Total posts: 5,653
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Raltar
As I believe I may have mentioned elsewhere, there is a certain user who has a grudge against me because I voted against him on one of his debates. The moderators upheld that vote, but as retaliation he went around and reported a bunch of random votes in the hope that a few would get taken down, as round about way of punishing me for voting against him. (Oh and does this sound similar to my concern about voter harassment?)
Voting is currently not-anonymous. Did that fact resolve the problem you describe here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I'm sorry you feel that way. The goal here was to try and get as much feedback as possible so that bsh1 couldn't simply hand wave it away as not enough people weighing in. I got your existing vote from the previous discussion here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/644/post_links/28186
But if you'd like to change it, please let me know.
Created:
Posted in:
(11 out of 71 pinged users reporting)
For - 6
Abstain - 1
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I like this idea and it's sensible, but I don't know what level of coding it would require for Mike.
Thanks for the vote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Can I ask why? You don't think that requiring people to put in effort to make a report and limiting their reports to 10/day won't cap the ability of people to spam reports?
Also, I can personally attest to the fact that the loss of anonymity didn't actually stop the report spamming that was going on. It provably isn't a solution to report spamming.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Doesn't mean I can't try to change your mind.well you wanted our opinions. i don't think reporting should be anonymous.
Do you disagree that a reporting limit and requiring a reason to submit a report solves any potential reporting spam problem?
Created:
Posted in:
(I am copying votes from the previous discussion. If you have changed your mind, @ me to let me know)
For - 4
Against - 4
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
is this an official vote or a survey?
A survey.
Not sure what would make a vote official. However, despite having a current majority opinion in favor of anonymity, bsh1 has arbitrarily decided that "not enough people have weighed in" and suggested I "identify other voices who share your views on the subject."
It is a crap shoot as to whether bsh1 will honor whatever this reveals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I am sure there are those who abuse the reporting feature. the mods should know who those people are.
Any potential abuse has been now curbed by limiting reports to 10/day/person. Additionally, a "reason for report" feature will be implemented in the future. This objection falls under point #3:
There is no current problem that requires knowing the identity of the reporter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Zeichen
@Wylted
@whiteflame
@warren42
@zedvictor4
Vote, please
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
@thett3
@David
@Vaarka
@Tyrone
Vote, please
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
@TheDredPriateRoberts
@Tejretics
@Vader
@TheGreatSeal
Vote, Please
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
@Stronn
@SkepticalOne
@Stephen
Vote, please
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SamStevens
@secularmerlin
@sadolite
@ResurgetExFavilla
@rosends
Vote, please
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
@Ramshutu
@Plisken
@Raltar
Vote, please
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
@Nd24007
@Paul
@PGA2.0
@nmvarco
Vote, please
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
@mustardness
@Mhykiel
@missbailey8
@Mharman
Vote, please
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
@Lunatic
@linate
@Logical-Master
@Lemming
Vote, please
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jhhillman
@janesix
@keithprosser
@KingLaddy01
@Jboy3r
Vote, please
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
@Greyparrot
@FaustianJustice
@Grugore
Vote, please
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
@ethang5
@Earth
@disgusted
@Declan25
Vote, please
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
@Castin
@DBlaze
@bsh1
@Deb-8-a-bull
Vote, please
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
@Username
@Ben11
@BrutalTruth
Vote, please
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
@3RU7AL
@Aporia
@Alec
@ArgentTongue
Vote, please
Created:
Posted in:
The argument is simple:
1. Knowing the identity of a reporter is immaterial to the substance of the report. The reported comment, vote, thread, etc. is a violation or it is not. The status of that violation does not change if it was reported by Bob vs. Alice.
2. Knowing the identity of a report can only possibly introduce bias in how mods respond to reports. Mods should be objective.
3. There is no problem that requires knowing the identity of a reporter.
Created:
-->
@janesix
Lot's of love.What do you think lol mrans??
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Raltar
Also, I just want to clarify that they aren't asking for permission to go into your own PMs. They are asking for the right to go into anyone's PMs based on a separate third party asking them to. So it's less: "this guy is harassing me, come look" and more: "I think those two people are talking about me privately, go stop it"
Created:
Yeah, Mike mentioned it. Unplanned maintenance on the hosting site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Raltar
I agree with a stronger block feature, but giving access to mods about PM will provide you no more protection than the block feature will. Furthermore, the mods won't be guaranteed to side with you and if the behavior isn't a CoC violation (and is just annoying) then they're just going to tell you the same thing I have: block them.
Blocking them will either A) stop it altogether or B) force them to continue in publicly, in which case you have public evidence to provide them.
There is no case here that requires mods to dive into anyone's PMs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
You refuse to define what a "clear" majority is. I want to know the minimum numbers required.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
I am not going to continuously re-hash with you what has, in many ways, already been beaten to death. If you don't like the explanation for why I made the decision I did previously--that not enough people weighed in in favor of reinstating anonymity--so be it. Continuing on in this fashion will neither further elucidate the issue nor persuade me that my approach was somehow invalid. Moreover, I was fairly clear, from the moment the voting the previous public thread closed consistently up until now, that I am willing to revisit the issue of anonymous reporting if a clear consensus emerges. If you want to encourage change on this issue, than the most constructive course of action, rather than griping and issuing personal attacks, would be to identify other voices who share your views on the subject.
Then tell me what the secret number to reach is. There is literally no objection to providing this number unless such a number doesn't exist but you still want to retain the ability to arbitrarily ignore whatever vote happens regarding it.
5-2 is not enough. 7-0 is. Where is the cross-over? 6-2? 6-1? 7-2? What?
I'm not trying to change your mind. You are clearly obstinate when it comes to this. My goal isn't to change your mind, it is to pin you down to specific agreements so that public pressure discourages you from reneging.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Raltar
If you've blocked them, they can't PM you or direct comments at you. How would granting moderators access to your PMs help you with their public comments about you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Determining, holistically, that a 5-2 vote does not represent site consensus is not the same as imposing some kind of turnout threshold.
No, but saying "Not enough people weighed in" is.
Had the vote been 7-0, I would have likely implemented the proposal.
Saying that there weren't enough votes for one side is not significantly different than simply saying there weren't enough votes. So you don't have an overall vote threshold, you just have a threshold for at least one side to reach. The fundamental aspect is still the same: some number of votes must be cast in some capacity for you to acknowledge it.
That the vote was small and split created reasonable doubt for me that the 5 votes on the one side represented a site-wide consensus.
Irrelevant. You posted a public thread. The people interested in the subject voted. Honor the result. You don't get to invalidate it simply because you don't like how many people weighed in. Well, obviously you do "get" to do that, but it's a thoroughly shitty thing to do.
Moreover, I have explicitly remarked, both in this thread and others, that I am open to revisiting and reversing that decision should a clear consensus be reached on that, or any other, unimplemented proposal.
And yet you aren't. There hasn't been a whiff from you about the issue since then. It took me asking you about it, directly, four times before you even acknowledged the issue. And even then you didn't "revisit" it, you just asspulled justifications for why you ignored it in the first place. It wasn't until Mike got involved that wheels actually started turning.
The judgement I made was holistic, and was never based on any kind of minimum turnout threshold.
Then what does "Not enough people weighed in" mean?
A holistic judgement is not inherently an arbitrary one, and if you feel that it was arbitrary, than perhaps it would be more productive to identify additional voices who can add to that 5-2 tally.
Well, you'd first have to tell me what the secret threshold to reach is. But you won't even acknowledge it exists, so fat chance of that happening.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
There has never been a threshold on any of these public discussions.
Except for report anonymity which you arbitrarily decided that we didn't meet some secret voting threshold ("Not enough people weighed in.")
Rather, I holistically evaluated the situation to determine if a site-wide consensus likely existed.
Yes, by deciding that your secret voting threshold wasn't met for that specific issue.
Regarding this particular discussion, I believe I have already answered your question. As I said: "As it currently stands, it will be the case that moderators will not be allowed, in any circumstance, to examine a user's PMs."
My question is: "Is there a secret voting threshold we need to meet for this to take effect as with the report anonymity?" Which you haven't answered, at least not truthfully because "there has never been a threshold" is a lie.
It's a simple yes or no question that warrants a simple yes or not answer. Either such a threshold exists, or it does not.
Your qualifier of "as it currently stands" exempts you from adhering to anything since you can later decide that some bullshit "hollistic evaluation" has changed things. "Consensus" is a vague and ambiguous term that can mean anything from a simple majority to unanimity and gives you the room to just arbitrarily decide what voting percentage is enough.
So, no, I'm not going to assume that there isn't a voting threshold that you won't later reference to proclaim that a consensus hasn't been met.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Is there a secret voting threshold we need to meet for this to take effect as with the report anonymity?
Created:
Posted in:
Discussion:
Yes - 1 (Tej)
No - 7 (Drafterman, RM, Outplayz, Mike, Ethang, Wylted, LM)
Just a reminder, despite promising to go with the majority, bsh1 implements secret voting thresholds. This is close to the vote count on the reporting anonymity (5-2) and he arbitrarily decided that not enough total votes had been cast, so 2 dissenting votes was enough to for him to ignore the majority vote. We don't know what that threshold is, and it may be different depending on the issue at hand. Since bsh1 proposed the idea to begin with, it's safe to assume he's a yes, so the discussion may be moot anyway since 2 dissenting votes is all that is required, apparently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Logical-Master
I think that's the most efficient way of settling the conversation right now. But it's ultimately just postponing the inevitable. And there are only a few people willing to really argue against this and they may not be around if and when that scenario happens. Ultimately it may be better to have the longer debate now and put the issue to rest more permanently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
You're assuming he would be disinclined to emulate Hitler.
Created:
Posted in:
So far the reasons provided for this insane power grab are:
1. A contrived scenario that we have no indication has ever happened or would ever happen and still doesn't warrant PM access
2. Scenarios that are all covered more adequately with the existing block function.
Mods be thirsty for PM drama.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
Neither of those are necessary given the block function.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
For what reason? No sensible reason has been articulated.
Created:
Posted in:
I wasn't referring to you in that post, but I hardly think, if I were trying to manipulate things behind the scenes, I would drag discussions like this out into the sunlight.
I fully acknowledging that you are manipulating Mike rather openly.
Even if you didn't see it or agree with it, there was.
Dude, Mike admitted that it was an accident.
Created:
Posted in:
There is absolutely, positively no case that requires accessing user PMs that is also so frequent that Mike can't handle those cases himself. This idea should to be conclusively shelved, permanently. This isn't a hard decision that requires time and thinking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
There never was an argument for non-anonymity. It was a fluke.I agree that takes a lot of oomph out of the argue for non-anonymity.
Unlike Drafter, who would simply have Mike rule by fiat, the democratic process here of seeking feedback is probably the best.
The site isn't a democracy nor have you implemented democratic principles (requiring some undisclosed number of total votes to apply to arbitrarily selected issues before you'll act on them isn't democratic) . If you had, reporting anonymity would be restored. Democratic principles having failed, I basically have to appeal directly to Mike. Mike should absolutely rule by fiat to squash horrible ideas like this.
The comparisons of me to some kind of dictator are also a bit ludicrous insofar as I have put this up to public discussion (and promised to abide by the result of that discussion) and am subject to scrutiny.
I didn't compare you to a dictator, I compared you to a sniveling adviser who used his proximity to leadership to poison the well of with bad ideas.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
What does one have to do with the other? Do you disagree with the new voting standards?
Created: