Total posts: 10,910
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
On another note, thanks for helping me keep this thread alive by engaging with me. Even if you make a poor argument, keeping this thread alive will continously demonstrate that the mods do not wish to change their ruling or even address issues when it comes to moderation. It demonstrates that "it is what it is" and usually they hope the conversation will just die out and the issue of their improper bans will be hopefully forgotten about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
What? When have I said I was some great debater? Yes, I had a fun little post about getting to the top 10, but that's mostly because I never thought I would be able to - jesus fuck you guys are talking about "character assassinations" while being as hypocritical about it as you can
Yeah, that's kind of the point lol. You want to substitute personal attacks and mis characterizations about someone instead of sticking to the argument, so that's why I am doing it right back at you. See how it has nothing to do with the original point?
secondly I did respond - again with the entire "latching onto the one thing you're might be right about" and then you disregard the entire sentence proceeding that. Do you need me to repeat it for ya?
You admitting I was right on one point doesn't provide evidence that he's a pedophile, which is what the admins and others are claiming are the main reason behind his ban. I literally have the screenshots, and posted an argument to you posing how someone can be a pedophile if they themselves are the one pretending to be underage trying to "chris hansen" someone which demonstrates they think the other party is an adult. You completely dropped that and started swinging mis-characterizations at me in a rage because I proved you wrong lol.
Whenever I use an ad hominem its because its relevant to the matter at hand -
You have yet to point out how I am a homophobe, so how is that relevant?
yet curiously here you go digging around my other forum posts - how fantastically hypocritical of you - tu quoque much?
Yeah, again, that's the point. You brought it there, so I am demonstrating to you in a (much more elegant way if I do say so myself) your own character flaws to draw a point that my conception of who you are as a person (however mis-guided or accurate it may be) bears no relevance to our conversation. I am glad you see how frustrating that can be in an argument :)
The part you haven't ^If its necessary for you to go digging around my forums, perhaps I should tell you about red herrings - ever heard of those? The funny thing about you and Coal, is that you completely ignore any criticism of yourself, instead completely resorting to ad hominem, as for myself? Yes - whenever I'm spiteful or angry enough I do include ad hominem, after my argument. And then you all like to pretend like there wasn't anything prior? Mm
There literally wasn't anything prior, as I just pointed out. You can pretend you have an argument here, but I really don't see one other than baseless assertions. Your memory of the thread is either mis-guided, mis-remembered, or biased based on your dis-like of Wylted, which shouldn't be relevant to the topic at hand. Whether or not pedophilia is an accurate charge in this situation, is. Until you can prove to me that it is, this conversation will go no where.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge humble bragging
"I've made it to the top 10 debaters on the site, yipee."
Cool.
"This is becoming my venting place, anyone else know the people who suddenly stop responding whenever you ask for them to actually look at your evidence? "
Nah but I know a person who resorts to ad hom attacks instead of presenting coutner evidence ;-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
"Assuming" uhuh - it seems to me more like your trying to explain away pedophiliac behavior to me - furthermore - you have completely ignored the entire - being ableist and homophobic... like you just latch on to the one thing you might have a point on and ignore everything else
Aren't you the one who goes around claiming to be an amazing debater for forum arguments? I have seen you boasting that. Yet here you completely dis-regard any actual argument and instead made generic assumptions about my character lol. They are untrue btw. I am not explaining away pedophiliac behavior, I am denying it's existence in this situation. And what does homophobia have to do with anything we are talking about here? I am very pro gay rights but again that issue wasn't even relevant here.
I don't like or agree with Wylted's views (assuming they are his actual views and not just trolling) but I also don't believe in silencing controversial opinions that's all. If that's your thing maybe you move away from a debate site and go to a social networking one like facebook where everyone just agrees with each other all the time and it's cool to be "woke".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
eh? Why would forum mafia be trickier? We can just notice who votes for who.
Because it's longer, and anyone who played in the live mafia game already knows what tricks to expect so they should be more careful about them. It also works that way for town as well though. I am not saying this is a mime sided game at all, just that it wil have some skill involved from both sides.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
Does hidden Miller know they are a miller?
Nope, they shouldn't know they are. That was my mistake, I glazed over the "hidden" part.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
Gotten a little confused on this setup. This is definitely a luck based game. Dont mind though.
There is some skill to it. I actually think this should be better for forum mafia though. We did this in live mafia, and were able to game solve for a town win by the end of it based on voting patterns from the mimes, but in forum mafia there could be more oppertunity for trickery
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
@Speedrace
And yeah isn't Whiteflame confirmed mime?I think he is lol
I think he was joking, otherwise he probably wouldn't have included "hidden" in his response. Regardless, he's probably off the table for a lynch regardless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not lol
Why would I be sarcastic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
@Speedrace
Either of you gonna counter claim whiteflame?
Created:
Posted in:
We should wait for earth and speed to post, if neither do, we should lynch the miller for a confirmed town lynch. If mime wants to lock himself in for a counter claim we lynch neither, guaranteeing one mime off the list. Win/Win.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm town don't lynch me.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
i did read the thread, thats what I was referencing after all - and he affirmed the flirting after User had confirmed that he was 14 - I'm sorry that's not a joke -thats a serious transgression
What do you mean "affirmed" it? I have the screenshots lol.
It's not a serious transgression because he was assuming the person he made the joke towards was an adult, hence the part where he said he was trying to "chris hansen" his @ss.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Being honest about who you are isn't the problem - it's the "pretending to be a 13-year-old girl and flirting with a 14-year-old boy" thing that's a problem - especially if Wylted is an adult
Did you actually see the thread? It was obvious it was a joke, also the kid didn't say what his age was until after wylted said that, in which after he said he was 14 wylted didn't continue with it. That said, if you read that thread and honestly thought the OP was 13 you are pretty dense. It's cringe trolling, but it's harmless unless you are easily triggered.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I think we have drastically different takes on, "spinning it out of proportion". I think that one act more than warranted a ban, and with everything else, a permaban makes the most sense. Deliberately deceptive is the absolute best you could label Wylted as.
Why is being honest about who you are a requirement?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Holy crap you've read a lot this year lol. I'll have to check out the Brad Thor books since you rates them so highly
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Singularity, he literally tried to pretend that he is a 13 year old girl to "flirt" with me, that couldn't be a good sign.What exactly happened there?
The whole thing was completely taken out of context and spun to sound a lot worse than it was. I posted the link and David immediately deleted it lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Do you read multiple books at a time, or are those unfinished just books you got bored reading and couldn't finish?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Same.Here's my list for 2020-2021 that I can easily recall (not related to work)
You need to set the link to "Anyone with the link can view", I cant see the document
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I don't read fiction, because I'm always aware in the back of my mind that it's all made up.
Dang, do you feel that way about fiction movies too? lol
Created:
Posted in:
I think the best steven king books are the ones his wife ghost writes for him like 1963.
She helps him write virtually all of his books
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
The thing is you can argue he did. You could argue a lot of the things he did were that way. Targeting Speed in mafia because of race, the whole use of n-word, and other scenarios, and even this thread you can argue (granted I disagree).The point is that we are agreeing that Wylted was being an asshole. We also agree he shouldn't be permanently banned. I'm going to argue stuff he did warranted a ban, idk wha your stance is about the stuff he's done in the past, but I think a ban should've happened
No, I dis-agree that being racist towards speed is the same as threating people's life with a gun.
That's a site issue that you should ask Mike about.
Well I am pretty sure it does. Nigger.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
A line of what should be tolerated as trolling that is freedom of speech. Even in America, a place with relative free speech, you can't just shout in a movie theatre, "i have a gun and am gonna shoot you!"
Agreed, but wylted never did anything like that, so what is your point?
In Wylted's case, he was trolling, but to what extent should be tolerated? I obviously lean to more lighter versions of this, but do you feel he crossed a line by blackfacing, saying the n-word, etc. You have to draw a line somewhere. The issue is that the moderation team is hazy with this line and I feel there should be initiative with it. I could do the same thing I did with RO's where I lead a reform of some sort, but I know Chris and Pie are working on somethingLike I said, I think lassiez-fair, but a clear line should be drawn
Filter should prevent usage of the n word.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I know that he has done a plethora of things, faking he committed suicide, saying derogatory words, mutli-accounting (which is taken serious by mods)
Bringer isn't a multi account if his main is banned. Also the rest falls under freedom of speech
I'd agree with that as well, but there's a line that should be drawn
What line? Be specific.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Also note that he also blackfaced himself by pretending to be black and then using his alt account he said was black and vote illegaly
Yeah I know about that. He is an asshole, but its freedom of speech. I'd rather not silence people like that on a debate site. Beat their @ss logically.
Created:
Posted in:
Fuck off comparing me to him. There are lines I would never cross.
I am comparing him to you in so far as how the mods treat people they don't like. My point isn't that you are the same, you clearly haven't read anything I said if you think that was the point.
If the mods think giving you a month long ban is going to make you any less likely to be who you are, then they are wrong. Your gonna post whatever you feel like it regardless, just like wylted is. Banning you doesn't make you or the things you say any less controversial. My point is that the mods solution to this is to "give him one more chance" by just giving him a temp ban they might as well permaban him.
The real issue is about banning in general and whether or not the reasons for said bans are sufficient, other than an arbitrary dis-like for said person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I'm ok debating race or pedophilia or Roko's Basilisk or whatever with Wylted. If it was just a question of controversial topics I would oppose a continued ban on Wylted but his behavior is pretty bad even before we get to any specifics. Look at his bad faith claims in round 5 of the Basilisk debate.
I don't see that as bannable, if someone voted for him it was clear their vote should be removed for not reading both sides of the debate. Probably not the best debate practice, but I imagine that would work against him in conduct (and looking at the votes on that debate, it did). All debating wylted does is give you a free win. You should be happy he went to that level of absurdity. lol.
And he cheats at mafia. In fact, I should have known it was Wylted right off the bat just based on the volume of PMs he tries to send during DPs.
Report it to the mafia mod, mafia mod can take action as they see fit.I fail to see the relevance to the discussion I want to have on moderation however. I am not arguing that wylted is an asshole with questionable morals, just whether he should be silenced from a debate site because of those.
My argument is that setting any free speech considerations aside, Wylted feels compelled to violate code of conduct. If the only rule of DART was no dogfights, Wylted would be kidnapping mean-looking poodles right now. If the only rule of DART was no cheesefarts, Wylted would be chowing down a brick of limburger.
Yeah he is a bit of an unlikeable attention whore, but so are a great many of Trump supporters in my opinion. I don't think they should be silenced either even if they do annoy me. Saying someone rides the line a lot to be edgy means nothing to me. Imabench did that a lot too, but he was also better liked than wylted so got more free passes for it. Let him ride the line, and if he crosses it, ban him, whatever. 1 week ban. These month long bans are ridiculously petty and not needed. Wylted's gonna be a wylted. RM is gonna be RM. People are who they are. We ban everyone we dislike pretty soon that conversation about controversial things that you claim you are open to having isn't happening anymore.
Created:
Posted in:
Ironically this topic was just recently discussed here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5761-we-should-ban-certain-topics
Read through the thread and really like Fauxlaw's view here:
"I am opposed to the idea of banning any discussion of any topic for the simple reason that we should not be afraid that the discussion may incite someone else to action, and that is really what is at the root of the fear of discussion of some topics. If one cannot discuss what may make nuclear war good [can't think of any substantiating commentary at present, but that doesn't mean there isn't one], how do we convince that it is bad? there must be opposition in. all things, else we fail to understand both sides of an issue; any issue. Rather, we need to assure that our youth hear both sides of an issue. I don't think it's any healthier to indoctrinate youth with either side of an argument; let them hear, and discuss both sides. How, unless we can openly discuss whether war of any kind has good and bad consequences and, by so doing, allow the conclusion to develop that nuclear war, specifically, may not be such a good idea. When has ignorance ever been a good idea?"
Wylted defnitely likes to bring up controversial topics, but I don't think that means he should be silenced. Even if he's wrong, this should be the place to air that out and discuss it. If his views offend you, and you are a moderator of a debate site where the sites essential purpose should be to discuss controversial subjects, you should reconsider interest in being a moderator of said debate site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I don't envy the MODs their task of even-handed management of inter-DART relations and I don't think I'd do a better job at it myself so I tend to support the MODs judgement as much as possible.
That's fine, I usually do too. Even when I am calling them out for stuff I generally say stuff like this, and that I think ragnar and virt are good people and believe they are doing best. But I was invited to the mods discord a while back, and one thing I notice is that it's generally a cluster of agreement there, very little in the way of objection. I can tell the group and it's advisors are mostly friends. I try to opine on a few situations and give them a different angle to look at things, because if your opinions go unchecked its easy to just always pat yourself on the back with like minded people and not see how a decision can be controversial if unchecked. Considering the fact that I like this website, and would like to see it do well, I would like to see less permabans like this because I feel like it hurts the site and it's activity. I think Wylted is an asshole sometimes sure, but he's kind of a harmless one in my opinion, and if his biggest crime is stirring up controversy by bringing up a touchy subject, I think he came to the right place to do that. A debate site.
I agree that this particular example does not seem particularly damnable but I am highly skeptical that there's some future in which Wylted returns as a law-abiding citizen.
When the law is subjective to the whim of a bunch of people who sit around patting each other on the back unchecked so often, yeah I am sure he will just be banned inevitably. We should be discussing how we deal with this stuff, but that seems to be a fruitless avenue each time I have brought it up. The usual response is "That's just the way it is and how it's gonna be" with no real interest in changing how it should be.
Wylted is such an relentless escalator- give-him-an-inch-and-he'll-take-a-mile kind of personality that I have no doubt he will always eventually end up meriting any ban.
Wylted's gonna be wylted just like RM is gonna be RM. They are gonna do something that will piss someone off, but it seems the mods also use that as an excuse to hand out more bans as much as possible. The real discussion is around freedom of speech, and why peopel take it so seriously in America. If someone pisses you off you cannot restrict them, like you can here. Is restricting controversial opinions and people the way to actually have a discussion about something? If you think Wylted is racist, or whatever other many things I've heard, debate him, beat him in said debate, let the world see and vote on why your opinion is better. Even if you didn't changed wylteds mind maybe you'll change someone elses, and that's worth something. That's a positive reason for a debate site to exist.
the secret alt'ing by itself is a major violation.
Well he was permabanned for something pretty stupid. Didn't even know about this before, I thought he left of his own free will lmao
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
2. I do think Wytled's permaban could arguably be justified, hence why I am neutral on this topic
why's that?
Finally, what Wylted said in that joke was a poorly taste joke that people who were not on DDO would not understand with Wylted. We have to understand that this isn't DDO, and that poorly tasted jokes like that do not draw the similar attention, and they have to be dealt with on that premise. He has also skinned the line many times, faking being transgender, faking mental illness and being suicidal, and saying derogatory words. However he was not banned for this once, and was only permabanned for that thread
It's the internet, why does anyone have to be truthful about their life? Unless your trying to do something illegal like solicit nudes from a minor, what people claim online is their perrogative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
Repeatedly glorifying rape and sexual assault;
Again how is that "glorifying" it? He raised a question for debate on a debate site. If people dis-agree with him, awesome. Simply bringing a controversial topic into discussion shouldn't be bannable or saying it is "glorifying it".
Repeatedly glorifying hate groups
It's not even illegal to be in a hate group lol or even be discriminatory. It's illegal to act on those things, murder, etc, but if he has views people consider are "gross" then so what? Freedom of speech and all that.
Repeatedly glorifying sexual abuse towards minors, and most disturbingly,Portraying himself as a 13-year-old-girl towards a 14-year-old boy; and
You've now convienently deleted not only the debate you are reffering to, but the thread as well so no one can see how ridiculous the context is. The kid responded to his post saying he was 14 (the post was clearly satirical), and it's not like wylted continued to try and harass him. The kid and apparently you did not understand the satire. I think you were so excited at an oppertunity to ban over a grudge you guys just spun a narrative here that allowed you to ban him easier. People shouldn't be banned just because they are unlikable, yet that continues to happen here all the time.
Did you think what bsh did classified as sexual abuse towards minors? Because that situation is really no different than this one.
This is all there is to it. Point blank. I don't care if you're trolling or not. It's about protecting ourselves legally and protecting newcomers to the site.
I think you'd get a lot more newcomers if they thought they could actually post about whatever they wanted without the thread being deleted or them being banned. If you haven't noticed this place is objectively dead.
Created:
Posted in:
"Repeatedly glorifying rape and sexual assualt"
He wasn't praising people for it. At best I think he is trying to be shocking and get attention, at worse his joke just bad. Regardless, his crime in this therad that he is supposedly banned for is pretty light imo.
Created:
Posted in:
I know Wylted has always been controversial, and a bit trollish. Dude probably has a bunch of mental issues as well, and I've seen him being offensive. I could almost buy many of the other reasons to ban wylted temporarily (within context to how strict moderators here are, and I've come to accept that isn't going to change). Misterchris said he did something unforgivable, and I got it from warren that he "catfished" a 14 year old or something. That sounds bad on paper, until iLikePie just linked me to the thread. Not only was he clearly non-serious, he was acting like a 13 year to make a point. There was nothing pedophiley about that exchange unless you were already looking for an excuse to ban him again, which, let's be honest, you probably were. If you get on the mods bad side, it seems like they will take any excuse to ban you lol. To be clear I thought the allegations against bsh1 for pedophilia were pretty dumb as well, but I bet most the mods here took bsh's side on that one too lol.
Wtf.
Created:
-->
@coal
Who were you on DDO?
I am probably wrong, but my guess is wylted based on posting style lol.
Created:
Posted in:
My math in post 225 was off but the conclusion still equals lylo. DP1 mislynch pie, mafia 2 night kills, grey mis vig, for a 3 v 2 (assumign 2 scum standard set up for 9 players). Again this is at dp2. Pie's role definitely contradicts greys more than helps it, and pie should have picked this up if he was town.
Created:
Posted in:
Claiming beloved princess is the quickest way to completely invalidate any pro town use that role has. It seems like pie acknowledges this since he claims he was trying to soft claim a power role (I also didn't pick up on that, unless you count the part where he was calling supa a little princess). But under pie's own logic, if he was town, I think rather than full claim he probably would have just said something like "I am a powerful role and you would regret having me claim" or something like that as he has done in the past as town. The willingness to claim while acknowledging that it makes him useless seems like he was preparing this claim as a fake claim, especially re-reading the princess comment towards supa. As town he had no reason to soft like that either. Hell, even lying about your role might have been better at that point.
Created:
Posted in:
if grey agrees to vigging pie tonight, I am okay with lynching whiteflame. His last post didn't do much in the way of alleviating my concern of him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Pie put a vote on me because of lurking. I defended myself. It's not that much of an overreaction, the only thing different is that I scumread him
It was your post 148 in particular that seemed OMGUSy/ overly defensive.
Scum. You're buddying off terrible logic looking to push a lynch. Scum
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
If Bringer were town and Pie were scum, in my view I'd think Pie would have a much more fruitful time pushing Bringer, especially given the general town reaction against the Supa push.I'm wondering if this implicates a Pie-Bringer scum team? Remember last game, I was bussed by Bringer quite a bit in the first DP so I don't put it past him to use the same strategy again.If not that, then it at least casts some doubt for me as to Pie being scum. His push on Supa seems like a town Pie being stubborn more than anything to me.
Good to know about bringer bussing last game, as I wasn't there for it. That said I am not too sold on the theory myself yet, I just found their early interactions really odd. Mostly from pie's side, but bringer also just cold turkey stopped pushing pie. He did bring it around later again, which is why I am doubting it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I’m like 99% sure my role was designed as a balance to Grey’s role especially in a 9P game.
Unless grey vigged a townie, we mislynch day phase one, you are night killed, skip a day, another night kill, then we are in 2 v 3 mylo DP2 lol. I think your claim goes more in the way of contradicting greyparrot than balancing it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@ILikePie5
Yo grey, we can just have you kill iLikePie5 tonight for a net benefit for town.
It will allow you to confirm yourself (if mafia kill you, preventing the kill, it's probably okay anyway because they aren't able to POE remaining power roles as well anyway), and killing pie will ultimately prevent them from another night kill.
That and there is valid reason to think pie is scum behaviorally, especially since he claims his intentions were to draw the night kill, but claimed relatively easily, and not just soft claimed under pressure, but full on claimed and actually doesn't have a justification for his role. Kill him tonight, and it's a win/win. What do you say?
Created: