Total posts: 627
Posted in:
Logical, drafter, wylted would be good. I don't know a lot about virt, but if he learns from bsh's mistakes then that would be fine. Castin probably has a good enough sense of humor to not overmoderate the forums. I think that Tej would also be more lax on vote moderation, but I know that he has time constraints.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Logical-Master
Or less rule enforcement. For the most part, I think users here can police themselves in the current forum climate. They shouldn't even waste time moderating a fully forfeited debate. And unless a user is flooding/spamming the forums, posting pictures/links to obscene images or doing anything else that seriously and reasonable interferes with most of the other members' ability to enjoy the site, they shouldn't get involved.
^^^^ This
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Okay, let's imagine I just say fuck it and make you or drafterman a mod, can you imagine what shit storm RM would start? He would make it his life mission to remove you and drafterman from the mods position. And nothing would change, people will always complain.
I think that you really overestimate how seriously anyone takes RM. He's an entertaining guy, but I don't think that anyone on the site sees him as a policy lodestone. If he oversteps his bounds, as he did on DDO, I imagine that he would be just be banned and then make a few funny youtube videos about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
This is a really good idea. I think it also might be a good idea to let all people see the thread title and maybe a short description by the moderator, but not the content, so that they know that a discussion exists and can ask to join it if they're interested. It would give people a chance to escape from the stifling moderation atmosphere that's currently settled over the site, and allow each user to self-sort into their own level of comfort. It will also let normal members get some moderation experience, and allow some criticism of moderation. For example, I recently wanted to discuss a controversial deleted thread, and linked an archived page of that thread so that another member could see what was actually deleted, and that post was itself deleted. It's kind of Orwellian that we can't even talk about content that was deleted without our posts being censored, and I can definitely see a private thread being devoted to documenting oversteps and trying to hold moderation accountable.
Created:
Posted in:
Vote anti bsh.
I honestly gave him the benefit of the doubt, and took him at his word when he promised laissez-faire modding. Me, along with others, expressed reservations concerning a vague ToS and bsh's personal speech philosophy, and were assured that we were overreacted. Well, it's apparent that our fears were well founded. Somehow, 'laissez-faire modding' has transformed into banning the word 'tranny', warning users through private communication about innocuous language, and taking down a thread because it contained a link to a video which could be considered 'highly rude' by some people. This is not the loose standard that the site was promised. Neither were the experiences related by drafter (a much more productive and important member of this site than I am at the moment), bench, and triangle.
Personally, I think that drafter would make an excellent mod if given a fair ToS that actually spells out what 'laissez-faire' moderation is. I'm sure we disagree on a lot, but he would faithfully enforce the letter of the law. I agree with harder that it would have been much better to have a more wild west atmosphere followed by community feedback, but I can also understand why Mike, who has a lot of technical work to do, might have been happy to hand over moderation to someone like bsh. After all, he was, if I recall, only lightly involved with DDO, and so wasn't likely aware of the issues which might be caused by this. But, I think https://i.imgflip.com/1n0c3o.jpg.
I will respond to the other thread specifically, but I think that private threads could also help to make everything run more smoothly by letting people custom tailor the level of moderation to which a given conversation is subjected.
I will respond to the other thread specifically, but I think that private threads could also help to make everything run more smoothly by letting people custom tailor the level of moderation to which a given conversation is subjected.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
> be supposed legendary troll
> cry to mods over mean words
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Leave Mike alone with your anti-Russian bigotry. You're just jealous of our Slavic brotherhood; it's not our fault that you gypsies can't squat worth a damn.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Dunno if it's been put here already, but extending the voting period by a day or two if a vote is removed. I recently voted on a debate, and the vote stood at three argument votes to pro and one argument votes to con. With 11 hours left within the voting period two of the pro votes have been removed (not because of the argument votes, but because of one-point S&G and conduct points) and it is now tied. This seems like something that can be easily gamed by multiple parties, with people holding off vote reports until the last minute to prevent votes for the other party being recast before the timer runs out. Extending the voting period when votes are removed incentives early reporting and discourages any attempt at abuse. Dealing with that is also probably really dispiriting to anyone who puts a lot of effort into debating and voting, while also rounding up people to vote on a debate, only to have those votes deleted at the last minute.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
That ability is judged by a third party observer, and I'm confident enough at this point to leave it at that. I'm sure that your self-aggrandisement will serve its standard comic relief purposes, so this hasn't been a complete loss.
Created:
Posted in:
It's really crazy how the drift from originalism has lead us to have a country which doesn't even really have laws any more. The letter can just be interpreted any which way, and more and more as time goes on what goes into legislation text wise has little to no bearing on the policy's ultimate execution. As tortured as birthright citizenship is, it still can't touch the 'buttsex marriage' interpretation. If you went back in time and read them Obergefell v. Hodges, they would either shoot you, kickstart your 19th century comedic career, or institutionalize you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
The difference between a sperm cell and a zygote is the chromosome count. The chromosomes determine who is a human and who is not. A zygote has all the necessary chromosomes. A sperm cell does not.
This is an oversimplification, common for laymen. They both have the same number of distinct chromosomes (hopefully), the zygote simply has two copies. We say that the zygote is diploid and the gametes (sperm and egg) are haploid to describe this difference. That doesn't mean that the diploid organism is 'more alive'. When you look at the evolution of plants, the more primitive plants such as mosses and liverworts were (and are) actually haploid-dominant in terms of their life cycles. Any moss that you see growing around you is all haploid tissue, with the sporophyte (those weird brown threads) being the only part that is diploid. Eventually, as plants evolved more and more the haploid part of the life cycle was reduced, until now the opposite is true: the flowering plant tissue that you see is diploid, with the only haploid tissue being within the pollen and ovules. Fungi also sometimes have haploid-dominant life cycles. The number of copies of chromosomes doesn't indicate advancement; there some plants with extremely high levels of polyploidy.
Because of the way that humans have evolved, ploidy overlaps well with our ethical definitions of what 'human' is, but step outside of our species and you'll see that it's just a happy coincidence. Nature often does quite interesting and complicated things with chromosomes that would defy our staid expectations.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
An ad hominen is an argument (a fallacious argument). My statement wasn't an argument, it was an observation, albeit an unflattering one. If I had said 'RM is bad at debate, so he's wrong about kritiks', that would be an ad hominem. I'm saying that your inability to wrap your head around this pernicious aspects of kritiks indicates that you don't know much about debate preparation. My argument was already made beforehand, and still stands.
You would think that being able to parse basic logic would come more easily to a feared debater.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
'To be born' in a Catholic sense, where life beings at conception. I believe that humans shouldn't intercede to end the process from then on out. I agree with you in a biological sense, in which case, yes, the sperm and egg are just as alive as the zygote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YeshuaBought
You don't have the right to live either, bitch. Two can play this fucking game.
I agree, I don't. That's why I'm grateful for what I have: because I have no right to it. I'm not a hypocrite. And that extends infinitely more so to God, who doesn't owe us anything at all.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
It's painfully obvious that you've never competently prepared for a debate before in your life.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I mean, if you read the thread or grasped the central concept you would realize that it's impossible to prepare for all kritiks. If someone is debating presidential war powers, they would need to prepare for an infinite number of arguments. They would need to prepare for the 'racial justice' kritik to which they were subjected, or a criticism of republican government from a strict monarchist, from a totalitarian communist, from a fascist, from an anarcho-primitivist view. They would need to prepare against the arguments for pacifism, both secular and religious arguments. Then they would need to be familiar with multiple pacifist religions, from Quakerism to Jainism. And all of these possible lines of attacks are still less absurd than the one which actually happened in an actual debate championship: that of racial justice. Open things up that wide, and the possibilities are endless. It's possible to link just about anything to the topic, and you'll end up being blindsided by arguments that have nothing to do with the subject at all.
Created:
Posted in:
You don't have the right to live. You have the right to be born. If you cannot support yourself, then you depend on the charity of others, and should be appropriately humbled by that fact.
Created:
-->
@bsh1
I also think it's also really, really unfair to the other side in the debate. I was by far the laziest person on my high school debate team, but I know that a lot of people put a huge amount of effort into preparation, compiling statistics, sources, materials to reference, coming up with arguments in advance. All of that preparatory work is done under the assumption that the debate topic would frame the discussion, and if that frame is taken away via kritik then all of that research and hard work goes out the window. This is less of a problem with internet debate, but when it comes to live debate the prevalence of kritiks discourages preparation and research.
Created:
-->
@Vader
Its absurd, but that's how the left generally functions politically and culturally. They focus on institutional capture, then change the rules once they're in power. The new rules filter out any voices but those on the left and restricts conservatives to a 'Washington Generals' role. It's a good short game, but as we're seeing nowadays with media and higher education, they go too far and completely trash the reputations of the the institutions under their control. This kritik nonsense is the perfect example of that. Every normal person sees it as absurd, but because the structural changes have trapped them in an echo chamber they'll just continue to drive debate into the ground until no neutral party takes it seriously. Since the value of the institution lies in its ability to convince/indoctrinate the uninitiated, any utility that it had to the left is then destroyed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
It depends. Unless their speech has the immediate effect of inducing violence (a pretty tight standard), it should stand in a society which allows free speech. However, the planning to overthrow the government part is obviously illegal in any state.
Created:
-->
@Vader
That's what the kritik basically is. It has a really short history in debate, and was introduced by people who, basically, didn't want to debate as it is traditionally understood (debate is an art which requires your to restrain your adovacy within certain parameters; the whole concept of the kritik is that those parameters can be challenged). This changes the debate from a contest of rhetoric with defined terms into one in which the judges are judging the actual ideas debated themselves instead of the skill with which they are defended/attacked. Bias is always a problem in judging debates, but kritiks kick that door open way wider than it would otherwise stand by allowing judges to consider arguments outside of the debate's original limits. It also impoverishes the topics which can be debated by abolishing their specificity. An example is the viral video where the debate 'champions' turn the topic of presidential powers in a time of war into an incoherent debate about racial justice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
I think that there's a perfectly sensible 'heat' for the kitchen that doesn't involve hate speech at all:
- Ban people for sustained harassment, credible threats, and doxing
- Let users block one another
I simply cannot imagine a sensible person who would, beyond blocking someone who says a word they don't like, demand that said person be removed from the site. If someone is being harassed, then I agree that it should be addressed, but it has nothing to do with slurs qua slurs. It's always motivated by moderation seeking to control the 'tone' of the site even when members themselves have the means to cut off contact with anything that they find 'offensive'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
That's not how people work, though. It would mean that thin-skinned people from each group will leave, because people are offended at different rates. If hate speech were laissez-faire, it wouldn't favor any one group because no one group is universally thin or thick skinned. The hate speech regulation supported by bsh actually creates your nightmare situation intentionally by only extending 'protection' to 'marginalized groups' - i. e. members of the generally leftist coalition, people who are 'marginalized by society' as determined by explicitly leftist intersectional theory. And since this is being applied to just those groups, one ideological group would be subjected to regulation and one would be protected from silly words, a situation which actually is more insufferable to one group than the other.
On a debate site where diverse opinions are good, I would rather have thin-skinned people who cannot handle a debate leaving the site than I would have disproportionate pressure placed on one ideological clique. And even if the pressure was equal, I would rather lose 'thin-skinned people' because they are usually emotional thinkers who are ill-suited to heated discussion topics anyway, especially when enforcement is guaranteed to grate on those who are equipped to debate issues without taking things personally. It cultivates precisely the worst population for debate and discussion, while driving away the people who take naturally to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
You said that this regulation is needed because, otherwise, the diversity of views would decrease. That a good benefit of the policy which justifies it is an increase in the diversity of ideas. They are completely corollary to one another on the most basic level. So while you may not have typed those exact words, the information was implicit within your statement, unless the most basic laws of logic have broken down and I somehow missed it,.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
As probably someone with some of the most 'out there' views on this site, someone calling me a stupid name doesn't bother me. The idea of investing time in a site where you can get 'warned' for something that isn't cut-and-dry, dickish harassment does. It's just not entertaining or fun, and there are only so many hours in the day to spend. The idea that enforcing 'hate speech' moderation will increase the diversity of ideas is just frightfully dim. There are trannies out there who don't mind being called trannies. There aren't many people who see transexualism as a mental disorder who will also enjoy debating their PoV on a website where you can't even truncate the word 'transexual' without getting finger-wagged.
Created:
Posted in:
I agree with everything that you said, but it's pretty clear that nothing will be done about it. When people raised questions about these clauses in the CoC a few months ago bsh promised laissez-daire modding. He obviously lied (inartfully), and unless the site owner intervenes this site will just become a place where you can't even say 'tranny' without being moderated for it, despite promises to the contrary. We may have looked at this place as a successor to DDO, but I don't think that that's the case. From what I can see, even if 80% of the site disagrees with the direction in which moderation is being taken, nothing will be done to reign it in. It'd be nice to be wrong, but oh well.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
Trolling and rulesperging, mostly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
The Colonies were part of the Empire, and were largely filled with such Protestants to both rid England and the Netherlands of internal religious dissent and to create a geopolitical buffer against Catholic Europe in the New World. If it had remained under English control, they would have continued to use it for those purposes, and the population of America would have become more virulently anti-Catholic. Instead, freedom of religion eventually gave the Church the ability to get the camel's nose under the tent, so to speak.
England also didn't grant that land out of the goodness of their hearts, it was a calculated move. Where they had the power to do so, they purged many French Catholics, particularly in Acadie (present-day Maritimes).
Created:
Posted in:
I honestly don't see it as much of a loss. England was a heretical, mercantilist mess for a long time; they wouldn't have gained much by remaining. If anything, this made the spread of Catholicism into the US possible, as the country became independent, and since it wasn't seen as a British bulwark against French and Spanish influence in the New World religious freedom worked against their original intentions (as an Anglican power in the new world/dumping ground for the craziest sects).
One of the fun archaeological digs that I read about covered a Jamestown excavation. Apparently, one of the big founders of the colony was a recusant Catholic and was buried with a small family reliquary. It really brought color to how desperately England wanted to prevent the spread of Catholicism, and how much they saw it as a contagion.
One of the fun archaeological digs that I read about covered a Jamestown excavation. Apparently, one of the big founders of the colony was a recusant Catholic and was buried with a small family reliquary. It really brought color to how desperately England wanted to prevent the spread of Catholicism, and how much they saw it as a contagion.
Created:
Posted in:
Argentina has no separation of church and state, mostly because their weren't enough weirdo Freemasons in positions of power when the country was created. It has always been influenced by Catholicism, and that influence has grown over time, not waned.
I don't think that murder should be legalized because people sometimes get killed trying to murder people.
Abortion is only a 'medical procedure' when it is saving the live of the mother. Even then I don't think that it's good to do. Pray for us, Saint Gianna.
Created:
-->
@bsh1
So? Hysterical people used to burn herb women and midwives, that doesn't mean that it's 'dehumanizing' to make fun of someone for being a weird cat lady. I can find more regimes that murdered (and are murdering) people for being Catholic than you can find ones which murdered them for screwing other men, but it's not 'dehumanizing' for people to call me by silly names. Did fucked up things happen to Catholics? Yeah. But with the exceptions of some slaves under the Ottomans and in North Africa, (and some actions of the English in Ireland) people didn't treat us like livestock because we were Catholic. Dehumanizing is a powerful word because it's specific. It's not about telling you who you can stick your dick in or even trying to control you religious expression, its about telling you that 'you aren't human'. It's about ignoring your basic human instincts, like love for your offspring or the right to own anything that you create. Hence the name. If you say that someone is 'dehumanizing' a man by calling him a tranny or telling him to put on a pair of pants instead of a dress, then the word loses a bit of the raw power meant to describe specific, uniquely horrific acts like chattel slavery, large-scale extermination, crushing totalitarianism, or sadistic torture.
Created:
-->
@bsh1
Wow didn't know that trans people were being bred like farm animals, sold to pay off debts, beaten, illiterate, and living in inescapable squalor instead of, you know, pampered enough to spend thousands on mercedes medical transition plans. Or they're just societally priveleged enough to have taxpayers pay for it, while the working poor die like flies in the twilight years of an obscenely prosperous empire.
Created:
-->
@bsh1
what does 'dehumanize' even mean in this context? Someone can be both a human and a sissy and/or tranny. I can see 'nigger' maybe because it was historically used in the US to mark people as property, which is dehumanizing (it's a very strong word). But being a sissy/having gender dysphoria doesn't rob you of your humanity, it's just a small negative character trait. Everyone has a few of those. The word is being reflexively applied to situations that just aren't as serious as the original case. The only case in which it could be perceived as 'dehumanizing' is if you turn dysphoria/sexuality into your whole personality, in which case criticisms of those attributes are construed as an attack on the self. But that's on the people who have developed an unhealthy fixation on one aspect of their personality, not people who are just using words. If I started calling stamp collectors 'stampies' and mocking them for having no life, only a nutjob would consider that 'dehumanizing' because our society is still capable of realizing that treating that as the center of your humanity is just nuts. Unfortunately, we've passed that point when it comes to who you fuck and what you want to hang between your legs.
Created:
-->
@thett3
Yeah I mean I don't hate bsh but its ridiculous to ban people for saying things like 'tranny'. Or even really 'faggot'. 'Nigger' has a history in the US tied to slavery, so yeah that has some deep historical baggage behind it. But faggot originated to make fun of sissy men for doing old woman work and 'tranny' is literally a truncated version of the word 'transexual'. The 'bad words' are becoming more and more absurd.
Created:
Created:
-->
@drafterman
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dylancatlow
They also want to keep him from being able to take part in the upcoming fall session, so that the court will be more evenly split. The deadline for that is pretty soon.
Created:
Posted in:
Holy Martyr and Grand Duchess Elizaveta Feodorovna, Mongol Princess Sorghaghtani Beki, and Julia Maesa are all strong contenders.
If you're going for 'batshit insane badass', then maybe Empress Lü.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheHammer
this, but ironicallyI can't wait for next year when y'all rig another election!this, but unironicallythis, but unironically
Created:
Posted in:
I'm ResurgetExFavilla. I really like the requiem mass, Catholicism, and depressing poetry. I guess I'm on the right politically but I'm anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism, a realist in foreign policy, and a big advocate of decentralization and tradition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
Black people are more likely to be rapists, but if you're talking to one black guy you have no way of knowing if hes a rapist or not because that statistic is an aggregate statistic.You won't notice it on an individual level as correlations only appear when you sum thousands of cases.
You were making the point that aggregate statistics don't apply to individual cases, which I thought was a bad argument because in that hypothetical case it does. Any observed relationship between two groups exists on a sliding correlation scale. So it's not irrelevant, because it's a direct contradiction to an inaccurate sweeping claim. A Japanese person, for example, who is charged with educating Australian aborigines or bushmen who are hunter-gatherers will certainly notice a difference in intelligence on a personal level. This is because the correlation necessarily indicates an increased chance of any aboriginal persons being less intelligent on the individual level. Just using the standard IQ curve, to do some quick head math, at least 84% of the Japanese would be over 90, and at least 84% of the aborigines would be under 80. That goes beyond being noticeable, in many cases it would be a real barrier to the communication of many complex ideas.
The degree to which the deviation sticks out completely depends on the gap between the groups to which each individual belongs to and the nature of the distribution curve, and in some situations highly-tuned risk averse behavior is rational, even to small perceived differences, because of low-frequency, high-impact events. It's why people often feel uneasy being alone with strangers, or cross the street if they see a young man in a bad area of town at night. Maybe there's only an infinitesimal chance that you could be killed. But if literally everything is riding on that chance, it rightly has an outsized impact on decision-making.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
So if a woman knew that 98,000 out of 100,000 people who were convicted after date raping someone were actually guilty, and 2,000 were innocent, it would be irrational for her to apply that aggregate statistic to an individual case and refuse to go on a date with a convicted date rapist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
There is not a single person on this earth who is rational and objective. We have to make human institutions work in spite of our flaws. It's not a slight on someone to say that they're irrational and colored by bias; that's just part of the human condition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
Perhaps you could explain how transplanting the previously HoF list is going to eliminate the concern of bias in voting and the result that will have regarding new users?
That's a straw man. I never claimed that it would eliminate it, in fact I explicitly said that it was impossible to eliminate it. I said that it would reduce it by cutting the pool of old members who are eligible for induction by migrating the HoF itself.
Unless all transplants from DDO who deserved to be in the HoF there were already inducted, I fail to see how transplanting the HoF list is going to eliminate this bias and unfairness that you are concerned about. It may reduce it, but there's still, per your arguments, going to be present members that cause the system to be carried out in a biased and unfair manner?
Reducing it is the point. That's like saying 'killing 80% of the mosquitos won't eliminate malaria, it will only reduce it, so it's best not to bother'.
At that point, as pointed out, why have it at all? It's only going to discourage new members, again, per your concerns. It may be less so, but that doesn't change it will still be as such. I may rejectreje premise that users can't operate without bias in voting, but for purposes and discussion I'm assuming the reverse to be true, as you are.
The point of the HoF, in my mind, is to motivate people to contribute. The people who are here right now are already motivated; if they weren't they would have dropped off when DDO died. Instead, they moved here from DDO. There is a small vocal minority who dislike old DDO and want to make a 'clean break', and a larger majority that probably doesn't care much about the HoF at all and isn't really contributing to this thread.
But the thing is, if we want this site to work then we shouldn't be thinking about either of those groups, but instead about potential new users of the site who will join in the future. Any site this size has to attract new talent and grown, and that's where the HoF has some real utility aside from jacking off over the idea of having your name on a list of 'cool kids'. It's when the new person looks at it and says 'cool, I could make it in there and really feel like a part of the community'. That directly corresponds to their perceived likelihood of getting in, which is boosted by lowering the amount of competition that they face from established members.
So the question that we should be asking is: how would a fresh member weigh the costs and benefits? Would they be offended that the old HoF was migrated? That to me is just absurd. When I joined DDO, I wouldn't give a flying fuck if two years ago the whole community had migrated and had brought the old site's HoF along with them. That is only a concern which exists within a minority of the original site userbase, as it's tied to animus towards DDO, a website that a new member would have no experience with. So the answer is clear to me: I would feel like there was more social mobility if there had been more newer members inducted the last few times.
But I don't think that the right decision will be made here, because the discussion is among current DDO members, and like any topic the people with the strongest views are drawn to it. And those are the people who have some beef with the old DDO, who really want to 'cut clean' and have nothing to do with it. I don't think that most 'DDO refugees' really care either way, and so aren't voicing their opinion in this thread. I myself am pretty much tired of arguing the point right now, because it doesn't really affect me either way and I don't think that arguing will be effective against a strongly motivated, emotional minority. We will probably spend the first few years reinducting people like bsh, tej, and bench because of a fanatic opposition to the 'mixing of sites' when we could have forced the nomination process to look somewhere other than the obvious candidates, and maybe find some talent among the newbies to honor instead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Entropy only applies to closed systems. The reason that we are even having this discussion is because this site isn't a closed system. Personally, I'm more concerned with new blood than with people carrying over personal baggage over from old DDO, since they will eventually far outnumber any of us if the site succeeds. And which would be more offensive to a brand new person? Being told 'yeah, this site was originally created when another debate site failed and there was a mass migration, so we migrated the old HoF over and if you contribute a lot you will probably be inducted in a few rounds' (in this case the few first rounds are more likely to be new blood, because many old members will already be inducted) or to see a bunch of people from the old site being reinducted into the new hall of fame, with most of the discussed prospective inductees being old members? Which is more likely to inspire contribution? Which is more likely to create the impression of 'I can jump right in and become a respected member'? I think that any new member who gets bent out of shape over something that happened before he joined the site would definitely be in the minority.
In fact, the increased likelihood of being inducted into a HoF which includes old DOD is more inclusive because the new member is ranked as an equal with all those old members. I can only see people having a problem with it if they bear some sort of personal grudge or ill feelings against old DDO, and those people are a minority within a minority.
Created: