Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Election Clarification

YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 7:45:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I am not running with Mikal, Imabench and Bluesteel.

Bluesteel and I (mostly Bluesteel) came up with the standard for what it means to be toxic. That's it.
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 7:48:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 7:45:42 PM, YYW wrote:
I should be running with Mikal, Imabench and Bluesteel.

Bluesteel and I (mostly Bluesteel) came up with the standard for what it means to be toxic. That's just one example as to why I would make a great candidate!
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 7:49:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 7:48:31 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 12/4/2014 7:45:42 PM, YYW wrote:
I should be running with Mikal, Imabench and Bluesteel.

Bluesteel and I (mostly Bluesteel) came up with the standard for what it means to be toxic. That's just one example as to why I would make a great candidate!

This same thing happens every year. I'm really not running. I know what it takes, and I know in my judgement that I am not the right guy for the job.
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 7:50:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 7:49:58 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/4/2014 7:48:31 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 12/4/2014 7:45:42 PM, YYW wrote:
I should be running with Mikal, Imabench and Bluesteel.

Bluesteel and I (mostly Bluesteel) came up with the standard for what it means to be toxic. That's just one example as to why I would make a great candidate!

This same thing happens every year. I'm really not running. I know what it takes, and I know in my judgement that I am not the right guy for the job.

Well, you could replace Ore_Ele as a mod, if you want
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 8:02:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 7:50:55 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 12/4/2014 7:49:58 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/4/2014 7:48:31 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 12/4/2014 7:45:42 PM, YYW wrote:
I should be running with Mikal, Imabench and Bluesteel.

Bluesteel and I (mostly Bluesteel) came up with the standard for what it means to be toxic. That's just one example as to why I would make a great candidate!

This same thing happens every year. I'm really not running. I know what it takes, and I know in my judgement that I am not the right guy for the job.

Well, you could replace Ore_Ele as a mod, if you want

When the ad spam was going on a while back, I volunteered to help Max with it. That said, I'm reasonably sure I'm not going to be a mod any time soon. While Max and I agree on a lot (like, 95% of stuff), I don't think I'm what he's looking for in a mod to replace Ore. I could be wrong... but I doubt it.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 9:42:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 7:45:42 PM, YYW wrote:
I am not running with Mikal, Imabench and Bluesteel.

Bluesteel and I (mostly Bluesteel) came up with the standard for what it means to be toxic. That's it.

For clarification it was that: (1) a substantial number of their interactions with other users are negative and involve improper conduct (i.e. involve a TOS violations, or other wrongful conduct that is just short of a TOS violation, or conduct that is ambiguous, but is arguably a TOS violation); (2) they have negatively impacted a significant number of user's experience of the site; (3) mitigating circumstances do not sufficiently justify their behavior.

bsh1's thread only really disagrees with whether conduct that is just short of a TOS violation or is ambiguously a violation should be considered; it doesn't disagree with the overall spirit of a trial system or with the idea of letting juries consider bad conduct (as long as it can be construed as a TOS or mod policy violation).

No one has suggested a system that would ban someone with no due process for conduct that is merely unpopular, without being otherwise "wrongful" in some way. We're talking about a system that would be more effective than the moderation policy in dealing with toxic members, given that the current policy *tends* to focus on short-term solutions (short bans or restraining orders) over long-term solutions (perma-bans and evaluating a user's conduct as a whole on the site).
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 9:48:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 9:42:49 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/4/2014 7:45:42 PM, YYW wrote:
I am not running with Mikal, Imabench and Bluesteel.

Bluesteel and I (mostly Bluesteel) came up with the standard for what it means to be toxic. That's it.

For clarification it was that: (1) a substantial number of their interactions with other users are negative and involve improper conduct (i.e. involve a TOS violations, or other wrongful conduct that is just short of a TOS violation, or conduct that is ambiguous, but is arguably a TOS violation); (2) they have negatively impacted a significant number of user's experience of the site; (3) mitigating circumstances do not sufficiently justify their behavior.

I think for further clarification, we should just tweak the language a bit:

A user is toxic where (1) a substantial number of the user's interactions are not acceptable conduct in violation of the TOS and/or the new moderation policy, such that (2) the user in question has seriously degraded a significant number of other users' experience of the site, and (3) there are no mitigating circumstances.

There really isn't a whole lot of substantive different between the two, but it's more precise. Given how easy it is to violate the TOS, it's really unfeasible that a user could be both toxic and not in violation of the TOS.

The TOS:

http://www.debate.org...

bsh1's thread only really disagrees with whether conduct that is just short of a TOS violation or is ambiguously a violation should be considered; it doesn't disagree with the overall spirit of a trial system or with the idea of letting juries consider bad conduct (as long as it can be construed as a TOS or mod policy violation).

No one has suggested a system that would ban someone with no due process for conduct that is merely unpopular, without being otherwise "wrongful" in some way. We're talking about a system that would be more effective than the moderation policy in dealing with toxic members, given that the current policy *tends* to focus on short-term solutions (short bans or restraining orders) over long-term solutions (perma-bans and evaluating a user's conduct as a whole on the site).
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 9:51:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 9:42:49 PM, bluesteel wrote:
bsh1's thread only really disagrees with whether conduct that is just short of a TOS violation or is ambiguously a violation should be considered; it doesn't disagree with the overall spirit of a trial system or with the idea of letting juries consider bad conduct (as long as it can be construed as a TOS or mod policy violation).

No one has suggested a system that would ban someone with no due process for conduct that is merely unpopular, without being otherwise "wrongful" in some way. We're talking about a system that would be more effective than the moderation policy in dealing with toxic members, given that the current policy *tends* to focus on short-term solutions (short bans or restraining orders) over long-term solutions (perma-bans and evaluating a user's conduct as a whole on the site).

You're exactly right, here.
Ajabi
Posts: 1,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 1:36:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 9:42:49 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/4/2014 7:45:42 PM, YYW wrote:
I am not running with Mikal, Imabench and Bluesteel.
(2) they have negatively impacted a significant number of user's experience of the site;

A lot of members were upset at Wylted with the Rape Battle, alot at me for homosexuality and nazism. Would you ban Wylted and I just for debating something which other people find offensive? Thus removing the basic use of the site: to debate controversy.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 3:02:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2014 1:36:04 AM, Ajabi wrote:
At 12/4/2014 9:42:49 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/4/2014 7:45:42 PM, YYW wrote:
I am not running with Mikal, Imabench and Bluesteel.
(2) they have negatively impacted a significant number of user's experience of the site;

A lot of members were upset at Wylted with the Rape Battle, alot at me for homosexuality and nazism. Would you ban Wylted and I just for debating something which other people find offensive? Thus removing the basic use of the site: to debate controversy.

I've adopted YYW's version. Since debating, even something offensive, does not violate the mod policy or TOS, it doesn't matter if a lot of people don't like it; it doesn't satisfy the first factor, so you can't be banned for it.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)