I think we ought to apply the rules to moderators as well

Ask bsh1 about ex facto deletiom of debates with banned users and refusing to do the same evem after the rule became officially MEEPd.

ex facto deletiom of debates with banned users and refusing to do the same evem after the rule became officially MEEPd?

@RM; while I won’t re-litigate this point here: there’s extensive arguments been made and explained in other threads - I would be more than happy to defend the action in a formal debate, if you wanted to created a rated debate with 2 weeks arguments, and 7500 word limit.

The deletions were not, in my view, ex facto because the rules logically followed from rules predating the MEEP. The MEEP primarily served to make the rules more clear for users, not to codify new policy.

Bro

idk what ex facto means bro.

So idk what he is even saying really.

Is it like, "after the fact"? like, "Deletion after the fact of MEEPing"?

Can't be that simple. If it is that is so weird, the fact that Latin is ingrained enough into the subconscious of an English speaker in a society hundreds of years after Latin fell out of fashion that a simple phrase like that can be so easily understood. That would be weird right? Yeah. No, it must mean something else. I don't care enough about the topic to Google it though.

It does kind of mean after the fact. If you've read the Constitution, you'll see a line prohibiting ex post facto laws, which means laws which retroactively criminalize conduct. Like, if Day 1 you insult me, and Day 2 I make insulting me illegal, you wouldn't normally be punished because your insult was not a crime when you said it. However, if I made the law ex post facto (or I applied it that way), your insult would be retroactively criminalized and you could be punished.

In this case: Ex Post Facto means simply after the fact. It’s mostly referring to the scenario where the law is changed to prohibit something and then people who had done that thing prior to the law change were prosecuted. It’s Latin because it’s a legal reference - and because lawyers.

IE if bsh made something against the rules in September, but banned someone for doing that thing back in August.

 

I get it.

So the real question, since you are claiming it is not Ex Facto, would be whether your claim that the MEEP was more of a clarification than a legislation is an accurate claim. That would require:

1) Access to the pre-MEEP version of the CoC.

2) Giving a fuck about this conversation.

I fulfill neither of these requirements, RM clearly fulfills requirement two. Is there a way for us to help him fulfill requirement one as well in order to settle this issue?

I just tried to tag myself but the website did not allow me to. That is disappointing.

I get it now. See post 38.

That is so trippy that I was able to understand what that random ass latin phrase meant despite not living in a time where latin is popular merely because of the similarity between the latin and english languages, and how it all happened on a mostly subconscious level.

I guess complex verbal language really is an inherent part of our psychology and not just a result of human societal development guiding our patterns of thought in a certain direction from the time of our birth.

That is so cool.

This is the (hopefully) last thing I will say on this topic. The pre-MEEP policy that I developed was roughly as follows: "A ban constitutes a denial of service, including the ability to create any content on this platform. A banned user therefore is prohibited from creating site content, making their debates eligible for deletion." I gave RM and Ram opportunities to argue against and for, respectively, that interpretation of the COC before I finalized it. Rather than make any argument, RM replied to my PM with a stream of insults; so, in my view, he had his chance to substantively object, and chose not to.

The MEEP provided clarification, because it would not be immediately obvious to the casual user reading the COC that banned users could not create debates. The MEEP introduced wording explicitly addressing the issue, making it clearer for site users what the policy was.

I would be happy for you to release the PMs from my side if it helps explain the thought process.

Bro don't tag me tag RM. I told you, idgaf about this shit.

I would not be inclined to do that without RM's consent because the PMs also involve RM. Plus, hopefully the explanation as articulated will be sufficient to address this question without further dragging things out.

Lol. Fair enough. At least the explanation is out there.

Actually, I find it entertaining when the moderators stalk and harass me. :)

The so-called "Hate Speech" that you linked to was just a random vague comment made by Dr Franklin about how "EU should die". Dr Frankling wasn't making slurs at any race or religious group.

The so-called "Fighting Words" that you linked to was another random comment where he says "Im supadudz dad". Nowhere did I see him comment about persuading "another user into taking prohibited actions" like the definition of fighting words defines.

Not at all. It's clear how full of shit that rule is considering that after the meep four users who were banned had the opponent get free wins even though i reported the debates.

In the words of a left-wing-sided bully of CD, who is allied with Type1 across many of both's alts and insists that he is not Ramshutu and who Ramshutu insists is not him, I bring you the following great quote posted by him 12 hours ago:

- https://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Is_it_unreasonable_to_ask_members_of_the_site_to_modify_their_use_of_the_N_word#arg991445

As per post 44:

Bro don't tag me tag bsh1. Like I told him, idgaf about this shit.

All I did was bring to his attention that my fellow DARTer had a concern.

Then dont add me as a friend, fake fan.

I'm not your fan, ew. I legitimately thought we were friends.

I mean, not actual-friend-friends. Obviously. But you know... Get-along-well-enough-to-be-listed-as-friends-on-some-random-website type of friends.

Also if you think that posts 35, 39, and 41 came from a sober person then... SMH.

Then as your fake friend, I'll give you a sound piece of advice;

Having a depressant to feel happy is one of the most utterly idiotic norms of any non-Muslim society.

That is not to say at all that I back Sharia Law, it is simply to admit that they do not do that or conform to that particular idiotic norm.

If you're curious what I take to feel happy, caffeine and glucose do the trick as does a generally disciplined mindset. So does having one person you can turn to, love comes in many forms, don't stop looking but don't think it will be easy to find the right one either.

Who said anything about drinking to be happy? Drinking doesn't make anyone feel any emotion. It's only effect on emotions is that it generally amplifies emotions that a person already feels (results vary by user obviously but that is the most common effect and the one which I experience), which is why I am careful to drink only when I am in a good mood, which I have been for about a week now due to certain life events.

The word 'depressant' doen't have anything to do with the word 'depressed' in the emotional sense. Alcohol is a depressant in the sense that it retards brain activity and dulls a person's senses, particularly hearing and touch.

This is getting off topic for the thread though. If you wish to continue your education on the subject of alcohol we may do so in some other thread. I will speak no more of it here.

No. Depressants do not just slow you, they make you feel angry and sad, hormonally. The reason why some people get happier and/or hornier while on them is based on them being the same kind of people who giggle under pressure or when being told off by a teacher when they were younger. You will notice that people who genuinely feel good while intoxicated with alcohol are unusually happy when under pressure and/or threat.

It becomes more obvious that alcohol is actually making you unhappy and angry, the more you have it and more often that you do it.

Pasting  a dictionary link because youre uneducated on the matter is very humble of you. Care to look past a simple definition?

Try a link that actually explores the topic.

Depressants do slow, they also individually ruin your emotional wellbeing in ways unique to each drug. Alcohol picks on sadness amd anger triggers very efficiently.

Nothing in that link states or implies:

In fact, the link pretty much agrees with everything Dup said; and doesn’t validate anything you said; which I presume you assumed, got proven wrong, and are now trying to save face.

im happy to debate you on this; but I agree with dup - this is not the right place. 

This is not the right place to what? Post shallow definition to win arguments?