Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Open Letter to Airmax -- Let's Fix DDO

progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2014 11:32:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Let me preface this by saying that I have no vendetta against Airmax, and have always found him to be an effective moderator and good person. I'm hoping, actually, that this will generate an effective dialogue. I guess we can even consider this an intervention, one where I don't have much to lose since I was already planning to leave.

But that's just the point, actually. Who wants to leave? I certainly don't. If anything, it's something I've been considering for quite some time, but always suppressed because I loved debating so much and didn't want to leave behind all the really good people I met here.

Surely we can all acknowledge reality. A massive uptick in departures resulted from this new policy. One led to another led to another, etc. If anything, it wasn't only that the recent policy is extremely stringent by most of our calculations, but that it was sprang upon us -- the best analogy is the right-wing media's (please don't tell me that's ad hominem) assertion that "they shoved ObamaCare down our throats!!" but this time for real.

So, what's the purpose of this? Simple: to reverse the trend before it's too late.

I'm not going to deny that DDO has problems: trolling, votebombing, ridiculous polls, plagiarism, and the list goes on ad infinitum. That's not an indictment on the system itself, which has been quite effective for some time. It's simply means, if anything, that something must be done. It could be a broad over-reach, as I think this new policy is; it could be ad-hoc and not adequately address the problem; or, it could be moderate and gradual, though effective, and cut to the root of the problem.

To that end, here are my suggestions to replace the new policy. I understand that I hardly have any influence in this venue, and thus these will likely be discarded. All I ask is that you hear me out.

Suggestion 1: Address harassment, trolling, cheating, and threatening

Simply put, these are the problems that we need to address, not personal insults -- not "you're stupid because you support Obama!" Sure, those comments are highly offensive and should be discouraged. I wouldn't want to be on other end of one of those insults. But I wouldn't write home about it, either. You could even say that I believe in a "free market" to this extent: if good, thoughtful, intelligent members critique this type of behavior, as they should, and opt for a higher quality, it will prevail.

But the point is, I don't think we can do it alone. In fact, we need your help. When I see polls about bestiality or incest, I weep a bit and wonder what the site has become. The same happens when I see massive votebombing campaigns for no other reason than to fulfill a personal vendetta. The same can be said for constant harassment, death threat, and the list goes on. These are the things we ought to worry about.

So, to that end, here's my proposal:

Harassment (Minor): Warning, 3 points
Harassment (Major): Warning, 5 points, Temporary Ban

Threatening (minor): Warning, 5 points, Temporary Ban
Threatening (major): Permanent IP Ban

Votebombing (minor): Warning, 3 points
Votebombing (major): Warning, 5 points

Cheating: Permanent IP Ban

Essentially, the system will work like this: accumulate 5 points and get a temporary ban. Accumulate 10, and get a permanent ban. The caveat is that we'll be dealing with IP bans, so those users cannot multi-account.

Suggestion 2: Fix Voting Eligibility

The current system allows people who have no intention of voting honestly and fairly to begin their rampage after only three debates and a silly identity confirmation. I think we need to increase the requirements just a bit:

1. Require 5 debates
2. Require overview by a moderator
3. Require a minimum ELO of 2500
4. Enforce the aforementioned system for votebombing, though more harshly on new voters by using a probation system for first-time-offender (unless we're dealing with a "major" offense, of course).

Suggestion 3: Require that all polls be approved by a moderator

Polls are so easy to create, and truly a significant portion of them are rooted in utter nonsense. Surely they should be some mechanism for ensuring beforehand that they're appropriate, is there not?

Suggestion 4: Create more competition and camaraderie on the site

A lot of this has been done by Tuf and Mikal lately, along with others, and I really think there is something to be said for their efforts. So, here's what I would suggest doing:

1. Hold regular, perhaps weekly, tournaments with prizes -- e.g., an extra ELO boost, a custom avatar that says "DDO Debate Champion" or something of that order.

2. Hand out awards on a weekly basis on predetermined criteria -- e.g., "Most Dedicated Member," "Most Improved Member," "Best Debater of the Week," etc.

3. Provide incentives for reporting bad posts, polls, etc. I think, if anything, this would be attractive to DDO's longstanding and dedicated members.

There's probably more that I could come up with, but I think this is enough to ponder for now.

I really am a fan of this site, and have no interest in leaving. But I don't think DDO is going down the right path, and if anything, I feel that the new policy will merely exacerbate this decline.

I'd love to talk this over with you, or with anyone, further either in this topic or via PM. Hopefully we can hash this out and prevent the slew of people who have already decided to spend their time elsewhere.

Best,

~Paul
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2014 11:33:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/31/2014 11:32:04 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Let me preface this by saying that I have no vendetta against Airmax, and have always found him to be an effective moderator and good person. I'm hoping, actually, that this will generate an effective dialogue. I guess we can even consider this an intervention, one where I don't have much to lose since I was already planning to leave.

But that's just the point, actually. Who wants to leave? I certainly don't. If anything, it's something I've been considering for quite some time, but always suppressed because I loved debating so much and didn't want to leave behind all the really good people I met here.

Surely we can all acknowledge reality. A massive uptick in departures resulted from this new policy. One led to another led to another, etc. If anything, it wasn't only that the recent policy is extremely stringent by most of our calculations, but that it was sprang upon us -- the best analogy is the right-wing media's (please don't tell me that's ad hominem) assertion that "they shoved ObamaCare down our throats!!" but this time for real.

So, what's the purpose of this? Simple: to reverse the trend before it's too late.

I'm not going to deny that DDO has problems: trolling, votebombing, ridiculous polls, plagiarism, and the list goes on ad infinitum. That's not an indictment on the system itself, which has been quite effective for some time. It's simply means, if anything, that something must be done. It could be a broad over-reach, as I think this new policy is; it could be ad-hoc and not adequately address the problem; or, it could be moderate and gradual, though effective, and cut to the root of the problem.

To that end, here are my suggestions to replace the new policy. I understand that I hardly have any influence in this venue, and thus these will likely be discarded. All I ask is that you hear me out.

Suggestion 1: Address harassment, trolling, cheating, and threatening

Simply put, these are the problems that we need to address, not personal insults -- not "you're stupid because you support Obama!" Sure, those comments are highly offensive and should be discouraged. I wouldn't want to be on other end of one of those insults. But I wouldn't write home about it, either. You could even say that I believe in a "free market" to this extent: if good, thoughtful, intelligent members critique this type of behavior, as they should, and opt for a higher quality, it will prevail.

But the point is, I don't think we can do it alone. In fact, we need your help. When I see polls about bestiality or incest, I weep a bit and wonder what the site has become. The same happens when I see massive votebombing campaigns for no other reason than to fulfill a personal vendetta. The same can be said for constant harassment, death threat, and the list goes on. These are the things we ought to worry about.

So, to that end, here's my proposal:

Harassment (Minor): Warning, 3 points
Harassment (Major): Warning, 5 points, Temporary Ban

Threatening (minor): Warning, 5 points, Temporary Ban
Threatening (major): Permanent IP Ban

Votebombing (minor): Warning, 3 points
Votebombing (major): Warning, 5 points

Cheating: Permanent IP Ban

Essentially, the system will work like this: accumulate 5 points and get a temporary ban. Accumulate 10, and get a permanent ban. The caveat is that we'll be dealing with IP bans, so those users cannot multi-account.

Suggestion 2: Fix Voting Eligibility

The current system allows people who have no intention of voting honestly and fairly to begin their rampage after only three debates and a silly identity confirmation. I think we need to increase the requirements just a bit:

1. Require 5 debates
2. Require overview by a moderator
3. Require a minimum ELO of 2500
4. Enforce the aforementioned system for votebombing, though more harshly on new voters by using a probation system for first-time-offender (unless we're dealing with a "major" offense, of course).

Suggestion 3: Require that all polls be approved by a moderator

Polls are so easy to create, and truly a significant portion of them are rooted in utter nonsense. Surely they should be some mechanism for ensuring beforehand that they're appropriate, is there not?

Suggestion 4: Create more competition and camaraderie on the site

A lot of this has been done by Tuf and Mikal lately, along with others, and I really think there is something to be said for their efforts. So, here's what I would suggest doing:

1. Hold regular, perhaps weekly, tournaments with prizes -- e.g., an extra ELO boost, a custom avatar that says "DDO Debate Champion" or something of that order.

2. Hand out awards on a weekly basis on predetermined criteria -- e.g., "Most Dedicated Member," "Most Improved Member," "Best Debater of the Week," etc.

3. Provide incentives for reporting bad posts, polls, etc. I think, if anything, this would be attractive to DDO's longstanding and dedicated members.



There's probably more that I could come up with, but I think this is enough to ponder for now.

I really am a fan of this site, and have no interest in leaving. But I don't think DDO is going down the right path, and if anything, I feel that the new policy will merely exacerbate this decline.

I'd love to talk this over with you, or with anyone, further either in this topic or via PM. Hopefully we can hash this out and prevent the slew of people who have already decided to spend their time elsewhere.


Best,

~Paul

I support (most of) this so much. It'd be a real shame if you left.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2014 11:38:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/31/2014 11:33:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/31/2014 11:32:04 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Let me preface this by saying that I have no vendetta against Airmax, and have always found him to be an effective moderator and good person. I'm hoping, actually, that this will generate an effective dialogue. I guess we can even consider this an intervention, one where I don't have much to lose since I was already planning to leave.

But that's just the point, actually. Who wants to leave? I certainly don't. If anything, it's something I've been considering for quite some time, but always suppressed because I loved debating so much and didn't want to leave behind all the really good people I met here.

Surely we can all acknowledge reality. A massive uptick in departures resulted from this new policy. One led to another led to another, etc. If anything, it wasn't only that the recent policy is extremely stringent by most of our calculations, but that it was sprang upon us -- the best analogy is the right-wing media's (please don't tell me that's ad hominem) assertion that "they shoved ObamaCare down our throats!!" but this time for real.

So, what's the purpose of this? Simple: to reverse the trend before it's too late.

I'm not going to deny that DDO has problems: trolling, votebombing, ridiculous polls, plagiarism, and the list goes on ad infinitum. That's not an indictment on the system itself, which has been quite effective for some time. It's simply means, if anything, that something must be done. It could be a broad over-reach, as I think this new policy is; it could be ad-hoc and not adequately address the problem; or, it could be moderate and gradual, though effective, and cut to the root of the problem.

To that end, here are my suggestions to replace the new policy. I understand that I hardly have any influence in this venue, and thus these will likely be discarded. All I ask is that you hear me out.

Suggestion 1: Address harassment, trolling, cheating, and threatening

Simply put, these are the problems that we need to address, not personal insults -- not "you're stupid because you support Obama!" Sure, those comments are highly offensive and should be discouraged. I wouldn't want to be on other end of one of those insults. But I wouldn't write home about it, either. You could even say that I believe in a "free market" to this extent: if good, thoughtful, intelligent members critique this type of behavior, as they should, and opt for a higher quality, it will prevail.

But the point is, I don't think we can do it alone. In fact, we need your help. When I see polls about bestiality or incest, I weep a bit and wonder what the site has become. The same happens when I see massive votebombing campaigns for no other reason than to fulfill a personal vendetta. The same can be said for constant harassment, death threat, and the list goes on. These are the things we ought to worry about.

So, to that end, here's my proposal:

Harassment (Minor): Warning, 3 points
Harassment (Major): Warning, 5 points, Temporary Ban

Threatening (minor): Warning, 5 points, Temporary Ban
Threatening (major): Permanent IP Ban

Votebombing (minor): Warning, 3 points
Votebombing (major): Warning, 5 points

Cheating: Permanent IP Ban

Essentially, the system will work like this: accumulate 5 points and get a temporary ban. Accumulate 10, and get a permanent ban. The caveat is that we'll be dealing with IP bans, so those users cannot multi-account.

Suggestion 2: Fix Voting Eligibility

The current system allows people who have no intention of voting honestly and fairly to begin their rampage after only three debates and a silly identity confirmation. I think we need to increase the requirements just a bit:

1. Require 5 debates
2. Require overview by a moderator
3. Require a minimum ELO of 2500
4. Enforce the aforementioned system for votebombing, though more harshly on new voters by using a probation system for first-time-offender (unless we're dealing with a "major" offense, of course).

Suggestion 3: Require that all polls be approved by a moderator

Polls are so easy to create, and truly a significant portion of them are rooted in utter nonsense. Surely they should be some mechanism for ensuring beforehand that they're appropriate, is there not?

Suggestion 4: Create more competition and camaraderie on the site

A lot of this has been done by Tuf and Mikal lately, along with others, and I really think there is something to be said for their efforts. So, here's what I would suggest doing:

1. Hold regular, perhaps weekly, tournaments with prizes -- e.g., an extra ELO boost, a custom avatar that says "DDO Debate Champion" or something of that order.

2. Hand out awards on a weekly basis on predetermined criteria -- e.g., "Most Dedicated Member," "Most Improved Member," "Best Debater of the Week," etc.

3. Provide incentives for reporting bad posts, polls, etc. I think, if anything, this would be attractive to DDO's longstanding and dedicated members.



There's probably more that I could come up with, but I think this is enough to ponder for now.

I really am a fan of this site, and have no interest in leaving. But I don't think DDO is going down the right path, and if anything, I feel that the new policy will merely exacerbate this decline.

I'd love to talk this over with you, or with anyone, further either in this topic or via PM. Hopefully we can hash this out and prevent the slew of people who have already decided to spend their time elsewhere.


Best,

~Paul

I support (most of) this so much. It'd be a real shame if you left.

Wow, you're a fast reader lol. But thanks for that.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2014 11:42:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/31/2014 11:38:18 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 3/31/2014 11:33:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/31/2014 11:32:04 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Let me preface this by saying that I have no vendetta against Airmax, and have always found him to be an effective moderator and good person. I'm hoping, actually, that this will generate an effective dialogue. I guess we can even consider this an intervention, one where I don't have much to lose since I was already planning to leave.

But that's just the point, actually. Who wants to leave? I certainly don't. If anything, it's something I've been considering for quite some time, but always suppressed because I loved debating so much and didn't want to leave behind all the really good people I met here.

Surely we can all acknowledge reality. A massive uptick in departures resulted from this new policy. One led to another led to another, etc. If anything, it wasn't only that the recent policy is extremely stringent by most of our calculations, but that it was sprang upon us -- the best analogy is the right-wing media's (please don't tell me that's ad hominem) assertion that "they shoved ObamaCare down our throats!!" but this time for real.

So, what's the purpose of this? Simple: to reverse the trend before it's too late.

I'm not going to deny that DDO has problems: trolling, votebombing, ridiculous polls, plagiarism, and the list goes on ad infinitum. That's not an indictment on the system itself, which has been quite effective for some time. It's simply means, if anything, that something must be done. It could be a broad over-reach, as I think this new policy is; it could be ad-hoc and not adequately address the problem; or, it could be moderate and gradual, though effective, and cut to the root of the problem.

To that end, here are my suggestions to replace the new policy. I understand that I hardly have any influence in this venue, and thus these will likely be discarded. All I ask is that you hear me out.

Suggestion 1: Address harassment, trolling, cheating, and threatening

Simply put, these are the problems that we need to address, not personal insults -- not "you're stupid because you support Obama!" Sure, those comments are highly offensive and should be discouraged. I wouldn't want to be on other end of one of those insults. But I wouldn't write home about it, either. You could even say that I believe in a "free market" to this extent: if good, thoughtful, intelligent members critique this type of behavior, as they should, and opt for a higher quality, it will prevail.

But the point is, I don't think we can do it alone. In fact, we need your help. When I see polls about bestiality or incest, I weep a bit and wonder what the site has become. The same happens when I see massive votebombing campaigns for no other reason than to fulfill a personal vendetta. The same can be said for constant harassment, death threat, and the list goes on. These are the things we ought to worry about.

So, to that end, here's my proposal:

Harassment (Minor): Warning, 3 points
Harassment (Major): Warning, 5 points, Temporary Ban

Threatening (minor): Warning, 5 points, Temporary Ban
Threatening (major): Permanent IP Ban

Votebombing (minor): Warning, 3 points
Votebombing (major): Warning, 5 points

Cheating: Permanent IP Ban

Essentially, the system will work like this: accumulate 5 points and get a temporary ban. Accumulate 10, and get a permanent ban. The caveat is that we'll be dealing with IP bans, so those users cannot multi-account.

Suggestion 2: Fix Voting Eligibility

The current system allows people who have no intention of voting honestly and fairly to begin their rampage after only three debates and a silly identity confirmation. I think we need to increase the requirements just a bit:

1. Require 5 debates
2. Require overview by a moderator
3. Require a minimum ELO of 2500
4. Enforce the aforementioned system for votebombing, though more harshly on new voters by using a probation system for first-time-offender (unless we're dealing with a "major" offense, of course).

Suggestion 3: Require that all polls be approved by a moderator

Polls are so easy to create, and truly a significant portion of them are rooted in utter nonsense. Surely they should be some mechanism for ensuring beforehand that they're appropriate, is there not?

Suggestion 4: Create more competition and camaraderie on the site

A lot of this has been done by Tuf and Mikal lately, along with others, and I really think there is something to be said for their efforts. So, here's what I would suggest doing:

1. Hold regular, perhaps weekly, tournaments with prizes -- e.g., an extra ELO boost, a custom avatar that says "DDO Debate Champion" or something of that order.

2. Hand out awards on a weekly basis on predetermined criteria -- e.g., "Most Dedicated Member," "Most Improved Member," "Best Debater of the Week," etc.

3. Provide incentives for reporting bad posts, polls, etc. I think, if anything, this would be attractive to DDO's longstanding and dedicated members.



There's probably more that I could come up with, but I think this is enough to ponder for now.

I really am a fan of this site, and have no interest in leaving. But I don't think DDO is going down the right path, and if anything, I feel that the new policy will merely exacerbate this decline.

I'd love to talk this over with you, or with anyone, further either in this topic or via PM. Hopefully we can hash this out and prevent the slew of people who have already decided to spend their time elsewhere.


Best,

~Paul

I support (most of) this so much. It'd be a real shame if you left.

Wow, you're a fast reader lol. But thanks for that.

Yeah, I've had a lot of practice.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2014 11:42:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This sounds like a much more effective comprehensive fix, in my opinion. I hope they do listen to you, before we hemorrhage any more users.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2014 11:43:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/31/2014 11:32:04 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Require a minimum ELO of 2500

+1000000
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2014 11:44:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/31/2014 11:43:17 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 3/31/2014 11:32:04 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Require a minimum ELO of 2500

+1000000
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 12:17:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/31/2014 11:44:17 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 3/31/2014 11:43:17 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 3/31/2014 11:32:04 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Require a minimum ELO of 2500

+1000000
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 2:42:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/31/2014 11:32:04 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:

Suggestion 1: Address harassment, trolling, cheating, and threatening

I don't see anything inconsistent with the new policy and your recommendations. The new policy more or less takes most if not all of your suggestions into consideration and implements them. For example, the policy gives a good amount of leeway as to what a moderator would do in the event of a personal attack. Obviously if these attacks are habitual, that constitutes harassment.

I'm sure you trust airmax's judgment enough that you acknowledge that he has enough common sense to determine when someone crosses that line.

As it is, this policy is precisely meant to "discourage" bad behavior, and so is fully consistent with what you think needs to be changed (i.e. the policy is fine as it is). Personal attacks are bad behavior and should be "discouraged"...you essentially say so yourself. There's no other way to "discourage" such without moderator involvement to some degree.

The only part of your suggestion it does not implement are your suggestions on specific moderator action. That's up to the moderators, not us. I see that as being an issue of control, that the community is balking that they do not have a say in moderation. Well, let's face it, that's always been true, moderators have always had the final say on their decisions regardless of what the community says, and as long as you respect their judgment, that's not going to change,

Suggestion 2: Fix Voting Eligibility

All of this involves a moderator to IMHO far too great an extent.

Suggestion 3: Require that all polls be approved by a moderator

Again, too much moderator involvement. Moderators are not DDO.

Suggestion 4: Create more competition and camaraderie on the site

Side issue to the new policy, irrelevant to it. Sounds great, but does not in any way affect implementation of the new policy.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 2:58:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 12:17:53 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 3/31/2014 11:44:17 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 3/31/2014 11:43:17 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 3/31/2014 11:32:04 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Require a minimum ELO of 2500

+1000000
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 2:59:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/31/2014 11:32:04 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:

2. Require overview by a moderator
3. Require a minimum ELO of 2500

This will do much to stop fake accounts. It'll be impossible to make a fake account to help you win, since Airmax can then see how fake your debates are.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Fanath
Posts: 830
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 3:51:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/31/2014 11:43:17 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 3/31/2014 11:32:04 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Require a minimum ELO of 2500

+1000000
Dude... Stop...
The_Scapegoat_bleats
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 4:47:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 2:59:52 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 3/31/2014 11:32:04 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:

2. Require overview by a moderator
3. Require a minimum ELO of 2500

This will do much to stop fake accounts. It'll be impossible to make a fake account to help you win, since Airmax can then see how fake your debates are.

It took me less than a month to reach an ELO of 2500.
My first debate involved a fake account that was prepared for 2 months before putting him in action, so as not to arouse suspicion at first glance.

Hence, I doubt this will do anything to stop fake accounts.
Besides, it's easy enough to identify fake votes and have them removed, so what's the big deal?
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 4:51:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 4:47:32 AM, The_Scapegoat_bleats wrote:
At 4/1/2014 2:59:52 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 3/31/2014 11:32:04 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:

2. Require overview by a moderator
3. Require a minimum ELO of 2500

This will do much to stop fake accounts. It'll be impossible to make a fake account to help you win, since Airmax can then see how fake your debates are.

It took me less than a month to reach an ELO of 2500.
My first debate involved a fake account that was prepared for 2 months before putting him in action, so as not to arouse suspicion at first glance.

Hence, I doubt this will do anything to stop fake accounts.
Besides, it's easy enough to identify fake votes and have them removed, so what's the big deal?

Hardly true. That kind of wait and the number of debates needed will stop almost every example. Just because it didn't' stop you doesn't mean it won't stop most everyone else. Few people will go to that extreme to produce a fake account.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
The_Scapegoat_bleats
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 5:12:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 4:51:06 AM, donald.keller wrote:

Hardly true. That kind of wait and the number of debates needed will stop almost every example. Just because it didn't' stop you doesn't mean it won't stop most everyone else. Few people will go to that extreme to produce a fake account.

I doubt that. Again, my first encounter on this site was with someone who prepared for months. With the high number of members, this comes down to a matter of chance. What are the chances to have - at your first visit on this site - an encounter with a well-prepared cheater if those are rare?
It's just that we don't check every account, because there are so many.
I say the number of fake accounts is much higher than you believe, and people will go to extremes to gain a little appreciation by winning a debate. It's about some warped concept of self-esteem.
Even Mikal had a strong case against him in his early days:
http://www.debate.org...
With the strangest part being that inductivelogic dropped out after that.

I'm not saying it's true. I'm saying we don't look, and all we get by introducing a base ELO for voting privileges is a higher level of cheaters, who will then deem themselves beyond doubt, giving exactly your argument: "Who would go through so much effort?"

Tell you what? I haven't thought about a fake account so far, but if you introduce this rule, I most probably could not resist. You don't have to believe this, but that was my very first thought and the reason I posted here: it tempted me. I am not easily tempted. I don't like being tempted strongly. It rings my alarm bells.
Because I consider myself a righteous man. And if I can see that this opens a door for clever cheaters, then a skilled cheater will see it, too.

Introducing this alleged security filter would exempt any member from doubt, thus making it more likely that a few really clever ones slip through. So far, fake accounts are quite obvious upon first sight. They are identified and reported quickly. But if we raise the bar, then we will have cheaters on a much more difficult to spot level.

I can do without that.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 5:23:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 5:12:54 AM, The_Scapegoat_bleats wrote:
At 4/1/2014 4:51:06 AM, donald.keller wrote:

Hardly true. That kind of wait and the number of debates needed will stop almost every example. Just because it didn't' stop you doesn't mean it won't stop most everyone else. Few people will go to that extreme to produce a fake account.

I doubt that. Again, my first encounter on this site was with someone who prepared for months. With the high number of members, this comes down to a matter of chance. What are the chances to have - at your first visit on this site - an encounter with a well-prepared cheater if those are rare?
It's just that we don't check every account, because there are so many.
I say the number of fake accounts is much higher than you believe, and people will go to extremes to gain a little appreciation by winning a debate. It's about some warped concept of self-esteem.
Even Mikal had a strong case against him in his early days:
http://www.debate.org...
With the strangest part being that inductivelogic dropped out after that.

I'm not saying it's true. I'm saying we don't look, and all we get by introducing a base ELO for voting privileges is a higher level of cheaters, who will then deem themselves beyond doubt, giving exactly your argument: "Who would go through so much effort?"

Tell you what? I haven't thought about a fake account so far, but if you introduce this rule, I most probably could not resist. You don't have to believe this, but that was my very first thought and the reason I posted here: it tempted me. I am not easily tempted. I don't like being tempted strongly. It rings my alarm bells.
Because I consider myself a righteous man. And if I can see that this opens a door for clever cheaters, then a skilled cheater will see it, too.

Introducing this alleged security filter would exempt any member from doubt, thus making it more likely that a few really clever ones slip through. So far, fake accounts are quite obvious upon first sight. They are identified and reported quickly. But if we raise the bar, then we will have cheaters on a much more difficult to spot level.

I can do without that.

For starters: One exception doesn't mean the claim is void. The number of fake accounts on the site isn't important to the conversation. If the requirement went from 3 debates to both 2500 elo and Moderator review, it'll drastically drop. You are comparing how it is now to how it'd be in completely different circumstances.

Whether or not a rule tempts you to break it doesn't make it a bad rule. It just makes you bad with rules. Most people made fake accounts to vote on their debates, not to break rules for giggles, and to get past this change would require real debate since only the most radical people would go to the length to make their debates and account look legit.

Almost no fake account ever fits these requirements. Few people will go to the extremes to make a fake account that requires that much work.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 7:05:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 2:42:07 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/31/2014 11:32:04 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:

Suggestion 1: Address harassment, trolling, cheating, and threatening

I don't see anything inconsistent with the new policy and your recommendations. The new policy more or less takes most if not all of your suggestions into consideration and implements them. For example, the policy gives a good amount of leeway as to what a moderator would do in the event of a personal attack. Obviously if these attacks are habitual, that constitutes harassment.

My point, though, is that harassment may consist of a personal attack -- in fact, I can't imagine how it wouldn't, to some degree -- but a personal attack isn't harassment. I'm suggesting that personal attacks, ipso facto, should not be addressed unless they meet a certain threshold. For instance, calling someone an "idiot" wouldn't be a ban- or warning- worthy offense unless you're, say, stalking the person around DDO, filling their PM box, etc etc (either of those would probably qualify).

I'm sure you trust airmax's judgment enough that you acknowledge that he has enough common sense to determine when someone crosses that line.

I trust him, but if he follows the policy to the letter, good judgment will still lead to unjustified warnings and bans, in my honest opinion.

As it is, this policy is precisely meant to "discourage" bad behavior, and so is fully consistent with what you think needs to be changed (i.e. the policy is fine as it is). Personal attacks are bad behavior and should be "discouraged"...you essentially say so yourself. There's no other way to "discourage" such without moderator involvement to some degree.

I disagree with your last sentence, actually. I think there's a distinction between discourage or disincentive and flat-out prohibit. I think discouraging ought to be addressed on a micro-level. Surely there are exceptions -- e.g., attacking minors, which should obviously be addressed -- but I object honestly to the breadth of this new rule.

The only part of your suggestion it does not implement are your suggestions on specific moderator action. That's up to the moderators, not us. I see that as being an issue of control, that the community is balking that they do not have a say in moderation. Well, let's face it, that's always been true, moderators have always had the final say on their decisions regardless of what the community says, and as long as you respect their judgment, that's not going to change,

I respect their judgment, as I said, but I think they ought to act within a predetermined framework that will, at least, shape their decisions. A point system would be a good start to that end.

Suggestion 2: Fix Voting Eligibility

All of this involves a moderator to IMHO far too great an extent.

It does involve a moderator, and we can certainly debate how involved they should be. But I think this is one area where moderator involvement is critically needed.

Suggestion 3: Require that all polls be approved by a moderator

Again, too much moderator involvement. Moderators are not DDO.

I'm starting to re-think this one, to be honest. Maybe we could have a three-strike rule or a probation system for polls, instead of requiring that they all be approved. Maybe even a filter would work.

Suggestion 4: Create more competition and camaraderie on the site

Side issue to the new policy, irrelevant to it. Sounds great, but does not in any way affect implementation of the new policy.

I don't think it's a side issue, actually. As I said, my concern is bringing back people who have opted to leave because I don't think DDO will be the same without them. This is one way to bring them back.

Also, I think DDO's problems are systemic. I want to incentivize participation, particularly among new members, and one way to do that and to circumvent destructive behavior preemptively is to expand the communal aspects of the site. I'd posit, actually, that a system like this would cut down on the need for stringent moderation.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 7:15:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 7:05:13 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/1/2014 2:42:07 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/31/2014 11:32:04 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:

Suggestion 1: Address harassment, trolling, cheating, and threatening

I don't see anything inconsistent with the new policy and your recommendations. The new policy more or less takes most if not all of your suggestions into consideration and implements them. For example, the policy gives a good amount of leeway as to what a moderator would do in the event of a personal attack. Obviously if these attacks are habitual, that constitutes harassment.

My point, though, is that harassment may consist of a personal attack -- in fact, I can't imagine how it wouldn't, to some degree -- but a personal attack isn't harassment. I'm suggesting that personal attacks, ipso facto, should not be addressed unless they meet a certain threshold. For instance, calling someone an "idiot" wouldn't be a ban- or warning- worthy offense unless you're, say, stalking the person around DDO, filling their PM box, etc etc (either of those would probably qualify).

A: You're an idiot.
B: No you are!
C: Goddam idiots STFU!
D: OMFG DDO IS FULL OF IDIOTS

According to you, none of this is ban-worthy or even "warning-worthy" since each person only did it once. However, can you see from a moderator perspective how maybe, just maybe, this is problematic?

I'm sure you trust airmax's judgment enough that you acknowledge that he has enough common sense to determine when someone crosses that line.

I trust him, but if he follows the policy to the letter, good judgment will still lead to unjustified warnings and bans, in my honest opinion.

I suppose we will have to wait and see.

As it is, this policy is precisely meant to "discourage" bad behavior, and so is fully consistent with what you think needs to be changed (i.e. the policy is fine as it is). Personal attacks are bad behavior and should be "discouraged"...you essentially say so yourself. There's no other way to "discourage" such without moderator involvement to some degree.

I disagree with your last sentence, actually. I think there's a distinction between discourage or disincentive and flat-out prohibit. I think discouraging ought to be addressed on a micro-level. Surely there are exceptions -- e.g., attacking minors, which should obviously be addressed -- but I object honestly to the breadth of this new rule.

I don't understand how you disagree, or what you mean by "micro-level". A lot of people are decrying this policy as being too micro-managerial...are you actually advocating for such?

The only part of your suggestion it does not implement are your suggestions on specific moderator action. That's up to the moderators, not us. I see that as being an issue of control, that the community is balking that they do not have a say in moderation. Well, let's face it, that's always been true, moderators have always had the final say on their decisions regardless of what the community says, and as long as you respect their judgment, that's not going to change,

I respect their judgment, as I said, but I think they ought to act within a predetermined framework that will, at least, shape their decisions. A point system would be a good start to that end.

Suggestion 2: Fix Voting Eligibility

All of this involves a moderator to IMHO far too great an extent.

It does involve a moderator, and we can certainly debate how involved they should be. But I think this is one area where moderator involvement is critically needed.

Suggestion 3: Require that all polls be approved by a moderator

Again, too much moderator involvement. Moderators are not DDO.

I'm starting to re-think this one, to be honest. Maybe we could have a three-strike rule or a probation system for polls, instead of requiring that they all be approved. Maybe even a filter would work.

Yeah, that make sense to me too, although I find some of the trolling polls to be rather funny sometimes, lol.

Suggestion 4: Create more competition and camaraderie on the site

Side issue to the new policy, irrelevant to it. Sounds great, but does not in any way affect implementation of the new policy.

I don't think it's a side issue, actually. As I said, my concern is bringing back people who have opted to leave because I don't think DDO will be the same without them. This is one way to bring them back.

Also, I think DDO's problems are systemic. I want to incentivize participation, particularly among new members, and one way to do that and to circumvent destructive behavior preemptively is to expand the communal aspects of the site. I'd posit, actually, that a system like this would cut down on the need for stringent moderation.

Good argument.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 7:21:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 7:15:20 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/1/2014 7:05:13 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/1/2014 2:42:07 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/31/2014 11:32:04 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:

Suggestion 1: Address harassment, trolling, cheating, and threatening

I don't see anything inconsistent with the new policy and your recommendations. The new policy more or less takes most if not all of your suggestions into consideration and implements them. For example, the policy gives a good amount of leeway as to what a moderator would do in the event of a personal attack. Obviously if these attacks are habitual, that constitutes harassment.

My point, though, is that harassment may consist of a personal attack -- in fact, I can't imagine how it wouldn't, to some degree -- but a personal attack isn't harassment. I'm suggesting that personal attacks, ipso facto, should not be addressed unless they meet a certain threshold. For instance, calling someone an "idiot" wouldn't be a ban- or warning- worthy offense unless you're, say, stalking the person around DDO, filling their PM box, etc etc (either of those would probably qualify).

A: You're an idiot.
B: No you are!
C: Goddam idiots STFU!
D: OMFG DDO IS FULL OF IDIOTS

According to you, none of this is ban-worthy or even "warning-worthy" since each person only did it once. However, can you see from a moderator perspective how maybe, just maybe, this is problematic?

It's not a matter of quantity, I'd argue. Sure, I see how this is problematic, by my main point is that these problems should be addressed on a case-by-basis basis to see if they rise to the level, and that's quite difficult if we're simply going to bar any insult whatsoever. Good people can screw up occasionally. In fact, Imabench would have been banned several times over had this been ex post facto. The thing is, I personally don't think -- or I haven't seen -- anything that would justify his ban.

I'm sure you trust airmax's judgment enough that you acknowledge that he has enough common sense to determine when someone crosses that line.

I trust him, but if he follows the policy to the letter, good judgment will still lead to unjustified warnings and bans, in my honest opinion.

I suppose we will have to wait and see.

Indeed.
As it is, this policy is precisely meant to "discourage" bad behavior, and so is fully consistent with what you think needs to be changed (i.e. the policy is fine as it is). Personal attacks are bad behavior and should be "discouraged"...you essentially say so yourself. There's no other way to "discourage" such without moderator involvement to some degree.

I disagree with your last sentence, actually. I think there's a distinction between discourage or disincentive and flat-out prohibit. I think discouraging ought to be addressed on a micro-level. Surely there are exceptions -- e.g., attacking minors, which should obviously be addressed -- but I object honestly to the breadth of this new rule.

I don't understand how you disagree, or what you mean by "micro-level". A lot of people are decrying this policy as being too micro-managerial...are you actually advocating for such?

By a micro-level, I'm referring more so to action by individual DDO members to address these problems. It could simply be a matter of prominent members PM'ing trolls and asking them to knock it off, or shunning the trolliest trolls as some have suggested -- though I think that would have its problems.

The only part of your suggestion it does not implement are your suggestions on specific moderator action. That's up to the moderators, not us. I see that as being an issue of control, that the community is balking that they do not have a say in moderation. Well, let's face it, that's always been true, moderators have always had the final say on their decisions regardless of what the community says, and as long as you respect their judgment, that's not going to change,

I respect their judgment, as I said, but I think they ought to act within a predetermined framework that will, at least, shape their decisions. A point system would be a good start to that end.

Suggestion 2: Fix Voting Eligibility

All of this involves a moderator to IMHO far too great an extent.

It does involve a moderator, and we can certainly debate how involved they should be. But I think this is one area where moderator involvement is critically needed.

Suggestion 3: Require that all polls be approved by a moderator

Again, too much moderator involvement. Moderators are not DDO.

I'm starting to re-think this one, to be honest. Maybe we could have a three-strike rule or a probation system for polls, instead of requiring that they all be approved. Maybe even a filter would work.

Yeah, that make sense to me too, although I find some of the trolling polls to be rather funny sometimes, lol.

Certainly they're funny, and I wouldn't even mind if some of them were to stay. It's the bestiality and incest polls et al. that I have a problem with.

Suggestion 4: Create more competition and camaraderie on the site

Side issue to the new policy, irrelevant to it. Sounds great, but does not in any way affect implementation of the new policy.

I don't think it's a side issue, actually. As I said, my concern is bringing back people who have opted to leave because I don't think DDO will be the same without them. This is one way to bring them back.

Also, I think DDO's problems are systemic. I want to incentivize participation, particularly among new members, and one way to do that and to circumvent destructive behavior preemptively is to expand the communal aspects of the site. I'd posit, actually, that a system like this would cut down on the need for stringent moderation.

Good argument.

Thanks. So it seems we actually agree on quite a bit :)
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 7:41:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 7:21:44 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/1/2014 7:15:20 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/1/2014 7:05:13 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/1/2014 2:42:07 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/31/2014 11:32:04 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:

Suggestion 1: Address harassment, trolling, cheating, and threatening

I don't see anything inconsistent with the new policy and your recommendations. The new policy more or less takes most if not all of your suggestions into consideration and implements them. For example, the policy gives a good amount of leeway as to what a moderator would do in the event of a personal attack. Obviously if these attacks are habitual, that constitutes harassment.

My point, though, is that harassment may consist of a personal attack -- in fact, I can't imagine how it wouldn't, to some degree -- but a personal attack isn't harassment. I'm suggesting that personal attacks, ipso facto, should not be addressed unless they meet a certain threshold. For instance, calling someone an "idiot" wouldn't be a ban- or warning- worthy offense unless you're, say, stalking the person around DDO, filling their PM box, etc etc (either of those would probably qualify).

A: You're an idiot.
B: No you are!
C: Goddam idiots STFU!
D: OMFG DDO IS FULL OF IDIOTS

According to you, none of this is ban-worthy or even "warning-worthy" since each person only did it once. However, can you see from a moderator perspective how maybe, just maybe, this is problematic?

It's not a matter of quantity, I'd argue. Sure, I see how this is problematic, by my main point is that these problems should be addressed on a case-by-basis basis to see if they rise to the level, and that's quite difficult if we're simply going to bar any insult whatsoever. Good people can screw up occasionally. In fact, Imabench would have been banned several times over had this been ex post facto. The thing is, I personally don't think -- or I haven't seen -- anything that would justify his ban.

I'm fairly certain that to Juggle, indeed to any corporation, the numbers matter a lot. So, if the above is archetypal of a significant minority of the content here, they may do something to balance it out.

A lot of moderation is done privately...I have my own gripes about that too since it could lead to undue favoritism. Regardless, if they're consistent, and IMHO this policy is a step towards consistency with the TOS, I'll shelve that particular complaint.

I'm sure you trust airmax's judgment enough that you acknowledge that he has enough common sense to determine when someone crosses that line.

I trust him, but if he follows the policy to the letter, good judgment will still lead to unjustified warnings and bans, in my honest opinion.

I suppose we will have to wait and see.

Indeed.
As it is, this policy is precisely meant to "discourage" bad behavior, and so is fully consistent with what you think needs to be changed (i.e. the policy is fine as it is). Personal attacks are bad behavior and should be "discouraged"...you essentially say so yourself. There's no other way to "discourage" such without moderator involvement to some degree.

I disagree with your last sentence, actually. I think there's a distinction between discourage or disincentive and flat-out prohibit. I think discouraging ought to be addressed on a micro-level. Surely there are exceptions -- e.g., attacking minors, which should obviously be addressed -- but I object honestly to the breadth of this new rule.

I don't understand how you disagree, or what you mean by "micro-level". A lot of people are decrying this policy as being too micro-managerial...are you actually advocating for such?

By a micro-level, I'm referring more so to action by individual DDO members to address these problems. It could simply be a matter of prominent members PM'ing trolls and asking them to knock it off, or shunning the trolliest trolls as some have suggested -- though I think that would have its problems.

Personally, I have a big problem with this guy: http://www.debate.org.... He has lost every debate here (intentionally it would seem), he makes posts that I'm 99% certain are just trollbait, and his goddam zipper is down. However, does he harass members? No. Does he personally insult members? No. He's annoying, and I can avoid him, so I do. I doubt talking to him would change anything...he's probably craving for people to do so so he can troll the crap out of them.

So, he's not breaking any rules, I let him be. If it ends up that he just talks to himself about his chest hair, his stylin jeans and how much he likes rape and torture, well, whatever. It would be obvious that the community is avoiding him, and would be obvious for noobs looking for decent discussion to avoid him too.

I mean, the moment moderation starts to moderate actual content (for example, all discussion must be about subjects that are legal, so no discussion on murder, etc), then I would see a big problem. But I don't see someone going on about the benefits of rape, torture, incest, bestiality, <name your ick> to be non-constructive...after all, someone does need to take that side of the argument in order to discuss/debate the topic, yes?

The only part of your suggestion it does not implement are your suggestions on specific moderator action. That's up to the moderators, not us. I see that as being an issue of control, that the community is balking that they do not have a say in moderation. Well, let's face it, that's always been true, moderators have always had the final say on their decisions regardless of what the community says, and as long as you respect their judgment, that's not going to change,

I respect their judgment, as I said, but I think they ought to act within a predetermined framework that will, at least, shape their decisions. A point system would be a good start to that end.

Suggestion 2: Fix Voting Eligibility

All of this involves a moderator to IMHO far too great an extent.

It does involve a moderator, and we can certainly debate how involved they should be. But I think this is one area where moderator involvement is critically needed.

Suggestion 3: Require that all polls be approved by a moderator

Again, too much moderator involvement. Moderators are not DDO.

I'm starting to re-think this one, to be honest. Maybe we could have a three-strike rule or a probation system for polls, instead of requiring that they all be approved. Maybe even a filter would work.

Yeah, that make sense to me too, although I find some of the trolling polls to be rather funny sometimes, lol.

Certainly they're funny, and I wouldn't even mind if some of them were to stay. It's the bestiality and incest polls et al. that I have a problem with.

Suggestion 4: Create more competition and camaraderie on the site

Side issue to the new policy, irrelevant to it. Sounds great, but does not in any way affect implementation of the new policy.

I don't think it's a side issue, actually. As I said, my concern is bringing back people who have opted to leave because I don't think DDO will be the same without them. This is one way to bring them back.

Also, I think DDO's problems are systemic. I want to incentivize participation, particularly among new members, and one way to do that and to circumvent destructive behavior preemptively is to expand the communal aspects of the site. I'd posit, actually, that a system like this would cut down on the need for stringent moderation.

Good argument.

Thanks. So it seems we actually agree on quit
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
The_Scapegoat_bleats
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 8:03:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 5:23:23 AM, donald.keller wrote:
For starters: One exception doesn't mean the claim is void. The number of fake accounts on the site isn't important to the conversation. If the requirement went from 3 debates to both 2500 elo and Moderator review, it'll drastically drop. You are comparing how it is now to how it'd be in completely different circumstances.

Whether or not a rule tempts you to break it doesn't make it a bad rule. It just makes you bad with rules. Most people made fake accounts to vote on their debates, not to break rules for giggles, and to get past this change would require real debate since only the most radical people would go to the length to make their debates and account look legit.

Almost no fake account ever fits these requirements. Few people will go to the extremes to make a fake account that requires that much work.

I didn't say the claim is void, I expressed my doubts. Explicitly. And I have given a record where they come from. So, what's your problem with that? Why can't you just accept criticism and let it stand?

"The number of fake accounts on the site isn't important to the conversation."
"Most people made fake accounts ... "
Well, which is it now? Are you arguing numbers or not? I'm confused.

"You are comparing how it is now to how it'd be in completely different circumstances."
Well, that's a truism. Of course things would change, so there would be different circumstances after the change. What is the point you're getting at?

"Whether or not a rule tempts you to break it doesn't make it a bad rule."
That's what you say. I beg to differ.
Especially in this case, as I'm very strict about rules and the current ones DO NOT tempt me to break them, although they are far laxer than the ones you propose. When a rule does that, while other rules don't, it naturally tells us something about the rule, too. There must be a reason why one rule offends me, while another doesn't. This establishes two sets of rules, obviously. Finding out the difference tells us something about how a better rule can be found.

"It just makes you bad with rules."
That's insulting, and a direct attack. Would you consider an apology?

"to get past this change would require real debate since only the most radical people would go to the length to make their debates and account look legit"
You're missing the obvious: Challenging their fake account to a fake debate nobody really cares about, as it is almost always one of the opponents who reports fake debates. The easiest way would be to copy entire debates from another site or a magazine or something. Which voter will actually check a random debate for plagiarism? As I said, we don't look. So there would - to the common spectator/voter - be "two" people debating each other, both in a civil manner. Both advance in debate count, one will win, and nobody interferes, as it's a completely drama-free debate. Who would check this? Would the moderators really do that?
Or will the fact that the two accounts mainly debate each other be detected? How? We have lots of people here who debate their friends, have re-matches and so forth. This would be easy to achieve, and nearly undetectable.
This doesn't take going to the extremes. People don't DO that right now because it's unnecessary. If it became necessary in order to have an approved fake account to forever vote themselves up, they would start doing it.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 8:21:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
1) A point system is a horrible idea because it takes the ability for the mods to look at a situation and weigh what the best course of action is. Also, if anyone is wondering, Imabench would have been banned a long time ago under a point system. I personally find it a little funny that there is so much hostility towards the defining of a personal attack. PAs have always been against the site rules, and it has always said that any disregard for any rule could result in a ban. That is nothing new. All that has been done is a more comprehensive definition.

2) this would kill voting. We only have a total of about 400 members that are above 2500, and only 85 of them have been recently active. Considering we have about 90 debates a day, far more would end up votless.

3) Looks like you're already reconsidering this, so I won't bother with it.

4) This is completely independent of the rule update. This is also something that we've been working on Juggle for a long time. But DDO has been very successful as is, so a change is not vital. It would be a great help, but if the status quo is success, then it isn't needed.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 8:28:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 2:42:07 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/31/2014 11:32:04 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:

Suggestion 1: Address harassment, trolling, cheating, and threatening

I don't see anything inconsistent with the new policy and your recommendations. The new policy more or less takes most if not all of your suggestions into consideration and implements them. For example, the policy gives a good amount of leeway as to what a moderator would do in the event of a personal attack. Obviously if these attacks are habitual, that constitutes harassment.

I'm sure you trust airmax's judgment enough that you acknowledge that he has enough common sense to determine when someone crosses that line.

As it is, this policy is precisely meant to "discourage" bad behavior, and so is fully consistent with what you think needs to be changed (i.e. the policy is fine as it is). Personal attacks are bad behavior and should be "discouraged"...you essentially say so yourself. There's no other way to "discourage" such without moderator involvement to some degree.

The only part of your suggestion it does not implement are your suggestions on specific moderator action. That's up to the moderators, not us. I see that as being an issue of control, that the community is balking that they do not have a say in moderation. Well, let's face it, that's always been true, moderators have always had the final say on their decisions regardless of what the community says, and as long as you respect their judgment, that's not going to change,

Suggestion 2: Fix Voting Eligibility

All of this involves a moderator to IMHO far too great an extent.

Suggestion 3: Require that all polls be approved by a moderator

Again, too much moderator involvement. Moderators are not DDO.

Suggestion 4: Create more competition and camaraderie on the site

Side issue to the new policy, irrelevant to it. Sounds great, but does not in any way affect implementation of the new policy.

I agree, as this is way to much moderation. I can agree with almost everything BUT the moderation.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 8:33:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 8:21:01 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
1) A point system is a horrible idea because it takes the ability for the mods to look at a situation and weigh what the best course of action is. Also, if anyone is wondering, Imabench would have been banned a long time ago under a point system. I personally find it a little funny that there is so much hostility towards the defining of a personal attack. PAs have always been against the site rules, and it has always said that any disregard for any rule could result in a ban. That is nothing new. All that has been done is a more comprehensive definition.

I understand your point here, but I wouldn't even object to a flexible point system where a mods can use their judgment to apply points, but we maintain the threshold for temp and perma bans.

I'm aware that personal attacks have always been illegal, but have they always been defined this broadly?

2) this would kill voting. We only have a total of about 400 members that are above 2500, and only 85 of them have been recently active. Considering we have about 90 debates a day, far more would end up votless.

Fair enough. I wouldn't mind lowering that threshold to a more reasonable level to ensure that enough people can actually vote. The point is to apply a fairly substantial standard to prevent newcomers from joining simply to votebomb.

3) Looks like you're already reconsidering this, so I won't bother with it.

I'd love to get your thoughts on the updated suggestion -- having either a filter, a three-strike rule, or a probationary period for users who spam polls, as opposed to a broad-brush system of moderation.

4) This is completely independent of the rule update. This is also something that we've been working on Juggle for a long time. But DDO has been very successful as is, so a change is not vital. It would be a great help, but if the status quo is success, then it isn't needed.

It is independent of the update, yes, but I'm suggesting that it's an alternative to applying penalties to personal attacks in this way, and I believe it would in fact reduce the need for strict moderator action. This point was directed more so at what I consider to be the deteriorating state of DDO, rather than simply the rules update. As I myself and some others have pointed out, we've been considering leaving DDO before this update for various reasons. If anything, the new rule was simply another nail in coffin.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 5:08:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 8:33:23 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/1/2014 8:21:01 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
1) A point system is a horrible idea because it takes the ability for the mods to look at a situation and weigh what the best course of action is. Also, if anyone is wondering, Imabench would have been banned a long time ago under a point system. I personally find it a little funny that there is so much hostility towards the defining of a personal attack. PAs have always been against the site rules, and it has always said that any disregard for any rule could result in a ban. That is nothing new. All that has been done is a more comprehensive definition.

I understand your point here, but I wouldn't even object to a flexible point system where a mods can use their judgment to apply points, but we maintain the threshold for temp and perma bans.

I'm aware that personal attacks have always been illegal, but have they always been defined this broadly?

2) this would kill voting. We only have a total of about 400 members that are above 2500, and only 85 of them have been recently active. Considering we have about 90 debates a day, far more would end up votless.

Fair enough. I wouldn't mind lowering that threshold to a more reasonable level to ensure that enough people can actually vote. The point is to apply a fairly substantial standard to prevent newcomers from joining simply to votebomb.

I think that several things might work here. One would be weighting the points which a vote gave based on the ELO of the judge. Another would be the possibility of applying for special judge status, being approved by the mods, and then having votes count for more. I also don't like the 'point system' that we operate under, because an honest judge with a well-reasoned RFD will give someone two or three points, while a vote bomb will give them many more. Weighting votes would counter this somewhat, but perhaps it would be better to give each judge three votes, which they could distribute between the two parties however they see fit.

3) Looks like you're already reconsidering this, so I won't bother with it.

I'd love to get your thoughts on the updated suggestion -- having either a filter, a three-strike rule, or a probationary period for users who spam polls, as opposed to a broad-brush system of moderation.

4) This is completely independent of the rule update. This is also something that we've been working on Juggle for a long time. But DDO has been very successful as is, so a change is not vital. It would be a great help, but if the status quo is success, then it isn't needed.

It is independent of the update, yes, but I'm suggesting that it's an alternative to applying penalties to personal attacks in this way, and I believe it would in fact reduce the need for strict moderator action. This point was directed more so at what I consider to be the deteriorating state of DDO, rather than simply the rules update. As I myself and some others have pointed out, we've been considering leaving DDO before this update for various reasons. If anything, the new rule was simply another nail in coffin.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -