Total posts: 2,763
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Supporting a candidate = "sabotaging the election"
Truly, your grasp of logic knows no bounds.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
How tf did I miss that? Wylted, if you do this, I swear I will sabotage every one of your MEEP's.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
For the record, I'm not hoping for you to be punished - I'm just hoping that the moderators issue some sort of statement that awarding a prize to voters of only one side is not acceptable. It sets a worrying precedent for the future in general, if ignored.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Agreed. Curious to see whether any action will be taken.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Is retroactive bribery still bribery? (It probably is, but let's be honest, no one is going to do anything)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@Wylted
Why not just give $25 to one RM voter, and $25 to one Wylted voter? That way, no one could claim deliberate bias in favor of one's side.
Created:
Posted in:
I come back to this site after a few days break and come back to this... idk what even to say
Created:
Posted in:
"Invictus", Willian Ernest Henley
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate,
I am the captain of my soul.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Ties should give both parties the win.1 forfeiture should count as a loss, because then what's the point of forfeiture.
The first suggestion is very open to abuse (e.g. tie-trading), and would also lead to rating inflation.
The second suggestion I think should be implemented as a partial feature. Basically, when creating a debate, there could be a section where "special rules" could be implemented. One of these could be forfeiture = loss.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I've studied chess ELO systems extensively, I'll get back to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Oops, my bad, I forgot to add that. I think we could copy the rating system of a certain chess site, which goes like this:
<=1500: no decay
1501-1600: -1 per week
1601-1700: -2 per week
1701-1800: -3 per week
1801-1900: -4 per week
>= 1901: -5 per week
In order for rating decay to activate, a debater must have:
- Not accepted a debate for two weeks
- From someone within 200 rating points
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
"he has contributed more than Airmax ever has."
That is... not a high standard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
"Do you ever thumbs up posts that you like here? Just curious if you noticed it. I noticed you dont do it elsewhere."
I usually don't thumbs up posts, for two reasons:
First, without a dislike feature, likes are fundamentally meaningless. There's no way to tell the difference between an incredibly unpopular post and an unread one.
Second, if I truly like a post, I'll reply to it and say so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
A few suggestions for the ELO system:
- Increase rating deviation for new debaters (they gain more rating if they win, but lose more rating if they lose)
- E.g. for debate 1 the rating change is x3, then for debate 2 the rating change is x2.5, until it flattens out to x1.
- Implement activity requirement - in order to remain on the leaderboard, you need to have finished a debate in a certain past time period
- Add modified rating decay - after a certain period of no debates, rating decays by 5 per week. However, rating deviation also increases.
- Full forfeitures should give reduced rating
Most of these features are implemented on online chess serves, and they have been fairly effective in accomplishing the three features of a good ELO system:
- Discourages inactivity, while also avoiding an "inactivity trap"
- Allows users to get to their real rating faster
- Encourages a few high-quality matches rather than many low-quality ones
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
What makes SamStevens, or Vaarka, more qualified to vote than I? Considering how they've been inactive for several years, I doubt they know much about you or RM (or at least your respective platforms).
On principle, any disenfranchisement, without clear and just cause, should be avoided.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Under your system, I, someone who has 21 debates, 46 posts, and an unhealthy amount of time on this site, would be excluded from voting.
An activity-based voting requirement would be far more pertinent. Many people would have the foresight to plan a few months in advance, considering that the presidential election comes at a fixed time every year. Few have the time to maintain an army of active multiaccounts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
No accounts less than 3 months old [allowed to vote in the election]
If you ever try to do this, I assure you that I will campaign very vigorously against it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Fair enough. I wish you the best of luck in your positive contributions.
Created:
Posted in:
Someday, regret will come
And along with it -
Remembrance and disappointment.
Alas, that day is not today -
Or the next day - or the day after.
But someday, it will come.
And when that day comes -
I am proud to be one of the few
With no regrets.
Created:
Posted in:
I'd like to personally thank the mods, RM, and Wylted, for an immersive and exciting civic lesson in the influence a single person can have on a close election.
In all seriousness though, I apologize for any drama I indirectly contributed to - that was not my main intention.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
This all could have been avoided if you had clarified your platform before the election started.
Created:
Posted in:
We’re not politically correct here lol
Of course we're not, but I would think a president would be a bit more careful about making a joke about abuse of power.
It was an accident, my bad. I mainly operate from my phone. Butterfingers. You should be unblocked now.
Alright then, all good.
Created:
Posted in:
"It was a joke..." -ILikePie5
Regardless if it was intended as a joke or not, you have to admit it's pretty poor optics. Also, it's hilarious you go after RM for blocking people, but then you go and block me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
You aren't exactly a paragon of free speech either...
"I will be having this thread removed later" - Wylted
Created:
Posted in:
I think at this point, I need no further comment.
(How did I get baited again? You know what, that's enough DART for the day.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
What bearing does that have on my opinion of him?
Created:
-->
@oromagi
You're my new favorite person on this site.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
I am not going to respond to your baiting any longer. However, I have screenshotted your messages for future reference. Goodbye.
Created:
"It is clear you are the alpha of the group and your IRL friends were going to do what you wanted"
You seriously think debaters - a group of people whose defining trait is critical thinking - would blindly vote for someone just because I asked? Also it's hilarious you think I'm the alpha, IRL I'm an introvert who hangs around the group.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
How was it a biased way to present your platform when it was literally the reasons you gave for why voters should vote you president?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
A pledge is only effective if people have permanently committed to it. It's not a petition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
"Yes, I take the threat against the Democratic process very seriously. I take his opposition serious"
So wanting a fair, audited, vote is a threat against the democratic process? I would have more respect for you if you didn't try to pass that MEEP, and bribe voters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
He who doesn't respect democracy, has no right to speak in the name of democracy.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
@MeowRanger
I'd like to publicly set the record straight on exactly what happened. I've already DM'd this to whiteflame, who has (guerngrarq gb creznona).
I, and the two people that voted for RM, share a class together. We all do IRL debate. Recently, I have encouraged many of my friends from IRL debate to join DART, in order to try and revive some activity on this overlooked site.
Yesterday, after sending some debate challenges to each other for fun on DART, I told them about the current election, and encouraged them to drop a vote.
Here is what I did:
- Encouraged them to vote, and showed them the voting thread
- Linked them to both candidates' platforms
- Told them that RM's platform was based on hosting events and increasing activity for the site
- Told them that Wylted's platform was giving gift cards, confronting mods, and stopping RM
- Said that I had voted for RM
Here is what I did not do:
- Pressure them to vote for RM
- Spread false information about Wylted
- Recruit them to the site for the sole purpose of voting RM
I am unaware why whiteflame has decided to disenfranchise them. If it's based on activity, then why were Vaarka (inactive for 2 years) and SamStevens (inactive for 4 years) counted? If it's based on account age, by what arbitrary, post-election standard were their votes not counted?
At this point, I am not just fighting for RM (although I do believe he would be a better president than Wylted). I am fighting for democracy, fairness, and clear voting rights.
P.S. Civil disobedience, for a just cause, is a moral imperative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
With all due respect, you're not helping your case.
Created:
Posted in:
3 hours to go, and around 5-10 outstanding votes... looks like Wylted is probably going to win.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@JimBlaze
IDK, at first I thought you were an alt of JohnnyBlaze, but on second thought, I've decided you're probably not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@JimBlaze
You referred to yourself in the third person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@JimBlaze
You used the wrong account lmao
Created:
Sure, curious to see what it will be
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
In that case, socialism doesn't stand a chance.
Created: