3RU7AL

The main reason for this is that any permanent bans based on some of the more ludicrous rules (hate speech, for example) would be vetoed.

3RU7AL didn't say he intended to do nothing. 3RU7AL has repeatedly stated that he intends to insure that moderator decisions are based on quantifiable and transparent rules. What does this mean? He intends to advise moderators against exercising their authority when based on their own ARBITRARY QUALIFICATIONS as opposed to QUANTIFIABLE (DEMONSTRABLE) violations of TRANSPARENT (CLEARLY SPELLED-OUT) rules. He intends to advise moderators to exercise their authority uniformly and consistently (e.g. Person A who demonstrably violates Rule B in section C and Person D who demonstrably violates Rule B in section E ought to face a UNIFORM response.) The scope of his platform is universal. That is the reason you were being prompted to provide something specific. 3RU7AL has expressed and demonstrated that he's willing to address a specific proposal, and delineate to you how the platform which he argues would incorporate such a case.

Actually, when I think of DDO's golden age it was a little bit before you guys. We were a very diverse bunch once upon a time. It was more real debaters, I guess, and from all over the globe. Eggleston, Roy Latham, Puck. Danielle, Queen of DDO, of course. We had an-caps and communists, actual cliques around this shit. There would be a new user appear every day wanting to fight about whatever idea. There really would some quality users show up on DDO, and not wanting to play mafia or vote on silly elections, but to debate, to fight for their ideas in debates or in the forums. Really, I think you lot were a detriment to that in a way. It did become cliquey in a more general sense, ended up just a bunch of North Americans, all of an age range, mostly male. I mean, maybe it's nostalgia, but DDO really used to be something. It wasn't just a hangout.

I mean, I don't want to come across too harsh either, there was fun in it too, and maybe it was natural enough. People make friends, that's all. But actually I do think what a site needs for it to grow in the first place is generality. Later DDO lost that. You got any thoughts on that? I don't mean to attack you here either, but I guess I did get a bit hopeful seeing you back lol. I would be interested to hearing your thoughts on it. I do think you guys were a detriment to this site. Elections and hangouts were never what DDO needed. 

The irony of everyone here posting to their own will supporting the most ridiculous notion that they have no will is hilarious.

perhaps you'd like to make a specific proposal ?

I don't have anything to propose. Advice I could offer would be to outline a specific campaign detailing exactly and specifically what you plan to do, how you plan to communicate with moderation and what specific changes you want to see them implement in order to achieve fairness in the enforcement. 

how do you know, QUANTIFIABLY, if someone is, in-fact, "a white supremacist" or not ?

He makes derogatory comments about African Americans with facts as well. Should they be banned?

my primary focus is on insuring all moderation decisions are based on QUANTIFIABLE and transparent rules

So, basically Proposition 1?

Should a white supremacist advocating for the inferiority of African Americans with facts and sources be banned?

Free Will is contradictory an omniscient God and it's contradictory to life in general whether and omniscient God exists. Freedom is one thing. Free Will is another entirely. If we had free will then we could make whatever choices we want and follow through on them. We can't for all sorts of reasons money, attitude, upbringing, place of birth, type of government in our country. There's a reason  psychology exist because people are predictable animals. We rarely if ever change and we really with ever step outside our comfort zone. You're freedom lets you to make choices in regards to what you eat, who you marry, if you have kids, in some way where you live and what you do. Free will to make any choice you want to, at any time, no matter what, does not exist. We are slaves to nature and nurture.

None of this lessens moderation or encourages free speech. Also it's too mathematical isn't it? It doesn't show that you care about the impact of the rules on the userbase, just that they understand them and are applied equally. None of this assuages my worries about moderation. 

What are your stances on free speech within the site?

The wasted vote fallacy applies in real life because voters are not allowed to change their vote if they see their second preferred candidate losing to their least favored candidate. That is unlikely to be the case in the DART presidential election and thus it should not influence the vote of any reasonable person in this matter.

and 3RU7AL stands for, well lets be honest hear, trying to have as little impact on moderation as possible.

Atheism is caused by the failure of theism to convince, and nothing else. 

That's very complicated lol. I imagine it would be some kind of paradox. I believe it would be both, free will but ultimately determined. If it had only free will, wouldn't it be infinitely alone? Unless other gods also exist, but then i believe that would result in the same outcome in the end. It's hard to imagine bc we are trying to define how an immortal infinitely powerful consciousness would act... i believe there are too many (infinite) possibilities to fully imagine. 

It is not at all, for you yourself were incapable of answering it due to how abusively it juxtaposes two immoral things.

Exactly, do you agree his scenario was ridiculously worded in order to bait one into either admitting to being totally corrupt or admitting to violating privacy?

Which of the 2 do you lean to and why?

Please tag me when you make your campaign thread.

Do you agree that being approachable and recognisable to other users matters as the President of this website, who is meant to be the person they turn to whenever they feel moderation isn't doing their job?

If you have a very neglected child or pet animal, it is very advisable to be extra attentive and sensitive to them when helping them recover.

However, if there has been non-uniform attention and effort towards moderating (short of pure banning) within a community that exists on the website, there is already an imbalance that needs to be set to the other direction, do you not agree?

What is your take on this situation and the approaches he and I take? I believe I am closer to you than to him, from my own perspective.

I believe a primary and significant reason for this is that the members who are active there are so accustomed to a mentality of 'the mods won't care if I complain' that they start to see the only way to handle it as quietly posting around these abusive members or actively retaliating by flaming them back in a flamewar, with a lot of sarcastic commentary combined with direct insult.

Furthermore, is it possible that you could make it clearer what precisely you'll do?

In your personal opinion (or, perhaps you prefer the term 'objective analysis') is Wylted or myself closer to you in this regard, specifically with our  approach to the Religion Forums?

nobody choses what to believe, one is convinced by flawed/valid reasoning and experience. 

A counterpoint is that God may not be the core of reality, instead God is the apex hijacker of what would otherwise be total random variation. In other words, it is possible that the core of reality is random and that God was randomly generated, controlling the majority of the random variation but leaving a minority of variable totally, genuinely random (could even be nearly 50/50 split).

In ideal conditions, considering the average teacher teaching an average class in the United States, is it difficult or not?

Polytheist-Witch,

It's a way for the atheist to hang out in the religion forum and basically ignore all the theist and talk s*** about them and when confronted they can say but we have them on ignore they can't read what I'm saying.

Polytheist-Witch,

It's a way for the atheist to hang out in the religion forum and basically ignore all the theist and talk s*** about them and when confronted they can say but we have them on ignore they can't read what I'm saying.

I have seen sites allow you to hide posts of others from yourself, but hiding your posts from them is stupid 

Polytheist-Witch,

They don't exist on this site obviously. I mean it's in the rules but nobody does anything with it. I mean if you actually block a person in their profile all that does is keep them from tagging you in a response. So it's a f****** joke it's just there to look good the moderators don't follow up on it.

i dont know all the details, but im reminded of a funny common situation. 

1: dont talk to me

2: but i want to talk to you

1: i said dont talk to me

2: but i want to talk to you

1. i insist you dont talk to me

2: have you considered not talking to me?

1: i'm gonna report you for this bad behavior

2: that we're talking? 

1: that you won't quit talkin to me

2: but i can't talk to myself if you dont engage with me any more 

1 I said stop talking

and on and on

I want you guys to control your future. If you want somebody to radically change this area you enjoy.

Taking a lot of time to make an important decision is a bad character for a person.

How much time is “a lot”? How important is “an important decision”?

It is difficult for teachers to be both popular (students like them) and effective in helping students in learning?

How popular or effective exactly is it?

It is better to travel to different countries when you are young than when you are older.

What exactly is “young” or “older”?

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?

It is easier to become an educated person now than in the past.

What is “educated”? What is exactly “now” or “the past”?