Perhaps a referendum on what a president even is and can vs cannot do?
Perhaps shorter terms than 1 year?
Open to any ideas.
Unofficial MEEP on removing Wylted as president and enacting a reelection.
Posts
Total:
38
-->
@oromagi
As someone who cares very much for the finer details of things like this, your input would be appreciated.
I thought I was the president now?
Anyway, if I am not, then I vote for Wylted to be the president.
-->
@RationalMadman
My view is remove Wylted from the post of presidency, (For obvious reasons)
And Leave the post of president empty, until December.
I'm fine with the yearly presidency,
One doesn't need a change of the post all 'that frequently.
-->
@Best.Korea
Wylted and badger support you, along with others, being banned for content you post. Simultaneously they have completely tarnished and trolled the DART subforum.
-->
@RationalMadman
Wylted and badger support you, along with others, being banned for content you post. Simultaneously they have completely tarnished and trolled the DART subforum.
Does not mean that "I vote for Wylted" is not true. While it is true that there were certain disagreements between me and Wylted, I dont see why that would change my vote. Therefore, I vote for Wylted to remain president.
-->
@Lemming
Leave the post of president empty, until December.
Anarchy until December? No. I will not vote for anarchy.
-->
@Best.Korea
The president doesn't have 'no power,
Doesn't do 'nothing,
But they don't have that much power,
And they don't do that much.
I 'think.
-->
@Lemming
I cant agree that "president does nothing", nor would that help your argument. If true, then it is pointless to remove president and to have no president. The removal of president results in nothing good. It is a waste of action, really.
-->
@Best.Korea
I didn't say 'nothing,
But they don't do 'that much.
Nice to have a voice for the users on the site,
But if a president was voted in that behaved in a way that got them banned,
Well,
Voters get what they deserve.
"President’s Role
In order to allow more accurate & direct community representation, the DebateArt President, a delegate elected by and from the DebateArt community, advises and assists the moderation team in making day-to-day decisions and organizing site events.
While not a moderating role, the President does retain limited powers with their position, including:
- The ability to communicate within a moderation team chat (via Discord) in order to give input on all forms of daily decision-making. Except when completely untenable, the mod team will strive to ensure the President’s viewpoint is heard and honored.
- The ability to approve or veto permanent ban propositions. Moderation will be required to submit permanent ban propositions to the President for review unless the user in question is a bot or advertising account, the situation is uniquely urgent or severe, the President is absent and/or unreasonably tardy, or the permanent ban proposition targets the President themselves. Vetos may be overridden by a simple majority vote among the moderation team.
- The ability to envision and execute community events, pending the approval and assistance of moderation.
In general, the President will spend the vast majority of their time in service observing the ordinary daily tasks of the moderation team and giving counsel as they see fit."
-->
@Lemming
But if a president was voted in that behaved in a way that got them banned
Wylted didnt ban anyone. He doesnt have ban powers. Its the mods who decide who gets banned.
-->
@Best.Korea
Let's say someone get's voted into office,
Then let's say they break the rules while in office,
Then let's say the mods remove said person as president,
The voters deserve an empty presidents seat until the next election,
For voting such a person in.
-->
@Lemming
Then let's say the mods remove said person as president
I dont think that mods removed Wylted from power.
-->
@Best.Korea
It's theoretical.
-->
@Lemming
Yes, but I am voting against that theory to become reality.
Wylted sometimes takes trolling too far, but during his presidency the amount of bans decreased significantly. The only one who was banned was Poly, but that was a bit hard to avoid anyway.
-->
@Best.Korea
Do you have a link to bans over time?
Or is this a rough estimate based on your perceptions/memory?
Not that I'm saying your memory or perception is wrong,
Just that I don't have access to either.
-->
@Lemming
During Wylted (from year 2023), there was only 1 ban. Poly got banned due to making dozens of criminal accusations.
-->
@Best.Korea
Badger is encouraging many bans and is endorsed by Wylted as his VP
-->
@RationalMadman
I would say its just obvious trolling at this point.
No one got actually banned from that, plus freedom of speech did increase on the site in the past 5 months.
Although freedom of speech might change a bit now with Oromagi being mod and everything.
-->
@Best.Korea
Looking at the thread, you're right,
On the other hand though,
Many of those people merited bans,
Or were banned by request.
Maybe I don't agree with 'all the bans,
But many of them looked valid bans to me,
And did not have to do with freedom of speech.
-->
@Lemming
Previous bans being valid does not change that now there are much less bans.
So either people have more freedom of speech now and arent being banned for it anymore, either people are now much better at obeying the rules.
Whatever it is of those two or both, it happened under Wylted.
Now, I can say for sure that there is more freedom of speech today than there was year ago. Many racist topics are now tolerated. Is that bad? No. It just gives us the chance to deal with racism in a healthy way through debates, as opposed to banning racists.
-->
@Best.Korea
'Or,
Some people aren't being banned who ought be.
Most of the problem people were banned in earlier years, and thus they were not here to be banned now.
Some people took a few years to ban, you can see some people's names repeat over the years until their permanent bans.
Just the luck of the draw that more trolls were there in earlier years.
Even if anyone else had been president,
It's possible the number of bans would not have changed.
I'm not convinced that Wylted actually 'caused any freedom of speech.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The question of what is ban-able 'does confuse me a bit,
Arguments to change legislation,
Arguments that question current logic or morals,
Do not advocate violence directly,
Nor law breaking,
Though there is argument it can cause indirect violence.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
My, Legalize Dueling debates,
No doubt if they changed laws to allow dueling,
Would be seen as horrible murder by many people,
Ought I be banned then?
-->
@Lemming
Some people aren't being banned who ought be.
That means there is more freedom of speech. Therefore, people not being banned for things which they say, for which they would be banned before.
Even if anyone else had been president,It's possible the number of bans would not have changed.
Possible, yes. It could be pure luck. But now when we have results showing much less bans, we shouldnt throw those results away as meaningless.
First: they are result of Wylted's effort
or
Second: they are pure luck.
If we assume second over first, then that would not only be illogical, but we would harm those results if first shows to be actually true. We get nothing if we assume second as true.
My, Legalize Dueling debates,No doubt if they changed laws to allow dueling,Would be seen as horrible murder by many people,Ought I be banned then?
There are plenty of sensitive topics. One point of debate is to see if we are right and how much we are right. There is no reason to ban sensitive topics if you believe your position on them is correct beyond reasonable doubt.
-->
@Best.Korea
Correlation is not causation.
-->
@Lemming
True, but correlation could be causation.
What did Wylted do? Anyone have the original forum posts exemplifying the actions calling for his removal?
-->
@Public-Choice
Well he stepped down supposedly, for one.
Two,
Gave people his accounts password, I 'assume but do not know,
As I haven't tried logging into his account.
"Multi-accounting and any action indistinguishable from it is prohibited. Dispensation may be granted on a case-by-case basis, such as for multiple users within a single residence; but they will have certain restrictions applied (e.g., never voting on each other’s debates)."
Three,
Cursed a fair bit, vulgar tag on a topic,
Hate speech (Though I think hate speech is vague)
"Unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech, are subject to disciplinary actions."
Four,
"Spam is prohibited, and any overtly repetitive nonsensical posts are considered spam."
-->
@Public-Choice
Glad you are back on the site.
What did Wylted do?
Mostly trolling, such as:
Nothing worthy of removal from power, in my view.
-->
@Lemming
Second his position!!!
Course on the other hand,
Maybe it's all an elaborate community event joke by Wylted,
And they have no intention of leaving at all.