Someone needs more aloe.
Are blacks the worst debaters
Posts
Total:
161
-->
@RationalMadman
Yeah it has been a while. Eh, I'm best taken in small doses anyway, I think we can all agree.
Anytime a document is given authority I think it invites questions of who really has the power -- the document or its enforcers/interpreters. It's both, imo. "Power resides where men believe it resides."
I don't make decisions under bish's supervision like a deputy would, because the point of a recusal mod is to be outside the normal chain of authority. What if bish was personally involved in an incident I had to moderate? But I do follow the CoC, which Virt and bish penned. So they defined the laws I go by.
-->
@Castin
You can think you are a recusal mod, you are a puppet of bsh1 and it is very silly how cunning he plays it. Do you literally think bsh1 felt he was too biased to handle Wylted? He's too biased to be mod in the first place and he doesn't care about the double-standard way he treats people.
He will pick and choose when to moderate too, which is the primary means of bias he has. He will be online regularly but wait 3 weeks to moderate against one user, especially if the victim of that user's abuse is someone he wants to aggravate, while being prompt as hell at other times if the abuser is someone he dislikes on top of their victim being someone he likes. This is a 100% consistent pattern that has nothing to do with him randomly being busy IRL or not, the timing doesn't add up. On top of this is literal leniency vs strictness seeping through, not just delaying vs promptness but this is done less often and more subtle than the first.
-->
@RationalMadman
I thought I felt a hand up my ass moving my mouth like a ventriloquist dummy. So it was bish all along.
I don't claim you'd be a "power hungry revenge-banner," btw. I actually think you would be a highly unpredictable moderator. But that's not what you want in a mod. You want predictable.
-->
@Castin
Virtuoso is predictably easy to negotiate with and seek help from until he goes into his shell and submits to bsh1's will, which is still predictable as it's based on whenever bsh1 has something significant to gain by bothering to act.
Bsh1 is predictably corrupt and going to do whatever he wants based on blatant dislike vs like of the victim vs perpetrator of any given scenario.
So, yes, they both live up to your stated criteria.
-->
@David
@bsh1
Where is the line between productive critiques and baseless attacks?
I asked a similar thing back when I thought there'd be any reason to be nice to bsh1 or defend his honour.
Drafterman was the old bully of bsh1 and was 5x worse than what I am saying now. Bsh1 took it willingly and may have a humiliation kink, I don't know. The point I'm making is you're wasting your time trying to suck up to him to get me punished, bsh1 is immune to emotional attacks and almost gets off on them. This is why he made a special enforcement exception for humiliating him and Virtuoso.
-->
@David
@bsh1
@Ramshutu
Could you please to respond to what I said earlier?
I added in Ramshutu so that I hope it gets addressed quicker.
You can keep crying so they ban me, maybe that can bring some joy in your life. I doubt they'll ban me though and have the legal precedent to prove it.
@RM
Do you hear yourself?
I am asking for a clarification on the rules. I don't really care about irrational ego man who says he is great at everything. Banning you probably won't do anything for me. Maybe I'll laugh but it would be for the short term. I'll move on while you're banned if that happens that is.
I am so sorry for how empty you must feel.
-->
@Castin
That must mean that airmax1227 had 1226 ventriloquist hands for every one of his alt accounts. No wonder DDO had so much butthurt.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
As long as the discussion is about ideas, not people, then it will pass moderation review. Now, if you're asking me my non-mod opinion, I would say that when real anger is introduced into the discussion, the debate is no longer really about the issues, and more about the people involved.
Question about CoC policy: why is calling someone a “f*cking idiot who deserves to go to hell” a CoC violation but explicit racism not? It seems to me that the latter is more harmful.
-->
@Tejretics
People do what they do because people enjoy doing what the do or they wouldn't do it would they?
Ignore and move on.
-->
@bsh1
As long as the discussion is about ideas, not people, then it will pass moderation review. Now, if you're asking me my non-mod opinion, I would say that when real anger is introduced into the discussion, the debate is no longer really about the issues, and more about the people involved.
"Bsh1 is predictably corrupt and going to do whatever he wants based on blatant dislike vs like of the victim vs perpetrator of any given scenario."
I see this as a way to show his dislike for you more so actually talk about the ideas because if he was he would've shown evidence of these allegations he has presented.
-->
@Tejretics
That is hate speech.Question about CoC policy: why is calling someone a “f*cking idiot who deserves to go to hell” a CoC violation but explicit racism not? It seems to me that the latter is more harmful.
Wylted was banned for being racist. I think Castin made the ban.
Is Wylted the Quagmire of DART?
-->
@Vader
I pmed you 3 weeks ago. How long does a response take
-->
@Wylted
I was on vacation in San Diego. I'm not answering my discord pms on vacation
-->
@Vader
The dart one. Which is more important
-->
@Vader
Is Wylted the Quagmire of DART?
Meg.
-->
@Ramshutu
lol
-->
@Vader
We also know who Adam West is.
-->
@Vader
And Bruce.
-->
@Ramshutu
Who's Bruce?
-->
@Tejretics
Question about CoC policy: why is calling someone a “f*cking idiot who deserves to go to hell” a CoC violation but explicit racism not? It seems to me that the latter is more harmful.
Freedom of debate. Freedom to argue offensive and controversial opinions. Freedom to dive straight into danger zones and cultural taboos. Etc.
Basically they chose a debate arena with the safety rails off.
The underlying philosophy? At a guess: In formal debates, you should be judged on the strength of your arguments no matter what your view is. Racism is usually built upon bad arguments. Bad arguments are to be punished by voters, not moderators.
-->
@blamonkey
That must mean that airmax1227 had 1226 ventriloquist hands for every one of his alt accounts. No wonder DDO had so much butthurt.
What is up with people calling airmax a thousand-tentacled spymaster??
Obviously I missed a lot on DDO.
-->
@Castin
Freedom of debate. Freedom to argue offensive and controversial opinions. Freedom to dive straight into danger zones and cultural taboos. Etc.
My question was more specific than “why is racism not banned?”. It was: “why are personal attacks banned but racism not?”. Because personal attacks can also be justified—you can say “three reasons why [insert username] is an idiot.” So if the standard is freedom to argue offensive opinions and freedom of debate, why are personal attacks not allowed?
To be clear, I’m not arguing that personal attacks should be allowed. My point is, if the standard is harm, and if we as a community accept the principle that personal attacks shouldn’t be allowed, there’s no clear distinction between explicit racism and a personal attack.
-->
@Tejretics
The 3 reasons why in my opinion should not be considered a personal attack. Airmax defined personal attack correctly if anyone wants to hunt down the thread where he took the trouble to define these terms