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

Irrational Fear

YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 11:21:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
There are some who, because of their biases and prejudices, have reached the irrational conclusion that banning toxic members is a guise for censorship.

Here's what it means for a member to be Toxic:

(1) A substantial number of the users interactions are not acceptable conduct in violation of the Terms of Use, such that (2) the member has seriously degraded a significant number of user's experience of the site, and (3) there are no mitigating circumstances.

That's a fairly straightforward standard; it's basically a tripartite measure of evaluating only those members whose conduct is incorrigible. What it means to be incorrigible is that after many attempts at failed moderator intervention, that person still demonstrates no desire to reform.

So, some Frequently Asked Questions:

Isn't this a guise to ban people who are unpopular?

No. It may be the case that members who are toxic are also unpopular, and the reason that they're probably unpopular is because they seriously negatively impact a whole bunch of people on the site by their ongoing and unacceptable behavior which is in violation of the TOS, but unpopularity is not enough for someone to be toxic by this standard.

Couldn't this be abused to ban people for little infractions?

No. The language is very clear. The number of infractions have to be substantial (meaning that it's got to be a lot) and the kind of infractions have to be serious (meaning not minor disputes in the forums). Moreover, there can be no mitigating circumstances. So, a user who on balance contributes more good than bad could never be toxic, just a a user who was engaged in an isolated conflict, however heated and severe, to the extent that it is limited only to one or a few people, could never be toxic.

Why is this necessary?

Right now, it really takes a lot to be banned. Like, you've got to sexually harass someone a lot, have a schizoid spamming episode or basically hurt so many people so badly that a whole bunch of people leave the site (like by doxxing them). But, there are some users now, and there have been many in the past whose presence in these forums seriously negatively impacts a whole bunch of people but whose offenses do not rise to that extremely high threshold it takes to ban people. By suggesting toxicity as an additional measure of banworthyness, we're at once attempting to remove those members who refuse or are incapable of civilly interacting with others, and reinforcing the notion that repeated incidences of egregiousness directed at multiple people will not be tolerated.

Is this a witch hunt?

The suggestion that this is a witch hunt is more or less the weakest criticism of what's been proposed here so far, for a number of reasons. First of all, a witch hunt is a process by which people pursue irrational agenda against people in the absence of evidence. It takes a LOT of evidence for someone to be toxic. There is nothing irrational about wanting to impose consequences on those who repeatedly abuse a lot of other people in egregious ways. And moreover, this isn't a process. It's a standard. The "witch hunt" comprehensively lacking in merit of any kind.

But YYW, I read The Scarlet Letter in high school and this reminds me of that.

The Scarlet Letter is one of the worst novels written in the American Literary Cannon, and the reason that high school students are made to read it is because of the implicit social commentary that can be inserted into the classroom by a discussion of how bad puritanism is. That manipulates impressionable youths into thinking that having community standards of any kind are inherently bad.

While the culture in which the Scarlet Letter takes place is awful, we're not talking about that here. I am no puritan, and neither is Bluesteel -and that should be manifestly obvious to anyone who has ever had occasion to talk to either of us. Don't be manipulated by the hollow biases that you were manipulated into adopting as a high school student. There is a real difference between acceptable and unacceptable conduct, and enforcing that is what divides us from barbarism.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 3:26:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 11:21:09 AM, YYW wrote:
There are some who, because of their biases and prejudices, have reached the irrational conclusion that banning toxic members is a guise for censorship.

Here's what it means for a member to be Toxic:

(1) A substantial number of the users interactions are not acceptable conduct in violation of the Terms of Use, such that (2) the member has seriously degraded a significant number of user's experience of the site, and (3) there are no mitigating circumstances.

That's a fairly straightforward standard; it's basically a tripartite measure of evaluating only those members whose conduct is incorrigible. What it means to be incorrigible is that after many attempts at failed moderator intervention, that person still demonstrates no desire to reform.

So, some Frequently Asked Questions:

Isn't this a guise to ban people who are unpopular?

No. It may be the case that members who are toxic are also unpopular, and the reason that they're probably unpopular is because they seriously negatively impact a whole bunch of people on the site by their ongoing and unacceptable behavior which is in violation of the TOS, but unpopularity is not enough for someone to be toxic by this standard.

Couldn't this be abused to ban people for little infractions?

No. The language is very clear. The number of infractions have to be substantial (meaning that it's got to be a lot) and the kind of infractions have to be serious (meaning not minor disputes in the forums). Moreover, there can be no mitigating circumstances. So, a user who on balance contributes more good than bad could never be toxic, just a a user who was engaged in an isolated conflict, however heated and severe, to the extent that it is limited only to one or a few people, could never be toxic.

Why is this necessary?

Right now, it really takes a lot to be banned. Like, you've got to sexually harass someone a lot, have a schizoid spamming episode or basically hurt so many people so badly that a whole bunch of people leave the site (like by doxxing them). But, there are some users now, and there have been many in the past whose presence in these forums seriously negatively impacts a whole bunch of people but whose offenses do not rise to that extremely high threshold it takes to ban people. By suggesting toxicity as an additional measure of banworthyness, we're at once attempting to remove those members who refuse or are incapable of civilly interacting with others, and reinforcing the notion that repeated incidences of egregiousness directed at multiple people will not be tolerated.

Is this a witch hunt?

The suggestion that this is a witch hunt is more or less the weakest criticism of what's been proposed here so far, for a number of reasons. First of all, a witch hunt is a process by which people pursue irrational agenda against people in the absence of evidence. It takes a LOT of evidence for someone to be toxic. There is nothing irrational about wanting to impose consequences on those who repeatedly abuse a lot of other people in egregious ways. And moreover, this isn't a process. It's a standard. The "witch hunt" comprehensively lacking in merit of any kind.

But YYW, I read The Scarlet Letter in high school and this reminds me of that.

The Scarlet Letter is one of the worst novels written in the American Literary Cannon, and the reason that high school students are made to read it is because of the implicit social commentary that can be inserted into the classroom by a discussion of how bad puritanism is. That manipulates impressionable youths into thinking that having community standards of any kind are inherently bad.

While the culture in which the Scarlet Letter takes place is awful, we're not talking about that here. I am no puritan, and neither is Bluesteel -and that should be manifestly obvious to anyone who has ever had occasion to talk to either of us. Don't be manipulated by the hollow biases that you were manipulated into adopting as a high school student. There is a real difference between acceptable and unacceptable conduct, and enforcing that is what divides us from barbarism.

dude i think you need to step away from ddo a while and take a breather
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 3:26:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Irrational Legislation

The Fool: Firstly, who are you talking about. Are you assuming such unjust biases?Are they really pre-judgments, or empirical judgments based off of real events?

If you are talking about me, look, I'm not personally in fear of being of persecuted myself on DDO, at least not now. But I understand how it feels to be unjustly persecuted, and so I'm against such legislation which increases the probability of abuse but does not necessarily have any advantages..

It is your campaign which is irrational. You make it seem like people are Incompetent of simply choosing to IGNORE whatever or whoever they want. Nobody has to respond to anybody or read anything they don't want to.

Most of these disputes involve parties who are constantly responding and harassing each other back and forth. And what often happens is many members, are disagreeing with one member, where that one member is facing attacks on multiple fronts, and so is receiving way more harassment than the majority group. This concentrated fire on certain individuals of DDO tends to cause that individual to retaliate, more vigorously simply to make up for the multiple aggressions against them. This majority group then, by virtue of self-fulfilling prophecy, declares for itself that the opposing individual or minority group to be unfit for DDO.

I know what it's like to be that individual, or a part of a minority group. And you YYW should know that as well. Its rarely ever unilateral.

Now, if somebody is actually continually harassing somebody, unilaterally, or without being provoked or without sincere justification, then they can be flagged, warned, and temporarily banned with longer penalties for repeated offenses. The banning itself can be announced and or discussed in a Debate.org"forum, the very way they have been in the past..

I am sorry, but simply not getting along, or not being compatible with even most of the members, is not a good justification for banning anybody. It doesn't matter if Hitler was alive and well and on DDO, it still would not be a justification to ban him for the sake of who he is, or he is opposing ideals if on DDO he has not broken any rules.

We all know, you guys have your favorites, and non-favorites. Therefore the constructs you have created for yourself, and terminology are adopting and wish to impose on DDO legislation cannot possibly change the "status quo" for the better but only for the worse.

And we want better than that.

Against The Ideologist

And we deserve better than that.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 3:28:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 3:26:58 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Now, if somebody is actually continually harassing somebody, unilaterally, or without being provoked or without sincere justification, then they can be flagged, warned, and temporarily banned with longer penalties for repeated offenses. The banning itself can be announced and or discussed in a Debate.org"forum, the very way they have been in the past..

The whole point of toxicity is that what you're suggesting has been tried and has failed. So, while I sympathize with your position, you're not actually addressing the substance of what I said or what banning toxic members is all about.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 3:36:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 3:28:49 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/10/2014 3:26:58 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Now, if somebody is actually continually harassing somebody, unilaterally, or without being provoked or without sincere justification, then they can be flagged, warned, and temporarily banned with longer penalties for repeated offenses. The banning itself can be announced and or discussed in a Debate.org"forum, the very way they have been in the past..

YYW : The whole point of toxicity is that what you're suggesting has been tried and has failed. So, while I sympathize with your position, you're not actually addressing the substance of what I said or what banning toxic members is all about.

The Fool: I'm addressing the implications of what you guys are proposing. Not simply what you're saying here.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 3:39:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 11:21:09 AM, YYW wrote:
The Scarlet Letter is one of the worst novels written in the American Literary Cannon, and the reason that high school students are made to read it is because of the implicit social commentary that can be inserted into the classroom by a discussion of how bad puritanism is. That manipulates impressionable youths into thinking that having community standards of any kind are inherently bad.

While the culture in which the Scarlet Letter takes place is awful, we're not talking about that here. I am no puritan, and neither is Bluesteel -and that should be manifestly obvious to anyone who has ever had occasion to talk to either of us. Don't be manipulated by the hollow biases that you were manipulated into adopting as a high school student. There is a real difference between acceptable and unacceptable conduct, and enforcing that is what divides us from barbarism.

The Scarlet Letter saying it boils down to at the end of the day a discussion of how 'bad' puritanism is which leads to the conclusion lolcommunities. Is a sad reflection of your highschool experience. And saying that schools attempting to do something about uncultured tools in hs is a comedic joke that has no end is ignorant and inflammatory. Their is a real difference between sounding like a condescending prick and attempting to be satirical.
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 3:40:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 3:36:35 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 12/10/2014 3:28:49 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/10/2014 3:26:58 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Now, if somebody is actually continually harassing somebody, unilaterally, or without being provoked or without sincere justification, then they can be flagged, warned, and temporarily banned with longer penalties for repeated offenses. The banning itself can be announced and or discussed in a Debate.org"forum, the very way they have been in the past..

YYW : The whole point of toxicity is that what you're suggesting has been tried and has failed. So, while I sympathize with your position, you're not actually addressing the substance of what I said or what banning toxic members is all about.

The Fool: I'm addressing the implications of what you guys are proposing. Not simply what you're saying here.

Actually, you're trying to apply a case of something to something else that it doesn't apply to.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 3:55:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 3:40:32 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/10/2014 3:36:35 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 12/10/2014 3:28:49 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/10/2014 3:26:58 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Now, if somebody is actually continually harassing somebody, unilaterally, or without being provoked or without sincere justification, then they can be flagged, warned, and temporarily banned with longer penalties for repeated offenses. The banning itself can be announced and or discussed in a Debate.org"forum, the very way they have been in the past..

YYW : The whole point of toxicity is that what you're suggesting has been tried and has failed. So, while I sympathize with your position, you're not actually addressing the substance of what I said or what banning toxic members is all about.

The Fool: Despite the ad hoc stipulated definition of a "toxic member", it still has extreme stigmatizing connotation.

The Fool: The very expression "toxic member" suggest that somebody has a poisonous and infectious nature. What else does this this kind of terminology convey other than that somebody is evil and spreads evil?

I'd rather be called a jerk, then a "toxic" human being, as the latter is more dehumanizing, and stigmatizing. But wait, that's the"purpose now is in it.
<(89)

The adoption of the construct itself is for the very same purpose it's been adopted in society.

It's wrong.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 3:55:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 3:39:00 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 12/10/2014 11:21:09 AM, YYW wrote:
The Scarlet Letter is one of the worst novels written in the American Literary Cannon, and the reason that high school students are made to read it is because of the implicit social commentary that can be inserted into the classroom by a discussion of how bad puritanism is. That manipulates impressionable youths into thinking that having community standards of any kind are inherently bad.

While the culture in which the Scarlet Letter takes place is awful, we're not talking about that here. I am no puritan, and neither is Bluesteel -and that should be manifestly obvious to anyone who has ever had occasion to talk to either of us. Don't be manipulated by the hollow biases that you were manipulated into adopting as a high school student. There is a real difference between acceptable and unacceptable conduct, and enforcing that is what divides us from barbarism.

The Scarlet Letter saying it boils down to at the end of the day a discussion of how 'bad' puritanism is which leads to the conclusion lolcommunities. Is a sad reflection of your highschool experience. And saying that schools attempting to do something about uncultured tools in hs is a comedic joke that has no end is ignorant and inflammatory. Their is a real difference between sounding like a condescending prick and attempting to be satirical.

So... someone likes the Scarlet Letter... lol

I'm going to grade your response. In your first sentence, you've failed to advance an intelligible point. Your second sentence is a fragment, while your third sentence is improperly structured. Your third sentence also fails to respond to the substance of what I said. Your final sentence used "their" instead of "there," and also fails to respond to the substance of what I said.

Structure: 4/10
Substance: 3/10

Grade: F

I think you might want to go back to those high school English classes and revisit the material you should have learned there.
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 4:01:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 3:55:32 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/10/2014 3:39:00 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 12/10/2014 11:21:09 AM, YYW wrote:
The Scarlet Letter is one of the worst novels written in the American Literary Cannon, and the reason that high school students are made to read it is because of the implicit social commentary that can be inserted into the classroom by a discussion of how bad puritanism is. That manipulates impressionable youths into thinking that having community standards of any kind are inherently bad.

While the culture in which the Scarlet Letter takes place is awful, we're not talking about that here. I am no puritan, and neither is Bluesteel -and that should be manifestly obvious to anyone who has ever had occasion to talk to either of us. Don't be manipulated by the hollow biases that you were manipulated into adopting as a high school student. There is a real difference between acceptable and unacceptable conduct, and enforcing that is what divides us from barbarism.

The Scarlet Letter saying it boils down to at the end of the day a discussion of how 'bad' puritanism is which leads to the conclusion lolcommunities. Is a sad reflection of your highschool experience. And saying that schools attempting to do something about uncultured tools in hs is a comedic joke that has no end is ignorant and inflammatory. Their is a real difference between sounding like a condescending prick and attempting to be satirical.

So... someone likes the Scarlet Letter... lol

I'm going to grade your response. In your first sentence, you've failed to advance an intelligible point. Your second sentence is a fragment, while your third sentence is improperly structured. Your third sentence also fails to respond to the substance of what I said. Your final sentence used "their" instead of "there," and also fails to respond to the substance of what I said.

Structure: 4/10
Substance: 3/10

Grade: F

I think you might want to go back to those high school English classes and revisit the material you should have learned there.

You want me to talk like a highly bred English aristocrat? Cool. My favorite part was where you try to be condescending, but instead end up sounding really petty.

"muh, muh, muh pride. I know! I'll correct his grammar! that'll show him, yet! I'm so superior hue hue hue hue hue. Did you guys see? I totally destroyed that kid? So smart."
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 4:06:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 4:01:28 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 12/10/2014 3:55:32 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/10/2014 3:39:00 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 12/10/2014 11:21:09 AM, YYW wrote:
The Scarlet Letter is one of the worst novels written in the American Literary Cannon, and the reason that high school students are made to read it is because of the implicit social commentary that can be inserted into the classroom by a discussion of how bad puritanism is. That manipulates impressionable youths into thinking that having community standards of any kind are inherently bad.

While the culture in which the Scarlet Letter takes place is awful, we're not talking about that here. I am no puritan, and neither is Bluesteel -and that should be manifestly obvious to anyone who has ever had occasion to talk to either of us. Don't be manipulated by the hollow biases that you were manipulated into adopting as a high school student. There is a real difference between acceptable and unacceptable conduct, and enforcing that is what divides us from barbarism.

The Scarlet Letter saying it boils down to at the end of the day a discussion of how 'bad' puritanism is which leads to the conclusion lolcommunities. Is a sad reflection of your highschool experience. And saying that schools attempting to do something about uncultured tools in hs is a comedic joke that has no end is ignorant and inflammatory. Their is a real difference between sounding like a condescending prick and attempting to be satirical.

So... someone likes the Scarlet Letter... lol

I'm going to grade your response. In your first sentence, you've failed to advance an intelligible point. Your second sentence is a fragment, while your third sentence is improperly structured. Your third sentence also fails to respond to the substance of what I said. Your final sentence used "their" instead of "there," and also fails to respond to the substance of what I said.

Structure: 4/10
Substance: 3/10

Grade: F

I think you might want to go back to those high school English classes and revisit the material you should have learned there.

You want me to talk like a highly bred English aristocrat? Cool. My favorite part was where you try to be condescending, but instead end up sounding really petty.

You don't have to talk like an aristocrat... lol
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 4:17:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 4:06:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/10/2014 4:01:28 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 12/10/2014 3:55:32 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/10/2014 3:39:00 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 12/10/2014 11:21:09 AM, YYW wrote:
The Scarlet Letter is one of the worst novels written in the American Literary Cannon, and the reason that high school students are made to read it is because of the implicit social commentary that can be inserted into the classroom by a discussion of how bad puritanism is. That manipulates impressionable youths into thinking that having community standards of any kind are inherently bad.

While the culture in which the Scarlet Letter takes place is awful, we're not talking about that here. I am no puritan, and neither is Bluesteel -and that should be manifestly obvious to anyone who has ever had occasion to talk to either of us. Don't be manipulated by the hollow biases that you were manipulated into adopting as a high school student. There is a real difference between acceptable and unacceptable conduct, and enforcing that is what divides us from barbarism.

The Scarlet Letter saying it boils down to at the end of the day a discussion of how 'bad' puritanism is which leads to the conclusion lolcommunities. Is a sad reflection of your highschool experience. And saying that schools attempting to do something about uncultured tools in hs is a comedic joke that has no end is ignorant and inflammatory. Their is a real difference between sounding like a condescending prick and attempting to be satirical.

So... someone likes the Scarlet Letter... lol

I'm going to grade your response. In your first sentence, you've failed to advance an intelligible point. Your second sentence is a fragment, while your third sentence is improperly structured. Your third sentence also fails to respond to the substance of what I said. Your final sentence used "their" instead of "there," and also fails to respond to the substance of what I said.

Structure: 4/10
Substance: 3/10

Grade: F

I think you might want to go back to those high school English classes and revisit the material you should have learned there.

You want me to talk like a highly bred English aristocrat? Cool. My favorite part was where you try to be condescending, but instead end up sounding really petty.

You don't have to talk like an aristocrat... lol

I think I fvcking might have to. It seems, you only respond to highly bred elitists.
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 4:19:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 4:17:13 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 12/10/2014 4:06:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/10/2014 4:01:28 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 12/10/2014 3:55:32 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/10/2014 3:39:00 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 12/10/2014 11:21:09 AM, YYW wrote:
The Scarlet Letter is one of the worst novels written in the American Literary Cannon, and the reason that high school students are made to read it is because of the implicit social commentary that can be inserted into the classroom by a discussion of how bad puritanism is. That manipulates impressionable youths into thinking that having community standards of any kind are inherently bad.

While the culture in which the Scarlet Letter takes place is awful, we're not talking about that here. I am no puritan, and neither is Bluesteel -and that should be manifestly obvious to anyone who has ever had occasion to talk to either of us. Don't be manipulated by the hollow biases that you were manipulated into adopting as a high school student. There is a real difference between acceptable and unacceptable conduct, and enforcing that is what divides us from barbarism.

The Scarlet Letter saying it boils down to at the end of the day a discussion of how 'bad' puritanism is which leads to the conclusion lolcommunities. Is a sad reflection of your highschool experience. And saying that schools attempting to do something about uncultured tools in hs is a comedic joke that has no end is ignorant and inflammatory. Their is a real difference between sounding like a condescending prick and attempting to be satirical.

So... someone likes the Scarlet Letter... lol

I'm going to grade your response. In your first sentence, you've failed to advance an intelligible point. Your second sentence is a fragment, while your third sentence is improperly structured. Your third sentence also fails to respond to the substance of what I said. Your final sentence used "their" instead of "there," and also fails to respond to the substance of what I said.

Structure: 4/10
Substance: 3/10

Grade: F

I think you might want to go back to those high school English classes and revisit the material you should have learned there.

You want me to talk like a highly bred English aristocrat? Cool. My favorite part was where you try to be condescending, but instead end up sounding really petty.

You don't have to talk like an aristocrat... lol

I think I fvcking might have to. It seems, you only respond to highly bred elitists.

Well, if I only respond to highly bred elitists then that would make you a highly bred elitist. You're not a highly bred elitist, so that sort of contradicts that claim you just made.

But, all in all, I really don't have any interest in a personal confrontation with you. If you're a fan of shitty American literature, that's your prerogative. But, it doesn't change the reason why that book is taught or the impact it has.
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 4:31:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 4:19:13 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/10/2014 4:17:13 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 12/10/2014 4:06:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/10/2014 4:01:28 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 12/10/2014 3:55:32 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/10/2014 3:39:00 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 12/10/2014 11:21:09 AM, YYW wrote:
The Scarlet Letter is one of the worst novels written in the American Literary Cannon, and the reason that high school students are made to read it is because of the implicit social commentary that can be inserted into the classroom by a discussion of how bad puritanism is. That manipulates impressionable youths into thinking that having community standards of any kind are inherently bad.

While the culture in which the Scarlet Letter takes place is awful, we're not talking about that here. I am no puritan, and neither is Bluesteel -and that should be manifestly obvious to anyone who has ever had occasion to talk to either of us. Don't be manipulated by the hollow biases that you were manipulated into adopting as a high school student. There is a real difference between acceptable and unacceptable conduct, and enforcing that is what divides us from barbarism.

The Scarlet Letter saying it boils down to at the end of the day a discussion of how 'bad' puritanism is which leads to the conclusion lolcommunities. Is a sad reflection of your highschool experience. And saying that schools attempting to do something about uncultured tools in hs is a comedic joke that has no end is ignorant and inflammatory. Their is a real difference between sounding like a condescending prick and attempting to be satirical.

So... someone likes the Scarlet Letter... lol

I'm going to grade your response. In your first sentence, you've failed to advance an intelligible point. Your second sentence is a fragment, while your third sentence is improperly structured. Your third sentence also fails to respond to the substance of what I said. Your final sentence used "their" instead of "there," and also fails to respond to the substance of what I said.

Structure: 4/10
Substance: 3/10

Grade: F

I think you might want to go back to those high school English classes and revisit the material you should have learned there.

You want me to talk like a highly bred English aristocrat? Cool. My favorite part was where you try to be condescending, but instead end up sounding really petty.

You don't have to talk like an aristocrat... lol

I think I fvcking might have to. It seems, you only respond to highly bred elitists.

Well, if I only respond to highly bred elitists then that would make you a highly bred elitist. You're not a highly bred elitist, so that sort of contradicts that claim you just made.

I say it there YYW confirms it here.

But, all in all, I really don't have any interest in a personal confrontation with you. If you're a fan of shitty American literature, that's your prerogative. But, it doesn't change the reason why I think that book is taught or the potential impact it has in my opinion.

FTFY.

I'd say you always have an interest in massaging your ego. QED the above posts. Come down from your high horse. You're just a mook like every other person on this site.
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 4:34:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 4:31:18 PM, headphonegut wrote:
I'd say you always have an interest in massaging your ego. QED the above posts. Come down from your high horse. You're just a mook like every other person on this site.

Well, if we're all "mooks," then why are you here?
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 4:38:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 3:26:35 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 12/10/2014 11:21:09 AM, YYW wrote:
There are some who, because of their biases and prejudices, have reached the irrational conclusion that banning toxic members is a guise for censorship.

Here's what it means for a member to be Toxic:

(1) A substantial number of the users interactions are not acceptable conduct in violation of the Terms of Use, such that (2) the member has seriously degraded a significant number of user's experience of the site, and (3) there are no mitigating circumstances.

That's a fairly straightforward standard; it's basically a tripartite measure of evaluating only those members whose conduct is incorrigible. What it means to be incorrigible is that after many attempts at failed moderator intervention, that person still demonstrates no desire to reform.

So, some Frequently Asked Questions:

Isn't this a guise to ban people who are unpopular?

No. It may be the case that members who are toxic are also unpopular, and the reason that they're probably unpopular is because they seriously negatively impact a whole bunch of people on the site by their ongoing and unacceptable behavior which is in violation of the TOS, but unpopularity is not enough for someone to be toxic by this standard.

Couldn't this be abused to ban people for little infractions?

No. The language is very clear. The number of infractions have to be substantial (meaning that it's got to be a lot) and the kind of infractions have to be serious (meaning not minor disputes in the forums). Moreover, there can be no mitigating circumstances. So, a user who on balance contributes more good than bad could never be toxic, just a a user who was engaged in an isolated conflict, however heated and severe, to the extent that it is limited only to one or a few people, could never be toxic.

Why is this necessary?

Right now, it really takes a lot to be banned. Like, you've got to sexually harass someone a lot, have a schizoid spamming episode or basically hurt so many people so badly that a whole bunch of people leave the site (like by doxxing them). But, there are some users now, and there have been many in the past whose presence in these forums seriously negatively impacts a whole bunch of people but whose offenses do not rise to that extremely high threshold it takes to ban people. By suggesting toxicity as an additional measure of banworthyness, we're at once attempting to remove those members who refuse or are incapable of civilly interacting with others, and reinforcing the notion that repeated incidences of egregiousness directed at multiple people will not be tolerated.

Is this a witch hunt?

The suggestion that this is a witch hunt is more or less the weakest criticism of what's been proposed here so far, for a number of reasons. First of all, a witch hunt is a process by which people pursue irrational agenda against people in the absence of evidence. It takes a LOT of evidence for someone to be toxic. There is nothing irrational about wanting to impose consequences on those who repeatedly abuse a lot of other people in egregious ways. And moreover, this isn't a process. It's a standard. The "witch hunt" comprehensively lacking in merit of any kind.

But YYW, I read The Scarlet Letter in high school and this reminds me of that.

The Scarlet Letter is one of the worst novels written in the American Literary Cannon, and the reason that high school students are made to read it is because of the implicit social commentary that can be inserted into the classroom by a discussion of how bad puritanism is. That manipulates impressionable youths into thinking that having community standards of any kind are inherently bad.

While the culture in which the Scarlet Letter takes place is awful, we're not talking about that here. I am no puritan, and neither is Bluesteel -and that should be manifestly obvious to anyone who has ever had occasion to talk to either of us. Don't be manipulated by the hollow biases that you were manipulated into adopting as a high school student. There is a real difference between acceptable and unacceptable conduct, and enforcing that is what divides us from barbarism.

dude i think you need to step away from ddo a while and take a breather

I agree. I think he needs a break.
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 4:40:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 4:34:55 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/10/2014 4:31:18 PM, headphonegut wrote:
I'd say you always have an interest in massaging your ego. QED the above posts. Come down from your high horse. You're just a mook like every other person on this site.

Well, if we're all "mooks," then why are you here?

You're trying really hard to perform some word gymnastics. I am a part of the site. You think I used the literal meaning. Where I come from it's a term of endearment and used to keep people in check from getting to inflated, hint hint.
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 4:43:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 4:40:55 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 12/10/2014 4:34:55 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/10/2014 4:31:18 PM, headphonegut wrote:
I'd say you always have an interest in massaging your ego. QED the above posts. Come down from your high horse. You're just a mook like every other person on this site.

Well, if we're all "mooks," then why are you here?

You're trying really hard to perform some word gymnastics. I am a part of the site. You think I used the literal meaning. Where I come from it's a term of endearment and used to keep people in check from getting to inflated, hint hint.

W/e. I think you're being irrationally hostile, but I make room for the possibility that you're just trying to make conversation. No worries.

But seriously, I don't like your tone or attitude, which is why I responded to you in the way that I did. Though if you didn't mean to be a prick, so be it.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 4:47:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm going to be honest and very direct hear YYW. I consider you a friend, but, and this is a big but, you need really need to go sit in a corner and regather your thoughts. Just step back a bit and gain a better frame of mind.
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 4:49:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 4:47:39 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
I'm going to be honest and very direct hear YYW. I consider you a friend, but, and this is a big but, you need really need to go sit in a corner and regather your thoughts. Just step back a bit and gain a better frame of mind.

I think that you're really losing perspective here, Cyber.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 4:50:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 4:49:36 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/10/2014 4:47:39 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
I'm going to be honest and very direct hear YYW. I consider you a friend, but, and this is a big but, you need really need to go sit in a corner and regather your thoughts. Just step back a bit and gain a better frame of mind.

I think that you're really losing perspective here, Cyber.

You still need to take a step back from ddo right now because you're becoming a little aggressive in this thread.
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 4:52:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 4:43:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/10/2014 4:40:55 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 12/10/2014 4:34:55 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/10/2014 4:31:18 PM, headphonegut wrote:
I'd say you always have an interest in massaging your ego. QED the above posts. Come down from your high horse. You're just a mook like every other person on this site.

Well, if we're all "mooks," then why are you here?

You're trying really hard to perform some word gymnastics. I am a part of the site. You think I used the literal meaning. Where I come from it's a term of endearment and used to keep people in check from getting to inflated, hint hint.

W/e. I think you're being irrationally hostile, but I make room for the possibility that you're just trying to make conversation. No worries.

But seriously, I don't like your tone or attitude, which is why I responded to you in the way that I did. Though if you didn't mean to be a prick, so be it.

With that dismissive attitude anything is possible, I guess. Things just roll off you like water off a duck. FTR I didn't like that book; I appreciate what it represents.
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 4:53:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 4:50:59 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 12/10/2014 4:49:36 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/10/2014 4:47:39 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
I'm going to be honest and very direct hear YYW. I consider you a friend, but, and this is a big but, you need really need to go sit in a corner and regather your thoughts. Just step back a bit and gain a better frame of mind.

I think that you're really losing perspective here, Cyber.

You still need to take a step back from ddo right now because you're becoming a little aggressive in this thread.

You're welcome to have any view of this that you like... this is kind of disappointing from you though, Cyber. I can respect that you have a different opinion on this than I do, but I don't appreciate the implication you're suggesting here.

If you'd like to respond to the substance of what I said, I welcome you to do it... but inaccurate suggestions that I'm "being a little aggressive" and that I need to step back are not only inappropriate, they are rude and offensive. Furthermore, they in no way meaningfully advance the discussion.
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 4:55:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 4:52:40 PM, headphonegut wrote:
Things just roll off you like water off a duck.

haha I like that
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 4:56:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 4:53:45 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/10/2014 4:50:59 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 12/10/2014 4:49:36 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/10/2014 4:47:39 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
I'm going to be honest and very direct hear YYW. I consider you a friend, but, and this is a big but, you need really need to go sit in a corner and regather your thoughts. Just step back a bit and gain a better frame of mind.

I think that you're really losing perspective here, Cyber.

You still need to take a step back from ddo right now because you're becoming a little aggressive in this thread.

You're welcome to have any view of this that you like... this is kind of disappointing from you though, Cyber. I can respect that you have a different opinion on this than I do, but I don't appreciate the implication you're suggesting here.

If you'd like to respond to the substance of what I said, I welcome you to do it... but inaccurate suggestions that I'm "being a little aggressive" and that I need to step back are not only inappropriate, they are rude and offensive. Furthermore, they in no way meaningfully advance the discussion.

i don't agree or disagree but oh well this is obviously a little to far to handle now
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 5:20:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 4:40:55 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 12/10/2014 4:34:55 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/10/2014 4:31:18 PM, headphonegut wrote:
I'd say you always have an interest in massaging your ego. QED the above posts. Come down from your high horse. You're just a mook like every other person on this site.

Well, if we're all "mooks," then why are you here?

You're trying really hard to perform some word gymnastics. I am a part of the site. You think I used the literal meaning. Where I come from it's a term of endearment and used to keep people in check from getting to inflated, hint hint.

I use the N word as a term of endearment. I rarely ever get beat up for it.
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 5:20:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 5:20:03 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/10/2014 4:40:55 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 12/10/2014 4:34:55 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/10/2014 4:31:18 PM, headphonegut wrote:
I'd say you always have an interest in massaging your ego. QED the above posts. Come down from your high horse. You're just a mook like every other person on this site.

Well, if we're all "mooks," then why are you here?

You're trying really hard to perform some word gymnastics. I am a part of the site. You think I used the literal meaning. Where I come from it's a term of endearment and used to keep people in check from getting to inflated, hint hint.

I use the N word as a term of endearment. I rarely ever get beat up for it.

Rarely
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 5:23:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 5:20:38 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 12/10/2014 5:20:03 PM, Wylted wrote:

I use the N word as a term of endearment. I rarely ever get beat up for it.

Rarely

LMFAO...
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...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 5:24:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 5:20:38 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 12/10/2014 5:20:03 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/10/2014 4:40:55 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 12/10/2014 4:34:55 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/10/2014 4:31:18 PM, headphonegut wrote:
I'd say you always have an interest in massaging your ego. QED the above posts. Come down from your high horse. You're just a mook like every other person on this site.

Well, if we're all "mooks," then why are you here?

You're trying really hard to perform some word gymnastics. I am a part of the site. You think I used the literal meaning. Where I come from it's a term of endearment and used to keep people in check from getting to inflated, hint hint.

I use the N word as a term of endearment. I rarely ever get beat up for it.

Rarely

Yeh it's rare. The only people who actually seem offended by the word is crackers, and I can out run them.
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 5:48:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 5:24:02 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/10/2014 5:20:38 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 12/10/2014 5:20:03 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/10/2014 4:40:55 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 12/10/2014 4:34:55 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/10/2014 4:31:18 PM, headphonegut wrote:
I'd say you always have an interest in massaging your ego. QED the above posts. Come down from your high horse. You're just a mook like every other person on this site.

Well, if we're all "mooks," then why are you here?

You're trying really hard to perform some word gymnastics. I am a part of the site. You think I used the literal meaning. Where I come from it's a term of endearment and used to keep people in check from getting to inflated, hint hint.

I use the N word as a term of endearment. I rarely ever get beat up for it.

Rarely

Yeh it's rare. The only people who actually seem offended by the word is crackers, and I can out run them.

lolzorz epic memez xD XD! :p
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?