Debate moderators?

[Arctic Night 884]

Hello. I came up with an interesting concept and wanted to see what others thought of it. So basically, because the debate pit is always such a mess I thought it would be a great idea, I figured we could have specialized moderators for the Debate Pit. These users would not necessarily have the same jobs as other moderators. Rather than answer questions or spot out rule offenders, they would moderate debates.

 

This could be done a few ways. Unfortunately, I could only come up with so many details due to my limited knowledge. The moderators could give warnings (warnings could be given for such things as logical fallacies ) and possibly even ban users, not from the forums, but just from the Debate Pit.

 

I thought that this would help clean up some of the "mess" in the Debate Pit, and that would it would encourage more productive discussions.

 

My suggestion for how the moderators would be chosen involved either having staff select them such as with regular moderators, or allow people to send in applications. I believe the moderators should be relatively neutral and should not, if they are to be effective, be selected simply because they were recommended by someone else.

 

Lastly, the moderators should give a pledge of neutrality and should be stripped of their powers if need be.

 

I probably forgot something so if there are any questions about my suggestion just ask. I ran this by some other members and they seemed to like my idea, so I wanted to see what the more official thoughts would be.

[SCS 7,537]

This would incur a return to sectionalized moderation, which is an issue that has actually been a topic of discussion among the staff recently. Some time ago all moderators were given global powers, and moderation took on more of a global nature overall. This resulted in some unfortunate side effects regarding more precise moderation of specific sections.
 
We do have a few moderators who currently focus on specific areas of the board. Aquila, Chigens and Kay, Evilshy, ~Lowfat Envelope~, and Dawn Rider all technically have a focus on Beyond Equestria, but all 17 moderators have global permissions and assist with moderation everywhere on the forum.
 
While I do agree we should do more proactive moderation in the Debate Pit, I don't believe hiring new moderators to do that would be a good idea. Moderation is hard, and the Debate Pit is one of the most difficult areas of the forum to deal with. 17 moderators is a lot. Some of us could shuffle around our focus in a way that would result in more Debate Pit coverage.
 
Additionally, I don't think we should moderate logical fallacies. Those aren't good, but they don't necessarily hurt anyone. It is up to each individual in the debate to choose to respond to a logical fallacy in a mature and calm manner, or to allow it to ignite a flame war. The focus of moderation should be to deal with inappropriate, abusive, and otherwise harmful behavior.
 
Personally, my job is to have a global focus. I check up on various areas of the forum, keep an eye on status updates, and work with reports, because there are always reports. I'm happy to do it, but if everyone does something similar then we end up not having enough people keeping a proactive eye on the forum. I can certainly spend more time in the Debate Pit doing things proactively if that ends up becoming needed.
 
In the meantime, if you see any problems in Debate Pit, please report them. Reports are extremely crucial to keeping the site safe and friendly. Even if we had enough moderators to assign several people to proactively watch every section all the time, we wouldn't see everything. We depend on users to report inappropriate, abusive, or otherwise harmful behavior when they come across it.
 
As a footnote, administrators have the ability to ban people from specific forum sections as opposed to from the site as a whole. We have used this more than once in the past for people who were unable to participate in the Debate Pit in a civil and respectful manner.

[Guest90210 3,568]

Ultimately, I believe this proposal would be putting too much effort into a section of the site that barely exists in the first place. This is a pony forum first and foremost, and I believe it to be in the site staff's best interest to improve the main core of the MLPForums. I've heard it said before that the Debate Pit is loosely moderated as it can be tough to sort through the wreckage that is the threads at times. Not saying your idea is bad or anything - it would be nice to have the threads over there be more civil, but I just can't see the staff wanting to pull resources to focus on a section that is one of the lowest priorities

[Arctic Night 884]

@SCS Hmm... I see the concern. However, I do believe that "sectionalized moderating" would be a good idea, whether or not it includes my idea.

 

@Rivendare The whole site should be neat and tidy. Not just Sugarcube Corner.

[Khaoios 1,970]

@SCS Hmm... I see the concern. However, I do believe that "sectionalized moderating" would be a good idea, whether or not it includes my idea.

 

I use that type of moderations on my other forums, however, tbh, on here, it would turn into a mess.  

[Shift 4,272]

I'll be honest, the moderation in the Debate Pit is not amazing, and that's putting it mildly. I think that you guys should just give the mods a heads up to pay more attention and leave it at that.

[Shanks 10,816]

The moderators could give warnings (warnings could be given for such things as logical fallacies )

The problem is that would be rife for bias as what is considered a "logical falacy" is often in the eye of the beholder and there are some cases where it would be difficult or even possibly to objectively determine if something said is in fact a "logical falacy". That is not to say that there aren't some obvious ones, but logical falacies while they aren't desirable aren't the same thing as abusive behavior and shouldn't be treated as such. Someone engaging in abusive behavior may or may not in fact be correct but in a debate it is not whether someone is right or wrong that determines whether or not their behavior is abusive but how they voice their opinion.

[Arctic Night 884]

The problem is that would be rife for bias as what is considered a "logical falacy" is often in the eye of the beholder and there are some cases where it would be difficult or even possibly to objectively determine if something said is in fact a "logical falacy". That is not to say that there aren't some obvious ones, but logical falacies while they aren't desirable aren't the same thing as abusive behavior and shouldn't be treated as such. Someone engaging in abusive behavior may or may not in fact be correct but in a debate it is not whether someone is right or wrong that determines whether or not their behavior is abusive but how they voice their opinion.

That's understandable. But the person receiving the violation could appeal the violation, and the debate moderators would have to review their decisions.

 

However, as you said yourself, in a debate environment it's about how you voice your opinion. My feeling is that fallacies could be abusive behavior, as they are often used to damage someone's reputation or to misrepresent their views. Here are some examples.

 

"If we legalize polygamy, we'll end up legalizing marriage with house pets!" (Slippery slope.)

 

"The truth is, we can't know for sure if the Earth is flat." (False balance.)

 

This could actually be offensive, especially when someone twists your own words. If someone accuses me of murder because I support abortion rights, that should be considered "abuse."

[King 5,625]

I make a regular appearance in the debate pit to make sure things are staying on topic, only requires a few moments to make sure things are keeping on track to be honest, the debate pit doesn't have a bazillion threads like other areas of Beyond Equestria do. As SCS said though, make sure to report things if you see them getting out of control or off topic, don't fall into the bystander effect.