Lunatic

This thread is literally you bullying and humiliating a user to pressure them into voting against me. This is the exact kind of corruption and atmosphere that was there on DDO with Max that you guys pretend was 'free'.

There is no reason to be active on this site where it stands currently with moderation.

Definitely not if you don't give a damn about the website and community, that's true.

If you can be banned for being controversial, it really undermines the reason to stay here. The president now has an oppertunity to change that and make this a site worth being active on. 

I am infinitely more controversial than he is and I use it anyway, so does Wylted. It's about passion.

Whatever you say about Wylted, he actively used the website completely independent of pushing for power, it's the one thing I can't say about him as an opponent, nor 3RU7AL. Max only wants the power, you guys are only pushing for him as you know he'll be a loyal buddy and keep you guys unbanned if you bullied and harassed someone. That's the only reason you want him in power, it really is that transparent.

If, however, Wylted doesn't drop out, I predict he will take more support base away from Wylted than from me. So, from that perspective, I'm down for his running but frankly if this website had any criteria on running, Airmax1227 wouldn't qualify as a candidate due to how truly inactive he's been.

"Influencing" moderator decisions, and "lessening" moderation are not the same. And as 3RU7AL has already informed you, his platform is clearly spelled-out. If his platform provides you little to no confidence in his prospects, then by all means, it is your prerogative to choose someone else. Good luck with that.

you should vote for someone else

Wasn't Airmax a mod back in DDO?

if you refuse to offer specifics, i believe my current position is clear

my primary focus is on insuring all moderation decisions are based on QUANTIFIABLE and transparent rules

I miss old DDO haha. I really do. 

As to site functionality, I think this site is a long ways off. I don't have too much experience with web development and it is a neat bit of CSS and I guess PHP and AJAX. It really is a neat bit of CSS and I hate CSS, so. But I don't think this site ever turns up on a google search and DDO did. If you want this site to grow, that's first stop. Page rank algorithms, rewrite the whole thing in C++, I dunno. I got no idea how you fix it lol. But that is what needs fixing. Then no front page either. There's definitely a huge programming effort to be made there. And I guess that's all too much of an ask really, but then Phil did it once upon a time.

But I don't know. This site needs to be a debate site first. It needs generality. Debate has got that. Elections don't. 

perhaps you'd like to make a specific proposal ?

Easy. 

"The ability to communicate within a moderation team chat (via Discord) in order to give input on all forms of daily decision-making. Except when completely untenable, the mod team will strive to ensure the President’s viewpoint is heard and honored."

The president gets a direct line to communicate with moderation, meaning they can encourage softer bans, or even no bans.

How does this "lessen" moderation?

You missed this:

Vetos may be overridden by a simple majority vote among the moderation team. 

Your presidential candidate is only vying for equal punishment or enforcement, not less. You are assuming the best, based on very little that he has actually said. You are making his case for him. Who cares what the rules do to the community, as long as they are enforced equally.

It isn't within the capacity of the presidential office to change the rules. What better can a president do than to advise and counsel for a uniform and quantifiable implementation and enforcement of the rules?

I didn't say it wasn't, just that he isn't trying to lessen strict moderation, as say someone like wylted is trying to do.

The president cannot "lessen" (strict) moderation. The president can certainly counsel for it particularly in areas where it's quantifiable. Therefore it is crucial that the president commands the respect of the moderation team.

There's a lot more confidence in 3RU7AL carrying this out, than there is with Wylted.

Okay you are saying he doesn't care about my vote, well I don't care if he doesn't care either.

Once again, how did you formulate this conclusion?

If he wanted to win my vote or others shouldn't he be trying to answer these questions and be more transparent though?

Transparent? What hasn't 3RU7AL been transparent about?

Even if not for me personally, so others can view the discussion and weigh in on this? I am expressing my opinion on why his campaign isn't better, and will continue to do so since he isn't actually addressing those concerns himself.

3RU7AL has expressed every intention he has within the context of the office's capacity. You, RationalMadman and Wylted are overestimating the capacity of the office. Why would he entertain or address that which lies outside the capacity of the office he would presume?

Interesting, me and RM disagree on a lot but that is abundantly clear. You have more faith in your candidate than your own candidate does apparently, otherwise he would be here fighting his own battles. 

It's not a "battle"; it's a conversation. And if you have anything specific you wish to discuss with 3RU7AL, 3RU7AL has already expressed that he's more than willing to indulge:

If you want someone who is okay with over moderation

Please provide a receipt to this statement you allege 3RU7AL made.

and a dead website

Receipt?

and won't bother to use literally the only useful ability the president has to fix that problem,

3RU7AL has already expressed his understanding of the role of President, which you have overestimated and extended beyond an advisory position.

stick with being the mouthpiece for your candidate who is apparently too noble and valiant to fight his own battles, or really even properly explain what he wants to do.

Once again, 3RU7AL has expressed his intentions within the context of the office's capacity.

Lucky he has someone like you to psychoanalyze the whole campaign for him since he refuses to do it. :)

No psychoanalysis necessary; just some good ol' fashioned reading comprehension and deduction.

Why do you think this place hasn't yet achieved what DDO did in terms of community? 

At his worst moments, Wylted is such a tier of...  I'd use the phrase 'repugnant to onlookers when reading the posts and/or seeing even the title of a thread of'.

Mesmer was and BrotherD was.

As for others, I don't quite think anyone has directly crossed the boundary who is currently using the website.

You know I want to badly talk about why you haven't considered the flipside of this thread (the 'Why you should not vote for Wylted' angle) but I'll play defensive only.

However, you yourself if you were a selfish voter, would want to post what sort of things? What's it that you truly fear you and your buddies if they got active here couldn't post or talk about? I don't see a situation where I'd oppress you unless you really dug in and bullied someone hard.

Ahhhh so this is conspiritorial. You don't have evidence of these racists because they probably don't even exist, so you have to infer that wylteds voter base is racist by calling them "closet racists". This is some good bullsh1t your trying to sell me. Reminds me of all the Trump supporters who cried about cheating in the 2020 election. 

No, I am not calling the entire voting base closet racists. It is crystal clear what I said to anyone reading, what you are doing right here right now is genuine gaslighting.

Thats all I said about 4chan. We have a different user base, and the sites intention is different than 4chans, so it has no reason to get that bad. Moderation has nothing to do with it.  

How about this, on that point I agree I misunderstood you and admit it was my bad to put words in your mouth though I do insist it was accidental.

I genuinely read what you wrote as insinuating that you were saying 'come on RM, this isn't 4Chan... The mods are doing a good enough job'. I admit now that I misrepresented your point as your real point was more along the lines of 'come on RM, the userbase don't need much moderating, they're much more docile and easygoing than the 4Chan crowd'. 

Now that I understood what you said, I can say that I believe those who are like that crowd have started either (recently, within the last few months) to be banned or slowly rehabilitated and I will seek this trend to continue. The majority indeed are not that bad, I won't disagree with you there. 

Think of a Venn Diagram.

Racists (most of whom would be closet racists) are within the voting base of Wylted. I can basically not get them to cross over to me no matter what I do, pandering to them is both strategically and morally futile. I stand for something and according to you, so does Wylted. 

To me, Wylted shifts with the direction of least resistance and has done during this election, the only possible resistance he could face is with himself replacing Pie but past that what I have seen is somebody with no loyalties, no truth even to how he posts to the opposition and huge flip-flopping tendencies that he flexes as 'nuance' inside of his campaign thread.

I have no doubt that he has attracted all voters who happen to be (closet) racists, I did not say all of his voters are racist. It is you who is intentionally being conniving now, there is no possible way you thought that I meant all his voters are racists.

"Hate speech can occur on 4Chan, not here, as you proudly stated. :)"

Yeah you did mis-qoute me because I didn't say that. 

And I didn't use the quotation formatting either, seriously grow up man.

You said that this site wasn't 4Chan thanks to moderating vile things like (what I concluded) included hate speech. If not, what is it you meant?

Point out where in the function of DART President does it list or insinuate that anyone outside of moderation can "lessen moderation"?

It doesn't show that you care about the impact of the rules on the userbase,

How did you formulate such a conclusion?

just that they understand them and are applied equally.

And this is not a benefit?

None of this assuages my worries about moderation. 

No one can be responsible for your worries. Not even the DART President. If you intend to vote for someone because that individual makes you "feel better," that is your prerogative. But if you believe that making you "feel less worried" is a qualification of the office, then you are grossly misinformed. 3RU7AL has enough respect for the member community to not patronize them, pander, and appeal to their emotions--much less wager ad hominem attacks toward his opponents. 3RU7AL had already delineated his intentions to sustain the faith of both the community and the moderation staff:

maintaining the full faith of the moderators is just as important as maintaining the full faith of the community

If you want some glorified mouthpiece soliciting the ire of the moderation staff while galvanizing the rabble rousing of this site's contrarians, then the other two options are more suited to you. If however you want someone competent who exhibits discipline, possesses awareness--knowing the extent and limitations of the office's capacity--and maintaining immeasurable integrity because that is the example he's set from the very start, then I don't see how one's option would be anyone other than 3RU7AL.maintaining the full faith of the moderators is just as important as maintaining the full faith of the community

Can I just fully get you to define gaslighting and what your aim is here?

When I read your 7-upwards it's as if you're suggesting I have something sinister behind what I'm doing or saying.

Then, even if I have answered what you say i 'dodged' elsewhere, you link to a post where I didn't answer it to say I dodged it. Furthermore, even if I clarify my stance now, you say 'it's too late to clarify it now haha'.

To me, it honestly seems like you don't have any intention of understanding me nor are you even 'exposing' me for anything. You think you are but you are not.

For example, when I said animal abuse I was really tired and needed a break, also was busy. I read you comparing mods contacting people for interventing to hitting a dog continously until it obeys, which was outrageous to me. However, if I made people laugh at me for it, that's fine by me, it spreads some joy.

You seem to want me to feel bad here or like I somehow dodged something yet later, I returned to address you about the animal analogy and you then say that's toxic and dodging as well. I don't think you know what gaslighting is but the one thing with Wylted I think you will never care to understand is my side of things.

Wylted entered this election posing as my supporter, the first few posts included a scenario where I have to blindly cave into authority and allow harassment or expose private information on a user, what kind of ultimatum is that? From there, Wylted continued to pseudo-support and bait me out to advocate stronger moderation in the religion forums in order to render me 'unelectable' (his own words in that thread, I can give proof if needed).

It backfired and the Religion Forums are among my main support base now, bar a couple users.

I do not 'see racists everywhere' that is you gaslighting me, I said if there are racists here who have been biding their time and waiting for somebody to be in power that would stop them being punished for spreading their agenda, they are going to vote Wylted no matter how much I pander to them so I see no reason to even begin to try and I wouldn't anyway.

I have not dodged the points you say I dodged from point 7 onwards, I just answered them in other posts than the ones you linked. This is actually you gaslighting me, literally. Why are you linking to a post saying I dodged a point that I literally answer a few posts later at most? You do this over and over.

All of these points can be summed up as you abusing context or completely ignoring where I do address them.

I did not misquote you, I said you said this site isn't 4Chan and you recognise how disgusting a site can become when moderation is too lax. I didn't write it in such depth as I genuinely thought it was clear in the context.

To quickly reply to your last point, I haven't dropped anything. What you're doing is quoting me in a single post, saying that in that one post I didn't address something that either before or after it I already have addressed.

Anybody reading can see what you're doing.

To also quickly reply to your blocking on Disc thing.

There is a rule about discussing the election and campaigning on PMs for candidates and also there is the fact that you were a 'friend' of mine on Discord.

I wanted to remove any temptation because I was really itching to deal with this privately first to see where you stood and also wanted to stop any chance you had at baiting me off-site to communicate about it. 

The core difference between bans and blocks is that a block doesn't (unless we're like in love or really close) 'hurt' the one who gets it in any way, it serves to protect the one doing it and the one receiving it generally had made them feel bad in some way or disturbed them. There doesn't ever need to be a justification or right vs wrong type of block. 

A ban stops the one banned from interacting with everyone else on that platform within that vicinity. It is necessary to justify it if you want any kind of transparent leadership.

The problem is, you don't have any examples of over-moderation working... Because it hasn't. This website is pretty damn dead compared to DDO. So all the examples I pointed to are easily substantiated. You want to increase moderating an already failing system and cannot with evidence actually support how that will help the site's activity. If DDO is a place you consider to be extremely toxic based on some of the threads I posted, DART is considerably "less toxic" (your words) and still is floundering. Controversial opinons (or toxic opinions if you insist on viewing them that way) hands down bring about more debate and discussion and you haven't been able to prove otherwise. 

You're right, because it's not over-moderation that worked.

I have never seen the politics and religion forum this active and healthy in the site's history. Mesmer and BrotherD going, Wylted stopping his toxicity (for now) and others I won't name either having gone or heeded warnings and/or engaged in RO type deal has led to actual clashing of ideas, not personal vendettas.

1: Post 12 where RM lightly brushes the idea that I am doxxing him after accusing me of mis-representing facts in the discord, to which I then provided screenshots. There is 0 Attempt to double back and argue against my rationale or my main point in bringing this up as an example. Just plain "I am the victim here, Lunatic is evil"

There is every attempt but in that one post in the thread I focused on what you did against my will regarding my Discord username, avatar and offsite posts. In other words, nothing at all was dodged regarding your thread's topic. I got nothing in those posts I take back. I didn't come unhinged, I showed you what you are like to debate against and right now you're much the same.

So, on my count 0.

2: Post 19 Completely disregards my point about how RM intends to enforce stricter bans, and he instead focuses on trying to make wylted look bad. My point wasn't "who said the worse thing" but he is taking it there because, again, he doesn't have an actual response. 

I don't intend to enforce stricter bans, if anything I am the only candidate of the three running that specifically specified that I think bans could be avoided if a lot more integral mod-intervention occurs before either user in a spat goes too far for too long. There literally is no punishment harder than a ban other than legal prosecution if they broke the actual law.

Wylted is bad his approach is sheer laziness and to let the mods do whatever they're already doing yet he also vaguely hints he will defend freedom of speech despite picking 'option 1' in his offered dilemma, which is what a blind-eye-turner would pick.

I don't ignore it. In that post I didn't address it because I address it in other posts and I'll address it here and now to make it very clear:

I am not sure what exactly would be severe enough to need to be directly deleted and censored but certain things that would go that far are pretty much already against the rules or have precedent in bans (now, especially after the more recent ones pre-ethang) that highlight clues to, racism is a major one.

I don't believe that racists will vote for me regardless of if I were to pander to them anyway, they're free to push Wylted if they want, I don't promise a platform if they're planning to suddenly break out with a series of racist vitriol. I also will support warnings and gradual punishment over any kind of instantly long ban for such user, reforming over retribution every time. I also would support extended conversations with the users about perhaps what area of their far-right views are completely fine to debate and discuss and which need to be toned down but direct racism I will not offer a platform for, not direct homophobia or the likes.

The primary thing I wish to push mods on is harassment of users, not any particular view.

I have now made crystal clear what I am pro-censorship on and how I wish to go about it. I have already said all this before, very clearly but this is it all in one comprehensive post.

4: Post 29 RM drops all argumentation in regards to my very detailed and evidence ridden post proving that controversy is actually helpful to a debate site's activity to "defend himself" by saying that I was accusing him of censoring all drama. That was not my point, but that's what he turned it into because he didn't have a valid response. Yet again. 

I did not drop all argumentation, I have consistently explained the popularity vs controversy balance and why I believe it needs to be carefully balanced and again I support gradual interactions and warnings over any sudden long bans at all.

5: Post 32 In response to the above I directly qoute him and prove how he is actually mostly in favor of banning controversy and his response is to again gaslight me and say that my response is provoked by me being "fragile" and angry about being blocked lol.

 You do not know what gaslighting is, that post had everything to do with your approach to being blocked, you are the one who is either very confused or gaslighting here.

I @ you often while you are still typing posts at those moments it was live back and forth and furthermore I often split up my replies topic by topic. 

I do not support banning controversy that completely obeys the rules at all, not at all. Controversy that toes the line is where I support the mods to start guiding toxic users to steer away from their toxic ways and be very specific on what to change.

 6: Post 44 he assumes my intentions are a clever bait to defame him, rather than respond to my argument. 

I still do assume it. You are even relishing in my frustration throughout and despite me not losing my cool at all you suddenly post this:

RM continues to display how emotionally unstable he is. Do you really want someone like this in a position of power on the site?

Ironically this experience has influenced my opinions and changed some things for me. Before I viewed Wylted more as a "lesser of two evils" type of thing. Watching them dialogue has actually made wylted seem like a pretty good candidate though. Thanks RM!

This shows that your agenda and core satisfaction here are in making me look bad but I accept that, your deeper agenda is beyond me and you see your attacking and getting under my skin as necessary evils to achieve the ends of absolute 'freedom of speech' which is your overall mission, so I don't take it personal but it is toxic regardless.

I will reply to the less later on, that's enough for now to flesh out. I also am trying to understand some things you say later as they aren't immediately clear to me where you think I dodged a point. For me the count is 0 now btw but this 'game' you wanted me to play is futile as it involves confirmation bias depending if you think me in a single post not addressing what I do address in another post is defined as a 'dodge'.