Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Bans Should Be Debated And Announced

Seido
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 11:40:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
When the moderators want to ban someone, they should create a debate about it between a moderator and the person being banned. This would allow for the person being banned to voice his/her opinion on what is going on. The person that is being banned should have the right to defend himself/herself.The ban would then be decided on based who gets the most votes at the end of the debate. This would prevent the moderators from controlling too much power on DDO, and would allow for the community to control itself. After a ban is made official, the ban would be announced on the forum

I personally believe that we should allow people to debate about their being banned, and we should announce when people are banned. Having debates would have two amazing benefits. Firstly, it would allow for people that are being banned to defend themselves on a public stage against the accusations of the moderators. This would ensure that when a ban is being used, the community at large is aware of both sides of the story. As things stand right now, the moderators could go ahead and ban anyone that they wanted to without the community actually knowing why they did so. This creates a society in which the moderators can justify whatever they do without any true opposition. While our moderators are, in general, just fine, its a dangerous idea to let them have that amount of power. Secondly, it would allow for the community to decide on if they want someone banned. In order to be put up for a ban, the moderators would have to have deemed that someone did something wrong. Then, the community can look at both sides of the story that are shown in the debate and can decide who they agree with. This means that while the moderators have control over who is in the pool of people to be banned, the community gets the final decision on if they want someone banned. This would help balance out the power that the moderators have and would allow for the community to have a better control over the entire community of DDO. This is, more of less, how the US system of law works. Both sides get to provide their argument, and a set of people (in this case the community) gets to decide the final fate of the defendant. Announcing bans would ensure that everyone was aware that a member of our community has been kicked out. This would do two things. Firstly, it would allow for people to know that rules are being enforced. If people see that others are being banned for breaking the rules, they would have more encouragement to not break the rules themselves. Secondly, it would allow people to know that a member of the community is no longer here. This would prevent situations in which people suddenly disappear due to being banned, which helps with the general confusion of being banned.

I recently had posted a poll as to what people think of this idea, and the vast majority of the people that voted were in favor of such an idea.

Link to the poll: http://www.debate.org...

Please share your opinions on this idea.
XLAV
Posts: 13,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 12:11:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I like this idea.

This reminds me of the Izbo trial. Izbo was quite well known back then. He was accused of something and he was in trial. He lost the trial and he got permed banned.

One of the problems with this idea is that it takes a long time to process. Debate trials should only happen if the member who is accused is popular and outstanding, and if the accused member is going to receive a permanent ban.

The moderators are doing a good job anyway so I don't see the need of this.
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,760
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 12:20:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There are too many problems with this.

1) It puts too much emphasis on bans. Moderators don't go around telling everyone who's banned and why, and that's because it would make that a focus area of the community. Like an online version of the attitude the French people had during the Reign of Terror. Obviously it's not a perfect analogy, but it would be similar.

2) it increases the chance for fault in the system. If the outcome of the debate decides whether someone gets banned then bad votes or biased votes can keep popular people on the site, and unpopular people would easily be banned.

3) It would be ineffective. Mods can remove and ban whatever they want. If one of them decides that someone really needs to be banned then they can just remove votes as needed to get their way. So the mods end up winning anyway.
The Troll Queen.

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

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

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

Fite me m9

http://www.debate.org...
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 12:39:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I sometimes imagine a class of DDO diplomats who try to mediate between mischievous people and the moderator, and convince those people to troll less or use less personal insults, after solving any personal or relational problems those people have with other users.

It's only when many DDO diplomats have failed with an active user, should the moderator decide to ban an active user for constant misbehavior or abuse. But I feel that people who are spamming(and I mean the traditional definition) and scamming should be instantly banned by the moderator.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 1:58:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The izbo trial was great. It was a nice DDO historical piece of a time when the moderator first had banning power and was reluctant to use it against a regular member who had repeated TOS violations. Innomen wasn't a trial so everyone would support the decision. I wouldn't undo it. That said, it took a lot of work. Total estimated prosecution time: 30 hours, non-consecutive. Do you really want such a procedure for *every single ban.* It's unworkable.

I agree with publicly posting who has been banned. I think people have a right to know who was banned and a brief description of why.

I disagree with debates. It's unworkable. It means people who should be immediately banned get another 2 weeks on the site to wreak havoc. It means obvious spammer don't get immediately banned. It means a lot of work for whoever prosecutes (you have to talk to like 20 different members about their negative experiences with this pesron), and it means that you have air publicly all of a person's dirty laundry. *Maybe there should be debates about whether someone who was perma-banned (but claims to be reformed) should be allowed back after a set time period expires. But even that likely wouldn't be productive.

A debate is like giving all decisions to Congress -- nothing gets down.

A moderator is like the President. When he has the authority to act on his own (through executive order), things get done quickly.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 2:36:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 11:40:32 AM, Seido wrote:

This is a shitty idea.

1. The community usually knows about it all anyway. The mods have never really banned someone unless they've been a problem for a while, and have tried numerous times to get in contact with the offender and remedy the issue without having to ban them. It's not like Ore_Ele gets (as big of) a kick out of banning random people as he does using his powers to win forum games for the funzies.

2. This is super ineffective. Usually if a ban is being considered to begin with, it's usually warranted, and there's already been discussion about it in the forums for both sides to present their arguments. If a ban needs to go down, it should have to wait a few days for the person to accept, then roughly a week for the default three rounds of 72-hour rounds (longer if there are more rounds other than the default), and then a week or so until all the voting gets done. Which means that even if we did want to ban someone, it would take over two weeks to get the ban through. That's like...congressional slow.

tl;dr - You kinda have to trust the mods to do their job. If you do, then there's no need for this. If you don't, you're probably not gonna stick around for long anyway.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 4:07:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 2:36:17 PM, Zaradi wrote:


I have a counter-proposal. Bans should be like a mafia game. Someone proposes the ban in a thread, the mod announces how many votes it takes to lynch (half of DDO serious active members) and then the person has to defend themselves before they get lynched.

Also, VTL zaradi :P
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 4:09:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 4:07:06 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/6/2014 2:36:17 PM, Zaradi wrote:


I have a counter-proposal. Bans should be like a mafia game. Someone proposes the ban in a thread, the mod announces how many votes it takes to lynch (half of DDO serious active members) and then the person has to defend themselves before they get lynched.

Also, VTL zaradi :P

Really? One vote out of, what, like 80 needed to lynch? Jesus the pressure, I don't know what to do.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 4:10:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 4:09:58 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:07:06 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/6/2014 2:36:17 PM, Zaradi wrote:


I have a counter-proposal. Bans should be like a mafia game. Someone proposes the ban in a thread, the mod announces how many votes it takes to lynch (half of DDO serious active members) and then the person has to defend themselves before they get lynched.

Also, VTL zaradi :P

Really? One vote out of, what, like 80 needed to lynch? Jesus the pressure, I don't know what to do.

Character claim. I know you're secretly Royal.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 4:13:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 4:10:58 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:09:58 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:07:06 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/6/2014 2:36:17 PM, Zaradi wrote:


I have a counter-proposal. Bans should be like a mafia game. Someone proposes the ban in a thread, the mod announces how many votes it takes to lynch (half of DDO serious active members) and then the person has to defend themselves before they get lynched.

Also, VTL zaradi :P

Really? One vote out of, what, like 80 needed to lynch? Jesus the pressure, I don't know what to do.

Character claim. I know you're secretly Royal.

1. GOD DAMNIT YOU WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO TELL EVERYONE

2. Character claim? With one vote? You can get what I had for breakfast this morning with that pressure, but that's about it.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 4:28:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 4:13:10 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:10:58 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:09:58 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:07:06 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/6/2014 2:36:17 PM, Zaradi wrote:


I have a counter-proposal. Bans should be like a mafia game. Someone proposes the ban in a thread, the mod announces how many votes it takes to lynch (half of DDO serious active members) and then the person has to defend themselves before they get lynched.

Also, VTL zaradi :P

Really? One vote out of, what, like 80 needed to lynch? Jesus the pressure, I don't know what to do.

Character claim. I know you're secretly Royal.

1. GOD DAMNIT YOU WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO TELL EVERYONE

2. Character claim? With one vote? You can get what I had for breakfast this morning with that pressure, but that's about it.

Fine, who did you eat for breakfast?
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 4:36:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 4:28:03 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:13:10 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:10:58 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:09:58 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:07:06 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/6/2014 2:36:17 PM, Zaradi wrote:


I have a counter-proposal. Bans should be like a mafia game. Someone proposes the ban in a thread, the mod announces how many votes it takes to lynch (half of DDO serious active members) and then the person has to defend themselves before they get lynched.

Also, VTL zaradi :P

Really? One vote out of, what, like 80 needed to lynch? Jesus the pressure, I don't know what to do.

Character claim. I know you're secretly Royal.

1. GOD DAMNIT YOU WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO TELL EVERYONE

2. Character claim? With one vote? You can get what I had for breakfast this morning with that pressure, but that's about it.

Fine, who did you eat for breakfast?

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here...
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 4:54:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 4:36:28 PM, Zaradi wrote:
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here...

I only got one question; thought I'd make it slightly more interesting....

How about you tell me what *I* ate for breakfast.
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
5/6/2014 4:55:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 4:54:40 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:36:28 PM, Zaradi wrote:
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here...

I only got one question; thought I'd make it slightly more interesting....

How about you tell me what *I* ate for breakfast.

Penis?

<3
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 4:59:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 4:55:35 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:54:40 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:36:28 PM, Zaradi wrote:
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here...

I only got one question; thought I'd make it slightly more interesting....

How about you tell me what *I* ate for breakfast.

Penis?

<3

lol
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
5/6/2014 5:01:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 4:59:40 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:55:35 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:54:40 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:36:28 PM, Zaradi wrote:
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here...

I only got one question; thought I'd make it slightly more interesting....

How about you tell me what *I* ate for breakfast.

Penis?

<3

lol

when you are done with finals we have to catch up ffs

I have friday and sunday off
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 5:02:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 5:01:26 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:59:40 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:55:35 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:54:40 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:36:28 PM, Zaradi wrote:
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here...

I only got one question; thought I'd make it slightly more interesting....

How about you tell me what *I* ate for breakfast.

Penis?

<3

lol

when you are done with finals we have to catch up ffs

I have friday and sunday off

Definitely -- let's do friday.
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
5/6/2014 5:02:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 5:02:13 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/6/2014 5:01:26 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:59:40 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:55:35 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:54:40 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:36:28 PM, Zaradi wrote:
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here...

I only got one question; thought I'd make it slightly more interesting....

How about you tell me what *I* ate for breakfast.

Penis?

<3

lol

when you are done with finals we have to catch up ffs

I have friday and sunday off

Definitely -- let's do friday.

bring the lube?
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 5:05:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Frankly, I don't like the system of voting. Banning needs to be able to be done swiftly and effectively, but if people restrict the right to effectively using this mechanism, then the endless ranting and fighting that permeates this forum will continue and breed incessently. That said, a right to appeal is important. However, banning from forums is an essential tool for a moderator to have to keep out insulting, degrading, or horrid comments.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 5:55:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't think bans should be debate (at least, I don't think bans should be contingent upon community consensus.) I already hashed out the exact reasons for this position in Daytona's last thread...I am even debating him on this topic. Please refer to that thread to see my exact position and my concerns with debating such things.

However, I am more willing to hear out the idea that bans should be announced. Debate ex post facto is often a healthy thing, and it also helps the community understand where the proverbial lines in the sand actually are. I can also see drawbacks to this, i.e. invasion of privacy. But I think that this latter proposal is more worthy of consideration than the first.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Seido
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 8:23:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I suppose that there would be some issues with this. I don't see so much of an issue in regard to it becoming a popularity contest, as in order to be put up for a banning, you must first be chosen by the moderators for breaking rules. Then it ends up being the community's decision as to if the person stays. The majority of the people here are relatively intelligent, and should be given some say in if they want someone to stay or leave their community. I also don't see too much of an issue with the moderators altering the voting results, as if they were to do that, I'm sure they'd end up getting in trouble. I might be entirely wrong here, but I'd assume that its possible for other moderators to check to see if the results were altered.

The issue that I will agree with you about is the swiftness of the banning. Bans should be carried out swiftly in order to prevent people from continuing their breaking of the rules. I have two solutions for this.

1) When someone is put up to be banned, the moderators can take away their ability to post everywhere EXCEPT on the debate about their ban. This would mean that they could still see the entirety of the forum, could still argue their point of view, but would be unable to do any further harm. They could use this ability to get proof for their case to prevent their banning. If they don't respond in the debate, they can be assumed to be bannable. The rest of what I said earlier still applies. I am not sure if this is something that is possible, but from my knowledge of forums, it would be relatively easy.

2) The moderators still have the ability to ban at will, but must immediately begin a debate in which they will debate someone who disagrees with the banning. At the end of the debate, the public will decide who wins the debate. If the moderator receives more votes, the person remains banned. If the other person wins, the person is unbanned. In order for this to work, the person who accepts to debate the moderator must be given a way to contact the person being banned. This would allow for the person being banned to provide his/her defender with as much of his/her side of the story as is possible. This would entirely prevent the person from continuing their rule breaking activities, would be fairly easy. The issue with this is that the person is not guaranteed a defense as there's no guarantee that someone will agree to defend the person being banned. On the other hand, this could end up making things easier, as if the community doesn't want the person to stay within the community, it speeds up the process.
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,760
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 8:48:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Still not a good idea.
The Troll Queen.

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

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

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

Fite me m9

http://www.debate.org...
Seido
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 8:52:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Care to explain why? I'd like to reform the idea into something that is good. If you have specific issues with it, voice them, so that I can attempt to either explain why they wouldn't be issues, or so that I can attempt to amend the idea to fix said issues.
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 8:55:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 8:52:03 PM, Seido wrote:
Care to explain why?

It's been explained to you. I really don't think there's much else to say.
Tsar of DDO
Seido
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 9:11:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You provided me with flaws with the original idea. I amended the idea in a more recent post and am looking for criticisms of the new version of the idea.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 9:16:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 9:11:31 PM, Seido wrote:
You provided me with flaws with the original idea. I amended the idea in a more recent post and am looking for criticisms of the new version of the idea.

None of your amends fix the problem.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,760
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 9:35:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 9:11:31 PM, Seido wrote:
You provided me with flaws with the original idea. I amended the idea in a more recent post and am looking for criticisms of the new version of the idea.

Lol dude, you're still ignoring the actual issues. You haven't even attempted to address anything except for haste.
The Troll Queen.

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

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

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

Fite me m9

http://www.debate.org...
Seido
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 9:43:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The primary issues that were brought up were:

1) It hurts the efficiency of the moderating process, meaning that while the debate is going on, the person being banned can continue breaking the rules.

2) The banning process ends up becoming about popularity as opposed to what people do incorrectly.

3) The moderators could easily alter the results in their favor.

My amendments should fix the efficiency of the banning process. If the goal of banning someone is to rid the community of their bad influence in addition to punishing them, you shouldn't have any problem if you remove their ability to post outside of their own debate. If that is too hard to code, banning them entirely would be an option where they are defended by someone else. Once the person has been removed from the general populace, it doesn't really matter how long the debate takes. This fixes the efficiency issue while ensuring that they can still be defended.

As I said previously, the banning process would partially be about popularity, but not entirely. In order for someone to be put up for a ban, they must first supposedly break the rules in a way that annoys the moderators. Once the moderators have decided that the person needs to be banned, they can follow the aforementioned process. The moderator and someone else would debate the issue, and whoever gets the most votes at the end wins for their side. As this is an intelligent community, I have faith that people will vote based on the actual arguments of the debate as opposed to popularity. If they do vote based on popularity though, there isn't too much of an issue. If they dislike a member of the community enough to wish for the person to be banned, and a moderator agrees with them, they should be given the opportunity to have them banned. Contrarily, if they disagree with the moderator and think that the positives keeping this person around outweigh the negatives, they should be allowed to decide. The moderators might be in-charge, but it is still the community's community. They should have some say in who stays in it.

Although I am not sure about the third point, I'd imagine that if a moderator was to alter the votes of debate, there would be away for their fellow moderators to see it. And even if they can't, we should have SOME faith in the people who have been chosen to be moderators.

At least in my eyes, this covers the primary issues that have been brought up. If I have missed something, please specify what that is.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 10:50:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think a lot of the issues have already been addressed, and I'll offer more thoughts on this idea when I have time, but something I haven't seen mentioned that is particuarly significant is the following:

Debates require submitting evidence. This causes two significant problems:

1) Many of the worst offenses of the member in question for a ban will have been deleted if they involve posts/threads. Voters can just take my word on it, but then there really isn't any point to the whole process since that is what is already done.

2) Some of the worst types of offenses can not be debated without violating necessary member privacy. While I'll accept for the sake of this that the member being debated agrees to waive their privacy, if one of their offenses is the harassment of another member this becomes problematic. Members who report harassment do not have to worry about their testimony becoming public. While the testimony itself is often not enough for a ban of another member, it often establishes a pattern of behavior, and usually can be proven. However, the member reporting it is not required to have that testimony or the fact that they gave it, made public. This is for several reasons including not wanting to discourage reporting this type of thing.

So, for the sake of debating a ban, I would simply have to say that the member is guilty of sexual harassment and members would have to take my word for it. Again, defeating the purpose since the status quo is that members have to take my word for it that a ban is justified.

...

To make this more practical, this issue is being prompted due to the current ban of a particular member. I can't or wont present evidence of the worst offenses (though I have mentioned them), and therefore I would (justifiably) lose any debate about it and the member is unable to be banned no matter how justified it is. To rectify issue one, some might suggest I just take screen shots of the offense and present them in a debate, but again, I wont post a members misconduct if it was offensive enough to garner a warning or a potential ban. In cases of posting pornography this would clearly be unacceptable and again members would just have to take my word for it.

There are several other issues I may post if I have the chance, but as mentioned in this thread, this idea is not practical.
Debate.org Moderator