A witch, a thang, a yin, a yang, a rational man and a boomerang

Author: RationalMadman
Vote
RM for president
DART president
2022 elections
ratman

Posts

Read-only
Total: 245
Topic's author
#1
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
This thread is the official campaign thread of RM for president.

You are free to acknowledge a previous thread or such by me but this is my official thread during the campaign period.

Currently, I see a 'witch' (not an insult) posting about a rivalry that the mods are ignoring. Do you know what my main opponent, ilikepie5, would do? He'd say 'freedom of speech' and leave it at that. Though, in another reply to Oromagi, he's shown to understand the importance of stopping harassment so perhaps he'd do the same as me and push the mods to respect the boundary.

As somebody who both personally and, by observing others, has both felt and seen the impacts of harassment, I would use any sway I had as president to push the mods to respect and notice interactions that drive people off of the website or alternatively drive them to act more hostile.

There is this idea that 'special snowflakes' should just suck it up and toughen up but this is a website we use to pass the time with many intellectuals on it who have unique sensitivities and often were bullied IRL and teased for their odd ways. It's not an ordinary person who comes to a debate website, that just isn't the niche market this goes for.

What you want in a president is a guy who has been pushed by trolls in the past to act hostile, first hand, that will completely defend and understand you every step of the way.

If you block me, I can't do that and as I won't be an official mod I doubt anything physically on my account will stop the block function from working (I wouldn't want that anyway, there's some I'd rather keep blocked but when/if they need my defense or counsel as president I'd unblock).

Consider this thread itself as an official thread where if you need my counsel and are blocked, you can post to it and I will unblock you.

The president isn't just for moderating issues, they're also here for fun. I will work with the active debaters, who sporadically show up because they're scared of losing rating, and set up unranked judge debate tournaments like has been done once before. I'd be happy for any suggestions on this, it will be official and put you down in the site's history books if you win and also will be a great thing to mention if you run for President next term, even as a judge.

I am not certain of the term length of a president on this website, is it 6 months or a year? Either way, I'm a user who no matter how busy IRL shows up every week at least, or definitely every 2. I won't flake, I will stick it out because that's how I roll. I will defend this website, make it entertaining and a pleasure for a variety of eccentric users who love debating to coexist peacefully.

Defend, Entertain and Unite

This is my motto.

Yours sincerely,
~Vote RM~
#2
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
How will you approach forming a working relationship with whiteflame?
#3
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
Will you defend members from unfair censorship, if they have moral values you find repugnant? 


And let's say the defense would be you having to defend their right to argue in favor of something disgusting. For example.

1. A user hates women and posts a bunch of arguments arguing they are inferior in some way. They are then banned for hate speech. Will you defend them? Let's leave out examples of mere proselytizing and promoting hate, those probably should be banned, but just focus on making arguments.  

2. How will you help a user whose posts provide good arguments for an ignorant position, but say supa locks the thread because it could result in a heated debate on a debate site. 
#4
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
Are you capable of proving your ability to use discretion.  The ability to use discretion is important to a working relationship.  Let's say you earn whiteflames trust and he starts leaning heavy on you as an advocate for users he interacts with less than you. 

A lot of those conversations may be very private and ugly facts about users could come out that was only the privy of mods. Say whiteflame concludes a particular case of harassment is not harassment and the user should go unpunished. You guys fight hard over it and he basically says "fuck you, not banning the harasser " . Your only two options are

1. Drop your argument and let the harasser get away with it

Or

2. Air your personal grievances with whiteflame publicly and break his trust and ruin the relationship necessary for a working relationship.

Will you and can you be trusted to take option 1.

I know I have the ability to maintain that relationship with whiteflame and have previously proven it as I have interacted with him a lot off site and we have both told each other personal things, and both of us have seen each other never betray that trust.  Can whiteflame trust you like he trusts me, so a working relationship is possible?
#5
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@RationalMadman
I'd appreciate if you answered those questions. Also I know you would make a great president even if you lose to ILikePie5 
Topic's author
#6
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Wylted
Ilikepie5 actually broke the rule of not campaining in a thread that isn't his campaign thread:


but I don't care about it, because he's my only competition and without competition excellence can't be proven.
Topic's author
#7
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Wylted
How will you approach forming a working relationship with whiteflame?
Easy, I already have one. It's not as close as me and Ragnar were or previously me and David, though both betrayed me I still like how Ragnar worked behind the scenes which I won't disclose. He was the most approachable mod so far, in many ways.

I've had a working relationship with all mods, helped them spot alts, pointed them out the problem of BrotherD frequently and long before he became too blatant of a problem for them to ignore.

Whiteflame is easy for me to PM and vice versa. Not sure what the mystery is, nothing about developing such a relationship is super difficult.

Are you capable of proving your ability to use discretion.  The ability to use discretion is important to a working relationship.  Let's say you earn whiteflames trust and he starts leaning heavy on you as an advocate for users he interacts with less than you. 

A lot of those conversations may be very private and ugly facts about users could come out that was only the privy of mods. Say whiteflame concludes a particular case of harassment is not harassment and the user should go unpunished. You guys fight hard over it and he basically says "fuck you, not banning the harasser " . Your only two options are

1. Drop your argument and let the harasser get away with it

Or

2. Air your personal grievances with whiteflame publicly and break his trust and ruin the relationship necessary for a working relationship.

Will you and can you be trusted to take option 1.

No, you can trust if it's serious enough I will take option 2 at my own sake for justice. I'd happily step down if needed, I'm nobody's tame pet.

Idk what 'secret' you mean though, this is such a vague question. It's like the same guy (you) who demanded the mods to prove doxxing by Death23 suddenly wants top secret opaque leadership. Make your mind up and vote for whoever you want. I don't care about your vote, you're not a user I respect at all.

I know I have the ability to maintain that relationship with whiteflame and have previously proven it as I have interacted with him a lot off site and we have both told each other personal things, and both of us have seen each other never betray that trust.  Can whiteflame trust you like he trusts me, so a working relationship is possible?
Trust has many levels. You have no idea about my relationship with people because of how trustworthy I am about it. I am vague on purpose, mysterious with intent and nobody ever even knows what secret to dig at me for about people because they'd never think I had it. 

I don't need to trust WF with too much or vice versa to have a working relationship. You're confusing a friendship or even super-close relationship that is best-friend level for a working relationship. Perhaps you need maximal trust to have a working relationship with someone, I don't.
Topic's author
#8
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Will you defend members from unfair censorship, if they have moral values you find repugnant? 
I will quote what I said in another thread:

Blocking somebody and regarding their freedom of speech as invalidated aren't identical especially as I'm not a moderator.

If I block you, it means I don't want you @ing me or bothering me.

It's true that if I also don't like your freedom of speech here, I will block you as well but that's a tiny minority. Considering that I block a fair amount of people, I can conclusively tell you that me blocking you isn't an indication I'd ban you from the website and/or muzzle you.

I do not support the first amendment. I think it is a fallacious amendment and concept for society. I will not pretend to uphold it as a site value.

Talk with a tone of respect to other users outside of consensual disrespect arenas like a rap battle or idk some flame thread (but don't be racist).

I don't really get this idea of people thinking they can be as rude and disrespectful as they want without consequence, it's not even how I was raised alone (I was raised to be more tolerant/passive) it's just a trait I myself have. I don't like disrespect and I sure as fuck don't like any of this racism, sexism, lgbtqphobic bullcrap going on with some users.

Say your view without mocking and degrading. If you have a view that inherently degrades (that a race is superior etc) then please go to a dirty shithole on the Internet and excrete your fecal matter there.
So, the answer is maybe it depends how far their moral repugnance went.
#9
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@RationalMadman
I don't need to trust WF with too much or vice versa to have a working relationship. You're confusing a friendship or even super-close relationship that is best-friend level for a working relationship. Perhaps you need maximal trust to have a working relationship with someone, I don't
You absolutely do when your only power is your ability to persuade them, and for that you need to understand their real motives that depend on information they likely view as private. 

You have no ideal what the death23 thing was about. I was trying to get information not just bitch publicly that they should just openly release the information. They were too vague with the reasons for his ban. I actually got the information I was after provided to me in a PM. I understand the reason for his ban now. 

Make your mind up and vote for whoever you want. I don't care about your vote, you're not a user I respect at all.

I wanted to vote for you, until you made this statement.  

I do not support the first amendment. I think it is a fallacious amendment and concept for society. I will not pretend to uphold it as a site value.
I was hoping you changed your mind on that. It's actually a disgusting view and leaders such as Hitler, Stalin and pol pot agree with you that freedom of speech is bad. 
#10
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
I didn't like your answers and they seemed aggressive towards me, but I appreciate you taking the time to answer them. Thanks
Topic's author
#11
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Wylted
I wanted to vote for you, until you made this statement.  
That's the price you pay when you're an honest person.

You are free to support Pie now, I'm not gonna pander to you with fake nonsense for your vote.

I answered your questions and made my outlook clear where you requested it.

Feel free to ask Pie the same questions in his thread.
Topic's author
#12
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Wylted
I didn't like your answers and they seemed aggressive towards me, but I appreciate you taking the time to answer them. Thanks
I didn't write them for you to like, I wrote them to give honest feedback.
#13
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
I actually have a record of advocating for banned users such as death23 and in fact advocating on your behalf behind the scenes. Can you list some of your advocacy that was not self interested and as altruistic as mine was? 
#14
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@RationalMadman
I didn't write them for you to like, I wrote them to give honest feedback.
.I appreciate your honesty. Hopefully all candidates mantain that sort of integrity as well
Topic's author
#15
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Wylted
It's actually a disgusting view and leaders such as Hitler, Stalin and pol pot agree with you that freedom of speech is bad. 
It's also the view that every nation other than the US has in the world.

If you preached about violent Communism and taking up arms to make a new age communist Cambodia or USSR, I'd also be against that.

Hitler was a severe racist, I would not agree with him there.

You seem to think that on a website you are entitled to the freedom of speech that you are granted in an amendment that doesn't apply to privately owned websites.

I do not think you need totally unfettered hate speech rights on a website I am a leader figure of. If you want lies to get your vote, feel free to seek another candidate.
#16
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
That's the price you pay when you're an honest person.

Nobody wants to vote for somebody that hates them. Whether they are honest or not. It showed a lack of tact either way
#17
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@RationalMadman
You seem to think that on a website you are entitled to the freedom of speech that you are granted in an amendment that doesn't apply to privately owned websites.



I agree with debateart.com s right to censor. I am just explaining why I think it's unethical to do.

Ethics and rights are 2 different things 
Topic's author
#18
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Wylted
I actually have a record of advocating for banned users such as death23 and in fact advocating on your behalf behind the scenes. Can you list some of your advocacy that was not self interested and as altruistic as mine was? 
I don't understand what this means exactly.

There are two instances where I did this, one was private (the mods know about it, Supadudz more so than WF who wasn't active then), the other more public.

Type1 and ethang5, however overall both were fun for me to interact with or watch from the sidelines when they weren't at their worst so I don't know exactly what you mean with zero self-interest.

I would even be self-interested to go down as a great and honest president who stuck by his campaign promise, that would be my self-interested motive to oppose bans and be a defense attorney type of figure for users while in charge. I would not say I will act totally selfless on a website I use for selfish entertainment, that would be a lie.
Topic's author
#19
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Wylted
Nobody wants to vote for somebody that hates them. Whether they are honest or not. It showed a lack of tact either way
Tact of the kind you're asking me to do is dishonesty, for a man of absolutes you pick and choose your rigidity in ways I can't relate to.

Disclaimer the careful choice of words to deliver news to someone is a form of tact that isn't dishonest, however the type of tact Wylted referred to there was asking me to be dishonest about my feelings towards him.
Topic's author
#20
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Wylted
When you said you had covid and were coughing up blood, I was concerned and immediately PMd you. To me that's altruistic but you can take it how you want.
Topic's author
#21
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Wylted
Also, you spoke of 'tact' yet you said 'hate'.

I did not say I hated you. I actually said I don't respect you at all.

One of the things I notice you do (which lost me respect for you after noticing you doing it enough times) is twist words and actions others use in another context, to be different and harsher or softer than they originally said or did them.

Not respecting someone and despising them aren't truly identical.

I can despise a rival I respect and somewhat like someone I don't really respect all that much, it depends on the situation but I would agree that to properly like someone you also need to respect them, that's true.
#22
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@RationalMadman
I just view everyone as inherently worthy of respect and believe that if I did hate somebody, I probably wouldn't respect them. I felt like I was just rephrasing what you said. Apparently I am wrong, and you have the ability to not hate somebody, while also have no respect for them. 
Topic's author
#23
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Wylted
I have a minimal respect for you but it would be pedantic to say that it's enough for you, as a user, that I could care less about getting your vote.

Your vote for me was as fragile as your opposition to me before and after.

You change with the wind and feel like you're resolute in your views. I accept it, I understand it but it's one of many things I don't really respect about you.
#24
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,156
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Ilikepie5 actually broke the rule of not campaining in a thread that isn't his campaign thread:
What part of any of that was campaigning? I was responding to allegations against me, not promoting a vote for me lol
Topic's author
#25
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ILikePie5
I will just go along with it, I want a genuine competitor against me. Say what you said there in your campaign thread though and do what you want.

I literally want a competition, to win by landslide isn't fun.
#26
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@RationalMadman
You change with the wind and feel like you're resolute in your views. 
Now we are getting into psychology.  My therapist seemed to notice this as well and asked my.

"Why don't you have any convictions"

I don't, which is why I can change with the wind. The resolute part is something I do just for rhetorical purposes. 

Perhaps not having convictions will change though.  I have one conviction and it acted like a light bulb going off in my head and I lot of things flowed from it.

RM, God is real. 

Knowing this has unclouded my judgement in a lot of ways, and many things flow from this. 
Topic's author
#27
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Wylted
"Why don't you have any convictions"

I don't, which is why I can change with the wind. The resolute part is something I do just for rhetorical purposes. 
If this is a person Pie respects, it says a lot about him as a person then.

Thanks for the mutual honesty between us here though. Nobody bullshitted about the other.
#28
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,156
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
I’ve dropped out my friend. Wylted is officially running.
#29
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
Like many others including myself you chose to vote 'no' on the MEEP deciding whether this position should exist in the first place. In what way, if any, will this effect your decisions you make as president if you are elected?
#30
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,156
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Should a person who makes rational and fact based (either sources, etc) arguments about their support of racism, sexism, transphobia, etc be banned?