Total posts: 3,773
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You are willfully misconstruing my allegations.
If true, that would make it very easy for you to win the debate. Seems unlikely since I'm directly quoting you, as seen in #55.
No. I have better things to do, namely form a MEEP that allows for the removal of authoritarian “mods” like you.
These things are in no way mutually exclusive.
Further, your success in said debate would support it. Hell, defeat me in the debate and I'll step down (thereby taking far less of your time and energy than the commitment of running a referendum, to achieve the same goal).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The site itself seems unlikely to have any official stance.
The owner is unlikely to be able to make any statements. Apparently it's illegal to even say "invasion" in Russia these days. With that in mind, I think we can take silence from Russians to imply condemnation which cannot be safely voiced.
Personally as someone who is pro-human rights, I believe the faster Putin dies by any means, the better for the human race.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You claim that he said banning for doxing is dumb. But you have refused to point to the hypothetical post in which he's supposed to have said that.
Again, issue the debate challenge. I'll gladly come out of retirement for it, giving you a chance to break my win streak so long as your words are not just rambling non-sequiturs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You have never banned someone for creating a callout thread.
Remind me again who said "There is zero consistency in your rulings"? No one has been banned for callout threads, and still no one has been banned for callout threads... How is that adding to your case of zero consistency? You seem to be complaining that you're wrong and that hurts your feelings.
I already pointed out the inconsistency in not banning Lunatic.
When did Lunatic dox someone? ... Or do you mean him also not getting banned for a callout thread, which again is you disproving your own zero consistency claim.
Your fellow mod Supa even admits the first and second premises of the ban were dumb.
When and where did Supa say banning over doxing is dumb? Remember, the literal first sentence of the ban reason reads: "Incel-chud has been banned for 60 days principally for attempted doxing."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You need to resign and leave the mod chat. Period.
If you actually believe this, you should build a logical case in support with it with a sound conclusion.
As is, you keep dead ending conversations with this declaration (along with argumentum ad Nazium) instead of bothering with topical replies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Why didn't I ban myself, for what someone else did, at a time when I wasn't a moderator... Because in spite of how much both you and I wish for it, I'm not some time traveling god-like being.
As for your ban request, how long would you like?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
So why have you not banned yourself. I seem to recall an instance where you doxxed Wylted and called his local law enforcement cause you “thought” he might commit self harm.
Never happened. Nor have I murdered Wylted and his extended family as you've claimed elsewhere (and yes, stating that I've done to him what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, is claiming just that).
Where is the consistency?
Outside your overactive imagination.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Harassing isn’t like murder in any sense.
How you jumped from Supa mentioning speeding to thinking he talked about murder, is mind boggling.
There is zero consistency in your rulings.
Dox = ban. Quite consistent.
While true we did not permaban Wylted as you would seemingly prefer for the sake of perfect consistency, there is still a consistent occurrence of bans.
And yes, writing "I would also request anyone who is good at doing so, to work on doxxing him." Is a clear as day violation of the no-doxing rule.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
It's never a good idea to share sensitive information with randos from the internet.
Created:
Posted in:
Multi-Accounting:
What does everyone think of further easing up on the restrictions? Not to say no restrictions at all.
To me, the goal has been to prevent exploitative slave accounts (debate yourself for free wins, bypass your senpai blocking you, etc.).
Yet, there could be good value from being somewhat more open.
Mafia games for example, could have game specific accounts for some anonymity.
Group debates could have a shared login, instead of a selected host from each team (which if that one host has login problems, currently forfeits the whole team).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The content which comes up inside any thread, can result in it getting locked.
Right after the no callout thread rule came out, someone did a mock callout thread accusing someone of being a wonderful human being... Obviously the context of that, was not what the rule was designed to discourage.
Of course, I mainly bring up the idea due to complaints about the rule during the recent election.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
One dedicated spam thread should be allowed.
I'm not strictly opposed, but I am curious what benefit you expect from it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
What is the precise form of harassment you believe should be added to the CoC?
Created:
Posted in:
Based on feedback here and elsewhere, I think refining the harassment section is in order...
Quick disclaimer: obviously not all actions of harassment are equal to each other, and any one action of it in isolation is unlikely to be severe and/or prolonged enough merit any outside intervention. The harassment needs to be excessive, and non-reciprocal.
Profile pics:
I would certainly hope that anyone who copies someone else's profile picture without prior consent, they would quickly change it when asked by the author; but refusal to to so could indeed be one form of harassment. At the same time, such a rule while minor, would need to be done with some care (as whiteflame pointed out in #4). Still, a short sentence on directly copying anyone's work against their express wishes could probably handle this.
Extravagant lies:
I think it's time to move this to under the harassment heading.
Law suits:
I think this doesn't merit its own line, and could be combined into the criticizing statements within an ongoing discussion is fair game.
...
Callout threads:
What does everyone think of easing up on these? For starters, maybe they shouldn't be automatically locked?
...
Regarding the block feature:
I don't foresee any positive utility in trying to regulate how and why people use it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Do I need to break everything down for you Barney style?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
This mainly enables crack downs on baseless and lengthy criminal conspiracy theories against other members.that’s not what it says in the CoC
Context.
Nothing extravagant about this claim. The rule even specifies some leeway for context issues.So you’re saying there was zero logic to Wylted’s claims? Even WF admitted there was a connection. He just thought it was far. Dumb.
You are trying to distort the matter, to conflate a ban principally over attempted doxing to be over another matter noted in it. The other offenses in isolation would have almost certainly just netted a warning.
Oh btw I think you’re Hitler’s grandchild or something with all of these fascist tendencies
That is very informative as to the level of your mental and emotional development.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The rule would also fit under the harassment heading. It got its assignment due to the intent to deceive others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
From the CoC:
"Extravagant lies, not to be confused with mere context issues, may rise to the level of constituting impersonation."
This mainly enables crack downs on baseless and lengthy criminal conspiracy theories against other members.
Ragnar is a free speech quasher
Nothing extravagant about this claim. The rule even specifies some leeway for context issues.
Whereas if you accused me of being escaped Nazi war criminal Fredrick Von Shithinzer, who has been burning down libraries across the country but the evil liberal media is covering it up... Then there might be an issue.
Created:
Posted in:
04/03/2022
Moderator: Joint Decision
Incel-chud has been banned for 60 days principally for attempted doxing. This is not a permaban mostly for two reasons: First, the exact form of it falls outside what the SPES system was written for (the information was not intended to be shared online. Please consider this loophole closed to any future use.); and Second, the intent seemed the opposite of malicious.
CoC violations...
Extravagant lies: Incel-chud made a thread titled "Adreamofliberty is a pedophile." Accusing someone of being likely the most vile form of criminal, unless they made some statement of sexual desire towards children, is wholly unwarranted regardless of any other crimes they commit or state the desire to commit (yes, even cruelty toward animals).
Creating threads to call-out specific users: Incel-chud made a thread titled "Adreamofliberty is a pedophile." While many (not all) of the statements within would not cross the line were they direct replies to the statements criticized, set outside of those conversations instead starting a thread, they are clear targeted harassment. Additionally, it should be noted that a generalized comparison of the two behaviors without listing a specific user, would not be such a clear CoC violation.
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: Inside the aforementioned thread, Incel-chud stated: "I would also request anyone who is good at doing so, to work on doxxing him. This includes mods as well. Feel free to email me any information you find to ______." While it may be argued this is a loophole as the information was not to be posted, "Doxing is strictly forbidden" is a very clear statement, which applies to more forms of doxing than the specific ones mentioned.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
- It's inherently odd.
- It harms the legibility of any thread in which both participate.
- The selected user seems to dislike it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I'm fiscally conservative
Factoring in the appeals etc., how much does it cost to execute one prisoner? Comparatively, how much does it cost to keep them in prison for life?
Created:
Posted in:
Hi all,
What CoC refinement questions would you like to see on the next referendum?
Other refinements are also possible.
Created:
Posted in:
I believe our ratings are based on ELO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
Basically, someone who wins against lower rated opponents gains less and risks more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
It could probably do with some metrics to be evaluated to decrease scope creep, and I would change it to main cause instead of majority cause.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I mean it is the GOAL of the pro life movement. Whether or not they’re effective at it is debatable but they aren’t opposing abortion just because they hate women or whatever. I agree that it’s better to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place
I'm pretty sure leaders are actively trying to cause more abortions, for the sake of complaining about said abortions.
Honest question… when you see this video, how do you feel?
Oddly joyous.
Twelve weeks is pretty early
By then we are at least talking about a fetus. However, the pro-life movement includes both the every sperm is sacred crowd, and insane puritans who want to punish women for having sex; these combine to make honest intellectual discussion difficult to begin. In fairness, the pro-choice crowd also has their share of crazies (did you ever see the joke I made about fourth trimester abortions?).
If you saw a fetus as a baby you would have the same position we do,
For clarity in argument I use a standard of personhood, which a fetus lacks most of until late in the pregnancy (and according to the supreme court until birth). However, I do see it as basically a baby, as opposed to basically a brick (which my cold reasoning probably implies of my thought process). I would massively prefer if abortions were a last resort, but we live in a society which punishes women for not getting abortions... If less abortions is the goal, that goal would be better attained through supporting women and children, as opposed to trying to change the law to sadistically punish them.
I should add that due to seeing the ugly underbelly of the pro-life movement in Canada when I was a kid, I am permanently biased against such people and their friends making decisions about other peoples babies. This is not talking about the average pro-life person, but rather the leadership in such groups.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Is there any point at which you would oppose abortion? Or would a woman who is 8 months pregnant be permitted to abort the child under your preferred rule set?
My preferred standard would largely consist of education, birth control availability, medical care, etc. You know, things that would actually prevent abortions (I know, I keep wrongly acting like that is the goal of the pro-life movement).
The relevance of this is fleeting due to rarity, but yes, I would be fine with mandated C-Sections for any viable third trimester fetus... Barring exceptional circumstances, like some crazed cult took over the local government and prevented access until then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The female who aborted harmed the kid and the deadbeat dad harmed the women by getting her pregnant.
Neither are inherently harms.
The majority of all abortions occur before it's even a fetus. What exact harms do you imagine a nerveless cell cluster experiences?
As for her getting pregnant to begin with: The vast majority of sex is consensual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
What factor of birth grants moral agency to born babies which fetus' do not possess.
That depends on the gestational age. Which is the earliest week of pregnancy would you like to discuss?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The core problem with your whole case is the obvious cost to benefits analysis.
You are proposing massive harms of mutilating people who have harmed no one. It'd be about as sensible as declaring those punishments for anyone who wears white after labor day, or just do a lottery system.
While there is a mild benefit of more donor kidneys available (most of these forced donations would just become medical waste), that seems unconnected to the intent of your proposal; not to mention, it would certainly cause backlash against organ donations in general. It seems like the group that would benefit the most, are sadists who get their jollies from other people being in pain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Legally in the USA, personhood begins at birth.
Philosophically, I could go deeper; but that would get pretty far into side tangent territory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
The comparison was in the puritanical sexist laws.
I can use a real world example to prove that being born somewhere is not consent:
In Iraq when rebels imprisoned their own families to starve them to death if said rebels did not return from fighting us, with the threat of murdering the families if they disobeyed... Clearly at least the children neither consented to being starved to death, nor of being gunned down for disobedience.
Tying this directly back to the topic:
Imagine the OPs proposed laws went into effect, and the police round you up for organ harvesting due to an unfounded accusation. I hope we would both agree that you have not given consent merely by breathing in whatever country would have such laws.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Consent is the big difference.
Imagine getting arrested for driving, because the country you're born into declares that your penis makes it a crime for you to operate a car (or get an education).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Thank you for the clarification.
Why would you not sterilize the man? Granted, the second abortion to which he's declared the father would make it a moot point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Strikes me more as fulfilling a contractual obligation than slavery
If someone chose to move to a commune with that as a rule, sure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Due to opposing slavery, I will always be pro-choice.
Contention 1:
I stand by personhood mattering more than the mere fact of DNA (you have at least added the presence of brain tissue, which does pre-refute the fun what do you save from a fire scenario).
Contention 2:
I always hate the slut shaming arguments... Anyways, a willing abortion causes zero harm to any person; whereas once a person exists (for simplicity, when the hypothetical child is born), then duty exists tied to the harm caused in the case of neglect. Additionally, your argument here simplifies the burdens of pregnancy down to just the labor pains; put simply, pregnancy trashes mother's body.
General Rebuttal 3: Yes. Absolutely, Yes!! The penalty for abortion should be a mandatory kidney donation paid for by the man that impregnated the female (to save a life to make up for the life that was taken) and sterilization which would be endured by the female (to prevent you from having an abortion again).
This is misogynistic to the insane degree. You want to forcibly sterilize women AND steal their kidneys. For this argument to even be consistent, the man should also suffer the same... Then you go on to suggest actional slavery for anyone who isn't rich... I'm really hoping this whole thing was written as satire; but with how this is going, I will not bother getting to whatever conclusions you put at the end.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Context matters, as does autonomy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Pretty much anything we do to change our body should be outlawed unless medically necessary. No tattoos, no piercings...
Really hoping that was satire...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
what the point the block function serves other than blocking PMS
Blocking PMS can be incredibly useful.
While the rules state if someone says leave me alone you're not to bother them
They don't actually say that.
...
Blocking someone is a site feature, which is not directly mentioned in the CoC. It can however serve as a piece of evidence in harassment investigations.
E.g.: 'This guy was sending me 20 PMs per day, all complaining about his PMS. I blocked him and asked him to leave me alone, and for the last two weeks I've refused to respond to anything he writes about me on the forums, yet still he persists. He follows me into any thread I engage to spam bizarre off topic lies about me, plus spreading them into threads I've not engaged with. Please help.'
Pretty clear case of over the top harassment, which is made worse by someone ignoring being blocked, ignoring being asked to stop, and ignoring lack of reciprocation.
Created:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
Does your ideology have an, -- Engage and Fight Evil --, side?
Yes, which I've backed with a lot of sacrifice (both by becoming a combat medic, and more recently by frequently donating platelets at the Red Cross).
Do you go show your disdain of what your ideology would see as evil?
I could be misreading that, but it sounds a bit like virtue signaling. I think it is better to seek to create good and lessen the damage of evil, rather than just make statements about disdain.
Admittedly, this question makes me think of the oh so visible child abuse committed by shitbag parents forcing their children to hold up signs at insane protests.
Please indicate if you are right wing or left wing in your thinking.
A bit of both, but neither one in the extremes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
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.
It isn't written in stone. You're welcome to initiate a referendum to change that or any other part of the CoC. If it changes too far in any direction I find to be intolerable, I'll resign (I strongly suspect this would be the same with any other moderator).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
The second link is timestamped to that.
44 minutes, 51 seconds.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Have you tried using a different internet browser?
Created: