Why you should not vote for RationalMadman.

Author: Lunatic

Posts

Total: 165
#61
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Lunatic
It seems your thoughts are 'bad idea' on voting RM and 'meh, he is better than RM I guess' on voting Wylted. Another nominated candidate is 3RU7AL, who has a strong track record in the forums as being strongly pro freedom of speech and almost radically pro freedom of privacy. Furthermore his general attitude gives me the impression that should he be elected he would run the post without any risk of petty drama and his history of seeking to encourage constructive criticism of his personal ideas leads me to believe he would be genuinely open to hearing out grievances from the community and advocating for fair treatment by mods if needed.

What are your thoughts on 3RU7AL for president?
Topic's author
#62
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,951
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
It seems your thoughts are 'bad idea' on voting RM and 'meh, he is better than RM I guess' on voting Wylted. Another nominated candidate is 3RU7AL, who has a strong track record in the forums as being strongly pro freedom of speech and almost radically pro freedom of privacy. Furthermore his general attitude gives me the impression that should he be elected he would run the post without any risk of petty drama and his history of seeking to encourage constructive criticism of his personal ideas leads me to believe he would be genuinely open to hearing out grievances from the community and advocating for fair treatment by mods if needed.

What are your thoughts on 3RU7AL for president?

I have been careful not to fully endorse the idea of wylted as president here, you are correct. The fact is, it is early on and better candidates may arise. I am dis-appointed that iLikePie5 for example dropped out. As far as my thoughts on 3RU7AL, I think he is a better candidate than RM, sure. Is he a better candidate than wylted? I am not so sure of this. While his campaign seems rather lazy, I suppose I can forgive that as there isn't a whole lot of site issues I care about other than the topic at hand: Moderation. 

3RU7AL wants fair treatment accross, which is a noble cause and one to get behind. However I think wylted takes it a step further here and accomplishes a little more of what I am looking for in advocating for less bens in general, rather than just fair bans. Seeing as he himself was victim to some of these bans I consider unjust, I can see why wylted would have a little more pep in his step if it came to a ban decision the mods were making and wylted having reason to shut it down. Making it fair just gives the mods more clause to inflict heavy punishment on a user because they did it once before, so it's only right if such and such gets it that bad too, you know what I am saying?

Ultimately I would like to see more platforms come out and hear more of the potential candidates thoughts regarding speech restriction, at this time, if I were to take wylted at his word from his campaign thread, I have every reason to believe he wants to see less punishment overall from mods regarding offensive material posted. 
Topic's author
#63
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,951
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@Wylted
While the other two campaigns were about ego gratification. I genuinely don't want to run here and tried to avoid it. If literally one person who is  even remotely equal to me runs and also who is more electable, I'd drop out and fully endorse them.
We know this isn't true, because of how hard you pushed to be president of Debate.org. You offered to fist fight me IRL because I opposed you in that election lol.

That and your profile says "Current president of Dart until I am challenged and a process is set up for an election." Your profile has said this for months. 

So I take you with a grain of salt. I know you are a very trolly individual and getting reactions is something you love to do. But I think you should be allowed to do that without getting banned, and I also think you agree with me about freedom of speech and overall just having less punishment on the website is a good thing. That is really all I care about at the end of the day. If you are a dog in the mods ear and actively barking at them or encouraging them to ban less, and to make their bans less restrictive, I will be happy, regardless of any other potential motivations you may have for the role. 
#64
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Lunatic
I think "ensuring bans are fair" somewhat implies less bans by default via overturning bans deemed less fair. Due to his stance that the powers of the president do not need any official or unofficial expansion and the only presidential power relating to bans as far as I know would be the pardon power I rather doubt he would specifically advocate for a particular ban or bans the mods weren't applying just because he thought such a ban would be fair, though I guess I technically might be wrong about that. Something for me to think about I guess, along with the rest of what you said.
Topic's author
#65
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,951
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I think "ensuring bans are fair" somewhat implies less bans by default via overturning bans deemed less fair. Due to his stance that the powers of the president do not need any official or unofficial expansion and the only presidential power relating to bans as far as I know would be the pardon power I rather doubt he would specifically advocate for a particular ban or bans the mods weren't applying just because he thought such a ban would be fair, though I guess I technically might be wrong about that. Something for me to think about I guess, along with the rest of what you said.
Another thing is his mentality that the mods might just over-write any decision or influence the president makes (while likely true) isn't neccesarily the attitude I would like to see in a president. Whether the role has any real power with moderation is irrelevant, I would like to see someone trying to make a bigger stink to the mods about bans encouraging less of them overall. You could be right about 3RU7AL's intentions of course, but all we have to go on is what little he actually said in his platform and a few responses to user questions about his platform. Not a lot was explicitly stated and that may have been a big missed oppertunity. 
#66
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Lunatic
I mean if you continually smack your dog when it does something you don't like, yeah it will eventually stop doing that thing. When having heated clashing opinions on a debate site  you get your hand slapped, why even stay on or participate on the site? Their interactions change because they fear reprimand, not because they suddenly had a change of heart or something. On the contrary I think letting people hash out their differences is more likely to get people to change their mind about another individual. Regardless I don't see why a moderator needs to interfere when the good ol' blocking feature is handy. 
I actually think it's more akin to separating 2 animals with a grudge-relationship (or where one is bullying the other) and slowly making them eat near each other but with a protective, transparent barrier (or protective railed/cage-like barrier) between them. This shows them that they don't need to fight the other to remain sustained.

In the case of cats and rats, it's often wise to allow the timid one 'free' first and teach it to go for higher places. As in, you build things or buy things where it can climb. Then the more 'bully-like' one gets introduced later and doesn't feel that the timid one is invading its personal space in the ground arena and slowly won't mind even when it does.

This is more akin to what I recommend to do with people. I want two people with a grudge to feel fulfilled without clashing.
Topic's author
#67
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,951
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@RationalMadman
I actually think it's more akin to separating 2 animals with a grudge-relationship (or where one is bullying the other) and slowly making them eat near each other but with a protective, transparent barrier (or protective railed/cage-like barrier) between them. This shows them that they don't need to fight the other to remain sustained.
1. Why is it our roblem or moderators problem if their is a grudge match between two members? If you are annoyed by another individuals dispute simply ignore it.
2. We come back to the question of who decides what "Bullying" is. In your own example of two animals fighting each other, that is obviously reciprocal, not one "picking" on the other. These situations handle themselves.

In the case of cats and rats, it's often wise to allow the timid one 'free' first and teach it to go for higher places. As in, you build things or buy things where it can climb. Then the more 'bully-like' one gets introduced later and doesn't feel that the timid one is invading its personal space in the ground arena and slowly won't mind even when it does.

This is more akin to what I recommend to do with people. I want two people with a grudge to feel fulfilled without clashing.
My example wasn't equivocating humans to animals like yours is. It's goal was to point out that people not interacting with their toxic counterpart is out of fear of retribution, not because they suddenly come to respect the other person and their opinion. Forcing someone not to interact with another person doesn't change anyone's ideas or enforce an atmosphere of intellectual or personal growth. It's just telling them that having adverse opinions is bad without explaining why. Debate is built around sharing and discussing adverse opinions. If someone has to  take it to the insult level, it shows insecurity around that opinion, and they are more likely to look back on that outrage later distastefully if they want true growth. But we shouldn't encourage stunting that through moderation. 
#68
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Lunatic
The types of people I am describing are less debating more berating each other.

I have even been in such relationships with people in the past on here, I know first-hand that it's not easy to get out of if the other wishes to perpetuate it and you feel offended/chased-away
#69
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Lunatic
 Forcing someone not to interact with another person doesn't change anyone's ideas or enforce an atmosphere of intellectual or personal growth.
Yes it does when their interactions are the very things stunting those latter things. ROs are temporary, not permanent, generally speaking.
#70
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Lunatic
 We come back to the question of who decides what "Bullying" is. In your own example of two animals fighting each other, that is obviously reciprocal, not one "picking" on the other. These situations handle themselves.
While some grudges between animals are indeed 2-way, you generally find that one is more aggressive while the other is more reactionary. The reactionary one doesn't always get picked on unless it's in the 'space' of the other which can even mean several metres away.

It isn't healthy or good ownership to ignore this when/if it develops.

Typically the most shy and fearful creatures are, in practise as prone to violence as the most brutish and aggressive ones. This is because in practise both bully once they feel their area, food, attention-with-owner or anything like that has been invaded and disrespected. This can be akin to how an aggressive user on the website reacts to the presence of another in their thread.


There are indeed other solutions. In the link above it recommends giving a lot more toys (or as I suggested building more 'areas' to hide/be) so that they feel less conflict between each other over the same things in the same space.
Topic's author
#71
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,951
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@RationalMadman
The types of people I am describing are less debating more berating each other.

I have even been in such relationships with people in the past on here, I know first-hand that it's not easy to get out of if the other wishes to perpetuate it and you feel offended/chased-away

I still fail to see why any intervention would be needed. Remember this is an online consensual argument, not a fist fight. However even in circumstances with physical fighting, it usually yields more respect for the other when they can hash things out on their own. 

 Forcing someone not to interact with another person doesn't change anyone's ideas or enforce an atmosphere of intellectual or personal growth.
Yes it does when their interactions are the very things stunting those latter things. ROs are temporary, not permanent, generally speaking.
If I personally was silenced by  modswhen I got in arguments with people on DDO, I would have never grown in any of my beliefs. I don't think we can substantiate that treating our debaters like children is better for intellectual growth than letting them work these issues out on their own. 
#72
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Lunatic
This is not after 1 argument, this is often what will happen when either 2 keep violating CoC against each other or one turns to the mods for help.
Topic's author
#73
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,951
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@RationalMadman
While some grudges between animals are indeed 2-way, you generally find that one is more aggressive while the other is more reactionary. The reactionary one doesn't always get picked on unless it's in the 'space' of the other which can even mean several metres away.

It isn't health or good ownership to ignore this when/if it develops.

Why are we still talking about cats? I love cats, have 3 of them. None of this bears relevance to humans, and is false equivolency. Again my point about punishing a dog wasn't to compare humans to dogs lol.

Typically the most shy and fearful creatures are, in practise as prone to violence as the most brutish and aggressive ones. This is because in practise both bully once they feel their area, food, attention-with-owner or anything like that has been invaded and disrespected. This can be akin to how an aggressive user on the website reacts to the presence of another in their thread.
These debaters aren't acting out of instinct or self preservation when they argue with each other. This isn't survival. It's to protect their ego's. It's not our place to seperate them like children, or animals in your example.
Topic's author
#74
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,951
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@RationalMadman
This is not after 1 argument, this is often what will happen when either 2 keep violating CoC against each other or one turns to the mods for help.
The CoC doesn't need to be held to like law, Ragnar has proven this before as he uses discretionary moderation and is allowed to.  We shouldn't look at the CoC like the holy bible or some rigorous set in stone thing that must be respected to the utmost. In all honesty it probably needs a lot of revision. Two users arguing with each other shouldn't ever be a violation resulting in a ban. 
#75
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Lunatic
These debaters aren't acting out of instinct or self preservation when they argue with each other. This isn't survival. It's to protect their ego's. It's not our place to seperate them like children, or animals in your example.
How did you think our species evolved emotions and egos?
Topic's author
#76
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,951
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@RationalMadman
How did you think our species evolved emotions and egos?
This isn't a biology debate, I am well aware we are all animals. I want you to quantify the harm of two consenting adults arguing with each other consentually on the internet, or properly explain how that is equivocable to animals fighting for survival. 
#77
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Lunatic
The reason you don't empathise or see the analogy is that, perhaps to the benefit of your mental wellbeing, you never took a website like this serious enough for an interaction to genuinely affect you negatively.

You are an extremely resistant personality to jealousy, insecurity, anger and fear/anxiety. Those latter 4 emotions are part of what comes to play in a long-term rivalry on these websites but you are so severely disciplined that you never will open this website without already being mentally prepared for whatever shows up and being ready to stay emotionless as possible apart from a quick laugh.

Then you say 'everyone should be that tough' but that's just not how things work. I can't know for sure how or why you ended up so immune to the stresses that can occur in long-term toxicity but the main way I have noticed you achieve it is to enter with a mentality of 'this doesn't really matter, just say my piece and let the other talk'. Unless we can rewire everyone's brain to run like yours, there really are emotions at play and feelings at play that need to be accounted for.
Topic's author
#78
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,951
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@RationalMadman
The reason you don't empathise or see the analogy is that, perhaps to the benefit of your mental wellbeing, you never took a website like this serious enough for an interaction to genuinely affect you negatively.

You are an extremely resistant personality to jealousy, insecurity, anger and fear/anxiety. Those latter 4 emotions are part of what comes to play in a long-term rivalry on these websites but you are so severely disciplined that you never will open this website without already being mentally prepared for whatever shows up and being ready to stay emotionless as possible apart from a quick laugh.

Then you say 'everyone should be that tough' but that's just not how things work. I can't know for sure how or why you ended up so immune to the stresses that can occur in long-term toxicity but the main way I have noticed you achieve it is to enter with a mentality of 'this doesn't really matter, just say my piece and let the other talk'. Unless we can rewire everyone's brain to run like yours, there really are emotions at play and feelings at play that need to be accounted for.
That is a hell of a lot of pyscho-analyzing there RM. Regardless of what you think you know of me because you are secretly own a degree in psychology, none of this is quantifiable. You can't perceive to know what others intolerances are, and you can't expect moderators to as well. There is a reason legally trying to protect people's feeling isn't a thing in real life (though cancel culture is trying there damndest to do this). You can't quantify or measure harm done to another persons feelings the same way with one person as you can with another. If one persons tolerance to stress is in argument high, and the others is low that's all you need to say to justify one being a victim over the other, and to call another a bully. There is a reason the legal system doesn't really recognize harm this way as compared to physical harm though. In terms of a debate site you can't and shouldn't assume that mods should play psychologists with how they choose to ban. This is the internet. The user of the internet needs to have some measure of responsibility towards protecting themselves and their feelings each time they log into a website and choose to communicate with others. Mod intervention only makes sense in the extreme circumstances where one user has information that phsyically can harm another and is exposing said information online, IE Doxxing. Outside of that mod intervention should be extremely limited in all cases. 
#79
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Lunatic
I didn't accuse you of anything other than being unusually immune to the stresses that can come with severe online rivalry. Do you agree or disagree that you can't relate to people in long-term flamewars? If no, how do you believe we should deal with them, if yes, the same?
#80
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Lunatic
Outside of that mod intervention should be extremely limited in all cases. 
Do you agree that you don't mean extremely limited, you basically mean nonexistent?
Topic's author
#81
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,951
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@RationalMadman
I didn't accuse you of anything other than being unusually immune to the stresses that can come with severe online rivalry. Do you agree or disagree that you can't relate to people in long-term flamewars?
I've had many flamewars with many people. I have come to better understand many people through them. YYW, Imabench, Mikal, drafterman, Danielle, Airmax, Ragnar_Rahl, F-16_Fighting_Falcon, many others. I've even had some opinions on big things change because of these "flamewars". Many of these people are now my friends. I am speaking from personal experience here and can attest to flamewars handling themselves being a good thing. Hell me and imabench even doxxed each other for a while, neither of us told the mods on each other. We eventually handled our sh1t though. I am not advocating doxxing, and I do think mods should step in, in situations like that because IRL safety comes into play. But most of the time these issues will either devolve or defuse on their own if you let them. 

 If no, how do you believe we should deal with them, if yes, the same?
We shouldn't deal with them at all, unless someone's safety is compromised because of doxxing. 

Outside of that mod intervention should be extremely limited in all cases. 
Do you agree that you don't mean extremely limited, you basically mean nonexistent?
I would prefer we had near non-existen mod interference. At least on the forums. Voting should be moderated as that can be abused and cheated with. Debating is a core mechanic of the site, and should be regulated, however the forums are more optional social mechanisms that encourage debate in a less restrictive way, and thus should be left unfestered with. 

#82
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Lunatic
I don't understand what exactly you mean and think that many onlookers to a website won't sign up if it appears to be very toxic.
Topic's author
#83
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,951
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@RationalMadman
I don't understand what exactly you mean and think that many onlookers to a website won't sign up if it appears to be very toxic.
I think you are wrong, and I think the health and status of the website is evidence of that. 
#84
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Lunatic
You think the site hasn't appeared toxic?
Topic's author
#85
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,951
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@RationalMadman
You think the site hasn't appeared toxic?
I mean I don't care if one or two people view it as so. If people want to come here for intelligent conversation it is available, as that is the nature of the website. This isn't 4chan, or anything close to that. 
#86
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Lunatic
This isn't 4chan, or anything close to that. 
Well Wylted, Mesmer and BrotherD sure tried their best to make it become that way.
Topic's author
#87
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,951
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@RationalMadman
Well Wylted, Mesmer and BrotherD sure tried their best to make it become that way.
That is a matter of personal opinion. I suppose you are entitled to it. 
Topic's author
#88
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,951
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
Having been referred to as an "insensitive cvnt" for a take I had, I'd have to say that I have to take your opinions on toxicity with a huge grain of salt. Hopefully others will to when it comes time to vote. 
#89
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,171
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
I wont vote for him because he blocked me for having a differing opinion.  Why would anyone vote for someone to represent a debate site  who does shit like that? Oh and the best part, he still comments on my posts!
#90
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
The way I see it, the mods are the swing votes and I know Supa is voting Wylted, so overall I think I lose this by a very slight margin.

I will simply have to let Wylted do his thing and unlike if I'd lost to Pie I can be very sure this will go wrong at some point. We'll see, that's all.