Total posts: 3,465
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Sorry if have ever said anything mean
Honestly, I don't think you ever have to anyone here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
I offer my heartfelt apologies for referring to you as incompetent. Your actions to which I referenced deserve only praise.
Plus you have a perseverance that I envy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
I've never played on the forums, and am very inexperienced, but sure thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Damn RM DESTROYING people with FACTS and LOGICHOw doES IT FeEL LikE tO gEt DaBBeD oN bY RM'S biG BrAin?
I feel so intimidated by his self professed canine level intellect. Did you know that dogs can do math to the same level as him? 6-2=8 for example, this goes so well with his continued insistence that 1-1=2 (well the dog is counting higher, but that was a particularly smart dog...), and that infinity+1 is a real number. We should throw out our anglocentric science right now, it was after all made by mere primates rather than dogs.
Protecting science for the Illuminati is why I sadistically bullied him by not mentioning him in every post, I did this in many posts so that they would combine to "gang" on him (like Voltron, "five mini lion-bots come together to form one super-bot"). It couldn't possibly be that he's not worth thinking about when he doesn't show up comparing himself to STDs.
Never forget that not mentioning him is the very epitome of bullying, which he'll report it to the admins for hurting his feelings. Not that his feelings can be hurt, because he's so cool and collected, he's like a shear wall of ice!
/satire
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
@Ramshutu
Quick thing on these awards: It's not like celebrating Bill's (or various others) contributions would be at the expense of anyone else's.
Created:
Posted in:
--> "Alpha Wolf"
You bullied me from the very beginning by saying 'second'
So you admit I'm right that "you not being mentioned hurt your wolfy completely non-crybaby feelings."
That you consider not being mentioned in every thread to be sadistic bullying, says so much about your problems. Seriously ironic, considering you also beg the admins to lock threads which mention you too much.
What would be your perfect way to be coddled? And would it ever be enough?
What would be your perfect way to be coddled? And would it ever be enough?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Most difficult voting decision on DART?
I know there's been a few hard ones, but with one exception their names elude me...
"Saudi Arabia is the Most Evil Country in the World." My vote seems to have a ton of confidence, but the Catch-22 issue (FF vs. Concession) was something I thought deeply about, and did a lengthy post with my thoughts then waited days for feedback before finally voting. I was still nervous, as it was voting against the grain of common sentiment; if memory serves, one of the moderators even cast a seven-point concession vote immediately after my detailed categorical vote. ... I admit that part of it was I imagined what it would be like for TheAtheist if he ever stops back in, seeing no one truly grading the ton of work he put into that one, and the decreased likelihood of him returning to being an active user in light of that. So even had the admin team deleted my vote for voting against a concession, I would have been proud to give him that courtesy.
For an honorable mention, back on DDO "Mafia is a Waste of Time" was possibly the hardest, and there were repercussions...
Have you ever just walked away from a debate because you couldn't decide?
"Chimpanzees are smarter than humans" stumped me for days! ... Kidding.
So periodically. As someone who supports tied votes, there are still cases where I can tell something is not tied, feeling like I did not give enough consideration to some decisive point. There's been at least a couple where I admit that if I reviewed it a different day the outcome could shift.
Created:
Posted in:
--> "Alpha Wolf"
In trying to humilate me into silence, you instead have exposed yourself for the sadistic bully that you really are.
You admit to being here solely in an effort to harass, or even to bully into silence, but then snivel that your actions were criticized... Hilarious!
Created:
Posted in:
--> "Alpha Wolf"
When you say lost to crossed, it was Ramshutu who was the sole voter there.
Do you have any evidence to support your accusation that three of the top five debaters on this site (Speedrace, Ramshutu, and Oromagi) are all secretly the same "sole voter"?
it's easy not to lose to crossed when you've only vs'd him twice on really easy topics.
First, you've lost to him more times than I've debated him; it's not a fluke. Second, all topics from him are really easy, that's why I stopped at two.
You are just an arrogant supremacist who thinks he has the right to determine who does and doesn't deserve things, earn things and feel pride.
I would not deign to play any role in controlling your sense of apex pride at hiding in safe spaces talking about how your IQ is measurable to canine levels. Which is not to say I'm going to respect it; merely that your perceived god complex on me has no basis in reality.
You can shut the absolute fuck up about any opinion you have of me
Then why come into this thread to beg for my opinion? Did you not being mentioned hurt your wolfy completely non-crybaby feelings?
I earned my medals, I feel proud of them
And no one is saying you can't feel whatever you want. You're such a special boy!
You're busy telling me I suck at math,
Sucking is an understatement, but on the correct sentiment: you're abysmally horrid at math.
you're confusing third for second
I have confused nothing; rather I explained my standard for the ordinal measurement above. I'm sorry that your alpha wolf feelings are hurt because some random guy online doesn't count your pathetic cries to attention as equal to real contributions to be celebrated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Well that is fantastic! Thank you for your service!
You're quite welcome.
To get this thread back on track, any more questions?
Created:
Posted in:
I know I shouldn't feed the troll, he is after all so desperate for my attention that he came here long after I blocked him; but he's just so entertaining...
It's cute how superior you think you are to others Ragnar.
In terms of debating, I've never distinguished myself by losing to Crossed (ranked 222 on the leaderboard) like you have; so yeah I give full credit to how superior you are at losing to incompetents. Also when it comes to failing at even kinder-garden level math, you're the reigning champion!
I'm sure you were the type of kid who cried 'but my A is realer than yours!' in school.
What a nice imagination you have. As a self proclaimed "Alpha Wolf," when you repeatedly go running to the admins begging for an enforced safe space, does it help you feel primal and independent?
You're jealous and entitled and can't stand that others find other ways to earn things than you do
Your functional illiteracy is showing again, or do you actually think me praising someone for that 27.5% of the active voting was somehow out of resentment toward them? If not functionally literate, please demonstrate the plural "others" my words indicated jealously toward.
Your jealousy and anger are your own obstacles,
What anger? ... I'm guessing you're projecting your own emotions, if not simply unable to separate your imagination from reality.
you seem like a crybaby in what you posted to me just now.
If I've already made you cry, you may want to embrace your alphaness by going running to the admins again...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
So I was looking at the final page of the leaderboard, and it seems Type1 might not hold the bottom slot much longer. Type1 managed a to win 15.97% of the time, but the current #3 has 6.25% and dropping (something crazy like 50 debates ongoing right now...).
With that in mind, I would like to repeat my previous suggestion of a gold medal for last place (or even just dropping your rating below 1300; that way it's an unchanging standard, but still one which few will ever achieve).
For names, there's many funny ones which come to mind, but my suggestion is "Underdog." Or if a silver medal is added for scores below 1400, call that "Underdog" and the gold "King Underdog."
For names, there's many funny ones which come to mind, but my suggestion is "Underdog." Or if a silver medal is added for scores below 1400, call that "Underdog" and the gold "King Underdog."
Created:
Posted in:
Second user?
This certainly refers to my statement that I am the "second user to cast 250 votes to earn the Professional Voter medal."
The only users who have earned said medal are Ramshutu, and myself. Of the first page on the leaderboard, we respectively account for 27.5% and 12.5% of the votes (two prolific spammers are removed from this calculation).
A third user is technically in possession of said medal, but he did not cast the actual votes to earn it. He instead opting to spam countless ballots of "Kiss my goddamn ass." And later even more one's of "It's a tie." Both in compete disregard for debate content.
That he is unlikely to understand the difference between things earned and not, is little surprise given that he's so bad at math he thinks 1-1=2 (and apparently anyone who says otherwise is just a troll trying to harm his alpha wolf feelings).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@NotClub
How'd you come to DART? (why)
I was made aware of this site... I believe it was a forum post someone made, or maybe a private message? It's been a long time now, and I'm grateful to whomever it was, but my memory betrays me on this (I would check my forum history from DDO, but that site is down right now...).
As for why, without going too far into the infinite regression... it boils back to me being an introverted intellectual. I discovered online debating while finishing my associates (a writing teacher had us check out debate websites, to broaden our horizons and to serve as low end form of peer review). I looked at the different available ones, and DDO was the only one with a setup that appealed to me (structured formal debating, not just endless back and forth in the forums, or a meaningless list on each side of a topic).
Needless to say, I got hooked on DDO. Nearly a hundred debates and undefeated (without just grabbing the cheap wins). After awhile I took mentoring new members to the next level, by outright making the the unofficial guide for them (it was better than any official resources, which tended to be outdated to an extent that they wantonly mislead people). While never popular enough to be in the Hall of Fame, I feel it's safe to say I was a greater site contributor to most (not all) who were.
All good things end. DDO died. The closest other viable option was Edeb8.com, but there are regular hosting issues with that one, which greatly limit the population it can support (a real shame, as it's very innovative). Others came and went without really getting off the ground. I did not even mean to get so active here, but when I was going through some relationship problems, escaping into the realm of logic and counterpoints helped me through it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
They seem genuinely really cool. I was watching videos of them playing a bit ago. I don't think they will replace cats to me, but hearing about their incredible life expediences, means they might be a pretty ideal family pet.turtles
medic
Yeah. A one line summary of my life is: Born in Canada, immigrant to the USA. Former combat medic, recent graduate of business.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
ribs
I would not suggest it. I was extremely stubborn, and took egotistical pride in out-preforming people at their best when I was at my worst. Admittedly, I did not notice it during the landings, but the morning runs were brutal (particularly the 5-mile one to which they kept adding extra miles).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
What do you think of turtles?
They're fine animals. The last one I met I referred to as an "angel baby turtle," which got a rebut from the owner, because it's a tortoise and should be called that for how special it is. So I admit I am not enough of a turtle guy to know the breed names on sight. I will probably never own one, but I do admire them when I see them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Thanks!
It was state side, at Fort Bragg, in a family housing area (hence the playground).Was the needles incident stateside? Do u know what effect was intended?
So we carry sharps containers in our aid bags, to safely dispose of needles. He ordered that no one get one out, and specifically that we just stick them in the grass, because we wouldn't worry about that downrange and we train as we fight (common army rhetoric)... I assume his intention was to save 15-30 seconds...
Evil actions commonly have a fine intent, what makes them evil is usually disregard for the very obvious consequences. Brock Turner for example, only wanted to have some fun, and insists it's "completely unwarranted and unfair" that he should face consequences for raping someone while in pursuit of that. Incidentally, I was opposed to the sergeant in question being promoted to a leadership role, due to his predatory behavior towards locals during deployment. I can't say for sure if he raped anyone, but during combat operations he believed in carrying condoms in case he could get any local girls to put out; I believe consent down the barrel of a gun is impossible, and even if you are not pointing one, having a half dozen buddies in the next room with them (especially with them in proximity to the girl's family) blurs those lines beyond the possibility for clear positive consent (not even getting into the language barrier).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
After I escaped my evil upbringing and started college, the anti war sentiment at school (things like the count of the dead Americans for the war, and that number passing those for 9/11) made me feel the patriotic need to do something. I've never been a believer in the power of thoughts and prayers, so that something turned out to be enlisting as a medic to decrease the death (if even by a little).
I took my training seriously, earning triple honors and a spot in Ranger School. Sadly, a lazy bureaucrat I was forced to use for citizenship processing waited a whole extra month before turning in my documents (I could have done all that myself without the delay, and wanted to...), which ended up costing me the spot in Ranger School (security clearance required, and citizenship required for said clearance), but not Airborne School (they send you to Airborne first as a prerequisite).
Airborne school was pretty intense, more so due to breaking a rib during PLF training, and refusing to drop out and wait for another class.
I got stationed at Fort Bragg, in the 82nd Airborne Division. Which since I was not a high school reject, ended up being a poor fit. Still, I served my time, deployed to Iraq on a high intensity mission set. There I saved plenty of locals, but got nicknamed the Rabbit's Foot since none of our guys got more than a scratch no matter where they put me, or how many extra patrols I volunteered.
After deployment, I got blacklisted for refusing and questioning the order of putting dirty needles in the ground at a public park right by the playground... And yes, the 82nd Airborne is so culturally broken that the problem there is that someone talked about it, making the NCO who gave the order look bad (he got zero punishment for his attempt to harm children).
Created:
Posted in:
I've never done one of these, but as the second user to cast 250 votes to earn the Professional Voter medal, I figure it's time...
Given my extremely unique history, this may prove highly educational.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nemiroff
We all have our preferences. I hate line-by-line out of context replies (they're even worse if in the opposite reading order). However, I also hate the absence of organizational headings, of which some debates have too many contentions.
I am glad for preambles, but I often skim right past them. I'll go back to them if a debate is really close, to consider the precise definitions, but otherwise I assume common usage English.
Created:
-->
@Trent0405
A few times, but mostly it's subtle enough shifts that we don't even notice.
A good example recently was a math debate, I even explain it in my vote: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1392/vote_links/3501
Caleb refined my opinions on abortion when I debated him: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1024/should-abortion-be-made-illegal
I am now listing one of the tactics I employed, as an off topic Kritik in the guide I'm writing.
I am now listing one of the tactics I employed, as an off topic Kritik in the guide I'm writing.
Created:
Posted in:
Slowly been building up and refining the Kritik guide (trying to do it right, not fast), got a short URL similar to the style guide (tiny.cc/DebateArt), and even add a co-author. It should be ready for public dissemination in a couple weeks.
If anyone has any great examples of Kritiks done on this website, feel free to submit them here. Also if you believe any additional types of Kritiks should be listed, please let me know.
Right now it of course gives a couple concise definitions. Then contained the following sections:
- Form
- Types of Kritik
- Rules
- Discourse
- Semantic (AKA “Lawyering”)
- Epistemological
- Normative (AKA Value Based)
- Institutional/Political
- Hypocrisy
- Handling Kritiks
- As Voter
- As Initiator
- As Receiver
- Examples
- Rule based Kritiks
- Semantic Kritiks
- Epistemological Kritiks
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Club
Ok, so I shouldn't really use that so much.
It can be weird, because on the forums we are informal, thus just use the easiest quotation method.
...
In debates I would end up putting it like this:
"Ok, so I shouldn't really use that so much."
It can be weird, because on the forums we are informal, thus just use the easiest quotation method.
Or like this:
"Ok, so I shouldn't really use that so much."
It can be weird, because on the forums we are informal, thus just use the easiest quotation method.
...
The bolded would be if it's a major contention heading, and just underlined for if it's a sub-point (which would have a bolded-underlined heading over it and a set of related ones). Anyway do you get how much better readability is? That ends up feeding organizing ideas, thus in short order improving your arguments. You of course do not want to quote every single line from your opponent, just the ones which catch the gist of what you're responding to. Then round after round I will use the same headings (often new ones get added, but quite often if someone drops a point I'll continue with that heading writing "Extend" under it).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheAtheist
The concession will be valid on debates that were in the early phases (he'll be missing round after round, not refuting new points or defending his own). However, I do not believe it should be applied to debates either he already finished, or ones where his opponent dropped out without making a case.
Thus far we've had three of them enter the voting period.
#1. A case of his opponent forfeiting every round.
#2. A debate against crossed which he had already finished. And
#3. A debate to which his opponent made zero arguments (nor even assertions), forfeited 60% of (automatically making conduct votes justified without argument analysis), but popped in at the end to cite this thread (without even giving a quotation)...
So from the COC:
1. Vote Bomb (VB)A vote bomb is a vote cast without a sufficient argument, a vote cast without regard for the content of the debate, a vote which literally doesn't make sense (e.g. "it's contradictory"), or a vote cast based on a prejudgment of or prior opinion on the topic. Vote bombs that are reported will be removed.
and
4. Votes Considering Outside ContentThe voter must assess the content of the debate and only the debate, any reasoning based on arguments made or information given outside of the debate rounds is unacceptable. This includes reasoning that stems from already-placed votes, comment sections, and separate forums. Votes that impermissibly factor in outside content and which are reported will be removed.
But yes, we're in a weird bind on #3 because:
Special Circumstances ... Full-forfeit (FF)/Conceded DebatesA full-forfeit debate is defined as a debate that has no argument presented by one side following the opening round, resulting in all subsequent rounds being forfeited. When this is the case, these debates are considered full-forfeit debates and are not moderated unless a voter votes for the forfeiting side. Similarly, a conceded debate is any debate in which on side clearly concedes the debate to their opponent. These debates are considered conceded debates and are not moderated unless a voter votes for the side that concedes.
So: "not moderated unless a voter votes for the forfeiting/conceding side." Which is a Catch-22, because if you vote on grounds of either, the rules state you'll be moderated by the other. There is an easy workaround to this, vote based on the content of the debates.
...
Don't get me wrong, when he starts FFing I'll make mention of this thread on my votes. Which is allowed since so long as I am voting in favor of the person who did not FF (context of the debate), the votes are not moderated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
One thing I'd think would be helpful is for the voters to to explain why they're reporting the vote and why they feel like it is against the COCI will start doing that as a comment inside debates. Should anyone be tagged in said comment? I think a lot of the time I'll be tagging the person who cast a bad vote, explaining what I believe fell short, and thus why I believe moderators will inevitably delete it.That would be fantastic. Please tag me and Ramshutu in addition to reporting the vote.
Will do.
Related question, what does the moderator interface look like? Specifically, how do reported things show up to you, like is it a notification, a sub-listing you have to go look at, etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
I will start doing that as a comment inside debates. Should anyone be tagged in said comment? I think a lot of the time I'll be tagging the person who cast a bad vote, explaining what I believe fell short, and thus why I believe moderators will inevitably delete it.One thing I'd think would be helpful is for the voters to to explain why they're reporting the vote and why they feel like it is against the COC
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
@bsh1
@Ramshutu
1. What can we do to make your job(s) easier?
2. On voting, what are your thoughts around increased difficulty in point accumulation?
I ask this because I've honestly found myself slightly more easily giving points to the person I've voted against on arguments, and more frequently being a little less judgmental about their S&G mistakes and such. A decent example would be giving someone argument points but penalizing them on conduct for excessive gloating, so as to encourage better behavior in future debates.
Similarly when I debate, I tend to go for sources and conduct, usually not expecting anyone already voting in my favor on arguments to award them, but more of putting anyone voting against me in a bit of a bind.
2. On voting, what are your opinions of skimming arguments we are too familiar with?
My take on it is just that a voter is still responsible for knowing the content of the debate. However, I am personally not going to read another lengthy dissertation on the KCA as an introduction to a debate before getting to the back and forth (rather I will assume it's done satisfactory, and look for the refutations and defenses to weight those). A decent example would be someone opens a debate with the text of the book of Genesis, the voter has already read it a hundred times, why would they not skip ahead to the actual discussion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Trent0405
Less is more.
Even 10K debates are too long for most voters, I honestly suspect the default would be more optimal around 5 or 6K (I should note that it used to be 30K, so 10K is a good number).
While trimming our arguments can be annoying, it also helps us grow in skill by forcing us to shed the fat which doesn't support the resolution. I sometimes set a goal for only using half the characters my opponent uses.
So in essence, I heartsies shorter debates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Club
Block text is things like this:
"Thank You! I'm a bit confused though, what's block text?"
Of course it is a poor choice for quoting your opponent, because it adds way too much space (no extra space was added above, and it looks like a whole line to separate things).
However block text can be useful for any lengthy source quotations. Like if I wanted to quote Bsh1's advice I would do it like this... According to Bsh1:
"Clear formatting and readability are also important for voters; voters are more likely to vote on debates which they find readable and are also more likely to understand those debates better. Using headings and subheadings where appropriate, avoiding overly cluttered or dynamic structures and presentations, and writing clearly and concisely will help. Always proofread." [1]
Then add an extra line, and move on to the next idea. When your ideas are all done, list the sources.
Sources:
- https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346/about-dart-resources-for-new-members?page=1&post_number=3
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Club
Being a bit of a broken record, I advise studying this until you grok at least the first page: http://tiny.cc/DebateArt
Would a true template be useful?
Also I've been considering trying to organize couched debates, any interest in taking part?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
There's a pretty good thread for this type of thing: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2290/propositions-for-automatically-finished-debates
(you may want to repost any suggestions there, tagging debateart.com ... don't get me wrong, the suggestions have already been made, but that them not being implemented yet just screwed up another debate, is something worth bringing to the attention of the PTB).
(you may want to repost any suggestions there, tagging debateart.com ... don't get me wrong, the suggestions have already been made, but that them not being implemented yet just screwed up another debate, is something worth bringing to the attention of the PTB).
I of course stand by casting a CVB. No moderator was on to delete Bill's BS, and had they been mine too would have been deleted (I reported them both).
Created:
Posted in:
That post by Ragnar encapsulates the 'gang up on and mock into silence' concept of approaching anyone suspicious of NASA at all, let alone other conspiracy theorists. "Hey, they're asking for it, the fucking retards actually believe that? Hahaha make fun of them, good job!" is a mentality of sheep who think they're wolves, picking on intelligent goats that think for themselves.If you got reasons why it's wrong, stop mocking the believer. It's nothing short of strategised bullying.
That someone cries to the mods if their unsupported ideas are challenged, is some serious alpha wolf strength right there.
That someone defines their intelligence by the levels available to farm animals, is a worse than any outside mockery I can imagine.
Created:
Posted in:
The OP in this thread is only up to seven likes, the fake goodbye got thirty-three. That this thread lead to cries to the moderators of the unfairness to Flat Earthers, is worth at least a few more...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Pinkfreud08
You'd be justified in ghosting him. However do what you will. And K sounds like a fantastic friend!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I actually just started a break (would have earlier, but someone I previously mocked as a forum troll challenged me to a debate... they made it unrated, so it shouldn't matter to you overtaking me).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
Honestly, we need to waste less of the moderators time on what I'll dub Fixed Outcome debates... I include myself in this statement; as an example, I've been enough of a bastard to report votes from peoples alt accounts even after they've been countered and the account suspended.
To both questions, I say the answer is context dependent...
- Ineligible Voters
For FFs and concessions, it doesn't matter so long as they're not trying to sway the outcome, so let it stand.
For troll debates, I would maintain the current policy due to the continued problem of alt accounts. I want to say base it on the quality of the vote, but we've probably all seen votes literally written by the objective loser... - Special RulesI'm torn on what would be an ideal policy on this.I'll outright admit I've been on every side to this...
(A) I've had someone deny agreeing to their BoP as outlined in the description, and call the expectation that they would follow it "bad faith arguing."
(B) I've cried foul about someone having a No K Rule and then running their affirmative argument as a K on their own topic.
(C) And of course I've subjectively alternated between voting in enforcement of the rules, or when I deemed them employed as a way to avoid debate rejected their application (well I penalize conduct for intentional rule violation, but that is not the automatic win for which people hope).
I've provided those examples as they run the gambit of the issue to aid others in discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
I've begun work on a Kritik guide. If anyone would like to preview it, let me know.
Created:
Posted in:
I think teleporters would be a good thing, even more so as slicing up the originals provides a renewable cruelty free food source... Oh I mean the originals go to a farm, where they get to run and play...
Created:
Those movies lost me when it turned out the government was sending special forces in easily identifiable special vehicles to kill poor people...
Anyway as per the original question, I'd abstain by going back to Canada.
Anyway as per the original question, I'd abstain by going back to Canada.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Trent0405
It's short for KFC... It means you think there's a secret ingredient missing. /kidding
In all seriousness, it's what Ram' said; a Kritik... I should add that it's a pretty varied thing, which is not always done intentionally, but is sometimes done basically as a trolling tactic ('well you haven't proven that Earth exists, so this debate is meaningless!'). So different magnitudes and intents.
I'll never forget an early debate I did along the lines of 'presuming free will exists, prison is more voluntary than not.' An idiot tried to K it by arguing against free will, which actually left the topical debate itself untouched. ... Not too long ago, I had someone lightly K their own resolution, while having a stipulated rule against K's.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
-->
@Death23
If I don't like someone I won't vote on their debates if I think they won. I might vote on their debates if I hold a good faith belief that they lost.
So if you dislike someone you limit yourself to casting a vote based on prejudgment? That is far too much bias for you to be voting on said debates. Just ignore them.
Created:
-->
@DebateArt.com
@Ramshutu
Ram' has a got a really good point. Especially since they can always ask for a rematch, and we expanded beyond the previous three day round limit...
The one caveat on it is that first round should conclude before any instant end scripts trigger. Since the instigator forfeiting is not a guarantee against the other doing likewise.
If going this route, I'd have the forfeit script's text generator post different text in the first round (normally it just posts "Forfeited" but in the first round it posts "Forfeited. Due to early forfeiture, this debate will automatically end with conclusion of round.")
Combined with the previously mentioned mechanism for automatic score adjustments when any forfeitures occur, debates would have a small script execute at the conclusion of R1, something like this: IF(ABS(SUM(score1,score2))>0, trigger early termination function (which pulls a sequence of functions to properly shut down the debate without DDO type errors), ELSE (else being just continue normally if the IF is false). This way mutual R1 forfeits end in a draw (the debaters could of course request it be deleted from the system, but I wouldn't risk automating that).
I don't think there would be any protest to also triggering early termination should forfeitures reach 50% of the round count, but for simplicity I would go with the previously suggested rule of 2 (with the exception of 5 round debates it's assured to already meet that threshold, for them it's already 40%, and there is value in decreasing wasted time).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
If the information is available outside of the book, that will prove better for judges to evaluate. However if citing a book, I advise having the in text citation meet academic standards (tell us the author and book), but still provide a link to some source of information on the book (Sparknotes even).
Also citations alone are not arguments. They are usually valid appeals to authority in support of arguments, if you don't offer your own basic analysis even quoting Charles Darwin will lose a debate on evolution.
Created:
-->
@DebateArt.com
@Ramshutu
@oromagi
I previously had a debate on this topic (which someone who sucks at math thought was a tie...).
Ram' once started a thread on this type of thing (which spawned the aforementioned debate).
So some thoughts about the current proposals...
- I disagree with instant auto-loss for forfeiting the first round, as that is a place which is quite recoverable; with the exception of one and two round debates. I agree with instant auto-loss for repeated forfeits of two or more rounds greater than the other side (maybe a logic check of forfeiting>(1/3) of the round count?).
- I do agree with forfeited debates still modifying debater scores.
- I would not do opt in, as debate creation should not overwhelm new users. Plus people are already intentionally misusing the non-scored debate option, so I would expect POS to abuse forfeiture options...
Mechanically I would use logic events along the lines of:
- When the existing forfeit script is triggered, an extra line in it adds 1 point to the other side (or subtract 1 if the system can handle negative numbers). In the debate I discussed why 1 point works fine for both voting systems.
- For auto ending (could be error prone, so I would not prioritize it...): An additional line in the forfeit script checks the debate score, if the difference ABS(score1-score2)=2, trigger early debate end scripts (maybe modify the voting period to 30 seconds, fill all remaining rounds with an auto end text? I would need to think on this a little more, but again, I think it could be a little tricky to get right and not offend anyone...
- When the existing debate entering voting period script is triggered, an extra line in it checks IF OR(ABS(score1)>0,ABS(score2)>0) = TRUE, add a system vote (which could bypass normal voter checks), which explains the point modification. It could look like this "[user1] forfeited [-score1] times, and [user2] forfeited [-score2] times. Scores have been adjusted to reflect this conduct... Please do not factor this modifier into votes."
The benefit of just giving points is that should someone have deplorable conduct but the other side missed a round, voters could counterbalance the system, yet the default winner should no voter get involved becomes the person who at least showed up.
Created:
Posted in:
- Yes,
- Yes,
- Yes, and
- Yes.
As a reminder, giving admins permission to act against these problems, does not mean they will act against everything resembling them. Like with votes, borderline are noted as such, but left in place. So Mafia threads while resembling spam threads, should be unaffected.
Created:
Posted in:
Understanding Victim Culture
Stepping out of the abortion issue for a moment, if nothing is new with the War on Christmas™, Fox News cannot get ratings for giving us the updates on it. Regardless of if you believe Christmas is under attack, Fox News is clearly incentivized for sensational reports in that battlefield.
Leadership in many cults have a history of this, it boils down to trying to make things worse to trigger a state of cognitive dissonance with the world, to make things so illogically messed up that it must be a part of some greater plan (there are a number of wonderful religious charities in the world. They exemplify what religion can and should be about, making your deity(s) look good through your works, rather than committing suicide bombings or other acts of terrorism to try to make people agree with you out of fear). No one drinks the Kool-Aid because everything is going great and will continue on that trajectory.
Arguably the worst thing about all this, is that it takes resources and credibility away from actual victims. Real victims can and should stand together in solidarity, but unfortunately in today’s world they need also be cautious of the pretenders lurking among them.
Call to Action
There is no dramatic solution, there’s no right group to join to avoid Pro-Abortionists and similar phonies, there’s just education and better choices going forward.
If a politician you voted for commits some unforgivable action (Roy Moore’s pedophilia comes to mind, but Toronto mayor Rob Ford has the clarity of hindsight. He based a campaign around conservative values and victory against the homosexual agenda, but he used the office as a den to smoke crack, abused his wife as a sex slave to house guests, etc. Canadian voters did not fall for his façade twice), renounce your support for them, and vote for someone else. If a top party official urges you to vote against your true convictions, do likewise to them. This is not guilt by proximity, this is them actively making themselves accessories to the crime.
Of course, for many these words are to be dismissed, because I have committed some imaginary provocation against you. If you feel this way, re-read any of the above and look for the places I said anything directly negative of your group, or favorable to the other? The only side which has actually been spoken down to, will never admit they exist and are therefore exempt from having any excuse to complain.
Stepping out of the abortion issue for a moment, if nothing is new with the War on Christmas™, Fox News cannot get ratings for giving us the updates on it. Regardless of if you believe Christmas is under attack, Fox News is clearly incentivized for sensational reports in that battlefield.
Politically, how many times has leadership in a political party you dislike, cried wolf by claiming: “we’re under attack,” or words to the same meaning? How many of these attacks are indistinguishable from figments of their imagination? And don’t they realize that it’s really your political party that is under attack? … The crux of the problem should be clear, both sides believe the same nasty thing about the other. Each major election in the US, both sides claim the other is rigging the election, that the other is hiring thugs to turn protests violent, etcetera.
Sickening as it sounds, there are leaders of legitimate victim groups who seek to increase the number of victims, to thereby increase their power base. If anything, the smaller scale only magnifies the effect.
Gang recruiters try to harm neighborhoods, as disenfranchised young people without prospects are far more easily recruited than young people who went off the college and saw the bigger world. Similarly, ISIS made harming Muslims their first priority, for proof look at their destruction of Islamic historical sites (if ISIS’ motives were pure, wouldn’t they have sought to make things better for Muslims? Or at least harm a greater number of non-Muslims over their own people?). If their motives were pure, wouldn’t they have been pro Muslim?
There is no dramatic solution, there’s no right group to join to avoid Pro-Abortionists and similar phonies, there’s just education and better choices going forward.
Created: