SatanLucy

"Freedom of speech =/= freedom to constantly and consistently spam the forums with rage bait."

I wouldn't say Remy is spamming anything consistently. I mean, he barely makes 2 posts per week.

Also, you are probably using an incorrect definition of free speech, hence the confusion on your part.

"Lucy only takes things seriously about 10% of the time"

I am not always trying very hard. Sometimes I just say first thing which comes to mind.

"Someone being offended by a post is not the same in moderation as someone posting with intent to offend someone."

Given that being offended is a choice, I don't see why intent matters here.

Also, if RemyBrown wants to offend people by challenging their views, sure that's how debating works.

Being offended is always a choice. For example, I could choose to be offended by your posts. I just don't.

As for your comments on "healthy community", what you consider "healthy" is entirely irrelevant.

What is relevant, however, is that you are advocating to reduce free speech because something offends you.

They have such laws in Poland, called "offending religious feelings".

So what's next, are Christians gonna say atheists offend them and then want atheists banned from this site?

I don't really see how your position makes any sense on a debating site. It would maybe make sense in some group therapy site, because people there usually come to get approval instead of being disagreed with.

However, if you want debating, then I don't really see why you at same time want to reduce debating by reducing number of debaters.

Debate requires free speech, because debate means exchange of words with people you disagree with, and exchange of words does require ability to exchange words (thus free speech).

Thus reducing ability of speech also reduces debating, and thus reduces ability to reach truth.

I really don't understand why someone who cares for truth would want their debating opponents silenced.

Socrates got executed because he was a debater who was apparently offending feelings.

Maybe banning people for offending feelings is just modern day Socrates stories.

I would rather not base site policy on preventing feelings from being offended, but you guys can do whatever I guess.

"People choose where to spend their time socializing and debating. Why should they choose a toxic environment?"

Maybe because debating is by it's nature a toxic environment, and what counts as toxic environment is entirely subjective. If you choose to get offended by something, then I don't see why other people should be blamed for your choice.

If you want to get rid of people you strongly disagree with, then that's not really a debate site and you are not really doing debating.

Debate by definition means talking to people you disagree with.

Banning people you disagree with isn't debating, but it does help prevent them from debating. So if your goal is to prevent people from debating, then yeah, banning them achieves that.

"I do not understand why people can not separate the concepts of having the right to say something and not suffering consequences because of it"

People in North Korea have right to say that Kim Jong Un sucks, and they also have right to suffer consequences for it.

We are trying not to be like North Korea, I guess.

"I just finished explaining *why* the concept of free speech has nothing to do with a website of any kind enforcing its own ToS"


Tell me again how do you have a debate without free speech? I am really interested to hear the explanation.

"The concept of free speech as a principal has no place in that conversation"

So you want to have a debate site without free speech.

That's not a debate site.

The moment you step in to debate, you are already acknowledging free speech of others.

If you don't, then you deny the very principle debate needs in order to happen.

True. I will do that more in future. I used to believe that after RM's tyranny on debate art, people would never accept anything less than maximum free speech, but now I see it takes consistent defending. All wins are temporary.

Debate is needed for truth. If voters are merely voting on issues and not including a lot of debate in it, it risks passing a lot of flawed rules.

I remember now. I read those, and as far as I can remember, it was only "1 round". this trial covered more of counters.

I think trials are better because there is opportunity for more argument. I know that Debby isnt in danger of being banned now, but in future it could change (it did before) and if it ever comes down to permanent ban, I would vote that there is first a fair trial. Just so we can see where arguments stand, because I assume a lot of people didnt consider counter arguments much when voting to ban Debby.

And how many people took survey?

Surveys have less people because not everyone uses discord. About 3 people I know who want debby on site dont have a discord account to do survey.

To be fair, Debby never got her own trial. A lot of atmosphere changed about Remy once he got a trial. Because arguments changed a lot on how people view the situation. Sometimes there are some things people normally don't remember, but trial changes that. I think if Debby is to ever be permanently banned, she should first have a trial, because a lot of people on this site don't take those surveys on discord. Some don't even have discord.

Code of Conduct needs to be made more clear when it comes to punishments. Pro in this debate tried basing topic on code of conduct, but such does not mention permanent ban for Remy's specific behavior (which is actually biggest flaw in Pro's case).

This was such a grey area in code of conduct that some people want no punishment, and others want harshest possible punishment (permanent ban).

I guess there are also those who disagree with code of conduct itself and want more free speech.

Debby is another grey area, and code of conduct is gonna have to cover both of these cases so that mods aren't acting on personal whim instead of will of community.


On the other hand, we can make it more simple by just having community vote on all permanent bans which are in grey area.

Personally, I don't like democracy, but if it's going to be a model for this site, then I should prefer to work with it and motivate people to vote for free speech.

There are many people on this site who like Debby too, and I think future mod actions must consider that.

This is me speaking in name of coalition, but there are at least 4 people on this site who want Debby on site, and this is before any public voting is made on issue.

I say this because Debby was also subject of bans, and I am interested in how Code of Conduct will cover that.

I have pretty much occupied all debates I could, and still no votes incoming on my debate.

I don't think we can start next round if people refuse to vote, unless somehow everyone got their voting badges already (which I guess is technically possible if they clicked to get them before any debate was in voting period).

Code of Conduct is chosen by voting. I would prefer a more simple code of conduct, where voters just agree on basic principles which guide all actions. Reason why this trial is even a thing is because code of conduct doesn't specify punishment on this specific issue.

I don't usually rush to declare victories, but at this point, I don't think they are gonna make up for 6 votes difference, and that's assuming difference doesn't get even higher. I know there are possibly maybe 3 or 4 people who could vote Pro. I can't really figure out 5th and 6th who would vote Pro.

Some people who I thought would vote Pro for sure, somehow voted Con.

That other debate was easy to vote on because Con aborted. If it was a debate which required some actual effort to vote, it too would have like 2 or 3 votes at best.

Ok, as it stands right now, this is likely the debate I will get assigned to vote on once I click. My vote won't change anything irrelevant of how I vote, but it seems these ultrarated debates are very slow to get votes. Maybe the burnout from debating and voting. In any case, I just need voting badges so I can do next round, and I waited too long for someone else to vote.

I was assigned to vote on this debate. Hopefully I can get the vote up before time expires. I am worried about being a bit biased because example of Bosnia hits harder than it would for others.

I mean, writer is gonna have his opinion.

I just think he probably overestimates AI's abilities or it's application. Common mistake most AI doomsayers make.

Will read article later.

That article is too long for me to read on phone.

But I think those who think AI is gonna destroy the world make the two crucial mistakes:
They underestimate countless ways for humans to control AI.
They overestimate AI intelligence.

This second is much more important. AI is actually much dumber than people think.

AI doesn't "think".

What AI does is, basically predicting the next token based on context.

It may seem "smart" because it was trained on billions of sentences, so it can repeat them, but that's pretty much all it does.

The only realistic threat an AI could pose is, some super intelligent AI in hands of some mad evil scientist.

But as far as I see, AI is not super intelligent.

I think we are soon about to reach peak of AI abilities, because there is only so much parameters computers can support, and there is only so much data training they can do.

So I am afraid intelligence of AI is going to be as limited as it gets limited by ability of computers.

Maybe if they switch to character level tokenizer, they can make AI smaller, so same model fits the computer.

However, I don't think AI in it's current form will ever reach any high intelligence.

It's simply because weights and training don't seem like cost effective way to operate AI.

Sooner or later, they are going to hit a peak where they either don't have enough storage for AI, or computer processors can't run it anymore.

At that point, someone is gonna need to think of some alternative way to make AI. I am thinking rule based AI is much more effective than current AI for repetition from data.

As for research, combinations creation based AI is superior to current AI.

Simply because innovation is about combination of basic parts, and for that, you don't really need current AI. A simple program of mixing appropriate combinations works.

Just dont give AI control over nukes and everything's gonna be fine.

I agree Mal should have included some definitions in description, because to be honest, this debate is about two people arguing two different topics. Different definitions = Different topic.

Solving problems with conversation seems to be a better approach than with bans. Respect to you for taking time to talk about this issue with Remy, because you approached his posts by trying to understand them, and not many do that for any posts on this site.

I will, eventually. Just dont have time right now. Voting for me usually takes few hours.

Kohai is obviously gonna vote for Pro. As for how whiteflame will vote, I know whiteflame opposed permanent ban on Remy before, back then on Dart when Remy posted much worse things.

But if they just confirm in comments that both are voting for themselves, then it doesnt matter if other mods agree or not, because two votes just cancel each other either way, counted or not counted.

We also have to account a change in behavior. I can see how Remy's past behavior makes some people want to ban him, but he has very much stopped with spamming topics about rape. His last topic "No one cares about male rape victims" was 2 months ago, and it wasnt even really rage bait. its true people care less for male rape victims.