Edit to Civilize

I'd like to suggest that, by framing the issue as "Edit to Soothe," Innomen has already poisoned the well against the real issue here. The issue is not whether we should edit posts simply to soothe someone's self-esteem, or prevent them from suicidal ideation, or any such thing. The issue is whether this website acknowledges personal civility.

With exchanges of ideas comes attacks on ideas, and with attacks on ideas, especially by hyper-partisans such as . . . well, pretty much everyone here, comes passion.

Passion in the pursuit of attacking an idea is fine. I personally am fine with having my ideas attacked passionately. "But Dave," you might say, "how can you be fine with it if such thoughts actually drove you to think about suicide?" The answer is, the attacks on me were attacks on my person as well as my ideas. Those who look back at my exploits here will notice that, in the course of hundreds of forum posts and a dozen or so debates, I did not once express any psychological distress until the fat jokes began.

Allowing passion in the cause of attacking ideas is fine and appropriate for a debating site. Allowing attacks on the person amounts to a de facto unmoderated forum. BruteApologia's behavior, making fat jokes to prove a point about an argument I'd made, falls into both categories; thus, by virtue of the latter, it is inappropriate. One can, and should, attack ideas without attacking the person. If a person's ideas are so ingrained into their self-esteem that an attack on the ideas only constitutes an attack on the person in that person's eyes, it is at that point when censorship would amount to "edit to soothe," and when that person should reasonably be expected to rethink his participation on DDO.

The consensus regarding those who mistreated me are that yes, fat jokes are juvenile -- so juvenile, in fact, that I would not have survived high school without surviving fat jokes, so I should be able to survive them now. There's an element of truth to this.

However, I'd like to make the radical suggestion that such reasoning does not justify fat jokes being either posted or uncensored on a site whose members agreed when joining not to post content that is harmful, hateful, harassing, abusive, or otherwise inappropriate. (Terms of Service, Terms of Conduct, item C.)

It might be argued that rooting out and censoring such material would create extra work for the moderators. However, given the portion of the Terms of Service that I have cited, acting as I suggest would conform to, rather than exceed, the duties of a moderator. They've simply gotten away with not doing their job so far.

An analogy: Basic civil rights in the United States are not open to nullification by referendum. Should a state decide by popular vote to reinstitute slavery (to use an extreme example), such a measure would quickly be overtuned by the judiciary as being contrary to the Constitution -- the nation's Terms of Service, so to speak.

In the same way, I submit that the issue of civility is one that transcends DDO's scheme of elected officials and their own opinions on the matter. If they will not take action to secure the rights to personal (as opposed to ideological) dignity, then the matter should be brought to the closest thing DDO has to a judiciary: Juggle.

I'll be re-deactivating my account after posting this, so as not to be drawn back into DDO's "business as usual" before personal civility has been accepted as the new norm around here. If that doesn't happen, well, it's been real.

.

tl;dr Mods have an obligation to prevent and sanction personal attacks, even if you, or they, think they're all right.

This is a debate site. It is inherent that some people will have disagreements with each other. Most people take them fine, some don't. There is no reason to reform anything for those select few for whom disagreement is hard.

Civility is relative.

There's nothing wrong with the site. It has actually grown much more friendly through the years.

Go see a doctor. Not an insult. Being serious. It is YOUR problem. You fix it.

Look;

innomen is right when he said you have to have a thick skin on this site.

Is making fat jokes appropriate? No.
Will they happen if someone gets mad? Probably.

We can't micromanage this site to censor out all the misconduct that goes on because it happens. It's a debate site. You come on here to debate and debating isn't always sun shine and roses. It gets heated. That's what makes it so alluring half the time.

Thicken your skin or get out.

Don't come back to a site you've denounced and try to get us to change. Either deal with it or leave.

Why are you dragging around the issue that drove you to suicide? I should think you'd want to forget about it.

If the majority of this site thinks that the mod job should be to edit and delete any and all personal attacks I will promptly resign, no mod has that sort of time, nor would it be the sort of site that I'd really want to be part of.

I say this with all due respect, and with the most gentle of presentations, I don't think that you should be here if you have a sincere tendency to attempt suicide over the discourse in this site.

Keep your perspective in that this is just a debate site, it is not real life, it only has the power to hurt you as you let it hurt you. I don't think that it is prudent for you to be on this site if you are prone to self-harm as a result of idiotic posts.

Again, I don't say this with a callous word in my mouth, but rather as a compassionate person who does not want to see you suffer.

I agree that civility would be nice, especially when it comes to personal attacks that are entirely unnecessary. But this is a debate site, and arguments are bound to get heated and certain regrettable things are bound to said some times. I don't condone that type of behavior, but like everyone has said, this site requires one to just let things slide and have thick skin.

On a practical point, I don't see how this can be resolved through censorship. It would entirely defeat the purpose of this site. Yes, I would like if everyone would be nice to each other and display some empathy. But this is a site where arguments are encouraged and common. The only way to overcome taking it too personally is to recognize that you shouldn't take any insults too seriously, this is the internet after all.

I sympathize with you WriterDave, but if the nature of the site causes you emotional distress, I'd recommend you limit your use of it, if you use it at all.

Excuse me, but please read my post in its entirety before responding to it; I've addressed all of the responses that have so far been made in my OP.

WriterDave is a sensitive guy and I feel people should take it easy on him.

That being said, I don't want to see speech being regulated here. It's a slippery slope, it's nearly an impossible task to determine what qualifies as acceptable and what doesn't. People have the right to say what ever they want.

Yes, this is a private site, but the intentions of this site is a place for debate, but with debate comes passion, and with passion comes heated exchanges. To limit speech on this site is to go against the nature of debate.

At 5/11/2012 3:29:20 PM, WriterDave wrote:
Excuse me, but please read my post in its entirety before responding to it; I've addressed all of the responses that have so far been made in my OP.

Stop deactivating and reactivating your account.

Either stay and face the people you have issues with or begone with you.

Of course, I will agree that making fun of someone's looks is not part of debate and should not be condoned.

At 5/11/2012 3:30:20 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

At 5/11/2012 3:29:20 PM, WriterDave wrote:
Excuse me, but please read my post in its entirety before responding to it; I've addressed all of the responses that have so far been made in my OP.

Stop deactivating and reactivating your account.

Either stay and face the people you have issues with or begone with you.

You are not a very nice person.

At 5/11/2012 3:35:47 PM, Perseus wrote:

At 5/11/2012 3:30:20 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

At 5/11/2012 3:29:20 PM, WriterDave wrote:
Excuse me, but please read my post in its entirety before responding to it; I've addressed all of the responses that have so far been made in my OP.

Stop deactivating and reactivating your account.

Either stay and face the people you have issues with or begone with you.

You are not a very nice person.

Why?

At 5/11/2012 3:30:05 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
WriterDave is a sensitive guy and I feel people should take it easy on him.

That being said, I don't want to see speech being regulated here. It's a slippery slope, it's nearly an impossible task to determine what qualifies as acceptable and what doesn't. People have the right to say what ever they want.

Yes, this is a private site, but the intentions of this site is a place for debate, but with debate comes passion, and with passion comes heated exchanges. To limit speech on this site is to go against the nature of debate.

I agree with this, and I think nearly everyone of us agrees with this sentiment. Personal attacks are not necessary and almost none of us condone it. But having the mod delete every questionable comment and post is just not reasonable, and like you said, censorship on a debate site is not appropriate. Regulation of speech is the worst thing that could possibly happen here.

Everyone should make a greater effort to be civil, and civility should be encouraged on this site in general. I actually think that this site is a good example of where argument is encouraged and we are lucky not to see it slide into random and constant personal attacks. Yes, there are exceptions, but the overwhelming majority of members don't seem to partake in that type of behavior, and don't take it all that seriously when it happens to them.

At 5/11/2012 3:37:00 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

At 5/11/2012 3:35:47 PM, Perseus wrote:

At 5/11/2012 3:30:20 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

At 5/11/2012 3:29:20 PM, WriterDave wrote:
Excuse me, but please read my post in its entirety before responding to it; I've addressed all of the responses that have so far been made in my OP.

Stop deactivating and reactivating your account.

Either stay and face the people you have issues with or begone with you.

You are not a very nice person.

Why?

You are rude.

Everyone needs to relax. Dave, if you can't handle being trolled like that without feeling suicidal I highly suggest that you stay away from this site. People have been trolled much much worse than that.

At 5/11/2012 3:39:30 PM, Perseus wrote:

At 5/11/2012 3:37:00 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

At 5/11/2012 3:35:47 PM, Perseus wrote:

At 5/11/2012 3:30:20 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

At 5/11/2012 3:29:20 PM, WriterDave wrote:
Excuse me, but please read my post in its entirety before responding to it; I've addressed all of the responses that have so far been made in my OP.

Stop deactivating and reactivating your account.

Either stay and face the people you have issues with or begone with you.

You are not a very nice person.

Why?

You are rude.

Well, he's been on here whining and attacking people for being mean so I'm telling him what I think which is my right and why I am on this site. To tell people what I think and discuss.

At 5/11/2012 3:29:20 PM, WriterDave wrote:
Excuse me, but please read my post in its entirety before responding to it; I've addressed all of the responses that have so far been made in my OP.

I did read your post and you suggest that the mod isn't doing his job. I personally know this mod guy, and I can tell you he takes the job pretty seriously. How he judges the cases is by the amount of harm that is waged. He doesn't take individual temperament into consideration, but uses a general normative standard that this site has exhibited over the last few years. Yes it is largely subjective in what is considered harm, but it isn't hard to figure it out. He leans on the side of not censoring or banning, and probably ignore 75% of the complaints because they don't merit action.

In your case there were enough people reporting on your behalf for the mod to take notice, but should a special exception be made for the members who are far more sensitive than the rest of the users?

Dave, if you really enjoy the debate aspect of this site, you could try possibly restricting yourself to only debates. As a bonus, you can almost be guaranteed that if someone pulled stuff similar to what was going on in your comments section, they'd lose conduct points. Of course, you have to watch out that you aren't making sweeping generalizations and whatnot as well. Of course, you might be tempted to engage in the comments sections, so there's always that to consider.

At 5/11/2012 3:43:42 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

At 5/11/2012 3:39:30 PM, Perseus wrote:

At 5/11/2012 3:37:00 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

At 5/11/2012 3:35:47 PM, Perseus wrote:

At 5/11/2012 3:30:20 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

At 5/11/2012 3:29:20 PM, WriterDave wrote:
Excuse me, but please read my post in its entirety before responding to it; I've addressed all of the responses that have so far been made in my OP.

Stop deactivating and reactivating your account.

Either stay and face the people you have issues with or begone with you.

You are not a very nice person.

Why?

You are rude.

Well, he's been on here whining and attacking people for being mean so I'm telling him what I think which is my right and why I am on this site. To tell people what I think and discuss.

But you're adding nothing, and sounding like an idiot.

I don't like the idea of having to refer to transcendent fictions like "civility" or "dignity", as if we can just presuppose those categories as meta-level values that bind our activity here. It's way better just to say stuff like "I want to debate without people being a d!ck to me all the time", in which case you get the benefit of playing your hand without having to say stuff like "But but but dignity and respect", but it also gives the community the benefit of not having to listen to stupid arguments like "Well, he started it, so, because he violated by dignity with insults, I was justified in responding with anger/insults/whatever".

Way better if rules of conduct are just sort of self-sufficient, man. And, as a result, I think the notion that we ought to regulate it kind of comes into question when you're not looking at enforcing weird meta-juridical "dignities" or "rights to respect" or whatever. It becomes incumbent on all parties, but not as an obligation, to not be unnecessary douches to other people, but, perhaps more importantly, not to respond by being a douche to other people. Not that I'm accusing you of responding by harassing your harassers (I'm way too uninterested to read all that stuff), but I do think it's important that our personal conduct is just grounded in what we expect to get out of being here (or, more generally, what we expect from participating in a community).

In other words: if you have to leave because of harassment, there are plenty of other communities to go join. You're welcome to leave. If not, though, you either need to alter your expectations or at learn to control resentment of people who make snide comments. Back before I left, I tended to get insulted with some frequency whenever I would get into protracted arguments with some people (I still remember that Justin_Chains guy, who would always insist that I was an ignorant moron, no matter what my counterargument looked like). And, to this day, I also continue to troll. Pretty hard. Because it's fun. But that's just how I roll. I can play the role of the level-headed intellectual or the foul-mouthed troll. And I don't have to reference in any case fictions of dignity, respect, or civility as binding presuppositions.

tl;dr Do what you've got to do, brother, but don't go fuckin' with my jam.

Plus, you're not even fat. You shouldn't be so sensitive about it.

Seriously...

Let's not give up our freedoms to make a few more members feel comfy. There are plenty of other sites that are all about love and happiness (friendship is magical!)

At 5/11/2012 3:46:27 PM, innomen wrote:

At 5/11/2012 3:29:20 PM, WriterDave wrote:
Excuse me, but please read my post in its entirety before responding to it; I've addressed all of the responses that have so far been made in my OP.

I did read your post and you suggest that the mod isn't doing his job. I personally know this mod guy, and I can tell you he takes the job pretty seriously. How he judges the cases is by the amount of harm that is waged. He doesn't take individual temperament into consideration, but uses a general normative standard that this site has exhibited over the last few years. Yes it is largely subjective in what is considered harm, but it isn't hard to figure it out. He leans on the side of not censoring or banning, and probably ignore 75% of the complaints because they don't merit action.

In your case there were enough people reporting on your behalf for the mod to take notice, but should a special exception be made for the members who are far more sensitive than the rest of the users?

In being the recipient of hurtful or harmful content, I am no different from anyone else who has been the recipient of hurtful or harmful content. I simply react differently. And if you must err, then the status of the Terms of Service as a legally binding document requires you to err on the side of enforcing the ToS -- or, to put it another way, on the side of avoiding civil liability.

If you can't or won't do that, then your resignation is appropriate.

At 5/11/2012 3:30:05 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
WriterDave is a sensitive guy and I feel people should take it easy on him.

That being said, I don't want to see speech being regulated here. It's a slippery slope, it's nearly an impossible task to determine what qualifies as acceptable and what doesn't. People have the right to say what ever they want.

Yes, this is a private site, but the intentions of this site is a place for debate, but with debate comes passion, and with passion comes heated exchanges. To limit speech on this site is to go against the nature of debate.

The nature of debate is attacks on ideas, not attacks on persons.

As for determining what qualifies as acceptable and what doesn't, I think it's pretty simple: if a reasonable person can conclude that an attack does not have the effect of attacking an idea, or that it has the dual effect of attacking an idea and a person, then it is unacceptable.(That's just off the top of my head; it may need to be refined to allow for people who identify so strongly with their ideas that they regard any attack as a personal attack. But you see it's possible.)

Well, I'm off. I'm gonna go to a gay forum site even though I am a straight conservative. I don't react well to gays flirting with me. I am going to close my account on the gay forum site, only to open it back up and complain some more.

At 5/11/2012 4:04:01 PM, WriterDave wrote:

At 5/11/2012 3:46:27 PM, innomen wrote:

At 5/11/2012 3:29:20 PM, WriterDave wrote:
Excuse me, but please read my post in its entirety before responding to it; I've addressed all of the responses that have so far been made in my OP.

I did read your post and you suggest that the mod isn't doing his job. I personally know this mod guy, and I can tell you he takes the job pretty seriously. How he judges the cases is by the amount of harm that is waged. He doesn't take individual temperament into consideration, but uses a general normative standard that this site has exhibited over the last few years. Yes it is largely subjective in what is considered harm, but it isn't hard to figure it out. He leans on the side of not censoring or banning, and probably ignore 75% of the complaints because they don't merit action.

In your case there were enough people reporting on your behalf for the mod to take notice, but should a special exception be made for the members who are far more sensitive than the rest of the users?

In being the recipient of hurtful or harmful content, I am no different from anyone else who has been the recipient of hurtful or harmful content. I simply react differently. And if you must err, then the status of the Terms of Service as a legally binding document requires you to err on the side of enforcing the ToS -- or, to put it another way, on the side of avoiding civil liability.

If you can't or won't do that, then your resignation is appropriate.

WriterDave, you are basically saying the mod is not doing his job when, the mod clearly is doing his job. Also, Juggle is not civilly liable for your mental harm....there does not even have to be a mod to begin with. They could have simply told the mod, no, we will not grant you moderator powers, only if they did that, the site would kind of get a bit overrun shall we say. The mod has no legal reason to keep the site free from spam. He's simply being nice.

"IN NO EVENT SHALL Juggle BE LIABLE TO YOU OR ANY THIRD PERSON FOR ANY INDIRECT, GENERAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL, EXEMPLARY, PUNITIVE, OR OTHER DAMAGES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF REVENUE OR INCOME, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, CORRUPTION OF DATA, PERSONAL INJURY, DEATH, PAIN AND SUFFERING, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS"

http://www.debate.org...

(Scroll down to Limitation of Liability....)

At 5/11/2012 4:04:01 PM, WriterDave wrote:

At 5/11/2012 3:46:27 PM, innomen wrote:

At 5/11/2012 3:29:20 PM, WriterDave wrote:
Excuse me, but please read my post in its entirety before responding to it; I've addressed all of the responses that have so far been made in my OP.

I did read your post and you suggest that the mod isn't doing his job. I personally know this mod guy, and I can tell you he takes the job pretty seriously. How he judges the cases is by the amount of harm that is waged. He doesn't take individual temperament into consideration, but uses a general normative standard that this site has exhibited over the last few years. Yes it is largely subjective in what is considered harm, but it isn't hard to figure it out. He leans on the side of not censoring or banning, and probably ignore 75% of the complaints because they don't merit action.

In your case there were enough people reporting on your behalf for the mod to take notice, but should a special exception be made for the members who are far more sensitive than the rest of the users?

In being the recipient of hurtful or harmful content, I am no different from anyone else who has been the recipient of hurtful or harmful content. I simply react differently. And if you must err, then the status of the Terms of Service as a legally binding document requires you to err on the side of enforcing the ToS -- or, to put it another way, on the side of avoiding civil liability.

If you can't or won't do that, then your resignation is appropriate.

Is that really what you would like to see happen? Resign, and put someone who is far more strict in interpreting the ToS as mod, all as a result of one member who has difficulty coping with the discourse that hundreds, or thousands of others haven't had much problem with?

Conflict is what keeps this site alive, and even the occassional drama fuels the posts. There is a balance that is very important to preserve, where the wants and needs of the membership as a whole are kept as the standard for the mod, and limiting the individual members who are the source of harm and abuse. It is a no win situation for the mod, trust me. My time here is limited and changes will happen, but the survival of this site is based on conflict not consensus, not accommodation and not peace, that's just the reality of this site.

At 5/11/2012 4:11:17 PM, THEBOMB wrote:

At 5/11/2012 4:04:01 PM, WriterDave wrote:

At 5/11/2012 3:46:27 PM, innomen wrote:

At 5/11/2012 3:29:20 PM, WriterDave wrote:
Excuse me, but please read my post in its entirety before responding to it; I've addressed all of the responses that have so far been made in my OP.

I did read your post and you suggest that the mod isn't doing his job. I personally know this mod guy, and I can tell you he takes the job pretty seriously. How he judges the cases is by the amount of harm that is waged. He doesn't take individual temperament into consideration, but uses a general normative standard that this site has exhibited over the last few years. Yes it is largely subjective in what is considered harm, but it isn't hard to figure it out. He leans on the side of not censoring or banning, and probably ignore 75% of the complaints because they don't merit action.

In your case there were enough people reporting on your behalf for the mod to take notice, but should a special exception be made for the members who are far more sensitive than the rest of the users?

In being the recipient of hurtful or harmful content, I am no different from anyone else who has been the recipient of hurtful or harmful content. I simply react differently. And if you must err, then the status of the Terms of Service as a legally binding document requires you to err on the side of enforcing the ToS -- or, to put it another way, on the side of avoiding civil liability.

If you can't or won't do that, then your resignation is appropriate.

WriterDave, you are basically saying the mod is not doing his job when, the mod clearly is doing his job. Also, Juggle is not civilly liable for your mental harm....there does not even have to be a mod to begin with. They could have simply told the mod, no, we will not grant you moderator powers, only if they did that, the site would kind of get a bit overrun shall we say. The mod has no legal reason to keep the site free from spam. He's simply being nice.

"IN NO EVENT SHALL Juggle BE LIABLE TO YOU OR ANY THIRD PERSON FOR ANY INDIRECT, GENERAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL, EXEMPLARY, PUNITIVE, OR OTHER DAMAGES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF REVENUE OR INCOME, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, CORRUPTION OF DATA, PERSONAL INJURY, DEATH, PAIN AND SUFFERING, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS"

http://www.debate.org...

(Scroll down to Limitation of Liability....)

Thank you good sir.

At 5/11/2012 4:10:04 PM, Koopin wrote:
Well, I'm off. I'm gonna go to a gay forum site even though I am a straight conservative. I don't react well to gays flirting with me. I am going to close my account on the gay forum site, only to open it back up and complain some more.

Oh dear. Did the gay site's Terms of Conduct imply that you could expect an environment free of gay flirting?