Total Posts:109|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Banning vs Blocking

sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 5:32:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Rather than having mods who use their own judgment in banning users based on rudeness, personality, and so on, why not give the site (or any site) a function to "block" / "hide all posts by" the user? There could still be banning, but limited to extreme cases where it's not just aesthetic, such as doxxing, threats of violence, etc. I actually can't think of much reason to have the former, since the latter allows each user to make their own judgments, rather than extending them to others who might not mind the banned guy. Am I missing something here?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 6:28:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 5:32:40 AM, sdavio wrote:
Rather than having mods who use their own judgment in banning users based on rudeness, personality, and so on, why not give the site (or any site) a function to "block" / "hide all posts by" the user? There could still be banning, but limited to extreme cases where it's not just aesthetic, such as doxxing, threats of violence, etc. I actually can't think of much reason to have the former, since the latter allows each user to make their own judgments, rather than extending them to others who might not mind the banned guy. Am I missing something here?

Because, while many members may block one user, it doesn't stop the user insulting new members, which can damage the integrity of the site.

Plus I don't see any moderators banning people on personal preference as you suggest, Rather people are being banned for breaking rules that have previously been outlined, After being warned if the user repeats the offence, they are banned. I think this is fair and just, to protect genuine members of this site.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 6:42:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 6:28:58 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/11/2015 5:32:40 AM, sdavio wrote:
Rather than having mods who use their own judgment in banning users based on rudeness, personality, and so on, why not give the site (or any site) a function to "block" / "hide all posts by" the user? There could still be banning, but limited to extreme cases where it's not just aesthetic, such as doxxing, threats of violence, etc. I actually can't think of much reason to have the former, since the latter allows each user to make their own judgments, rather than extending them to others who might not mind the banned guy. Am I missing something here?

Because, while many members may block one user, it doesn't stop the user insulting new members, which can damage the integrity of the site.

What about, if enough people block a person or report a post or something, their posts are automatically hidden and but it shows a "click here to show this post" thing like some sites do?

Plus I don't see any moderators banning people on personal preference as you suggest, Rather people are being banned for breaking rules that have previously been outlined, After being warned if the user repeats the offence, they are banned. I think this is fair and just, to protect genuine members of this site.

But the rules themselves are essentially aesthetic: "personal attack" is pretty much subjective. Personally I don't mind seeing people who call each other 'idiot' etc. But if some people are too frazzled by seeing that then they could just hide those people's posts.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
BoggyDag
Posts: 379
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 6:54:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 6:42:18 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/11/2015 6:28:58 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/11/2015 5:32:40 AM, sdavio wrote:
Rather than having mods who use their own judgment in banning users based on rudeness, personality, and so on, why not give the site (or any site) a function to "block" / "hide all posts by" the user? There could still be banning, but limited to extreme cases where it's not just aesthetic, such as doxxing, threats of violence, etc. I actually can't think of much reason to have the former, since the latter allows each user to make their own judgments, rather than extending them to others who might not mind the banned guy. Am I missing something here?

Because, while many members may block one user, it doesn't stop the user insulting new members, which can damage the integrity of the site.

What about, if enough people block a person or report a post or something, their posts are automatically hidden and but it shows a "click here to show this post" thing like some sites do?

Plus I don't see any moderators banning people on personal preference as you suggest, Rather people are being banned for breaking rules that have previously been outlined, After being warned if the user repeats the offence, they are banned. I think this is fair and just, to protect genuine members of this site.

But the rules themselves are essentially aesthetic: "personal attack" is pretty much subjective. Personally I don't mind seeing people who call each other 'idiot' etc. But if some people are too frazzled by seeing that then they could just hide those people's posts.

Think this through for a sec:
A few bullies keep bashing someone they don't like. He blocks them. Now that he can't see their posts anymore, they start serious slander, and he won't even KNOW. Other users who have NOT blocked the bullies now read all these lies and the reputation of the bullied user is damaged beyond repair without them even knowing.

I don't know why some sites offer this, but it is basically victim-blaming on an institutional level.

No offense, but your proposal is supporting cyber-bullying. Unintentionally, I'm sure.
An offense does not become any better if it happens out of sight. If someone stelas my car without me looking, it's still theft.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 6:59:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 6:54:00 AM, BoggyDag wrote:
Think this through for a sec:
A few bullies keep bashing someone they don't like. He blocks them. Now that he can't see their posts anymore, they start serious slander, and he won't even KNOW. Other users who have NOT blocked the bullies now read all these lies and the reputation of the bullied user is damaged beyond repair without them even knowing.

I don't know why some sites offer this, but it is basically victim-blaming on an institutional level.

No offense, but your proposal is supporting cyber-bullying. Unintentionally, I'm sure.
An offense does not become any better if it happens out of sight. If someone stelas my car without me looking, it's still theft.

This is why people can make completely anonymous accounts, and then all that's being insulted is an arbitrary screen-name. Really, I think your argument would work better with a site like Facebook or a dating site whose purposes are for personal socializing, but with a debate site like this, surely the goal is to deal with ideas, and whatever personal relationships people have, while fine too, is really secondary to the purpose of the site. So I think that that feature would actually enhance the site in that it'd encourage people to use the it to discuss ideas rather than use it as a social club, which doesn't suit the idea behind the site.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
BoggyDag
Posts: 379
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 7:02:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 6:59:18 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/11/2015 6:54:00 AM, BoggyDag wrote:
Think this through for a sec:
A few bullies keep bashing someone they don't like. He blocks them. Now that he can't see their posts anymore, they start serious slander, and he won't even KNOW. Other users who have NOT blocked the bullies now read all these lies and the reputation of the bullied user is damaged beyond repair without them even knowing.

I don't know why some sites offer this, but it is basically victim-blaming on an institutional level.

No offense, but your proposal is supporting cyber-bullying. Unintentionally, I'm sure.
An offense does not become any better if it happens out of sight. If someone stelas my car without me looking, it's still theft.

This is why people can make completely anonymous accounts, and then all that's being insulted is an arbitrary screen-name. Really, I think your argument would work better with a site like Facebook or a dating site whose purposes are for personal socializing, but with a debate site like this, surely the goal is to deal with ideas, and whatever personal relationships people have, while fine too, is really secondary to the purpose of the site. So I think that that feature would actually enhance the site in that it'd encourage people to use the it to discuss ideas rather than use it as a social club, which doesn't suit the idea behind the site.

That's all no use if nobody will debate against your anonymous account because they believe lies about that account.
One would have to drop an old account and make a new one, losing all progress on ranking and being forced to reconnect with all old friends.
On this site, you depend on people willing to debate you. Once that will is gone, you're done. Anonymous or not.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 7:06:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 5:32:40 AM, sdavio wrote:
Rather than having mods who use their own judgment in banning users based on rudeness, personality, and so on, why not give the site (or any site) a function to "block" / "hide all posts by" the user? There could still be banning, but limited to extreme cases where it's not just aesthetic, such as doxxing, threats of violence, etc. I actually can't think of much reason to have the former, since the latter allows each user to make their own judgments, rather than extending them to others who might not mind the banned guy. Am I missing something here?

There is a function to do something similar, I believe.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 7:07:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 7:02:05 AM, BoggyDag wrote:
That's all no use if nobody will debate against your anonymous account because they believe lies about that account.
One would have to drop an old account and make a new one, losing all progress on ranking and being forced to reconnect with all old friends.
On this site, you depend on people willing to debate you. Once that will is gone, you're done. Anonymous or not.

Then people would not focus so much on ranking, and therefore rather than taking easy / redundant debates like "Gun Control", which aren't interesting, they'd start using the site to figure out the most interesting ideas they're thinking about, and therefore the site would become less like a video game and more like a place for discussion of theories. I'd find that better. Honestly I don't think the ranking system is good.

Plus, if you had friends, you could just make a new account but tell the people you like "Hey, I'm _____ on a new account".

Also, why would people hate the person so much to do all this in the first place? Keep in mind that this would be a pretty rare thing, which would only happen if someone is probably being a jerk in one way or another. And the consequences (losing an arbitrary score on an anonymous site) aren't all that huge.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
DarthVitiosus
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 7:08:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 5:32:40 AM, sdavio wrote:
Rather than having mods who use their own judgment in banning users based on rudeness, personality, and so on, why not give the site (or any site) a function to "block" / "hide all posts by" the user? There could still be banning, but limited to extreme cases where it's not just aesthetic, such as doxxing, threats of violence, etc. I actually can't think of much reason to have the former, since the latter allows each user to make their own judgments, rather than extending them to others who might not mind the banned guy. Am I missing something here?

Who do you think has the capacity to apply this "hide all posts" features? I would state no one that frequents this site including the moderators can implement it. I think what you really want is the same how blocking someone on EDEB8 works. You can't read any of their posts, vote on their debates, or even debate the them either if they are blocked. The problem with their site feature is that if someone changes their user name, they are unblocked.
WILL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL:
#1. I have met 10 people worth discussing with on DDO who are not interested in ideological or romantic visions of the world we all live in.
#2. 10 people admit they have no interest in any one else's opinion other than their own.
#3. 10 people admit they are products of their environment and their ideas derive from said environment rather than doing any serious critical thinking and search for answers themselves.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 7:14:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 7:08:44 AM, DarthVitiosus wrote:
At 1/11/2015 5:32:40 AM, sdavio wrote:
Rather than having mods who use their own judgment in banning users based on rudeness, personality, and so on, why not give the site (or any site) a function to "block" / "hide all posts by" the user? There could still be banning, but limited to extreme cases where it's not just aesthetic, such as doxxing, threats of violence, etc. I actually can't think of much reason to have the former, since the latter allows each user to make their own judgments, rather than extending them to others who might not mind the banned guy. Am I missing something here?

Who do you think has the capacity to apply this "hide all posts" features? I would state no one that frequents this site including the moderators can implement it. I think what you really want is the same how blocking someone on EDEB8 works. You can't read any of their posts, vote on their debates, or even debate the them either if they are blocked. The problem with their site feature is that if someone changes their user name, they are unblocked.

I'm aware that people seem to think Juggle is completely absent. However, I think it's a relatively simple implementation compared to the fact that it would solve the problem this site seems to have with losing focus on interesting debates in favor of social-club style stuff.

Any system has the same fact that people can create a new profile. However, with the banning system it is a huge flaw, and pretty much undermines the whole thing - people can just create a new account as soon as they're banned, whereas with the blocking thing you wouldn't know if someone's blocked you, and anyway it'd be ridiculous to have to keep making a new account every time you think you might be blocked by one person.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 7:16:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 6:42:18 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/11/2015 6:28:58 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/11/2015 5:32:40 AM, sdavio wrote:
Rather than having mods who use their own judgment in banning users based on rudeness, personality, and so on, why not give the site (or any site) a function to "block" / "hide all posts by" the user? There could still be banning, but limited to extreme cases where it's not just aesthetic, such as doxxing, threats of violence, etc. I actually can't think of much reason to have the former, since the latter allows each user to make their own judgments, rather than extending them to others who might not mind the banned guy. Am I missing something here?

Because, while many members may block one user, it doesn't stop the user insulting new members, which can damage the integrity of the site.

What about, if enough people block a person or report a post or something, their posts are automatically hidden and but it shows a "click here to show this post" thing like some sites do?

Plus I don't see any moderators banning people on personal preference as you suggest, Rather people are being banned for breaking rules that have previously been outlined, After being warned if the user repeats the offence, they are banned. I think this is fair and just, to protect genuine members of this site.

But the rules themselves are essentially aesthetic: "personal attack" is pretty much subjective. Personally I don't mind seeing people who call each other 'idiot' etc. But if some people are too frazzled by seeing that then they could just hide those people's posts.

I'm of this opinion too. The main reason I decided at one point to just report anything that amounted to a TOS violation is because other people I associated with (malcolmxy) got banned for no discernible reason.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 7:17:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 7:06:50 AM, kbub wrote:
At 1/11/2015 5:32:40 AM, sdavio wrote:
Rather than having mods who use their own judgment in banning users based on rudeness, personality, and so on, why not give the site (or any site) a function to "block" / "hide all posts by" the user? There could still be banning, but limited to extreme cases where it's not just aesthetic, such as doxxing, threats of violence, etc. I actually can't think of much reason to have the former, since the latter allows each user to make their own judgments, rather than extending them to others who might not mind the banned guy. Am I missing something here?

There is a function to do something similar, I believe.

Not on this website, to my knowledge.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 7:18:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 7:17:06 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/11/2015 7:06:50 AM, kbub wrote:
At 1/11/2015 5:32:40 AM, sdavio wrote:
Rather than having mods who use their own judgment in banning users based on rudeness, personality, and so on, why not give the site (or any site) a function to "block" / "hide all posts by" the user? There could still be banning, but limited to extreme cases where it's not just aesthetic, such as doxxing, threats of violence, etc. I actually can't think of much reason to have the former, since the latter allows each user to make their own judgments, rather than extending them to others who might not mind the banned guy. Am I missing something here?

There is a function to do something similar, I believe.

Not on this website, to my knowledge.

You can block people, so they wont be able to contact you directly (PMs/ wallposts). Although you can't hide posts from them, true.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 7:19:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 7:17:06 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/11/2015 7:06:50 AM, kbub wrote:
At 1/11/2015 5:32:40 AM, sdavio wrote:
Rather than having mods who use their own judgment in banning users based on rudeness, personality, and so on, why not give the site (or any site) a function to "block" / "hide all posts by" the user? There could still be banning, but limited to extreme cases where it's not just aesthetic, such as doxxing, threats of violence, etc. I actually can't think of much reason to have the former, since the latter allows each user to make their own judgments, rather than extending them to others who might not mind the banned guy. Am I missing something here?

There is a function to do something similar, I believe.

Not on this website, to my knowledge.

Go to my profile, and I think 2 slots under "add friend" there is a "block" function.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 7:19:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 7:18:53 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 1/11/2015 7:17:06 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/11/2015 7:06:50 AM, kbub wrote:
At 1/11/2015 5:32:40 AM, sdavio wrote:
Rather than having mods who use their own judgment in banning users based on rudeness, personality, and so on, why not give the site (or any site) a function to "block" / "hide all posts by" the user? There could still be banning, but limited to extreme cases where it's not just aesthetic, such as doxxing, threats of violence, etc. I actually can't think of much reason to have the former, since the latter allows each user to make their own judgments, rather than extending them to others who might not mind the banned guy. Am I missing something here?

There is a function to do something similar, I believe.

Not on this website, to my knowledge.

You can block people, so they wont be able to contact you directly (PMs/ wallposts). Although you can't hide posts from them, true.

The block does not work on public forums. That's the point that the OP is making.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 7:20:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 7:19:54 AM, kbub wrote:
At 1/11/2015 7:17:06 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/11/2015 7:06:50 AM, kbub wrote:
At 1/11/2015 5:32:40 AM, sdavio wrote:
Rather than having mods who use their own judgment in banning users based on rudeness, personality, and so on, why not give the site (or any site) a function to "block" / "hide all posts by" the user? There could still be banning, but limited to extreme cases where it's not just aesthetic, such as doxxing, threats of violence, etc. I actually can't think of much reason to have the former, since the latter allows each user to make their own judgments, rather than extending them to others who might not mind the banned guy. Am I missing something here?

There is a function to do something similar, I believe.

Not on this website, to my knowledge.

Go to my profile, and I think 2 slots under "add friend" there is a "block" function.

see post #15
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DarthVitiosus
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 7:20:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 7:14:32 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/11/2015 7:08:44 AM, DarthVitiosus wrote:
At 1/11/2015 5:32:40 AM, sdavio wrote:
Rather than having mods who use their own judgment in banning users based on rudeness, personality, and so on, why not give the site (or any site) a function to "block" / "hide all posts by" the user? There could still be banning, but limited to extreme cases where it's not just aesthetic, such as doxxing, threats of violence, etc. I actually can't think of much reason to have the former, since the latter allows each user to make their own judgments, rather than extending them to others who might not mind the banned guy. Am I missing something here?

Who do you think has the capacity to apply this "hide all posts" features? I would state no one that frequents this site including the moderators can implement it. I think what you really want is the same how blocking someone on EDEB8 works. You can't read any of their posts, vote on their debates, or even debate the them either if they are blocked. The problem with their site feature is that if someone changes their user name, they are unblocked.

I'm aware that people seem to think Juggle is completely absent. However, I think it's a relatively simple implementation compared to the fact that it would solve the problem this site seems to have with losing focus on interesting debates in favor of social-club style stuff.

Any system has the same fact that people can create a new profile. However, with the banning system it is a huge flaw, and pretty much undermines the whole thing - people can just create a new account as soon as they're banned, whereas with the blocking thing you wouldn't know if someone's blocked you, and anyway it'd be ridiculous to have to keep making a new account every time you think you might be blocked by one person.
On EDEB8, for example, if someone blocked you, you would know it when you can't read their posts or participate in their debates. Also I didn't mean create a "new profile." On that website you can just change your profile name without creating a new account. Hence why it is easy for people to be unblocked.
WILL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL:
#1. I have met 10 people worth discussing with on DDO who are not interested in ideological or romantic visions of the world we all live in.
#2. 10 people admit they have no interest in any one else's opinion other than their own.
#3. 10 people admit they are products of their environment and their ideas derive from said environment rather than doing any serious critical thinking and search for answers themselves.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 7:27:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 5:32:40 AM, sdavio wrote:
Rather than having mods who use their own judgment in banning users based on rudeness, personality, and so on, why not give the site (or any site) a function to "block" / "hide all posts by" the user? There could still be banning, but limited to extreme cases where it's not just aesthetic, such as doxxing, threats of violence, etc. I actually can't think of much reason to have the former, since the latter allows each user to make their own judgments, rather than extending them to others who might not mind the banned guy. Am I missing something here?

A "block" function works as the sole moderation on a site like Facebook because you choose whom to be friends with in the first place. Once you block someone, you never have to hear from them again. They can't post on your timeline. Their posts to their own wall do not show up on your news feed. They can't send you messages.

On DDO, there is no feature to block the person so that you don't have to see what they are typing in the forums. If they reply to your posts in the forums, you still get a notification. So blocking doesn't stop conflicts between particular users.

In addition, on Facebook, you don't have to become friends with someone in the first place. You voluntarily choose who to interact with, so it doesn't matter if there is a particularly toxic user on the site because people who find that person annoying irl simply do not friend them. In contrast, DDO is a public forum. You don't get to choose who to interact with. So if someone consistently harasses other users and causes them to block that user, that exemplifies a pattern of behavior that *other* users -- who were not parties to the conflict -- also need to be protected from. If someone consistently harasses on the forums, they are going to do it again. Having the specific user they are harassing block them is not a permanent solution to the problem.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 7:27:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 7:16:02 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
But the rules themselves are essentially aesthetic: "personal attack" is pretty much subjective. Personally I don't mind seeing people who call each other 'idiot' etc. But if some people are too frazzled by seeing that then they could just hide those people's posts.

I'm of this opinion too. The main reason I decided at one point to just report anything that amounted to a TOS violation is because other people I associated with (malcolmxy) got banned for no discernible reason.

Interesting. Being that your political ideas seem more 'authoritarian' - at least compared to anarchism, lol - interesting that you'd take a pretty 'non-intervention' view about running the site.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 7:29:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 7:19:58 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/11/2015 7:18:53 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 1/11/2015 7:17:06 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/11/2015 7:06:50 AM, kbub wrote:
At 1/11/2015 5:32:40 AM, sdavio wrote:
Rather than having mods who use their own judgment in banning users based on rudeness, personality, and so on, why not give the site (or any site) a function to "block" / "hide all posts by" the user? There could still be banning, but limited to extreme cases where it's not just aesthetic, such as doxxing, threats of violence, etc. I actually can't think of much reason to have the former, since the latter allows each user to make their own judgments, rather than extending them to others who might not mind the banned guy. Am I missing something here?

There is a function to do something similar, I believe.

Not on this website, to my knowledge.

You can block people, so they wont be able to contact you directly (PMs/ wallposts). Although you can't hide posts from them, true.

The block does not work on public forums. That's the point that the OP is making.

yeah, i conceded that in my response.

I know there was this program some user made that could block posts from a specific user if you installed it in your system. Here: http://www.debate.org... If you want, you can check that out too. It works.

Although personally, I don't see it as necessary- I like knowing what everyone is saying even if its not to my taste, but its there if someone wants to use it.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 7:32:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 7:27:12 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 1/11/2015 5:32:40 AM, sdavio wrote:
Rather than having mods who use their own judgment in banning users based on rudeness, personality, and so on, why not give the site (or any site) a function to "block" / "hide all posts by" the user? There could still be banning, but limited to extreme cases where it's not just aesthetic, such as doxxing, threats of violence, etc. I actually can't think of much reason to have the former, since the latter allows each user to make their own judgments, rather than extending them to others who might not mind the banned guy. Am I missing something here?

A "block" function works as the sole moderation on a site like Facebook because you choose whom to be friends with in the first place. Once you block someone, you never have to hear from them again. They can't post on your timeline. Their posts to their own wall do not show up on your news feed. They can't send you messages.

On DDO, there is no feature to block the person so that you don't have to see what they are typing in the forums. If they reply to your posts in the forums, you still get a notification. So blocking doesn't stop conflicts between particular users.

In addition, on Facebook, you don't have to become friends with someone in the first place. You voluntarily choose who to interact with, so it doesn't matter if there is a particularly toxic user on the site because people who find that person annoying irl simply do not friend them. In contrast, DDO is a public forum. You don't get to choose who to interact with. So if someone consistently harasses other users and causes them to block that user, that exemplifies a pattern of behavior that *other* users -- who were not parties to the conflict -- also need to be protected from. If someone consistently harasses on the forums, they are going to do it again. Having the specific user they are harassing block them is not a permanent solution to the problem.

What I'm talking about is if they implemented a system where, if you 'blocked' a certain person, all their forum posts would be hidden from you, and if, say, 10 or 20 people did so, their posts would be automatically 'hidden' so that new users wouldn't see them either unless they specifically clicked a 'show post' button. Would your criticisms still apply in that case?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 7:33:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 7:27:47 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/11/2015 7:16:02 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
But the rules themselves are essentially aesthetic: "personal attack" is pretty much subjective. Personally I don't mind seeing people who call each other 'idiot' etc. But if some people are too frazzled by seeing that then they could just hide those people's posts.

I'm of this opinion too. The main reason I decided at one point to just report anything that amounted to a TOS violation is because other people I associated with (malcolmxy) got banned for no discernible reason.

Interesting. Being that your political ideas seem more 'authoritarian' - at least compared to anarchism, lol - interesting that you'd take a pretty 'non-intervention' view about running the site.

My political views are probably more minarchist than anything else. Minimal authority, but otherwise, pretty close to anarchic if possible. It sounds authoritarian because I advocate something close to 100% government spending be put on security/military/courts, but if you think about it, what else could a minimalist government possibly be?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 7:35:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 7:20:21 AM, DarthVitiosus wrote:
On EDEB8, for example, if someone blocked you, you would know it when you can't read their posts or participate in their debates. Also I didn't mean create a "new profile." On that website you can just change your profile name without creating a new account. Hence why it is easy for people to be unblocked.

Well, that seems kind of nonsensical. Like, why would it be linked to the username rather than the actual profile? Regardless, that's not what I'm advocating.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 7:39:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 7:32:33 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/11/2015 7:27:12 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 1/11/2015 5:32:40 AM, sdavio wrote:
Rather than having mods who use their own judgment in banning users based on rudeness, personality, and so on, why not give the site (or any site) a function to "block" / "hide all posts by" the user? There could still be banning, but limited to extreme cases where it's not just aesthetic, such as doxxing, threats of violence, etc. I actually can't think of much reason to have the former, since the latter allows each user to make their own judgments, rather than extending them to others who might not mind the banned guy. Am I missing something here?

A "block" function works as the sole moderation on a site like Facebook because you choose whom to be friends with in the first place. Once you block someone, you never have to hear from them again. They can't post on your timeline. Their posts to their own wall do not show up on your news feed. They can't send you messages.

On DDO, there is no feature to block the person so that you don't have to see what they are typing in the forums. If they reply to your posts in the forums, you still get a notification. So blocking doesn't stop conflicts between particular users.

In addition, on Facebook, you don't have to become friends with someone in the first place. You voluntarily choose who to interact with, so it doesn't matter if there is a particularly toxic user on the site because people who find that person annoying irl simply do not friend them. In contrast, DDO is a public forum. You don't get to choose who to interact with. So if someone consistently harasses other users and causes them to block that user, that exemplifies a pattern of behavior that *other* users -- who were not parties to the conflict -- also need to be protected from. If someone consistently harasses on the forums, they are going to do it again. Having the specific user they are harassing block them is not a permanent solution to the problem.

What I'm talking about is if they implemented a system where, if you 'blocked' a certain person, all their forum posts would be hidden from you, and if, say, 10 or 20 people did so, their posts would be automatically 'hidden' so that new users wouldn't see them either unless they specifically clicked a 'show post' button. Would your criticisms still apply in that case?

The underlined feature doesn't make sense to me. Essentially, as long as 10 people block you, you disappear from the site? I think that's problematic in itself since people would use multi-accounts or troll people by blocking them. Also, 10 is a huge number. There are only 200 unique users on DDO per day. The most problematic users that ever existed (e.g. izbo) probably wouldn't have even hit 10 blocks. Even many of the people who hated them still wanted to see what they were posting to troll them. And some of the current problems (like bulproof and neutral) would definitely never hit the 10 block cutoff, even though they are a serious problem. You're essentially requiring that 5-10% of the site block you before your posts disappear.

What you've described is basically Reddit, which I would like to see implemented on here. If a post has a bunch of down-votes, it gets hidden. This results essentially in user-moderation because off-topic posts or mean-spirited posts are down-voted and get hidden. But it's worth mentioning that (1) there is serious opposition on here to implementing a like/dislike system and (2) Juggle -- the website owners -- are probably never going to code it, so there's almost no reason to discuss it.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
DarthVitiosus
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 7:41:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 7:35:23 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/11/2015 7:20:21 AM, DarthVitiosus wrote:
On EDEB8, for example, if someone blocked you, you would know it when you can't read their posts or participate in their debates. Also I didn't mean create a "new profile." On that website you can just change your profile name without creating a new account. Hence why it is easy for people to be unblocked.

Well, that seems kind of nonsensical. Like, why would it be linked to the username rather than the actual profile? Regardless, that's not what I'm advocating.

Yes but I think you want a similar system implemented which is my point. I was just pointing out the flaws to their system. It wouldn't be a flaw here because users can't change their username.
WILL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL:
#1. I have met 10 people worth discussing with on DDO who are not interested in ideological or romantic visions of the world we all live in.
#2. 10 people admit they have no interest in any one else's opinion other than their own.
#3. 10 people admit they are products of their environment and their ideas derive from said environment rather than doing any serious critical thinking and search for answers themselves.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 7:44:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 7:32:33 AM, sdavio wrote:

What I'm talking about is if they implemented a system where, if you 'blocked' a certain person, all their forum posts would be hidden from you, and if, say, 10 or 20 people did so, their posts would be automatically 'hidden' so that new users wouldn't see them either unless they specifically clicked a 'show post' button. Would your criticisms still apply in that case?

And no, this doesn't really answer my objection. If someone on DDO manages to piss off 20 people to the point of getting blocked 20 times, they should have been banned a long time ago. Adopting this feature would apparently justify allowing horrible behavior under the rationale: oh, well if you don't like it, just block them.

Moderation is much more responsive. The only argument in favor of user-moderation is that moderators can't quickly respond to every post. But when you're talking about problems *users,* not problem *posts,* moderators are necessary for a permanent solution.

The same system exists on Reddit. Moderators ban chronic rulebreakers from the sub-reddits, whereas users deal with single instances of rulebreaking by downvoting.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
BoggyDag
Posts: 379
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 7:44:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 7:07:56 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/11/2015 7:02:05 AM, BoggyDag wrote:
That's all no use if nobody will debate against your anonymous account because they believe lies about that account.
One would have to drop an old account and make a new one, losing all progress on ranking and being forced to reconnect with all old friends.
On this site, you depend on people willing to debate you. Once that will is gone, you're done. Anonymous or not.

Then people would not focus so much on ranking, and therefore rather than taking easy / redundant debates like "Gun Control", which aren't interesting, they'd start using the site to figure out the most interesting ideas they're thinking about, and therefore the site would become less like a video game and more like a place for discussion of theories. I'd find that better. Honestly I don't think the ranking system is good.

Plus, if you had friends, you could just make a new account but tell the people you like "Hey, I'm _____ on a new account".

Also, why would people hate the person so much to do all this in the first place? Keep in mind that this would be a pretty rare thing, which would only happen if someone is probably being a jerk in one way or another. And the consequences (losing an arbitrary score on an anonymous site) aren't all that huge.

Let's recap that:
You want the abolition of ranking, AND a blocking feature. What next? You would rather have the whole site rewritten (an expensive, time-consuming task) in order to protect cyber-bullies.
And then there's more victim-blaming here:
"would only happen if someone is probably being a jerk in one way or another"
You are either a bully ourself or have never been subject/witness of bullying. Either way, I now consider you incompetent for a discussion of this size. You won't listen to what I'm trying to contribute anyway, so what's the point?

I think your proposal isn't thought through beyond the tip of your nose.
You are not going to admit that these changes could be problematic.

"We" does hence not exist, so there's nothing more for "us" to discuss. So I will just reiterate that you have NO - make that ABSOLUTELY NO - understanding of the mechanics of cyber-bullying, and your opinion on this is noted, but should in no way be considered relevant.
BoggyDag
Posts: 379
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 7:46:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 7:32:33 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/11/2015 7:27:12 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 1/11/2015 5:32:40 AM, sdavio wrote:
Rather than having mods who use their own judgment in banning users based on rudeness, personality, and so on, why not give the site (or any site) a function to "block" / "hide all posts by" the user? There could still be banning, but limited to extreme cases where it's not just aesthetic, such as doxxing, threats of violence, etc. I actually can't think of much reason to have the former, since the latter allows each user to make their own judgments, rather than extending them to others who might not mind the banned guy. Am I missing something here?

A "block" function works as the sole moderation on a site like Facebook because you choose whom to be friends with in the first place. Once you block someone, you never have to hear from them again. They can't post on your timeline. Their posts to their own wall do not show up on your news feed. They can't send you messages.

On DDO, there is no feature to block the person so that you don't have to see what they are typing in the forums. If they reply to your posts in the forums, you still get a notification. So blocking doesn't stop conflicts between particular users.

In addition, on Facebook, you don't have to become friends with someone in the first place. You voluntarily choose who to interact with, so it doesn't matter if there is a particularly toxic user on the site because people who find that person annoying irl simply do not friend them. In contrast, DDO is a public forum. You don't get to choose who to interact with. So if someone consistently harasses other users and causes them to block that user, that exemplifies a pattern of behavior that *other* users -- who were not parties to the conflict -- also need to be protected from. If someone consistently harasses on the forums, they are going to do it again. Having the specific user they are harassing block them is not a permanent solution to the problem.

What I'm talking about is if they implemented a system where, if you 'blocked' a certain person, all their forum posts would be hidden from you, and if, say, 10 or 20 people did so, their posts would be automatically 'hidden' so that new users wouldn't see them either unless they specifically clicked a 'show post' button. Would your criticisms still apply in that case?

If you can't see something, new users will NATURALLY click it, in order to see for themselves, thus ATTRACTING attention to the hidden posts.
If we hide them automatically, why not DELETE them automatically, which amounts to a ban?
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 7:51:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 7:44:58 AM, BoggyDag wrote:
And then there's more victim-blaming here:
"would only happen if someone is probably being a jerk in one way or another"

Why are you talking about victim blaming, as if I were advocating that rape is alright or something? I think the problem is the fact that for reading a post on an anonymous forum which you don't like, you define yourself as a "victim".
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 7:52:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 7:44:05 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 1/11/2015 7:32:33 AM, sdavio wrote:

What I'm talking about is if they implemented a system where, if you 'blocked' a certain person, all their forum posts would be hidden from you, and if, say, 10 or 20 people did so, their posts would be automatically 'hidden' so that new users wouldn't see them either unless they specifically clicked a 'show post' button. Would your criticisms still apply in that case?

And no, this doesn't really answer my objection. If someone on DDO manages to piss off 20 people to the point of getting blocked 20 times, they should have been banned a long time ago. Adopting this feature would apparently justify allowing horrible behavior under the rationale: oh, well if you don't like it, just block them.

What makes your interpretation of "horrible" behavior valid across all of DDO?

Why should the opinions of 20 people matter to a website that gets tens of thousands of hits daily?

Moderation is much more responsive. The only argument in favor of user-moderation is that moderators can't quickly respond to every post. But when you're talking about problems *users,* not problem *posts,* moderators are necessary for a permanent solution.

The same system exists on Reddit. Moderators ban chronic rulebreakers from the sub-reddits, whereas users deal with single instances of rulebreaking by downvoting.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?