How to campaign respectfully, the importance of tempered reason and free speech

I appreciate anybody reading this campaign update. It shows you care about the future of the site and want to stay up to date, even if you don’t happen to support me. This is going to cover a few things, feel free to skip around if you think a topic is not relevant to the election.


Why we need debate on a debate site

I found an article recently that stated the following

“our organization might prefer consensus and harmony.  In creative settings where the stakes are high, it is imperative to stimulate debate and criticism to improve the quality of ideas. Dissenting for the sake of dissenting is not useful, but when it is authentic, it stimulates thought. The secret to success is sincerity. Obligation to dissent is critical.  Everyone with a critical opinion should always speak up about it.  Dissenting opinions are useful even when they are wrong, as they clarify and embolden everyone’s thinking.” https://www.thnk.org/insights/building-a-culture-that-welcomes-dissent/

There is a lot of studies backing up that point as well, feel free to read through the article. Banning certain opinions shouldn’t be done. The only exceptions should be for legal reasons or for things that actually prevent free speech. Spamming would harm the free marketplace of ideals, as well as bullying and threats. Any promotion of illegal activity (not glorification) would also put the site in jeapordy as well as the free marketplace of ideals by extension.

We can see in this election how having a dissenting opinion is valuable. I can tell by reading through this thread. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7129-why-you-should-not-vote-for-rationalmadman

that RM’s platform has been altered by meeting the marketplace of ideals. It’s still got the same core arguments, but should I lose to him, I would feel proud that I had some part in helping him craft a better platform that will be better for the site.

Despite RM benefiting from the free marketplace of ideals, he still seems to snub it. That’s fine, the biggest enemy of free speech, has always been free speech. It’s legitimately easier to attack, because it welcomes attack.

The best evidence for free open speech and dissent being a good thing on this site, is how well RM’s platform has evolved because of it. Read the first few pages of this thread to see what the early version of his message looked like.

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7106-a-witch-a-thang-a-yin-a-yang-a-rational-man-and-a-boomerang

the last few pages of this thread show what his message has improved to.

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7129-why-you-should-not-vote-for-rationalmadman

Don’t get me wrong, I still think his platform is weaker than mine, which can be seen here. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7117-build-back-dart-better-campaign-announcement


The proper way to campaign for me

Message spamming people is against the rules on this site. However I want to explain what spam is and is not. RM has indicated he believes that any campaign related emails are spam. The mods can feel free to correct me, but I think he is handcuffing himself a little much in this respect.

If you have a relationship with somebody and routinely message them on the site, than it is not spam to send a message to your friend saying “I think RM is the best candidate and voting started today, please vote”.

The spam they don’t allow is just randomly sending messages to everyone in your in box who has ever messaged you, or really anyone you don’t have a prior warm relationship to. I have to be more careful than my supporters. I will probably only send reminders to people who have contacted me during this election cycle.

There is this instinct with some people to never go in that gray area, but the election by it’s nature is competitive, and if you aren’t playing all the way to the edge (ethically) than you are unfairly handcuffing yourself.

I would like to take this time to remind my more vocal supporters, not to attack RM personally. He’s pushed my buttons and I have done some things I am not proud of in response, but I for the most part have not got personal with him. I expect the same from you. If he pushes your buttons and you feel emotional, walk away. Count to 3. breathe. Then go make a thoughtful response or just none at all.

RM is a human being. He is deserving of love. More so than love, he is deserving of respect. He shouldn’t be abused, just because he cares enough about the site, that he has decided to run for president and be a lightning rod of criticism. That is a very brave thing for him to do, and he should be commended.

Oppose him, not by attacking him, but by talking to fence sitters about why his policies are bad or why he would be bad for the position. (Using only actions made during this campaign) . If you want to, make threads where you hyper focus on a single problem with his platform or even his temperament. Be careful with the latter though, as it can drift into a personal attack if you don’t guard yourself.

RM lacks Tempered Reason

Speaking of temperament. I want to point out, that by it’s nature the office of presidency is a very diplomatic position. In my campaign thread I mentioned why I would be better at diplomacy than an RM.

However, we have some recent examples of RM, lashing out with the very people who he needs to persuade once he is in office. The examples appear elsewhere but occur strongly in this thread. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7118-should-we-crack-down-on-members-of-the-religion-forum

His interactions with the head mod starts on page 2 and continues until page 3. It takes 5 minutes to read and you can all judge for yourself whether these are interactions that are likely to be persuasive to somebody who has the power to implement the changes you want to see.

RM knows that not only are members of the religion forum important to how this election turns out, but that the atheists are more likely to like my message, so his response is to lose his temper and try to make me look bad by pulling up old threads. One for an interfaith service for the religion forum and one that argued that the existence of God should be argued in the philosophy question.

Those threads can be found here

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6729-atheists-are-no-longer-welcome-here
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6730-announcing-the-sites-first-worship-service

The threads were obviously made to be tongue in cheek. I am never agnostic but do flip back and forth on whether I believe God is real or not, though recently my belief in him has strengthened, so maybe I am staying theistic.

Take a look back at RM’s campaign thread. I posted in the beginning before deciding to run, a few questions that could help him to ease my concern about what an RM presidency would look like, and that are probably circulating in the heads of fence sitters thinking of voting for him but weren’t entirely decided.

His responses were instead of calmly answering the questions and assuming best intent on my part, he immediately attacked me on a personal level. His responses deeply concerned me. I definitely thought after that, he would be a disaster for the site as president. Beyond that. There is just something about RM that makes me like the guy.

I know, it’s weird. Maybe it is because he has a unique way of looking at the world, maybe it is because I can tell that despite his flaws, he really does have a deep sense of empathy. Either way I can’t help but to like him, so him lashing out at me in the thread and saying he has no respect for me and could care less about my vote, to a certain extent hurt my feelings.

His emotional responses aren’t conducive to good leadership. Good leadership requires tempered reason, when a leader has only soft power on their side, it requires a lot of diplomacy which isn’t something that can be done, when you act without thinking

TLDR

1. Free speech makes us all better
2. campaign for me by being respectful as well as not spamming, while remaining proactive.
3. tempered reason is an important trait in leaders that RM has not displayed an ability to do

The second section of this has campaigning advice to work within the rules of the election. If you see anything incorrect let me know so I can avoid unintentionally causing somebody to break any rules

And we also have examples of me keeping me cool under extreme pressure from Lunatic throughout his thread. I kept my cool throughout, you can call me a hothead all you want.

Please remind us of these friendly questions. :)

I'm glad you kept your cool in that instance. Hopefully we see more of that from you in the future.

Here are the questions.

Question 1

How will you approach forming a working relationship with whiteflame?

Question 2

ll you defend members from unfair censorship, if they have moral values you find repugnant? 


And let's say the defense would be you having to defend their right to argue in favor of something disgusting. For example.

1. A user hates women and posts a bunch of arguments arguing they are inferior in some way. They are then banned for hate speech. Will you defend them? Let's leave out examples of mere proselytizing and promoting hate, those probably should be banned, but just focus on making arguments.  

2. How will you help a user whose posts provide good arguments for an ignorant position, but say supa locks the thread because it could result in a heated debate on a debate site. 


Question 3

Are you capable of proving your ability to use discretion.  The ability to use discretion is important to a working relationship.  Let's say you earn whiteflames trust and he starts leaning heavy on you as an advocate for users he interacts with less than you. 

A lot of those conversations may be very private and ugly facts about users could come out that was only the privy of mods. Say whiteflame concludes a particular case of harassment is not harassment and the user should go unpunished. You guys fight hard over it and he basically says "fuck you, not banning the harasser " . Your only two options are

1. Drop your argument and let the harasser get away with it

Or

2. Air your personal grievances with whiteflame publicly and break his trust and ruin the relationship necessary for a working relationship.

Will you and can you be trusted to take option 1.

I know I have the ability to maintain that relationship with whiteflame and have previously proven it as I have interacted with him a lot off site and we have both told each other personal things, and both of us have seen each other never betray that trust.  Can whiteflame trust you like he trusts me, so a working relationship is possible?

Which emotional responses would they be?

I've kept my cool throughout even when I'm harsh. You're just painting a narrative you want. I believe I have literally lost 0 votes by any move I made, me making clear where I stood with you drove you to replace Pie as the candidate.

Do you realise how much less electable you are than Pie? I'd step down for Oromagi if he truly ran, it's a safer bet for the agenda I believe he'd stand for. You stood in for Pie because you got ties to the OGs and figured you wouldn't lose votes but you did, your antics backfired and your impulses are driving every move you make during this election, from dropping out (fake) from public campaigning (you never really did, just avoided your own thread) to this thread itself.

What exactly is this thread designed to achieve? Make you seem like the humbler party? Let me guess, all the arrogance was satire? Is that your solution to everything? 'I was only kidding'?

Loaded stuff. Your intention was to either make me seem corrupt, baiting me to need to do so or make me seem dumb and incompetent. Either way you'd work behind the scenes to make Pie win. Your plan changed when I told you I don't respect you.

I never dropped out. I said I was suspending campaigning.

those were questions that gave you the opportunity to win over fence sitters leaning towards pie. I think it would do a lot for your outlook on life, if you didn't see every challenge as an attack on you, but perhaps as an opportunity

Which you didn't suspend at all. You even abusively cut a quote off without context to make it seem like I support domestic abuse in your religion forum charade-informing actually-campaigning thread.

Oh it was indeed an opportunity. I chose correct.

Why would me comparing the logic that is used by domestic abusers to the logic you use elsewhere be me painting you as a supporter of domestic abuse?

If you see that, in that way than you need to stop with the victim complex. 

You have to be lying or have some sort of victim complex to take that interpretation away. I saw you do that with lunaticr also where you somehow got confused about an animal abuse analogy.  

That is not how somebody in a healthy mental state interprets that. Stop with the persecution complex. I felt my post in op painted you in a good light and just stuck to discussion of why your responses to conflict and platform were not good for the site or position you want. 

I understand exactly what it says. I'm sorry for replying too fast for you.

You've pushed me too far man, what do you think we just hug and act like friendly opponents now? 

It's not a persecution complex, it's a genuine persecution. I don't fall for this fake shit at all and none of my voters will either. Not one.

You're see-through and I am not your buddy.

Obviously if you have a persecution complex, you would say it is real persecution. You thinking I called you a domestic abuser or taking what lunatic said in a similar vein, makes it obvious you have one to anybody reading those comments from a bird's eye view. 

Why do you think I am not being sincere by saying good things about you? You stated earlier that it hasn't lost you a single vote, or won me any. So why would I say positive things about you?

Let's get beyond this facade of self confidence. I'm going to tell you, you don't need a facade. You are genuinely a good person and I really respect you standing up for what you believe in. 

There's no facade here. However, what is correct is me staying hostile and posting here any longer only fuels your narrative.

I did campaign respectfully. I campaigned by the book. You campaigned like a sleazebag and that's about all I have to say at this point.

Yet even after that, you continuously said I'd make a great or at least fine president if I should win.

Did you think nobody would go and read it? LOL!

This is not true

One should not even acknowledge their opponent in an election, only talk about the issues and what you will do if elected. There is no need to defend yourself against your opponent. Let them talk shit about you all they want, they aren't talking about what they will do if elected. Which is most likely nothing because you live in their head rent free and cant think about anything else. Stay on point and talk about what you will do if elected. Let your opponent show everyone what a shit talker they are and offer nothing to vote for.