-->
@Castin
You won like about 2 weeks ago. Which is when the plot occurred to the voting cabal.
I know you aren't part of it, but Virt too started out a decent person, and look at him now.
An Open letter to the MOD team and DART
Posts
Total:
141
-->
@RationalMadman
I don't care. I accept a free will debate against soacetime who defines it in an unloseable, completely wrong way in his description and what do I do? I know that it's unenforceable to truly go by your deacripdesc if it's abusively defined but I say fuck it, this was a noob-trap that I should merely have expose din the comments and on the forums on philosophy, not accepted. I take the L willingly even though I could have made many agree hde defined it weo gly and played as dirty as him.
Dude, what the fuck is wrong with you? I've never done anything to you, except treat you with respect and civility. Yet here you are, attacking me out of the blue over literally nothing. Even if you're right about my definitions in that debate being unfair (and btw you've never actually explained why you think so), that doesn't mean I was trying to set up a "noob-trap" or "play dirty." How about you give me some benefit of the doubt?
As for the substance of the thread, this site's moderation team continues to be a joke -- a bunch of pathetic control freaks who have nothing going for them in real life, venting their frustrations by abusing the power they've been granted over some obscure debate site.
-->
@ethang5
@Castin
Ahh yeah, the secret voting Cabal! When do I get my secret voting cabal badge??
50% of time, I vote for virt every time!
-->
@Mharman
Called it."Would anyone like to place bets on how many pages this thread will be by a certain time. I want to say at least three pages by noon tomorrow. "Correct.
Bow before my glory, bish. "47 posts"... Bitch, please.
wtf? Whitey shouldn’t be allowed to say it. All you’re doing is proving my point, he’s literally incapable of not oppressing the black man. Tyrone (the real one) opted not to join the site after I told him about bsh. This site badly needs diversity but we aren’t gonna get it with a moderation team that’s steeped in white supremacy
As for the substance of the thread, this site's moderation team continues to be a joke -- a bunch of pathetic control freaks who have nothing going for them in real life, venting their frustrations by abusing the power they've been granted over some obscure debate site.
My new bet is 6 pages by midnight.
-->
@spacetime
You think I didn't see how you treated bsh1 then and now? You think it's okay for you to bully someone to that degree and still today say he has nothing going for him IRL? Think I'm the weak bystander who only cares about abuse if it's to me. I've never been a coward and never intend to become one. Tell us what's so great about your life. Then tell us the comments you said that got deleted before as well as what entitled you to be so condescending and sinister to the mods and attack their personal life quality.
-->
@spacetime
There no benefit of the doubt at all. You did it, it's indisputable. The will you described is irrefutable non-free will. The free will advocate argues that decision is made freely by one's own wilful, conscious decision where sthe anti free-will side says it's inevitable given the brain chemistry, past experiences and hormones at the time of deciding.
Either you intentionally defined it wrong or you're ignorant of what free will is defined as and said to be. Either way there's no benefit of the doubt available.
-->
@Castin
I'll bet 10 pages. Willing to take that bet?
-->
@Castin
Bow before my glory, bish. "47 posts"
Only if you show me your strap-on.
-->
@RationalMadman
I know who you are. You have nothing going for you IRL either. You're a pathetic creature living out an unimaginably dreary existence within the gutter of society.
-->
@spacetime
And your life is what?
-->
@spacetime
What do you know about me exactly?
All you know is your image was chosen by me and you thanked me for it. Fake ass bitch.
-->
@spacetime
You don't know how I help my mother, what I've done for my neighbours or how good a person I am in general to people online and offline having talked people out of suicide over live chats. All you know is what you think of me. I am a fucking amazing human being both morally and intellectually. I will go far but never so far I forget my roots or what being good to those close to me means.
-->
@spacetime
Where's the witty comeback? Waiting for it...
-->
@RationalMadman
I regret to inform you that you are no longer worthy of my attention. Scurry away, rodent!
-->
@spacetime
Or what? You get lost, you fucking bacterium.
-->
@RationalMadman
To me it is dishonesty. That's just how i see it. If you see a game in it, whatever... have fun. I never said people should agree with me. If it's fun it's fun and a part of this site people enjoy. But don't go telling me one person was dishonest and deserves to be banned bc everyone else is so squeaky clean. I'll call bs in that regard. The only thing i agree with this ban is that Wylted made up malicious stuff about Bsh1 and tried to pass it off as he said it. I am of the opinion that kind of conduct deserves punishment and i'm with the mods there. But, if the punishment was only he lied on a debate... i'd laugh knowing everyone is dishonest in one way or another on the formal debates.
Sociology degree teaches you about real life
I take it you don't have any degrees. There are like 20 classes i need to take... you don't think one of them just might be about social media? Well, let me just tell you... not only one class was about social media but other classes covered interpersonal relationships and socializing on the internet. With that said, whatever... i shouldn't have listed my qualifications anyways. It's not like it gives me any special advantage. Sociology is pretty straight forward stuff most people understand naturally.
-->
@Castin
The only thing i agree with this ban is that he made up that malicious quote and passed it off as he said it. That's malicious and shouldn't be tolerated. If the fact was only that he lied about a debate... you don't know the debates very well. There is dishonesty left and right. So, to lie to win a debate shouldn't be a bannable offense. Everyone lies to win a debate in one form or another. Maybe not all the time, but it's definitely not rare or even 50/50.
-->
@Outplayz
Not wanting to put words in her mouth, but I’m pretty sure the ban was for a the pretty outrageous personal attack - which happened to take the form of a lie. That’s what I took from her replies on the previous page. I think other people took that to mean that the issue was the lie, rather than the attack.
-->
@Ramshutu
They were also adding into it the lying to win the debate. So, i'm just trying to make sure that isn't part of the bannable issue bc if it is i find that to be ridiculous. But, what you're talking about that they're saying i think is 100% punishment worthy. It's not cool to make malicious stuff up about people and pass it off as truth to assassinate their character... that's not right in any scenario. So i hope that's the focus of the ban... but, only that part. Not the lying to win a debate part.Not wanting to put words in her mouth, but I’m pretty sure the ban was for a the pretty outrageous personal attack - which happened to take the form of a lie. That’s what I took from her replies on the previous page. I think other people took that to mean that the issue was the lie, rather than the attack.
-->
@Outplayz
I think that we define 'dishonesty' very differently. Your definition is far looser than mine. You consider honesty as a necessity (as in withholding information and not making it public, to you, is dishonest) whereas I am more towards the privacy-side of things (asking your friend to vote on your debate, so long as you do not at all insist they owe you a vote or need to vote on your side, and telling no one about it is to me still honesty because you don't need to make what is private public unless it gets investigated).
I think that since we define the words different and have a different concept of what snooping and privacy are worth, morally, that you then are calling 'dishonest' what should only be labelled that if we exist in a sort of utopia (or dystopia) where everyone spies on everyone at all times but the spying tech and system of recording aren't perfect and not 24/7 so that there's still ways to hide things. In such a society, the hiding of information that isn't asked becomes more like your outlook; dishonest.
-->
@Outplayz
I think that’s mostly what post #77 and #81 were talking about from Castin - again - not wanting to put words in her mouth. I felt it was clear that she was talking about the personal attack part, which happened to incorporate the lie. I’m pretty much with you, wylted was out of line, but I don’t think it’s the lying part that was the issue. Pitchforks would be warranted if wylted was banned just for the lying part.
-->
@Outplayz
Not speaking to this particular case, but in general, lying to win a debate is not bannable. It might be an aggravating factor in some cases, but it is not bannable unless it violates some element of the COC.
-->
@Castin
If someone personally attacks you with some vicious PM lie in the closing round of a formal debate so that you can't even counter in a next round or attempt to provide evidence defending yourself, and you consider that fine, don't report it. If someone does report it happening to them in objection to that behavior, I'm not gonna let it stand. Deal with it, mate.
"Wylted, go fuck yourself. You suck at debating and it is a slap in the face to have to suffer through a debate with such a retard"
If someone claimed that I said this falsely, I would laugh, because it's ridiculous, and the balsyness of the false claim is pretty damn funny. As far as I know, the nastiest PM that bsh has ever sent is like 'go jump off a cliff' or something, which is like the most milquetoast white guy insult I can imagine. I'm pretty sure he would have to be close to black-out drunk to ever call someone a retard in a PM.
I honestly can't comprehend the mindset which sees this as some horrible, offensive action. And he certainly has recourse, he can post a comment on the debate saying 'I never said that'. And most people would believe the denial, because it's like claiming that Jimmy Carter was a necrophiliac KKK grand wizard in his spare time.
You can always start an unmoderated debate if you want mods to fuck off and give you some space to get rough. I watch that shit with popcorn.
Most people want mod interaction that covers the basics, like doxxing or threats, without the nannying aspects. But that's not an option.
And his punishment was suspension from debate, which was gonna happen no matter what and will still be in effect once his temp ban expires. I don't really consider it groveling to own up to your own lie and admit your mistake, but you can call it whatever you like.
So the site is going to lose one of its better, controversial debaters over a dumb, jokey accusation? I could see a temp ban, but a permanent one just seems a bit retarded to me fam.
P.S. I freakin' love the new pic for reasons I can't explain.
Hit or miss is powerful, and it is stirring your memetic potential. Embrace the chaos and you can break free.
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
The problem here is twofold: (1) disgusting character assassination and (2) attempting to use that assassination for a cheap win. We can’t allow people to cheat in debates like that. If he would have said it sarcastically in the forums, that would be borderline, but probably ok. Saying it in a debate like he did in order to score cheap points is not.
-->
@David
That doesn't make sense to me. If it's self-evidently sarcastic in the forums, then it's self-evidently sarcastic in a debate. And if it's thrown into the last part of the debate, then voters will punish him for it. That's why we have the conduct point, it exists so that when someone behaves badly, then they are punished by the voters by having that point taken away and given to their opponent. Regardless of whether the statement was false or not, it was clearly a debate etiquette violation that justifies taking the conduct point away. There's no need for the mods to come flying in and ban the person from debate for life, especially when the 'injured party' is the head mod himself, lol. You guys are kind of supposed to have thick skin, not respond with an insane level of aggression to something that you admit wouldn't even be an issue in the forums.
Plus it's not 'disgusting character assassination'; that generally has to be believable.
-->
@bsh1
Okay that's reasonable. Thanks for making that clear.Not speaking to this particular case, but in general, lying to win a debate is not bannable. It might be an aggravating factor in some cases, but it is not bannable unless it violates some element of the COC.
-->
@Ramshutu
I haven't been following all the conversations on this. I guess i just read into it incorrectly bc i did feel like for a second they were including the lying to win a debate part. But, Bsh1 made it clear so i was wrong.