Total Posts:232|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Message from Moderator

airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 5:15:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hey DDO!

More specifically, hello contributors of the religion forum.

I hope you all had a nice holiday, or a nice day off of work (assuming that you did), or just a nice day in general, and I also hope that you continue to have nice days.

For those of you not familiar with who I am, let me introduce myself. I am Airmax1227, the sites head moderator. If you have a complaint about site moderation (or pretty much anything else), I'm the one you should blame.

I believe that those who know me pretty well have a good idea of how and why I choose to do certain things. I like moderation issues to be discrete, I don't like to have an overly visible presence on the site, and I don't want the site to become over-moderated. It's not my style to delete much, it's certainly not my style to call out problem members publicly (or to reply to problem posts), and I feel that generally being publicly aloof is preferable.

My style of moderation has unfortunately lead to certain areas where I am being far too permissive - and this is going to end.

The reality is that this is a large site requiring me to spend many hours a day just to keep up with all of my responsibilities. Due to this, there are certainly areas where I have been lax, and things have unfortunately gotten worse over time. The religion forum is a clear example of this. The personal attacks and generally rude/offensive behavior needs to be minimized and those responsible for this in a constant habitual way need to be removed from the site.

To this point, I've been content with warning the worst offenders when I happened to notice that type of behavior, or when it was reported. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to mitigate it to the extent that it is necessary and so other solutions have been attempted with varying degrees of success.

I do finally believe it is time to address the problem at it's source, and that is simply the lack of moderation due to me being too busy to give this forum the attention it deserves.

To that end, I am appointing Whiteflame to be a moderator of this specific forum. I have complete confidence in Whiteflame to oversee this forum and to communicate with members that continue to be a problem. I know he will keep me updated on anything that needs my attention, and that whatever he suggests will be thoughtful and prudent.

While everything ultimately will be my call, I know that Whiteflame is a responsible and thoughtful member that will take his responsibilities as a moderator seriously. I know that he understands how I approach things, and that with his eyes being specifically dedicated to improving this forum, that a positive change is imminent.

Just to be absolutely clear here, this is not an attempt to halt any type of speech or conversation topics except for that which is not appropriate. I believe I am extremely permissive regrading this, and that isn't about to change.

What is about to change though, is the constant personal attacks that go without consequence. I think everyone here is more than capable of engaging each other in a civil and reasonable way. Heated exchanges are inevitable and I don't expect that to change, but if your response to disagreement is a personal attack, threat of violence, or any other rude and offensive or otherwise unnecessary remark that has no place here, then you don't have any place here either and your membership will be revoked quickly.

Again, my moderation style isn't about to change. I am permissive intentionally, but I've never been ok with personal attacks and intentionally offensive nonsense. To this point I just haven't been able to spend the time needed to deal with it. Whiteflame will be able to though, and he will doubtlessly make recommendations to me that are appropriate to see this type of conduct come to an end.

For those who don't know what type of conduct isn't allowed, please refer to these links (You may also contact me directly to ask):

Personal attacks policy - http://www.debate.org...

TOS - http://www.debate.org...

If you have any questions or concerns, always feel free to contact me at any time. You may also contact Bladerunner (assistant moderator), Whiteflame (Religion forum moderator) or Mikal (Debate.org membership President).

I'd again like to thank Whiteflame for his assistance.

Thank you
Debate.org Moderator
SNP1
Posts: 2,404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 7:50:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 6:47:34 PM, lakiM wrote:
bump
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 11:55:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Wow airmax, 2,893 friends! Any concubines?
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 1:32:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 11:55:23 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
Wow airmax, 2,893 friends! Any concubines?

He's too cool for concubines.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 1:48:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 5:15:37 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
Hey DDO!

More specifically, hello contributors of the religion forum.

I hope you all had a nice holiday, or a nice day off of work (assuming that you did), or just a nice day in general, and I also hope that you continue to have nice days.

For those of you not familiar with who I am, let me introduce myself. I am Airmax1227, the sites head moderator. If you have a complaint about site moderation (or pretty much anything else), I'm the one you should blame.

I believe that those who know me pretty well have a good idea of how and why I choose to do certain things. I like moderation issues to be discrete, I don't like to have an overly visible presence on the site, and I don't want the site to become over-moderated. It's not my style to delete much, it's certainly not my style to call out problem members publicly (or to reply to problem posts), and I feel that generally being publicly aloof is preferable.

My style of moderation has unfortunately lead to certain areas where I am being far too permissive - and this is going to end.

The reality is that this is a large site requiring me to spend many hours a day just to keep up with all of my responsibilities. Due to this, there are certainly areas where I have been lax, and things have unfortunately gotten worse over time. The religion forum is a clear example of this. The personal attacks and generally rude/offensive behavior needs to be minimized and those responsible for this in a constant habitual way need to be removed from the site.

To this point, I've been content with warning the worst offenders when I happened to notice that type of behavior, or when it was reported. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to mitigate it to the extent that it is necessary and so other solutions have been attempted with varying degrees of success.

I do finally believe it is time to address the problem at it's source, and that is simply the lack of moderation due to me being too busy to give this forum the attention it deserves.

To that end, I am appointing Whiteflame to be a moderator of this specific forum. I have complete confidence in Whiteflame to oversee this forum and to communicate with members that continue to be a problem. I know he will keep me updated on anything that needs my attention, and that whatever he suggests will be thoughtful and prudent.

While everything ultimately will be my call, I know that Whiteflame is a responsible and thoughtful member that will take his responsibilities as a moderator seriously. I know that he understands how I approach things, and that with his eyes being specifically dedicated to improving this forum, that a positive change is imminent.

Just to be absolutely clear here, this is not an attempt to halt any type of speech or conversation topics except for that which is not appropriate. I believe I am extremely permissive regrading this, and that isn't about to change.

What is about to change though, is the constant personal attacks that go without consequence. I think everyone here is more than capable of engaging each other in a civil and reasonable way. Heated exchanges are inevitable and I don't expect that to change, but if your response to disagreement is a personal attack, threat of violence, or any other rude and offensive or otherwise unnecessary remark that has no place here, then you don't have any place here either and your membership will be revoked quickly.

Again, my moderation style isn't about to change. I am permissive intentionally, but I've never been ok with personal attacks and intentionally offensive nonsense. To this point I just haven't been able to spend the time needed to deal with it. Whiteflame will be able to though, and he will doubtlessly make recommendations to me that are appropriate to see this type of conduct come to an end.

For those who don't know what type of conduct isn't allowed, please refer to these links (You may also contact me directly to ask):

Personal attacks policy - http://www.debate.org...

TOS - http://www.debate.org...

If you have any questions or concerns, always feel free to contact me at any time. You may also contact Bladerunner (assistant moderator), Whiteflame (Religion forum moderator) or Mikal (Debate.org membership President).

I'd again like to thank Whiteflame for his assistance.

Thank you

I sincerely believe all you have done with such good natured attempts at moderation is granted the potential for user abuse.

In reality, the only person that shouldn't be here is BoG, and not because he is inflammatory or a troll, but because the dude genuinely needs help. Bul, Neut, Beast, LMGIG, they have their 'off posts', but none of them start off with an insult. Even the IEnglishman crap (and yes, I mean crap) comes from a piece of evidence that can be explored and debated.

Truth be told, I would much rather read through Bul's and Neut's replies, inflammatory as they may be, than read a wall of text that is nothing more than a fantastic self justification of why the poster is right, and the reader is wrong, and offers nothing more beyond v.1 v.2 v.3 v.2.4 v.5 variants in terms of rebuttals. I am confident your appointed aides, should they have any lick of sense about them, could easily point you in the right direction.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 2:25:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 1:48:12 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/27/2014 5:15:37 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
Hey DDO!

More specifically, hello contributors of the religion forum.

I hope you all had a nice holiday, or a nice day off of work (assuming that you did), or just a nice day in general, and I also hope that you continue to have nice days.

For those of you not familiar with who I am, let me introduce myself. I am Airmax1227, the sites head moderator. If you have a complaint about site moderation (or pretty much anything else), I'm the one you should blame.

I believe that those who know me pretty well have a good idea of how and why I choose to do certain things. I like moderation issues to be discrete, I don't like to have an overly visible presence on the site, and I don't want the site to become over-moderated. It's not my style to delete much, it's certainly not my style to call out problem members publicly (or to reply to problem posts), and I feel that generally being publicly aloof is preferable.

My style of moderation has unfortunately lead to certain areas where I am being far too permissive - and this is going to end.

The reality is that this is a large site requiring me to spend many hours a day just to keep up with all of my responsibilities. Due to this, there are certainly areas where I have been lax, and things have unfortunately gotten worse over time. The religion forum is a clear example of this. The personal attacks and generally rude/offensive behavior needs to be minimized and those responsible for this in a constant habitual way need to be removed from the site.

To this point, I've been content with warning the worst offenders when I happened to notice that type of behavior, or when it was reported. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to mitigate it to the extent that it is necessary and so other solutions have been attempted with varying degrees of success.

I do finally believe it is time to address the problem at it's source, and that is simply the lack of moderation due to me being too busy to give this forum the attention it deserves.

To that end, I am appointing Whiteflame to be a moderator of this specific forum. I have complete confidence in Whiteflame to oversee this forum and to communicate with members that continue to be a problem. I know he will keep me updated on anything that needs my attention, and that whatever he suggests will be thoughtful and prudent.

While everything ultimately will be my call, I know that Whiteflame is a responsible and thoughtful member that will take his responsibilities as a moderator seriously. I know that he understands how I approach things, and that with his eyes being specifically dedicated to improving this forum, that a positive change is imminent.

Just to be absolutely clear here, this is not an attempt to halt any type of speech or conversation topics except for that which is not appropriate. I believe I am extremely permissive regrading this, and that isn't about to change.

What is about to change though, is the constant personal attacks that go without consequence. I think everyone here is more than capable of engaging each other in a civil and reasonable way. Heated exchanges are inevitable and I don't expect that to change, but if your response to disagreement is a personal attack, threat of violence, or any other rude and offensive or otherwise unnecessary remark that has no place here, then you don't have any place here either and your membership will be revoked quickly.

Again, my moderation style isn't about to change. I am permissive intentionally, but I've never been ok with personal attacks and intentionally offensive nonsense. To this point I just haven't been able to spend the time needed to deal with it. Whiteflame will be able to though, and he will doubtlessly make recommendations to me that are appropriate to see this type of conduct come to an end.

For those who don't know what type of conduct isn't allowed, please refer to these links (You may also contact me directly to ask):

Personal attacks policy - http://www.debate.org...

TOS - http://www.debate.org...

If you have any questions or concerns, always feel free to contact me at any time. You may also contact Bladerunner (assistant moderator), Whiteflame (Religion forum moderator) or Mikal (Debate.org membership President).

I'd again like to thank Whiteflame for his assistance.

Thank you

I sincerely believe all you have done with such good natured attempts at moderation is granted the potential for user abuse.

In reality, the only person that shouldn't be here is BoG, and not because he is inflammatory or a troll, but because the dude genuinely needs help. Bul, Neut, Beast, LMGIG, they have their 'off posts', but none of them start off with an insult. Even the IEnglishman crap (and yes, I mean crap) comes from a piece of evidence that can be explored and debated.

Truth be told, I would much rather read through Bul's and Neut's replies, inflammatory as they may be, than read a wall of text that is nothing more than a fantastic self justification of why the poster is right, and the reader is wrong, and offers nothing more beyond v.1 v.2 v.3 v.2.4 v.5 variants in terms of rebuttals. I am confident your appointed aides, should they have any lick of sense about them, could easily point you in the right direction.

I'm not comfortable discussing particular users in this manner, but I will say that there are cases that fall outside of the conventional realm of rule enforcement and are taken into consideration in other ways, and that is being worked on in those cases.
Debate.org Moderator
Zylorarchy
Posts: 209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 2:43:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 5:15:37 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
Hey DDO!

More specifically, hello contributors of the religion forum.

I hope you all had a nice holiday, or a nice day off of work (assuming that you did), or just a nice day in general, and I also hope that you continue to have nice days.

For those of you not familiar with who I am, let me introduce myself. I am Airmax1227, the sites head moderator. If you have a complaint about site moderation (or pretty much anything else), I'm the one you should blame.

I believe that those who know me pretty well have a good idea of how and why I choose to do certain things. I like moderation issues to be discrete, I don't like to have an overly visible presence on the site, and I don't want the site to become over-moderated. It's not my style to delete much, it's certainly not my style to call out problem members publicly (or to reply to problem posts), and I feel that generally being publicly aloof is preferable.

My style of moderation has unfortunately lead to certain areas where I am being far too permissive - and this is going to end.

The reality is that this is a large site requiring me to spend many hours a day just to keep up with all of my responsibilities. Due to this, there are certainly areas where I have been lax, and things have unfortunately gotten worse over time. The religion forum is a clear example of this. The personal attacks and generally rude/offensive behavior needs to be minimized and those responsible for this in a constant habitual way need to be removed from the site.

To this point, I've been content with warning the worst offenders when I happened to notice that type of behavior, or when it was reported. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to mitigate it to the extent that it is necessary and so other solutions have been attempted with varying degrees of success.

I do finally believe it is time to address the problem at it's source, and that is simply the lack of moderation due to me being too busy to give this forum the attention it deserves.

To that end, I am appointing Whiteflame to be a moderator of this specific forum. I have complete confidence in Whiteflame to oversee this forum and to communicate with members that continue to be a problem. I know he will keep me updated on anything that needs my attention, and that whatever he suggests will be thoughtful and prudent.

While everything ultimately will be my call, I know that Whiteflame is a responsible and thoughtful member that will take his responsibilities as a moderator seriously. I know that he understands how I approach things, and that with his eyes being specifically dedicated to improving this forum, that a positive change is imminent.

Just to be absolutely clear here, this is not an attempt to halt any type of speech or conversation topics except for that which is not appropriate. I believe I am extremely permissive regrading this, and that isn't about to change.

What is about to change though, is the constant personal attacks that go without consequence. I think everyone here is more than capable of engaging each other in a civil and reasonable way. Heated exchanges are inevitable and I don't expect that to change, but if your response to disagreement is a personal attack, threat of violence, or any other rude and offensive or otherwise unnecessary remark that has no place here, then you don't have any place here either and your membership will be revoked quickly.

Again, my moderation style isn't about to change. I am permissive intentionally, but I've never been ok with personal attacks and intentionally offensive nonsense. To this point I just haven't been able to spend the time needed to deal with it. Whiteflame will be able to though, and he will doubtlessly make recommendations to me that are appropriate to see this type of conduct come to an end.

For those who don't know what type of conduct isn't allowed, please refer to these links (You may also contact me directly to ask):

Personal attacks policy - http://www.debate.org...

TOS - http://www.debate.org...

If you have any questions or concerns, always feel free to contact me at any time. You may also contact Bladerunner (assistant moderator), Whiteflame (Religion forum moderator) or Mikal (Debate.org membership President).

I'd again like to thank Whiteflame for his assistance.

Thank you

This is great news! :D
"I am not intolerant of religion, I am intolerant of intolerance"
"True freedom is not simply left or right. It is the ability to know when a law is needed, but more importantly, know when one is not"
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 3:04:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 5:15:37 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
Hey DDO!

More specifically, hello contributors of the religion forum.

I hope you all had a nice holiday, or a nice day off of work (assuming that you did), or just a nice day in general, and I also hope that you continue to have nice days.

For those of you not familiar with who I am, let me introduce myself. I am Airmax1227, the sites head moderator. If you have a complaint about site moderation (or pretty much anything else), I'm the one you should blame.

I believe that those who know me pretty well have a good idea of how and why I choose to do certain things. I like moderation issues to be discrete, I don't like to have an overly visible presence on the site, and I don't want the site to become over-moderated. It's not my style to delete much, it's certainly not my style to call out problem members publicly (or to reply to problem posts), and I feel that generally being publicly aloof is preferable.

My style of moderation has unfortunately lead to certain areas where I am being far too permissive - and this is going to end.

The reality is that this is a large site requiring me to spend many hours a day just to keep up with all of my responsibilities. Due to this, there are certainly areas where I have been lax, and things have unfortunately gotten worse over time. The religion forum is a clear example of this. The personal attacks and generally rude/offensive behavior needs to be minimized and those responsible for this in a constant habitual way need to be removed from the site.

To this point, I've been content with warning the worst offenders when I happened to notice that type of behavior, or when it was reported. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to mitigate it to the extent that it is necessary and so other solutions have been attempted with varying degrees of success.

I do finally believe it is time to address the problem at it's source, and that is simply the lack of moderation due to me being too busy to give this forum the attention it deserves.

To that end, I am appointing Whiteflame to be a moderator of this specific forum. I have complete confidence in Whiteflame to oversee this forum and to communicate with members that continue to be a problem. I know he will keep me updated on anything that needs my attention, and that whatever he suggests will be thoughtful and prudent.

While everything ultimately will be my call, I know that Whiteflame is a responsible and thoughtful member that will take his responsibilities as a moderator seriously. I know that he understands how I approach things, and that with his eyes being specifically dedicated to improving this forum, that a positive change is imminent.

Just to be absolutely clear here, this is not an attempt to halt any type of speech or conversation topics except for that which is not appropriate. I believe I am extremely permissive regrading this, and that isn't about to change.

What is about to change though, is the constant personal attacks that go without consequence. I think everyone here is more than capable of engaging each other in a civil and reasonable way. Heated exchanges are inevitable and I don't expect that to change, but if your response to disagreement is a personal attack, threat of violence, or any other rude and offensive or otherwise unnecessary remark that has no place here, then you don't have any place here either and your membership will be revoked quickly.

Again, my moderation style isn't about to change. I am permissive intentionally, but I've never been ok with personal attacks and intentionally offensive nonsense. To this point I just haven't been able to spend the time needed to deal with it. Whiteflame will be able to though, and he will doubtlessly make recommendations to me that are appropriate to see this type of conduct come to an end.

For those who don't know what type of conduct isn't allowed, please refer to these links (You may also contact me directly to ask):

Personal attacks policy - http://www.debate.org...

TOS - http://www.debate.org...

If you have any questions or concerns, always feel free to contact me at any time. You may also contact Bladerunner (assistant moderator), Whiteflame (Religion forum moderator) or Mikal (Debate.org membership President).

I'd again like to thank Whiteflame for his assistance.

Thank you

I think the question many regulars in the Religion section of the forum will be asking is whether this sudden focus on greater moderation is totally unrelated to the recent change in presidency. The coincidence that one of his strongest campaigners and supporters came here and attempted vigilante style justice seemed too great to me. You have reassured me privately that my misgivings are misplaced and that you had these moderation changes planned for a few weeks, but perhaps everyone needs to hear that this is not being driven by the new administration.

I am still not entirely convinced about the origins of recent events having seen some of the postings made by Mikal here. The only thing that is preventing me being more outspoken is my confidence in your integrity. I have nothing but praise for your calm manner, even-handed approach and overall demeanour. Whilst you remain in charge of moderation, I have no concerns.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 4:20:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 3:04:23 AM, dee-em wrote:
I think the question many regulars in the Religion section of the forum will be asking is whether this sudden focus on greater moderation is totally unrelated to the recent change in presidency.

I tried some approaches during the previous administration and now I'm trying this. The current administration certainly has its opinions and broadly encouraged some type of action, though this decision (and this particular action) was made by me independently.

The coincidence that one of his strongest campaigners and supporters came here and attempted vigilante style justice seemed too great to me.

I am very disappointed that this happened and it reflects very poorly on that member and whether it is fair or not, the new administration. It is however just a coincidence.

I've known for awhile that the administration (though not specifically this member) had desired some change to this forum, and we had some discussions, though those were limited and no specific plans were made. This particular approach, a forum specific moderator, is one I had been considering for a little while, and circumstances made this plan possible to be put in place this weekend. A recent, but limited conversation I had recently that was prompted by the administration did also suggest this approach, but it only reaffirmed for me that this would be a good approach, rather than being the catalyst for it.

You have reassured me privately that my misgivings are misplaced and that you had these moderation changes planned for a few weeks, but perhaps everyone needs to hear that this is not being driven by the new administration.

Your misgiving are misplaced, but based on the circumstances are completely justified. I don't think it's all that important how much of a role the administration plays in this, though I do believe that the issue with a particular member intentionally being outright offensive (and now having learned there was some type of agenda attached to that) is especially concerning and unfortunate.

Moderation efforts are discussed to some degree with the administration, though I always have these discussion with many members. The administration certainly plays a role in influencing me to the ends they feel are necessary, but this is something that I have personally felt was necessary.

So this is something that the administration certainly supports, but it is happening because I want it to happen, and would be happening independently from whatever opinion the current DDO president might have - it just so happens that the current DDO president feels the same way, and several conversations I've had with him have encouraged me to take actions in this particular direction - even if not this specific action.

I am still not entirely convinced about the origins of recent events having seen some of the postings made by Mikal here. The only thing that is preventing me being more outspoken is my confidence in your integrity. I have nothing but praise for your calm manner, even-handed approach and overall demeanour. Whilst you remain in charge of moderation, I have no concerns.

I appreciate that, and I'm not aware of everything that has been said recently by Mikal or anyone else. All I can say is that moderation is something that is overseen entirely by me (and those I delegate it to) and not related to the DDO president. While I have had several conversations with Mikal about this, and have known it's an important issue to him, it has been an important issue to me for much longer than he has been president. To what extent the administration plays in influencing me is naturally impossible to quantify - but Mikal has been interested in seeing something done, and I know that he is happy that I've taken these steps to do so.

I just want to be clear that the issues with the religion forum is something that the administration made one of its issues. Since it did, I naturally had to be a part of this attempt towards action as ultimately it's my call. Had Mikal not taken an interest in it, I still would have, how that would have changed the speed at which this took place is difficult to say.

I guess this comes down to a couple things then. Did the administration want to see efforts related to the religion forum take place? They certainly did. How much influence did the administration have on making it happen? That's hard to say, but I will say that conversations I had with Mikal, and conversations that were prompted by Mikal were helpful in determining what was and wasn't the most prudent course of action to take. Ultimately, those conversations reaffirmed for me that the particular plan I thought would be best was in fact the one I should go with.

I'm not really sure that's what is important here though and instead I'll reply directly to another thing you posted:

"Whilst you remain in charge of moderation, I have no concerns."

I appreciate that, and this is exactly the case. The DDO President has no authority regarding moderation. Though I certainly appreciate the feedback I get from Mikal, and the discussions he has prompted that have often been helpful, the issue of moderation and the choices made relating to that ultimately remain with me.

I'm not sure of everything that has been said here in the past couple days, but this decision was mine, and while I know that the administration wanted some type of action to take place, this was ultimately done because I wanted it to be.

I think Mikal can and should take some credit for facilitating several useful conversations as it relates to this, though ultimately this was a decision made by me.
Debate.org Moderator
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 10:18:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 4:20:28 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:04:23 AM, dee-em wrote:
I think the question many regulars in the Religion section of the forum will be asking is whether this sudden focus on greater moderation is totally unrelated to the recent change in presidency.

I tried some approaches during the previous administration and now I'm trying this. The current administration certainly has its opinions and broadly encouraged some type of action, though this decision (and this particular action) was made by me independently.

The coincidence that one of his strongest campaigners and supporters came here and attempted vigilante style justice seemed too great to me.

I am very disappointed that this happened and it reflects very poorly on that member and whether it is fair or not, the new administration. It is however just a coincidence.

I've known for awhile that the administration (though not specifically this member) had desired some change to this forum, and we had some discussions, though those were limited and no specific plans were made. This particular approach, a forum specific moderator, is one I had been considering for a little while, and circumstances made this plan possible to be put in place this weekend. A recent, but limited conversation I had recently that was prompted by the administration did also suggest this approach, but it only reaffirmed for me that this would be a good approach, rather than being the catalyst for it.

You have reassured me privately that my misgivings are misplaced and that you had these moderation changes planned for a few weeks, but perhaps everyone needs to hear that this is not being driven by the new administration.

Your misgiving are misplaced, but based on the circumstances are completely justified. I don't think it's all that important how much of a role the administration plays in this, though I do believe that the issue with a particular member intentionally being outright offensive (and now having learned there was some type of agenda attached to that) is especially concerning and unfortunate.

Moderation efforts are discussed to some degree with the administration, though I always have these discussion with many members. The administration certainly plays a role in influencing me to the ends they feel are necessary, but this is something that I have personally felt was necessary.

So this is something that the administration certainly supports, but it is happening because I want it to happen, and would be happening independently from whatever opinion the current DDO president might have - it just so happens that the current DDO president feels the same way, and several conversations I've had with him have encouraged me to take actions in this particular direction - even if not this specific action.

I am still not entirely convinced about the origins of recent events having seen some of the postings made by Mikal here. The only thing that is preventing me being more outspoken is my confidence in your integrity. I have nothing but praise for your calm manner, even-handed approach and overall demeanour. Whilst you remain in charge of moderation, I have no concerns.

I appreciate that, and I'm not aware of everything that has been said recently by Mikal or anyone else. All I can say is that moderation is something that is overseen entirely by me (and those I delegate it to) and not related to the DDO president. While I have had several conversations with Mikal about this, and have known it's an important issue to him, it has been an important issue to me for much longer than he has been president. To what extent the administration plays in influencing me is naturally impossible to quantify - but Mikal has been interested in seeing something done, and I know that he is happy that I've taken these steps to do so.

I just want to be clear that the issues with the religion forum is something that the administration made one of its issues. Since it did, I naturally had to be a part of this attempt towards action as ultimately it's my call. Had Mikal not taken an interest in it, I still would have, how that would have changed the speed at which this took place is difficult to say.

I guess this comes down to a couple things then. Did the administration want to see efforts related to the religion forum take place? They certainly did. How much influence did the administration have on making it happen? That's hard to say, but I will say that conversations I had with Mikal, and conversations that were prompted by Mikal were helpful in determining what was and wasn't the most prudent course of action to take. Ultimately, those conversations reaffirmed for me that the particular plan I thought would be best was in fact the one I should go with.

I'm not really sure that's what is important here though and instead I'll reply directly to another thing you posted:

"Whilst you remain in charge of moderation, I have no concerns."

I appreciate that, and this is exactly the case. The DDO President has no authority regarding moderation. Though I certainly appreciate the feedback I get from Mikal, and the discussions he has prompted that have often been helpful, the issue of moderation and the choices made relating to that ultimately remain with me.

I'm not sure of everything that has been said here in the past couple days, but this decision was mine, and while I know that the administration wanted some type of action to take place, this was ultimately done because I wanted it to be.

I think Mikal can and should take some credit for facilitating several useful conversations as it relates to this, though ultimately this was a decision made by me.

I'm trying to digest all this. It's not quite the answer I expected.

The evidence seems to be that Mikal and his cohort have invaded the Religion forum and are throwing their weight around. It's obvious to me that a power struggle is going on. The new administration obviously doesn't have any confidence in you and Whiteflame doing your jobs. They have pre-empted your new moderation efforts without even giving them a chance. I'm not sure where this is going to lead. Good luck airmax.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 11:17:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 10:18:05 PM, dee-em wrote:

I'm trying to digest all this. It's not quite the answer I expected.


Understandable. I'll do my best to answer any further questions, or assuage any concerns you may have.

The evidence seems to be that Mikal and his cohort have invaded the Religion forum and are throwing their weight around.

I am starting to fully realize this, though the extent to how much and why this matters is still not entirely evident to me. If they are implying some type of authority, that is a problem, and be sure to let me know if you see it.

It's obvious to me that a power struggle is going on.

That might be the case, though it will be a very short lived struggle since only one side has any actual authority here. What I want to make clear, is that anyone other than a moderator attempting to exert any type of authority here, whether implied or otherwise, is completely inappropriate. If you see it happening, report it to me, and I will deal with it.

You are welcome to and encouraged to ignore any non-moderator attempting to exert any type of authority whatsoever.

The new administration obviously doesn't have any confidence in you and Whiteflame doing your jobs.

I'm not sure this is true. I think it's more likely that some may want to be more involved than is appropriate, and I'll certainly make clear to those that are doing it to stop - so please let me know when you see specific incidences of this happening.

Just to be clear, the administration has nothing to do with moderation. They can offer their thoughts and opinions to me (or to Whiteflame), but that is the extent of the involvement. if they are actively attempting to get involved in policing the forum, then that is a problem, and it should be reported to me.

They have pre-empted your new moderation efforts without even giving them a chance. I'm not sure where this is going to lead.

I think the timing is part of the problem, but I don't think anyone necessarily meant to undermine me here, or meant to imply a lack of confidence with my approach. I have full confidence in Whiteflame, and I don't care too much what the administration thinks about it. This is my call, not theirs, and that's ultimately the bottom line.

Good luck airmax.

Thank you, I appreciate that.
Debate.org Moderator
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 11:44:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 11:17:44 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 10:18:05 PM, dee-em wrote:

I'm trying to digest all this. It's not quite the answer I expected.


Understandable. I'll do my best to answer any further questions, or assuage any concerns you may have.

The evidence seems to be that Mikal and his cohort have invaded the Religion forum and are throwing their weight around.

I am starting to fully realize this, though the extent to how much and why this matters is still not entirely evident to me. If they are implying some type of authority, that is a problem, and be sure to let me know if you see it.

It's obvious to me that a power struggle is going on.

That might be the case, though it will be a very short lived struggle since only one side has any actual authority here. What I want to make clear, is that anyone other than a moderator attempting to exert any type of authority here, whether implied or otherwise, is completely inappropriate. If you see it happening, report it to me, and I will deal with it.

You are welcome to and encouraged to ignore any non-moderator attempting to exert any type of authority whatsoever.


The new administration obviously doesn't have any confidence in you and Whiteflame doing your jobs.

I'm not sure this is true. I think it's more likely that some may want to be more involved than is appropriate, and I'll certainly make clear to those that are doing it to stop - so please let me know when you see specific incidences of this happening.

Just to be clear, the administration has nothing to do with moderation. They can offer their thoughts and opinions to me (or to Whiteflame), but that is the extent of the involvement. if they are actively attempting to get involved in policing the forum, then that is a problem, and it should be reported to me.

They have pre-empted your new moderation efforts without even giving them a chance. I'm not sure where this is going to lead.

I think the timing is part of the problem, but I don't think anyone necessarily meant to undermine me here, or meant to imply a lack of confidence with my approach. I have full confidence in Whiteflame, and I don't care too much what the administration thinks about it. This is my call, not theirs, and that's ultimately the bottom line.

Good luck airmax.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

I think Dee is referring to this post #260:
http://www.debate.org...

I believe Whiteflame is active in the conversation so I'm not all that worried that it's gone unnoticed.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 11:55:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 10:18:05 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/28/2014 4:20:28 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:04:23 AM, dee-em wrote:
I think the question many regulars in the Religion section of the forum will be asking is whether this sudden focus on greater moderation is totally unrelated to the recent change in presidency.

I tried some approaches during the previous administration and now I'm trying this. The current administration certainly has its opinions and broadly encouraged some type of action, though this decision (and this particular action) was made by me independently.

The coincidence that one of his strongest campaigners and supporters came here and attempted vigilante style justice seemed too great to me.

I am very disappointed that this happened and it reflects very poorly on that member and whether it is fair or not, the new administration. It is however just a coincidence.

I've known for awhile that the administration (though not specifically this member) had desired some change to this forum, and we had some discussions, though those were limited and no specific plans were made. This particular approach, a forum specific moderator, is one I had been considering for a little while, and circumstances made this plan possible to be put in place this weekend. A recent, but limited conversation I had recently that was prompted by the administration did also suggest this approach, but it only reaffirmed for me that this would be a good approach, rather than being the catalyst for it.

You have reassured me privately that my misgivings are misplaced and that you had these moderation changes planned for a few weeks, but perhaps everyone needs to hear that this is not being driven by the new administration.

Your misgiving are misplaced, but based on the circumstances are completely justified. I don't think it's all that important how much of a role the administration plays in this, though I do believe that the issue with a particular member intentionally being outright offensive (and now having learned there was some type of agenda attached to that) is especially concerning and unfortunate.

Moderation efforts are discussed to some degree with the administration, though I always have these discussion with many members. The administration certainly plays a role in influencing me to the ends they feel are necessary, but this is something that I have personally felt was necessary.

So this is something that the administration certainly supports, but it is happening because I want it to happen, and would be happening independently from whatever opinion the current DDO president might have - it just so happens that the current DDO president feels the same way, and several conversations I've had with him have encouraged me to take actions in this particular direction - even if not this specific action.

I am still not entirely convinced about the origins of recent events having seen some of the postings made by Mikal here. The only thing that is preventing me being more outspoken is my confidence in your integrity. I have nothing but praise for your calm manner, even-handed approach and overall demeanour. Whilst you remain in charge of moderation, I have no concerns.

I appreciate that, and I'm not aware of everything that has been said recently by Mikal or anyone else. All I can say is that moderation is something that is overseen entirely by me (and those I delegate it to) and not related to the DDO president. While I have had several conversations with Mikal about this, and have known it's an important issue to him, it has been an important issue to me for much longer than he has been president. To what extent the administration plays in influencing me is naturally impossible to quantify - but Mikal has been interested in seeing something done, and I know that he is happy that I've taken these steps to do so.

I just want to be clear that the issues with the religion forum is something that the administration made one of its issues. Since it did, I naturally had to be a part of this attempt towards action as ultimately it's my call. Had Mikal not taken an interest in it, I still would have, how that would have changed the speed at which this took place is difficult to say.

I guess this comes down to a couple things then. Did the administration want to see efforts related to the religion forum take place? They certainly did. How much influence did the administration have on making it happen? That's hard to say, but I will say that conversations I had with Mikal, and conversations that were prompted by Mikal were helpful in determining what was and wasn't the most prudent course of action to take. Ultimately, those conversations reaffirmed for me that the particular plan I thought would be best was in fact the one I should go with.

I'm not really sure that's what is important here though and instead I'll reply directly to another thing you posted:

"Whilst you remain in charge of moderation, I have no concerns."

I appreciate that, and this is exactly the case. The DDO President has no authority regarding moderation. Though I certainly appreciate the feedback I get from Mikal, and the discussions he has prompted that have often been helpful, the issue of moderation and the choices made relating to that ultimately remain with me.

I'm not sure of everything that has been said here in the past couple days, but this decision was mine, and while I know that the administration wanted some type of action to take place, this was ultimately done because I wanted it to be.

I think Mikal can and should take some credit for facilitating several useful conversations as it relates to this, though ultimately this was a decision made by me.

I'm trying to digest all this. It's not quite the answer I expected.

The evidence seems to be that Mikal and his cohort have invaded the Religion forum and are throwing their weight around. It's obvious to me that a power struggle is going on. The new administration obviously doesn't have any confidence in you and Whiteflame doing your jobs. They have pre-empted your new moderation efforts without even giving them a chance. I'm not sure where this is going to lead. Good luck airmax.

Just a notation, I have no active authority over moderation. As airmax said I can contact him and suggest issues with moderation which he may or may not take. Me asking a member about harassment reports and sending it to moderation is perfectly in line with the TOS. I said I would report misconduct and I will do so. There is nothing grievous about me hunting down negative comments and reporting them, as any other member can do the same thing.

I shall also continue to hunt down these posts and report them to assist white flame with his efforts. I firmly believe the issue in this forum is conduct and not quality. While I may not be able to actively issue a ban, I can assist the moderators with finding material that is ban worthy and submitting it for review which I have been and will continue to do . The report button is there for a reason, I just take it a step further and personally message him with the misconduct.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 12:14:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Speaking only for myself, part of the problem is not having a firm understanding of the hierarchy of the administration here. In the last forum to which I was a member, the moderators were at the bottom of the stack. They had numerous levels of moderators but there were levels of administrators above them, and they presided over the moderators who were required to do their bidding. And administrators could serve as moderators as well.

So when I saw that a new president of the forum was calling for what sounded like a no-tolerance policy against pretty much even the most trivial TOS violation, I was unaware that the final decision lies with Airmax. Knowing that Airmax makes the final decisions eases the discomfort quite considerably. But it's still disconcerting knowing that we now have a president of a debate site who - based on his own comments and those of some of his supporters - appears to be in favor of a forum-wide witch hunt to simply ban anyone and everyone of whom he personally disapproves.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 12:20:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/29/2014 12:14:44 AM, Beastt wrote:
Speaking only for myself, part of the problem is not having a firm understanding of the hierarchy of the administration here. In the last forum to which I was a member, the moderators were at the bottom of the stack. They had numerous levels of moderators but there were levels of administrators above them, and they presided over the moderators who were required to do their bidding. And administrators could serve as moderators as well.

So when I saw that a new president of the forum was calling for what sounded like a no-tolerance policy against pretty much even the most trivial TOS violation, I was unaware that the final decision lies with Airmax. Knowing that Airmax makes the final decisions eases the discomfort quite considerably. But it's still disconcerting knowing that we now have a president of a debate site who - based on his own comments and those of some of his supporters - appears to be in favor of a forum-wide witch hunt to simply ban anyone and everyone of whom he personally disapproves.

It has nothing to do with people I disprove of. Not abiding the tos in an objective violation of the rules. My thoughts on the matter are a non factor. I can find and hunt people that commit those acts and report them, and max or whiteflame will deal with them accordingly.

I can't issue the ban myself, but I can push for a ban when one needs to be pushed. That is within my power. I have no desire to start a witch hunt in the sense that I will catch innocent people. I will actively hunt our real witches though, and proceed to hand the gasoline to the moderators. They can chose to light it on fire or not
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 12:27:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/29/2014 12:14:44 AM, Beastt wrote:
Speaking only for myself, part of the problem is not having a firm understanding of the hierarchy of the administration here. In the last forum to which I was a member, the moderators were at the bottom of the stack. They had numerous levels of moderators but there were levels of administrators above them, and they presided over the moderators who were required to do their bidding. And administrators could serve as moderators as well.

So when I saw that a new president of the forum was calling for what sounded like a no-tolerance policy against pretty much even the most trivial TOS violation, I was unaware that the final decision lies with Airmax. Knowing that Airmax makes the final decisions eases the discomfort quite considerably. But it's still disconcerting knowing that we now have a president of a debate site who - based on his own comments and those of some of his supporters - appears to be in favor of a forum-wide witch hunt to simply ban anyone and everyone of whom he personally disapproves.

Also if you are referring to bulproof, again I have no power to issue a ban on him. I can only go to max with the details of his conduct and max will make the final call. Granted just with his posts in the past day, I am fully confident I can make a strong enough case to possibly make that happen if he does not show signs of improvement.

Again I cant issue the ban, I can actively make cases for why one should be issued.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 12:27:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/29/2014 12:14:44 AM, Beastt wrote:
Speaking only for myself, part of the problem is not having a firm understanding of the hierarchy of the administration here. In the last forum to which I was a member, the moderators were at the bottom of the stack. They had numerous levels of moderators but there were levels of administrators above them, and they presided over the moderators who were required to do their bidding. And administrators could serve as moderators as well.

So when I saw that a new president of the forum was calling for what sounded like a no-tolerance policy against pretty much even the most trivial TOS violation, I was unaware that the final decision lies with Airmax. Knowing that Airmax makes the final decisions eases the discomfort quite considerably. But it's still disconcerting knowing that we now have a president of a debate site who - based on his own comments and those of some of his supporters - appears to be in favor of a forum-wide witch hunt to simply ban anyone and everyone of whom he personally disapproves.

I think that it will all work out eventually and the people who are adamantly policing this forum like bounty hunters will tire of the troll hunt and go back to whatever they did before. Mikal probably doesn't have very much control over what they choose to do. Constituents and campaign contributors usually control the president. They put them there after all. It's almost like social blackmail. I would be forum president if it was a paid position. It's got to be difficult.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 12:36:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/29/2014 12:27:56 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/29/2014 12:14:44 AM, Beastt wrote:
Speaking only for myself, part of the problem is not having a firm understanding of the hierarchy of the administration here. In the last forum to which I was a member, the moderators were at the bottom of the stack. They had numerous levels of moderators but there were levels of administrators above them, and they presided over the moderators who were required to do their bidding. And administrators could serve as moderators as well.

So when I saw that a new president of the forum was calling for what sounded like a no-tolerance policy against pretty much even the most trivial TOS violation, I was unaware that the final decision lies with Airmax. Knowing that Airmax makes the final decisions eases the discomfort quite considerably. But it's still disconcerting knowing that we now have a president of a debate site who - based on his own comments and those of some of his supporters - appears to be in favor of a forum-wide witch hunt to simply ban anyone and everyone of whom he personally disapproves.

I think that it will all work out eventually and the people who are adamantly policing this forum like bounty hunters will tire of the troll hunt and go back to whatever they did before. Mikal probably doesn't have very much control over what they choose to do. Constituents and campaign contributors usually control the president. They put them there after all. It's almost like social blackmail. I would be forum president if it was a paid position. It's got to be difficult.

I can only speak for myself, not anyone else. I have taken a personal interest in this forum since I promised to help fix it. With whiteflame being willing to work with me, I will seek out and find ill conduct and make sure its sent to max accordingly.

Overall its whiteflames call if he heeds my words, and then its on max as to whether he heeds whiteflames. I am fully confident in my ability to build cases vs other members. I have more than enough time to check into people that violate the TOS on a regular basis and send it to max and let him review it. I have no authority to issue any bans, but violating the TOS is a direct violation objectivity. Meaning poor conduct results in repercussions. I can only make max aware of it, and let him do his job accordingly.

I have no ability to speak for max on a personal level, but I can promise you from a moderation stand point I would be willing to bet that everyone on the site is held to the same standards of conduct regardless of their position or location on the site. If you frequent the main forums and see how ima catches hell for his insults (that is the vp of the site), I can promise you that no one else will be exempt either.

It's the only way to be a fair moderator, and that is hold everyone to the same standards. That includes people in these forums.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 12:39:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 5:15:37 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
Hey DDO!

More specifically, hello contributors of the religion forum.

I hope you all had a nice holiday, or a nice day off of work (assuming that you did), or just a nice day in general, and I also hope that you continue to have nice days.

For those of you not familiar with who I am, let me introduce myself. I am Airmax1227, the sites head moderator. If you have a complaint about site moderation (or pretty much anything else), I'm the one you should blame.

I believe that those who know me pretty well have a good idea of how and why I choose to do certain things. I like moderation issues to be discrete, I don't like to have an overly visible presence on the site, and I don't want the site to become over-moderated. It's not my style to delete much, it's certainly not my style to call out problem members publicly (or to reply to problem posts), and I feel that generally being publicly aloof is preferable.

My style of moderation has unfortunately lead to certain areas where I am being far too permissive - and this is going to end.

The reality is that this is a large site requiring me to spend many hours a day just to keep up with all of my responsibilities. Due to this, there are certainly areas where I have been lax, and things have unfortunately gotten worse over time. The religion forum is a clear example of this. The personal attacks and generally rude/offensive behavior needs to be minimized and those responsible for this in a constant habitual way need to be removed from the site.

To this point, I've been content with warning the worst offenders when I happened to notice that type of behavior, or when it was reported. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to mitigate it to the extent that it is necessary and so other solutions have been attempted with varying degrees of success.

I do finally believe it is time to address the problem at it's source, and that is simply the lack of moderation due to me being too busy to give this forum the attention it deserves.

To that end, I am appointing Whiteflame to be a moderator of this specific forum. I have complete confidence in Whiteflame to oversee this forum and to communicate with members that continue to be a problem. I know he will keep me updated on anything that needs my attention, and that whatever he suggests will be thoughtful and prudent.

While everything ultimately will be my call, I know that Whiteflame is a responsible and thoughtful member that will take his responsibilities as a moderator seriously. I know that he understands how I approach things, and that with his eyes being specifically dedicated to improving this forum, that a positive change is imminent.

Just to be absolutely clear here, this is not an attempt to halt any type of speech or conversation topics except for that which is not appropriate. I believe I am extremely permissive regrading this, and that isn't about to change.

What is about to change though, is the constant personal attacks that go without consequence. I think everyone here is more than capable of engaging each other in a civil and reasonable way. Heated exchanges are inevitable and I don't expect that to change, but if your response to disagreement is a personal attack, threat of violence, or any other rude and offensive or otherwise unnecessary remark that has no place here, then you don't have any place here either and your membership will be revoked quickly.

Again, my moderation style isn't about to change. I am permissive intentionally, but I've never been ok with personal attacks and intentionally offensive nonsense. To this point I just haven't been able to spend the time needed to deal with it. Whiteflame will be able to though, and he will doubtlessly make recommendations to me that are appropriate to see this type of conduct come to an end.

For those who don't know what type of conduct isn't allowed, please refer to these links (You may also contact me directly to ask):

Personal attacks policy - http://www.debate.org...

TOS - http://www.debate.org...

If you have any questions or concerns, always feel free to contact me at any time. You may also contact Bladerunner (assistant moderator), Whiteflame (Religion forum moderator) or Mikal (Debate.org membership President).

I'd again like to thank Whiteflame for his assistance.

Thank you

God promised His people that there would be no peace in this world. Man can't solve God's promise.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,848
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 12:44:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 5:15:37 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
Hey DDO!

More specifically, hello contributors of the religion forum.

I hope you all had a nice holiday, or a nice day off of work (assuming that you did), or just a nice day in general, and I also hope that you continue to have nice days.

For those of you not familiar with who I am, let me introduce myself. I am Airmax1227, the sites head moderator. If you have a complaint about site moderation (or pretty much anything else), I'm the one you should blame.

I believe that those who know me pretty well have a good idea of how and why I choose to do certain things. I like moderation issues to be discrete, I don't like to have an overly visible presence on the site, and I don't want the site to become over-moderated. It's not my style to delete much, it's certainly not my style to call out problem members publicly (or to reply to problem posts), and I feel that generally being publicly aloof is preferable.

My style of moderation has unfortunately lead to certain areas where I am being far too permissive - and this is going to end.

The reality is that this is a large site requiring me to spend many hours a day just to keep up with all of my responsibilities. Due to this, there are certainly areas where I have been lax, and things have unfortunately gotten worse over time. The religion forum is a clear example of this. The personal attacks and generally rude/offensive behavior needs to be minimized and those responsible for this in a constant habitual way need to be removed from the site.

To this point, I've been content with warning the worst offenders when I happened to notice that type of behavior, or when it was reported. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to mitigate it to the extent that it is necessary and so other solutions have been attempted with varying degrees of success.

I do finally believe it is time to address the problem at it's source, and that is simply the lack of moderation due to me being too busy to give this forum the attention it deserves.

To that end, I am appointing Whiteflame to be a moderator of this specific forum. I have complete confidence in Whiteflame to oversee this forum and to communicate with members that continue to be a problem. I know he will keep me updated on anything that needs my attention, and that whatever he suggests will be thoughtful and prudent.

While everything ultimately will be my call, I know that Whiteflame is a responsible and thoughtful member that will take his responsibilities as a moderator seriously. I know that he understands how I approach things, and that with his eyes being specifically dedicated to improving this forum, that a positive change is imminent.

Just to be absolutely clear here, this is not an attempt to halt any type of speech or conversation topics except for that which is not appropriate. I believe I am extremely permissive regrading this, and that isn't about to change.

What is about to change though, is the constant personal attacks that go without consequence. I think everyone here is more than capable of engaging each other in a civil and reasonable way. Heated exchanges are inevitable and I don't expect that to change, but if your response to disagreement is a personal attack, threat of violence, or any other rude and offensive or otherwise unnecessary remark that has no place here, then you don't have any place here either and your membership will be revoked quickly.

Again, my moderation style isn't about to change. I am permissive intentionally, but I've never been ok with personal attacks and intentionally offensive nonsense. To this point I just haven't been able to spend the time needed to deal with it. Whiteflame will be able to though, and he will doubtlessly make recommendations to me that are appropriate to see this type of conduct come to an end.

For those who don't know what type of conduct isn't allowed, please refer to these links (You may also contact me directly to ask):

Personal attacks policy - http://www.debate.org...

TOS - http://www.debate.org...

If you have any questions or concerns, always feel free to contact me at any time. You may also contact Bladerunner (assistant moderator), Whiteflame (Religion forum moderator) or Mikal (Debate.org membership President).

I'd again like to thank Whiteflame for his assistance.

Thank you

Why just the specific religion section? Why not have a moderator for each section of this site and you can be Fuhrer; make things more bureaucratic and easier for you? You've already appointed two new moderators, why not have more since it seems to be a good idea.
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...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,131
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 12:49:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/29/2014 12:27:56 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/29/2014 12:14:44 AM, Beastt wrote:
Speaking only for myself, part of the problem is not having a firm understanding of the hierarchy of the administration here. In the last forum to which I was a member, the moderators were at the bottom of the stack. They had numerous levels of moderators but there were levels of administrators above them, and they presided over the moderators who were required to do their bidding. And administrators could serve as moderators as well.

So when I saw that a new president of the forum was calling for what sounded like a no-tolerance policy against pretty much even the most trivial TOS violation, I was unaware that the final decision lies with Airmax. Knowing that Airmax makes the final decisions eases the discomfort quite considerably. But it's still disconcerting knowing that we now have a president of a debate site who - based on his own comments and those of some of his supporters - appears to be in favor of a forum-wide witch hunt to simply ban anyone and everyone of whom he personally disapproves.

I think that it will all work out eventually and the people who are adamantly policing this forum like bounty hunters will tire of the troll hunt and go back to whatever they did before. Mikal probably doesn't have very much control over what they choose to do. Constituents and campaign contributors usually control the president. They put them there after all. It's almost like social blackmail. I would be forum president if it was a paid position. It's got to be difficult.

I think it would be wise for us to report any violations we see (inappropriate behavior towards Bulproof) and encourage Bulproof to not to go overboard! ;-)
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 12:52:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/29/2014 12:36:38 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 12/29/2014 12:27:56 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/29/2014 12:14:44 AM, Beastt wrote:
Speaking only for myself, part of the problem is not having a firm understanding of the hierarchy of the administration here. In the last forum to which I was a member, the moderators were at the bottom of the stack. They had numerous levels of moderators but there were levels of administrators above them, and they presided over the moderators who were required to do their bidding. And administrators could serve as moderators as well.

So when I saw that a new president of the forum was calling for what sounded like a no-tolerance policy against pretty much even the most trivial TOS violation, I was unaware that the final decision lies with Airmax. Knowing that Airmax makes the final decisions eases the discomfort quite considerably. But it's still disconcerting knowing that we now have a president of a debate site who - based on his own comments and those of some of his supporters - appears to be in favor of a forum-wide witch hunt to simply ban anyone and everyone of whom he personally disapproves.

I think that it will all work out eventually and the people who are adamantly policing this forum like bounty hunters will tire of the troll hunt and go back to whatever they did before. Mikal probably doesn't have very much control over what they choose to do. Constituents and campaign contributors usually control the president. They put them there after all. It's almost like social blackmail. I would be forum president if it was a paid position. It's got to be difficult.

I can only speak for myself, not anyone else. I have taken a personal interest in this forum since I promised to help fix it. With whiteflame being willing to work with me, I will seek out and find ill conduct and make sure its sent to max accordingly.

Overall its whiteflames call if he heeds my words, and then its on max as to whether he heeds whiteflames. I am fully confident in my ability to build cases vs other members. I have more than enough time to check into people that violate the TOS on a regular basis and send it to max and let him review it. I have no authority to issue any bans, but violating the TOS is a direct violation objectivity. Meaning poor conduct results in repercussions. I can only make max aware of it, and let him do his job accordingly.

I have no ability to speak for max on a personal level, but I can promise you from a moderation stand point I would be willing to bet that everyone on the site is held to the same standards of conduct regardless of their position or location on the site. If you frequent the main forums and see how ima catches hell for his insults (that is the vp of the site), I can promise you that no one else will be exempt either.

It's the only way to be a fair moderator, and that is hold everyone to the same standards. That includes people in these forums.

I understand and I know your job here has become difficult. It's a volunteer position and drama doesn't help anything. I especially can't stand drama and it appears this forum is drowning in it since xXCryptoXx posted that thread. I just want it to stop so that we can get back to having fun. If the moderators have to ding someone it isn't my concern other than I hate to see people go. I like the contributors here. Even the annoying ones have something good to say sometimes, even if it's just comic relief.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 12:59:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/29/2014 12:49:04 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/29/2014 12:27:56 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/29/2014 12:14:44 AM, Beastt wrote:
Speaking only for myself, part of the problem is not having a firm understanding of the hierarchy of the administration here. In the last forum to which I was a member, the moderators were at the bottom of the stack. They had numerous levels of moderators but there were levels of administrators above them, and they presided over the moderators who were required to do their bidding. And administrators could serve as moderators as well.

So when I saw that a new president of the forum was calling for what sounded like a no-tolerance policy against pretty much even the most trivial TOS violation, I was unaware that the final decision lies with Airmax. Knowing that Airmax makes the final decisions eases the discomfort quite considerably. But it's still disconcerting knowing that we now have a president of a debate site who - based on his own comments and those of some of his supporters - appears to be in favor of a forum-wide witch hunt to simply ban anyone and everyone of whom he personally disapproves.

I think that it will all work out eventually and the people who are adamantly policing this forum like bounty hunters will tire of the troll hunt and go back to whatever they did before. Mikal probably doesn't have very much control over what they choose to do. Constituents and campaign contributors usually control the president. They put them there after all. It's almost like social blackmail. I would be forum president if it was a paid position. It's got to be difficult.

I think it would be wise for us to report any violations we see (inappropriate behavior towards Bulproof) and encourage Bulproof to not to go overboard! ;-)

I know. I'm so worried. He's abrasive but cuddly once you get past the exterior. =)
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 1:05:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/29/2014 12:49:04 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/29/2014 12:27:56 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/29/2014 12:14:44 AM, Beastt wrote:
Speaking only for myself, part of the problem is not having a firm understanding of the hierarchy of the administration here. In the last forum to which I was a member, the moderators were at the bottom of the stack. They had numerous levels of moderators but there were levels of administrators above them, and they presided over the moderators who were required to do their bidding. And administrators could serve as moderators as well.

So when I saw that a new president of the forum was calling for what sounded like a no-tolerance policy against pretty much even the most trivial TOS violation, I was unaware that the final decision lies with Airmax. Knowing that Airmax makes the final decisions eases the discomfort quite considerably. But it's still disconcerting knowing that we now have a president of a debate site who - based on his own comments and those of some of his supporters - appears to be in favor of a forum-wide witch hunt to simply ban anyone and everyone of whom he personally disapproves.

I think that it will all work out eventually and the people who are adamantly policing this forum like bounty hunters will tire of the troll hunt and go back to whatever they did before. Mikal probably doesn't have very much control over what they choose to do. Constituents and campaign contributors usually control the president. They put them there after all. It's almost like social blackmail. I would be forum president if it was a paid position. It's got to be difficult.

I think it would be wise for us to report any violations we see (inappropriate behavior towards Bulproof) and encourage Bulproof to not to go overboard! ;-)

There is no wisdom in My people. They actually believe they can make this world more peaceful with their laws.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,131
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 1:11:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/29/2014 12:59:50 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/29/2014 12:49:04 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/29/2014 12:27:56 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/29/2014 12:14:44 AM, Beastt wrote:
Speaking only for myself, part of the problem is not having a firm understanding of the hierarchy of the administration here. In the last forum to which I was a member, the moderators were at the bottom of the stack. They had numerous levels of moderators but there were levels of administrators above them, and they presided over the moderators who were required to do their bidding. And administrators could serve as moderators as well.

So when I saw that a new president of the forum was calling for what sounded like a no-tolerance policy against pretty much even the most trivial TOS violation, I was unaware that the final decision lies with Airmax. Knowing that Airmax makes the final decisions eases the discomfort quite considerably. But it's still disconcerting knowing that we now have a president of a debate site who - based on his own comments and those of some of his supporters - appears to be in favor of a forum-wide witch hunt to simply ban anyone and everyone of whom he personally disapproves.

I think that it will all work out eventually and the people who are adamantly policing this forum like bounty hunters will tire of the troll hunt and go back to whatever they did before. Mikal probably doesn't have very much control over what they choose to do. Constituents and campaign contributors usually control the president. They put them there after all. It's almost like social blackmail. I would be forum president if it was a paid position. It's got to be difficult.

I think it would be wise for us to report any violations we see (inappropriate behavior towards Bulproof) and encourage Bulproof to not to go overboard! ;-)

I know. I'm so worried. He's abrasive but cuddly once you get past the exterior. =)

+1
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 1:17:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 1:48:12 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/27/2014 5:15:37 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
Hey DDO!

More specifically, hello contributors of the religion forum.

I hope you all had a nice holiday, or a nice day off of work (assuming that you did), or just a nice day in general, and I also hope that you continue to have nice days.

For those of you not familiar with who I am, let me introduce myself. I am Airmax1227, the sites head moderator. If you have a complaint about site moderation (or pretty much anything else), I'm the one you should blame.

I believe that those who know me pretty well have a good idea of how and why I choose to do certain things. I like moderation issues to be discrete, I don't like to have an overly visible presence on the site, and I don't want the site to become over-moderated. It's not my style to delete much, it's certainly not my style to call out problem members publicly (or to reply to problem posts), and I feel that generally being publicly aloof is preferable.

My style of moderation has unfortunately lead to certain areas where I am being far too permissive - and this is going to end.

The reality is that this is a large site requiring me to spend many hours a day just to keep up with all of my responsibilities. Due to this, there are certainly areas where I have been lax, and things have unfortunately gotten worse over time. The religion forum is a clear example of this. The personal attacks and generally rude/offensive behavior needs to be minimized and those responsible for this in a constant habitual way need to be removed from the site.

To this point, I've been content with warning the worst offenders when I happened to notice that type of behavior, or when it was reported. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to mitigate it to the extent that it is necessary and so other solutions have been attempted with varying degrees of success.

I do finally believe it is time to address the problem at it's source, and that is simply the lack of moderation due to me being too busy to give this forum the attention it deserves.

To that end, I am appointing Whiteflame to be a moderator of this specific forum. I have complete confidence in Whiteflame to oversee this forum and to communicate with members that continue to be a problem. I know he will keep me updated on anything that needs my attention, and that whatever he suggests will be thoughtful and prudent.

While everything ultimately will be my call, I know that Whiteflame is a responsible and thoughtful member that will take his responsibilities as a moderator seriously. I know that he understands how I approach things, and that with his eyes being specifically dedicated to improving this forum, that a positive change is imminent.

Just to be absolutely clear here, this is not an attempt to halt any type of speech or conversation topics except for that which is not appropriate. I believe I am extremely permissive regrading this, and that isn't about to change.

What is about to change though, is the constant personal attacks that go without consequence. I think everyone here is more than capable of engaging each other in a civil and reasonable way. Heated exchanges are inevitable and I don't expect that to change, but if your response to disagreement is a personal attack, threat of violence, or any other rude and offensive or otherwise unnecessary remark that has no place here, then you don't have any place here either and your membership will be revoked quickly.

Again, my moderation style isn't about to change. I am permissive intentionally, but I've never been ok with personal attacks and intentionally offensive nonsense. To this point I just haven't been able to spend the time needed to deal with it. Whiteflame will be able to though, and he will doubtlessly make recommendations to me that are appropriate to see this type of conduct come to an end.

For those who don't know what type of conduct isn't allowed, please refer to these links (You may also contact me directly to ask):

Personal attacks policy - http://www.debate.org...

TOS - http://www.debate.org...

If you have any questions or concerns, always feel free to contact me at any time. You may also contact Bladerunner (assistant moderator), Whiteflame (Religion forum moderator) or Mikal (Debate.org membership President).

I'd again like to thank Whiteflame for his assistance.

Thank you

I sincerely believe all you have done with such good natured attempts at moderation is granted the potential for user abuse.

In reality, the only person that shouldn't be here is BoG, and not because he is inflammatory or a troll, but because the dude genuinely needs help. Bul, Neut, Beast, LMGIG, they have their 'off posts', but none of them start off with an insult. Even the IEnglishman crap (and yes, I mean crap) comes from a piece of evidence that can be explored and debated.

Truth be told, I would much rather read through Bul's and Neut's replies, inflammatory as they may be, than read a wall of text that is nothing more than a fantastic self justification of why the poster is right, and the reader is wrong, and offers nothing more beyond v.1 v.2 v.3 v.2.4 v.5 variants in terms of rebuttals. I am confident your appointed aides, should they have any lick of sense about them, could easily point you in the right direction.

Psalm 41
5: My enemies say of me in malice: "When will he die, and his name perish?"
6: And when one comes to see me, he utters empty words, while his heart gathers mischief; when he goes out, he tells it abroad.
7: All who hate me whisper together about me; they imagine the worst for me.

Psalm 21
8:Your hand will find out all your enemies; your right hand will find out those who hate you.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 1:20:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/29/2014 12:20:51 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 12/29/2014 12:14:44 AM, Beastt wrote:
Speaking only for myself, part of the problem is not having a firm understanding of the hierarchy of the administration here. In the last forum to which I was a member, the moderators were at the bottom of the stack. They had numerous levels of moderators but there were levels of administrators above them, and they presided over the moderators who were required to do their bidding. And administrators could serve as moderators as well.

So when I saw that a new president of the forum was calling for what sounded like a no-tolerance policy against pretty much even the most trivial TOS violation, I was unaware that the final decision lies with Airmax. Knowing that Airmax makes the final decisions eases the discomfort quite considerably. But it's still disconcerting knowing that we now have a president of a debate site who - based on his own comments and those of some of his supporters - appears to be in favor of a forum-wide witch hunt to simply ban anyone and everyone of whom he personally disapproves.

It has nothing to do with people I disprove of. Not abiding the tos in an objective violation of the rules. My thoughts on the matter are a non factor. I can find and hunt people that commit those acts and report them, and max or whiteflame will deal with them accordingly.

I can't issue the ban myself, but I can push for a ban when one needs to be pushed. That is within my power. I have no desire to start a witch hunt in the sense that I will catch innocent people. I will actively hunt our real witches though, and proceed to hand the gasoline to the moderators. They can chose to light it on fire or not

You would find many of your own supporters, your VP, and you as well being eligible for a nice dousing of gasoline. Airmax is aware of this which is why he is so "permissive" of conduct violations. Still, IMHO it's the wrong approach. If he is permissive of violations of the standard, then there is no standard.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 1:23:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/29/2014 1:20:47 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/29/2014 12:20:51 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 12/29/2014 12:14:44 AM, Beastt wrote:
Speaking only for myself, part of the problem is not having a firm understanding of the hierarchy of the administration here. In the last forum to which I was a member, the moderators were at the bottom of the stack. They had numerous levels of moderators but there were levels of administrators above them, and they presided over the moderators who were required to do their bidding. And administrators could serve as moderators as well.

So when I saw that a new president of the forum was calling for what sounded like a no-tolerance policy against pretty much even the most trivial TOS violation, I was unaware that the final decision lies with Airmax. Knowing that Airmax makes the final decisions eases the discomfort quite considerably. But it's still disconcerting knowing that we now have a president of a debate site who - based on his own comments and those of some of his supporters - appears to be in favor of a forum-wide witch hunt to simply ban anyone and everyone of whom he personally disapproves.

It has nothing to do with people I disprove of. Not abiding the tos in an objective violation of the rules. My thoughts on the matter are a non factor. I can find and hunt people that commit those acts and report them, and max or whiteflame will deal with them accordingly.

I can't issue the ban myself, but I can push for a ban when one needs to be pushed. That is within my power. I have no desire to start a witch hunt in the sense that I will catch innocent people. I will actively hunt our real witches though, and proceed to hand the gasoline to the moderators. They can chose to light it on fire or not

You would find many of your own supporters, your VP, and you as well being eligible for a nice dousing of gasoline. Airmax is aware of this which is why he is so "permissive" of conduct violations. Still, IMHO it's the wrong approach. If he is permissive of violations of the standard, then there is no standard.

Most Christians don't understand why non-Christians see them as hypocrites.