Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Call out threads and the TOS

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 1:12:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I firmly believe that there should be an exception to the rule of call out threads, especially those that attack another member.

That exception being a timely (within 12 hours) public post on the thread in question acknowledging the threads existence and explicitly stating the "attacked" member is willing to let the thread exist. This is not the same as merely commenting on the thread, but an explicit "yes means yes" type response.

I understand how the thread looks to new users, but if others can point to the fact that the "victim" of the thread is okay with the existence of the thread, it is difficult to assume a website of bullying.
Further, with the timely requirement, the thread cannot exist whilst a member is banned, or even away for a while. It is a built in protection.

So-called attack threads can garner much attention and can create meaningful discussion, even if that isn't the OP's intent. For example, a user was going to make a call-out thread outlining a certain behavior of mine, and that could be quite cathartic.

Thoughts, DDO?
My work here is, finally, done.
RevNge
Posts: 13,835
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 1:18:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 1:12:31 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I firmly believe that there should be an exception to the rule of call out threads, especially those that attack another member.

That exception being a timely (within 12 hours) public post on the thread in question acknowledging the threads existence and explicitly stating the "attacked" member is willing to let the thread exist. This is not the same as merely commenting on the thread, but an explicit "yes means yes" type response.

I understand how the thread looks to new users, but if others can point to the fact that the "victim" of the thread is okay with the existence of the thread, it is difficult to assume a website of bullying.
Further, with the timely requirement, the thread cannot exist whilst a member is banned, or even away for a while. It is a built in protection.

So-called attack threads can garner much attention and can create meaningful discussion, even if that isn't the OP's intent. For example, a user was going to make a call-out thread outlining a certain behavior of mine, and that could be quite cathartic.

Thoughts, DDO?

Is this because of charlesb?
RevNge
Posts: 13,835
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 1:20:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 1:19:45 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/10/2014 1:18:57 PM, RevNge wrote:

Is this because of charlesb?

Does it matter?

Curiosity. :3
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 1:33:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 1:12:31 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I firmly believe that there should be an exception to the rule of call out threads, especially those that attack another member.

That exception being a timely (within 12 hours) public post on the thread in question acknowledging the threads existence and explicitly stating the "attacked" member is willing to let the thread exist. This is not the same as merely commenting on the thread, but an explicit "yes means yes" type response.

I understand how the thread looks to new users, but if others can point to the fact that the "victim" of the thread is okay with the existence of the thread, it is difficult to assume a website of bullying.
Further, with the timely requirement, the thread cannot exist whilst a member is banned, or even away for a while. It is a built in protection.

So-called attack threads can garner much attention and can create meaningful discussion, even if that isn't the OP's intent. For example, a user was going to make a call-out thread outlining a certain behavior of mine, and that could be quite cathartic.

Thoughts, DDO?

I don't think it is that new users will assume a website of bullying as in "they'll get bullied", I think they'll assume a website of "I can attack someone". People have trouble reading rules when they're simple--do you think that making it more complicated is likely to get them to be MORE likely to follow them?

I think the inverse is true--there'll be an influx of attack threads, and in each case it'll be "I thought he'd be fine with it".

Personal attacks are not allowed. You're increasing the moderator workload, rather than decreasing it--now they have to see whether you "consented" to being attacked, and they have to wait to delete it until enough of a chance has been given for you to do so. And that's ignoring the likelihood of greater overall numbers of attack threads--even ones that aren't "consented to", as a consequence of allowing some to stand.

I'm not a mod, but I don't see a benefit here. If there's something to discuss, it can be done without personally attacking someone via a call-out thread. If the real complaint's specific enough, it can get to that point, discussing the specific complaints that would have been called out, organically.

I see mostly negatives to your plan, and not a lot of positive.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 1:41:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 1:12:31 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Thoughts, DDO?

yeah, not to overbearingly critique the mod... Since I'm sure deciding on such issues is more annoying than anything else... and can't really fault the mod for just taking down a ridiculous thread..

but I was pissed when I saw Charles' thread was gone.
I'd been alerted that he responded to my post therein only to see that the thread, and thus his response to my post, was gone.

I'd say before you tear down the thread, you ban the user... or temp-ban them.

(Not to say that I'm necessarily for banning charles...)
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 2:28:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If users get to choose when TOS violations are okay, the TOS is irreparably weakened.
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...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 2:35:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 1:33:52 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

I don't think it is that new users will assume a website of bullying as in "they'll get bullied", I think they'll assume a website of "I can attack someone". People have trouble reading rules when they're simple--do you think that making it more complicated is likely to get them to be MORE likely to follow them?
Then ban them, if they are going to be deleted and be a nusuince.
The exception is quite clear, and abuse of the exception is no different than the abuse of any other rule.

I think the inverse is true--there'll be an influx of attack threads, and in each case it'll be "I thought he'd be fine with it".
Fine, then get permission before hand. The problem with that is that it is not public.
This is the least amount of rule changes.

Personal attacks are not allowed. You're increasing the moderator workload, rather than decreasing it--now they have to see whether you "consented" to being attacked, and they have to wait to delete it until enough of a chance has been given for you to do so. And that's ignoring the likelihood of greater overall numbers of attack threads--even ones that aren't "consented to", as a consequence of allowing some to stand.

This is a fair point.

I'm not a mod, but I don't see a benefit here. If there's something to discuss, it can be done without personally attacking someone via a call-out thread. If the real complaint's specific enough, it can get to that point, discussing the specific complaints that would have been called out, organically.
Let's put the cards on the table.
Some people think I am a misygonist rapist-defender.
How can that conversation come out without attacking me? It cannot.
If someone feels compelled to warn all of DDO of my slant, is that inherently bad?


I see mostly negatives to your plan, and not a lot of positive.
I disagree.
A thread can be more involved without derailing another thread for this conversation to incur. Thoughts and concerns can be made. Virtue defended. And, as opposed to PMs, this is public, so others can see who, if anyone, is right. They can comment.

For example, there is a user who was going to prove that I am a misogynist by gathering quotes of mine from the past. How do you propose this be discussed?
Is it not worthwhile for me, or the site, to be confronted with this information, and have be it publicly debated?
Is it not worthwhile for the site to know that this user's charge is not true, as they are misinterpreting everything?
In this case, one of us will be forced to look at our thoughts, and see, and likely be told by others, if we are right or wrong in our behavior/assessment. Is this a bad thing?
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 2:41:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 2:28:38 PM, bsh1 wrote:
If users get to choose when TOS violations are okay, the TOS is irreparably weakened.

Who defines what an attack thread is?
Shouldn't the person being attacked?

What is the fundamental difference between YYW calling you out about how great you are, and charlesb saying how awful I am? They both call us out for our behavior.
Rules are rules, right?

So, it's not the calling of one out that is the issue, it's the fact that it is ad hom, which it isn't, since the person and/or their behavior/thoughts/issues is the issue. Not all personal attacks are ad hom, after all.

So, what is the purpose of the rule, exactly?
It's to protect from being bullied, and who are the mods to tell me that I am a victim?
My work here is, finally, done.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 2:47:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 2:41:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:28:38 PM, bsh1 wrote:
If users get to choose when TOS violations are okay, the TOS is irreparably weakened.

Who defines what an attack thread is?
Shouldn't the person being attacked?

The new site moderation policy and the Mod. It should be up to general users to interpret the TOS.

What is the fundamental difference between YYW calling you out about how great you are, and charlesb saying how awful I am? They both call us out for our behavior.
Rules are rules, right?

One is offensive and hateful and a violation of the TOS, the other isn't.

So, what is the purpose of the rule, exactly?
It's to protect from being bullied, and who are the mods to tell me that I am a victim?

The rule needs to be applied generally. I am not talking about your specific case, but about all cases like yours, and how they should be dealt with as a general rule, to, yes, discourage bullying, enforce common courtesy, and minimize ad hominem attacks.
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...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 2:59:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 2:47:36 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:41:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:28:38 PM, bsh1 wrote:
If users get to choose when TOS violations are okay, the TOS is irreparably weakened.

Who defines what an attack thread is?
Shouldn't the person being attacked?

The new site moderation policy and the Mod. It should be up to general users to interpret the TOS.

The TOS says "No personal attacks against other members or a member's opinions."
The "new" rules were just a clarification of this.

How is a thread dedicated to a conclusiion on has drawn about someone else a personal attack? How is it any different than saying it in a different thread?

More importantly, how can this issue be explored openly ever?

What is the fundamental difference between YYW calling you out about how great you are, and charlesb saying how awful I am? They both call us out for our behavior.
Rules are rules, right?

One is offensive and hateful and a violation of the TOS, the other isn't.
That was using too liberal of an reading on "call out thread".
That is not the term used.

So, what is the purpose of the rule, exactly?
It's to protect from being bullied, and who are the mods to tell me that I am a victim?

The rule needs to be applied generally. I am not talking about your specific case, but about all cases like yours, and how they should be dealt with as a general rule, to, yes, discourage bullying, enforce common courtesy, and minimize ad hominem attacks.

The mod should not be deciding what constitutes an attack, especially if the issue being discussed is an issue, not an attack on its own.
There is a difference between:
Khaos is a rapist apologist, and the OP explains why that conclusion is drawn, and
Khaos sucks and should be ignored at all costs

One, while an attack, still revolves around an issue.
My work here is, finally, done.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 3:04:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 2:59:02 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:47:36 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:41:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:28:38 PM, bsh1 wrote:
What is the fundamental difference between YYW calling you out about how great you are, and charlesb saying how awful I am? They both call us out for our behavior.
Rules are rules, right?

One is offensive and hateful and a violation of the TOS, the other isn't.
That was using too liberal of an reading on "call out thread".
That is not the term used.

It doesn't matter whether or not it's calling out someone, it matters if it is meant to harass or defame someone.
"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
11/10/2014 3:08:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 2:59:02 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

I've never met someone so determined to be insulted, lol. You are very stubborn.

I am not going to argue with you because, atm, I am too tired to continue this conversation (not in a metaphorical sense, but in a literal one--I got very little sleep). I may respond to you later.
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...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 3:10:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 3:04:46 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:59:02 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:47:36 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:41:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:28:38 PM, bsh1 wrote:
What is the fundamental difference between YYW calling you out about how great you are, and charlesb saying how awful I am? They both call us out for our behavior.
Rules are rules, right?

One is offensive and hateful and a violation of the TOS, the other isn't.
That was using too liberal of an reading on "call out thread".
That is not the term used.

It doesn't matter whether or not it's calling out someone, it matters if it is meant to harass or defame someone.

And if one doesn't feel harassed or defamed, who cares what was meant by it?
If we care what was meant, then people who skirt by with selective wording are just as guilty, aren't they?

And, for the record, if the issue is "call out thread", calling anyone out for any reason would be a liberal definition.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 3:11:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 3:08:33 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:59:02 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

I've never met someone so determined to be insulted, lol. You are very stubborn.

You don't know the half of it. ;)
Either I'm a glutton for punishment or too principled, or both, as they tend to run together.
I am not going to argue with you because, atm, I am too tired to continue this conversation (not in a metaphorical sense, but in a literal one--I got very little sleep). I may respond to you later.

Get some sleep.
My work here is, finally, done.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 3:12:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 3:10:03 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/10/2014 3:04:46 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:59:02 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:47:36 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:41:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:28:38 PM, bsh1 wrote:
What is the fundamental difference between YYW calling you out about how great you are, and charlesb saying how awful I am? They both call us out for our behavior.
Rules are rules, right?

One is offensive and hateful and a violation of the TOS, the other isn't.
That was using too liberal of an reading on "call out thread".
That is not the term used.

It doesn't matter whether or not it's calling out someone, it matters if it is meant to harass or defame someone.

And if one doesn't feel harassed or defamed, who cares what was meant by it?
If we care what was meant, then people who skirt by with selective wording are just as guilty, aren't they?

It's not up to you whether a thread gets removed. If it doesn't bother you, go tell airmax, but I doubt he's gonna listen to you.

And, for the record, if the issue is "call out thread", calling anyone out for any reason would be a liberal definition.

It's not about a "call out thread" it's about people trying to defame others.
"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
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 3:17:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 3:12:23 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

I want you to answer this question, keeping in mind that ad homs are forbidden, as well as threads.
How can you broach the subject that I have a major flaw as a human being?
How can you try to make me see the error of my ways, without first telling me I am wrong, on a personal level?
My work here is, finally, done.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 3:18:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 3:17:04 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/10/2014 3:12:23 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

I want you to answer this question, keeping in mind that ad homs are forbidden, as well as threads.
How can you broach the subject that I have a major flaw as a human being?
How can you try to make me see the error of my ways, without first telling me I am wrong, on a personal level?

You can explain to someone why you think (they're) wrong without using ad hominem.
"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
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 3:20:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
What about when personal attacks and TOS violations are reported and no-one does anything about it?

Posts like this one: http://www.debate.org...

Are we allowed to respond in kind?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 3:28:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 3:18:49 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 11/10/2014 3:17:04 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/10/2014 3:12:23 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

I want you to answer this question, keeping in mind that ad homs are forbidden, as well as threads.
How can you broach the subject that I have a major flaw as a human being?
How can you try to make me see the error of my ways, without first telling me I am wrong, on a personal level?

You can explain to someone why you think (they're) wrong without using ad hominem.

How?
"No personal attacks against other members or a member's opinions."
My work here is, finally, done.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 3:29:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 2:35:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/10/2014 1:33:52 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

I don't think it is that new users will assume a website of bullying as in "they'll get bullied", I think they'll assume a website of "I can attack someone". People have trouble reading rules when they're simple--do you think that making it more complicated is likely to get them to be MORE likely to follow them?
Then ban them, if they are going to be deleted and be a nusuince.
The exception is quite clear, and abuse of the exception is no different than the abuse of any other rule.

The moderator goal on here is usually minimal banning. The rule as currently formulated is the simplest means of achieving the no-attacks, while minimizing bans.


I think the inverse is true--there'll be an influx of attack threads, and in each case it'll be "I thought he'd be fine with it".
Fine, then get permission before hand. The problem with that is that it is not public.
This is the least amount of rule changes.

I think that if Person A contacted Person B beforehand and said "I want to discuss what I feel is your pro-horrible stance", and got permission, and posted in their OP that they got permission to discuss it, that it would be less likely to be banned. Airmax can say for sure, but I believe it to be the case.

Personal attacks are not allowed. You're increasing the moderator workload, rather than decreasing it--now they have to see whether you "consented" to being attacked, and they have to wait to delete it until enough of a chance has been given for you to do so. And that's ignoring the likelihood of greater overall numbers of attack threads--even ones that aren't "consented to", as a consequence of allowing some to stand.

This is a fair point.

I'm not a mod, but I don't see a benefit here. If there's something to discuss, it can be done without personally attacking someone via a call-out thread. If the real complaint's specific enough, it can get to that point, discussing the specific complaints that would have been called out, organically.
Let's put the cards on the table.
Some people think I am a misygonist rapist-defender.

I'm aware--I saw the thread before it was deleted. Anyone who seriously thinks that is not likely to get respect, because that stance is idiotic.

How can that conversation come out without attacking me? It cannot.

Yes, but there are different ways of attacking, and of having conversations. Some lend themselves more easily to overall civil discourse than others. None of them are perfect.

If someone feels compelled to warn all of DDO of my slant, is that inherently bad?

If they do it by posting a public attack thread, yes.

I see mostly negatives to your plan, and not a lot of positive.
I disagree.
A thread can be more involved without derailing another thread for this conversation to incur. Thoughts and concerns can be made. Virtue defended. And, as opposed to PMs, this is public, so others can see who, if anyone, is right. They can comment.

True--but this can all be accomplished without an attack thread. There are certain users who have made threads about specific things that aren't explicit attack threads. Heck, this very thread brings up an important topic regarding behavior, and isn't an attack thread.

For example, there is a user who was going to prove that I am a misogynist by gathering quotes of mine from the past. How do you propose this be discussed?

I think that the "permission beforehand" thing is valid, particuarly for something THAT specific. If airmax disagrees, he's gonna have to explain it because I can't.

Is it not worthwhile for me, or the site, to be confronted with this information, and have be it publicly debated?
Is it not worthwhile for the site to know that this user's charge is not true, as they are misinterpreting everything?
In this case, one of us will be forced to look at our thoughts, and see, and likely be told by others, if we are right or wrong in our behavior/assessment. Is this a bad thing?

These things can all be accomplished without a "Khaos_Mage is a rapist and rape defender" topic thread.

For example, the thread could be titled:

"Misogynistic/Rape culture comments"

With the post being that they've PMd you, and you're fine with discussing this list of comments, followed by the list of comments that the person finds to be misogynistic/rape-defensive.

I don't think that would be a personal attack.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 3:30:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 3:28:42 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/10/2014 3:18:49 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 11/10/2014 3:17:04 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/10/2014 3:12:23 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

I want you to answer this question, keeping in mind that ad homs are forbidden, as well as threads.
How can you broach the subject that I have a major flaw as a human being?
How can you try to make me see the error of my ways, without first telling me I am wrong, on a personal level?

You can explain to someone why you think (they're) wrong without using ad hominem.

How?
"No personal attacks against other members or a member's opinions."

Keyword: personal

There is such a thing as civil argument.
"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
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 3:59:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 3:20:56 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
What about when personal attacks and TOS violations are reported and no-one does anything about it?

Posts like this one: http://www.debate.org...

Are we allowed to respond in kind?

If you're wondering why a report has not been acted on, ask airmax. Not everything gets deleted necessarily--and you aren't appraised of the details of any action he may have taken with the other user for privacy reasons. But he'll usually at least explain to you, if you ask, in broad strokes what and why his response was what it was.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 4:07:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 3:59:20 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/10/2014 3:20:56 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
What about when personal attacks and TOS violations are reported and no-one does anything about it?

Posts like this one: http://www.debate.org...

Are we allowed to respond in kind?

If you're wondering why a report has not been acted on, ask airmax. Not everything gets deleted necessarily--and you aren't appraised of the details of any action he may have taken with the other user for privacy reasons. But he'll usually at least explain to you, if you ask, in broad strokes what and why his response was what it was.

Yes, well I reported the attacks more than once with no response. Are the reports not being read? Is that why I need to also send a PM?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 5:53:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 4:07:42 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/10/2014 3:59:20 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/10/2014 3:20:56 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
What about when personal attacks and TOS violations are reported and no-one does anything about it?

Posts like this one: http://www.debate.org...

Are we allowed to respond in kind?

If you're wondering why a report has not been acted on, ask airmax. Not everything gets deleted necessarily--and you aren't appraised of the details of any action he may have taken with the other user for privacy reasons. But he'll usually at least explain to you, if you ask, in broad strokes what and why his response was what it was.

Yes, well I reported the attacks more than once with no response. Are the reports not being read? Is that why I need to also send a PM?

No, but that's not what I said. To repeat myself for emphasis: " ...you aren't appraised of the details of any action he may have taken with the other user for privacy reasons. But he'll usually at least explain to you, if you ask, in broad strokes what and why his response was what it was."
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 7:47:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 5:53:40 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/10/2014 4:07:42 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/10/2014 3:59:20 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/10/2014 3:20:56 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
What about when personal attacks and TOS violations are reported and no-one does anything about it?

Posts like this one: http://www.debate.org...

Are we allowed to respond in kind?

If you're wondering why a report has not been acted on, ask airmax. Not everything gets deleted necessarily--and you aren't appraised of the details of any action he may have taken with the other user for privacy reasons. But he'll usually at least explain to you, if you ask, in broad strokes what and why his response was what it was.

Yes, well I reported the attacks more than once with no response. Are the reports not being read? Is that why I need to also send a PM?

No, but that's not what I said. To repeat myself for emphasis: " ...you aren't appraised of the details of any action he may have taken with the other user for privacy reasons. But he'll usually at least explain to you, if you ask, in broad strokes what and why his response was what it was."

What possible explanation can there be for leaving such a blatant violation of the TOS up for others to read and to assume that they can get away with it too?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 7:58:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 1:12:31 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I firmly believe that there should be an exception to the rule of call out threads, especially those that attack another member.

That exception being a timely (within 12 hours) public post on the thread in question acknowledging the threads existence and explicitly stating the "attacked" member is willing to let the thread exist. This is not the same as merely commenting on the thread, but an explicit "yes means yes" type response.

I understand how the thread looks to new users, but if others can point to the fact that the "victim" of the thread is okay with the existence of the thread, it is difficult to assume a website of bullying.
Further, with the timely requirement, the thread cannot exist whilst a member is banned, or even away for a while. It is a built in protection.

So-called attack threads can garner much attention and can create meaningful discussion, even if that isn't the OP's intent. For example, a user was going to make a call-out thread outlining a certain behavior of mine, and that could be quite cathartic.

Thoughts, DDO?

If we allow call out threads, we're saying that there are some circumstances in which *inciting* drama by way of personal attacks/public shame against someone else is at least sometimes acceptable.

Maybe. So, now let's talk about how we're going to separate those times when it's acceptable to do a call out thread and those times it's not. Can you come up with a workable objective standard? I'm probably not the smartest person here -give that to bsh1, or bluesteel- but I don't think that anyone else can either. Now we're in a situation where it's "ok in some but not all cases" but the mods can't say to me "Now, YYW I know you had a personal grievance with thett, because he's clearly evil, but I can't allow you to talk about his being evil in that way" and then allow someone else, say, Oyrus, to then post a call out thread rant about how thefoolonthehill needs to learn the grammatical rules of the English language.

So, even if there are some cases (like, say we've got a pedophile soliciting pictures from the young girls on this site or a dude who likes to get it on with horses talking about getting it on with horses) where call out threads are probably "justified," to allow "any" is to imply that all have to be ok too because we can't objectively divide "those call out threads which are permissible" from "those that are not." That's why we have the blanket rule of "no call out threads."

Now, in situations where call out threads might be justified, there are other and better ways of remediating that situation. Read: talk to the mods. I know Max has a lot on his plate fighting off electronic Indian witchcraft and other miscreants, but if there's a serious issue (unless it involves someone fvcking me over and then he's like "meh"), he's your guy to talk too. Ore-Ele comes on to DDO about as often as it rains in Southern California, so, again, Max is your best bet. I'm sure you guys can work out some kind of solution.

Oh, and if the person you want to rant about hasn't "technically" violated the TOS... then consider whether it's worth your time to "make them feel bad about themselves." Most often, it's not.
Tsar of DDO
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 8:16:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 1:12:31 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I was actually shocked by the condemnation that thread received. It's a violation of TOS, sure, but TOS has been violated all the time, and I thought Charleslb's thread was interesting and helpful given the context of the discussions leading up to it. But then everyone jumped on it, and I couldn't figure out why - until I realized that these were all your mafia friends and I checked and sure enough you had just complained about Charleslb in a game that happened to contain the site's presidents and sure enough the thread was soon deleted. I didn't like that because it gave the effect of all these independent opinions who knew what was going on when it was really just a group of your friends rushing to your defense.

That being said, I think the rule is a good one. It's always possible to frame whatever it is as an issue and just link particular people in as examples. The problem with your idea is that it puts pressure on people to not mind or seem precious, and the victim shouldn't make that decision. It should be the community (Airmax) to decide if certain behaviors are okay or not.
BoggyDag
Posts: 379
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 8:33:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 1:12:31 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I firmly believe that there should be an exception to the rule of call out threads, especially those that attack another member.

That exception being a timely (within 12 hours) public post on the thread in question acknowledging the threads existence and explicitly stating the "attacked" member is willing to let the thread exist. This is not the same as merely commenting on the thread, but an explicit "yes means yes" type response.

I understand how the thread looks to new users, but if others can point to the fact that the "victim" of the thread is okay with the existence of the thread, it is difficult to assume a website of bullying.
Further, with the timely requirement, the thread cannot exist whilst a member is banned, or even away for a while. It is a built in protection.

So-called attack threads can garner much attention and can create meaningful discussion, even if that isn't the OP's intent. For example, a user was going to make a call-out thread outlining a certain behavior of mine, and that could be quite cathartic.

Thoughts, DDO?

I've seen victims of bullying agree to being bullied in public out of fear of even more severe bullying.
A declaration of intent to allow the bullying by the victim means nocthing.