Updated Debate Pit Rules - See Link

[Jeric 46,851]

Note that new topics created will require you to confirm that you are meeting the Rules section. While these conduct requirements are indeed final, should you have any questions about how to meet them, we'll address those questions here. Thank you. 

[Guest]

A quick question:

Your rules now more or less state that the staff will remain impartial to all debates and not show their bias for any side, which is 100% fair, but I am wondering: does this mean the staff will now refrain from engaging in debate themselves? I think if this is the stance you are taking on the issue it would be in the best interest of the staff to no longer share their opinion on subjects in debate because it will create accusations of bias when dealing with disciplinary action.

If I am debating with Joe Average and Staffer A has made it clear they agree with the things that Joe Average has said in the past and Joe Average reports me... I am going to find it hard to believe the staff's decision on what to do with said report is unbiased.

[GrimGrimoire 4,973]

14 minutes ago, Key Sharkz said:

A quick question:

Your rules now more or less state that the staff will remain impartial to all debates and not show their bias for any side, which is 100% fair, but I am wondering: does this mean the staff will now refrain from engaging in debate themselves? I think if this is the stance you are taking on the issue it would be in the best interest of the staff to no longer share their opinion on subjects in debate because it will create accusations of bias when dealing with disciplinary action.

If I am debating with Joe Average and Staffer A has made it clear they agree with the things that Joe Average has said in the past and Joe Average reports me... I am going to find it hard to believe the staff's decision on what to do with said report is unbiased.

Obviously I cannot answer for Jeric, but I do want to toss out an opinion.

I feel it is important staff be allowed to share their thoughts as well in the debate pit if they so choose. They may be "staff' but they should be allowed to strive to be users as well, which means being allowed to participate in all of the areas every other member participates in. Just because someone does not share their opinions does not mean is should be invalid.

I can see where you are coming from, and while i agree it can cause concern in something like a place like the debate pit... as long as a member is following the rules, then the unhappy individuals reporting can moan all day long and it should amount to nothing.

Obviously if a member does feel they are being picked on for some reason due to some bias from the debate pit or some such, they should be able to head to administration and find some answers.

[Jeric 46,851]

@Key Sharkz, this brings up a much larger issue that I've noticed with some staff over the years. Those staffers that don't engage the community tend to lose a connection with the community. Sometimes, upon becoming staff, they back off commenting completely in most areas because they have a fear of appearing biased. What you suggest makes sense, but it comes with the idea that the people overseeing the discussion could wind up being viewed as faceless overseers by the users who only post in Debate Pit.

On the other hand, to illustrate why your concern may have some validity, while uncommon, I have seen staffers participating in debate go to other staffers and ask they address an issue instead of them. While in their heads it may be more about avoiding the appearance of being biased, I was always uncomfortable with that solution as well as I'm sure there exists the possibility of using such a tactic to hide a personal bias, or even a grudge. 

So basically I see both sides of this issue clearly. Anyone that has paid attention to me personally in DP will know that I tend to be forthcoming and honest, and even to a point that I have to pay attention to what I say in there. The rules apply to me too. I also have stood up for probably every position on every topic trying to encourage a sense of equal voice to all the issues. Others have tried to do the aame. But, nobody lasts forever in this role ... so it also makes this a trickier decision. 

... 

This isn't a specific request that I could make a call on without proper thought and consideration. But it's given me something to chew on with the others. 

[Guest]

Just now, Jeric said:

@Key Sharkz, this brings up a much larger issue that I've noticed with some staff over the years. Those staffers that don't engage the community tend to lose a connection with the community. Sometimes, upon becoming staff, they back off commenting completely in most areas because they have a fear of appearing biased. What you suggest makes sense, but it comes with the idea that the people overseeing the discussion could wind up being viewed as faceless overseers by the users who only post in Debate Pit.

To illustrate why your concern may have some validity, while uncommon, I have seen staffers participating in debate go to other staffers and ask they address an issue instead of them. While in their heads it may be more about avoiding the appearance of being biased, I was always uncomfortable with that solution as well as I'm sure there exists the possibility of using such a tactic to hide a personal bias, or even grudge. 

So basically I see both sides of this issue clearly. Anyone that has paid attention to me personally in DP will know that I tend to be forthcoming and honest, and even to a point that I have to pay attention to what I say in there. The rules apply to me too. I also have stood up for probably every position on every topic trying to encourage a sense of equal voice to all the issues. Others have tried to do the aame. But, nobody lasts forever in this role ... so it also makes this a trickier decision. 

... 

This isn't a specific request that I could make a call on without proper thought and consideration. But it's given me something to chew on with the others. 

I get that disconnection from the community is a concern but with this particular forum it's sort of unavoidable. I recall people on other forums using their hatred of people who stand for politics they disagree with to go around looking for excuses to ban a user for such. I think the only fair thing to do here is to make it so the staff's opinions on any of these political questions or debate topics is unknown. It creates no chance of bias accusations.

This also means the staff will NEED to be scrutinizing each other on every report in the debate pit to prevent the kind of corruption I've described. I propose a system where at minimum two staff members have to review a report in said section and if the staff notice the same two are always reviewing each others report they obligate them to go to someone different to reduce the odds of corruption as much as possible. I'm not suggesting the staff are corrupt, but I am suggesting that I have seen this kind of thing happen on sites before because no system was in place to ensure that the staff's personal views on a subject do not come into play when trying to handle a report objectively.

In my proposal this is also to PROTECT the staff too, not just the users. If the users do not know the staff's stance on an issue it becomes impossible for them to accuse them of bias on a public level. But however let's say you disagreed with me about Trump and then later someone reports me in a topic about Trump and you give me a warning... I could easily cause public outcry by pointing to the evidence that suggests you only gave me the warning because you disagree with my stance and even if I am right or wrong I can get users to rally against you. I have seen this happen on many forums and it causes a huge headache for the staff.

While I agree the staff should not be completely disconnected from the community, this is one of the areas of the forum where I think it's best if they were and only came in to handle moderation. It's best for all parties involved I think. I am thinking about this from both angles and it just makes sense. It's just like I always say: the best opinion to have sometimes is none. No one sees your hand, no one can accuse you of cheating so to speak.

[Jeric 46,851]

@Key Sharkz ultimately whenever I start thinking about disallowing anyone volunteering their time from participating personally on the site, I can't ignore the sensation that it feels wrong and a bit like overkill. Most of the Admins, and myself personally, have been publicly accused multiple times over the very things you warn of, and sunlight was always the best disinfectant. Our reputations have survived many assaults like that. A disgruntled member that feels that they were wronged in some way can be addressed as needed without a layer or to of punitive bureaucracies in the way of ultimately sharing ideas. 

As far as having checks on how Mods work reports, that is more in-line with something that can done without restricting anyone. Quite frankly I have done that for years to make sure we are calibrated. Lately, since we actually don't field many reports, I have been able to check every single one, and have made adjustments when needed. I often am in there giving my opinion on some issues. Unless it is a simple move from one forum to another, there is usually multiple eyes on a report, and an Admin is almost always one of them. 

[BloodDrops 762]

On 6/22/2018 at 11:20 PM, Key Sharkz said:

Your rules now more or less state that the staff will remain impartial to all debates and not show their bias for any side

Wish that were true

Keep getting these pm's from admins saying i cant post communism stuff 

Seems about right

[Jeric 46,851]

12 minutes ago, BloodDrops said:

Wish that were true

Keep getting these pm's from admins saying i cant post communism stuff 

Seems about right

It is completely accurate.

Also, as I have mentioned to others before, you vent publicly with incomplete information I'm going to respond with details. You were banned from the Debate Pit for you habit of shitposting, refusal to heed numerous requests from staff to put some thought and actual effort into your posts, and inability to articulate any point without sounding like you are describing a torure porn novel. 

Debate Pit is obviously not for you. 

 

 

And as I've referenced several times being on staff, we are the complete spectrum of the political ideology.