Upcoming MEEP

you beat me to two of my points.  I thought about unrating too but that doesn't work for discouraging advertisers 

There are enough noobs for us all to snipe! Noobs for everyone!

It also is wrong to enact retroactively of bsh1 is actually consistent.

I agree.

Debates that violate CoC already get removed. Retroactive application only apppies to rule changes. I’m just specifying that the rules should be enforced consistently.

Oh I remember one that I forgot:

a) [if technically feasible] The block feature should be bidirectional. If an individual blocks another; the blocking user will also be prevented from instigating debates, messaging and tagging the blocked user.

what about ragnar’s voting extension idea and/or empowering mods to disqualify votes after voting period ends?

Of course I have to agree with consistent enforcement generally although I worry in this particular that enforcement only applies to one user

Given that only one “user” is currently doing the spamming; and one user is overtly exploiting it at the moment - that kinda stands to reason right now. If one user goes over the top on exploiting something to the point it’s unfair to everyone else - then it’s reasonable to take action; that user effectively spoils it for the rest of us by drastically over doing it. Normally this should be self policing - but I would expect you and RM to be pissed if I took 9 of these debates, and I would expect RM and I to be annoyed if you took 9 of these debates. (That’s why in the previous Type1 spamfests, I only took a couple instead of all of them). 

What is much more concerning to me, is tha in this case  you and Type1 and me and Type1 have no history of note other than from this site. He and RM does - they communicate off site: and while it’s probable that Type1 is just a nut bag: it gives the appearance of shadiness with RM just so happening to catch all 9 debates in a row.

If advertising, and spam debates from Type1 (and any subsequent banned user) end up having to be deleted in the future - then cool. If people aren’t able to exercise a reasonable level of discretion, then that’s where you have to go.

I guess RM/T1 off-site communication should be none of my business but it is interesting.  RM didn't seem to have much compunction about outing type1 alts in past so I'd wonder @ type1's willingness to conspire.  I don't disagree that rogues sometimes have to be addressed independently- I just think we should increase our checks & balances when defining transgressions to snare singular actors, actions.

The issue with this type of site, and sites in general - is that crafting rules for specific behaviours you don’t like end up meaning you have lots of different rules, and end up having to let slide bad behaviour at times because you don’t yet have a rule.

If Bsh is going to be Mod Hitler - he’s going to be that whether or not the CoC allows for it; and in general I think you need to treat the CoV as a broad palette of prohibited behaviours that make it clear what the generally accepted behaviour is and is not, and then moderation takes action based upon that in order to maintain the general integrity of the site.

In this case, this applies to Type1 - not because he’s being singled out, as much as he is the first user to which has actively spammed. It also applies to Rm, not because he’s being unfairly singled out, but again because he’s the first.

The power is there in the CoC to remove debates; and multiple debates have been removed in the past on CoC grounds. If debates are deleted because they violate then CoC as personal attacks, or spam: then they should both be removable based on their potential impact which in this case is substantial.

I’m not going to begrudge your handful of Type1 Forfeit debates, or RMs previous 50ish examples, or all both of mine. But when you set up a system where you allow a single individual to pick up several months worth of points - it’s inherently detrimental.

i don’t disagree w/ any of this. Thx for taking the time to explain

I do what you do better than you do it,including getting under your skin on a deep psychological level.

Don't toy with me so sadistically and expect a pleasurable stay on the site.

We have a system in place that should take care of your concerns. The elo system.

Users like type1 lose so much elo by being terrible at debating/trolling/spamming that beating them becomes basically worthless and not much is to be gained from it. Users who are good at debating rise in elo and beating them gains you more elo. In this way, it motivates people to go after bigger debates.

People can still take those debates if they want, it just isn't going to be very significant. Besides, it's first come first serve and RM can accept those debates if he wants to.

@Rm

Firstly; there are characters in Shakespearean tragedy that act less obsessed than you do i the average debate comment. A good way to sound convincing is to not act like your phone has been modified to autocorrect “,” to “Ramshutu”.

Secondly, don’t confuse the occasional witty comment and avatar change with sadism. You seem to have two emotional states: calm and wee-chair-smash-pant-soiling-sphincter-implosion; and my comments are more addressed at pointing out the ludicrousness of your outrage and obsession, rather than for the purposes of harm.

Quite frankly at this point, the only way you’d cause any sort of minute detriment to my enjoyment of this site is if you got yourself banned. Or started acting normally.

The ELO system works for Type1 - who is low enough Rm would only earn a handful of points from. Type1 created 2 accounts meaning that RM gets substantially more points: probably getting to the 90 points mark. So the logic there doesn’t quite apply.

The specific issue here is not like this was a single debate, of multiple that were sitting around for a while. This was a substantial number of debates that were snapped up immediately solely for the purposes of earning substantial amounts of free points for 0 effort.

Again - one or two - I’d have no issue with - but 9 is a clear abuse of lax moderation with the intent to exploit the lack of moderation to jump the leaderboard.

Could anyone have accepted them? Maybe, I think many would have, and the fact that they didn’t implies some sort of either some insider information (RM knew something others didn’t - IE he knew it was Type1) or outright collusion.

Saying that, I think everyone would prefer a leaderboard that is reflective of debates won - rather than who is better at being online and accepting Type1 debates.

RM would agree with me too, if Type1 started challenging people who were not RM to substantial numbers of debates.

That's moderation's fault, not the person who accepted the debates.

9 is toou much 8 is just fine. Why? Ramshutu says so.

You and Type1 are close friends on createdebate, don't start a war you cannot win or this will get dirty.

I’m not suggesting RM is penalized for accepting the debates in this scrnsrio- just not rewarded: there is a big difference.

What does MEEP mean?

Why should you be rewarded for being there before I was on the days you accepted Sparrow and type1's debates?

While I’m digging the irrational angry threats - unfortunately I have utterly no clue what on earth you’re talking about.

Secondly, 2-3 debates is probably the limit of tolerability.

I know the anti-Semitic death threatener that you are under pseudonyms on createdebate. You fucked up yesterday but I knew already. If you want to drag me through the mud, let's start analysing who is closer to Type1. To begin with let's stick to this website, who was the biggest opposer tom accusing Type1 of being Sparrow and the most avid defender of Sparrow the entire time via counter voting etc?

Because

a) the majority of them (all but 2) were all genuine debate attempts that weren’t complete troll that I had to work for.

b) I got maybe 6 whole points from Type1 debates that were not genuine.

c) I will happily volunteer losing those 6 points, if all these troll points are expunged.

You got more than 6, a lot more. You argued in complete bad faith and yet voted against me when I did the same thing to others. You changed "realistic chance of proving" into being "possible to prove if some day the proof

appeared" 

I've done far less things to argue in what you call bad faith and you votebombed me for it, even once for literally typing too much good stuff that you called gosh gallop, you refused to award points for a concession.

He should get some reward... a minimal reward equal to the amount of effort it takes to beat type1.

LOL this should be good....

Could you start another thread for your paranoid delusional baseless accusations so we don’t pollute Bshs meep thread?

RM

I got 2 spam debates the rest were normal - by all means link me the other 4.