Moderation/Rule/Site Concerns and Suggestions

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Winter, just for the record, I think you're wrong on many levels and I agree with Roxas.

And this is perfectly fine. Pushing for bans because of that conclusion is however not

[Aerion Brightflame]

Likes haven't brought in members now. Nor anytime since debates was created. People who post there aren't there for the encouragement 

 

Quality is a better conduit for activity than subsidies Tom

 

And I'm saying that we aren't going to get quality, so I'd rather not see the removal of the only form of positive encouragement to actually post in there beyond getting a kick from the debate.

 

Because we don't debate in a conventional sense where you propose arguments and a victor is decided upon the one who 'won' the argument, we make points until conversation dies. Unless you actually get a kick of out of constructing and making points, there's no positive reinforcement or encouragement to be had. And some people won't get a kick out of that part of debates till they get a taste for it, and short of a drastic overhaul in how people actually undertake debates in the section, I don't think people will stay around long enough to actually get a kick out of that.

 

It's a similar reason as to why CW is dead. Posts died down, so feedback and positive reinforcement died down, so people got discouraged and stop posting, so people making an effort because it's a lot of effort for no reward.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

And I'm saying that we aren't going to get quality, so I'd rather not see the removal of the only form of positive encouragement to actually post in there beyond getting a kick from the debate.

 

Because we don't debate in a conventional sense where you propose arguments and a victor is decided upon the one who 'won' the argument, we make points until conversation dies. Unless you actually get a kick of out of constructing and making points, there's no positive reinforcement or encouragement to be had. And some people won't get a kick out of that part of debates till they get a taste for it, and short of a drastic overhaul in how people actually undertake debates in the section, I don't think people will stay around long enough to actually get a kick out of that.

 

It's a similar reason as to why CW is dead. Posts died down, so feedback and positive reinforcement died down, so people got discouraged and stop posting, so people making an effort because it's a lot of effort for no reward.

Again, it's not been "positive reinforcement" in practice recently...so please tell me how you plan to make them positive reinforcements in the future. Right now it creates polarized mob mentality on both sides. Though more prevalent on the with Roxas and co.

 

Debates is dying cause of circular logic in high profile cases like Abortion or more recently the WBC thread

[Aix]

Again, it's not been "positive reinforcement" in practice recently...so please tell me how you plan to make them positive reinforcements in the future. Right now it creates polarized mob mentality on both sides. Though more prevalent on the with Roxas and co

I kinda feel this is the case, but haven't dipped my head into Debates enough.

[Wahrheit]

I kinda feel this is the case, but haven't dipped my head into Debates enough.

This is more the result of bad faith participation and has nothing to do with the "like feature - said feature is merely one way that participation can manifest and isn't inherently good or bad (though, I would argue, and have in a setting mods are privy to, that it's a net good).

[Slinky]

My main problem with a permaban, is that if they do come back after being given the second chance, they are forced to make a new account, AND more importantly, not give any hint or tell anyone who they are, or get banned again if they do, even if they didn't do anything wrong. 

 

Like who the funk actually cares about that? It's not like people here are going to be like "OH sheet MAN, YOU'RE THAT GUY WHO POSTED THIS -insert thing here-. YOU SUCH A baka MAN". So, if its designed to protect the user from harassment, then the entire concept of "you can't tell anyone who you are" seems frivolous.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

My main problem with a permaban, is that if they do come back after being given the second chance, they are forced to make a new account, AND more importantly, not give any hint or tell anyone who they are, or get banned again if they do, even if they didn't do anything wrong. 

 

Like who the funk actually cares about that? It's not like people here are going to be like "OH sheet MAN, YOU'RE THAT GUY WHO POSTED THIS -insert thing here-. YOU SUCH A baka MAN". So, if its designed to protect the user from harassment, then the entire concept of "you can't tell anyone who you are" seems frivolous.

Except this is exactly what happened with Sunn, he was a fairly active user under his new name, decided (wrongly) that he was close enough to the community, and came out. And they lynched him for it

[Aix]

This is more the result of bad faith participation and has nothing to do with the "like feature - said feature is merely one way that participation can manifest and isn't inherently good or bad (though, I would argue, and have in a setting mods are privy to, that it's a net good).

Yeah, but we're looking at the impact of this feature and I wonder if the feature currently exacerbates the issue.

[Wahrheit]

Yeah, but we're looking at the impact of this feature and I wonder if the feature currently exacerbates the issue.

It probably doesn't.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

This is more the result of bad faith participation and has nothing to do with the "like feature - said feature is merely one way that participation can manifest and isn't inherently good or bad (though, I would argue, and have in a setting mods are privy to, that it's a net good).

Tell me, how active have you been in the debate setting. Yes, you are right that it starts out as "bad faith" and then it's personified through silent repping. 

 

I've repped Flame a fair number of times, because of his arguments merit over their content. And he's done so to people he disagrees with too. But you'll not see a lot of that. I'd really prefer not to name names, cause it's not an individual problem, but rather a systematic blight 

[Slinky]

Except this is exactly what happened with Sunn, he was a fairly active user under his new name, decided (wrongly) that he was close enough to the community, and came out. And they lynched him for it

 

Normally, that can be perceived as the person lying about their identity. And the longer you hide it, the more outraged people will be, whereas the conflict would normally be non-existent if you were just up front about it from the start.

[Aerion Brightflame]

Again, it's not been "positive reinforcement" in practice recently...so please tell me how you plan to make them positive reinforcements in the future. Right now it creates polarized mob mentality on both sides. Though more prevalent on the with Roxas and co.

 

Debates is dying cause of circular logic in high profile cases like Abortion or more recently the WBC thread

 

No clue how I would, it's just what I feel it has a useful purpose as, and that it's a purpose that shouldn't be denied because of 'rep-jerking'

 

I don't think likes have anything to do with the polarised 'mob mentality'. I think the lack of people being objective and taking the debates as personal s*** instead of just a debate is the cause. Because when one insults and goes 'no your stupid' instead of actually dismissing a point constructively and bringing one to the other side of the view, you make people defensive and they lash out.

 

I think everyone active in debates is guilty of this. Not reps, the attitude would still exist with or without reps in the section.

 

The abortion thread is a bad example, because it's a polarising issue. It's actually a poor debate when the argument on one side is an all encompassing 'it's murder', because there's never ground to give or a willingness to see things from a different view.

 

I would assign debates poor state due to an overall hostile attitude, and s*** quality of actual discourse happening there.

 

EDIT: The abortion remark isn't me trying to start anything, or say X side is stupid, just that ones initial position being an absolute is poor starting point for discussion.

[Wahrheit]

Tell me, how active have you been in the debate setting. Yes, you are right that it starts out as "bad faith" and then it's personified through silent repping. 

 

I've repped Flame a fair number of times, because of his arguments merit over their content. And he's done so to people he disagrees with too. But you'll not see a lot of that. I'd really prefer not to name names, cause it's not an individual problem, but rather a systematic blight 

I'm a law student.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

No clue how I would, it's just what I feel it has a useful purpose as, and that it's a purpose that shouldn't be denied because of 'rep-jerking'

 

I don't think likes have anything to do with the polarised 'mob mentality'. I think the lack of people being objective and taking the debates as personal s*** instead of just a debate is the cause. Because when one insults and goes 'no your stupid' instead of actually dismissing a point constructively and bringing one to the other side of the view, you make people defensive and they lash out.

 

I think everyone active in debates is guilty of this. Not reps, the attitude would still exist with or without reps in the section.

 

The abortion thread is a bad example, because it's a polarising issue. It's actually a poor debate when the argument on one side is an all encompassing 'it's murder', because there's never ground to give or a willingness to see things from a different view.

 

I would assign debates poor state due to an overall hostile attitude, and s*** quality of actual discourse happening there.

 

EDIT: The abortion remark isn't me trying to start anything, or say X side is stupid, just that ones initial position being an absolute is poor starting point for discussion.

Abortion topic was flawed because it was superficial argued (I'm guilty as charged) on a surface level. Instead of targeting the fundamentals. 

 

1) When does life start, and why

 

2) When is it ok to terminate life, and why

 

But there was significant snark and shame posting on both sides that that killed to the record 4 abortion topics

 

Well you can show that x members reps are follow a statistically significant pattern and show that it is rep-whoring beyond a doubt.

 

There's a lot wrong with debates, and I'm in no way saying that the reps are the ONLY thing

I'm a law student.

That's fine, I'm an econ major and socialists on here lecture me all the time on wealth inequality 

 

Something you aren't however is active, instead of popping in here every blue moon and throwing out smart retorts, how about you go spectate a hot topic in debates sometime

 

---

 

I have enguin's permission to post this here.

 

There's been other accounts like this, the bullying deal in the trans topic, the lazarus incident with chemical weapons.

 

I'd like to remind the mod team, y'all demodded Strike for removing a picture that was the embodiment of pointed harassment. 

 

Despite what's in Roxas's heart, of which I don't know, he's been show to overreact and get personally involved when as a mod he should not. He does not example the professionalism of people such as Evilfusion or Dad

 

"I simply requested, as per the thread's title, that Raeg offer his thoughts on me. Little did I know I was about to be awarded the lowest possible rating on his chosen scale, slandered with a derogatory term, and told to prematurely end my own life. Needless to say I expect retribution to be exacted swiftly and severely."

 

Taking this seriously should've got Roxas demodded on its own tbh imo.

 

[Wahrheit]

You asked me what I know about the debate setting and argumentation. It's literally my job. Economics is a disputed field, but there are really very clear standards and practices when it comes to legal procedure and argumentation.

 

You can't have it both ways by asking me how I'm qualified to speak on something and then say that qualifications don't matter.

 

This is actually a really great example of what you do in Debates and why the exact problems you're complaining about exist at all.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You asked me what I know about the debate setting and argumentation. It's literally my job. Economics is a disputed field, but there are really very clear standards and practices when it comes to legal procedure and argumentation.

 

You can't have it both ways by asking me how I'm qualified to speak on something and then say that qualifications don't matter.

 

This is actually a really great example of what you do in Debates and why the exact problems you're complaining about exist at all.

I'm asking you what you know about the debates section. If anything is clear, it's that you're capable of holding an argument quite well. So are a lot of people like Brightflame and Dad, but despite their best attempts debate still remains a mess. 

 

It's convenient to conflate the debate section with the ability to hold a debate, but that's not what's being critiqued here

 

You're qualified to speak on the merits of a debate, and I'm likewise inclined to admit to most of your critiques of me. That however doesn't detract from that fact that you can prove significance of the mob repping of certain members

 

Tell me, in a courtroom, is it tolerated to applaud and cheer when someone makes a convincing argument?

[Wahrheit]

I'm asking you what you know about the debates section. If anything is clear, it's that you're capable of holding an argument quite well. So are a lot of people like Brightflame and Dad, but despite their best attempts debate still remains a mess. 

 

It's convenient to conflate the debate section with the ability to hold a debate, but that's not what's being critiqued here

 

You're qualified to speak on the merits of a debate, and I'm likewise inclined to admit to most of your critiques of me. That however doesn't detract from that fact that you can prove significance of the mob repping of certain members

 

Tell me, in a courtroom, is it tolerated to applaud and cheer when someone makes a convincing argument?

I was once on the shortlist to be the mod of the debates section.

[Darj]

Also, this probably isn't something normal or perhaps even super mods can fix, but there are some issues with the site either on the 2edgy theme and/or when using Firefox. Specifically, features that would expand anything on the page save spoilers don't work without refreshing the page. "Show All Comments" on a status doesn't work and the notifications bar won't drop down if it's your first time on the front page on that tab; you have to refresh to make them work. The feature to show new posts that come up while working on your own also doesn't work. These weren't problems for a short while before the recent-ish downtime, but if we're bringing up comments and concerns, this just feels like a good time to mention it.

 

Going off from the main topics on, but jumping in mainly to report that I'm having pretty much these same issues as Yui. Letting you know so you are aware Yui is not the only one with this problem.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I was once on the shortlist to be the mod of the debates section.

Sure? Not entirely sure what that has to do with the situation though. Dad was on the shortlist, and actually got the job. Doesn't mean he's magically fixed the problem. You being a talented debater doesn't give you the power to invalidate basic psychology or statistic   

---

 

can someone tell me why my background keeps reverting to YCM1? Any ideas on how to fix? Not sure if it's related to Yui's issue

[Blake]

Reminder to keep things civil. Hostility is to be kept aside, so that you can state your thoughts and feelings freely.

 

Not saying it's delved into such, but I very much do not wish for it to become so.

[Aerion Brightflame]

You can prove corellation between given giving reps members and given viewpoints, I don't think you can prove any significant impact that such behavoir results in.

 

Proof would imply emphircal, and thus measurable, but the issues you've talked about in association with it are either subjective, and thus non emphircal, or have any number of contributing factors, and thus trying to draw causation from this correlation is flawed.

 

So either prove it emphirically and show us said proof, or don't talk about it as if it is already proven. Because otherwise your argument against reps is as hypothetical as my argument for reps.

 

EDIT; I'm not trying to be aggresive, it's just strange for someone to talk about an argument they are making as if it's emphircally proven, without ever actually proving it in empircal terms. If you could get away with doing that, undergraduate work would get a lot more simple.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You can prove corellation between given giving reps members and given viewpoints, I don't think you can prove any significant impact that such behavoir results in.

 

Proof would imply emphircal, and thus measurable, but the issues you've talked about in association with it are either subjective, and thus non emphircal, or have any number of contributing factors, and thus trying to draw causation from this correlation is flawed.

 

So either prove it emphirically and show us said proof, or don't talk about it as if it is already proven. Because otherwise your argument against reps is as hypothetical as my argument for reps.

My argument is easier to prove then that really. The current use of reps has not grown or served as positive reinforcement to new members. Therefore, there is little benefit to keeping it around

 

If you look at the ideal that jack set up when he re-created Debates post the Icy incident, he did want it to be a section without mod interference and have argument based feedback. Neither of which is happening despite us electing one of own to the modship of the place

 

Agreement doesn't further the debate, nor does it deepen it. 

[Wahrheit]

The current use of reps has not grown or served as positive reinforcement to new members.

 

[Aerion Brightflame]

My argument is easier to prove then that really. The current use of reps has not grown or served as positive reinforcement to new members. Therefore, there is little benefit to keeping it around

 

If you look at the ideal that jack set up when he re-created Debates post the Icy incident, he did want it to be a section without mod interference and have argument based feedback. Neither of which is happening despite us electing one of own to the modship of the place

 

Agreement doesn't further the debate, nor does it deepen it. 

 

But proof of a lack of positive is not a proof of a negative?

 

Unless one can proven negative impact, one does not have grounds to remove reps on the basis that it is negative. Which up until now has been the argument for it's removal; that it's detrimental to the section.

 

Likewise one cannot prove that positive reps haven't served as a positive thing, because it is not the only contributing component to the size of the active memberbase in debates. It is hypothetically possible that reps are serving as a positive influence, but that the otherwise hostile manner in which debates descends into is a greater detraction than the positive impact of those reps.

 

So technically neither side can prove what we are arguing here. It's semantics, but it is unproven.

 

EDIT: And what Warheilt said - You haven't proven the statement around which your argument is built upon.

 

You have gone:

Positive reps are in debates

Debates has not grown

Therefore positive reps keep debates from growing

 

Which is I believe an 'affirming the consequences' logical fallacy.

[Tourmaline]

Almost sounds like a non sequitur.