Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Thoughts on Conduct Policy

SolonKR
Posts: 4,041
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 6:18:19 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Obviously, there's been a lot of controversy today, and I don't want to add to the drama. What I want to do, though, is foster a substantial conversation on a few issues. Here are my personal thoughts on moderation policy as it stands, and my personal justifications. Any discussion on conduct policy has to stem from one question:

Why do we ban certain types of conduct?

This is the question that is at the core of any discussion on conduct policy we will ever have. In some cases, the answer is obvious. Adherence to the law is a necessary component of any website, and the site has certain policies accordingly.

But, there's a grayer area, an area in which conduct exhibited is not against any legal code. For handling this, we have the ToS, which clearly states:
"No use of profanities or swear words.
No personal attacks against other members or a member's opinions.
No use of racial, sexual or religious slurs.
No threats or implications thereof. [though this one's covered by the law]"

It's clear that the question is not what the policy IS (as many members routinely ignore it), but whether or not this is what the site SHOULD be. Now, here are the two main arguments I have heard from both sides, in tl;dr form.

These rules are good
Upholds a popular standard of decency
Encourages intellectual debate

These rules are bad
Restricts free speech
Stops good debate

Now, most of the members here rightly value debate above all else, so let's just focus on that for now. To be clear, we're only discussing the value of personal attacks, profanities, and slurs, because those are the things covered in moderation, and the subject of discussion here. Those in favor of allowing them usually use one of these two arguments, which I will address in detail.

1. There is no right to be offended
This line of argument, at its most extreme, places the blame for any and all offense taken on the offended party. At its more moderate, though, it essentially states that one's right to free speech trumps personal feelings. The extreme is simply incorrect, as it is well documented that words can in fact hurt, and it allows people to freely hurt others without consequence. If someone calls me an a-hole, I'm going to take offense, but to claim that I somehow willingly choose to be hurt is plainly ridiculous. Let's take the line of reasoning to its extreme. There are people that are driven to suicide by verbal bullying. Now, we can either accept that: A) those words did hurt, or B) those bullying victims made a conscious choice to be as hurt as possible for sustained periods of time and then killed themselves because it's all part of their clever scheme to ruin a perfectly good person's life. The right answer is obviously A, and it shows why this logic never has held and never will hold.

The more moderate stance, however, has merit. Rights are, by nature, inviolable, and we must do everything we can to protect them. Of course, we technically only have the rights granted to us by Juggle on this site, as it's their property, but we naturally want to have as much freedom of expression as possible. Are slurs and personal insults part of that freedom of expression (I'm not going to talk about swears since that's not even enforced)? For me, rights and my ideas about modding philosophy stem from the harm principle--that the only reason one should be prohibited from doing something is to prevent harm to others. From my framework, the answer is a no, end of discussion. I value that framework because if we have a right to harm others, which deprives them of their rights, others have a right to deprive us of our rights... and if we can be deprived of our rights, we don't really have any to begin with. I think that when ambiguities arise, we should favor free speech, but that's a discussion for later (or if it becomes pertinent in this thread). That being said, others don't share my framework. So, here's a general call--what principles do you think modding philosophy should be based on, and why?

2. These things add to the discourse on the site
Essentially, this line goes that racial slurs and personal attacks are rhetorical tactics all designed to further a goal of debate. From my stance, as I value only preventing harm to others, the same line of argument could be used to attempt justifying political violence, for example--after all, the harm here is used as a rhetorical tactic. But as others don't share my framework, I offer an alternative argument: It in fact hampers the discourse on the site. Debating should be fair, honest, and open on this site, and to that end, forum discussions should not be about persuasion, but about finding the truth. By creating a site atmosphere in which persuasion is valued to the exclusion of actuality, we make it harder to have substantive discussions. It becomes harder because it discourages additional voices from engaging, and encourages disrespect for opposing views. The latter is important because, if there's no regard for opposing views... well, it's not so much Debate.org as it is Rant.org. Furthermore, allowing personal attacks that ferment a site atmosphere of animosity creates more unnecessary drama. Some enjoy drama, and those people are certainly allowed to enjoy it, but it again detracts from the main focus of the site, and should thus be minimized.

tl;dr I generally agree with the current moderation policy on this site, and I want to gauge the level of support and reasoning of those who don't.
This is enough to start. Stay civil, and DBAD.
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,760
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 10:21:31 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 6:18:19 AM, SolonKR wrote:
Debating should be fair, honest, and open on this site, and to that end, forum discussions should not be about persuasion, but about finding the truth.

In fact, this is easily the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my entire life. This is a debating site, and debate is about rhetoric.

That's what the site used to be about, and it used to have an atmosphere refreshingly free of truth, morality, or their attending affect, sanctimony.

If you're interested in finding the truth, join a philosophy site, not a debating site.
SolonKR
Posts: 4,041
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 6:37:14 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 10:18:54 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
I disagree with virtually everything in your post.

You're free to explain your reasons why.
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,848
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 6:41:41 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
*Insert irrelevant comment about you and your administration being censoring communists*
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 6:46:32 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
<sarcasm>You're acting like this is a privately owned company. What gives DDO the right to infringe upon my civil liberties?</sarcasm>
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 7:41:37 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 10:21:31 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 6/27/2016 6:18:19 AM, SolonKR wrote:
Debating should be fair, honest, and open on this site, and to that end, forum discussions should not be about persuasion, but about finding the truth.

In fact, this is easily the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my entire life. This is a debating site, and debate is about rhetoric.

That's what the site used to be about, and it used to have an atmosphere refreshingly free of truth, morality, or their attending affect, sanctimony.

If you're interested in finding the truth, join a philosophy site, not a debating site.

Yeah, I had a similar thought on this point.

I also think it's kind of ironic that to claim that it's important to respect opposing views, only to dispense entirely with the principle of charity when discussing emotional self-control. The mechanism behind the taking of offense is tied in to a lot of complex questions regarding the power and nature of human will, neurology, and the impact of a larger civilization. Casting the opposition as being steeped in sophomoric idiocy is, ironically, a cheap rhetorical device meant to persuade by casting oneself as the moderate, reasonable middle ground struggling against blind 'extremism'.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
SolonKR
Posts: 4,041
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 7:56:40 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 7:41:37 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I also think it's kind of ironic that to claim that it's important to respect opposing views, only to dispense entirely with the principle of charity when discussing emotional self-control.

You can apply that just as readily to people on the site who lash out at others with personal attacks, so I'm not sure how that's relevant here.

The mechanism behind the taking of offense is tied in to a lot of complex questions regarding the power and nature of human will, neurology, and the impact of a larger civilization. Casting the opposition as being steeped in sophomoric idiocy is, ironically, a cheap rhetorical device meant to persuade by casting oneself as the moderate, reasonable middle ground struggling against blind 'extremism'.

I never cast anyone as an idiot, so I don't know where that came from. I asked for all y'alls opinions for a reason. If you're referencing my vehement opposition to those that say that being offended is the fault of the offended party, you're welcome to defend that viewpoint if you have it.

Anyway, since this question from the OP is relevant, what principles do you think modding should be based on, and why?
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,760
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 10:34:43 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 7:41:37 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/27/2016 10:21:31 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 6/27/2016 6:18:19 AM, SolonKR wrote:
Debating should be fair, honest, and open on this site, and to that end, forum discussions should not be about persuasion, but about finding the truth.

In fact, this is easily the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my entire life. This is a debating site, and debate is about rhetoric.

That's what the site used to be about, and it used to have an atmosphere refreshingly free of truth, morality, or their attending affect, sanctimony.

If you're interested in finding the truth, join a philosophy site, not a debating site.

Yeah, I had a similar thought on this point.

I also think it's kind of ironic that to claim that it's important to respect opposing views, only to dispense entirely with the principle of charity when discussing emotional self-control. The mechanism behind the taking of offense is tied in to a lot of complex questions regarding the power and nature of human will, neurology, and the impact of a larger civilization. Casting the opposition as being steeped in sophomoric idiocy is, ironically, a cheap rhetorical device meant to persuade by casting oneself as the moderate, reasonable middle ground struggling against blind 'extremism'.

Yeah, this.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 11:14:31 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 10:21:31 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 6/27/2016 6:18:19 AM, SolonKR wrote:
Debating should be fair, honest, and open on this site, and to that end, forum discussions should not be about persuasion, but about finding the truth.

In fact, this is easily the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my entire life. This is a debating site, and debate is about rhetoric.

That's what the site used to be about, and it used to have an atmosphere refreshingly free of truth, morality, or their attending affect, sanctimony.

If you're interested in finding the truth, join a philosophy site, not a debating site.

I agree that this site isn't about searching for truth, although I don't see why people shouldn't look around for it on the forums if they want to. However, some types of discussion are better than others, and sometimes there are users who disrupt good discussions either by harassing interesting people until they leave or spamming threads or whatever.

I suppose it's just a preference. Would you rather have the spamming and the insults or would you rather have the discussion that might otherwise have occurred? It depends what you like. I used to think i was against banning, but there've been some bans that have been like yesssssssss. The thing is, you can never be sure about the discussion that might have occurred because it didn't happen. Doesn't mean you can't form an opinion about it though.

I believe in the overall chilling effect of particular users. YYW used to really annoy me that way, because he'd follow around someone who he'd targeted for disagreeing with him and he'd harass them for days and weeks until they left. Even apart from the effect of discouraging the particular person, the message to everyone else is really clear - that the same thing would happen if they messed with him. That's really dampening to discussion in general.

I also really like noisy outliers, or people with extreme views, because they create a space within which people are freer to express their own views. When everyone thinks and behaves with less variation, there's an oppressive effect. So if someone is trying to silence someone with extreme views, by harassing them or ridiculing them or trying to silence them, in my opinion we're all affected negatively by that.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 1:26:30 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 7:56:40 PM, SolonKR wrote:
At 6/27/2016 7:41:37 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I also think it's kind of ironic that to claim that it's important to respect opposing views, only to dispense entirely with the principle of charity when discussing emotional self-control.

You can apply that just as readily to people on the site who lash out at others with personal attacks, so I'm not sure how that's relevant here.

The mechanism behind the taking of offense is tied in to a lot of complex questions regarding the power and nature of human will, neurology, and the impact of a larger civilization. Casting the opposition as being steeped in sophomoric idiocy is, ironically, a cheap rhetorical device meant to persuade by casting oneself as the moderate, reasonable middle ground struggling against blind 'extremism'.

I never cast anyone as an idiot, so I don't know where that came from. I asked for all y'alls opinions for a reason. If you're referencing my vehement opposition to those that say that being offended is the fault of the offended party, you're welcome to defend that viewpoint if you have it.

My stance is that the human brain processes sensory input in a variety of ways depending on how it has been molded by the society around it. Some brains can be wired to receive insults intended to anger with little self-destructive response. Others fall into a cycle of self-victimization, internalizing the insult. The latter is pathological, and we end up with a large number of pathological minds because the social cues which mold each individual are breeding weakness. The response to this unfortunate fact should not be an obsequious catering to what amount to neuroses, that will only make the problem worse. It should be to, from a young age, recognize such weakness and stamp it out. It should be the adoption of cultural memes and overall narratives which encourage a more stoic outlook. The point is that the idea that people 'choose' to be offended is a straw man. It's obviously not a conscious choice. But the person who is offended is offended because of the actions of the people who have surrounded them which have inculcated a set of incredibly destructive behaviors. Just as a young child doesn't choose to have a temper tantrum; that behavior has been reinforced by bad parents, and continuing to reinforce it will only make the problem worse. Constructive responses would be extinction or punishment.

Anyway, since this question from the OP is relevant, what principles do you think modding should be based on, and why?

Legal ones. DDO ought to be protected from legal ramifications (actual threats, doxxing).
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,760
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 2:55:03 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 1:26:30 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/27/2016 7:56:40 PM, SolonKR wrote:
At 6/27/2016 7:41:37 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I also think it's kind of ironic that to claim that it's important to respect opposing views, only to dispense entirely with the principle of charity when discussing emotional self-control.

You can apply that just as readily to people on the site who lash out at others with personal attacks, so I'm not sure how that's relevant here.

The mechanism behind the taking of offense is tied in to a lot of complex questions regarding the power and nature of human will, neurology, and the impact of a larger civilization. Casting the opposition as being steeped in sophomoric idiocy is, ironically, a cheap rhetorical device meant to persuade by casting oneself as the moderate, reasonable middle ground struggling against blind 'extremism'.

I never cast anyone as an idiot, so I don't know where that came from. I asked for all y'alls opinions for a reason. If you're referencing my vehement opposition to those that say that being offended is the fault of the offended party, you're welcome to defend that viewpoint if you have it.

My stance is that the human brain processes sensory input in a variety of ways depending on how it has been molded by the society around it. Some brains can be wired to receive insults intended to anger with little self-destructive response. Others fall into a cycle of self-victimization, internalizing the insult. The latter is pathological, and we end up with a large number of pathological minds because the social cues which mold each individual are breeding weakness. The response to this unfortunate fact should not be an obsequious catering to what amount to neuroses, that will only make the problem worse. It should be to, from a young age, recognize such weakness and stamp it out. It should be the adoption of cultural memes and overall narratives which encourage a more stoic outlook. The point is that the idea that people 'choose' to be offended is a straw man. It's obviously not a conscious choice. But the person who is offended is offended because of the actions of the people who have surrounded them which have inculcated a set of incredibly destructive behaviors. Just as a young child doesn't choose to have a temper tantrum; that behavior has been reinforced by bad parents, and continuing to reinforce it will only make the problem worse. Constructive responses would be extinction or punishment.

Anyway, since this question from the OP is relevant, what principles do you think modding should be based on, and why?

Legal ones. DDO ought to be protected from legal ramifications (actual threats, doxxing).

The only principled way to moderate. Solon's proposal is inherently arbitrary.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 3:39:51 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 10:21:31 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 6/27/2016 6:18:19 AM, SolonKR wrote:
Debating should be fair, honest, and open on this site, and to that end, forum discussions should not be about persuasion, but about finding the truth.

In fact, this is easily the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my entire life. This is a debating site, and debate is about rhetoric.

That's what the site used to be about, and it used to have an atmosphere refreshingly free of truth, morality, or their attending affect, sanctimony.

If you're interested in finding the truth, join a philosophy site, not a debating site.

I don't disagree that rhetoric is an important aspect of debating, but I cannot help but feel that if YYW had exercised more restraint in the expression of his views, he would have been able to persuade more members to agree with him. Right now, many members, particularly new ones, simply cannot see him for the intelligent person he is, because of the condescending way he acts towards those whose views he vehemently disagrees with. As a result, they simply detest him, and are not open to anything he says.

This does not just apply to YYW either; there are people on both ends of the political spectrum who have simply shut people away from their posts because of their attitude.

My favourite orator is Mencius, and his persuasive skill lies in his ability to find common ground with the other party first, then slowly lead the other party to accept his views. I think this is a healthier way to go about any sort of discussion.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
SolonKR
Posts: 4,041
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 8:46:45 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 2:55:03 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
The only principled way to moderate. Solon's proposal is inherently arbitrary.

How is the harm principle arbitrary?
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
SolonKR
Posts: 4,041
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 8:48:21 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 1:26:30 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
My stance is that the human brain processes sensory input in a variety of ways depending on how it has been molded by the society around it. Some brains can be wired to receive insults intended to anger with little self-destructive response. Others fall into a cycle of self-victimization, internalizing the insult. The latter is pathological, and we end up with a large number of pathological minds because the social cues which mold each individual are breeding weakness. The response to this unfortunate fact should not be an obsequious catering to what amount to neuroses, that will only make the problem worse. It should be to, from a young age, recognize such weakness and stamp it out. It should be the adoption of cultural memes and overall narratives which encourage a more stoic outlook. The point is that the idea that people 'choose' to be offended is a straw man. It's obviously not a conscious choice. But the person who is offended is offended because of the actions of the people who have surrounded them which have inculcated a set of incredibly destructive behaviors. Just as a young child doesn't choose to have a temper tantrum; that behavior has been reinforced by bad parents, and continuing to reinforce it will only make the problem worse. Constructive responses would be extinction or punishment.

So, essentially, you view taking offense as a biological/social weakness that needs to be rooted out? Just want clarity before I respond.

Anyway, since this question from the OP is relevant, what principles do you think modding should be based on, and why?

Legal ones. DDO ought to be protected from legal ramifications (actual threats, doxxing).

"and why"
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,760
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 8:58:51 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 8:46:45 PM, SolonKR wrote:
At 6/28/2016 2:55:03 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
The only principled way to moderate. Solon's proposal is inherently arbitrary.

How is the harm principle arbitrary?

For many reasons. I'll explain later when I'm not high and drunk.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 9:11:24 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 7:41:37 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/27/2016 10:21:31 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 6/27/2016 6:18:19 AM, SolonKR wrote:
Debating should be fair, honest, and open on this site, and to that end, forum discussions should not be about persuasion, but about finding the truth.

In fact, this is easily the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my entire life. This is a debating site, and debate is about rhetoric.

That's what the site used to be about, and it used to have an atmosphere refreshingly free of truth, morality, or their attending affect, sanctimony.

If you're interested in finding the truth, join a philosophy site, not a debating site.

Yeah, I had a similar thought on this point.

I also think it's kind of ironic that to claim that it's important to respect opposing views, only to dispense entirely with the principle of charity when discussing emotional self-control. The mechanism behind the taking of offense is tied in to a lot of complex questions regarding the power and nature of human will, neurology, and the impact of a larger civilization. Casting the opposition as being steeped in sophomoric idiocy is, ironically, a cheap rhetorical device meant to persuade by casting oneself as the moderate, reasonable middle ground struggling against blind 'extremism'.

+1
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.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 9:15:08 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 2:55:03 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 6/28/2016 1:26:30 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/27/2016 7:56:40 PM, SolonKR wrote:
At 6/27/2016 7:41:37 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I also think it's kind of ironic that to claim that it's important to respect opposing views, only to dispense entirely with the principle of charity when discussing emotional self-control.

You can apply that just as readily to people on the site who lash out at others with personal attacks, so I'm not sure how that's relevant here.

The mechanism behind the taking of offense is tied in to a lot of complex questions regarding the power and nature of human will, neurology, and the impact of a larger civilization. Casting the opposition as being steeped in sophomoric idiocy is, ironically, a cheap rhetorical device meant to persuade by casting oneself as the moderate, reasonable middle ground struggling against blind 'extremism'.

I never cast anyone as an idiot, so I don't know where that came from. I asked for all y'alls opinions for a reason. If you're referencing my vehement opposition to those that say that being offended is the fault of the offended party, you're welcome to defend that viewpoint if you have it.

My stance is that the human brain processes sensory input in a variety of ways depending on how it has been molded by the society around it. Some brains can be wired to receive insults intended to anger with little self-destructive response. Others fall into a cycle of self-victimization, internalizing the insult. The latter is pathological, and we end up with a large number of pathological minds because the social cues which mold each individual are breeding weakness. The response to this unfortunate fact should not be an obsequious catering to what amount to neuroses, that will only make the problem worse. It should be to, from a young age, recognize such weakness and stamp it out. It should be the adoption of cultural memes and overall narratives which encourage a more stoic outlook. The point is that the idea that people 'choose' to be offended is a straw man. It's obviously not a conscious choice. But the person who is offended is offended because of the actions of the people who have surrounded them which have inculcated a set of incredibly destructive behaviors. Just as a young child doesn't choose to have a temper tantrum; that behavior has been reinforced by bad parents, and continuing to reinforce it will only make the problem worse. Constructive responses would be extinction or punishment.

Anyway, since this question from the OP is relevant, what principles do you think modding should be based on, and why?

Legal ones. DDO ought to be protected from legal ramifications (actual threats, doxxing).

The only principled way to moderate. Solon's proposal is inherently arbitrary.

I never understood the idea of cutting free speech at the point in which it induces harm on another person. Can you objectively define harm, physical or emotional, to which you give bureaucracy the capabilities and authority to constitute what type of speech is acceptable or not, and can this ever be conducive of civil discourse? No, that's not the case, especially when speech is currently silenced on the merit of its personal affliction, not on its coherence.
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.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 9:15:58 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 8:46:45 PM, SolonKR wrote:
At 6/28/2016 2:55:03 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
The only principled way to moderate. Solon's proposal is inherently arbitrary.

How is the harm principle arbitrary?

Because "harm" cannot be defined objectively as "harm" is a subjective phenomena when it comes to speech. Physical harm you can define, but emotional harm you cannot define and shouldn't define.
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.
SolonKR
Posts: 4,041
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 9:32:53 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 9:15:58 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 6/28/2016 8:46:45 PM, SolonKR wrote:
At 6/28/2016 2:55:03 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
The only principled way to moderate. Solon's proposal is inherently arbitrary.

How is the harm principle arbitrary?

Because "harm" cannot be defined objectively as "harm" is a subjective phenomena when it comes to speech. Physical harm you can define, but emotional harm you cannot define and shouldn't define.

You can rather easily, while still defending the right of free speech to the utmost. I don't have access to it right now, but remind me when I have access to my old computer to share the doc that I have about this. Essentially, in addition to evidence of harm, you look for evidence of intent to harm beyond a reasonable doubt. That's how you apply the harm principle while still defending rights. That's not hard to discern at all, and can be easily determined by looking at things like:
1. Does the speech not have a higher purpose?
2. Is it something a reasonable person would consider offensive?
3. Has the speaker repeatedly engaged in multiple attempts to offend someone?
4. Is the speech directed toward a specific individual?
and a few more that I can't recall off the top of my head but are important, and I'll bring them up as soon as I'm able. If every single answer is yes (and I mean every single answer), that's obviously covered by the harm principle.
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
SolonKR
Posts: 4,041
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 9:32:59 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 9:11:24 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
I also think it's kind of ironic that to claim that it's important to respect opposing views, only to dispense entirely with the principle of charity when discussing emotional self-control. The mechanism behind the taking of offense is tied in to a lot of complex questions regarding the power and nature of human will, neurology, and the impact of a larger civilization. Casting the opposition as being steeped in sophomoric idiocy is, ironically, a cheap rhetorical device meant to persuade by casting oneself as the moderate, reasonable middle ground struggling against blind 'extremism'.

+1

Except I've never done anything that paragraph claims I have -_-
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 9:35:57 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 9:32:53 PM, SolonKR wrote:
At 6/28/2016 9:15:58 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 6/28/2016 8:46:45 PM, SolonKR wrote:
At 6/28/2016 2:55:03 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
The only principled way to moderate. Solon's proposal is inherently arbitrary.

How is the harm principle arbitrary?

Because "harm" cannot be defined objectively as "harm" is a subjective phenomena when it comes to speech. Physical harm you can define, but emotional harm you cannot define and shouldn't define.

You can rather easily, while still defending the right of free speech to the utmost. I don't have access to it right now, but remind me when I have access to my old computer to share the doc that I have about this. Essentially, in addition to evidence of harm, you look for evidence of intent to harm beyond a reasonable doubt. That's how you apply the harm principle while still defending rights. That's not hard to discern at all, and can be easily determined by looking at things like:
1. Does the speech not have a higher purpose?
2. Is it something a reasonable person would consider offensive?
3. Has the speaker repeatedly engaged in multiple attempts to offend someone?
4. Is the speech directed toward a specific individual?
and a few more that I can't recall off the top of my head but are important, and I'll bring them up as soon as I'm able. If every single answer is yes (and I mean every single answer), that's obviously covered by the harm principle.

You cannot silence speech for any given reason unless it's directly harassing a person that would like to be left alone or if it is a death threat. That is as far as I would go, and even that should be skeptical and highly debated by lawmakers.
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.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 9:36:40 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 9:32:59 PM, SolonKR wrote:
At 6/28/2016 9:11:24 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
I also think it's kind of ironic that to claim that it's important to respect opposing views, only to dispense entirely with the principle of charity when discussing emotional self-control. The mechanism behind the taking of offense is tied in to a lot of complex questions regarding the power and nature of human will, neurology, and the impact of a larger civilization. Casting the opposition as being steeped in sophomoric idiocy is, ironically, a cheap rhetorical device meant to persuade by casting oneself as the moderate, reasonable middle ground struggling against blind 'extremism'.

+1

Except I've never done anything that paragraph claims I have -_-

Don't reply to me, reply to Skep.
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.
SolonKR
Posts: 4,041
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 9:53:00 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 9:35:57 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
You cannot silence speech for any given reason unless it's directly harassing a person that would like to be left alone or if it is a death threat. That is as far as I would go, and even that should be skeptical and highly debated by lawmakers.

We're not talking about the country. We're talking about DDO, which is run by a privately owned company. In terms of where our rights are derived from, for the purposes of this site, they come from Juggle, not from our innate person-hood. So, justify your stance.
Tell me why I should be allowed to call you, say, a f****** c*** in the forums, and how that's speech.
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
SolonKR
Posts: 4,041
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 9:53:04 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 9:36:40 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 6/28/2016 9:32:59 PM, SolonKR wrote:
Except I've never done anything that paragraph claims I have -_-

Don't reply to me, reply to Skep.

I did, but it was never addressed and this is the second time that someone has agreed with it.
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 9:56:39 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 9:53:00 PM, SolonKR wrote:
At 6/28/2016 9:35:57 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
You cannot silence speech for any given reason unless it's directly harassing a person that would like to be left alone or if it is a death threat. That is as far as I would go, and even that should be skeptical and highly debated by lawmakers.

We're not talking about the country. We're talking about DDO, which is run by a privately owned company. In terms of where our rights are derived from, for the purposes of this site, they come from Juggle, not from our innate person-hood. So, justify your stance.
Tell me why I should be allowed to call you, say, a f****** c*** in the forums, and how that's speech.

It would be rather easy for me to tell you how calling someone a "f****** c***" is speech, considering the definition of speech itself. Should this be tolerated to a high degree in the forums? No, I don't think it's awfully a good thing for us to tolerate constant verbal harassment, but there's a vast difference between calling someone that truly deserves it "stupid" and yelling profanities at them.
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.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 9:57:09 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 9:53:04 PM, SolonKR wrote:
At 6/28/2016 9:36:40 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 6/28/2016 9:32:59 PM, SolonKR wrote:
Except I've never done anything that paragraph claims I have -_-

Don't reply to me, reply to Skep.

I did, but it was never addressed and this is the second time that someone has agreed with it.

Okay, that's fine then. Did you cut your pedo-beard yet Solon or do I need to give you a lesson in the hangouts?
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.
SolonKR
Posts: 4,041
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 10:00:29 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 9:56:39 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 6/28/2016 9:53:00 PM, SolonKR wrote:
We're not talking about the country. We're talking about DDO, which is run by a privately owned company. In terms of where our rights are derived from, for the purposes of this site, they come from Juggle, not from our innate person-hood. So, justify your stance.
Tell me why I should be allowed to call you, say, a f****** c*** in the forums, and how that's speech.

It would be rather easy for me to tell you how calling someone a "f****** c***" is speech, considering the definition of speech itself. Should this be tolerated to a high degree in the forums? No, I don't think it's awfully a good thing for us to tolerate constant verbal harassment, but there's a vast difference between calling someone that truly deserves it "stupid" and yelling profanities at them.

We're talking about the more legal sense, not the literal sense. But, we're getting somewhere.
How can you judge when someone deserves to be called stupid? Since you don't believe "constant verbal harassment" should be tolerated, where do you draw the line, and why?
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 10:10:45 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 10:00:29 PM, SolonKR wrote:
At 6/28/2016 9:56:39 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 6/28/2016 9:53:00 PM, SolonKR wrote:
We're not talking about the country. We're talking about DDO, which is run by a privately owned company. In terms of where our rights are derived from, for the purposes of this site, they come from Juggle, not from our innate person-hood. So, justify your stance.
Tell me why I should be allowed to call you, say, a f****** c*** in the forums, and how that's speech.

It would be rather easy for me to tell you how calling someone a "f****** c***" is speech, considering the definition of speech itself. Should this be tolerated to a high degree in the forums? No, I don't think it's awfully a good thing for us to tolerate constant verbal harassment, but there's a vast difference between calling someone that truly deserves it "stupid" and yelling profanities at them.

We're talking about the more legal sense, not the literal sense. But, we're getting somewhere.
How can you judge when someone deserves to be called stupid? Since you don't believe "constant verbal harassment" should be tolerated, where do you draw the line, and why?

You cannot judge when someone deserves to be called stupid, nor should you. It's perfectly fine, in the legal sense, and should be fine, to call anyone you would like stupid. Stifling dissent and ending insults happens to be one of the most moronic tools of law that exists.

On the other hand, constant verbal harassment is very easily defined, in the legal sense, as being a perpetual harassment of another person. Harassment online doesn't and shouldn't exist, as it's very easy to simply ignore this person. For the sake of this site, harassing someone or insulting someone constantly shouldn't be allowed to such a high degree, but in real life it should be.
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.
SolonKR
Posts: 4,041
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 10:15:23 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 10:10:45 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
On the other hand, constant verbal harassment is very easily defined, in the legal sense, as being a perpetual harassment of another person. Harassment online doesn't and shouldn't exist, as it's very easy to simply ignore this person. For the sake of this site, harassing someone or insulting someone constantly shouldn't be allowed to such a high degree, but in real life it should be.

Huh. From the way you worded this, it's almost like we don't really disagree on this subject at all (minus the second sentence and the last seven words).
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3