-->
@Lunatic
How the fuck am I stalking?
There is a learning experience even in an unjust and completely corrupt scenario.
Posts
Total:
85
-->
@RationalMadman
How the fuck am I stalking?
My whole point is that if you take Ragnar's definition of stalking out of a real life scenario, you qualify. I dis-agree that it should be qualified as stalking, and I pointed that out.
-->
@Lunatic
I must have deleted the notification for this when I got responses in mafia games, I didn't realize you had responded.
No worries, and no judgement.
People reporting a thread when they weren't even there, doesn't encourage discussion. It's tattle-telling to the 4th degree lol.
In this case, multiple people who were directly involved made reports. However, yes, in other cases certain people have crossed the line seeming to abuse the report function to attempt to get moderators to harass someone they dislike at their behest while they keep their distance. I still look in at what's going on, but I've learned to take it less serious if some third party is making the reports (not to say ignoring any and all wrongdoing).
the "public shaming" of responding to every report. Responding to a report should be done in a private message with the reporter I think.
It's not every report... And the reporters are generally not identified... I used to handle it more often in private (still do sometimes). That said, I won't deny that it is still public shaming of the frivolous reports themselves (as district from the specific users making them). Part of why I got into this, was that repeatedly explaining to the certain users that the CoC doesn't say whatever they want it to say, failed to get through to them. A public response, can further educate more people on the actual rules, decreasing future misconceptions, and alerting everyone that reports are at least reviewed.
I will not say this is a flawless solution. I experiment to try to find things which work better within this volunteer position.
Stalking from Merriam-Webster "broadly : a crime of engaging in a course of conduct directed at a person that serves no legitimate purpose and seriously alarms, annoys, or intimidates that person"While online differs a little, I believe the word still fairly applies. A user should be able to start a thread on Topic C, without some obsessed [pick your stalker synonym] barging in to harass them about in Topic A weeks or months ago, they were impolite to the [pick your stalker synonym], and in short order begin accusing them of stealing money.Stalking mostly has real word application in context to that definition. The stakes aren't as high on a debate website, with two people sitting at a computer desk miles away from each other.
What preferred synonym or term for stalker would you like used when it's online?
-->
@Barney
In this case, multiple people who were directly involved made reports. However, yes, in other cases certain people have crossed the line seeming to abuse the report function to attempt to get moderators to harass someone they dislike at their behest while they keep their distance. I still look in at what's going on, but I've learned to take it less serious if some third party is making the reports (not to say ignoring any and all wrongdoing).
I think a certain degree of drama is good and healthy for site activity. The more people involved in discussion even if it is heated, the more people have continued interest in the website. Means more donations to the patreon, and more site developments. I think people like to over abuse the report feature here, which is fine, but I am suggesting we don't take it too seriously all the time when multiple posts come in from a controversial post, so long as it isn't overtly doxxing. Just use a certain higher level of discretion, you know?
I will not say this is a flawless solution. I experiment to try to find things which work better within this volunteer position.
Fair enough. I was a little taken aback by the response yesterday, though it seems more directed at the reporter than me, it still brought uneccary attention to an issue that I figured was already dropped. That's all I am saying here. You did delete it promptly and I will admit I've seen a couple of responses like this before, but I don't stray much from the games forum to know how much exactly it is applied.
What preferred synonym or term for stalker would you like used when it's online?
I'd dismiss stalking as a punishable rule on a debate site is more my point, unless again, it get's into the realm of doxxing.
-->
@David
@Barney
@Vader
@Speedrace
@MisterChris
Hello deluded mods and Supadudz, here we see Seldiora explicitly explain that he can't debate in support of my ban:
-->
@Lunatic
@Mikal
See above post
-->
@Vader
Hello deluded mods and Supadudz
I love this so much
-->
@RationalMadman
You said it was entirely debatable which means you agree that there's some merit to Ragnar's case
-->
@Speedrace
Not at all. Christianity is debatable but I don't consider it valid.
-->
@RationalMadman
Fair enough
-->
@Speedrace
I don't know if that is a compliment or an insult
-->
@Vader
Lol it's a compliment because he's saying you're not deluded
-->
@Speedrace
Nah, he's just saying Supa isn't a mod lol
-->
@MisterChris
Oh now I feel dumb
-->
@Speedrace
Don't worry, I feel that way all the time. You get used to it
-->
@MisterChris
haha
-->
@MisterChris
You're the dumb one, speedrace is spot on.
-->
@RationalMadman
Sure, I'm dumb because you can't get your facts straight.
-->
@MisterChris
Which fact isn't straight?
the fact that Ragnar, who never accepts a debate he can't win, has not accepted my debate https://www.debateart.com/debates/2487-court-trial-was-rms-ban-justified highlights his regret and his indecision. Pro side to "RM ban was justified" is impossible to win.
-->
@seldiora
While I regret having held RM to a double standard for so long, I do not regret banning him for his many CoC violations.
As for the debate challenge: As I've mentioned elsewhere, I would not accept that debate without RM's consent.
The shared BoP stated in the full description, would have made it a very easy win for me. All I'd have needed to do is link a few RM posts proving any length of ban was justified, whereas the con side in it would be trying to prove he never violated the CoC at all. The evidence would have made con maintaining BoP impossible:
I am a little confused on exactly what Ragnar believes are the justification for, beyond a reasonable doubt, that RM has indeed definitively broken DART rules of conduct, enough for a 40 day ban. BOP is on pro, I will ask questions and clarify the reasons as the Forum discussion was really messy.
Pro: RM should have been banned for breaking DART ROC, beyond reasonable doubt
Con: RM is not guilty in breaking DART ROC
RM: Rational_Madman
-->
@Barney
Does saying you had a double standard in favour of me and that you feel oh so sorry for doing that make you feel better about fabricating things I did wrong to justify a ban I never deserved?
-->
@RationalMadman
Your continued trouble coming to terms with whether or not you wrote the things you posted (you're now claiming I fabricated them), is quite interesting. I wish you the very best of luck with that.
-->
@Barney
Thank you.
-->
@seldiora
Pro side to "RM ban was justified" is impossible to win.
It is completely possible to win.
But the argument I would've made would be a painful argument that would insult RM, which I frankly didn't want to do.