3RU7AL

Stupid question. If a God was talking to him, then asking which God is relevant. If no God was talking to him, asking me which God was not talking to him is stupid. No God was talking to him, genius

I think that you need to think of a site like this a bit like a nuclear reactor: you need to get it started with some initial material, then feed it new fissile material in order to keep the reaction going. If you introduce too many dampening elements, like lead rods they will suppress the reaction and slow it down, perhaps even snuffing it out. The people who are completely fixed in their opinions and also incapable of elegantly defending their positions are lead rods.

However I think an application of ocean's razor would suggest, God was not talking to this guy

I agree with 3ru7al when he says the role is more ombudsman than president.

Of a 738-word performance, 15% of all words singularly repeat 109 times.

I mean what's the point in even coming to a forum tailored for spiritual concepts and discussion just to claim atheism/materialism,

and more on appealing to what voters think equals winning

Well, let's recall QAnon is supposed to be a single individual working for the Dept. of Energy with a Q clearance.  One would assume that individual would represent core Q and 8kun certainly represented itself as the portal for that individual 2019-20.  Now that that claim is debunked, I'm not sure what would represent core QAnon (or even how a religion persists after their prophet has been exposed as a fraud).  I have read that the most popular QAnon site this summer is QSear.ch, and as the .ch domain demonstrates that site is being run by China.  I think the 8kun server is in a backyard shed in Portland now but the site security is being run by the Russian military out of St. Petersburg.   There's little to suggest that any core American interest is generating content now.

949havoc is likely fauxlaw especially when you look at how he writes, look at havocs debates the way he structures arguments is the same as fauxlaw he just made it abc's to look a little different he also seems to know a lot about the constitution.

Well, a guy we just voted into the hall of fame a couple of weeks ago made a big speech about how screwed up voting is

Then, by the same token, god owes all children-of-god nourishment and protection.

That's retarded. He doesn't need to adhere to the standards he has for others. He can do whatever the fuck he wants. 

Just start with knowing the universe has a creator, and didn't just magically appear out of thin air. All knowledge starts with that.

Does a parent "owe" their offspring nourishment and protection ?

Yes, God commands it.

On the day of election, the conspiracy manufacturing  project known as QAnon seems to have come to sharp end

Ok, so the god of the "chosen people" who have successfully created their own quasi-theocratic ethno-state.  Good call

Whites are the real jews. The ethnic state belongs to the pseudo jews who belong to the synagogue of satan

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Moses.

mostly an elected advisor to the mod team, a lobbyist on behalf of the DART community.

What do you propose we do with the DEISTS ?

Limit them to just explaining how their belief system works and ban anyone taking the thread off topic by challenging their beliefs. The philosophy section is for challenging theistic beliefs 

Does a child "owe" their parent lifelong servitude in return

Yes, absolutely. 

There is NO case where I (or anyone else) "owes" god anything.

You owe God whatever the fuck he tells you, you owe him. Whether you feel it is fair or not. 

100% We will work on sending them to the philosophy section

PERFECT GOD = PERFECT WORLD

IMPERFECT WORLD = IMPERFECT GOD

So worst case scenario, God is imperfect. You still owe him your existence. 

Best case scenario, you have very limited human knowledge and would not recognize perfect if you saw it. 

So, 3RuAL,  you neither agree nor disagrees with my assessments ergo you are sit in middle of road, neutral philosopher.  Yes? No?

So it appears, as tho you { 3RuAL } only concedes to God's/Universe's  --includes sub-catagory multiverse ---  inviolate physical laws/cosmic principles, and eschew all human laws?  Yes? Is my assessment  if you overall policy in regards to the question marks you asked of me?

5} Oh wait, you might be one of those who belive there should exist no human laws, only physical laws aka cosmic principles ergo, God/Universe already has in place { Earth } all the laws 3ru needs or would ever want on planet Earth. ? ? ?

martial law ?

4} There are times and places --global martial law--- for it to occur. 

Ex vaccines approved as safe should be mandated globally ergo global martial law. Dont you agre3Ru?

censorship ?

3} There are places for it occur. Dont you agree 3ru?

what's your policy proposal ?

2} In regards to what specifically?

here's not much point interacting with you on this topic if you're just going to make up my side of the discussion out of pure imagination.

1} You evade the "point" of my tough questions.  Why?

@oromagi

I have recommended:

• auto-loss on first forfeit (to save voters time and effort)
  
• setting debates for a minimum number of votes before closing- 3 seems reasonable
  
• Make voting the price of  initiating a debate: something like writing 3 votes earns you 1 debate
  

This is the first I've seen of these proposals.

A resounding YES to ALL THREE.

This isn't going to convince anyone -- completely worthless article.

Also, saying the f word a hundred times in an article doesn't make you even remotely funny.

At the end of the day, this is a decision that you should make for yourself in consultation with your preferred doctors. 

I sense a deep ambiguity about marketing this site.

That's around 77% of the user base not posting stuff that matches the average.

I have recommended:

• auto-loss on first forfeit (to save voters time and effort)
  
• setting debates for a minimum number of votes before closing- 3 seems reasonable
  
• Make voting the price of  initiating a debate: something like writing 3 votes earns you 1 debate
  

there are many worthy debates that end unvoted, much to the discontent of regular debaters.  Proper voting requires a lot of time and consideration and yields little reward-there's a lot of challenges and a lot of resentment that sometimes carries over to other debates.

Theoretically, the process of moderation ought not differ from the published policy, SPES or whatever. But I'm saying the proposed process of a tiered banning system is too cumbersome, which opens up opportunity for variation; it does not reduce it. 

For example: A company is trying to define precise process instructions, and decides that the Materials Dept ought to have purchase order duplicates in several other depts, Engineering, Production, Accts. Payable, etc, and each dept is to have a specific color of the P.O. That's similar to the detail of SPES. Who cares what color each dept gets as long as it gets a copy of the P.O.? Who cares what tier an infraction is in? Define the infractions and a penalty for them. Period. Set a repeat maximum regardless of type, and permanent ban the offender. And why should a role such as the suggested president be allowed any bans? Dumbs down the system.