bsh1

Ideally, people replying to my thread would assume (for the sake of this thread) that morality is objective, and then respond.

Morality is an objective system of action-guiding precepts which distinguish right from wrong and assign praiseworthiness and blameworthiness to actors. I think this is a generally acceptable definition. It must be objective, lest it be capricious. It must be systematic, lest it be internally contradictory. And it must be action-guiding, lest it be purposeless. It also must assign praiseworthiness and blameworthiness because morality, as we conceive it, not only judges actions but also persons. While I anticipate that most objections to this definition of morality will focus on its classification as "objective," I wish to focus more on its classification as "action-guiding" for the purposes of this thread.

It strikes me as obvious, on some fundamental level, that morality must seek to direct our actions and not simply categorize them. This is true, I think, because mere categorization would run afoul of morality itself. If morality merely categorized--leaving us utterly blind as to how to behave--there could never be ascriptions of praise or blame, since we would lack the requisite foreknowledge to be genuinely responsible for the rightness or wrongness of our actions.

I would also venture that, in order for morality to genuinely direct our actions, we must have free will. If I cannot choose to behave wrongly, then I cannot be guided into choosing rightly. Instead, I simply choose rightly by default. A guide points to the right path when you come to a fork in the road. But if their are no forks, you cannot be guided.

Now I come to the question I am interested in posing. Given all of the above, in a perfect world, would morality exist, and could a perfect world exist without morality? A perfect world is one in which everyone would always and automatically make the right decision even if they did not know why it was the right decision and even if they had no guidance as to how to act. If agents did not always choose rightly, the world would not be perfect.

It seems, counterintuitively, that a perfect world does not need morality. Given the guaranteed nature of right action in a perfect world, there is no need for an action-guiding system delineating right from wrong. In other words, morality might not exist in a perfect world. Indeed, it is possible that morality could not exist, because no agent could ever be assigned praise or blame. Yet, this challenges a basic assumption I have always held, namely that a perfect world is perfectly moral (implying, of course, that morality must exist in a perfect world). 

Perhaps one could reply by objecting to the notion that morality requires free will. If it doesn't require free will, then it need not always be action-guiding. But then again no agent could ever be assigned praise or blame. So maybe ascriptions of praise and blame are not integral to morality, but merely a non-integral or ancillary function of it. But that suggestion seems problematic as well, largely because it restricts morality to merely judging actions and not persons. We do not typically say "the murder was wrong, but the murderer cannot be blamed/condemned" or "Hitler's actions were wrong, but Hitler cannot be blamed/condemned." It does seem to me that praise and blame are a core part of what we conceive morality as being. 

So, I put my question to you now. Can morality and perfection coexist? If yes, must they always coexist? What implications might this have for discussions of heaven and hell, for example? Please discuss. Also, this is not the right post to debate morality's subjectivity or objectivity. That is not really the question I am concerned with in this post.

Hi!

I am well aware that my standing could take a hit if it is perceived that I am being too heavy-handed in my approach to the HOF. But I think it is important that the HOF process be insulated in some small way from trolling.

I believe I have made it perfectly clear that a very wide array of nominees will be accepted and forwarded, and it is my sincere hope that this assurance should alleviate most concerns regarding potential heavy-handedness on my part.

+1

To clarify, there is a very specific threshold that a nomination must meet in order to not be forwarded to the second stage; namely, that the nomination is "wholly and blatantly incongruous with the purpose of the HOF (that purpose being to highlight good, notable, and/or consequential inductees)."

Importantly, the HOF is not simply about awarding entries of high quality, but also about recognizing entries who, for better or worse, have had a significant impact on the site. "Notable" and "consequential" are not value-laden terms. One can be "notable" or "consequential" while still being unpopular, disfavored, deleterious, harmful, etc. To that end, I will not be withholding nominees simply because I dislike them or find them to have had a negative impact on the site. On DDO, Izbo certainly deserved to be in the HOF, despite the fact that his impact on DDO was, in my judgment, clearly negative.

The kind of nominee I most likely imagine myself withholding is a troll nominee. For example, nominating a debate for recognition in the HOF which was (a) a full forfeit without any comments or votes and (b) generated zero interest, dialogue, or attention on the site as a whole. This kind of nominee is neither good (i.e. high-quality, praiseworthy, exemplary) nor notable (i.e. heeded, high-profile, dialogue-provoking) nor consequential (i.e. significant, momentous, site-altering). 

Additionally, any nominee that is withheld must be "wholly and blatantly incongruous with the purpose of the HOF." This is quite a high bar to meet. It means that I can have absolutely no reasonable doubt in my mind as to whether the nominee should be withheld. Such a nominee should clearly strike the average person, thinking rationally and honestly, as neither good nor notable nor consequential. I will therefore not be withholding nominees lightly. Any such decision will be carefully considered, and gravely undertaken.

Also, voters in the nominating process may explain/justify their votes, and if there is a compelling justification for why a nominee ought not be withheld, that is something I will naturally consider in any decision regarding whether to forward a nominee. And, of course, if voters disagree with any of my decisions--including decisions to withhold or to forward a nominee--they may express those disagreements using their free speech rights. 

Hopefully, this post will clarify what I meant, generally speaking, when I included the forwarding threshold in the OP of this thread. I anticipate that this post itself may generate some (perhaps heated) debate. That's fine and as it should be. But I felt that it was important to disambiguate the content of that particular passage so that expectations could be properly formed moving into the start of the HOF induction process. 

About 5-7 days until the first stage is launched.

No comment. Just play coy.

About 8-10 days until the first stage is launched.

No comment.

Oh no, I know what's going on. I'm just like, shaking my head as it happens, lol.

What is this thread? Rofl.

No one as yet been inducted. Once inducted, you cannot be re-inducted.

Why is everyone replying to the wrong poster? Are my testicles that flustering?

No justification is needed, lol. You may provide one if you'd like, however.

lol. 

I hope everything is alright with you. Hope to see you back here some time in the future.

We should not have medals which are themselves an insult to their awardees. 

He is free to voice his opinions, however controversial, so long as he is neither violating the law or the COC. As far as I can ascertain, this thread violates neither. Obviously, his views are morally despicable--killing children is always wrong--but that I find them despicable does not mean that they ought to/can be censored.

Welcome!

Take a chill pill.

As Mike will no doubt confirm, I do not have the power to view users' PMs. The community voiced opposition to granting moderation such authority, and that opposition has been respected.

Eh, I do what little I can...

+1

Campaigning for any entry into the HOF is strictly prohibited. This thread is being locked. Do not continue to campaign, publicly or privately.

Drama is the spice of life, I suppose.

But as a mod, I am kind of like the teacher in a classroom. It's my job to ensure things don't get out of control.

Indeed.

I hope that it will not. The blanket prohibition on campaigning may help.

Aloha, DART!

I just wanted to update everyone on the approaching DART Hall of Fame induction process. This process will unfold in two stages, and will take one week to complete.

On or about the 14th of October, I will post a thread soliciting nominations from the usership in each of the three award categories (users, debates, and threads). Any user will be able to submit up to three nominees in each category for a maximum of 9 nominations per user. Nominators may choose to nominate less than the maximum number if they choose. The nominating window will close on or about the 17th of October. The nominees with the most nominations (approx. 4-6 per category) will advance to the second stage of the process. There are no formal criteria for determining who/what can be nominated; however, if I conclude that a nomination is wholly and blatantly incongruous with the purpose of the HOF (that purpose being to highlight good, notable, and/or consequential inductees), I reserve the right to withhold forwarding that nomination to the second stage of the process.

On or about the 18th of October, I will post a thread soliciting votes from the usership on the finalist nominees in each of the three award categories (users, debates, and threads). Any user will be able to vote for up to three nominees in each category for a maximum of 9 votes per user. Voters may choose to vote less than the maximum number if they choose. The voting window will close on or about the 20th of October. Those nominees with the most votes (3 per category) will be inducted into the DART Hall of Fame. In the event of a tie preventing exactly 3 inductions per category, the voting window will be extended for just those nominees who/which are tied. Those inducted will be formally honored with entries in the Hall of Fame thread. Those entries will be posted within 2 months of the voting period closing.

There are no prerequisites or eligibility requirements for users to participate in the Hall of Fame nominating or voting processes, except that they have an account on DART and are not voting/nominating from more than one account. Importantly, coordinating votes or launching campaigns for induction are prohibited. This process is about awarding those with merit or importance, and not about awarding those who can cajole the most voters. Violating these rules will be a moderatable offense. Also, more exact start and end times will be made clear in the threads in question, to ensure there is no ambiguity as to when the processes begin and conclude. Please be sure to check these times.

I am posting this update now to (a) brief you on the process, (b) give notice about the restrictions placed on campaigning and vote coordinating/rigging, and (c) give you time to consider who/what you would like to nominate, come October the 14th. Hopefully this update has been informative. Thank you!

-Bsh1, Chief Moderator

Blocks have no force in the COC. You may mention and reply to those who have blocked you if you wish, as long as your individual posts don't violate the COC on some other ground.

We don't delete debates that were accepted or finished BEFORE the user became banned.

As long as the content doesn't violate the COC, you can say whatever you want on your About Me. Who even cares?

I don't think libertarianism is left- or right-wing. It is it's own thing. I don't see why we should view the political spectrum as linear.

A liberal wants government regulation of the economic sphere, but not of the private sphere.

A conservative wants government regulation of the private sphere, but not of the economic sphere.

A libertarian wants government regulation of neither.

A statist/populist wants government regulation of both.

Yes

When they reenter the hopper, yes.

Cease making reports in public.

No, sorry.

As far as I can ascertain, no. However, Gatorade and AvoidDeath were multis, as AD noted in one of his recent posts.

You knew the rule(s). Frankly, you have no excuse. 

I believe the answer is yes, but that is a technical question that is best put to Mike.

Some people think I am too strict, some think I am too lenient. It's a lose-lose. So, while I appreciate your feelings, I think that if I am elating no one, I am compromising/balancing correctly.

Have your concerns been addressed?

No, it's the initial post. Try this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2305/site-official-ban-log?page=1&post_number=1

The information Disc provided succinctly summarizes moderation's position. If users are going to reenter the community, they should be given an opportunity to do so without the stigma of a public shaming. Moderation does not disclose the reasons for temp bans for that reason.

However, users who are temp banned are given time to issue public objections to their banning prior to their ban being effectuated, and they may always object after their bans end. If the user wishes to disclose the reasons for their ban, they are free to do so, but that is their choice.

Pink requested that his own account be banned. Frankly, it is up to him to make that call, and I don't pry too much into the reasons for those requests.

The ban log explains this: "Entries of bans by request (i.e. bans a user requested be applied to their own account) will state the date the ban was effectuated."

I think, just to avoid you ever being inundated with requests, that you should allow every user 1 opportunity to change their username upon request to you.

I will be conferring with Mike about name changes. In the meantime, if you have a name change request, I suggest reaching out to him.

If Wylted's game goes 15 days without an update (it's already gone 4, so 12 more), then we'll consider it abandoned and eliminate it from the list.

If you wish, at some point, to return to your old account, I can unban that and ban your new account. And so, while you can switch between accounts, you cannot do so to the point it becomes annoying. There will reach a time, after many requests, when I will simply refuse to allow any switching.

Please do not start your game until either Supa's or Wylted's game concludes.