Total Posts:63|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

New Forum Guidelines

RyanN
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 7:53:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The purpose of this thread is to provide the community an opportunity to craft clear and concise forum guidelines to cure existing issues surrounding moderation identified here >> http://www.debate.org...

After learning the existing pain points a new moderation system was proposed to enhance the speed and consistency (discussed here >> http://www.debate.org...).

Given the unstructured format of forums it is difficult to stay on topic; I appreciate if everyone tries to maintain discipline within this discussion by limiting posts to lists containing proposed DDO's forum guidelines.

Ideally, members will limit their posts to containing single proposed lists outlining new community guidelines. As an example, if I posted proposed guidelines:

1. A
2. B
3. C
4. D

Then, working off the framework and ideas of the aforementioned list, the following user would post their ideal guidelines:

1. A
2. C
3. F
4. G

In theory, (I understand this may be wishful thinking) if each member juxtaposes and edits and expands the ideas of others… each new list will speak for itself thus eliminating the tendency for off topic discussion.

The goal is to have a short list of clear and concise guidelines a 3rd party will use as the framework for moderation decisions.

This is clearly an experiment but I figure it is worth a shot. If we don't make any solid progress within this format we can try an alternative.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 7:56:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Ideal guidelines:
1. No pornography
2. No libel
3. A swear censor, to replace swears with *s
4. No posts that contribute literally nothing to the conversation, or only degrade the conversation
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 8:02:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 7:56:39 PM, mongeese wrote:
Ideal guidelines:
1. No pornography
2. No libel
3. A swear censor, to replace swears with *s
4. No posts that contribute literally nothing to the conversation, or only degrade the conversation

This. Also,

5. Elimination of all intentionally malicious forum threads.
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 8:07:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 7:56:39 PM, mongeese wrote:
Ideal guidelines:
1. No pornography
2. No libel
3. A swear censor, to replace swears with *s
4. No posts that contribute literally nothing to the conversation, or only degrade the conversation

1.Agreed
2.Agreed though you should elaborate
3.What and why? I don't really understand what you're saying nor do I see a reason for censoring few curse words.
4.The mighty Koopin (me) is mad at you !,
Kfc
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 8:19:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 8:07:05 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
At 12/15/2010 7:56:39 PM, mongeese wrote:
Ideal guidelines:
1. No pornography
2. No libel
3. A swear censor, to replace swears with *s
4. No posts that contribute literally nothing to the conversation, or only degrade the conversation

1.Agreed
2.Agreed though you should elaborate
3.What and why? I don't really understand what you're saying nor do I see a reason for censoring few curse words.
4.The mighty Koopin (me) is mad at you !,
Kfc


1. Agreed.
2. Confusing.
3. It should be an optional thing that one can turn on and off, and would be automatically turned on for any who are not logged in.
4. Koopin's KFCing is always funny andd never degrades the conversation.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 8:24:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
1. Linking to or posting pornographic content, defined as a visual depiction or picture of a reproductive organ, is prohibited. Punishment: 30-day ban for first offense, 6 month ban for second offense, permaban for third.
2. Linking to or posting hate content, defined as a video, audio, picture, or text intended to defame another user or group of users, is prohibited. Punishment: 7-day ban for first offense, 30-day ban for second offense, permaban for third.
3. Linking to or posting spam content, defined as anything intended to solicit a good or service upon other users, free or otherwise, will result in an immediate permaban.

The following words and variations of the following words are to be avoided on Debate.Org:
-fu*k
-sh1t
-a*s
The forum word censor doesn't work because one can easily circumvent it by using 1337 character alternatives.
I don't have an opinion on enforcement of anti-profanity rules, but I don't think any words besides those 3 are to be banned.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 8:25:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 8:07:05 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
At 12/15/2010 7:56:39 PM, mongeese wrote:
Ideal guidelines:
2. No libel
3. A swear censor, to replace swears with *s
4. No posts that contribute literally nothing to the conversation, or only degrade the conversation

2.Agreed though you should elaborate
Libel would be anything you accuse someone of doing without any evidence at all. Like accusing people of vote-bombing before the Votes Tab was even up, and continuing to do so without any example votes at all.

3.What and why? I don't really understand what you're saying nor do I see a reason for censoring few curse words.
I think it just degrades the site a bit, but I agree with mongoose's idea.

4.The mighty Koopin (me) is mad at you !,
Kfc

KFC always contributes to the conversation.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 8:30:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 8:19:04 PM, mongoose wrote:
3. It should be an optional thing that one can turn on and off, and would be automatically turned on for any who are not logged in.
This is a fantastic idea.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 8:56:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 8:25:49 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 12/15/2010 8:07:05 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
At 12/15/2010 7:56:39 PM, mongeese wrote:
Ideal guidelines:
2. No libel
3. A swear censor, to replace swears with *s
4. No posts that contribute literally nothing to the conversation, or only degrade the conversation

2.Agreed though you should elaborate
Libel would be anything you accuse someone of doing without any evidence at all. Like accusing people of vote-bombing before the Votes Tab was even up, and continuing to do so without any example votes at all.

I don't think those type of people intend to stay in the first place nor will they...
In other words this is meritless.

3.What and why? I don't really understand what you're saying nor do I see a reason for censoring few curse words.
I think it just degrades the site a bit, but I agree with mongoose's idea.
I couldn't care less since I don't curse at all.
4.The mighty Koopin (me) is mad at you !,
Kfc

KFC always contributes to the conversation.
I disagree
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 9:14:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 8:56:17 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
At 12/15/2010 8:25:49 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 12/15/2010 8:07:05 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
At 12/15/2010 7:56:39 PM, mongeese wrote:
Ideal guidelines:
2. No libel
3. A swear censor, to replace swears with *s
4. No posts that contribute literally nothing to the conversation, or only degrade the conversation

2.Agreed though you should elaborate
Libel would be anything you accuse someone of doing without any evidence at all. Like accusing people of vote-bombing before the Votes Tab was even up, and continuing to do so without any example votes at all.

I don't think those type of people intend to stay in the first place nor will they...
In other words this is meritless.

Nah, I've had lots of experience with libel. There was a really strong one against me by I-am-a-panda, but I'm not inclined to go find it right now.

3.What and why? I don't really understand what you're saying nor do I see a reason for censoring few curse words.
I think it just degrades the site a bit, but I agree with mongoose's idea.
I couldn't care less since I don't curse at all.
Well, would you rather see them censored or uncensored?

4.The mighty Koopin (me) is mad at you !,
Kfc

KFC always contributes to the conversation.
I disagree
Impossible.
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 9:25:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 9:14:14 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 12/15/2010 8:56:17 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
At 12/15/2010 8:25:49 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 12/15/2010 8:07:05 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
At 12/15/2010 7:56:39 PM, mongeese wrote:
Ideal guidelines:
2. No libel
3. A swear censor, to replace swears with *s
4. No posts that contribute literally nothing to the conversation, or only degrade the conversation

2.Agreed though you should elaborate
Libel would be anything you accuse someone of doing without any evidence at all. Like accusing people of vote-bombing before the Votes Tab was even up, and continuing to do so without any example votes at all.

I don't think those type of people intend to stay in the first place nor will they...
In other words this is meritless.

Nah, I've had lots of experience with libel. There was a really strong one against me by I-am-a-panda, but I'm not inclined to go find it right now.

3.What and why? I don't really understand what you're saying nor do I see a reason for censoring few curse words.
I think it just degrades the site a bit, but I agree with mongoose's idea.
I couldn't care less since I don't curse at all.
Well, would you rather see them censored or uncensored?

4.The mighty Koopin (me) is mad at you !,
Kfc

KFC always contributes to the conversation.
I disagree
Impossible.

2. At least it ought to be rare
3. Couldn't care less. I suppose I wouldn't like to read an extremely hateful rant full of curses of every kind but that guy would be out of here anyway. So ultimately I'm neutral.
4. Possible indeed because not everybody agrees on what contributes and what does not contribute to the conversation.
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 9:50:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
1. No pornography

2. No spam-advertising--I say this meaning that it's fine if you want to create one thread to plug an ad for a blog you just created, or for your YouTube channel, or something like that.

3. Individually-toggle-able word filter a la mongoose.

4. In cases which are "gray areas", like alleged harassment, flaming, or general douchery, the community has the final say over whether a member is reprimanded*.

*Obviously, such a system isn't perfect, but we generally aren't 50-50 divided over issues, which means that it would either have to be handled in a democratic fashion, or settled in some kind of formal debate.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 10:34:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 10:20:14 PM, Puck wrote:
Wouldn't it be easier to start with:

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

and detail what about it is insufficient/wrong, instead of trying to formulate one from scratch?

This.
In fact, I was looking over the TOS and apart from the swearing thing (we all know how much I like to swear) there wasn't much I personally disagreed with. I suppose it's going to come down defining exactly what a personal attack/offensive comment is.
I personally think the report function should be removed all together. Posts should be numbered and if someone wants to make a complaint, they go to the users profile, click "report user" and detail exactly why you're reporting them. Then, this team of moderators can get involved. If it's a clear cut case, community involvement is unneccesary but in cases like askbob, I'm going to say general consensus is he should be unbanned immediately and have his account restored so in other similar cases perhaps a poll or a circle of representitives should assist with the decision.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 10:36:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 10:34:02 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 12/15/2010 10:20:14 PM, Puck wrote:
Wouldn't it be easier to start with:

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

and detail what about it is insufficient/wrong, instead of trying to formulate one from scratch?

This.
In fact, I was looking over the TOS and apart from the swearing thing (we all know how much I like to swear) there wasn't much I personally disagreed with. I suppose it's going to come down defining exactly what a personal attack/offensive comment is.
I personally think the report function should be removed all together. Posts should be numbered and if someone wants to make a complaint, they go to the users profile, click "report user" and detail exactly why you're reporting them. Then, this team of moderators can get involved. If it's a clear cut case, community involvement is unneccesary but in cases like askbob, I'm going to say general consensus is he should be unbanned immediately and have his account restored so in other similar cases perhaps a poll or a circle of representitives should assist with the decision.

I don't think it's particularly necessary to ban personal attacks or offensive comments.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 10:38:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 10:34:02 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 12/15/2010 10:20:14 PM, Puck wrote:
Wouldn't it be easier to start with:

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

and detail what about it is insufficient/wrong, instead of trying to formulate one from scratch?

This.
In fact, I was looking over the TOS and apart from the swearing thing (we all know how much I like to swear) there wasn't much I personally disagreed with. I suppose it's going to come down defining exactly what a personal attack/offensive comment is.
I personally think the report function should be removed all together. Posts should be numbered and if someone wants to make a complaint, they go to the users profile, click "report user" and detail exactly why you're reporting them. Then, this team of moderators can get involved. If it's a clear cut case, community involvement is unneccesary but in cases like askbob, I'm going to say general consensus is he should be unbanned immediately and have his account restored so in other similar cases perhaps a poll or a circle of representitives should assist with the decision.

Yeah honestly I have no concerns over the current ToS besides clarifications. Keep out the top swear words, keep out porn/nudity, illegal is already illegal, 4chan already exists elsewhere. And so on. :P
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 10:41:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 10:36:05 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I don't think it's particularly necessary to ban personal attacks or offensive comments.

If there are going to be mods, post deletion + warning is more effective.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 10:48:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 10:41:59 PM, Puck wrote:
At 12/15/2010 10:36:05 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I don't think it's particularly necessary to ban personal attacks or offensive comments.

If there are going to be mods, post deletion + warning is more effective.

I'd rather have sensitive issues like that be left up to the members of DDO. We know each other better than any mod, and I'd venture to say that we're more qualified to make judgments concerning each other's conduct, especially in cases where we seem especially out of character. I know that I was having a particularly bad day earlier this week, and I could hardly get a post out without being insulting to or cursing at another member.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 11:10:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 9:50:28 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
1. No pornography without warnings

2. No spam-advertising--I say this meaning that it's fine if you want to create one thread to plug an ad for a blog you just created, or for your YouTube channel, or something like that.

3. Individually-toggle-able word filter a la mongoose.

4. In cases which are "gray areas", like alleged harassment, flaming, or general douchery, the community has the final say over whether a member is reprimanded*.

*Obviously, such a system isn't perfect, but we generally aren't 50-50 divided over issues, which means that it would either have to be handled in a democratic fashion, or settled in some kind of formal debate.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 11:15:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 11:10:28 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 12/15/2010 9:50:28 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
1. No pornography without warnings

2. No spam-advertising--I say this meaning that it's fine if you want to create one thread to plug an ad for a blog you just created, or for your YouTube channel, or something like that.

3. Individually-toggle-able word filter a la mongoose.

4. No harassing, spamming, or trolling members that abide by the ToS

5. In cases which are "gray areas", like alleged harassment, flaming, or general douchery, the community has the final say over whether a member is reprimanded*.

*Obviously, such a system isn't perfect, but we generally aren't 50-50 divided over issues, which means that it would either have to be handled in a democratic fashion, or settled in some kind of formal debate.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 11:18:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 11:16:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/15/2010 11:15:21 PM, lovelife wrote:
4. No harassing, spamming, or trolling members that abide by the ToS

No.

Never.

Nu-uh.

Bad idea.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 11:20:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 11:18:27 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/15/2010 11:16:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/15/2010 11:15:21 PM, lovelife wrote:
4. No harassing, spamming, or trolling members that abide by the ToS

No. We want 4chan

Never.

Nu-uh.

Bad idea. Then we can't have 4chan
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 11:23:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 11:20:58 PM, jharry wrote:
At 12/15/2010 11:18:27 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/15/2010 11:16:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/15/2010 11:15:21 PM, lovelife wrote:
4. No harassing, spamming, or trolling members that abide by the ToS

No. We want 4chan

Never.

Nu-uh.

Bad idea. Then we can't have 4chan

Our opposition to that rule doesn't mean that we want to have DDO turn into 4chan. As I previously mentioned, I'd rather such things be mitigated and overseen by the community.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 11:23:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I hate to say it... but I agree with that AnnFranklin guy...

Trolling a little bit's ok.. it's only when it's taken Super far that it's not.

and.. that's something I'd prefer to have decided In-house... by "the community" as Franklin said.

and... it can prolly be controlled w/o any formal process.... others can just lay into the guy who goes too far.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 11:24:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 11:20:58 PM, jharry wrote:
At 12/15/2010 11:18:27 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/15/2010 11:16:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/15/2010 11:15:21 PM, lovelife wrote:
4. No harassing, spamming, or trolling members that abide by the ToS

No. We want 4chan

Never.

Nu-uh.

Bad idea. Then we can't have 4chan. loljk I understand that such a policy would be abused and is too subjective to be implemented with any fairness or consistency which would no undoubtedly lead to more conflict. And obviously I'm saying this so INH will come back but I also understand that creating a policy which would affect everybody simply because she left would not be a viable premise.

I think you meant to say that.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 11:28:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 11:27:26 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Remember PoeJoe, when he abused cjl due to his sexuality? There was no intervention from mods--no banning. His own conscience, nudged "gently" by the community, led him to apologize, atone, and ultimately mature (maturity being something that so many members complain about).

THIS!
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...