Why you should not vote for RationalMadman.

I am not here to censor all drama, I never said that was my aim. You're trying to pretend I have an agenda that I don't by twisting my words out of context.

A serial bully or person spamming white supremacy threads isn't the same as someone making lively drama threads with tough clickbait titles that get the mind stirring.

"If rules are not enforced on the initial abuser, the victim ends up with no outlets to feel safe other than complete retreat or retaliation." You said this recently. Based on your reaction to my defense of Sacha Baron Cohen, hypothetically if that conversation took place here and not on discord, you could advocate a warning to me because my opinion is "too controversial" or "abusive". You are the president, which means you have a role in deciding what is abusive. I don't think members should be warned, much less banned because they have controversial opinions. 

Also your statements seem to support that you want more enforcement rather than less. For example:

"The mods would need to almost be 'too heavy handed' at first with how many ROs they set out."

"On top of ROs, I think there needs to be a lot of active intervention, locking of threads etc."

These are the types of statements that worry me about mod intervention. That and I have argued with you in the past in concern with wylted's ban, which you were a supporter of. 

That is not the reason why, it is the way you did it and I disengaged with you as you said one should do.

I owe you no completion of a debate whatsover when I am doing it as a hobby and not a job, you're just so upset I blocked you so I wonder who the fragile one is.

I blocked you and moved on with life, unblocked you when I wanted to as well. That's real freedom actually and has nothing to do with banning.

No, you are lying or accidentally misconstruing now.

I'd think 'I really dislike Lunatic at this moment in time but technically he didn't really break any rules and hasn't harassed me further post-block'. There'd be no punishment at all for what you did or said.

That was very specific to the religion forums.

We will see what happens there if I become president but I will admit since BrotherD's ban things have gotten tamer there and since I helped Polytheist Witch seek moderation assistance with a situation, you will find things even more peaceful there.

I am not calling out Poly here, I am actually pointing out something deeper. If two users are bickering constantly, especially if one feels continually victimised, it's better to intervene and push for them reducing contact. The entire atmosphere surrounding their presence in a thread becomes more harmonious too.

I am sure that they will consider it. I am also sure people understand that the one who is really oppressing the other here is you.

You want me to live in 24/7 fear of ever disengaging a conversation I am in or blocking someone I don't like on a platform just in case I run for a position on DART and it gets used to shame and frame me as something I'm not.

There is a difference between me freely using my right to block and ignore you and me as a moderator advocating to punish you. If you don't see that difference and keep twisting words, then at least I said this much to negate your sophistry.

. If wylted, or someone else brings up an opinion that you find racist, sexist, or just offensive, you get to put your 2 cents in on how the moderation with such an instance is handled. 

I mean I am literally just using examples of things you have said and done one the website to substantiate this point. You are actually insinuating that I am opressing you or bullying you because I highlighted things you have said that show you don't have an active interest in freedom of speech on the site. How you view what is and isn't bullying is extremely relevant considering you have an active hand with moderation if elected. You are trying to manipulate yourself into being a victim again as we speak. You are proving more and more how dangerous you will be if you get this position. 

I fundamentally dis-agree that restraining orders provide any sort of solution. Or that two useres who have a problem with the others opinion shouldn't be able to express dis-interest in the others opinion on a debate site. Mods have shown in the past that they don't know how to enforce restraining order punishment also. The supa 7 day ban for example was completely ridiculous, especially in light of the actual "offense" being a friendly interaction with the other party. 

You want to get personal about Wylted or you want to make this about 'someone'?

Where are you going with this? If the mods banned this user, there must have at least been one thing they did that they're able to take either in or out of context that can be seen as negative. This is even true for myself and I will need to at least see that one thing as true, I will then go through the rest of their reasoning for banning the user and have a lengthy discussion about if this user actually is net-positive for the website, perhaps reducing a sentence rather than completely vindicating them.

I can't prove to you how reasonable I'd be because I haven't had the chance to. I don't block the same as I ban this is false equivocation.

I can't prove to you how reasonable I'd be because I haven't had the chance to. I don't block the same as I ban this is false equivocation.

I am not saying I'm a 'victim' of just you, not at all. I am saying this culture you want to push forth where everyone needs to tiptoe around daring to disengage a situation they feel is toxic (whether bullied or not) and blocking a user needs to live in fear that these disengagements and blocks can be used to smear them as a tyrant in the future.

I have even lived through on-site ROs to know they are positive and have seen the positivity with other users who participated in them.

They don't always punish fairly (one was often worse than the other) but they get the end-result of reforming done very effectively.

Where you and I differ is I think if you werent the subject of your ban, you would have been okay with that ban on just about anyone else. 

I didn't know Wylted's ban was based on a literal lie, I was not privvy to the actual thread and had perhaps a bias to assume it was true but as president I would absolutely want to see the proof there, I can't prove this because I haven't had the chance to be it. It was a deleted thread, yes?

So, I did support his ban and assumed that not only that reason was true but that his other posting only furthered how toxic he was.

I believe Wylted is a very net-negative presence on the website, yes I do but I won't allow pure lies to be why anybody gets banned. I absolutely would demand the proof if I were President at the time of Wylted's ban. I don't know what else to tell you.

This is clever because it baits me to dig up my own past but go ahead.

List to me why I was banned here in late 2020 if you want to dig it up. You and I both know it's a series of serious abuse of context-twisting and rhetoric.

The end result of an RO is less communication and discussion. You seem to agree with me that drama shouldn't be bannable, so why are you such an enforcer of RO's if that's all two users arguing is, is just drama? 

My take here really shouldn't be all that surprising. If wylted was out here campaigning for stricter moderation the only difference with this thread would be the title "Why you should not vote for Wylted."

It's not at all just drama. No, no, no.

What you are referring to goes way beyond fun drama, it is about genuine relentless frustration, disdain, loathing even and just a genuinely grudge-based feeling for each user. It usually forms like this:

One is overall a 'ha he/she/they posted let's troll!'

The other is overall as 'omg, should I be scared to post? No! I should be brave... oh no! They're at it again ;-; why me always I just wanted to post here and have a normal discussion but they just come to troll me... LET ME SHOW THEM WHAT I'M MADE OF' 

The reaction style of the latter fuels the former and it goes on and on and on.

Generally if both are the former type, they even enjoy each other's brutish ways. Also generally, if both are the latter type, after an initial clash or two they learn to back off each other as it's not in their nature to keep at it.

You can even call this my own theory of long-term flamewars, you need one in it for the lols and one in it for anguish at the people mocking them.

What becomes a problem is that often the sheer hostility of these 2 types when really at eachother's neck is so hostile that others in the thread become hostile or afraid to post themselves.

He is pro-neglect, would you go as far as to agree to that?

 If they are both engaging in toxic dispute and consentual to it, then why does it matter

 he would use his role to advise moderators not to act on things they normally would act on. 

You know the type 2 I describe, the one who is toxic in retaliation? Often they feel there is no outlet to save them other than being mean back.

Consensual flaming is borderline okay as long as it stay in the rules but just how consensual is it for the angry and reactionary one? If they agree to not interact with the other and vice versa, at least for 3 weeks, you will find both have developed habits of interaction that when you take the RO away, they can better interact around each other rather than into each other.

Think of it as social lubrication therapy.

This sounds like being pro-neglect to me.

Perhaps you're seeing specifics where I'm not.

Do you really think that I am only pro-action btw? You don't think I'd push for more lenient punishment ever? I am all about gradual warnings and reform, you have twisted my platform out of context.

I DO NOT ABUSE ANIMALS 

That is it I have had enough of this.

I take a break now. 

Lmao, I can't defend against this without violating the rule of not campaigning outside my campaign thread, so I will wait for the mods to allow me to. Otherwise, I'll address this inside my thread.

I have theories that this move for president has more narcissistic motivators for both parties than it does for actual community development