-->
@badger
Been a long ass time for sure
Vote for Airmax1227 : Official thread
Posts
Total:
137
-->
@badger
Actually, when I think of DDO's golden age it was a little bit before you guys. We were a very diverse bunch once upon a time. It was more real debaters, I guess, and from all over the globe. Eggleston, Roy Latham, Puck. Danielle, Queen of DDO, of course. We had an-caps and communists, actual cliques around this shit. There would be a new user appear every day wanting to fight about whatever idea. There really would some quality users show up on DDO, and not wanting to play mafia or vote on silly elections, but to debate, to fight for their ideas in debates or in the forums. Really, I think you lot were a detriment to that in a way. It did become cliquey in a more general sense, ended up just a bunch of North Americans, all of an age range, mostly male. I mean, maybe it's nostalgia, but DDO really used to be something. It wasn't just a hangout.I mean, I don't want to come across too harsh either, there was fun in it too, and maybe it was natural enough. People make friends, that's all. But actually I do think what a site needs for it to grow in the first place is generality. Later DDO lost that. You got any thoughts on that? I don't mean to attack you here either, but I guess I did get a bit hopeful seeing you back lol. I would be interested to hearing your thoughts on it. I do think you guys were a detriment to this site. Elections and hangouts were never what DDO needed.
i think an anonymous debate option might be interesting
-->
@airmax1227
You literally only came back to win an election. If others can't see the game you're playing, I don't really care.
If you actually cared for the site why would you only come back to win?
There is no reason to be active on this site where it stands currently with moderation. If you can be banned for being controversial, it really undermines the reason to stay here. The president now has an oppertunity to change that and make this a site worth being active on.
There is no reason to be active on this site where it stands currently with moderation.
Definitely not if you don't give a damn about the website and community, that's true.
If you can be banned for being controversial, it really undermines the reason to stay here. The president now has an oppertunity to change that and make this a site worth being active on.
I am infinitely more controversial than he is and I use it anyway, so does Wylted. It's about passion.
Whatever you say about Wylted, he actively used the website completely independent of pushing for power, it's the one thing I can't say about him as an opponent, nor 3RU7AL. Max only wants the power, you guys are only pushing for him as you know he'll be a loyal buddy and keep you guys unbanned if you bullied and harassed someone. That's the only reason you want him in power, it really is that transparent.
If, however, Wylted doesn't drop out, I predict he will take more support base away from Wylted than from me. So, from that perspective, I'm down for his running but frankly if this website had any criteria on running, Airmax1227 wouldn't qualify as a candidate due to how truly inactive he's been.
-->
@airmax1227
- Will you actually be active all year long?
- What would you have done when Ragnar banned me in Sept 2020?
- What is your outlook on white supremacy being advocated for (or sexism and homophobia)
-->
@badger
t really is a neat bit of CSS and I hate CSS, so. But I don't think this site ever turns up on a google search and DDO did. If you want this site to grow, that's first stop. Page rank algorithms, rewrite the whole thing in C++, I dunno.
That's why we need to censor some extremist posts, so that it doesn't get associated with that on Google's ranking. It's something you don't realise.
-->
@RationalMadman
There is no reason to be active on this site where it stands currently with moderation.Definitely not if you don't give a damn about the website and community, that's true.
Airmax has always loved debate and the debating community. If I were him putting 20 hours a week into removing spam from the forums just to keep a dying site alive as long as possible, I imagine I would need a long break from the Debate community as well. Airmax actively didn't want this position when the site first launched because he needed a break. Thankfully he is ready to assist our mods with that burden by offering wisdom and advice that comes from 10+ years of experience modding.
If you can be banned for being controversial, it really undermines the reason to stay here. The president now has an oppertunity to change that and make this a site worth being active on.I am infinitely more controversial than he is and I use it anyway, so does Wylted. It's about passion.
Except, for you and the mods, there is 2 types of controversy. The type your into where your just always an adversarial and antagonistcal douche, and the type of controversy you decide is "too far" and results in someone being banned because they are "racist" or whatever reason.
I am not saying you are either of those btw, you are the one who said you were controversial.
Whatever you say about Wylted, he actively used the website completely independent of pushing for power, it's the one thing I can't say about him as an opponent, nor 3RU7AL. Max only wants the power, you guys are only pushing for him as you know he'll be a loyal buddy and keep you guys unbanned if you bullied and harassed someone. That's the only reason you want him in power, it really is that transparent.
This is more gaslighting. You assume everyone's intentions are malicious all the time. You can't even give Max the common decency of respecting him as an opponent, despite the fact he was very kind, courteous, and cordial with you. You begrudge him so much for your ban that you will never look past your own selfish and extremely biased hatred to look at how idiotic statements like what you just made actually are.
If, however, Wylted doesn't drop out, I predict he will take more support base away from Wylted than from me. So, from that perspective, I'm down for his running but frankly if this website had any criteria on running, Airmax1227 wouldn't qualify as a candidate due to how truly inactive he's been.
His activity here shouldn't be relevant anyways. He comes from DDO and has thousands of posts and many debates. This site is an extension of the previous site, all of moderation comes from DDO, and a good portion of the userbase here also preceeds from DDO. Also max has had an account here for years, even if his post count is low, he is a standing member. Who are you to say who should and shouldn't be able to run anyway? Are you scared of losing to him, is that why you don't want him running? Feeling insecure about your campaign?
Sorry RM, I am done playing polite with you. You are being a huge douchebag to airmax, and it's pathetic. Especially coming from someone who seeks to represent the community and the website.
to be fair, I don't think anyone agreed with that ban if I recall
Most people were trying to unban you.
-->
@airmax1227
I actually have a hard one for you. I think i've spoken to you in the past about this. While is is a debate website and the core of it should remain as such, most of the older members who prompted activity have now got older and have less time to engage in the type of debates we saw in the golden age. How do you feel about focusing on social aspects of the site to have it function as a platform for where people can connect and keep in touch with each other, mafia, games, etc. This exists but working to improve it and bring new members in
While trying to find new faces to help promote growth on the debate side
-->
@Lunatic
You need to stop using the word gaslighting for literally everything. It's really undermining to what gaslighting even is and is just ridiculous at this point.
I didn't gaslight Airmax and make him feel insane by what I said. Nor did I do so to you.
-->
@Lunatic
Sorry RM, I am done playing polite with you. You are being a huge douchebag to airmax, and it's pathetic. Especially coming from someone who seeks to represent the community and the website.
You were never polite to me, so much so you even disrespected consent regarding screenshots of me elsewhere.
You are a very impolite guy overall and pride yourself on being it so I'm unsure why this would be something you think would surprise me. You have been a complete displeasure to deal with during this campaign process, not because you are against me but the way you've done it. You go beyond what others do and directly try to make me seem evil and sinister.
I'm an older DDO member, I would definitely frequent the site more if someone like Max or Wylted were elected president. The main reason for this is that any permanent bans based on some of the more ludicrous rules (hate speech, for example) would be vetoed. This site adopted such policies under bsh with zero real ability for the community to curtail such rules going into effect ('feedback' has no teeth to it). As others have pointed out, debate websites thrive on a diversity of opinions, and having a rule in place that could be interpreted in such a way as to ban huge swathes of opinion is a hard-to-overstate dissuading factor when it comes to investing time and energy into a site like this for any heterodox thinker. It sucks that we can't just strike dumb rules overall, but putting a procedural roadblock to enforcing them in place is a good stopgap measure.
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
The main reason for this is that any permanent bans based on some of the more ludicrous rules (hate speech, for example) would be vetoed.
the "Presidential-Veto" can be over-ruled by a consensus of moderators
and since bans are already agreed upon by a consensus of moderators, i'm not sure the "Presidential-Veto" will be particularly effective
-->
@RationalMadman
Sorry RM, I am done playing polite with you. You are being a huge douchebag to airmax, and it's pathetic. Especially coming from someone who seeks to represent the community and the website.You were never polite to me, so much so you even disrespected consent regarding screenshots of me elsewhere.You are a very impolite guy overall and pride yourself on being it so I'm unsure why this would be something you think would surprise me. You have been a complete displeasure to deal with during this campaign process, not because you are against me but the way you've done it. You go beyond what others do and directly try to make me seem evil and sinister.
it's like watching a master-class on how NOT to negotiate consensus
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
I agree that past administrations have had some issues with bans with hate speech have been questionable to say the least, but hate speech is a tricky topic to set rules for (I think we talked about this once)
-->
@3RU7AL
I'd disagree. In fact I think it would be effective that moderation look back onto a ban a president vetoed and see if it is truly ban worth.
I do not support a Mesmer ban at all and I think if the president makes a good case, it would convince the team to vote to unban Mesmer
Of course, with no disrespect to the team. Chris, Whiteflame, and Ragnar are all good friends of mine which opinions I value, I just simply disagree with the ban that happened
-->
@3RU7AL
it's like watching a master-class on how NOT to negotiate consensus
Are you referring to him or me?
-->
@Vader
@3RU7AL
@3RU7AL:
the "Presidential-Veto" can be over-ruled by a consensus of moderatorsand since bans are already agreed upon by a consensus of moderators, i'm not sure the "Presidential-Veto" will be particularly effective
Very well-put. When SupaDudz delineated the capacity of the office, it's as though many overlooked the fine-print.
@SupaDudz:
I'd disagree. In fact I think it would be effective that moderation look back onto a ban a president vetoed and see if it is truly ban worth.I do not support a Mesmer ban at all and I think if the president makes a good case, it would convince the team to vote to unban Mesmer
But the veto's efficacy doesn't stand against the consensus of your moderation team, which serves as basis for a ban's proposal and implementation. The president can attempt to convince the moderation team against a decision that was previously made, but that's NOT a veto, much less a reflection of a veto's effectiveness.
-->
@Vader
I agree that past administrations have had some issues with bans with hate speech have been questionable to say the least, but hate speech is a tricky topic to set rules for (I think we talked about this once)
The reasons given for Mesmer's ban which weren't based on the suspicion of multiaccounting are exactly what I feared the rule would be misused for. One was a clear attempt at satire, the other a perfectly legitimate scientific(biological) debate that touched on race based around the prevalence of a certain gene. That ban was carried out less than half a year ago. It's painfully clear that this is being used to cull people on an ideological basis; if you're right-leaning in any sense and touch on race apparently it means that you 'invite and mimic a cesspool of white supremacist thought'. Never mind that scientific race realism (what I saw as Mesmer's whole shtick) sees white people as mediocre by every metric; it'd make more sense to call such an ideology 'Asian-supremacist' or 'Jewish-supremacist'.
Also, it's ridiculous to uphold previous permabans with no chance of appeal when you admit that the rules have been twisted and misapplied in the past. You could count the number of well-known permabanned users on DDO on one or two hands. This site drops the ban hammer judiciously to say the least, and there's no appeals process in place.
-->
@Athias
the "Presidential-Veto" can be over-ruled by a consensus of moderatorsand since bans are already agreed upon by a consensus of moderators, i'm not sure the "Presidential-Veto" will be particularly effectiveVery well-put. When SupaDudz delineated the capacity of the office, it's as though many overlooked the fine-print.
To be clear, I was not the one who made the document but I did have a say into what was in the document
@SupaDudz:I'd disagree. In fact I think it would be effective that moderation look back onto a ban a president vetoed and see if it is truly ban worth.I do not support a Mesmer ban at all and I think if the president makes a good case, it would convince the team to vote to unban MesmerBut the veto's efficacy doesn't stand against the consensus of your moderation team, which serves as basis for a ban's proposal and implementation. The president can attempt to convince the moderation team against a decision that was previously made, but that's NOT a veto, much less a reflection of a veto's effectiveness.
It is still a veto of the ban. Just like in the real congress, they may overturn a veto with a super majority vote
-->
@3RU7AL
the "Presidential-Veto" can be over-ruled by a consensus of moderatorsand since bans are already agreed upon by a consensus of moderators, i'm not sure the "Presidential-Veto" will be particularly effective
If this is true than it needs to be corrected LOL.
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
The reasons given for Mesmer's ban which weren't based on the suspicion of multiaccounting are exactly what I feared the rule would be misused for. One was a clear attempt at satire, the other a perfectly legitimate scientific(biological) debate that touched on race based around the prevalence of a certain gene.That ban was carried out less than half a year ago. It's painfully clear that this is being used to cull people on an ideological basis; if you're right-leaning in any sense and touch on race apparently it means that you 'invite and mimic a cesspool of white supremacist thought'. Never mind that scientific race realism (what I saw as Mesmer's whole shtick) sees white people as mediocre by every metric; it'd make more sense to call such an ideology 'Asian-supremacist' or 'Jewish-supremacist'.
I would have to agree that I believe past administration definitely leaned more toward the left and I feel what you are saying then is the case, but I hope for the future I will be able to allow more topics to occur on such issues as my time here as mod and to only ban when it comes to harassment, targeted harassment, and doxing.
Also, it's ridiculous to uphold previous permabans with no chance of appeal when you admit that the rules have been twisted and misapplied in the past. You could count the number of well-known permabanned users on DDO on one or two hands. This site drops the ban hammer judiciously to say the least, and there's no appeals process in place.
You are able to appeal a permaban and in fact to approve the appeal of a permaban under our administration.
-->
@Vader
I would have to agree that I believe past administration definitely leaned more toward the left
The left right paradigm shouldn't even matter, regarding this topic. You can oppose free speech in a more general sense and also realize it is stupid to do when having academic discussions or on a debate site.
-->
@Vader
To be clear, I was not the one who made the document but I did have a say into what was in the document
I would presume as much.
It is still a veto of the ban. Just like in the real congress, they may overturn a veto with a super majority vote
Yes, but unlike real congress, the implementation of a proposal doesn't require a super majority vote. So, let's for argument's sake, entertain the notion that you and your moderation team are considering a ban. You bring forth this proposal to the president after a majority of you have already made your considerations one way or the other on said ban. The president decides to exercise his or her veto. What does the veto actually do? If the majority of the moderation team proceed with their considerations in favor of banning, then what has the veto in essence done? I suppose one could argue that the veto in effect provides a temporary stay allowing the president the attempt to have you and your team reconsider, but this is already a function of his or her office, i.e. to "advise" you. In effect, the veto is more superficial than effective.
-->
@Vader
You are able to appeal a permaban and in fact to approve the appeal of a permaban under our administration.
As an aside, why are these two users still banned even though the ban expired years ago? It seems like the ban should lift once the ban end date passes. These both ended in Nov2019.
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
KL is because he got a new account, that's all I know for sure with him. Plisken I got no idea.
-->
@Vader
It is still a veto of the ban. Just like in the real congress, they may overturn a veto with a super majority vote
would that happen to be a 3-out-of-4 "super-majority" at the moment ?
-->
@whiteflame
Can you take a look at post 117 and fix that please?