I am being banned over pure lies.

Debates: 30

Posts: 14,585

08.14.2020 07:46PM

-->

@Barney

I hate to keep bringing up, but I would like some evidence that shows that RM correlated with people to get him free votes

I just find it difficult to believe RM would do such a thing when he called out other members. Is there any admission by an user, evidence at all? I think we allowed PM sharing if needed. I think support is needed for this or else it is loose grounds overall. A lot of people are also complaining about the looseness of the ban overall, and I think some evidence for this post would help clarify alot of things for the moderation team to decide. It's best for the public in general

#122

Debates: 30

Posts: 14,585

08.14.2020 07:48PM

-->

@Barney

And if this user was involved, shouldn't he have banned as well versus RM? I just think more public clarification is better like you DM'd me private, even evidence.

I'm willing to believe you if you have evidence, but I think it is just starting to get more and more fishier

#123

Lunatic

Debates: 3

Posts: 7,406

Lunatic

08.15.2020 01:01AM

I think the mods have elected to cease discussion on the matter :/

#124

Intelligence_06

Debates: 167

Posts: 3,837

Intelligence_06

08.15.2020 01:32AM

-->

@Vader

I just find it difficult to believe RM would do such a thing when he called out other members. Is there any admission by an user, evidence at all?

If you are calling the police, then the police are barely gonna suspect you.

#125

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,193

08.15.2020 03:04AM

RM is a great guy. You just have to go out of your way to respect his boundaries. Some people, you just have to go out of your way to respect them even if sometimes they don't give respect back. Problem of humanity. To proud to play the fool sometimes.

#126

Debates: 45

Posts: 2,897

08.15.2020 04:12AM

-->

@Outplayz

So basically, he's only nice when you're a total rug. That's a roundabout way of saying he is a jerk

#127

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,193

08.15.2020 04:21AM

-->

@MisterChris

You're making it roundabout. I see it as even. Figure that out.

#128

Ramshutu

Debates: 43

Posts: 2,768

Ramshutu

08.17.2020 03:35AM

Someone say my name three times?

#129

Crocodile

Debates: 22

Posts: 1,156

Crocodile

08.17.2020 05:15AM

-->

@Ramshutu

fuck

#130

Debates: 45

Posts: 2,897

08.17.2020 04:07PM

-->

@Ramshutu

The god has returned

#131

Debates: 30

Posts: 14,585

08.17.2020 04:30PM

-->

@Ramshutu

He has returned

#132

Dr.Franklin

Debates: 32

Posts: 10,562

Dr.Franklin

08.17.2020 04:35PM

-->

@Ramshutu

Hey! Welcome back

#133

Debates: 9

Posts: 5,294

08.18.2020 05:19PM

Oh RM was banned?

Learn something new every week.

#134

Debates: 50

Posts: 2,879

08.19.2020 05:45AM

In case anyone missed it: The time was dropped from 2 months, to 42 days. As seen in the moderation log.

RM has sent me various messages about how he's going to prove he never wrote those things someone named RationalMadman wrote (it's apparently "pure lies" that he wrote that stuff), some of which he already apologized for writing...

#135

Debates: 9

Posts: 5,294

08.19.2020 07:07AM

-->

@Barney

from 2 months, to 42 days.

Heh, 42.

Nerd.

#136

Death23

Debates: 24

Posts: 618

Death23

08.22.2020 06:48PM

A disturbed mind. Might need medicaid expansion and free visits + free pills. Though, is he in a medicaid expansion state? If not, then maybe this is why our problem continues. A Republican governor did not expand medicaid in RM's state and now we are paying the price. Just one more reason to dump Trump.

53 days later

#137

seldiora

Debates: 158

Posts: 352

seldiora

10.14.2020 09:06PM

It's time to go beyond... PLUS ULTRA!

My name is 9spaceking, and I am here to show why 40 days was far too vague or an absurd long time (though I will admit, 42 is a fantastic number on its own).

Firstly, Ragnar notes

A recent example of targeted harassment against voters: complaining with obscenities and drama that someone's vote was not automatically deleted for being against him

I will admit that my first vote was done too hastily and I had to reread it. The quality of my vote was not up to any standard. It is merely that RM's reaction was phrased in a way that seemed off putting to those who didn't know. After re-judging I changed my mind on who won the argument. Therefore, I will argue that RM was justified, even with minor profanity. He insulted the vote, not the person. This is not to blame.

Ragnar interprets RM's sarcasm as "doxxing", which raises eyebrows about Ragnar's ability to understand RM.

RM says:

Better get ready to do their homework and braid some hair, otherwise the clique will reject you while they blow air on their elitist nail varnish.

Oh, the horror of not being in the cool kids club.

What does this mean? I think he is just trying to make a joke of how the static mafia live is not as good as it is made out to be. He is giving an excuse not to join without saying "sorry, mafia is not cool in my opinion". The visualization of "elitist nail varnish" got one other user to even play along and say: "These things are sooo much fun though!" The resulting insult battle between Mikal and RM are arguably equal faulted for each, as a toxic conversation cannot happen without both participants. His vague threat of "it will backfire" is hardly reaching levels of outright saying he has mod levels of power.

I cannot find the scam link.

The only thing left is his sole contention about Ramshutu, which RM apologized for.

There is justification beyond a reasonable doubt for a few days a ban. Maybe even two weeks, for harsh language. But to double that final idea is a questionable action, and confusing to me. Yes, RM's wording could be better, but it seems to me most of his "faults" did not seem to justify 40 days.

Topic's author

#138

Debates: 562

Posts: 19,894

10.14.2020 10:36PM

-->

@seldiora

I already got temp-banned and warned by bsh1 for the ramshutu comments. This is repunishment.

Virtuoso said, when he became mod, that all acts done prior to him being chief mod, were vindicated unless people had a permanent ban. I link to where he said that at the end of my post in the other thread.

It's best to just give this up, it's blatant that david/virtuoso has an agenda here and is pulling strings while ragnar takes the blame.

#139

Debates: 50

Posts: 2,879

10.16.2020 04:55PM

-->

@seldiora

Sorry for the delay, I'm busy IRL.

For reference, here is the ban log on it:

Date: 08/12/2020
Moderator: Joint Decision

RationalMadman has been banned for 6-weeks. This is primarily due to the following...

"Targeted harassment of any member prohibited, as is inciting others to do so at your behest."
This one goes on endlessly. Claiming victim to the moderation team regularly via insisting roughly half the active user base are bullying him; while regularly being the instigator of conflict and following people around complaining at them obsessively.
A recent example of targeted harassment against voters: complaining with obscenities and drama that someone's vote was not automatically deleted for being against him. This further doubles as low level vote tampering, via informing any other potential voters what to expect if voting against him; while insisting in the vote request thread that they've troll voted (implying it needs a counter vote in his favor, when their questionable vote already is) https://www.debateart.com/debates/2114-god-does-not-exist?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=12 (note, this was posted within minutes of the vote in question, denying any possibility for the admin team to review and delete it).
A recent example of targeted harassment via the forms (this incident has since been apologized for, mitigating the crime but not absolving the pattern): Derailing a thread with insults rising to the level of extravagant made up stories about users basically because they played board games without him. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4593-static-live-mafia-on-fridays?page=1&post_number=2
Out of nowhere accusing a former member of criminal grifting (which has also since been apologized for).

---

Per the consequences section of the CoC: "The specific consequence will depend on the severity and frequency of the violations, along with user history, context, and other relevant factors"

His history is somewhat of a mine field in an oasis. An oasis because he is indeed an immeasurably valuable contributor (which is largely why bans did not come down much sooner), and yet also someone who almost routinely get obsessed with one person or another and engage in targeted harassment; in which he constantly victimizes himself.

The following two items, while not adding to the length of the ban, do imply the need for some penalty.

"Multi-accounting and any action indistinguishable from it is prohibited."
Technically forgiven, but still of note with recent complaints of it not being more rewarded (over a dozen debates from an obvious fake account to give free wins were deleted).

"Doxing is strictly forbidden. Without their express permission, you may not post, threaten to post, nor encourage others to post, anyone’s private or identifying information no matter how it was obtained."
Threatening to dox another user: While this is from a while ago, it does feed into history of poor decisions, particularly as related to being fixated on certain people.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3031-i-will-like-to-clarify-why-harassment-via-profile-pics-is-allowed?page=2&post_number=45

Whereas mitigating factors to decrease the length include him apologizing for some recent key issues, and even one of the people he was recently engaging in targeted harassment against essentially requested he be pardoned. At the same time, he responded to being informed the length was decreasing in light of his apologies with pure vitriol.

#140

Debates: 50

Posts: 2,879

10.16.2020 04:57PM

-->

@seldiora

A recent example of targeted harassment against voters: complaining with obscenities and drama that someone's vote was not automatically deleted for being against him
I will admit that my first vote was done too hastily and I had to reread it. The quality of my vote was not up to any standard. It is merely that RM's reaction was phrased in a way that seemed off putting to those who didn't know. After re-judging I changed my mind on who won the argument. Therefore, I will argue that RM was justified, even with minor profanity. He insulted the vote, not the person. This is not to blame.

Saying that him lashing out and demanding that votes against him be preemptively deleted without review was justified, is a neat opinion to have. However, the big thing that concerns me is the behavioral trend of it, particularly as it relates to his repeated attempts to badger the moderation team into being tools for his many vendettas. So yes, at some point he's going to get slapped and the wrist and told no...

FYI, by discussing those posts you are either calling him a liar or insane, since he insists it's "pure lies" that he wrote any of those things.

Ragnar interprets RM's sarcasm as "doxxing", which raises eyebrows about Ragnar's ability to understand RM.

While the doxing incident was not severe and so long ago, RM was not born yesterday. His history of bad decisions when it comes to obsessively fixating on people, given that it has continued, is a relevant factor of consideration to renewed CoC violations. Kinda like in criminal court, a first time offender is treated differently than a career criminal.

...The resulting insult battle between Mikal and RM are arguably equal faulted for each, as a toxic conversation cannot happen without both participants. His vague threat of "it will backfire" is hardly reaching levels of outright saying he has mod levels of power.

Mikal was also banned. And RM making up stories about a third person who was not even there committing criminal grifting, is not some minor insult that "cannot happen without both participants" given that it indeed happened without said person being there. By making the choice to do this, it crossed a clear line which alone necessitated moderation intervention.

The only thing left is his sole contention about Ramshutu, which RM apologized for.

I addressed the doxxing threat above, and that was far from the only thing left...

The targeted harassment: "This one goes on endlessly. Claiming victim to the moderation team regularly via insisting roughly half the active user base are bullying him; while regularly being the instigator of conflict and following people around complaining at them obsessively."

There is justification beyond a reasonable doubt for a few days a ban. Maybe even two weeks, for harsh language. But to double that final idea is a questionable action, and confusing to me. Yes, RM's wording could be better, but it seems to me most of his "faults" did not seem to justify 40 days.

It most likely would have been one month in light of his apologies and a couple charges being dropped, had RM himself not chosen to launch a protest against the length decreasing (it was still decreased significantly from the original).

The exact length of punishment is of course debatable, but his many times repeated choice to violate the CoC is all but self evident.

Topic's author

#141

Debates: 562

Posts: 19,894