Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

When Should Someone Be Banned?

YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 3:12:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
In another thread, I talked about censorship and banning someone and distinguished between what banning is, what internet censorship is and why they are not the same thing. I outlined a general framework for when someone should be banned, but I want to in this thread explain that framework and its criteria.

I said a minute ago that as a general rule, whenever members demonstrate at least three of the following: (1) a repeated inability or unwillingness to treat others with respect, (2) fail to post only material that is reasonably acceptable by community standards, (3) refuse to not harass other members despite repeated moderator warnings, and (4) actively target or harass specific members on a repeated occasion without provocation, that member can and should be banned.

I have already mentioned that to ban someone is not to necessarily censor what they say, so long as the person who is banned retains the liberty to join other online communities. If someone has internet access, they always have the liberty to join other online communities. So, we can't really call banning someone an act of general internet censorship.

Before I say any more, I want to talk about being averse to banning people, and what I think about it. I hate the idea of banning people. I really do. I know that might be hard for some to accept because I talk about banning a lot, but I want to be very clear when I say that I do not take pleasure in arguing for someone's being banned or the act of actively kicking someone out of this community.

I also want to say that the degree of a person's offenses to get banned has to be very, very high. They have to cause a lot of damage, which is why I'm generally averse to banning members because they've only posted a lot of joking spam in the misc section or even done some really bad things to a few members. The reason is because banning someone is not an ideal solution.

An ideal solution is to get the troublesome member to reform their behavior, and in every case that anyone has been banned, they have been repeatedly warned by moderators that if they do not change the way they act, there will be consequences.

However, if, after a member has been repeatedly warned to reform their behavior, they have consistently refused to do so, if they are not banned then those warnings mean nothing and the rules which required those warnings have no value.

To clarify, there are rules that DDO has: the Terms of Service, or, after Juggle's last big update, the Terms of Use.

Here they are: http://www.debate.org...

They're pretty strict, and no one want's them enforced to the letter because we've all done things that fall outside the parameters of acceptable conduct, as they are defined. And, if only some rules are enforced and others are not, there is a risk that the moderators might be criticized as arbitrary -only enforcing the rules they want too.

The problem with that is that there are very, very few people who are actually privy to a majority of the member dispute resolution stuff that takes place. Airmax, Ore-Ele and the people they seek counsel from are the only ones who have any idea. The reason for that is because the moderators believe that public shame isn't an acceptable way to punish members -but the moderators want to be sure they're doing the right thing so they seek out other's opinions. That's both the reason why trials are so sparse, why most "enforcement" happens outside the scope of DDO's general view and why most of the time when people are banned, it's done so quietly. But that's enough talk of the process... now, let's get back to the framework.

Members who demonstrate (1) a repeated inability or unwillingness to treat others with respect, (2) fail to post only material that is reasonably acceptable by community standards, (3) refuse to not harass other members despite repeated moderator warnings, and (4) actively target or harass specific members on a repeated occasion without provocation, by the very nature of their actions, act against the letter of the TOS and the spirit of what this site is about.

There is no productive and free exchange of ideas where members cannot talk to one another without respecting one another. That is not to say that all members are worthy of equal respect, but some minimum threshold of politeness is required for any conversation about anything to be meaningful. There is nothing of value advanced by members post abusive, obscene, prurient, or unlawful content. So, members cannot harass other members, cyberstalk other members, or post illegal sexual content. That doesn't mean that a casual insult is harassment, that sending someone a few private messages is cyberstaling or that any content that is sexual is always unacceptable. It means that when members repeatedly do things that hurt other people or are not acceptable by community standards, they have no right to be here.

While this is a debate site, and the free exchange of ideas is an indispensable value, when members act in ways that render the free exchange of ideas impossible, and actively harm other members in a repeated way despite numerous moderator warnings, they have no place on this site.
Tsar of DDO
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 8:07:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 3:12:17 PM, YYW wrote:
Whenever they really piss airmax off.

Fixed it.
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 8:30:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
When Should Someone Be Banned?

My vote goes to "When they make idiotic 'secret' clubs that do nothing but spam crap all over DDO."
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
NightofTheLivingCats
Posts: 2,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 8:44:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 8:30:57 PM, imabench wrote:
When Should Someone Be Banned?

My vote goes to "When they make idiotic 'secret' clubs that do nothing but spam crap all over DDO."

DDO Elite?
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 8:45:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 8:30:57 PM, imabench wrote:
When Should Someone Be Banned?

My vote goes to "When they make idiotic 'secret' clubs that do nothing but spam crap all over DDO."

Like your legions of trolls? :P
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 8:46:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 8:45:13 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 3/4/2014 8:30:57 PM, imabench wrote:
When Should Someone Be Banned?

My vote goes to "When they make idiotic 'secret' clubs that do nothing but spam crap all over DDO."

Like your legions of trolls? :P

I dont have legions, I have people who think im funny but thats about it :P
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
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 8:47:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 8:46:30 PM, imabench wrote:
At 3/4/2014 8:45:13 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 3/4/2014 8:30:57 PM, imabench wrote:
When Should Someone Be Banned?

My vote goes to "When they make idiotic 'secret' clubs that do nothing but spam crap all over DDO."

Like your legions of trolls? :P

I dont have legions, I have people who think im funny but thats about it :P

And the amount of people that think you are funny range from 3,000-6,000 drunk people (A.K.A Ancient Romans) so it fufils the definition of "legion."
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
madness
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 8:59:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hello, I think I'm unable to make new polls, it was going to be the best poll I've ever made. Does This mean I might be banned?
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 9:03:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 8:59:48 PM, madness wrote:
Hello, I think I'm unable to make new polls, it was going to be the best poll I've ever made. Does This mean I might be banned?

You might be restricted for making pretty offensive and extremely loaded polls. Also you were an outward d!ckhole in the comments. I'm surprised you didn't get temp banned at least.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 9:36:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There are those who would argue that precluding obscene things (if anyone has failed to comprehend this by now, I'm only talking about pedophilia, beastiality or incest) isn't a good idea because doing so risks some degree of arbitrariness in enfacement. The argument reduces to "because there could be an instance where someone who was not advocating for obscenity might be banned if we as a community agree that advocating for pedophilia, beastiality or incest is unacceptable, we should allow DDO to be used as a platform to discuss pedophilia, beastiality or incest."

Consider something that is, perhaps, less controversial: murder. We all agree that murder is a universally bad thing. Intentionally and unjustifiably killing another person isn't good. But, there remains a possibility that someone, might, in some instance, be falsely accused of and charged with murder. Such a person might even be sentenced to death, in an instance of judicial miscarriage. I think that in such a case, we can all agree that in such an instance, the criminal justice system would have failed. Even still, that is not a reason to make murder legal.

That a law might potentially not be properly enforced is an issue with enforcement and not with the merits of any given law. The same principle applies to rules governing what is permissible to post on DDO. Not allowing DDO to be used as a platform for advocating for pedophilia, beastiality or incest does not mean that the free exchange of ideas on this site has meaningfully suffered. Even if what I'm saying does amount to a very specific kind of censorship in a very specific case (whenever someone advocates for pedophilia, beastiality or incest, i.e. something obscene), that doesn't mean that the costs of that censorship outweigh the benefits of pedophilia, beastiality or incest not being advocated for on this site.

The implication that you all ought to realize is that to oppose this is to say that you are ok with pedophilia, beastiality or incest being advocated for on this site. I categorically am not. I would hope that even those who don't like me (and I know there are a few) would have the presence of mind and fortitude of character to see past their incredulity and do what is in this community's best interest. This is a very limited proposal, to address a very specific problem -and nothing more. Only advocacy for pedophilia, beastiality or incest becomes impermissible for discussion on this site. That is all....
Tsar of DDO
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 9:38:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
When Should Someone Be Banned? That is totally dependent on where you stand with in the food chain.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 9:40:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 9:38:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
When Should Someone Be Banned? That is totally dependent on where you stand with in the food chain.

No, it's not. The point of this thread is not to say "whenever [x] person doesn't like [y] person that [y] person should be banned" nor is it about advancing the idea that "whenever [x] person is higher on the food chain (whatever that means), than [y] person, that [y] person should be banned."
Tsar of DDO
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 9:42:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 9:40:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/4/2014 9:38:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
When Should Someone Be Banned? That is totally dependent on where you stand with in the food chain.

No, it's not. The point of this thread is not to say "whenever [x] person doesn't like [y] person that [y] person should be banned" nor is it about advancing the idea that "whenever [x] person is higher on the food chain (whatever that means), than [y] person, that [y] person should be banned."

The point of your thread is commendable. But realty is a different animal.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 9:42:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 9:40:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/4/2014 9:38:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
When Should Someone Be Banned? That is totally dependent on where you stand with in the food chain.

No, it's not. The point of this thread is not to say "whenever [x] person doesn't like [y] person that [y] person should be banned" nor is it about advancing the idea that "whenever [x] person is higher on the food chain (whatever that means), than [y] person, that [y] person should be banned."

The point of your thread is commendable. But reality is a different animal.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 9:43:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 9:42:23 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/4/2014 9:40:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/4/2014 9:38:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
When Should Someone Be Banned? That is totally dependent on where you stand with in the food chain.

No, it's not. The point of this thread is not to say "whenever [x] person doesn't like [y] person that [y] person should be banned" nor is it about advancing the idea that "whenever [x] person is higher on the food chain (whatever that means), than [y] person, that [y] person should be banned."

The point of your thread is commendable. But realty is a different animal.

I'm just shocked that people think this is a controversial position. As if they would want this website to be a place to advocate for pedophilia, beastiality or incest... it's astonishing.
Tsar of DDO
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 9:51:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 9:43:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/4/2014 9:42:23 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/4/2014 9:40:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/4/2014 9:38:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
When Should Someone Be Banned? That is totally dependent on where you stand with in the food chain.

No, it's not. The point of this thread is not to say "whenever [x] person doesn't like [y] person that [y] person should be banned" nor is it about advancing the idea that "whenever [x] person is higher on the food chain (whatever that means), than [y] person, that [y] person should be banned."

The point of your thread is commendable. But realty is a different animal.

I'm just shocked that people think this is a controversial position. As if they would want this website to be a place to advocate for pedophilia, beastiality or incest... it's astonishing.

That's what people said when gay marriage hit the seen. You need to come to terms with it. Times are changing and attitudes are changing. People are way past gay marriage. They are all about multiple parents and polygamy now. Pedophilia is a viable argument in today's world. It is practiced around the world. Don't be surprised if you are treated the same way people who opposed gay marriage were. Get with the program buddy, you best get used to pedophilia and the idea of it. Or risk being labeled a racist bigot.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 9:53:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 9:51:59 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/4/2014 9:43:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/4/2014 9:42:23 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/4/2014 9:40:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/4/2014 9:38:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
When Should Someone Be Banned? That is totally dependent on where you stand with in the food chain.

No, it's not. The point of this thread is not to say "whenever [x] person doesn't like [y] person that [y] person should be banned" nor is it about advancing the idea that "whenever [x] person is higher on the food chain (whatever that means), than [y] person, that [y] person should be banned."

The point of your thread is commendable. But realty is a different animal.

I'm just shocked that people think this is a controversial position. As if they would want this website to be a place to advocate for pedophilia, beastiality or incest... it's astonishing.

That's what people said when gay marriage hit the seen. You need to come to terms with it. Times are changing and attitudes are changing. People are way past gay marriage. They are all about multiple parents and polygamy now. Pedophilia is a viable argument in today's world. It is practiced around the world. Don't be surprised if you are treated the same way people who opposed gay marriage were. Get with the program buddy, you best get used to pedophilia and the idea of it. Or risk being labeled a racist bigot.

If opposing DDO's being used as a platform for advocating pedophilia, beastiality or incest makes me a bigot, than i'll wear that hat with pride.
Tsar of DDO
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 12:48:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Can anyone from this thread answer my question for over here: http://www.debate.org...
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 3:57:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 9:53:16 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/4/2014 9:51:59 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/4/2014 9:43:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/4/2014 9:42:23 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/4/2014 9:40:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/4/2014 9:38:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
When Should Someone Be Banned? That is totally dependent on where you stand with in the food chain.

No, it's not. The point of this thread is not to say "whenever [x] person doesn't like [y] person that [y] person should be banned" nor is it about advancing the idea that "whenever [x] person is higher on the food chain (whatever that means), than [y] person, that [y] person should be banned."

The point of your thread is commendable. But realty is a different animal.

I'm just shocked that people think this is a controversial position. As if they would want this website to be a place to advocate for pedophilia, beastiality or incest... it's astonishing.

That's what people said when gay marriage hit the seen. You need to come to terms with it. Times are changing and attitudes are changing. People are way past gay marriage. They are all about multiple parents and polygamy now. Pedophilia is a viable argument in today's world. It is practiced around the world. Don't be surprised if you are treated the same way people who opposed gay marriage were. Get with the program buddy, you best get used to pedophilia and the idea of it. Or risk being labeled a racist bigot.

If opposing DDO's being used as a platform for advocating pedophilia, beastiality or incest makes me a bigot, than i'll wear that hat with pride.

Just remember you said that, and don't cry about it later on.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 5:12:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 3:12:17 PM, YYW wrote:
In another thread, I talked about censorship and banning someone and distinguished between what banning is, what internet censorship is and why they are not the same thing. I outlined a general framework for when someone should be banned, but I want to in this thread explain that framework and its criteria.

I said a minute ago that as a general rule, whenever members demonstrate at least three of the following: (1) a repeated inability or unwillingness to treat others with respect, (2) fail to post only material that is reasonably acceptable by community standards, (3) refuse to not harass other members despite repeated moderator warnings, and (4) actively target or harass specific members on a repeated occasion without provocation, that member can and should be banned.

I have already mentioned that to ban someone is not to necessarily censor what they say, so long as the person who is banned retains the liberty to join other online communities. If someone has internet access, they always have the liberty to join other online communities. So, we can't really call banning someone an act of general internet censorship.

Before I say any more, I want to talk about being averse to banning people, and what I think about it. I hate the idea of banning people. I really do. I know that might be hard for some to accept because I talk about banning a lot, but I want to be very clear when I say that I do not take pleasure in arguing for someone's being banned or the act of actively kicking someone out of this community.

I also want to say that the degree of a person's offenses to get banned has to be very, very high. They have to cause a lot of damage, which is why I'm generally averse to banning members because they've only posted a lot of joking spam in the misc section or even done some really bad things to a few members. The reason is because banning someone is not an ideal solution.

An ideal solution is to get the troublesome member to reform their behavior, and in every case that anyone has been banned, they have been repeatedly warned by moderators that if they do not change the way they act, there will be consequences.

However, if, after a member has been repeatedly warned to reform their behavior, they have consistently refused to do so, if they are not banned then those warnings mean nothing and the rules which required those warnings have no value.

To clarify, there are rules that DDO has: the Terms of Service, or, after Juggle's last big update, the Terms of Use.

Here they are: http://www.debate.org...

They're pretty strict, and no one want's them enforced to the letter because we've all done things that fall outside the parameters of acceptable conduct, as they are defined. And, if only some rules are enforced and others are not, there is a risk that the moderators might be criticized as arbitrary -only enforcing the rules they want too.

The problem with that is that there are very, very few people who are actually privy to a majority of the member dispute resolution stuff that takes place. Airmax, Ore-Ele and the people they seek counsel from are the only ones who have any idea. The reason for that is because the moderators believe that public shame isn't an acceptable way to punish members -but the moderators want to be sure they're doing the right thing so they seek out other's opinions. That's both the reason why trials are so sparse, why most "enforcement" happens outside the scope of DDO's general view and why most of the time when people are banned, it's done so quietly. But that's enough talk of the process... now, let's get back to the framework.

Members who demonstrate (1) a repeated inability or unwillingness to treat others with respect, (2) fail to post only material that is reasonably acceptable by community standards, (3) refuse to not harass other members despite repeated moderator warnings, and (4) actively target or harass specific members on a repeated occasion without provocation, by the very nature of their actions, act against the letter of the TOS and the spirit of what this site is about.

There is no productive and free exchange of ideas where members cannot talk to one another without respecting one another. That is not to say that all members are worthy of equal respect, but some minimum threshold of politeness is required for any conversation about anything to be meaningful. There is nothing of value advanced by members post abusive, obscene, prurient, or unlawful content. So, members cannot harass other members, cyberstalk other members, or post illegal sexual content. That doesn't mean that a casual insult is harassment, that sending someone a few private messages is cyberstaling or that any content that is sexual is always unacceptable. It means that when members repeatedly do things that hurt other people or are not acceptable by community standards, they have no right to be here.

While this is a debate site, and the free exchange of ideas is an indispensable value, when members act in ways that render the free exchange of ideas impossible, and actively harm other members in a repeated way despite numerous moderator warnings, they have no place on this site.

ADOL is a troll (assuming you're referring to him), but I don't believe he has done anything to merit being banned. Posting opinions of controversial nature should not be discouraged on a debate site. It sets bad precedent.

Now if he's actually posting pornographic images and whatnot, the moderators should take action. Alas, I have not seen such postings.
Josh_b
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2014 7:06:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 3:12:17 PM, YYW wrote:

Members who demonstrate (1) a repeated inability or unwillingness to treat others with respect, (2) fail to post only material that is reasonably acceptable by community standards, (3) refuse to not harass other members despite repeated moderator warnings, and (4) actively target or harass specific members on a repeated occasion without provocation, by the very nature of their actions, act against the letter of the TOS and the spirit of what this site is about.

While this is a debate site, and the free exchange of ideas is an indispensable value, when members act in ways that render the free exchange of ideas impossible, and actively harm other members in a repeated way despite numerous moderator warnings, they have no place on this site.

I agree with this and this:

No personal attacks against other members or a member's opinions. And I'm glad that the moderators don't like public shaming. What do they think about the people that do it?
Scrutiny Welcome

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