Total posts: 3,773
Posted in:
Strictly so less active people may vote without worry of accidentally hammering (we're not near that, but someone suggested 3 was enough for the time being, and it would be better to have it be 3 less active people to avoid ending in a no lynch)...
Unvote
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
RationalMadman has been banned for 2-months. This is primarily due to the following..."Targeted harassment of any member prohibited, as is inciting others to do so at your behest."This one goes on endlessly. Claiming victim to the moderation team regularly via insisting roughly half the active user base are actively bullying him; while regularly being the instigator of conflict and following people around complaining at them obsessively.This isn't against the rules just because it annoys you
A recent example of targeted harassment against voters: complaining with obscenities and drama that someone's vote was not automatically deleted for being against him. This further doubles as low level vote tampering, via informing any other potential voters what to expect if voting against him; while insisting in the vote request thread that they've troll voted (implying it needs a counter vote in his favor, when their questionable vote already is) https://www.debateart.com/debates/2114/comment_links/28755 (note, this was posted within minutes of the vote in question, denying any possibly for the admin team to review and delete it).People complain about votes all the time. He has a flair for the dramatic,so what
I already already explained in the quoted text why it's problematic on multiple levels.
A recent example of targeted harassment via the forms: Derailing a thread with insults rising to the level of extravagant made up stories about users (if not lying, it's doxxing to have spied on them braiding their hair and giving each other manicures) basically because they play board games without you. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4593/post-links/191128Same thread: Threatening to ban someone, which is impersonating moderation. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4593/post-links/191181"Impersonating moderation" lol
"I don't care but your ban isn't based on me saying that." I read like informing someone they were to be banned. Reading again, I see other posts referring to him having been banned from a game, and I realize this was an error from me missing an important piece of context to the statement. This part of the complaint is hereby dropped.
Accusing another member of getting a cut from a gofundme which you insist was a scam: This raises the seriousness, as it's accusing a third party of criminal activity. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4593/post-links/191270GTFO of here. It looks like the post was deleted but he's entitled to have his conspiracy theory about an event that happened like six years ago. Mikal is not in any legal danger due to this post, the way you've worded it is incredibly dramatic
At this point, even RM is apologizing for this on multiple levels. ... Claiming the person he was talking to had done wrong, is a much lesser thing that what this rose to with the accusations against someone long gone so unable to defend themselves.
"Multi-accounting and any action indistinguishable from it is prohibited."Technically forgiven, but still of note with recent complaints of it not being rewarded. Coordinating with someone for them to make fake accounts to give him a bunch of free wins, is still within the purview of this crime.I dont know the context of this, if true its worth of a ban, but you also say it has been forgiven? If it has it shouldn't be relevant
Only mentioned due to RM making recent complaints of it not being rewarded.
"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."Doxing another user: While this is from a while ago, it does feed into history of poor decisions, particularly as related to being fixated on certain people.I support a zero tolerance policy for actual Doxxing, but all he did here was threaten to Doxx someone (which he should not have done, either.) It's from October 2019, almost a year ago. It's not relevant to banning him now and shouldn't be considered
It does feed into history of poor decisions, particularly as related to being fixated on certain people. As for why that matters, it's written in the CoC: "The specific consequence will depend on the severity and frequency of the violations, along with user history, context, and other relevant factors."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
To phrase a better question; is moderation open to changing policy that broadly or is it a futile matter?
We're always open to discussion and policy change. What do you have in mind?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
My instinct is to believe Croc and sus TUF
That would be like trading a queen for a pawn. It doesn't make sense for scum to do that to kill one vanilla, at the expense of a goon or higher.
The odds of us hitting a townie on DP1 are already plenty high.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
I will admit, I don't understand why scum would bother to fake claim a state (doubly so without pressure to claim). There's 50 to choose from, and none of them seem overtly evil.
It's hypothetically possible Warren would do a bastard setup of assigning the same state to two people, but were he to do that, I would expect it to be some type of comedic divide, like Eastern vs Western California.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
@warren42
@Crocodile
We've identified our first scum due to counter claim. Either Croc or Lunatic.
Unvote,
VTL Croc
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Try to get on soon, even just to say "hi."
Created:
Posted in:
We should assume three people are scum. Not really because of that post, merely because it's viable and safer to base our assumptions on that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Crocodile
What's your state claim? Or at least the justification for it?
Created:
Posted in:
Press and I were a miller in the last game. This intuitively makes me less trusting of a miller claim this game, as I assume game hosts like variety of roles.
Plus WIFOM, scum would realize how little challenge such claims get; but they would know that we know this, so avoid it; unless they know that we know they they know, and go with it anyway! But wait, they know we know that they would go with it anyway, so would thus avoid it, unless we know they're avoiding it for that reason...
Created:
Posted in:
Sorry if I missed any updates for the dashboard. With half of us still AWOL (or I'm scum and secretly killed them already 😈), it will be extra useful to have this near the top of each page so they can get caught up more quickly.
oromagi #14
ToWN State Role: NP1 actions:
Ragnar .
Supadudz .
Bearman .
Discipulus_Didicit .
Lunatic .
iLikePie5 .
AWoL
Speedrace .
PressF4Respect .
littlecookie .
crocodile .
SCuM
Created:
Posted in:
***
Two users are being banned related to drama in this thread (one longer than the other due to ongoing problems elsewhere on the site). The single worst post has already been deleted.
As one user is having complaints about the ban, the thread shall temperately remain up to give him a chance to defend himself.
-Ragnar, DM
***
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The following was written before the notification, and is to be placed in the mod log:
RationalMadman has been banned for 2-months. This is primarily due to the following..."Targeted harassment of any member prohibited, as is inciting others to do so at your behest."This one goes on endlessly. Claiming victim to the moderation team regularly via insisting roughly half the active user base are actively bullying him; while regularly being the instigator of conflict and following people around complaining at them obsessively.A recent example of targeted harassment against voters: complaining with obscenities and drama that someone's vote was not automatically deleted for being against him. This further doubles as low level vote tampering, via informing any other potential voters what to expect if voting against him; while insisting in the vote request thread that they've troll voted (implying it needs a counter vote in his favor, when their questionable vote already is) https://www.debateart.com/debates/2114/comment_links/28755 (note, this was posted within minutes of the vote in question, denying any possibly for the admin team to review and delete it).A recent example of targeted harassment via the forms: Derailing a thread with insults rising to the level of extravagant made up stories about users (if not lying, it's doxxing to have spied on them braiding their hair and giving each other manicures) basically because they play board games without you. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4593/post-links/191128Same thread: Threatening to ban someone, which is impersonating moderation. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4593/post-links/191181Accusing another member of getting a cut from a gofundme which you insist was a scam: This raises the seriousness, as it's accusing a third party of criminal activity. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4593/post-links/191270"Multi-accounting and any action indistinguishable from it is prohibited."Technically forgiven, but still of note with recent complaints of it not being rewarded. Coordinating with someone for them to make fake accounts to give him a bunch of free wins, is still within the purview of this crime."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."Doxing another user: While this is from a while ago, it does feed into history of poor decisions, particularly as related to being fixated on certain people.
All this said, three months were strongly considered, but it was decreased in light of him being an immeasurably valuable contributor. Good deeds mitigate bad, but they do not absolve.
Created:
Posted in:
I'll probably be pretty inactive the rest of the day phase. There's another game going on, hosted by a madman...
Technically it should end around midnight, but it will burn me out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
Mormons usually wait for marriage before "sleeping."
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
without them we would still be using leeches to treat a cold.
To paraphrase the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster: Leeches were the best remedy. All the really common stuff they cured, stayed cured!
🍝
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@skittlez09
It's the nature of gambits. Had you guessed right for who Bullish would investigate, it would have seemed to be a stroke of genius.
The important thing is that you had fun trying it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bullish
@WaterPhoenix
@skittlez09
When I started reading I was wondering why when scum knew Bullish was the cop, why kill Speed instead of him NP2? However, you wanted him to investigate LittleCookie but in trying to bait him he investigated WaterPheonix instead correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Since you don't want to hammer, what remaining information would you like?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Yes. "...disregarding both moderation intervention and polite requests from the target to cease."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@skittlez09
If you're scum, you should have the dignity to hammer yourself.
If not, please make a case for who you believe should be lynched tomorrow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
We did not want too many pins on the prime real estate, pushing ongoing conversations down further.
Created:
Posted in:
I mean Water... sorry, I'm getting those names flipped too damned often.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bullish
I'm waiting because Warren asked for time. I personally don't enjoy dragging things on, and will put my vote back in place before I go out today.
I do wonder why Speedrace thought Croc was more scum than LittleCookie, when making his choice for who to Vig. I am guessing it is from doubt related to #134.
Aside from his active choice to not vote for either claimed cop, what's the gist of what he did previously to confirm himself as scum?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Sorry for the major typo. I expected to be home no later than 9 last night, but do to some pointless drama, I did not get home until after midnight.
ROLE NP1 NP2
1. iLikePie5 Vanilla,
2. PressF4respect Miller,
3. Warren42
4. Bullish Cop, investigate Pie, investigate Water (scum)
5. Littlecookie08 Hider, hid behind Croc, hid behind Pie
6. WaterPhoenix Cop, investigate Warren, investigate Pie (scum)
Created:
Posted in:
Since scum wins if there's a mislynch, it is indeed possible for there to be a crazy gambit going on.
I kinda doubt we'll move beyond the utility of just lynching Water (having had to use his cop power, how could he not realize this was the next day?), but I'm willing to wait on recasting my vote.
To try to make sense of things, I've built the following. If I'm missing any relevant claims, please let me know...
ROLE NP1 NP2
1. iLikePie5 Cop, investigate Warren, investigate Pie (scum)
2. PressF4respect Miller,
3. Warren42
4. Bullish Cop, investigate Pie, investigate Water (scum)
5. Littlecookie08 Hider, hid behind Croc, hid behind Pie
6. WaterPhoenix
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@skittlez09
Are you any certain variant of hider? I noticed that you didn't die when hiding behind someone WP claims is confirmed scum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Not caught up yet, but this is straight forward due to the investigation results. Scum would have needed to know he’s the cop to try this gambit, and would give up Bullish next day... it doesn’t make sense, so...
VTL Water
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
@skittlez09
Why should I kill the other?
Created:
Posted in:
Locked for review
.find_in_page{background-color:#ffff00 !important;padding:0px;margin:0px;overflow:visible !important;}.find_selected{background-color:#ff9632 !important;padding:0px;margin:0px;overflow:visible !important;}
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
All cases that do not fit the pattern can be deemed outliers.
Plus in data mining, if you set it to look for those as a predictor variable to the target variable of rating, you will likely have the strongest correlation coefficient.
Created:
Posted in:
I'll try to get some refinement work on this during the weekend.
Two things I plan to touch on (and would of course appreciate ideas toward): Clarifying what counts as outside content, particularly as regards to outside opinions (this can be a fine line to walk, as feedback is good and we're not voting in a knowledge-less vacuum; but we're also not one of the debaters trying to defeat an argument), and of course clarifying the full forfeiture policy.
Crap, another thing: We don't need to call non-moderated debates "troll" debates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm getting curious as to what narrow definition of sexual harassment you use?
To list a few common ones to make it easy for you:
- "uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature..." Merriam-Webster
- "unwanted or offensive sexual attention, suggestions, or talk..." -Cambridge
- "behavior characterized by the making of unwelcome and inappropriate sexual remarks or physical advances in a workplace or other professional or social situation." -Oxford
And "sexual advances" in a remote context, is itself a laughable concept.
This is the information age, more and more interactions happen remotely. According to the Pew Research Center: "nearly one-in-five Americans (18%) have been subjected to particularly severe forms of harassment online, such as physical threats, harassment over a sustained period, sexual harassment or stalking."
That you personally find it laughable, doesn't mean it doesn't happen, or that the victims are not affected.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I'd pull out a more quotes of his unwelcome sexual advances. His bizarre responses to people asking him to cease and desist are easier to find, but I would expect those alone to get him laughed out of court.
Similarly Willows might try to sue for being accused of multi-accounting when all he did was create 20 or 30 multi-accounts, as if creating multi-accounts can't be confused with multi-accounting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I consider minors to be anyone under the age of 18.
And I have no way to verify anyone's actual age. As a moderator I just take them at their word.
Created: