-->
@HistoryBuff
GP is a moron. He claims to be a teacher. I think he is lying. Maybe he’s a substitute teacher but even that would be scary.
Trump accomplice is facing disbarment for his role in 2020 election legal opinion
Posts
Total:
104
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you have any evidence it was Trump and not FBI leakers from the SCIF that ruined case evidence? You do know Trump has no access to the SCIF, right?
It's not being held in a SCIF, the materials were given to Trump's attorneys.
"Defendants shall only have access to Discovery Materials under the direct supervision of Defense Counsel or a member of Defense Counsel’s staff. Defendants shall not retain copies of Discovery Material," the ruling said."
We don't know who leaked the documents but we do know they leaked almost immediately after they were turned over to the Trump team, and let's not forget the FBI had to get them from somewhere so someone else more than likely retained copies of them. To accuse the FBI of leaking them is baseless and defies Occam's razor.
-->
@Greyparrot
You realize that Trump can easily go to jail for contempt if he released those FBI photos/docs/tapes to the media.
Lol they have audio recordings of him admitting to crimes that carry a penalty of like 15 years. Contempt is the absolute least of his worries. His only hope is to win the election and pardon himself. He will do literally anything to win the next election.
Do you have any evidence it was Trump and not FBI leakers from the SCIF that ruined case evidence? You do know Trump has no access to the SCIF, right?
all evidence of the case was turned over to trump and his attorneys. They were given copies of the photos and audio recordings.
Admittedly, there's motive on both sides to sabotage the investigation as both have something to gain, but the FBI clearly has more access and cover to do it than dumbass Trump.
trump doesn't need cover. As long as no definitive evidence comes to light that it was him, he's fine. And even if he did get caught, so what? He is looking at potentially decades in prison (which for him is a life sentence). He has nothing to lose. Leaking some of the more damning evidence early in little bits and pieces will allow his cultists to dismiss it drip by incriminating drip so that by election time they don't care that there is incontrovertible proof that he is a criminal. His only hope is that he can get elected before being either convicted or so much evidence coming to light at trial that he is unelectable. A pardon is his only hope.
-->
@whiteflame
@oromagi
GP is a moron. He claims to be a teacher. I think he is lying. Maybe he’s a substitute teacher but even that would be scary.
Where the fuck are you to police this targetted harassment, huh?
Are you actually that genuinely naive to think IWRA is the victim and GP is the harasser?
-->
@Greyparrot
Please make sure you report every single time IWRA targets you with insults and personalised sadistic remarks.
-->
@whiteflame
@oromagi
That’s bullshit. You are such a moron who demonstrates uninformed opinions on everything you comment on. You are a dummy
Is this targeted harassment from IWRA as he has been doing to multiple users for a long time now?
Which is it dummy?
You are such a dummy to not understand this and to think someone can go to court to express politics.
We are a very wealthy Banana Republic then that pays all the taxes to support the loser red states that have no money so guys like you can eek out a living working for the school district
This thread alone. :)
Remember this too:
GP is a moron. He claims to be a teacher. I think he is lying. Maybe he’s a substitute teacher but even that would be scary.
“This website was a good time. It was a toxic fun mess. I was a fucking beast at grinding the rating and probably am the most capable human being on Earth at (excuse the pun) mass-debating without wasting too much time or effort. The key was the lack of effort and time I put into debate, that was what made me dangerous, I was a grinder like no other has been or will be.
I grinded this website across the board, annihilating every statistic you could measure activity by. Then they fucked me over twice in an election, then the owner returned to do the most shit update he could have to the rating system and cucked all us noobsnipers. It catapulted me to the ending you see now….I think most are pathetic lonely souls like I was”
Nobody needs the opinion or input from a nut job who would write this kind of a self pitying, sour grapes manifesto.
-->
@RationalMadman
@IwantRooseveltagain
I'll make a general post about it later today, but since a lot of the activity over it is happening here, I'll give you the short version.
There are a number of people whose personal attacks against others have been a problem for a while now, IWRA included. And part of the reason we haven't acted against it is that there's been a lot of reciprocal behavior. We've let it drag on too long, so some people have felt the need to defend themselves or lash out in response.
So, this will serve as a general first warning. If you have a history of engaging in this type of behavior, whether that involves insulting someone's intelligence, posting call-out threads, nicknaming them in ways clearly intended to harass, and you keep it up, you will receive a personal second warning. If we see it again, we'll start handing out bans and ROs as needed.
The above post from IWRA will serve as an example. While IWRA is welcome to say anything he wants about what RM says, calling him a "nut job" is clearly a personal insult. Similar name-calling is an insult. Making a mockery of someone's line of work is an insult. Continuing to do so will no longer be tolerated from any party.
-->
@whiteflame
Well it needs to be consistent. About half the people posting here would be subject to banning.
What about spreading misinformation? Is that going to be tolerated? You have people here constantly spreading lies. Is this going to become a site to spread misinformation and harm democracy? Is that what you want?
What about hate speech? Why are you more concerned about personal attacks than the kind of hate speech that can lead to violence? Banning hate speech should have priority over stopping personal attacks. I have reported hate speech in the past and nothing happens. You don’t even remove the posts.
So you think personal attacks are a problem here but spreading lies, misinformation and hate speech is under control on this site? You can’t be serious or are you just resigned to becoming another place on the internet for the lunatics to have free reign?
Personal attacks are an effective way to let people know that their nonsense and uninformed opinions are not ok. They need to be called out. And arguing respectfully and reasonably with an unreasonable person is a fool’s errand.
Is this going to become a site to spread misinformation and harm democracy? Is that what you want?
Are your attempts to shame people with personal trivia going to stop them from posting what they believe? I didn't think so.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
My goal is to improve our consistency and the idea would not be to go through past posts and find all the people who have violated rules before. The goal would be to enforce it going forward.
Our goal as moderators is not to police what people post as regards information/misinformation, so no, you won't be seeing us remove posts because we've got problems with whether or not we think they are lying. That's never been the way moderation has functioned on this site.
As for hate speech, I think there's room for discussion on what constitutes hate speech and how we should enforce it. If someone is actively calling to cause harm to a given population, then yes, I think those posts warrant removal, the poster should receive a warning, and further posts of that kind should result in a ban. If you've got examples of those, send them to me and I'll go over them. What I've seen from your reports are not calls for violence. In general, I haven't seen many posts that incite violence, even if they are posts I find problematic. We're not just going to remove posts because people express opinions that are otherizing.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Are your attempts to shame people with personal trivia going to stop them from posting what they believe?
Yes it is, although I don’t know what you mean by “trivia”. They need to realize what they believe is nonsense.
-->
@whiteflame
Our goal as moderators is not to police what people post as regards information/misinformation, so no, you won't be seeing us remove posts because we've got problems with whether or not we think they are lying. That's never been the way moderation has functioned on this site.
So you are going to allow this site to become a place to spread misinformation. Gee, that’s terrific. At least Twitter and Facebook try to tamp down the misinformation so as to not become a place for undermining our democracy. I guess DART is destined to become another wack job haven for conspiracy theorists and racists.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Yes, and Twitter and Facebook hire a lot of people to do that work. You have a small set of volunteer moderators. We're not going to peruse every post to see whether it's presenting misinformation. For that matter, part of the point of a debate site is to allow the members to debate issues like this and establish what is misinformation. We aren't Twitter or Facebook, and claiming that a small website like this somehow undermines "our democracy" seems more than a little melodramatic.
-->
@whiteflame
As for hate speech, I think there's room for discussion on what constitutes hate speech and how we should enforce it. If someone is actively calling to cause harm to a given population, then yes, I think those posts warrant removal, the poster should receive a warning, and further posts of that kind should result in a ban.
Well you have not done that in the past. It would be a good idea. But only if they are “actively calling to cause harm” is inadequate and you know it. It’s not like hate speech is new in this country and we have seen the results. Asians being assaulted during Covid. Gays being dragged behind pickup trucks. Blacks being lynched.
The anti trans talk on this site is an absolute disgrace and you are concerned about me calling someone dummy. What an embarrassment.
-->
@whiteflame
and claiming that a small website like this somehow undermines "our democracy" seems more than a little melodramatic.
You are certainly doing your worst
-->
@whiteflame
For that matter, part of the point of a debate site is to allow the members to debate issues like this and establish what is misinformation.
The only way to respond to these kind of conspiracy theorists is with derision. You CANNOT reason with them. You have to show them this is not welcome speech here so move on to some other place or go back in your hole. Look how Trump made it ok for racists to raise their heads again. The nut jobs felt empowered again and it ended with an insurrection.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
If you want to argue for a change in existing policy as regards hate speech, be my guest. I have a number of issues with how certain topics are generally presented and argued on this site, but I'm not going to use my position to take down arguments I disagree with, even if part of the reason I disagree is that I think they're points that do otherize and harm the mental well-being of others. People are still allowed to express their opinions on these issues so long as they don't push it into territory that encourages violence. If you think that point comes sooner than the existing policy addresses, make your case that the policy should be changed, but don't expect that moderation will just up and change the policy independently.
-->
@whiteflame
What I've seen from your reports are not calls for violence.
Bullshit, I flagged BestKorea not long ago for saying gays or transgender people should be killed. You did nothing.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The only way to respond to these kind of conspiracy theorists is with derision. You CANNOT reason with them. You have to show them this is not welcome here so move on to some other place or go back in your hole. Look how Trump made it ok for racists to raise their heads again. The nut jobs felt empowered again and it ended with an insurrection.
...yeah, that's not how moderation is going to respond. You can be derisive of their arguments, but that doesn't require personal attacks.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Bullshit, I flagged BestKorea not long ago for saying gays or transgender people should be killed. You did nothing.
He did not call for their deaths, no. He claimed that it's established in the Bible that they should be killed. That's not calling for killing.
-->
@whiteflame
People are still allowed to express their opinions on these issues so long as they don't push it into territory that encourages violence.
So people can post here that transgender people are grooming children and are all pedophiles but calling someone dumb for saying that is over the line.
You are beautiful
-->
@whiteflame
He did not call for their deaths, no. He claimed that it's established in the Bible that they should be killed. That's not calling for killing.
Are you serious? It absolutely is calling for killing and claiming a higher authority for the killing. And It it’s a lie and misinformation.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
So people can post here that transgender people are grooming children and are all pedophiles but calling someone dumb for saying that is over the line.You are beautiful
And you can still respond to those people by pointing out the flaws in their views.
I really don't care if you feel that there's a better target for moderation to hit. The policy regarding personal attacks and harassment has been around for a long time and I still think it's more than appropriate to enforce it. If you think we should have policies against other types of speech, then I don't know why you're arguing it with me. That's a site-wide issue, and one I'm not going to change unilaterally.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Are you serious? It absolutely is calling for killing and claiming a higher authority for the killing. And It it’s a lie and misinformation.
I disagree with it being a call for anything, or claiming that anyone is justified in engaging in killing. As for it being "a lie and misinformation," that, again, is something we do not enforce.
-->
@whiteflame
yeah, that's not how moderation is going to respond. You can be derisive of their arguments, but that doesn't require personal attacks.
Oh, so I can say that’s a stupid argument or that’s an argument only a dummy would make and it would be a problem, is that correct?
You are setting yourself up to fail. You will get hundreds of flagged comments. You will respond to some and not to others making your enforcement inconsistent and then you’ll say DART doesn’t have the resources to have consistent enforcement.
-->
@whiteflame
I disagree with it being a call for anything, or claiming that anyone is justified in engaging in killing.
Then you are demonstrating you don’t have the judgment to be a moderator.
What if Oragami disagrees with you and says it is a call for violence?
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Oh, so I can say that’s a stupid argument or that’s an argument only a dummy would make and it would be a problem, is that correct?You are setting yourself up to fail. You will get hundreds of flagged comments. You will respond to some and not to others making your enforcement inconsistent and then you’ll say DART doesn’t have the resources to have consistent enforcement.
Saying it's a stupid argument is fine. Saying it's "an argument only a dummy would make" is a personal attack because it's saying that the person making it is, and I can't believe I'm having to explain this, a dummy.
I hear your concerns. I'm going to do it anyway.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Then you are demonstrating you don’t have the judgment to be a moderator
*shrug* I'm not looking for your endorsement.
-->
@whiteflame
Saying it's a stupid argument is fine. Saying it's "an argument only a dummy would make" is a personal attack because it's saying that the person making it is, and I can't believe I'm having to explain this, a dummy.
I can’t believe I have to explain I would not be calling them a dummy directly.