Instigator / Pro
10
1266
rating
119
debates
15.97%
won
Topic
#691
I should not have been banned
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 7 votes and with 39 points ahead, the winner is...
Ramshutu
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
49
1764
rating
43
debates
94.19%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Number one "should" is subjective so any claim that I should be banned is arbitrary. The reason why "should not" is not arbitrary is because the natural state of things is for me to not be banned, and it is the ones banning me who are imposing their subjective sensibilities onto the world.
Number two I didn't do anything other than cuss out people who deserve it, and the way they lie and distort information is worse than any insult I can throw their way.
Code of Conduct
While you may not like it, this website has a code of conduct that you acknowledge that you will abide by. At the time of writing, you don’t appear to have read it: as you don’t have the law abiding citizen medal.
The code of conduct sets out what is considered acceptable and unacceptable behaviour - and what is not.
As this is a privately run community orientated website - moderators have both the prerogative and the duty to remove bad actors, the abusive, the disruptive or the racist from a site where that behaviour is deemed antithetical to the purpose of the site.
In this case, this site is not 4chan - it is not an unmoderated cesspool of personal attacks, racism and ridiculous insults - it is a community debating site - and as such, moderators should ban individuals who break the rules of the website for the sake of the community.
So let’s look at some of your behaviour:
Anti-Semitic speech
From the code of conduct:
https://www.debateart.com/rules
While you may not like it, this website has a code of conduct that you acknowledge that you will abide by. At the time of writing, you don’t appear to have read it: as you don’t have the law abiding citizen medal.
The code of conduct sets out what is considered acceptable and unacceptable behaviour - and what is not.
As this is a privately run community orientated website - moderators have both the prerogative and the duty to remove bad actors, the abusive, the disruptive or the racist from a site where that behaviour is deemed antithetical to the purpose of the site.
In this case, this site is not 4chan - it is not an unmoderated cesspool of personal attacks, racism and ridiculous insults - it is a community debating site - and as such, moderators should ban individuals who break the rules of the website for the sake of the community.
So let’s look at some of your behaviour:
Anti-Semitic speech
From the code of conduct:
https://www.debateart.com/rules
“Slurs or invective against an entire class of people (such as racist, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, transphobic, ageist, and ableist slurs, or slurs against religious, political, ethnic, or national groups) are prohibited.”
“Jews are descended from fallen angels and run the Illuminati”
This entire debate is little more than a crazed anti Semitic rant.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/89
“Judaism is a Hebrew race cult which is fundamentally racist and modern "Jews" are descended primarily from people the Hebrews would have considered savages”
“Jew”
“the Jewish culture and belief system has directly done more damage than almost any other.”
“The majority of 1% types who are corrupt bankers and wall street types are caucasian Jews, and they are greedy and elitist not because of some inherent racial thing about Jews but because of culture.”
Personal attacks.
From the code of conduct:
“A personal attack is any abusive or derogatory remark aimed at a site user or site users rather than the content of what those users say or espouse.”
“Learn basic biology you incessant plebian crotch guzzler.”
“I am getting impatient with your insane stupidity”
“Please go learn some basic anthropological facts before you put your imbecilic fucking fingers upon the keyboard presuming to spew more ignorant drivel such as this.”
“Fuck you, I hate you because you are a retarded lying c**t and your misinformation should be a greater blow to your conduct than my rudeness is to mine if the voters have any sense. You are an ass licking fuckwit and I hope your step-father molested you.”
“People like you shouldn't be allowed to vote because you are just an anti-intellectual douche and a troll. You are voting against me even though it is clear how intellectually dishonest my opponent was just because you are a partisan shill and nutsack gobbling dumpster goblin”
“Actually you are a lazy, intellectually dishonest cretin looking for ways to reframe my arguments rather than dispute them.”
“Debating you is pointless because you are a cheap pseudo-intellectual weasel trying to avoid having to actually win by debating.”
“You should probably not be smoking crack before you post in a debate.”
“The way you debate makes me seriously wonder if you have a learning disability.”
“Anyone who takes this seriously is a retard who should be in psychiatric ward to begin with.
No, people should not be obligated to "remove ideas they don't agree with" you stupid Orwellian wank biscuit.
Now go bother someone who gives a rats ass about your whiny, annoying finger wagging BS.”
“Listen up you fucking barrel of monkey cunts.”
“You are an ignorant neo-liberal cock holster that thinks being a leftist is about feelings and virtue signaling meanwhile you support the same capitalist establishment that is gang raping the earth and the human race. You know what you are? You're just a fucking conservative with a testosterone deficiency.”
Your history here is primarily just name calling and varying degrees of abuse in lieu of an attack or argument against the position of the individuals you’re insulting.
Trolling:
As well as repeatedly and invariably engaging in personal attacks at some point in almost all your debates, and your repeatedly anti-Semitic debates and language: these both additional make you a Troll.
According to the code of conduct:
Trolling:
As well as repeatedly and invariably engaging in personal attacks at some point in almost all your debates, and your repeatedly anti-Semitic debates and language: these both additional make you a Troll.
According to the code of conduct:
“Trolling is the use of inflammatory language or extreme and unsupported claims aimed at provoking a negative emotional response”
Bans
“Bans may be issued for sustained misconduct, particularly when a user fails to demonstrate remorse and/or a willingness and ability to reform. Bans may also be issued, without being preceded by warnings, for one or more egregious violations of the site’s code of conduct”
From the CoC
Whether or not you were warned about your behaviour (I strongly suspect you were) is largely irrelevant as the above repeated and sustained infractions were over a period of multiple months, and at no point have to ever given any impression that you were changing or wanted to.
Conclusion
Given the sustained and repeated infractions on multiple aspects of the code of conduct - including hate speech - the necessity and warrant for a ban is clear cut and unassailable.
Indeed the only part to your ban that any rational human could possibly question - is why it wasn’t permanent.
Conclusion
Given the sustained and repeated infractions on multiple aspects of the code of conduct - including hate speech - the necessity and warrant for a ban is clear cut and unassailable.
Indeed the only part to your ban that any rational human could possibly question - is why it wasn’t permanent.
Round 2
Forfeited
Extend all arguments.
Round 3
Forfeited
And extend to the end!
It will be lifted shortly.
How long is Type1's ban if it's temporary?
Okay.
To my knowledge, a banned user cannot log into the site, and is therefore unable to perform any site functions.
Can a banned user create debates but not be able to post arguments to it?
A banned user cannot post arguments while banned. It's a great reason not to get banned.
Tampon ban - 3 days in, 3 weeks out.
He forfeited after 3 days. My previous argument was 3 days ago.
Is he not allowed to submit arguments?
You posted your argument today and somehow he forfeited on the same day even though there is a 3 day window to post an argument.
Temp
is it temp or perma?
DART still allows you to visit the pages of banned members. Type1 is currently banned.
You forgot this one of the comments in the debate "I'm Gay" by type1.
"Shut up you neo nazi halfwit idiot. It's not my fault you are too busy jerking off to Jesus' mutilated corpse to realize when I am joking and when I'm not. You are a christian and a right winger, therefor anything you say about "logic" is equally valid to a toddler giving a lecture about quantum mechanics. You are a sperm guzzling toddler groping crotch licking chicken fucker, shut your god damn mouth."
So did type1 get banned? I see a line through his name but I am still able to go to his profile page.
Okay.
Public trials are where by someone or someone’s try and convince everyone else - and the mods of how bad someone is - and how this person deserves a ban or formal sanction.
It’s possible that it could be moderators approving it or not: but it is effectively an attempt to make moderation sanctions predicated on public opinion (which could have been stirred up by animosity, half truths and user popularity).
A public trial is essentially a call out thread posing as both fair and legitimate - when in reality it is neither of those things.
"That implies that I erred and then retrospectively managed to conceal said error. Since no error was made, I never covered myself."
My implication was that it was difficult for me to pluck holes in the statement.
"No. If the people participating intended for it to be serious, that would be enough for me to consider it a trial, all other boxes being checked, even if a moderator were not in support of it."
Okay.
"We're not going to engage in that kind of speculation."
Okay.
>> So how about if the call-out thread rule was removed and the public trail rule was removed?
We're not going to engage in that kind of speculation.
>> Covered yourself really well there.
That implies that I erred and then retrospectively managed to conceal said error. Since no error was made, I never covered myself.
>> So basically in order for it to be a public trial it would require a higher-up to intend on it with the approval of other staff like Virtuoso. Am I right?
No. If the people participating intended for it to be serious, that would be enough for me to consider it a trial, all other boxes being checked, even if a moderator were not in support of it.
So how about if the call-out thread rule was removed and the public trail rule was removed?
Would it be a hypothetical yes to this:
So basically in order for it to be a public trial it would require a higher-up to intend on it with the approval of other staff like Virtuoso. Am I right?
How about if it was expired but you would like the open the case again based on new evidence?
Trials would be considered "call out threads" and will be deleted. This is not considered a trial because Pro is debating the merits of his ban, not whether he should be permanently banned.
Hypothetical then. Just remove the public trial rule.
So basically in order for it to be a public trial it would require a higher-up to intend on it with the approval of other staff like Virtuoso. Am I right?
How about if it was expired but you would like the open the case again based on new evidence?
The rules specifically forbids trials because it encourages mob rule.
Covered yourself really well there.
So basically in order for it to be a public trial it would require a higher-up to intend on it with the approval of other staff like Virtuoso. Am I right?
How about if it was expired but you would like the open the case again based on new evidence?
A public trial is an organized effort to debate whether a member should be banned, not litigating the merits of one which has already transpired or expired. A trial would also need to be meant seriously, not as a trolling effort.
What is the difference between this and a public trial?
Would it be a public trial if you or Virtuoso accepted?
Debating the merits of a banning is not the same as a trial. Certainly, moderation decisions need to be open to scrutiny and criticism, and so these types of debates are allowed.
"Anti-Semitic speech"
Does it have to be blatant or can be done by using dog-whistling?
Would look to know on other rules as well.
Isn't this against the law?
Public execution and the executioner being Ramshutu.
Public trials if you didn't like the joke.