Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Ethics of holding "trials" for DDO members

F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 9:44:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Izbo10 was placed on trial and banned. It garnered a lot of attention specifically because it is unique and the site has never seen one like it before. Now, 16kadams is being put on trial to have his voting privileges taken away.

I question how ethical is it to leave important matters such as the banning and voting privileges in the hands of the majority as opposed to the moderators. DDO has over 50,000 members, most of whom have 1 or 2 debates or haven't debated at all. Even the most active members of the site have been known to get into flame wars especially the ones who joined in the past few months. I find it a stretch to believe members who have a vested interest in 16kadam's ability to vote will vote fairly in a debate over whether he should have voting privileges.

Also, the other thing that bothers me most is the drama that comes from these "trials." The trials here were essentially made to punish misbehavior and violation of site rules. Any misbehavior in real life is usually handled discreetly. If a student in college or school is caught cheating, the instructor/university handles it away from the eyes of other students to respect the privacy of the cheater. There is no public trial held to determine whether they are cheating. Why make a "trial" and publicly air all the dirty laundry of anyone accused?

The debate about whether mods should reveal information that goes on behind the scenes has been debated before by Innomen and his competition. I have always agreed with Innomen that he shouldn't disclose most of what goes on behind the scenes. Why then, are we willing to make trials for people which I strongly suspect is at least partly for the entertainment?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 9:55:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Under ordinary circumstances, you would be right. However, I think the nature of the issue with 16kadams necessitates an official input of public opinion, as did Izbo's.

Innomen does not hold a trial everytime he bans a spammer or a multiaccounter. He doesn't mention it either. The reason why Izbo needed a trial was because the decision was controversial. Did Izbo have a right to speak his mind, or did we need to maintain order? That trial set the precedent for what levels of insult and misdemeanor will not be accepted.

16kadams is controversial as well. Most people believe he votebombs. Most people believe he has had multiple accounts to boost ratings. The decision is not obvious, and its an issue that has affected the entire active community, so naturally it warrants a public trial.

I understand why you're annoyed by the ostentation of it all, but its necessary and justified. This argument has been going on for months and the kid doesn't learn. People tell him to stop votebombing debates, he continues voting carelessly anyway. A trial is fair.
"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
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 10:10:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 9:55:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
Under ordinary circumstances, you would be right. However, I think the nature of the issue with 16kadams necessitates an official input of public opinion, as did Izbo's.

Innomen does not hold a trial everytime he bans a spammer or a multiaccounter. He doesn't mention it either. The reason why Izbo needed a trial was because the decision was controversial. Did Izbo have a right to speak his mind, or did we need to maintain order? That trial set the precedent for what levels of insult and misdemeanor will not be accepted.

16kadams is controversial as well. Most people believe he votebombs. Most people believe he has had multiple accounts to boost ratings. The decision is not obvious, and its an issue that has affected the entire active community, so naturally it warrants a public trial.

I understand why you're annoyed by the ostentation of it all, but its necessary and justified. This argument has been going on for months and the kid doesn't learn. People tell him to stop votebombing debates, he continues voting carelessly anyway. A trial is fair. - agreed

These very discrepancies is why we are having the trial.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 1:18:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
My thoughts on DDO Trials:

The decision to put a user on open trial instead of direct ban should be based on the following criteria:

1. Conflicting interests between Moderator and accused
(Ex. Izbo calls Inno offensive names)

2. As a last means of appeal for users who have been warned/threatened with banning.
This implies an informal double-jeopardy. That is, if Member X thinks the Moderator will ban him unjustly, Member X should be allowed to ask for his case to brought to court. If he is found innocent for that "crime" the Moderator shouldn't ban him for it. However, the Mod may ban him for any "crime" not mentioned in the court case.

3. Controversial Grounds for Banning
If the evidence/argument for banning has no precedent or appears arbitrary, the moderator may elect to place the issue in open court where the issue can be openly thought out.

4. Pertinence
How important is it to immediately address a user's behavior? Would a guilty verdict benefit DDO as a whole (ex. spammers) or simply a partisan group?

5. Moderator Preference
While DDO users are free to ask for as many trials as they want, the decision to implement a trial remains entirely with the moderator. Moderators reserve the right to ban users without recourse to a trial. Moderator reserves the right to disband the court system. If that bothers you, feel free to vote with your feet.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 1:46:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 1:18:01 AM, Wnope wrote:
My thoughts on DDO Trials:

The decision to put a user on open trial instead of direct ban should be based on the following criteria:

1. Conflicting interests between Moderator and accused
(Ex. Izbo calls Inno offensive names)

2. As a last means of appeal for users who have been warned/threatened with banning.
This implies an informal double-jeopardy. That is, if Member X thinks the Moderator will ban him unjustly, Member X should be allowed to ask for his case to brought to court. If he is found innocent for that "crime" the Moderator shouldn't ban him for it. However, the Mod may ban him for any "crime" not mentioned in the court case.

3. Controversial Grounds for Banning
If the evidence/argument for banning has no precedent or appears arbitrary, the moderator may elect to place the issue in open court where the issue can be openly thought out.

4. Pertinence
How important is it to immediately address a user's behavior? Would a guilty verdict benefit DDO as a whole (ex. spammers) or simply a partisan group?

5. Moderator Preference
While DDO users are free to ask for as many trials as they want, the decision to implement a trial remains entirely with the moderator. Moderators reserve the right to ban users without recourse to a trial. Moderator reserves the right to disband the court system. If that bothers you, feel free to vote with your feet.

To be perfectly honest, I think inno needs to set down the ground rules to the trial requirements and make them public. Also, double-jeopardy in these trials would bog things down because the limiting factors would not come down to "one piece of evidence" but rather a massive amount at once. In addition, it means that after being tried and not convicted, one can simply spam to heart's content as none of the old evidence can be used, and the line has basically been reset. The "unless substantial & new evidence arises" caveat would be beneficial here.

Moreover, the punishment is agreed upon between the judge and prosecutor if tried, and then the defence if convicted. This system would work better, methinks.
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...
PlanetTutTutTurtle
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 7:07:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 9:44:11 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Izbo10 was placed on trial and banned. It garnered a lot of attention specifically because it is unique and the site has never seen one like it before. Now, 16kadams is being put on trial to have his voting privileges taken away.

I question how ethical is it to leave important matters such as the banning and voting privileges in the hands of the majority as opposed to the moderators. DDO has over 50,000 members, most of whom have 1 or 2 debates or haven't debated at all. Even the most active members of the site have been known to get into flame wars especially the ones who joined in the past few months. I find it a stretch to believe members who have a vested interest in 16kadam's ability to vote will vote fairly in a debate over whether he should have voting privileges.

Also, the other thing that bothers me most is the drama that comes from these "trials." The trials here were essentially made to punish misbehavior and violation of site rules. Any misbehavior in real life is usually handled discreetly. If a student in college or school is caught cheating, the instructor/university handles it away from the eyes of other students to respect the privacy of the cheater. There is no public trial held to determine whether they are cheating. Why make a "trial" and publicly air all the dirty laundry of anyone accused?

The debate about whether mods should reveal information that goes on behind the scenes has been debated before by Innomen and his competition. I have always agreed with Innomen that he shouldn't disclose most of what goes on behind the scenes. Why then, are we willing to make trials for people which I strongly suspect is at least partly for the entertainment?

If you're live in America, do you not get to vote just because you know anything about politics? No, everyone over eighteen votes, you know, unless they're a convict. So why wouldn't members with only one or two debates not get to vote? They probably wouldn't even vote anyway...
We all secretly love the trolls.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 7:44:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 9:44:11 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Izbo10 was placed on trial and banned. It garnered a lot of attention specifically because it is unique and the site has never seen one like it before. Now, 16kadams is being put on trial to have his voting privileges taken away.

I question how ethical is it to leave important matters such as the banning and voting privileges in the hands of the majority as opposed to the moderators.

Absolutely. What authority are you giving to the mods that you believe regular members like you and I shouldn't have? On what grounds? Are you saying mods are "professional DDOers" while we're just noobs?

DDO has over 50,000 members, most of whom

...don't even sign on.

Why make a "trial" and publicly air all the dirty laundry of anyone accused?

Why remain furtive about someone's misbehavior? Sounds like a nice deterrent, on top of everything else.

The debate about whether mods should reveal information that goes on behind the scenes

Why on earth should there be a "behind the scenes?"

has been debated before by Innomen and his competition. I have always agreed with Innomen that he shouldn't disclose most of what goes on behind the scenes.

Booo. Wtf. Hell no. I accept society as it is, but I also consider it defunct.

Why then, are we willing to make trials for people which I strongly suspect is at least partly for the entertainment?

Wtf? Because it's entertaining. Because it's a deterrent. Because it's fun and interesting and above all else, fair and sensible. Think about it.

If most people didn't want you here, then really, like, really, what is the point of coming around? All you can do is type of folk and if they don't like you, they probably won't be inclined to read it or if they do, take it seriously.
Calvincambridge
Posts: 1,141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2012 7:50:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Its the inquisition.
Trying to figure out women is like trying to solve a Rubik's cube with missing pieces. While blind. And on fire. And being shot.-Agent_Orange
Dude. Shades
That is all.- Thaddeus Rivers
One thing that isn't a joke though is the fact that woman are computers.Some buttons you can press and it'l work fine, but if you push the wrong one you'll get the blue screen of death.
silly, thett. girls are only good for sex. being friends with a female is of no value.-darkkermit
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2012 9:50:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I wouldn't mind the Mod making the decision without a trial, but if it's a complicated situation it's reasonable for the Mod to ask for all the evidence and arguments. That's an extra measure of fairness.

In Izbo's trial, the decision was made by a jury selected by innomen, not by all the members. The decision was unanimous.
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2012 9:59:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/8/2012 9:50:40 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I wouldn't mind the Mod making the decision without a trial, but if it's a complicated situation it's reasonable for the Mod to ask for all the evidence and arguments. That's an extra measure of fairness.

In Izbo's trial, the decision was made by a jury selected by innomen, not by all the members. The decision was unanimous.

the thing with 16kadams is that this isnt a ban or dont ban situation there is popular consent that if found guilty he should lose voting rights but not be banned, so to be fair theres the trial to prove guilt and the mod abilities to determine the sentence...
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015