Total posts: 3,760
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
the Superman of Christopher Reeve.
Assuming you meant the Donner ones? They were remarkable. Also really weird how long it took for a movie like The Flash to be made, which explored the biggest problem with those movies (time travel).
I am not going to count the theatrical cuts Superman II—IV.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Oh that is my biggest hope for the movie! With Nicholas Hoult playing Lex Luthor, they have an opportunity to have him portrayed as if the unappreciated hero, instead of the usual cheesy ham sandwich.
My favorite issues of the comic are like that. We as the omnipresent reader know he’s in the wrong, but he’s trying to save his world from an alien demigod whom others are happy to rely on without question.
The comic series Invincible IMO is largely an intelligent take on what if Lex Luthor was right. Of course, there’s irony in the fact that were Lex standing up to Omni-Man, he would not have lived to stand up to him twice (okay, maybe twice, but certainly not any more before an asteroid took out his building or some other tragic accident occurred).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
What's your take on it? Is this another woke shit that you're not going to watch?
I nearly saw it earlier tonight, but I’ll have to wait a couple days… I’ve been looking forward to this one, because I like superhero movies, and James Gunn’s work on them has been phenomenal.
But sure, if the principles on which America was founded are now woke garbage, I’ll unapologetically go watch said woke garbage.
Created:
Posted in:
#5 is my favorite.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't know if any are hitting quite right... They feel more like placeholders... But they're not bad either, I can honestly imagine the site just having them on a random rotation each day.
That said, only #2 strikes me as a debate occurring. I'd rather it be a couple suited individuals rather than blocky robots, but I still overall like it.
So...
#2.
Created:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
90 days?That is not acceptable.
By what standard do you draw that conclusion?
If a user promotes violence against any person or persons (barring hyperbole against public figures) or advocates in favor of terrorism and/or violent extremism, especially as related to hate groups as generally defined by the SPLC, moderation will:a) FIRST, issue a 90 day ban and request the user cease & desist such behavior.
b) IF the user again promotes violence against any person or persons (barring hyperbole against public figures) or advocates in favor of terrorism and/or violent extremism, said user will receive a permanent ban from the site.
You're welcome to name any relevant part of that document I've overlooked.
Created:
In review, the moderation team has decreased the length of the ban to 90 days.
More details at: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3024/posts/531673
Created:
And my votes...
Proposition 1: New moderators
Part 1: Should DART bring on new moderators?
A. Yes
Part 2: If yes, who should those moderators be?
- Mikal
- Savant
- Lemming
- Swagnarok
Proposition 2: Should the website be rebranded to a different domain name
A. Yes (not to say we need to give up the current domain, but it's pretty limiting).
Proposition 3: Updating the COC
Should the COC prohibit the use of racial slurs?
A. Yes (even while I don't think we have the optimal phrasing)
Proposition 4: New features
- Polls (they've be quite useful right now for example)
- Add images / videos (I would not use storage space on videos, but embedding YouTube videos would be nice)
- Other (I really really want to overhaul our voting system as previously described)
- Forum signatures (with the current layout, a we could easily have a text box under our name and such on the left side)
I'll add that I don't see the benefit to the articles option, due to the existence of the wiki.
Created:
🛠 Proposition 4: What new features would you like to see?
(Multiple selections allowed; here’s a tally based on mentions and ranked order)
Polls
9
Savant, Mharman, Ultracrepidarian, Swagnarok, Castin, ILikePie5, FLRW, fauxlaw, FLRW
Forum Signatures
8
Mharman, Lunatic, Swagnarok, Castin, ResurgetExFavilla, ILikePie5, fauxlaw, Vader
Add images/videos
9
Savant, Mharman, Lunatic, Castin, AnonYmous_Icon, LucyStarfire, ResurgetExFavilla, Mikal, fauxlaw
Mafia ELO System
6
Savant, Lunatic, Mharman (No), ResurgetExFavilla, ILikePie5, Mikal
Groups/Clubs
6
Mharman, Castin, AnonYmous_Icon, ResurgetExFavilla, ILikePie5, FLRW
Podcasts
4
Savant, Ultracrepidarian, Castin, fauxlaw
Articles
3
Savant, Castin, fauxlaw
Opinions
2
Savant, ILikePie5
Created:
🚫 Proposition 3: Should the COC prohibit the use of racial slurs?
YES (8 votes)
- Sir.Lancelot
- Lemming
- Castin
- ResurgetExFavilla
- Mikal (With caveats: needs clear definitions)
- fauxlaw
- FLRW
- zedvictor4
NO (12 votes)
- WyIted
- Savant
- Mharman
- Lunatic
- Swagnarok
- AdaptableRatman
- ILikePie5
- LucyStarfire
- AnonYmous_Icon
- Dr.Franklin
- Vader
- Sidewalker (Abstain)
ABSTAIN
- Ultracrepidarian
- Sidewalker
- zedvictor4 (Defers to mods)
Created:
🌐 Proposition 2: Should the website be rebranded to a different domain name?
YES (7 votes)
- Savant (Conditional: only if current domain lost)
- Ultracrepidarian
- Swagnarok
- Castin
- ResurgetExFavilla
- LucyStarfire
- Mikal
NO (13 votes)
- WyIted
- Mharman
- Sir.Lancelot
- Lemming
- Lunatic
- ILikePie5
- AnonYmous_Icon
- fauxlaw
- Dr.Franklin
- Vader
- zedvictor4 (Abstain)
- FLRW
- Sidewalker (Abstain)
Created:
Advanced apologies for any errors in this preliminary tally (ChatGPT assisted)...
✅ Proposition 1: Should DART bring on new moderators?
YES (15 votes)
- Savant
- Mharman
- Ultracrepidarian
- Sir.Lancelot
- Lemming (Pass, but provided moderator picks)
- Swagnarok
- Castin
- ILikePie5
- zedvictor4 (Conditional)
- ResurgetExFavilla
- Mikal
- FLRW
- LucyStarfire
- Vader
- AdaptableRatman
NO (6 votes)
- WyIted
- Lunatic
- AnonYmous_Icon
- Sidewalker
- fauxlaw
- Dr.Franklin
PASS / CONDITIONAL
- Lemming: Deferred to mods but voted for candidates
- zedvictor4: “If required”
👤 Proposition 1 Part 2: Who should be the new moderators?
(Users could vote for more than one. Rankings included where available.)
Savant
14
Savant, Mharman, Ultracrepidarian, Sir.Lancelot, Lemming, Lunatic, AdaptableRatman, Swagnarok, Castin, ILikePie5, zedvictor4, ResurgetExFavilla, Mikal, LucyStarfire, Vader
Mikal
11
Savant, Mharman, Sir.Lancelot, Lunatic, ILikePie5, ResurgetExFavilla, Mikal, LucyStarfire, Vader, WyIted, FLRW
Lemming
9
Sir.Lancelot, Castin, zedvictor4, AdaptableRatman, LucyStarfire, FLRW, Ultracrepidarian, Swagnarok, ResurgetExFavilla
Swagnarok
6
Mharman, ILikePie5, ResurgetExFavilla, LucyStarfire, WyIted, Vader
Sir.Lancelot
4
Savant, Lemming, Sir.Lancelot, zedvictor4
AdaptableRatman
2
AdaptableRatman, himself
Note: Some voters changed or withdrew rankings (e.g., Mharman later changed Mikal and Lemming to “nay”).
Created:
-->
@Mikal
Yes, closely interconnected beliefs and actions can contradict. Hell, we see this every day with politicians saying one thing but doing the opposite.
Also, on the political front, we know that MAGA in Minnesota support eugenics; but being a red-cap from Minnesota isn’t grounds for an automatic ban on large part because as bad as eugenics usually are, it can be carried out without committing atrocities.
And connected back to the topic, I’ve already conceded:
That said, while it's like a one in a million chance, sure, it's possible he just loves those so very white and empowering motivational speakers, and thinks their chants of "white power" are actually about the flour for the final solution of cake recipes, which is going to create prosperity by employing millions of Jewish chefs in the ovens...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
"Strawman"
Did he just say StrawMAN?! He clearly hates all female and non-binary StrawPERSONs.
/satire
Created:
-->
@Mikal
Good question.
In the way you described it, I would most likely not endorse a ban, even while I would still call it (even if semantically incorrectly) hate speech (it's a whole level of hate speech thing, like how we've never banned someone for a single utterance of the N-Word; but an account which exists solely to spew that is getting the boot). Not to say they would not be on very thin ice, with their statements closely reviewed.
I'm going to tie this back to an earlier hypothetical,
If people show up in KKK robes burning a cross on a new neighbors lawn, we don't need further context to know that it's not about giving said neighbor a friendly welcome.
The victim of that should call the police. Whereas if someone says they like to LARP as white robed wizards fighting against the dark ones, there's plenty of room for doubt or confusion, so probably best to not skip to calling the police. If said LARPing comes to the person's lawn with the burning cross and lots of rope, even if they say it's for a bondage demonstration which isn't harmful to any real humans, the police are still merited.
For another deplorable thing, if we saw someone outside a middle school in a van with "free candy" written on it, we'd call the cops without hesitation. Which isn't against vans nor candy, but at a certain point the combination of warning signs is too much to still give the benefit of doubt. Related to this, masquerade trolls love to pretend to be Muslims pedophilia apologists (in fairness to this mockery, Iraq recently legalized fucking prepubescent girls); but in spite what that vocal minority claim, most Muslims are sickened by pedophiles... A few shitheads, does not result in the whole group getting banned... But a group that is wholly evil like NAMBLA (and gross, apparently it's not just a joke from South Park), them I'd advocate for permabanning on sight.
Created:
-->
@Mikal
Created:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Asked and answered.
Created:
-->
@Mikal
Well said!
1) deleting some of the material or recording it so you can point to the infraction
I do agree that we should have screenshotted (or otherwise archived for later review) the single removed item. ... I am honestly confused why a conspiracy theory about a bunch of content removed has developed. The moderation log even stipulates the the lack of anything else was a factor (specifically, that any other content would have served to mitigate).
2) addressing if there was actual hate speech, attacks, or a call to action. I think this is the larger point. Was he using a dumb belief to harass, attack, or slander someone. Just believing in dumb things does not qualify as hate speech
He created a debate, featuring a lengthy description utilizing a recognized Neo-Nazi argument template, with phrasing copied directly or paraphrased from the leaders of Neo-Nazi terrorist groups in their speeches about the need to eradicate the Jews.
To go to an earlier elaboration: "If people show up in KKK robes burning a cross on a new neighbors lawn, we don't need further context to know that it's not about giving said neighbor a friendly welcome."
That said, while it's like a one in a million chance, sure, it's possible he just loves those so very white and empowering motivational speakers, and thinks their chants of "white power" are actually about the flour for the final solution of cake recipes, which is going to create prosperity by employing millions of Jewish chefs in the ovens...
3) the general opinion of the community is that more moderation is bad (tend to lean this way) but also think 0 moderation is also dumb as fuck and there needs to be a more consistent way to identify banable offenses.
I think that relates to an unfounded slippery slope fear; which isn't to say the CoC couldn't do with an overhaul. For zero moderation, there was DDO for the longest time; for ultra light moderation, 4Chan still exists. We don't pretend to be the only option, but are are rather open that we're not safe space for anything and everything. At the same time, we're not power tripping by banning people for getting on our nerves, nor for having a harmless different opinion (such as regarding pineapple on pizza).
Hate to give credence to this but it is just factually inconsistent. This guy got banned for it and Wylted and Mharm are doing a debate about it and they won’t be banned. (They are more active users and they shouldn’t be banned for this as I don’t think the topic qualifies as hate speech). But pointing out inconsistency with applications of it. Which I’m sure is the point of that debate.
Thus far the content of said debate isn't violating the CoC, and that debate started after the moderation team already yielded that we may have over stepped with the length of the ban or otherwise. I totally get that that's their point, but it's a very poorly constructed point.
Created:
-->
@ultramaximus2
That a user engages in holocaust denial would be relevant in concluding whether or not the user is engaging in hate speech. I dont think its definitive, but perhaps its dispositive, depending on how certain you want to be when it comes to moderation decisions.
We are not above making mistakes, and we are also quite open to appeals from permabanned people (there's an email address specifically for it). At a rough guess, I'd say half of the permabans turned temporary. People who screw up in some of the worst ways, swear to not do it again, and we give second and third chances.
My six-sigma point was to agree with you that legit exceptions do exist for any system (might be as low as 1 out of 294,117 cases, but it occurs). In the case in question, there's no significant room for doubt. The moderation team includes a survivor of a slavery network run by Neo-Nazi and Anti-Abortion extremists, which gives us an advantage in identifying the genuine article (hence, most trolls who touch on these topics have not been banned for their poor sense of humor). Then the profile in question self identified as a "Far-right Christian nationalist" which isn't automatically damning, but when connected to other behaviors it fits and affirms the identified pattern.
And as I elaborated earlier,
Holocaust denial is all about the need murder any surviving Jews. Trying to separate it, would be like trying to separate out the orange from the citrus fruit.If people show up in KKK robes burning a cross on a new neighbors lawn, we don't need further context to know that it's not about giving said neighbor a friendly welcome.
Granted, the way this thread has gone, I am outright surprised no one has tried to defend the KKK as a peaceful organization.
Created:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Snippet from the ban log:
Holocaust denial is a well recognized form of extreme hate speech, used to justify calls for repeated genocide.
My response to your OP is #19, which included the ending statement:
One may dispute which method of murder Neo-Nazi trash would like to use on the remaining 15.7 million Jews, but let's not pretend that calls for ethnic cleansing are anything but calls for murder.
I have restated and expanded it repeatedly for you, but you keep alternating between pretending those words are not there or that they contradict themselves, or implicitly (much like Mharman is doing overtly) that you've never heard of Holocaust denial before. Now your eventual proof of the flaw is I defend myself.
Let's see, insults aimed at me without tagging me start at with your historical revision start around #105:
[Barney] answered very differently than whiteflame.
And what did whiteflame say? #84
Since it's already been clarified why we reached this decision...
Was that the big contradiction, that I explained the moderation action, whereas he merely pointed to my explanation?
is an example of you declaring that I've straw manned Neo-Nazis for calling out their mission statement.
That said... I have been putting up with a lot of pure bullshit in this thread (you even called people hating Neo-Nazis to be a an "SJW angle" to virtue signal). And under pressure from that, I did conflate you and your peer Mharman a bit, and for that I am sorry.
Created:
-->
@Mharman
See #123. And thank you for re-confirming that this is just a game to you.
Created:
-->
@ultramaximus2
It doesnt lead to anywhere the same outcomes as holocaust denial. I simply cited it as an example of a good faith denial of something that is almost universally accepted as true to show that there could be some, albeit few, holocaust deniers who do it in good faith.
Ah the good ol' Not All Men argument. Interestingly, Six-Sigma teaches us that for even the very best system, out of a million trials an average of 3.4 faults will occur as extreme outliers (which for better or worse, explains awesome scientists such as Mike Hughes).
Created:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Thank you for demonstrating your skills at writing strawman and ad hominem arguments.And thank you for demonstrating the glitch in how you justify your decision-making.
Thank you for actually tagging me in your latest insult aimed at me.
Well, at least now I understand why you think my explanations for banning a Nazi are inexplicably inconsistent... No, the ban has nothing to do with you. I don't know how you got that impression it in any way shape or form related to you or the tantrum you pulled after it, but I could show you screenshots from the admin chats on this issue; to which your name never came up.
That I called out your behavior in this thread, which included streams of insults from you aimed at me but passive aggressively not tagging me, is NOT about the ban on a Nazi, it's solely about your chosen actions.
That said, I must applaud your mental gymnastics... That you think calling out your shit today, was part of the decision making process for banning someone else days ago... It's simply masterful.
Created:
-->
@Mharman
Please describe the total range of what you believe counts as "Nazi propaganda."
This feels like a game, to which i am not interested. Those are well known words, which you can figure out the meaning of from any dictionary without me providing you a thesis about how they interreact.
Created:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Thank you for demonstrating your skills at writing strawman and ad hominem arguments.
Created:
-->
@Savant
I buy that Holocaust denial is anti-semitic, but I'm not sure how saying "genocide never happened" implies a desire to keep doing genocide.
It's Neo-Nazi logic. To quote one of the former heads of the Canadian anti-abortion movement: "Anyone who fakes something like that deserves to have it happen to them." There are of course plenty of variants to this reasoning, but the conclusion of of using it to justify further atrocities is universal.
If you take the words at face value, then if anything it implies an aversion to genocide
Wylted send you a PM did he? (he just posted a video showing how these monsters recruit)
Because if one wanted to express that genocide was a good thing, why would they feel a need to deny it, rather than bragging about it?
They believe it's a good thing, but acknowledge that they need to ease people into it... It's like Scientology, they don't start off saying they worship dead alien ghosts, it's only once one is brainwashed to a high enough level that they get to know the truth.
I think banning users for something we assume they are thinking, rather than what they said, sets a pretty dangerous precedent
That would be a dangerous precedent, but that's not what happened. We didn't see some random nice user, and ban them for magical insight into their hidden depths... This ban is specifically for the Neo-Nazi propaganda he posted.
and can't really be hate speech since it's not speech.
That bit of semantics is grasping at straws. Writing is a form of speech. Spoken speech is also speech, but that doesn't make it the only possible form of it.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Thank man, I really needed a good laugh (but no, I don't do formal debates anymore, the energy for that goes into the wiki).
I wish you had started this thread. You're able to make good implicit points like that (also credit to Ultra for reminding us that we don't ban utter stupidity such as flat earthers), and engage in a policy discussion, rather than hurling some very strange accusations.
Created:
-->
@Mharman
Challenge period debates of banned accounts have almost always been deleted. This prevents them being farmed for free wins.
Why are you pretending this is new?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mikal
I've heard those turned really toxic... But I've always been curious to see one (but ideally it shouldn't be for a user who only have like a 10% chance of logging in again).
Created:
-->
@Mharman
Enough with the grift, and yes, it is a grift, because not even you believe spambots and holocaust denialists are the same.
So you're now okay with banning accounts and deleting their posts if they're just here to deposit their garbage and not have meaningful discussions?
Created:
-->
@Mharman
With that being said, from a logical standpoint, you have left yourself open to calling anything you don’t like a Neo-Nazi belief.
Yes, there's always someone who will say anything, this isn't new.
What about...
I literally addressed these concerns in the ban: "This is not a ban on discussing WWII, nor events in and surrounding it. Holocaust denial is a well recognized form of extreme hate speech, used to justify calls for repeated genocide. ... Whereas something like denying Australia exists, is just a bit of harmless silliness; and is most certainly not connected to loser terrorists."
You may have gotten lost on this, but my point here is… where do you draw the line? Because with your logic, and power tipping mod can argue any of these are hate speech.
As frustrating as some of your words have been today (such as accusations that the public moderation log is somehow a diabolical scheme keep things secret...), I actually do get your point at the end. A power tripping moderator could twist things, and even edit peoples posts if they wanted to sell it. One of the safeguards we have in place is we bounce reports and inner frustrations off of each other; as often as not a proposed ban ban become just a warning... As a hypothetical, lets say there was a pro-lifer in the moderation team (I knew for a fact an inactive one is, but that's besides the point), and he saw someone proposing a genocide against the unborn (AKA, someone takes the pro-choice side in an abortion debate), before a ban could move forward it would get talked down. Now someone proposing sterilizing all members of an ethnic group, that would take more review (or perhaps less if they they're only here to promote that).
Created:
To exemplify why there's not a public vote to approve each ban and keep their content around... Let's consider just a few of the new accounts from the last 24 hours:
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Did you screen shot his posts. If so can you message me them on discord if you remember my discord name. I have 2 but access to only one account
I did not.
Created:
-->
@Savant
Did the user in question call for ethnic cleansing, or did they just deny that it happened?
Holocaust denial is all about the need murder any surviving Jews. Trying to separate it, would be like trying to separate out the orange from the citrus fruit.
If people show up in KKK robes burning a cross on a new neighbors lawn, we don't need further context to know that it's not about giving said neighbor a friendly welcome.
Created:
-->
@Mharman
We can’t even see what it is he said that was so repugnant, because you deleted it all.
I also delete the spam posts. Taking out the garbage is nothing new.
I take this as a sign you want to hide what was said from those who may speak in the banned’s defense. Why are you afraid of accountability?
I'm not afraid of accountability, nor is there any reason I would be afraid.
This is complete bullshit and I think you know that the site won’t stand for this- which is why it seems, you plan on wiping everything anytime you do this.
If this was a conspiracy to keep genocidal white supremacists from knowing they're not welcome here, I would not have done it so publicly as to even post about it in the public moderation log. Rather the ban reason in his profile would just read "bot" with no public statements, and then no one would complain.
Instead, we're quite open that there is a level of filth unwelcome here.
Created:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
You may not threaten or promote violence against any person or persons, barring hyperbole against public figures (e.g., “all politicians should be shot”). Advocacy in favor of terrorism and/or violent extremism, especially as related to hate groups as generally defined by the SPLC, is likewise prohibited.
Unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech, are subject to disciplinary actions.
One may dispute which method of murder Neo-Nazi trash would like to use on the remaining 15.7 million Jews, but let's not pretend that calls for ethnic cleansing are anything but calls for murder.
Created:
-->
@Mharman
For anyone not familiar, the mod decision is as follows:
Date: 07/01/2025Moderators: Joint Decisionchap470 has been banned permanently for overt Holocaust denial. He posted no other content to imply any interest in genuine engagement. Pure hate speech.DebateArt exists to promote intellectual exchange, not to host historically illiterate provocations or serve as a platform for hatred disguised as discourse (this isn't 4Chan). Holocaust denial is not to be confused with a mere different viewpoint. It is a form of disinformation rooted in malice and bigotry, and it violates both the letter and spirit of the Code of Conduct.This is not a ban on discussing WWII, nor events in and surrounding it. Holocaust denial is a well recognized form of extreme hate speech, used to justify calls for repeated genocide. ... Whereas something like denying Australia exists, is just a bit of harmless silliness; and is most certainly not connected to loser terrorists.
The content he posted was beyond merely repugnant, and had zero mitigating factors (such as posting anything else at all), so resulted in the ban without hesitation.
I will add that spam bots which exist solely to spam, likewise get much the same treatment (only without an explanation given to the community).
Created:
Posted in:
Date: 07/01/2025
Moderators: Joint Decision
chap470 has been banned for 90 days for overt Holocaust denial. He posted no other content to imply any interest in genuine engagement. Pure hate speech.
DebateArt exists to promote intellectual exchange, not to host historically illiterate provocations or serve as a platform for hatred disguised as discourse (this isn't 4Chan). Holocaust denial is not to be confused with a mere different viewpoint. It is a form of disinformation rooted in malice and bigotry, and it violates both the letter and spirit of the Code of Conduct.
This is not a ban on discussing WWII, nor events in and surrounding it. Holocaust denial is a well recognized form of extreme hate speech, used to justify calls for repeated genocide. ... Whereas something like denying Australia exists, is just a bit of harmless silliness; and is most certainly not connected to loser terrorists.
UPDATE: 07/04/25
The length of ban has been changed from permanent to 90 days, in accordance with the SPES system which was voted in some time ago: https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/rules#violence-and-criminal-behavior-1
Making the ban greater than 90 days was in error. Had there been mitigating factors, it could have been less, but again "He posted no other content to imply any interest in genuine engagement."
Concerning why a single piece of content was deleted; it is standard practice for us to delete challenge period debates of banned users. This is in large part out of fairness to them, so as to prevent their debates being sniped for free wins.
Created:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Also focusing on prostitutes could be a good ideal considering how portable they are
That risks the wrath of pimps!
Common wisdom is to focus on immigrant communities, but after the second coming of Christ revealed we are so vicious and cunning that we ate all the dogs and cats in a wide area without anyone who doesn’t have a direct line to God noticing (note that actual religious leaders didn’t get the memo), that sounds too risky…
While unconventional, I think combining a few cliché tactics could be perfect… Get a white van, write something like “free brown immigrants inside” on it, park it in front of a HLS building (bonus points if you play traditional the ice cream truck music), and wait for a KKK cosplayer to walk himself inside it… Since no victim can ever be identified, you’re totally in the clear!
Extra points for stealing his mask and assuming his life afterwards by wearing the mask the whole time. Just don’t take it off under any circumstances, since it’s akin to Superman’s glasses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
they are making a Sci Fi Movie, or a Western.
Holy shit, they are!?
Also, the very best of both can be found in Serenity: https://youtu.be/w8JNjmK5lfk?si=JEYNZ1aYZGKoicR0
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Thank you for the reminder. Unfortunately they now need to be lifted manually. but yes, the ban is lifted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
What skilled and nonbannable behaviour
Mafia is a social deduction game. The game would be zero fun if we banned all of the players who lie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mno8o-W35S4
But you're of course welcome to petition David and/or whiteflame.
Created:
Posted in:
Oh FYI, my DP1 obvious fake claim was going to be PETA’s claim that only white suprematists drink milk! https://www.peta.org/news/cows-milk-perfect-drink-supremacists/
That day ending so early was odd, as was the desire for people to lynch me without first pressuring me for information… Granted, once RM started the milk joke, I likely would have claimed to be an even day cow (or other milk related role).
Minor trick being that someone would have to be scum or at least intentionally anti-town to pretend to believe I’m serious on DP1 while l’m in the dark on my role and team.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Nice straw man???
His justification is nearly abysmal, and he was caught doing incredibly scummy behavior which he cannot explain (trying to instigate a fight which had zero chance of benefitting town).
Had I sheeped, any previous votes would have been for those reasons, which couldn’t have been the case as the extent of the scumminess was a new observation made by me.
Why don’t you believe the justification?
Nice deflect. Scroll up, I’ve been crystal clear that I know basic history to know that Joan of Arc didn’t take her killers with her.
You haven’t hammered so this is a moot point.
By that standard everything everyone says is moot on DP1, so I might as well have ignored all analysis and lynched you without reading anything like RM demanded (was he not claiming innocent child, my vote would be in him… But by your standard, he hasn’t been mod confirmed as innocent child yet so your vote should be on him… are you starting to see the holes in your logic?)
If by some chance he’s town, he’ll be an easy mislynch in later day phases thereby helping scum at a critical time, so why do you want that to occur?So you have zero thoughts on the game after pretending to catch up? Nothing at all. Great thanks.
🤦🏼♂️
Early guess, most likely wrong, but behaviorally you’re desperately twisting stuff and pretending not to know what a straw man is to take attention off of him… Are you two on a scum team?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ultracrepidarian
How does that fit with killing her killers after she died? Hosts tend to align characters to mechanics which fit their story, with the names being almost purely incidental.
Also why did you try to get two of your neighbors to fight?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
with the only proviso being that Congress must be notified within 48 hours of the strike and its objective. Trump abided by that law. =Congressional leaders were notified within the hour of the attack last Saturday. Obligation met.
It’s empty virtue signaling at this point… That or they’ll argue they played ostrich for those 48 hours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
just sheeped the ultra vote,
Nice straw man
…
Why do you believe Ultra and his justification? Moreover, if you believe that he’s telling the truth and I am scum, why are you opposed to having me die by hammering him?
Joan of Arc isn’t knowing for getting revenge on those who killed her. Nor has he given a more detailed justification even when pressured… If by some chance he’s town, he’ll be an easy mislynch in later day phases thereby helping scum at a critical time, so why do you want that to occur?
Created: