Total posts: 3,773
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Oh I see now! ... That is weird.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
To send any user a message, click the green mail icon at the top of the page (https://www.debateart.com/conversations), and from within that page there's a green button on the right side of the page which reads: "New message," then type in the name of whomever to which you wish to send the message.
I admit I preferred back when we could send messages from within profile pages.
As for lost or forgotten passwords, they may be reset at: https://www.debateart.com/auth/password-reset-requests/new
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Thoth
Hey there, I'm Ragnar an assistant moderator.
As you're articulate enough to ask the question, you should be fine.
Even if a resolution were in violation of the CoC, it would take a rather severe violation (or more likely a series of blatant but less serious ones) to face any sanction.
If I saw the N word in a debate title, I would push for it to be renamed. If a bunch were spammed, I'd be more likely to act quickly to address the problem before getting approval from the higher mods.
There's two lines of the CoC that might apply within the debate in question:
- Advocacy in favor of terrorism and/or violent extremism,
- Unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech, are subject to disciplinary actions.
So neither say X ethnic group deserves to all die, nor use non-stop profanity. Granted, inside the debate rounds moderators don't tend to interfere (we even delay bans to let people finish ongoing debates... still, eventually someone will do something to force us to act).
Created:
Posted in:
02/28/2022
Moderator: Joint Decision
Polytheist-Witch has been banned for 14 days, for baseless criminal accusations against other members in addition to unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives.
Created:
Posted in:
I proposed something very similar awhile ago, which was for the site to automatically assign points for forfeitures (1 point per occurrence), but still allow votes to happen (which would allow voters to outweigh those assigned points).
Granted, in cases where only one side shows up, I would prefer a truly automatic victory without any voting; and in cases where neither show up probably best if the debate were just deleted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
What does abortion have to do with privacy? I don't really understand how abortion is related to privacy anymore than a murder is related to privacy.
Medical privacy as guaranteed by the 14th amendment, is the foundation of the Roe v Wade decision; as others have explained in this thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Roe v Wade ties in the 14th amendment, not the 13th.
The 14th features the right to privacy, and Roe v Wade uses that with certain time stipulations.
However, the 13th seems more relevant as human beings should not be slaves; even if that hurts the feelings of misogynists. That is my core argument on abortion debates: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1024-should-abortion-be-made-illegal
Created:
Posted in:
They are sold at a lose. However, outright giving them away would not put them in the hands of the desired consumer segment.
In the desired segment they become profitable over time. if given away, they would mostly go to people who would never spend enough within them to turn a profit.
Created:
-->
@Lunatic
You brought up the apparent fact that I'm so burned out I've started banning innocent people just because "too frustrating" without them ever violating the CoC, and now you can't find one case of it....Dig back through discord chats or anywhere else to find where I banned anyone just because "too frustrating." I'll resign today
I'm still waiting.
That I admit that I can become frustrated, doesn't make the many CoC infractions which happened prior to the frustration the result of my future frustration. I wish I was some tyrant with reality altering super powers but I'm not.
Created:
-->
@Lunatic
Please list these users I banned citing that they were "too frustrating" who who were also innocent of CoC violations. If you can't find any, please add all the ones I banned just because "too frustrating" who had CoC violations.You seemingly ignored anything I mentioned relating to how much I give a sh1t about CoC violations lol.
You brought up the apparent fact that I'm so burned out I've started banning innocent people just because "too frustrating" without them ever violating the CoC, and now you can't find one case of it.
For RM and Wylted, not even getting into the objective repeated (and in some cases serious) CoC violations, your accusation is that I'm "ruling with an iron fist," that I'm citing "too frustrating" as my sole reason to personally ban people... And then you point to rulings from long ago made with Virtuoso as the chief mod... Need I even say it?
Dig back through discord chats or anywhere else to find where I banned anyone just because "too frustrating." I'll resign today if there's even one case of that, as opposed to you just making it up because that's how you argue. This isn't your opinion is that I banned someone out of frustration, but with inside knowledge literally that I said "too frustrating."
Created:
-->
@Lunatic
You are subjectively and arbitrary deciding which wrists to slap over virtually the same thing.
I'm not deciding which posts get reported. Nor am I taking any action over the fast majority of reports.
In fact what I did was formally a step above the "misqoute" troll that was common on DDO to make fun of your opponent,
Things have gradually evolved since then. And no one said you must get along, or that you can't make fun of someone; in fact I'm the guy who got rid of the "no insults" rule.
enforce punishing bans because a user was simply "too frustrating" despite not actually violating a CoC rule.
Please list these users I banned citing that they were "too frustrating" who who were also innocent of CoC violations. If you can't find any, please add all the ones I banned just because "too frustrating" who had CoC violations.
Created:
-->
@Lunatic
RM has done the same thing with virtually 0 response from you
If no one reports posts, they are unlikely to be reviewed.
RM misqouting airmax
As much as I strongly dislike the sight of people being misquoted and having what they did write taken out of out of context, the samples provided do not seem to be presented as literal quotations to violate the Authenticity section of the CoC. I'm seeing single quotation marks instead of double, and in some formatting as an additional clue. I recently gave an example to show how that works: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7175-something-you-may-not-know-about-airmax?page=1&post_number=21
Cut the bullsh1t here Ragnar. these public warnings are absolutely ridiculous
I have constructively advised people when the ice starts to get thin, in large part to decrease the odds of it going too much further from anyone. Currently there is discussion of doing away with ROs in favor of more warnings, and ultimately bans without ROs should it become necessary. You can call having early warnings about CoC issues ridiculous all you want but just like RM accusing Airmax of multi-accounting, that only makes it an opinion.
You can argue that relaying information in a PM is "unethical" but unless both parties agreed not to share information in a PM,
The CoC can be found at: https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/rules
If you think it should be changed, start a referendum; it's that easy. In the mean time, complaining that you don't like the moderators so much as remind people of it's existence is odd. This is not over enforcement of blindly following it to ban people at the slightest infractions, this is mainly people being gently reminded of it and advised on ways to do better within it as it stands now.
taking sides in a dispte publicly. Or an even better suggestion: Don't get involved at all.
Public reminders are there because more than just the one person can benefit from them, it's not about taking sides and screaming 'leave Britney alone!'
That you believer moderators should not get involved with any CoC issues at all, is an interesting opinion; one which again, you are welcome to start a referendum to get the system changed.
Created:
Posted in:
Best of luck to everyone.
I hope whomever wins, that they listen to what was liked about their competitors campaigns.
As should be clear, in large part due to my role I have been committed to minimal interference. I opt to remain neutral even now.
VNTL
Created:
-->
@Mikal
You literally ended the PM with."Then you are wrong!"Or some shit and reblocked me again.
There's a no quotation from PMs rule. While this is implied to be taken from memory instead of being a direct quote, please tread carefully on such matters as it's a subclause related (even while far less extreme) to doxing https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/rules#safety-and-privacy
I don't believe that you talked to someone is protected, and I'm not seeing the malice the rule is in place to handle, but again, please tread carefully. It's a good habit to just not make direct quotes from PMs.
Created:
I like the idea of users in such strong disagreements debating it. Set time windows to present a case, no interruptions, probably no micro posts.
Regarding the thread at issue, it certainly represents a highly visible tipping point in the dispute. There are of course other resolutions that could cover the same basic grounds; but I do like the idea of one clear point of focus from which to frame the debate.
It should be fairly easy for anyone to judge if either one of them is clearly and consistently the instigator; but I am pretty sure it's going to go into some grey areas.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mikal
Supa has one planned. I suggest either working with him to possibly incorporate your questions into a single referendum, and/or do another after his finishes (or if it takes too long to get going, just do yours).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
A better response is to explain in great detail why this is such an important rule to upkeep in general.
As previously alluded, "locking them keeps the main forum from looking like a darkest timeline version of the personal forum."
I don't believe expanding the rules with a thesis about it is merited; but much like the efforts to remove the "no insult" rule, this too can be changed by a referendum.
To get to the bottom of this we need a clear understanding of how my thread was overall more harmful than his thread against airmax.
I'll add that one is attacking a campaign eligibility which if it proved valid could affect the whole site, the other is escalation of what should usually be handled in the threads to which they originated.
Requesting I change a post, while not requiring it, is still mod intervention
Yes. It was an attempt at taking a small action to deescalate part of a situation. For some reason the guy finds his own made-up name on a screenshot to be antagonizing, to me it's a simple fix to antagonize him less via concealing said name.
Publicly warning me about ettique is mod intervention.
On that one, you crossed a line with putting things he had not said inside double quotation marks. I'm pretty sure we've all seen how badly that gets out of hand.
You are setting a standard that the reporter is automatically the victim while maintaining you do not read context.
That's really reaching.
I think I've done well in preventing that from becoming the standard. I've rejected and humiliated multiple proposals for rules to the effect of if someone gets reported they should automatically be banned, and I've made posts like this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4154-someone-is-secretly-admiring-me-on-dart?page=1&post_number=21
You can scroll through your recent posts to see how many have the little green reviewed box, and compare that to the small fraction which received any intervention; further to my knowledge none of the interventions were harmful to you. I'm not screaming "leave Britney alone!" Rather I am reviewing snippets of behavior when asked to do so, and usually scratching my head for why someone thinks every it's worth my time (recent issues with someone on the religion forum thinking their close acquaintance is too repetitive comes to mind).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
look at the context first and always moderate in the way of "less action" over "more action".
Generally agreed.
Ragnar admitted to me in DM's he was only aware of 10-20% percent of the context, ...
100% true to this context... I really felt the need to say that before it gets taken out of context.
...and he likes it that way because whiteflame is now the head guy in charge. But whiteflame didn't lock the thread. RAGNAR did. See the issue?
I don't believe understanding the full context for why someone makes a callout thread is essential when we have a SOP for them. If misapplied, another moderator can unlock it with a single click.
asked me in my DM's was to edit a post that accused me of doxxing. ... What kind of backwards ass logic is it to make the guy who was falslely accused of doxxing edit a post when the post doesn't harm anyone to begin with?
I'll stand by the request (and yes, it's just a request). I don't think you would be put through any significant trouble to quickly clean it up, and it decreases the worry (valid or not) of the guy.
No need for MEEP's or any of that bull crap.
While referendums can and should be simplified down, there's still great utility in opening things up for discussion with the greater community in the general referendum process.
I will add that to the theme of what you're saying, not all rules get enforced, such as the old "no insults" rule, which was present in an earlier CoC, but to my knowledge was absolutely never enforced. On this, I'll repeat your "less action" over "more action" pitch; while not always cracking down on every technical CoC violation is very much to the benefit of the site, it would be harmful to ban people over things not present (nor implied) in the CoC.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
@Mikal
Responding to the first few posts...
The election is new, and various rules will likely have to be refined. That said, two things I hope we can keep:
- "Criticizing statements within an ongoing discussion, is fair game."
- "Moderation reserves the rights to: Interpret and apply all policies in the best interests of the site and users therein. In most cases, a “reasonable person” standard will be utilized."
There is currently rule against callout threads. It's not one that gets enforced when they are aimed at staff members, and due to the reasonable person standard I don't think we need to expand it for precise stipulations. If you're on staff, or petitioning to be, you painted the target on your chest; so should seek to show the necessary qualification of thick skin... I will add that there are limitations to how much crap staff should put up with.
To me callout threads while problematic in it of themselves, are a major red flag for other issues. Thankfully they are easy to deter without taking sides in whatever dispute. Further, locking them keeps the main forum from looking like a darkest timeline version of the personal forum.
Created:
Posted in:
This is being locked as a call-out thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Due to the risk of misleading others, please be clear when a quotation is not literal. To this, 13 was better for using italics.
I highly advise against double quotation marks for such mockery. This is not to endorse mocking other users, but rather to suggest better etiquette when doing so.
Example: Ragnar admitted "I murdered thousands of people!"
To a casual reader might be taken at face value of me having made that statement.
Whereas: Ragnar admitted 'I murdered thousands of people!'
The casual reader is less likely to confuse it with a literal quotation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Banned by user request.
Banning a profile is currently the only way to disable an account when a user requests that.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
It does appear that Hamburger attempted to spam Airmax into having an additional gold medal (Supa stopped him). It's weird of Hamburger to do that.
That said, Airmax seems to have legitimately earned the Respectful Contributor for 100 likes toward his posts.
Current forum stats for Airmax: 5 topics, 120 posts, 147 likes, 275 mentions.
Spot checking it: Less than half of Airmax's posts have any likes (which rules out it being a solo effort from Hamburger). Probably a third of the mentions are indeed from Hamburger.
In order for a user to qualify for the Presidential position:
Created:
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Hello moderators...
I should mention that I am not following any campaign closely. I'm aware that RationalMadman, Wylted, and 3bu7al are running.
I know this is counter-intuitive as I am part of site leadership; but I am attempting to minimize my involvement with the election, so as to not influence the outcome. Other mods may feel different about that, as we are not homogeneous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Lmao, I can't defend against this without violating the rule of not campaigning outside my campaign thread, so I will wait for the mods to allow me to. Otherwise, I'll address this inside my thread.
Unless I have grossly misread the rules, you are allowed to reply even in such ways that could be considered campaigning (honestly, I consider any heavy election related discussion from a candidate to be campaigning)...
During the designated campaigning period, users may advocate election for themselves or others by doing any of the following:
- Within any three day window, creating at most ONE non-spam campaign-related forum thread or debate.
- Offering non-spam contributions to the campaign-related forum threads or debates of others.
- Changing their profile picture or user biography.
You did not create the thread (nor did anyone do it at your behest), and the thread is about the election; therefore you are fully allowed to campaign in it.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Never happen. Ragnar likes the way the forum is crap. He basically said it in a post a year ago. Mods don't want the do anything in general, especially not in the most active forum. If ever reprimanded the atheists would leave, they already lost half about a year ago when they left for a new site. About the time I was banned to try and keep them. Year later nothing has changed.
Your re-writing is history is fascinating.
To easily prove you're either a blatant liar or in a state of psychosis, how are your conversations with BrotherD and Ethang going? You claim nothing has changed, which would require them to still be here.
Further, your ban was because of your own systematic garbage behavior, not anyone threatening to leave unless innocent little you were banned. Your old posts are publicly available if you need to review. While there's probably hundreds of others, it took about a minute to find this gem: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1974-mod-harassment?page=1&post_number=3
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I'm at a lose for why you believe you are not allowed to publicly campaign?
Things you're allowed to do: https://info.debateart.com/debateart-president#campaigning-rules-and-guidelines
- Within any three day window, creating at most ONE non-spam campaign-related forum thread or debate
- Offering non-spam contributions to the campaign-related forum threads or debates of others.
And prohibited campaigning methods include (but are not limited to):
- Any method involving spam, including mass private messaging.
In short: Don't spam or otherwise make your campaign an intentional nuisance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
You're overthinking those questions to a level you shouldn't be doing until you've taken university level classes on survey science.
If not overly defined, just assume common English, or whatever you want the things to mean.
What is “educated”? What is exactly “now” or “the past”?
Educated refers to formal education, such as at the good university you are trying to get into. Now refers to this year, but could also refer to recent years (say up to five years ago). The past refers to any previous previous years you wish to contrast the "now" years against.
What exactly is “young” or “older”?
Young refers to early adulthood, say up to 35. Older refers to anything older than that.
How popular or effective exactly is it?
Just write about it however you want.
How much time is “a lot”? How important is “an important decision”?
A lot is however you want to define it. And the important decision is any you care to define as important.
These are all open ended essay questions, for you to define however you wish for the purposes of your writing.
Created:
-->
@badger
Seriously, stop obsessing over some member who hasn't logged in for over two years...
Doubly so when you are bringing identity politics into it. Like if you want to obsess over what's in the pants, there's much better websites for that (weirdly only 4% of websites, but still); they even feature VR now.
And no, this is not a suggestion to switch to obsessing over any other member.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I'd play this over voice chat. Or even on the forum.
For the forums, I did like the detail that resistance still had to log in during the night stage.
I like how it feels streamlined compared to mafia; juggling a dozen things instead of a hundred.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If trying to convince anyone of anything, instead of just trying to offend, your points would likely be better expressed without so much vulgarity.
Case in point, so far you used the R-word 6 times in this thread. It's needlessly over the top crossing into hate-speech, and using that level of invective in repetition reflects poorly upon you, and thus poorly upon that which you are advocating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Nothing to feel bad about. Replacing is less likely to come in on the winning team.
Granted, I could have played dumb and not voted; but that would have just prolonged things without merit.
Created:
Posted in:
I had skimmed a bit. What did Supa do which outed him as a spy?
Also what did Oro do which almost threw the game?
Created:
Posted in:
Quick number crunching, it sounds like there's something like a .5 chance that Earth is a spy, and a .17 chance RM is a spy.
I'm curious why either of them would be sent on missions after that first night.
Conversely, Pie and Whiteflame seem very safe. Oro might be safe as well.
I vote yes to Oro's team proposal.
Created:
Posted in:
Anyone mind catching me up?
This game seems straight forward enough,
Who went on mission 1, and what were the results?
Who went on mission 2, and what were the results?
Who went on mission 3, and what were the results?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Before starting this little public protest, did you first message SupaDudz or Whiteflame about the issue? You know, as SupaDudz (the deputy moderator for the site) indicated you should do?
Not that I would expect them to give a significantly difference answer to the one I have repeated given you already; but if explained better it's possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DeprecatoryLogistician
Welcome to the site. I hope you enjoy yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
12/25/2021
Moderator: Joint Decision
ethang5 has been banned indefinitely. Upon his latest return, he vowed to be even more deserving of future bans.
Additionally, per the Code of Conduct, "Should one user acquire five or more Tier 3 offenses, moderation reserves the right to enact a permanent ban IF deemed appropriate." By his own words, it is not merely appropriate but also necessary. He was previously banned on 09/26/2021, 02/04/2020, 07/20/2020, 06/16/2020, 04/07/2020, plus various smaller actions not like restraining orders to which he frequently violated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
If you end up needing a replacement player, let me know. I certainly can't be attentive during the work day, but this game seems a lot less time intensive than Mafia.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
GP was referencing Joseph Rosenbaum, a man famous for repeatedly asking people to shoot him, in particular saying "Shoot me, n****." He is not available for interview on this subject, as he managed to have his wishes granted.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I've watched multiple videos of this. Do you have any point?
If you have a video that shows Heather Heyer (the woman he is convicted of murdering) chasing him and then using her super speed to get in front of the car to frame him of her death, please do share it.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You attempted to refute what was already proven, so the facts of the case needed to be brought forward (or "regurgitated" as you call it) to reaffirm them.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The very first result that showed up when I did the search ("was James Alex Fields Jr. chased"), contradicts your claim: https://www.factcheck.org/2017/08/driver-acting-self-defense/
Since your own source disagrees with your claim, are you going to retract it?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Please present any evidence that the car running into a crowd was the result of the car being chased.
Without said evidence, it seems like you may be mixing up this and another case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
It's a multi stage Prisoners Dilemma.
Imagine do nothing and everyone will take home $1B, but by spending 0.05B you can take home an extra 0.25B next quarter... If you are shit at business that makes sense to jump into that.
Now, imagine company A does just that. They don't get the extra 0.25B perpetually, rather they have to keep spending it each quarter, only now companies B and C on onto them, and are going to spend the same amount to retake their portion of the market share.
Long term equilibrium is restored, but each company makes only profits 0.95B each quarter due to A's greed making them all waste money on advertising. Of course A got that extra 0.20B for one quarter, but that only sets them ahead for one year, and every year thereafter they are making less money than had they done nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Seriously, tone it down. Not everything needs to be a cycle of negativity.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Yes, I tend to know who for recent ones.
You can also expect less of your posts to get flagged for the next while (when reason failed on someone massively over reporting, removing their ability to file said reports succeeds).
Created: