EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

Proposal: Ending Drama

< Return to subforum
Page: 12Most Recent
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Jan 18 2015 5:23 AM
I move to establish a new rule which I believe will greatly benefit the site. If someone asks to drop any argument not related to a debate subject or intellectual disagreement (such as on forums), the administration should enforce the ending of the argument with a stern warning. I realize everyone wants to have the last word, and I am ashamed that I am guilty of participating quite often, but if I insult someones character and they ask me to stop, I do. I have been on the chopping block my whole life, and no one likes direct attacks on who they are.

I also propose giving NZlockie some moderating power. All in favor?
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Jan 18 2015 5:26 AM
the administration should enforce the ending of the argument with a stern warning
With absolutely no exceptions
Wylted
By Wylted | Jan 18 2015 6:09 AM
Blackflag: It seems you want to be able to start drama and then when somebody responds in a negative way you can just respond with a desire to end it.

It's no difference then the kid who walks up and punches you and then immediately wants to call a truce.
Thumbs up from:
nzlockie
By nzlockie | Jan 18 2015 6:28 AM
Blackflag: Flattered, (?) but I don't think this site needs another mod at this stage.
If moderators are to act as parents as you suggest, there's a simple concept of parenting that applies here. It's called, "choosing your battles" - or more specifically, "letting the kids yell themselves hoarse knowing that at the end of the day no serious damage is being done".

I'm pretty happy that Admin currently steps in when he sees the arguments becoming too bullying. There's something to be said for allowing a certain amount of venting to go on. At the end of the day, I think it reflects less on the site and more on the individuals - so it's ok.

I advise anyone who finds themselves in such an exchange to simply stop posting. when it comes to internet forums, having the last word is over-rated.
Thumbs up from:
JohnMaynardKeynes
By JohnMaynardKeynes | Jan 18 2015 7:32 AM
Wylted: I think Wylted raises a crucial point. This is not, by any means, directed at any person in particular, but the proposal Stag offers does effectively allow for a hit and run: someone starts drama, knowing full well that the target of said instigation will react adversely, and then runs to the protection of the moderator. This is not to say that bullying should be allowed to take place or that Lars shouldn't intervene in a case of unproductive bickering, as such bickering necessarily erodes the quality of the site and reflects poorly on its members. But instead of demonizing strictly the retaliation, as Stag proposes we do, we think we ought to critique the person who instigated that drama, and accept that in such a case, it is only fair and well that the target be allowed to defend himself or herself.
~JohnMaynardKeynes
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." - Aristotle
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Jan 18 2015 8:10 AM
Starting drama and continuing drama should the unacceptable. We are not fighting.
If your feelings are being hurt on the internet, then get over it and move on, but do not envelop people in it.
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Jan 18 2015 8:19 AM
@Wylted and JMK are beside the point. Drama starts. That is life. Oh well, do not continue it.
Airmax had a policy on DDO where if someone was attacked, they were allowed to defend themselves.
I disagree with this policy, because most people are incapable of defending themselves within reasonable means. The defense will almost always escalate the drama.

Even when one side successfully defends himself, the losing side in the conflict will resort to dirty tactics, such as calling the other guy an idiot or some other derogatory name.
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Jan 18 2015 8:21 AM
"letting the kids yell themselves hoarse knowing that at the end of the day no serious damage is being done"
On a community, any argument regarding character has the potential to cause a rift.
JohnMaynardKeynes
By JohnMaynardKeynes | Jan 18 2015 9:49 AM
Blackflag: But, to that point, even Max's actions weren't always able to stop the drama, and there were several occasions where he would even go so far as to install a restraining order, only to drop it later on because the two users would continue to go at each other. The only plausible solution, from your point of view, seems to be Lars threatening people with bans, but in many cases, that's too far a step, especially for minor drama. Calling someone an "idiot" should be condemned, and I don't support it--and if becomes a persistent issue, I support Lars getting involved. But by no means should his intervention be a first step. Rather, as the intelligent, reasonable people we all claim to be--and who I know we all can be, if we so choose--we should be able to work it out on our own. Again, the main problem with your proposal is that it allows and in fact incentives hit-and-run, guerrilla tactics, at the expense of the victim.
~JohnMaynardKeynes
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." - Aristotle
JohnMaynardKeynes
By JohnMaynardKeynes | Jan 18 2015 10:00 AM
Blackflag: But, to that end, I do believe that DDO goes way too far in tolerating inexcusable behavior and in setting a barometer for what is a reasonable defense--because obviously, as a debating website, we should want to encourage people to hold discussions, and should not try to censor them simply because they may become slightly heated. There are a few people in particular, whom I won't name, who consistently go out of their way to harass and degrade others, and for some reason, evade the banhammer at every turn, even though they rightly deserve it. So, let me clarify, that I am by no means suggesting that Lars ought to be lax in approaching moderation issues. I think he's done a good job so far, and I trust his discretion on when it's best to intervene.
Thumbs up from:
~JohnMaynardKeynes
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." - Aristotle
admin
By admin | Jan 18 2015 12:23 PM
Blackflag: I advise anyone who finds themselves in drama or under other unwanted attack to come talk to me about it. As opposed to continuing it.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Jan 18 2015 4:14 PM
Hear hear (or is it here here?)
I get what you are saying John, but 90% of people handle drama completely wrong, including myself.
Moderation acts as a great middle man.
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Jan 18 2015 4:20 PM
@admin
@johnmaynardkeynes

Admin, what are your thoughts on the proposal
admin
By admin | Jan 18 2015 4:33 PM
Blackflag: It's "hear hear".

If you know you're handling drama wrong - try to change! :D

My thoughts are kinda summed up by what others have said. The only thing I would add is that if anyone feels troubled by any drama or anyone on the site, they should talk to me about it. As a counter-proposal I think dealing with this on a case-by-case basis is probably fair.
Thumbs up from:
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
gree0232
By gree0232 | Jan 20 2015 7:01 AM
Wylted: Which is why we have these things called ... teachers and referees ... the solution is not to allow others to hit back. Over time that just builds a desire for others to hit back. It why when professional athletes behave this way, we remove them from the game for a time out. If they cannot generally abide by the rules ... out they go. The integrity of the 'game' is more important that the honor of any one participant in the game (particularly if they are not behaving honorable).

Sure they will scream, but they can scream in the locker room.

Sometimes just taking a day off is all tat is needed. Other times? Thats what refs are for. Its about the rules.

The only real challenge here is that many trolls are experts at plying the rules, intent matters, and if someone is constantly dropping bombs and hiding behind technicalities ... the integrity of the game is what counts. Its why 'trolling' is and should remain a firm rule violation - like unnecessary roughness in football.
Thumbs up from:
admin
By admin | Jan 20 2015 7:34 AM
gree0232: The thing about trolling specifically is that it's very hard to prove. If there's a pattern of it I've dealt with it in the past, and with only one exception the trolls have not tried me. Nonetheless I can promise to deal with it firmly when it happens.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Wylted
By Wylted | Jan 20 2015 7:37 AM
gree0232: Umm okay. Please reread what I said. This isn't relevant to that and seems out of left field. I'm not sure you understood it at all. Maybe I need to work on being more clear.
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Jan 20 2015 8:07 AM
gree0232: You took the words right out of my moth. Kudos!
Allowing a fight to continue is not always a good thing.
Especially on a site where that behavior isn't promoted.

Our administration needs to be actively drawing the line. I do not think administration and moderation should mix though, which is why I support finding a new moderator. Admin represents the site, so seeing him do the dirty work of moderation could actually backfire on the reputation of edeb8. Moderators do make more enemies than most.
gree0232
By gree0232 | Jan 20 2015 8:08 AM
Wylted: Not really, I think your point is pretty clear ... apparently mine was not.

It's no difference then the kid who walks up and punches you and then immediately wants to call a truce.

I am honestly not sure how that could be any clearer? Not your fault.

My rebuttal is that its going to happen. With a solid moderation team, there is no need to hit back at all. The mods will see it (in the majority aggregate at least, if not every instance) will handle it. If you 'allow' responding in kind, or explain its just rational and human (it is), you never the less build up a culture of retaliation. In well moderated debates, just like professional athletics, that is why the response it bad.

I don't think we actually disagree here.

But I will say, anyone who has debated before knows that we all lose our cool occasionally (sorry not vulcan), and its best to have a culture where we can catch ourselves and be mercifully spared the 'required' tongue lashing.

I will say one problem on many forums is that the discipline process is either nothing or extreme. The best disciplined site I have seen is actually cyclingnews.com's. They have a strike system that pretty effectively separates the 'passioned discussion' from the rabid troll (whom are banned with efficacy - and no I have not been banned from the site). Trust me, during the Lance Armstrong years (pre-doping revelation) the site had a massive troll problem and the strike system was pretty effective at sorting the proverbial wheat from the shaft.
gree0232
By gree0232 | Jan 20 2015 8:10 AM
wheat from chaff ... stupid auto correct ... sigh.
Page: 12Most Recent