Official YCMock Debate #1 | Opening Cases

[Dad]

 

Good evening candidates.  Welcome to this week's YCMock Debate.  I'm your host, Hi I'm Dad.  Alongside me, the moderation team's Black and a few surprise guests will be joining us to ask questions.  Before we begin, I'd like to ask the candidates to please introduce themselves, and begin with their opening statements.  Afterwhich time, we'll begin with the first question of the evening, and candidates will have the opportunity to respond and rebut.

 

As a reminder candidates, here are the rules of the debate:

 

[spoiler=YCMock Debate Rulings]

All debates will take place in the Debates Section of YCM.  Threads will be locked allowing only Candidates and moderators to reply.  Opening statements and arguments will be presented by the Candidates before questions begin.  Questions will be administered by myself or other moderators to be answered by candidates one at a time.  There is no order in which candidates must post, but all candidates must wait until each current candidate has replied to the initial question before replying again.  After each candidate has replied to the initial questioning, candidates will have a brief time to rebut against other candidates.  Rebuttals will occur as follows:

 

First Question

All Candidates Have Answered

Candidate X Rebuts against Candidate Y

Candidate Y Replies

Candidate X replies

 

At this point, if Candidate Y has a second reply, they may provide it, but in order to keep the debate moving and to allow every candidate to reply, Candidate X may not rebut again against the same candidate for the same question.  At the end of the debate, Candidates will give closing points.  After each candidate has had the chance to offer closing statements if they choose, Candidates will no longer be allowed to reply to that thread.  Further replies will result in a warning.

 

Following the Debate, there will be a poll posted on YCM.  Candidates will not be allowed to reply or vote in the poll to insure that these polls are fair.  All candidates must send a private message to me with the names of each member of their cabinet or team.  Poll results will remain anonymous.

 

 

Candidates, you may proceed.

 

[cr47t]

Good day, YCMers.

 

Today, we are the members of a small yet thriving forum that has progressed much over the years. We have many subforums, a good amount of activity within those subforums, and new members continuing to join. However, our forum is not perfect -- we still have a good amount of work to do to make it the best we can. That is what I am willing to do, and as President of YCM, I would be willing to work alongside both moderators and the common people of YCM to improve this site.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Greetings, fellow members of the forum.

 

As you all know by now, we are here to get the wheels spinning on our own election. Not for a powered, or appointed position, such as the moderators who work to keep this community running, but for a symbolic role, chosen by the people. Things like this can easily be written off, with many candidates running as jokes. Of course, I am never opposed to good fun, as evidenced by my active role in Halloween events over the past two years and generally humorous, albeit sarcastic, presence on the forum. That said, I would like to see something greater come out of this. I would like to praise another of the candidates, Dae of the Aesthetics Party, for having a similar vision of achieving meaningful progress through this event. Though the election is for fun, and the position holds no power, the debates, what we are preparing for right now as I type this opening statement, will have an impact on the future of this forum. We can joke about building a wall to keep out DNF, or lowering taxation on points, but there are very real issues throughout the forum, and the community as a whole. There is no crisis, of course, and I don't plan to make any claims of "Making YCM Great Again," but my hope is that we can all use this mock election as a learning experience, so that proper discussion can be had to remedy the schisms, hostility, and general lack of acceptance that holds this forum back from being what it could. I don't have some master plan. I don't have the knowledge or experience needed to "fix" the forum on my own. What I do have is a listening ear. I know what it feels like to be a pariah, to think your concerns fall on deaf ears, and through my campaign I want all of the concerns of the people who spend their time in this community to be heard, and tackled with respect and care.

[Simping For Hina]

Let's do this.

[Delibirb]

Citizens of YCM...

 

Some of you may find my persona amusing. Others, frightening. But make no mistake - you've no reason to worry. My intentions are noble. My goals: community, progress, and efficiency. This forum is held back. Partly due to individuals who are in power that should not be, individuals who horde their power but do not use it, even for the good of the site. We call them our heroes, and protectors, but they are either too incapable or complacent to accomplish meaningful change.

 

I take the visage of a villain, because the true evils which plague YCM - evils which, let me be clear, are not the aforementioned individuals, but the characteristics that they suffer from, that humanity suffers from - have taken the guises of heroes. This forum is being run inefficiently, and its ability to hide this declines the more time it is left alone. Something must be done. If not my proposed plan of an ASI, to guide us into optimization on all fronts, then through serious discussion on the readjustment of powers. Particularly, the card maker must be brought up to speed. We are behind on the times, and it shows. This must be our first priority, as once the card maker is complete, more members - and indeed, existing ones - will be attracted to the Custom Cards sections, revitalizing it once more. This will bring interest in the actual game of yugioh back, and facilitate levels of discussion that the Trading Card Games sections has not experienced in some time. New members will flood in, pumping life back into all of the subforums, and YCM will thrive once more.

 

My name is General Heinous. And I am the candidate for YCM, and for humanity's sake.

[Enguin Enguin Enguin Enguin]

gl hf

[UltimateIRS]

i like bananas

[BANZAI!!!!]

My fellow YCMericans, I stand before you not as a-

 

You know what, no. I can save the space nazi demagogue schtick for later. I'm gonna be real with you all for a moment. Man to man, woman, or wherever on that technicolor rainbow in between you choose to fall.

 

I think some actual good can come out of this event. Perhaps not from the election itself, as the title is honorary and this is ostensibly a popularity contest, but I think this is a golden opportunity for people to adress real issues that they have with YCM's community and culture, and to do so in a constructive, and maybe even fun way: through us candidates. We can be your voice, and the way that this election is being conducted assures that we will be heard, and that we must be civil about it.

 

So what does this have to do with me? Well, not necessarily anything. I'm running on a ticket that's mostly composed of jokes and references to my favorite anime. But that being said, I'd like to make it known that I'm here to listen to what you have to say. I genuinely want to use this as an opportunity to help the community; to clear the air and make grievances heard and be addressed. And It need not end in my victory either (though you should totally vote for me anyway).

 

You want my opening argument? I don't have one. I'm campaigning to be a representative, after all. I'm here to be YOUR voice.

 

Duces.

 

Seig Zeon

[Dad]

Thank you candidates for your opening statements.  I'd like to move right into questioning, and we'll begin with an easy one before we work our way up the ladder.

 

What keeps this forum running at a steady and functional pace is a set of rules, and 'elected' officials to ensure that they're followed.  However, lately YCM has seen a decline for regards to the rules set in place, and a dysfunctional relationship between moderators and members has created tension around the boards.

 

How would you change the rules to better the boards?  In addition, please include why you would change the rules, and provide clarity.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

It is important to remember that modship is not an elected position. It is a position appointed by this already in power. My opinion of this system is overall positive. The mod team is, generally speaking, more knowledgeable on the position in question, as well as what qualifies one for it, than the typical member.

 

That said, it is not without issue. Due to lack of transparency in the mod team, decisions are often made in a manner that seem spontaneous or meaningless to those without inside knowledge. As a relatively recent example, the changes in rules regarding inappropriate content earlier this year sparked a tirade against supposed oppression by the staff, and accusations that they were not properly using their power. After the fact, it was made clear that (for the most part) the issues of the member base were less with the rules themselves, and more with how they were executed: sudden enforcement on something that had previously been lax, marked by lack of clarification or justification for a significant amount of time since the rules were posted. Not to mention that, even with the new rules, it was clear that moderators were not on the same page, providing differing explanations and some even blatantly saying they were not a part of the decision being made. This gave us a brief window into the turmoil of the forum's management, and we did not like what we saw.

 

Tying this back into my initial point, an issue with appointed positions on site staff is that members are often led to feel that they were not heard by those in power. Since the decisions regarding new staff members are made by the present staff, even in the best case scenario it gives the illusion that the system supports complacency, and more antagonistic impressions go as far as calling it corrupt, where positions are decided not by ability, but by connecting to those already in power.

 

A decided exclusion from this comes with the relatively recent appointment of Black to the team. Despite his previous connections to staff members, the moderating team made it very clear why he was given the position, with Night citing all of the relevant qualifications in his public endorsement. In this situation, the public was made completely aware of why Black was being appointed to modship, and how he specifically could help the site in this position. Since then, he has done nothing but improve the site, even in ways that extend beyond his regular duties. This is a demonstration of the benefits of a transparent system.

 

The rules of this forum, and the ways in which they are interpreted, go hand-in-hand with this. As I mentioned before, rules regarding sexually explicit content played a major role in creating the ever-growing schism between moderators and other members. In the creation of future rules, or the modification of those already present, the community must play a more active role in decision making, at the very least informed ahead of time of changes being considered and the implications these changes hold. Though final decisions remain with the moderator team (as they should) the community should be given an opportunity to voice any opinions or concerns they may have before the changes are finalized, so that they do not lead to conflict after the fact, as they have so many times in the past.

 

As for specific rule changes, I would like to direct those reading to a thread by the member Polaris. It is a somewhat lengthy read, but it is packed with content that members who are concerned about the direction this forum is moving should definitely take note of. The majority of the revisions are focused on creating clarity in the rules, as well as their punishments. With the current system, most action is taken at a moderator's own discretion, making them an authority who wields the rules, rather than a civil servant who upholds them. A concern with such a system that is often expressed is that it allows for both overzealous punishment against those they do not like, as well as a lack of rules enforcement against those who have better connections to the team. From what I have observed, the latter is the greater concern, but I have been made aware of both of these being the case.

 

In summary, my stance is that rules should be clarified and moderation made more transparent, so that the forum as a whole can be managed with greater care and fairness.

[cr47t]

In terms of adjusting the rules, I agree with (O) that the thread made by Polaris is an excellent suggestion (I had read it before announcing my campaign for President of YCM), and should be implimented, or at least looked at. In terms of how the mods operate, I have not been paying too close attention but intend to work with those whom have.

[Delibirb]

As has already been stated and seconded, the major problem with the current regulatory system - and by extension, the loyalty to it by members - is a lack of understanding. To what degree do certain actions become prohibited? What is allowed but only in some sections or circumstances? How exactly should textbook cases of these transgressions be handled?

This is one of the few issues facing YCM that an ASI can't fix. This falls to the human agents, the moderators. More public clarity must be practiced, and news threads should be created whenever there is an amendment or repeal of the rules, however minor. Communication not only between the moderation team and the userbase, but also just among the moderation team itself, is the key to solving regulation apathy.

 

I am partial to a table detailing each prohibited action, with example consequences scaled for severity or frequency of said action. But simply laying out the rules - and consequences - more clearly in their current format may be sufficient.

[Enguin Enguin Enguin Enguin]

The rules aren't an issue, it's the power given to joke mods like Aix who then abuse said power by plundering millions of points and hundreds of millions of reps from defenceless citizens. If elected, I will see to it that such characters are put down. I firmly believe that this change and this change alone will set YCM on the path to greatness. #MYCMGA

[cr47t]

Um, is this going to continue? Because the debate topic has seemingly been neglected for 4 days and it seems like everyone else forgot. So bumping as a reminder to yall other candidates.

[UltimateIRS]

idk

[Dad]

We'll now move forward with questioning.  The next topic will cover YCM's member activity and toxicity.

 

Candidates.  YCM has seen long time members and new members turned away, shunned, and attacked.  This has often caused members to leave indefinitely.  Some say the YCM environment is overly hostile.  Others propose that YCM's environment is simply tougher than most, and promotes a "if you can't handle the heat" mentality.  My question to you is, what about YCM's environment would you change?  In your opinion, should YCM be left alone, or should the weak be booted out?  And where is the line drawn in aggression and attacking other members?  For additional points, provide examples.

[cr47t]

I have not noticed much of the shunning and attacking, however the turnoff has been apparent. Because of these we have lost some pretty cool members (most recently Armz and Snatch steal, if that was the cause (I don't quite remember)) and I think we should do more to prevent this. I currently have no exact ideas or plans, but I am willing to work with other candidates, moderators, and non-moderators about this if elected. Recall what Ross Perot said; "I hire people who are smarter and far more talented than I am." I cite this quote because I imagine others on this site have some ideas (probably better than my current ones, which is none) and I am willing to listen to them and take their opinions into consideration.

[Delibirb]

Disassociating weak members is only logical. The problem comes when either a member of good nature, who offers beneficial character and content to the community, is shunned for minor mistakes or even opinionated disagreement, no matter how polite it may have been, or when the out-casting of weak members is done aggressively, without explanation, context, or civility; when flame wars are started instead of discussions. This is a problem which is not exclusive to inferior members - many long-time pillars of the community become hyper-aggressive and forgo proper laying out of one's points, resorting to ad hominem and pleas to authority, without attacking their opponent's points, or offering criticisms to help nurture others and themselves into model YCMers.

 

The resolution of this issue lies in that of the previous question: more clear rules and regulations. Show what kinds of argumentative tools are allowed in discussions, detail a clear and consistent line to prevent situations from getting out of hand - or deal out standardized consequences when they do. Such rules, limits, and consequences must be transparently laid out in a place not only of public access, but public convenience. One should be able to check up on this table with very little effort, so as to ensure no one feels it is too much effort to look at them and elects to disregard them altogether.

[Dad]

cr47t.  You said, and I quote, "I think we should do more to prevent that".  'That' being the loss of members.  What do you propose should be done?

 

 

---

 

General Heinous.  you said, and I quote, "Show what kinds of argumentative tools are allowed in discussions, detail a clear and consistent line to prevent situations from getting out of hand."  However, in the past, and also recently, members of the 'Debates' community have explicitly expressed that heavier moderation and or additional guidelines would only hinder debates and cause stagnant discussion.

 

How would you respond?

[Delibirb]

That is a ridiculous, self righteous notion, in addition to being baseless.

 

The people who fear such things believe that the implication is "templated" debates. However, the intention is not guidelines, but regulations. Not telling members how a discussion must progress, but helping them to ensure that it doesn't end bitterly and locked.

 

There does not need to be a template of what a debate must look like to be allowed. Certain practices that do not promote discussion in any meaningful way simply need to be responded to appropriately, and these practices, as well as corresponding consequences, need to be clear. There don't even need to be many additions, simply a more effective control of what we currently have, laid out in a more transparent manner.

 

Further, my suggestions do not apply solely to the debates section. Indeed, on many occasions, the toxicity in question was born from the TCG & OCG Card Discussion section. A no-tolerance policy on logical fallacy must become the norm, not out of hatred, self-pity, or superiority, but to spite these cruel ideals and regenerate the community.

[Dad]

Thank you General.  And in a final follow up question, I'd like to refer back to question one, as you did.  You said, and I quote "There don't even need to be many additions, simply a more effective control of what we currently have, laid out in a more transparent manner."

 

What changes would you make that would cause these forms of control to be more transparent?

[Delibirb]

Well as I alluded to, but will elaborate upon, I recommend a chart or table of sorts, outlining rules not just for behavior in terms of discussion, but all forum rules, with example infractions at various levels of gravity, that also contains corresponding, standardized consequences that will be carried out at equivalent intensity to the infraction. As of right now, we have only vague "no such and such" paragraphs.

 

Further, this table needs to be more convenient to reach regularly. Their current location is out of the way; practically invisible. And while I can't speak to where I think they should be found, as I don't have experience with mechanics of forum management, as it is now, I suspect many new members might think we have no written rules, merely rules which are enforced as and when it is convenient. We are a community, not a game of Mao.

[cr47t]

I hate to jab in this late, but;

 

 

 

cr47t.  You said, and I quote, "I think we should do more to prevent that".  'That' being the loss of members.  What do you propose should be done?

 

I believe I addressed that immediately after on that post. This is my current stance;

 

 

I currently have no exact ideas or plans, but I am willing to work with other candidates, moderators, and non-moderators about this if elected. Recall what Ross Perot said; "I hire people who are smarter and far more talented than I am." I cite this quote because I imagine others on this site have some ideas (probably better than my current ones, which is none) and I am willing to listen to them and take their opinions into consideration.

 

In short, I am still working on it and am still trying to examine the issue.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

cr47t makes mention of a certain quote from Ross Perot. It is a good quote, certainly, but not terribly applicable in this situation. Ross Perot was incredibly adept at what he did, proving incredible efficacy in sales as well as business management. When he makes such a statement, it shows that he is setting a high standard. In this situation, it is used as a defense for lack of a plan. You may be able to listen to everyone, and make use of their input, but if that is all you have, without bringing anything more to the table, why would one choose you, cr47t, over another candidate with more defined knowledge and experience?

 

As a matter of fact, this ties closely into my view on this issue. It is a problem the vast majority of the community sympathizes with, and yet very few are willing to take the steps needed to remedy it. Many have expressed distaste toward the way YCM as a community treats its members, then immediately turning around to harass and belittle them. I myself have been guilty of this on multiple occasions. It is a burden that we all carry. A big part of this issue is in the society we have created that favors high-standing members. It is no surprise that the dynamic has become what it is, it only makes sense. Members who have dedicated themselves to the forum for an extended time deserve to be treated better, right? This is a good sentiment that only becomes problematic when the line is crossed, changing it from respect to favoritism. Many members behave abrasively, or even aggressively, often toward new members, and we as a community write it off as "just being in their nature". If their nature is that which belittles and turns away prospective new members, is that not an issue in and of itself? If someone insults and attacks members of the community, their standing in said community should be no form of defense.

 

Recently, I have taken mental note of Hi I'm Dad's efforts to stop this problem. On numerous occasions, especially in the last few weeks, he has made visible steps to help members feel accepted, and to let them know that their issues are not theirs alone. Behavior like this from a high-standing member is important to helping this forum grow, and it coming from a moderator has an even higher impact, as the majority of the mod team has the appearance of being indifferent, sheltered, or to quote another user who I spoke with fairly recently about the issue, "a jerk". This is not a call to change the team. Anything but, as a matter of fact. What I believe to be the best solution is for members to make a conscious effort to be accepting of others, and this begins at the top, with the moderators. Though I understand that people have lives that need to be given proper attention over a forum, the moderation team should be more active in the community of YCM, setting an example on how all members should behave. It has been said by Black numerous times that moderators are meant to be leaders. Being a janitor just isn't enough.

 

And as for General Heinous, despite my appreciation of his dedication to a single issue, especially as I share in wanting rules clarification, it is far from a catch-all fix. This is a complicated, multi-faceted problem, and anyone trying to sell you a simple solution probably isn't telling you the whole story.

[Delibirb]

I in no way meant to indicate that my listed suggestions were a cure all. I was merely answering the questions and follow ups directed to me, which more or less regarded the rules and how they should function. Respectful behavior towards members isn't something that can be enforced as a rule. Reasonable discussion despite respect, or lack thereof, is.

Helping to make new members feel accepted, by way of disregarding the seniority of others when they need to be called out on negative attitudes, cannot be a rule. But it is something that must be worked on as a community; one's time or contributions as a member does not and should not give them a free pass to blatantly disrespect others, even if no one likes them.

The problem with trying to enforce laws to demand respect is simply, where is the line drawn? The ideal is that no one should feel that someone is bullying them, but what of more sensitive individuals, or situations that are in good fun but misinterpreted? There is far too much variance in what can be considered "not respectful enough" to create rules around it. Developing such an open community is a project.