-->
@sadolite
Sounds like RM lol. Glad to still see you around btw, didn't know you made it over to DART.
Why you should not vote for RationalMadman.
Posts
Total:
165
overall I think I lose this by a very slight margin.
That is a really sad reflection on the current state of the site, if it is by only a slight margin.
Either the president's office has power or it's just basically a position that allows that particular member to do things other members can't do to help out and initiate new members that kind of thing. From what's come up the last week or so it sounds to me like RM's been doing things like that for a while now. He's obviously been advocating for members with the mods and he has a plan to bring membership in. I don't hear any of the other people talking about anything they're going to do to stimulate the debate area of the website or to make the forms more palatable. Granted he tends to take things personally, he pretty much has everybody blocked, and yet he still very helpful around the site and the membership.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
He's obviously been advocating for members with the mods and he has a plan to bring membership in. I don't hear any of the other people talking about anything they're going to do to stimulate the debate area of the website or to make the forms more palatable.
This has actually been gone over. His approach would drive members away. He agrees with bans on people whose ideology he disagrees with. On a debate site, that sort of approa h to create a hive mind type of society is harmful. If you haven't noticed the site is pretty dead and that is a direct result of those sort of actions that were taken by David who had RM's same approach.
Lunatic's post in op actually does a really good job of explaining how I would bring in more people to the site and stop the downward slide that began with bsh1 and excellerated with David. The mods post David were okay, however the precedents they set still need to be opposed as you can see from the damage to the site.
Polytheist, I don't know the particular details of your beef with Stephen, but I can say that I would be more effective at creating the change to protect you from legitimate harassment than RM.
The only real power a president has is their ability to influence the mods. You can take a look at the thread in the religion section and observe RMs interactions with the mods and see if those interactions are conducive to persuading the mods or just annoying to the mods. I think Ragnar whiteflame and supa interact with RM that thread and you can judge his effectiveness at appealing to them or not.
-->
@RationalMadman
Don't be so negative. I haven't even decided what I am going to eat for dinner today, let alone who I'm gonna vote for as president of DART
-->
@Vader
Don't give him false hope either, that's almost worse ;-)
jk
He agrees with bans on people whose ideology he disagrees with.
This is a major twisting of context.
The view he is suggesting is extreme racism and such.
-->
@Lunatic
Fair point lol
But I don't want people assuming how I will vote until I fully stated it, as someone once said, if it ain't 0%, there's still a chance
But I don't want people assuming how I will vote until I fully stated it, as someone once said, if it ain't 0%, there's still a chance
-->
@RationalMadman
This is a major twisting of context.The view he is suggesting is extreme racism and such.
Doesn't matter, we shouldn't ban people for having controversial views. We should debate them and prove why their view is bad. That's why this is a debate site.
Again you don't get arrested simply for being racist, you only get arrested if you act out violently based on those beliefs. Why should should a debate websites moderator system be more strict than a legal system?
-->
@Lunatic
I didn't say arrest them, it was you who said that CoC aren't like the real-world law.
Hate speech can occur on 4Chan, not here, as you proudly stated. :)
I understand that tactically worded hate speech is inside the rules though, I didn't deny it.
-->
@RationalMadman
I didn't say arrest them, it was you who said that CoC aren't like the real-world law.
I know you didn't say arrest them. You again missed the point just like you did with the animal thing lol.
Hate speech can occur on 4Chan, not here, as you proudly stated. :)
This is not a statement I made lol.
I understand that tactically worded hate speech is inside the rules though, I didn't deny it.
Then why do you think it should be bannable?
-->
@Lunatic
Hate speech can occur on 4Chan, not here, as you proudly stated. :)This is not a statement I made lol.
What did you mean then, please do enlighten us. Without moderation this can become 4Chan.
-->
@Lunatic
I understand that tactically worded hate speech is inside the rules though, I didn't deny it.Then why do you think it should be bannable?
Should be that you don't spread hate speech, I didn't say it should be bannable if you're just discussing an idea, very iffy tbph.
You're constantly digging at an extreme grey area to paint me as a tyrant, it's quite pathetic really. If a user bases their vote on allowing hate speech they probably dislike me for other reasons and the feeling is mutual.
-->
@Lunatic
I know you didn't say arrest them. You again missed the point just like you did with the animal thing lol.
No, you are just poor at conveying what you mean, I like to clarify.
Your hitting a dog analogy was animal abuse, so unless the dog was the user what was the point you were making then?
Should be that you don't spread hate speech, I didn't say it should be bannable if you're just discussing an idea, very iffy tbph.
You literally said it should be banned when I asked you if a person who supports white supremacy backs it up with facts. They’re discussing an idea supported by facts. You’d ban that. Wylted wouldn’t. There’s no world where you believe in free speech more than Wylted if you support what I said above.
-->
@RationalMadman
What did you mean then, please do enlighten us. Without moderation this can become 4Chan.
I said this isn't 4chan. And no, that is a slippery slope fallacy. I don't think this website gets nearly as bad as 4chan. It doesn't appeal to their userbase, it appeals to debaters.
I understand that tactically worded hate speech is inside the rules though, I didn't deny it.Then why do you think it should be bannable?Should be that you don't spread hate speech, I didn't say it should be bannable if you're just discussing an idea, very iffy tbph.You're constantly digging at an extreme grey area to paint me as a tyrant, it's quite pathetic really. If a user bases their vote on allowing hate speech they probably dislike me for other reasons and the feeling is mutual.
I am not painting anything. And what grey area? I already said I don't consider the mods or anyone a tyrant. That is your word not mine. All I am saying is that you are the embodiment of cancel culture. You have good intentions but are extremely misguided, and someone like you having a voice with moderation sets a very dangerous precedent for free speech.
I know you didn't say arrest them. You again missed the point just like you did with the animal thing lol.No, you are just poor at conveying what you mean, I like to clarify.
I am not bad at conveying what I mean at all. It's pretty damn easy to understand. What I think you do, is you see big responses from me and get bored of reading, and reply with a one liner that completely ignores everything I have said. It's pure laziness. You will sometimes have motivated responses and then randomly just get really lazy... I see it in your debates too.
Your hitting a dog analogy was animal abuse, so unless the dog was the user what was the point you were making then?
Point I was making is that forcing someone to not interact with each other with an RO only makes them fear punishment. It doesn't encourage growth. It's why they tell you to give positive reinforcement instead of negative reinforcement with pets. I really don't see how you didn't understand the analogy. Dumbing them down to that degree kind of defeats the point of making an analogy, since they are supposed to make things easier to understand.
In your case I think the disconnect may come from your autism. That is not an insult, I know you have said you have had autism before. Could be that your brain makes sense of things when explained more literally. If that is the case, I will try to avoid making analogies with you and just try to dumb down everything to the point where everything is extremely literal if you want.
-->
@ILikePie5
There’s no world where you believe in free speech more than Wylted
I didn't say I believe in free speech more than Wylted.
I think I prioritise the site attracting and maintaining users for extensive discourse over some extremists within that discourse ruining the entire atmosphere. I also think the rules imply that too, we can pretend that only doxxing matters if we want to but there's more than that which can be toxic and detrimental to the site's popularity and appeal as well as pleasure to use.
I think I prioritise the site attracting and maintaining users for extensive discourse
Y
If you actually believed that,you would drop out of the race, because I would actually be effective at making that happen, while you are basically a less stable version of David whose over moderation has almost killed the site. Your presidency would be the final nail in the coffin to this site
If you actually believed that,you would drop out of the race, because I would actually be effective at making that happen, while you are basically a less stable version of David whose over moderation has almost killed the site. Your presidency would be the final nail in the coffin to this site
If stability was the primary and most important factor, I think you and I should both drop out and I can confidently say that as you are my main opponent so I have little reason to not admit that you and I fluctuate at times if it comes to how we feel we how we behave but my instability is still less severe than your. You go on rampages of trolling, even making alts dedicated to it at times, based on sheer impulse. Then, you quit the site sporadically if it suits you as well.
Nobody can predict when you'll next flip around and post a thread supporting me or flip around and run for President, let alone what you'll stay true to.
You and I are both passionate users, though you deny your passion outside of forum games. The stability you speak of is not one iota higher on your part.
Your presidency would be the final nail in the coffin to this site
This is from the guy who has repeatedly reiterate that I'd make a fine president should I win.
This is from the guy who has repeatedly reiterate that I'd make a fine president should I win.
Correct. Name one big thing you have changed your mind about since the beginning of 2022? Are you capable of considering you are ever wrong?
Post 111, is one of the reasons why I changed my mind. It's just an attack. It is saying
"Look at some thing that wylted has done bad and may piss off a certain segment of people who would vote for him"
It's just an attack. When I bring up your flaws, I am mentioning how they would relate to your ability to be the president. You have dirt on you. I don't care to bring it up, anybody who has been around long enough can point out several examples of your dirt.
I don't care about your past though. I won't even bring up any bad things from 2 weeks ago. It doesn't matter. What matters is who you are today. As president you will do the same things David did that has left the site decimated and on oxygen support. He over stepped his authority and went ban crazy, and the site is now almost dead. Your solution to the site being on life support is to do what put it on if support to a larger degree. That is a fact
Post 111, is one of the reasons why I changed my mind. It's just an attack. It is saying"Look at some thing that wylted has done bad and may piss off a certain segment of people who would vote for him"It's just an attack. When I bring up your flaws, I am mentioning how they would relate to your ability to be the president. You have dirt on you. I don't care to bring it up, anybody who has been around long enough can point out several examples of your dirt.I don't care about your past though. I won't even bring up any bad things from 2 weeks ago. It doesn't matter. What matters is who you are today. As president you will do the same things David did that has left the site decimated and on oxygen support. He over stepped his authority and went ban crazy, and the site is now almost dead. Your solution to the site being on life support is to do what put it on if support to a larger degree. That is a fact
Let me translate this for others.
When Wylted attacks me, it's not an attack or bringing up my flaws. When he 'hints at' dirt, it is not to say it exists just to mention others have dirt. When he won't bring up things from 2 weeks ago, he's fine with his supporters doing it for him, like this thread itself which he never condemned.
This is all cute.
Now, as for the real Wylted and real meaning behind what he said, he said a whole lot of nothing.
(Rational madman) "The view he is suggesting is extreme racism and such."
That is exactly why the first amendment was written. To protect all political speech no matter how abhorrent or vulgar you think it is. The number one reason you should not be president of a debate site. Only your views matter, no matter how abhorrent or vulgar anyone or I think they are. All of your views are pure and full of virtue, everyone else's views are all subject to your arbitrary censorship.
That is exactly why the first amendment was written. To protect all political speech no matter how abhorrent or vulgar you think it is. The number one reason you should not be president of a debate site. Only your views matter, no matter how abhorrent or vulgar I think they
That doesn't apply to a private website. You are probably referring to the spirit of the first amendment and that this website should uphold it.
If the freedom of speech is harmful and even more than the harm of if people believe it, the harm that hundreds (yes hundreds) of less people find out about this website as less sign up and those that do feel too embarassed about the website to show their family and friends, over time it will end up a perpetually dead isolated website.
"That doesn't apply to a private website." Is it your web site? No. Total deflection
Free speech is not an absolute good; it is not an end unto itself. Free speech is an instrumental good, one that promotes a higher good: seeking the truth. That’s the canonical account from John Stuart Mill that still underlies much of our thinking around free speech today.
But free speech only fulfils its truth-seeking function when all agents are speaking in good faith: when they all agree that the truth is the goal of the conversation, that the facts matter, that there are certain standards of evidence and argumentation that are admissible, that speakers have a duty to be open to criticism, and that there are many modes of discourse that are inadmissible, such as intimidation, insults, threats and the wilful spread of misinformation. Mill assumed all too readily that such good will was commonplace.
But free speech only fulfils its truth-seeking function when all agents are speaking in good faith: when they all agree that the truth is the goal of the conversation, that the facts matter, that there are certain standards of evidence and argumentation that are admissible, that speakers have a duty to be open to criticism, and that there are many modes of discourse that are inadmissible, such as intimidation, insults, threats and the wilful spread of misinformation. Mill assumed all too readily that such good will was commonplace.
Whenever RM doesn't have a good reply, he just gaslight's the living fvck out of you lol
-->
@RationalMadman
That is exactly why the first amendment was written. To protect all political speech no matter how abhorrent or vulgar you think it is. The number one reason you should not be president of a debate site. Only your views matter, no matter how abhorrent or vulgar I think theyThat doesn't apply to a private website. You are probably referring to the spirit of the first amendment and that this website should uphold it.If the freedom of speech is harmful and even more than the harm of if people believe it, the harm that hundreds (yes hundreds) of less people find out about this website as less sign up and those that do feel too embarassed about the website to show their family and friends, over time it will end up a perpetually dead isolated website.
You think the average user is showing this website to their family and friends?
-->
@FLRW
Free speech is not an absolute good; it is not an end unto itself. Free speech is an instrumental good, one that promotes a higher good: seeking the truth. That’s the canonical account from John Stuart Mill that still underlies much of our thinking around free speech today.But free speech only fulfils its truth-seeking function when all agents are speaking in good faith: when they all agree that the truth is the goal of the conversation, that the facts matter, that there are certain standards of evidence and argumentation that are admissible, that speakers have a duty to be open to criticism, and that there are many modes of discourse that are inadmissible, such as intimidation, insults, threats and the wilful spread of misinformation. Mill assumed all too readily that such good will was commonplace.
So who gets to decide when the other person isn't speaking in good faith? You think it's worth undermining all the good the free speech seeks to accomplish on a debate platform so you can arbitrarily apply these rules to certain people? That undermines the entire idea of free speech, and it becomes extremely dangerous to let one person define what should or should not be allowed to be said, at the risk of hurting many others. How do you know who is actually speaking from their heart or not?
There should not be a grey area here with censorship. It makes moderations job 10x's harder for no reason, and they are bound to enforce it improperly in some cases because precisely the fact that it shouldn't be up to them to decide what's offensive to one person, means that the person being banned doesn't actually hold that belief and truly support it.