Please inform me so I can properly prepare
Should Supa run for president
Posts
Total:
22
-->
@Vader
Why should I vote for you? What policy changes will you bring to DART?
-->
@TheUnderdog
First off, a president is what the Emperor was in Japan, a figurehead for the site. If that is the case, I would be someone who people could rally around. Not only am I the most active member on the site by statistics, I am someone trusted not only by the people, but by moderation as well.
I believe a presidency should relay the status of users to the moderators so they can make adjustments to the site based on that feedback given by the president himself. I believe then we can have a site where moderations can adjust properly. The president is a messenger to the higher ups. We could have a functioning system due to the fact we have an active moderation system
I believe a presidency should relay the status of users to the moderators so they can make adjustments to the site based on that feedback given by the president himself. I believe then we can have a site where moderations can adjust properly. The president is a messenger to the higher ups. We could have a functioning system due to the fact we have an active moderation system
Policy wise, I am a leniant person. I prefer to never give perma bans unless they are truly deserved (which most are), but I also will push to reform bans and such. I have had actual success doing so, as the whole process of RO's was fixed by me and a whole system called the Supa RO System was created and invented by me. I am someone who believes actions lead to consequences, but such long and unneeded consequences hurt the site
Overall you want someone who is personable and can talk with anyone to be a President and that's why I should be president. I am simply asking if I should because if I do, I will most likely put effort into this (even thought I am busy with work), I'll still put effort
If the president position matters then maybe, yes.
If the president position is purely a joke, for show, I think you're not gonna enjoy it. I can tell you want meaning to your roles.
-->
@RationalMadman
Very true. If it's moderation endorsed I would probably run, but for now, I'll play in to the meme
-->
@Vader
Not only am I the most active member on the site by statistics
I fail to see the relevance. Biden wasn't the most active person politically, yet he was still president. Activists are well, politically active.
I prefer to never give perma bans unless they are truly deserved (which most are), but I also will push to reform bans and such.
How would you reform bans? Would you ban someone for saying the N word for instance or for advocating racist views? Would you ban someone for advocating for conservative views? If you advocate for banning someone for racist views and not banning someone for stating conservative views, what is the difference? A racist view is offensive, but a conservative view can also be offensive. For instance, if a conservative says, "Abortion is murder" this may be viewed as offensive to a female who has had an abortion. It also may be viewed as "hate speech" towards that female.
In my view, the only reason why people who advocate for banning racists also don't advocate for banning conservatives is because conservatives are more common than racists. I don't think frequency in a population is relevant as to whether or not they should be banned. I could argue that any controversial topic could be viewed as, "hate speech" towards a group.
You advocate for an abortion ban? Hate speech towards women. You advocate for abortion being legal? Hate speech towards the unborn. You advocate for more gun rights? Hate speech towards school shooting survivors. You advocate for more gun control? Hate speech towards gun owners.
I could argue that any political idea is hate speech towards a group and that's what makes it controversial. Therefore, since I don't believe one should be banned for their opinion on abortion or gun rights, I also don't think racists should be banned either from this site.
I have had actual success doing so, as the whole process of RO's was fixed by me and a whole system called the Supa RO System was created and invented by me.
I am unfamiliar with this.
Overall you want someone who is personable and can talk with anyone to be a President and that's why I should be president.
You are probably the most personable person on this site and this is a good thing. However, you judge a politician by their policies. My policies are:
1) I want to allow for all political ideologies to be allowed on DART.
2) I want to get DART ads so DART has funds to improve the site more.
Not only am I the most active member on the site by statisticsI fail to see the relevance. Biden wasn't the most active person politically, yet he was still president. Activists are well, politically active.
There's a key difference between Biden and I. Biden is a leech, I am not.
I prefer to never give perma bans unless they are truly deserved (which most are), but I also will push to reform bans and such.How would you reform bans? Would you ban someone for saying the N word for instance or for advocating racist views? Would you ban someone for advocating for conservative views? If you advocate for banning someone for racist views and not banning someone for stating conservative views, what is the difference? A racist view is offensive, but a conservative view can also be offensive. For instance, if a conservative says, "Abortion is murder" this may be viewed as offensive to a female who has had an abortion. It also may be viewed as "hate speech" towards that female.
All views would be tolerated. I do not ban people for having a view unless it directly attacks a person. If it were to be that, people can have their opinions, but if there entire account is based off racist views and they do nothing besides say racist views, they would need to stop doing such.
There's a keen difference between abortion is murder and saying black people are dumb [explicative derogatory term]. One is directly attacking people and one is a philosophy.
In my view, the only reason why people who advocate for banning racists also don't advocate for banning conservatives is because conservatives are more common than racists. I don't think frequency in a population is relevant as to whether or not they should be banned. I could argue that any controversial topic could be viewed as, "hate speech" towards a group.You advocate for an abortion ban? Hate speech towards women. You advocate for abortion being legal? Hate speech towards the unborn. You advocate for more gun rights? Hate speech towards school shooting survivors. You advocate for more gun control? Hate speech towards gun owners.
This site is very much open to any topic. I don't think I've seen anyone get banned over their belief. My plan is general would fix the durations of ban lengths, not what gets banned. I believe moderation allows most things to be said
I could argue that any political idea is hate speech towards a group and that's what makes it controversial. Therefore, since I don't believe one should be banned for their opinion on abortion or gun rights, I also don't think racists should be banned either from this site.I have had actual success doing so, as the whole process of RO's was fixed by me and a whole system called the Supa RO System was created and invented by me.I am unfamiliar with this.
Well it's somewhere
Overall you want someone who is personable and can talk with anyone to be a President and that's why I should be president.You are probably the most personable person on this site and this is a good thing. However, you judge a politician by their policies. My policies are:1) I want to allow for all political ideologies to be allowed on DART.
They are for the most part
2) I want to get DART ads so DART has funds to improve the site more.
That costs money do so and for the most part this site runs off the owners money and adding more expenses would cause the site to go downhill. I'd wait til the funds became more available
-->
@TheUnderdog
Above post
-->
@Vader
If it were to be that, people can have their opinions, but if there entire account is based off racist views and they do nothing besides say racist views, they would need to stop doing such.
It's their right to say racist views.
There's a keen difference between abortion is murder and saying black people are dumb [explicative derogatory term]. One is directly attacking people and one is a philosophy.
If someone dehumanizes a black person by claiming they aren't human, would you ban this? If someone said that a fetus wasn't human, would you ban this? Your allowed to dehumanize whomever you want by mere rhetoric.
I don't think I've seen anyone get banned over their belief
People have gotten banned for reasons the mods don't say, but people probably don't get banned solely for their belief. It is against the code of conduct to advocate for racist or anti sematic views I think and I think people should be allowed to do that.
My plan is general would fix the durations of ban lengths, not what gets banned.
How would you "fix" ban lengths? Would you make them longer or shorter and why?
(Ads) costs money do so and for the most part this site runs off the owners money and adding more expenses would cause the site to go downhill. I'd wait til the funds became more available
I think the ads bring in more revenue to DART than they cost to implement. Then the owner doesn't have to spend out of his own pocket to create DART. It also allows more people to be hired to make the site better in terms of more features at a faster rate.
If it's real I still don't care.
I want to be mod, not the president who is a slave to both mods and the userbase.
-->
@Vader
No. Wylted for President
This whole thing is just goofy, frankly. You can't start promising policy changes and conducting elections without even establishing a framework within which to work. It's just a site popularity poll otherwise. Utterly meaningless. Having a site president could be a good thing, or a bad one, depending on what the function of the role is. We need to decide that foremost. If you all really want a site president, the place to start is drafting a MEEP that would formalize the process and office. The person that takes initiative and does this in a manner satisfactorily enough for me to vote "Yea" on the drafted change has my vote.
people should actually vote for me
-->
@ILikePie5
No. Wylted for President
Correct
-->
@Vader
Actually I'm more active than you are.
You've been here since August 22, 2018, and have, in your near three years here, written 12,648 posts. That's roughly 1035 days, and 12 posts per day.
I've been here since September 14, 2020, and have, in my around 8 months here, written 3,194 posts. That's roughly 240 days, and 13 posts per day.
-->
@Theweakeredge
There's a reason I have 12,700 posts. You do realize I had 5k posts in the first year of the site
-->
@TheUnderdog
How will we end racism once and for all if we give them freedom of speech to brainwash others?
-->
@ILikePie5
Vete a la mierda perrita
-->
@RationalMadman
I don’t see the problem with open racists existing. I just wouldn’t vote for them if they get into office. There are only 5000 klan members in the entire country and even they don’t advocate for killing black people.
It’s like saying, “How can we end communism once and for all of we don’t censor communists?”. I don’t have a problem with communists or haters of African Americans existing as long as none of them come to power. If they come to power, just don’t vote for them.
-->
@Vader
Vete a la mierda perrita
Chinga a su madre puta marica
-->
@Vader
coolio, according to the math tho, I'm on track to be ahead of you - cuz' you've apparently slowed down a gooood bit. Plus, if I keep up being more active I could easily cross 2k in four months. I didn't even post anything in my first three months.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Yeah i know. I slowed down this year for college apps and social life