Total posts: 80
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Congratulations on creating this amazing site. It's really impressive.
Did you ever debate on DDO? Because you spoke about "not losing the spirit we have here" referring to the spirit at DDO being kept at DART. But you have no record of debates on that profile.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I mean, look at bsh1. His efforts to be morally pure and free from blame are actually corrupting him. Maybe a balance is necessary. In theory, I suppose, perfect balance is possible.
Anyway my diagnosis is: normal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
But you talked about wearing a mask and being outted as worthless. So are your standards about the appearance of being perfect or actually being perfect? I mean, it's not as if perfection is even possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
You have harsher, higher standards for yourself, but it matters how others see you.
So whose standards matter? If it's your own standards, why does it matter how others perceive you? If it's others' standards, how do you even know what they are since there's such a wide variation?
Also, is your concern for being flawless for online as well? Because it doesn't seem like that. It makes wonder what you might say if you weren't so careful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Perceived by whom?There can never be a percieved flaw in anything I say, do or wear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
My view is that there is no real self and no fake self, that it's all the same thing. So the way I interpret what you've said is that you present different personas to your therapist, to the real world, and possibly another one online, and you have different experiences of comfort and discomfort for the different ones.
So, this idea of the bad/evil self is, in my opinion, constructed. And I wonder if you have a clear idea of what constitutes bad and evil, given your consistently amoral stance online? If not, then are you just trying to guess what it is, or just assuming it's there?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You've thought about it a lot for your own situation. I know that diagnosis is inherently comparative, so it would be ridiculous to say, as some people do, that you can't compare. You can But still, I feel that you're too easily generalizing knowledge that you've gained for your specific case. Actually, you and wylted seem quite different to me. Based on online presence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
@Raltar
From a forum troll to serious debate people: you are awesome. Love the way you argue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Of course, bigoted language like birch, count, maggot (ha ha autocorrect!) affects everyone who reads it, not just the person who it's directed to. Any newcomer to the site will think that this kind of language is normal and approved when it's just sitting there on threads that the mods have obviously read.--there doesn't seem to be much to gain from deleting the post. It's not causing anymore harm just sitting there than it did when Castin read it,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
trial and error in real life and being honest when my 'reading system' was far from accurate
Yes, this here. Observing your own mistakes is really important. That's why I don't think Wylted has the PDs you've mentioned. He's already wondering if he was experiencing delusions. He's analyzing his own thoughts. That's normal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Based only on your online presence, I don't think you have a personality disorder, and you certainly don't have schizophrenia.
My guess is that you're on antidepressants or something?
Just because the way you express yourself seems to me to be entirely devoid of impression management. Which is one of the things I like about you. But also, I've noticed this pattern in people on antidepressants.
Good job with this thread. I've always felt mental health was taboo, but you're right, why should it be.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I think you're right to be suspicious. I have the same attitude.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I would just like to add in my own defence that there are a lot of valid reasons for having a separate account for personal and official purposes. But perhaps you're right that we should make it clear when we have more than one account. I'll talk to the team and draft a policy statement.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Well, okay fine. But just for my own curiosity, how did you figure it out? And for extra points, which mod am I?
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Yes, I wish my account had a different name now. But I'm not a mod! Perish the thought.
Created:
-->
@Logical-Master
Actually, I think the trial is a really good idea. For reasons of experimentation and argument, as you've explained.
There are two dangers that I can see:
1. Threatening the authority of the mods.
2. Exposing/bullying the subject of the trial.
For example, in real life, trials can be really traumatic for people, I believe. So, that's why a volunteer would be good for the experiment. I'm curious to see how it plays out. You say you're thinking about safeguards to strengthen the trial system and I think we all want to see how they work.
About the mods. Your arguments are good so far, and theirs are weak to non-existent. I think that, on a debate site, they should argue their positions rather than just get stubborn. As such, we have no reason to respect their position, and I think it's okay to try and work around them.
Created:
-->
@Logical-Master
What if the subject of the trial started the trial thread? Then it couldn't be interpreted as a call out thread. Obviously, it wouldn't work as a general rule, but just for the experiment.
Created:
Posted in:
Yes, having threads to celebrate bans is fine. Also it's great to casually discuss people's mental health and bandy about diagnoses while they're not here. But a thread examining mods' decision making in a trial format would be way too much drama.
Created:
-->
@Logical-Master
Okay. I hope you get enough people.
Created:
-->
@Castin
You could have a mod review all the jurors' votes and just remove any they don't like.If you accept just any volunteer for juror I think you'd be leaning closer toward mob rule. How would you ensure that responsible people are selected for the jury?
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
If only people would stop debating issues on this debate site!
Created:
-->
@Wylted
I mean, for me it's all or nothing. I don't mind getting banned.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Yes, a trial with euphemisms would be an alternative to a trial off-site. Personally, I don't follow rm closely enough to create such a caricature, and the effort to shape myself into the sort of nice-language monster bsh could tolerate sounds painful.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
I thought of you first, and ur sure to get banned soon, but you'd be more valuable as juror imo.
Created:
-->
@Logical-Master
I volunteer to keep starting the rm trial here until I get banned, and then the real trial can be about my ban off-site. Then you get to argue for the trial system.
Created:
-->
@Lunatic
@Wylted
@Logical-Master
We could do it on edeb8 or DDO. I would prefer it if the first trial was not for RM. It should be a volunteer.
Created:
-->
@Logical-Master
I sign up as jury member.
Created:
Posted in:
Dear debateart members
As you probably know, the mod team and a few others have set up a shared spreadsheet where they gamble on aspects of the site, such as how many posts forum topics will reach or which member will receive the most complaints about them. When invited to join this game, I refused, and Castin in sent the following in a pm to me, referring to members on this site. I quote exactly: "they're all weirdos. They don't have feelings. F"ck them"
Excuse me for the slight edit.
In light of current site events I have decided to share this.
All the best,
Christine (not my real name)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
1. People are assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That doesn't mean that people are actually innocent until proven guilty, though.
2. No.
3. It's not for me to judge the credibility of my own account. I can only state the facts as I know them to the best of my ability.
4. The hearing so far was in relation to Brett's job interview. So far there has been no question of conviction and I agree there should not be without substantial investigation, which I would support.
5. Please refer to my response for q3.
6. Brett has the burden of proof to show that he is qualified and suitable for the supreme court position.
7. I don't know.
8. My account is evidence, and I don't personally need corroboration for something I know to be true.
9. I didn't begin this process with expectations for any particular outcome. In fact, I expected a poor outcome. It just felt to be my duty to put this before the committee for them to consider. That was the extent of my duty, and where people take it from there is out of my hands.
10. The worst consequence Brett is facing is not getting accepted for a desirable job. I can understand that that would be disappointing for him. Nevertheless, we also need to think of the consequences to the country of having a supreme court justice who is unsuitable for the role. Whether or not Brett us unsuitable is not my decision to make, but I don't believe that providing information about his character is unfair.
Created: