Any ideas y’all ?
What is an “extravagant lie?”
Posts
Total:
71
Whiteflame is a fascist.
SupaDudz is a fraud conservative and a neocon
Ragnar is a free speech quasher
Which of these are extravagant lies and which and aren’t?
-->
@ILikePie5
The only wise move you made in the nominations was temporarily endorsing me.
You stepping down for Wylted was the least wise move but to each their own.
I am what I say I am and I do what I say I do. Airmax is as snakey and shady as you are starting to realise he is. I hope you campaign and act wiser next election, I know that I will but I also would prefer a Luna presidency over either a Mikal or Max presidency so we'll see.
-->
@RationalMadman
Max is term limited I believe.
-->
@ILikePie5
It's a 2-term limit, the wording in the document says that you can't have been President for more than 1 term when applying to be a nominee. Not that you can't be for more than 1.
-->
@ILikePie5
Why are we focused on users instead of the stuff they output?
OK, If Whiteflame has posted fascist stuff, he appears to be one, not that he is one. If he does not post fascist stuff, he appears to not be one, not ever saying he is.
If there is no evidence, just disregard them as if they need to be regarded anyways. If there is a dragon in my backyard that can't do anything and takes up no measurable and tangible space, then what is the difference between it and a lack of any dragon at all?
-->
@Intelligence_06
Whiteflame’s a fascist based on his behavior as a mod
-->
@ILikePie5
Whiteflame and Airmax go way, way back.
Having a president this tight with the chief mod is suicidal usage of the balancing power to the moderators.
Airmax and Whiteflame were tight-knit af back in DDO's heyday. Whiteflame was the chief voting moderator whenever nobody else was willing and able/active to be. He was schooled by Airmax on how to moderate and learned from Airmax how to approach moderation.
There would barely ever be a scenario where Whiteflame and Airmax would clash. This is why the only reason to vote Airmax into president's seat was for the popularity factor he promised, and 'activity boom'.
-->
@ILikePie5
From the CoC:
"Extravagant lies, not to be confused with mere context issues, may rise to the level of constituting impersonation."
This mainly enables crack downs on baseless and lengthy criminal conspiracy theories against other members.
Ragnar is a free speech quasher
Nothing extravagant about this claim. The rule even specifies some leeway for context issues.
Whereas if you accused me of being escaped Nazi war criminal Fredrick Von Shithinzer, who has been burning down libraries across the country but the evil liberal media is covering it up... Then there might be an issue.
-->
@Barney
Did you even read the context of what you just pulled out of the CoC? It meant impersonation and only one person has been resopnsible for impersonating me via my profile pic recently. If GreyParrot were to say he's RM on top of using the image and keep the lie going, that would be a usage for that rule, in the context of:
may rise to the level of constituting impersonation.
How can somebody accusing somebody of criminal acts be constituting impersonating them?
I'm not being a dickhead nitpicker here, I have every fucking reason to nitpick, your tyranny found its way to me in 2020 September and believe me I will never forget how you stabbed me in the back, nor David. You will get no mercy from me when and if I am the rightful moderator of this website. I paid attention to every single rule at all times, careful to obey and still I got banned for 2 FUCKING MONTHS over jack shit and double jeopardy abuse despite amnesty promises for asking somebody if they consented to partial doxxing due to their face being on a video elsewhere that I would need to use to show some context (the user is Ramshutu if you are confused what I am referring to).
I do not think it is acceptable how you wield the rules wildly as you fancy. I do agree with Wylted being permanently banned from the website, he doesn't contribute anything positive to the community and several negative things to it. Even when signing up to a tournament, what he did was make a really ridiculous Nazi-based clickbait resolution and forfeit it in the end. He may think he is doing good there with the clickbait, he may believe he was doing good with wanting to dox ADOL but what you need to do is decide for yourself if he obeyed or did not obey the rules.
That is moderation, that is why you had to bite the bullet and not permaban him yet again because when it comes to Wylted, you guys tiptoe like cucks around rightfully permanently banning the guy for continual, intentional abuse of rules, he gets off on it. Whereas if it wasn't for one of the biggest dickheads on the website, Lunatic and the absolute biggest one, Mikal, defending my right to be a dick to them, you'd have banned me for 6 months for being annoying. You have serious issues with comprehending your role as a moderator or what the rules are.
This is also why I am cautious in my approach here as I do not want to fight Whiteflame, he is less of a favoritist mod than you were (despite thinking you favoured me, you ended up doing the polar opposite). He is not a fascist like Ilikepie5 states but there is a serious issue with Airmax, whiteflame's old mentor and friend being his power-balancing position holder, you're not fooling me that's for sure.
Airmax is nowhere near ideal in terms of moderating fairly. He has not got the slightest clue how to moderate, he is good for getting a site popular and that's all I gave a shit about when endorsing him for President's seat.
I know, first hand, personally and possibly and the single best user in DDO's entire history to speak on the matter as I have seen all sides to Airmax, I promise you. All sides, him and I chatted on hangouts and had a couple deep chats as amicable people. I know all sides to him and can tell you this man is not fit for putting justice above friendship, it's his fatal flaw and leads to a nasty streak where enemies of his friends get treated like dirt and his friends get perpetually forgiven.
-->
@Barney
This mainly enables crack downs on baseless and lengthy criminal conspiracy theories against other members.
that’s not what it says in the CoC
Nothing extravagant about this claim. The rule even specifies some leeway for context issues.
So you’re saying there was zero logic to Wylted’s claims? Even WF admitted there was a connection. He just thought it was far. Dumb.
Oh btw I think you’re Hitler’s grandchild or something with all of these fascist tendencies
-->
@RationalMadman
The rule would also fit under the harassment heading. It got its assignment due to the intent to deceive others.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3387-gun-control-is-bad my new debate on gun control, I am waiting for a contender. I am anti gun control
-->
@ILikePie5
This mainly enables crack downs on baseless and lengthy criminal conspiracy theories against other members.that’s not what it says in the CoC
Context.
Nothing extravagant about this claim. The rule even specifies some leeway for context issues.So you’re saying there was zero logic to Wylted’s claims? Even WF admitted there was a connection. He just thought it was far. Dumb.
You are trying to distort the matter, to conflate a ban principally over attempted doxing to be over another matter noted in it. The other offenses in isolation would have almost certainly just netted a warning.
Oh btw I think you’re Hitler’s grandchild or something with all of these fascist tendencies
That is very informative as to the level of your mental and emotional development.
It is my understanding that the presidents don't moderate they are called in if there's an issue to maybe speak on behalf of a board member but they don't actually do any moderation and my mistaken on that?
-->
@Barney
You are trying to distort the matter, to conflate a ban principally over attempted doxing to be over another matter noted in it. The other offenses in isolation would have almost certainly just netted a warning.
So why is it listed as a reason for the ban?
That is very informative as to the level of your mental and emotional development.
I think both of those are fine. You on the other hand…Sheesh.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
They have veto power and access to the mod chat. They can discuss options. Airmax wasn’t even present for the discussion. He hasn’t even been on the site for a week. If that’s not neglecting his duty, idk what is
-->
@ILikePie5
I think president is a worthless office to begin with it's basically saying the mods are too lazy to do anything we'll let this person do stuff. And supposedly we've had a president all the time I didn't know who it was before this person so they didn't do anything either.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I think president is a worthless office to begin with it's basically saying the mods are too lazy to do anything we'll let this person do stuff. And supposedly we've had a president all the time I didn't know who it was before this person so they didn't do anything either.
I disagree. The President has veto power on bans and has the capacity to influence moderation. The President was elected by the people and for the people. He’s our last resort to the authoritarianism of the mods.
-->
@ILikePie5
Do I need to break everything down for you Barney style?
-->
@Barney
Do I need to break everything down for you Barney style?
I think you need to gtfo out of the mod chat and relinquish any mod powers you may still possess
There is a difference between a dox and freedom of speech. The constitution allows you to speak freely unless you spark unneeded fear or such. You would still be arrested for screaming "he's got a gun" in a movie theatre when he didn't have a gun.
It doesn't matter if the user was OK with it. If an user was OK with being doxx, that doesn't take away from the action
-->
@Vader
There is a difference between a dox and freedom of speech. The constitution allows you to speak freely unless you spark unneeded fear or such. You would still be arrested for screaming "he's got a gun" in a movie theatre when he didn't have a gun.It doesn't matter if the user was OK with it. If an user was OK with being doxx, that doesn't take away from the action
This is not the topic of the thread. What is an extravagant lie. According to Ragnar, it’s some made up fantasy that isn’t present anywhere in the CoC. So his and frankly all of y’all’s tendencies are authoritarian.
Makes sense coming from two liberals and neocon Romney supporter. How you likin KBJ.
-->
@Barney
@Vader
@whiteflame
@ILikePie5
I don't see the utility in personal attacks against the moderators. I am sure Supa, Ragnar and Whiteflame intended to accomplish a result that was reasonable and fair. The personal attacks distract from the issues at hand and cause all parties to become more entrenched in their positions, for personal reasons, rather than work cooperatively to come up with some kind of solution. Those personal attacks are also against your own interests, for the same reason. If the goal is to get these individuals to change their mind, these accusations aren't moving the ball forward:
Whiteflame is a fascist.SupaDudz is a fraud conservative and a neoconRagnar is a free speech quasher
Now, where I stand on these issues is a matter of record. While I'm sure there is room for reasonable disagreement, the decision reflected in the moderation log is one I find regretful, including for reasons I have previously stated. I would invite all participants in that decision to engage in a dialogue, potentially because the language used may not have reflected the actual reasons why Wylted's latest incarnation was banned. Perhaps, after a more thoughtful consideration of the issues in play a resolution of these matters can be reached on terms that are at least understood as fair by all of us --- which is currently not the case.
I will also state, as a matter of record:
- Whiteflame obviously is not a fascist of any kind (the accusation is preposterous);
- Supa is not a fraud of any kind, conservative or otherwise, and I have found his political views to be reasonable in the past, particularly as they relate to a certain mayor and a certain governor (and I share those views); and
- Ragnar is not a "free speech quasher," whatever that is, if it can even be defined (which I question).
Each of these folks have been rational in the past and none of them have demonstrated any propensity to act arbitrarily. So I am sure that some understanding here can be reasonably reached.
-->
@coal
@ILikePie5
First and foremost, I would like to apologize for not responding timely. I have been swamped with school work this semester with some hard business classes that I've been taken, so I have taken a step back in direct moderation. I was confident enough to allow them to take place, but here will be my take on each warrant for the ban
Firstly, moderation is an enforcer for the Code of Conduct. Moderation is responsible for the enforcing of the code of conduct as a whole, not creating it. We can hold referendums (which one will be coming at the end of May) to change the Code of Conduct of the site, but we do not create the rules of the land. I think this is a common misconception of what we do
Now I will respond to the following reasons Wylted was ban. My original suggestion was 30 days, but after reading it over, I still, would have banned Wylted, but not for the period of time I originally suggested and instead ban him for 14 days looking back at it
==============
In my calculations, I did not take into account of the second rule, which is the call out thread rule. I disagree with the rule in place and in my version of the revision to the CoC, we would be removing this clause from the CoC. My point still stands on this. Call out threads are not harmful in anyway
Second, with regards to doxxing, the CoC specifically states "If a user intentionally exposes or threatens to expose the sensitive information of another user"
There is this post, regarded to by Wylted
Everybody on this board who cares about children should be defending them to ADOL and engaging his arguments. I would also request anyone who is good at doing so, to work on doxxing him. This includes mods as well. Feel free to email me any information you find to [censored]. I will get ahold of police departments in his area to make sure he is being watched and does not have contact with children.
Wylted intentionally threatens for people to find information about him. He encourages the behavior of doxxing by telling people to doxx. This is a threat and a call to action. While I understand the argument against, I believe a threat to expose is an encouragement for people to do such a thing. It would be targeted harassment with the intent to doxx that user, which I believe is a CoC violation
Third, I will look to the extravagant lies part of the ban, which I am seeing in a different lens and would like to take back what I said about the extravagent lies. Extravagent lies DOES exist in the CoC, but it does not relate to the issue of harassments but for the issue of impersonation of account. Looking to that, I would say that is the incorrect way of phrasing the ban and looking at the COC, while it can be done as an harrassment, I would not consider this the case due to ADOL self inflicted wounds in the scenario, all attacks were fair game, and personally, I did not see any CoC violations.
==================
Now to respond to Pie's point, "If someone doesn't mind it, why should it be banned?"
Because that is not how the world works. We do not care if someone does or doesn't mind it. If someone does something negative to someone but that person does not care, that does not mean that person is not punished. A crime is still a crime, even if that person did not mind the crime happening to them, which is how people enforce. We do not care if the other cop was fine with speeding, we are not enforcing behavior based on that cop.
Because that is not how the world works. We do not care if someone does or doesn't mind it. If someone does something negative to someone but that person does not care, that does not mean that person is not punished. A crime is still a crime, even if that person did not mind the crime happening to them, which is how people enforce. We do not care if the other cop was fine with speeding, we are not enforcing behavior based on that cop.
-->
@Vader
Looking to that, I would say that is the incorrect way of phrasing the ban and looking at the COC, while it can be done as an harrassment, I would not consider this the case due to ADOL self inflicted wounds in the scenario, all attacks were fair game, and personally, I did not see any CoC violations.
I have one problem with this and that is that fabricated quotes are not self-inflicted wounds. That did fall under the umbrella of impersonation.
-->
@Vader
Because that is not how the world works. We do not care if someone does or doesn't mind it. If someone does something negative to someone but that person does not care, that does not mean that person is not punished. A crime is still a crime, even if that person did not mind the crime happening to them, which is how people enforce. We do not care if the other cop was fine with speeding, we are not enforcing behavior based on that cop.
That’s a false dichotomy. Harassing isn’t like murder in any sense. The two are inherently different, which accounts for the different standard of punishment. The point is that the bar for harassment is inherently different. I could see RM responding to me even though he is blocked as harassment, but as mods you won’t take any action. I could’ve reported Lunatic for the call out thread a while back as “harassment” but I saw it as free speech. The point is that there’s a double standard here. There is zero consistency in your rulings.
As for doxxing, again. If mods can dox someone cause they “think” someone may commit self harm, then why is this not allowed. If he threatened to publically post the information, I would agree. But he did it for the same reason you as mods would call the police. To notify them of something that deserves to be said.
-->
@ILikePie5
That's true actually, Lunatic directly harassed you during the campaign and they didn't act on it because you were okay with it.
-->
@ILikePie5
Harassing isn’t like murder in any sense.
How you jumped from Supa mentioning speeding to thinking he talked about murder, is mind boggling.
There is zero consistency in your rulings.
Dox = ban. Quite consistent.
While true we did not permaban Wylted as you would seemingly prefer for the sake of perfect consistency, there is still a consistent occurrence of bans.
And yes, writing "I would also request anyone who is good at doing so, to work on doxxing him." Is a clear as day violation of the no-doxing rule.