Instigator / Pro
8
1402
rating
44
debates
40.91%
won
Topic
#873

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

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
18
Better sources
4
12
Better legibility
2
6
Better conduct
2
5

After 6 votes and with 33 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
41
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
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.

-->
@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."

-->
@bsh1

Phew okay thanks.

-->
@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.

-->
@bsh1

Understood.

-->
@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

-->
@bsh1

Understood. Please forgive me for my transgressions.

-->
@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.

-->
@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.

-->
@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.
************************************************************************

-->
@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.

A concession from pro vs 2 forfeits from con. Who wins?

-->
@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.

-->
@Alec

I did in the description

I am going to be so disappointed if this whole site is just RatMan catfish

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

Define, "alt".

Queue: Jaws theme song - buh-bump, buh-bump, buh-bump

-->
@Dustandashes

Lol, shhhhhhh

-->
@RationalMadman

How do you know?

Sparrow is Type1 that is all to say.

-->
@Alec

RM is not multi accounting as far as we know.

-->
@Alec

Given that you - a young male - didn’t know what jizz was up until yesterday: it’s probably for the best not to rely too much on the accuracy of your personal breadth of knowledge.

-->
@David
@bsh1

I think the mods would know if RM was multi accounting.

Reminds me of this sketch

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5pA-7D07-Uw

Plot twist, me and wrick it Ralph are actually the same person

Nice to see evidence coming in from the comment section :)

I'm not Rational Madman... However, apparently I am Airmax, Bsh, BoT, and anyone else oppressing your badly misunderstood "freedom of speech." Oh and I'm not reading your PMs just to make you look bad.

And yes, those were all things to which I have been accused.

I am Rational Madman as well. I accept all the debates and debate against myself to make DART look more active than it is.

https://tenor.com/view/aint-nobody-got-time-for-that-kimberly-wilkins-interview-gif-3530402

-->
@oromagi

I know ;)

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

I am RationalMadman

-->
@Brendo

IP addresses are easily masked. All it takes is a dedicated web user who knows how to time things.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

It is against the rules to own multiple accounts as you most likely already know. However, the admins are able to monitor each users IP address. If he has multiple accounts, the admins would know by now.