-->
@zedvictor4
You don't seem to know much about operation Mockingbird.
What I could do for you as a moderator
Posts
Total:
80
-->
@Greyparrot
I didn't.
If true, sort of emphasises the point.
Widespread paranoia.
Widespread manipulation.
Widespread propaganda.
Will read more later.
-->
@zedvictor4
I seem to remember that we elected a President.But he seems to have disappeared without a trace.
Let's be honest, he was never really there. Unless you are talking about Obama, in which case he never really left.
-->
@WyIted
1. Foster an environment where any opinion was welcome no matter how taboo.2. Foster an environment where we behave with honor and a basic level of respect for each other
Seems to me these two environments are opposed. How does one "foster an environment" of "[behavior] with honor and a basic level of respect for each other" where
"any opinion [is] welcome no matter how taboo?"
-->
@fauxlaw
It's actually quite possible to advocate for the genocide of homosexuals while treating a homosexual you are debating with, with personal respect and treat them like an individual. It's also possible to take your position seriously without resorting to retarded arguments like "let's kill fags because butt stuff is gross"
It's actually quite possible to advocate for the genocide of homosexuals while treating a homosexual you are debating with, with personal respect
Assuming you never commit mentioned genocide. Genocide is not respect.
This thread is producing some unprecedented innovations I see.Genocide is not respect.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Its just a point that defending a position in a debate which, if said position was put in effect, would prevent more people from debating, already defeats said position in a debate.
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Let my cynicism be perfectly clear:
This site contains very little actual debate, just like the rest of the internet and the world.
If there was a way to "criminalize" anything that subverts or distracts from debate on a debate site I would say go for it; but the age old problem is "who decides".
In practice it's either hyper-tolerance or a spiral of censorship that destroys the interest of the few members that a debate site attracts.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
In my opinion, people should be able to debate anything (words =/= actions), and at the start of the internet, there was a bit more freedom than there is now. Now most sites have at least some censorship.
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
The condition was stated as "Behave with honor." If that's "honor" to you, you have bigger problems than this little exercise. or, don't words mean things anymore? I did not spend $1,900 on a print version of 20 volumes of the OED just to expect that outcome; I don't care how much wokeness screams about it.
-->
@WyIted
Possible, of course. But is it honorable? Not according to my OED. That was your set condition. I've cited it back to you. You have illusions of moderation if you believe that is honorable. I hold you to your word, just as I hold to its definition. Can't be all things to all people. "Be yourself," Oscar Wilde said, "everyone else is taken."
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
I don't know about other sites; I was attractred to this site. However, this site has two debate versions: "serious" Debate, and the informal Forum. The preference for the informal version is obvious. In 17 separate topics [excluding the DebateArrt section, and games], there are more informal topics in just two of them [science and religion] than all of the serious debates, combined. I think some of the "serious" debates do not fit that description, and belong in Forum, but, that's me. I find some topics in Debate trite and infantile, suited for the Forum. I personally have almost more posts in Forum than there are of all Debates.
Possible, of course. But is it honorable?
Irrelevant. This is about what's appropriate to moderate not what's honorable
Not according to my OED.
Honor is too complicated if a topic for a 1 sentence dictionary definition to accurately reflect it
That was your set condition. I've cited it back to you.
Wrong, if I am understanding you correctly here
You have illusions of moderation if you believe that is honorable.
Illusions of moderation? Your words are borderline incomprehensible right now.
I hold you to your word, just as I hold to its definition. Can't be all things to all people. "Be yourself," Oscar Wilde said, "everyone else is taken."
Yes this site can't be all things to all people which is why we do need to unfortunately ban some people
-->
@WyIted
Wow. So much fluff. So is your self-centered motivation campaign to be a moderator. Consider me a no-vote [although I don't think that's how moderators are selected] should it come to that. And I am not alone. Maybe you quit the site in your head, but the reality is, you're still here, and that is not a good position-stake for a moderator. I respect those guys, one and all, but you ain't them.
So WyIted failed to become a moderator and failed to ban me? Maybe his hacking skills can make up for these terrible defeats.
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
It's more of a "wizard of oz" kind of situation here. I doubt the people who are paying attention even have the power to make him a mod. They haven't had the ability to update the CoC page.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
They made Oromagi a mod, so someone had the ability before. I dont know if it can be done now tho. Oromagi tried to ban me as a mod, but failed. What WyIted doesnt realize here is that even if he somehow becomes a mod, he wont be the only mod, and will still have to convince other mods to ban me. Besides, mods arent elected by popular vote, but even if they were, I somehow doubt WyIted would win that one. He wouldnt even be president now if I voted for RM instead of him.
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Now we need a TheGreatSunGod "What I could do for you as a moderator" post.
-->
@Savant
Good idea!