Default banner

#MEEP

This tag does not yet have a description

Total topics: 17

There aren't enough active mods to address the frequent violations of rule-breaking. As it currently stands, too many individuals are getting away with abusing the CoC, The New Enforcement hasn't shown to be effective.

Since security is understaffed, we should start bringing some more onto the Task Force. Everyone of these individuals have given permission to be named in this thread, the others have chosen to not be included and remain anonymous.

Here are all of the people that should be promoted to moderator.:

  • Savant
  • SkepticalOne
  • Athias
  • greyparrot
Let's bring back security and stability to DART.



Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
31 8
Perhaps a referendum on what a president even is and can vs cannot do?

Perhaps shorter terms than 1 year?

Open to any ideas.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
38 10
The newest update ignores sacred MEEPs and undermines democracy on DART.


A noob should only need 2 rated debates to vote and 0 unrated debates to debate rated.

5???? They need to complete 5 unrated debages to even begin to debate rated. Even I would just do low valye trash debates to meet that quota
 Welcome to the new DART, unpleasant and undemocratic.

I am happy I lost that election, I am probably quitting soon, we have no real engagement between noobs and experienced debaters possible anymore.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
58 13
After a long period of careful policy creation and review, we have a few big MEEP propositions that I'm very excited about sharing.

PROPOSITIONS:

Below are the proposed changes to be voted on. Please vote “yes” or “no” for each one. You may change your vote at a later time, just don’t be a pain about it. 

This house proposes:
  1. In order to promote consistent, fair and even-handed moderating practices across the board, the unreserved adoption of the Standardized Policy Enforcement System (SPES) which overhauls and systematizes banning practices and replaces the Consequences section of CoC.
  2. In order to allow more accurate & direct community representation, the unreserved adoption of the proposed DebateArt President office and related policy.
  3. The creation of a “Community” category in the Help Center that will include:
  • The Hall of Fame policy and archive
  • The DebateArt President policy and archive
  • The moderation ban log
ABOUT MEEP:
 
As seen in the moderation overview,
Moderation may submit questions and proposals regarding moderation policy, voting policy, and the code of conduct to Moderation Engagement and Enactment Processes (MEEPs). MEEPs are binding referenda and comment periods on the questions and proposals submitted. Moderation has full discretion on which questions and proposals are submitted to MEEPs, though no substantive change to the COC may be made without either the consent of the site owner(s) or ratification via a MEEP.
 
In order for a submitted question or proposal to be ratified, at least 10 users must have voted in the MEEP, and more than a majority of all those voting must have voted for the question or proposal. That means, in practice, that in a MEEP with 10 total voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 7 votes in favor of the proposal or question. If a MEEP fails to produce a binding result, moderation will maintain the pre-MEEP status quo, unless doing so is entirely untenable.
The voting period will be open from now until 12:00 PM (EST) Friday, September 10th. 

Now, for Narnia, and for Aslan!!!

Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
233 30
FELLOW DARTers-

I hope everyone will participate by VOTING on the following two modest propositions:

PROPOSITION1:

Shall we request the creation of a new FORUM CATEGORY titled CONSPIRACY THEORIES ?

YES or NO?

PROPOSITION2:

Shall we request the creation of a new FORUM CATEGORY titled HISTORY ?

YES or NO?

VOTING PROCEDURE:

  • VOTING will remain OPEN until 11:00 PM EST,  FRIDAY, AUG. 15th 
  • One VOTE per PERSON, please.
    • Duplicate VOTES will be disregarded.
    • No requests to change VOTE after submission will be considered.
    • Any indication of multi-accounting will be referred to MODERATION
    • Please help promote voting clarity by limiting posts to VOTING ONLY using roughly this format:
      1. YES or NO
      2. YES or NO 
    • QUESTIONS/CONCERNS/DISCUSSION/ARGUMENT/CAMPAIGNING are all encouraged and may be posted to these FORUM TOPICS:
    • For either PROPOSITION, at least 10 users must have voted in the MEEP, and more than a majority of all those voting must have voted for the question or proposal.
      • That means, in practice, that in a MEEP with 10 total voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 7 votes in favor of the proposal or question    With 20 total voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 11.
      • If either PROPOSITION fails to produce a binding result, no change shall be requested.
      • If either PROPOSTION succeeds, I'll provide that result to DebateArt.com and the MODERATION TEAM requesting that change be completed before the END of 2022.
THANKS in ADVANCE for EVERYBODY's SINCERE and FRIENDLY PARTICIPATION!






Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
53 35
After 15 days of voting and with fairly good participation,  DARTers expressed clear support for the proposition that we add a new category entitled HISTORY.

Regarding the PROPOSITION:

Shall we request the creation of a new FORUM CATEGORY titled HISTORY ?

23 VOTERS voted YES
8   VOTERS voted NO

This topic is created to provide that result to DebateArt.com and Mods requesting this change .







Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
12 5
Is there popular support for a new forum category CONSPIRACY THEORIES?

If this idea seems popular I propose we have a vote on it from Aug 1st to Aug 15th

I will also be separately proposing a new forum category HISTORY to be voted on during the same period if such an idea seems popular.

Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
50 15
Is there popular support for a new forum category HISTORY?

If this idea seems popular I propose we have a vote on it from Aug 1st to Aug 15th

I will also be separately proposing a new forum category CONSPIRACY THEORIES to be voted on during the same period if such an idea seems popular.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
8 6
Hi all,

What CoC refinement questions would you like to see on the next referendum?

Other refinements are also possible.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
50 9
Been awhile since we had a referendum, but various issues with the voting policy have not gone unnoticed. So I've worked out a bunch of potential refinements; which I am hoping we can discuss, improve, and then formalize with a vote in the near future.

As I've had to say before, I am happy to break apart many of the changes, but I'm not going to do a line-by-line thousand question referendum.

Stuff not related to the voting policy is also welcome for the referendum. Just suggest it, and if there's explicit support and no good reason not to, it'll go in.


Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
67 10
In short, for about a week we'll have a few voting questions open for the community to decide things.
This referendum will run until around 10:00am PT (UTC-7), February 14th 2020. That being Valentine's Day, it's a pretty rough estimate.


About MEEP:
As seen in the moderation overview,
Moderation may submit questions and proposals regarding moderation policy, voting policy, and the code of conduct to Moderation Engagement and Enactment Processes (MEEPs). MEEPs are binding referenda and comment periods on the questions and proposals submitted. Moderation has full discretion on which questions and proposals are submitted to MEEPs, though no substantive change to the COC may be made without either the consent of the site owner(s) or ratification via a MEEP.

In order for a submitted question or proposal to be ratified, at least 10 users must have voted in the MEEP, and more than a majority of all those voting must have voted for the question or proposal. That means, in practice, that in a MEEP with 10 total voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 7 votes in favor of the proposal or question. If a MEEP fails to produce a binding result, moderation will maintain the pre-MEEP status quo, unless doing so is entirely untenable.


The Questions:
Below is an enumerated list of the content to be voted on. A brief explanation of each question is included as well. Please vote "yes" or "no" to each of these questions.

1. Ratify the new Voting Policy?
Voting "yes" to this question will replace the current voting policyextended policies, and various rulings, with a single new one.

tl;dr: While lengthening the policy to better explain to people why their votes were removed, this will generally allow us be less nitpicky.

Major changes:
  • Specified Winner Selection as arguments only (this came up in a previous referendum, but the policy was never updated to reflect it). Likewise clarified missing multiple rounds as allowing conduct only votes against them.
  • Changed S&G to “legibility,” which was already implicitly done by a previous referendum.
  • Allowed more things to be borderline to decrease exploitative reporting, and allowed some things to be implied (such as not listing “and the other side did not FF”).
  • Moved Sufficiency into a Core Value section, and added voter reading requirements.
  • A ton of exposition.
  • Made categorical votes all follow the same three steps (they kinda already did…).
  • Added Foregone Conclusions to the special circumstances, along with plagiarism, and cheating, plus renamed the area disqualifications.
  • Changed “Troll Debates” to general non-moderated, which includes comedy. Also added a clause to allow some minimal level of moderation intervention (such as someone voting just to harass someone they dislike).
  • No longer calling every bad vote a vote bomb (something can be garbage for other reasons).
  • Added a vote rigging section (I think I took a lot from the expanded policies doc).
  • Expanded and modified the forfeiture policy.
  • Clarified the Outside Content policy.
  • A lot of little things are just because I hate nitpicky complaints.


2. Allow Kudos points within votes?
Voting "yes" to this will further loosen voting standards with regards to mitigating points against the voter's majority allotment; wherein they may substitute lower scoring categories to decrease the margin of victory they assign. This is to serve as a favorable callout with respect to the other side's efforts. Votes using this to inverse the majority recipient, will be deleted. 

Note:  A long term ideal solution would be a direct modifier to the argument points. However, this referendum is focused on policy we can immediately implement; as opposed to future mechanics we can only request.


3. Update the debates information page in the help center?
Voting "yes" will replace the current help center page, with an update.


4. Switch to SupaDudz' suggested handling of Restraining Order violations?
Voting "yes" will switch from admittedly on the fly consequences, to a codified set.


Voting:
I'm not that attached to how people vote, so long as it's easy to understand. People may also change their votes, but please don't be a pain about it.

Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
24 15
Hey DART. 

I'm hoping to post a MEEP soon. MEEP stands for Moderation Engagement and Enactment Process, it is a referendum on site policies.

This one will focus this on on refining the voting policies. Please submit any ideas for changes, addendums, etc.


Current questions which have been raised (will be updated as this thread progresses):
  1. Should waiving rounds count as poor conduct equal to forfeitures?
  2. Should Full Forfeits be broadened to missing every round after their first argument?
    Such as someone forfeits the first round, shows up in the second or third, and forfeits the remainder.
  3. Allow implicit justifications for lesser points?
    I need better wording for this, but in essence not needing the spell out the absence of things. Such as one side having a dozen .gov and .edu sources, sure their impact needs to be mentioned if giving sources, but the other side having none and not challenging them is self evident at a glance.
  4. Less stringent justification for counter points?
    This may be a weird one, I don't know if it will make the cut into the referendum... So let's say someone gives you arguments and sources but gives the other side conduct and doesn't dot the i's and cross the t's on that part; with this change, the vote would not be removed so long as the primary points are justified to the standard... And yes, I have seen tactical vote reporting along these lines, wherein someone waits until near the end of the voting window to report such a vote against them.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
8 3
In short, for about a week, there will be a few questions open for the community to vote on. 
Voting for this poll will be closed at 12 AM PT (UTC -7) on June 19, 2020.
Even though this is a non-binding un-official MEEP, it is sanctioned by the mods and the results could influence moderation policies and the implementation of future site features.

About MEEP:
As seen in the moderation overview

The Questions:
Below is an enumerated list of the content to be voted on. A brief explanation of each question is included as well.

1. Do you agree or disagree with the removal of the following clause in the new COC (the full document can be found here):

Subsection B1: The Chief and Deputy Moderators and Site Owner
  1. Conduct violations against the Chief Moderator, Deputy Moderator, and the Site Owner will not be enforced, barring certain exceptions
  2. Exceptions to PA.A1.SB.SbB1.PI are limited to:
    1. Plausible, repeated, or serious threats
    2. Hacking or attempted hacking
    3. Staff Impersonation
    4. Doxxing or attempted doxxing
    5. Life- or health-threatening cyberbullying
    6. Violating the privacy of PMs not related to issues of moderation
  • "Yes" indicates agreement with the removal of the above clause in the new COC.
  • "No" indicates disagreement with the removal of the above clause in the new COC.
2.  Are you for or against mods being allowed to vote in future MEEPs? Note that there are more than two options for this question:
  • "Yes1" indicates a preference for banning all moderators from voting on referendums.
  • "Yes2" indicates a preference for banning the chief and deputy moderators from voting on referendums.
  • "Yes3" indicates a preference for limiting the chief and deputy from voting, save for breaking stalemates.
  • "No" indicates opposition to this refinement.
3. Are you for or against votes being reported on (and possibly removed) after the voting period is finished? Note that there are more than two options for this question:
  • "Yes1" indicates a preference for votes being reported on (and possibly removed) regardless of whether or not the ratings are changed.
  • "Yes2" indicates a preference for votes being reported on (and possibly removed) only if ratings will be changed to reflect vote changes.
  • "No" indicates opposition to this refinement.
4. Are you for or against the implementation of a polling section in DART? 
  • "Yes" indicates a preference for the implementation of a polling section in DART.
  • "No" indicates opposition to the implementation of a polling section in DART.
5. Are you for or against the implementation of advertisements on DART? Note that there are more than two options for this question:
  • "Yes1" indicates a preference for the implementation of pop-up ads, video ads, static banners, and text ads (text ads are like with sponsored links on Google).
  • "Yes2" indicates a preference for the implementation of video ads, static banners, and text ads.
  • "Yes3" indicates a preference for the implementation of static banners and text ads.
  • "Yes4" indicates a preference for the implementation of text ads only.
  • "No" indicates opposition to the implementation of advertisements on DART.
Voting:
This poll will use the same voting system as the previous MEEP.

A vote could look like this:
  1. Yes, 
  2. Yes1, (the 1 signifying a preference for variant 1)
  3. Yes.
Like this (the missing 2, counts it as abstaining that question):
1. No, each change should be an individual question
3. Yes, we shouldn't even have voting rules.

Or even like this (a vote against 3, but abstaining from the others):
Wrong direction for voting, so no.


Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
75 17
Hey DART!

I'm planning to make an un-official MEEP/opinion poll to gather the community's stance on various questions that I have thought of and/or seen floating around in the forums. I am hoping that it will be posted sometime next week.

Even though this is a non-binding un-official MEEP, it is sanctioned by the mods and the results could influence moderation policies and the implementation of future site features.

In this thread, I will be previewing some of the questions to be voted on and discussed, as well as inviting all of you to suggest additional questions and refinements. Please note that there is no guarantee of any of the community-raised questions making it in.

Below are questions s I already intend to include:
1. Do you agree or disagree with the following clause in the new COC:
Removal of the harassing the moderators is ok rule (don’t worry, we’ll still have thick skin).
2. Are you for or against mods being allowed to vote in future MEEPs? Note that there are multiple options for this question:
  • "Yes1" indicates a preference for banning all moderators from voting on referendums.
  • "Yes2" indicates a preference for banning the chief and deputy moderators from voting on referendums.
  • "Yes3" indicates a preference for limiting the chief and deputy from voting, save for breaking stalemates.
  • "No" indicates opposition to this refinement.
3. Are you for or against votes being reported on (and possibly removed) after the voting period is finished?
4. Are you for or against the implementation of a DDO-esque polling section in DART?

Again, feel free to make any suggestions!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
28 8
In short, for about a week we'll have a few voting questions open for the community to decide things.
This referendum will run until 10:00am PT (UTC-7), June 1st 2020.


About MEEP:
As seen in the moderation overview,
Moderation may submit questions and proposals regarding moderation policy, voting policy, and the code of conduct to Moderation Engagement and Enactment Processes (MEEPs). MEEPs are binding referenda and comment periods on the questions and proposals submitted. Moderation has full discretion on which questions and proposals are submitted to MEEPs, though no substantive change to the COC may be made without either the consent of the site owner(s) or ratification via a MEEP.

In order for a submitted question or proposal to be ratified, at least 10 users must have voted in the MEEP, and more than a majority of all those voting must have voted for the question or proposal. That means, in practice, that in a MEEP with 10 total voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 7 votes in favor of the proposal or question. If a MEEP fails to produce a binding result, moderation will maintain the pre-MEEP status quo, unless doing so is entirely untenable.


The Questions:
Below is an enumerated list of the content to be voted on. A brief explanation of each question is included as well. Please vote "yes" or "no" to each of these questions.
  
1. Ratify the new Code of Conduct?
 Voting "yes" to this question will overhaul and streamline the Code of Conduct.
 
A few key changes between the current CoC and the proposed one:
  • Streamlined it, cutting the length by 45%.
  • Made it no longer dependent upon external extended policies and interpretations documents.
  • Codified various policies (e.g., context affecting consequences, protocols for new accounts, etc.)
  • Removal of the trolling and insults rules, but adding a no targeted harassment rule.
  • Expanded to impersonation rule to everyone.
  • Removal of the harassing the moderators is ok rule (don’t worry, we’ll still have thick skin).
  • Removal of the no "Contravening or Disregarding Moderation" rule.
  • Added clauses to protect children.
  • And more...


2. Allow sharing of Private Messages?
This is not to imply encouraging it... A "yes" to this may be divided into two subsets (either yes option endorses change):
  1. "Yes1" indicates with minimal restrictions. Identifying information for example, is still protected under the general doxing rule.
  2. "Yes2" indicates exclusively with moderator approval.


3. Change the Voting Policy to expand S&G to include other excessive legibility issues?
 Voting “yes” would amend the Spelling and Grammar in the Voting Policy, to allow consideration of other legibility issues which distract the user from the arguments themselves (sPeLlInG EvErYtHiNg lIke tHiS, as an example). This would slightly simplify one aspect of voting, and inform a larger effort to overhaul the voting policies in a manner similar to the CoC.
 
 
4. Require a reason when submitting a report?

Voting "yes," would require users to message a moderator or use the upcoming improved report tool provide details on why the report is being filed.
No is divided into two options, 
  1. "No1" indicates a belief against the requirement.
  2. "No2" indicates opposition to upgrading the report tool in that direction.


Voting:
I'm not that attached to how people vote, so long as it's easy to understand. People may also change their votes, but please don't be a pain about it.

A vote could look like this:
  1. Yes, 
  2. Yes1, (the 1 signifying a preference for variant 1)
  3. Yes.
Like this (the missing 2, counts it as abstaining that question):
1. No, each change should be an individual question
3. Yes, we shouldn't even have voting rules.

Or even like this (a vote against 3, but abstaining from the others):
Wrong direction for voting, so no.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
145 22
Hey DART. 

I'm hoping to post a MEEP next week. MEEP stands for Moderation Engagement and Enactment Process, it is a referendum on site policies.

In this thread I will preview some of the questions to be discussed, and I invite you to suggest additional questions and refinements. Importantly, just because a question is suggested or seconded does not guarantee it will be included. Below are issues I already intend to include:

---

1. Ratify the new Code of Conduct?
 
Voting "yes" to this question will overhaul and streamline the Code of Conduct.
 
A few key changes:
  • Removal of the trolling and insults rules, but adding a no targeted harassment rule.
  • Removal of the harassing the moderators is ok rule (don’t worry, we’ll still have thick skin).
  • Added clauses to protect children.
 
2. Allow PM sharing with moderator approval?
 
Voting “yes” would add a clause to the no sharing of Private Messages rule, to allow moderators to grant permission to settle disputes.
 
Currently there have been outright lies about the contents of PMs, and the victims are without real recourse. This is intended to correct that oversight.
 
 
3. Change the Voting Policy to have S&G to include organization
 
Voting “yes” would amend the Spelling and Grammar in the Voting Policy, to allow consideration of organizational issues, such as a 10,000 character true wall of text (no line breaks) vs a case which is easy to navigate.
 
Note: This is intended to inform a larger effort to overhaul the voting policies in a similar manner to the CoC.
  
---

Again, feel free to make any suggestions.

Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
85 16
I'm seeking feedback on a couple issues, to determine what the general user base would prefer (results of this may end up in a MEEP).

Users may only have one account active at a time. I have worked hard to be respectful of the multitude of reasons someone may wish to switch accounts, and not be the person who says X is now Y. However there's no clear rule for what us moderators should do.

Worse, there are users who are strongly suspected of being previous users. I have generally clarified if there are no credential matches, but this gets into an ugly area when there are such matches but the person privately insists it's a coincidence. I have stuck to advising users to not talk to so-and-so if they're worried, but I have refused to outright share the match; I do however tell the other to keep their distance:
Regarding X,

I must ask that you strictly minimize any interaction with them. Without knowledge of your matching credentials to a certain former user, they identified you as said user; to which there was a very negative and prolonged experience.

There is no loss to this situation, since if you are not that person, then you have no investment with the aforementioned user. If you are whom they believe you to be, then ignoring them will help avoid old habits from which you wish to differentiate yourself.

Out of respect for privacy, the credentials match has not been revealed.

A related problem is when there is a strong match, but the connection is denied, we have not banned the former accounts. It's a damned nuisance. For this I would like to have a simple policy of the suspicion creating a light RO between the connected accounts, and if asked we openly tell people the details of the match with a clarifying statement that it may be a coincidence. ... Whereas if they admit to the connection, their privacy is maintained, but we moderators can properly use context from their past actions and relationships.

So what say you? I'm open to any ideas.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
11 6