Mikal

1. Savant and Myself (don’t know anyone else well enjoy to have an opinion but savant is great )

2. yes to rebrand 

3.  Yes to slurs if it’s clearly defined what constitutes a slur. Not holocaust denial etc unless it’s being used as an attack. Most things outside of directs attacks or racism should be okay. Over moderation kills a site. I usually am pretty in line with whiteflames and airmaxs modding style. 

4, mafia elo system but All of these are good. More features is better. 

I def don’t think it’s a truism but it’s topical. 

Instead of a trial for this person. He’s a nobody. How about this 

Resolved : less moderation is better for the site 

Would prefer not wf as him and I line up mostly but will be a good content debate and relevant currently 

But yeah. Merit of the ban and content. Content is always great 

I’d offer to debate the merit of the ban and spirit of it but I think you and I largely agree on everything. 

It would not be toxic. Could moderate rfds and this one would be about the spirit of the ban. You know me well enough to know I’ll be cordial. 

Is this acceptable?

 Somewhat of an informal challenge. But I will be defense if accepted. 

A dictatorship that directly goes against the will of most of the active user base is what will kill the site. Nor do I think David is largely unfair. It’s a way to challenge moderation to defend their position. What types of bans can be challenged, can be adjusted. But it largely will serve as content for the site and also hold them to the will of the community when necessary. 

Upon a ban, or potential ban, If the community votes in favor, I propose we bring back trials. 

Format - if a ban is largely contested or largely disagreed with, a debate shall decide their fate. The moderator who largely wants the Ban shall argue against a community appointed defender. The community votes and the ban is upheld or overturned off the result. 

Can I make a semi dumb suggestion. 

Largely agree with most of this other than censorship. If it’s not calls to action, direct attacks, or just largely spam it really should be mostly allowed. If you are banning people for what you view as a negative topic, it’s policing thoughts and negative thoughts should be allowed so they can be challenged. Believing is one thing. Direct calls to action or attacks are another. It’s all consistency with application imo. 

You are never going to be able to apply objective standards for bans. It just can’t happen. You can allow everything to be allowed, which is also not feasible and I will point back to why no sites allow it. That’s the only objective measure. But you can be consistent with applications even if it’s somewhat subjective and whether people want to play semantics or not. Most people know the difference between blatant hate speech and attacking someone on the basis of race, religion, etc and stuff that is not. This is not. Consistency is everything. 

No. That’s attacking someone which I think is permissible to an extent but that’s fundamentally different than telling a black person 

“Listen here you N word” 

Yes some things will be subjective but it’s about being consistent with application. Attacking someone on the basis of race or gender is not good or never will be good and there is a reason why no one allows blanket usage of it. I think most people have enough brain cells to parse when legit hate speech is being used and is purposely meant to attack someone 

This was not that lol. 

Id argue against that. I am for free speech but hate speech largely is a tool for harassment. It’s also impossible to grow a site with blatant racism or hate speech allowed. Even if you look at KIK, it’s right wing as fuck and they don’t put up with it. Again this was not hate speech. I think the issue with moderation on any site is when it’s largely inconsistent. Yes if you are calling people the N word or other racist things, you deserve a ban. That’s not the same as banning someone who is a member of the KKK that abides by community rules. Big difference 

Simple question is 

Was a rule broken? 

It seems like no, and a ban still happened because of a belief. Those are fundamentally different things. 

I think there is a better way to frame it. Blatant hate speech is not a good thing and there is a reason why sites don’t allow it. The issue is he was banned for hate speech without committing hate speech.   

I guess my point is that believing in racist things does not mean you are saying or promoting hate speech. No different if someone was saying they didn’t believe the civil war happened. That is fundamentally different than dropping the N word. 

Weirdly I’m in the same boat with this. Hard to defend Lashanda. That was blatant racism and you can argue whether or not that should be allowed but holocaust denial is just a dumb belief. It can be associated with racism sure, but outside of someone calling for extermination or direct hate speech, I think that ban is a harder sell. 

Wish I would have debated RM on this instead of whatever we are debating lol 

For what. I was just saying the reasons are entirely different. She was playing aggressive, you continually misrepresented your role. There is a diff in that is all I’m saying. 

We didn’t lynch you for being aggressive. We lynched you for playing dumb, spamming, and lying. Also notice that I was town reading you and knew you were town when I killed you. Literally because you were a confirmed mislynch by your play style. 

That and Anna being aggressive are not even comparable lol. 

Nothing you can really do about people reading you wrong. As scum they are intentionally reading you wrong and town has a very high chance to read you wrong by default. I don’t think you behaving aggressively makes you seem scum. I was town reading you off that and tone. 0 chance I would have lynched you or Owen. But all you can do is play how you play and if town chooses wrong, it’s ultimately their fault. 

Props  to wylted for seeing that bus 

Yea, In any healthy relationship, the goal should be equality, even if that looks different situationally. If the husband is the main breadwinner and the wife stays home, it makes sense that she might take on more of the household or childcare responsibilities since he’s working outside the home. But if both partners are working, there’s usually a desire for things to feel more balanced, through income, chores, or emotional support, etc. No relationship is ever  50/50 all the time, but aiming for fairness and balance is pretty healthy and avoids a power dynamic. Power dynamics ruin relationships. 

I’m saying the site is unhealthy for you as you are currently, not that you can’t or shouldn’t use it. But I think you are likely staying around regardless. 

I feel like redpill people took this from the Bible and stretched it to the extreme. 

Still want to do the site debate 

Was assuming typical definitions as there is not to much of a difference in Protestant and catholic theology with this topic. Hopefully it doesn’t revolve into semantics. 

It’s not trying to catch you with semantics. It’s just be the best framing for it. The essence of Christianity is salvation so it sets it up so does that salvation (once you are saves) speak to freedom or servitude. 

Debate has nothing to do with the site. Not trying to draw a correlation. 

That’s fair. Does that resolution work as it should frame whether salvation promotes primarily freedom or servitude?

I’m not saying it’s from the pope. I’m saying one of the primary differences in Protestant teachings and catholic doctrine on this topic would be the apocrypha and or authoritative statements made by the pope. They are the 2 main differences in worldview. 

Salvation is the core tenant of Christianity. It’s framed as what does salvation encourage more. Freedom or Servitude. It’s the best framing I can come up with that captures what we both are debating. 

Are we considering the apocrypha or authoritative positions from the pope as cannon?

Resolved : Does the Christian concept of salvation primarily teach freedom or servitude. 

Open voting 

Does this work?

Sure as long as we define freedom before the debate. 

The entire baseline for biblical Christianity is freedom. God gave you freedom of your sins. He gave you the freedom to chose or decline salvation and through that freedom, you would then gain safety. 

Talking past social norms and what is factual with society but biblically. Safety is gained by freedom. 

I feel like the entire premise of Christianity is freedom 

Low-key appreciate how much you understand how to drive interaction. That short is great for what you have to work with lol 

Created a chat for this. If you are participating x up and I’ll add you 

We prob just need a chat. Let me remove some people so I can add others as friends 

Do we want to set up a discord chat for this? I’ll help prep and structure the format. 

above is what/whom I would consider as religious and respect. 

RM I’m also willing to swap this debate a trial with the resolution being that I have unjustifiably attacked you and Ill accept a week long ban if I lose. 

Think it depends on which one 

Hasan and Vaush are walking talking points. Hasan would never take something like this. 

Destiny would be the best bet as he just likes to debate but he also is by far the better of the 3 

Format is also who just talks the loudest and makes the other person look dumb. As you mentioned it’s informal. Half of my day is listening to their YouTube channels or twitch streams in the background while I do stuff. Happy to help in whatever way we want to format it. 

I was thinking the same thing and just kind of raised an eyebrow at that lol. Talking about the guy who made a case for legalizing child porn using AI 

But past this I probably am letting this sit and hope he actually mans up and takes the debate. As much as he complains you think this would be a chance to provide an argument for his POV. But given his positing I doubt that is the case and it’s now just largely a waste of time to try and discuss his behavior when has no desire to listen, remedy it, or defend it.