Yes, everyone knows what he did. Multi-accounting, grudge voting, ad hominem attacks, and threats of violence, including death threats. Yet, he's still here, making posts in these comments, happy as a clown. The logical inference is that there aren't significant consequences for breaking the code of the conduct.
Your moderation team could have questioned me regarding any circumstantial evidence you used to justify your restriction of my voting ability. Yet, you decided that this would be of little value. For shame.
If you're planning anything, it will not work. I will be ready for that and I will retaliate. You know that moderation is weak. You know that I'm good at this game.
The similar phrases from sources and conduct for MagicAintReal and DebateVoter... I counted 10. Not only are they both in the RFDs, but they also appear in the exact same order in the RFDs. That's astronomically unlikely to be a coincidence.
If you look at that you will see what's happening. MagicAintReal cheated in this debate, multi-voted on RM's debate with Alec, and probably cheated in his debate with you, too.
"The discussion on dictatorship and democracy I felt was slightly irrelevant, though it seemed to me that neither debater was arguing for dictatorship and they both agreed with democracy." -MagicAintReal
"The discussion on dictatorship and democracy is moot because both debaters agree that democracy is good and dictatorship is bad" -DebateVoter
"they must survey specific arguments and counterarguments from both sides which impacted their voting decision. This survey must be comprehensive, which is to say that it must survey all or most of the main arguments in the debate, or must explain why certain arguments need not be weighed"
The only mention of Con's arguments in DebateVoter's RFD are as follows:
"Con points out, in common parlance, genetically modified means modified by scientist lab people. [...] he does not believe that you can call this genetically modified organisms. [...] no matter how weird Con tries to tell me it is."
He's not me. His account has been reasonably active on the forums. It doesn't look like he just popped in. Perhaps you missed that. https://www.debateart.com/participants/dustryder/forum_posts
Your explanation was clear and the time you took to work it up is appreciated. I would caution against getting bogged down in a back and forth. I spent much time writing an RFD on one of his debates before and tried very hard to explain it to him. It didn't work.
What did you mean when you said "the rules and definitions are not binding"? Why do you say that the voter's RFD "admitted that the resolution was true"?
I actually see "seal", by itself, as a taxonomic term and don't view its definition as prescriptive and beholden to some scientific authority on taxonomy. In taxonomy all the terms that use "seal" (e.g. "true seal"; "eared seal"; etc.) are multi-word terms. "Seal" alone strikes me as more of a layman's term and definitions would then be descriptive (i.e. the ultimate authority for its meaning would be how its used in common parlance and other contexts to some extent)
BTW if you look at F16's RFD carefully you will see what he did. Pro lays out the definitions. Con presents multiple examples of items, contending that said items fulfill satisfy the definition. It would then be Pro's responsibility to show why the presented items do not satisfy the definition. Yet, in F16's RFD, he accepts the definition itself as satisfying Pro's responsibility. https://www.debate.org/forums/miscellaneous/topic/84432/1/#2382054 This is burden shifting. Why would he do that?
Someone who is rationalizing their feelings or grudge voting or whatever isn't going put something in their RFD like "I didn't vote for A because I didn't like A. I didn't like A because I like B and B doesn't like what A doing." They're not going to put that in there. They're going to trick themselves in to thinking that they really are voting for reasons stated or conceal their true reasons from you. Until you did that, the only votes on that debate were for me. After you did that, the votes went in the other direction and quickly. You're right, there's no way to tell. There never is, is there? Perhaps you shouldn't have interfered because doing so risked affecting the outcome of the debate. That's OK though. You make the mistakes. Other people pay the price. You apologize for nothing. Everybody's a winner!
Telling someone to stop doing something is an expression of disapproval. To be clear - Publicly expressing disapproval of a user's conduct brings shame to that user when it is done by a moderator. I will PM you regarding how it may impact the outcome.
The users respected you, especially the ones subscribing to your activity feed, in no small part because you are/were moderating on the site. When you criticized the conduct of one side and didn't criticize the conduct of the other, you were taking sides and users saw that. That's a significant factor when they're forming beliefs as to who won and also a factor in deciding whether or not to vote. Many people vote who they feel like voting for and will rationalize their emotions in to an RFD. You know this.
OK well you're a deputy moderator and when you say "stop" directed toward both user's it's reasonable to interpret that as a moderation action. My understanding is that these to be largely by PM for the sake of user privacy (i.e. not let it the judgment of the moderators be known to the community). Yet, now you say that you're asking rather than instructing. So, I'm a bit confused. TBH my primary concern here is that these judgments will somehow influence the outcome of the debate, as this is exactly what happened the last time I debated him. Whiteflame decided criticize me extensively - and exclusively - in the comments section of the debate, poisoning the well. His posts ended up going to his activity feed, which many other users subscribe to. Those other users then voted on the debate - Against me.
Moderators may create means of punishing, reforming, or restraining a user so long as those invented actions are respectful of a user's privacy, safety, and legal rights. Invented actions may not include public shaming
You're losing. You know you're wrong. Perhaps you should try something underhanded. Whine to Whiteflame and perhaps he'll poison the well like the last time.
That's the plan, but he played dirty. This is a new tactic that I'm not accustomed to.
Yes, everyone knows what he did. Multi-accounting, grudge voting, ad hominem attacks, and threats of violence, including death threats. Yet, he's still here, making posts in these comments, happy as a clown. The logical inference is that there aren't significant consequences for breaking the code of the conduct.
Your moderation team could have questioned me regarding any circumstantial evidence you used to justify your restriction of my voting ability. Yet, you decided that this would be of little value. For shame.
If you're planning anything, it will not work. I will be ready for that and I will retaliate. You know that moderation is weak. You know that I'm good at this game.
You were supposed to wait for him to respond affirmatively.
Ah, so it was DebateVoter copying from your RFD then in the RM // Alec debate. Is that the explanation?
For great justice!
The similar phrases from sources and conduct for MagicAintReal and DebateVoter... I counted 10. Not only are they both in the RFDs, but they also appear in the exact same order in the RFDs. That's astronomically unlikely to be a coincidence.
https://imgur.com/a/yhJY9Y0
https://www.debateart.com/debates/478?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=7
If you look at that you will see what's happening. MagicAintReal cheated in this debate, multi-voted on RM's debate with Alec, and probably cheated in his debate with you, too.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/522
https://www.debateart.com/participants/b9_ntt
"The discussion on dictatorship and democracy I felt was slightly irrelevant, though it seemed to me that neither debater was arguing for dictatorship and they both agreed with democracy." -MagicAintReal
"The discussion on dictatorship and democracy is moot because both debaters agree that democracy is good and dictatorship is bad" -DebateVoter
lol
Nobody has to do what you say.
The arguments absent from that RFD are the same arguments that you didn't talk about in the debate or the comments. Shocking!
Here's the standard:
"they must survey specific arguments and counterarguments from both sides which impacted their voting decision. This survey must be comprehensive, which is to say that it must survey all or most of the main arguments in the debate, or must explain why certain arguments need not be weighed"
The only mention of Con's arguments in DebateVoter's RFD are as follows:
"Con points out, in common parlance, genetically modified means modified by scientist lab people. [...] he does not believe that you can call this genetically modified organisms. [...] no matter how weird Con tries to tell me it is."
Terrible moderation decision.
Lol I'm not going to let him win with bullshit votes.
https://i.imgur.com/BgQoZPJ.jpg
Once upon a time I voted on one of your debates. You started PM-ing me invective. I told you to go away. What did you do after I told you to go away?
I'm not controlled by requests, rules, insults or threats. I will debate or vote on what I wish, when I wish.
Thank you for taking the time to work it up. Much appreciated.
Feel free to have the moderators look in to it. I don't play dirty like that.
He's not me. His account has been reasonably active on the forums. It doesn't look like he just popped in. Perhaps you missed that. https://www.debateart.com/participants/dustryder/forum_posts
Your explanation was clear and the time you took to work it up is appreciated. I would caution against getting bogged down in a back and forth. I spent much time writing an RFD on one of his debates before and tried very hard to explain it to him. It didn't work.
What did you mean when you said "the rules and definitions are not binding"? Why do you say that the voter's RFD "admitted that the resolution was true"?
Appreciate the vote.
TBH it was merely a test vote to see if I could vote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPgZfhnCAdI&t=3m05s
I think the definition I advanced was paraphyletic. It included every extant pinniped except the walrus.
It means you owe for prior misconduct and I'm here to get even.
EDIT: I actually *DON'T* see "seal", by itself as a taxonomic term
Appreciate the vote.
I actually see "seal", by itself, as a taxonomic term and don't view its definition as prescriptive and beholden to some scientific authority on taxonomy. In taxonomy all the terms that use "seal" (e.g. "true seal"; "eared seal"; etc.) are multi-word terms. "Seal" alone strikes me as more of a layman's term and definitions would then be descriptive (i.e. the ultimate authority for its meaning would be how its used in common parlance and other contexts to some extent)
You have a bill to pay. All your pissing and moaning and other annoying bullshit has left you quite in the red. I'm here to collect.
I'm satisfied that you know now that you shouldn't have done it. I have no further interest in the matter.
Do you think you should have done it?
There.
BTW if you look at F16's RFD carefully you will see what he did. Pro lays out the definitions. Con presents multiple examples of items, contending that said items fulfill satisfy the definition. It would then be Pro's responsibility to show why the presented items do not satisfy the definition. Yet, in F16's RFD, he accepts the definition itself as satisfying Pro's responsibility. https://www.debate.org/forums/miscellaneous/topic/84432/1/#2382054 This is burden shifting. Why would he do that?
I see. I assumed that he did because he said he did. I suppose I should have known better.
Why did you do it?
How much did he have to piss and moan to you before you felt compelled to act by pity?
Someone who is rationalizing their feelings or grudge voting or whatever isn't going put something in their RFD like "I didn't vote for A because I didn't like A. I didn't like A because I like B and B doesn't like what A doing." They're not going to put that in there. They're going to trick themselves in to thinking that they really are voting for reasons stated or conceal their true reasons from you. Until you did that, the only votes on that debate were for me. After you did that, the votes went in the other direction and quickly. You're right, there's no way to tell. There never is, is there? Perhaps you shouldn't have interfered because doing so risked affecting the outcome of the debate. That's OK though. You make the mistakes. Other people pay the price. You apologize for nothing. Everybody's a winner!
Go away.
Telling someone to stop doing something is an expression of disapproval. To be clear - Publicly expressing disapproval of a user's conduct brings shame to that user when it is done by a moderator. I will PM you regarding how it may impact the outcome.
The users respected you, especially the ones subscribing to your activity feed, in no small part because you are/were moderating on the site. When you criticized the conduct of one side and didn't criticize the conduct of the other, you were taking sides and users saw that. That's a significant factor when they're forming beliefs as to who won and also a factor in deciding whether or not to vote. Many people vote who they feel like voting for and will rationalize their emotions in to an RFD. You know this.
https://www.debate.org/debates/A-Watched-Pot-Never-Boils/1/comments/11/
OK well you're a deputy moderator and when you say "stop" directed toward both user's it's reasonable to interpret that as a moderation action. My understanding is that these to be largely by PM for the sake of user privacy (i.e. not let it the judgment of the moderators be known to the community). Yet, now you say that you're asking rather than instructing. So, I'm a bit confused. TBH my primary concern here is that these judgments will somehow influence the outcome of the debate, as this is exactly what happened the last time I debated him. Whiteflame decided criticize me extensively - and exclusively - in the comments section of the debate, poisoning the well. His posts ended up going to his activity feed, which many other users subscribe to. Those other users then voted on the debate - Against me.
3. Invented Actions
Moderators may create means of punishing, reforming, or restraining a user so long as those invented actions are respectful of a user's privacy, safety, and legal rights. Invented actions may not include public shaming
https://www.debateart.com/rules
Ah so you concede then. Thanks for the win.
BTW I'm inventing a new rule that applies only to you. By posting anything further within the comments, you concede this debate and forfeit.
You always whine.
You're losing. You know you're wrong. Perhaps you should try something underhanded. Whine to Whiteflame and perhaps he'll poison the well like the last time.
Hurry up and post your drivel.
*yawn*
Please do continue *grabs popcorn*