Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Airmax admin weekly update 5/24/13

airmax1227
Posts: 13,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 9:27:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hey everyone,

How's it goin?

As promised, I am going to provide a weekly run down of what has been going on administratively in the past week.

So here's what's been goin' on:

1) Apeiron

This was talked about already at length, so I don't need to go into this much further.

I'd just like to add that probably the most significant offense in this ultimately wasn't the "multi accounting" pre se, but the use of another members account to violate site conduct.

Sola unfortunately and naively gave her account info to Apeiron who used it in a manner violating site rules. Members CAN NOT provide their account info to anyone. I'd just like to point out article F from the TOS to make this clear:

"Will not disclose your password or transfer your account to any third-party, or allow any third-party to access your account."

This is not only for the integrity of the site, but for the security of the user. While Sola will be given another chance to rejoin the site if she wishes, members need to be careful who they trust in general, and that they don't give away information that should remain private.

This was an unfortunate incident on the site, but I think many of us have learned something from the experience and hopefully we can prevent it from happening in the future.

Though I'm not going to answer any specific things related to site security, members are still free to ask if they have any questions about this issue.

2) RationalMadman

RM created a video that many members were sent last night and today. I don't have any comment on the content of the video itself, but what is important is that I need to let members know that they should not be posting profanity filled videos from banned members to the site (or profanity filled videos in general). If anyone has any questions about material like this in the future, they should contact me immediately and I will respond to their curiosity or concerns and take any further appropriate actions necessary.

If members have any specific questions about why the policy regarding posting this video is what it is, and why it is that way in general they are free to ask.

3) DDO debates

One tournament has been filled and will be started over the weekend. The other 3 still need members to sign up. So if you are a new member, sign up for the beginners tournament. If you are anyone else, sign up so you can potentially add your name to the list of DDO tournament winners and gain immortality, and also qualify for the DDO tournament of champions.

http://www.debate.org...

4) Team Debates

Since this is asked every week, I'll mention that there aren't any updates regarding team debates at the moment. But members are welcome to contact BladeRunner060 if they'd like to take part in team debates using special team debate accounts created in the interim.

...

So that's pretty much it this week. If members have any questions, they are free to ask.

As always, if anyone has any questions, concerns, comments, would like to offer their assistance, or anything else, they are always free to contact me.

Thank you.

Airmax1227
DDO President

Have a great weekend everyone.
Debate.org Moderator
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 9:42:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Do you see any problems with the current TOS (particularly regarding its (un)ambiguity as for what is worthy of a ban and what is not)?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
airmax1227
Posts: 13,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 9:51:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/24/2013 9:42:40 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Do you see any problems with the current TOS (particularly regarding its (un)ambiguity as for what is worthy of a ban and what is not)?

Not really. It's "all-encompassing". We can entirely censor the site of everything perceived by anyone to be violating the TOS in any way and ban a member the first time they violate a part of it. Or we can use it as a general guideline, but trust moderators who understands the site and community to use their judgement in coordination with other members to determine what should and shouldn't be acceptable on a case by case basis. This is up to the members of course, and for the most part the current moderation policies of the site seems to be accepted by them.

As always, I'd like to hear as much feedback as possible about that though.

No "site guidelines/rules manifest" will ever be perfect, and there will always be inconsistencies with how it is enforced.

Based on your question though, do you feel as though any member has ever been banned for ambiguous reasons? Or not been banned for reasons that appear to be unfair or inconsistent with general site banning policies?
Debate.org Moderator
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 9:55:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/24/2013 9:27:04 PM, airmax1227 wrote:

RM created a video that many members were sent last night and today. I don't have any comment on the content of the video itself, but what is important is that I need to let members know that they should not be posting profanity filled videos from banned members to the site (or profanity filled videos in general).

Oh, sorry. I didn't watch the whole thing before I posted it, so I didn't know it had a lot of profanity in it.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 10:20:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/24/2013 9:51:59 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/24/2013 9:42:40 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Do you see any problems with the current TOS (particularly regarding its (un)ambiguity as for what is worthy of a ban and what is not)?

Not really. It's "all-encompassing". We can entirely censor the site of everything perceived by anyone to be violating the TOS in any way and ban a member the first time they violate a part of it. Or we can use it as a general guideline, but trust moderators who understands the site and community to use their judgement in coordination with other members to determine what should and shouldn't be acceptable on a case by case basis. This is up to the members of course, and for the most part the current moderation policies of the site seems to be accepted by them.

As always, I'd like to hear as much feedback as possible about that though.

No "site guidelines/rules manifest" will ever be perfect, and there will always be inconsistencies with how it is enforced.

Would it not make sense, then, to have a TOS written to make clear the distinction between "acceptable (not banworthy)" and "unacceptable (banworthy)" instances of the (current*) rules being broken?

*(If the TOS were to be rewritten to deal with these kinds of situations, the rules would not have been broken)

Based on your question though, do you feel as though any member has ever been banned for ambiguous reasons? Or not been banned for reasons that appear to be unfair or inconsistent with general site banning policies?

I wouldn't say "inconsistent with general site banning policies", as there is a disconnect between what is included in the written TOS and the actions of the moderators. The actions of the moderators have been consistent, as the reasons given for each banning seem to be based on a consistent "metric", if you will. That metric, I must add, is perfectly fine. It is the disconnect between the TOS and this metric itself which I do not like.

If the TOS is able to be disregarded based on certain circumstances, either those circumstances should be included in the TOS or the TOS should not be there in the first place (in its current state, if there truly is this disconnect, the TOS loses its value).

The second option is extremely unlikely, as that would "unbind" moderators and allow them to excercise whatever arbitrary policies they wish. Juggle would, of course, not allow this and revoke the abilities of a moderator doing this, but this falls into the problem of a TOS being in place regardless (as the TOS would be Juggle's list of acceptable uses of mod powers). There would be no reason to hide this list, and doing so would create even more ambiguity regarding site rules.

All I'm asking for is the TOS to be updated regarding its use of "may" in "Any disregard for these rules or any of the other terms or guidelines may result in termination of a member's account." It is vital for the limits of power to be established in order to have clarity in all actions.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 10:27:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
As Rational pointed out, members such as Imabench have broken the written rules in the TOS. If the TOS were to be used as a guide for what is a bannable offense and what is not, it would follow that Imabench should have been banned. I feel as though I must make it clear that I am NOT claiming that Imabench should be banned, or that Rational should not have been. The circumstances are indeed different, and Imabench has not done anything that I view as being worthy of being expelled from the site. I just think that this should be reflected in the TOS more clearly than it currently is.

I'm sorry for my vaguely pedantic style of writing the previous two posts.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
airmax1227
Posts: 13,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 10:59:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/24/2013 10:20:31 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 5/24/2013 9:51:59 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/24/2013 9:42:40 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Do you see any problems with the current TOS (particularly regarding its (un)ambiguity as for what is worthy of a ban and what is not)?

Not really. It's "all-encompassing". We can entirely censor the site of everything perceived by anyone to be violating the TOS in any way and ban a member the first time they violate a part of it. Or we can use it as a general guideline, but trust moderators who understands the site and community to use their judgement in coordination with other members to determine what should and shouldn't be acceptable on a case by case basis. This is up to the members of course, and for the most part the current moderation policies of the site seems to be accepted by them.

As always, I'd like to hear as much feedback as possible about that though.

No "site guidelines/rules manifest" will ever be perfect, and there will always be inconsistencies with how it is enforced.

Would it not make sense, then, to have a TOS written to make clear the distinction between "acceptable (not banworthy)" and "unacceptable (banworthy)" instances of the (current*) rules being broken?

The TOS is a legal document protecting Juggle's property and any liability they may have in any legal situation.

If members want a detailed explanation of what is and isn't ban worthy conduct (while recognizing that things are looked at on a case by case basis, recognizing a members entire history) that I'm more than willing to provide a manifest of this sort, with the understanding that it isn't a legal document or up to be used in interpreting for arguments against why or why not a member has violated certain conduct expectations of the site.

In other words, if members aren't sure what is and isn't acceptable I'll provide a plainly worded guideline for it, but it wont be a 'site constitution' in any form to be used to lawyer ones way around misconduct.

The fact is, no member has ever been banned for accidentally violating a rule they weren't aware of. If they did violate any such rule, they were told about the site guidelines. If they violated it again they were either given a warning or temp-banned. Only after that has any member been perm-banned in the past year, with very few exceptions of love-spammers, ad-spammer, and similar situations in which a ban was necessary.

The put it bluntly, someone has to go out of there way to be banned, and it's impossible not to see a permanent ban from the site coming.


*(If the TOS were to be rewritten to deal with these kinds of situations, the rules would not have been broken)

If this is referring to this specific situation, it is incorrect.

Based on your question though, do you feel as though any member has ever been banned for ambiguous reasons? Or not been banned for reasons that appear to be unfair or inconsistent with general site banning policies?

I wouldn't say "inconsistent with general site banning policies", as there is a disconnect between what is included in the written TOS and the actions of the moderators. The actions of the moderators have been consistent, as the reasons given for each banning seem to be based on a consistent "metric", if you will. That metric, I must add, is perfectly fine. It is the disconnect between the TOS and this metric itself which I do not like.

The moderation of the site is more lenient than the TOS. The TOS isn't something used for this process, but a consideration for what is in the best interests of the site, the community and the integrity of the site in general. Once again, the TOS is a legal document protecting Juggle from liability and not a general guideline for site conduct, though it may be used to that end to make it simpler for members violating expected conduct to understand.

By far, the majority of members have no problem with not ever significantly violating the TOS/or site conduct expectations in such a way that requires them to even be warned about their conduct. Breaking it down into more specific aspects to make members more aware of what they need to avoid doing seems unnecessary and ultimately only going to be useful for those whose conduct is borderline or worse anyway.

Nonetheless, I think breaking down a few key points and listing the sites significant conduct issues is not a bad idea, and would be useful for me to post in the future.

If the TOS is able to be disregarded based on certain circumstances, either those circumstances should be included in the TOS or the TOS should not be there in the first place (in its current state, if there truly is this disconnect, the TOS loses its value).

Once again, the TOS isn't the basis for moderation, but upon what is best for the site and the opinions of mature and responsible adults. If members struggle with what would be perceived as proper and improper conduct that could be viewed as negative in such a way, they are free to ask the appropriate parties. The grey areas are naturally where there are issues, but no one has ever been banned or temp-banned for a grey area of site conduct.

The second option is extremely unlikely, as that would "unbind" moderators and allow them to excercise whatever arbitrary policies they wish. Juggle would, of course, not allow this and revoke the abilities of a moderator doing this, but this falls into the problem of a TOS being in place regardless (as the TOS would be Juggle's list of acceptable uses of mod powers). There would be no reason to hide this list, and doing so would create even more ambiguity regarding site rules.

Site rules are interpretative and perhaps ultimately subjective. A basic guideline can be established so that members know what line not to cross (and in this case ultimately will likely lead to some members using this guide to go to that line and then stop right there) and what basic guidelines should be followed. But most members seem to already know where that is.


All I'm asking for is the TOS to be updated regarding its use of "may" in "Any disregard for these rules or any of the other terms or guidelines may result in termination of a member's account." It is vital for the limits of power to be established in order to have clarity in all actions.

As I said above, no member has ever been permanently banned without having an awareness that their actions would lead to the result it did. If the member was permanently banned and didn't have this understanding, then their inability to understand the most basic conduct expectation of the site justified their being banned, and was done so because it was in the best interests of the site.

I'd like to add that, as controversial as this statement might be, the use of the term "it violates the TOS" in reference to some kind of violation is generally arbitrary in the context of the above. At no point in warning a member of their conduct have I ever used this as a sole explanation for why they were being warned or temp banned. Instead, at their request, I have provided an in-depth explanation for how their conduct effects the site negatively and why it can't be allowed. The community as well can expect such an explanation any time a member's activity is deemed worthy of any kind of disciplinary action. However, most don't even ask, because the reason such activities aren't allowed, is generally obvious.
Debate.org Moderator
airmax1227
Posts: 13,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 11:21:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/24/2013 10:27:58 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
As Rational pointed out, members such as Imabench have broken the written rules in the TOS. If the TOS were to be used as a guide for what is a bannable offense and what is not, it would follow that Imabench should have been banned. I feel as though I must make it clear that I am NOT claiming that Imabench should be banned, or that Rational should not have been. The circumstances are indeed different, and Imabench has not done anything that I view as being worthy of being expelled from the site. I just think that this should be reflected in the TOS more clearly than it currently is.

I'm sorry for my vaguely pedantic style of writing the previous two posts.

Since the situations are indeed different there is no valid comparison. If Imabenches activities have violated any portion of the sites expectations of conduct or the TOS in a significant way, I assure you he has been warned about them. If anything was significant enough, further actions were taken. I don't publicly report what disciplinary actions are taken with regards to all circumstances. If I didn't make it publicly known (As I don't because I don't see the point of publicly shaming members for their actions) about how a members actions were dealt with, that doesn't mean something wasn't done.

In Imabench's case while certain things may have been done, I don't agree that anything he has done has yet warranted a temp ban and especially not a perm-ban. Does anyone disagree? If they do they should feel free to express this and a productive conversation about the expectations of site conduct and how they should apply in general and to Imabnech can take place.

There are a lot of grey areas in which I'm not always 100% sure what should be done, so I seek the advice of many members. But like I said above, no member has ever been banned because of a grey area. If a member doesn't want to get banned, and are capable of following the most basic concepts of proper conduct, they are fully aware of the things that they shouldn't be doing, and wont ever get banned.
Debate.org Moderator
airmax1227
Posts: 13,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 11:26:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I do think that a basic guideline for site conduct may be a valuable tool though for clarifying a lot of things. I'm not entirely sure what this would look like, and how it would ultimately come together and what it would ultimately mean for the site, but if anyone has any interest in working on this concept with me, please contact me via PM.
Debate.org Moderator