Total Posts:120|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

When should trolling be a bannable offense

bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 6:40:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I've been toying with this somewhat. In theory, if 95% or more of the site is sick of a particularly toxic user, should that user be banned? In some ways, this is our "community" and we shouldn't have to tolerate a horrible presence on here just because they have technically not violated the TOS [and usually they have, but airmax has simply chosen not to perma-ban them yet].

Obviously, we'd need Juggle's approval of a "community super-majority consensus" rule for banning people, but what do you guys think? If a near-unanimous number of people agree to have someone banned, should the person be banned? Maybe you would have something like the Izbo trial to inform everyone of all of that person's infractions. In theory Izbo could have been banned for vote bombing and personal attacks, which are TOS violations, but you could also have viewed him as being banned by Innomen due to a community consensus that he was ruining the forums.

It's pretty standard fair on other websites to ban users that merely annoy everyone. Should we do that here?
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 6:45:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 6:40:28 PM, bluesteel wrote:
I mean, not that it's a bad idea...

But then, it's also kind of not fair. If the person really breaks rules & violates the ToS, then yeah they should be banned imho. If the person is only contributing negatively, then maybe.

But still, it's not really fair to the person if we decide, though I would love that.
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 6:46:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 6:40:28 PM, bluesteel wrote:
I've been toying with this somewhat. In theory, if 95% or more of the site is sick of a particularly toxic user, should that user be banned? In some ways, this is our "community" and we shouldn't have to tolerate a horrible presence on here just because they have technically not violated the TOS [and usually they have, but airmax has simply chosen not to perma-ban them yet].

Obviously, we'd need Juggle's approval of a "community super-majority consensus" rule for banning people, but what do you guys think? If a near-unanimous number of people agree to have someone banned, should the person be banned? Maybe you would have something like the Izbo trial to inform everyone of all of that person's infractions. In theory Izbo could have been banned for vote bombing and personal attacks, which are TOS violations, but you could also have viewed him as being banned by Innomen due to a community consensus that he was ruining the forums.

It's pretty standard fair on other websites to ban users that merely annoy everyone. Should we do that here?

community consensus via a trial
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 6:48:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 6:40:28 PM, bluesteel wrote:
I've been toying with this somewhat. In theory, if 95% or more of the site is sick of a particularly toxic user, should that user be banned? In some ways, this is our "community" and we shouldn't have to tolerate a horrible presence on here just because they have technically not violated the TOS [and usually they have, but airmax has simply chosen not to perma-ban them yet].

Obviously, we'd need Juggle's approval of a "community super-majority consensus" rule for banning people, but what do you guys think? If a near-unanimous number of people agree to have someone banned, should the person be banned? Maybe you would have something like the Izbo trial to inform everyone of all of that person's infractions. In theory Izbo could have been banned for vote bombing and personal attacks, which are TOS violations, but you could also have viewed him as being banned by Innomen due to a community consensus that he was ruining the forums.

It's pretty standard fair on other websites to ban users that merely annoy everyone. Should we do that here?

Trials are usually messy and complicated, and there is a huge risk for them to be even more damaging to the community than the member put on trial. I once thought they were a good idea, but conversations with Airmax have changed my view on that issue.

I think being able to ban people because they're "toxic" where more than a simple majority of the members recognize that a member is toxic (by whatever standard individuals within the community want to consider toxic) is probably a good thing.

Voting people off the island doesn't seem unreasonable.
Tsar of DDO
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 6:52:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 6:40:28 PM, bluesteel wrote:
I've been toying with this somewhat. In theory, if 95% or more of the site is sick of a particularly toxic user, should that user be banned?
95% of active users? If not, then it makes no sense being implemented.
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 6:54:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 6:45:05 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 10/20/2014 6:40:28 PM, bluesteel wrote:
I mean, not that it's a bad idea...

But then, it's also kind of not fair. If the person really breaks rules & violates the ToS, then yeah they should be banned imho. If the person is only contributing negatively, then maybe.

But still, it's not really fair to the person if we decide, though I would love that.

It might not be fair to ban someone only because people don't like them, but if a community doesn't like someone because they troll, incite conflict and spam the forums that seems to be a legitimate basis for banning someone and if the community dislikes someone for those reasons I think banning them is probably fair.

I think a really important thing to consider here is that fairness to the person being banned isn't the only thing that's relevant. We've also got to consider fairness to the community. It's not fair to the community to allow a toxic member to remain simply because the sum of their bad acts haven't risen to the level of violating the TOS in such a way that would merit a disciplinary ban.

Part of being a community entails an agreement to do certain things (be nice to people, for example) and not do other things (create unnecessary problems). Where a member is toxic, they're not holding up their end of the bargain.

Policy bans, which is what bluesteel is advocating for, seem to be a reasonable tool to preserve peace and harmony. They could be a simpler measure to kick particularly acrimonious members who do not productively contribute and regularly negatively impact the site out of the community.
Tsar of DDO
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 6:54:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Maybe voting people off the island doesn't seem unreasonable when applied to a genuinely toxic user, there is still a risk that such a policy might have a suppressive effect on freedom of speech and diversity of views. To me, it seems like a way to enforce conformity.

IDK...I definitely can see how that "voting people off the island" policy might be a boon to the community, but it would have to be undertaken with care. I would say a 4/5th majority (80%) would be necessary.

And how would we even determine who would compose the voting pool? There isn't really a good way to measure who are the regularly active users that should vote? And what if I am a regular in the polls or debate sections, but not the forums? Presumably since I am not one of the main people impacted by this troll, should I still be able to vote?

I really see more issues than benefits. It's nice in theory, but I am by no means sold.
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...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 6:54:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 6:45:05 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 10/20/2014 6:40:28 PM, bluesteel wrote:
I mean, not that it's a bad idea...

But then, it's also kind of not fair. If the person really breaks rules & violates the ToS, then yeah they should be banned imho. If the person is only contributing negatively, then maybe.

But still, it's not really fair to the person if we decide, though I would love that.

I'm talking mostly about people who have had multiple confrontations with other members. It's not like they haven't been "warned." Usually their warnings come in the form of other members asking them to shape up. Is it really unfair? It's not like their ban would come out of nowhere. Trust me, it takes a lot of failed chances before someone manages to alienate the entire community.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 6:56:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 6:54:34 PM, bsh1 wrote:
And how would we even determine who would compose the voting pool?

I think that only established members who have been on the site for more than a year should be allowed to vote another member off. I also think that the DDO elite (we know who they are) should have veto power.
Tsar of DDO
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 7:00:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 6:56:48 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/20/2014 6:54:34 PM, bsh1 wrote:
And how would we even determine who would compose the voting pool?

I think that only established members who have been on the site for more than a year should be allowed to vote another member off. I also think that the DDO elite (we know who they are) should have veto power.

Now this, I agree with.
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 7:01:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 6:54:34 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Maybe voting people off the island doesn't seem unreasonable when applied to a genuinely toxic user, there is still a risk that such a policy might have a suppressive effect on freedom of speech and diversity of views. To me, it seems like a way to enforce conformity.

IDK...I definitely can see how that "voting people off the island" policy might be a boon to the community, but it would have to be undertaken with care. I would say a 4/5th majority (80%) would be necessary.

And how would we even determine who would compose the voting pool? There isn't really a good way to measure who are the regularly active users that should vote? And what if I am a regular in the polls or debate sections, but not the forums? Presumably since I am not one of the main people impacted by this troll, should I still be able to vote?

I really see more issues than benefits. It's nice in theory, but I am by no means sold.

If you did it the same way as the presidential election -- leave a thread open for a week or two and everyone who votes in it (who has been here more than month or something) has their vote counted -- then you're basically capturing the active userbase. If someone regularly comes to the forums, they will see the thread.

I'm not as concerned about non-forum users not have a vote, since trolls mostly ruin the forums, so the people who are most affected are the ones the voting. You can't really vote on something you don't know anything about.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 7:02:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 6:56:48 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/20/2014 6:54:34 PM, bsh1 wrote:
And how would we even determine who would compose the voting pool?

I think that only established members who have been on the site for more than a year should be allowed to vote another member off. I also think that the DDO elite (we know who they are) should have veto power.

What is I have been on here for a year, but rarely frequent the forums? What if I confine myself to a single forum? What if I don't even know who the troll is?

If we accept 4/5ths as a threshold, should it be 4/5ths of eligible voters, or of votes cast? Will votes be cast privately or not? Will the troll have a right to post a defense of him/herself?

Really, I think there are too many practical issues to be solved. I think a possible alternative is to have an elected body (elected in the same way and at the same time as the President) of maybe 5 members who could vote to recommend a troll's removal. If they vote unanimously, the recommendation would be submitted to the mods, and the mods could either veto or acquiesce to the recommendation. To me, that seems more manageable.
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...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 7:04:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 7:01:43 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 10/20/2014 6:54:34 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Maybe voting people off the island doesn't seem unreasonable when applied to a genuinely toxic user, there is still a risk that such a policy might have a suppressive effect on freedom of speech and diversity of views. To me, it seems like a way to enforce conformity.

IDK...I definitely can see how that "voting people off the island" policy might be a boon to the community, but it would have to be undertaken with care. I would say a 4/5th majority (80%) would be necessary.

And how would we even determine who would compose the voting pool? There isn't really a good way to measure who are the regularly active users that should vote? And what if I am a regular in the polls or debate sections, but not the forums? Presumably since I am not one of the main people impacted by this troll, should I still be able to vote?

I really see more issues than benefits. It's nice in theory, but I am by no means sold.

If you did it the same way as the presidential election -- leave a thread open for a week or two and everyone who votes in it (who has been here more than month or something) has their vote counted -- then you're basically capturing the active userbase. If someone regularly comes to the forums, they will see the thread.

I don't think this really answers my concern, because there are still going to be people who are active forum users who don't vote.

I'm not as concerned about non-forum users not have a vote, since trolls mostly ruin the forums, so the people who are most affected are the ones the voting. You can't really vote on something you don't know anything about.

Believe me, people do that all the time.
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...
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 7:06:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 7:02:00 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/20/2014 6:56:48 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/20/2014 6:54:34 PM, bsh1 wrote:
And how would we even determine who would compose the voting pool?

I think that only established members who have been on the site for more than a year should be allowed to vote another member off. I also think that the DDO elite (we know who they are) should have veto power.

What is I have been on here for a year, but rarely frequent the forums? What if I confine myself to a single forum? What if I don't even know who the troll is?

A person like that probably shouldn't be able to vote, but I don't think that, as a matter of policy, it's a good idea to restrict who can vote. Giving the DDO elite veto power might be a good check on the process.

If we accept 4/5ths as a threshold, should it be 4/5ths of eligible voters, or of votes cast? Will votes be cast privately or not? Will the troll have a right to post a defense of him/herself?

Maybe we could finally make prudent use of the poll section... lol. I think 3/5ths with the DDO elite having veto power. Voting should probably be public, but I'm open to private voting too. On the public/private issue, I don't really have a strong view.

Really, I think there are too many practical issues to be solved. I think a possible alternative is to have an elected body (elected in the same way and at the same time as the President) of maybe 5 members who could vote to recommend a troll's removal. If they vote unanimously, the recommendation would be submitted to the mods, and the mods could either veto or acquiesce to the recommendation. To me, that seems more manageable.

I think that there could be all kinds of problems with it, but I think that the costs of operating in an imperfect mechanism do not outweigh the benefits of banning toxic members.

However, I am also open to a "council of advisors" like, ahem, the DDO elite, to vote people off the Island. I'd be open to that being done in secret, too.
Tsar of DDO
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 7:07:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 7:02:00 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/20/2014 6:56:48 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/20/2014 6:54:34 PM, bsh1 wrote:
And how would we even determine who would compose the voting pool?

I think that only established members who have been on the site for more than a year should be allowed to vote another member off. I also think that the DDO elite (we know who they are) should have veto power.

What is I have been on here for a year, but rarely frequent the forums? What if I confine myself to a single forum? What if I don't even know who the troll is?

If we accept 4/5ths as a threshold, should it be 4/5ths of eligible voters, or of votes cast? Will votes be cast privately or not? Will the troll have a right to post a defense of him/herself?

Really, I think there are too many practical issues to be solved. I think a possible alternative is to have an elected body (elected in the same way and at the same time as the President) of maybe 5 members who could vote to recommend a troll's removal. If they vote unanimously, the recommendation would be submitted to the mods, and the mods could either veto or acquiesce to the recommendation. To me, that seems more manageable.

In the time that the community decides on whether a person should be banned, I don't think elected officials would properly represent the people's opinion. The matter would be subjective to an absolutely personal level.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 7:09:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Establish a council of people that have contributed to the site, and that can judge objectively and have them decide. About 20 members or so of the tops top users that have put effort and ideas into the site. You would need 16 out of 20 votes to initiate a ban after several temp bans were issued first.

This would solve alot of the trolls. Jif, bubba, etc
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 7:09:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 7:04:08 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/20/2014 7:01:43 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 10/20/2014 6:54:34 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Maybe voting people off the island doesn't seem unreasonable when applied to a genuinely toxic user, there is still a risk that such a policy might have a suppressive effect on freedom of speech and diversity of views. To me, it seems like a way to enforce conformity.

IDK...I definitely can see how that "voting people off the island" policy might be a boon to the community, but it would have to be undertaken with care. I would say a 4/5th majority (80%) would be necessary.

And how would we even determine who would compose the voting pool? There isn't really a good way to measure who are the regularly active users that should vote? And what if I am a regular in the polls or debate sections, but not the forums? Presumably since I am not one of the main people impacted by this troll, should I still be able to vote?

I really see more issues than benefits. It's nice in theory, but I am by no means sold.

If you did it the same way as the presidential election -- leave a thread open for a week or two and everyone who votes in it (who has been here more than month or something) has their vote counted -- then you're basically capturing the active userbase. If someone regularly comes to the forums, they will see the thread.

I don't think this really answers my concern, because there are still going to be people who are active forum users who don't vote.

I'm not as concerned about non-forum users not have a vote, since trolls mostly ruin the forums, so the people who are most affected are the ones the voting. You can't really vote on something you don't know anything about.

Believe me, people do that all the time.

But if we followed a different procedure (like electing 5 judges to rule on whether a troll should be banned), you'd be okay with it?
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
10/20/2014 7:11:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 7:07:03 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/20/2014 7:02:00 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/20/2014 6:56:48 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/20/2014 6:54:34 PM, bsh1 wrote:
And how would we even determine who would compose the voting pool?

I think that only established members who have been on the site for more than a year should be allowed to vote another member off. I also think that the DDO elite (we know who they are) should have veto power.

What is I have been on here for a year, but rarely frequent the forums? What if I confine myself to a single forum? What if I don't even know who the troll is?

If we accept 4/5ths as a threshold, should it be 4/5ths of eligible voters, or of votes cast? Will votes be cast privately or not? Will the troll have a right to post a defense of him/herself?

Really, I think there are too many practical issues to be solved. I think a possible alternative is to have an elected body (elected in the same way and at the same time as the President) of maybe 5 members who could vote to recommend a troll's removal. If they vote unanimously, the recommendation would be submitted to the mods, and the mods could either veto or acquiesce to the recommendation. To me, that seems more manageable.

In the time that the community decides on whether a person should be banned, I don't think elected officials would properly represent the people's opinion. The matter would be subjective to an absolutely personal level.

That is generally how any type of politics work. You are electing someone to act on their own ideals, and are voting on them to further his own ideals. You vote for someone based on what they believe assuming you agree with it, hoping they will act in a way you wish.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 7:12:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 7:06:36 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/20/2014 7:02:00 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/20/2014 6:56:48 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/20/2014 6:54:34 PM, bsh1 wrote:
If we accept 4/5ths as a threshold, should it be 4/5ths of eligible voters, or of votes cast? Will votes be cast privately or not? Will the troll have a right to post a defense of him/herself?

Maybe we could finally make prudent use of the poll section... lol. I think 3/5ths with the DDO elite having veto power. Voting should probably be public, but I'm open to private voting too. On the public/private issue, I don't really have a strong view.

I think that the DDO Elite, a fairly amorphous and ill-defined body itself, should not have any kind of veto power unless they make there votes public so that they can be held to account for their votes.

If anyone is going to have veto authority, it should be the mods, or maybe an executive triad of the two mods and the serving site president. If two of that triad voted against the banning, that would constitute a veto.

Really, I think there are too many practical issues to be solved. I think a possible alternative is to have an elected body (elected in the same way and at the same time as the President) of maybe 5 members who could vote to recommend a troll's removal. If they vote unanimously, the recommendation would be submitted to the mods, and the mods could either veto or acquiesce to the recommendation. To me, that seems more manageable.

I think that there could be all kinds of problems with it, but I think that the costs of operating in an imperfect mechanism do not outweigh the benefits of banning toxic members.

I think that the problems with a popularly elected council subject to mod-veto are probably less severe than a direct election regarding bannings.

However, I am also open to a "council of advisors" like, ahem, the DDO elite, to vote people off the Island. I'd be open to that being done in secret, too.

I think that, now that I reflect on it more, I like the idea of a popularly elected council of 5-9 people who must vote unanimously or by a 2/3rd majority to ban someone, and whose decisions are still subject to the triad's veto as described earlier.
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...
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 7:12:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 7:09:44 PM, Mikal wrote:
Establish a council of people that have contributed to the site, and that can judge objectively and have them decide. About 20 members or so of the tops top users that have put effort and ideas into the site. You would need 16 out of 20 votes to initiate a ban after several temp bans were issued first.

This would solve alot of the trolls. Jif, bubba, etc

I think ten people, at most, should be on that council:

Airmax
Bladerunner
Bluesteel
bsh1
Khaos
Mikal (you)
Pots
thett3
YYW (me)
Zaradi
Tsar of DDO
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 7:14:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 7:12:54 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/20/2014 7:09:44 PM, Mikal wrote:
Establish a council of people that have contributed to the site, and that can judge objectively and have them decide. About 20 members or so of the tops top users that have put effort and ideas into the site. You would need 16 out of 20 votes to initiate a ban after several temp bans were issued first.

This would solve alot of the trolls. Jif, bubba, etc

I think ten people, at most, should be on that council:

Airmax
Bladerunner
Bluesteel
bsh1
Khaos
Mikal (you)
Pots
thett3
YYW (me)
Zaradi

10 would work with 8 votes being required to move someone off.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 7:14:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 7:11:15 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 10/20/2014 7:07:03 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/20/2014 7:02:00 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/20/2014 6:56:48 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/20/2014 6:54:34 PM, bsh1 wrote:
And how would we even determine who would compose the voting pool?

I think that only established members who have been on the site for more than a year should be allowed to vote another member off. I also think that the DDO elite (we know who they are) should have veto power.

What is I have been on here for a year, but rarely frequent the forums? What if I confine myself to a single forum? What if I don't even know who the troll is?

If we accept 4/5ths as a threshold, should it be 4/5ths of eligible voters, or of votes cast? Will votes be cast privately or not? Will the troll have a right to post a defense of him/herself?

Really, I think there are too many practical issues to be solved. I think a possible alternative is to have an elected body (elected in the same way and at the same time as the President) of maybe 5 members who could vote to recommend a troll's removal. If they vote unanimously, the recommendation would be submitted to the mods, and the mods could either veto or acquiesce to the recommendation. To me, that seems more manageable.

In the time that the community decides on whether a person should be banned, I don't think elected officials would properly represent the people's opinion. The matter would be subjective to an absolutely personal level.

That is generally how any type of politics work. You are electing someone to act on their own ideals, and are voting on them to further his own ideals. You vote for someone based on what they believe assuming you agree with it, hoping they will act in a way you wish.

It would be a very clunky system if governments were direct democracies. But this is an internet community problem, not an international conflict.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 7:14:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 7:07:03 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

In the time that the community decides on whether a person should be banned, I don't think elected officials would properly represent the people's opinion. The matter would be subjective to an absolutely personal level.

I disagree. Plus, keeping the decision-making process in a hands of a trustworthy few addresses my concerns regarding placing it in the hands of the many.
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...
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 7:15:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 7:12:53 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/20/2014 7:06:36 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/20/2014 7:02:00 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/20/2014 6:56:48 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/20/2014 6:54:34 PM, bsh1 wrote:
If we accept 4/5ths as a threshold, should it be 4/5ths of eligible voters, or of votes cast? Will votes be cast privately or not? Will the troll have a right to post a defense of him/herself?

Maybe we could finally make prudent use of the poll section... lol. I think 3/5ths with the DDO elite having veto power. Voting should probably be public, but I'm open to private voting too. On the public/private issue, I don't really have a strong view.

I think that the DDO Elite, a fairly amorphous and ill-defined body itself, should not have any kind of veto power unless they make there votes public so that they can be held to account for their votes.

If anyone is going to have veto authority, it should be the mods, or maybe an executive triad of the two mods and the serving site president. If two of that triad voted against the banning, that would constitute a veto.

Really, I think there are too many practical issues to be solved. I think a possible alternative is to have an elected body (elected in the same way and at the same time as the President) of maybe 5 members who could vote to recommend a troll's removal. If they vote unanimously, the recommendation would be submitted to the mods, and the mods could either veto or acquiesce to the recommendation. To me, that seems more manageable.

I think that there could be all kinds of problems with it, but I think that the costs of operating in an imperfect mechanism do not outweigh the benefits of banning toxic members.

I think that the problems with a popularly elected council subject to mod-veto are probably less severe than a direct election regarding bannings.

However, I am also open to a "council of advisors" like, ahem, the DDO elite, to vote people off the Island. I'd be open to that being done in secret, too.

I think that, now that I reflect on it more, I like the idea of a popularly elected council of 5-9 people who must vote unanimously or by a 2/3rd majority to ban someone, and whose decisions are still subject to the triad's veto as described earlier.

I think the DDO elite could be the council. I don't really see a need for elections, because, it's not like they are going to ban reputable or established members. I'm also not concerned with being "fair" to trolls, to the letter that we might, say, in the courts.

If we were having a trial of a really reputable member, then the process you're describing might be better suited, but really, we're only talking about getting rid of a very specific kind of abusive user: one who is toxic.
Tsar of DDO
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 7:16:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 7:09:44 PM, Mikal wrote:
Establish a council of people that have contributed to the site, and that can judge objectively and have them decide. About 20 members or so of the tops top users that have put effort and ideas into the site. You would need 16 out of 20 votes to initiate a ban after several temp bans were issued first.

This would solve alot of the trolls. Jif, bubba, etc

Yeah I'm also tired of the constant name changes. I hate how bubba said one thread that people dislike him now as LogicalLunatic, so he's just gonna start a new account and start trolling again so he can fly under the radar for awhile. It seems like there are a zillion trolls on here partially because it's the same two people but under different usernames each time. Personally, I'm not down with the constant name changing of problem members. Anyone else have similar issues?
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 7:16:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 7:14:02 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 10/20/2014 7:12:54 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/20/2014 7:09:44 PM, Mikal wrote:
Establish a council of people that have contributed to the site, and that can judge objectively and have them decide. About 20 members or so of the tops top users that have put effort and ideas into the site. You would need 16 out of 20 votes to initiate a ban after several temp bans were issued first.

This would solve alot of the trolls. Jif, bubba, etc

I think ten people, at most, should be on that council:

Airmax
Bladerunner
Bluesteel
bsh1
Khaos
Mikal (you)
Pots
thett3
YYW (me)
Zaradi

10 would work with 8 votes being required to move someone off.

Eight... maybe. I'd be comfortable with as few as seven.
Tsar of DDO
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 7:16:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 7:09:46 PM, bluesteel wrote:

But if we followed a different procedure (like electing 5 judges to rule on whether a troll should be banned), you'd be okay with it?

Yes because those people can be tasked with becoming informed about the issues, they can investigate the issues in a manageable and private way, and they can conference with each other in a frank fashion.

As long as the final votes were made public and the majority of the people on that council/jury were popularly elected, I wouldn't take issue with the process.
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...
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 7:17:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 7:16:02 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 10/20/2014 7:09:44 PM, Mikal wrote:
Establish a council of people that have contributed to the site, and that can judge objectively and have them decide. About 20 members or so of the tops top users that have put effort and ideas into the site. You would need 16 out of 20 votes to initiate a ban after several temp bans were issued first.

This would solve alot of the trolls. Jif, bubba, etc

Yeah I'm also tired of the constant name changes. I hate how bubba said one thread that people dislike him now as LogicalLunatic, so he's just gonna start a new account and start trolling again so he can fly under the radar for awhile. It seems like there are a zillion trolls on here partially because it's the same two people but under different usernames each time. Personally, I'm not down with the constant name changing of problem members. Anyone else have similar issues?

I think members who repeatedly close their accounts only to reincarnate themselves in another, but equally toxic fashion are highly problematic. I mean, the fact that they felt it necessary to leave and reincarnate themselves (if they do that multiple times) should be a pretty clear sign that they don't belong.
Tsar of DDO
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 7:18:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 7:16:22 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/20/2014 7:14:02 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 10/20/2014 7:12:54 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/20/2014 7:09:44 PM, Mikal wrote:
Establish a council of people that have contributed to the site, and that can judge objectively and have them decide. About 20 members or so of the tops top users that have put effort and ideas into the site. You would need 16 out of 20 votes to initiate a ban after several temp bans were issued first.

This would solve alot of the trolls. Jif, bubba, etc

I think ten people, at most, should be on that council:

Airmax
Bladerunner
Bluesteel
bsh1
Khaos
Mikal (you)
Pots
thett3
YYW (me)
Zaradi

10 would work with 8 votes being required to move someone off.

Eight... maybe. I'd be comfortable with as few as seven.

I don't think it would be an issue either way. Im pretty sure everyone would vote the same way on almost every case.