-->
@MisterChris
Irresponsible.
Pornography, and the destruction it causes.
Posts
Total:
55
-->
@MgtowDemon
Piss off motherfucker.
There’s a reason why there is a tab for “debate’ and a tab for ‘forum’
The strange thing is, even though you advocate for debate so much, you haven’t done a single one :/
I thought bearman left
-->
@Crocodile
he resurrected just to tell this guy to piss off
-->
@MisterChris
Imagine being a moderator, reading the opening line of BearMan's comment, and doing nothing about it.
-->
@BearMan
Relax, child.
-->
@MgtowDemon
The big qualifier on whether you are allowed to insult someone with vulgarity on DebateArt is the context (i.e. whether it is unwarranted/excessive).
"Unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech, are subject to disciplinary actions."
In this case, my inclination is that it is passable for all users involved. Within context, we have been responding to someone who has been intentionally and consistently provocative, and objectively contemptible in general.
I have sent it to other mods for review, and will accept any punishment I incur, but that is my view.
-->
@MisterChris
In this case, my inclination is that it is passable for all users involved. Within context, we have been responding to someone who has been intentionally and consistently provocative, and objectively contemptible in general.
I criticised (quite severely, to be fair) to OP of this thread as being unsubstantial. None of it was a personal attack on you.
In response, you and several others have engaged in several personal attacks against me (you calling me a "dick" https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5160-pornography-and-the-destruction-it-causes?page=2&post_number=26 ), the crocodile guy calling me a "jackass" and saying "I'm an unprofessional guy" https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5160-pornography-and-the-destruction-it-causes?page=2&post_number=28 , and now this BearMan has so eloquently said "piss off motherfucker" https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5160-pornography-and-the-destruction-it-causes?page=2&post_number=32 .
These are all "off topic personal attacks" (direct words from the TOS), and none of them add to the discussion on whether the OP is good. It is especially concerning when you, as a moderator, are contributing to this.
Furthermore, your statement that "we have been responding to someone who has been intentionally and consistently provocative, and objectively contemptible in general", needs to be contextualised by the fact that I've only criticised your OP, and I have not engaged in any personal, unwarranted, off topic attacks. Furthermore still, this interpretation doesn't appear to be in alignment with the TOS, so it appears this is a case of you making up random rules to excuse TOS violating behaviour (of which some of it is yours).
If you would like other moderators to review it, I am happy to oblige.
I can hardly expect a fair, impartial moderator review by you when *you yourself* are engaging in the TOS infractions, let alone ignoring them.
-->
@MisterChris
@MgtowDemon
Relax and calm down. Demon thought Chris's desire to completely quit pornography may have been not completely unjustified due to only picking two videos about it (however reliable). There are of course more comprehensive research about the topic; Chris merely chose to express his personal opinion and a basis about it. You are not debating Chris about the topic in a formal setting.
-->
@MgtowDemon
the "oh it's just innocent criticism until you made it personal" act isn't working dude. You were being a jerk and got called out for it.
Your post criticizing my OP was extremely nitpicky and ignored all context. You said it was a bad thread on the basis that I didn't have scientific studies and a constructive at the ready immediately upon creating it.
I warned, "Stop being a dick."
To which you reply, accusing me of being lazy: "The fact that you bothered to cite Youtube videos indicates that you understand you should have sourced your arguments, yet were too lazy to find appropriate ones. If you're merely wishing to post your feelings about a topic and not have a debate, that is what the personal section is for."
And then say that it is a fair expectation for me to create a debate constructive for every thread I create. "Part of making a worthwhile OP is constructing arguments with data and scientific research in the OP (Exceptions apply. For example, a philosophy thread doesn't require data and scientific research). You are the one constructing the "arguments", not the responders, so you should be properly citing your arguments, if you want your opinion to be taken seriously. It shouldn't be the work of the responders to do the job you should have done."
Jesus christ man, I don't think you understand what a forum is. Nor do I think you understand what this website is. We don't just competitively debate all the time, we're allowed to have discussion. To have positive interaction. And starting with some YouTube videos to be food for thought is entirely acceptable and I would argue more useful for starting that discussion than a bombardment of studies and syllogisms. I would rather have information in a digestible format to allow the most amount of contribution. And there is nothing wrong with that at all.
You very clearly have some sort of intellectual superiority complex, and when you're called out on it you simultaneously play victim and continue to behave toxically.
Also, I amended my original statement, it now reads:
I have sent it to other mods for review, and will accept any punishment I incur, but that is my view.
-->
@Undefeatable
it's not the criticism itself so much as the way he acts.
If he had said "That's a fair view, but I'll need more evidence than a few videos to jump on board"
that's totally fair and then we could have a discussion. But he's just toxic in general and you can read above to see why.
-->
@Undefeatable
You need to take it easy.
The salient issue with the lacking in quality of the OP. Usually, OPs will cite the research/material they used to reach their conclusion. However, as we saw in this OP's case, the material cited as evidence was severely lacking, and small effort could have made the OP far more compelling (e.g. citing the research, instead of citing the video talking about research (which wasn't linked in the first video), would have been the preferable and easily realised method).
I am well within the bounds of acceptable discourse to criticise what is either lazy or ill-thought conclusions, and Chris' reaction to this (engaging in and excusing personal attacks), as a moderator, is very questionable.
-->
@MisterChris
yeah, good point. Forum's a forum. I can definitely be beaten here but I take things more seriously with the actual... debating. *cough cough at Demon*
-->
@MisterChris
But he's just toxic in general and you can read above to see why.
You're a moderator and you continue to engage in personal attacks, of which breach the TOS.
Are you aware of how bad this looks?
-->
@MgtowDemon
You're a moderator and you continue to engage in personal attacks, of which breach the TOS.Are you aware of how bad this looks?
Your lack of self-awareness amazes me.
-->
@MisterChris
Your lack of self-awareness amazes me.
Please cite the instance wherein I personally attacked you, or else retract this incorrect statement.
-->
@MgtowDemon
Your "I am the victim he is big bad moderator :((((((" card is very funny. You point out our vulgarity while ignoring what led to our use of it in the first place, which would be your clear superiority complex and toxic nature, paired with your own fair share of personal attacks. And then you claim I am a bad moderator because I responded to it in the way very many people here are evidently inclined to respond. I am not required to become inhuman and not share my opinion because I am a moderator. I am required to follow the CoC, and that I did I think. Vulgarity is allowed as long as it is not disproportionate to the situation. And I don't think me telling you not to be a dick was disproportionate. The rest of the vulgar statements you speak of arose after you had made your rather distasteful case against me, which prompted Bear and Croc to come to my defense.
In addition I will simply repaste my previous post on the topic.
the "oh it's just innocent criticism until you made it personal" act isn't working dude. You were being a jerk and got called out for it.Your post criticizing my OP was extremely nitpicky and ignored all context. You said it was a bad thread on the basis that I didn't have scientific studies and a constructive at the ready immediately upon creating it.I warned, "Stop being a dick."To which you reply, accusing me of being lazy: "The fact that you bothered to cite Youtube videos indicates that you understand you should have sourced your arguments, yet were too lazy to find appropriate ones. If you're merely wishing to post your feelings about a topic and not have a debate, that is what the personal section is for."And then say that it is a fair expectation for me to create a debate constructive for every thread I create. "Part of making a worthwhile OP is constructing arguments with data and scientific research in the OP (Exceptions apply. For example, a philosophy thread doesn't require data and scientific research). You are the one constructing the "arguments", not the responders, so you should be properly citing your arguments, if you want your opinion to be taken seriously. It shouldn't be the work of the responders to do the job you should have done."Jesus christ man, I don't think you understand what a forum is. Nor do I think you understand what this website is. We don't just competitively debate all the time, we're allowed to have discussion. To have positive interaction. And starting with some YouTube videos to be food for thought is entirely acceptable and I would argue more useful for starting that discussion than a bombardment of studies and syllogisms. I would rather have information in a digestible format to allow the most amount of contribution. And there is nothing wrong with that at all.You very clearly have some sort of intellectual superiority complex, and when you're called out on it you simultaneously play victim and continue to behave toxically.
This is probably my last post on this subject. I want to leave it here to avoid further escalation.
-->
@MisterChris
the "oh it's just innocent criticism until you made it personal" act isn't working dude. You were being a jerk and got called out for it.
The fact is that I criticised your OP. Sure, is was harsh, as I have agreed with many times in this thread already. However, never did it devolve into personal attacks.
As you continue to do so here, you continue to engage in personal attacks, as you've called me a "jerk" here. Again, this behaviour is unbefitting a moderator, as it breaks TOS code of conduct.
Your post criticizing my OP was extremely nitpicky and ignored all context. You said it was a bad thread on the basis that I didn't have scientific studies and a constructive at the ready immediately upon creating it.
"Extremely nitpicky and ignored all context", even if true, doesn't qualify as breaking the TOS, and doesn't warrant the personal attacks you launched thereafter (of which do break TOS).
I warned, "Stop being a dick."
The fact that you would quote yourself breaking TOS is astounding.
Jesus christ man, I don't think you understand what a forum is. Nor do I think you understand what this website is. We don't just competitively debate all the time, we're allowed to have discussion. To have positive interaction. And starting with some YouTube videos to be food for thought is entirely acceptable and I would argue more useful for starting that discussion than a bombardment of studies and syllogisms. I would rather have information in a digestible format to allow the most amount of contribution. And there is nothing wrong with that at all.
You're allowed to think that, and I'm allowed to criticise it. You can then criticise my criticism, but you cannot engage in off topic personal attacks that violate TOS (which you did do). That is the chief issue with your behaviour.
You very clearly have some sort of intellectual superiority complex, and when you're called out on it you simultaneously play victim and continue to behave toxically.
A good chunk of this is a personal attack. Although, you actually called me toxic before, so it is pleasing to see you retract that and say that instead my behaviour is toxic, which is acceptable TOS conduct. If you had initially said my behaviour was toxic, instead of calling me a "dick" etc. you would have been acting acceptably as a moderator.
Also, I amended my original statement, it now reads:
It is good to see that your behaviour is becoming more responsible, as I convince you that your personal attack TOS violation is unbefitting a moderator.
-->
@MisterChris
This is probably my last post on this subject. I want to leave it here to avoid further escalation.
Your behaviour is in clear TOS violation, which is made worse by the fact that you are a moderator.
This will continue to escalate until you either admit you behaviour was unbefitting a moderator, or you are held accountable for your actions. Running away from the problem will only make things worse.
-->
@MgtowDemon
*sigh* Once again, I have submitted it for review. It's not "running away" so much as preventing pain for Ragnar and David as they review this thread, and reducing the chances any parties legitimately violate the TOS.
-->
@MisterChris
*sigh* Once again, I have submitted it for review. It's not "running away" so much as preventing pain for Ragnar and David as they review this thread, and reducing the chances any parties legitimately violate the TOS.
That is acceptable, but it's a shame that you're not going to retract your personal attacks which violate TOS, at least without external intervention.
I suggest you re-read the TOS and reflect on your behaviour.
-->
@MgtowDemon
Done & done. My mind isn't changed.
-->
@MisterChris
@Crocodile
@BearMan
@MgtowDemon
***
tl;dr: The CoC makes no requirement of people being nice to each other.
...
First, a few people here should review the following thread: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4572-etiquette-expectations
Second, the same people should probably review the pitfalls elaborated to so very well on South Park: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h33OOA7ZgE
Third, The CoC is available at: https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/rules
I put a lot of work into this document. Some things people are surprised it excludes, it excludes intentionally (yes you can troll, no we don't want to add clauses outright encouraging trolling). Other things are worded with lots of qualifiers for precise reasons, like "Unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives" is kinda a catch for certain types of people who just jump into threads with streams of near mindless profanity (to which I am seeing no one in this thread committing, as much as I have not read every post), whereas lower level constant harassment of any one person across several threads is caught by the targeted harassment rule (basically if someone makes it obvious they're stalking you, moderation is authorized to intervene... it is very rare for it to go that far).
-Ragnar, DM
***
-->
@Barney
It is strange that people don't notice the precise wording there, I've read through it a couple times. You did an absolute brilliant job on that document I must say.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Thank you!
What bothers me is when people just assume it's the same as Facebook or something, and complain that they saw something they disliked so it somehow must be a CoC violation.