Hi, I recently migrated from DDO after having returned from years of inactivity their their. I was shocked to see what had become of the website but heard many DDO people moved to here. I'm eager to give this site a chance and am curious how many DDO faces I will recognize. It's possible I want know any of you, if the DDO members here are a generation removed from the active ones that were around when I was active.
Welcome to DART: Introduce Yourself
Posts
Pinned
Total:
393
-->
@Marauder
You're oldschool Marauder, lol.
30 days later
A little late, I am TheMorningsStar. I was on DDO before, my original account being SNP1 but I created a new account after I became a theist to get a 'fresh start'. My primary interests are in religion and history (sadly there isn't a history forum here), but politics and philosophy interest me as well. Have not had a real debate in years, hoping to change that soon.
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Welcome!
7 days later
-->
@TheMorningsStar
greetings
51 days later
Hello.
82 days later
Hi, I am new here. I have a fair amount of experience with policy debate. For thoses unfamiliar with the format one side proposes a plan, and the other explains why that plan leads to nuclear war all while speaking around 350 words per minute. I love policy debate because it is extremely good practice for debating in general, and especially debating around political topics, but I also want to try and get better at debating around some more realistic circumstances which is why I am here.
-->
@DeprecatoryLogistician
Welcome to the site. I hope you enjoy yourself.
74 days later
I was summoned here by Lunatic: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5791/post-links/253759
He said my name, and like Voldemort I knew.... because of duckduckgo (it took a year to notice).
I'm probably not going to be very engaged for these reasons:
1) I left DDO because airmax lied to me in the capacity of a moderator (at least that is what I remember) and look he's the president here. This site appears to have so many of the regular posters and authority structures of DDO that I might call it DDO II, and like the world in general it has not grown wiser or freer in the past decade.
2) The thread I linked to is discussing the controversial banning of wylted who was also an asshole on DDO but anywhere that bans you for being an asshole will ban you for serious disagreement too. Yes yes apparently he asked to be banned as some bizzare leaving ritual but before that he was controversially banned.
3) The creator of this thread was also embroiled in a controversy about being a pedophile, no doubt without proof or any relation to his capacity as a mod. Now also gone...
4) I read the Moderation Overview, it appears that the office of president is little more than a thin veneer of democracy painted over the exact same oligarchy every other forum in the world suffers from. Moderators aren't elected, choose themselves (all power flowing from the site owner), judge themselves, can override the president, and remove the president. The pretense of democracy is almost worse than simply admitting that everything is conditional on the whims of the owner like every other site.
5) I read the Code of Conduct:
If a user promotes criminal activity, moderation shall:
Criminal activity in what country? It's illegal to be homosexual in Saudi Arabia. I've seen so many forums put this up there because they think it's a matter of legal liability. It is no such thing. Even within the jurisdiction of the servers who defines "promotes"? If it was inappropriate to debate whether a law should be a law then what exactly are all these legislative bodies in modern republics for?
especially as related to hate groups as generally defined by the SPLC
Huge red flag, the SPLC is well known to be extremely prejudiced to the point of vile slander. It is a highly partisan attack group disguised as something noble and examples are easily found of their poorly curated list containing people who had to threaten to sue them for slander in order to get themselves off it. It would be no less partisan to let the Daily Wire define your list and the fact that this wasn't very obvious to whoever wrote this code of conduct means their overton window does not reflect the general population much less an objective standard.
If a user’s content includes unwarranted (or excessively toxic) systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech
It's something special to stack that many subjective standards in one sentence.
All of this reflects a ban-happy culture and the exact same kind of over-generalized subjective 'law' that petty tyrants rely on online and in real life. In conclusion you think you're special, but you're not. This is more of the same and getting worse.
I am only interested in debate as a means to collectively establish truth, that's a serious pursuit not a varsity sport. I'll not spend hours and hours with the unaccountable threat of all my work being deleted because someone's feelings might be hurt.
So if not to post much why did I create an account? Well on DDO before I left I said people could find me on edeb8.com, well the developer decided to block all Tor nodes and then the site died and that never changed. I won't make the same mistake and leave a calling card at a specific forum. You can email me at [email protected]. I do not check it regularly, maybe once or twice a month.
If nobody responds to this or PMs me on debateart I probably won't check it beyond a month from now.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Why did no part of your complaint worry about the fact that you're worried that you can't advocate for fucking your dog here?
Isn't that your whole jam? Or are you genuinely concerned that you can't advocate for hate groups and criminal activity beyond bestiality?
-->
@RationalMadman
Or are you genuinely concerned that you can't advocate for hate groups and criminal activity beyond bestiality?
"concerned" isn't quite the right word. "Generally disappointed" would be better. I would be concerned if I invested time, but I don't plan to as I said; at least not without assurances.
When I am not genuine I'm joking, and it's fairly obvious. Since you already seem to have forgotten the point it is not "hate groups" that are the issue, it is what the SPLC or an balkanized moderator calls "hate" that is.
Why did no part of your complaint worry about the fact that you're worried that you can't advocate for fucking your dog here?Isn't that your whole jam?
When rules can mean anything they mean nothing. When you need to know the topic before you decide if you believe in free speech you don't believe in free speech.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The thing is even in playing devil's advocate how can you seriously tell anyone you know 'oh look how great I debated why to fuck a dog on this website'.
Get a sense of self respect. You literally would be a more respectable person as a 40 year old virgin than a dogfucker, it really is that simple and straightforward.
I'd recommend getting into a furry roleplay online group if it's the loneliness that's eating at you, there's sex chat sites and all of that jazz where being a furry is only semi-taboo rather than fully taboo. As for actually engaging with an actual animal, fantasy is fantasy, stop trying to molest real animals and advocating for it. Humans are one of the only species that enjoy and really want sex in the way that we do.
-->
@RationalMadman
The thing is even in playing devil's advocate how can you seriously tell anyone you know 'oh look how great I debated why to fuck a dog on this website'.
I see your point, see I was thinking things like:
I am only interested in debate as a means to collectively establish truth, that's a serious pursuit not a varsity sport.
but as you point out the things I've been debating are entirely useless for bragging to random members of the public. Silly me!
Get a sense of self respect. You literally would be a more respectable person as a 40 year old virgin than a dogfucker, it really is that simple and straightforward.
My self-respect is based on my own values, not yours and not the misinformed or bigoted public. It is that simple and straightforward.
Humans are one of the only species that enjoy and really want sex in the way that we do.
Like I said, misinformed. But you won't bait me into a debate in the introduction thread. Ask for it and I will debate you in a new thread.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
All you did was come and whine and moan about this website. I assure you this isn't simply DDO version 2, it's freer here.
It was easy to get banned on DDO, you just had to piss off the popular members. You could obey the rules and still get banned, meanwhile you could act like Wylted and Imabench and stay continually only temp-banned and unbanned so long as you kept the popular members happy with you.
The approach here is different but if you keep going around posting pro-besitality bullshit, you are bound to find yourself in legal trouble not just issues with the website.
-->
@RationalMadman
All you did was come and whine and moan about this website. I assure you this isn't simply DDO version 2, it's freer here.It was easy to get banned on DDO, you just had to piss off the popular members. You could obey the rules and still get banned, meanwhile you could act like Wylted and Imabench and stay continually only temp-banned and unbanned so long as you kept the popular members happy with you.
Perhaps, but if it is so it is only by the good graces of these moderators. The rules here are no more precise nor does the election mechanic have any such consequence as implied by:
To meet the highest standards of content quality, a team of community-approved moderators works day and night to make sure that intellectual discussions stay intellectual
You say "obey the rules" but the rules aren't precisely defined so it is impossible to obey the rules if the mods don't want to see your behavior as obeying the rules.
For instance when you brought up my previous debates on different site with the sole intention of character assassination and further implied I was not "respectable", had no "self-respect", was "lonely", and engaged in "molesting"
That could be interpreted as violating the rule against:
obsessive attempts to derail unrelated topics with impertinent grudges
The approach here is different but if you keep going around posting pro-besitality bullshit, you are bound to find yourself in legal trouble not just issues with the website.
The chances that this site is primarily hosted within the united states or a country with similar speech laws is extremely high. At least until some more supreme court stacking goes on: The 1st amendment's position on publishing any earnest argument whatsoever is absolutely clear: it's legal, in fact it is as illegal as possible for any governing body from an HOA to the federal government to try and make it illegal. So no I won't find myself in legal trouble except insofar as the real life version of mods ignore the rules.
It is also especially ironic that you're warning me [for my own sake of course] to stop going around posting pro-bestiality "bullshit" when you on your own initiative brought up the subject. No doubt I would have given time, but you couldn't wait.
Keep in mind I am not saying you broke those rules, I am saying that a prejudiced mod could claim that and what little I have seen so far does not speak to objective moderation. Nor have your insults, dismissals, and baseless 'warnings' done anything to convince me of the general quality of the member-base.
To hammer home my point in the context of your person: An example of some SPLC level of due-diligence would be claiming that your Ukrainian flag is a hate symbol because somebody once saw a nazi-ukrainian flag in a photo. Clearly then you are advocating for violence on the behalf of a hate group.
That's why restricting speech is a true slippery slope, every restriction is another avenue for corruption, power corrupts and anyone given the job of censor is subject to temptation proportional to the vagueness of their mandate. I am certainly not playing devil's advocate in reference to the SPLC, they have been that wrong before and they aren't sorry.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The chances that this site is primarily hosted within the united states or a country with similar speech laws is extremely high.
Actually it's hosted in Russia (yes, that is the genuine claim by the admin).
That said, it's under '.com' domain meaning that the default law to assume is US law.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
For instance when you brought up my previous debates on different site with the sole intention of character assassination and further implied I was not "respectable", had no "self-respect", was "lonely", and engaged in "molesting"That could be interpreted as violating the rule against:obsessive attempts to derail unrelated topics with impertinent grudges
It's a grudge, sure, against somebody whose first post on the website and introduction is basically a bitch and moan that he's afraid to not be allowed to post about sexually molesting animals, while angling it as some defense of another user who is a really asinine troll to everybody here and recently confessed to beating somebody up irl, two different people on two different occasions and being in trouble with the law.
When I tell you to get some self respect, I am talking about wanting to be able to read what you posted, two weeks later and at worst cringe at it but not hate that you posted it. I'm talking from a perspective of warning and concern, not about telling you that you have no self-respect. What happens over time to a chronic troll is that they get lost in the character and the motive becomes to wind people up as the end-goal and the debating's just the means, never let it be that for you it's not a healthy path.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Children can come across this website, do you genuinely want them to honestly believe that it's okay to molest their housepet?
-->
@Lunatic
@Barney
@Vader
@whiteflame
@airmax1227
I will let you speak to this user about their concerns about their freedom to defend bestiality.
-->
@RationalMadman
Actually it's hosted in Russia (yes, that is the genuine claim by the admin).
In that case the possibility that your avatar pic is in violation of "the" law just skyrocketed.
It's a grudge, sure,
If someone wanted to see it that way
against somebody whose first post on the website and introduction is basically a bitch and moan that he's afraid to not be allowed to post about sexually molesting animals
Oh but it wasn't, once again I remind you that you brought it up.
When I tell you to get some self respect, I am talking about wanting to be able to read what you posted, two weeks later and at worst cringe at it but not hate that you posted it. I'm talking from a perspective of warning and concern, not about telling you that you have no self-respect. What happens over time to a chronic troll is that they get lost in the character and the motive becomes to wind people up as the end-goal and the debating's just the means, never let it be that for you it's not a healthy path.
The ADOL avatar is the most genuine representation of my true character and beliefs that exists. I'm not lost in anything, you can bill my insurance for the therapy.
Children can come across this website, do you genuinely want them to honestly believe that it's okay to molest their housepet?
Do you want the children to honestly believe: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3357-women-should-be-the-property-of-men ?
Do you want children to honestly believe: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3338-february-tournament-2022-the-majority-of-the-world-is-better-thanks-to-covid ?
Oh how about this one: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3329-some-races-are-bad-for-society ?
The age restriction on this site is 13 years old. Let me tell you something that is completely obvious to someone who hasn't been trolling for so long they've lost themselves: Any 13 year old surfing the web in 2022 has already found porn of their particular interest. Their minds won't be shattered by abstract references to sexual behavior (in this case brought up by you).
Indeed you seem to be completely aware that 13 year olds are aware of sex in general and in fact ought to be informed of the pure science of it by puberty https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7392-can-t-say-gay-bill?page=1&post_number=3:
I think parents have a responsibility to teach their children about sex and that teachers need only teach the basic biological facts about the time kids hit puberty.
If they are utterly incapable of forming rational opinions or evaluating propositions critically... they may fit right in.
Or perhaps you're "whining" , "bitching", and "moaning" because you're "afraid" that, unlike the three debates I've just linked to, you and others couldn't provide a convincing counter-argument sufficient to ¡save the children!
This is cliche to mention, but it's also true: Those with stronger arguments have nothing to fear from the arguments of others. Indoctrination and debate are opposites and the most ready distinguishing factor is censorship.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It is actually not illegal to say you support Ukraine, in Russia, since they are saying it's a special military operation to save Ukranians from Neo-Nazis in the Fascist government there (which is a lie of course).
I am not sure why you are being so awkward about this all but I'm just gonna block you and let others deal with your pedantic trolling.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Welcome to the site. I have not read all of the above, but I'll address your itemized list...
1) I left DDO because airmax lied to me in the capacity of a moderator (at least that is what I remember) and look he's the president here. This site appears to have so many of the regular posters and authority structures of DDO that I might call it DDO II, and like the world in general it has not grown wiser or freer in the past decade.
Yeah, you could call this DDO II. The two biggest differences are contact/involvement with the site owner, and people can be banned for excessive harassment.
2) The thread I linked to is discussing the controversial banning of wylted who was also an asshole on DDO but anywhere that bans you for being an asshole will ban you for serious disagreement too. Yes yes apparently he asked to be banned as some bizzare leaving ritual but before that he was controversially banned.
Yes, controversial bans have occurred. I think if Wylted did the same things today, he would still be banned but for a shorter amount of time.
3) The creator of this thread was also embroiled in a controversy about being a pedophile, no doubt without proof or any relation to his capacity as a mod. Now also gone...
He is not a pedo, he made single short post that was clearly joking around with someone, and other people overreacted. He stepped away by his own choice, probably due to being tired.
4) I read the Moderation Overview, it appears that the office of president is little more than a thin veneer of democracy painted over the exact same oligarchy every other forum in the world suffers from. Moderators aren't elected, choose themselves (all power flowing from the site owner), judge themselves, can override the president, and remove the president. The pretense of democracy is almost worse than simply admitting that everything is conditional on the whims of the owner like every other site.
Progress toward democracy is IMO a large step in the right direction, even if not carried out all at once. That said, the site is privately owned, so power will always stem from the owner.
5) I read the Code of Conduct:If a user promotes criminal activity, moderation shall:Criminal activity in what country?
You can see in the Public Moderation Log exactly how this has been enforced. There was one case of it (which was covered by other rules anyways), in which someone threatened the family of another member so had to be banned. Overlapping with this, when someone wanted to recruit for the KKK, we banned them.
-->
@Barney
Progress toward democracy is IMO a large step in the right direction, even if not carried out all at once. That said, the site is privately owned, so power will always stem from the owner.
Well perhaps with the lightning network a decentralized forum in the near future is plausible. The question is whether separate intellectual spheres, one free and one curated can co-exist forever. Historically isolated discourse is a prerequisite for war but it may not be a sufficient cause alone.
5) I read the Code of Conduct:If a user promotes criminal activity, moderation shall:Criminal activity in what country?You can see in the Public Moderation Log exactly how this has been enforced. There was one case of it (which was covered by other rules anyways), in which someone threatened the family of another member so had to be banned. Overlapping with this, when someone wanted to recruit for the KKK, we banned them.
I found the example you refer to:
It is in fact the only mention of the criminal part I can find, yet still that does not answer the question. Criminal activity in what country? Is it illegal to threaten people where I live? Yes. In almost every country? Yes.
Slavery is also illegal where I live and in most countries, yet https://www.debateart.com/debates/3357-women-should-be-the-property-of-men was not censored. You may say "well that shows how much leeway we give" but as I implied above that is the stuff of which tyranny is made.
e.g. When the speed limit is below what everyone drives and the cops have full discretion to enforce or not enforce you can get racial profiling. If every single person suffered the consequences of speeding there would be enormous outcry to increase the limit until almost everyone was comfortable, and then cops could not pull over minorities using that as an excuse. It is the overbroad law combined with discretion that allows petty tyranny to fester.
Cops are all too happy to boast about how easy going they are, oh how it strokes the ego to know you have power but don't abuse it... until you're angry or disgusted that is. "But I wouldn't unless you really deserved it" is the response of the petty tyrant, the true public servant desires no discretion so that the law may be perfected and temptation to tyranny is minimized.
Some things that are entirely legal where I live:
Making any argument whatsoever, even arguments that the law should change.
Recruiting for the KKK
You condensed the point leaving out the SPLC yet included recruiting for the KKK as an example of previous moderation. Presumably recruiting for the KKK would not be illegal activity so it must be "promoting hate", do you really need the SPLC to tell you the KKK is a hate group? The SPLC in this context is being used exactly as it is intended to be used, as a means to poison the well while shirking the responsibility for defending an equivalence.
Best: Don't censor "hate", censor non-argument if you're worried about spam
Second Best: Define hate precisely and objectively before banning it
Second Worst: Ban "hate" and decide for yourself what hate is (you will anyway)
Worst: Ban "hate" and outsource the responsibility of defining "hate" to a slanderous partisan organization... while at the same time no doubt feeling free to extend the definition of "hate" beyond what the SPLC may assert.
It was predicted ten years ago and the slippery slope is quite real.
-->
@RationalMadman
Not really sure what to say. I have similar concerns with wording of the CoC, and I believe he should be able to defend his view points on bestiality even if I do not agree with them
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I found the example you refer to:
Wrong post (#27), the correct one was https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3024-public-moderation-log?page=2&post_number=29 (#29)
The point being that said rule has barely been used, and clearly not abused. Your fear that we are using it to oppress homosexuals, is quite simply unwarranted.
Criminal activity in what country?
It is admittedly non-specific. As it's written in English, you could look at overlapping laws for English speaking nations... Again, in however many years, it's only been directly used for a single ban.
yet https://www.debateart.com/debates/3357-women-should-be-the-property-of-men was not censored.
I didn't realize this was your first day on the internet... Welcome to the world wide web! As should be evident when you made your first post and it was immediately visible, moderators do not pre-approve user generated content before it is visible. This is true on nearly every social website available.
-->
@Lunatic
It would be funny if you weren't serious.
-->
@RationalMadman
It would be funny if you weren't serious.
ok?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
1) I left DDO because airmax lied to me in the capacity of a moderator (at least that is what I remember) and look he's the president here. This site appears to have so many of the regular posters and authority structures of DDO that I might call it DDO II, and like the world in general it has not grown wiser or freer in the past decade.
What did he lie to you about? Airmax seems to fit your standards of laissez faire mentality, not sure why you would dis-approve of him as a president. That said, he is not a moderator here. His role as president allows him to advise mods however. And I think his only agenda would be to push towards less strict banning towards speech. Of which I don't believe we've had any recent issues since I've been making a big stink about it to the mods the past few years and they seem to finally be listening.
2) The thread I linked to is discussing the controversial banning of wylted who was also an asshole on DDO but anywhere that bans you for being an asshole will ban you for serious disagreement too. Yes yes apparently he asked to be banned as some bizzare leaving ritual but before that he was controversially banned.
Yeah the mods are finally becoming a bit less strict. Then again the mod team is changed entirely. Virt (david) is no longer head mod. Whiteflame supa and Ragnar are the current mods, and seem to be in favor of free speech too. Ragnar sometimes has problems mis-construing posts and warping their meaning, but at least he's not banning people over it anymore so I'll give him some credit.
3) The creator of this thread was also embroiled in a controversy about being a pedophile, no doubt without proof or any relation to his capacity as a mod. Now also gone...
If you are talking about bsh, yeah that situation was dumb as hell lol. That was mostly Annie (esocialbookwarm from DDO) who apparently became "woke" and a huge cancel culture personality and Coal (YYW from DDO) who is bsh's ex, and obvious has previous beef with bsh. Those were the two loudest supporters of bsh being a pedo, but I think the majority of the site, or at least people I consider more rational, knew that was bogus. At the end of the day it was bsh's choice to leave though, and I don't think it was just that issue. I think it was a culmination of dealing with issues and controversy. I think he could have made his job a lot easier by just making less enforcable rules and taking a more laissez-faire approach like what were doing now.
As far as the rest goes I agree with you. The CoC has some really weird wordings, and arbitrary rules. In some cases it seems super strict (which someone like ragnar used to love taking advantage of to justify mod action) and in other cases it gives freedom for discretion to the mods, which contradicts being a strict enforcer lol.
I also think mods being self selected by peers is kind of unfair. That said I am happy with whiteflame as head mod because he will at least give lengthy responses to justify an action, and is usually well reasoned. And I haven't seen him make a controversial decision as of yet.
-->
@Lunatic
@Barney
The point being that said rule has barely been used, and clearly not abused. Your fear that we are using it to oppress homosexuals, is quite simply unwarranted.It is admittedly non-specific. As it's written in English, you could look at overlapping laws for English speaking nations... Again, in however many years, it's only been directly used for a single ban.
This is missing the point. "fear that we are using it to oppress homosexuals" no I don't fear that because that kind of oppression is out of fashion at the moment. It was an example of how it would be quite impossible protect the laws of every polity in the world from criticism without contradiction.
If fear that you or someone else will use the mentioned sections of the CoC as an excuse to suppress only those opinions which are fashionable to suppress and thereby deprive posters of equal protection under the CoC.
You seem to think a record of not doing that completely invalidates my point: "...used for a single ban." It does count against my impression of a "ban-happy culture" but it supports my point about arbitrary power. It is entirely implausible that was the only case where someone promoted activity illegal in some anglophone country.
I didn't realize this was your first day on the internet... Welcome to the world wide web! As should be evident when you made your first post and it was immediately visible, moderators do not pre-approve user generated content before it is visible. This is true on nearly every social website available.
Again you're missing the point. What you just said could only possibly have relevance if you're claiming that this debate does promote criminal activity, is a violation of the CoC, and will now be removed by yourself.
If the claim is that it does violate the CoC but you're letting it stand because of personal discretion that is naked arbitrary power.
If the claim is that it does not violate the CoC then "promote" in the CoC has an unusual and specific meaning that precludes any member from knowing beforehand what is against the rules and what is not.
What did he lie to you about? Airmax seems to fit your standards of laissez faire mentality, not sure why you would dis-approve of him as a president. That said, he is not a moderator here. His role as president allows him to advise mods however. And I think his only agenda would be to push towards less strict banning towards speech. Of which I don't believe we've had any recent issues since I've been making a big stink about it to the mods the past few years and they seem to finally be listening.
It is a long story. In brief I was being harassed by a certain member on DDO, that person was trying to get me banned so he was constantly reporting me among other things. Since I so clearly err on the side of freedom I did not report him (at first). I maintained a catalog of contradictions, a condensed and satirical history of his harassment, and always responded to his derailments by challenging him to a debate and or reposting that condensation.
Airmax got involved and asked what I wanted from this guy, I said I just wanted him to make an argument to support his claims (which was the truth). Airmax said he would force that to happen (or else insist the harasser leave me alone), I was surprised; it was an unusual thing for a moderator to say. Lots of other things happened but basically he reneged on that. Instead he ended up saying that I would have to ignore the harasser, removed my posts/thread detailing the harassment but refused to remove the harassment itself (which would have been a bit of a job, it was everywhere for like 2 years).
"Lie" perhaps was too strong a word, made promises he couldn't keep certainly; but at the same time it seems very unlikely that he couldn't follow through on what he said he would do and much more likely that he was overwhelmed by the job and simply told me whatever he thought I wanted to hear in the hopes that the whole situation would go away... that would be a lie.
As for his "laissez faire mentality" maybe he changed, maybe he learned from what happened on DDO. Certainly if he had been laissez faire in the the described situation I would have found no fault in him.
If you are talking about bsh, yeah that situation was dumb as hell lol. That was mostly Annie (esocialbookwarm from DDO) who apparently became "woke" and a huge cancel culture personality and Coal (YYW from DDO) who is bsh's ex, and obvious has previous beef with bsh.
At the risk of devolving into a nasty gossiper the idea that Coal/YYW would marry someone and then come to hate them so much that he would try and ruin him online with slander does not surprise me even in the slightest. In his case truly: hater is going to hate.
I also think mods being self selected by peers is kind of unfair. That said I am happy with whiteflame as head mod because he will at least give lengthy responses to justify an action, and is usually well reasoned. And I haven't seen him make a controversial decision as of yet.
If you'll forgive a long-winded answer: I have a very concrete moral theory and there is a line of implications from it that I have found very enlightening. First is that good and evil are in the act not the actor. An actor is only evil insofar as they tend towards doing evil compared to others. Only good insofar as they tend towards doing good compared to others. Applying that to authority structures good and evil are not in the form of government, a government is good only insofar as it tends to do good etc...
A god-emperor with a sound moral framework and the integrity to stick with it is better than a deranged and unjust mob voting.
This is often a difference without a distinction, but sometimes you run into people who have been indoctrinated by the traditional "My allegiance is to democracy" types. One need only ask if they would go along with the majority if they decided to eat your children to cut to the truth of the matter.
So you think this particular oligarchy is virtuous, as I just implied it is possible do to the right thing while simultaneously being unaccountable. For now it's not like any other forum is better. I'll probably post sometime, see if a witchhunt forms and how the system handles it if it does.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It is a long story. In brief I was being harassed by a certain member on DDO, that person was trying to get me banned so he was constantly reporting me among other things. Since I so clearly err on the side of freedom I did not report him (at first). I maintained a catalog of contradictions, a condensed and satirical history of his harassment, and always responded to his derailments by challenging him to a debate and or reposting that condensation.
I remember this whole situation with YYW. I consider the guy a friend, even though I myself have clashes with him literally all the time, and probably have more to come inevitably lol. I remember agreeing with you in this whole exchange, even if I didn't want to publicly get involved. While I dis-agreed with your takes on bestiality, I remember thinking it was absurd that someone should be advocating a ban over an idea instead of being willing to discuss it. And especially when you were willing to respond with well reasoned logic. YYW can be extremely stubborn and will probably never admit he is wrong, so I don't imagine this went anywhere.
Airmax got involved and asked what I wanted from this guy, I said I just wanted him to make an argument to support his claims (which was the truth). Airmax said he would force that to happen (or else insist the harasser leave me alone), I was surprised; it was an unusual thing for a moderator to say. Lots of other things happened but basically he reneged on that. Instead he ended up saying that I would have to ignore the harasser, removed my posts/thread detailing the harassment but refused to remove the harassment itself (which would have been a bit of a job, it was everywhere for like 2 years)."Lie" perhaps was too strong a word, made promises he couldn't keep certainly; but at the same time it seems very unlikely that he couldn't follow through on what he said he would do and much more likely that he was overwhelmed by the job and simply told me whatever he thought I wanted to hear in the hopes that the whole situation would go away... that would be a lie.As for his "laissez faire mentality" maybe he changed, maybe he learned from what happened on DDO. Certainly if he had been laissez faire in the the described situation I would have found no fault in him.
I've asked airmax to chime in and respond here, since I wasn't privy to the details. I guess the fact that YYW's agenda wasn't accomplished here in getting you banned is a good point in showing that Airmax is pretty Laissez faire though. I guess my only difference of opinion with you would be whether it is justifiable for you to be angry that action wasn't taken against YYW. You used the term "harrassment", so I guess if you felt harrassed no one can tell you that you aren't allowed to feel that way. I personally am not a fan of a tattle tell mentality on a debate site though. I think you should expect heated arguments and opinions when you join one, and some measure of "thick skin" should be expected. Having dealt with YYW many times argumentatively, I can say arguing with him is annoying. He won't respond to specific points you make, instead he opts type long paragraphs that more rant, rave, and repeat the same thing over and over again. He tends to think his own opinions and morals are the one and only objective truth. That's obviously ridiculous. But I can tell you there were members who were way worse than him on that site, and I don't support a ban on really any of them as well. This website has the option to actually block someone from tagging you (A weak move for someone who calls themselves a debater, but an option nonetheless). I feel like a user has some measure of personal responsibility in just ignoring someone that is annoying them rather than complaining to a mod to get them banned for "harassment". If Max did nothing in this situation, that's probably the exact measure I would have supported him taking. Maybe he should have been better at communicating that this was his chosen method, but I can't speak to that as I was not privy to your DM's. Knowing Airmax though, I can see how he could have been flaky with his communication though. I have experienced that with him myself.
At the risk of devolving into a nasty gossiper the idea that Coal/YYW would marry someone and then come to hate them so much that he would try and ruin him online with slander does not surprise me even in the slightest. In his case truly: hater is going to hate.
I've kind of just accepted with him that if Bsh's name ever comes up in any conversation that he is present to, he is going to have some extreme negative biased opinion to share about him and either ignore it or take it with a huge grain of salt.
So you think this particular oligarchy is virtuous, as I just implied it is possible do to the right thing while simultaneously being unaccountable. For now it's not like any other forum is better. I'll probably post sometime, see if a witchhunt forms and how the system handles it if it does.
I mean as far as a witch hunt goes, I can't guarantee that people won't do what YYW did on DDO to you lol. But I will do my damn best to defend you against the mods if they try to take action against you for simply expressing an opinion some view to be controversial, that I can guarantee you. I think moderation action against you is unlikely. Wylted usually says way more controversial things, and they are now to the point where they seem more or less okay with his opinions after a recent community voted "MEEP" that opted for less strict moderation.