Total posts: 3,773
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Put me down as a replacement. I have a road trip this weekend.
Created:
-->
@Lunatic
I must have deleted the notification for this when I got responses in mafia games, I didn't realize you had responded.
No worries, and no judgement.
People reporting a thread when they weren't even there, doesn't encourage discussion. It's tattle-telling to the 4th degree lol.
In this case, multiple people who were directly involved made reports. However, yes, in other cases certain people have crossed the line seeming to abuse the report function to attempt to get moderators to harass someone they dislike at their behest while they keep their distance. I still look in at what's going on, but I've learned to take it less serious if some third party is making the reports (not to say ignoring any and all wrongdoing).
the "public shaming" of responding to every report. Responding to a report should be done in a private message with the reporter I think.
It's not every report... And the reporters are generally not identified... I used to handle it more often in private (still do sometimes). That said, I won't deny that it is still public shaming of the frivolous reports themselves (as district from the specific users making them). Part of why I got into this, was that repeatedly explaining to the certain users that the CoC doesn't say whatever they want it to say, failed to get through to them. A public response, can further educate more people on the actual rules, decreasing future misconceptions, and alerting everyone that reports are at least reviewed.
I will not say this is a flawless solution. I experiment to try to find things which work better within this volunteer position.
Stalking from Merriam-Webster "broadly : a crime of engaging in a course of conduct directed at a person that serves no legitimate purpose and seriously alarms, annoys, or intimidates that person"While online differs a little, I believe the word still fairly applies. A user should be able to start a thread on Topic C, without some obsessed [pick your stalker synonym] barging in to harass them about in Topic A weeks or months ago, they were impolite to the [pick your stalker synonym], and in short order begin accusing them of stealing money.Stalking mostly has real word application in context to that definition. The stakes aren't as high on a debate website, with two people sitting at a computer desk miles away from each other.
What preferred synonym or term for stalker would you like used when it's online?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Admittedly, Fox News employing Chris Wallace (third hobo in that dumpster fire of a presidential debate last week) has made me dislike them even more.ironically, Chris Wallace is one of the Fox employees I despise the least. He is one of the very few people working for fox who will ever, under any circumstances, even lightly criticize trump or the republicans. Virtually everyone else employed there are non-stop republican sycophants who do nothing but ass kiss. Wallace isn't alot better, he ass kisses about 95% of the time. But that's better than almost everyone else on fox.
I dislike such obvious fake news as Fox. I likewise morally find Trump to be repulsive. However, having watched the debate, it was clearly an attempted two on one. Fox News continuing to employ him, suggests they are ok with him trying to someone sabotage the integrity of the election.
While not as bad as previous debate issues, such as when seeking the Democratic Party nomination, Hillary Clinton getting spoon fed the questions ahead of time (why the DNC wanted Trump as president, is a mystery that will haunt me until the day I die). Or George W. Bush wearing a wire (and ironically botching it anyway).
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
"ending the drug war"
I likewise disagree with ending it, due to drugs which do such clear harm as killing people with a single overdose (heroine, cocaine, etc.). I merely criticize certain choices within it, such as if they made chocolate or sugary drinks illegal. To follow up this food analogy: white people put that disgusting mayonnaise on everything (needs hot sauce to even be edible!), no matter our disgust at their revolting food decisions, they themselves are the victims of their poor taste, so don't need further punishment inflicted by the courts. An anti-mayonnaise law would clearly disproportionately affect them, and have a lack of quantifiable benefit for anyone else.
marijuana really messes up the brain of people below 25 by weakening their memory
If true, that would be a good reason to have it be restricted until age 25. Even then, short on dealing, that sounds like at most misdemeanor territory.
However, sources seem to be in agreement that it was made illegal specifically to target minority groups (in this case Mexican Immigrants... which is a clear case of why not just target them for existing laws?). That the desired benefit is oppressing a group, as opposed to stopping some actual harm by the action in it of itself, should in itself be a dealbreaker (somewhat comparable to Germany banning Jazz).
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I agree, fix education first before making it a requirement.totally agree on fixing education. Totally disagree on making it a requirement. It is just creating an underclass that has zero representation. America fought a revolution to guarantee that citizens would get representation in their government. So advocating for stealing that right is deeply unamerican in my view.
Now that women serve, I think a standard of having fought in our military sounds good... While mostly joking, this is to point out other standards of earning a right (a right, not a privilege... it shouldn't have to be earned). Each might have some benefit, but would probably be unfair. If you're born blind, you could never read or join the military. Heck if you're a man, you cannot ever give birth, so a voting standard of being a mother wouldn't be good either. Even the age one is tricky.
CNN shouldn't be daycare for the stupid.that would be fox news, as highlighted by the fact that people with lower education tend to be trump supporters.
It's a free market, they can both be daycares!
Admittedly, Fox News employing Chris Wallace (third hobo in that dumpster fire of a presidential debate last week) has made me dislike them even more.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Could you provide an example of this being a dealbreaker vs not?
If a new law would disproportionately affect any group, doesn't mean that it necessarily a horrible law that shouldn't be passed, potential harm to said group should be considered especially if said harm to them is identified.
Virginia insisted that anyone who commits premarital sex is a criminal. This might be good for... Um, priests maybe? But it clearly seeks to harm something like 99% of the population. Thankfully the Virginia Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in 2005... And they kept punishing people for it up until 2015 apparently, even knowing it was unconstitutional to do so. They only just got rid of it in 2020, having rejected prior attempts because fuck the constitution.
I guess that is not the best example, even while showing how stupid or/or vile some lawmakers are. However, it shows a clear problem of laws against victimless crimes.
Marijuana laws disproportionately affect a couple minority groups. I don't think that it affects them more is a dealbreaker in itself, but should be worthy of consideration both when the laws are passed and when they are upheld (the harm weighted against the benefit). The lack of benefit from said law, to me that is the dealbreaker. Further, in the standards of fairness, we repealed prohibition; so why then make something less harmful illegal in the same spirit? (pun intended)
Men are more likely to be reported for committing rape than women. While that can be considered, the actual harm of the crime makes it still a good law.
Sorry for muddling through this. Any likely harms of a law should be considered, but they themselves do not guarantee it's a deal breaker unless the harms outweigh the benefits.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I don't think that disproportionately affecting some groups should be in consideration assuming that the actual law is logical.
I'm hoping you meant to say dealbreaker, as opposed to even a consideration.
My question is: WHY? It didn't suddenly become virtuous to be an illiterate voter.
The literacy laws were passed back when there were clear racial divides in access to education. To me that is an obvious case of needing to do Step A before Step D (ensure fair chance to learn, before adding extra systemic penalties for not learning).
I would have a lot less problems with such a law now (even while I use it as a historical example of a law designed with ill intent towards people). However, I openly admit to being elitist scum.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
obviously who has been his entire life is relevant to who he is now
IMO it would be fair to decrease the magnitude of any offenses the longer ago something was (with some exceptions, like murder doesn't have a statute of limitations).
James Gunn made bad jokes before Disney hired him. His actions since have shown that he has grown as a person (particularly the whole apologizing thing). However, if he made those same jokes five minutes ago, gave no apologies, and acted like it was ancient history, that would be be a laughable defense.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
"muh disproportionately affects" types of policies
I think those are fair game, with logical caveats such as no playing Captain Hindsight.
As an example, a literacy test for voting sounds positive, but has a history of misuse that would likely repeat (plus the irony of our current president). So a law like that should not be renewed due to disproportionately affecting certain populations.
Whereas switching to the metric system, shouldn't be avoided even if it might prove harder for some groups to adapt.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, you are disagreeing with an opinion, like that has never happened before.
An opinion that is counter to the available facts. I can of course put it into tests, such as if he's advocated in favor of racist ideals like eugenics.
Being racist should be like being pregnant, you can't be a little pregnant.
You can be a little pregnant. At the start of pregnancy it is not obvious to any outsider, requiring a hormone test to verify. Later when majorly pregnant, it usually is obvious at a glance due to clear physical symptoms. Of course misdiagnosis is possible.
Similarly you could say it should be like murder in that you've killed someone or you haven't... Yet we have different degrees of murder, from premeditated all the way down to involuntary manslaughter.
A racist cop might habitually let one group of people off with a warning for speeding, and insist on another group having the maximum fine every time (from the perspective of either group, nothing implies racism. It's not highly visible, so you would need to do some data mining to find the trend pattern). Whereas a Neo-Nazi or a Black Panther is majorly racist, and presents it openly with tattoos and calling for people to die and such. Major vs minor clearly exists for racism.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
From the link, I will highly agree with Trump's assessment that Al Sharpton is a racist. I do not believe it or disbelieve it due to the arbitrary interpretation offered by Trump. There is a ton of evidence of Al Sharpton's actions on this matter, to connect it by almost any quantifiable standard to being racist.
I disagree with Trump saying that Trump is the least racist person there is anywhere in the world. As evidenced by some of his actions on the matter (pretty much once there's even a question due to said actions, it means he can't be even in the top percentile of least racist people on the planet).
I don't think this gives us a flawless standard, but it's far better than declaring that no one can be racist since we don't know if they really meant it. People who commit lynchings as an example, didn't really mean to do anything bad.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I am not a fan of unprovable thought police standards. As an example, even if Trump were to write a book like Mein Kampf, he might have just done that for political gain without really hating the people who professes to hate in it. It would similarly mean Mother Theresa couldn't be a saint, because she might have secretly been thinking rude things while helping all those people. Further many crimes are done in ignorance... So IMO thought crime is absurdity.
I firmly believe we define ourselves with our actions. I could cite the philosophies of Orson Scott Card on it, or more effectively put it another way: "It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Created:
-->
@Death23
Trump's probably racist. I don't really see any point in denying it.
I started this thread after talking to a couple Trump supporters who absurdly denied there is any possibility of their hero having something negative about him. One of them when unable to invalidate a Hitler comparison, responded by declaring that just meant Hitler could likewise not be racist.
I remember the closing of a classic real world debate about Atheism vs. Christianity, in which the final question was something like 'what would it take for you to change sides?' To which one side proudly proclaimed insanity, while the other was just 'show me evidence of...' (paraphrased).
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I used speciesist as an extreme analogy to compare to racism. ... Granted, Hitler would fit that as he considered Jews to be sub-human; so anyone speciesist against any other group of humans, is definitely also racist against them.
Weirdly, Hitler was a vegetarian. Presumably, he did not want animals to suffer, and yet loved the idea of humans suffering as much as possible.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
According to Critical Race Theory, having white skin makes you an unconscious racist at all points of your life.
When interpreted that way (yes, as many well educated people seriously do...), you can just call it racism leading toward a final solution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I am not certain, but he did love his teleprompter.
Created:
-->
@Lunatic
Specifically in the case of callout threads, to try to prevent the forums turning into a toxic cesspit. Granted, I can outright admit not all callout threads are equally bad. Similarly, just because two members are not getting along, even if reports are filed, does not guarantee moderation intervention (the vast majority of "reports have been handled" on posts, did not yield even a PM to anyone).But in the case of that live mafia thread? We had that one handled lol
That thread was not a case of some minor blow-up shortly followed by people self-correcting. Moderation was requested multiple times by multiple people. Heck, the worst of it outright had to be deleted. Honestly, the whole thing would have been deleted, if not for RM's repeated denials of having posted anything in there (it's apparently "invented" "pure lies" designed to slander him... which you implying his presence there with such word choice as "we," means you're part of said conspiracy).
I don't know if you've ever had a stalker before, but just ignoring someone being deranged toward you, spreading rumors of you commiting crimes, etc., is in some cases a very sub-optimum solution. While perhaps not rewarding the abuser, it does very little to dissuade them from continuing toward you and/or seeking more victims.To use another thing moderation steps in against: We ban spambots and delete their posts. While user could likewise just ignore the spam, the occasional clicks generated by their links could encourage the spammers to up their efforts here, and flood us... I suspect people come here because there is moderation intervention when necessary.I've done a lot to loosen the rules. You can joke, you can be impolite. However, there are still lines that that can be crossed.Stalking? Stalking on a website seems interesting. I mean if the person is doxing and using personal information that's one thing, but if they are just participating in the same threads and you don't like that, you can say it's stalking. If someone is spamming that's one thing, and doxing another thing.
Stalking from Merriam-Webster "broadly : a crime of engaging in a course of conduct directed at a person that serves no legitimate purpose and seriously alarms, annoys, or intimidates that person"
While online differs a little, I believe the word still fairly applies. A user should be able to start a thread on Topic C, without some obsessed [pick your stalker synonym] barging in to harass them about in Topic A weeks or months ago, they were impolite to the [pick your stalker synonym], and in short order begin accusing them of stealing money.
I am just suggesting taking a lighter perception of moderation on certain issues.
If 42 days was too long for what RM did is a fair criticism.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
I'll agree with you that belief in race is on the slippery slope that can lead to overt racism.
However, as with your car analogy, believing cars are painted different colors, differs from the orcish belief that Red Paint will make the car inherently go faster.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
If you ever need any edits after the time runs out, let myself or another moderator know, and we'll be happy to help you out.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
I disagree with that standard.
If someone recognizes that differences exist, and then declares one grouping is overall superior (or another inferior) based on those differences, that would cut it.
And significant difference in fair/unfair treatment based on those differences, would certainly be indicative.
And significant difference in fair/unfair treatment based on those differences, would certainly be indicative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
makes G Dubya look clever.
I think George W. Bush wasn't the smartest tool in the shed, but he was actually pretty clever. He often played up the perception of him as a bumbling half-wit, to be both underestimated and more likeable. Plus his sense of humor was really good.
As a mild comparison, Obama did not start his bid for president saying "um" all the time. He upped that steadily, likely to seem less threatening to racists.
I often compare Bush to Roman emperor Claudius.
Created:
This is a question intended for Trump supporters. It is about proofs and standards of proof. Please note the question is just "racist," not "Literally Hitler."
As an example, I'm a speciesist. This is evident by my consumption of cows, but not of dogs. I could apply the standard of restrictive consumption to any other person, and label them as positive or negative related to this test. If one test is insufficient, I could review other factors of comparative treatment.
Created:
-->
@SamStevens
@RationalMadman
Added08.14.18 08:59AM"Demolish my opponents, become one of the Illuminati and potentially take over the entire universe/reality."RM, you'd be committed to an institute for life before you are ever able to do that.
***
The request for moderation action against SamStevens is denied.
Waiting over two years to report an isolated rude remark, made by a user who had not made a single post in well over a year...
-Ragnar, Deputy Moderator
***
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Luke 3:23-38 goes from Jesus back to Adam, a period of approximately 4000 years in generational time spans. Adding approximately 2000 years from Jesus' existence to today, this totals out that the creation of man AND the entire universe is only approximately 6000 years old!
Adding approximately 2000 years from Jesus' existence to today... This presents two problems for a true biblical literalist:
- Approximately. While perhaps necessary for non-Christians, is still clearly not reading the bible enough. Heck, some are able to predict the exact year the world would end from it, so the year it began must be easy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events#21st_century
- Adding years since Jesus?! What kind of travesty is that. Where in the bible does it indicate that years occured afterward?
Created:
-->
@Lunatic
In cases without any reports filed, we are very unlikely to see it. Of course as seen with callout threads, if I happen to spot one, I'm not going to wait for someone else to file a report.Unlikely to see it or not, why intervene at all if both users are handling themselves just fine?
Specifically in the case of callout threads, to try to prevent the forums turning into a toxic cesspit. Granted, I can outright admit not all callout threads are equally bad. Similarly, just because two members are not getting along, even if reports are filed, does not guarantee moderation intervention (the vast majority of "reports have been handled" on posts, did not yield even a PM to anyone).
That does not always work to dissuade the obsessed.So? The "victim" or the person blocking doesn't have to read or care about anything the other person says.
I don't know if you've ever had a stalker before, but just ignoring someone being deranged toward you, spreading rumors of you commiting crimes, etc., is in some cases a very sub-optimum solution. While perhaps not rewarding the abuser, it does very little to dissuade them from continuing toward you and/or seeking more victims.
To use another thing moderation steps in against: We ban spambots and delete their posts. While user could likewise just ignore the spam, the occasional clicks generated by their links could encourage the spammers to up their efforts here, and flood us... I suspect people come here because there is moderation intervention when necessary.
I've done a lot to loosen the rules. You can joke, you can be impolite. However, there are still lines that that can be crossed.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
You have a series of false accusations
You are accused of writing various posts authored by RationalMadman. You have repeatedly promised to prove that such was "pure lies," but continuously evade the question only to repeat your baseless assertion that someone other than you "invented" those posts to frame you of writing things you would never write. So step up to to the plate, if you are not the RationalMadman who authored those posts, who was?
Created:
Posted in:
"Demon Dude"
Not a clue what it will look like yet. I volunteer at a haunted house (err, drive-thru this year).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Is it at all possible that one author maybe referring to one actual father while another maybe referring to a father - in - law i.e. Mary's father?
While possible, similarly it's possible Luke made up the genealogy list (Noah keeping accurate family records from before writing was invented, seems doubtful), neither can be applied if viewing the bible as infallible and inerrant.
It would apparently be a sin to add words to such a perfect book, besides once you get into explaining away such miracles as two genetic fathers, why stop there? The miracles of Jesus could likewise be explained away if you just add a bunch more words that aren't in the bible. You've got to be able to read the bible with a consistent standard, not applying special pleading willy nilly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Yes, Moses clearly had a bunch of father in laws, as the bible states with such ambiguous clues as "his father-in-law."
I double checked for you, and similar words do not appear next to Heli, it just says "Joseph, the son of Heli." We can play make believe that every time son is written it actually means "son-in-law" (at least internally to the book of Luke), but that would get pretty senseless adding further contradictions, since Jesus would then only be Mary's son-in-law, and similarly Jesus would only be God's son-in-law.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BearMan
Resolved: On Balance, the Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods Outweigh the Harms. (taken from the NSDA)
I am finding the topic selection to be subpar on fairness. I suspect the NSDA wants people to research these issues for their educational value, as opposed to their debatability.
Created:
Posted in:
Are we getting a debate of Trump vs. Harris? Or are we really not bothering to have debates this time? ... Sorry, had to make the joke.
Created:
-->
@Lunatic
If a person is handling themselves well enough I think in certain situations it's best to just let it defuse on it's own.Most of the time that works. Sadly, sometimes people are not handling themselves well enough without intervention. Even then, usually a very minor intervention curbs the troublesome behavior.You mean in the case where one party reports the other? What about the case where no reports are made?
In cases without any reports filed, we are very unlikely to see it. Of course as seen with callout threads, if I happen to spot one, I'm not going to wait for someone else to file a report.
If a person is feeling harassed you can just direct them to the blocking featureEspecially when combined with a request to cease and desist, if everyone abided by such common courtesy, we might not need moderators. Sadly that doesn't always work. Some users outright respond to such with increased efforts directed to the person whom clearly expressed disinterest in continued contact. Hence why there even needs to be a rule in the CoC, when basic human decency should be enough.The person can, ya know, continue to not respond to the other party lol.
That does not always work to dissuade the obsessed. You might request someone leave you alone and block them; only for them to start callout threads against you, follow you into any thread you participate to dredge up their off topic grudge, and of course spam in any thread you start to ensure you get many notifications about them. Moderation intervention can allow a harrassed user to resume peaceful enjoyment of the site.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Harassment is entirely defined by how harassed the victims feel.
No, it's not. As stated in the Code of Conduct: "In most cases, a “reasonable person” standard will be utilized." Applying this, someone may feel victimized by another user not liking Naruto enough; but due to the reasonable person standard, no matter how badly hurt someone feels from that disparity in pop culture appreciation, it does not transform into a CoC violation.
This shouldn't need to be explained to you, given the countless times you requested moderation intervention on behalf of other members via filing reports for tiny or outright imagined things.
While victim response can mitigate damage, severe enough or frequent enough bad behaviors do not suddenly become appropriate or even close to acceptable. To use an extreme example, when someone makes up stories about another committing embezzlement, just because the victim does not testify, doesn't absolve the harasser of the intentionally harmful actions.
I obeyed every rule and they invented wrongdoing to justify a ban.
You have refused to address how the "invented" evidence was "pure lies," such as authoring this post: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4593-static-live-mafia-on-fridays?page=1&post_number=2
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
As gross as I find that suggestion, where is the bible does it indicate Heli was also Mary's dad?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, ... 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, ... 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
It differs going forward or backward as to who Joseph's daddy was. Luke also traces the exact number of generations back to Adam, but that's not an issue here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
The guy honestly deserves a modal for being RM (so long as it's hidden on everyone else's profiles). Kinda like how John Malkovich should have won more awards for Being John Malkovich.
Ok, I'll stop with the dad jokes now.
Created:
Posted in:
(please keep this light hearted)
So I got into an argument with my oldest friend about if the bible is infallible and inerrant, and of course I brought up a few seeming contradictions...
Assuming there was no error, not even by ambiguity, what does it mean that Joseph literally had two fathers?
Like was he a case of superfecundation, followed by one fetus eating the other? And yeah, the lack of mention of him having two heads, leads me to conclude that he was not siamese twins (even in this lighthearted musing, I'm not trying to insult the guy... also I'm not sure such a child would have lived into adulthood back then).
Do we know if he had a mother? Because another way it could work, is if gay men impregnated each other back then.
Created:
-->
@Lunatic
If a person is handling themselves well enough I think in certain situations it's best to just let it defuse on it's own.
Most of the time that works. Sadly, sometimes people are not handling themselves well enough without intervention. Even then, usually a very minor intervention curbs the troublesome behavior.
If a person is feeling harassed you can just direct them to the blocking feature
Especially when combined with a request to cease and desist, if everyone abided by such common courtesy, we might not need moderators. Sadly that doesn't always work. Some users outright respond to such with increased efforts directed to the person whom clearly expressed disinterest in continued contact. Hence why there even needs to be a rule in the CoC, when basic human decency should be enough.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
A small idea regarding medals, would be adding a couple more for the voting leaderboard, similar to the rating leaderboard.
The #1 spot King of the Hill, could become Power Behind the Throne (referring to deciding the most debates, which the King of the Hill required for their position).
The top 5 spots Challenger, could become Electoral.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
@drafterman
Someone else has already re-strickied it.
And of course thanks for that incredible list.
I've been meaning to try to make a tool for this game, and that list seems like a very good place to start.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
In case I did not say it earlier:
I understand being frustrated, and were I in your shoes I definitely would have been too.
While the level of reaction can be debated, that there was reason to be seems clear cut.
Granted, as someone who was pretty controversial in a game recently, my words probably mean a bit less.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
P = paragraph from this thread's original post...
P1: I was quite literally banned over pure lies
The user RationalMadman was proven to make posts which were clearly targeted harassment, some of these he even apologized for. If "pure lies" these posts would not exist.
P3: 90% of the evidence they hint at or try to drag me through the mud with when called out on proof was prior to this Tabula Rasa
Patently untrue. As exemplified by 4 out of 5 links from the original draft, being for very recent offenses. The remaining 1 was showing how far back the history of unhealthy fixations on people goes. Claiming 90%, when evidence points to a 20% which did not even cause the ban even while being a worthy mention for context, is quite the distortion. Also since there's evidence of misdeeds, how was it all "pure lies"?
P6: I did not ever do 'targetted harassment' ... There are three examples given and the most severe one that remotely was something I should regret and do
The examples are not all inclusive, and with https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4593-static-live-mafia-on-fridays?page=1&post_number=2 targetted harassment is proven to have occured and commited by the user of the account RationalMadman. From the CoC: "Creating threads to call-out specific users qualifies as targeted harassment, as does obsessive attempts to derail unrelated topics with impertinent grudges." That thread of course got much worse than the single post outlined, but being #2 in the thread, is very indicative of the problem.
P7: doesn't feel harassed by me
I've seen this line of reasoning a few times for various crimes... Harassment is defined by the actions, not just if it's successful in causing harm.
Created:
Posted in:
I didn't get much if any arguments on proving Mr. Hitler was a "racist".-Mall
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
In a recent game outside talk on discord went way too far, such that seeing even that put me at slight disease... However, yeah, it's a basic clarifying question about the website. While it relates to the game, it's pretty far from an actionable offense.
Heck if I'm in a game or not and someone clicks the report button on a post, I have to put my mod shoes on as a neutral outsider.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
I would have hoped you flipping scum would have mitigated his frustration.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Supa's lovers claim was anti-town, bits of play, and of course hammering oro.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
No. I can't however deny that it does cause a slightly increased top of mind presence.
One part of the gut feeling, came from the argument between you and Drafter, to which I estimated that one or the other was be more likely to be scum. Not perfect reasoning, but if not Drafter, then Lunatic.
The threat to quit in DP2 felt inauthentic. But to be completely fair, at the end of DP2 I was utterly convinced Supa was scum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Oh, one small suggestion (this goes to anyone on any scum team): have your discord set to invisible most of the time.
In fact, it wouldn't be a bad idea for all players in Mafia to just set their discord to invisible throughout the game, so as to avoid any risk of analysis focused on that.
I have a pet peeve against such out of game thing, so I don't make points of it during the game.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
@Speedrace
The no breadcrumbing rule... It seems problematic, as people hint stuff as part of the game (heck sometimes even accidently), and where the line is drawn between the two is unclear.
Created: