Mods should work to prevent and sanction personal attacks.

-- Re: Rebuttal --R1. Con says that we have no reason to believe that Juggle intends to profit from this site. False. Juggle has referenced its "investment" in DDO. The word investment implies an expected (profitable) return so his point is negated. Then Con says Juggle might intend to profit from selling DDO's content, making offensive content irrelevant. First, Juggle would not profit from selling offensive content, making all of the offensive content (and flame wars) irrelevant fluff to sort through that is time consuming (costly) and derogatory (harmful) to the quality and thereby reputation of the site. Second, I've proven that members tend to leave due to harassment, meaning less content generated produces less potential content to sell, also making offensive content harmful to potential profit. Therefore his argument is further negated. R2. Nowhere is it inherently implied (nor did I ever suggest) that members were responsible for making DDO profit - only for adhering to the standards that Juggle sets (which I said were most likely in compliance to make them profit). While members certainly facilitate Juggle's motive for profit, the members have no specific obligations of what to do but only what NOT to do (post offensive content). Con then says that some of DDO's rules might be unclear, but that's exactly why Juggle has implemented moderators to make this determination. Furthermore, I'd like to note that Con has completely dismantled his own R1 argument in stating "There is an implication that members have some responsibility to bear the profitability of DDO," which completely contradicts his previous argument that we have no reason to believe Juggle intends to profit from the site.R3. Con's point was that DDO would be boring without offensive material. I've proven harassment is a liability and not an asset to DDO which Con never challenged. He then writes, "Things just need to be kept under control, not regularly managed." Once again he has essentially already forfeited this debate considering "regularly managing" is the equivalent of active moderation, which includes preventing and sanctioning personal attacks. It's clear that Con is actually arguing in favor of my side. Con then makes the predictable argument that we might not know where to draw the line since people are offended by various things. I've already addressed this several times over, and it's unfair and perhaps abusive that I have to waste more character space and time repeating myself. I pointed out that there is a pretty clear distinction between a general opinion based on race, and a personal attack based on race (for example). Regardless, once again the members' opinion here is completely irrelevant. There is no such thing as the right to not be offended and you very well might be. However it is up to JUGGLE and the people Juggle appoints to mod (since they own the site) to make the determination between acceptable and unacceptable content. If I post "My favorite color is purple" and the mod deletes that comment, that is too bad because I have NO RIGHTS on Juggle. I am utilizing this free service at my own discretion and therefore accept whatever parameters Juggle chooses to implement. R4. Con completely dropped my R4 contention. I will once again waste more character space c/p it: 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. I'll address Con's misuse of the word fallacious in the comments section. For now note that Con avoided the point here which is that 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. -- Re: Dropped Arguments -- 1. Con says "As this is a public website, members here are free to express themselves as they please. The ToS only provides the rights Juggle has to respond to expression they consider 'harmful, which, as I've previously indicated, is left undefined, and should not extend to petty exchanges." DDO is a public website that is privately owned and operated. Here Con's argument illustrates my point: that Juggle has the right to remove content that JUGGLE (not the members here) feel is harmful, therefore the resolution is upheld. 2. Con never argued why DDO would be a better or more profitable place with permissible harassment, not that his opinion matters anyway because only Juggle's does (and we know their opinion; see TOS). Note: It is too late for him to respond to this dropped argument. 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. Note: It is too late for him to respond to this dropped argument. 4. People who sign up for DDO have agreed to accept Juggle's decisions including those of appointed moderators. Note: It is too late for Con to respond to this dropped argument. 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. Note: It is too late for Con to respond to this dropped argument.6. We have no reason to believe that any and every post someone finds offensive will automatically be removed and/or the poster penalized. Note: Is it too late for Con to respond to this dropped argument. -- Re: Arguments -- 1. See Point 1 of Dropped Arguments. It's essentially the same thing about members' limited free speech "rights" here.2. Con reiterates the fact that the sole purpose of moderators are to censor forums. However he asks "to what degree" they should be censored. I've explained innumerable times why only Juggle (and their appointed moderators') opinion matters; however, I've also made some good arguments as to why personal attacks ought to be censored. This upholds the resolution - not argues against it.3. I've argued that the nature of debate is to attack an IDEA - not a person. Con says people define themselves through concepts, but I don't see how that justifies personal attacks. Saying "Republicans are stupid" is different than "Republican ideals are stupid." Regardless, I've already implied that there is a reasonable standard of civility and that most people are competent to notice the distinction between a legitimate disagreement based on concepts or attacking someone based on certain concepts. This is really a very flimsy rebuttal on Con's part.4. Con says "This website has proven capable of moderating itself..." I pointed out that if that were true, members wouldn't have begged for mods. Also there are wildly divisive members who showed no indication of leaving on their own, such as izbo10 or askbob. Even if some "negative" members are eventually driven away, not without first harming the site, and also they will inevitably be replaced with new harmful trolls or meanies who can be dealt with more expediently by mods. Con responded, "Extreme cases certainly need to be dealt with... Izbo was subject to public outcry and Askbob broke the law." People who run Juggle (like Julia and the former owner Phil) qualify as moderators responding to these extreme cases. The current moderator, innomen, was heavily involved in the izbo case.