Points: 8

Rational Madman is probably most of the alt accounts on this website.

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 6 votes the winner is ...
RationalMadman
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Points: 41
Description
RM = Rational Madman.
Probably = Both hypothetically possible and likely to be the case.
Alt accounts = Accounts that are all owned by the same person, but do not see as much dedicated use as another more popular account owned by the person in question.
Website = Duh. Can't believe you actually read this one.
Round 1
Published:
RM and type 1 and sparrow all have information in common in habitual ways that indicate similar movement. 

RM is a self professed gambler and enjoys taking risks.  This implies that he would not let some silly rules slow him down. 

On the rule thing again.  RM Is a hard solipsist and thinks this is all a simulation or game of some type (his words) given to use by the gods or alien overlords that watch over us. This implies further implies his lust for rule breaking. 

RM's stats are the polar opposite of Type 1 and the Radius of Sparrows.  These are his three personalities.  The Gambler, The Racist Rebel, and The Vanilla. 

They all Rap battle and use different styles and levels of grammar but the same general subject matter and word choices.  Every piece of these accounts seemed almost intentionally different from one another.  


Finally, multiple alt accounts seem to mysteriously pop up around these three accounts.  They never last long and they give a nice win on their way out.  But they still pop up every now again with perfect timing. 


Does this prove 100% that RM is most of the alt accounts on this website?  No. 

Does this show that it's probable as the topic states?  Absolutely.  



Your floor.   Whoever you are today. 
Forfeited
Round 2
Published:
I extend my argument to this round.
Published:
So far no evidence given

Round 3
Published:
So do you intend not to address my arguments? 

I extend my arguments since you still have not produced anything. 
Published:
So far I have been accused of being 2 main accounts (not alts) Sparrow and Type1. Each has extremely high activity relative to the norm, meaning they're not alts.

Sparrow is Type1 as accused by me, alone, and I am the one who was responsible for exposing 3 alt abusers to the mods so far:

  1. MagicAintReal
  2. Human
  3. Type1
I have helped the mods learn techniques like browser signature reading, which bypass issues of real IP addresses. I also explained how to spot VPNs.

I am the single, sole, user who explained in full to the admin "Mike" on PM and on off-site means, how to spot alts and handle them.

Pro has a concept of probability that says 'the more probably it isn't, therefore the more probable it is.' So, because I have put so much effort into being the opposite of an alt-abuser, I therefore am the biggest one. This is incoherent.


This isn't just a debate to me, this is something I need everyone to know is false. I don't appreciate you suggesting this. I am very intelligent and capable of this, which Pro will point out. The capability and intelligence I possess have so far been used not only to tackle the three alt abusers aforementioned but to, again single-handedly, work towards the disciplining of the following abusers of CoC:

  1. Goldtop
  2. Analgesic.Spectre (who was Zarroette)
  3. Zeichen
  4. WisdomofAges
2 of those were also alt-abusers on the side of their main crime being abusive text.

Round 4
Published:
So far I have been accused of being 2 main accounts (not alts) Sparrow and Type1. Each has extremely high activity relative to the norm, meaning they're not alts.
It doesn't matter how active they are specifically.  The only need be less active than you to qualify under my definition.  Which they are.  The leaderboard clearly reveals this. 




I have helped the mods learn techniques like browser signature reading, which bypass issues of real IP addresses. I also explained how to spot VPNs.
browser signatures can be faked as well and you must know that if you're so educated on the matter.   You taught them how to spot red flags for VPN's.  Not Guaranteed ones.  Most VPN's are nearly impossible to detect.  Of course it's going to look like you're catching them all because you don't know about the one's your not catching. 


I am the single, sole, user who explained in full to the admin "Mike" on PM and on off-site means, how to spot alts and handle them.

Ahh, so you're saying that you know more than the mods on this subject?  That means you're in the unique position to outwit them.  This only makes it look even more probable.   You're the criminal who poses as the case consultant to draw the bad guys off your trail.  You're basically the perfect allegory for Dexter the serial killer. 

Pro has a concept of probability that says 'the more probably it isn't, therefore the more probable it is.' So, because I have put so much effort into being the opposite of an alt-abuser, I therefore am the biggest one. This is incoherent.
I never said anything of the sort.  You're just putting words in my mouth.  I said that you have correlation with other known alt accounts to the point where it looks intentional.  Never did I say that you appeared purposely innocent.  Quite the opposite actually.  You appear quite guilty. 


This isn't just a debate to me, this is something I need everyone to know is false. I don't appreciate you suggesting this. I am very intelligent and capable of this, which Pro will point out. The capability and intelligence I possess have so far been used not only to tackle the three alt abusers aforementioned but to, again single-handedly, work towards the disciplining of the following abusers of CoC:


So you admit that you have the means to do this?  You've dug a deeper hole for yourself now.  You have not addressed all of my arguments.  Not even close.  You're a notorious rule breaker who likes to gamble and assume knowledge in a de facto style.  You've admitted as much on multiple occasions.  Why would you suddenly care about these rules specifically?  It doesn't follow unless you're already gambling and you have to hedge your bets. 




My arguments from before still stand.  RM has not addressed all of my critiques and he really needs to if this isn't just a debate to him.  The fact that all the alt accounts revolve around him in a heliocentric manner is damning evidence. 


Remember, while this doesn't empirically prove RM to be most alt accounts on this website, it does make it probable. 



Forfeited
Round 5
Published:
I concede on the premise that I changed my mind. 
Published:
Pro conceded.
Added:
--> @King_8
Yeah, voting moderation and conduct moderation are different. Insufficient voting is not usually and issue of conduct, and therefore is not treated as a "transgression" more so as it is a "mistake."
#31
Added:
--> @bsh1
Phew okay thanks.
#30
Added:
--> @King_8
It's not a transgression per se, but it was an insufficient vote. You are free to revote so long as your vote complies fully with the rules given in the links below. If you have questions about the rules, you are always free to ask myself, Virt, or Ram for advice or feedback.
#29
Added:
--> @bsh1
Understood.
#28
Added:
--> @King_8
Furthermore, longstanding moderation convention, codified recently in the document linked below (PB.A2.SB.Sb1.PIII), prohibits voters from awarding the majority of points in their votes to the conceding party in a debate where a concession clearly takes place. Since Pro conceded, you are barred from awarding Pro the majority of the points in your vote.
This is not about revenge voting or whether your vote aligns with anyone else's. It's about whether your vote actually conforms to the rules, and it obviously doesn't.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZqYSEOjJlTjFBlrodKEn5UeHBROyCMktyxoa3OWfIR8/edit
#27
Added:
--> @bsh1
Understood. Please forgive me for my transgressions.
#26
Added:
--> @King_8
You'll notice that reasons 1 and 2 had nothing to do with why your vote was removed. Your vote in no way passed the standards required to award points which are required in the site's voting policy. That voting policy can be found here: https://www.debateart.com/rules To briefly summarize that policy:
> To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
> To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's.
> To award S/G points, the voter must (1) give specific examples of S/G errors, (2) explain how these errors were excessive, and (3) compare each debaters' S/G.
> To award conduct points, the voter must (1) identify specific instances of misconduct, (2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and (3) compare each debater's conduct.
Each of the three steps for each of the point categories must be EXPLICITLY present in the vote in order for the vote to be deemed sufficient. While there are some exceptions to these rules (e.g. in the case of awarding conduct points for forfeits a voter need not perform steps 2 and 3 of the conduct points section), these steps apply to most votes. Your vote performed none of these steps in any category except conduct. I strongly urge you to read those voting policies to fully acquaint yourself with the voting standards that are in place.
#25
Added:
--> @bsh1
Called it.
1. This isn't a revenge vote.
2. Just because the other moderators votes differed from mine, does not make my vote wrong and insufficient.
3. I gave a solid reasoning. Con forfeited 2 rounds. There are many debates where conduct is deducted from an opponent who forfeits.
4. I feel like Pro got a point in all 4 categories.
I seen nothing wrong with my vote, but hey you're the mod.
#24
Added:
--> @King_8
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: King_8 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: I agree with Pro. Plus, Con forfeited 2 rounds. Bad conduct. I'm sure my comment will get deleted by mods when it shouldn't be, I made a solid reason of Con forfeiting.
>Reason for Mod Action: Contrary to the voter's assertion that their vote shouldn't be removed, their vote is a textbook case of what is not acceptable in a vote. Not only did Pro concede the debate (meaning that it is not permitted that the voter give Pro the balance of points), but the voter makes no attempt to justify the points they award based on anything that transpired in the debate. The only point here that the voter justified was the awarding of conduct points based on the forfeit, but those points can only be awarded if the same or more points are also awarded to Con in some other category(ies), given the rules regarding conceded debates. This vote is entirely insufficient.
************************************************************************
#23
Added:
--> @Alec
The rules say that one must vote for the side that did not concede or forfeit. In this case, while con forfeited a few rounds, it was less than 1/2 the rounds that would be required to vote on conduct alone. Since Pro conceded the resolution, a vote for con is the only correct vote.
#22
Added:
A concession from pro vs 2 forfeits from con. Who wins?
#21
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
I was actually going to concede this one anyway because your comment sunk in and changed my mind on the subject. But I guess now I'll have to concede for an unrelated reason. Sadness.
Instigator
#20
Added:
--> @Alec
I did in the description
Instigator
#19
Added:
I am going to be so disappointed if this whole site is just RatMan catfish
#18
Added:
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
Define, "alt".
#17
#6
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro conceded
#5
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro Conceded
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Got to respect the concession with a favorable conduct note...
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Concessions
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Concession
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Concession