4 ms·

"11. An independent panel that both you and I agree upon will define what it means to be “toxic”." I mean, that's about as fair as you can get when it comes to

"11. An independent panel that both you and I agree upon will define what it means to be “toxic”." I mean, that's about as fair as you can get when it comes to negotiating an agreement on something as subjective as "toxicity".

KirinDave 9y ago
Having a panel whose members are open and that you could judge before comitting hours of work: that would be fair. Instead you have to come with evidence and then negotiate the panel allowing a potentially disingenuous actor to counter pick your evidence. The way the author worded this challenge demands we consider them an antagonist. Their definition of unacceptable is rape and death threats. Given this fact, we must assume they'd demand judges with similar views. To engage in this challenge genuinely, we are forced to accept the author's absurdly high threshold (10%?! That's a wildfire!) and their absurdly permissive definition of harmless toxicity. I will do neither.
- AcerbicZero 9y ago
  I agree that having the panel decided in advance would be better, but I don't think that discredits the overall challenge, or the goal. It doesn't say you have to decide the panel make up after you start, so there is no reason to assume you couldn't negotiate that up front. If the author is making unreasonable demands during that negotiation, you've lost at worst an hour or two of time emailing back and forth, and you can write your own article fully discrediting this challenge. I guess my point is that potential for unreasonable demands, doesn't make this challenge any less (or more) valid. Regardless, I appreciate your perspective on this, and your willingness to engage in a discussion of it.
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    I've listed at least 3 things that individually are problematic (predisposition, process, and the arbitrarily high threshold). Putting them together, I see no reason why we SHOULD extend a principle of charity.
- TedPetrou 9y ago
  Again this needs correcting. I am offering money. Why should I go out of my way to make it easy for you. Try to build a case on your own if you think its worthwhile (which you won't). You seem hung up on the definition of toxicity being defined as rape and death threats. Your reading comprehension skills are atrocious. Where did I mention this? You finally understand something, that the 10% threshold is high. I don't want to lose my money. But you do realize that many people actually believe it to be extremely high. YouTube comments might actually exceed that threshold.
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    No one wants your paltry prize money, Ted. What they want are environments with less toxicity. > You finally understand something, that the 10% threshold is high. I don't want to lose my money. In one fell swoop you've admitted you have set an unreasonably high goal post, that you don't expect it to be attainable, and that this was not actually about the inquiry. But sure, Ted, we should all be grateful to you for offering up money you don' expect to pay. Why stop at 10%? I'm sure you can pay someone on a bus somewhere to say 25%, and then you can peg it there. That wouldn't be substantially less disingenuous than what you've done so far, so I say: live your best life.
    - ThoAppelsin 9y ago
      > an unreasonably high goal post I wouldn't say unreasonably high for 10% for a single man offering that much money. I would even say that it is rather very risky. Besides, claiming a platform is "a toxic wasteland" puts that platform on par with the ones like 4chan, and that does seem to require 20% toxicity to me, maybe even higher. For it to get more strict like 3-5%, the claim should be lighter, something like "slightly toxic". It is nice of him to empathise and assume that the claims are probably exaggerated, and to set the threshold to something in between. > No one wants your paltry prize money, Ted. Lastly, I definitely would enjoy an extra 10K, but I don't really think I can beat that requirement, since I don't think Stack Overflow is even slightly toxic.
      - KirinDave 9y ago

KirinDave 9y ago

Having a panel whose members are open and that you could judge before comitting hours of work: that would be fair. Instead you have to come with evidence and then negotiate the panel allowing a potentially disingenuous actor to counter pick your evidence. The way the author worded this challenge demands we consider them an antagonist. Their definition of unacceptable is rape and death threats. Given this fact, we must assume they'd demand judges with similar views. To engage in this challenge genuinely, we are forced to accept the author's absurdly high threshold (10%?! That's a wildfire!) and their absurdly permissive definition of harmless toxicity. I will do neither.

AcerbicZero 9y ago
I agree that having the panel decided in advance would be better, but I don't think that discredits the overall challenge, or the goal. It doesn't say you have to decide the panel make up after you start, so there is no reason to assume you couldn't negotiate that up front. If the author is making unreasonable demands during that negotiation, you've lost at worst an hour or two of time emailing back and forth, and you can write your own article fully discrediting this challenge. I guess my point is that potential for unreasonable demands, doesn't make this challenge any less (or more) valid. Regardless, I appreciate your perspective on this, and your willingness to engage in a discussion of it.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  I've listed at least 3 things that individually are problematic (predisposition, process, and the arbitrarily high threshold). Putting them together, I see no reason why we SHOULD extend a principle of charity.
TedPetrou 9y ago
Again this needs correcting. I am offering money. Why should I go out of my way to make it easy for you. Try to build a case on your own if you think its worthwhile (which you won't). You seem hung up on the definition of toxicity being defined as rape and death threats. Your reading comprehension skills are atrocious. Where did I mention this? You finally understand something, that the 10% threshold is high. I don't want to lose my money. But you do realize that many people actually believe it to be extremely high. YouTube comments might actually exceed that threshold.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  No one wants your paltry prize money, Ted. What they want are environments with less toxicity. > You finally understand something, that the 10% threshold is high. I don't want to lose my money. In one fell swoop you've admitted you have set an unreasonably high goal post, that you don't expect it to be attainable, and that this was not actually about the inquiry. But sure, Ted, we should all be grateful to you for offering up money you don' expect to pay. Why stop at 10%? I'm sure you can pay someone on a bus somewhere to say 25%, and then you can peg it there. That wouldn't be substantially less disingenuous than what you've done so far, so I say: live your best life.
  - ThoAppelsin 9y ago
    > an unreasonably high goal post I wouldn't say unreasonably high for 10% for a single man offering that much money. I would even say that it is rather very risky. Besides, claiming a platform is "a toxic wasteland" puts that platform on par with the ones like 4chan, and that does seem to require 20% toxicity to me, maybe even higher. For it to get more strict like 3-5%, the claim should be lighter, something like "slightly toxic". It is nice of him to empathise and assume that the claims are probably exaggerated, and to set the threshold to something in between. > No one wants your paltry prize money, Ted. Lastly, I definitely would enjoy an extra 10K, but I don't really think I can beat that requirement, since I don't think Stack Overflow is even slightly toxic.
    - KirinDave 9y ago