Total posts: 5,653
-->
@Nd24007
I dun goofed. Zeichen was not Analgesic, Analgesic was Zaroette. My bad. Disregard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
That's not dualism.The transporter buffer is simply a data set.Matter is comprised of energy. ANY ENERGY.You grab a qua-jillion-ba-gigawatts out of the warp core and run it through the transporter pattern in the buffer and you could create thousands of Picard clones.And if he's such a super-amazing-legendary-captain, why wouldn't you put him in charge of every single ship in the fleet?
Sorry, but this contradicts the cannon of Star Trek. It wasn't merely enough to recover Picard's physical pattern from the transporter records, but his specific life energy (used in a different context than physical energy) had to also be located into the transporter relays in order to be combined. It isn't simply enough to provide the transporter with energy and create physical bodies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Yes, I remember the issues with vote bombing and biased votes on DDO. But in response, the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction.
The voting standards put into place there (and copied to here) are not designed to strictly counter vote bombing and biased votes. They are much more than that, attempting to enforce an extreme level of quantity (not quality, mind you) of verbiage in a vote. In developing these standards, they went far beyond merely fixing a problem, but decided to come up with and enforce a very specific and narrow voting philosophy on everyone. One that is not warranted.
You conveniently ignore the secret voting cabal that was put into place to analyze votes, which necessarily ended up in corruption and people unilaterally deleting votes, even without consensus. The problem is, the more moderate and sensible elements lost out, and the people with an over-inflated sense of self importance won, and we were left with the ridiculous voting standards we have today.
You seem to imply that subjectivity has been eliminated from the voting standards. It hasn't. Furthermore, the voting standards emphasized quantity over quality and really had nothing to do with bias or poor reasoning. You can have a completely biased and ill-reasoned vote that is nigh immune to moderation if it's long and wordy enough.
Rational discussions have been had about moderation and the rules. PMs have been had. The fallacy is to imply that you can only do one or the other. I don't see why I need to limit myself to a single tactic. Furthermore, it's abundantly clear which of the tried tactics has actually had a positive effect. So if the mods would prefer people to resort to reason arguments rather than abusing flaws in the system and drowning them out with criticism, perhaps they should actually be open to reasoned arguments! This implication that calm rational discussions haven't been had is just false. The issue is: they didn't work, so they were abandoned in favor of tactics that do work.
People like you make practical moderation impossible - because it is literally impossible for them to do anything without being attacked and vilified either by you or someone else on the other side whenever a moderation decision is made.
What I made impossible was stupid moderation. The stupid moderation is now less stupid, and therefore more possible.
It is you, and the class of people like you, who are the cause and driver for strict rules,
Are you daft or just dishonest? Do you deny that the voting standards are now *less strict* or are you asserting that they have nothing to do with me?
and implicitly tie moderators hands by forcing them to be “fair and unbiased”
This... this is bad?
through this sort of histrionics: derailing an announcement about a new moderator installed to talk about your personal grievances.
You're the one that came in here white knighting about how you can personally attest to the fact that their shit doesn't stink. I'm just bursting this bubble some people have that bsh1 is as pure as the driven snow.
Would you want to make a decision if this is the sort of stuff you were subjected to every time you try and act in good faith? Lock an abusive thread? censorship. Delete a post doxxing another user? Lack of transparency. Remove a vote that a mod (and others) feels violates the standards? They’re biased. Don’t remove it? They’re not exercising their discretion.
I don't do those things, so I don't know why you're asking me.
It seems you’re doing your best to try and avoid this key aspect of the interaction between moderation and community.
The interaction between mod and community is a complete and utter farce:
1. All mods that aren't bsh1 simply defer to bsh1 or parrot what he says.
2. bsh1 is consistently evasive and deliberately obtuse. Ask him a simple yes/no question and he post a wordy reply that somehow avoids giving even the semblance of answering.
3. He refuses to answer even the slightest hypothetical questions about mod policy, but will also refuse to ask about questions about actual mod policy due to fictitious privacy concerns. So you literally can't ask anything about mod policy and get a worthwhile answer.
4. In private, bs1h will lie about what's been said in a non-mod PM in order to invoke mod action against a user.
So I don't think it's me that is inhibiting mod-community interaction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
A strict policy is required in order to prevent outright fraud.
No it isn't.
Voters and debaters will normally refrain from reporting obviously good faith votes.
If voters and debaters can discern what a "good faith" vote is, why can't moderators? Are they somehow cognitively impaired?
It is fair to expect moderators to adhere specifically within the rules with little because there are so many people like you who repeatedly and constantly challenge any attempt for any moderator to exercise their discretion.
Except I don't, so this is a strawman. Though vocal, my issues with the moderators has been rather narrowly constrained.
So yeah: I’d love for me to get the benefit of it the doubt on votes, maybe I “just had a bad day”, or wrote a substandard vote when my heart was in the right place, or missed out something. But I completely understand that there is absolutely no compelling reason for anyone to actually do that, because if they did someone like would post threads like “Votegate: Ramshutu and Virtuoso in cahoots!”
The problem is: you are content with stupid voting standards that allow for good faith votes like this to get removed.
The issue is the voting standards were stupid. Period. You implicitly concede this the second you posit the existence of votes that should be allowed to exist that are a violation of those standards. Your solution, however, is that such votes simply shouldn't be reported by debaters or voters for... reasons. This notion that stupid voting standards are required to combat fraud is baseless.
I agree with you that, as a composite average, the general users have a good sense of what is and is not a good vote. But the problem with relying solely on this sense is that stupid voting standards are allowed to persist because they're rarely enforced. Since they're rarely enforced, no one really sees the true stupidity of them, and there can gain no traction to get them changed to be less stupid. Any argument against them is countered with the fact that everyone seems fine with it. That they're "working."
I believe that the voting standards should reflect this general good sense of the users of what is and is not a good vote. If general users can discern this, then there is no reason why the mods can't nor no reason why the rules can't be made to reflect this. Unless you're suggesting that the general users can't discern outright fraud, then such voting standards would still be effective against fraudulent and bad faith votes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Ah, so you agree with the standards and their implementation. You agree that your vote was substandard given that. Yet you get angry at me because your vote was removed. That is 100% sensible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Voting rules have to be onerous
No they don't, or at least not as onerous as they were. Cast in point: the rules are less onerous and the site hasn't collapsed into a black hole.
It’s like speeding. The limits are 30mph, 45mph. Etc. Everyone speeds, but as long as you’re not going 50 in a 30 no one gives a crap. Borderline or kinda shitty votes for people who’s heart is in the right place and just fell a bit short or made an error in their justification aren’t the vote abusers the rules were created to inhibit, so no one generally reports them, and everyone is happy, the same way that you’ll get left alone if you dont drive like a douche.People were pissed for the same reason that Normal people would be pissed if they got a ticket for riding 31 in a 30 zone repeatedly because some dickhole neighbour had a radar gun and continually reported you to the police to enforce the rules. Or got pissed that they got two tickets, then see that same neighbour outside their house with a radar gun.
I like this analogy, but you're mis-applying it. Correctly applying it would be realizing that the police' response to such a person would be to ignore them and continue on their merry way. Police aren't bound to pull everyone over for even the slightest bit of speeding, they are free to exericse discretion. As are the mods here. The only reason they responded to every report was because they voluntarily decided to.
When you have fucked up rules and an insane application policy, getting angry at the person who's demonstrating why that's a bad combo seems a bit silly.
The voting rules are there to enforce a high standard of decisions, and should for the most part need to be infrequently upheld because of minimal reports.
No, it should be infrequently upheld because of minimal votes violating the rules.
The issue on DDO wasn’t the removal - the rules are good - it was the individuals who couldn’t deal with people voting against them and reporting everything. Which forced everyone to be in their toes. Right now, I’ve actually seen a big improvement on vote detail since your nonsense - maybe everyone just upped their game!I got a few votes removed, and I wasn’t pissed off at the mods, or the rules: I was pissed off at the person reporting a vote that wasn’t too far off. Like being reported for doing 35 in a 30 zone
LOL. So a dumb rule got applied in a dumb way so you're pissed off at the person pointing that out rather than the people implementing the dumb rules in the dumb ways. Gotchya.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
1.) You are confusing me thinking that their behaviour is not indicative of malefeasance because of what it is, with me being ignorant. For example: your go-to example of malefeasance was the mods publically asking whether the community would support some form of limited additional power - and agreeing to the result. I mean come on, your argument makes no sense: the mods are up to no good because they go around sneakily asking for powers in conditions for which you assumed the worst transparently - in public - and accepted the result? GADZOOKS! TREACHERY IS AFOOT.
And you are confusing me talking about that example with it being the only example I have.
2.) Yeah, by talking to them. If it was just you reporting votes, your power to abuse voting would have been taken away and everything would have remained the same. Everyone else talking about the voting rules and restrictions before and after. The voting rules would absolutely have changed anyway and, to be fair, almost nothing has really materially changed on the voting front from before. People are being less pissed off now simply because there aren’t people like you deciding to report every individual vote.
The voting standards were lifted, wholesale, from DDO, and have been criticized for literal years, including after they were dropped here.
Just think about it for a second. If the voting standards were sensible, why should the users give a single fuck if a vote is reported? The users got upset because it resulted in lots of votes being deleted unjustly and votes were deleted unjustly because the voting standards were INSANE.
If the voting standards were sane, only bad votes would have been deleted and no one would have given a fuck.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Do you know what also gives the impression of not being malefeasant, and abusing their power? Not being malefeasant and abusing their power.The Site owner, and the mods are not perfect, but there is nothing they have ever done so far that makes me think anything has been done in any sort of bad fair to any degree.
Right but there are things they have done to make me think that they have been malfeasant. Your primary error here is thinking that I'm as ignorant of their behavior as you are.
This is just histrionics. You’ve decided that the mods just asking about a scenario - is evidence that they’re up to no good.
No, asking what they should do in that scenario is fine. It's the power they're asking for that is evidence that they're up to no good. No sensible person would think they need access to PMs.
A decision you don’t agree with, they’re evil. You don’t like the voting policy, so you decided to be a dick and report everything,
And how do you suggest that situation be handled instead? Talking to them? Because that wasn't working. So being a dick and reporting everything worked.
and now you’re losing your mind and throwing your toys out of the pram - yet again - because you refuse to deal with your problems like a grown up.
Yes, i get it, you're portraying me as hysterical and like a child. I get it. You don't need to trot out the same cliche over again. But I really don't see you presenting any sort of alternative that has any sort of potential for traction. Right now, the only thing that gets results is making the mod's life difficult.
This is a community site, run by former members of the community, and is doing a pretty good job in engaging with the community about governance.All you seem to be doing is throwing self-important hissy fits whenever anyone says or does something you don’t agree with.
Yep. I'm literally throwing hissy fits when anyone says or does something I don't agree with. This is a reasonable and accurate portrayal of the situation. I commend you for not hypocritically resorting to the same behavior you're accusing me of.
Clap.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
All you describe is the fact that the are apt at manipulating public perceptions, which I agree. But the mere fact that they asked for this ability is disturbing, regardless of the fact that they decided to present it for public comment first.
Remember that doing that is voluntary and not done for all changes. And it's abundantly clear that they are not as squeeky clean as you (and others) make them out to be.
If you think I am broadcasting these issues to a greater degree than is warranted, consider that it's a natural reaction when the concerns aren't addressed.
They certainly won't get addressed if I simply shut up. Not that I hold out hope that they'll ever get addressed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Wait, you mean that evil, horrible example of a moderator, had a valid hypothetical situation which could only be resolved if PMs were accessible to mods in limited situations put the issue of moderator access to the community and explicitly understood the issue the community would have should they fundamentally object, and abided by the community decision.
No, I don't mean that. There was no "valid hypothetical situation." In fact, there exists no possible hypothetical situation where random mods need access to PMs. The very idea should have been killed in its infancy and whoever suggested it removed from mod-ship.
Yeah: the guy is basically Stalin....
Seems like some people wouldn't care unless he was literally Stalin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Dude, you literally have the mods asking the site owner to gain access to user PMs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Or they possess an average enough level of sense to understand that perception drives the conversation. Notice the implicit concession in the wording here: this defeats the "perception" of impropriety but certainly lacks any teeth to defeat any actuality of impropriety.and the very fact that bsh and others have accepted the possibility that another moderator is required to defeat the perception of impropriety indicates to me that things are at least heading in the right direction for the right reasons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Honestly, I've been on bish's side of things on many site matters, so yeah I can certainly see where you're coming from. I've also been sympathetic with some of your points and witnessed what I considered to be legitimate criticism of moderation.
Not - I feel - where it matters. Consider that in a discussion about my motives (of which I am the only person to speak knowledgeably) you decided to defer to bsh1 rather than me.
Personally I'd welcome any willing and qualified member to the mod team,
Unfortunately, bsh1 and Mike are content to let bsh1 have singular reign over the site.
but I don't know what your idea of "diversity of philosophy" is exactly.
At the moment, I'd be happy with any member of the mod team that didn't just parrot bsh1's words and philosophy on all matters.
Created:
Whether or not a vote is deleted shouldn't affect how anyone else voted or will vote. The only purpose would be to grant the offending voter a chance to resubmit a valid vote.
Ideally, there should be a way of flagging the vote such that it no longer counts towards awarding points without deleting it. The voter can then come in and has the option to update the vote. If the vote is not updated in, say, 24 hours, then it is deleted. When updated, the mods are notified and can then review and then "release" the vote allowing it to contribute to the score.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Then I'm not sure I understand the point of this theater.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
By putting diverse view points on an equal level, you necessarily broaden the overall philosophy of moderation. I certainly wouldnt deny anyone being a mod because of their religious beliefs, and you probably don't believe me, but the point is you don't have to because I suggest an arrangement where I couldn't make that decision.
You seem to want a single person in charge that checks all the right boxes. Sorry, but that's a unicorn, it doesn't exist. The most pragmatic solution is to have people with different view points placing checks on each other.
I certainly know that I'm too much of a firebrand to ever be selected, but we can do better than people that have and will continue to just defer to bsh1.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I agree with that appearance, but I don't believe she would have chosen if there was less than the remotest possibility that this would be realized.
What the mod team needs is diversity of philosophy at the highest level.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
This is good information. It is certainly not self evident to me that "egregious" means "injurious to the users". Thanks for clarifying. Last question:
Understanding that Castin informing the userbase of violations isn't actually a punishment, is it reasonable to infer, then, that there isn't a punishment for just ignoring Castin (purely hypothetical of course, as Castin is extremely unlikely to disagree with you).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
If they were self evident, I wouldn't have asked them. Furthermore the answers any individual self may think are evident may nevertheless be wrong. So:
1. What "binds" a mod to her decisions?
2. What is "egregious disagreement" and why does this excempt a mod from this binding?
3. In what way are mods "obligated" to inform Castin of recusal?
4. What is the penalty for the mods for violating this process?
Created:
Posted in:
Questions:
1. What "binds" a mod to her decisions?
2. What is "egregious disagreement" and why does this excempt a mod from this binding?
3. In what way are mods "obligated" to inform Castin of recusal?
4. What is thepenalty for the mods for violating this process?
5. Is this a change in the current process where recused mods still get involved, or will that continue regardless?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
You think of a woman while doing it. It's the thought that counts.
Created:
Posted in:
Have you ever considered shipping a 10 pound bag of rice to a random person in Venezuela through Amazon Prime?
No.
If not..why not?
Such a random thought had never had the happy circumstance to enter my brain.
And for my final question, have you ever had the urge to risk a volley of arrows from attempting to make contact with some people of the few remaining secluded tribes near Indonesia?
I've pondered it as an intellectual exercise, but never considered it as an "urge." It'd be interesting to get their view on things, having developed in isolation from the world at large.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
It is not a deliberate strawman, but you don't exactly grant me the respect of me deciding my own motivations, so it's no surprise there. I notice no other refutation of my other points. You go for a tangential blow and disappear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Oh? If that was the case then Mike should be the inaccessible owner who lets the site devolve into chaos overridden by spam. The forums should be formatted exactly the same. The ban list should carry over. Airmax should be the mod. Etc. Etc. Etc.
No, you made a conscious decision to keep some aspects and abandon others. I don't recall any of these being put to vote or even a discussion.
It is NOT a given that DART should be DDO 2.0 and some people - myself as an example - came here hoping that it wouldn't be. I left DDO because it was a shithole long before the spam bots took over.
This is a new site and should be evaluated as a new site. Any policies should stand on their own merits not merely de facto adopted because they were what people did on DDO. For example, using DDO threads and policies designed for DDO on issues here, when they are not encoded in this site's COC, should be out of line.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
That's not quite an honest way of depicting the situation. We continued to implement standards of vote moderation that were used on DDO because these methods were tried and tested, and because they provided continuity.
Who decided there should be continuity? The decision that DART should be DDO 2.0 seems to have been made unilaterally.
It was largely felt among vote moderation that there was a real obligation to continue to implement those practices until the community here overrode them, as it has now done. To say that we created the work for ourselves implies that we took actions designed to increase our workload beyond existing requirements, when really what we did was do what we saw was already required.
No, it only implies that the work was voluntary and not inherent in the duties of a moderator. Which it was. Itsays nothing of the intention or design of that workload.
Moreover, the evaluation of votes can, itself, take up to 10 minutes depending on the difficulty of the case. There may be certain questions moderators have which require them to consult with other moderators, and there may be cases which are difficult in generally to evaluate. While the mode is about a minute, the average is probably in excess, at least for me, of 2 minutes. Each vote deserves thoughtful consideration.
Edge cases should be extraordinarily rare. If it is the case that all votes are reported and this results in a significant chunk of time engaged in such activity, then that is a reflection on the evaluation process. For a vast majority of votes (>=90%), if it is not immediately and abundantly clear that it should be removed, then it should remain, and that's that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
And this, of course, is not an entirely honest way of depicting the situation. The majority of the work was work you created for yourself (which has been partially remedied). The only actual work a report entails is: reading the vote/comment in question and deciding if action needs to be taken. This is seconds, maybe 1-2 minutes of necessary work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Want to be terrified? It is just a short couple of jumps between transporters and sleeping at night.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The scenario isn't that you are replaced with a philosophical zombie, but that the transporter creates one in addition to you.
Created:
Posted in:
Here's the way I see it. Atheists don't want God to exist the same way criminals don't want cops to exist.
While I find certain descriptions of gods objectionable, I'm not opposed to the concept.
They know that God exists, but they suppress the truth.
I don't know that any god exists, no.
It's because they also know that they are sinners and deserve death.
I don't know that either.
They know that Jesus gave His life so we could avoid death.
Nor that.
But these people love their sin more than their Creator.
I don't love either of those things.
Also, the Bible tells us that many witnessed the miracles of Christ and still rejected Him.
And Harry Potter tells us that a phoenix will come to those in need.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
If the transporter takes you from a state of being alive to a state of not being alive, I'm fine with saying that it "kills" you even if that is only temporary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm not sure that philosophical zombies are "terrifying" despite the emotion the word "zombie" evokes. I think people confuse it with things like sociopaths, who feel no emotion. Depsite the fact that they have no qualia, by definition philosophical zombies are indistinguishable from normal people. So it's not a case where it's this potential threat lying in wait, pretending to be a real person, but rather that there is absolutely and literally nothing you can do to distinguish them from being a real person. They're not going to suddenly "snap" and stop acting like a real person.
So the situation would be, you have two Rikers, one is the "real" Riker and the other is a duplicate that has no qualia of his own. But, for all intents and purposes, he is going to act exactly like Riker would (given his experiences) in any given situation. Nothing to be scared of.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The thing about philosophical zombies is that there is no observable differences.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Either that's something that can be duplicated too or Tom Riker is a philosophical zombie
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The matter that makes up Riker came from a second energy beam. The conditions were a complete fluke.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
You don't accumulate memories while in a transport buffer. Ergo you aren't alive when you're in it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Neither do I, IRL, but it serves as a reason why it is not an in-universe existential crisis save for a few individuals treated as crackpots in this area.
Created:
Posted in:
The prefix "in-"What is the difference between animated matter and inanimate matter?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Star Trek gets around the existential nightmare by accepting Dualism as true. That is, there is more to people than their physical make-up. In The Lonely Among Us Picard is beamed into space. His physical pattern is lost, but his "energy" pattern is retained. They are able to put the two back together by essentially restoring his physical body from a back-up of transporter logs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
So - in your opinion - does a teleporter move 'you' or does it kill 'you' and create a clone?
Neither. It kills you by taking you apart then puts you back together again.
As the original is lost (if it works properly) we don't know what the exprience of the original is. It is certainly possible it is very painful and terrifying for the oiriginal but that is not apparent to the clone.
Created:
Posted in:
Star Trek teleportation involves the disassembly of a person or object into its constituent fundamental particles. Those particles are then converted, in some unspecified manner, into an energy beam which is then directed to a distant location. At the location, the energy is converted back into matter and then reassembled back into the original person or object.
There is no duplication here a la quantum teleportation, but rather a moving of matter from one location to another, very quickly. By all accounts it is instantaneous and can cover distances of tens of thousands of kilometers.
There is no "destruction" of anyone in the sense that the matter that makes them up is lost (though they are disassembled).
I still think it's a valid question, because if I take you apart, you are now dead, even if I put you back together and restore you to life later.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
The implication is there already. I've provided my reason. You've provided yours. They are mutually exclusive. So long as you continue to suggest that yours is the truth, the implication is that mine is not. Whether that's insulting or not is immaterial to those facts.
I'm just wondering if you're actually willing to articulate the logical consequence of your claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Well, I'm not going to argue with what you "reckon." I've given my reason, which contradicts yours. So you can either accept that or imply that I'm lying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Depends on how loose your definition of "immediate temporal proximity." I certainly didn't stop at that moment or in that day. I made the decision to stop (and not just stop, but unreport the votes I had reported) sometime after this thread here which was several days after my thread here. And I've explained my reason for doing so.
Do you have evidence to the contrary? Or some argument as to why my stated reasoning is doesn't count as an "other reasonable explanation"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
I'd be interested in the specifics of this argument, given that I claim otherwise and continued to report votes after I was "identified" and after I publicly revealed it. So, call me a liar and defend the argument.
Created: