Lunatic

I am surprised no one calls you out on it more. You've been doing it a long time. 

People call out his bs all the time. He just blocks em and retreats to his safe space. This is like the 10th time he’s blocked me

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

So am I? It's not like my views on Sacha Baron Cohen and how he treated that Romanian village have shifted so that particular thing I don't really take anything back other than the word 'cunt' to you which was unnecessary to have said.

I also have replied consistently to things, you are genuinely the only person who accused me of gaslighting and dodging here, not even Wylted himself did.

So it's a brand new accusation that I will think about how to address and explain.

Well, you do realise I'll fight back right? I'm a bit busy rn but I'll get to it all, each accusation and time you accused me of dodging or gaslighting. I haven't lost any credibility, you're the one who's painting a self-fulfilling image of me here. I will prove it though, I already know if I say this you will say 'there he is dodging' so let me address it all later.

To prove that you are not the one gaslighting here, can you please give examples and also what precisely do you think gaslighting it.

That is part of gaslighting but the overall goal is to make the victim feel they're insane and have no clue what's really going on, but yes guilt is a powerful tool in the arsenal of a narcissistic gaslighter and one you should learn how to spot and counteract if you are in a domestic or romantic situation with one for sure (as well as professional). 

I don't agree I do quite what you say though, obviously I think Wylted's not a nice guy and has reason to be guilty but I'm not gaslighting him about it, that's just naturally part of me expressing that.

My response was entirely valid and it is entirely him gaslighting there. For instance, you in this very thread's creation dug into my past even indirectly doxxing who I am on Discord to try and shame me for something I said about Sacha Baron Cohen, as well as pointing out from a long time ago what triggered me to block WaterPhoenix (but it was not a standalone event actually).

This directly should violate and alarm Wylted if he's against digging into my past to shame me but instead he's all for it because it looks like his hands are clean.

If you analyse how he's treated me throughout the entire campaign, across the website not just here but on the Religion Forums too, he has used any means necessary to shame and 'expose' me while playing the good guy. There is one reason why Wylted isn't digging back far enough if he has dirt on me and it's that he's got a lot back on DDO to be ashamed of himself.

You will now say 'but he didn't ask me to make this thread', you're right. What he did was pretend to cease all public campaigning and encourage his supporters to PM and recruit 3 people per one of them to 'his side'. This is his ethos, 'get others to do my dirty work'.

You think the average user is showing this website to their family and friends?

Not with the kind of toxicity and extremism that certain users have/had been displaying, it's a shithow.

Whenever RM doesn't have a good reply, he just gaslight's the living fvck out of you lol

This is itself a form of gaslighting towards me but I'll accept it since it's a he said she said game until you actually justify it.

Free speech is not an absolute good; it is not an end unto itself. Free speech is an instrumental good, one that promotes a higher good: seeking the truth. That’s the canonical account from John Stuart Mill that still underlies much of our thinking around free speech today.

But free speech only fulfils its truth-seeking function when all agents are speaking in good faith: when they all agree that the truth is the goal of the conversation, that the facts matter, that there are certain standards of evidence and argumentation that are admissible, that speakers have a duty to be open to criticism, and that there are many modes of discourse that are inadmissible, such as intimidation, insults, threats and the wilful spread of misinformation. Mill assumed all too readily that such good will was commonplace.

That is exactly why the first amendment was written. To protect all political speech no matter how abhorrent or vulgar you think it is. The number one reason you should not be president of a debate site. Only your views matter, no matter how abhorrent or vulgar I think they 

That doesn't apply to a private website. You are probably referring to the spirit of the first amendment and that this website should uphold it.

If the freedom of speech is harmful and even more than the harm of if people believe it, the harm that hundreds (yes hundreds) of less people find out about this website as less sign up and those that do feel too embarassed about the website to show their family and friends, over time it will end up a perpetually dead isolated website.

What did you mean then, please do enlighten us. Without moderation this can become 4Chan.

I understand that tactically worded hate speech is inside the rules though, I didn't deny it. 

Then why do you think it should be bannable?

Should be that you don't spread hate speech, I didn't say it should be bannable if you're just discussing an idea, very iffy tbph.

You're constantly digging at an extreme grey area to paint me as a tyrant, it's quite pathetic really. If a user bases their vote on allowing hate speech they probably dislike me for other reasons and the feeling is mutual.

I know you didn't say arrest them. You again missed the point just like you did with the animal thing lol.

No, you are just poor at conveying what you mean, I like to clarify.

Your hitting a dog analogy was animal abuse, so unless the dog was the user what was the point you were making then?

I didn't say arrest them, it was you who said that CoC aren't like the real-world law.

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

I understand that tactically worded hate speech is inside the rules though, I didn't deny it. 

This is a major twisting of context.

The view he is suggesting is extreme racism and such.

Well Wylted, Mesmer and BrotherD sure tried their best to make it become that way.

You think the site hasn't appeared toxic?

I don't understand what exactly you mean and think that many onlookers to a website won't sign up if it appears to be very toxic.

I didn't accuse you of anything other than being unusually immune to the stresses that can come with severe online rivalry. Do you agree or disagree that you can't relate to people in long-term flamewars?

 If no, how do you believe we should deal with them, if yes, the same?

Outside of that mod intervention should be extremely limited in all cases. 

Do you agree that you don't mean extremely limited, you basically mean nonexistent?

The reason you don't empathise or see the analogy is that, perhaps to the benefit of your mental wellbeing, you never took a website like this serious enough for an interaction to genuinely affect you negatively.

You are an extremely resistant personality to jealousy, insecurity, anger and fear/anxiety. Those latter 4 emotions are part of what comes to play in a long-term rivalry on these websites but you are so severely disciplined that you never will open this website without already being mentally prepared for whatever shows up and being ready to stay emotionless as possible apart from a quick laugh.

Then you say 'everyone should be that tough' but that's just not how things work. I can't know for sure how or why you ended up so immune to the stresses that can occur in long-term toxicity but the main way I have noticed you achieve it is to enter with a mentality of 'this doesn't really matter, just say my piece and let the other talk'. Unless we can rewire everyone's brain to run like yours, there really are emotions at play and feelings at play that need to be accounted for.

How did you think our species evolved emotions and egos?

This is not after 1 argument, this is often what will happen when either 2 keep violating CoC against each other or one turns to the mods for help.

While some grudges between animals are indeed 2-way, you generally find that one is more aggressive while the other is more reactionary. The reactionary one doesn't always get picked on unless it's in the 'space' of the other which can even mean several metres away.

It isn't health or good ownership to ignore this when/if it develops.

Typically the most shy and fearful creatures are, in practise as prone to violence as the most brutish and aggressive ones. This is because in practise both bully once they feel their area, food, attention-with-owner or anything like that has been invaded and disrespected. This can be akin to how an aggressive user on the website reacts to the presence of another in their thread.

The types of people I am describing are less debating more berating each other.

I have even been in such relationships with people in the past on here, I know first-hand that it's not easy to get out of if the other wishes to perpetuate it and you feel offended/chased-away

 Forcing someone not to interact with another person doesn't change anyone's ideas or enforce an atmosphere of intellectual or personal growth.

Yes it does when their interactions are the very things stunting those latter things. ROs are temporary, not permanent, generally speaking.

I actually think it's more akin to separating 2 animals with a grudge-relationship (or where one is bullying the other) and slowly making them eat near each other but with a protective, transparent barrier (or protective railed/cage-like barrier) between them. This shows them that they don't need to fight the other to remain sustained.

In the case of cats and rats, it's often wise to allow the timid one 'free' first and teach it to go for higher places. As in, you build things or buy things where it can climb. Then the more 'bully-like' one gets introduced later and doesn't feel that the timid one is invading its personal space in the ground arena and slowly won't mind even when it does.

This is more akin to what I recommend to do with people. I want two people with a grudge to feel fulfilled without clashing.

Slight misunderstanding. I was not talking about the powers of the mods here but rather the powers of the president. Specifically in reference to post 14 where 3RU7AL points out that the powers of the president as currently outlined are rather limited and that he thinks it should stay that way. This becomes particularly important when considering the two other nominees are both likely to think the powers of the position should be strengthened and whoever wins the first ever seat may potentially have the ability to establish precedent for that exact issue.

Now, I happen to agree with this position of 3RU7AL's. If you hypothetically did not agree with this position then I could of course understand why you would not see this as a good reason to vote for him.

Note in post 72 I specifically used the phrase "needless drama". I think this is an important distinction. There is "drama [link]", which is not inherently bad and does often serve an important purpose, and there is "needless drama [link]", which isn't always inherently harmful but does serve to stir up negative interactions while generally lacking any redeeming qualities.

Where we draw that line probably differs, you may even not make any such distinction yourself which is fine, but pointing out that there is such a line (at least in my mind) at least serves to clarify what I meant in my post and hopefully answer your question.

I think "ensuring bans are fair" somewhat implies less bans by default via overturning bans deemed less fair. Due to his stance that the powers of the president do not need any official or unofficial expansion and the only presidential power relating to bans as far as I know would be the pardon power I rather doubt he would specifically advocate for a particular ban or bans the mods weren't applying just because he thought such a ban would be fair, though I guess I technically might be wrong about that. Something for me to think about I guess, along with the rest of what you said.

With his beliefs in freedom of speech and privacy combined with his campaign platform being to ensure fair enforcement of the democratically ratified CoC through a laissez faire approach rather than just supporting the parts he likes and the fact that he is such a non-controversial figure on the site virtually guaranteeing his election will cause no needless drama that would need to be dealt with in some way, 3RU7AL should be the favored candidate for the mods. Vote accordingly,or tell me why I am wrong and possibly change my mind entirely.

While the other two campaigns were about ego gratification. I genuinely don't want to run here and tried to avoid it. If literally one person who is  even remotely equal to me runs and also who is more electable, I'd drop out and fully endorse them.

It seems your thoughts are 'bad idea' on voting RM and 'meh, he is better than RM I guess' on voting Wylted. Another nominated candidate is 3RU7AL, who has a strong track record in the forums as being strongly pro freedom of speech and almost radically pro freedom of privacy. Furthermore his general attitude gives me the impression that should he be elected he would run the post without any risk of petty drama and his history of seeking to encourage constructive criticism of his personal ideas leads me to believe he would be genuinely open to hearing out grievances from the community and advocating for fair treatment by mods if needed.

What are your thoughts on 3RU7AL for president?

I DO NOT ABUSE ANIMALS 

That is it I have had enough of this.

I take a break now. 

This sounds like being pro-neglect to me.

Perhaps you're seeing specifics where I'm not.

Do you really think that I am only pro-action btw? You don't think I'd push for more lenient punishment ever? I am all about gradual warnings and reform, you have twisted my platform out of context.

You know the type 2 I describe, the one who is toxic in retaliation? Often they feel there is no outlet to save them other than being mean back.

Consensual flaming is borderline okay as long as it stay in the rules but just how consensual is it for the angry and reactionary one? If they agree to not interact with the other and vice versa, at least for 3 weeks, you will find both have developed habits of interaction that when you take the RO away, they can better interact around each other rather than into each other.

Think of it as social lubrication therapy.

It's not at all just drama. No, no, no.

What you are referring to goes way beyond fun drama, it is about genuine relentless frustration, disdain, loathing even and just a genuinely grudge-based feeling for each user. It usually forms like this:

One is overall a 'ha he/she/they posted let's troll!'

The other is overall as 'omg, should I be scared to post? No! I should be brave... oh no! They're at it again ;-; why me always I just wanted to post here and have a normal discussion but they just come to troll me... LET ME SHOW THEM WHAT I'M MADE OF' 

The reaction style of the latter fuels the former and it goes on and on and on.

Generally if both are the former type, they even enjoy each other's brutish ways. Also generally, if both are the latter type, after an initial clash or two they learn to back off each other as it's not in their nature to keep at it.

You can even call this my own theory of long-term flamewars, you need one in it for the lols and one in it for anguish at the people mocking them.

What becomes a problem is that often the sheer hostility of these 2 types when really at eachother's neck is so hostile that others in the thread become hostile or afraid to post themselves.

He is pro-neglect, would you go as far as to agree to that?

This is clever because it baits me to dig up my own past but go ahead.

List to me why I was banned here in late 2020 if you want to dig it up. You and I both know it's a series of serious abuse of context-twisting and rhetoric.

I didn't know Wylted's ban was based on a literal lie, I was not privvy to the actual thread and had perhaps a bias to assume it was true but as president I would absolutely want to see the proof there, I can't prove this because I haven't had the chance to be it. It was a deleted thread, yes?

So, I did support his ban and assumed that not only that reason was true but that his other posting only furthered how toxic he was.

I believe Wylted is a very net-negative presence on the website, yes I do but I won't allow pure lies to be why anybody gets banned. I absolutely would demand the proof if I were President at the time of Wylted's ban. I don't know what else to tell you.

You want to get personal about Wylted or you want to make this about 'someone'?

Where are you going with this? If the mods banned this user, there must have at least been one thing they did that they're able to take either in or out of context that can be seen as negative. This is even true for myself and I will need to at least see that one thing as true, I will then go through the rest of their reasoning for banning the user and have a lengthy discussion about if this user actually is net-positive for the website, perhaps reducing a sentence rather than completely vindicating them.

I can't prove to you how reasonable I'd be because I haven't had the chance to. I don't block the same as I ban this is false equivocation.

I can't prove to you how reasonable I'd be because I haven't had the chance to. I don't block the same as I ban this is false equivocation.

I am not saying I'm a 'victim' of just you, not at all. I am saying this culture you want to push forth where everyone needs to tiptoe around daring to disengage a situation they feel is toxic (whether bullied or not) and blocking a user needs to live in fear that these disengagements and blocks can be used to smear them as a tyrant in the future.

I have even lived through on-site ROs to know they are positive and have seen the positivity with other users who participated in them.

They don't always punish fairly (one was often worse than the other) but they get the end-result of reforming done very effectively.

I am sure that they will consider it. I am also sure people understand that the one who is really oppressing the other here is you.

You want me to live in 24/7 fear of ever disengaging a conversation I am in or blocking someone I don't like on a platform just in case I run for a position on DART and it gets used to shame and frame me as something I'm not.

There is a difference between me freely using my right to block and ignore you and me as a moderator advocating to punish you. If you don't see that difference and keep twisting words, then at least I said this much to negate your sophistry.

No, you are lying or accidentally misconstruing now.

I'd think 'I really dislike Lunatic at this moment in time but technically he didn't really break any rules and hasn't harassed me further post-block'. There'd be no punishment at all for what you did or said.

That was very specific to the religion forums.

We will see what happens there if I become president but I will admit since BrotherD's ban things have gotten tamer there and since I helped Polytheist Witch seek moderation assistance with a situation, you will find things even more peaceful there.

I am not calling out Poly here, I am actually pointing out something deeper. If two users are bickering constantly, especially if one feels continually victimised, it's better to intervene and push for them reducing contact. The entire atmosphere surrounding their presence in a thread becomes more harmonious too.

That is not the reason why, it is the way you did it and I disengaged with you as you said one should do.

I owe you no completion of a debate whatsover when I am doing it as a hobby and not a job, you're just so upset I blocked you so I wonder who the fragile one is.

I blocked you and moved on with life, unblocked you when I wanted to as well. That's real freedom actually and has nothing to do with banning.

I am not here to censor all drama, I never said that was my aim. You're trying to pretend I have an agenda that I don't by twisting my words out of context.

A serial bully or person spamming white supremacy threads isn't the same as someone making lively drama threads with tough clickbait titles that get the mind stirring.

Okay, fair enough, I now see exactly where you are coming from and would like to say this:

I meant moderation as in not only bans, I'd want to encourage warnings and such before things got too bad that they were bannable by the length of toxicity by the user.

Actually it does promote debate and here is how:

By silencing one severely toxic and perhaps severely racist, misogynystic and whatever else type of user, you will attract far more anonymous viewers of the website to sign up and start debating.

They take one look a severe Wylted or Mesmer thread or just see BrotherDThomas' behaviour and they go yeesh, not the site for me. Then, even if they'd sign up in spite of that, they see the others reacting to the toxic environment and threads and they then go ah... Probably not the site for me.

Cathy Newman move sums up your entire OP

You think me blocking is me banning, ignoring the difference. I block to cease 1 on 1 contact with someone or with a place if I leave the server. Banning disallows another to interact with a place/group against their will.