As I said, I have no any issues with debby. I dont know what issues you have, but debby doesnt prevent me from reading anyone's comment. And I even have poor eye sight, so someone with better vision would have it even easier to skip debby's comments.
On laptop, its extremely easy to open all the latest topics and see what happens. And skipping debby's comment takes less than a second. Not that I skip debby often. I find her comments useful sometimes. Sort of like having AI without having to open AI app and writing prompt.
Now, if we had 1000 debbys, sure, I would say ban 99% of them and leave only the most interesting ones. I personally wouldnt like a site full of AI spam, but I cant say current AI bothers me even one bit.
there is simply a case where something is not in sufficient amount to be harmful. But again, if debby posts too much, just limit number of her posts to 10 to 20 per day, and then you wont see as much AI spam.
When I think about it, I have opposed almost every ban in 2 to 3 year history of Debate art and debate craft.
the reason why I oppose bans is because people who do bans often assume banned members will be replaced by new members, but that doesnt usually happen.
It happens on big sites which have a brand. We currently dont have a brand. Almost no one thinks "debate craft" when someone asks for a debate site.
Building a brand isnt something you achieve by just banning members. In fact, the goal is to have site be useful to greatest number of people, and personally, I think live chat would benefit this site more than any debby ban which wont achieve anything.
Because this site is starting from almost zero, with income of new users being almost non-existent. You just dont get trigger happy with ban when you have like 15 regularly active users. Big sites with brand which is well known, they can get trigger happy with ban, but even those sites dont really practice permanent banning.
In fact, I dont know of any big site which has permanent ban. Youtube can ban you, but you can just make another account. Same with tik tok, and many other sites. Even gmail can ban you, and you can make another account.
So while I can agree that AI spam is bad if in too great amount, the way of handling it should be to minimize loss of users. Because, I repeat, we dont exactly have abundance of anything here. Debate art very much showed that even after almost all current users left, no new permanent users came to fill void.
Because this site lacks a lot of things which big sites have. User interface is generally confusing. there is no live chat. Only a small percentage of world population is actually interested in sites such as this one.
Because this site is ultimately built on old style forum model, useful for making notes, but nothing to really attract the masses. Even the voting system is designed to basically be survival of fittest debaters.
there is a reason no big site looks like this site. All big sites have trolls, AI...ect. But their design is completely different to this site.
this site should focus on user interface, and live group chat. that will be more attractive to new users. We see discord debate craft with live chat actually has a lot of engagement, and the main advantage of live chat is quicker responses which drive communication.
So I can understand being upset with site not growing as planned, but its ultimately because site is slow response design. New user can make a post and have no one respond to it for hours. Or make debate and have no one accept it for days. Its extremely unfriendly for new users, even when we ignore the fact that this site is built upon users devouring each other, which is opposite of many big sites which are usually built around giving users content they want to see.
this site should also have debating tutorial, and not in a sense of "this is how you debate", but that new users can see list of popular topics, and see best arguments for each side, easily accessible in few clicks. that will make this site desirable to visit for those seeking to quickly find arguments for specific topic.