Total posts: 5,653
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Well it's not neutral and it's not a complement or an endorsement.
Sure, it's neutral.
Pray tell, what, exactly such a comment is intended to produce, if not implicit invalidation of that person's arguments on the topic at hand by attacking them (and or their hypothetical credentials) personally (while ignoring their arguments wholesale).
And here you concede the point. An attack is a personal attack if it is directed at the person, rather than their arguments.
An ad hominem, taken as a whole, is directed at a person's arguments, it just happens to also contain a reference (an illogical one) to their person.
It is essentially saying:
"Your argument is wrong because of X."
It is a statement about their argument. That X is an illogical reference to their person is what makes it the logical fallacy of ad hominem.
That it is ultimately a statement about their argument, and since there is no requirement that X be derogatory, means that ad hominems are not forbidden by the CoC.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
They are quite challenge opponents, good job in advancing!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It is not impossible to communicate with someone who avoids all derogatory personal-attacks.
I agree, using a sensible interpretation of the word. But a sensible interpretation of the word does not necessarily include ad hominem statements.
<br>I do it all the time, and I actually find it quite pleasant.
Liar.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
A statement like, "You've only ever lived in the city, so your arguments about farming are invalid" is, by all rights, a "DEROGATORY remark aimed at a site user or site users rather than the content of what those users say or espouse".
Incorrect.
By your own admission, an ad hominem is a sub-category of personal-attack which is quite broadly defined in the COC.
Actually I have been quite explicit that the kind of "personal attack" that an ad hominem is is NOT the kind of "personal attack" as defined by the CoC. I have said so:
If you refuse to make your definitions EXPLICIT, then it is impossible for you to make a sound logical argument.
You are correct in that I have implicitly relied on a minimal amount of common sense in the interpretation of words. If you are ceding that you have none, and need things spelled out to you like a child, I shall do so:
The CoC defines a personal attack as:
"Rather, a personal attack is any abusive or derogatory remark aimed at a site user or site users rather than the content of what those users say or espouse."
From here we can rely on dictionary definition of words:
Abusive - extremely offensive and insulting;
Derogatory - showing a critical or disrespectful attitude
The contentious definition here is derogatory. Taken at the broadest of face values, any critical statement about a person would be a personal attack. Yet the CoC also limits what constitutes a personal attack:
"A personal attack is not anything directed at a person that they find to be unfavorable. Such a definition would stifle exchange and debate."
Taking the definition of derogatory at its broadest interpretation is just that and would stifle exchange and debate. By the terms set in the CoC, this broad brush interpretation is not appropriate.
Furthermore it is not required that an "Ad hominem" be offensive, insulting, critical, or disrespectful. It is simply an illogical connection between a person's character and their argument. Nothing about the statement:
"You've only ever lived in the city, so your arguments about farming are invalid" meets any of those definitions.
In fact, the trait identified by an ad hominem fallacy could very well be positive:
"You're always fit and healthy, so your advice about what to do when a person is sick isn't valid."
I hope this clears things up for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
People have designed entire worldviews and major branches of philosophy on this feeling, so I wouldn't sweat it. We make meaning for our own life. And you seem to do this rather well, with your creative output. I imagine that when you put out a new fan fic episode or drop a dope beat, it's a real high.
I think the key is to realize that the highs won't always be constant that the lulls between them are normal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
What debate are you most proud of either here or on DDO?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't intend to argue to this level of semantics. My main point in my conversation with you is that "ad hominem" statements are not, and should not be, violations of the CoC.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I agree, I think the "Personal attacks" section should be done with and instead fall back to the harassment standard, keeping only the hate speech part.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Can you provide even a single example of a "critique of the person" that is NOT derogatory?
If you are suggesting that critiquing people is against the CoC then I disagree that you are using the word "derogatory" in the manner intended by the CoC. Regardless, something like, "You've only ever lived in the city, so your arguments about farming are invalid" is an ad hominem.
And, even if there was such a thing, some perfectly neutral comment (aimed at site user and or site users) that had nothing to do with the actual claims (arguments) being espoused, wouldn't that comment be categorically OFF-TOPIC?
Depends on the conversation at hand, but it wouldn't be against the CoC.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Calling someone a "liar" is a DEROGATORY remark aimed at a site user, and is therefore verboten by the COC.
I disagree. Or at least it requires such a vague and broad use of the word "derogatory" as to make all communication impossible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I agree that the punishment should be different. But they are still both violations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
"A personal attack is any abusive or DEROGATORY remark aimed at a site user or site users rather than the content of what those users say or espouse. A personal attack may take any of several common forms, including but NOT LIMITED TO the following examples." [LINK]
Ad hominems are not required to be abusive or derogatory, merely a critique of the person, rather than their arguments.
Created:
Posted in:
(IFF) this quoted statement (of yours) is true (THEN) all ad hominems are BANNED per COC (since ad hominem is a sub-category of "personal attacks".
A personal attack is only against the CoC if it is a personal attack as defined by the CoC. Not everything any source categorizes as a "personal attack" is against the CoC simply because they share the same term. An Ad hominem is a kind of personal attack only in the sense that it is an "attack" of the person rather than of arguments. It is not automatically a violation of the CoC.
This is a debate website. Debaters should focus on the arguments as they are presented and not on your opinion of, or the personality of, or the habits or the identity of the individual making those arguments.Forum comments aren't debates.Forum comments are subject to COC.
I don't dispute that. I'm simply noting that forum commenters are not required to focus on arguments to the exclusion of opinions, personality, habits, or identities.
Calling someone a liar (directly or indirectly) is the very definition of a personal attack.Referring to the inaccuracy of a statement requires counter-factual evidence and even if inaccuracy is determined, whether or not the inaccurate statement was "knowingly false" (or not) is moot.
Incorrect. If you have lied, I am allowed to call you a liar.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
Did you do mostly debates or were you a forum poster as well?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Citation please. You appear to be making a distinction without a difference.
It's in the definition you cited.
This is a debate website. Debaters should focus on the arguments as they are presented and not on your opinion of, or the personality of, or the habits or the identity of the individual making those arguments.
Forum comments aren't debates.
Citation please. Calling someone a liar would seem to qualify as a "derogatory remark aimed at a site user or site users"."a personal attack is any abusive or derogatory remark aimed at a site user or site users rather than the content of what those users say or espouse." [LINK]
I believe that calling someone a liar necessarily refers to the content of what they have said: specifically that said content is knowingly false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
An ad hominem isn't merely a personal attack. It is a specific kind of personal attack used to undermine a person's arguments. That is, a person's arguments are wrong because of some undesirable quality in the person.
Without the attempt at refutation of an argument, it doesn't amount to an ad hominem, nor would every kind of ad hominem involve a personal attack according to the CoC of this site.
For example, if I catch you in a lie, and then try to argue that because you've lied once, no one else should trust any future argument, that would be an ad hominem attack, but not a personal attack according to the CoC.
Created:
Posted in:
No DOXXING.No THREATS OF VIOLENCE.No AD HOMINEM ATTACKS.
This is such a hilariously ridiculous set of rules. Like, arson, murder, jaywalking.
Created:
Posted in:
"Ok, boomer" signals frustration from a younger generation at an older generation that is becoming increasingly less in touch with the modern day and consistently blames the younger generation for a state of affairs that they themselves created.
It necessarily is a slur and it is a slur aimed at a group of people primarily defined by their age. A strict reading of the CoC would have it be "hate speech": an ageist slur aimed at a person.
But I think it is becoming more than that. It is also a very political term as boomers are strongly associated with a certain kind of politics and culture. I've had it levied at me (humorously) even though I am well outside the age bracket for being a boomer.
It is becoming less and less about a person's age and more about a person's state of mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
In the arena of logic, "valid" means that a conclusion necessarily follows from a set premises, combined with logical inferences such that, if the premises are true, the conclusion is true.
So the question becomes whether all forms of logical inferences are necessarily true in all cases.
But this is a trap.
The key is to realize that "logic" is just a framework in which we decide and define what the "valid" logical inferences are. Something is valid within that logical framework (of which there are many, there isn't just a single "logic") if it adheres to the rules define for that framework.
Not all logical frameworks use the same set of logical inferences, so something that may be valid in one framework is not valid in another.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I think it was for your presidential election that a bunch of ex-DDOers came out of the wood work to vote for you. Fun times.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I was asking more along the lines of what troll or prank you were most proud of, but I get you. That's a rough life and that stuff sticks with you and shapes your perceptions into adulthood.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
That is if you don't set a restriction. As in if we reach x amount of complaints within an x amount of time then we would use plan b to deal with things. This can be worked out. It is not complicated.
That is not practical.
You are pretty much against any change that you think eventually will be changed. Bad policy if you actually want to improve the site. You need to try something at least once in order to remove that idea from the equation. If not then you are just doing what DDO does and hope that it works out instead trying to be more effective.
Ah, so you are for trying an idea once to see how it works? Like... locking a thread when there is an increasing amount of undesirable behavior?
Do I have to make my point clear?
No, you do not.
By locking the thread Speedrace stifled conversation in that thread.
Your complaint was that conversation was stifled, without qualifier. You are now adding the unnecessary qualifier "in that thread." There is no reason that any conversation has to take place in a specific thread. These are limitations you are inventing. My advise is simple: remove the limitation. No mod is forcing you to limit yourself to this restriction.
One other thing are you telling me you, as an authority for the site, will you advocate for me to make a duplicate of a locked thread whenever that does happen again?
I am not an authority on this site, but I affirm that you are allowed to have non-violating conversations wherever you wish. If you want to continue a conversation you had in a locked thread, you are allowed to create a new thread to do that, so long as it wasn't your conversation that was one of the bad ones.
It is a punishment to everyone who wanted to be involved in that thread.
Not correct.
"Meaning I am justified in my response because I am not a mind reader so what was done by Speedrace was done without me knowing it could occur."You didn't actually argue against me.You instead agreed with me
I do not agree with you. The tone and manner of your response is not justified. But then again, you don't care about such things, remember?
If that is your position then by black people receiving less education opportunities a person saying black people are just stupid is justified because it was an informational station not an accusation.
I don't know what black people has anything to do with our conversation.
This is not even talking about you pretty much admitting here that you think there is an objective standard of being fair. How in the hell have you done that? You haven't bridged the is and ought gap nor do I think you are even competent in doing so. You are pretty much stating falsities. Saying you were being fair is an informational statement is basically saying I know for certainty that I am correct but you haven't demonstrated it. Please do. I would like to see you try to tell me you were being fair objectively.
I don't even know what you're saying here. You are losing coherence.
You asked me a question you had no reason of asking. I have made it clear how I did not talk about intentions nor do I think either of us are mind readers yet you still ask a redundant question.
Okay.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Under the amount of users it is doable and when it does become a lot to bear then you can work from there. It being impractical only works if the amount of people reported is more than the time that the moderators have to moderate. I don't think that is the case. Maybe I am wrong.
It is not the case now. It may be the case later. Therefore it would be unwise to set a precedent that could bite you in the butt later. And given how whiny users are when any little thing changes (case-in-point, this very thread here), it would also be unwise to set a standard now then change it later.
The requirement that you HAVE to continue the conversation in THAT specific thread is self-imposed.Why are you changing my objection?
I'm not. Your objection was:
"That is stifling conversation."
The conversation is only stifled by your voluntary choice to not continue it. There is no requirement (other than one you invent) that it has to continue in that thread.
You were not punished.Showing no argument. Demonstrating the failure you have rebutting the claims being brought forward by me. If you weren't in a position to actually argue against my claims why not say it?
Being banned is a punishment. Having your posting privileges removed is a punishment. Locking a thread is not a punishment.
You have forgotten what we are talking about here. The "actions" I am referring to are how you respond to the situation, such as using insults and your general tone.Do you think I care? I don't. I will say those things to Speedrace again until the rules are changed.
Okay, but you are not justified in doing so.
I care about Speedrace locking the thread under "all" and Ragnar agreeing to it. Don't waste my time questioning my morality or whatever it is here if I don't care too. Actually put forward rules to restrict because I am not going to stop until you do.
If you don't care, then don't insist that your actions are justified.
Yes.I am moving on. This to me is clearly showing you are being a bad faith actor. You think I believe that you can read minds even though I have stated I don't care about intentions nor do I want to talk about it.
I don't believe that. I was simply letting you know. It was an informational statement, not an accusation.
Even assuming that means you don't actually care about what I say instead put me in the worst light even though I can very well make an argument from what I said you can't even have that as a question.
This runion sentence makes no sense, please rephrase.
Me saying I don't care about intentions and saying I don't know how someone else feels to you still means you have to question that I think you read minds. Either you don't bother to read what I said and remember it or you are intentionally doing it. I can't know so I don't care. Either way it points to one direction.
Okay.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I don't.Why because it is impractical?
It sets a precedent which could very well become impractical.
That is a self-imposed limitation.A locked is limiting me by not allowing me to not use that thread. If it was self-imposed you could point to the thread not being locked but it was. It isn't self-imposed when I am not at fault.
The requirement that you HAVE to continue the conversation in THAT specific thread is self-imposed. You don't actually have to use that thread to have that conversation. You are, however, in fact free to continue the conversation.
No you were not.Yes I was. I was punished for someone else or me engaging in personal attacks thus limiting me being able to use the thread.
You were not punished.
As I am trying to teach my child son: you may not control your feelings, but you can control your actions.Good luck but that is not how it works. No matter how I act I couldn't change Speedrace locking threads. I hope you don't set unrealistic standards to me like you do for your son. Saying it is a self-imposed limitation is lying about the situation or you are saying I am at fault. I am not.
You have forgotten what we are talking about here. The "actions" I am referring to are how you respond to the situation, such as using insults and your general tone.
I didn't suggest that. I am simply informing you that I am not a mind reader and therefore cannot attest to the inner workings of someone else's mind.So this was a fair statement?"Feigning" are you assuming I can telepathically tap into Virts mind and am lying about it?"
Yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
When you do reach that hurdle you can have my idea until you figure out how to automate it. Assuming you think my way of doing things is better.
I don't.
Free to not continue the discussion in the thread that was locked. I am not able to freely discuss in the thread I was in.
That is a self-imposed limitation. You're the only one saying you have to continue the conversation elsewhere. In general, though, you are permitted to continue any conversation that doesn't violate the rules. So you are, in fact, free to continue the conversation.
I was sanctioned as retribution of personal attacks that I may or may not have committed.
No you were not.
Please give me an argument telling me how I am not justified in how I feel.
I have made no comment on your feelings, just your actions. As I am trying to teach my child son: you may not control your feelings, but you can control your actions.
It was unfair for you to suggest I called you a mind reader.
I didn't suggest that. I am simply informing you that I am not a mind reader and therefore cannot attest to the inner workings of someone else's mind. So I cannot answer any questions about why Virt said or did something unless he explicitly stated those reasons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
A user created a thread with the title of "." and trying to navigate to that forum results in an error (Too many redirects).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Annie_ESocialBookworm
It's from the video game Portal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
It is impractical if you don't have the time. I don't believe the amount of people on the site makes it impractical.
Sure, but I don't think it's beneficial in the long run to set it as a precedent now.
But I am not free to continue the discussion on the locked thread. You basically didn't argue against my points. You just made new points instead of rebutting my claims.
But you are, in fact, free to continue the discussion. There is nothing special or magical about that thread that requires the conversation continue there. The only thing holding you back is you.
Define punishment.
"inflict a penalty or sanction on (someone) as retribution for an offense, especially a transgression of a legal or moral code."
Quote the accusation not insults and tell me why I am wrong. I can insult the moderators and when that rule changes then I won't.
We're talking about whether your response is justified. Just because you are not forbidden from doing something by the rules doesn't mean that the response is justified.
You basically made an intention point which neither of us are Virtuoso so basically have no points in regarding this. Do you want to clarify because I seem to be missing your "defense"?
No, I do not want to clarify.
Okay lets say that is true. It was unfair for you to get a why did someone do X to do you think I am mind reader? If you actually don't agree you are pretty much arguing in bad faith. If it wasn't clear the answer that would've been fair was that I haven't asked Virtuoso, I do not have the power to ask for that information or it was because of x.
I don't know what you're saying here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Warnings are usually given before a ban. Seems like you want people banned at the drop of a hat.
Unfair representation of what I said. I did advocate for a message for them to apologize or be banned. That is a far cry from banning them at a drop of a hat. I am getting more from you that you are being bad faith the longer I am speaking with you.
You've mentioned both, yes. So if you advocate a warning first, then okay. But that just raises the issues of impracticality when it involves a lot of users at once.
I was going to message both Supa and Annie back but couldn't because the thread was locked. That is stifling conversation. Please demonstrate otherwise.
You are free to message them or reply to them. You can create an entirely new thread to continue any appropriate conversation you wish.
I was punished for someone giving out personal attacks which stopped me from responding.
You have not been punished.
Please read what I say before linking me 3 different things that don't answer what I said. Here is what I said again "neither Virtuoso or the others have made it clear what the different style would pertain too apart from I think some CoC changes but not how the moderation would follow up on it."
I said: "The site itself is undergoing changes and the current policies are being looked at and reviewed. This is general, public knowledge."
You replied: "Where?"
Those links are in reference to the statement I made.
Maybe you should've made the rule before you know using a hole in a system to do what you like.
I don't make the rules here.
Thank you for telling me I am warranted for my position that this is a new precedent that the rules don't even make clear that is allowed. Meaning I am justified in my response because I am not a mind reader so what was done by Speedrace was done without me knowing it could occur.
If your complaint is that the rules should be more clear about what the moderators can do in certain situations, then I would agree that such a response is justified. But your responses are laced with a level of accusation and insult that I do not find justified.
You are arguing against reality. Speedrace's comment in the thread is clearly pointing towards him being at fault for locking the thread. Next time try to mount a defense instead of doing something Mopac does. Giving not worthwhile answers that I have nothing to work with. Please find where I didn't elaborate like you didn't here. I would try my best to explain my points further if I didn't.
Because I have already explained why it is not a fault-worthy action. If you want to know my "defense" you need only reread the posts I have already provided to that effect.
I am not assuming you can read people's mind. I would like to see how you deductively got that.
Because you are asking me why Virt chose to say something he said. The only person that knows that is Virt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
If I wanted to be voluntarily banned then I would ask to banned voluntarily. If I wanted the people who were issuing personal attacks to banned I would like moderators to enforce those rules instead of locking the thread. Ask the question again and I am implying you don't know what I am talking about.
Okay.
Simple, don't bicker. Have clearly laid out messages. The user would have to apologize or accept a ban. You are trying to make things complicated when they are not.
So you want the moderators to ignore responses made to them?
Give me a ballpark of people warranted a message in the thread. Lets go with 5. Send the exact same private messages but send 5 different links of what they said. Ask them to apologize or accept a ban. This would only take a couple of minutes and then you would wait for the other person to reply in with the closed question. This can be further tuned to having everyone accept a time span they are allowed not to reply. A week should be enough time.
Warnings are usually given before a ban. Seems like you want people banned at the drop of a hat.
How about Speedrace requiring to need the permission of "all" moderators for this to be enacted? Seems more like a long, tedious and painful.
How would you know?
My suggestion would take more time but you won't be locking a thread which is stifling a conversation. Assuming this community will grow, you wouldn't want them to leave because someone else did something so they should also be punished.
No conversation was stifled and no one was punished.
Thank you for telling me this because neither Virtuoso or the others have made it clear what the different style would pertain too apart from I think some CoC changes but not how the moderation would follow up on it.The site itself is undergoing changes and the current policies are being looked at and reviewed. This is general, public knowledge.
Where?
I didn't follow what you said here. I am more "annoyed" about new interpretations of the rules. For example Speedrace locking a non-spam and non-moderator thread.
There are no rules regarding the locking of threads.
It was the fault of Speedrace locking the thread.
Incorrect.
Ragnar and "all" agreeing to it not realizing they haven't done it before. Not realizing how a user would react to it. Then stating they would never do it again. I think it is reasonable for me to imply this is an apology.
It is not.
Don't waste my time with intent. I don't think you are as capable as bsh1 in arguing this. I know how it went down with bsh1 and this time I think it would be a poor representation of his position even if the moderation has changed I don't think what you said here was formulated better than bsh1.
Okay.
I am deductively reasoning this. You are simply feigning ignorance which is obviously also my position.
"Feigning" are you assuming I can telepathically tap into Virts mind and am lying about it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Who said I did? I am talking what I would like to happen. I can't believe you got that from what I said. I am not so delusional to think I am part of the moderation team.
The issue is you stated what you would like to happen to you contingent on what happens to other people. This is not something under your control.
I would be banned voluntarily. Not because of my supposed personal attacks. I seriously don't understand why you couldn't get this without the need of me clarifying for you.
So you are voluntarily requesting to be banned?
It doesn't matter what I believe. It matters how Virutoso and co interpret the CoC.
Given that a user is allowed to request that they be banned, what you believe does matter. If you believe you have committed a ban worthy offense and want to be banned for it, all you have to do is ask. Is this a formal request?
Please elaborate.
While messaging individual users is possible now, it is still a chore, depending on how many users need to be message. Especially when you account for the inevitable bickering and back-and-forth most users will engage in. Assuming this community will grow, it would simply be impractical, if not possible, to expect that moderators message every single user when an instance of mass, potential violations is in progress. Locking the thread is a single action. Quick, easy, and painless.
Why was this under I was privately messaged a while back? I don't see how this speaks about that instead of saying what you want it to be without understanding how he doesn't actually involve what I said. If you want to talk about generally how things are done then talk about it. Just don't put it in a particular interaction I had. A response I would've wanted was that the rules have changed since then, it has been a while since we have done that if you are telling the truth or something else speaking about what you quoted from me.
There is a new moderation team with a different style of moderation. The site itself is undergoing changes and the current policies are being looked at and reviewed. This is general, public knowledge. I'm having trouble understanding much of the grammar in this paragraph, but based on this and previous interactions, you seem more annoyed about rules being followed the way they've always been followed than what is actually best for the users and the site.
I implied that from them saying we won't do it anymore. It is more likely an admission of guilt than it is something they did correctly. If it was correct he wouldn't be saying he wouldn't do it anymore.
An apology implies fault. You can do something that turns out to not be the correct course of action without having committed any mistakes or errors or done anything that is fault-worthy.
Guess Virtuoso decided to say it won't happen again because it was the correct thing to do to remove a good decision? Okay.
I cannot attest to the inner workings of Virtuouso's mind.
I didn't claim Speedrace (Please get his name right, I thought you, discord DA. was in close communication with DA. I find that funny since you don't even bother calling your peers correctly.).
Congratulations, you found a typo on the internet. Perhaps you should recommend that Mike create a medal for that?
I claimed an example of a moderator being more accountable than the head moderator is what Speedrace did. It seems like you liked to find the context of Virtuoso not directly apologizing but you forgot to mention where Speedrace told me Ragnar had a part to play. Are you going to feign ignorance or are you just now realizing Speedrace spoke Ragnar specifically and all whatever that is? Link
That link affirms what I was saying: It wasn't a unilateral action taken by Speedrace himself. It was an action that was agreed upon. Speedrace is simply the person that actually carried it out, which can only be done by one person, unless you are suggesting all the mods meet up in real life to press a single button with all of their fingers?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Banned while also the other users who were also personally attacking people. I don't want the rules to be bent my way because that just means someone else would get a free pass as well and they can use it in a much worse way. Besides it isn't real life so I probably be banned for a week or month tops.
You don't get to control whether or not other people are banned. If you, personally, want to be banned for what you feel is violating content, you can always voluntarily request a ban. That you believe you probably did violate the CoC, and that you believe you should be banned for it, but haven't requested a ban, suggests that you don't actually want to be banned.
I think what should've happened was privately messaging everyone involved who did what and ask them to stop. If they don't while also not apologizing then you can ban them.
That is an impractical precedent to set.
I haven't got a private message so I am going with Speedrace doesn't know what he was doing because I wasn't sent a message and I am guessing from people like Speedrace and RM I would be one of the people who would've been banned.
Decisions such as banning are usually a result of internal discussion and consensus. What we have is multiple instances of behavior entering a grey area where you might have some people agreeing it is a violation but others not yet agreeing. We can view the locking of the thread as a precautionary measure to halt the behavior before it reached a point where there wasn't any doubt and mass warnings/bannings were in order.
What boggles my mind is anyone that views this as the less desirable option than doing nothing until you need to start whipping out the ban hammer. It seems abundantly clear to me that if you can take a simple, less intrusive action that halts the undesirable conduct without having to ban lots of people, clearly that is the better option than waiting for people to inevitably do something egregious enough to warrant a banning.
If this isn't how bans work why did bsh1 inform me of a rule breaking before making his decision?
I cannot attest to the inner workings of bsh1 mind.
If this has changed as well then f*ck the people in charge for being incompetent or allowing incompetency to occur without apologizing for it.
Okay.
All I saw was Virtuoso stating he won't do it again so Virtuoso is basically apologizing on Speedrace's behalf.
Then your perception is skewed. I am assuming that this is the post in question:
In which Virt says, "That being said, we will not be using this in the future."
Clearly he says more than that in that post, directed to you, in which you were tagged, that you replied to. So if that is "all" you saw, then I encourage you to reread the post in its entirety to see more than just that.
I didn't see any apology.
I didn't like it when I think bsh1 apologized for Virutoso and I don't like it now. Sure the head mod is supposed to manage every other mod but to say they should be more accountable for something that was never done before is in my opinion is the fault of the person who did the new thing. For example Speedrace locking a non-spam, non-moderator thread.
I doubt you will find that anyone involved in the decision would agree with the interpretation that Speedracer did this on his own in some sort of rogue or uniltaeral action, or that the move was one of incompetence. In short, there is nothing to apologize for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Let's assume you were a violater. From your point of view, would you rather be banned or given a chance to shape up?
Created:
Posted in:
You're really defensive about not kicking this dude's dog. Need to confess something?
Joking aside, this is a great post. I admit I'm sometimes guilty of choosing a less than charitable interpretation of someone's words in deciding how to respond. It is a very subtle form of a Straw Man. I'm glad you brought it up because I think this is advice that everyone here can take to heart. I know I will.
Created:
Posted in:
I think it only extends to events likely to bring about the end of that civilization. So those events wouldn’t qualify.
Created:
Posted in:
The prime directive is one of those things that started out with good intentions but got pushed to the extremes as it developed over time. It's purpose is to protect the integrity of a civilization, but - originally - not at the expense of its existence:
SPOCK: Captain, our Prime Directive of non-interference.KIRK: That refers to a living, growing culture. Do you think this one is?
TOS, Return of the Archons
Clearly, Kirk saw that the existence of a society takes precedence over its development. After all, if a society doesn't exist, it can't develop to begin with!
Somehow this principle got lost, and Starfleet Captains considered the prime directive to forbid interference even to save a civilization from extinction (even if said interference could perform without the civilizations knowledge!)
Inactive is still a moral decision, and the decision to led an entire civilization die is an immoral one.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The post in question has been taken care of.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Not that I am aware of. Vaarka made the server and owns it. Supa and myself are the moderators for it. I simply note that he was the one that created the rule.Is Vaarka in close communication with Virtuoso?
Well if it was laid out more clearly my concern wouldn't be warranted.
To be honest, I am not exactly sure what your concern is. I have assumed that you are brought it up because it violates the rule. But I am only guessing. You have neither confirmed nor denied that. It seems that your concern is also that the rule is vague? Again, I am only guessing, which is why I asked what, exactly, your concern is.
Did the joke offend you and you want it removed? Do you want the rule clarified? Removed? What outcome are you looking for?
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The server, and the rules, were made by Vaarka, not Supa. I can't comment on Vaarka's rationale or disposition; he is the server owner, but not a moderator. From what I've seen about Supa, it does not surprise me that he cares about suicide and is a generally compassionate person.
And yes, what you've linked to is a joke that references suicide.
I am going to assume that your objection is that joke violates rule 6. I'll certainly talk with Supa and Vaarka about it. If I were to take my mod hat off and comment on a personal level, I would interpret rule 6 to mean suicidal jokes or threats about other people on the server, not simply any humorous content that references suicide, but I'll certainly clarify.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
If you have some specific issue with the Discord, you can raise it to me or Supa at any time. As it is, both moderator teams are in close communication and are aware of what each is doing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Manik
Ok well the purpose of thread was not to attack other users. It was satire, and I thought it was funny.
If I break the law satircally, I have still broken the law.
But yeah. You used to be a champion for free speech, drafterman. So if even you are backing this, I guess there's not much hope.
There was a lot of animus toward bsh that came from a lot of different idealogical camps. It's a natural tenancy to think that the enemy of your enemy is your friend, and I think that has resulted in a lot of other people who were anti-bsh thinking I was in line with them ideologically.
As it stands, your Free Speech hasn't been infringed. You are free to continue any appropriate discussion that you would like.
I find it really odd that you are arguing this point. You and I can test it, right here, right now. Pick an approved conversation you think this mods are preventing, and let's have it. You and I. If I agree that it doesn't violate the CoC and the mods nix it, I'll take up the cause.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Manik
We are free to have a different discussion elsewhere. If we tried to have the same one again it would be locked again.
I would say, yes, if you repeat your actions verbatim it is likely to result in the same response. I would suggest you have the allowed parts of the discussion without the disallowed parts.
It was clearly mocking the standard awards threads. It was light hearted. And before you say that joking is no excuse for insults, the opening post did not contain any insults.
If I break the law in a light hearted, mocking, manner, I have still broken the law.
It was like a game. Responding without insulting required some thought and care, but was possible.
And you are free to talk about users without insulting them. Nothing is stopping you. You are not free to invite the entire userbase to come into a thread to insult users.
I can't see where call out thread is in the CoC, but anyway no. A call out thread requires calling someone out, naming someone.
That is incorrect.
"Call-out threads (threads in which a purpose of the thread is to attack another users) are severe examples of direct attacks."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Manik
"There is nothing preventing you or coal from having a discussion that doesn't violate the CoC"We were having a discussion that didn't violate the CoC, but then the thread was locked which prevented us from continuing the discussion.
Not entirely correct. It prevented you from having that conversation in that thread. You are free to continue it elsewhere.
As I said before, there are lots of topics that are likely to result in other members violating the CoC. It's absurd that anybody should have to tiptoe around for fear of what other members might or might not do.
The phrasing of this statement implies that violations of the CoC in light of that topic would merely be incidental. This is not a correct representation. Rather it was a direct and explicit call upon the entire user base to label other members in a derogatory fashion.
The CoC is clear. If the SOLE intent of a comment is to encourage insults etc. then it counts as "fighting words". But that was not the case for Coal's thread.
I'm not sure what fighting words has to say about anything but a personal attack is "any abusive or derogatory remark aimed at a site user or site users rather than the content of what those users say or espouse."
Inviting everyone to come in and label users as "least valuable", "infamous", "cursed", "least funny", "dumbass", or the "worst forum poster." Is textbook. The thread itself falls within the definition of a call-out thread (threads in which a purpose of the thread is to attack another users).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Manik
Coal's thread didn't violate the CoC, and nor did my response to it. So it's simply untrue that you are always allowed to have a discussion that doesn't violate the CoC.
There is nothing preventing you or coal from having a discussion that doesn't violate the CoC.
Discussions aren't equivalent. So it's not enough to say that if coal is censored, I'm fine to go have a discussion on a similar topic with someone a bit less confrontational. Those are two separate discussions.
Yes, I would agree that a discussion that includes a prompt likely to result in violations of the CoC and a discussion that doesn't include said prompt would be different discussions. But unfortunately, moderators do not have the ability to partially lock a thread.
Anyone that wishes to continue allowed discussions are allowed to do so, and are encouraged to do so without prompts likely to result in violations of the CoC. I think it's patently obvious how general prompt for people to come in and label users as "least valuable", "infamous", "cursed", "least funny", "dumbass", or the "worst forum post." is likely to result in many violations of the CoC.
Created: