Instigator / Pro
8
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Topic
#3305

Oromagi's 100th debate: The MODERATION TEAM NEGLECTED their DUTY to FAIRLY SUPERVISE the FIRST DART PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION (@whiteflame)

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

whiteflame
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1724
rating
27
debates
88.89%
won
Description

THBT: The MODERATION TEAM NEGLECTED their DUTY to FAIRLY SUPERVISE the FIRST DART PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

DEFINITIONS: Per MisterChris' retirement announcement of last year, the current Mod team is composed as follows:

Head mod: whiteflame
Deputy mod: SupaDudz

MODERATION TEAM shall be defined as "whiteflame and SupaDudz."

NEGLECT shall be defined as a verb meaning "To fail to care for or attend to something. To fail to do or carry out something due to oversight or carelessness."
(Wiktionary)

DUTY shall be defined as a noun meaning "The state of being at work and responsible for or doing a particular task."
(Wiktionary)

FAIRLY shall be defined as an adverb meaning "Honestly; properly."
(Wiktionary)

SUPERVISE shall be defined as a verb meaning "To oversee or direct a task or organization."
(Wiktionary)

The FIRST DART PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION is that election authorized by MisterChris's September of 2021 MEEP "MEEP: Reformed ban policy & DebateArt President" approved by the majority of DebateArt voters on Sept 29th, 2021.
(https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6725-meep-reformed-ban-policy-and-debateart-president?)

BURDEN of PROOF
Burden of Proof is shared.

PRO must show that whiteflame and SupaDudz neglected their duties to oversee a free and fair election.
CON must show that whiteflame and SupaDudz carried out their election duties properly.

PRO is requesting sincere and friendly engagement on this subject.
No trolls or kritiks, please.

- RULES --
1. Forfeit=auto loss
2. Sources may be merely linked in debate as long as citations are listed in comments
3. For all relevant terms, PRO and CON should agree to commonplace understandings that fit within the rational context of this resolution and debate

-->
@Barney

I wonder why.

-->
@oromagi

In case I haven't said it before: You have my full respect. Most people with major complaints, refuse to actually debate them.

-->
@oromagi

Thanks, Oro. Good debate, really appreciate your debating me for your hundredth, quite the milestone!

-->
@whiteflame

Congratulations, Whiteflame! Well argued.

-->
@whiteflame

Thank you

-->
@Novice

https://www.debateart.com/debates/2564-thbt-wikipedia-is-a-more-reliable-source-for-information-than-fox-news

I never thought oromagi would loose to anyone.
By the way, I'm curious, what was the first incident of defeat that incurred the 98-1

One day remains for voting.

-->
@RationalMadman

It certainly would have benefited from a different topic selection.

-->
@Barney

One of the lamest ways for them to clash tbh

Only three days remain for voting.

With the debate not being too long, as this being a case of two juggernauts going head to head, I really hope this debate gets more votes.

-->
@TheUnderdog

I thought that before a single word was typed.

Both are competent debaters who understand the mechanics of resolutions and semantics so I'm not sure why Oromagi agreed to this since all Whiteflame had to do was continually dance around the fact they went back on the timing and justify that it was 'fairly supervised' in spite of that.

Oromagi fixated on MEEPs but nothing about the resolution insists that adherence to MEEPs is a prerequisite for fair supervision, Whiteflame instantly capitalises on this in his ARG1.

Lol.

Who thinks oromagi is going to lose this debate?

gods do bleed, it would seem

-->
@oromagi

https://i.imgur.com/bxwdyoV.gif

-->
@Barney

Appreciate the vote and RFD!

-->
@Barney
@Undefeatable

Thanks for voting!

-->
@Undefeatable

Thanks for both the RFD and for voting!

Round 3’s: oromagi repeats every singular point he made before without any significant changes. He’s clearly winning on the MEEP side, though I’m a bit saddened to see whiteflame only informed of his crucial weakness in the final round. As We both notice, the connection is only apparent on a very fundamental level. It’s unfortunate but I couldn’t see anything that connected MEEP to being an immutable rule set, especially since the topic concerned supervising the election. No matter how I read through the arguments I can’t find a way to justify pro’s ideas. The inherent nature was also in the way they look over the MEEP, in other words con bringing up the moderation overview was a key point to disprove the debate resolution. The adaptability was the most crucial because the election “supervision” at heart is meant for the people in overall retrospect. So therefore the “violation of binding guideline” is a very vague idea with almost no repurcussion on pro. He can only tell us that moderators were untrustworthy but made up for it with the results of the election. Hence, I give my vote to con.

Con r2: whiteflame retains his general over view, leaving me to wonder about the holes with the two week of seeming negligence. It would really help, ironically, in my opinion, to show countering examples where the other moderators had done something to excuse for the time gap. Just in case he couldn’t win this argument.

But okay, whiteflame repeats that because it’s the first time, you can’t accept “binding for binding” sake. I don’t see a clear answer to oromagi’s suggestion of beginning on 1st and explaining problems early, however whiteflame did tell us that the moderators would have done a poor job due to scheduling. Therefore the conclusion would be only Supa had done poorly, and even then he had admitted the errors. The resulting problem with voter or candidates is then vague as whiteflame argues: pro is very ambiguous, as pro merely has the philosophy of “neglect” to rely on rather than a true level of “neglect”. Since con explained there was clear attention paid to ban airmax goon as well as apology for lack of attention, this contradicts pros claim of negligence.

Pro r2: oromagi fights back with more resolute and solid language. He shows that MEEP was said to be binding, adding on that the final schedule could be predicted. Combined with the two weeks of inactivity, the negligence was clear. Though supa had taken accountability, it was a bit late and a double edged sword. The air max goon situation. Is a bit more unclear to me especially if the account owner was punished, but pro seems to be saying they didn’t stop the fradulent activity despite it being blatant and obvious. I can buy pros argument and once again he seems winning… for now.

Con r1: on the other hand whiteflame lays out a pretty clear and understandable counter note, showing pro had an assumption that what was written is binding. As I suspected he would state, because the platform is under development it’s still up in the air about precise times; therefore one month off is not a problem, especially as whiteflame shows the participants had plenty of time to respond. Next, the users who had violated the issue had been banned. So things are looking bad for oromagi here but I have faith in him. Let’s see what he says.

RFD to be updated

I typed this on my phone as I have free time though I have to keep this concise or else it will take eternity.

Round 1 pro opens with a simple but interesting list of violations. Moderation had missed the dates by a month (though how severe this is for debate art, I have no Clue). So it’s really about intuitive grasping how negative this is with regards to enforcing election. I’ll buy this with a grain of salt, but I really feel it’s hard to sympathize since there is no standards and so I don’t know how bad being late by one month actually is. There is however clear showing of banned accounts that were poorly managed, and thus pro gains reasonable grounds for his case. Now to go to con.

-->
@whiteflame

Thx, boss!

-->
@oromagi

Needless to say, glad you got it done.

-->
@ComputerNerd

I would advise against laying any money down but I'm glad you liked my argument.

-->
@oromagi

I do believe you have won this debate easily, but we shall wait to see.

-->
@oromagi

Wow.

That was rough! I had less than 90 minutes to compose and submitted with 15 seconds seconds left.

-->
@Novice

I appreciate your attention and interest. Hopefully we are both being clear about the issues at play here, though I know we are not be providing all the details, as that might be overly exhaustive. I hope you’ll choose to vote when this ends.

I'm trying to follow this, although I am not aware of the exact issue in question, it is a very interesting debate

PRO's ROUND 2 CITATIONS:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/proof
https://www.debateart.com/debates/proof%20of%20concept
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/binding
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7092/post-links/304330
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7057-bsh1-memorial-profile-pic-pick-of-the-week-no-37-rationalmadman-for-president
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/moderation
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PIsh9UDic938MMM3YX-H1nn15H7OriOvfOSFigXXsX0/edit
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7208/post-links/308763
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/goon
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/goon

I'll be reading this debate, as it seems very interesting. Unfortunately if I do vote, I'll have to award zero points as I might not be able to overcome my own biases

-->
@RationalMadman

Your information on such questions is usually pretty good. I don’t think I can comment without furthering my argument.

-->
@oromagi

The one that actually voted Airmax in the election (goon or fan, I think it was fan) is actually ShabShoral who had his main closed for it. I noticed that.

As for the other, I admit to having no clue, I was thinking maybe it's spacetime but yeah, I got no clue as it could even be mikal since the alt was shut down.

Perhaps this is evident but "no log of this ban appears in the Public Moderation Log" is a point relevant to Airmaxfan2000 and not Airmaxgoon1994 as listed.

PRO's ROUND 1 CITATIONS:

https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/moderation
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6725-meep-reformed-ban-policy-and-debateart-president
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7205-happy-election-day-good-luck-to-both-candidates-may-the-best-man-win
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7208/post-links/309974
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7054/post-links/302459
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7054/post-links/302459
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7092/post-links/304330
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7208/post-links/308763
https://www.debateart.com/profiles/Airmaxfan2000
https://www.debateart.com/profiles/AirmaxGoon1994
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/rules

-->
@Barney

That's the plan.

-->
@whiteflame
@oromagi

I advise some level of conciseness to the contentions. It should be simple to show if something was done, or was not done, or even was not done when it should have been.

-->
@Sum1hugme

oh yeah you are right. The rating is even stranger. He could have just done it as a challenge-debate.

-->
@RationalMadman

I think you're looking at the required rating. It's a 10k character limit.

1.69k char per round...

the 100th debate we all were waiting for...

-->
@whiteflame

thx, boss. I do appreciate that acceptance.

-->
@oromagi

Alright. Accepted.

-->
@RationalMadman

Just the fact that we're discussing rules for a website with a few dozen of participants should serve to keep us humble

-->
@RationalMadman

I fully expect the latter. That is most debating, even between very good debaters. Anyone who thinks it's the first probably hasn't been in enough debates.

-->
@whiteflame

well said

-->
@whiteflame

This is what you're both looking forward to happening: https://c.tenor.com/t7ej-yTiuz0AAAAC/jet-li-wushu.gif

This is what's about to happen: https://media0.giphy.com/media/STkGhKiD9sC9eK6cyo/giphy-downsized-large.gif

-->
@RationalMadman

Dude, if I was so nervous about losing rating, I don’t know why I would have accepted any of the anime-related “debates” I have. On top of that, as Oro already indicated, he and I decided to have a debate together ages ago and, much as this is not the topic I’d prefer to debate, I have stated outright that I am willing to do it.

So I’m not sure why you think I’m skulking, but I’m neither afraid of losing rating nor of this debate.