Code of Conduct

Broad hostility toward identity groups—especially when unrelated to a cogent argument—may result in penalties.

Accounts operating chiefly to provoke through identity-based rhetoric will be sanctioned, regardless of technical compliance.

Ehhh this I don't like. A lot of people have broad hostility towards identify groups. A gay person might have broad hostility to Muslims and/or Christians. An Israeli might have broad hostility towards Palestinians. A Christian might have what could be construed as broad hostility towards LGBT whatever it is now. A lot of people in the West right now could be understood to have broad hostility towards the Chinese or Russians. Most people who argue about religion might fit this definition, and judging by most online religious discussion 'cogent arguments' is often a stretch in those cases. Having 'broad hostility' to some group or another seems to be part and parcel of the human condition, and trying to tamp down on it will inevitably result in selective enforcement, especially if the standard is something as subjective as whether their arguments are 'cogent' or not. Just let people argue their points, don't police whether or not those points are singling out any broad and gauzily-defined 'identity group'.

The first 'What's Not' in the table also directly contradicts the later points about what is exempted from moderation, specifically this point:

The following examples do not merit moderator intervention:

Use of non-identity-based slurs not directed as personal attacks.

Non-slur insults (e.g., "moron") even if directed at users who have blocked or disengaged from the speaker.

Seems odd to imply that any insults are not okay and then say later on that insults do not merit moderator intervention.

Other than that it seems good. Also made me chuckle a few times.

Members should leave their anger, hostility and biases at the door. This is a public forum.

Direct threats or explicit calls for violence against specific individuals or users.

Considering that specific, explicit threats of violence can potentially earn you a visit from an armored van, or even a prison sentence, I think this should incur a harsher penalty than a one-month ban.

Comparing this Code of Conduct to the one from DebateArt, it seems to me like you are going for a much, much, much more laissez-faire approach here.

A lot of people have broad hostility towards identify groups...

"Broad" was indeed not the best word choice. I'll update that to make it less ambiguous. The gist is this isn't a safe space for bigots who are constantly hating on people for the condition of their birth.

Seems odd to imply that any insults are not okay and then say later on that insults do not merit moderator intervention.

I'll clarify that. I had "in isolation" but not also specifying one offs or rare occurrences.

Someone asks me why Bob and I aren't talking, and I dismissively say "Bob's an idiot." It's too minor to be likely to benefit from outsiders getting involved in an official capacity. Now if I go thread to thread proclaiming that wherever he posts, the isolated insult is not what mods intervene against, but rather the clear pattern of targeted harassment.

Other than that it seems good. Also made me chuckle a few times.

Glad to hear that!

Considering that specific, explicit threats of violence can potentially earn you a visit from an armored van, or even a prison sentence, I think this should incur a harsher penalty than a one-month ban.

I believe that one was decided democratically. But someone will inevitably make one either significantly more severe, or do it in repetition, which will net an perma-ban.

Comparing this Code of Conduct to the one from DebateArt, it seems to me like you are going for a much, much, much more laissez-faire approach here.

That is my understanding as well. We're trying to better give people what they want. We of course can't cater to everyone, but we can try to make an inviting place for intellectual discussions.

I recommend more curative examination and punishment on people derailing or spamming a thread in forums.

Also the same for debate comments section.

Merry Christmas (or preferred holiday, for me Kingsmas!) everyone!

It's been quite awhile, but there's been some good updates to the CoC draft (mainly to include the results of the AI discussion, but also lots of other feedback). It'll never be Rules Lawyer proof, but I hope it won't have any significant problems for anyone not intentionally trying to misread it.

https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct

What's the verdict on the Debby spam?

I think my question below adequately belongs in this thread, even though a matter concerning one member specifically.

The matter of the current "trial by debate" for "defendant" member Remy Brown is a very democratic vehicle. I have no knowledge of the circumstances bringing Remy to trial, and do not need to know, though I suspect the "trial/debate" will, of necessity, contain the charges along with the back-and-forth of questions/evidence. As this trial will have a concluding vote, I ask if the moderation team will abide by the vote, or will a team of moderators have the wherewithal to override the vote should it result in apparent bias, or dismiss votes that are clearly out-of-bounds as sometimes occurs with standard debate votes?

I'll admit I have not read the CoC lately to remind me if this question is already answered there.

I ask if the moderation team will abide by the vote

It's my understanding that the mods intend to abide by the vote. I mean, I know I will. Technically I think Airmax could override anything, and below him the mods do have authority on how to enforce stuff, and it's come down to close votes in the past and hours of back and forth, but we've never explicitly gone against the community so far, and I'm hoping it stays that way.

Of course, after the vote, Remy could go make an explicit threat and we'd have to ban him, but presuming he doesn't change anything after the trial, then yeah, pretty sure we'll be going by the results of that.

override the vote should it result in apparent bias

People are allowed to be biased in this case, it's not a standard judgment of debate skill. The arguments are just there to make sure people get both sides of the story. Although if someone makes a bunch of alts we would discard those votes.

That's more or less what I thought. Thanks.