[Section Discussion] Quality of Life Suggestions and Improvements

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I propose a rule whereby all utterances of "Wahrheit" after implementation result in an immediate ban. Firm but fair and totally precedented. 

Like as in a pun on the word Truth or like the user?

[Dad]

Stick to the topic please.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

So I got curious.

I shouldn't have but I did.

 

I just want to leave this here.

 

"The YCM Debates subforum exists to allow members free discourse on topics involving politics, ethics, religion, and other controversial issues (e.g. racism, political correctness) without disturbing the rest of the site.

 

What happens in Debates stays in Debates. Discussion on topics in this subforum and mentions of the happenings in this subforum are forbidden anywhere else on YCM. Entire threads may be moved here if needs be.

All YCM Rules still apply to this section; meaningless spam posts, flaming, and instances of ad hominem will still not be tolerated. While it is understandable that emotions may be roused in controversial discussions, please calm down before posting for the sake of rational and productive debate. A reminder that condescension and personal attacks are counterproductive to making others see your perspective and will only cause others to go on the defensive and become more adamant in their stance."

 

I don't see where this says "Debates is a place where mods stay back and don't put regulations"

I suppose I felt like having a say given that one of the reasons I avoid much of YCM now is because of stuff that goes down here. In my own opinion it has become a place where several people for some reason think it's their personal section. This is an attitude that needs to be addressed.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

So I got curious.

I shouldn't have but I did.

 

I just want to leave this here.

 

"The YCM Debates subforum exists to allow members free discourse on topics involving politics, ethics, religion, and other controversial issues (e.g. racism, political correctness) without disturbing the rest of the site.

 

What happens in Debates stays in Debates. Discussion on topics in this subforum and mentions of the happenings in this subforum are forbidden anywhere else on YCM. Entire threads may be moved here if needs be.

 

All YCM Rules still apply to this section; meaningless spam posts, flaming, and instances of ad hominem will still not be tolerated. While it is understandable that emotions may be roused in controversial discussions, please calm down before posting for the sake of rational and productive debate. A reminder that condescension and personal attacks are counterproductive to making others see your perspective and will only cause others to go on the defensive and become more adamant in their stance."

 

I don't see where this says "Debates is a place where mods stay back and don't put regulations"

I suppose I felt like having a say given that one of the reasons I avoid much of YCM now is because of stuff that goes down here. In my own opinion it has become a place where several people for some reason think it's their personal section. This is an attitude that needs to be addressed.

The original thread where people wanted a split from general due to Laz turning General into his personal safe space

 

Would you like a link? The Judicial activism of the mods does not change the initial reasoning behind making a hands off section

 

Needless spam posts don't occur. Flaming is subjective, and I've asked Brightflame for an occurrence in Debates recently where there has been ad hom (no reply, there was a jokish topic in General that Brightflame and Hoppy too srsly and got upset over, but wasn't in general). The closest it got, was me a couple of weeks ago calling shard anti-semetic for bashing Israel. I apologized to Shard for that comment, and I think we've put it behind us. But if that's "ad hom" all the Winter is Nazi posts are gonna have to be exhumed and examined

 

If you felt so triggered by this place that you need to avoid YCM, I cannot say much other than to with you better luck in finding a new safe space 

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

all the Winter is Nazi posts are gonna have to be exhumed and examined

They should tbh.

 

And what you wanted out of debates does not dictate the section rules.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

They should tbh.

 

And what you wanted out of debates does not dictate the section rules.

Wasn't just me actually

 

https://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/352629-debate-section/page-1

 

We created this section though, why are bandwagonners trying to make it the section it was created to differentiate from 

 

---

 

No it shouldn't. You have every right to call me a Nazi. It has a feedback loop in weakening your argument. That's it's own punishment

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

The original thread where people wanted a split from general due to Laz turning General into his personal safe space

 

Would you like a link? The Judicial activism of the mods does not change the initial reasoning behind making a hands off section

 

Needless spam posts don't occur. Flaming is subjective, and I've asked Brightflame for an occurrence in Debates recently where there has been ad hom (no reply, there was a jokish topic in General that Brightflame and Hoppy too srsly and got upset over, but wasn't in general). The closest it got, was me a couple of weeks ago calling shard anti-semetic for bashing Israel. I apologized to Shard for that comment, and I think we've put it behind us. But if that's "ad hom" all the Winter is Nazi posts are gonna have to be exhumed and examined

 

If you felt so triggered by this place that you need to avoid YCM, I cannot say much other than to with you better luck in finding a new safe space 

Yes I would certainly like links to where the reasoning for the section was decided upon. And where mods specifically stated it would be a hands off section.

 

By the way, Winter. This response is very interesting because it includes.

1. Assumptions

2. Ad Hominem

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Yes I would certainly like links to where the reasoning for the section was decided upon. And where mods specifically stated it would be a hands off section.

 

By the way, Winter. This response is very interesting because it includes.

1. Assumptions

2. Ad Hominem

The conditions were put forth for what a debates topic would entail. Mods agreed and created it.

 

Ad Hom - (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining

 

1) Refuted your claim that this was something that I just pulled out of my ass recently

2) Refuted your claim that the three things you were theorizing were occurring in frequency 

3) Detailed one example where it might be questionable.

4) Wished you luck in finding a safe space where you wouldn't feel uncomfortable, given your own admission of discomfort

 

No ad hom sadly

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

The conditions were put forth for what a debates topic would entail. Mods agreed and created it.

 

Ad Hom - (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining

 

1) Refuted your claim that this was something that I just pulled out of my ass recently

2) Refuted your claim that the three things you were theorizing were occurring in frequency 

3) Detailed one example where it might be questionable.

4) Wished you luck in finding a safe space where you wouldn't feel uncomfortable, given your own admission of discomfort

 

No ad hom sadly

Still no link? I asked for a direct post or whatever of where the mods agreed that's what it would be. Your link above had only one mod (not a mod anymore) say anything and it was "Don't like the idea".

 

1) When did you refute it? The thing I mentioned above this? Not a refute.

2) I was literally quoting the rules to point out it said nothing about mod involvement. What's there to refute?

3) Okay?

4) You know this is bs dude.

 

I obviously can't prove your last sentence wasn't just an attack and using "key words" to discredit what I said. Amounting it to being "Triggered" and needing a "safe space" but it's pretty clear and I find it petty you're pretending it's out of any concern.

 

Just give me the actual links to where all this was decided. Where it was stated that mods would stay out of it and such and that that was the purpose of the section.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Still no link? I asked for a direct post or whatever of where the mods agreed that's what it would be. Your link above had only one mod (not a mod anymore) say anything and it was "Don't like the idea".

 

1) When did you refute it? The thing I mentioned above this? Not a refute.

2) I was literally quoting the rules to point out it said nothing about mod involvement. What's there to refute?

3) Okay?

4) You know this is bs dude.

 

I obviously can't prove your last sentence wasn't just an attack and using "key words" to discredit what I said. Amounting it to being "Triggered" and needing a "safe space" but it's pretty clear and I find it petty you're pretending it's out of any concern.

 

Just give me the actual links to where all this was decided. Where it was stated that mods would stay out of it and such and that that was the purpose of the section.

My apologies, I had it in the resp to para

 

1) https://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/352629-debate-section/page-1

2) I'm just stating those three thing ain't happening

3) ok

4) It's not ad hom; you admitted that this section was making you so uncomfortable that you had to leave. That's along the lines of triggering. Leaving a section of dissent and seeking out a sanctuary is a safe space. Do I think you're being reasonable...clearly not. But it's not a slight against you, but rather your actions. 

 

5) Provided

 

Dad seems favored to take this up, either as a poll or through mod activism, so we might as well get on with it

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

My apologies, I had it in the resp to para

 

1) https://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/352629-debate-section/page-1

2) I'm just stating those three thing ain't happening

3) ok

4) It's not ad hom; you admitted that this section was making you so uncomfortable that you had to leave. That's along the lines of triggering. Leaving a section of dissent and seeking out a sanctuary is a safe space. Do I think you're being reasonable...clearly not. But it's not a slight against you, but rather your actions. 

 

5) Provided

 

Still no link? I asked for a direct post or whatever of where the mods agreed that's what it would be. Your link above had only one mod (not a mod anymore) say anything and it was "Don't like the idea".

 

Just give me the actual links to where all this was decided. Where it was stated that mods would stay out of it and such and that that was the purpose of the section.

Like I am not sure when Debates came into being after this but I see no indication that your thread/proposal was accepted.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Like I am not sure when Debates came into being after this but I see no indication that your thread/proposal was accepted.

About a week actually. I'm sure you can ask treb for mod section tread details on the discussion if you think it'd lead to a game changer from there. I could find the mod annoucement of the debate section being made in response to this thread, but...would that change anything in your eyes?

 

One thing I would like to mention, not just my idea, ideas from quite a few members who frequent this section. I guess the question remains, do the opinions of members who are either new or have left this section for comfort reasons have an equal sway over it's future relative to members that actively post here?

 

I assume Dad will rule in your favor here and affirm yes. Personally disagree, but so be it I guess. It shall go to a vote.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

About a week actually. I'm sure you can ask treb for mod section tread details on the discussion if you think it'd lead to a game changer from there. I could find the mod annoucement of the debate section being made in response to this thread, but...would that change anything in your eyes?

 

One thing I would like to mention, not just my idea, ideas from quite a few members who frequent this section. I guess the question remains, do the opinions of members who are either new or have left this section for comfort reasons have an equal sway over it's future relative to members that actively post here?

 

I assume Dad will rule in your favor here and affirm yes. Personally disagree, but so be it I guess. It shall go to a vote.

Why does it matter if it would change anything in my eyes specifically? If it's the facts it's the facts. I just want to see where it's actually stated that it's the purpose of the section and that mods agreed to stay out of it.

 

Well to that I say that if someone came back to RP or a new person came into RP and suggested a change I'd certainly be willing to consider it. Isolationism on a forum does not work.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Why does it matter if it would change anything in my eyes specifically? If it's the facts it's the facts. I just want to see where it's actually stated that it's the purpose of the section and that mods agreed to stay out of it.

 

Well to that I say that if someone came back to RP or a new person came into RP and suggested a change I'd certainly be willing to consider it. Isolationism on a forum does not work.

And I'd argue that freshmen should not radically be able to pack the vote to change a section to their own liking by adding undue regulations when no clear violations exist.

 

[Delibirb]

And I'd argue that freshmen should not radically be able to pack the vote to change a section to their own liking by adding undue regulations when no clear violations exist.

 

CowCow isn't asking for evidence of when the section was made. That was a separate curiosity that was only mentioned briefly, as part of a larger reiterated request, but perhaps you're too intent on avoiding his true query to have noticed? He is requesting evidence that mods have agreed to treat Debates with laissez faire.

 

As I recall, Dad has always said that the users get upset when mods interfere in debates, so they make every effort not to. But he's never stated that as a rule, mods lay off. But by all means, provide CowCow the link he has requested, if such a thing exists.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

CowCow isn't asking for evidence of when the section was made. That was a separate curiosity that was only mentioned briefly, as part of a larger reiterated request, but perhaps you're too intent on avoiding his true query to have noticed? He is requesting evidence that mods have agreed to treat Debates with laissez faire.

 

As I recall, Dad has always said that the users get upset when mods interfere in debates, so they make every effort not to. But he's never stated that as a rule, mods lay off. But by all means, provide CowCow the link he has requested, if such a thing exists.

 

Like I am not sure when Debates came into being after this but I see no indication that your thread/proposal was accepted.

Err, he did mention it

 

In response to your post:

 

1) The section was created in response to the thread being made - Affirmed

 

2) The goal of the thread was to create a debates section due to perceived over policing of the general section - Affirmed

 

3) I will concede the mods did not give an explicit statement saying they would unambiguously stay out of the section

 

However

 

4) They defacto agreed to it in a few way:

 

First a query: 

 

a) Why make a redundant section if the policing was going to be the same in general and debates?

 

And now Empirical Evidence:

 

b) Your own post cites Dad doing his level best to stay out of the section using activism

 

c) Many of the activist rulings of Roxas have infact been struck down by the mod team in pertaining to debates, atleast in my cases (such as the desired goal to reign me in on the trans topic w/ warning points and ban threats)

 

If in the end, what you desire from me is an admission that the mods have gotten involved on rare occasion such as with the PC thread, the Laz Melt Down, or Abortion scandal. I have to concede that. But, thus far, the general practice of the mod team is not to get involved unless they have no other choice.

 

Give the three reason to institute a civility clause, Flame, Spam, Ad Hom, haven't been ravaging Debates (still waiting on proof to the otherwise), it hardly seems to be an exception where a mod step in IS needed.

 

As you claimed of Dad: "they make every effort not to"

 

I'm asking them to make that effort or prove the need for intervention.

 

---

 

This is not the first time the YCM left has attempted to rise this issue. And it was succinctly shut down by one of their own last time too

 

https://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/352442-bad-general-topics/page-2

 

Guys I really have to agree with Winter here. 

 

Snatch Steal while you maybe right in saying nobody's going to look an article like "Woman Stoned in Iran for not wearing hijab" "Highschool Teen killed for being Gay" "12 year old girl gunned down while playing in her backyard" and say oh those people deserved it. However it does generate discourse and allow people to really learn things. People assume just because everyone agrees there isn't anything to be shared or learned. I'd say just the opposite is true that people are more receptive to learning and accepting new ideas when they're not arguing over who they think is right.

 

If the issue is that people don't want to see sad topics, or politically charged one, then I don't know what to tell you guys. sheet happens and people want to talk about it.

 

So much so, that it lead to the creation of debates as a section

 

 

I agree with you now TBH. General needs to split into General and Debates so the "bad" topics tou described have a home they belong instead of shoe horned here.

 

People are afraid to come into general even to read a post about a heroic officer. That's not good. You're onto something. I just don't agree with the branding "bad"

 

[Delibirb]

 

Err, he did mention it

 

In response to your post:

 

1) The section was created in response to the thread being made - Affirmed

 

2) The goal of the thread was to create a debates section due to perceived over policing of the general section - Affirmed

 

3) I will concede the mods did not give an explicit statement saying they would unambiguously stay out of the section

 

However

 

4) They defacto agreed to it in a few way:

 

First a query: 

 

a) Why make a redundant section if the policing was going to be the same in general and debates?

 

And now Empirical Evidence:

 

b) Your own post cites Dad doing his level best to stay out of the section using activism

 

c) Many of the activist rulings of Roxas have infact been struck down by the mod team in pertaining to debates, atleast in my cases (such as the desired goal to reign me in on the trans topic w/ warning points and ban threats)

 

If in the end, what you desire from me is an admission that the mods have gotten involved on rare occasion such as with the PC thread, the Laz Melt Down, or Abortion scandal. I have to concede that. But, thus far, the general practice of the mod team is not to get involved unless they have no other choice.

 

Give the three reason to institute a civility clause, Flame, Spam, Ad Hom, haven't been ravaging Debates (still waiting on proof to the otherwise), it hardly seems to be an exception where a mod step in IS needed.

 

As you claimed of Dad: "they make every effort not to"

 

I'm asking them to make that effort or prove the need for intervention.

 

Let it be known I wasn't arguing for either side. I was only calling you out for not responding to CowCow's primary request.

 

But, since you seem so keen to cherrypick my throwaway comment.

 

I said that Dad has stated they don't interfere because users don't like it, not that they wouldn't like/want to interfere. And while I'm not advocating for a civility clause (in fact I am against it), I do believe that some manner of mod involvement of the debates section needs to be present. In exactly what capacity I am unsure, but certainly in regards to the fruitfulness of tangential arguments or even entire discussions that slowly, but very clearly, regress into incessant whining. This isn't about "activism," it's about ensuring the section stays relevant, by keeping it from becoming worse than two cliques fighting over a high school lunch table.

 

At this point, the debate is not about whether there should be mod involvement, it's about what exactly that mod involvement should be. Dad's OP advocates for more specificity in what should be contained in OPs. The civility clause wants better enforcement of existing rules, more or less. I think the civility clause should be reimagined as a sort of workshop: to teach, but not enforce, effective debate behavior. Some or all of these suggestions, and others that may be brought up by their proponents, need to be implemented, it's just a matter of figuring out which one(s).

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Let it be known I wasn't arguing for either side. I was only calling you out for not responding to CowCow's primary request.

 

But, since you seem so keen to cherrypick my throwaway comment.

 

I said that Dad has stated they don't interfere because users don't like it, not that they wouldn't like/want to interfere. And while I'm not advocating for a civility clause (in fact I am against it), I do believe that some manner of mod involvement of the debates section needs to be present. In exactly what capacity I am unsure, but certainly in regards to the fruitfulness of tangential arguments or even entire discussions that slowly, but very clearly, regress into incessant whining. This isn't about "activism," it's about ensuring the section stays relevant, by keeping it from becoming worse than two cliques fighting over a high school lunch table.

 

At this point, the debate is not about whether there should be mod involvement, it's about what exactly that mod involvement should be. Dad's OP advocates for more specificity in what should be contained in OPs. The civility clause wants better enforcement of existing rules, more or less. I think the civility clause should be reimagined as a sort of workshop: to teach, but not enforce, effective debate behavior. Some or all of these suggestions, and others that may be brought up by their proponents, need to be implemented, it's just a matter of figuring out which one(s).

It wants stricter, subjective, and more liberal interpretation of the rules. Draco has been back for like 2 weeks and he's been begging left and right for more regulations to shape this place to his liking. I guess I don't entirely trust it's purely benevolent. 

 

The reason behind wanting the mods to stay out was it would remove a largely subjective part of the oversight. There are clear cases such as abortion thread or Laz. But in a fair number of cases, like the trans topic, mods cloud their judgment with their subjectivity. Yes, even Dad in that case. It's only human. 

 

Eitherway, Dad seems to favor it, so the vote shall tell I guess. I do like Dad's original suggestion though 

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Your (and others') behavior in topics like the trans one should not be defended, honestly. If you think you were objectively in the right in that situation, Dad's judgment is least of those you should worry about being clouded.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Your (and others') behavior in topics like the trans one should not be defended, honestly. If you think you were objectively in the right in that situation, Dad's judgment is least of those you should worry about being clouded.

Lol, 2 Trans people (on YCM) said I was correct in my statement that transgenderism is treated as mental illness. It wasn't "hate speech" or "ad hom" and it certainly didn't merit two mods tripping over each other to throw warning points at me and lobbying for bans.

 

It might have been "insensitive" but it was not "ad hom"

 

That's the line a civility clause would blur. And that's why I oppose it. Dad has been amazing at PMing people and telling them to turn it down. That's how it should be dealt with. Not a full on incursion w/ iron rule

[Delibirb]

Lol, 2 Trans people (on YCM) said I was correct in my statement that transgenderism is treated as mental illness. It wasn't "hate speech" or "ad hom" and it certainly didn't merit two mods tripping over each other to throw warning points at me and lobbying for bans.

 

It might have been "insensitive" but it was not "ad hom"

 

That's the line a civility clause would blur. And that's why I oppose it. Dad has been amazing at PMing people and telling them to turn it down. That's how it should be dealt with. Not a full on incursion w/ iron rule

You're being melodramatic in your concern. You can naturally be against the civility clause - I am - but believing that the section will jump from one extreme to literally the perfect opposite in terms of interference is baseless doomsaying. I would imagine very little would change, except mods feeling more empowered to step in immediately before major upsets like those mentioned are clearly about to occur.

[Wahrheit]

I want to stress that the goal of the civility clause would be to give the mods discretion to help maintain the course and content of topics - it's not a license to throw out bans and warning points left and right. To the extent that users are uncomfortable with specific enforcement, that should give rise to metaconversations. Part of the goal is to help align the interests of various users so as to have a more productive discussion setting, the mods are just here to facilitate that as necessary.

 

I'd also point out that any fear of mod enforcement is really underlying fear of the mods themselves - I think our mods are generally really chill people who do a great job being careful and considerate of when to take action. This would help give everyone clearer guidelines on when to take such action and remove the ambiguities that I think they have current concerns over.

[epicmemesbro]

It sounds like a good idea to post an article followed by some context especially concerning statistics. One word posts have been a significant enough issue during the past several months to garner some sort of advanced clause. Might I suggest a rule implantation that somewhere along the lines of having the creator of a topic make the OP as unbiased as possible?

[Dad]

Thinking of removing the bumping rule for debates temporarily. I'd like to keep the section active without our going dead because of the constant need for new threads. That will only clutter it up. No decision made yet but I'd like your feedback.

[Dad]

Another thing I'd like to look into for Debates is what I'd like to call Hot Topics.  I'll take a major headline from the last two weeks and sticky it to generate a discussion.  Your thoughts are appreciated.