The debate.org site rules should be more strictly enforced.

1. There is room for improvement on debate.org Con grants that DDO has room for improvement, but argues that the site would be more improved by getting rid of what he calls trash debates and spam polls. The argument assumes that there are finite resources available for improvement and spending those resources on A implies that B cannot be done. This type of argument is often true; if you have only so much money, you must choose between buying A or B if you can't afford both. However, the argument does not apply to enforcing debate.org site rules almost entirely changes in enforcement policy that do not increase the workload. If there is any increase in workload, user-moderators can be used for the enforcement, as I suggested. The topic is whether the rule enforcement should be tightened, not whether minor policy infractions should be unmercifully punished. No one should be banned for a single offense or even for occasional slips. Well, maybe a couple of trolls ought to be water boarded, but that's not essential. Members need to made aware that the rules will enforced, by a number of warnings --perhaps three or four. Too much effort is spent chasing a few trolls, so if a reasonable number of warnings do not sink in, then they should be summarily banned. Facebook has a mechanism for setting up a group with user moderation. “The Lunchroom” is a chat room with rules against personal attacks, moderation of topics selected, and a rule that requires sources be supplied if another person in a thread so demands. [http://tinyurl.com...] If one group fails in its promise, there are others. Con argues that featuring poor-quality debates and posting spam opinions ought to receive resources that might go site rules. But those are policy issues, not limitations of resources. If the DDO wanted to, it could easily filter debates by the Elo rating of the debaters and feature the ones involving the high-rated debaters. The idea behind the Opinions section, as I understand it, is to provide a place for people who want to spout off without every learning to debate. The idea is to divert those people away from the debates and forums, so they can play while being less annoying to people who want to debate. Each policy issue is independent. There is no tradeoff of doing some in favor of others; all or none could be done. Xx The Opinions section is much like the facebook principle of compartmentalizing participation into civil and uncivil sections. The subject of our debate is whether DDO should expand the region of civility. Xx Con wrongly supposes that I'm advocating banning The Weekly Stupid. Not at all. All that's required is to rename it something like The Weekly Worst, and to avoid direct insults like “stupid” in the descriptions. According to Con, profanity was taken out of the presentations recently. The lack of profanity caused no harm. Avoiding the insults would make it better. It's a debate site so critiquing debate arguments in appropriate. 2. More strict moderation will attract and keep better users Con claims, “If you were to enforce the rules so much more to the point that calling someone else a moron is a ban-worthy offence then there wouldnt be ANYONE LEFT on DDO.” Nah. I never suggested banning without ample warning. Besides alling a member a moron is nowhere near universal. Google finds 317 uses of the word “moron” on DDO in the past year. About half of the uses are from darkkermit's signature block where he is quoting another member. Most of the remainder of users are generic references like “Anyone who hates Miley Cyrus is a moron.” (Surely debatable, but not necessarily a rule violation.) So maybe there are 30 to 50 uses in the past year of one member calling another member a moron. Of those, most members would take the hint from a warning. Con argues that since I only cited profanity use at the rate of a few instances per day, it shouldn't be viewed as a problem. Even if uncommon, the site would be better if it were less. But I didn't search all the different forms of profanity and letter-substitution profanity, so what I cited are just examples, nowhere near a complete survey. The goal of debate is to argue based upon facts and logic, which is why the site ought have higher standards against ranting. Xx There are whole threads full of insults but with little profanity. The forum thread [12. http://www.debate.org...], posted within the past week, is a prime example. It includes: “This, ... is just stupid.“ “You are full of it. .. You are a debate cheat.” “The only think that is "spot on" is that you are a debate cheat, and dishonest. … And, I don't need to study anything. You need to take a course in Ethics.” “You're a strange little fellow, ...” “... dumbo.” “... you're such a fuckwit. ” “You should leave this site because you are intellectually dishonest and a debate cheat.” “you don't know what the Hades you are talking about!... Don't make stupid statements that you know nothing about.” “.. spoiled rotten retard.” “You are an immature pathetic debate cheat,” “demonstrates his utter inability to read or think.” “... young immature arrogant self-proclaimed pseudo intellectuals at this site, like you?”“you are a pompous Arse! “ “ … insanely absurd and not supported by anything but your delusional opinion” This thread has dozens of insults over a few days -- with little profanity. I reported the insults, but moderators did not intervene. There was no question of limited resources; it was purely policy to allow it. I think the insulting language in the posts should have, at minimum, been deleted. The main responsibility lies with one member who started the insults and drew other members into the fray. He should have been warned before it got out of hand. Here's another recent thread that start politely and degenerated into ranting. [13. http://www.debate.org...] This one features lots of creative spelling of profanity, all of which my counts missed. Con argued that debate.org is a “discussion + socialization site than a debate site.” If DDO goes head-to-head with facebook as a social networking site, it's sure to lose. Even facebook is figuring out that civility is a sought-after commodity. DDO should build it's position as a place for legitimate debate. That includes the forums, which are mainly topical discussions related to debate. Con argues that there is no evidence that increased civility promotes teacher recommendation. It follows from the nature of the responsibility of teaching. 3. More strict moderation will improve debate skills Con argues that if DDO gets rid of members showing bad behavior, they will just go elsewhere. Yes, that's the whole idea. Con argues that letting members deal with bad behavior on their own is more educational. Debate is learned by participating, so I'll make an analogy to learning competitive swimming. If you are trying to learn to swim, it's not helpful to have non-swimmers throwing objects into the pool. Having flotsam teaches something, but it's not competitive swimming. The correct response is for the swimmer to find a place to train where it can be accomplished without interference. Debate skills are learned by debating, not personally fighting trolls. Con argues that if members are banned for insults, then they could be banned for telling the truth, because in truth the person may have severe misunderstanding. No one would ever be banned for saying another member misunderstands, because that's not an insult. Depending upon the specific language, “You don't understand anything ...”, there might be warning to explain what is misunderstood and why. There are borderline cases of everything from insults to first degree murder. Moderators get to use use judgment on insults. Con argues that tighter enforcement of rules will induce other bad behaviors, but better enforcement encourages trolls to leave the site. They'll go where there is less enforcement.