Total Posts:189|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Toxic Members

Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 2:34:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
We have had our fair share of discussions on this topic. I am keen to being enlightened on this matter from various perspectives. What do you defined as a toxic member, and how do you think we should deal with one?
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 2:37:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 2:34:43 AM, Mirza wrote:
We have had our fair share of discussions on this topic. I am keen to being enlightened on this matter from various perspectives. What do you defined as a toxic member, and how do you think we should deal with one?

Someone who invariably brings hostility to all their interactions and constitutes an overall net detriment to the site.

We should have done the trial system.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 2:38:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 2:37:36 AM, bluesteel wrote:
Someone who invariably brings hostility to all their interactions and constitutes an overall net detriment to the site.
That leads me to asking, is such interaction not voluntary, and thus does not constitute harm since participants themselves chose to be part of it?

We should have done the trial system.
What happened to that?
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 2:40:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 2:38:54 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/9/2015 2:37:36 AM, bluesteel wrote:
Someone who invariably brings hostility to all their interactions and constitutes an overall net detriment to the site.
That leads me to asking, is such interaction not voluntary, and thus does not constitute harm since participants themselves chose to be part of it?

You can ignore them on policy. Unless you have a public position that requires you to interact with all members. But you still get their notifications and invariably see their hostile replies to you, even if you always ignore them. They just bring an overall atmosphere of hostility to the site.


We should have done the trial system.
What happened to that?

I don't know.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 2:45:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 2:40:41 AM, bluesteel wrote:
You can ignore them on policy. Unless you have a public position that requires you to interact with all members. But you still get their notifications and invariably see their hostile replies to you, even if you always ignore them. They just bring an overall atmosphere of hostility to the site.
Indeed, but most flame wars, however, happen when someone responds to one attempting to initiate it, be it in an obvious fashion or not. We agree on what a toxic member is; I merely think we can, on an individual basis, do most of the work required to keep the toxicity away, such as by not initiating a conversation, or not responding further.

I don't know.
I thought you worked upon that; but I agree with the version of it you once described to me. It seems useful.
8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJA
Posts: 328
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 3:29:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 2:34:43 AM, Mirza wrote:
We have had our fair share of discussions on this topic. I am keen to being enlightened on this matter from various perspectives. What do you defined as a toxic member, and how do you think we should deal with one?

Naughty people who must be banned!
hey b0ss ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;")
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 10:15:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 2:34:43 AM, Mirza wrote:
What do you defined as a toxic member,

Any person who is universally despised by just about everyone who has interacted with them and is someone you are extremely more likely to have a negative interaction with than a positive one.

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

and how do you think we should deal with one?

BANHAMAAAAAAAA
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

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

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
GDBH
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 10:26:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 2:34:43 AM, Mirza wrote:
We have had our fair share of discussions on this topic. I am keen to being enlightened on this matter from various perspectives. What do you defined as a toxic member, and how do you think we should deal with one?

Definition: an idiot who ruins the reputation of this site and peoples' time on the site by means of either trolling or spewing blatant bulls*t.

We should suspend them in such cases as bulproof's and ban them forever in such cases as genesis01's.
The measure of a good politician these days seems to be his ability to bull$hit.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 10:36:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 2:45:37 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/9/2015 2:40:41 AM, bluesteel wrote:
You can ignore them on policy. Unless you have a public position that requires you to interact with all members. But you still get their notifications and invariably see their hostile replies to you, even if you always ignore them. They just bring an overall atmosphere of hostility to the site.
Indeed, but most flame wars, however, happen when someone responds to one attempting to initiate it, be it in an obvious fashion or not. We agree on what a toxic member is; I merely think we can, on an individual basis, do most of the work required to keep the toxicity away, such as by not initiating a conversation, or not responding further.

I don't know.
I thought you worked upon that; but I agree with the version of it you once described to me. It seems useful.

I would love to see a formal trial system. There is a forum post where a mock trial is going on, but it is...

Well, the point is, the membership CAN vote a member out given a proper trial system.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 11:13:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
If there's someone on the site you don't like, just ignore them. I don't even
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 11:50:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 2:40:41 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/9/2015 2:38:54 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/9/2015 2:37:36 AM, bluesteel wrote:
Someone who invariably brings hostility to all their interactions and constitutes an overall net detriment to the site.
That leads me to asking, is such interaction not voluntary, and thus does not constitute harm since participants themselves chose to be part of it?

You can ignore them on policy. Unless you have a public position that requires you to interact with all members. But you still get their notifications and invariably see their hostile replies to you, even if you always ignore them. They just bring an overall atmosphere of hostility to the site.


We should have done the trial system.
What happened to that?

I don't know.

I heard it was because it caused more drama than the person could have caused in the first place. At least airmax said something like that...
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Mikal
Posts: 11,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 11:51:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 2:34:43 AM, Mirza wrote:
We have had our fair share of discussions on this topic. I am keen to being enlightened on this matter from various perspectives. What do you defined as a toxic member, and how do you think we should deal with one?

wrich and wrich

o wrich
RevNge
Posts: 13,835
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 12:02:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 11:51:45 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 4/9/2015 2:34:43 AM, Mirza wrote:
We have had our fair share of discussions on this topic. I am keen to being enlightened on this matter from various perspectives. What do you defined as a toxic member, and how do you think we should deal with one?

wrich and wrich

o wrich

wrich wrich is wrich
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 12:04:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Or the terms of use could be enforced, problem solved.
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%
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 12:11:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 12:04:55 PM, sadolite wrote:
Or the terms of use could be enforced, problem solved.

Let me rephrase that. Or the terms of use could be enforced that every single member without exception agreed to willingly and without coercion when they joined the site. Problem solved, no drama. The evidence is in writing for all to see as no posts are deleted except those posts that the moderators delete.
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%
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 12:13:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 12:11:45 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 4/9/2015 12:04:55 PM, sadolite wrote:
Or the terms of use could be enforced, problem solved.

Let me rephrase that. Or the terms of use could be enforced that every single member without exception agreed to willingly and without coercion when they joined the site. Problem solved, no drama. The evidence is in writing for all to see as no posts are deleted except those posts that the moderators delete.

The only drama that could arise is the destruction of evidence by the moderator.
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%
Geogeer
Posts: 4,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 12:27:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 2:34:43 AM, Mirza wrote:
We have had our fair share of discussions on this topic. I am keen to being enlightened on this matter from various perspectives. What do you defined as a toxic member, and how do you think we should deal with one?

We all know what an arsh0le is, but a definition including all of them can be difficult.

Debating is necessarily contentious as it is adversarial. People who cannot contain this to the topic at hand are generally the problem.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 5:45:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 10:15:13 AM, imabench wrote:
At 4/9/2015 2:34:43 AM, Mirza wrote:
What do you defined as a toxic member,

Any person who is universally despised by just about everyone who has interacted with them and is someone you are extremely more likely to have a negative interaction with than a positive one.

http://www.debate.org...
He is an example, yes.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 5:46:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 11:13:47 AM, Maikuru wrote:
If there's someone on the site you don't like, just ignore them. I don't even
This works, as I said above, if you do not wish to ignite flame wars. Some members, and one in particular, however, tend to continually speak out against one, even when asked to go away. This is annoying, and spreads bad energy. That's why I'd rather do something more serious about it.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 5:58:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 2:34:43 AM, Mirza wrote:
What do you defined as a toxic member

Anyone who disagrees with me.

and how do you think we should deal with one?

Burn them at the stake.

Seriously, I just keep on scrolling. Fortunately, no one holds a gun to my head and forces me to read or reply to particular posts.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,373
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 6:29:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 2:34:43 AM, Mirza wrote:
We have had our fair share of discussions on this topic. I am keen to being enlightened on this matter from various perspectives. What do you defined as a toxic member
Rev, being Rev
and how do you think we should deal with one?
Ban him from the internet
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 6:43:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 5:46:48 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/9/2015 11:13:47 AM, Maikuru wrote:
If there's someone on the site you don't like, just ignore them. I don't even
This works, as I said above, if you do not wish to ignite flame wars. Some members, and one in particular, however, tend to continually speak out against one, even when asked to go away. This is annoying, and spreads bad energy. That's why I'd rather do something more serious about it.

Who is bothering you? What's their name and social security number?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 9:01:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 2:34:43 AM, Mirza wrote:
We have had our fair share of discussions on this topic. I am keen to being enlightened on this matter from various perspectives. What do you defined as a toxic member,

People who defy the group consensus and question the authority of popular members.

and how do you think we should deal with one?

Start call-out threads like this one to harrass them. Good job.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 9:07:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 9:01:05 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Start call-out threads like this one to harrass them. Good job.
I shall feel free to create threads aimed at painting a clear picture of a rather peculiar issue. If individuals, be they named or not, feel insulted or harassed, I care not. At all. It is for them, not anyone else, to change their behaviour, and act as normal people and not those who lack social conscience.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 9:14:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 9:07:28 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/9/2015 9:01:05 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Start call-out threads like this one to harrass them. Good job.
I shall feel free to create threads aimed at painting a clear picture of a rather peculiar issue.

And yet, you haven't been clear at all. It's all been unpleasant insinuation.

If individuals, be they named or not, feel insulted or harassed, I care not. At all. It is for them, not anyone else, to change their behaviour, and act as normal people and not those who lack social conscience.

Lack social conscience? That sounds bad.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 9:23:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 9:14:46 PM, Garbanza wrote:
And yet, you haven't been clear at all. It's all been unpleasant insinuation.
I wonder why I made no words of praise for individuals relevant to the topic at hand. Forgive me, will you?

Lack social conscience? That sounds bad.
If you are unable to realize when it is appropriate to end a negative continuity of interactions, and do not have emotional intelligence at the basic level that enables you to sense why your behaviour is poorly perceived by others, and lack a sense of appropriateness, then yes, you probably lack social conscience, at least to a noticeable degree.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 9:29:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 9:23:17 PM, Mirza wrote:
Lack social conscience? That sounds bad.
If you are unable to realize when it is appropriate to end a negative continuity of interactions, and do not have emotional intelligence at the basic level that enables you to sense why your behaviour is poorly perceived by others, and lack a sense of appropriateness, then yes, you probably lack social conscience, at least to a noticeable degree.

So it's the same thing as defying group consensus. How toxic.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 9:34:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I can think of nothing more tyrannical than groupthink and consensus.
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%
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 10:19:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 9:29:27 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 4/9/2015 9:23:17 PM, Mirza wrote:
Lack social conscience? That sounds bad.
If you are unable to realize when it is appropriate to end a negative continuity of interactions, and do not have emotional intelligence at the basic level that enables you to sense why your behaviour is poorly perceived by others, and lack a sense of appropriateness, then yes, you probably lack social conscience, at least to a noticeable degree.

So it's the same thing as defying group consensus. How toxic.
No, it is not. But, if that is the conclusion you draw, stick to it if that makes you feel comfortable.
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 10:29:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 2:34:43 AM, Mirza wrote:
We have had our fair share of discussions on this topic. I am keen to being enlightened on this matter from various perspectives. What do you defined as a toxic member, and how do you think we should deal with one?

Tell us who they are and they shalt be dealt with.
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW