Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Problems with the new mod policy

PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2014 5:24:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Having reviewed Airmax's new policy on insults, I have a few points. This thread is for constructive discussion to explore possible solutions acceptable to both the mods and the concerned members.

1. I am vehemently opposed to the following clause:

"Ad hominem attacks are not valid rebuttals. Which is not to say that the every statement about the person in relation to their arguments is an ad hominem attack. Pointing out that of course a politician would deny cheating, whether they did cheat or not, is not an ad hominem. Claiming that of course someone cheated, because they're a politician, would be. Ad hominem attacks are personal attacks. They are not tolerated."

The Ad Hominem attack, while being a fallacy, is hardly a bannable offence. The debaters who fall into this fallacy are doing so because they believe, in their faulty logic, that it is a suitable argument. Are we now banning people simply for faulty logic? This is smothering to the very foundation of DDO.

2. The following excerpt is an example of this new policy completely suffocating an entire genre of debate.

"Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse for mere insult. Mere insults are personal attacks. They are not tolerated."

A huge number of DDO members hold "bigoted" or "racist" views, and want to debate about them. This is a major portion of DDO's activity, where these people present their bigoted opinions for debate, and other members refute and debunk those views. Are the mods saying that these people no longer have the right to express those views? If so, I believe that this policy is severely damaging to the very purpose of this amazing website.

3. I simply do not see the following as feasible, appropriate, or warranted.

"Treat every new exchange with a member with as much of a "clean slate" as possible"

I often debate a particular member on this site, who shall remain unnamed, and often it is contextually appropriate bring up previous statements made by my opponent, even when they are not directly related to the subject at hand. I see this as far too restrictive and unnecessary.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2014 5:29:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/20/2014 5:24:54 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Having reviewed Airmax's new policy on insults, I have a few points. This thread is for constructive discussion to explore possible solutions acceptable to both the mods and the concerned members.

1. I am vehemently opposed to the following clause:

"Ad hominem attacks are not valid rebuttals. Which is not to say that the every statement about the person in relation to their arguments is an ad hominem attack. Pointing out that of course a politician would deny cheating, whether they did cheat or not, is not an ad hominem. Claiming that of course someone cheated, because they're a politician, would be. Ad hominem attacks are personal attacks. They are not tolerated."

The Ad Hominem attack, while being a fallacy, is hardly a bannable offence. The debaters who fall into this fallacy are doing so because they believe, in their faulty logic, that it is a suitable argument. Are we now banning people simply for faulty logic? This is smothering to the very foundation of DDO.

2. The following excerpt is an example of this new policy completely suffocating an entire genre of debate.

"Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse for mere insult. Mere insults are personal attacks. They are not tolerated."

A huge number of DDO members hold "bigoted" or "racist" views, and want to debate about them. This is a major portion of DDO's activity, where these people present their bigoted opinions for debate, and other members refute and debunk those views. Are the mods saying that these people no longer have the right to express those views? If so, I believe that this policy is severely damaging to the very purpose of this amazing website.

That is not what the rule is saying at all. The rule is saying that you cannot simply insult them because of that. You can't say "You're a christian? huh, didn't realize you were such an idiot to believe in a magic sky fairy." As the quoted part said, the disagreement is not an excuse for a personal attack.


3. I simply do not see the following as feasible, appropriate, or warranted.

"Treat every new exchange with a member with as much of a "clean slate" as possible"

I often debate a particular member on this site, who shall remain unnamed, and often it is contextually appropriate bring up previous statements made by my opponent, even when they are not directly related to the subject at hand. I see this as far too restrictive and unnecessary.

It should also be noted, that this is not a "ban on first offense" policy. This is just to better define what insults are, since they were never allowed on DDO, but weren't well defined. We still try to take any issue and work it out before going to a ban.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2014 5:31:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/20/2014 5:29:12 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/20/2014 5:24:54 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Having reviewed Airmax's new policy on insults, I have a few points. This thread is for constructive discussion to explore possible solutions acceptable to both the mods and the concerned members.

1. I am vehemently opposed to the following clause:

"Ad hominem attacks are not valid rebuttals. Which is not to say that the every statement about the person in relation to their arguments is an ad hominem attack. Pointing out that of course a politician would deny cheating, whether they did cheat or not, is not an ad hominem. Claiming that of course someone cheated, because they're a politician, would be. Ad hominem attacks are personal attacks. They are not tolerated."

The Ad Hominem attack, while being a fallacy, is hardly a bannable offence. The debaters who fall into this fallacy are doing so because they believe, in their faulty logic, that it is a suitable argument. Are we now banning people simply for faulty logic? This is smothering to the very foundation of DDO.

2. The following excerpt is an example of this new policy completely suffocating an entire genre of debate.

"Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse for mere insult. Mere insults are personal attacks. They are not tolerated."

A huge number of DDO members hold "bigoted" or "racist" views, and want to debate about them. This is a major portion of DDO's activity, where these people present their bigoted opinions for debate, and other members refute and debunk those views. Are the mods saying that these people no longer have the right to express those views? If so, I believe that this policy is severely damaging to the very purpose of this amazing website.

That is not what the rule is saying at all. The rule is saying that you cannot simply insult them because of that. You can't say "You're a christian? huh, didn't realize you were such an idiot to believe in a magic sky fairy." As the quoted part said, the disagreement is not an excuse for a personal attack.


3. I simply do not see the following as feasible, appropriate, or warranted.

"Treat every new exchange with a member with as much of a "clean slate" as possible"

I often debate a particular member on this site, who shall remain unnamed, and often it is contextually appropriate bring up previous statements made by my opponent, even when they are not directly related to the subject at hand. I see this as far too restrictive and unnecessary.

It should also be noted, that this is not a "ban on first offense" policy. This is just to better define what insults are, since they were never allowed on DDO, but weren't well defined. We still try to take any issue and work it out before going to a ban.

Understood, thank you. I am not trying to instigate anything here, i simply feel that these are legitimate concerns, and that a good discussion can help to reach some understanding.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2014 5:41:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/20/2014 5:27:16 PM, XLAV wrote:
Lol, you're pretty late.

I've not been on in forever. I just found this.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,025
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2014 5:59:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/20/2014 5:27:16 PM, XLAV wrote:
Lol, you're pretty late.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2014 6:04:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The site rehashed this ad naseum already due to the imabench scandal.

I'll note briefly though a few things:

1) Ad Homs are not valid rebuttals

Your criticism is valid [that a ban is an excessive punishment for an ad hom]. But this policy never made everything in it an auto-bannable offense. Ad homs probably should be encompassed as a personal attack, but only a really bad ad hom should be a bannable offense.

2) Disagreement over what constitutes .... is not grounds for mere insult.

You can argue a racists viewpoints with him or her. But you shouldn't use his views as a reason to *insult* him. That's all the rule is saying.

3) Treat every exchange ... clean slate

This rule is designed to combat cross-thread contamination. It's a form of harassment to keep bothering someone over the same thing in every place they post to on the site. It's designed to stop extreme forms of behavior, not referencing someone's forum post a couple times in one of your debates.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2014 7:43:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/20/2014 5:24:54 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:

[I agree with most of what you said, but others have already said some other stuff about it, andI don't really have anything novel to contribute to those ends.]

3. I simply do not see the following as feasible, appropriate, or warranted.

"Treat every new exchange with a member with as much of a "clean slate" as possible"

I often debate a particular member on this site, who shall remain unnamed, and often it is contextually appropriate bring up previous statements made by my opponent, even when they are not directly related to the subject at hand. I see this as far too restrictive and unnecessary.

Yeah, and I grant you that the wording on this clause of the new policy is pretty... weird, to say the very least. How could I, for example, ignore the fact that I know a whole lot about another member -good or bad? There is some irony too, in that in the 'enforcement' of other rules, moderators have failed themselves to abide by this one. But, the intent is well merited.

There have been users in the past who have maliciously harassed other users, across many threads, and this is intended to prevent that from happening. Intent = worthwhile, but phraseology = less than perfect. So, I think it's going to be best to just roll with it in this case.

But, in any event, the policies themselves have gotten way more attention than they deserve. The uniting theme of all of them is "don't be a douche," which, though simple to articulate in that way, is a lot harder to spell out in site policies. How these things are going to be enforced is the real issue.
Tsar of DDO