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

Some quick things...

airmax1227
Posts: 13,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 9:47:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
1) The site's new policy can be summarized as: Personal attacks are not conducive to fostering the type of atmosphere that DDO should encourage and moderation will now reflect this. I understand there are disagreements over language and specifics, though I think much of that has been addressed.

In areas where members are unclear and may violate what is being described as a personal attack, they are not suddenly at risk of being banned. Mistakes happen, or rules are unclear. This policy is intended to provide a guideline for the types of things that should be avoided habitually, in an effort to foster a site free from personal attacks, bullying and harassment.

In nearly every case, just as it has always been for offenses large and small, I will have a conversation with the offending member when making my decision.

If you encounter anything worth reporting, it's always worth contacting me directly.

2) Personal attacks have always been a violation of the TOS. What personal attacks mean in the context of the site, and the extent to which the TOS has been enforced has, however, been ambiguous--this led to some confusion, and some abuse. In the end, we either enforce the TOS or we don't, and personal attacks leading to other problems is an issue that has become increasingly problematic. That's what prompted the lengthy explanation and declaration of enforcement.

3) The personal attack guideline is only the first of a list clearly describing the sites rules. While the rest will hopefully be less controversial, they will explain the details on things like "multi accounts", "spamming", "plagiarism" and others. My goal is to make clear what is and is not acceptable conduct on the site.

4) I think it is unfortunate that some members have reacted the way they have, though much of it has been understandable. I think it's unfortunate that some members have decided to leave the site. I'm never happy to see members leave, and I'm never happy to ban anyone.

5) On a final note, I know I have said that attacks and insults directed to me will generally be allowed to slide. I'm a public figure on this site, and a figure of authority. I don't take them personally. This is true, and I don't really take offense to those things.

However, I unfortunately have to make a statement. That statement is this: Sending clear threats of violence directed at me, my friends, or my family will not be tolerated whatsoever.

I won't engage in a conversation with you.
I won't ask if you are serious.

I will just close your account forever, ban your IP, and delete the message. I have other powers at my disposal I may employ in response, as well, to ensure that you do not do such a thing again. I do not wish to employ them. There aren't a lot of things that will get such a severe and immediate response from me--but that's one.

I know just by saying that, I'm courting a deluge of "joke threats". It's not funny. I'm not joking. This is not unreasonable, and it's not a request. It's a flat statement of fact, and what will happen.

In closing, things for the vast majority of members aren't going to change. I haven't suddenly become a draconian, ban-happy despot. I just wanted to clarify what are considered personal attacks, and be very clear that I intend to enforce the long standing policy against them.
Debate.org Moderator
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 9:59:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/2/2014 9:47:17 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
However, I unfortunately have to make a statement. That statement is this: Sending clear threats of violence directed at me, my friends, or my family will not be tolerated whatsoever.

I won't engage in a conversation with you.
I won't ask if you are serious.

I will just close your account forever, ban your IP, and delete the message. I have other powers at my disposal I may employ in response, as well, to ensure that you do not do such a thing again. I do not wish to employ them. There aren't a lot of things that will get such a severe and immediate response from me--but that's one.

I know just by saying that, I'm courting a deluge of "joke threats". It's not funny. I'm not joking. This is not unreasonable, and it's not a request. It's a flat statement of fact, and what will happen.

Damn straight.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 10:01:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/2/2014 9:52:42 PM, Romanii wrote:
So, Krazzy_Player is perma-banned?

Finnaly!!! I thought he was a coll guy, but for some reason he started referring to me as a insect?
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
yay842
Posts: 5,680
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 10:02:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/2/2014 10:01:49 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/2/2014 9:52:42 PM, Romanii wrote:
So, Krazzy_Player is perma-banned?

Finnaly!!! I thought he was a coll guy, but for some reason he started referring to me as a insect?

he made a bunch of threads saying that airmax <stuff here>
30 Important Life Lessons
http://www.debate.org...
20 Terrifying Two-Sentence Horrors
http://www.debate.org...
20 Jokes That Only Geniuses Will Understand
http://www.debate.org...
Name One Song That Can't Match This GIF
http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net...
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 10:05:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/2/2014 10:02:29 PM, yay842 wrote:
At 4/2/2014 10:01:49 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/2/2014 9:52:42 PM, Romanii wrote:
So, Krazzy_Player is perma-banned?

Finnaly!!! I thought he was a coll guy, but for some reason he started referring to me as a insect?

he made a bunch of threads saying that airmax <stuff here>

That was stupid.
He was actually a pretty good debater and did a lot of voting.
It is unfortunate that he had to start with his baseless attacks against the moderators : /
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 10:06:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/2/2014 10:05:20 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 4/2/2014 10:02:29 PM, yay842 wrote:
At 4/2/2014 10:01:49 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/2/2014 9:52:42 PM, Romanii wrote:
So, Krazzy_Player is perma-banned?

Finnaly!!! I thought he was a coll guy, but for some reason he started referring to me as a insect?

he made a bunch of threads saying that airmax <stuff here>

That was stupid.
He was actually a pretty good debater and did a lot of voting.
It is unfortunate that he had to start with his baseless attacks against the moderators : /

He also called users weird names. I thought he was pretty strange to be honest.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 10:06:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/2/2014 9:47:17 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
I have other powers at my disposal I may employ in response, as well, to ensure that you do not do such a thing again.

That reminds me of a scene in a movie.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 10:07:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/2/2014 10:06:16 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/2/2014 10:05:20 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 4/2/2014 10:02:29 PM, yay842 wrote:
At 4/2/2014 10:01:49 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/2/2014 9:52:42 PM, Romanii wrote:
So, Krazzy_Player is perma-banned?

Finnaly!!! I thought he was a coll guy, but for some reason he started referring to me as a insect?

he made a bunch of threads saying that airmax <stuff here>

That was stupid.
He was actually a pretty good debater and did a lot of voting.
It is unfortunate that he had to start with his baseless attacks against the moderators : /

He also called users weird names. I thought he was pretty strange to be honest.

Yeah, I saw him call several people "insects" and "vermin"...
Maybe the departure of Imabench drove him insane?
airmax1227
Posts: 13,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 10:07:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/2/2014 10:02:29 PM, yay842 wrote:
At 4/2/2014 10:01:49 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/2/2014 9:52:42 PM, Romanii wrote:
So, Krazzy_Player is perma-banned?

Finnaly!!! I thought he was a coll guy, but for some reason he started referring to me as a insect?

he made a bunch of threads saying that airmax <stuff here>

This really has nothing to do with the OP... and anything he said directed at me is not what resulted in his ban. Whether this is temporary or permanent is still being considered, but the conduct needed to be stopped.

Members can generally attack the moderators without fear of any kind of retribution. But when those attacks become vulgar and directed at everyone else as well, then there is a significant problem.
Debate.org Moderator
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 10:11:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/2/2014 9:47:17 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
1) The site's new policy can be summarized as: Personal attacks are not conducive to fostering the type of atmosphere that DDO should encourage and moderation will now reflect this. I understand there are disagreements over language and specifics, though I think much of that has been addressed.

In areas where members are unclear and may violate what is being described as a personal attack, they are not suddenly at risk of being banned. Mistakes happen, or rules are unclear. This policy is intended to provide a guideline for the types of things that should be avoided habitually, in an effort to foster a site free from personal attacks, bullying and harassment.

In nearly every case, just as it has always been for offenses large and small, I will have a conversation with the offending member when making my decision.

If you encounter anything worth reporting, it's always worth contacting me directly.


2) Personal attacks have always been a violation of the TOS. What personal attacks mean in the context of the site, and the extent to which the TOS has been enforced has, however, been ambiguous--this led to some confusion, and some abuse. In the end, we either enforce the TOS or we don't, and personal attacks leading to other problems is an issue that has become increasingly problematic. That's what prompted the lengthy explanation and declaration of enforcement.


3) The personal attack guideline is only the first of a list clearly describing the sites rules. While the rest will hopefully be less controversial, they will explain the details on things like "multi accounts", "spamming", "plagiarism" and others. My goal is to make clear what is and is not acceptable conduct on the site.

4) I think it is unfortunate that some members have reacted the way they have, though much of it has been understandable. I think it's unfortunate that some members have decided to leave the site. I'm never happy to see members leave, and I'm never happy to ban anyone.

5) On a final note, I know I have said that attacks and insults directed to me will generally be allowed to slide. I'm a public figure on this site, and a figure of authority. I don't take them personally. This is true, and I don't really take offense to those things.

However, I unfortunately have to make a statement. That statement is this: Sending clear threats of violence directed at me, my friends, or my family will not be tolerated whatsoever.

I won't engage in a conversation with you.
I won't ask if you are serious.

It's unfortunate that some of our members, especially some of our regular members would degrade to doing such a thing. :/

I will just close your account forever, ban your IP, and delete the message. I have other powers at my disposal I may employ in response, as well, to ensure that you do not do such a thing again. I do not wish to employ them. There aren't a lot of things that will get such a severe and immediate response from me--but that's one.

I know just by saying that, I'm courting a deluge of "joke threats". It's not funny. I'm not joking. This is not unreasonable, and it's not a request. It's a flat statement of fact, and what will happen.

In closing, things for the vast majority of members aren't going to change. I haven't suddenly become a draconian, ban-happy despot. I just wanted to clarify what are considered personal attacks, and be very clear that I intend to enforce the long standing policy against them.
Nolite Timere
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 8:08:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't think anyone has an issue with the semantic content of the policy (aside from the very stupid prohibition against ad hominems). After all, as you say (after everyone else has already pointed out), it's basically just confusing, ambiguous elaboration of the TOS.

What people have a problem with is how it is being presented and what it means.

Acceptable behavior in any social group is defined - not by any set of written rules - but one what is and is not actually enforced. When a person of authority says - for example - that he only punishes blatant and extreme violations of the rules but prefers to err on the side of freedom of expression, he is basically saying that behavior which he is not punishing is, by elimination, allowed and accepted.

What is accepted is what is acceptable.

There is no new policy. There is new moderation. You are changing what is considered acceptable behavior. The problem is, there is no clear line of what this will mean in practice. You've taken the existing policy, restated it, and saying you're going to start enforcing it now, but I don't think anyone has a real idea of what that is going to mean in practice. Clearly it means you are not going to be erring on the side of freedom of expression as much, but where is the line? I think we all had a pretty good sense of where that line was previously, but now that's in question and there is no clear guide aside from the specific examples you mentioned.

The responses you are seeing are reasonable, and should have been expected

When stuff like this changes people either: A) ignore it because they don't care or think it affects them; B) err on the side of their own personal caution and restrict their own behavior (such as leaving the site); or C) engage in behavior deliberately designed to test the rules.

The problem is that C) here is being portrayed as unreasonable and malicious, when it is a natural human reaction to uncertainty and a tried and true method of trying to figure out what the fvck is going on. If you won't give us a clear line, then the only way for us to figure it out is by trial and error.

Now, on to the portrayal. You talk of things getting out of hand and being a problem. Well, that's your fault. If you say that some set of behavior is acceptable, then that behavior is acceptable. If you erred in that judgement, you can't blame people for engaging in what has been defined as acceptable behavior. Yet that is exactly what is going on here. The line here is that it is the community is getting out of hand, like we're an unruly mob, and you're implementing martial law to get us back in line.

When people come to this site, they look to other members and how those other members behave in order to gauge how to behave themselves. With a long history of "erring on the side of freedom of expression" and letting "attack threads" and stuff like the Weekly Stupid, you the moderators, created a de facto sense of what acceptable behavior was. That this was contrary to the de jure sense of acceptable behavior is irrelevant. It is not the people's fault that they were following the guidelines already in place that were shaped by your moderation. If we are in a place that is too much for you to handle, then take ownership of your past decisions. I don't see how we can fault other people for that.