Don't lock threads, delete them.

Author: RationalMadman ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 30
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 312
    Forum posts: 9,355
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    Destroy the evidence, shut the trolls down. Tell in the CoC that to bring up a deleted thread in conversation on the website is considered the same as PM doxxing and violates the Mod's discretion and privacy, undermining the fabric of the website.

    If they keep at it, say they are harassing the moderators and upsetting the userbase. Ban them, halas.
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 312
    Forum posts: 9,355
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    Also, if you need the evidence to show FBI or something, just 'delete' it from view, stash it somewhere only mods can see.
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,909
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @RationalMadman
    I am mainly more concerned that they value not banning people breaking rules instead make a special case. 


    "There were quite a few direct personal attacks in the thread. We decided a cool down period would be helpful. That being said, we will not be using this in the future."

    At least he said he won't do it again but putting rule-breakers above laying down the law is bad. I expect something like this would happen again because I didn't see either Speedrace or Virtuoso apologize for a precedent that hasn't been issued in this way. 
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 312
    Forum posts: 9,355
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    I am mainly more concerned that they value not banning people breaking rules instead make a special case. 
    Do you realise that you were one of them?
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,909
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @RationalMadman
    Do you realise that you were one of them?
    You don't know until they ban me and say it was me. Probably it was me but I don't know for sure. 

  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 5,659
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    Let's assume you were a violater. From your point of view, would you rather be banned or given a chance to shape up?
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,909
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @drafterman
    Let's assume you were a violater. From your point of view, would you rather be banned or given a chance to shape up?
    Banned while also the other users who were also personally attacking people. I don't want the rules to be bent my way because that just means someone else would get a free pass as well and they can use it in a much worse way. Besides it isn't real life so I probably be banned for a week or month tops. 

    I think what should've happened was privately messaging everyone involved who did what and ask them to stop. If they don't while also not apologizing then you can ban them. I haven't got a private message so I am going with Speedrace doesn't know what he was doing because I wasn't sent a message and I am guessing from people like Speedrace and RM I would be one of the people who would've been banned. If this isn't how bans work why did bsh1 inform me of a rule breaking before making his decision? If this has changed as well then f*ck the people in charge for being incompetent or allowing incompetency to occur without apologizing for it. All I saw was Virtuoso stating he won't do it again so Virtuoso is basically apologizing on Speedrace's behalf. I didn't like it when I think bsh1 apologized for Virutoso and I don't like it now. Sure the head mod is supposed to manage every other mod but to say they should be more accountable for something that was never done before is in my opinion is the fault of the person who did the new thing. For example Speedrace locking a non-spam, non-moderator thread.
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 312
    Forum posts: 9,355
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    Bsh1 never once, not even one tiny bit, apologised for Virtuoso. The opposite happened many times and what occured was that Virtuoso took the blame readily for Bsh1's bullshit. Bsh1 was so concerned with pandering to the very people who tore him down (the Coal clique) and it was his downfall. Virtuoso was loyal to those who displayed a genuine concern for the userbase and who also showed some loyalty to him. He is a smart guy, knows how to charm etc. I don't really approve of his playstyle to the highest degree but to a medium-high degree, I respect it. He is reasonable and even if he will permaban me, he will know how to do it, when to do it and why to do it.
  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 5,659
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    Banned while also the other users who were also personally attacking people. I don't want the rules to be bent my way because that just means someone else would get a free pass as well and they can use it in a much worse way. Besides it isn't real life so I probably be banned for a week or month tops. 
    You don't get to control whether or not other people are banned. If you, personally, want to be banned for what you feel is violating content, you can always voluntarily request a ban. That you believe you probably did violate the CoC, and that you believe you should be banned for it, but haven't requested a ban, suggests that you don't actually want to be banned.

    I think what should've happened was privately messaging everyone involved who did what and ask them to stop. If they don't while also not apologizing then you can ban them.
    That is an impractical precedent to set.

    I haven't got a private message so I am going with Speedrace doesn't know what he was doing because I wasn't sent a message and I am guessing from people like Speedrace and RM I would be one of the people who would've been banned.
    Decisions such as banning are usually a result of internal discussion and consensus. What we have is multiple instances of behavior entering a grey area where you might have some people agreeing it is a violation but others not yet agreeing. We can view the locking of the thread as a precautionary measure to halt the behavior before it reached a point where there wasn't any doubt and mass warnings/bannings were in order.

    What boggles my mind is anyone that views this as the less desirable option than doing nothing until you need to start whipping out the ban hammer. It seems abundantly clear to me that if you can take a simple, less intrusive action that halts the undesirable conduct without having to ban lots of people, clearly that is the better option than waiting for people to inevitably do something egregious enough to warrant a banning.

    If this isn't how bans work why did bsh1 inform me of a rule breaking before making his decision?
    I cannot attest to the inner workings of bsh1 mind.

    If this has changed as well then f*ck the people in charge for being incompetent or allowing incompetency to occur without apologizing for it.
    Okay.

    All I saw was Virtuoso stating he won't do it again so Virtuoso is basically apologizing on Speedrace's behalf.
    Then your perception is skewed. I am assuming that this is the post in question:

    In which Virt says, "That being said, we will not be using this in the future."

    Clearly he says more than that in that post, directed to you, in which you were tagged, that you replied to. So if that is "all" you saw, then I encourage you to reread the post in its entirety to see more than just that.

    I didn't see any apology.

    I didn't like it when I think bsh1 apologized for Virutoso and I don't like it now. Sure the head mod is supposed to manage every other mod but to say they should be more accountable for something that was never done before is in my opinion is the fault of the person who did the new thing. For example Speedrace locking a non-spam, non-moderator thread.
    I doubt you will find that anyone involved in the decision would agree with the interpretation that Speedracer did this on his own in some sort of rogue or uniltaeral action, or that the move was one of incompetence. In short, there is nothing to apologize for.
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,909
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @RationalMadman
    Bsh1 never once, not even one tiny bit, apologised for Virtuoso.
    I'll wait until Virtuoso says that. 

  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,909
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @drafterman
    You don't get to control whether or not other people are banned
    Who said I did? I am talking what I would like to happen. I can't believe you got that from what I said. I am not so delusional to think I am part of the moderation team.
    If you, personally, want to be banned for what you feel is violating content, you can always voluntarily request a ban.
    I would be banned voluntarily. Not because of my supposed personal attacks. I seriously don't understand why you couldn't get this without the need of me clarifying for you. 
    That you believe you probably did violate the CoC, and that you believe you should be banned for it, but haven't requested a ban, suggests that you don't actually want to be banned.
    It doesn't matter what I believe. It matters how Virutoso and co interpret the CoC.
    That is an impractical precedent to set.
    Please elaborate.
    Decisions such as banning are usually a result of internal discussion and consensus. What we have is multiple instances of behavior entering a grey area where you might have some people agreeing it is a violation but others not yet agreeing. We can view the locking of the thread as a precautionary measure to halt the behavior before it reached a point where there wasn't any doubt and mass warnings/bannings were in order.

    What boggles my mind is anyone that views this as the less desirable option than doing nothing until you need to start whipping out the ban hammer. It seems abundantly clear to me that if you can take a simple, less intrusive action that halts the undesirable conduct without having to ban lots of people, clearly that is the better option than waiting for people to inevitably do something egregious enough to warrant a banning.
    Why was this under I was privately messaged a while back? I don't see how this speaks about that instead of saying what you want it to be without understanding how he doesn't actually involve what I said. If you want to talk about generally how things are done then talk about it. Just don't put it in a particular interaction I had. A response I would've wanted was that the rules have changed since then, it has been a while since we have done that if you are telling the truth or something else speaking about what you quoted from me.
    I cannot attest to the inner workings of bsh1 mind.
    Great job keeping in line with what you quoted. I guessed you didn't understand that before.
    I didn't see any apology.
    I implied that from them saying we won't do it anymore. It is more likely an admission of guilt than it is something they did correctly. If it was correct he wouldn't be saying he wouldn't do it anymore. 
    I doubt you will find that anyone involved in the decision would agree with the interpretation that Speedracer did this on his own in some sort of rogue or uniltaeral action, or that the move was one of incompetence. In short, there is nothing to apologize for.
    Guess Virtuoso decided to say it won't happen again because it was the correct thing to do to remove a good decision? Okay. 
    I didn't claim Speedrace (Please get his name right, I thought you, discord DA. was in close communication with DA. I find that funny since you don't even bother calling your peers correctly.). I claimed an example of a moderator being more accountable than the head moderator is what Speedrace did. It seems like you liked to find the context of Virtuoso not directly apologizing but you forgot to mention where Speedrace told me Ragnar had a part to play. Are you going to feign ignorance or are you just now realizing Speedrace spoke Ragnar specifically and all whatever that is? Link

    Update: Great job remembering there is one 1 r in Speedrace
  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 5,659
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    Who said I did? I am talking what I would like to happen. I can't believe you got that from what I said. I am not so delusional to think I am part of the moderation team.
    The issue is you stated what you would like to happen to you contingent on what happens to other people. This is not something under your control.

    I would be banned voluntarily. Not because of my supposed personal attacks. I seriously don't understand why you couldn't get this without the need of me clarifying for you. 
    So you are voluntarily requesting to be banned?

    It doesn't matter what I believe. It matters how Virutoso and co interpret the CoC.
    Given that a user is allowed to request that they be banned, what you believe does matter. If you believe you have committed a ban worthy offense and want to be banned for it, all you have to do is ask. Is this a formal request?

    Please elaborate.
    While messaging individual users is possible now, it is still a chore, depending on how many users need to be message. Especially when you account for the inevitable bickering and back-and-forth most users will engage in. Assuming this community will grow, it would simply be impractical, if not possible, to expect that moderators message every single user when an instance of mass, potential violations is in progress. Locking the thread is a single action. Quick, easy, and painless.

    Why was this under I was privately messaged a while back? I don't see how this speaks about that instead of saying what you want it to be without understanding how he doesn't actually involve what I said. If you want to talk about generally how things are done then talk about it. Just don't put it in a particular interaction I had. A response I would've wanted was that the rules have changed since then, it has been a while since we have done that if you are telling the truth or something else speaking about what you quoted from me.
    There is a new moderation team with a different style of moderation. The site itself is undergoing changes and the current policies are being looked at and reviewed. This is general, public knowledge. I'm having trouble understanding much of the grammar in this paragraph, but based on this and previous interactions, you seem more annoyed about rules being followed the way they've always been followed than what is actually best for the users and the site.

    I implied that from them saying we won't do it anymore. It is more likely an admission of guilt than it is something they did correctly. If it was correct he wouldn't be saying he wouldn't do it anymore. 
    An apology implies fault. You can do something that turns out to not be the correct course of action without having committed any mistakes or errors or done anything that is fault-worthy.

    Guess Virtuoso decided to say it won't happen again because it was the correct thing to do to remove a good decision? Okay. 
    I cannot attest to the inner workings of Virtuouso's mind.

    I didn't claim Speedrace (Please get his name right, I thought you, discord DA. was in close communication with DA. I find that funny since you don't even bother calling your peers correctly.).
    Congratulations, you found a typo on the internet. Perhaps you should recommend that Mike create a medal for that?

    I claimed an example of a moderator being more accountable than the head moderator is what Speedrace did. It seems like you liked to find the context of Virtuoso not directly apologizing but you forgot to mention where Speedrace told me Ragnar had a part to play. Are you going to feign ignorance or are you just now realizing Speedrace spoke Ragnar specifically and all whatever that is? Link
    That link affirms what I was saying: It wasn't a unilateral action taken by Speedrace himself. It was an action that was agreed upon. Speedrace is simply the person that actually carried it out, which can only be done by one person, unless you are suggesting all the mods meet up in real life to press a single button with all of their fingers?
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,909
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @drafterman
    The issue is you stated what you would like to happen to you contingent on what happens to other people. This is not something under your control.
    I am not disagreeing with you.
    So you are voluntarily requesting to be banned?
    If I wanted to be voluntarily banned then I would ask to banned voluntarily. If I wanted the people who were issuing personal attacks to banned I would like moderators to enforce those rules instead of locking the thread. Ask the question again and I am implying you don't know what I am talking about.
    Given that a user is allowed to request that they be banned, what you believe does matter. If you believe you have committed a ban worthy offense and want to be banned for it, all you have to do is ask. Is this a formal request?
    Still not addressed. It doesn't matter what I personally feel here. It matters what the moderators do. If I ask for a ban. I get banned because I asked for a ban not because I was the one who should've been banned issuing personal attacks.
    While messaging individual users is possible now, it is still a chore, depending on how many users need to be message. Especially when you account for the inevitable bickering and back-and-forth most users will engage in.
    Simple, don't bicker. Have clearly laid out messages. The user would have to apologize or accept a ban. You are trying to make things complicated when they are not.
    Assuming this community will grow, it would simply be impractical, if not possible, to expect that moderators message every single user when an instance of mass, potential violations is in progress.
    Give me a ballpark of people warranted a message in the thread. Lets go with 5. Send the exact same private messages but send 5 different links of what they said. Ask them to apologize or accept a ban. This would only take a couple of minutes and then you would wait for the other person to reply in with the closed question. This can be further tuned to having everyone accept a time span they are allowed not to reply. A week should be enough time.
    Locking the thread is a single action. Quick, easy, and painless.
    How about Speedrace requiring to need the permission of "all" moderators for this to be enacted? Seems more like a long, tedious and painful. My suggestion would take more time but you won't be locking a thread which is stifling a conversation. Assuming this community will grow, you wouldn't want them to leave because someone else did something so they should also be punished.
    There is a new moderation team with a different style of moderation.
    Thank you for telling me this because neither Virtuoso or the others have made it clear what the different style would pertain too apart from I think some CoC changes but not how the moderation would follow up on it.
    The site itself is undergoing changes and the current policies are being looked at and reviewed. This is general, public knowledge.
    Where?
    you seem more annoyed about rules being followed the way they've always been followed than what is actually best for the users and the site.
    I didn't follow what you said here. I am more "annoyed" about new interpretations of the rules. For example Speedrace locking a non-spam and non-moderator thread.
    An apology implies fault. 
    It was the fault of Speedrace locking the thread. Ragnar and "all" agreeing to it not realizing they haven't done it before. Not realizing how a user would react to it. Then stating they would never do it again. I think it is reasonable for me to imply this is an apology. I can still imply who is at fault and you are not arguing against Speedrace issuing it and Ragnar and "all" agreeing to it then Virtuoso changing his mind. 
    You can do something that turns out to not be the correct course of action without having committed any mistakes or errors or done anything that is fault-worthy.
    Don't waste my time with intent. I don't think you are as capable as bsh1 in arguing this. I know how it went down with bsh1 and this time I think it would be a poor representation of his position even if the moderation has changed I don't think what you said here was formulated better than bsh1. 
    I cannot attest to the inner workings of Virtuouso's mind.
    I am deductively reasoning this. You are simply feigning ignorance which is obviously also my position. 
    Perhaps you should recommend that Mike create a medal for that?
    If only I cared about medals. Sorry but you can take the typo medal if you want. 
    That link affirms what I was saying: It wasn't a unilateral action taken by Speedrace himself.
    Who said I disagreed? Speedrace locked the thread agreed by Ragnar and "all". 
  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 5,659
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    If I wanted to be voluntarily banned then I would ask to banned voluntarily. If I wanted the people who were issuing personal attacks to banned I would like moderators to enforce those rules instead of locking the thread. Ask the question again and I am implying you don't know what I am talking about.
    Okay.

    Simple, don't bicker. Have clearly laid out messages. The user would have to apologize or accept a ban. You are trying to make things complicated when they are not.
    So you want the moderators to ignore responses made to them?

    Give me a ballpark of people warranted a message in the thread. Lets go with 5. Send the exact same private messages but send 5 different links of what they said. Ask them to apologize or accept a ban. This would only take a couple of minutes and then you would wait for the other person to reply in with the closed question. This can be further tuned to having everyone accept a time span they are allowed not to reply. A week should be enough time.
    Warnings are usually given before a ban. Seems like you want people banned at the drop of a hat.

    How about Speedrace requiring to need the permission of "all" moderators for this to be enacted? Seems more like a long, tedious and painful.
    How would you know?

    My suggestion would take more time but you won't be locking a thread which is stifling a conversation. Assuming this community will grow, you wouldn't want them to leave because someone else did something so they should also be punished.
    No conversation was stifled and no one was punished.

    Thank you for telling me this because neither Virtuoso or the others have made it clear what the different style would pertain too apart from I think some CoC changes but not how the moderation would follow up on it.
    The site itself is undergoing changes and the current policies are being looked at and reviewed. This is general, public knowledge.
    Where?


    I didn't follow what you said here. I am more "annoyed" about new interpretations of the rules. For example Speedrace locking a non-spam and non-moderator thread.
    There are no rules regarding the locking of threads.

    It was the fault of Speedrace locking the thread.
    Incorrect.

    Ragnar and "all" agreeing to it not realizing they haven't done it before. Not realizing how a user would react to it. Then stating they would never do it again. I think it is reasonable for me to imply this is an apology.
    It is not.

    Don't waste my time with intent. I don't think you are as capable as bsh1 in arguing this. I know how it went down with bsh1 and this time I think it would be a poor representation of his position even if the moderation has changed I don't think what you said here was formulated better than bsh1.
    Okay.

    I am deductively reasoning this. You are simply feigning ignorance which is obviously also my position. 
    "Feigning" are you assuming I can telepathically tap into Virts mind and am lying about it?

  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,909
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @drafterman
    So you want the moderators to ignore responses made to them?
    Listen. If they do make a good argument, implement it. 
    Warnings are usually given before a ban. Seems like you want people banned at the drop of a hat.
    Unfair representation of what I said. I did advocate for a message for them to apologize or be banned. That is a far cry from banning them at a drop of a hat. I am getting more from you that you are being bad faith the longer I am speaking with you.
    How would you know?
    I don't know which is why I used "seem".
    No conversation was stifled and no one was punished.
    I was going to message both Supa and Annie back but couldn't because the thread was locked. That is stifling conversation. Please demonstrate otherwise. I was punished for someone giving out personal attacks which stopped me from responding.
    Please read what I say before linking me 3 different things that don't answer what I said. Here is what I said again "neither Virtuoso or the others have made it clear what the different style would pertain too apart from I think some CoC changes but not how the moderation would follow up on it."

    1st one is about a discussion so nothing finalized.
    2nd is an AMA which wouldn't you know is ended with me asking question Virtuoso has yet to respond too.
    3rd one is about moving forward not about what the different style would pertain too.
    There are no rules regarding the locking of threads.
    Maybe you should've made the rule before you know using a hole in a system to do what you like. Thank you for telling me I am warranted for my position that this is a new precedent that the rules don't even make clear that is allowed. Meaning I am justified in my response because I am not a mind reader so what was done by Speedrace was done without me knowing it could occur.
    Incorrect.
    You are arguing against reality. Speedrace's comment in the thread is clearly pointing towards him being at fault for locking the thread. Next time try to mount a defense instead of doing something Mopac does. Giving not worthwhile answers that I have nothing to work with. Please find where I didn't elaborate like you didn't here. I would try my best to explain my points further if I didn't. 
    It is not.
    Guess this is a trend. Can't argue against it just do what Mopac does. Claims without explanation.
    Okay.
    Thank you. I would've thought you wouldn't be okay with how much better bsh1 characterizes what he says but guess I am wrong.
    "Feigning" are you assuming I can telepathically tap into Virts mind and am lying about it?
    I am not assuming you can read people's mind. I would like to see how you deductively got that.
    Given that this is pivotal to what you said please address this and give a better counter then I assumed you are a mind reader. 

  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 5,659
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    Warnings are usually given before a ban. Seems like you want people banned at the drop of a hat.
    Unfair representation of what I said. I did advocate for a message for them to apologize or be banned. That is a far cry from banning them at a drop of a hat. I am getting more from you that you are being bad faith the longer I am speaking with you.

    You've mentioned both, yes. So if you advocate a warning first, then okay. But that just raises the issues of impracticality when it involves a lot of users at once.

    I was going to message both Supa and Annie back but couldn't because the thread was locked. That is stifling conversation. Please demonstrate otherwise.
    You are free to message them or reply to them. You can create an entirely new thread to continue any appropriate conversation you wish.

    I was punished for someone giving out personal attacks which stopped me from responding.
    You have not been punished.

    Please read what I say before linking me 3 different things that don't answer what I said. Here is what I said again "neither Virtuoso or the others have made it clear what the different style would pertain too apart from I think some CoC changes but not how the moderation would follow up on it."
    I said: "The site itself is undergoing changes and the current policies are being looked at and reviewed. This is general, public knowledge."
    You replied: "Where?"

    Those links are in reference to the statement I made.

    Maybe you should've made the rule before you know using a hole in a system to do what you like.
    I don't make the rules here.

    Thank you for telling me I am warranted for my position that this is a new precedent that the rules don't even make clear that is allowed. Meaning I am justified in my response because I am not a mind reader so what was done by Speedrace was done without me knowing it could occur.
    If your complaint is that the rules should be more clear about what the moderators can do in certain situations, then I would agree that such a response is justified. But your responses are laced with a level of accusation and insult that I do not find justified.

    You are arguing against reality. Speedrace's comment in the thread is clearly pointing towards him being at fault for locking the thread. Next time try to mount a defense instead of doing something Mopac does. Giving not worthwhile answers that I have nothing to work with. Please find where I didn't elaborate like you didn't here. I would try my best to explain my points further if I didn't. 
    Because I have already explained why it is not a fault-worthy action. If you want to know my "defense" you need only reread the posts I have already provided to that effect.

    I am not assuming you can read people's mind. I would like to see how you deductively got that.
    Because you are asking me why Virt chose to say something he said. The only person that knows that is Virt.

  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,909
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @drafterman
    You've mentioned both, yes. So if you advocate a warning first, then okay. But that just raises the issues of impracticality when it involves a lot of users at once.
    It is impractical if you don't have the time. I don't believe the amount of people on the site makes it impractical. I would say you are making excuses. This is a hunch that is all.
    You are free to message them or reply to them. You can create an entirely new thread to continue any appropriate conversation you wish.
    But I am not free to continue the discussion on the locked thread. You basically didn't argue against my points. You just made new points instead of rebutting my claims.
    You have not been punished.
    Define punishment.
    I said: "The site itself is undergoing changes and the current policies are being looked at and reviewed. This is general, public knowledge."
    You replied: "Where?"

    Those links are in reference to the statement I made.
    Oh didn't realize you don't double quote or whatever it is, you just quote one thing and have my reply without quotations. Sorry.
    I don't make the rules here.
    But you have an impact because the discord DA has a close communication with DA. 
    If your complaint is that the rules should be more clear about what the moderators can do in certain situations, then I would agree that such a response is justified. But your responses are laced with a level of accusation and insult that I do not find justified.
    Quote the accusation not insults and tell me why I am wrong. I can insult the moderators and when that rule changes then I won't.
    Because I have already explained why it is not a fault-worthy action.
    You basically made an intention point which neither of us are Virtuoso so basically have no points in regarding this. Do you want to clarify because I seem to be missing your "defense"?
    Because you are asking me why Virt chose to say something he said. The only person that knows that is Virt.
    Okay lets say that is true. It was unfair for you to get a why did someone do X to do you think I am mind reader? If you actually don't agree you are pretty much arguing in bad faith. If it wasn't clear the answer that would've been fair was that I haven't asked Virtuoso, I do not have the power to ask for that information or it was because of x.


  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 5,659
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    It is impractical if you don't have the time. I don't believe the amount of people on the site makes it impractical.
    Sure, but I don't think it's beneficial in the long run to set it as a precedent now.

    But I am not free to continue the discussion on the locked thread. You basically didn't argue against my points. You just made new points instead of rebutting my claims.
    But you are, in fact, free to continue the discussion. There is nothing special or magical about that thread that requires the conversation continue there. The only thing holding you back is you.

    Define punishment.
    "inflict a penalty or sanction on (someone) as retribution for an offense, especially a transgression of a legal or moral code."

    Quote the accusation not insults and tell me why I am wrong. I can insult the moderators and when that rule changes then I won't.
    We're talking about whether your response is justified. Just because you are not forbidden from doing something by the rules doesn't mean that the response is justified.

    You basically made an intention point which neither of us are Virtuoso so basically have no points in regarding this. Do you want to clarify because I seem to be missing your "defense"?
    No, I do not want to clarify.

    Okay lets say that is true. It was unfair for you to get a why did someone do X to do you think I am mind reader? If you actually don't agree you are pretty much arguing in bad faith. If it wasn't clear the answer that would've been fair was that I haven't asked Virtuoso, I do not have the power to ask for that information or it was because of x.
    I don't know what you're saying here.
  • Christen
    Christen avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 332
    1
    4
    7
    Christen avatar
    Christen
    --> @David @drafterman @RationalMadman @TheRealNihilist
    It's usually better that threads are locked instead of deleted. If a person went on a thread and said bad stuff, deleting the thread means that nobody will be able to see what that person did wrong, and nobody will be able to learn from that person's mistakes. Plus, a deleted thread makes it easier for that person to claim that they did nothing wrong, and that the moderators abused their power. Keeping the thread locked but visible allows others to see for themselves what went wrong, and learn from the person's mistakes.

    The only time it would be better to delete a thread would be if the person was posting confidential/private information like a social security number, and violating someone's privacy, something which would lead to the website getting seized or shut down by the government due to it hosting illegal/copyrighted content.

    In a real crime-based situation, you actually want to preserve the evidence, not destroy it. This is also why I am against censoring/banning the video/manifesto of the New Zealand ChristChurch attacke
    on March 15 2019 because it destroys evidence, and makes it easier for people to say it never happened.
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,909
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @drafterman
    Sure, but I don't think it's beneficial in the long run to set it as a precedent now.
    When you do reach that hurdle you can have my idea until you figure out how to automate it. Assuming you think my way of doing things is better.
    But you are, in fact, free to continue the discussion. There is nothing special or magical about that thread that requires the conversation continue there. The only thing holding you back is you.
    Free to not continue the discussion in the thread that was locked. I am not able to freely discuss in the thread I was in.
    "inflict a penalty or sanction on (someone) as retribution for an offense, especially a transgression of a legal or moral code."
    I was sanctioned as retribution of personal attacks that I may or may not have committed.
    We're talking about whether your response is justified. Just because you are not forbidden from doing something by the rules doesn't mean that the response is justified.
    Please give me an argument telling me how I am not justified in how I feel.
    No, I do not want to clarify.
    Okay. Guess you are going down the route of I can't defend the position so I am going to be like Mopac.
    I don't know what you're saying here.
    You didn't tell me what the problem is so I don't know what you didn't get.

    It was unfair for you to suggest I called you a mind reader.

    This was your comment about it ""Feigning" are you assuming I can telepathically tap into Virts mind and am lying about it?"

    In what way was this remotely fair question regarding what I said? 
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,909
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @Christen
    Who said I wanted to delete thread?

    If not me then

    Tell me a single person you have messaged your comment too wants to delete the thread.

    I am for punishing the people involved with the personal attacks.

    drafterman takes the side of Speedrace, Ragnar and whoever "all" is.

    Don't know about Virtuoso or RM. 



  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 5,659
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    When you do reach that hurdle you can have my idea until you figure out how to automate it. Assuming you think my way of doing things is better.
    I don't.

    Free to not continue the discussion in the thread that was locked. I am not able to freely discuss in the thread I was in.
    That is a self-imposed limitation. You're the only one saying you have to continue the conversation elsewhere. In general, though, you are permitted to continue any conversation that doesn't violate the rules. So you are, in fact, free to continue the conversation.

    I was sanctioned as retribution of personal attacks that I may or may not have committed.
    No you were not.

    Please give me an argument telling me how I am not justified in how I feel.
    I have made no comment on your feelings, just your actions. As I am trying to teach my child son: you may not control your feelings, but you can control your actions.

    It was unfair for you to suggest I called you a mind reader.
    I didn't suggest that. I am simply informing you that I am not a mind reader and therefore cannot attest to the inner workings of someone else's mind. So I cannot answer any questions about why Virt said or did something unless he explicitly stated those reasons.
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,909
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @drafterman
    I don't.
    Why because it is impractical?
    That is a self-imposed limitation.
    A locked is limiting me by not allowing me to not use that thread. If it was self-imposed you could point to the thread not being locked but it was. It isn't self-imposed when I am not at fault.
    No you were not.
    Yes I was. I was punished for someone else or me engaging in personal attacks thus limiting me being able to use the thread.
    As I am trying to teach my child son: you may not control your feelings, but you can control your actions.
    Good luck but that is not how it works. No matter how I act I couldn't change Speedrace locking a thread. I hope you don't set unrealistic standards to me like you do for your son. Saying it is a self-imposed limitation is lying about the situation or you are saying I am at fault. I am not. 
    I didn't suggest that. I am simply informing you that I am not a mind reader and therefore cannot attest to the inner workings of someone else's mind. 
    So this was a fair statement? 
    "Feigning" are you assuming I can telepathically tap into Virts mind and am lying about it?"

  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 5,659
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    I don't.
    Why because it is impractical?
    It sets a precedent which could very well become impractical.

    That is a self-imposed limitation.
    A locked is limiting me by not allowing me to not use that thread. If it was self-imposed you could point to the thread not being locked but it was. It isn't self-imposed when I am not at fault.
    The requirement that you HAVE to continue the conversation in THAT specific thread is self-imposed. You don't actually have to use that thread to have that conversation. You are, however, in fact free to continue the conversation.

    No you were not.
    Yes I was. I was punished for someone else or me engaging in personal attacks thus limiting me being able to use the thread.
    You were not punished.

    As I am trying to teach my child son: you may not control your feelings, but you can control your actions.
    Good luck but that is not how it works. No matter how I act I couldn't change Speedrace locking threads. I hope you don't set unrealistic standards to me like you do for your son. Saying it is a self-imposed limitation is lying about the situation or you are saying I am at fault. I am not. 
    You have forgotten what we are talking about here. The "actions" I am referring to are how you respond to the situation, such as using insults and your general tone.

    I didn't suggest that. I am simply informing you that I am not a mind reader and therefore cannot attest to the inner workings of someone else's mind. 
    So this was a fair statement? 
    "Feigning" are you assuming I can telepathically tap into Virts mind and am lying about it?"
    Yes.
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,909
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @drafterman
    It sets a precedent which could very well become impractical.
    Under the amount of users it is doable and when it does become a lot to bear then you can work from there. It being impractical only works if the amount of people reported is more than the time that the moderators have to moderate. I don't think that is the case. Maybe I am wrong.
    The requirement that you HAVE to continue the conversation in THAT specific thread is self-imposed.
    Why are you changing my objection? I couldn't continue the conversation in the thread I started the conversation. If you think it is self-imposed then you must also accept that poor people not being able to live in an area is self-imposed because they can just move to another area.

    drafterman's self-imposed definition:

    A is annoyed that they cannot continue to be in B.
    This is self imposed because they can just find another B. 

    A= Whatever person
    B= Place. 
    You were not punished.
    Showing no argument. Demonstrating the failure you have rebutting the claims being brought forward by me. If you weren't in a position to actually argue against my claims why not say it? 
    You have forgotten what we are talking about here. The "actions" I am referring to are how you respond to the situation, such as using insults and your general tone.
    Do you think I care? I don't. I will say those things to Speedrace again until the rules are changed.
    I care about Speedrace locking the thread under "all" and Ragnar agreeing to it. Don't waste my time questioning my morality or whatever it is here if I don't care too. Actually put forward rules to restrict because I am not going to stop until you do.
    Yes.
    I am moving on. This to me is clearly showing you are being a bad faith actor. You think I believe that you can read minds even though I have stated I don't care about intentions nor do I want to talk about it. Even assuming that means you don't actually care about what I say instead put me in the worst light even though I can very well make an argument from what I said you can't even have that as a question. Me saying I don't care about intentions and saying I don't know how someone else feels to you still means you have to question that I think you read minds. Either you don't bother to read what I said and remember it or you are intentionally doing it. I can't know so I don't care. Either way it points to one direction.