Total Posts:425|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Thread Derailment policy discussion

airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 2:47:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This thread is intended for a discussion on the potential addition of a moderation policy. I'd like to hear thoughts on the policy posted and depending on the feedback may or may not adopt it formally.

This policy is directed at "thread derailment".

A recurring issue is that of "thread derailment" where one or more members post in a thread intended for serious discussion and distract from the topic at hand. Currently, there really isn't any well-defined rule against this, and members pretty much have to just scroll past the spam posts, and hope to get the desired conversation back on track. This policy is aimed at better defining what exactly is "thread derailment", and to point out that it needs to be minimized.

The policy is as follows:

== Moderation policy update: thread derailment ==


Thread derailment is prohibited. A user engages in "thread derailment" if (1) the user posts something that is not relevant to the OP or to a post to which the user is directly responding, and (2) the user acts with the purpose or with reckless disregard of causing substantial distraction within the thread.

== Commentary ==

#1. The user must act with the purpose of derailing the thread or with "reckless disregard" of derailing the thread. "Reckless disregard" means that derailment is a probable outcome from that user's post. The words "substantial distraction" were also included to ensure that minor off-topic comments are not swept in under this policy. This policy is not aimed at people who post random quips or links to random videos or memes.

#2. In most cases, the punishment for an instance of "thread derailment" will be a warning from the moderator. In cases of perpetual thread derailers who appear incapable of reforming their behavior, repeated "thread derailment" may result in a ban.

#3. Merely hitting "Reply" and quoting someone else does not make a reply relevant to the thread in question. The moderators will look to the substance of the post to determine whether it is "relevant" to the comment to which it is replying. People cannot circumvent this policy by merely hitting "Reply" and then saying something that is a substantial distraction.

#4. Judging as to thread derailment is at the discretion of the moderator. If the OP is clearly intended as a troll topic or joke, responses may not be policed for "derailment."

== Examples of thread derailment ==

(1) Random flirtation between two members of DDO in a thread, when it is not related to the OP, can no longer be permitted. While it may be cute, such flirtation distracts from the topic at hand and clutters the thread, making it hard for other users to find the relevant parts of the discussion. If we want good discussions, we can't have such derailment in serious threads.

(2) Proselytizing or preaching one's personal message about God in the Religion Forum is no longer permitted if it is in reply to an OP about something more specific than "God" or "personal beliefs." Replying to a specific topic of discussion, such as "Free Will," by preaching about how one is a prophet sent here by God is an example of "thread derailment." At best, such users are ignored, but at worst, people respond to them and the original topic of discussion is lost.

==Final Thoughts==

The purpose of this policy is to give clear guidelines on thread derailment. DDO is a fun place, but also a place of serious discussion. Serious discussion should not be derailed, and the moderators will step in if necessary.
Debate.org Moderator
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 3:00:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Derailment is a huge problem in the religion forum. For anyone who has ever said they think that forum needs to be "cleaned up," this is a key step.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 3:04:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 2:47:39 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
This thread is intended for a discussion on the potential addition of a moderation policy. I'd like to hear thoughts on the policy posted and depending on the feedback may or may not adopt it formally.

This policy is directed at "thread derailment".

A recurring issue is that of "thread derailment" where one or more members post in a thread intended for serious discussion and distract from the topic at hand. Currently, there really isn't any well-defined rule against this, and members pretty much have to just scroll past the spam posts, and hope to get the desired conversation back on track. This policy is aimed at better defining what exactly is "thread derailment", and to point out that it needs to be minimized.

The policy is as follows:

== Moderation policy update: thread derailment ==


Thread derailment is prohibited. A user engages in "thread derailment" if (1) the user posts something that is not relevant to the OP or to a post to which the user is directly responding, and (2) the user acts with the purpose or with reckless disregard of causing substantial distraction within the thread.

== Commentary ==

#1. The user must act with the purpose of derailing the thread or with "reckless disregard" of derailing the thread. "Reckless disregard" means that derailment is a probable outcome from that user's post. The words "substantial distraction" were also included to ensure that minor off-topic comments are not swept in under this policy. This policy is not aimed at people who post random quips or links to random videos or memes.

#2. In most cases, the punishment for an instance of "thread derailment" will be a warning from the moderator. In cases of perpetual thread derailers who appear incapable of reforming their behavior, repeated "thread derailment" may result in a ban.

#3. Merely hitting "Reply" and quoting someone else does not make a reply relevant to the thread in question. The moderators will look to the substance of the post to determine whether it is "relevant" to the comment to which it is replying. People cannot circumvent this policy by merely hitting "Reply" and then saying something that is a substantial distraction.

#4. Judging as to thread derailment is at the discretion of the moderator. If the OP is clearly intended as a troll topic or joke, responses may not be policed for "derailment."

== Examples of thread derailment ==

(1) Random flirtation between two members of DDO in a thread, when it is not related to the OP, can no longer be permitted. While it may be cute, such flirtation distracts from the topic at hand and clutters the thread, making it hard for other users to find the relevant parts of the discussion. If we want good discussions, we can't have such derailment in serious threads.

(2) Proselytizing or preaching one's personal message about God in the Religion Forum is no longer permitted if it is in reply to an OP about something more specific than "God" or "personal beliefs." Replying to a specific topic of discussion, such as "Free Will," by preaching about how one is a prophet sent here by God is an example of "thread derailment." At best, such users are ignored, but at worst, people respond to them and the original topic of discussion is lost.

==Final Thoughts==

The purpose of this policy is to give clear guidelines on thread derailment. DDO is a fun place, but also a place of serious discussion. Serious discussion should not be derailed, and the moderators will step in if necessary.

I am afraid there will be no one left on the site if implemented. This site is 75% social 25% debate and actual relevant discussion. Just my personal observation. Just about anything could be considered thread derailment put into a context that makes it look that way. I think you will burden yourself with an incomprehensible amount of moderation decisions that won't sit well with an incomprehensible amount of users. Unintended consequences is rearing it's ugly face on this idea. My opinion of course.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
SebUK
Posts: 850
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 3:06:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 2:47:39 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
This thread is intended for a discussion on the potential addition of a moderation policy. I'd like to hear thoughts on the policy posted and depending on the feedback may or may not adopt it formally.

This policy is directed at "thread derailment".

A recurring issue is that of "thread derailment" where one or more members post in a thread intended for serious discussion and distract from the topic at hand. Currently, there really isn't any well-defined rule against this, and members pretty much have to just scroll past the spam posts, and hope to get the desired conversation back on track. This policy is aimed at better defining what exactly is "thread derailment", and to point out that it needs to be minimized.

The policy is as follows:

== Moderation policy update: thread derailment ==


Thread derailment is prohibited. A user engages in "thread derailment" if (1) the user posts something that is not relevant to the OP or to a post to which the user is directly responding, and (2) the user acts with the purpose or with reckless disregard of causing substantial distraction within the thread.

== Commentary ==

#1. The user must act with the purpose of derailing the thread or with "reckless disregard" of derailing the thread. "Reckless disregard" means that derailment is a probable outcome from that user's post. The words "substantial distraction" were also included to ensure that minor off-topic comments are not swept in under this policy. This policy is not aimed at people who post random quips or links to random videos or memes.

#2. In most cases, the punishment for an instance of "thread derailment" will be a warning from the moderator. In cases of perpetual thread derailers who appear incapable of reforming their behavior, repeated "thread derailment" may result in a ban.

#3. Merely hitting "Reply" and quoting someone else does not make a reply relevant to the thread in question. The moderators will look to the substance of the post to determine whether it is "relevant" to the comment to which it is replying. People cannot circumvent this policy by merely hitting "Reply" and then saying something that is a substantial distraction.

#4. Judging as to thread derailment is at the discretion of the moderator. If the OP is clearly intended as a troll topic or joke, responses may not be policed for "derailment."

== Examples of thread derailment ==

(1) Random flirtation between two members of DDO in a thread, when it is not related to the OP, can no longer be permitted. While it may be cute, such flirtation distracts from the topic at hand and clutters the thread, making it hard for other users to find the relevant parts of the discussion. If we want good discussions, we can't have such derailment in serious threads.

(2) Proselytizing or preaching one's personal message about God in the Religion Forum is no longer permitted if it is in reply to an OP about something more specific than "God" or "personal beliefs." Replying to a specific topic of discussion, such as "Free Will," by preaching about how one is a prophet sent here by God is an example of "thread derailment." At best, such users are ignored, but at worst, people respond to them and the original topic of discussion is lost.

==Final Thoughts==

The purpose of this policy is to give clear guidelines on thread derailment. DDO is a fun place, but also a place of serious discussion. Serious discussion should not be derailed, and the moderators will step in if necessary.

I would support something like this
I WILL DECIDE WHAT THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT. I AM SPIRITUAL, NOT RELIGIOYUS. YOU DONT HAVE TO BE RELIGIOUS TO BELIEVE IN GOD, AND YOU DO WORSHIP MONEY IF YOU CARE MORE ABOUT YOUR WALLET THAAN YOU DO THE POOR. YOU ARE A TROLL THAT IS OUT FOR ATTENTUION."- SitaraMusica
SebUK
Posts: 850
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 3:07:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 3:06:18 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 1/25/2015 2:47:39 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
This thread is intended for a discussion on the potential addition of a moderation policy. I'd like to hear thoughts on the policy posted and depending on the feedback may or may not adopt it formally.

This policy is directed at "thread derailment".

A recurring issue is that of "thread derailment" where one or more members post in a thread intended for serious discussion and distract from the topic at hand. Currently, there really isn't any well-defined rule against this, and members pretty much have to just scroll past the spam posts, and hope to get the desired conversation back on track. This policy is aimed at better defining what exactly is "thread derailment", and to point out that it needs to be minimized.

The policy is as follows:

== Moderation policy update: thread derailment ==


Thread derailment is prohibited. A user engages in "thread derailment" if (1) the user posts something that is not relevant to the OP or to a post to which the user is directly responding, and (2) the user acts with the purpose or with reckless disregard of causing substantial distraction within the thread.

== Commentary ==

#1. The user must act with the purpose of derailing the thread or with "reckless disregard" of derailing the thread. "Reckless disregard" means that derailment is a probable outcome from that user's post. The words "substantial distraction" were also included to ensure that minor off-topic comments are not swept in under this policy. This policy is not aimed at people who post random quips or links to random videos or memes.

#2. In most cases, the punishment for an instance of "thread derailment" will be a warning from the moderator. In cases of perpetual thread derailers who appear incapable of reforming their behavior, repeated "thread derailment" may result in a ban.

#3. Merely hitting "Reply" and quoting someone else does not make a reply relevant to the thread in question. The moderators will look to the substance of the post to determine whether it is "relevant" to the comment to which it is replying. People cannot circumvent this policy by merely hitting "Reply" and then saying something that is a substantial distraction.

#4. Judging as to thread derailment is at the discretion of the moderator. If the OP is clearly intended as a troll topic or joke, responses may not be policed for "derailment."

== Examples of thread derailment ==

(1) Random flirtation between two members of DDO in a thread, when it is not related to the OP, can no longer be permitted. While it may be cute, such flirtation distracts from the topic at hand and clutters the thread, making it hard for other users to find the relevant parts of the discussion. If we want good discussions, we can't have such derailment in serious threads.

(2) Proselytizing or preaching one's personal message about God in the Religion Forum is no longer permitted if it is in reply to an OP about something more specific than "God" or "personal beliefs." Replying to a specific topic of discussion, such as "Free Will," by preaching about how one is a prophet sent here by God is an example of "thread derailment." At best, such users are ignored, but at worst, people respond to them and the original topic of discussion is lost.

==Final Thoughts==

The purpose of this policy is to give clear guidelines on thread derailment. DDO is a fun place, but also a place of serious discussion. Serious discussion should not be derailed, and the moderators will step in if necessary.

I would support something like this

My only worry would be the amount of effort to address this and the possible decline in user involvement in the forums if this was to be implemented.
I WILL DECIDE WHAT THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT. I AM SPIRITUAL, NOT RELIGIOYUS. YOU DONT HAVE TO BE RELIGIOUS TO BELIEVE IN GOD, AND YOU DO WORSHIP MONEY IF YOU CARE MORE ABOUT YOUR WALLET THAAN YOU DO THE POOR. YOU ARE A TROLL THAT IS OUT FOR ATTENTUION."- SitaraMusica
thett3
Posts: 14,336
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 3:09:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What's everyone's favorite cupcake flavor?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 3:09:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 3:09:16 PM, thett3 wrote:
What's everyone's favorite cupcake flavor?

I was waiting for it, lol.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 3:14:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What if the OP engages in the derailing of a thread?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 3:17:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 3:14:53 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
What if the OP engages in the derailing of a thread?

Are you talking about me? Or the OP of a particular thread?

If you are referring to the latter, the policy doesn't differentiate between the OP and other members posting in the thread. Posting a thread does not imply ownership of it, nor immunity from moderation guidelines.
Debate.org Moderator
KhaosMage
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 3:21:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 2:47:39 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
What about troll topics?
What if the topic "derails" from the OP to a tangent issue? For example, talking about a specific tax law, then progressing to talking about other tax laws?
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 3:22:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 3:17:57 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 1/25/2015 3:14:53 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
What if the OP engages in the derailing of a thread?

Are you talking about me? Or the OP of a particular thread?

O.o

If you are referring to the latter, the policy doesn't differentiate between the OP and other members posting in the thread. Posting a thread does not imply ownership of it, nor immunity from moderation guidelines.

It was the latter...
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 3:24:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So. What do posts such as this count as?

"our manners are the same as his....chilish, self-centered, rude, arrogant. You are not welcome in my threads, you and the harasser you are siding with do nothing but insult and harass me and I think you have been told about it enough.

If you are not saved, you are lost;. If you are saved, you are going to heaven. If you are lost, you are going to burn in Hell foerever. That's the fact. If you rae damned to Hell, it's by your own sin, by your own love of sin. God made the way for you to be saved from Hell by taking your sin on Himself in Jesus Christ. If you will not receive Him as your Savior, you won't be saved, you cannot save yourself from Hell.

If you don't like to hear about it, do not read my threads. If people come here being rude and harassing me and insulting me, I may call them childish, rude, ill-mannered.....whatever.

I'm trying to be nice to you now being honest, and I hope you take it like a man and not act like a little punk boy trying to pick a fight with me. I am not hera to toalk about your opinion of my behavior or your opinion of any rude ill mannered harasser. I am here to talk about the OP and your distraction is unwelcome. If you want to discuss the OP, fine. If not, please kindly stay out of my thread."

If you aim to clean the Forum section, things like this need to be forbidden.
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 3:24:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This policy would essentially render me irrelevant. It's probably for the best.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 3:24:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
About freaking time!

I approve.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 3:26:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 3:21:29 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 1/25/2015 2:47:39 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
What about troll topics?

This is addressed in commentary #4:

"If the OP is clearly intended as a troll topic or joke, responses may not be policed for "derailment.""

To expand on this, if the topic isn't intended for serious discussion, there's no reason to moderate it to keep the discussion serious.

What if the topic "derails" from the OP to a tangent issue? For example, talking about a specific tax law, then progressing to talking about other tax laws?

Topic changes that fall within the spectrum of the intended topic ("Taxes" in this case - which could even be extended to general monetary policy etc) isn't "thread derailment". So tangential topics, or things that otherwise fall within what the intended topic is, wouldn't apply to this policy. The most important aspect of this is maintaining the intended seriousness of the topic in question.
Debate.org Moderator
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 3:28:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 3:24:26 PM, Maikuru wrote:
This policy would essentially render me irrelevant. It's probably for the best.

lol
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 3:28:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 2:47:39 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
This thread is intended for a discussion on the potential addition of a moderation policy. I'd like to hear thoughts on the policy posted and depending on the feedback may or may not adopt it formally.

This policy is directed at "thread derailment".

A recurring issue is that of "thread derailment" where one or more members post in a thread intended for serious discussion and distract from the topic at hand. Currently, there really isn't any well-defined rule against this, and members pretty much have to just scroll past the spam posts, and hope to get the desired conversation back on track. This policy is aimed at better defining what exactly is "thread derailment", and to point out that it needs to be minimized.

The policy is as follows:

== Moderation policy update: thread derailment ==


Thread derailment is prohibited. A user engages in "thread derailment" if (1) the user posts something that is not relevant to the OP or to a post to which the user is directly responding, and (2) the user acts with the purpose or with reckless disregard of causing substantial distraction within the thread.

== Commentary ==

#1. The user must act with the purpose of derailing the thread or with "reckless disregard" of derailing the thread. "Reckless disregard" means that derailment is a probable outcome from that user's post. The words "substantial distraction" were also included to ensure that minor off-topic comments are not swept in under this policy. This policy is not aimed at people who post random quips or links to random videos or memes.

#2. In most cases, the punishment for an instance of "thread derailment" will be a warning from the moderator. In cases of perpetual thread derailers who appear incapable of reforming their behavior, repeated "thread derailment" may result in a ban.

#3. Merely hitting "Reply" and quoting someone else does not make a reply relevant to the thread in question. The moderators will look to the substance of the post to determine whether it is "relevant" to the comment to which it is replying. People cannot circumvent this policy by merely hitting "Reply" and then saying something that is a substantial distraction.

#4. Judging as to thread derailment is at the discretion of the moderator. If the OP is clearly intended as a troll topic or joke, responses may not be policed for "derailment."

== Examples of thread derailment ==

(1) Random flirtation between two members of DDO in a thread, when it is not related to the OP, can no longer be permitted. While it may be cute, such flirtation distracts from the topic at hand and clutters the thread, making it hard for other users to find the relevant parts of the discussion. If we want good discussions, we can't have such derailment in serious threads.

(2) Proselytizing or preaching one's personal message about God in the Religion Forum is no longer permitted if it is in reply to an OP about something more specific than "God" or "personal beliefs." Replying to a specific topic of discussion, such as "Free Will," by preaching about how one is a prophet sent here by God is an example of "thread derailment." At best, such users are ignored, but at worst, people respond to them and the original topic of discussion is lost.

==Final Thoughts==

The purpose of this policy is to give clear guidelines on thread derailment. DDO is a fun place, but also a place of serious discussion. Serious discussion should not be derailed, and the moderators will step in if necessary.

I vehemently disagree with this policy. It seems quite... well, authoritarian. I don't like it when people derail a thread, but I believe that people should be allowed to express themselves.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 3:30:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 3:24:00 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
So. What do posts such as this count as?

"our manners are the same as his....chilish, self-centered, rude, arrogant. You are not welcome in my threads, you and the harasser you are siding with do nothing but insult and harass me and I think you have been told about it enough.

If you are not saved, you are lost;. If you are saved, you are going to heaven. If you are lost, you are going to burn in Hell foerever. That's the fact. If you rae damned to Hell, it's by your own sin, by your own love of sin. God made the way for you to be saved from Hell by taking your sin on Himself in Jesus Christ. If you will not receive Him as your Savior, you won't be saved, you cannot save yourself from Hell.

If you don't like to hear about it, do not read my threads. If people come here being rude and harassing me and insulting me, I may call them childish, rude, ill-mannered.....whatever.

I'm trying to be nice to you now being honest, and I hope you take it like a man and not act like a little punk boy trying to pick a fight with me. I am not hera to toalk about your opinion of my behavior or your opinion of any rude ill mannered harasser. I am here to talk about the OP and your distraction is unwelcome. If you want to discuss the OP, fine. If not, please kindly stay out of my thread."

If you aim to clean the Forum section, things like this need to be forbidden.

There is no context provided here, so in this isolated form it would be hard for me to say with any certainly as it relates to this policy.
Debate.org Moderator
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 3:30:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't think thread derailment is an issue anyway, to be honest. And who cares about the religion section? lol... I really don't get this new initiative.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 3:31:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Plenty of members (including Annie and myself) have deliberately derailed threads in order to save them after they've devolved into flaming. I can't support this policy.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 3:33:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Are we trying to ban BOG and MCB? I actually rescind my agreement. The religion section might as well be an old folks home and why care that it is?
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 3:33:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 2:47:39 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
The purpose of this policy is to give clear guidelines on thread derailment. DDO is a fun place, but also a place of serious discussion. Serious discussion should not be derailed, and the moderators will step in if necessary.

I like serious discussion, but I don't think seriousness is such a vital virtue that we make rules ensuring that people don't lighten the mood, even if it unsociable or inappropriate.

I believe that Debate.org is about being able to express oneself and one's opinions, even if they are unpopular. I worry that removing one's ability to do so would be a heavy detriment to the website.
DarthVitiosus
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 3:34:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Horrible in theory it will be even more grave in practice since many discussions do get derailed.
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.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 3:35:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 3:31:28 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Plenty of members (including Annie and myself) have deliberately derailed threads in order to save them after they've devolved into flaming. I can't support this policy.

That's a different issue, and something I've kept in mind. At that point the thread has already been derailed, and derailing the derailment isn't something this policy takes issue with.
Debate.org Moderator
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 3:35:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think #3 would be unnecessary.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 3:35:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 3:30:47 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
There is no context provided here, so in this isolated form it would be hard for me to say with any certainly as it relates to this policy.

Hmm... alright. I'm interested to see how this works out.
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 3:36:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 3:35:09 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 1/25/2015 3:31:28 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Plenty of members (including Annie and myself) have deliberately derailed threads in order to save them after they've devolved into flaming. I can't support this policy.

That's a different issue, and something I've kept in mind. At that point the thread has already been derailed, and derailing the derailment isn't something this policy takes issue with.

Hmm. Alright. That wasn't addressed in your OP, so I wasn't sure.
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 3:38:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 3:36:17 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
There is no hope for the religion section, funnily enough.

What makes you say that?
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW