I think it is worth mentioning that MisterChris has been engaging in behaviour unbefitting a moderator. Note that I am criticising behaviour, not launching a person attack. Please consider this post I made in response to his behaviour. Is this acceptable behaviour for a moderator?:
TOS infractions engaged in and ignored by a moderator
Posts
Total:
86
to be fair, you were the one that first accused of extreme action and saying it was bad.
-->
@seldiora
to be fair, you were the one that first accused of extreme action and saying it was bad.
Incorrect.
I criticised the first post of the thread. The moderator, who owned the first post, then lashed out with personal attacks, and has continued to do so since, all the whilst excusing other personal attacks on me.
Please re-read the thread in order to see that I am correct.
-->
@MgtowDemon
boi. that's just a thread. You can say any crazy view you want, give whatever evidence. Throw around ideas however. It's a place to share the ideas. The way you phrased your disagreement just was too much on the nose tbh
-->
@seldiora
boi. that's just a thread. You can say any crazy view you want, give whatever evidence. Throw around ideas however. It's a place to share the ideas. The way you phrased your disagreement just was too much on the nose tbh
You are entitled to this opinion, but being "too much on the nose" isn't in breach of TOS, and doesn't deserve multiple TOS breaking personal off topic attacks, of which the moderator engaged in.
You are arguing that being very critical of something isn't acceptable, which is, frankly, ridiculous prima facie.
"TOS infractions"
*sigh*
-->
@MisterChris
"TOS infractions"*sigh*
If you are apathetic about TOS infractions, then you shouldn't be a moderator.
-->
@MgtowDemon
I read the thread in its entirety. Nothing you said in your critique of Chris' OP warranted him calling you a "dick". It seems that past history contributed to his initial reaction.
The next two posters also insulted you even more rudely than Chris, on the side of the mod. It is clear in this particular case:
1. Chris behaved in a way unbecoming of a moderator
2. You are correct in your complaint that his treatment of you violated CoC.
I say all the above to prepare you for this, Demon.
A. Chris is a mod, he will suffer no consequence
B. Chris is a young boy, you have no chance against him before the mods
C. This is the kind of moderation you get when the average age of the mod 17
D. This is the kind of moderation you get when the required disposition of the mod needs to be similar to a typical BLM demonstrator. (We've seen the videos)
The other mods don't care, and their clique will gather to insult you knowing they are covered by the mod they are " defending". Leave it alone.
Your only friend on your profile page is "ilikepie", a known conservative. And you list no age on your profile. Bad moves.
Here is unsolicited advice from one who has been a member here since the beginning.
First, forget this incident. Chris says he is willing to suffer any judgement of the other mods because he is well aware there will be none. You will only make enemies.
Second, fix your profile page so that you have a few liberal friends, the more the better, and the more liberal, the better. Also, list your age and gender. Be male, and the closer you are to 14, the better. You will see things improve for you immediately.
Finally, saying what you actually think here will hurt you. So either be willing to pay the price, or stop saying what you think. Expecting fairness here shows a lack of awareness.
Many members agree that your complaint has merit, but know that openly supporting you is pointless. I'm one of the few (remaining) who have decided to pay the cost of saying what he thinks.
-->
@ethang5
A. Chris is a mod, he will suffer no consequence
Incorrect. He can, be still be degraded to a non-mod.
B. Chris is a young boy, you have no chance against him before the mods
A young boy is expected to carry out behaviors like this, and if you see a president smoke and drink and is addicted to sex that does not mean said president cannot be a president. We judge him by all things honest about his MODDING abilities, not light-hearted humor on a thread that wasn't a role model in the first place.
C. This is the kind of moderation you get when the average age of the mod 17
Blamonkey, Ragnar and David are all above 17. This is not only wrong content-wise(as you can see Chris can mod well), but wrong semantic-wise.
D. This is the kind of moderation you get when the required disposition of the mod needs to be similar to a typical BLM demonstrator. (We've seen the videos)
So you think this is bad. Racist problems exist and acknowledging it is not the same as a "BLM demonstrator". Acknowledging the power of the artillery of the 3rd German Reich doesn't make you a Nazi.
-->
@MgtowDemon
A more extreme version of your ideals here is:
A: (something)
B: You are wrong.
C: I am a victim of a hate crime!
-->
@ethang5
I read the thread in its entirety. Nothing you said in your critique of Chris' OP warranted him calling you a "dick". It seems that past history contributed to his initial reaction.
What is funny is that, as far as I can remember, this is my first interaction with him. If anyone reading this knows otherwise, please quote the post.
The next two posters also insulted you even more rudely than Chris, on the side of the mod. It is clear in this particular case:1. Chris behaved in a way unbecoming of a moderator2. You are correct in your complaint that his treatment of you violated CoC.
Absolutely. Chris has actually been the least rude out of the several that commented, but he is a moderator.
I say all the above to prepare you for this, Demon.A. Chris is a mod, he will suffer no consequenceB. Chris is a young boy, you have no chance against him before the modsC. This is the kind of moderation you get when the average age of the mod 17D. This is the kind of moderation you get when the required disposition of the mod needs to be similar to a typical BLM demonstrator. (We've seen the videos)
Whilst having a young moderation doesn't condemn it to being incompetent, it certainly raises the chances. Perhaps the others moderators are more capable of seeing TOS violations, despite their low age. You have probably seen many things here already, but in my mind, they are innocent until proven guilty.
First, forget this incident. Chris says he is willing to suffer any judgement of the other mods because he is well aware there will be none. You will only make enemies.
Again, I'll have faith in the other moderators until they give me reason not to. I haven't seen what you've seen, so I cannot pass judgement on them yet.
Second, fix your profile page so that you have a few liberal friends, the more the better, and the more liberal, the better. Also, list your age and gender. Be male, and the closer you are to 14, the better. You will see things improve for you immediately.
I'm not interested in lying. I'd rather be hated for who I am than liked for who I am not.
Finally, saying what you actually think here will hurt you. So either be willing to pay the price, or stop saying what you think. Expecting fairness here shows a lack of awareness.
If I'm not allowed to say what I actually think, then this website serves no purpose.
Many members agree that your complaint has merit, but know that openly supporting you is pointless. I'm one of the few (remaining) who have decided to pay the cost of saying what he thinks.
Thank you for understanding, but, like you, I am also willing to pay the cost of saying what I think.
-->
@MgtowDemon
Second, fix your profile page so that you have a few liberal friends, the more the better, and the more liberal, the better. Also, list your age and gender. Be male, and the closer you are to 14, the better. You will see things improve for you immediately.
I'm not interested in lying. I'd rather be hated for who I am than liked for who I am not.
Excellent answer! You will be fine.
-->
@ethang5
Excellent answer! You will be fine.
Good to know :)
A. Chris is a mod, he will suffer no consequence
Incorrect. He can, be still be degraded to a non-mod.
Have you ever seen that happen?
B. Chris is a young boy, you have no chance against him before the mods
A young boy is expected to carry out behaviors like this, and if you see a president smoke and drink and is addicted to sex that does not mean said president cannot be a president.
I did not say he could not be a mod. I said the mods do not care what his behavior is, therefore Damon has no chance.
We judge him by all things honest about his MODDING abilities, not light-hearted humor on a thread that wasn't a role model in the first place.
The mods judge others on light-hearted humor on threads that aren't a role model in the first place. I find that hypocritical.
C. This is the kind of moderation you get when the average age of the mod 17
Blamonkey, Ragnar and David are all above 17. This is not only wrong content-wise(as you can see Chris can mod well), but wrong semantic-wise.
It was hyperbole, and the fact that I have to tell you that means you missed the point.
D. This is the kind of moderation you get when the required disposition of the mod needs to be similar to a typical BLM demonstrator. (We've seen the videos)
So you think this is bad.
Attacking people who disagree with you is bad. Yes.
Racist problems exist and acknowledging it is not the same as a "BLM demonstrator".
Would a BLM demonstrator agree with you? But attacking someone and calling him a dick because he disagrees with you is the internet version of a BLM demonstrator attacking someone for wearing MAGA hat. It is the same.
Acknowledging the power of the artillery of the 3rd German Reich doesn't make you a Nazi.
It doesn't make you NOT a nazi either.
-->
@MgtowDemon
Firstly, it's the COC, not TOS. Secondly, please cite which part of the COC you believe MisterChris broke
-->
@Speedrace
Excellent. We can now see if the moderators are as incompetent as ethang5 has suggested, or if something else is the truth.
Firstly, are you going to address the TOS infractions your fellow moderator has made, as detailed in the OP?
Secondly, are you going to address the more severe TOS infractions the non-moderator people have made, detailed in the OP?
Thirdly, to address your implied question, you have quoted a scathing attack I made regarding someone's post. Please note that this is *not* a personal attack, and hence does not breach TOS violations, unlike Chris' and the other fellows' personal attacks levied against me, of which I have cited in the OP. I sincerely hope you know the difference between personal attacks and criticising posts.
Anyway, the ball is in your court...
-->
@MgtowDemon
Did you just...not read the post I made?
-->
@Speedrace
Firstly, it's the COC, not TOS.
The hyperlink is actually labelled "Terms of Service" https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/rules
But this is incredibly petty and we should discuss the important things.
Secondly, please cite which part of the COC you believe MisterChris broke
So, there were multiple people who broke the COC, not just Chris.
For Chris, he called me a "dick" here https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5160-pornography-and-the-destruction-it-causes?page=2&post_number=26
Here, he called me "toxic" (which he later retracted by calling my behaviour toxic instead, which is far more acceptable) https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5160-pornography-and-the-destruction-it-causes?page=2&post_number=41
I also had crocodile call me a "jackass" https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5160-pornography-and-the-destruction-it-causes?page=2&post_number=28
Finally, we had BearMan say "piss off motherf*cker" to me https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5160-pornography-and-the-destruction-it-causes?page=2&post_number=32
The infractions, as Chris cited himself (which makes this all the more concerning), fall under the category of Objectionable Content "Unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech, are subject to disciplinary actions" https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/rules .
Clearly, these are "off topic personal attacks", and are made worse by the fact that I did not engage in personal attacks beforehand (albeit I was quite critical of Chris' thread).
Just to be clear, I'm not expecting permanent bans over this, but I think that, at the very least, a moderator shouldn't be breaking the rules that he is meant to be enforcing. The other two have breach the rules, too.
-->
@Speedrace
Did you just...not read the post I made?
Just relax for a second.
You posted comment 15 on this thread, and whilst I was writing a response to your first comment, you posted another. Hence, my first comment responds to your comment #15.
-->
@MgtowDemon
You posted comment 15 on this thread, and whilst I was writing a response to your first comment, you posted another. Hence, my first comment responds to your comment #15.
Oh ok lol
Never heard someone cry and whine so much, holy shit. I said you were acting like a dick because you were. I'm clearly not the only one who shares that sentiment.
"Well, you condescending dick,"
"OOOOO...Touchy"
Bear, Croc, Speed, etc...
Newsflash: saying you are acting like a dick does not even come close to violating the CoC. Especially given your clear pattern of toxic behavior.
Grow a pair.
-->
@MgtowDemon
The infractions, as Chris cited himself (which makes this all the more concerning), fall under the category of Objectionable Content "Unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech, are subject to disciplinary actions" https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/rules .
The infractions were not off-topic, in fact they seemed to be quite on topic. And even if they were off-topic, they weren't systemic.
-->
@Speedrace
Nor were they unwarranted.
-->
@MisterChris
Nor were they unwarranted.
Ah yes, nice catch!
-->
@ethang5
First, forget this incident. Chris says he is willing to suffer any judgement of the other mods because he is well aware there will be none. You will only make enemies.
There will not be one because it does not violate the CoC.
-->
@MisterChris
You need to be quiet. The adults are talking.
-->
@MgtowDemon
Once again, your lack of self-awareness amazes me.
-->
@Speedrace
The infractions were not off-topic, in fact they seemed to be quite on topic. And even if they were off-topic, they weren't systemic.
If 5 personal attacks isn't considered systemic, then the TOS is nebulous. It needs to be clearer as to what is systemic, because no one, including you, knows what exactly that entails.
Also, could you please explain to me how "piss off motherf*cker" is an "on topic" comment for that thread? Are you seriously arguing that?
-->
@MisterChris
Once again, your lack of self-awareness amazes me.
I'm glad you learned the term "self-awareness" in your highschool English textbook recently.
Now run along, kiddo.