Total Posts:65|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Role of Civility

Mikal
Posts: 11,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 5:08:31 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
I never thought I would say this, but I'm actually pro for a stricter standard of moderation involving user disputes and user interaction. This is primarily based on some of my own past experiences, and noticing some of the present interactions that have transpired over the past few weeks. Bluesteel recently posted something that I tend to agree with, we all have our reasons for being on here. I disagree that the reason is "all our lives are broken" , while that is true for a great deal of us, it does not correlate to all users. Some of us often seek an escape from our lives, while others come here for debate that is not present in their day to day lives.

With that being said I think we can acknowledge that as a truism. We are each on our for fundamentally different reasons, but we each have our own goals and reasons nonetheless. I think the formula for whether or not users stay on this site is measured in if their experience is more positive than negative. That translates to their reason for being on here is not outweighed by any negative impacts the site brings upon them. If you are constantly attacked and harassed, or just not made to feel welcome then the reason for being on here is often outweighed by the negative experiences that happen. I think that is why a great many people end up leaving the site. It's a mixture of their day to day lives becoming more important than being on here which mitigates the need to use the site, and cross comparing that to their experience on the site in general.

To break it down even further, most members who have *positive* experiences on the site are more likely to stay. If we want to maintain our user base and keep members that are valuable assets to the foundation of the site, we need to make sure that everyone has a positive user experience. While that is not possible entirely, we can mitigate the negative experiences user have by not attacking them, or hounding them until they leave. This goes back to my mob mentality post, and various other factors involving user conflict. The best way to help the site and promote a positive form of growth is to not attack each other. Should people chose to do that, I think moderation should be strictly enforced on those that chose to engage in toxic behavior.

With all that being said, I think a great deal of wars spawn from reppressed anger and not being able to fight it out with each other. I proposed this before and I stand by it, I think we need a forum that is exempt from the moderation policy, and those that wish to hash it out use that forum for that purpose.

The outline is something like this

1) If you attack a member that does not choose to participate in that forum, then you are punished
2) You are exempt from the moderation code under a dual consensus or dual participation in that forum. Meaning if 2 people are responding to each other, it's assumed they are voluntarily participating in that forum
3) When you tell someone to stop, it stops. If you don't stop moderation is used.

I'm proposing two things

1) A stricter moderation standard that is applied in all forums other than this one forum
2) a separate forum to be set up that let's users handle disputes with each other and that is limited to that forum.

The further we go to giving others a positive experience on the site, especially on the main debate forum, the more assets to the site we gain.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 5:25:29 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 5:08:31 PM, Mikal wrote:
I never thought I would say this, but I'm actually pro for a stricter standard of moderation involving user disputes and user interaction. This is primarily based on some of my own past experiences, and noticing some of the present interactions that have transpired over the past few weeks. Bluesteel recently posted something that I tend to agree with, we all have our reasons for being on here. I disagree that the reason is "all our lives are broken" , while that is true for a great deal of us, it does not correlate to all users. Some of us often seek an escape from our lives, while others come here for debate that is not present in their day to day lives.

With that being said I think we can acknowledge that as a truism. We are each on our for fundamentally different reasons, but we each have our own goals and reasons nonetheless. I think the formula for whether or not users stay on this site is measured in if their experience is more positive than negative. That translates to their reason for being on here is not outweighed by any negative impacts the site brings upon them. If you are constantly attacked and harassed, or just not made to feel welcome then the reason for being on here is often outweighed by the negative experiences that happen. I think that is why a great many people end up leaving the site. It's a mixture of their day to day lives becoming more important than being on here which mitigates the need to use the site, and cross comparing that to their experience on the site in general.

To break it down even further, most members who have *positive* experiences on the site are more likely to stay. If we want to maintain our user base and keep members that are valuable assets to the foundation of the site, we need to make sure that everyone has a positive user experience. While that is not possible entirely, we can mitigate the negative experiences user have by not attacking them, or hounding them until they leave. This goes back to my mob mentality post, and various other factors involving user conflict. The best way to help the site and promote a positive form of growth is to not attack each other. Should people chose to do that, I think moderation should be strictly enforced on those that chose to engage in toxic behavior.


With all that being said, I think a great deal of wars spawn from reppressed anger and not being able to fight it out with each other. I proposed this before and I stand by it, I think we need a forum that is exempt from the moderation policy, and those that wish to hash it out use that forum for that purpose.

The outline is something like this

1) If you attack a member that does not choose to participate in that forum, then you are punished
2) You are exempt from the moderation code under a dual consensus or dual participation in that forum. Meaning if 2 people are responding to each other, it's assumed they are voluntarily participating in that forum
3) When you tell someone to stop, it stops. If you don't stop moderation is used.



I'm proposing two things


1) A stricter moderation standard that is applied in all forums other than this one forum
2) a separate forum to be set up that let's users handle disputes with each other and that is limited to that forum.


The further we go to giving others a positive experience on the site, especially on the main debate forum, the more assets to the site we gain.

I agree wholeheartedly, Mikal. As I said to you the other day: "Not talking about something and 'letting it die' never fixes anything, because social matters like these, never actually die." Thats why people need as you said "a place to hash it out."

Here's what I've been gathering. The drama on DDO has been progressively worse and more hostile. And its starting to reach critical mass. As you might know in business terms, critical mass is the point something reaches where if actions and methodology on dealing with it continue as it always has, that something will either collapse or explode.

I've seen this happen irl. Two parties get in a heated fight with each other and then one of them says they don't want to talk about it anymore. The air becomes tense, and little things begin to set each off, make the air more and more tense. Then it reaches critical mass, and because society has branded on our minds that the only way to deal with something is to let it die, no one tries to sort it out. It all boils over and not only tears at the two parties but everyone around them, turning into an all out emotional war, leaving deep metaphorical scars on everyone. if only people would sort this stuff out at it was already starting to look bad, then relationships wouldn't be destroyed.

So Mikal if you need anyone to help you plan this out and make a case I'll be your man
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Mikal
Posts: 11,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 5:30:20 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 5:25:29 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:

I agree wholeheartedly, Mikal. As I said to you the other day: "Not talking about something and 'letting it die' never fixes anything, because social matters like these, never actually die." Thats why people need as you said "a place to hash it out."

Here's what I've been gathering. The drama on DDO has been progressively worse and more hostile. And its starting to reach critical mass. As you might know in business terms, critical mass is the point something reaches where if actions and methodology on dealing with it continue as it always has, that something will either collapse or explode.

I've seen this happen irl. Two parties get in a heated fight with each other and then one of them says they don't want to talk about it anymore. The air becomes tense, and little things begin to set each off, make the air more and more tense. Then it reaches critical mass, and because society has branded on our minds that the only way to deal with something is to let it die, no one tries to sort it out. It all boils over and not only tears at the two parties but everyone around them, turning into an all out emotional war, leaving deep metaphorical scars on everyone. if only people would sort this stuff out at it was already starting to look bad, then relationships wouldn't be destroyed.

So Mikal if you need anyone to help you plan this out and make a case I'll be your man

The one thing I agree with wholeheartedly is that not posting forums about drama stops it. The metaphor I would use is that toxicity is like a cancer. If you chose to ignore it, it's a temporary fix because you are pretending it's not there. But over time that cancer damages the foundation of the site and it's well being.

There has to be a cure for it, or it will eventually kill you.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 5:33:18 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 5:30:20 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 12/29/2015 5:25:29 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:

I agree wholeheartedly, Mikal. As I said to you the other day: "Not talking about something and 'letting it die' never fixes anything, because social matters like these, never actually die." Thats why people need as you said "a place to hash it out."

Here's what I've been gathering. The drama on DDO has been progressively worse and more hostile. And its starting to reach critical mass. As you might know in business terms, critical mass is the point something reaches where if actions and methodology on dealing with it continue as it always has, that something will either collapse or explode.

I've seen this happen irl. Two parties get in a heated fight with each other and then one of them says they don't want to talk about it anymore. The air becomes tense, and little things begin to set each off, make the air more and more tense. Then it reaches critical mass, and because society has branded on our minds that the only way to deal with something is to let it die, no one tries to sort it out. It all boils over and not only tears at the two parties but everyone around them, turning into an all out emotional war, leaving deep metaphorical scars on everyone. if only people would sort this stuff out at it was already starting to look bad, then relationships wouldn't be destroyed.

So Mikal if you need anyone to help you plan this out and make a case I'll be your man

The one thing I agree with wholeheartedly is that not posting forums about drama stops it. The metaphor I would use is that toxicity is like a cancer. If you chose to ignore it, it's a temporary fix because you are pretending it's not there. But over time that cancer damages the foundation of the site and it's well being.


There has to be a cure for it, or it will eventually kill you.

So wait you do agree that while not talking about it stops the topic of the drama itself there's still the underlying stuff that still keeps living?
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Mikal
Posts: 11,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 5:39:58 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 5:33:18 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
So wait you do agree that while not talking about it stops the topic of the drama itself there's still the underlying stuff that still keeps living?

That's why I said it was like a cancer. If you have two users that dislike each other, and you just tell them to stop, it's ultimately fixing nothing. It's like a pat on a hand by a principal. Sure it fixes the problem temporarily , but it's not absolute. The anger and hate stays there until there is an absolute cure, which is only achieved with those 2 confronting each other and working it out. Moderation's role in this should not be to *stop it themselves* unless all other routes have been used. They should encourage those two to handle it themselves. If they handle it great, if they don't then they don't bring it up or out again. If moderation can't encourage users to resolve it, and the issue keeps coming up, then you issue bans since the users are not able to fix it themselves. *Hiding* it should only be the case if there is no chance those two users will not get along.

Take a RM and IMA situation. Those two will never get along. If you have a situation like that, you stop them from communication with each other, and if the pattern of abuse continues and causes toxicity on the site, bans go out. It's very similar to how max handles it now, i'm just promoting to alter it slightly

1) With higher standards from the community
2) A focus on users handling it themselves and resulting to stricter moderation as a last alternative.

Our main goal should be to keep this off the main forums and contained into one forum. Same line of logic they used with fan fics
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 5:42:33 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
now cue someone to tell us to "let it go"
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 5:44:39 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 5:42:33 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
now cue someone to tell us to "let it go"

goddammit everyone always beats me to it
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
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 5:52:29 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 5:49:40 PM, YYW wrote:
Every single aspect of this post is wrong, but it is ultimately inconsequential.

I have to respectfully disagree
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Mikal
Posts: 11,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 6:07:57 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 5:49:40 PM, YYW wrote:
Every single aspect of this post is wrong, but it is ultimately inconsequential.

I'd be happy to debate every aspect or any aspect of this. Specifically that positive interaction is the best way to keep people on the site
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 6:12:28 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 5:52:29 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 12/29/2015 5:49:40 PM, YYW wrote:
Every single aspect of this post is wrong, but it is ultimately inconsequential.

I have to respectfully disagree

I think you want the sentiment (which is illusory), and you think that because intuitively the proposed method (raised moderation standards) seems viable, you're willing to roll with it. You're welcome to your view, but after every major incident--whether it's a major outbreak of gun violence in the country, or whether it's a toxic user who caused massive drama in the forums as Cassie recently did, or whatever--there is always the impulse from reactionary do-gooders to pass new policies under the pretense of improving things for everyone.

If stricter moderation policies worked (which they do not) then toxic members wouldn't even come up in the discussion. But the problem is that they don't, and haven't, since the implementation of the then-new moderation policy. Member conflicts have occurred at nearly the same rate, with the only difference being that they occur with stronger force when they do, because people suppress their issues (rather than risk a fight by working them out) because the new moderation policy can (and has) translated into temp bans for people who have tried to sort things out for themselves.

Moreover, stricter moderation policies create more work for Max and Whiteflame, who are already overworked because of everyone's petty, stupid sh!t, in three ways: (1) it further reduces their latitude to exercise discretion; (2) it compels them to deal with smaller, insignificant sh!t that they shouldn't even be concerned with (and this has seriously been the case since the new moderation policy); and (3) it further complicates explaining moderation actions to those involved.

I have, as you all know, been a sharp critic of moderation; and the reason I am a sharp critic of it is because the promise of stricter policies resulting in forum improvements is illusory. I know what the standard is, but I know also how it's applied, and I know that the standard being what it is will not change the behavior of toxic members, or other members who dedicate their lives and times to harassing other members.

Max strives to be impartial, with the effect of being unfair. Whiteflame is trying to do the moderation thing, but it's just not a good fit for him either. The reason is because they both get caught up in dealing with "little stuff" while the bigger conflicts go unresolved. And, realistically, that's the best that I or anyone else can expect because neither of them are therapists or social workers, although I know both of them try to be. Max, more so than anyone else, really tries to work with people to make them better people. (Whiteflame may do this as well, but I know I have seen Max do it.)

The reality of what Mikal wants is not stricter moderation standards, because stricter moderation standards are not going to improve everyone's experience; they're going to have a chilling effect on conversation, they're going to be a giant pain in the @ss for moderation, and they are going to give users who want to pretend to play by the rules but who in reality want to use the rules to hurt other people even more ammunition to do that with than they already have. I know this because I have seen users do it time and again, and that forces Max into the position of having to justify what's going on to irrational irate people who are never going to approach things reasonably.

The reality is that what Mikal's proposal will achieve is nothing other than perpetuating the status quo at best, or making people's experience on here worse at worst. Stricter moderation policies (especially where enforcement can be arbitrary, as it often is... Max and Whiteflame are human, after all) translate into people who walk on egg shells, than people who are nicer to one another.

The simple solution to all of this is for people to just do the right thing by one another, and it seems so obvious but so many people get caught up in their petty, stupid feuds that they lose sight of what really matters. Then, when there is a conflict, there are always a symphony of "peace preachers" who want to wax philosophical on how to make things better for everyone. Some talk about empathy, some talk about new policies, some talk about the factors at play in the relationships that go sour.

All of that plainly misses the point: If people would do the right things for the right reasons, then this forum becomes a better place. There is no other way. New rules do not make people do the right thing for the right reasons; they make people change their behavior, but for no reason other than to avoid consequences, which has the effect of driving member conflicts underground and making them harder to identify and resolve.

Now, in order to understand all of this, you've got to have a bit more insight into human nature than the OP has. I understand and am sympathetic to his sentiment, but I also know how proposals like this translate into effects, and he should as well... even though he plainly does not.

In other news, I wish people would get off the "how to fix DDO" bandwagon. The storm is clear, and the drama is over and things will be back to normal in a few days if people will stop being sanctimonious wannabe do-gooders.
Tsar of DDO
Zaradi
Posts: 14,128
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 6:16:58 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 5:08:31 PM, Mikal wrote:
I'm actually pro for a stricter standard of moderation involving user disputes and user interaction.

I think we need a forum that is exempt from the moderation policy,

I think there's a little bit of a discrepancy here...
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Mikal
Posts: 11,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 6:22:38 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 6:16:58 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/29/2015 5:08:31 PM, Mikal wrote:
I'm actually pro for a stricter standard of moderation involving user disputes and user interaction.

I think we need a forum that is exempt from the moderation policy,

I think there's a little bit of a discrepancy here...

Theres a dichotomy. It's a stricter standard applied to all forums, and isolating the flame wars into a separate forum that gives users a chance to handle it themselves before those standards are applied.
Rosalie
Posts: 4,628
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 6:23:52 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
I find this extremely funny considering the fact that you wanted to have a forum with no rules.

Max is doing the best he can. To make it less harder on him, we should have some qualities like Edb8 has. For instance, if you have blocked a member, you can't see their forum posts, and you're not able to respond to them. You're also unable tt see their profile.

We don't need stricter moderation. What we need is people to realize, yes including myself, that we are acting in bad conduct. It starts from within ourselfs, to realize that we are doing wrong, and we need to change he our attitude.
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 6:25:04 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 6:22:38 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 12/29/2015 6:16:58 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/29/2015 5:08:31 PM, Mikal wrote:
I'm actually pro for a stricter standard of moderation involving user disputes and user interaction.

I think we need a forum that is exempt from the moderation policy,

I think there's a little bit of a discrepancy here...

Theres a dichotomy. It's a stricter standard applied to all forums, and isolating the flame wars into a separate forum that gives users a chance to handle it themselves before those standards are applied.

I support having a no-rules (except no doxxing) forum, because I think that would be a good thing.

What I do not support is only having a no-rules forum for people to carry their conflicts out in.

Your suggestion that stricter mod rules otherwise will have any beneficial effect, likewise, is illusory.
Tsar of DDO
Mikal
Posts: 11,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 6:27:22 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 6:25:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/29/2015 6:22:38 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 12/29/2015 6:16:58 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/29/2015 5:08:31 PM, Mikal wrote:
I'm actually pro for a stricter standard of moderation involving user disputes and user interaction.

I think we need a forum that is exempt from the moderation policy,

I think there's a little bit of a discrepancy here...

Theres a dichotomy. It's a stricter standard applied to all forums, and isolating the flame wars into a separate forum that gives users a chance to handle it themselves before those standards are applied.

I support having a no-rules (except no doxxing) forum, because I think that would be a good thing.

What I do not support is only having a no-rules forum for people to carry their conflicts out in.

Your suggestion that stricter mod rules otherwise will have any beneficial effect, likewise, is illusory.

Your applying that because you think moderation has failed you which is subjective. Max can apply stricter standards at his direction.
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 6:29:36 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 6:27:22 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 12/29/2015 6:25:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/29/2015 6:22:38 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 12/29/2015 6:16:58 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/29/2015 5:08:31 PM, Mikal wrote:
I'm actually pro for a stricter standard of moderation involving user disputes and user interaction.

I think we need a forum that is exempt from the moderation policy,

I think there's a little bit of a discrepancy here...

Theres a dichotomy. It's a stricter standard applied to all forums, and isolating the flame wars into a separate forum that gives users a chance to handle it themselves before those standards are applied.

I support having a no-rules (except no doxxing) forum, because I think that would be a good thing.

What I do not support is only having a no-rules forum for people to carry their conflicts out in.

Your suggestion that stricter mod rules otherwise will have any beneficial effect, likewise, is illusory.

Your applying that because you think moderation has failed you which is subjective. Max can apply stricter standards at his direction.

That is an incredibly myopic analysis, and your proposal is completely unworkable, in addition to being a foreseeable failure. See my post in response to Cyber for an analysis of why the effects you seek from your proposal are illusory, and why your proposal will fail to improve the forums.
Tsar of DDO
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 6:37:16 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 6:12:28 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/29/2015 5:52:29 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 12/29/2015 5:49:40 PM, YYW wrote:
Every single aspect of this post is wrong, but it is ultimately inconsequential.

I have to respectfully disagree

I think you want the sentiment (which is illusory), and you think that because intuitively the proposed method (raised moderation standards) seems viable, you're willing to roll with it. You're welcome to your view, but after every major incident--whether it's a major outbreak of gun violence in the country, or whether it's a toxic user who caused massive drama in the forums as Cassie recently did, or whatever--there is always the impulse from reactionary do-gooders to pass new policies under the pretense of improving things for everyone.

If stricter moderation policies worked (which they do not) then toxic members wouldn't even come up in the discussion. But the problem is that they don't, and haven't, since the implementation of the then-new moderation policy. Member conflicts have occurred at nearly the same rate, with the only difference being that they occur with stronger force when they do, because people suppress their issues (rather than risk a fight by working them out) because the new moderation policy can (and has) translated into temp bans for people who have tried to sort things out for themselves.

Moreover, stricter moderation policies create more work for Max and Whiteflame, who are already overworked because of everyone's petty, stupid sh!t, in three ways: (1) it further reduces their latitude to exercise discretion; (2) it compels them to deal with smaller, insignificant sh!t that they shouldn't even be concerned with (and this has seriously been the case since the new moderation policy); and (3) it further complicates explaining moderation actions to those involved.

I have, as you all know, been a sharp critic of moderation; and the reason I am a sharp critic of it is because the promise of stricter policies resulting in forum improvements is illusory. I know what the standard is, but I know also how it's applied, and I know that the standard being what it is will not change the behavior of toxic members, or other members who dedicate their lives and times to harassing other members.

Max strives to be impartial, with the effect of being unfair. Whiteflame is trying to do the moderation thing, but it's just not a good fit for him either. The reason is because they both get caught up in dealing with "little stuff" while the bigger conflicts go unresolved. And, realistically, that's the best that I or anyone else can expect because neither of them are therapists or social workers, although I know both of them try to be. Max, more so than anyone else, really tries to work with people to make them better people. (Whiteflame may do this as well, but I know I have seen Max do it.)

The reality of what Mikal wants is not stricter moderation standards, because stricter moderation standards are not going to improve everyone's experience; they're going to have a chilling effect on conversation, they're going to be a giant pain in the @ss for moderation, and they are going to give users who want to pretend to play by the rules but who in reality want to use the rules to hurt other people even more ammunition to do that with than they already have. I know this because I have seen users do it time and again, and that forces Max into the position of having to justify what's going on to irrational irate people who are never going to approach things reasonably.

The reality is that what Mikal's proposal will achieve is nothing other than perpetuating the status quo at best, or making people's experience on here worse at worst. Stricter moderation policies (especially where enforcement can be arbitrary, as it often is... Max and Whiteflame are human, after all) translate into people who walk on egg shells, than people who are nicer to one another.

The simple solution to all of this is for people to just do the right thing by one another, and it seems so obvious but so many people get caught up in their petty, stupid feuds that they lose sight of what really matters. Then, when there is a conflict, there are always a symphony of "peace preachers" who want to wax philosophical on how to make things better for everyone. Some talk about empathy, some talk about new policies, some talk about the factors at play in the relationships that go sour.

All of that plainly misses the point: If people would do the right things for the right reasons, then this forum becomes a better place. There is no other way. New rules do not make people do the right thing for the right reasons; they make people change their behavior, but for no reason other than to avoid consequences, which has the effect of driving member conflicts underground and making them harder to identify and resolve.

Now, in order to understand all of this, you've got to have a bit more insight into human nature than the OP has. I understand and am sympathetic to his sentiment, but I also know how proposals like this translate into effects, and he should as well... even though he plainly does not.

I understand what you're saying. I do know the essence of human nature in how it reacts to stricter rules that you are referring to.

In other news, I wish people would get off the "how to fix DDO" bandwagon. The storm is clear, and the drama is over and things will be back to normal in a few days if people will stop being sanctimonious wannabe do-gooders.
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Raisor
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 6:57:16 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Our moderation system is fine.

The most problematic users are dealt with. Moderation prioritized open discussion and membership over excluding people.

Abrasive and annoying people exist, that's life. As long as users aren't violating the TOS they shouldn't be banned. This is a site dedicated to debate and the exchange of ideas, we should always prioritize free speech and openness to different perspectives.

The solution to problem members is community norms and conflict resolution, not restrictive moderation policies. If max needs additional moderation help he will address that need. But moderation failing to be strict isn't the same as moderation being overworked. In my experience moderation is responsive, I don't see signals of understaffing.

These reform plans are reactionary, every time there's a scuffle people want to crack down with fascist plans to forcibly expel the "problem."
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 7:03:25 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Disagree wholeheartedly. I think the experiment some people have done such as "air your grievances here" threads show that this will never work. You can't bring two people in there and ask them to argue. Arguments form spontaneously. A thread where rules are lax is not going to be a place where people vent but rather where they joke around, have fun, play pranks, call themselves an Airmax multi-account or whatever else.

I also don't think moderation should be tighter. Giving someone else control over how interactions play out on a website is never a good thing. The only exception I see is if someone is under eighteen. In that case, attacks on them should be more closely monitored. But adults are perfectly capable of choosing what interactions are good or bad and handling themselves. Adults do not need moderation. The only kind of moderation I want is from obvious trolls/spammers/votebombers and such.

Arguments stem from two main sources: 1) Votes on debates, 2) Forums.

The first is easy to solve. The debater should be able to bar specific members from voting on their debates before it begins so that even if they give a fantastic vote, moderation still removes them. Just like an ELO bar, or judge nomination, the opposite should be allowed. I and another member had an agreement for the past 3-4 years not to vote on each other's debates and no issue ever cropped up. If specific members can't vote on each other's debates, a massive amount of drama stops.

For the second issue, forums, people should have gentlemen's agreements not to comment on each others forums. If I know someone is not going to be worth my time to engage, I just ignore them. A lot of the time, members are so invested in getting their points across that they engage members whom they previously had bad experiences with. Admittedly this is a harder problem to solve than preventing people from voting on each other's debates.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 7:18:23 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 6:57:16 PM, Raisor wrote:
This is a site dedicated to debate and the exchange of ideas, we should always prioritize free speech and openness to different perspectives.


If only.

Were that actually the case, I would not have deactivated my account in protest.

The irony of some of the sites most toxic members fighting it out about what to do about toxic members is hilarious and even a bit intriguing. However, I'm not going to get my hopes up about the possibility of coming back to a better site.

It's unfortunate too because I haven't found a site with as much promise (infrastructure) anywhere else.

Rant over.

Time to re-deactivate.

Again.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Mikal
Posts: 11,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 7:23:19 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 6:12:28 PM, YYW wrote:

The reality of what Mikal wants is not stricter moderation standards, because stricter moderation standards are not going to improve everyone's experience; they're going to have a chilling effect on conversation, they're going to be a giant pain in the @ss for moderation, and they are going to give users who want to pretend to play by the rules but who in reality want to use the rules to hurt other people even more ammunition to do that with than they already have. I know this because I have seen users do it time and again, and that forces Max into the position of having to justify what's going on to irrational irate people who are never going to approach things reasonably.

The reality is that what Mikal's proposal will achieve is nothing other than perpetuating the status quo at best, or making people's experience on here worse at worst. Stricter moderation policies (especially where enforcement can be arbitrary, as it often is... Max and Whiteflame are human, after all) translate into people who walk on egg shells, than people who are nicer to one another.

The simple solution to all of this is for people to just do the right thing by one another, and it seems so obvious but so many people get caught up in their petty, stupid feuds that they lose sight of what really matters. Then, when there is a conflict, there are always a symphony of "peace preachers" who want to wax philosophical on how to make things better for everyone. Some talk about empathy, some talk about new policies, some talk about the factors at play in the relationships that go sour.

All of that plainly misses the point: If people would do the right things for the right reasons, then this forum becomes a better place. There is no other way. New rules do not make people do the right thing for the right reasons; they make people change their behavior, but for no reason other than to avoid consequences, which has the effect of driving member conflicts underground and making them harder to identify and resolve.

Now, in order to understand all of this, you've got to have a bit more insight into human nature than the OP has. I understand and am sympathetic to his sentiment, but I also know how proposals like this translate into effects, and he should as well... even though he plainly does not.

In other news, I wish people would get off the "how to fix DDO" bandwagon. The storm is clear, and the drama is over and things will be back to normal in a few days if people will stop being sanctimonious wannabe do-gooders.

I concur with some of it but not the fundamentals. The right thing would without a doubt for people to do what is right, but the chances of that happening won't happen. It also would not place more of a burden on max, as he always addresses these issues when they arrive. It would not make him deal with an influx in issues, it would just change how he enforces them.

What it solves is issues like this post. Where as you say the drama has been fixed, it's not. This current set of drama has been fixed, because it has died down. People still have disdain towards each other and it will rise again. What a more enforced moderation policy would do is stop some of this passive aggressive argumentation that is directed at people and often causes flame wars

In other news, I wish people would get off the "how to fix DDO" bandwagon. The storm is clear, and the drama is over and things will be back to normal in a few days if people will stop being sanctimonious wannabe do-gooders.


That entire post is literally formed with a passive aggressive attack. Also just to be clear you are one of the primary reasons all this drama started. It's how you handled yourself and how you address others whom disagree with you. I've never had a problem with you as a person, but I have a definitive problem with how you passively treat people you disagree with. I will separate this from cassie, but from that argument you went on to call bossy irrelevant, infer tulle and maikiru were much the same, and have it in your head that people have some sort of a crusade to cause you problems when that is clearly not the case. For God sakes BSH pointed something similar to that as well. You ran bossy of the site because of how you were treating him, you've tried to run other people off that disagree with you. Then when moderation doesn't agree with you, you put it on their plate and think you are entitled to an apology because they are not doing what you want.

You then translate these attacks on to moderation over and over again because you view it as a failure of moderation when they fail to address issues in how you think they should addressed. Realize some of these people *including* tulle who has been very verbal about it have the same view towards you, and think moderation should do the same thing to you.

I could agree to the fact that moderation does fine in most parts, but I really think it should be aimed at fixing underlying issues. Such as passive aggressive argumentation and not really addressing the root of the problem.

I will be really direct with this

*Half your post in the past are passive aggressive attacks and should be dealt with, and the fact that max tolerates it is beyond me
*They are disguised ad homs where you have labeled people who disagree with you as stupid, irrelevant, and various other post
*They come off as sanctimonious and cruel, and detract from the quality of the site as a whole.

You have made it your goal not just to run people off the site, but make their experience as unpleasant as possible until they leave.

It's sad and depressing because you continue to do this. That is not taking away from what you have did for members you like, but if anyone disagrees with you, you go above and beyond to not let drama go and continue to post about it passive aggressively and continue to bring it up.

That is not fixing an issue, nor is it solving anything. Anyone that thinks different is blatantly wrong. Ignoring issues does not make them go away. It never has or never will
Mikal
Posts: 11,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 7:24:21 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
i'll respond to any thing else after work, but that is direct as I can be for now and with the time i have to type
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 7:30:20 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
On a site like this, there needs to be some moderation, since you cannot just "escape" judgement. The freedom to disagree and voice your anger is very important, but don't forget that harassment is not free speech.

If you are constantly talking to the detriment of one person in particular, and you are saying it to them without end, that is harassment, not free speech. However, I still think that should be allowed, as long as it's not on this site. (In real life it should be allowed)

The only reason why people are saying there needs to be heavy moderation is because you cannot outright block or ignore someone on this site. They can still reply to you and vote on your debates and so on.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 7:41:53 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 7:23:19 PM, Mikal wrote:

I think all that needs to be said about this has been said. Every person other than Cyber has disagreed with your reactionary proposal, and Cyber understands (or at least indicated that he did understand) why this proposal is misguided. So, you're free to debate it to whatever extent you like. I've said my piece though.
Tsar of DDO
Raisor
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 7:51:06 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 7:18:23 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/29/2015 6:57:16 PM, Raisor wrote:
This is a site dedicated to debate and the exchange of ideas, we should always prioritize free speech and openness to different perspectives.


If only.

Were that actually the case, I would not have deactivated my account in protest.

The irony of some of the sites most toxic members fighting it out about what to do about toxic members is hilarious and even a bit intriguing. However, I'm not going to get my hopes up about the possibility of coming back to a better site.

It's unfortunate too because I haven't found a site with as much promise (infrastructure) anywhere else.

Rant over.

Time to re-deactivate.

Again.

Specifically what have you seen on this site that makes you think it does not prioritize free speech?
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 7:52:47 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 7:51:06 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 12/29/2015 7:18:23 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
Specifically what have you seen on this site that makes you think it does not prioritize free speech?

Because he got his vote privileges taken away, if I recall correctly.
"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
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 7:59:26 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 5:44:39 PM, imabench wrote:
At 12/29/2015 5:42:33 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
now cue someone to tell us to "let it go"

goddammit everyone always beats me to it

http://38.media.tumblr.com...
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 8:01:10 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 7:23:19 PM, Mikal wrote:

I'd like to thank you personally for your kind words about me and tulle recently. We both appreciate you, your perspective, and your demeanor during all of this negativity.

I'd also like to thank the individuals who have pm'd me to discuss this situation over the past few days. You have been very supportive and I appreciate it very much <3
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,373
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 8:15:22 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 5:44:39 PM, imabench wrote:
At 12/29/2015 5:42:33 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
now cue someone to tell us to "let it go"

goddammit everyone always beats me to it

http://i.dailymail.co.uk...
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.