Why you should not vote for RationalMadman.

You think the average user is showing this website to their family and friends?

Whenever RM doesn't have a good reply, he just gaslight's the living fvck out of you lol

You think the average user is showing this website to their family and friends?

Not with the kind of toxicity and extremism that certain users have/had been displaying, it's a shithow.

Whenever RM doesn't have a good reply, he just gaslight's the living fvck out of you lol

This is itself a form of gaslighting towards me but I'll accept it since it's a he said she said game until you actually justify it.

Lol this site really isn't that extreme and toxic. 

Just look at any of your replies to wylted or me in this thread. Rather than respond to arguments logically, you either take it extremely personal, manipulate what the other person has said to make them look villainous, or just drop the argument completely and give some other random statement to make you look like the victim. 

Wylted's post 112 for example Wylted is talking about how all of his arguments towards you relate to how you would be as president, and that he is not trying to dig at you personally. Your response in 113 is a gaslight that pretty much disregards all his actual points and accuses him of lying basically by deciding that his true intentions are different than what is being said. You don't have any actual evidence here. You just don't have a valid response, so this type of blatant manipulation is all you can fall back on. It's rather sad and pathetic. 

To prove that you are not the one gaslighting here, can you please give examples and also what precisely do you think gaslighting it.

That is part of gaslighting but the overall goal is to make the victim feel they're insane and have no clue what's really going on, but yes guilt is a powerful tool in the arsenal of a narcissistic gaslighter and one you should learn how to spot and counteract if you are in a domestic or romantic situation with one for sure (as well as professional). 

I don't agree I do quite what you say though, obviously I think Wylted's not a nice guy and has reason to be guilty but I'm not gaslighting him about it, that's just naturally part of me expressing that.

My response was entirely valid and it is entirely him gaslighting there. For instance, you in this very thread's creation dug into my past even indirectly doxxing who I am on Discord to try and shame me for something I said about Sacha Baron Cohen, as well as pointing out from a long time ago what triggered me to block WaterPhoenix (but it was not a standalone event actually).

This directly should violate and alarm Wylted if he's against digging into my past to shame me but instead he's all for it because it looks like his hands are clean.

If you analyse how he's treated me throughout the entire campaign, across the website not just here but on the Religion Forums too, he has used any means necessary to shame and 'expose' me while playing the good guy. There is one reason why Wylted isn't digging back far enough if he has dirt on me and it's that he's got a lot back on DDO to be ashamed of himself.

You will now say 'but he didn't ask me to make this thread', you're right. What he did was pretend to cease all public campaigning and encourage his supporters to PM and recruit 3 people per one of them to 'his side'. This is his ethos, 'get others to do my dirty work'.

Well, you do realise I'll fight back right? I'm a bit busy rn but I'll get to it all, each accusation and time you accused me of dodging or gaslighting. I haven't lost any credibility, you're the one who's painting a self-fulfilling image of me here. I will prove it though, I already know if I say this you will say 'there he is dodging' so let me address it all later.

I am more than happy keeping this thread bumped to the top of the main page, so voters can see what they are getting into with you as a president first hand. 

So am I? It's not like my views on Sacha Baron Cohen and how he treated that Romanian village have shifted so that particular thing I don't really take anything back other than the word 'cunt' to you which was unnecessary to have said.

I also have replied consistently to things, you are genuinely the only person who accused me of gaslighting and dodging here, not even Wylted himself did.

So it's a brand new accusation that I will think about how to address and explain.

I am surprised no one calls you out on it more. You've been doing it a long time. 

I am surprised no one calls you out on it more. You've been doing it a long time. 

People call out his bs all the time. He just blocks em and retreats to his safe space. This is like the 10th time he’s blocked me

Let's play a game. Let's count how many times RationalMadman has dropped arguments in this thread in favor of gaslighting, or just general laziness.

1: Post 12 where RM lightly brushes the idea that I am doxxing him after accusing me of mis-representing facts in the discord, to which I then provided screenshots. There is 0 Attempt to double back and argue against my rationale or my main point in bringing this up as an example. Just plain "I am the victim here, Lunatic is evil"

2: Post 19 Completely disregards my point about how RM intends to enforce stricter bans, and he instead focuses on trying to make wylted look bad. My point wasn't "who said the worse thing" but he is taking it there because, again, he doesn't have an actual response. 

3: Post 24 ignores my point about how RM is pro-censorship and focuses on the difference between blocking and banning. Purposely missing the point again.

4: Post 29 RM drops all argumentation in regards to my very detailed and evidence ridden post proving that controversy is actually helpful to a debate site's activity to "defend himself" by saying that I was accusing him of censoring all drama. That was not my point, but that's what he turned it into because he didn't have a valid response. Yet again. 

5: Post 32 In response to the above I directly qoute him and prove how he is actually mostly in favor of banning controversy and his response is to again gaslight me and say that my response is provoked by me being "fragile" and angry about being blocked lol.

6: Post 44 he assumes my intentions are a clever bait to defame him, rather than respond to my argument. 

RM continues to display how emotionally unstable he is. Do you really want someone like this in a position of power on the site?

Ironically this experience has influenced my opinions and changed some things for me. Before I viewed Wylted more as a "lesser of two evils" type of thing. Watching them dialogue has actually made wylted seem like a pretty good candidate though. Thanks RM!

1: Post 12 where RM lightly brushes the idea that I am doxxing him after accusing me of mis-representing facts in the discord, to which I then provided screenshots. There is 0 Attempt to double back and argue against my rationale or my main point in bringing this up as an example. Just plain "I am the victim here, Lunatic is evil"

There is every attempt but in that one post in the thread I focused on what you did against my will regarding my Discord username, avatar and offsite posts. In other words, nothing at all was dodged regarding your thread's topic. I got nothing in those posts I take back. I didn't come unhinged, I showed you what you are like to debate against and right now you're much the same.

So, on my count 0.

2: Post 19 Completely disregards my point about how RM intends to enforce stricter bans, and he instead focuses on trying to make wylted look bad. My point wasn't "who said the worse thing" but he is taking it there because, again, he doesn't have an actual response. 

I don't intend to enforce stricter bans, if anything I am the only candidate of the three running that specifically specified that I think bans could be avoided if a lot more integral mod-intervention occurs before either user in a spat goes too far for too long. There literally is no punishment harder than a ban other than legal prosecution if they broke the actual law.

Wylted is bad his approach is sheer laziness and to let the mods do whatever they're already doing yet he also vaguely hints he will defend freedom of speech despite picking 'option 1' in his offered dilemma, which is what a blind-eye-turner would pick.

I don't ignore it. In that post I didn't address it because I address it in other posts and I'll address it here and now to make it very clear:

I am not sure what exactly would be severe enough to need to be directly deleted and censored but certain things that would go that far are pretty much already against the rules or have precedent in bans (now, especially after the more recent ones pre-ethang) that highlight clues to, racism is a major one.

I don't believe that racists will vote for me regardless of if I were to pander to them anyway, they're free to push Wylted if they want, I don't promise a platform if they're planning to suddenly break out with a series of racist vitriol. I also will support warnings and gradual punishment over any kind of instantly long ban for such user, reforming over retribution every time. I also would support extended conversations with the users about perhaps what area of their far-right views are completely fine to debate and discuss and which need to be toned down but direct racism I will not offer a platform for, not direct homophobia or the likes.

The primary thing I wish to push mods on is harassment of users, not any particular view.

I have now made crystal clear what I am pro-censorship on and how I wish to go about it. I have already said all this before, very clearly but this is it all in one comprehensive post.

4: Post 29 RM drops all argumentation in regards to my very detailed and evidence ridden post proving that controversy is actually helpful to a debate site's activity to "defend himself" by saying that I was accusing him of censoring all drama. That was not my point, but that's what he turned it into because he didn't have a valid response. Yet again. 

I did not drop all argumentation, I have consistently explained the popularity vs controversy balance and why I believe it needs to be carefully balanced and again I support gradual interactions and warnings over any sudden long bans at all.

5: Post 32 In response to the above I directly qoute him and prove how he is actually mostly in favor of banning controversy and his response is to again gaslight me and say that my response is provoked by me being "fragile" and angry about being blocked lol.

 You do not know what gaslighting is, that post had everything to do with your approach to being blocked, you are the one who is either very confused or gaslighting here.

I @ you often while you are still typing posts at those moments it was live back and forth and furthermore I often split up my replies topic by topic. 

I do not support banning controversy that completely obeys the rules at all, not at all. Controversy that toes the line is where I support the mods to start guiding toxic users to steer away from their toxic ways and be very specific on what to change.

 6: Post 44 he assumes my intentions are a clever bait to defame him, rather than respond to my argument. 

I still do assume it. You are even relishing in my frustration throughout and despite me not losing my cool at all you suddenly post this:

RM continues to display how emotionally unstable he is. Do you really want someone like this in a position of power on the site?

Ironically this experience has influenced my opinions and changed some things for me. Before I viewed Wylted more as a "lesser of two evils" type of thing. Watching them dialogue has actually made wylted seem like a pretty good candidate though. Thanks RM!

This shows that your agenda and core satisfaction here are in making me look bad but I accept that, your deeper agenda is beyond me and you see your attacking and getting under my skin as necessary evils to achieve the ends of absolute 'freedom of speech' which is your overall mission, so I don't take it personal but it is toxic regardless.

I will reply to the less later on, that's enough for now to flesh out. I also am trying to understand some things you say later as they aren't immediately clear to me where you think I dodged a point. For me the count is 0 now btw but this 'game' you wanted me to play is futile as it involves confirmation bias depending if you think me in a single post not addressing what I do address in another post is defined as a 'dodge'.

The problem is, you don't have any examples of over-moderation working... Because it hasn't. This website is pretty damn dead compared to DDO. So all the examples I pointed to are easily substantiated. You want to increase moderating an already failing system and cannot with evidence actually support how that will help the site's activity. If DDO is a place you consider to be extremely toxic based on some of the threads I posted, DART is considerably "less toxic" (your words) and still is floundering. Controversial opinons (or toxic opinions if you insist on viewing them that way) hands down bring about more debate and discussion and you haven't been able to prove otherwise. 

To quickly reply to your last point, I haven't dropped anything. What you're doing is quoting me in a single post, saying that in that one post I didn't address something that either before or after it I already have addressed.

Anybody reading can see what you're doing.

To also quickly reply to your blocking on Disc thing.

There is a rule about discussing the election and campaigning on PMs for candidates and also there is the fact that you were a 'friend' of mine on Discord.

I wanted to remove any temptation because I was really itching to deal with this privately first to see where you stood and also wanted to stop any chance you had at baiting me off-site to communicate about it. 

The core difference between bans and blocks is that a block doesn't (unless we're like in love or really close) 'hurt' the one who gets it in any way, it serves to protect the one doing it and the one receiving it generally had made them feel bad in some way or disturbed them. There doesn't ever need to be a justification or right vs wrong type of block. 

A ban stops the one banned from interacting with everyone else on that platform within that vicinity. It is necessary to justify it if you want any kind of transparent leadership.

The problem is, you don't have any examples of over-moderation working... Because it hasn't. This website is pretty damn dead compared to DDO. So all the examples I pointed to are easily substantiated. You want to increase moderating an already failing system and cannot with evidence actually support how that will help the site's activity. If DDO is a place you consider to be extremely toxic based on some of the threads I posted, DART is considerably "less toxic" (your words) and still is floundering. Controversial opinons (or toxic opinions if you insist on viewing them that way) hands down bring about more debate and discussion and you haven't been able to prove otherwise. 

You're right, because it's not over-moderation that worked.

I have never seen the politics and religion forum this active and healthy in the site's history. Mesmer and BrotherD going, Wylted stopping his toxicity (for now) and others I won't name either having gone or heeded warnings and/or engaged in RO type deal has led to actual clashing of ideas, not personal vendettas.

7: Post 53 is probably the biggest and funniest gaslight of the entire thread. Literally drops my whole point as if I am directly accusing him of animal abuse. Signifying he did not read my response at all. This is not only an emotional response, it's a complete redirect lol. 

8. Post 75 intentionally mis-directs what my argument is. I am actually saying in the thing he qouted me that we do not have to revert to animalistic survival instincts in an online environment, and his response takes us a a step backwards in the conversation instead of forward. 

9. Post 82 just drops literally every point I made and says he "doesn't understand". He doesn't tell me what about it he doesn't understand, he just doesn't have a good enough response, so he drops it. He doubles down and stamps his foot about the website appearing toxic lol. 

10. Post 84 Blatant gaslight. I have paragraphs of argumentation he ignored that already answers this question. 

11. Post 100 firstly incorrectly accuses me of saying RM wishes to "arrest" toxic users which was completely missing the point, again, I have to assume on purpose. He is not a dumb person. Secondly he says I said 4chan was toxic which I didnt'. All I said was this site was far from being 4chan. He is trying to twist what I am saying in a very manipulative way, the same way he's been doing the whole conversation. 

12. Post 102 Actually links my post while misqouting me for everyone to see, providing evidence to prove him wrong. lol

13. Post 103 Again goes after my intentions, assuming I am insinuating he is a tyrant instead of actually responding to the point I made. More gaslighting. 

14. Post 113 Again, gaslighting wylted when wylted is going out of his way to prove how he has never made the presidency personal and is only going after RM's policies as president, RM just bypasses the whole argument to spin it as an attack against himself. 

Can I just fully get you to define gaslighting and what your aim is here?

When I read your 7-upwards it's as if you're suggesting I have something sinister behind what I'm doing or saying.

Then, even if I have answered what you say i 'dodged' elsewhere, you link to a post where I didn't answer it to say I dodged it. Furthermore, even if I clarify my stance now, you say 'it's too late to clarify it now haha'.

To me, it honestly seems like you don't have any intention of understanding me nor are you even 'exposing' me for anything. You think you are but you are not.

For example, when I said animal abuse I was really tired and needed a break, also was busy. I read you comparing mods contacting people for interventing to hitting a dog continously until it obeys, which was outrageous to me. However, if I made people laugh at me for it, that's fine by me, it spreads some joy.

You seem to want me to feel bad here or like I somehow dodged something yet later, I returned to address you about the animal analogy and you then say that's toxic and dodging as well. I don't think you know what gaslighting is but the one thing with Wylted I think you will never care to understand is my side of things.

Wylted entered this election posing as my supporter, the first few posts included a scenario where I have to blindly cave into authority and allow harassment or expose private information on a user, what kind of ultimatum is that? From there, Wylted continued to pseudo-support and bait me out to advocate stronger moderation in the religion forums in order to render me 'unelectable' (his own words in that thread, I can give proof if needed).

It backfired and the Religion Forums are among my main support base now, bar a couple users.

I do not 'see racists everywhere' that is you gaslighting me, I said if there are racists here who have been biding their time and waiting for somebody to be in power that would stop them being punished for spreading their agenda, they are going to vote Wylted no matter how much I pander to them so I see no reason to even begin to try and I wouldn't anyway.

I have not dodged the points you say I dodged from point 7 onwards, I just answered them in other posts than the ones you linked. This is actually you gaslighting me, literally. Why are you linking to a post saying I dodged a point that I literally answer a few posts later at most? You do this over and over.

All of these points can be summed up as you abusing context or completely ignoring where I do address them.

I did not misquote you, I said you said this site isn't 4Chan and you recognise how disgusting a site can become when moderation is too lax. I didn't write it in such depth as I genuinely thought it was clear in the context.

"I don't believe that racists will vote for me regardless of if I were to pander to them anyway, they're free to push Wylted if they want, I don't promise a platform if they're planning to suddenly break out with a series of racist vitriol."

What racists then are you referring to lol? Anyone who votes wylted? Any examples of racists or were you just throwing sh1t around to see what would stick?

"Hate speech can occur on 4Chan, not here, as you proudly stated. :)"

Yeah you did mis-qoute me because I didn't say that. 

Think of a Venn Diagram.

Racists (most of whom would be closet racists) are within the voting base of Wylted. I can basically not get them to cross over to me no matter what I do, pandering to them is both strategically and morally futile. I stand for something and according to you, so does Wylted. 

To me, Wylted shifts with the direction of least resistance and has done during this election, the only possible resistance he could face is with himself replacing Pie but past that what I have seen is somebody with no loyalties, no truth even to how he posts to the opposition and huge flip-flopping tendencies that he flexes as 'nuance' inside of his campaign thread.

I have no doubt that he has attracted all voters who happen to be (closet) racists, I did not say all of his voters are racist. It is you who is intentionally being conniving now, there is no possible way you thought that I meant all his voters are racists.

"Hate speech can occur on 4Chan, not here, as you proudly stated. :)"

Yeah you did mis-qoute me because I didn't say that. 

And I didn't use the quotation formatting either, seriously grow up man.

You said that this site wasn't 4Chan thanks to moderating vile things like (what I concluded) included hate speech. If not, what is it you meant?

Ahhhh so this is conspiritorial. You don't have evidence of these racists because they probably don't even exist, so you have to infer that wylteds voter base is racist by calling them "closet racists". This is some good bullsh1t your trying to sell me. Reminds me of all the Trump supporters who cried about cheating in the 2020 election. 

Thats all I said about 4chan. We have a different user base, and the sites intention is different than 4chans, so it has no reason to get that bad. Moderation has nothing to do with it.