Total posts: 2,193
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Lol... we need a like function in the forums.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
If it results in insults guess who's winning? Hmmm. "Real debates are held to a standard." Common man... the same people voting to give you a win are the same people on the forums. This sites debate function is mainly for the popular kids... i guess i just don't make it. Maybe most of us on the forums don't have time to dedicate to the formal forums. How about that huh? And in truth... you just said it. If it's productive than you are delving deeper and deeper into analyzing your views. You can't have that with 5 rounds. Most of the debates leave me wanting more... that's why i don't even vote on them anymore. Plus, the forums people can come into the conversation and check both of you. You can't do any of that in the formal debates. Honestly, that part of the site just comes across as i need a trophy type mentality. Pat me on the back mom. Just how i see it... so don't take it too seriously. In any case, i'm on a debate site, in the forums, to debate... that is precisely why i choose a debate site vs something like Yahoo answers. You have a point if this is actually a formal debate.... in real life. But not this site man. Don't try to make yourself out like your big bad wolf bc you rather debate with a timer and be crowned victor.. it's laughable. Maybe no all of them, but there are people on the forums willing to debate you until you've reached a conclusion. Whether that conclusion be insults (which you won), or a concession. Which i for one humbly would do if the other changed my mind bc i am here to debate and do so as fairly as possible. Yes, we exist in these lowly forums.
I'd debate you on this topic even if i had anything to say... but i tend to agree with you on this one. Although, i do not agree there is "no evidence" to suspect spirituality. There is plenty of evidence. Not the type of evidence science likes, but evidence none the less.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Lmfao ... that was hilarious. But in seriousness, that reverb thing he does with his voice is awful. Plus, he needs to mix vocals with the beat much better. But the lyrics are gold... The second video lost me at look at these different pictures. "Different" i.e. different camera's, distance, etc... Common man. These guys are spinning everything they can, which is proof they are bsing.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I wholly agree with you. I was just being a smart ass... well sorta. I do respect you for who i think you are. That respect can be malleable however... and that should always be the case when you haven't physically met someone.The internet is nothing.
Created:
-->
@Plisken
She's half right. You shouldn't expect anyone over the internet is a friend unless you have met them in real life. I actually lost my virginity to an "internet friend" ... so it's not completely right =)You find out who your friends are. Good luck with the internet
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
He's not my pumpkin head. I tend to dislike most politicians.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I consider you an internet friend =)
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
No it's humbling when a friend tells you that you're doing something wrong bc you would expect a friend to always have your back or always be kind for you. But it reminds you that you're human and you can also have faults.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Lol it's whatever. I'm sure they'll be fine. It's always good to have a little quarrel with friends. Keeps you humble you know.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I don't know but i think she said something about it just not as specifically as putting up the post number. I'm not following there conversation too specifically. I just remember seeing him do that before and i thought it's funny to be honest bc in the heat of some discussions i'm like "hey dude, who you think you're laughing at." Lol.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Response Number 24 on the first page.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Oh well, i thought it came up bc of the one on this thread. If it's something more than i don't know. But he does write like that so i can see him having done it before. It's really no big deal. I understand that's just how he writes. I don't get why sometimes he's laughing, but i personally just shrug it off as just his way of writing. We're friends so i don't think he is trying to be offensive.Because if she's incorrect, it's her who should say sorry.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
It's just something you do. Don't expect her to go hunt it down. I mean, you did it on this thread. You are clearly saying you don't mean it in an offensive way.. so just tell her that. No need to ask for proof. I personally understood that's just how you write... but, it did at first come across a little like your laughing at me. Whatever man... i don't hold it against you at all.I can take what is true, all I asked is that she supply an example of me laughing at her, just one because it was her claim. So that I know what she is referring to. On the contrary I have always supported her. So my asking for an example is perfectly justifiable especially in light of the claim.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
He did it on this thread. I'm sure he doesn't mean it to be offensive or anything but Jane's saying she felt that way. I don't get why he just doesn't say that's not how he meant it to come across. I'm sure jane still considers him a friend... He's making seem like this is the end of our friendship just bc we are calling him out on a little something that is clear he doesn't mean to be offensive... just say that, Etrnl.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Where we stand? You are pretty stubborn dude. We are just telling you that's how it comes across. And specifically speaking for myself, it doesn't offend me at all and i still think you're a cool dude. Can you not take any kind of criticism humbly? You shouldn't expect that your prefect and you haven't gotten on someones nerve, that's generally your friend, at some point. We agree on a lot but when we disagree i'm sure it's annoying for both of us.No memory needed, when you can simply supply a citation of me "lol" at you in an insulting way, at all.....ever. I'd like to see that especially coming from you. As well as Outplayz for that matter. At least I know where you guys stand now. Good to know.
Created:
Posted in:
They seem to think so...
I however don't think they are counting all the armed citizens that would join in such a case. But still i don't know. Against both Russia and China? I think it just may be a loss on all sides since you can kiss the planet goodbye at that point.
Created:
-->
@janesix
Lol that's a perfect example. HAhaha it's really making me laugh for some reason.have you lost your memory lol?
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Etrnl, when we have discussions and sometime we start finding disagreements in our conversation you do put "lol" after certain replies, and it does sometimes come across as your laugh at me, not what i say. I've noticed that to. You're probably not doing it on purpose from the sound of it, but it does come across that way. I actually remember being annoyed of that sometimes like "why you laughing at me." Remember, we're online so we have no idea of your intentions or can we see your expressions. But it most def. does come across like your laughing at me or whoever.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I must admit... i'll defend any of you that i've known for some time. And everything he does and ways he's acted, he's directed it at me too. So i know what he's gotten in trouble for... and i still don't think it's offensive enough to warrant a ban. I guess i just don't get bothered by such behavior but that's making me a bit selfish since i'm not thinking about anyone else. On top of that, i wasn't really considering that he was warned not to bother people in PMs and i wouldn't put it past him to keep pushing. So i think his ban is warrant now if that's how he acted. But the bottom line is... if i've known you for a long time, if i like or dislike you, i will stand up for you. That's just how i am.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
To me, warnings is enough if he continues to harass. At that point it's harassment. I don't think it's harassment if you frequent a specific thread and someone replies, negatively, to you the most. They either just don't like you or your opinions but i think you should just suck it up and defend your position. Especially you, man. When you hold a view, flat-earth, that IS laughed at... you should understand that is the reality of holding such a view that someone is going to be mean-spirited. Watch Joe Rogan and Eddie Bravo talk about flat earth on Youtube. It's his best friend that get's mad at him... calls him crazy and everything. That's just what happens in reality... and i don't find that stuff to be a problem unless the person intends to do you harm. I'll just take your word that he did get malicious with you, bc it sounds like he did from what you're saying, and that's wrong.I wasn't sure how many warning he'd got an ignored though but at least that has convinced you.
You can call me whatever you want. I will never report you or would i get offended. I don't say i probably have the thickest skin here off whim. I've never understood how empty faces can offend someone bc i know in real life you would never mess with me.... anyone here.Sorry for calling you a joke as you quoted, I corrected it as soon as I realised I had got too worked up. It was wrong of me to say.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
He was absolutely 0% the latter thing (that is not at all what mean-spirited means though).He was not an ambivalent 'here comes madman again' user. He did precisely what you said, lied about what I said, lied about what his anti-flat-earth source actually held in it and never ever paid attention to anything I would say on any topic about anything. He'd attack my mental health across four subforums really laughing at me and spitting in my metaphorical face as all I wanted to do was bring up some points and perhaps change my mind if the opposition could bring up good enough points. I was nothing but passive-aggressive back. I didn't snap, I didn't abuse and he lost. You're mad because I saved the forum an abusive user who has targeted me, EternlVw and at least 2 others in an elongated, targeted manner. You are a victim-blaming joke. I didn't bring it onto myself and he has no right to get other people to point and laugh at me in the way he did nor to others. Especially not when they block him and try their best to ignore him.Ignoring him DID NOT HELP AT ALL. I saw others try it, he would keep at it again and again until you snap.
Yes... mean-spirited by definition is unsympathetic... and that's exactly what it means, doesn't give two hoots what you believe and let's you know. He's unsympathetic to your views.
I'm done protecting him bc he isn't a user i care for or like... By the sound of it, Bsh1 gave him a lot of warnings and he didn't care. To me, that's on him. My thing is i will always question a ban when it is someone i've known for such a long time bc i know EXACTLY how he acts. I always forget people usually have a lot thinner skin than i do... empathy isn't a strength of mine. So i can understand how he acts could be devastating to some. Even me... with what looks like the thickest skin here, he would get annoying. So to the thinner skins he's probably the devil. So whatever... he was warned and continued. He's an adult, as BSH1 said, and should have heeded the warning.
In the end of the day, i don't think his behavior is bannable... but i'm not the mod, and i forget i'm bad at empathy in these cases.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Malicious is intending to do harm.characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm.
Mean-spirited is just not caring about your opinion and letting you know.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Honestly if you can show me a conversation bw you two that was malicious i'll agree with this bc i'm willing to bet you can't and only have convos where he's mean-spirited.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Outplayz he doesn't vehemently disagree, he bullies. You're saying 'tolerate the bullying because he is an opponent to debate with' but you're missing out on how shallow his disagreements are and what he is doing is veiling bullying and harassment with argumentation as opposed to adding that on top.
I know what he does. He plays mind games, he plays semantics, he doesn't answer you but cherry picks what you said and reinterprets it. Trust me, i know him. I've had many back and forths with him. I don't think him being a jerk qualifies as a ban. And the only reason he probably focused on you more is most likely bc you would argue back. I wouldn't argue back at some point... and he left me alone until our next quarrel. If you argued back with him... yes, he was mean spirited but never malicious. That's why i don't agree with this. I would rather be somewhere where people push me rather be surrounded by agreeable people. That's boring and it's also not reality.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I'm not arguing with you my friend but I'm certainly disagreeing with you on this one without any doubts. You're welcome to your opinion but this place will raise in quality without that member, trust me. Should he return I'm going to head out. I've been harassed by this dude for years and I care not to really explain other than I'm surprised you don't see what is going on. Along with one other member and why they ever came here to begin with.
Dude... you know i've been a target of his mean spirited and stubborn attacks. But putting aside your feelings of liking him or not... you really think that qualifies for banning someone? What if one day i start vehemently disagreeing with you? At which point i will think your views are deluded and will probably say so... then, that qualifies in me being banned too? Bc i'm not adding what you would rather me add? He added a complete disagreement to our views. That's humbling in my opinion and i tried every time to prove my case and yeah... every time it ended with him calling me a name. That's just who he is. I just find it sad that everyone is so quick to get rid of someone they dislike. That just sounds like mob rule to me.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Dude... i've known him for years. I am one of his main targets. But the thing is he never goes overboard. He just calls me deluded and that i have an imagination. That i'm imagining everything... He never gets malicious, at least with me. I don't find calling me stupid or deluded is malicious. It's just his opinion of my views. Whatever... i think he's short-side and close-minded and i've told him he is and he likely replied at least i'm not delusional... great! I've had that back and forth with him for years now... But, i'm not so quick to say that qualifies in banning him just so i can feel comfortable and be surrounded by more people that agree with me... i want his type on this site. It humbling to get someone that vehemently disagrees with you.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I don't ever remember him calling her mentally ill.. but, he has called all of us deluded. He has been a jerk to me and i'm sure you. That doesn't equal punishment in my opinion. Why are you so happy to fill these forums with people that are nice? That's not life... not everyone is nice. Some people are jerks. I honestly don't remember him going into a malicious threat. I kept a keen eye on that, personally. I would have reported him myself if he did. All he really did is be mean-spirited. If this site wants to be a rate G site than that's sad... bc it's not reality.Confused really? your satisfied with the content of that members posts and the activity of his conduct towards you and your topics? have you lost your memory lol? aren't you tired of getting the lame ol response "your deluded", you're "mentally ill" you believe in fairy tales? he doesn't bring actual objections to discussions just a biased, emotional opinion. We all wanted something different from this forum so why are we complaining about fair bans?
Now RM is saying they took down his "worst posts" 1) i don't think they should do that so fast so people like me could look back and see why he got banned for, and 2) if he did go over the line i am all for a ban. I just know him, and i know him as the jerk that he is. That to me doesn't mean censoring him and getting rid of him and laughing bc we got him banned. We are just as bad as a jerk bully if we encourage such a thing.
Being mean shouldn't be ban worthy. And trust me, he is the last person i want to be standing up for... but, i searched his past conversations and all i see is a smart ass jerk. Nothing malicious, nothing sexually harassing. And, i don't agree with the definition of harassment bc it's unavoidable. He doesn't follow us around everywhere. But if he's in a thread where i say something he disagrees with.. he always let me know. I don't think that's harassment.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Maybe that's why i am not seeing what they are talking about. Bc i don't see any "worst posts" ... i know he bullies and that he's a jerk. But that is no reason to ban someone if that's just it. I've dealt with him probably a lot longer than you have. He's annoying, stubborn, and forward in his dislike of whatever he's contesting. That to me doesn't make it harassment. If he dislikes something, he lets that person know. He's rude, so what? Life isn't filled with nice people... In any case, i searched through all the recent threads to look for what could have banned him. If they've removed those threads than i didn't see why. I don't think it's a smart idea to remove threads so fast... bc it leaves people like me confused why he got banned.His worst posts got deleted by mods so his post history is only 80% of the abuse.
To me, it seems like you guys are just happy he's gone bc you didn't like him... that's sad. I didn't like him either, but i respect that he was himself.
Created:
"Targeting a specific user" Why is that wrong? If a user frequents threads i am in, and i disagree with them... i will target said user. These are freaking forums for god sake and that's unavoidable.
I'm the last person that should be sticking up for him... but, when you've known someone for years, you naturally get offended at such punishment. What i know... he's a jerk. What i also know, he usually doesn't allow himself to tip over into being malicious. Why he even has a history of warning doesn't make sense. Seems to me he's the one being targeted.
And... the sexual harassment... just doesn't sound like Gold. Forgive me if i am losing my trust in the moderation of this site.
Created:
-->
@janesix
That is what i am feeling like he is getting punished for.... being a jerk. But we all expect him to be that way bc we know he disagrees with us. He also does reply to some of us more often. Even in other threads... but, only when he disagrees. It makes no sense how that's harassment. Bsh is saying i don't know what's going on so i think he should correct me if i'm wrong. I've known, and you've known, him for some time. We know how he acts pretty well. I don't think being a jerk deserves punishment.
Created:
-->
@janesix
Well... definitely one of the reasons we need to have a discussion on. Harassment. If i dislike someone or think what they are saying is poisonous, i will likely reply to them the most often. As weird as that is... but, i would want them to know they are wrong. Now, i don't care as much as goldy does, but we can't fault him for being who he is. So i don't understand how something can be harassment. We are all on forums and if someone is on a forum that i frequent and i vehemently disagree with them... i will let them know. Why in the world would that be harassment? To me harassment would be not answer whatever the person said or posing any questions. Gold always asks questions even if those questions are smart ass ones. So i am not understanding this harassment rule.
The other reason is probably bc he calls ideas he disagrees with stupid and other names. I don't think he should be faulted for being who he is... i haven't seen him be malicious. I could be wrong since i haven't read everything... but i did read all the recent posts on science and religion and he was just being mean... typical way he acts.
Created:
-->
@janesix
I'm trying to figure it out in PMs. I'm half getting it and half not. It really comes down to personality. Some users are just how they are... mean. I don't think people should be punished for being who they are bc we all expect them to be exactly that way.
Created:
-->
@bsh1
Should i bring it up here, or would you rather i PM you.
Created:
-->
@bsh1
I'm just trying to understand your recent ban. I'm not getting it reading through past posts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
I didn't see this thread. I usually don't vote for people that ask, but i think i owe you one. In any case, it's really interesting to me theists never argue that time was either different or there is no such thing as no space-time. They always fall back to "god" can do it bc it's god. I was waiting for him to make the argument but didn't... so frustrating. It's an easy question to answer in my opinion. It's really weird people don't default on answering it that way.
Created:
Topic name says it all.
Edit* I guess i should add... "should it be" if it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Should i bring this up in the main threads? Bc i really can't find anything he said that is worthy of a ban. Maybe it's in a thread not in religion... but in religion, i don't see anything bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
This is really getting on my nerves. I looked through the past posts and i don't see why he was banned. I never thought i'd be standing up for Gold but my opinions on him shouldn't matter. Why in the world did he get banned, Mods?
Created:
-->
@drafterman
Oh okay. Was just curious thanks for the answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
I think it is important to get the community's approval before mods have access to any user's PMs. The idea that Mike could unilaterally give us approval in certain cases necessarily circumvents the democratic agency of the community. That agency is important to respect, however, particularly when the privacy rights of members is at stake.
In any case, we wouldn't know. All i'm saying is i disagree with mods having the option themselves to look into PMs. This should only happen through Mike and preferably by Mike if it's going to be allowed at all. Maybe do the notification thing too... but now i'm seeing that isn't really a good idea since Mike or anyone else shouldn't be entering other PMs anyways. Just add me to the disagree box for this to be an option for the mods.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
This is a debate site.... the forums included. Some people would rather debate on forums and some would rather formally debate. I would say the formal debaters are doing it so other give them brownie points and they could feel good about themselves. The forum debaters have free rain and aren't trying to impress anyone other than get their points across. I would say debating on the forums is much better and will actually finish an issue. Only people that can't handle actually debating their idea will stay away from the forums... or, just a narcissistic itch that they want to win something. The forums are far superior to the formal debate function in getting your topic to its conclusion.This is a debate site, yet you prefer to debate on the forums? Interesting, though I'm afraid I don't share the same preference. I will clarify myself, but I will not debate you here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
I think this sort of thing should be up to you to handle when the situation arises. How you do it is up to you. Give momentary access or do it yourself. But there shouldn't be any permanent ability for the mods to enter PMs. There is no need for it. I'm sure you can handle it when the situation arises.The best idea I've got is to maybe provide access only in some very serious cases (death threats and whatnot) and limit the access somehow so that the mods wouldn't be able to access it on a whim. But then, I can't come up with decent logic for this request PMs feature...so it's going to take some time and thinking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Like i said earlier, we have no idea what you guys do in the background. Mike can very well give you guys access momentarily and we'll never know. I think this situation should always be up to Mike to handle since it is beyond moderation and can hold legal consequences. He should do everything he can to keep things like that off his site. How he does it we really can't ever know. But getting an okay from this community to allow you guys to enter PMs is asking a little much. Just leave this sort of thing up to Mike. How he handles it is up to him. There shouldn't be any need of a permanent okay from us for you guys to have access. This is a rare occurrence that Mike should handle... and yes, if you guys do get access... it should only be through Mike. I don't think there should be any permanent extra ability to enter PMs.Since it is a moderation issue, I think moderation should be able to do it, or to see screenshots taken by Mike, but Mike's permission and assent should be obtained in any situation where something like this occurs, yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Okay... in that case, i guess you would have to look at PMs, but that would be a very rare case. However, i'm starting to think the only person that should be able to do this is Mike. Since it holds legal consequences for him anyways... it would be a serious matter he will have to squash. In the end of the day, if you do this... notifications is a must. I already know mike can enter PMs if he wants... he's site owner. However, i don't know how comfortable i am for mods to have this access too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
1. The two users let slip, publicly, that they have this information. In which case the mods have access to that public information to make a decision.2. The two users are doing something, IRL, against the user, in which case the user should be calling the cops and get Mike involved in a legal capacity. Which doesn't involve the mods at all.
Yeah... i can't see a need for mods to get involved. If it becomes public they can act... if not, they won't and i won't know until some kind of stuff happens. Plus, if the person is dumb enough to let me know... i can take a screen shot. I wouldn't send that screen shot to the mods anyways... i would make sure mike knows to do something or i will legally have to protect myself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
I don't understand what this has to do with a Boltzmann Brain.Reminds of Braxton Hicks contractions i.e. false contractions i.e.l not real contractions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
What draft is saying is if the info was sent to me and i knew about it. But in most cases it will be sent to someone else or done behind my back where i won't know the person doxxed me. You would have to police PMs which i am against. I sorta don't see your scenario playing out. In what kind of scenario do you think it would realistically work?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I actually agree with you in your scenarios that it's not a problem and why originally i am very against it. But what if someone PM's my personal info to someone else? That is the only scenario i think it will be a problem that happens exclusively in PMs. But i don't see how the mods would be aware of that, or even me for that matter, unless the user that got my information rats. That doesn't seem likely though since both will probably have something against me. That is why i'm increasingly starting to agree with you. The only way to stop that is for him to police PMs... which i am 100% against. You changed my mind a bit... i don't think access to PMs should be a thing at this point now. Unless he can give me a convincing scenario where it would be a positive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
1. Should moderators be able to access a user's PM if (1) all three admin officials unanimously agree that (2) the three part test outlines above is met?2. Should moderators never--in any circumstance--have the ability to access a user's PM3. Is there another solution to this problem or a suggestion for how to improve the proposed checks?
I think the whole mods voting thing is kinda ridiculous bc we have no idea or can we see the vote. Plus, you guys will always agree on it anyways so why even vote. Since this is all done in the background we have no idea whats going on, being said, or being done.
However, in your scenario... yes you need to access the PM to solve the problem. I would be in favor of saying you should never be allowed to, but i'm not bc of the hypothetical you laid out. I think if you had to, you should, but only if the PMs you accessed were known. For instance, having a message or notification sent to the person that you've accessed their PMs. This is the only way i can think of that wouldn't get every on this site paranoid that mods can now access PMs. Bc honestly, we have no idea what you guys do in the background. So if there is some kind of notification sent to the person you accessed... I would be fine with you being able to enter PMs.
Created: