Ramshutu

This can be easily fixed. Simply give more power to the moderators to allow them to take down votes after the voting period is finished or extend the voting period. 

The issue is that it is not actually easy to fix. The site architecture doesn’t lend itself well to being able to remove votes after the debate has finished. It’s not as simple as “giving more power” to moderators, as if waving a magic wand.

Secondly; I personally prioritize votes and vote moderation based on time remaining on the debate, and basic aspects of the vote; if the vote is obviously bad and takes less time to remove - it will normally be moderated more quickly: if there is plenty of time remaining in the debate, it’s more likely I will review it, and if I’m not certain, I will come back in a few days, and re-review unless the debate has a small amount of time remaining.


In this case, I removed the only reported vote on your debate prior to going to bed - and the remainder were all up after this time. In the example of your other debate, the vote was removed in good time, well before the end of the debate, which I do not feel is unreasonable. While I know it’s frustrating to wait a few days for votes to be removed: you will be having to wait a several days for a response in some cases for me to get around to fully reviewing and removing the vote: especially long votes where I often read then defer for a few days to not make rash decisions.

If everyone was a CEO, who would they manage?

They can be the ceo of an organization that manages stop and shop franchises. There are plenty of stop and shops apparently.

In terms of the original problem issue; the main problem was that Virtuoso and myself were both asleep during all these votes, so were unable to do anything about them.

Difference between you and me isn't what we can dish out, it's what we can take without breaking.

Bring it, shutu, make them call me dumb, ignorant and all of that. I'll come out better than ever.

You don't know me or where I come from, I am from gritty as fuck survivors on both sides of my bloodline, that's all I'll say. If nothing else, I am that motherfucker to outlast when I can't outsmart, outperform when I can't outwit, outluck when I can't outthink.

If you read either round of my debate I clearly elaborate on votin gshares and how investment firms own them in all corporations that are large enough.

No you didn’t.

Again, you can’t accept making an error, so you’re trying to change reality.

the debate with cogent was about voting shares, whether it was type b or type a they were the type of share he was comparing. you, in that context, brought up a ton of points and focused only one one tiny semantic thing about Google that ignores the fact that behind Schmidt are many private equity investors with extremely corrupt agendas at times.

Actually their ratings are entirely due to free wins, if you mean the top 2. I can pinpoint the overall rating gains from such wins and also elaborate on when/where they knew the user was banned beforehand or would be angry and useless because it's someone who was furious and didn't care about winnning at the time of writing.

Schpincterpedia strikes again.

Please list all of my “free wins”, and please elaborate on when/where we knew the user was banned beforehand or would be angry and useless.

Schmidt is literally a buy-in 'call me Google now' shareholder

again just semantic dancing, if type A can vote and type B can vote and overall the percentage ends up being that the voters are mainly not Google

FALSE

56.6% of the controlling vote of Google is owned by Brin, Page and Schmidt. 

These three control the majority control stake of google. This is documented and proven by the SEC filings I linked that prove it.

Firstly: you’re concluding that scientists are probably engaged in an orchestrated plot to mislead because it is theoretically possible: yet you do not apply this same standard or logic to the other side for which there is an objectively greater probability of it being a major orchestrated attempt to change the public narrative against climate change.

Secondly: You’ve compared the fact and study based consensus conclusions of the scientific community to that of religious nut job doomsday predictions when they are clearly not the same thing.

Firstly: you’re concluding that scientists are probably engaged in an orchestrated plot to mislead because it is theoretically possible: yet you do not apply this same standard or logic to the other side for which there is an objectively greater probability of it being a major orchestrated attempt to change the public narrative against climate change.

Secondly: You’ve compared the fact and study based consensus conclusions of the scientific community to that of religious nut job doomsday predictions when they are clearly not the same thing.

I’ve pointed out that your positions have major logical errors:

Firstly: you’re concluding that scientists are probably engaged in an orchestrated plot to mislead because it is theoretically possible: yet you do not apply this same standard or logic to the other side for which there is an objectively greater probability of it being a major orchestrated attempt to change the public narrative against climate change.

Secondly: You’ve compared the fact and study based consensus conclusions of the scientific community to that of religious nut job doomsday predictions when they are clearly not the same thing.

Trying to get you to address the major logical errors in your position I’ve pointed out because you have now gone three posts ignoring the key issues I raised is part of reasoned debate.

I apologize if you’ve confused my pointing out your deflection and your inability to make a logical counter argument to the criticisms of your position is “stalking”.


If you don’t want an intellectual argument on a debate website, and simply want to post misleading one liners: feel free to simply not reply to the thread.

If your willing to believe that the entire scientific community has been engaged in a massive orchestrated shill effort for the last 40 years; but the large energy companies that have been actively funding anti climate change politics, studies, and attempts to change public perceptions in order to oppose and stifle policies that harm their bottom line are acting out of the goodness of their heart, then I have some magic beans to sell you.

But nice trolling comparing religious nutjob theories with the broad and general consensus of thousands of individuals scientists who have studied the climate and potential outcomes of climate change.

I trust scientists who are not funded by the government.

And also ones that don't have a monopoly on armageddon scenarios.

Except - given the links you cited - they make statements that fit into your broad narrative: in which case it seems you find their conclusions more than adequate!

If your willing to believe that the entire scientific community has been engaged in a massive orchestrated shill effort for the last 40 years; but the large energy companies that have been actively funding anti climate change politics, studies, and attempts to change public perceptions in order to oppose and stifle policies that harm their bottom line are acting out of the goodness of their heart, then I have some magic beans to sell you.

But nice trolling comparing religious nutjob theories with the broad and general consensus of thousands of individuals scientists who have studied the climate and potential outcomes of climate change.

I chose not to take what others say on faith, you are free to do so, scientist have been wrong even to the death of others, so believe and trust in them if you will, I'm not so easily convinced.

He says writing on a computer in a country who’s technological development and supremacy owes itself to science.

Your car is safe?
This food is safe to eat.
This water is safe to drink.

The amount of stuff you have to take on faith in the modern world is staggering, and you cannot exist in it without taking things on faith.

The choice is simply who you have faith in.


The main issue though is the false dichotomy - you’re vehemently stating we shouldn’t trust those pesky scientists, they could be lying: whilst believing the anti-climate chance lobbyists and energy companies who have been funding the counter narrative.

Why are the energy lobbyists and Republican polticians more trustworthy than the tens of thousands of climate scientists that have worked over the last 40 years?