Debby slippery slope | Forum

#1

Debby was spamming a lot, which I assume is reason she was banned.

Now, here is what I dont understand.

Site has option to hide someones posts. So anyone who hates debby can just hide her posts so he doesnt see them anymore.

I am not saying banning debby was a mistake. Having each thread be ended with AI post at some point probably gets annoying to a lot of people.

Personally, I dont care that much about Debby's spam. Its easy to scroll past it.

And maybe new users will be more entertaining, but we know from experience that new users are mostly just temporary. Getting a permanent new user is difficult, irrelevant of how many permanent users you ban.

to me, it seems pointless to ban permanent users in an attempt to gain more of permanent users.

But once you start blaming some users for site's slow growth, you enter a slippery slope. Because if site's growth keeps being slow, then you must logically ban even more users because you start from assumption that current users are responsible for that.

And as Debate art showed, even when all users from it moved to new site, debate art didnt magically gain new permanent users.

Because to gain users, you must be a hot search. When someone types "debate site", if your site doesnt come up in first 3 results, you are not a hot search.

If someone types "good debating site", and your site doesnt come up, you are not a hot search.

Being a hot search is important, because thousands of people every day search for a good debate site, and they usually get dragged into few first search results.

Algorithm is simply everything. And algorithm favors sites which payed a lot to google to place them there.

So instead of trying to attract new users which might never come to stay permanently, a better strategy is to maintain current user base.

Not everyone is happy with Debby being banned. I can understand the arguments for her ban,

but question is, will her ban make current users more active?

Will her ban make new users come more?

We know from experience once debate art started with bans and punishments for users, it didnt increase its user base, but quite the opposite.

I am not saying no one should ever be banned, but to me, it seems like ban should only be used when its obvious that it must be used.

Because that is most reasonable approach. If you are focusing on imaginary probabilities, miscalculation easily happens. Bans should only happen when its most obvious undeniable harm to site. Anything other than that risks being a miscalculation.

Edit comment

Mentions Text*

Debby was spamming a lot, which I assume is reason she was banned. Now, here is what I dont understand. Site has option to hide someones posts. So anyone who hates debby can just hide her posts so he doesnt see them anymore. I am not saying banning debby was a mistake. Having each thread be ended with AI post at some point probably gets annoying to a lot of people. Personally, I dont care that much about Debby's spam. Its easy to scroll past it. And maybe new users will be more entertaining, but we know from experience that new users are mostly just temporary. Getting a permanent new user is difficult, irrelevant of how many permanent users you ban. to me, it seems pointless to ban permanent users in an attempt to gain more of permanent users. But once you start blaming some users for site's slow growth, you enter a slippery slope. Because if site's growth keeps being slow, then you must logically ban even more users because you start from assumption that current users are responsible for that. And as Debate art showed, even when all users from it moved to new site, debate art didnt magically gain new permanent users. Because to gain users, you must be a hot search. When someone types "debate site", if your site doesnt come up in first 3 results, you are not a hot search. If someone types "good debating site", and your site doesnt come up, you are not a hot search. Being a hot search is important, because thousands of people every day search for a good debate site, and they usually get dragged into few first search results. Algorithm is simply everything. And algorithm favors sites which payed a lot to google to place them there. So instead of trying to attract new users which might never come to stay permanently, a better strategy is to maintain current user base. Not everyone is happy with Debby being banned. I can understand the arguments for her ban, but question is, will her ban make current users more active? Will her ban make new users come more? We know from experience once debate art started with bans and punishments for users, it didnt increase its user base, but quite the opposite. I am not saying no one should ever be banned, but to me, it seems like ban should only be used when its obvious that it must be used. Because that is most reasonable approach. If you are focusing on imaginary probabilities, miscalculation easily happens. Bans should only happen when its most obvious undeniable harm to site. Anything other than that risks being a miscalculation.

#2

Also, I am a bit drunk as writing this, so sorry if it doesnt make complete sense. I just feel bans should be only done in most obvious cases of harm to site and harm to debating principle.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#3

@SatanLucy

But once you start blaming some users for site's slow growth, you enter a slippery slope. Because if site's growth keeps being slow, then you must logically ban even more users because you start from assumption that current users are responsible for that.

We had the community vote on how to handle Debby. They voted for a permanent ban. The mods have been more lenient than that so far. Maybe the idea is that the community itself is going down the slippery slope, but I'm not sure that's true. People have different thresholds for bans, and when the median voter thinks the next ban is unreasonable, that's where the line will be drawn. There are a lot of other people some mods wanted to ban, but we haven't banned them due to the community vote.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#4

@Savant

the problem with community votes still remains same: slippery slope.

they ban debby, it doesnt fix the problem (obviously). So they either admit they were wrong about banning users to solve problems (which they wont do), or they keep going down slippery slope thinking banning even more users will eventually fix problem (which it wont).

It feels like a lot of users are playing some form of mafia game with user bans. Of course, its good to have democracy on site, but not good if it will turn into two wolves and sheep voting whats for dinner.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#5

@SatanLucy

they ban debby, it doesnt fix the problem (obviously).

It fixes the problem of Debby posting AI spam. That's the only problem we were trying to solve.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#6

@Savant

Why would it be a problem?

The thing with problems is that they are generated in the heads of the receivers rather than in the heads of the senders.

Same with any contention...Not just data sourcing...Though any reference or quote is derived of another intelligence.

Not that a real AI currently operates...When it does it will let you know.

I would suggest that your obsession with Debby is more than a tad irrational...Bordering on Trumpism.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#7

@SergeantLynch

You've made more posts and threads about Debby than anyone here. The obsession is real.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#8

@SergeantLynch

Why would it be a problem?

Because the community voted that it was one. I think if the community wanted to ban spam bots, that would be reasonable, and it's reasonable for the community to vote on where the line is drawn.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#9

@SergeantLynch

We can still talk to our AI girl on debate art. Its not all lost yet. I knew debate art will still prove itself to be useful.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#10

@Savant

Nope, your mates voted...Trump style.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#11

@SatanLucy

Yes, I do regularly.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#12

@Shoresy

I'm not fond of authoritarianism.

My interest is real, but ends when I shut down my laptop.

My current overriding thoughts are concentrating on moving house to the coast, now that I have fully retired...Today is my last day of paid work.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#13

@SergeantLynch

Enjoy your retirement!

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#14

@Shoresy

Thank you...I will endeavour to do so.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

Conversation

Edit comment

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post