Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Moderation

Mikal
Posts: 11,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 6:14:42 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Since everyone else is sharing their thoughts on moderation, I figured I might as well do the same. This has been a hot button topic recently, and the idea of rolling back moderation seems to be the next "big" thing to talk about. I am going to break this down into sections

(A) Is moderation to strict

I would answer this with a resounding no. This is especially true if you compare DDO to other sites on the internet and specifically other forum based sites. Moderators are not even required to give you a reason or explain why they are banning you most of the time. They just ban you upon a conduct breach, and are not even really required to explain their logic or rationale behind it. The logic is synonymous with a breach in the policy or code that you adhere to while using the site in question. Moderation on DDO is performed exceptionally well.

We actually have a moderator that cares about us and the site enough to invest personal interest and time into his job. Take the YYW ban for example. Since the event became a public spectacle, Max could have just simply banned him and that could have been the end of it. Yet he decided not to just post an OP for why he was banned, but discuss with members who were opposed to the idea as to why he was banned in overly excessive detail. He engaged in this through straw mans, deflections of the initial topic, and other various forums of idiotic claims. I do not use the term idiotic loosely, but it's the best possible way to describe some of the accusations brought up in that sht show by YYW and the people opposing his ban.

The idea that max is some sort of omnipotent heartless dictator is quite absurd. He is very fair to everyone he engages with. He is not being manipulated, which is another idiotic thought and claim in this entire ordeal. I'm quite sure he asks the other mods and the presidential staff their thoughts on the matter, but that is with due cause. You would want someone to take into account all opinions, perspectives, and thoughts before they actually implement a ban. The "buck starts and ends with him", is a true statement but you should be happy that he is so open minded that he chooses to listen to other peoples viewpoints before he makes a final decision on his own. If he did not have people opposing him, or agreeing with him, then it would be a true dictatorship. Max is as bipartisan as it gets with bans, and if anything is almost to lenient to a fault with most of them.

(B) People have the right not to be offended

I think this is mostly a straw man to the actual issue at hand. The idea that is presented is that you should not be banned when you offend someone. Which is in a way true to some minimal degree. Imagine if you tell a christian you are a muslim, and he gets offended. Should you be banned for offending the christian? The logical answer is no, it's absurd. This is a debate website so people most certainly need some sort of thick skin. If you tell someone their argument makes no sense and is stupid, it's not an ad hom. You are attacking what they are arguing and not attacking them personally. Again that does not constitute a ban. People should not be banned for offending someone within proper context.

Now imagine if you have a black member, and you tell him something like "you're a retarded nigger". At that point that member has the right to be offended. You just committed an ad hom. I mean I've called people "niggas" and threaten to "kill" them in rap battles all the time and I've never heard one thing from moderation about it. It's all about the context of how you say something and how it's implied practically. Simply saying a word is not going to get you banned with how the conduct policy is set up, nor is offending someone. It's when you start crossing over into the world of ad hominems when the banning process is initiated

People do not get banned for offending someone, they get banned because of how they offend them. If you call someone an idiot or a retard in a negative way that is an attack on their character, so you are not being banned for offending them. You are being banned because you chose to attack them. I mean the two could be synonymous in some ways, but it's the actual act of committing an ad hominem that getting that person banned.

To tie this back into (a), even then that does not get you banned. It's a debate website, and we get heated. Max is aware of this. Never in the history of ever has he banned someone for calling someone an idiot on their first offense, or their second or third offense for that matter. He bans someone when the pattern of ad hominems is so prevalent and such an issue that there is no signs of reformation or regret for what that person is doing. When they show no signs that they are changing, or are willing to change that is when they actual process of a ban begins.

We are using a privately owned website and what we are allowed to do is defined by the policy that we abide by and by what Juggle has chosen to set up as our "rules". Our rights are governed by their polices and procedures which is interpreted by the mods. We obviously have the right to say what we want, but again it's all about context. Thank God the mods interpret the rules in a reasonable manner, or nearly half of the site would be banned for cursing and flaming.

_____________

The claims in this entire ordeal are as close to objectively idiotic as you can get.

Supposedly members petitioned for YYW to be banned, which were named by YYW. All of the members in question denied that they even reported him at all, nor would I expect the members in that list to actually care. The idea that people can actually influence or lobby airmax to ban people is asinine. Someone telling him to ban someone else simply acts as reporting mechanism. A report warrants an investigation of what the report is about. The same as any other report in any aspect of life that you can think of. Even if those members asked max to ban YYW, for the ban to actually happen their would have to be merit to the accusations. Meaning the members reporting him are not at fault for his behavior, or are they the cause for his ban. They are just the mechanism used to trigger the review process.

None of this is rocket science

TLDR:

The mods are not bias, you cannot lobby them, and it's almost impossible to get banned unless your acting like a total jackass. If you get banned you deserve it.

When you have a member that excessively abuses the fairness of the mods on the site, and relentlessly commits ad hominems with vigorous abrasiveness while showing no signs of compassion or reformation then that member deserves to be banned. He is at that point a detriment to the well being of the site and should be removed to he calms down or is wiling to change.
lannan13
Posts: 23,111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 8:03:44 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 6:14:42 PM, Mikal wrote:

TLDR:

The mods are not bias, you cannot lobby them, and it's almost impossible to get banned unless your acting like a total jackass. If you get banned you deserve it.

When you have a member that excessively abuses the fairness of the mods on the site, and relentlessly commits ad hominems with vigorous abrasiveness while showing no signs of compassion or reformation then that member deserves to be banned. He is at that point a detriment to the well being of the site and should be removed to he calms down or is wiling to change.

This is the first time that I've agreed with you on something in a long time.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
fire_wings
Posts: 5,563
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 8:39:12 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 6:14:42 PM, Mikal wrote:
Since everyone else is sharing their thoughts on moderation, I figured I might as well do the same. This has been a hot button topic recently, and the idea of rolling back moderation seems to be the next "big" thing to talk about. I am going to break this down into sections

(A) Is moderation to strict

I would answer this with a resounding no. This is especially true if you compare DDO to other sites on the internet and specifically other forum based sites. Moderators are not even required to give you a reason or explain why they are banning you most of the time. They just ban you upon a conduct breach, and are not even really required to explain their logic or rationale behind it. The logic is synonymous with a breach in the policy or code that you adhere to while using the site in question. Moderation on DDO is performed exceptionally well.

We actually have a moderator that cares about us and the site enough to invest personal interest and time into his job. Take the YYW ban for example. Since the event became a public spectacle, Max could have just simply banned him and that could have been the end of it. Yet he decided not to just post an OP for why he was banned, but discuss with members who were opposed to the idea as to why he was banned in overly excessive detail. He engaged in this through straw mans, deflections of the initial topic, and other various forums of idiotic claims. I do not use the term idiotic loosely, but it's the best possible way to describe some of the accusations brought up in that sht show by YYW and the people opposing his ban.

The idea that max is some sort of omnipotent heartless dictator is quite absurd. He is very fair to everyone he engages with. He is not being manipulated, which is another idiotic thought and claim in this entire ordeal. I'm quite sure he asks the other mods and the presidential staff their thoughts on the matter, but that is with due cause. You would want someone to take into account all opinions, perspectives, and thoughts before they actually implement a ban. The "buck starts and ends with him", is a true statement but you should be happy that he is so open minded that he chooses to listen to other peoples viewpoints before he makes a final decision on his own. If he did not have people opposing him, or agreeing with him, then it would be a true dictatorship. Max is as bipartisan as it gets with bans, and if anything is almost to lenient to a fault with most of them.

(B) People have the right not to be offended

I think this is mostly a straw man to the actual issue at hand. The idea that is presented is that you should not be banned when you offend someone. Which is in a way true to some minimal degree. Imagine if you tell a christian you are a muslim, and he gets offended. Should you be banned for offending the christian? The logical answer is no, it's absurd. This is a debate website so people most certainly need some sort of thick skin. If you tell someone their argument makes no sense and is stupid, it's not an ad hom. You are attacking what they are arguing and not attacking them personally. Again that does not constitute a ban. People should not be banned for offending someone within proper context.

Now imagine if you have a black member, and you tell him something like "you're a retarded nigger". At that point that member has the right to be offended. You just committed an ad hom. I mean I've called people "niggas" and threaten to "kill" them in rap battles all the time and I've never heard one thing from moderation about it. It's all about the context of how you say something and how it's implied practically. Simply saying a word is not going to get you banned with how the conduct policy is set up, nor is offending someone. It's when you start crossing over into the world of ad hominems when the banning process is initiated

People do not get banned for offending someone, they get banned because of how they offend them. If you call someone an idiot or a retard in a negative way that is an attack on their character, so you are not being banned for offending them. You are being banned because you chose to attack them. I mean the two could be synonymous in some ways, but it's the actual act of committing an ad hominem that getting that person banned.

To tie this back into (a), even then that does not get you banned. It's a debate website, and we get heated. Max is aware of this. Never in the history of ever has he banned someone for calling someone an idiot on their first offense, or their second or third offense for that matter. He bans someone when the pattern of ad hominems is so prevalent and such an issue that there is no signs of reformation or regret for what that person is doing. When they show no signs that they are changing, or are willing to change that is when they actual process of a ban begins.

We are using a privately owned website and what we are allowed to do is defined by the policy that we abide by and by what Juggle has chosen to set up as our "rules". Our rights are governed by their polices and procedures which is interpreted by the mods. We obviously have the right to say what we want, but again it's all about context. Thank God the mods interpret the rules in a reasonable manner, or nearly half of the site would be banned for cursing and flaming.


_____________

The claims in this entire ordeal are as close to objectively idiotic as you can get.

Supposedly members petitioned for YYW to be banned, which were named by YYW. All of the members in question denied that they even reported him at all, nor would I expect the members in that list to actually care. The idea that people can actually influence or lobby airmax to ban people is asinine. Someone telling him to ban someone else simply acts as reporting mechanism. A report warrants an investigation of what the report is about. The same as any other report in any aspect of life that you can think of. Even if those members asked max to ban YYW, for the ban to actually happen their would have to be merit to the accusations. Meaning the members reporting him are not at fault for his behavior, or are they the cause for his ban. They are just the mechanism used to trigger the review process.

None of this is rocket science


TLDR:

The mods are not bias, you cannot lobby them, and it's almost impossible to get banned unless your acting like a total jackass. If you get banned you deserve it.

I think this is your 10th time saying this.


When you have a member that excessively abuses the fairness of the mods on the site, and relentlessly commits ad hominems with vigorous abrasiveness while showing no signs of compassion or reformation then that member deserves to be banned. He is at that point a detriment to the well being of the site and should be removed to he calms down or is wiling to change.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,016
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2016 1:10:24 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 6:14:42 PM, Mikal wrote:
Since everyone else is sharing their thoughts on moderation, I figured I might as well do the same. This has been a hot button topic recently, and the idea of rolling back moderation seems to be the next "big" thing to talk about. I am going to break this down into sections

(A) Is moderation to strict

I would answer this with a resounding no. This is especially true if you compare DDO to other sites on the internet and specifically other forum based sites. Moderators are not even required to give you a reason or explain why they are banning you most of the time. They just ban you upon a conduct breach, and are not even really required to explain their logic or rationale behind it. The logic is synonymous with a breach in the policy or code that you adhere to while using the site in question. Moderation on DDO is performed exceptionally well.

We actually have a moderator that cares about us and the site enough to invest personal interest and time into his job. Take the YYW ban for example. Since the event became a public spectacle, Max could have just simply banned him and that could have been the end of it. Yet he decided not to just post an OP for why he was banned, but discuss with members who were opposed to the idea as to why he was banned in overly excessive detail. He engaged in this through straw mans, deflections of the initial topic, and other various forums of idiotic claims. I do not use the term idiotic loosely, but it's the best possible way to describe some of the accusations brought up in that sht show by YYW and the people opposing his ban.

The idea that max is some sort of omnipotent heartless dictator is quite absurd. He is very fair to everyone he engages with. He is not being manipulated, which is another idiotic thought and claim in this entire ordeal. I'm quite sure he asks the other mods and the presidential staff their thoughts on the matter, but that is with due cause. You would want someone to take into account all opinions, perspectives, and thoughts before they actually implement a ban. The "buck starts and ends with him", is a true statement but you should be happy that he is so open minded that he chooses to listen to other peoples viewpoints before he makes a final decision on his own. If he did not have people opposing him, or agreeing with him, then it would be a true dictatorship. Max is as bipartisan as it gets with bans, and if anything is almost to lenient to a fault with most of them.

(B) People have the right not to be offended

I think this is mostly a straw man to the actual issue at hand. The idea that is presented is that you should not be banned when you offend someone. Which is in a way true to some minimal degree. Imagine if you tell a christian you are a muslim, and he gets offended. Should you be banned for offending the christian? The logical answer is no, it's absurd. This is a debate website so people most certainly need some sort of thick skin. If you tell someone their argument makes no sense and is stupid, it's not an ad hom. You are attacking what they are arguing and not attacking them personally. Again that does not constitute a ban. People should not be banned for offending someone within proper context.

Now imagine if you have a black member, and you tell him something like "you're a retarded nigger". At that point that member has the right to be offended. You just committed an ad hom. I mean I've called people "niggas" and threaten to "kill" them in rap battles all the time and I've never heard one thing from moderation about it. It's all about the context of how you say something and how it's implied practically. Simply saying a word is not going to get you banned with how the conduct policy is set up, nor is offending someone. It's when you start crossing over into the world of ad hominems when the banning process is initiated

People do not get banned for offending someone, they get banned because of how they offend them. If you call someone an idiot or a retard in a negative way that is an attack on their character, so you are not being banned for offending them. You are being banned because you chose to attack them. I mean the two could be synonymous in some ways, but it's the actual act of committing an ad hominem that getting that person banned.

To tie this back into (a), even then that does not get you banned. It's a debate website, and we get heated. Max is aware of this. Never in the history of ever has he banned someone for calling someone an idiot on their first offense, or their second or third offense for that matter. He bans someone when the pattern of ad hominems is so prevalent and such an issue that there is no signs of reformation or regret for what that person is doing. When they show no signs that they are changing, or are willing to change that is when they actual process of a ban begins.

We are using a privately owned website and what we are allowed to do is defined by the policy that we abide by and by what Juggle has chosen to set up as our "rules". Our rights are governed by their polices and procedures which is interpreted by the mods. We obviously have the right to say what we want, but again it's all about context. Thank God the mods interpret the rules in a reasonable manner, or nearly half of the site would be banned for cursing and flaming.


_____________

The claims in this entire ordeal are as close to objectively idiotic as you can get.

Supposedly members petitioned for YYW to be banned, which were named by YYW. All of the members in question denied that they even reported him at all, nor would I expect the members in that list to actually care. The idea that people can actually influence or lobby airmax to ban people is asinine. Someone telling him to ban someone else simply acts as reporting mechanism. A report warrants an investigation of what the report is about. The same as any other report in any aspect of life that you can think of. Even if those members asked max to ban YYW, for the ban to actually happen their would have to be merit to the accusations. Meaning the members reporting him are not at fault for his behavior, or are they the cause for his ban. They are just the mechanism used to trigger the review process.

None of this is rocket science


TLDR:

The mods are not bias, you cannot lobby them, and it's almost impossible to get banned unless your acting like a total jackass. If you get banned you deserve it.

When you have a member that excessively abuses the fairness of the mods on the site, and relentlessly commits ad hominems with vigorous abrasiveness while showing no signs of compassion or reformation then that member deserves to be banned. He is at that point a detriment to the well being of the site and should be removed to he calms down or is wiling to change.

Bump!
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
YYW
Posts: 36,424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2016 4:10:12 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 6:14:42 PM, Mikal wrote:
Since everyone else is sharing their thoughts on moderation, I figured I might as well do the same. This has been a hot button topic recently, and the idea of rolling back moderation seems to be the next "big" thing to talk about. I am going to break this down into sections

(A) Is moderation to strict

I would answer this with a resounding no. This is especially true if you compare DDO to other sites on the internet and specifically other forum based sites. Moderators are not even required to give you a reason or explain why they are banning you most of the time. They just ban you upon a conduct breach, and are not even really required to explain their logic or rationale behind it. The logic is synonymous with a breach in the policy or code that you adhere to while using the site in question. Moderation on DDO is performed exceptionally well.

We actually have a moderator that cares about us and the site enough to invest personal interest and time into his job. Take the YYW ban for example. Since the event became a public spectacle, Max could have just simply banned him and that could have been the end of it. Yet he decided not to just post an OP for why he was banned, but discuss with members who were opposed to the idea as to why he was banned in overly excessive detail. He engaged in this through straw mans, deflections of the initial topic, and other various forums of idiotic claims. I do not use the term idiotic loosely, but it's the best possible way to describe some of the accusations brought up in that sht show by YYW and the people opposing his ban.

The idea that max is some sort of omnipotent heartless dictator is quite absurd. He is very fair to everyone he engages with. He is not being manipulated, which is another idiotic thought and claim in this entire ordeal. I'm quite sure he asks the other mods and the presidential staff their thoughts on the matter, but that is with due cause. You would want someone to take into account all opinions, perspectives, and thoughts before they actually implement a ban. The "buck starts and ends with him", is a true statement but you should be happy that he is so open minded that he chooses to listen to other peoples viewpoints before he makes a final decision on his own. If he did not have people opposing him, or agreeing with him, then it would be a true dictatorship. Max is as bipartisan as it gets with bans, and if anything is almost to lenient to a fault with most of them.

(B) People have the right not to be offended

I think this is mostly a straw man to the actual issue at hand. The idea that is presented is that you should not be banned when you offend someone. Which is in a way true to some minimal degree. Imagine if you tell a christian you are a muslim, and he gets offended. Should you be banned for offending the christian? The logical answer is no, it's absurd. This is a debate website so people most certainly need some sort of thick skin. If you tell someone their argument makes no sense and is stupid, it's not an ad hom. You are attacking what they are arguing and not attacking them personally. Again that does not constitute a ban. People should not be banned for offending someone within proper context.

Now imagine if you have a black member, and you tell him something like "you're a retarded nigger". At that point that member has the right to be offended. You just committed an ad hom. I mean I've called people "niggas" and threaten to "kill" them in rap battles all the time and I've never heard one thing from moderation about it. It's all about the context of how you say something and how it's implied practically. Simply saying a word is not going to get you banned with how the conduct policy is set up, nor is offending someone. It's when you start crossing over into the world of ad hominems when the banning process is initiated

People do not get banned for offending someone, they get banned because of how they offend them. If you call someone an idiot or a retard in a negative way that is an attack on their character, so you are not being banned for offending them. You are being banned because you chose to attack them. I mean the two could be synonymous in some ways, but it's the actual act of committing an ad hominem that getting that person banned.

To tie this back into (a), even then that does not get you banned. It's a debate website, and we get heated. Max is aware of this. Never in the history of ever has he banned someone for calling someone an idiot on their first offense, or their second or third offense for that matter. He bans someone when the pattern of ad hominems is so prevalent and such an issue that there is no signs of reformation or regret for what that person is doing. When they show no signs that they are changing, or are willing to change that is when they actual process of a ban begins.

We are using a privately owned website and what we are allowed to do is defined by the policy that we abide by and by what Juggle has chosen to set up as our "rules". Our rights are governed by their polices and procedures which is interpreted by the mods. We obviously have the right to say what we want, but again it's all about context. Thank God the mods interpret the rules in a reasonable manner, or nearly half of the site would be banned for cursing and flaming.


_____________

The claims in this entire ordeal are as close to objectively idiotic as you can get.

Supposedly members petitioned for YYW to be banned, which were named by YYW. All of the members in question denied that they even reported him at all, nor would I expect the members in that list to actually care. The idea that people can actually influence or lobby airmax to ban people is asinine. Someone telling him to ban someone else simply acts as reporting mechanism. A report warrants an investigation of what the report is about. The same as any other report in any aspect of life that you can think of. Even if those members asked max to ban YYW, for the ban to actually happen their would have to be merit to the accusations. Meaning the members reporting him are not at fault for his behavior, or are they the cause for his ban. They are just the mechanism used to trigger the review process.

None of this is rocket science


TLDR:

The mods are not bias, you cannot lobby them, and it's almost impossible to get banned unless your acting like a total jackass. If you get banned you deserve it.

When you have a member that excessively abuses the fairness of the mods on the site, and relentlessly commits ad hominems with vigorous abrasiveness while showing no signs of compassion or reformation then that member deserves to be banned. He is at that point a detriment to the well being of the site and should be removed to he calms down or is wiling to change.

roflmao
Tsar of DDO