My dissatisfaction with ties and unmoderated debates

Joke Debates are a subjective matter. The description stated that which ever side the voter found the funniest, they would vote for. 

I can't explain why I found Conservallectuals side funnier, just the same way I can't explain why I love chicken noodles so much (I do). If you really want an explanation, you took this too seriously, with 3-4 jokes slipped in, while Conservallectual made their jokes open. 

TBH, both sides were unfunny, but at least Conservallectual TRIED to actually be funny. 

I actually love Chinese people. Your nation is a great nation. I am sorry that people who hate China have taken it over. If I was Chinese I would be fighting against the CCP because they are anti Chinese and any ody who supports them hates China. 

No you wouldn't, you absolute spineless coward.

When we had our rivalry in the election you prided yourself on how you brownnose whiteflame and have a better relations with the very mod that later banned you LOL! Or do you accept him scapegoating it to Ragnar?

You have preached to Barney/Ragnar himself about how to blindly follow what your boss tells you even if it's dumb as recently as a week ago if I recall.

You are not a real rebel and preach a lot of things you won't do.

You must like Chiang Kai Shek then. Is that it?

Debating within this format is a very random affair, prone to all sorts of unregulated influences.

Voting is inevitably going to be biased, moderation is biased and whimsical, and ELO is a bit of statistical fancy.

Definitely not to be taken too seriously.

Best just to just enjoy the compositional and mental exercises and then move on to the next, when you have the time and your busy (real life) schedule allows of course.

do you ever dream ?

I assume here is how the conversation took place .

Supa- let's not ban him that's not even really a doc, it is just wylted wanting to inform the authorities of a likely pedophile.

Ragnar-lets give wylted a lifetime ban

Whiteflame- let's be reasonable and give wylted a 30 day ban

Then Ragnar cries like a bitch for a while and they negotiate a 90 day ban. 

Even with me saying that. I absolutely could work with and have a civil relationship with Ragnar as president as well. 

An election you win, would absolutely neuter the position, and to be honest Airmax has not caused any real damage to the position so it wasn't a mistake backing him. The other candidate would have also caused damage to the position so it's good he lost as well

Don't be obtuse. You know the people you see in dreams are not actual consciousness.

about 90+% of the "internal dialog" you imagine "other people" are having "in their own heads"

is you projecting

The entire reason I have wrote this is that I assume Wyited will just assume this means "everyone except him" due to that since he dismiss my logic-based language as "retarded pussy language" or something, I assume he would interpret everything in common sense, which is what this would mean to almost anyone else. In that case, he has essentially hit himself with the foot by not understanding what I have meant.

I don't. What if you are dreamin'? What if I am just a manifestation of your deepest and darkest fears? You don't know. If you can prove it, do so. If you can't, well, I will consider you convinced.

No, I am not saying what you did was wrong. I am not saying that you are saying anything, but you really are not at fault at anything here.

We did not take this debate seriously, and you didn't, and that was understandable. What was not was that the fact this debate is in a rated state, while unmoderated. Your vote is valid in any measure for an unmoderated and unrated debate, and non-valid for any debate that is moderated. I am just saying that all debates that are rated should be moderated. Either moderation, or unratation(that is a word, or is it not?). Ignore Wyited.

The fact is that moderation has mostly been fair, for me at least. I believe this is not an act of bad mod behavior. In fact, if the mods can give a good enough explanation, they will. What I am discontent with is the flaw of the system, that rated debates somehow can be unmoderated means that anarchy and warfare can essentially replace order and justice and voters can just manipulate the leaderboard without the debaters having anything to say. Sure, the ELO is indeed just internet points after all and are no more meaningful than instagram likes, but it is true that for me, ELO has always been just all 2 years before today, and somehow it just broke.

I have to accept this "loss" anyways, but that doesn't mean I give in to the system. Before the introduction of a related new rule, I suggest everyone making their joke debates unrated, because I don't want your internet points manipulated by other people without the Mods having anything to do.

I smell establishment.

I think a no-vote debate shouldn't result in any change in rating. A tied debate that has one or more votes could result in an appropriate change in rating.