New community announcement

Author: David

Posts

Read-only
Total: 209
#181
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 197
Posts: 1,011
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
-->
@Savant
And those are great questions and counter-arguments that poke holes in my framework, it's something I need to reconsider and give a lot of heavy thought.

My answer is that it depends on the subject/topic, but we need to establish where the line gets drawn. There needs to be some kind of line that is drawn, or we end up with the possibility of evil people spilling poison into the ears of other people. 
Some thoughts are just too evil, that they don't deserve to be acknowledged. No amount of fancy wording can change the fact that some things are just too evil.

We need standards. Yes, free speech is important I value free speech. But not absolute, unrestricted free speech. There have to be limitations. 
#182
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 17,108
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
Just give the site code to the mods. They already have special perms anyways
#183
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 197
Posts: 1,011
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
-->
@Savant
For instance, you could never have an abortion debate under these standards. Either the pro-life side is advocating for enslaving women or the pro-choice side is advocating for slaughtering children. For one side to be right, the other side must be advocating a morally depraved belief. They likely don't believe their belief to be morally depraved, but then neither do racist people, for example.
I'm fine with subjects/topics or debates on abortion. These are common anyway.

But it depends on the extremity of the resolution and how it is worded.
#184
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 1,018
3
3
7
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
3
7
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
@Savant
I am a strict Catholic well okay maybe I am not strict I am moderate and Catholicism is strict.

I am not going to ban non-violence-inciting non-abuse-oriented arguments against homosexuality on a site like this.

SL has decided we see 'eye to eye' but I do not really think we ever did when it comes to moderating. My duty rn this moment is not to argue with SL.

I am not on some censorship rampage. Censorship is a healthy part of a system that protects a site for 13+ users to feel fully safe using. Unless you want to make the website 18+ and ask for IDs we need to be very smart and responsible here.

I am not here to abuse my power. I am here to use it for the will of justice, morality, peace and love; that means God's will.
#185
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 197
Posts: 1,011
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
-->
@ILikePie5
Just give the site code to the mods. They already have special perms anyways
There's nothing they can do with it.

They have no technical expertise or minimal coding experience.
#186
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 3,714
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I'd prefer more freedom of speech myself,
But one takes what one can get sometimes.
#187
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,727
3
3
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
3
2
-->
@whiteflame
As Savant already said
and what were you thinking before savant played the part of lawyer?


this falls under "inflammatory content."
So connecting the ban to the CoC with even a single sentence was... what? Overly burdensome?


I'd say it's decidedly inflammatory to repeatedly tell a practicing Jew that any harm that befell their family during the Holocaust was effectively something they incurred and deserved.
So when is it not inflammatory to tell someone that people just like them deserve to die? To suffer?

Show us how "inflammatory" isn't just a label for your whim.


So if you don't like that I didn't give a comprehensive list of examples and as complete of an explanation for why Shila was banned,
No, that would be distracting with details. This is what I want a comprehensive explanation of:

Ratman says:
Agreeing with Holocaust apologetics is bannable.

and used Shila's ban as evidence.

Savant latched onto "inflammatory" and I am quite certain that is the first time anyone has done that. When someone gives you an excuse to use the current CoC as a carte blanche suddenly you're willing to acknowledge it exists, what a coincidence.

Either the reason for Shila's ban is not 'agreeing with holocaust apologetics' or 'agreeing with holocaust apologetics' = 'Encouragement of mass genocide' =  'inflammatory content' that is also simultaneously NOT an 'opinion on a topic, no matter how controversial or offensive'.

Unless somebody bans me to shut me up, I will follow this rabbit all the way down the hole. We will see if there is a coherent story at the bottom.

Right now all I see is a bunch of excuses that are not meshing very well.
#188
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 1,018
3
3
7
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
3
7
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Do you agree I am not making excuses, I am being openly Authoritarian?
#189
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 197
Posts: 1,011
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Unless somebody bans me to shut me up, I will follow this rabbit all the way down the hole. We will see if there is a coherent story at the bottom.

Right now all I see is a bunch of excuses that are not meshing very well.
We have decided that you are not fit to decide or declare anything.

Nobody. Not even whiteflame or David owe you an explanation for the ban of Shila.

We have all agreed that you forfeited that privilege a long, long time ago.
So go climb on your moral high horse and ride off into the sunset already.
#190
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 3,602
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
There's nothing they can do with it.

They have no technical expertise or minimal coding experience.
I have a decent amount. Plus I don't think it will be too hard for others to learn. Once we have it, we have forever to use it, and we're not dependent on Mike's schedule.
#191
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,727
3
3
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
3
2
We have all agreed that you forfeited that privilege a long, long time ago.
I have decided you are a liar who claims to speak for others when you do not represent them.
#192
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 6,193
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I'm frankly just not doing this back and forth. If you have more to say, say it, but I'm leaving this here for tonight and I'm not sure I'll return to it. You're supposing a lot in your responses, including that the absence of my checking a box by directly referencing the CoC somehow implies that I hadn't considered it. If that's what you believe, whatever. You can believe what you want. I'm not interested in convincing you and I'm not going to have a prolonged debate with you over this. I will, however, respond to a couple of points:

So when is it not inflammatory to tell someone that people just like them deserve to die? To suffer?
Interesting way to phrase that. No, Shila told this person that anyone in his community and family who died in the Holocaust deserved to die and suffer. Phrasing that as "people just like them" is certainly a way to put that. Noting as well the lack of response to Shila's question that pretty thoroughly suggested to this person that he and others like him are due further punishment. I'd call both of these decidedly inflammatory. You can disagree with that. You can say I never considered the words "inflammatory content" simply because I didn't type them and post them directly in my reasoning for the ban. That doesn't make it so.

And for the record, no, I'm not banning you to shut you up. You can continue to be indignant and you can disagree. But saying that it's being controversial or offensive somehow precludes it meeting the standard for inflammatory content is beyond me. It can be an opinion that's controversial, offensive and inflammatory, and the latter makes it a bannable offense. If it doesn't meet your standard for what makes something inflammatory, then I guess we have two very different standards. We don't have to agree and I'm not going to try to get you to agree.

#193
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 197
Posts: 1,011
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So your problem is that the mods are enforcing the rules?
What is your complaint here?

#194
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 1,018
3
3
7
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
3
7
-->
@whiteflame
You are right and wrong at the same time imo. You should just say shut up, obey or leave. Make it that simple on matters like this.

We do not need bestiality advocaters and holocaust apologists. The fact people think we need them for the site to have any activity is because their activity drives away most decent users.
#195
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 197
Posts: 1,011
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You're out.
#196
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 6,193
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@AdaptableRatman
You are right and wrong at the same time imo. You should just say shut up, obey or leave. Make it that simple on matters like this.
I'm willing to clarify why I've made this decision as thoroughly as needed for others to understand it. Having done that, I'm good with leaving things here, but I'm also not just going to ignore them or use my position to force them to agree with me or remove them from the site because of their disagreement. That's just not a line I'm willing to cross.
#197
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,727
3
3
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
3
2
-->
@Lemming
I'd prefer more freedom of speech myself,
But one takes what one can get sometimes.
From the moment I signed up to DDO.org I had already decided that if it came down to shutting up about the truth as I saw it or getting banned, I would speak truth and get banned.

From the moment I signed up to this site, I had the same conviction and my introduction is testament to that.

Should I be grateful to have not been banned from either site? I don't think so; debate sites shouldn't be banning people for having beliefs and expressing them. Power structures should not ban people for questioning them.

It's questionable whether it's even healthy for me to try and debate anything online, if I start censoring myself then it certainly isn't.

So I'll take what I can get, but if I can't get it, I won't take anything.

There is always a forest or a field and dogs who will never get tired of running around them. Maybe I'll just start work on a decentralized forum if the urge hits.
#198
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 197
Posts: 1,011
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
From the moment I signed up to DDO.org I had already decided that if it came down to shutting up about the truth as I saw it or getting banned, I would speak truth and get banned.
There is no truth here. Only indoctrination from your whining and rambling.

You are NOT the victim. 
#199
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 7,459
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Cringe
#200
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 1,018
3
3
7
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
3
7
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Your entire life is decentralised. Your moral compass points to base impulse alone.

Is the dark web not full of those types of forums anyway?

Why start anew what already exists? Go there, do what you think is right. Don't be surprised when the most depraved people ever show up and then amongst them instead is an undercover cop or online vigilante.

Go ahead, enjoy your decentralised fantasy forums.
#201
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,727
3
3
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
3
2
-->
@whiteflame
So when is it not inflammatory to tell someone that people just like them deserve to die? To suffer?
Interesting way to phrase that. No, Shila told this person that anyone in his community and family who died in the Holocaust deserved to die and suffer. Phrasing that as "people just like them" is certainly a way to put that. Noting as well the lack of response to Shila's question that pretty thoroughly suggested to this person that he and others like him are due further punishment. I'd call both of these decidedly inflammatory.
You didn't answer the question.


But saying that it's being controversial or offensive somehow precludes it meeting the standard for inflammatory content is beyond me.
An assertion about morality or fact and anything resembling an argument supporting either is precluded from being "worst forms of trolling".

That's what "debate any topic, no matter how controversial or offensive means".

If you're calling an assertion about morality or fact and anything resembling an argument supporting either "inflammatory content" under the current CoC you've subverted it. This isn't hard to understand, it's fairly obvious.

It's not just what you didn't say, it's what you did say: "Encouragement of mass genocide, even if it's past, is still against site rules"

Looks like a moral assertion to me.


And for the record, no, I'm not banning you to shut you up.
If you in anyway consented to giving power to ratman I question your credulity. You can't claim to be a fireman and then say nothing when an arsonist is hired. "Don't worry, I won't let him burn anything down" rings hollow.
#202
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 197
Posts: 1,011
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If you in anyway consented to giving power to ratman I question your credulity. You can't claim to be a fireman and then say nothing when an arsonist is hired. "Don't worry, I won't let him burn anything down" rings hollow.
What are you even talking about?

Making Adaptable a moderator was Barney's idea, and it was a good one.
You should be grateful that this long-standing contributor of the community has been promoted. 

This site reeks of not being close to The Holy Spirit, and it shows in your complaints.
#203
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,727
3
3
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
3
2
This site reeks of not being close to The Holy Spirit, and it shows in your complaints.
Ok, I think I'm about done talking to people who I am almost certain are mentally ill.
#204
21Pilots
21Pilots's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 53
0
0
4
21Pilots's avatar
21Pilots
0
0
4
Are we still arguing about the new moderator or can I give my list of new names for the new website? 




I can wait.

#205
yachilviveyachali
yachilviveyachali's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 160
0
2
3
yachilviveyachali's avatar
yachilviveyachali
0
2
3
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
We have all agreed that you forfeited that privilege a long, long time ago.
So go climb on your moral high horse and ride off into the sunset already.
What has this poor man done to be treated with such disdain?
#206
yachilviveyachali
yachilviveyachali's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 160
0
2
3
yachilviveyachali's avatar
yachilviveyachali
0
2
3
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
This site reeks of not being close to The Holy Spirit, and it shows in your complaints.
Are you Ratman's twin?
#207
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,509
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@yachilviveyachali
This site reeks.

So we now have smelly debating, but I don't have the app.

And I don't drink spirits.

So I am virtuous in my abstinence.

And if there were a GOD, it would be most pleased.

But sadly we can only appease the wrath of immaturity, testosterone and fantasy.
#208
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 1,018
3
3
7
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
3
7
-->
@David
@Barney
@whiteflame
This thread has served its purpose, please lock it.
Topic's author
#209
David
David's avatar
Debates: 92
Posts: 1,238
4
7
10
David's avatar
David
4
7
10
Locked