good to know?
I am honestly not sure what you're trying to say here. The grammatical issues are making the meaning hard to extract. But, what I can say is that the mods are, for want of a better analogy, the police and the judges of the site. User may bring issues to the moderators attention, but it is not up to the usership to enforce site rules.
assuming you are the same person who knows that I've pressed the little flag thingies before
Reports are anonymous. I can only see who was reported, not who did the reporting. Nevertheless, I'm not sure how anything that you've said up to this point relates to the OP or to my previous response to your comment.
Public Shaming as Punishment - This is actually in my opinion a rather vile practice
I would naturally agree. I am not in favor of using public shaming as a tool to punish users, hence my previous posts and my opposition to a public ban list.
meet real friends
This assumes--falsely and rather naively--that friends made online cannot be real. If friendship is about building bonds through time spent together and through communication, I see no reason why friendship cannot be formed online in fora like these. Separately, to have a life outside the site does not imply that the site cannot matter to you. The extent to which it matters to someone will vary greatly, but the relationships formed and interactions undertaken on this site can and do have an effect on people's mental and emotional wellbeing. Humans are social creatures and we are impacted by how others perceive of and treat us; that is true whether online or off. It would be naive to suggest otherwise.
I'm equally confident that you feel shame on the basis of your personal views and your knowledge of why and how you did not do your best at the end of the day
Again, not really sure what you mean by that...
The consideration of appropriate function in this setting was with respect to banishment only, nothing resembling an administrative practice of shunning
My point, as articulated in various posts in this thread, is that a public list of banned members--the proposal under consideration here--would amount, in effect, to public shunning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
it's not a punishment either to someone who actually has a life
I disagree. Just because one has a life outside of the site is not to say that the site cannot play a meaningful role in one's life.
The practical function of a public ban list is to make every member aware so that the offender can be banned repeatedly as necessary when they try to come back.
I'm not sure what you're saying here, since it doesn't fall to the users to police other members and since users cannot unilaterally reactivate their account once it is blocked by me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
I've never been to France and have only been to the UK briefly, so they may be exceptions to the rule. Most of my time in Europe has been spent in the Lowland Countries, Central Europe, and the Balkans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Please don't clutter the thread with content entirely irrelevant to the subject at hand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
I will wait until they have logged on before allowing the notice to take effect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Being a supreme court justice just sounds boring. Like, if offered, I'd take it, but it'd be a snoozefest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@spacetime
It seems like I disagree most with the Democrats on the elections, domestic policy, and foreign policy sections of the test, and that I agree with them most on the immigration, transportation, and social sections of the test.
In terms of specific questions, I disagreed with the Democrats on the PATRIOT Act (I am against it), on military spending (I want to decrease it), on lowering the minimum voting age (I support it), on fracking (I'm against it), on cutting spending to reduce the national debt (I'm for it), on placing more restrictions on welfare benefits (I'm against it), on granting foreigners voting rights here (I'm against it--but only slightly), on common core (I'm against it), on placing tariffs on Chinese goods (I'm against it), on regulating social media to prevent fake news (I'm for it, but with caveats), on metadata collection (I'm against it), on raising the retirement age (I'm for it), on supporting Israel (I'm against it), on requiring immigrants to pass a basic citizenship test (I'm for it), on free trade (I'm for it), on cancelling the F-35 (I'm against it), and on aiding Saudi Arabia in Yemen (I'm against it).
On some of those questions, however, I am not well-versed enough in the topic to be confident in the responses I gave, but, nevertheless, these were the areas I disagreed with the democrats.
Created:
Posted in:
Based on the feedback already offered, I continue to lean away from creating a ban list. I am still open, however, to being persuaded otherwise. I'm bumping this thread to continue to solicit feedback on the idea, particularly regarding the two questions I outlined in the OP: (a) whether such a list should exist in the first place and (b) how much detail should be included in the list should it be implemented.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@spacetime
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I wouldn't say that Europeans prefer things which are fancy, they simply prefer things which are different. Europeans drink quite a lot of coffee, but in the form of espressos and cappuccinos. They also treat coffee as a social drink--you don't rush in to grab your Starbucks and then leave. You buy your coffee and you sit down and stay for half an hour or more. The whole "to-go" culture is much more de-emphasized in Europe.
Greece is high on my list of places to visit, but there are places I'd choose before it. That said, it makes the top 5. Your advice is consistent with other comments I've heard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
OMG. I hate BBQ...with a passion.
I'd prefer the fancy restaurant, generally. Though, sometimes it's nice to visit a good burger joint. But, I tend to be very picky with my food, and tend to have expensive tastes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
Tea.
The smell of coffee is wonderful...sexy even...but the taste of coffee is foul.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That was also on my mind, but there's an extent to which that might happen regardless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I am not comfortable with using public shaming as a punishment. That would be to legitimize personal attacks as a tool for moderators, when moderators prohibit other users from making personal attacks.
Created: