Mods should work to prevent and sanction personal attacks.

-- Re: Rebuttals -- R1. We have every reason to believe that Juggle's intention is profit, and no reason to believe that it's not. Unless my opponent provides us with a better incentive, then for all intents and purposes, rational thinking requires us to presume that generating revenue is Juggle's primary goal in running and improving DDO. Even if it were not the case, what we DO know is that Juggle's intent is NOT to serve as a medium for people to harass and antagonize other people.R2. Nowhere did I ever imply that making money was member responsibility, therefore this is not even a "rebuttal" and I have no idea why my opponent labeled it as such. However Con rightfully points out, "At most we are compelled by law to refrain from damaging the company's image or profitability." Blatantly ignoring the agreed upon TOS and making it appear as if Juggle condones harassment or personal attacks when it clearly does not (as clarified by Juggle employees) counts as tarnishing in the company's image and therefore potential profitability. Con also concedes that "harsh reactions" be utilized to deal with unrelenting harrassment, so he's already conceded this entire debate as that counts as mod interference to prevent and sanction personal attacks. It should also be noted that a mod sanctioning a personal attack by merely removing a comment should hardly be considered a "harsh reaction." R3. Con's point is that DDO would be boring without personal attacks. I disagree, but regardless that's irrelevant. Personal attacks have pushed away a handful of members who have admitted to leaving the site due to harassment. This implies that the incessant insults were not harmless as my opponent suggests. We have proof that DDO has lost members due to permissible harassment; we have no proof that members are drawn to DDO due to permissible harassment. This proves that harassment is a liability and not an asset to DDO. R4. Con points out that that mods enforce rules selectively. I'm arguing why they should continue to enforce them. This is not an argument in favor of why they should not enforce them, making this a completely useless contention. If anything it supports my notion that mod interference in punishing offenders is/will be minimal and subject only to the comments that have been reported as insulting to particular member(s), or considered out of the ordinary rude. R5. Con writes, "It is completely fallacious to have any sort of reactionary measures result from WriterDave's requests, which were made under the assumption that, at the very least, Juggle has a vested interest in what is ultimately the opinion of a single member, with a handful of supporters." First of all, you're misusing the word fallacious. That is a huge pet peeve of mine. Second, this debate has nothing to do with WriterDave in particular (though his thread did inspire this topic). You clearly want voters to based on their opinion of his dramatic legal threats rather than the actual issue at hand as described by the resolution and opening round, which is completely independent of that single user. This is a cheap shot. Hopefully people actually read this debate (I doubt it) and vote accordingly rather than fall into this trap. Third, Juggle clearly has a vested interest in maintaining a specific harassment-free environment, as evidenced once again by the TOS and commentary made by Juggle employees and representatives who have clarified this many times. More importantly, I'm not sure this "rebuttal" makes any sense. What is your point - that Juggle shouldn't care about this issue if only a few members support active moderation? I've already addressed this. In fact it was one of the many arguments that were dropped, which I will outline for your convenience...-- Dropped Arguments -- 1. You do not have any "rights" on DDO. Juggle has specifically prohibited offensive comments, so you don't have the right to free speech in that capacity. While Juggle has no obligation to monitor disputes, it has apparently found it useful to do so regardless of whether or not members agree with this policy. If Juggle finds it appropriate to penalize members for violating the TOS, that's their prerogative and they should continue to do so if it is in accordance with their goals or values, which it apparently is. Period. 2. I've argued that it is in Juggle's best interest to protect the integrity of the site by ensuring it remains a relatively inviting and insightful community, rather than an unnecessarily rude and hostile one. This will help retain members and make DDO not only a more lucrative site but admirable one. Con never argued why DDO would be a better or more profitable place with permissible harassment. He suggests it might be more exciting, though I've negated that premise in R3.3. If the overall consensus is that the community will benefit from moderation (which we know based on people complaining about the lack of moderators in the past), then it ought to be acknowledged that enforcing the rules as outlined via the TOS is the primary purpose of having moderators in the first place. Con never denied this and ignores the reality that the community begged for moderation and condemned Juggle when we didn't have it. 4. People who sign up for DDO have agreed to accept Juggle's decisions including those of appointed moderators. That means they should expect the TOS to be enforced. While sometimes it isn't, that is no reason to believe it shouldn't be as I explained in R4.5. It is reasonable to assume that the decisions mods will continue to make in the future will not be absurd, unwarranted or excessive in scope. This is an important fact to consider and my opponent's R4 supports this notion. 6. Most importantly, we have absolutely no reason to believe that any and every post someone finds offensive will automatically be removed and/or the poster penalized. This is perhaps the most important contention in my favor; I'm not surprised Con dropped it. -- Re: Arguments --1. Con writes, "In supporting the... penalization for petty exchanges removes control of how the people on this website can express themselves." First, Con is poisoning the well in insinuating that the mods will penalize PETTY exchanges rather than potentially obscene ones. I've already explained why it is actually NOT likely that the mods will penalize petty exchanges in response to R4. Second, members don't have the right to express themselves freely, but only within the parameters set forth by Juggle. The TOS they agree to adhere to prohibits them from expressing themselves in a derogatory manner. Sorry. 2. Con says, "The responsibilty should not rest on the moderators to ensure the forums maintain a semblance of what is ultimately an abstraction." Mods exist to protect the integrity of the community, which is primarily maintained through upholding the TOS and reacting to warranted complaints about unnecessary personal attacks. That is exactly their responsibility.3. Con suggests, "The nature of debate is opposition." The nature of debate is to attack an IDEA - not a person. Civility is paramount in debate. Most philosophy majors are required to take classes on how to respectfully disagree with someone. People sign up to debate their POV - not get made fun of. It may be inevitable, but then it may also be inevitably addressed. 4. Con says "This website has proven capable of moderating itself..." If that were the case, members wouldn't have begged for mods. Also consider the wildly divisive members who showed no indication of leaving on their own, such as izbo10 or askbob who has obsessed over being a member on DDO for 3+ years, and to this day is obsessed with returning. In fact he's still here incognito. Even if a FEW members are eventually driven away, they will inevitably be replaced with new harmful trolls or meanies who can be dealt with more expediently.