Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

The need to decentralize debate.org

darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 6:56:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The current system of centralizing power in a monopoly in moderation is naturally corruptible. The moderators will justify expanding their powers, taking away our liberty and freedoms. We need to disband the moderators powers and create a system of competing moderation. The process will give any person the ability to become moderator. This will lead to greater efficiency.

Responses to criticisms:
#1 People will just ban one another at will, and nothing will stop them:
This is incorrect, because banning someone is an expensive process. It takes time to click on a person"s cite. Mediation will be the preferred options of resolving disputes instead of randomly banning someone. Plus If you ban someone without In the current system, If Innomen and Airmax want to abuse their powers, we can"t simply ban or retaliate against them, since they have a monopoly on ban abilities. Furthermore, If we want to point fingers at who has driven the most members from the site through banning, it is these two evil people.

#2
A poly-TOS is better than a single TOS, since it creates competition for competing rules. Judges will exist based on fairness, instead of arbitrary power given to them. They will create a fairer TOS system then a single monopoly system could. Furthermore, a unified system would emerge. There"s no problem in other industries where there needs to be a centralized system that creates standards of manufacturing. The market naturally makes them emerge.

#3 If you don"t like DDO you can just leave

Except where would we go? All other sites have oppressive monopoly moderation as well. This is a childish, stupid response.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 7:18:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 6:56:12 PM, darkkermit wrote:
The current system of centralizing power in a monopoly in moderation is naturally corruptible. The moderators will justify expanding their powers, taking away our liberty and freedoms. We need to disband the moderators powers and create a system of competing moderation. The process will give any person the ability to become moderator. This will lead to greater efficiency.

There's a couple of interesting things at play in this post here. First, for the most part, moderators here as far as I can tell are either a.) proprietors of the site, or b.) elected into presidency, which we can now confirm comes with mod powers, interestingly. Innomen suddenly got Mod powers as president, and Airmax did as well. That leads to the second thing: if it's not b. with which you have contention, it must be a. That's curious, as someone who believes that one should be able to do whatever he or she wants with his or her property. This website belongs to Juggle. Just because they're not exploiting us or littering the site with advertisements, doesn't mean it isn't any less their website to do with what they please.

On the other hand, I prefer very light banning. Unless someone is literally doing something harmful, like say, hacking personal information or personally threatening someone, then I don't think that banning is in order. But, that's just my personal perspective, and although I wouldn't agree with every single banning that's occurred, I will assert that the decision to ban someone isn't made unilaterally, and instead in a very sophisticated way that involves everyone that cares to be involved. Don't we have a prosecution system? I don't see us needing anything else to determine who mods are going to ban.

Responses to criticisms:
#1 People will just ban one another at will, and nothing will stop them:
This is incorrect, because banning someone is an expensive process. It takes time to click on a person"s cite. Mediation will be the preferred options of resolving disputes instead of randomly banning someone. Plus If you ban someone without In the current system, If Innomen and Airmax want to abuse their powers, we can"t simply ban or retaliate against them, since they have a monopoly on ban abilities. Furthermore, If we want to point fingers at who has driven the most members from the site through banning, it is these two evil people.

#2
A poly-TOS is better than a single TOS, since it creates competition for competing rules. Judges will exist based on fairness, instead of arbitrary power given to them. They will create a fairer TOS system then a single monopoly system could. Furthermore, a unified system would emerge. There"s no problem in other industries where there needs to be a centralized system that creates standards of manufacturing. The market naturally makes them emerge.

This is pretty superfluous... I don't think I want to deal with anything like that. Who would want to understand more than one TOS? No one would pay attention to that, and wouldn't feel accountable for knowing or following the rules.

#3 If you don"t like DDO you can just leave

Except where would we go? All other sites have oppressive monopoly moderation as well. This is a childish, stupid response.

I agree with you wholeheartedly here -- I'm here, because I want to be here. What people who say "if you don't like it, you can just leave" don't seem to be understanding is that their detractors are letting them know that they'd be fvcking it all up for most people who appreciate this website for what it is, and who generally made it that way.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 12:08:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Except where would we go? All other sites have oppressive monopoly moderation as well. This is a childish, stupid response.

/b
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 12:47:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Need for competition between institutions =/= competition within an institution.

/endthread
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 12:50:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 12:47:03 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Need for competition between institutions =/= competition within an institution.

/endthread

Isn't the government an institution and competition between institutes occurs because one can emigrate to another country? Just like one can emigrate to another website.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 12:54:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 12:50:26 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/14/2012 12:47:03 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Need for competition between institutions =/= competition within an institution.

/endthread

Isn't the government an institution and competition between institutes occurs because one can emigrate to another country? Just like one can emigrate to another website.
There are 200 some countries, all intertwined and cartelized by complex treaty systems, and they arrogate far more things as property than they've built (their response to new competition outside the cartels is outlined in the video)

There are billions of websites, and they each own a domain name out of near-infinite possible domain names, and the server they built.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 12:58:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 12:50:26 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/14/2012 12:47:03 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Need for competition between institutions =/= competition within an institution.

/endthread

Isn't the government an institution and competition between institutes occurs because one can emigrate to another country? Just like one can emigrate to another website.

It's competition in name only. If there's one grocery in your city, you can't very well say they don't have a monopoly just because you can move to a different city if you don't like their rates. There's a difference between a universal monopoly (where you're the only producer in existence) and a geographical monopoly (where you're the only producer in a given region).

Furthermore, your application is still fallacious since you're attempting a reductio by applying the wrong factor. Competition is good between institutions, not necessarily within them. Your post parodied polycentrism by saying we could have competing rule enforcement. That obviously ins't existentially possible since an institution is necessarily unitary.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 1:09:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
When I saw the word "decentralize" in the title I knew this was aimed at me.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 1:24:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
My "this-thread-is-a-troll-thread-made-to-make-fun-of-someones-beliefs-they-stated-in-another-thread" senses are tingling
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 1:48:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 7:18:55 PM, Ren wrote:
At 10/13/2012 6:56:12 PM, darkkermit wrote:
The current system of centralizing power in a monopoly in moderation is naturally corruptible. The moderators will justify expanding their powers, taking away our liberty and freedoms. We need to disband the moderators powers and create a system of competing moderation. The process will give any person the ability to become moderator. This will lead to greater efficiency.

There's a couple of interesting things at play in this post here. First, for the most part, moderators here as far as I can tell are either a.) proprietors of the site, or b.) elected into presidency, which we can now confirm comes with mod powers, interestingly. Innomen suddenly got Mod powers as president, and Airmax did as well. That leads to the second thing: if it's not b. with which you have contention, it must be a. That's curious, as someone who believes that one should be able to do whatever he or she wants with his or her property. This website belongs to Juggle. Just because they're not exploiting us or littering the site with advertisements, doesn't mean it isn't any less their website to do with what they please.


This misconception seems to persist no matter how many times it is corrected. The elected president does NOT become a moderator automatically. The presidential election elects a president who acts as a mediator between the membership and Juggle and in some cases that person may also be chosen to be a moderator (By being recommended by existing moderators and then vetted by Juggle). The selection of president and the selection of future moderators are necessarily separated.

The president may however set the tone for moderation even if they are not given access to the admin site, which is why it is important for members to choose a mature and objective president who shares their vision for the site. However, given the possibility of the presidential election resulting in someone chosen that Juggle deems not qualified to be a moderator, a separate process is necessary. If anyone is running for president to be "the mod" they should reconsider.

On the other hand, I prefer very light banning. Unless someone is literally doing something harmful, like say, hacking personal information or personally threatening someone, then I don't think that banning is in order. But, that's just my personal perspective, and although I wouldn't agree with every single banning that's occurred, I will assert that the decision to ban someone isn't made unilaterally, and instead in a very sophisticated way that involves everyone that cares to be involved. Don't we have a prosecution system? I don't see us needing anything else to determine who mods are going to ban.

Responses to criticisms:
#1 People will just ban one another at will, and nothing will stop them:
This is incorrect, because banning someone is an expensive process. It takes time to click on a person"s cite. Mediation will be the preferred options of resolving disputes instead of randomly banning someone. Plus If you ban someone without In the current system, If Innomen and Airmax want to abuse their powers, we can"t simply ban or retaliate against them, since they have a monopoly on ban abilities. Furthermore, If we want to point fingers at who has driven the most members from the site through banning, it is these two evil people.

#2
A poly-TOS is better than a single TOS, since it creates competition for competing rules. Judges will exist based on fairness, instead of arbitrary power given to them. They will create a fairer TOS system then a single monopoly system could. Furthermore, a unified system would emerge. There"s no problem in other industries where there needs to be a centralized system that creates standards of manufacturing. The market naturally makes them emerge.

This is pretty superfluous... I don't think I want to deal with anything like that. Who would want to understand more than one TOS? No one would pay attention to that, and wouldn't feel accountable for knowing or following the rules.

#3 If you don"t like DDO you can just leave

Except where would we go? All other sites have oppressive monopoly moderation as well. This is a childish, stupid response.

I agree with you wholeheartedly here -- I'm here, because I want to be here. What people who say "if you don't like it, you can just leave" don't seem to be understanding is that their detractors are letting them know that they'd be fvcking it all up for most people who appreciate this website for what it is, and who generally made it that way.
Debate.org Moderator