Debate.org should maintain it's policy of deletion
Thanks in advance to my opponent for accepting. In the forums, my opponent has contended very strongly that DDO should implement a policy he terms "Free debates" where no debates or threads are deleted. I invite him to defend this proposition.
Since my opponent is the one advocating a change in the status quo but I'm the affirmative, the burden of proof will be shared. What a shared burden of proof means is that rather than the judge defaulting to one side, both sides are obligated to present reasons why their world is preferable.
The first round is for acceptance. The second is for constructives and the third and fourth are for rebuttals. Good luck.
I gladly accept this debate.
I accept I will defend the proposition for a policy of ‘Free debate’ on DDO which means that no debates or threads are deleted.
I accept the Burdon of Proof is shared.
I accept my opponent is advocating the status quo.
The purpose of this site is intelligent and productive debate. We should prefer whichever system is most conducive to *intelligent* debate--debates and threads which run contrary to this goal run contrary to the stated purpose of this site on the main page. The site is meant to be an: "online community where intelligent minds from around the world come to debate online and read the opinions of others". Vote for whoever best upholds this model.
My opponent is taking an extremely hardline position that would allow the site to become awash with spam. Literally. Anyone who has been active on this site for a reasonable amount of time remembers the "caste fortune teller" spam that was posted all over the forums. Dozens of topics were created, drowinging out topics that discussed the actual issues and preventing anyone from reading or discussing anything of substance which undermines the entire purpose of this site. You can already vote Pro. Spam topics and debates should be deleted.
II. Offensive debates
Let's get to the meat of the disagreement. This debate was started when Con made a thread in response to the controversy Wylteds "rape battle" caused suggesting that DDO should implement his "free debate" policy where nothing was deleted. My response was to suggest that I was going to create a series of debates personally attacking Con and calling into question his mental capabilities. To his credit, Con did not suggest that I be censored from creating such debates, but any sound moderation policy would delete debates and threads that are direct personal attacks on other members. If the moderators don't delete debates or threads that are egregious attacks on other members, the forums will collapse into a series of flame wars and ad hominem attacks. Does Con want the forums looking like this?
The impact of this is twofold: Not only does it decrease productive dialogue between current members and would likely cause many to leave as nothing gets deleted and the site turns into a lesser version of 4chan, but it makes the site look *incredibly* bad and decreases the probability that more good members join. Particularly since DDO's algorithm for determining which deabtes get to the front page is based almost entirely on the amount of comments a debate receives, controversial and offensive debates quickly rise to the top, drowning out serious discussions. If I were looking to join a site to discuss serious issues and the first thing I saw was an incredibly stupid and knowingly shocking and offensive debate where the participants discussed which rape was "best", I would immediately look elsewhere. These kinds of topics certainly cost DDO valuable members, although how many we will never know. Still, this impact is far more valuable to the site than whatever benefit debates like the "rape battle" bring. During its run as the top debate advertised on the main page, Wylted's "rape battle" overshadowed the Bsh-Whiteflame debate which was by all accounts an excellent discussion. But instead DDO often presents to the world its most offensive and patently stupid debates. This is unfair to the site, its members, and anyone looking to join. And for what? So Wylted can get a few shock laughs in at the expense of rape victims? So that Malcolmxy can take over the main forum? I'll pass.
Debates containing explicit material such as pornography should be censored for the benefit of the large youthful population on this site and because except under rare circumstances contributes nothing to any intellectual discussion. There are things that Juggle simply should not tolerate that ought to be censored as they harm both the stated intent of this site and the members.
The vision of what DDO should be
My vision on what DDO should be isn’t too different then what it is now. DDO in the past has defended people’s right to free speech on the principle of ‘Free Debate’. You should debate anything that is debatable. Only by debating it will you know more about the subject.
What am I proposing?
I am proposing that one should have the right to ‘Free Debate’ which is the Entitlement to question, discuss, argue, dispute or contest any topic, concept or subject matter of one’s choosing without exception and not to be impeded, delayed, marginalised, edited or banned due to the subject matter within the debate being considered offensive, controversial or sensitive.
Two moderate proposals
A suggestion is instead of making the ‘most popular’ debates be a part of the front wall I would instead make the ‘most liked’ debates be a part of the front wall which was why the ‘Rape Debate’ was there as long as it was.
DDO should support these two moderate changes to the site which would be much more preferable then deletion of the sensitive, offensive or controversial debating.
The alternatives to the current system is for a debate section to be implemented for those who want to have rather unintellectual and controversial discussions.
The surreal, absurd, off topic, pointless, nonsensical or humour related debates should have a place on DDO. The alternative is to the current system is for a surreal debate section to be implemented for those who want to have a rather unintellectual and controversial discussion without much substance being attached to the debate itself.
There are currently ‘Troll Debates’ and ‘Rap Battles’ which to some should not have a place in DDO as they are not really considered debates. There are arguments that it in some way the fact that these exist on the site, devalues DDO because it has a right to be held. These debates may not have substance attached to them or contribute intellectually, to the possible very surreal discussion, the instigator and contender are having.
By DDO making this change by first officially recognising that ‘Rap Battles’ and ‘Troll Debates’ exist and secondly making changes to incorporating these types of debates into the system where these debates can be held and a place people will know what to expect will ensure that DDO presents itself as a place where one can and should freely debate anything and everything debatable without prejudice, interference or censorship.
The principle of free debate already exists
The gentleman’s agreement, the unwritten rule, the principle of ‘Free debate’ already exists. TUC which is responsible for monitoring debates to see if they are offensive or break any terms, code of conduct or general rules of the site. TUC said in the Wylted’s response to the rage forum that ‘this shows what our site is about’. This shows a moderator formally agreeing with Wylted’s right to hold such a debate and already shows the unwritten rule exists but the next step is to formally recognise the principle of ‘Free Debate’ in the system.
When does a debate about DDO become an agenda?
When you stop debating and start demanding. The discussion stops and this becomes an agenda for censorship. If you demand censorship on a site called debate.org and you are someone who gets easily offended and you want a debate taking down because you disagree with the debate then maybe the site isn’t for you.
The difference between Freedom of speech and an agenda are as follows.
Free speech is the right to say I disagree with you.
An agenda would be the goal to ban the subject or person you disagree with.
The principle of free debate is clear. Saying you disagree with someone is fine. The agenda of censorship is not.
If you ban one offensive controversial debate you must ban them all
If one debate is censored due to the sensitive topic of rape for example then other issues need to be censored as well. Anything related to genocide, abortion, religion, race and culture. Once you start giving into one group because they are offended. You must therefore give into other groups because are offended. You cannot make an exemption for one controversial topic and not for another controversial topics, you cannot priorities one controversial topic and put it above another. They are either all ok to talk about or none of them are.
Once you ban one debate then that will open Pandora’s Box and all hell will break loose and more restriction will follow. The purpose of the whole site is for Free Debate if you start banning one offensive debate after the next, the site can become unworkable. If you keep presenting new rules, the subjects you can debate might be so particular that you won’t be able to debate anything important.
Evidence that no one is harmed in debates
In my experience of this site since I have joined I have never seen a debate that has physically harmed an individual or mentally harmed them at home unless the individual chooses to personally take great offense to an issue debated. The offended individual sat at home must take an active decision to sit down and take time to read both sides of the debate instead of taking the sensible position of ignoring the debate if they do not believe the debate should exist at all.
Below are a few topics that some would find offensive.
Race- Arguing whether black or white people are better
Genocide- The contender argued that the holocaust was a good thing
Dead babies- Deciding who had the best dead baby jokes
Religion- This debate concentrates on the subject about wiping out religion
Islam-The next debate discusses whether Islam is hateful. This would be deeply offensive to Muslims.
What is offensive is in the eye of the beholder. How do you determine what’s offensive?
The word offensive can have different meanings to different people.
Who decides what is offensive?
How do measure what is offensive or and what isn't and how offensive is it?
Is it by the number of people who are offended?
Do we measure it by cultural significance and if so which culture?
How do you poll how offended people are in a poll?
Is it only the most vocal that matter because they are the only individuals we hear?
A test on what is offensive that can be testable and verifiable
I have created a very simple test below to gain evidence for the claim that what each individual finds offensive is different to what another individual finds offensive. I predict the evidence will show that not everybody will be offended by the same thing so therefore you can’t really define what is offensive to the community because what offends one person won’t offend another and like such you should not put what one person finds offensive over another and impose censorship accordingly.
I'm going to name 10 sensitive topics and you rank which is the most offensive to talk about, make fun of or debate.
I want you to rank them in order respective to which subject you are most offended by to talk about, make fun of or debate and a number from 1 to 10 how offensive they are to you.
The point of this exercise is to show that what one individual may rank in order what is the most offensive to them will most certainly be different to you. Reasons why someone maybe would find something more or less offensive then you, this maybe due to cultural reasons, personal experiences or family reasons. You might find for example 911 will be far more offensive to New Yorkers in America suffering first hand and higher on the list then to those in another part of the world.
There is no limit to censorship like there is no limit to freedom of speech.
Let's look first at Con's proposed changes. The problem with this argument is that despite members being overwhemingly in favor of having the front page debates decided by "likes" for several months at least, no action is currently occurring. Unless negating the resolution causes Juggle to suddenly take an interest in this site, he gains no advantage. Moreover while this would mitigate the impact of making the front page look bad, it still fails to outweigh the negative impact of the forums degenerating into flame wars and public call out threads, nor does it solve for bullied and harassed members leaving the site. The argument is nonresponsive to most of the disadvantages coming off the neg position.
Con offers another suggestion and that is to create a "troll" section of the site. I have three responses: The first is opportunity cost. The time Juggle spends developing a "troll" section could be better spent coding something that the members actually want like a team debate option. There's no reason to create a specially mandated section for trolling if we can simply remove debates and threads that are too offensive or devoid of merit. Secondly, this suffers the same flaw as his previous objection in that it's operating in a fantasy land where Juggle will actually implement the changes he wants. Basically what the resolution is going to boil down to is an analysis of how best to deal with the problems of spam and trolling with the resources we currently have--unless, that is, Con gives you a compelling reason to think his changes will actually happen. Third, the entire point of trolling is to get attention and to push the boundary. A specific "troll" section would just get ignored by people wishing to troll--and we have proof of this in the status quo. The "funny" section, the one most anaglous to what Con suggests, lies dormant and ignored. Moreover, Pro gets no solvency if he doesn't give moderators the ability to delete troll posts outside of the troll section. Given his position in the debate, attempting to respond to this objection by giving moderators deletion power in this circumstance would amount to a concession of the debate.
I assume Con is referring to TUF when he says "TUC", but the problem with Pro's argument is that TUF is not a moderator, so his opinion is no more important than anyone else's on this matter. Even if TUF were a moderator, this is just a baseless appeal to authority but if Con wants this debate judged by who the ultimate authority on this site agrees with, you're going to vote Pro. The fact that things get deleted in the status quo proves that much.
First, take Cons argument here about how we should value discussion as an implicit concession of my framework. Vote for whoever best allows for discourse on this site. Con strawmans my position by suggesting I want debates banned because I disagree with them, but if he actually read my arguments he would understand that my position is based on some debates such as personal attacks harming discourse by encouraging division between members and essentially poisoning the site, or spam drowning out any meaningful dialogue. Pretty much every day Airmax is forced to deleted dozens of identical spam threads created by members advertising their products, such as the infamous caste system hotline spammer.
Wanting to create an atmosphere friendly to debate on debate.org is hardly unreasonable.
=If you ban one you must ban them all=
This contention is just patently absurd. Con gives *literally* no warrant for his assertion that either everything is okay on the site or nothing is. The fact that we have a policy of deletion in the status quo disproves this entire contention because controversial topics are discussed *all* the time. We just don't allow Malcolmxy a soapbox to attack other members.
I can't emphasize this enough: You can throw out this entire contention because if it were true, we would already see these impacts happening and we don't. Where is this widespread censorship following the deletion of spam that Con predicts?
=No one is harmed=
Con says that no one is mentally harmed by debates because he's never seen it happen. Apparently Con doesn't believe that cyberbullying on this site exists because in his whopping two months here it's never crossed his path. Unofrtunately for Con and the site, it very much does happen. As a typical example, the member Beverlee was essentially bullied off the site after a member went on a personal attack laced tirade against her for several pages. This once active member has only made 6 posts in the 8 months since the incident. Once moderation was tightened to preclude personal attacks like this, the member who went on the tirade has not engaged in this kind of behavior since. This proves that moderation works.
Another example can be found in the history of the notable troll izbo10. As bluesteel explains:
"izbo *has* successfully convinced at least one new member to leave the site (although probably countless others as well). Izbo harassed and vote bombed Ninja_Tru for an RFD that Ninja_Tru left on one of izbo's debates. Izbo wrote Ninja_Tru the following RFD: "Reasons for voting decision: I didn't really read the debate, but then again neither does ninja before he votes, so i think he should lose a debate based on my vote as he did to me."... Ninja_Tru left the site shortly after izbo's harassment started. He has not logged in for 5 months."
Izbo's harassment of members stopped only when he was subjected to the ultimate form of censorship: banning.
Con basically engages in victim blaming when he says that the victim of personal attacks is making the choice to come to the site even though they're going to be attacked if they do so. This is true, but it's a choice they shouldn't have to be forced to make because DDO shouldn't become a platform for abuse. That Con seriously contends that the moderators should not intervene to stop people from being harassed is as good a reason to vote Pro as any. Cons position would force us to stand by idily as a child gets sexually harassed by an adult and indeed, when the notable troll "rationamadman" came back under a multiaccount a member who will remain anonymous disclosed to me that rationalmadman subjected them to sexual harassment in PMs. In the DDO truthbox, several disturbingly sexual and dark messages about an underage member had to be deleted. This kind of stuff happens *all the time* as the internet gives people a layer of anonymity to attack people. This is why we need moderation.
Pro contends that there is no clear mechanism to determine what is or isn't offensive--this is a disadvantage that I have to live with because it's true that there is some degree of subjectivity in these things. The problem for Con lies in the fact that this simply doesn't outweigh at all--if protecting members from being verbally or sexually harassed and fostering an environment that leads to productive discourse has the drawback of a few mod slip ups, I'll consider it a bargain.
Con shows that he doesn't understand free speech when he ends by saying that it has no limits. Not only does the right to free speech not exist in the private realm, and even in the public sphere is limited by such tests as the "clear and present danger" or "fighting words" doctrines.
The resolution is affirmed.
Do we need Elitism in DDO?
The fact that someone would only be on this site to have intelligent conversation shuts down the whole purpose of the site which is that it should be open to everyone regardless of someone’s intelligence, IQ, education or ability to articulate there points of view. For example there are those with the opinion that creationists are not intelligent because they push an opinion that intelligent design should be taught as a science in classrooms, there are some that would not see this as an intelligent conversation so the conversation should not be had.
“We should prefer whichever system is most conducive to intelligent debate”. “Vote for whoever best upholds this model”. This is not a dichotomy of ‘Free debate’ vs ‘Intelligent debate’.
The problem is that if we push for the idea of ‘intelligent debate’ which can clearly be open to interpretation brings up a few important questions such as:
Who decides what an intelligent debate is?
How would a system work where we could only have intelligent debates?
How would you define an ‘intelligent’ debate?
Can you restrict subjects, opinions and threads because they are not deemed intelligent?
Would that also mean any threads relating to popular culture references, rap battles and anything similar to celebrity worship should be banned?
Would there be two votes, one on what their opinion of the debate was and another to say who they agreed was?
If the site judged every single debate on whether it was intelligent or not that would not only create a very elitist system where only the educated and veteran debaters could continue to be on the site. This site would put off new comers from debating on the site and harm the DDO business due to the restrictions from engaging with as many people as possible and not only those who have a skill for debate or can articulate there point the best.
The removal of Spam isn't contradictary to 'Free Debate'
In my very short time of being a member of DDO which would be just over 2 months now. I have not seen any examples of spam in the system in any opinions, forums or debates.
This “caste fortune teller” which you mentioned might have only have been an isolated example and is simply a red herring which is only distracting from the real issue which is, does the site really have the right to take away people’s ability to freely debate as they wish without prejudice or censorship.
My position still remains clear which is proposing the policy of ‘Free debate’ which I have clearly defined and stated earlier and since spam does not count as an opinion and cannot be found to have any characteristics of a debate. This policy would not cover Spam in any way, shape or form so the policy of ‘free debate’ is not a contradiction to the removal of spam and therefore still remains a distracting red herring.
Brief statement on the Wylted debate
While it’s correct that this Debate did start due to the Wylted’s controversial ‘rape battle’, all this shows is that DDO took the right step to keep the debate ongoing until the debate was finished. I have outlined a suggestion instead of making the ‘most popular’ reaching the front page have the ‘most liked’ reaching the front page to prevent this isolated, storm in a teacup happening in future.
I have suggested in Round 1 a proposal to have a section for rather surreal threads, debates and opinions to be had. This proposal would ensure that threads, debates and opinions such as these left by one particular member of DDO would be part of the surreal section and leave constructive and important threads, debates and opinions to take place without these distracting threads.
This debate was a clear example of what DDO is willing to tolerate in order to uphold the basic principle of the sight which is the right to debate anything debateable regardless of the debate being offensive, controversial or sensitive.
DDO as a business should appeal to the widest audience
DDO is a business and by not having extremely intolerable standards that would put of casual users. DDO should instead opt for a more relaxed and flexible structure then the current deletion policy which keeps to a very stringent system which is not helpful to their overall appeal to a new young vibrant market.
The only thing that would be ‘unfair to the site, it’s members and anyone looking to join’ would be people looking to have a free debate about any subject without restrictions placed upon them from a minority of the membership who believes the debate they are having is offensive and want the site to enforce new rules just from them. This is called the ‘tyranny of the minority’ over the silent majority.
If anyone wishes to start up their own unworkable debate site with rules restricting any debate because people may find them offensive then go ahead. No one is stopping you.
The question of pornography
What is your definition of pornography? A couple of months ago in Iran some women were arrested for showing off their arms and head in a music video described by some religious leaders as pornography. If this were the case that we should show cultural sensitivity to not offend those with this precise definition of pornography then Pro’s profile picture would be the first to go as this to some would be the quintessential example of pornography.
You cannot sweep everyone with the same brush and we tolerate everyone’s opinions because we must accept that everyone is different and we should celebrate everyone’s different cultures, views and opinions because this is the platform of which DDO celebrates everyone’s differences. Peaceful Diversity is fine but it’s when restrictions harm that very idea that we should speak out. No one’s definitions or opinions is more important than anyone else’s so therefore should not take precedence one over the other.
The current system is unsustainable
Pro concedes that “members being overwhemingly in favor of having the front page debates decided by "likes"” and concedes that “this would mitigate the impact of making the front page look bad”. This moderate suggestion would be popular, solve the dilemma of troll debates ending up on the front page and can be described in other words as a no brainer and a rational step forward.
You cannot expect a few moderators to control the behaviour of about 200k members of DDO. This is impractical and like YouTube which cannot be expected to monitor all those members and the best way to not cause a flame war is to ‘not feed the troll’ and to ignore the behaviour of a few bad eggs.
Time, Money and effort could be saved in the long term if juggle were to create an absurd or surreal debate section instead of wasting their time down an unsustainable and time consuming path like Pro’s suggests deleting every single offensive debate. The membership of DDO is rising according to Airmax and has done so at an astronomical rate. The system at the current rate will soon become unsustainable as there will be too many debates, threads and opinions to monitor and delete. The best path to deal with surreal debates is for incorporation not deletion for sustainable and practical reasons.
Don’t feed the troll
I do concur that flame wars do exist and can often be caused by trolls looking for an argument but what can be called bullying and harassment is usually ordinary members engaging in these type of discussions. Flame Wars are too common on YouTube and the best advice that can be given is the popular coined phrase of ‘Don’t feed the Troll’ if you ignore the troll they will get bored and go away. The best way to put out the Flame war is don’t fight fire with fire, flame wars are often short and by engaging with trolls you are really only bringing yourself down to their level.
The best way of creating a friendly atmosphere for debating is by giving the membership the ability of debating anything debateable.
=How to judge=
Con is basing his entire strategy for winning this debate on the question of subjectivity--since Con contends that there's no real objective definition of what could be considered pornography or a personal attack mod slip ups are inevitable. This argument has to be ignored for third reasons: First, Con never demonstrated why this is bad. Sure, Airmax has to make judgement calls sometimes and he sometimes makes decisions that are questionable, but Con never showed how this is damaging to discourse. Where's the censorship? Second, like I said in my last round this is outwieghed by creating an intelligent and safe atmosphere for members. Third, this argument applies equally to all human laws even something as simple as moderation on a website. I could just as easily argue against criminalizing murder because there is no objectively agreed upon system of morality so what's really a murder? What separates human society from animal groupings is judgement, human societies implement and enforce rules and laws and while our systems do not ensure perfect outcomes, they're better than saying "screw it" and not even trying.
Compare this nebulous argument to the weighing system I've advocated throughout the round: that we should encourage a system that best allows for intellectual discourse. Con tries to brush this off as being "elitist". Reject this because even if this were true we should defer to Juggle's stated mission for this site over Cons calls for equality for spammers. Con *does not contend* any impact, all he has to offer is that there is no precise definition of what is an intelligent debate. This may be true, but any reasonable person can conclude that whatever your opinion of what an intelligent debate is, fostering a community where Malcolmxy can get on a soapbox to take over the forums (and knock down other conversations) and attack members runs contrary to it. Con strawmans this to mean that I want to go on a purge of people who have differing opinions or dissenting votes, but all I'm advocating is the *status quo* where we have these things but delete personal attacks, spam, and pornography among a myriad of other things. It is not my obligation to come up with a utopia that perfectly defines intelligent debate and enforces that, all I have to do is show that the status quo is better than Cons plan and I have.
Keep in mind as well that all of Con's arguments can be considered prima facie false unless he proves they are happening in the status quo because we don't have his system.
Thus you vote Pro because Con has utterly failed to show why his system is superior.
Vote Pro here for two reasons:
First, the definition *Con provided* of his free debate policy clearly says that *nothing* gets deleted. This clearly covers spam. Con shows his unfamiliarity with the DDO community by suggesting that spam is an isolated incident--several days in a row members have had to bump threads on the main page as it became awash with spam. Second, vote Con down here for trying to shift the goal posts. This is incredibly unfair to me as I've been arguing against the definition he provided for this entire round and now he tries to backpedal and say "oh nom that isn't what I meant" even though its *clearly* included in the definition. This kind of argumentation is bad for debate and should not be tolerated.
II. Offensive debates
Cons only response to my personal attacks argument is that he proposes on top of free debates to reform the way that things are displayed on the main page. Unfortunately for Con, he made absolutely no response to my argument that unless negating the resolution causes Juggle to implement these changes, he gains no advantage. In policy debate, there is an established principle called "fiat" which basically means that we wave a magical wand and assume that the resolution, and the affirmatives plan regarding the resolution, can actually be implemented--otherwise debates would become vote counting and arguments would sound like this: "Senator Reid supports the plan, card. Senator Hagan supports the plan, card". However, Con is *not* granted fiat for nontopical plans. His plans regarding a troll section and making front page debates be decided by upvotes are not moderation changes, so he doesn't gain any impact from them unless he proves that they're actually going to happen. That Con is relying upon nontopical plans to bolster his plan into feasibility shows how it isn't going to work. Vote Pro because I provide the best plan for solving the problems of trolling and spam within the contraints of reality.
Con also made no response to the argument that a troll section would be useless as trolls would just ignore it and that it is useless without moderation to force them to keep their nonsense out of the main forums.
Indeed, Con never disputes that causing the forums to be awash with personal attacks if there was no deletion and I showed an example of this. Con gives no reason why we should prefer his misreprentation of the right to free speech over creating a safe atmosphere for members.
Con cites the YouTube comment section and their (always ignored) mantra of "don't feed the trolls" as ideal. This is literally a better argument to vote Pro than anything I could've come up with. Con wants to take a special and unique site like DDO and turn it into the absolute mess that is the YouTube comment section on virtually every video. It's an unfair burden to throw upon our members to expect them not to respond to people attacking them and their character. Perhaps Con is right that fighting fire with fire is not always the best idea. I think, however, that we can agree that fighting fire with things that put fire out is better than ignoring it. By Cons own analogy, we ought to have moderation.
Con argues that Juggle should appeal to the widest audience possible and that the status quo is "a very stringent system which is not helpful to their overall appeal to a new young vibrant market." Again, Con shows that he knows absolutely nothing of the community he's recommending changes for because the *vast* majority of active members fall into what would be considered by any definition "young". Con does not prove that young people are turned off from the site by a moderation policy that protects members like Beverlee from being mercilessly bullied by an older man, or one that protects people from sexual harassment.
Con tries to argue against my pornography point that there is a grey area and therefore we should tolerate instances that are clearly not grey. Cons position would allow me to accept a debate from a 12 year old girl and post as my "argument" a video of two girls one cup. Con contradicts himself when he says he wants "peaceful diversity" and then rejects the only means a website has to keep peace: moderation.
Cons only real argument for why the status quo is bad is that it's untenable because "You cannot expect a few moderators to control the behaviour of about 200k members of DDO." Once more, Con shows he knows literally nothing about the sites community because the VAST VAST VAST majority of those 200k accounts are unused. The active community likely constitutes, at most, 150 members.
The resolution is affirmed.
Round 4-Last Rebuttal
The rules aren’t fit for purpose
1Pro fails to see that fact that if you cannot define what you are trying to ban and where the boundaries lie then the rules become pointless as they will be open to interpretation and you will not be able to enforce rules that don’t know what they are supposed to be aiming at.
Pro concedes that Airmax has to make judgement calls and sometimes makes ‘decisions that are questionable’ that’s is due to the current system we have which Pro only concedes that the system isn’t perfect and since Pro is defending the status quo pro must argue that the status quo doesn’t need changing. Pro has conceded that the rules don’t have a purpose as what they are aiming at can’t be defined so therefore the rules can’t enforce the idea they were originally intended so the rules become not fit for purpose.
Once again Pro is unable to define what counts as an intelligent and safe atmosphere.
Pro has once again failed to demonstrate why the current system passes the ‘Bright light test’. The bright line test is how you compare whether rules to be fit for purpose to which rules have to be clearly defined or else they cannot be enacted or enforced due to the endless debate on whether the rules apply in a case by case basis which is time consuming, takes a lot of effort and is costly. The rules are simply unworkable.
“The bright-line rule (or bright-line test) is a clearly defined rule or standard, generally used in law, composed of objective factors which leaves little or no room for varying interpretation. The purpose of a bright-line rule is to produce predictable and consistent results in its application.”
The question of pornography
I will acknowledge that Pro made the right decision in realising that offensive material subject matter is subjective and is open to interpretation so therefore cannot be defined and therefore cannot be enforced in a rules system.
Paedophilia should be reported and the law should take precedence over such a matter. Deleting the evidence would be an absolutely absurd idea and would only impede a court case that should be reported to the authorities and let them handle the situation which should take legal proceedings accordingly. The solution isn’t moderation but for the courts to take action where necessary. An action like that would be way above the authority of the site and enter the jurisdiction of the law. Moderation isn’t the answer reporting the act is. Pro has failed to define where the rules should apply to pornography.
Quick response to Pro’s statement of me
“I was going to create a series of debates personally attacking Con… To his credit, Con did not suggest that I be censored from creating such debates”
Actions should speak louder than words and one should honestly practice what one preaches. One should not ask off others what one is not willing to do himself so therefore if pro still wishes to post a thread attacking me, the offer is still open. My simple original reply to this was, “if it does not break my bones or pick my pocket then I am unharmed”.
Accept everyone’s differences through incorporation not censorship
“DDO often presents to the world its most offensive and patently stupid debates.”
The ‘most offensive and patently stupid debates’ is subjective to the eye of the beholder. I have listed links to debates on this site that could be considered far more offensive to some individuals then the one that was debated by Wylted. Everyone has different opinions and so therefore would react in different ways, not everyone was offended, some ignored the debate, some were offended by the debate and some found the debate funny. This claim of yours is logically incorrect as each individual will see things differently from different perspectives and will not see what is and isn’t offensive with the same eye.
The System needs changing
If Pro cannot define what is “too offensive” or “devoid of merit”. Then everything Pro says is simply meaningless on the matter as Con’s point in Round 2 shows that what is offensive is open to interpretation by the eye of the beholder so therefore cannot be defined or rules be implemented accordingly on what can be construed as offensive.
Pro has conceded that the status quo does not as what can be offensive can’t be defined and therefore the deletion power of DDO in this respect is undermined. Pro furthermore fails to understand the unsustainability of the current deletion policy model and why added members will put a strain on the moderator’s workload and take up time, effort and money which could be used improving and incorporating the system.
The strawman argument
“Con strawmans my position by suggesting I want debates banned”
Pro seems to be confused with what Pro’s position is and what Pro is actually proposing and defending. Con will clarify the statement. Con was bringing up the point that once Pro starts demanding that a debate or discussion be banned that is censorship and likewise due to Pro defending the position that one should have the ability of deleting a debate due to an individual being offended that’s what I was attacking.
Offensive debates CAN’T be defined
Pro has made a very important step forward and you have to admire pro for shifting position on the idea that the there is no mechanism to determine what is or isn’t offensive. If Pro wished to define what is or isn’t offensive. Pro would first need to answer all of Con’s questions from Round 1 and then make what Pro’s position on the definition of what constitutes offensive should actually be.
A summary of Pro’s position
The main problem with Pro’s argument in defending the current system is that the current system is unsustainable in the long term with expanding membership a fewer moderators to deal with the expanding issue. Like probation in America during the 1920’s, the problem is too big and the solution to deal with the problem is too small. Pro’s proposal is basically to empty the sea with a tea spoon, deletion can’t be the solution to the vast problem.
I predict within the next few years, the membership will grow beyond the moderators control and we will have a YouTube style system where there is far too much activity to monitor and control.
Vote for change
Vote for the system which best reflects your position and why you would like the system to evolve in the next couple of years. The proposals con has put forward are very moderate changes which is part of a gradual process towards the next step of where DDO should be in it’s never ending line of progression. The process is evolution not revolution and a vote for these proposals would be a small effort towards the natural progression of DDO and how it deals with future issues. To stand still is not the best option with the flaws of the system which have been discussed.
Vote for whoever offers the best proposals to the current system.
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|