Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Question to the community

innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 4:59:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Do you believe there should be a mechanism in place where we would be able to come to a decision to ban someone? Some sort of a consensus, or voting off the island sort of deal, or should it remain always within the realm of Juggle/Mod?

Should anyone be banned by community consent even if there is no blatant violation of the ToS, or perhaps there have been violations that have been not enforced?

If no, we shouldn't have such a community control, say no.

If yes, we should, please provide some details as to what sort of process you would like in place. Some may want an element of anonymity.

Thank you,
Your humble president.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 5:02:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Mob rule tyranny of the majority.

No.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
lddebater540
Posts: 42
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 5:04:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
There should be a mechanism by which debaters can cite individuals who have caused problems (a.k.a those who have trolled) and can vote en masse to block an individual's IP address, but I think ultimately there needs to be proof that an individual has violated the TOS before he can be banned. This will prevent the trolls from banding together to eliminate the good debaters and those who want to use the website to learn.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 5:07:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
There's so many people I'd like to ban, but I don't want to create an atmosphere conducive to a mobacracy. Then again, continual trolling should be a bannable offense, soooo.... Maybe
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 5:08:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
yes of course. This website is about interaction with other members. If the majority of the community comes to the decision that there are 1 or more people who are unwanted and degrading the site, they should have the power to ban him. In theory.

Who would qualify to vote? So long as I get to vote, I'm fine. :)
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 5:10:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I have to say I'm against direct votes leading to banning.

What would be more appropriate discussion is how to make it so Mods make it clear that they have considered a case. Possibly, this "mob rule" idea comes about because the Mods have made decisions, but due to lack of personal responses appear to be ignoring the situation.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 5:11:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 5:02:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Mob rule tyranny of the majority.

No.

Tyranny of the majority is usually better than tyranny of the minority.

However in this case, I still say no. Committees should be consulted, and members should be asked their opinion, but the final say should come down entirely to Juggle/mod.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
BennyW
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 5:11:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think having a group of people vote someone off could lead to people ganging up on someone. However, if enough people report someone it should be looked into and see if they deserve to be banned.
You didn't build that-Obama
It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 5:18:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Yes.

Needs to be not then just majority. A 10/9 vote shouldnt be enough to ban.

Someone needs to bring all evidence before a vote can happen. There should be plenty of evidence.

Enough people have to complain before a vote can happen. I personally don't want to see petition after petition in the forums. Maybe pm then when a certain number is reached a thread can be made.

The TOS isnt clear enough for the juggle to deal with it. Unless you want zackattack back banning for every report or mods that don't really know how to react to reports on certain subjects.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 5:23:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I suspect that the mods are deliberately letting the trolls stay because a. nearly all their threads are 30+ and b. they keep people online, responding. Trolls seem to have an immunity to the rules because their actions stimulate the website. I doubt that the mods would ban them, or let us ban them for that matter.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 5:25:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 5:23:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
I suspect that the mods are deliberately letting the trolls stay because a. nearly all their threads are 30+ and b. they keep people online, responding. Trolls seem to have an immunity to the rules because their actions stimulate the website. I doubt that the mods would ban them, or let us ban them for that matter.

I would think that too, however, the site has no ads to generate revenue (which is based on quantity, not quality). In order to try and guess their actions, we would need to know intentions for the site. What do they want? What are their goals? Then we can guess what actions would potentially fullfill those goals.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 5:35:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Using this mechanism, askbob would never of been banned even though he deserved it, because he was still well liked.

I don't like the idea of mobocracy either. The owners should ban a person not based on whether or not he or she is liked, but whether he or she breaks the TOS.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 6:25:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 5:04:55 PM, lddebater540 wrote:
There should be a mechanism by which debaters can cite individuals who have caused problems (a.k.a those who have trolled) and can vote en masse to block an individual's IP address, but I think ultimately there needs to be proof that an individual has violated the TOS before he can be banned. This will prevent the trolls from banding together to eliminate the good debaters and those who want to use the website to learn.

Like reporting comments and posts.
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 6:33:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 5:14:39 PM, feverish wrote:
So the whole site becomes one big mafia day phase, with lynching being a ban?

I say no.

But mafia is awesome...

And no.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
Tim_Spin
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 6:40:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I say no. Just because someone is unliked in the DDO community does not necessarily mean they have done anything to violate the TOS. Perhaps they're just an arsehole. If someone is violating the TOS or degrading the site(whatever that means), they can be reported. A better solution is more active modding which I'm pretty sure has been occurring.
Astonished, the talent agent asks the man what him and his family call their act.The man responds, "The Aristocrats!"
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 6:52:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 5:10:35 PM, Wnope wrote:
I have to say I'm against direct votes leading to banning.

What would be more appropriate discussion is how to make it so Mods make it clear that they have considered a case. Possibly, this "mob rule" idea comes about because the Mods have made decisions, but due to lack of personal responses appear to be ignoring the situation.

I agree with this. If someone is being a troll, the community can decide to alert Juggle.
ryan_thomas
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 7:03:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 4:59:52 PM, innomen wrote:
Do you believe there should be a mechanism in place where we would be able to come to a decision to ban someone? Some sort of a consensus, or voting off the island sort of deal, or should it remain always within the realm of Juggle/Mod?

Should anyone be banned by community consent even if there is no blatant violation of the ToS, or perhaps there have been violations that have been not enforced?

If no, we shouldn't have such a community control, say no.

If yes, we should, please provide some details as to what sort of process you would like in place. Some may want an element of anonymity.

Thank you,
Your humble president.

NO
All Hail Lord Ryan!
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 7:07:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 5:23:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
I suspect that the mods are deliberately letting the trolls stay because a. nearly all their threads are 30+ and b. they keep people online, responding. Trolls seem to have an immunity to the rules because their actions stimulate the website. I doubt that the mods would ban them, or let us ban them for that matter.:

I don't think the Mods even know it's happening. The Mods don't step in until somebody makes an official complaint, and even then they don't look at it. Somebody else does.

They're completely indifferent. They only care if there is a liability issue (like someone making death threats).
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 7:38:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Why not have a progressive "mobarchy", where, if enough people state they want a ban, it comes to the attention of a moderator (appointed by the people?) and THEN they can get banned.

Also, the person would require a percentile to be able to register someone as spamming imo.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 7:45:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Yes, we should have a mechanism that should work through the majority to ban any member on terms that he/she has violated the Terms several and multiple times....reports of conduct, instances of vote bombing, and more violations should be enough to warrant a ban.

However, such a mechanism could be easily manipulated, so I feel that there should be certain safeguards and measures to classify a member as being worthy of being banned....
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 7:50:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think the mobocracy concerns are ill-founded. We are a society of intellectuals; if there is a problem, we will discuss it, present our evidence, and decide. This isn't RL where there are swaths of ignoramuses being led like donkeys by campaigns and greed. Nobody here has a financial investment and everybody participating would be well informed by design.

What about Askbob? He would have been voted on and we would have reached an agreement. I'm not sure, actually, whether he would have been banned or not. That depends on the details of the system we use.

Would it be simple majority? I would push for simple majority because I don't believe in rules. Making a 3/4s or 2/3s rule, for instance, is arbitrary. If there is a concern, then we will discuss it and vote on the course of action. There should not be any restrictions on how we go about it...
Rob
Steve0Yea
Posts: 91
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 8:00:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 4:59:52 PM, innomen wrote:
Do you believe there should be a mechanism in place where we would be able to come to a decision to ban someone? Some sort of a consensus, or voting off the island sort of deal, or should it remain always within the realm of Juggle/Mod?

Should anyone be banned by community consent even if there is no blatant violation of the ToS, or perhaps there have been violations that have been not enforced?

If no, we shouldn't have such a community control, say no.

If yes, we should, please provide some details as to what sort of process you would like in place. Some may want an element of anonymity.

Thank you,
Your humble president.

Yes, but it needs to be set up differently than you are describing.

It should be set up like this, people submit trolls to be banned then the mod takes a look at the evidence and sets up some sort of vote somehow in this form
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"A user has been continuously submitted for ban, here are some examples of why people want him banned. What do you suggest we do?"

*Display examples*

A- Perm Ban
B- Temp Ban (Warning)
C- Verbal Warning and Three week suspension of forum rights
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This way it preserves the trolls and voters anonymity as to not cause bans because of personal beliefs. Different options can be created these are just examples.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 8:31:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 7:50:26 PM, Lasagna wrote:
I think the mobocracy concerns are ill-founded. We are a society of intellectuals; if there is a problem, we will discuss it, present our evidence, and decide. This isn't RL where there are swaths of ignoramuses being led like donkeys by campaigns and greed. Nobody here has a financial investment and everybody participating would be well informed by design.

What about Askbob? He would have been voted on and we would have reached an agreement. I'm not sure, actually, whether he would have been banned or not. That depends on the details of the system we use.

Would it be simple majority? I would push for simple majority because I don't believe in rules. Making a 3/4s or 2/3s rule, for instance, is arbitrary. If there is a concern, then we will discuss it and vote on the course of action. There should not be any restrictions on how we go about it...

You overestimate the rationality of intelligent people.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 8:40:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 8:31:17 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/17/2011 7:50:26 PM, Lasagna wrote:
I think the mobocracy concerns are ill-founded. We are a society of intellectuals; if there is a problem, we will discuss it, present our evidence, and decide. This isn't RL where there are swaths of ignoramuses being led like donkeys by campaigns and greed. Nobody here has a financial investment and everybody participating would be well informed by design.

What about Askbob? He would have been voted on and we would have reached an agreement. I'm not sure, actually, whether he would have been banned or not. That depends on the details of the system we use.

Would it be simple majority? I would push for simple majority because I don't believe in rules. Making a 3/4s or 2/3s rule, for instance, is arbitrary. If there is a concern, then we will discuss it and vote on the course of action. There should not be any restrictions on how we go about it...

You overestimate the rationality of intelligent people.

Or the ability to be swept by corruption. Even the most intelligent men can come to the temptation of power.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 9:08:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
No.

It will likely create an environment of members always on the lookout for who they want or don't want on this site which I don't think is healthy. Ban by community will inevitably turn into a popularity contest, which is the exact opposite of what makes a community that thrives on disagreement flourish.

I do think we can implement some more rules and encourage practices that would help deter unproductive members, but I think this is something that should only be controlled by the moderators or someone who is responsible for the site as a whole, rather then someone pointing a finger at someone else because they do not want them here.
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 9:55:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
No.

If the majority is of a certain view and the minority is of an opposing view, the small guys on the site will be stamped out. The mods see the situation from a detached perspective, keeping the site fair and balanced.
Andromeda_Z
Posts: 4,151
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 10:03:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
No. Mob rule is one thing, but this would be angry mob rule. If someone got to the point of bothering people so much that people began to vote on whether or not to ban, then they likely would be influenced by their emotions and unable to rationally decide whether or not a ban would be good idea. Moderators are more impartial.

I wouldn't mind members deciding to bring things to the mod's attention, but we can do that already using the reporting system.