Total Posts:251|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Mikal / Bench / Bluesteel Open Questions

Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 2:07:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Presidency questions

You can ask away, things regarding the platform. Goals you want to see achieved, or any questions in general.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 2:23:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
What is the objective criteria used for determining who "is a terrible user"?
Who do you currently want banned, so that we, the public, can gauge your consistency and your objectivity?
What is excessive, blatant, and needless abuse? How does it differ from someone who is just coarse in their dealing with others or just doesn't like certain members?
My work here is, finally, done.
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 2:29:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 2:23:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What is the objective criteria used for determining who "is a terrible user"?
Who do you currently want banned, so that we, the public, can gauge your consistency and your objectivity?
W-ho? J-ust a few people.
What is excessive, blatant, and needless abuse? How does it differ from someone who is just coarse in their dealing with others or just doesn't like certain members?
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: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 2:42:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 2:23:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What is the objective criteria used for determining who "is a terrible user"?
Who do you currently want banned, so that we, the public, can gauge your consistency and your objectivity?
What is excessive, blatant, and needless abuse? How does it differ from someone who is just coarse in their dealing with others or just doesn't like certain members?

At the very considerable risk of impeding on Mikal, Bench and Bluesteel... I have some thoughts on this.

The idea that there is an objective criteria for "terrible user" is problematic; because you can't get objective reasons for subjective things. What's basically going to happen is "voting people off the island" without the "voting." So... basically just kicking people off the island.

Basically, we all have this notion that there are certain things that just aren't acceptable to do. It may be hard to put them in words, but more or less it comes down to the idea that people don't have a right to, over time, do really bad stuff that makes the site unpleasant for not just others, but for the overwhelming majority of the people with whom those people interact.

That's what makes such a person, more or less, "toxic." It's not just toxicity in relation to some members, or even hostility that is limited to specific members; but toxicity to "all or almost all" members with whom an individual interacts.

I think we can reasonably agree that toxic members shouldn't be around, but in order to translate that into some kind of meaningful policy, we need to be comfortable with the idea that mods should ban people who fit that description -and to do that, we've got to accept that this too, (like all moderation) is subjective, and that's ok.
Tsar of DDO
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 2:55:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
How confident are you now that GCL is running against you, as an independent Prez?
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.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 2:59:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 2:42:40 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/1/2014 2:23:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What is the objective criteria used for determining who "is a terrible user"?
Who do you currently want banned, so that we, the public, can gauge your consistency and your objectivity?
What is excessive, blatant, and needless abuse? How does it differ from someone who is just coarse in their dealing with others or just doesn't like certain members?

At the very considerable risk of impeding on Mikal, Bench and Bluesteel... I have some thoughts on this.

The idea that there is an objective criteria for "terrible user" is problematic; because you can't get objective reasons for subjective things. What's basically going to happen is "voting people off the island" without the "voting." So... basically just kicking people off the island.
Perhaps "objective" was too strong a word, but it still needs to be defined somehow.

Basically, we all have this notion that there are certain things that just aren't acceptable to do. It may be hard to put them in words, but more or less it comes down to the idea that people don't have a right to, over time, do really bad stuff that makes the site unpleasant for not just others, but for the overwhelming majority of the people with whom those people interact.
And this is a major problem.
I don't know about you, but I don't interact with probably 90% of the members. We all have our areas where we spend most of our time, be it in certain forums, opinions, or in debates. To say that a person can be toxic to a majority of users is pretty impressive, and very unlikely.


That's what makes such a person, more or less, "toxic." It's not just toxicity in relation to some members, or even hostility that is limited to specific members; but toxicity to "all or almost all" members with whom an individual interacts.
Then hyper-focused abuse is not an issue of toxicity, is it?
I could focus all my abuse at someone I deserve, and not be viewed as toxic, by this logic.
And, if the issue is thin-skin, then what is more thin-skinned than someone being offended for someone else?

I think we can reasonably agree that toxic members shouldn't be around, but in order to translate that into some kind of meaningful policy, we need to be comfortable with the idea that mods should ban people who fit that description -and to do that, we've got to accept that this too, (like all moderation) is subjective, and that's ok.
The guidelines should be clear.
The policy should be like the law, and the moderators should be like the police/DA using discretion.
But, if that's the case, how does this policy differ than the current one?

-----
The question has been refined, and my concern should be clear.
We'll let the candidates answer.
You and I can discuss it elsewhere if need be.
My work here is, finally, done.
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 3:06:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 2:23:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What is the objective criteria used for determining who "is a terrible user"?

Members that go above and beyond basic turmoil. As I have said before conflict and calling each other stupid happens. Most people just kiss and hug afterwards. When you are telling someone you are killing their family, or will rape this or do that then its to far. There is a noticeable line that can be crossed and that is when a users actions should be brought into question

Who do you currently want banned, so that we, the public, can gauge your consistency and your objectivity?

I will probably answer the exact user name in a google interview im doing later. There are 3 specific users at this point that I believe deserve a ban. At least a long temp one for actions they have committed. I will address this in the hangout or in a private message until then.

What is excessive, blatant, and needless abuse? How does it differ from someone who is just coarse in their dealing with others or just doesn't like certain members?

This ties in with the first question
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 3:06:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 2:59:47 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Then hyper-focused abuse is not an issue of toxicity, is it?
I could focus all my abuse at someone I deserve, and not be viewed as toxic, by this logic.

No. So, suppose you and Nymph continue to get into egregious conflicts with each other, and you only engage in egregious conflicts with Nymph and no other person. Then, you're not "toxic." You might be an @sshole, but you're not toxic.
Tsar of DDO
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 3:06:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 2:55:59 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
How confident are you now that GCL is running against you, as an independent Prez?

horrified
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 3:09:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 3:06:11 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 12/1/2014 2:23:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What is the objective criteria used for determining who "is a terrible user"?

Members that go above and beyond basic turmoil. As I have said before conflict and calling each other stupid happens. Most people just kiss and hug afterwards. When you are telling someone you are killing their family, or will rape this or do that then its to far. There is a noticeable line that can be crossed and that is when a users actions should be brought into question

Who do you currently want banned, so that we, the public, can gauge your consistency and your objectivity?

I will probably answer the exact user name in a google interview im doing later. There are 3 specific users at this point that I believe deserve a ban. At least a long temp one for actions they have committed. I will address this in the hangout or in a private message until then.

Am I one of them?

What is excessive, blatant, and needless abuse? How does it differ from someone who is just coarse in their dealing with others or just doesn't like certain members?

This ties in with the first question
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 3:11:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 3:09:06 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/1/2014 3:06:11 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 12/1/2014 2:23:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What is the objective criteria used for determining who "is a terrible user"?

Members that go above and beyond basic turmoil. As I have said before conflict and calling each other stupid happens. Most people just kiss and hug afterwards. When you are telling someone you are killing their family, or will rape this or do that then its to far. There is a noticeable line that can be crossed and that is when a users actions should be brought into question

Who do you currently want banned, so that we, the public, can gauge your consistency and your objectivity?

I will probably answer the exact user name in a google interview im doing later. There are 3 specific users at this point that I believe deserve a ban. At least a long temp one for actions they have committed. I will address this in the hangout or in a private message until then.

Am I one of them?

no lol

What is excessive, blatant, and needless abuse? How does it differ from someone who is just coarse in their dealing with others or just doesn't like certain members?

This ties in with the first question
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 3:15:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
On the site, I have noticed a lot of new members who seem to be problematic/boastful/egotistic. What do you plan to do, if anything, about this?

Would the rules become stricter or more lenient while your platform is in rule?

Debate.org could use an update. Do you plan to establish relations with sites that can help us, more specifically Juggle?

Would you be in favor of setting automatic guidelines in a debate to make it more simple? (i.e BoP will be on pro/shared/con, select debate rules, etc.)

If you plan to run with Imabench (I don't know if you are) will he come back? Also, would he rule the site in a professional manner?

What makes you guys qualified to run a site? (Not asking in a mean manner, but rather what are your qualifications?)

What manner of people do you want banned? Trolls?
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 3:22:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 3:15:13 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
If you plan to run with Imabench (I don't know if you are) will he come back? Also, would he rule the site in a professional manner?

this ^
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.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 3:26:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 3:06:38 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/1/2014 2:59:47 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Then hyper-focused abuse is not an issue of toxicity, is it?
I could focus all my abuse at someone I deserve, and not be viewed as toxic, by this logic.

No. So, suppose you and Nymph continue to get into egregious conflicts with each other, and you only engage in egregious conflicts with Nymph and no other person. Then, you're not "toxic." You might be an @sshole, but you're not toxic.

Yes, those are the words I put in your mouth.
I disagree.
I should not be able to lash out against a user and make the thread unpleasant. Doing so affects others, and is generally not being civil.

However, if I can flame with Nymph whenever I want without any consequences (from the mods), then what is to stop you, me, bench, and 50 other users to just lay into him to drive him off the site? There is no need for any convoluted policy or moderation, since it appears, as long as my vitriol is not site-wide, it is acceptable.

And, if I misunderstood, then at what point is my actions, or our actions, abusive?
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 3:32:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 3:06:11 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 12/1/2014 2:23:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What is the objective criteria used for determining who "is a terrible user"?

Members that go above and beyond basic turmoil. As I have said before conflict and calling each other stupid happens. Most people just kiss and hug afterwards. When you are telling someone you are killing their family, or will rape this or do that then its to far. There is a noticeable line that can be crossed and that is when a users actions should be brought into question

Is accusing someone of a controversial opinion crossing that line?
Is citing a genuine held belief, outlandish as it may be, crossing that line?
Are call out threads crossing that line?
You said needless and excessive, so at what point does that occur? When I comment on every post of your to insult you? When it spreads to another thread? When it is off-topic?
What you cite as examples are literal threats. Is that the line?

Keep in mind that you also said we should be civil. So, if I am going out of my way to be uncivil, where is that line?

Who do you currently want banned, so that we, the public, can gauge your consistency and your objectivity?

I will probably answer the exact user name in a google interview im doing later. There are 3 specific users at this point that I believe deserve a ban. At least a long temp one for actions they have committed. I will address this in the hangout or in a private message until then.

Typical politician's response, LOL
My work here is, finally, done.
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 3:32:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 2:55:59 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
How confident are you now that GCL is running against you, as an independent Prez?

She acts out like that when we havent had sex recently, it'll blow over soon once I find a clown to rent like she requested.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 3:34:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 3:26:35 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/1/2014 3:06:38 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/1/2014 2:59:47 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Then hyper-focused abuse is not an issue of toxicity, is it?
I could focus all my abuse at someone I deserve, and not be viewed as toxic, by this logic.

No. So, suppose you and Nymph continue to get into egregious conflicts with each other, and you only engage in egregious conflicts with Nymph and no other person. Then, you're not "toxic." You might be an @sshole, but you're not toxic.

Yes, those are the words I put in your mouth.

Yup.

I disagree.

Ok.

I should not be able to lash out against a user and make the thread unpleasant. Doing so affects others, and is generally not being civil.

Whether you should be able to lash out at other people or not is a separate issue from what makes a member "toxic," Khaos. So, what you're saying isn't mutually exclusive with what I'm saying.
Tsar of DDO
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 3:37:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 3:34:35 PM, Wylted wrote:
Sig change

I don't get it.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 3:50:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 3:32:53 PM, imabench wrote:
At 12/1/2014 2:55:59 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
How confident are you now that GCL is running against you, as an independent Prez?

She acts out like that when we havent had sex recently, it'll blow over soon once I find a clown to rent like she requested.

sig'd
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
12/1/2014 4:02:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 3:32:52 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/1/2014 3:06:11 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 12/1/2014 2:23:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What is the objective criteria used for determining who "is a terrible user"?

Members that go above and beyond basic turmoil. As I have said before conflict and calling each other stupid happens. Most people just kiss and hug afterwards. When you are telling someone you are killing their family, or will rape this or do that then its to far. There is a noticeable line that can be crossed and that is when a users actions should be brought into question

Is accusing someone of a controversial opinion crossing that line?
Is citing a genuine held belief, outlandish as it may be, crossing that line?
Are call out threads crossing that line?
You said needless and excessive, so at what point does that occur? When I comment on every post of your to insult you? When it spreads to another thread? When it is off-topic?
What you cite as examples are literal threats. Is that the line?

Keep in mind that you also said we should be civil. So, if I am going out of my way to be uncivil, where is that line?

Who do you currently want banned, so that we, the public, can gauge your consistency and your objectivity?

I will probably answer the exact user name in a google interview im doing later. There are 3 specific users at this point that I believe deserve a ban. At least a long temp one for actions they have committed. I will address this in the hangout or in a private message until then.

Typical politician's response, LOL


Let me try and frame it. Trying to objectively set a line is literally impossible as the line would vary from situation to situation and you would have to review the context of everything that is happening. We can all be aware of the difference between site conflicts and turmoil and something that escalates to a high degree of personal harassment.

There is context in each situation depending on what happens. Who started it, did they provoke it, etc and so forth

All of which are out of my control to do anything about

That is based soely on airmaxes judgement. The only thing I am doing is advocating for more lienenciey towards normal conflicts that occur between members ( which max has actually done well minus the weekly stupid and a few other things) and more perma bans toward members that have repetitive violations of extremely bad conduct
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 4:46:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 2:42:40 PM, YYW wrote:

I think we can reasonably agree that toxic members shouldn't be around, but in order to translate that into some kind of meaningful policy, we need to be comfortable with the idea that mods should ban people who fit that description -and to do that, we've got to accept that this too, (like all moderation) is subjective, and that's ok.

I am with Khaos on this one. There should be clear, written out, accessible guidelines for this if it's going to be used to ban people. It should also be the mod's duty to enforce--not an elected official's.
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: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 4:56:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 4:46:52 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 12/1/2014 2:42:40 PM, YYW wrote:

I think we can reasonably agree that toxic members shouldn't be around, but in order to translate that into some kind of meaningful policy, we need to be comfortable with the idea that mods should ban people who fit that description -and to do that, we've got to accept that this too, (like all moderation) is subjective, and that's ok.

I am with Khaos on this one. There should be clear, written out, accessible guidelines for this if it's going to be used to ban people. It should also be the mod's duty to enforce--not an elected official's.

I understand the sentiment, and the reason I understand it is because there is a justifiable trepidation which follows handing over the kind of power we're talking about here. But, I think that rather than try to do the impossible (make subjective things objective), a perhaps more realistic "check" would be one in popular support. If, for example, a person like wrichirw was banned, and 25 people thought that he shouldn't have been, they might, by petition, seek to "un-ban" him.

The reason I'm proposing this solution, as opposed to the one you and Khaos are suggesting, is because I understand that all moderation is subjective because it involves judgement calls. As opposed to only Max making that call, what I (and the others) are proposing is that "the people" should have a say in that too. One thing that should be pretty clear, though, is that this isn't about censorship of ideas of any kind; it's about cutting out cancerous members from this community.

What you, and I think Khaos, are concerned about is the potential for a method like what's been suggested, to be abused. I don't want people who are merely controversial to be banned merely because they are controversial either; but someone who is toxic should not escape banning because (1) max is unwilling to do it, and (2) some people in the forum don't like the idea of kicking people off the island.

Regardless of who wins, this should be a "ballot initiative" thing for the election.
Tsar of DDO
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 4:58:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 4:56:00 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/1/2014 4:46:52 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 12/1/2014 2:42:40 PM, YYW wrote:

I think we can reasonably agree that toxic members shouldn't be around, but in order to translate that into some kind of meaningful policy, we need to be comfortable with the idea that mods should ban people who fit that description -and to do that, we've got to accept that this too, (like all moderation) is subjective, and that's ok.

I am with Khaos on this one. There should be clear, written out, accessible guidelines for this if it's going to be used to ban people. It should also be the mod's duty to enforce--not an elected official's.

I understand the sentiment, and the reason I understand it is because there is a justifiable trepidation which follows handing over the kind of power we're talking about here. But, I think that rather than try to do the impossible (make subjective things objective), a perhaps more realistic "check" would be one in popular support. If, for example, a person like wrichirw was banned, and 25 people thought that he shouldn't have been, they might, by petition, seek to "un-ban" him.

That's far too cumbersome. Frankly, I think that the best check on anything like that is a clear set of understandable guidlines--that is the new moderation policy. Sure, it will always have elements of subjectivity, but those elements can be minimized. I don't see a pressing need to address the issue of "toxic" members.

Regardless of who wins, this should be a "ballot initiative" thing for the election.

No, it shouldn't. There should not be any initiative to ban toxic members, because it risks penalizing the unpopular just for being unpopular--that is not consistent with DDO's values.
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: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 5:07:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 4:58:57 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 12/1/2014 4:56:00 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/1/2014 4:46:52 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 12/1/2014 2:42:40 PM, YYW wrote:

I think we can reasonably agree that toxic members shouldn't be around, but in order to translate that into some kind of meaningful policy, we need to be comfortable with the idea that mods should ban people who fit that description -and to do that, we've got to accept that this too, (like all moderation) is subjective, and that's ok.

I am with Khaos on this one. There should be clear, written out, accessible guidelines for this if it's going to be used to ban people. It should also be the mod's duty to enforce--not an elected official's.

I understand the sentiment, and the reason I understand it is because there is a justifiable trepidation which follows handing over the kind of power we're talking about here. But, I think that rather than try to do the impossible (make subjective things objective), a perhaps more realistic "check" would be one in popular support. If, for example, a person like wrichirw was banned, and 25 people thought that he shouldn't have been, they might, by petition, seek to "un-ban" him.

That's far too cumbersome. Frankly, I think that the best check on anything like that is a clear set of understandable guidlines--that is the new moderation policy. Sure, it will always have elements of subjectivity, but those elements can be minimized. I don't see a pressing need to address the issue of "toxic" members.

I'm not sure it is too cumbersome. I know you don't think wrichirw should be banned, but I think that at least 4/5 people who have interacted with him would disagree. When the threshold is that high, we've got problems.

To the point about elements of subjectivity, there are certain ideals that some have about how rules are enforced. Among those ideals is that people who enforce rules ought to be bound to strict policies and that rules should be administered fairly. That's certainly one way to think about it; it's also fantastically impractical, and totally unreflective of how rules are actually enforced (whether on DDO, or in society).

And more importantly, we do not want to live in a world where the rules are perfectly enforced -because such a world would be egregious to live under. Rather, we want a healthy tolerance for rule breaking, and we want to penalize those who seriously step out of line.

What counts for "seriously stepping out of line" should not only be decided by one guy at the top. It should be decided by the people, who make up this site, subject to certain limitations to ensure we're not going to go overboard.

The reason is because in the absence of that, we're going to keep having issues with toxic members, who are in fact toxic, but who do not do stuff that's so bad that Max will be willing to ban them. The thing to consider here is that not only is it "ok" for a community to hate someone because of "what they do that makes them toxic" but it's also acceptable for a community to kick out toxic members.

That's totally reasonable. It's not unfair. It's not censorship, and it doesn't imply that it could lead to censorship. It's a reasonable response to a unique problem.

Regardless of who wins, this should be a "ballot initiative" thing for the election.

No, it shouldn't. There should not be any initiative to ban toxic members, because it risks penalizing the unpopular just for being unpopular--that is not consistent with DDO's values.

No, it does not... like, at all. It takes an incredibly high level of egregiousness to be "toxic." I've suggested some conditions above, and Bluesteel has in the past too. Mere unpopularity would *never* meet that standard.
Tsar of DDO
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 5:10:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 5:07:47 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/1/2014 4:58:57 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 12/1/2014 4:56:00 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/1/2014 4:46:52 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 12/1/2014 2:42:40 PM, YYW wrote:

I think we can reasonably agree that toxic members shouldn't be around, but in order to translate that into some kind of meaningful policy, we need to be comfortable with the idea that mods should ban people who fit that description -and to do that, we've got to accept that this too, (like all moderation) is subjective, and that's ok.

I am with Khaos on this one. There should be clear, written out, accessible guidelines for this if it's going to be used to ban people. It should also be the mod's duty to enforce--not an elected official's.

I understand the sentiment, and the reason I understand it is because there is a justifiable trepidation which follows handing over the kind of power we're talking about here. But, I think that rather than try to do the impossible (make subjective things objective), a perhaps more realistic "check" would be one in popular support. If, for example, a person like wrichirw was banned, and 25 people thought that he shouldn't have been, they might, by petition, seek to "un-ban" him.

That's far too cumbersome. Frankly, I think that the best check on anything like that is a clear set of understandable guidlines--that is the new moderation policy. Sure, it will always have elements of subjectivity, but those elements can be minimized. I don't see a pressing need to address the issue of "toxic" members.

I'm not sure it is too cumbersome. I know you don't think wrichirw should be banned, but I think that at least 4/5 people who have interacted with him would disagree. When the threshold is that high, we've got problems.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on everything you just wrote. And, I don't think that's problematic, I think that's safe.
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: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 5:15:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 5:10:02 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 12/1/2014 5:07:47 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/1/2014 4:58:57 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 12/1/2014 4:56:00 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/1/2014 4:46:52 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 12/1/2014 2:42:40 PM, YYW wrote:

I think we can reasonably agree that toxic members shouldn't be around, but in order to translate that into some kind of meaningful policy, we need to be comfortable with the idea that mods should ban people who fit that description -and to do that, we've got to accept that this too, (like all moderation) is subjective, and that's ok.

I am with Khaos on this one. There should be clear, written out, accessible guidelines for this if it's going to be used to ban people. It should also be the mod's duty to enforce--not an elected official's.

I understand the sentiment, and the reason I understand it is because there is a justifiable trepidation which follows handing over the kind of power we're talking about here. But, I think that rather than try to do the impossible (make subjective things objective), a perhaps more realistic "check" would be one in popular support. If, for example, a person like wrichirw was banned, and 25 people thought that he shouldn't have been, they might, by petition, seek to "un-ban" him.

That's far too cumbersome. Frankly, I think that the best check on anything like that is a clear set of understandable guidlines--that is the new moderation policy. Sure, it will always have elements of subjectivity, but those elements can be minimized. I don't see a pressing need to address the issue of "toxic" members.

I'm not sure it is too cumbersome. I know you don't think wrichirw should be banned, but I think that at least 4/5 people who have interacted with him would disagree. When the threshold is that high, we've got problems.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on everything you just wrote. And, I don't think that's problematic, I think that's safe.

Tell me about a world where you might be in favor of what I'm talking about here.... like... what might that look like?
Tsar of DDO
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 5:16:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 5:15:13 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/1/2014 5:10:02 PM, bsh1 wrote:
We're going to have to agree to disagree on everything you just wrote. And, I don't think that's problematic, I think that's safe.

Tell me about a world where you might be in favor of what I'm talking about here.... like... what might that look like?

There is no such world.
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...
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 7:19:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 5:22:19 PM, Mirza wrote:
What do you think of temporary bans based on the severity of one's violations?

If im understanding that question that is the status quo and one I condone with more focus on when temp bans should be issued.