Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Terms of Use Modification

Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 2:19:57 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
debate.org Terms of Use states that members "[w]ill follow the following rules while participating on the site. Any disregard for these rules or any of the other terms or guidelines may result in termination of a member's",
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.

Many members of this site advocate views that are implied or direct threats of violence on not just a person, but millions of others. Members advocate for property to be seized from peaceful people, while other members state views that people should under the threat of violence not be aloud to purchase a product from another person, and worse of all are those that advocate violence to ensure the usage of currency in transactions. All these advocates agree that violence should be used against others for the gains of themselves and those they support.

DDO's terms of use clearly state that members can not imply use of violence. The moderation of this site has a record of deleting posts that hurt feelings but will let stand posts that advocate violence against people, especially for economic reasons. These threads that promote collective violence have been accepted on this site from the beginning. Some examples of issues that are threatening violence on others are redistribution, socialism, Keynesian economics, involuntary government funding (taxation) just to name a few. All these issues, use the threat of collective violence to benefit a favored group. DDO has a record of allowing these views to be expressed, but if an individual makes a threat against a single person action is taken.

Some might state that this is only political discourse, no matter how uncivilized. Any political or economic ideas that requires violent force should be immediately disregarded. Us as a society should be able to function civilly without threatening each other.

Recommendation is for DDO to remove the "No threats or implications thereof" clause from the terms of use to be consistent with the attitudes and history of this site, and to issue an apology to members that have be banned for threats.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 2:25:20 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 2:19:57 AM, Chang29 wrote:
debate.org Terms of Use states that members "[w]ill follow the following rules while participating on the site. Any disregard for these rules or any of the other terms or guidelines may result in termination of a member's",
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.

Many members of this site advocate views that are implied or direct threats of violence on not just a person, but millions of others. Members advocate for property to be seized from peaceful people, while other members state views that people should under the threat of violence not be aloud to purchase a product from another person, and worse of all are those that advocate violence to ensure the usage of currency in transactions. All these advocates agree that violence should be used against others for the gains of themselves and those they support.

DDO's terms of use clearly state that members can not imply use of violence. The moderation of this site has a record of deleting posts that hurt feelings but will let stand posts that advocate violence against people, especially for economic reasons. These threads that promote collective violence have been accepted on this site from the beginning. Some examples of issues that are threatening violence on others are redistribution, socialism, Keynesian economics, involuntary government funding (taxation) just to name a few. All these issues, use the threat of collective violence to benefit a favored group. DDO has a record of allowing these views to be expressed, but if an individual makes a threat against a single person action is taken.

Some might state that this is only political discourse, no matter how uncivilized. Any political or economic ideas that requires violent force should be immediately disregarded. Us as a society should be able to function civilly without threatening each other.

Recommendation is for DDO to remove the "No threats or implications thereof" clause from the terms of use to be consistent with the attitudes and history of this site, and to issue an apology to members that have be banned for threats.

I agree with one part of this. Juggle certainly should be apologizing to us.
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...
SeventhProfessor
Posts: 5,085
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 3:01:05 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 3:00:27 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
hmm, this is an interesting suggestion, but....

http://i.imgur.com...

http://www.reactiongifs.com...

this is highly inappropriate
#UnbanTheMadman

#StandWithBossy

#BetOnThett

"bossy r u like 85 years old and have lost ur mind"
~mysteriouscrystals

"I've honestly never seen seventh post anything that wasn't completely idiotic in a trying-to-be-funny way."
~F-16

https://docs.google.com...
lannan13
Posts: 23,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 3:07:22 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
http://memesvault.com...
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-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...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 4:23:43 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 3:00:27 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
hmm, this is an interesting suggestion, but....

http://i.imgur.com...

http://www.reactiongifs.com...

So , the terms of use are meaningless and threats of violence are supported by the moderator.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 4:26:31 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 4:23:43 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 7/6/2016 3:00:27 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
hmm, this is an interesting suggestion, but....

http://i.imgur.com...

http://www.reactiongifs.com...

So , the terms of use are meaningless and threats of violence are supported by the moderator.

I suppose that's one way to look at it.

I think it's fair that we view direct threats to an individual as different to what could be perceive as threats in the context of a political discussion, that aren't really threats aimed at anyone.

I think there's an interesting philosophical discussion to be had here, though I'm not sure it's practical in terms of the terms of service.
Debate.org Moderator
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 4:51:42 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 4:26:31 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 7/6/2016 4:23:43 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 7/6/2016 3:00:27 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
hmm, this is an interesting suggestion, but....

http://i.imgur.com...

http://www.reactiongifs.com...

So , the terms of use are meaningless and threats of violence are supported by the moderator.

I suppose that's one way to look at it.

I think it's fair that we view direct threats to an individual as different to what could be perceive as threats in the context of a political discussion, that aren't really threats aimed at anyone.

I think there's an interesting philosophical discussion to be had here, though I'm not sure it's practical in terms of the terms of service.

Not a philosophical argument, it is a practical issue. Moderators are allowing clear threats of violence to be stated on this site. People have advocated all types of threats. There are threads about taking a person property and giving it to another, while others will state that people should be denied a right to voluntarily exchange with another all with the threat of violence.

If a member posts that he is going to another members house and take 40% of another members stuff, that is a violation of the terms of use. I think it 10 members came together that would still be a violation, but how many members does it take for the threat not be considered a threat?

I am just asking for the terms of use be modified to reflect these views accurately.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 4:58:28 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 4:51:42 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 7/6/2016 4:26:31 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 7/6/2016 4:23:43 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 7/6/2016 3:00:27 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
hmm, this is an interesting suggestion, but....

http://i.imgur.com...

http://www.reactiongifs.com...

So , the terms of use are meaningless and threats of violence are supported by the moderator.

I suppose that's one way to look at it.

I think it's fair that we view direct threats to an individual as different to what could be perceive as threats in the context of a political discussion, that aren't really threats aimed at anyone.

I think there's an interesting philosophical discussion to be had here, though I'm not sure it's practical in terms of the terms of service.


Not a philosophical argument, it is a practical issue. Moderators are allowing clear threats of violence to be stated on this site. People have advocated all types of threats. There are threads about taking a person property and giving it to another, while others will state that people should be denied a right to voluntarily exchange with another all with the threat of violence.

If a member posts that he is going to another members house and take 40% of another members stuff, that is a violation of the terms of use. I think it 10 members came together that would still be a violation, but how many members does it take for the threat not be considered a threat?

I am just asking for the terms of use be modified to reflect these views accurately.

Should discussions on (or endorsements of) taxation and socialism and the like be considered "threats or implications thereof" in terms of moderation?
Debate.org Moderator
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 5:30:26 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 4:58:28 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 7/6/2016 4:51:42 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 7/6/2016 4:26:31 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 7/6/2016 4:23:43 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 7/6/2016 3:00:27 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
hmm, this is an interesting suggestion, but....

http://i.imgur.com...

http://www.reactiongifs.com...

So , the terms of use are meaningless and threats of violence are supported by the moderator.

I suppose that's one way to look at it.

I think it's fair that we view direct threats to an individual as different to what could be perceive as threats in the context of a political discussion, that aren't really threats aimed at anyone.

I think there's an interesting philosophical discussion to be had here, though I'm not sure it's practical in terms of the terms of service.


Not a philosophical argument, it is a practical issue. Moderators are allowing clear threats of violence to be stated on this site. People have advocated all types of threats. There are threads about taking a person property and giving it to another, while others will state that people should be denied a right to voluntarily exchange with another all with the threat of violence.

If a member posts that he is going to another members house and take 40% of another members stuff, that is a violation of the terms of use. I think it 10 members came together that would still be a violation, but how many members does it take for the threat not be considered a threat?

I am just asking for the terms of use be modified to reflect these views accurately.

Should discussions on (or endorsements of) taxation and socialism and the like be considered "threats or implications thereof" in terms of moderation?

Those are threats of collective physical violence to individuals, thus a violation of the current terms of use.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 6:26:18 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 4:58:28 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 7/6/2016 4:51:42 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 7/6/2016 4:26:31 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 7/6/2016 4:23:43 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 7/6/2016 3:00:27 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
hmm, this is an interesting suggestion, but....

http://i.imgur.com...

http://www.reactiongifs.com...

So , the terms of use are meaningless and threats of violence are supported by the moderator.

I suppose that's one way to look at it.

I think it's fair that we view direct threats to an individual as different to what could be perceive as threats in the context of a political discussion, that aren't really threats aimed at anyone.

I think there's an interesting philosophical discussion to be had here, though I'm not sure it's practical in terms of the terms of service.


Not a philosophical argument, it is a practical issue. Moderators are allowing clear threats of violence to be stated on this site. People have advocated all types of threats. There are threads about taking a person property and giving it to another, while others will state that people should be denied a right to voluntarily exchange with another all with the threat of violence.

If a member posts that he is going to another members house and take 40% of another members stuff, that is a violation of the terms of use. I think it 10 members came together that would still be a violation, but how many members does it take for the threat not be considered a threat?

I am just asking for the terms of use be modified to reflect these views accurately.

Should discussions on (or endorsements of) taxation and socialism and the like be considered "threats or implications thereof" in terms of moderation?

To not be in violation of the term of use, how many people need to be in the group making threats against individuals or how vague does the threat need to be?

If a member states, that 25 others are going to use armed men take 40% of the stuff of members that have a certain detailed characteristic in common, is that acceptable? The history of this site demonstrates that statements such as that are within the terms of use.

Yet, if one person states that he is going to take 40% of another members stuff with violence, that is a violation.

Please, clarify or change terms of use.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.